Agenda packet — San Clemente City Council, February 3, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
Council Chambers
Mayor Loeffler
Mayor Pro Tem Knoblock
Councilmember Cabral
Councilmember Enmeier
Councilmember Wu
4:30 p.m. - Closed Session
5:30 p.m. - Business Meeting

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Tuesday, February 3, 2026
City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda
Information concerning City Council Meeting protocols and procedures is contained at the end of this agenda.

MISSION STATEMENT
The City of San Clemente, in partnership with the community we serve, will foster a tradition dedicated to:

Maintaining a safe, healthy atmosphere in which to live, work and play; Guiding development to ensure responsible growth while preserving and enhancing our village character, unique environment and natural amenities; Providing for the City’s long-term stability through promotion of economic vitality and diversity…
Resulting in a balanced community committed to protecting what is valued today while meeting tomorrow’s needs.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is the state law that requires the City to evaluate and document the potential environmental consequences of discretionary decision. (See, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21189.3; and the “CEQA Guidelines” at California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). For each item that requires a CEQA determination by the City Council, there is a reference to that determination on this agenda, and more information regarding the CEQA analysis is included in the documents that accompany this agenda. To the extent that City staff determines that particular items are not subject to CEQA, there will be no indication of a CEQA action on this agenda.

DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Pursuant to Government Code § 84308, City Council Members are disqualified and not able to participate in any agenda item involving contracts (other than competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts), franchises, discretionary land use permits and other entitlements if the City Council Member received more than $500 in campaign contributions from the applicant or contractor, an agent of the applicant or contractor, or any financially interested participant who actively supports or opposes the City’s decision on the agenda item since January 1, 2023. Members of the City Council who have received, and applicants, contractors or their agents who have made, campaign contributions totaling more than $500 to a City Council Member since January 1, 2023, are required to disclose that fact for the official record of the subject proceedings. Disclosures must include the amount of the campaign contribution and identify the recipient City Council Member and may be made either in writing to the City Clerk before the agenda item or by verbal disclosure during consideration.

Page 1 of 13 ends

1 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 3, 2026
CLOSED SESSION (4:30 P.M.)
A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Discussion concerning real property transactions in compliance with Government Code section 54956.8 regarding:

1. Real Property Negotiations: APNs: 678-16-01 and 690-552-06 Property: Northwest lot at Vista Hermosa Sports Park (known as the Meadows/Fields 7,8,9) and a portion of Richard T. Steed Memorial Park City Negotiators: Andy Hall, City Manager; Samantha Wylie, Beaches, Parks and Recreation Director
Negotiating Parties: Rhinos Rugby
Under Negotiations: Price and terms for potential financial contribution for development and use/lease agreement

2. Real Property Negotiations: APN: None
Property: Potential lease of City Right-of-Way located between 242 Avendia Del Mar and 218 Avenida Del Mar (Farmers Market)
City Negotiators: Andy Hall, City Manager; Samantha Wylie, Beaches, Parks and Recreation Director
Negotiating Parties: Introduction Unlimited, Inc.

Under Negotiations: Price and terms for potential lease extension for the Farmers Market

3. Real Property Negotiations: APN: 701-041-06, 701-041-52, 701-041-55, 701- 041-58, 701-041-59, 701-041-62, 701-043-07, 701-043-08, 701-043-09, and 701-341-02
Property: Properties located near the eastern terminus of Avenida Pico in the City of San Clemente
City Negotiators: Andy Hall, City Manager; Adam Atamian, Community Development Director
Negotiating Parties: Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, Talega Associates, LLC, and Talega Maintenance Corporation
Under Negotiations: Terms
BUSINESS MEETING (5:30 P.M.)

CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION – Associate Pastor Jim Wilke, Calvary South OC

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

Page 2 of 13 ends

2 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 3, 2026

1. Special Presentations
A. PRESENTATION OF COMMENDATIONS – RECOGNIZING LIFESAVING EFFORTS AT RICHARD T. STEED MEMORIAL PARK
Presentation of Commendations to Orange County Fire Authority Firefighter John Rowlands and Orange County Sheriff’s Deputies Levi Nunes and Matthew Rudy in recognition of their successful lifesaving efforts at Richard T. Steed Memorial Park.

2. Council Member Reports

3. Oral Communications (Part 1)
Members of the audience who wish to address Council on matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente, but not separately listed on the agenda, may do so during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. Speakers may address Council once during either Oral Communications Part 1 or Part 2. A total time limitation of 30 minutes is allocated for Oral Communications Part 1, with each speaker being allotted 3 minutes in which to give his or her presentation. Speaker order is determined by the order in which speaker cards are provided to the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk at the meeting. Speakers that cannot be accommodated during Oral Communications Part 1 will be invited to address Council during Oral Communications Part 2, which appears on this agenda as Item No. 12. When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, request clarification or refer the item to staff.

4. Motion waiving reading in full of all Resolutions and Ordinances

5. Consideration of agendizing items requiring immediate action Per Government Code section 54954.2(b) and 54956.5. Any items agendized will be considered under New Business, unless otherwise determined by a majority vote of the City Council.

6. Closed Session Report - City Attorney

7. Staff Communications

8. Public Hearings
The Public Hearing process includes a staff presentation, a presentation by the applicant not to exceed ten (10) minutes, and public testimony (not to exceed three minutes per speaker). Following closure of the Public Hearing, the City Council will respond to questions raised during the hearing, discuss the issues, and act upon the matter by motion.
8A. BILLING FOR 2025 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Public Hearing to consider all objections or protests, if any, to the costs of the abatement of weeds, rubbish, refuse and dirt upon streets, sidewalks, parkways and private property within the City of San Clemente and to the

Page 3 of 13 ends

3 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 3, 2026
assignment of these costs to the properties on which the abatement was completed.

Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 26-18, which will:

1. Waive the City’s notification costs for the compliant property owners.

2. Approve the Weed Abatement Report dated February 3, 2026 and on file with the City Clerk.

3. Authorize the Weed Abatement Contract Administrator to bill the amounts indicated in the report to the appropriate property owners. 8B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CITY COUNCIL INITIATED APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT 25-527, AN AMENDMENT TO CULTURAL HERITAGE PERMIT 16-376, MIRAMAR EVENTS CENTER, 1700 N. EL CAMINO REAL, TO

MODIFY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT PLANS TO INFILL PORTIONS

OF AN EXISTING EXTERIOR SECURITY WALL AND ADD A FOUNTAIN

FEATURE WITHIN THE MIRAMAR THEATER PATIO AND DETERMINE

WHETHER THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES §15301 (CLASS 1: EXISTING FACILITIES), §15302 (CLASS 2: RECONSTRUCTION OR REPLACEMENT), AND §15303 (CLASS 3: NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF

SMALL STRUCTURES)
Public Hearing to consider a City Council initiated appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of PHP25-527,an amendment to CHP 16-376, Miramar Events Center, 1700 N. El Camino Real, to modify previously approved project plans to infill portions of an existing exterior security wall and add a fountain feature within the Miramar theater patio.

The City Council will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and §15311 (Class 11:

Accessory Structures).

Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution 26-19, which will:

1. Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities), §15302 (Class 2:

Page 4 of 13 ends

4 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 3, 2026
Reconstruction or Replacement), and §15303 (Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).

2. Approve Public Hearing Project 25-527, an amendment to Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) 16-376, to allow modifications to the wall and landscape features in the patio area on the east side of the historic Miramar theater, with the same findings and conditions adopted by the Planning Commission.
8C. OBJECTION HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN RESPONSES

TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED WATER FEES, PURSUANT TO PROPOSITION 218 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 53750 THROUGH 53759.2, TO IMPLEMENT EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES Public Hearing to consider all timely written objections and the City shall respond in writing to any timely written objections. The City’s responses shall explain the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed water rates in response to written objections, including any reason to reject requested changes. The City Council will consider all timely written objections, along with the City’s response, and determine whether clarifications or further review or deduction or abandonment of the proposed water rate increases is warranted.

Staff Recommendation

1. Conduct the objection hearing.

2. After conducting the hearing, adopt Resolution No. 26-20, which will:
a. Determine that there were no timely written legal objections to proposed water rates and charges received.
b. Direct staff to respond in writing to the communications received. c. Determine that clarifications, further review or reduction or abandonment of the proposed water rates, fees and charges is not warranted in accordance with Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2.
d. Make no changes to the Water Rate Study Report nor the proposed adjustment to water rates and charges.

Page 5 of 13 ends

5 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 3, 2026

9. Unfinished Business
None.

10. New Business
10A. CONSIDERATION OF CREATING A HARBOR TASK FORCE TO DETERMINE

FEASIBILITY OF INSTALLING A HARBOR
(Agendized by Mayor Pro Tem Knoblock, with the support of Mayor Loeffler, at the January 20, 2026 City Council meeting.)
Staff Recommendation
Provide direction to staff concerning the potential of a harbor feasibility task force.
10B. DISCUSSION OF TRANSIT PROGRAMS INCLUDING: SENIOR MOBILITY

PROGRAM, SC RIDES, THE LAST MILE PROGRAM, CMO SHUTTLE

PROGRAM, AND THE SAN CLEMENTE TROLLEY
Staff Recommendation

1. Direct staff to move forward with Option 4 for the Senior Mobility Program and limit ridership to 14 one-way rides per month.

2. Direct staff to move forward with Option 2 for the SC Rides Program and reduce the City maximum subsidy from $9 to $5 per ride.

3. Eliminate or delay implementation of the Last Mile Program.

4. Provide direction for the Clean Mobility Options (CMO) Shuttle Program.

5. Provide direction for the Trolley Program.

6. Receive and file the Administrative Report dated February 3, 2026 and on file with the City Clerk.

11. Consent Calendar
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion unless Council or Staff requests removal of an item for separate discussion and action.

A. City Council Minutes
Staff Recommendation:
(1) APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2026.

Page 6 of 13 ends

6 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 3, 2026
B. Commission/Committee Minutes
Staff Recommendation:

Receive and file the following:
(1) ARTS AND CULTURE COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2025.
(2) INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2025.
(3) INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2025.

C. Warrant Register
(1) APPROVE WARRANT NOS.
609270 THROUGH 609420, PAID ON
1-16-26, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,514,363.02
TOTAL WARRANT REGISTER $1,514,363.02
Payroll Register
None.
11D. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LICENSE

AGREEMENT WITH THE HERITAGE OF SAN CLEMENTE FOUNDATION

FOR INSTALLATION OF A SECURITY CAMERA AT PARK SEMPER FI AND

FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 26-21, which will:

1. Find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Title 14, Sections 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) and/or 15303 (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).

2. Approve a License Agreement with the Heritage of San Clemente Foundation authorizing the installation, operation, monitoring, and maintenance of a security camera at Park Semper Fi (106 Alameda Lane).

3. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C26- 11, by and between the City of San Clemente and Heritage of San Clemente Foundation, providing for a license agreement authorizing the

Page 7 of 13 ends

7 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 3, 2026
installation, operation, monitoring, and maintenance of a security camera at Park Semper Fi, and authorize the City Manager to execute at his discretion any future term extensions consistent with its provisions. 11E. CONTRACT AWARD - FY 2026 MAJOR STREET MAINTENANCE AND FY 2026 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROGRAM, AND FINDING THE

PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 26-22, which will:
..recommendation

1. Find the FY 2026 Major Street Maintenance and FY 2026 Pavement Preservation Program, CIP Project Nos. 26303 and 26304, categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR section 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Award the FY 2026 Major Street Maintenance and FY 2026 Pavement Preservation Program, contract to L.C. Paving & Sealing, Inc.

3. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C26- 12, by and between the City of San Clemente and L.C. Paving & Sealing, Inc., providing for the FY 2026 Major Street Maintenance and FY 2026 Pavement Preservation Program, in an amount not to exceed $581,210, in a form substantially similar to Contract No. C26-12 (Attachment 2). 11F. CONTRACT AWARD - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

SERVICES FOR THE CALLE REAL PUMP STATION REHABILITATION, AND

THE REEVES BOOSTER PUMP STATION
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 26-23, which will:

1. Award a Professional Consultant Services Agreement to TKE Engineering, Inc. for the Construction Management and Inspection Services for the Calle Real Pump Station Rehabilitation, CIP Project No. 19516; and Reeves Booster Pump Station, CIP Project No. 17405.

2. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C26- 13, by and between the City of San Clemente and TKE Engineering, Inc., providing for the Calle Real Pump Station Rehabilitation and Reeves Booster Pump Station, in an amount not to exceed $564,316, in a form substantially similar to Contract No. C26-13 (Attachment 2).

Page 8 of 13 ends

8 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 3, 2026
11G. CONTRACT AWARD - CATCH BASIN AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS

AT AVENIDA PRESIDIO AND CALLE MIGUEL, AND FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 26-24, which will:

1. Find the Catch Basin and Storm Drain Improvements at Avenida Presidio and Calle Miguel, CIP Project No. 12003, are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR section 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Award a contract to Torres Sanitation Systems Construction as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder based on the base bid, for Catch Basin and Storm Drain Improvements at Avenida Presidio and Calle Miguel.

3. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Contract No. C26- 14, by and between the City of San Clemente and Torres Sanitation Systems Construction, providing for the Catch Basin and Storm Drain Improvements at Avenida Presidio and Calle Miguel, in an amount not to exceed $465,150, in a form substantially similar to Contract No. C26-14 (Attachment 2).
11H. CONSIDERATION OF AN EXEMPTION TO THE FORMAL SOLICITATION

PROCESS, AWARDING AND APPROVING A SERVICE EXTENSION IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING MASTER SUBSCRIPTION
AGREEMENT WITH GRANICUS, INC. FOR THE GRANICUS LEGISLATIVE

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 26-25, which will:

1. Authorize an exemption to the formal solicitation process under City Policy 201-2-1, Section XI.A.1.1.2.

2. Award and approve a three-year extension under the Master Subscription Agreement with Granicus, LLC. for the Granicus Legislative Management System.

3. Approve, and authorize the City Manager to execute, Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C19-88, by and between the City of San Clemente and Granicus, LLC., providing for a three year extension for the Legislative Management System, in an amount not to exceed $113,961 over a three-year term.

Page 9 of 13 ends

9 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 3, 2026

4. Authorize the City Manager to execute future agreement extensions providing the annual increase in subscription fees does not exceed 5% per year.
11I. NOTICE OF COMPLETION - SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL LANE

RECONFIGURATION AND BUFFERED BIKE LANE PROJECT FROM
AVENIDA MENDOCINO TO SOUTH CITY LIMIT- FEDERAL PROJECT NO.

CML-5274(039), FTIP NO. ORA 190914, CITY CIP PROJECT NO. 11308, AND

CONSIDERATION OF RED CURB MODIFICATION ON SOUTH EL CAMINO

REAL, AND FINDING THE ACTIONS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolutions No. 26-26 (Notice of Completion) and No. 26-27 (Red Curb Modification), which will:

1. Approve the final project design and accept the South El Camino Real Lane Reconfiguration and Buffered Bike Lane Project from Avenida Mendocino to South City Limit, Federal Project No. CML-5274(039), FTIP No. ORA 190914, City CIP Project No. 11308, from ONYX Paving Company, Inc.

2. Authorize the City Clerk to execute and record the Notice of Completion for the South El Camino Real Lane Reconfiguration and Buffered Bike Lane Project from Avenida Mendocino to South City Limit.

3. Authorize the City Clerk to release the payment bond 35 days from the recordation of the Notice of Completion upon verification with the Engineering Division that no liens have been levied against the Contractor, ONYX Paving Company, Inc.

4. Authorize the City Clerk to release the performance bond for this project upon receipt of a warranty bond in a form acceptable to the Public Works Director/City Engineer in the amount of 25% of the total construction cost.

5. Find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR section 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

6. Approve the red curb modification as illustrated in Attachment 5 of the Administrative Report dated February 3, 2026 and on file with the City Clerk.

Page 10 of 13 ends

10 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 3, 2026

12. Oral Communications (Part 2)
Members of the audience who wish to address Council on matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente, but not separately listed on the agenda, may do so during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation, not to exceed three minutes. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, request clarification or refer the item to staff.

13. Future Agenda Items

14. Reports
A. City Attorney
B. City Manager

15. Adjournment
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled to take place on February 17, 2026. Closed Session will begin at 4:30 p.m. and the Regular Business Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will take place in the Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente.

Page 11 of 13 ends

11 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 3, 2026

CITY COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURES

RULES FOR ADDRESSING COUNCIL
• Members of the public may address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente.
• If you wish to address Council, please complete one of the blue speaker cards located at the entrance to the Council Chambers and turn it in to the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk. • Persons wishing to address Council concerning an agendized item will be invited to address Council during the time that Council is considering that particular agenda item.

Persons wishing to address Council concerning a non-agendized issue will be invited to address Council during the “Oral Communications” portion of the meeting. • When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation. Please limit your presentation to three minutes.

PRESENTATION OF WRITTEN MATERIALS TO COUNCIL
In order to ensure that Councilmembers have adequate time to consider written materials concerning agenda items, it is strongly recommended that such materials be submitted to the City Clerk by noon the date preceding the Council meeting.

MEETINGS RECORDED AND TELEVISED
City Council meetings are broadcast live and are replayed periodically on Cox Communications Local Access Channel 854. Meetings are also available for live-stream or post meeting viewing from the City’s website.

Meetings are also recorded via audio CD and/or DVD and retained as a City record in accordance with the City’s records retention schedule.

USE OF ELECTRONIC VISUAL AIDS BY PUBLIC AT MEETINGS
To allow staff adequate time to confirm software compatibility, individuals wishing to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentations at the meeting, must submit the electronic files to the City Clerk by no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Only compatible electronic formats will be permitted to be used on City audio/visual computer equipment. Staff makes no guarantee that such material will be compatible, but will use its best efforts to accommodate the request. Electronic presentations shall be limited to visual media, without prerecorded audio narration, that augment a live verbal presentation addressed to the City Council. The display of visual media shall be ancillary to, and not presented in place of, live verbal narration. Members of the public shall not be permitted to connect equipment to the City's computer system. Members of the public shall not be permitted to access the internet from the City's computer equipment. Visual presentations must be provided to the City Clerk in a display-ready format. In no case shall Staff be required to develop a presentation for public use.

This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, compiling of City records, downloading data from websites, or gathering or modifying data provided by the public.

LENGTH OF MEETINGS
At 11:00 p.m., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon at this meeting and will continue all other agenda items to a future meeting.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (949) 361-8200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

COMMUNICATION DEVICES
To minimize meeting distractions and sound system interference, please be sure all personal communication devices are turned off or on silent mode.

Page 12 of 13 ends

12 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 3, 2026

MEETING SCHEDULE
Regular Council Meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month in the Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd floor, San Clemente. Closed Session are considered at 5:00 p.m. and the Business Meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. Additional meetings of the City Council may be called as needed.

AGENDAS, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN MATERIALS Agendas and Administrative Reports are available for review and/or copying at the City Clerk’s Department as soon as agendas are posted, by accessing the City’s website at www.san-clemente.org. An “Inspection Copy” of agenda materials is also located at the entrance to the Council Chambers during meetings for public review. All written material distributed to a majority of the Council after the original agenda packet was distributed is available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Department, located at 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, during normal business hours.

The City Clerk’s Department offers an agenda packet subscription service free of charge. If you wish to receive email copies of City Council agendas, which include hyperlinks to staff reports and other back-up material, register at http://san-clemente.org/enotification.

Page 13 of 13 ends

13 910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 8A.

Submitted By: Community Development
Prepared By: Adam Atamian, Community Development Director Subject:
..titl e
BILLING FOR 2025 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM ..body
Fiscal Impact:

The total cost for the 2025 Weed Abatement Program was $124,600.29 and is included in the budget account number 001-452-43470-000-0000. The program cost is related to the clearing of City-owned lots along with the costs for clearing privately-owned parcels. When a privatelyowned property owner fails to clear hazardous vegetation, the City performs the weed abatement work and the full cost is billed to the property owner. This ensures public funds are not used to maintain private property. Upon City Council approval of the proposed Resolution (Attachment 1), staff will pursue reimbursement of weed abatement expenses on private properties.

Summary:

The San Clemente City Council established an annual Weed Abatement Program, that is administered by the Community Development Department to lessen the fire hazard of weeds and debris on vacant lots and unoccupied, structured parcels in San Clemente. The 2025 Weed Abatement process was completed and the Community Development Department requests authorization to bill property owners who did not clear their properties after having been served adequate notice.

Background:

On April 15, 2025, the City Council held a Public Hearing and passed Resolution 25-39 authorizing the City’s Weed Abatement Contractor to clear all vacant lots and unoccupied, structured properties within the City that were not in compliance with the weed abatement standards by May 15, 2025. In accordance with Section 39575 of the California Government Code, the noticing and posting of the charges has been completed by the City. In accordance with Section 39574 of the Government Code, the 2025 Weed Abatement Report is hereby submitted as Attachment 2.

Discussion:

The California Government Code outlines the process for the Weed Abatement Program. Part of the process includes a public hearing to allow citizens to express any concerns pertaining to the weed abatement process and subsequent billing. In the event the property owner does not pay the bill, the Finance Department will return to the City Council during July 2026 for authorization to attach the bill amount as a special assessment (lien) against the property.

The past practice of the City Council has been to waive the City’s notification costs for the property owners that have complied with weed abatement notifications and standards. 14 Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 8A.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
Council Options:
 Adopt Resolution No. 26-18, which would 1. waive the City’s notification costs for the compliant property owners, 2. approve the Weed Abatement Report (Attachment 2), and 3) authorize the Weed Abatement Contractor to bill the amounts indicated in the report to the appropriate property owners.
 Modify and adopt Resolution No. 26-18 with changes to the provisions to related waiving the City’s notification costs for compliant property owners or authorizing the Weed Abatement Contractor to bill the amounts indicated in the report to the appropriate property owners.  Continue the item with direction to provide additional information.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

The recommended actions are not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation
..recommendation
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT the City Council adopt Resolution No. 26-18, which will:

1. Waive the City’s notification costs for the compliant property owners;

2. Approve the Weed Abatement Report; and

3. Authorize the Weed Abatement Contract Administrator to bill the amounts indicated in the report to the appropriate property owners.
..end
Attachment:

1. Resolution No. 26-18

2. Weed Abatement Administrative Charges Report

3. Weed Abatement Expenditure Cost Report

4. List of non-compliant properties
Notification:

Non-compliant property owners
Ed Stewart & Associates
15 Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 26-18

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2025

WEED ABATEMENT REPORT, AUTHORIZING THE
BILLING FOR THE 2025 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM,

AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PURSUE

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente annually establishes a Weed Abatement Program managed by the Code Compliance Division to reduce fire hazards associated with weeds and debris on vacant lots and unoccupied structured parcels; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution 25-39 on April 15, 2025, authorizing the City’s Weed Abatement Contractor to clear all non-compliant properties within the City; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 39574 and 39575 of the California Government Code, the City has successfully completed the noticing and posting of charges and the 2025 Weed Abatement Report has been duly prepared and submitted; and
WHEREAS, the total expenditure for the 2025 Weed Abatement Program was $124,832.51, funded under the budget account number 001-452-4370-000-0000, with the intent to recover the majority of these costs from non-compliant property owners or City departments responsible for serviced parcels.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and incorporated fully herein.

SECTION 2. That the 2025 Weed Abatement Report, submitted as Attachment 2 of the agenda report entitled, “Billing for 2025 Weed Abatement Program,” dated February 3, 2026 is hereby accepted and approved.

SECTION 3. That City staff is hereby authorized and directed to bill non-compliant property owners for the 2025 Weed Abatement Program expenses as detailed in the 2025 Weed Abatement Report.

SECTION 4. That the City Manager, or their designee, is authorized and directed to pursue the reimbursement of expenses associated with the weed abatement of private properties, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the California Government Code and consistent with the practices of the City.

SECTION 5. That the City Council hereby waives the City’s notification costs for 16 Resolution No. 26-18 Page 2
property owners who comply with the weed abatement notifications, in recognition of their efforts to adhere to City regulations and to promote compliance among all property owners, which is in the best interests of the City and the public.

SECTION 6. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take such other and further actions as may be necessary and proper to accomplish the purposes of this resolution.

SECTION 7. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________________, 2026.

ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Rick Loeffler, Mayor of the City of San Clemente, California San Clemente, California
17 Resolution No. 26-XX Page 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 26-18 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of _______________________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES
Contract Services
$ 200.00 Notification for
Contract Weed Abatement Administration
Charge per non‐complaint parcel and inspections:

Mailed to: 533 property owners
Attachment 2
19 Cost to Abate/Cut fees charged to Non‐Compliant Properties Without $200 Administrative Fee
34 $ 20,975.59
Costs to Clean City Reservoirs Sites (Costs are forwarded to Water Division for return of costs to the General Fund)
9 $ 16,200.00
Cost to Clean City‐Owned Lots/Parcels 32 $ 75,224.70
Program Administrative Cost $ 5,400.00
Total $ 117,800.29
Administrative Charges $ 10,440.35
Waived fees for Compliant Lots ($ 3,408.13)
Contract Services for Weed Abatement $ 117,800.29
Total Expenditures for Weed Abatement Program 2025 $ 124,832.51 WEED ABATEMENT EXPENDITURE COST BREAKDOWN REPORT FOR 2025

WEED ABATEMENT EXPENDITURES
Attachment 3
20 Attachment 4
The list of Non complainant Properties is
on file with the City Clerk.
21 910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 8B.

Submitted By: Planning Division
Prepared By: Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner
Subject:
..titl e

A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CITY COUNCIL INITIATED APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT 25-527, AN AMENDMENT TO CULTURAL HERITAGE PERMIT 16-376, MIRAMAR EVENTS CENTER, 1700 N. EL CAMINO REAL, TO MODIFY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT PLANS TO

INFILL PORTIONS OF AN EXISTING EXTERIOR SECURITY WALL AND ADD A FOUNTAIN

FEATURE WITHIN THE MIRAMAR THEATER PATIO AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE

PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES §15301 (CLASS 1: EXISTING FACILITIES), §15302 (CLASS 2: RECONSTRUCTION OR REPLACEMENT), AND §15303 (CLASS 3: NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF

SMALL STRUCTURES)
..body
Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact to the City.

Summary:

On December 17, 2025, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Public Hearing Project 25-527, an amendment to Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) 16-376, to allow modifications to the wall and landscape features in the patio area on the east side of the historic Miramar theater. On January 20, 2026, the City Council called up the item for review in accordance with San Clemente Municipal Code 17.12.140, so the modifications are being considered again as a de novo public hearing.

Background:

This request is for a modification to CHP 16-376, which was issued to the applicant by the Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC 17- 017, pertaining to the Miramar Events Center. There, the Planning Commission made the required findings to issue a CHP pursuant to San Clement Municipal Code (SCMC) Section 17.16.110 (as cited below). The findings made by Resolution PC 17-017 remain operative.

The Planning Commission also approved a prior Amendment (Cultural Heritage Permit 25-306) on November 13, 2025 which approved a change from a fountain feature to a faux fireplace in the exterior patio and approved various interior modifications, including a bridal stairway access, demising partitions in the auditorium, and plaster treatment to the auditorium side walls to create Moorish arches instead of the previously existing gothic murals. During that review, the Planning Commission declined a larger extension of the patio wall that would have fully enclosed the exterior of the private property. The Planning Commission felt that the extension would be 22 Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 8B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
beneficial for site security, but questioned whether the extended wall provided additional functional space needed to operate the venue. However, the Commissioners also agreed, from visiting the property and experiencing the on-site sound and sight considerations, that further changes to the existing wall may be warranted to support a viable event venue. This discussion was consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards specific to “rehabilitation” projects, which recognizes that some alterations will be necessary to achieve a new and viable use of the property.

Project Description:

The Applicant subsequently requested the following alterations, which are also detailed within the staff report to the Planning Commission (see Attachment 4 and 5):

The applicant wishes to modify the exterior site walls, as shown in Figure 1 below, near the intersection of El Camino Real and Boca de la Playa to:
 Convert the portion of the wall that is part stucco and part wrought iron into full-height stucco in order to reduce traffic volume, provide additional privacy for events, and to close off the existing view out of the patio to the used car lot; and  Convert arched wall openings near the alley into recesses because the adjacent utilities cabinets are prominently visible through those openings; and Figure 1: Proposed Wall Modifications
23 Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 8B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
 Replace freestanding potted plants with a new courtyard fountain, as shown in Figure 2 below, that is free-standing, but with the upper half attached to the building wall (to infill the offset above the wainscot) and surrounded by a new faux arch that reflects the geometry of the arched doors to either side of the fountain; and
Figure 2: Proposed Fountain
 Modify courtyard landscape features to remove three interior planter beds. Trees will remain in wells (instead of beds) along the southern wall; but the fan aloe in the east bed is proposed to be deleted and replaced with pavers and a decorative sconce above.  Replace succulent plantings with plum pine (podocarpus) along the exterior of the perimeter wall, see Figure 3 below, near the public sidewalk along Boca de la Playa. 24 Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 8B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 4
Figure 3: Existing Perimeter Landscaping

SCMC Section 17.16.110 Cultural Heritage Permit Findings:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan; b. The proposed project complies with zoning regulations; c. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity; d. The proposed project is in character and compatible with the properties in the neighborhood; e. The proposed project is in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and City's Design Guidelines to substantially further the City's goals of historic preservation, and
f. The proposed project preserves to the extent feasible the character defining features;
g. For projects in the Architectural Overlay District, the Review Authority shall find: the proposed project complies with the purpose and intent of the Architectural Overlay District, Section 17.56.020; and
h. The proposed project/use preserves and strengthens the pedestrian-orientation of the district and/or San Clemente's historic identity as a Spanish village.

Discussion:

The Planning Commission discussion is reflected in the Minutes of the December 17, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting (Attachment 3) and excerpted below:
 Commissioners expressed general support for infilling the wrought iron sections to create privacy and a finished appearance, noting the ticket booth remains visible as a historic feature. 25 Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 8B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 5
 Most supported removal of interior raised planter beds to increase usable space, with some tree wells to remain flush with the ground for safety and maintenance reasons.  Commissioners debated the location of the fountain: some preferred it remain on the wall as proposed, while others suggested relocating it to a less crowded wall in the courtyard to preserve historic architectural composition and avoid proximity to ceremony areas. The applicant was open to flexibility, and ultimately there was consensus to leave placement discretion to the applicant.
 Landscape plant choices were discussed, with a preference for drought-tolerant species such as bougainvillea over Podocarpus hedges due to maintenance concerns and aesthetics.  Lighting was identified as an important element to address before operations commence; the commission recommended the applicant coordinate with staff to develop an administrative lighting plan that avoids undesirable glare or impacts on neighboring properties.  String lighting was discouraged due to potential glare and ordinance concerns but not outright prohibited; staff would work with the applicant on acceptable lighting solutions.

The Commission unanimously approved the project with the following conditions:
 Convert the arched wall openings near the alley to recesses which will eliminate the view of the electrical cabinets;
 Replace the wrought iron on the existing patio wall with stucco for noise mitigation and privacy;
 Replace freestanding potted plants with a courtyard fountain, allowing the applicant flexibility in determining final placement location;
 Remove the plant-on faux arch proposed above the fountain;  Modify courtyard landscape features to allow removal of raised planter beds shown in the original approved plans, with tree wells to remain; and  Require applicant follow-up with staff to develop and administratively approve a courtyard lighting plan to provide more adequate lighting after sunset and an exterior wall landscaping plan to soften the appearance of the walls facing Boca de la Playa.

Staff understands the appellant’s concern regarding infilling the patio wall and agrees that the wrought iron is the visually preferrable solution. However, from numerous site visits, staff, along with the Planning Commission, agreed that the loud roadway noise and external views towards a used car dealership would be a substantial detriment to the adaptive reuse of the building. It is no longer used as a theater, but as an event venue. For a theater, outside noise and setting are not meaningful to their core business operations. Those factors are important, however, to a modern 26 Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 8B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 6
event venue. Modifying the courtyard in a manner that reduces or removes the noise and visual clutter is consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards (SOIS) for Rehabilitation. Staff also conferred with GPA Consulting, the City’s third-party historic consultant, who confirmed that the changes recommended by the Planning Commission were consistent with the SOIS.

Council Options:

As a de novo review, the Council can approve the project with the same findings and conditions as the Planning Commission, or it can reach a different decision based on appropriate findings. It could also direct that different materials be utilized: for instance, the use of glass instead of wrought iron or stucco for the wall infill could be used. The Council could also specify landscape and lighting elements that the Planning Commission had deferred to an administrative review by staff.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

The Planning Division completed an initial environmental assessment of the project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommends that the City Council determine that the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) §15302 (Class 2: Reconstruction or Replacement) and §15303 (Class 3:

New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves modifications to accessory features and structures that are not historic within the courtyard at the property. The proposed project does not include a change to the approved use of the property and the proposal merely includes alterations to existing (or previously approved) features of the Miramar Event Center Project.

Further, none of the exceptions to the exemptions apply. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.) The project will not contribute to significant cumulative environmental impacts when considered with other related projects, does not involve "unusual circumstances" that could have a significant environmental effect, would not damage scenic resources within an officially designated state scenic highway, does not involve a known hazardous waste site ("Cortese List"), and will not cause a substantial adverse change to a historical resource based on compliance with the Secretary of the Interior standards. The exterior courtyard wall is a recently constructed, nonhistoric feature; and the proposed modifications to add a fountain and modify landscaping similarly are not historic and can be removed. Thus, the historic resource is not impacted, and no further environmental review is required.

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT the City Council adopt Resolution 26-19, which will:

1. Determine the project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities), §15302 (Class 2: Reconstruction or Replacement), and §15303 (Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); and

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 7
side of the historic Miramar theater, with the same findings and conditions adopted by the Planning Commission.
..end
Attachment:

1. Resolution 26-19

2. Planning Commission Signed Resolution 17-017

3. Planning Commission Signed Resolution 25-022

4. Planning Commission Draft Minutes from December 17, 2025

5. Planning Commission Packet (December 17, 2025), also available at https://www.sanclemente.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1572?fileID=7235 Notification:

1. Roger Cellini, Wedgewood Weddings

2. Aaron Leshtz and Lisa Ljevaja, Aaha Studios
28 Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 26-19

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PUBLIC
HEARING PROJECT (PHP) 25-527, AMENDING CULTURAL
HERITAGE PERMIT (CHP) 16-376, MIRAMAR EVENTS
CENTER, LOCATED AT 1700 N. EL CAMINO REAL, TO

MODIFY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT PLANS TO

INFILL PORTIONS OF AN EXISTING EXTERIOR

SECURITY WALL AND ALTER LANDSCAPE FEATURES IN

AND AROUND THE PATIO INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF

A FOUNTAIN FEATURE AND FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES §15301 (CLASS 1: EXISTING
FACILITIES), §15302 (CLASS 2: REPLACEMENT OR
RECONSTRUCTION) AND §15303 (CLASS 3: NEW

CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF SMALL

STRUCTURES)
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC 17-017, approving Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) 16-376, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 16-377, and Site Plan Permit (SPP) 16-378 for the Miramar Event Center and Food Hall Rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Commission preliminarily approved the project in December of 2017 and issued the Coastal Development Permit in May, 2020; and WHEREAS, the project is currently under construction; and WHEREAS, the property ownership has entered into leases with tenants for the property, including Wedgewood Weddings, which will occupy the Miramar Theater building for the purposes of a wedding and event venue, consistent with CUP 16-377; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on a prior amendment (CHP 25-306) and approved various interior modifications and a change from a new fountain to new fireplace in the patio, but declined to approve the applicant’s request to extend the patio security wall; and
WHEREAS, the tenant desires modifications to the approved plans to provide additional security and privacy to the existing courtyard and wall and to modify landscape elements therein; and
WHEREAS, on November 26, 2025, an application was submitted by AAHA Studio, 9856 Vidor Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90035, for Public Hearing Project (PHP) 25- 527, a request to amend CHP 16-376, Miramar Events Center, located at 1700 N. El 29 Resolution No. 26-19 Page 2
Camino Real; and
WHEREAS, the revised plans are considered insignificant pursuant to San Clemente Municipal Code (SCMC) section 17.12.180 – Insignificant Modifications; however, the City Planner referred the item to the Planning Commission due to the significance of the historic property and public concern surrounding its rehabilitation; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, considered written and oral comments, and facts and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, on January 20, 2026, the City Council called up the Planning Commission’s approval during review of the meeting minutes at their regular meeting, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 17.12.140, appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, noticing for the de novo public hearing was performed consistent with Zoning Ordinance Section 17.12.100; and
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2026, the City Council of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed de novo public hearing on the subject appeal and application, considered written and oral comments, and facts and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals.

The City Council hereby finds that all of the facts in the Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as fully set forth in this resolution.

SECTION 2. CEQA Findings.

Based upon its review of the entire record, including the Staff Report, any public comments or testimony presented to the City Council, and the facts outlined below, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities), §15302 (Class 2: Reconstruction or Replacement), and §15303 (Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).

The Class 2 exemption specifically exempts from further CEQA review replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced, including but not limited to replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity. The project merely involves the modification of an exterior security wall and alteration of related landscape and hardscape features. The proposed project does not include a change to the approved use of the property and the proposal merely includes alterations to existing (or previously approved) features of the Miramar Event Center Project.

The Class 3 exemption exempts the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made to the exterior of the structure.

Furthermore, none of the exceptions to the use of the Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 categorical exemptions identified in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. The project will not result in a cumulative impact from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. There are no unusual circumstances surrounding the project that result in a reasonably possibility of a significant effect on the environment. The project will not damage scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources. The project does not include any hazardous waste sites, and the project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The exterior courtyard wall is a new structure detached from the historic building that could be removed or altered in the future without damaging the historic building. The interior modifications support the project rehabilitation in that they effectuate the new use of the building, consistent with the prior approvals for an event venue. Thus, the Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 exemptions apply, and no further environmental review is required.

SECTION 3. Cultural Heritage Permit Findings.

The City Council finds that the proposed modifications to the previously approved project plans site are insignificant modifications in that they are consistent with the approved rehabilitation use intended for the property, and they are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The modifications are consistent with the SOIS in that no modifications are being made to the historic building itself other than a superficially attached wall fountain within the courtyard area which can be removed in the future; any new features are compatible in style and scale with extant historic materials and features; and the exterior courtyard wall/fence provides security for the historic Miramar property and improves privacy and sound reduction in a location intended for private events. As such, with respect to Public Hearing Permit (PHP) 25-527, amending CHP 16- 376, the City Council adopts and affirms the findings made within Planning 31 Resolution No. 26-19 Page 4
Commission Resolution 17-017. Specifically, the City Council finds and affirms that the proposed project modifications are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, given that the proposed modifications do not remove primary walls or add new permanent primary walls within the interior assembly space; the project modifies non-historic elements with compatible finishes or features; and it provides additional site security through unobtrusive means.

SECTION 4. City Council Approval in Part.

Based on the foregoing recitals and findings, and the written and oral comments, facts, and evidence presented, the City Council hereby approves Public Hearing Project (PHP) 25-527, amending Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) 16-376, Miramar Events Center, to:

1. Convert the arched wall openings near the alley to recesses;

2. Convert the courtyard patio portion with partial stucco and wrought iron wall to full stucco wall;

3. Replace freestanding potted plants against the theater building with a courtyard fountain, allowing flexibility in placement within the courtyard or against the building;

4. Remove the plant-on faux arch proposed above the fountain;

5. Modify courtyard landscape features to allow removal of raised planter beds, with three trees in tree wells to remain; and

6. Require applicant follow-up with staff to develop and administratively approve a courtyard lighting plan and an exterior wall landscaping plan to soften the appearance (but not using a podocarpus hedge).

SECTION 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________________, 2026.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 26-19 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of _______________________, _________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CULTURAL HERITAGE PERMIT (CHP) 16-376.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 16-377, AND SITE
PLAN PERMIT (SPP) 16-378, MIRAMAR EVENT CENTER

AND RESTAURANTS, A REQUEST TO REHABILITATE AND

ADAPTIVELY REUSE TWO HISTORIC RESOURCES, AND
FOR THE WAIVER OF 92 PARKING SPACES, INDOOR AND

OUTDOOR ON-SITE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF A FULL

RANGE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, AND FOR INDOOR

LIVE ENTERTAINMENT WITH AMPLIFIED SOUND AT THE
MIRAMAR EVENT CENTER, LOCATED AT 1700 NORTH EL

CAMINO REAL
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016, an application was submitted, and completed on May 8, 2017, by El Camino Real, LLC 709 Randolph Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, for Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) 16-376, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 16-377, and Site Plan Permit (SPP) 16-378, Miramar Event Center and Restaurants, a request to: 1) Rehabilitate and adaptively reuse the 7,836 square foot historic Miramar Theater into a performance and event center. This includes demolition of the non-contributing portion of the building (previously occupied by an Orange Julius) and replacing it with a new structure that will contain the bathrooms for the performance and event center, 2) Rehabilitate and adaptively reuse the 5,200 square foot historic bowling alley with a 1,043 square foot addition into a culinary specialty restaurant structure, a new 5,200 square foot basement area and a 3,400 square foot outdoor courtyard eating area, and 3) Conditional Use Permit for: 92 historic parking waivers with a preservation agreement, indoor and outdoor on-site sale and consumption of a full range of alcohol and the indoor live entertainment permit with amplified sound (Miramar only) located at 1700 North El Camino Real, in the Mixed-Use zoning district and the Architectural, Costa! Zone, Pedestrian, and Central Business District Overlays (MU1-A-CZ-CB); and WHEREAS, the Planning Division has completed an initial environmental assessment of the above matter in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends that the Planning Commission determine the project Is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 and 15332 (Class 31 , Historic resource restoration or rehabilitation consistent with Secretary of Interior guidelines, and Class 32, certain in-fill development projects in urban areas). This is recommended because the project is for the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of two historic resources that are being rehabilitated in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and guidelines, and the project is the adaptive reuse of two existing historic structures that are consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and Zoning district, the project occurs within the City limits and is less than five acres in size, the project has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, approval of the project would not have a significant effect relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public Attachment 2
34 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 2 of 33 services. Attached here to Exhibit B, is a complete CEQA Analysis detailing the projects Categorical Exemption analysis that is incorporated herein by reference: and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2016, and December 22, 2016 the Citis Development Management Team (DMT) reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable City Ordinances and Codes and provided conditions of approval for the project; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2016, December 23, 2016, and March 29; 2017, the City's Cultural Heritage Subcommittee (CHSC) considered the project and supports the proposed rehabilitation project and historic analysis; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, considered written and oral comments, and facts and evidence presented by the ,;3pplicant, City staff, and other interested parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, The Plannlng Commission of the City of San Clemente does hereby resolve as follows:

Section 1 . Incorporation of' Recitals.

The Planning Commission hereby finds that all of the facts in the Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated and adopted as findings of the Planning Commission as fully set forth in this resolution.

Section 2. CEQA Findings.

Based upon its review of the entire record, including the Staff Report, any public comments or testimony presented to the Planning Commission, and the facts outlined below, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 and 15332 (Class 31, Historic resource restoration or rehabilitation consistent with Secretary of Interior guidelines, and Class 32, Certain in-fill development projects in urban areas). The Class 31 and 32 exemptions specifically exempt the prosed project from further CEQA review based on the CEQA analysis provided in Exhibit B.

Section 2. Cultural Heritage Permit Findings
With respect to Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) 16-376, the Planning Commission finds as follows:

A. The architectural treatment of the project complies with the San Clemente General Plan in that the project will be rehabilitated using original techniques and applications of materials consistent with the original historic structures. The historic resources are in the Spanish Colonial Revival style of architecture, which is also consistent with the Architectural Overlay and the requirements of the General Plan. The following is a table detailing the General Plan policies the project is consistent wlth.
35 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 3 of 33 General Plan Policy
Historic Preservation Element Primary
Goal. To preserve, rehabilitate, restore
and adaptively reuse buildings, features,
sites, and districts with archaeological,
historical, architectural, or cultural
significance to San Clemente.

North Beach Focus Area Goal. Reestablish and maintain a vibrant community- and visitor-serving, mixed
use entertainment center which
capitalizes on its proximity to the beach
and significant
historic resources.

HP 3.03 Incentives. We pursue and
support the use of appropriate federal,
state, local, and private grants, loans, fee
waivers and tax credits and relief to
promote historic preservation.

LU-10.01 . Historic Preservation. We
preserve North Beach historic resources,
through measures such as considering
the establishment of a historic district,
ensuring new development is consistent
with the Historic Preservation and Urban
Design Elements, providing historic
preservation incentives and enforcing the
protective measures of the Zoning
Ordinance.

LU 10.02 Miramar Theater
Rehabilitation. We encourage the
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the
historic Miramar Theater.

HP-2.04. Adaptive Reuse. We
encourage adaptive reuse of historic
resources to preserve them and prevent
architecturally inappropriate changes,
disrepair, and demolition.

HP-2.05. State and Federal Standards.

We ensure projects follow the Secretary
of the Interior Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and
standards and guidelines as prescribed
by the State Office of Historic
Consistency
Consistent. The proposed project is a
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse with
minor modification to the historic
structures. The Miramar Theater is a
Historic Landmark with historic and
cultural significance to the City of San
Clemente.

Consistent. The proposed project would
add an entertainment center and large
outdoor eatery to the area energizing the
area and the street scene. The project
capitalizes on its proximity to the beach
and significant historic resources.

Consistent. Without the approval of the
parking waivers the Miramar Theater and
Bowling Alley will not be able to be
rehabilitated and adaptively reused as the
required parking cannot be provided onsite.

Consistent. The proposed project will
preserve the historic resources by
enabling them to be rehabilitated and
establishing an adaptive reuse of the
buildings which have been vacant since
1992. The project also is requesting
historic preservation incentives in the
form of historic parking waivers aiding the
redevelopment.

Consistent. The proposed project does
rehabilitate the Miramar Theater with an
adaptive reuse.

Consistent. The vacancy of the Miramar
for the past several decades has led to
disrepair of the historic structure. The
adaptive reuse will allow the rehabilitation
of the development and prevent further
decay from happening.

Consistent. A historic structures report
was developed and approved in 2013 for
the project site and a subsequent historic
analysis was prepared this year by the
applicant to ensure the project follow the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for the
36 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 4 of 33 General Plan Policy Consistency
Preservation for any listed historic Treatment of Historic Properties and resources or properties eligible for historic standards and guidelines as prescribed listing. by the State Office of Historic
Preservation for any listed historic
resources or properties eligible for
historic listing.

Historic Preservation Implementation Consistent. The proposed project would Measure 23, Working with the property eliminate the need for a GIP program to owner, citizens, San Clemente Historical rehabilitate the Miramar, while achieving Society, schools, performing arts the goal of rehabilitating the historic business and other community groups, structure.
adopt a GIP program to assist in the
rehabilitation of the Miramar Theater.

B. The architectural treatment of the project complies with the zoning ordihance in areas including, but not limited to, height, setback, color, etc in that the project is a rehabilitation of two historic Spanish Colonial Revival commercial buildings and the buildings will be treated with a smooth white finish and other traditional finishes and architectural details consistent with the Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style.

C. The architectural treatment of the project complies with the architectural guidelines in the City's Design Guidelines in that the project is a rehabilitation of two historic Spanish Colonial Revival commercial buildings and the buildings will be treated with a smooth stucco white finish and other traditional finishes and architectural details consistent with the Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style. The proposed rehabilitation of the project maintains its original architectural style and details, and the minor additions that will be added to the structures are also in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. 0 . The general appearance of the proposal is in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood which include the following historic Spanish Colonial Revival structures: the Casino, the Ole Hanson Beach Club, the lchibiri Restaurant, and a historic home located at 1638 Calle Las Bolas. The rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the historic Miramar Theater and Bowling Alley will greatly improve the dilapidated state of the development, which has been vacant since the 1990's.

E. The proposal is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the City in that the General Plan specifically calls out for the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Miramar Theater, and the proposed event center and restaurants are permitted with the approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit per the City Zoning Ordinance. In addition the proposed project also incorporates outdoor patios and courtyards, which are encouraged in the MixedUse zoning areas of the City. 37 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 5 of 33 F. The proposed project and uses preserves and strengthens the pedestrianorientation of the district and San Clemente's historic identity as a Spanish Village in that the proposed project rehabilitates two historic Spanish Colonial Revival resources, one of Which is a City landmark (Miramar Theater) which preserves and strengthens San Clemente's history and historic identity as a Spanish Village. The proposed use of an event center is a compatible use to the historic theater use of the Miramar, and the conversion of the Bowling Alley to restaurants with a large outdoor patio dining area strengthens the pedestrian orientation of the North Beach entertainment district helping to energize the street scene.

G. The City finds that the proposed modifications, alterations, or additions are sufficiently in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the San Clemente Design Guidelines to substantially further the City's goals of historic preservation in that a Historic Structures Report was developed in 2013 for the adaptive reuse of the project that detailed rehabilitation consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards.

The applicant submitted an updated historic analysis on the structures based on today's conditions and project scope. All rehabilitation will be completed in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and all character defining features of the two resources will be maintained.

H. The Miramar Theater is on the City's Landmarks List. and the proposed rehabilitation, including modifications, alterations, or additions, are found to be in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and preserves the character defining features of the historic resources. This was confirmed through the Historic Resources Report of 2013 and the subsequent historic analysis completed on the projects that analyzes the proposed project and its compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards.

Section 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings
With respect to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 16-377, the Planning Commission finds as follows:

A. The proposed use is permitted within the subject zone pursuant to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with all the applicable provisions of this title, the San Clemente General Plan and the purpose and intent of the zone in which the use is being proposed in that:

1. The proposed adaptive reuses of an event center and restaurants is permitted within the requested zone. The on-site sale and consumption of alcohol, indoor and outdoors, are typical ancillary uses to restaurants and event centers, and similar developments in the surrounding area also have approval for the indoor and outdoor on-site sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages including the Casino and the Ole Hanson Beach Club.

2. The Miramar Event Center is also requesting indoor live entertainment and amplified sound which is a typical operation of event centers. The Casino and Ole Hanson Beach Club also have approvals for indoor live entertainment with amplified sound.
38 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 6 of 33

3. The following table identifies the General Plan policies the project is consistent with.

General Plan Policy
Historic Preservation Element Primary
Goal. To preserve, rehabilitate, restore
and adaptively reuse buildings, features,
sites, and districts with archaeological,
historical, architectural, or cultural
significance to San Clemente.

North Beach Focus Area Goal. Re-•
establish and maintain a vibrant
community- and visitor-serving, mixed
use entertainment center which
capitalizes on its proximity to the beach
and siQnificant historic resources.

HP 3.03 Incentives. We pursue and
support the use of appropriate federal,
state, local, and private grants, loans, fee
waivers and tax credits and relief to
promote historic preservation.

LU-10.01. Historic Preservation. We
preserve North Beach historic resources,
through measures such as considering
the establishment of a historic district,
ensuring new development is consistent
with the Historic Preservation and Urban
Design Elements, providing historic
preservation incentives and enforcing the
protective measures of the Zoning
Ordinance.

LU 10.02 Miramar Theater
Rehabilitation. We encourage the
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the
historic Miramar Theater.

HP-2.04. Adaptive Reuse. We
encourage adaptive reuse of historic
resources to preserve them and prevent
architecturally inappropriate changes,
disrepair and demolition.

HP-2.05. State and Federal Standards.

We ensure projects follow the Secretary
of the Interior Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and
standards and guidelines as prescribed
. by the State Office of Historic
Consistency
Consistent. The proposed project is a
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse with
minor modification to the historic
structures. The Miramar Theater is a
Historic Landmark with historic and
cultural significance to the City of San
Clemente.

Consistent. The proposed project does
rehabilitate the Miramar Theater with an
adaptive reuse.

Consistent. A historic structures report
was developed and approved in 2013 for
the project site and a subsequent historic
analysis was prepared this year by the
applicant to ensure the project follow the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for the
39 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 7 of 33 General Plan Policy Consistency
Preservation for any listed historic Treatment of Historic Properties and resources or properties eligible for historic standards and guidelines as prescribed listing. bythe State Office of Historic
Preservation for any listed historic
resources or properties eligible for
historic listing.

Historic Preservation Implementation Consistent. The proposed project would Measure 23, Working with the property eliminate the need for a CIP program to owner, citizens, San Clemente Historical rehabilitate the Miramar, while achieving Society, schools, performing arts the goal of rehabilitating the historic business and other community groups, structure.
adopt a CIP program to assist in the
rehabilitation of the Miramar Theater.

B. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of development that ls proposed, in that it meets required development standards including floor area ratio, height, and setbacks. The project is requesting a CUP for 92 historic parking waivers associated with a historic property as is permitted by Section 17.64.125(8)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. As a historic property parking waiver can be issued when public parking is available near the project site. The City completed a parking study in North Beach this past August. The study in its entirety is provided under Attachment 7 of the Staff Report. The study was conducted over two weeks during peak summer hours when occupancy is highest in the area. Although the peak usage was identified as Wednesday evenings at 7:00 p.m. the next busiest time occurred at 9:00 a.m. Saturday with approximately 45% occupancy. It is anticipated that the peak usage of the Miramar Event Center will be Friday and Saturday evenings.

At a peak 49% occupancy for the overall area, that means that of the 384 public parking spaces, approximately 196 are still available. It was not confirmed that events were or were not taking place at the two other event centers (the Casino and the Ole Hanson Beach Club) during any of the surveys, so staff analyzed the numbers assuming events were not occurring to be conservative. Based on parking requirements the Ole Hanson Beach Club requires 35 parking spaces, and the Casino requires 64 spaces for a total of 99 spaces. Subtracting 99 spaces from the avialable196 leaves 97 spaces available. This is sufficient parking for the 92 historic waivers to be supported. This calculation is a conservative approach to reviewing parking impacts as it does not take into account the mix of uses in the area that typically result in a reduced overall parking impact, or if events at the existing facilities were occurring at that time of the survey. It also assumes that the project peak operating hours will be Wednesday at 7:00 p.m., when it is anticipated that the peak operating hours for the Miramar Event Center will be Friday and Saturday evenings when available parking is significantly higher.

Therefore the site is suitable for the type and intensity of development that is proposed.
40 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar !=:vent Center & Restaurants Page 8 of 33 C. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity in that:

1. The proposed project is required to comply with the Building and Safety Code, City Municipal Code and Fire Code.

2. The project is conditions to comply with the local and state requirements for the on-site sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages.

3. The outdoor patio and courtyards will be closed at 10:00 p.m. to ensure that ambient noise is not an impact to nearby properties, and to further address potential noise impacts the development will keep all doors and windows closed in the Miramar Theater when live entertainment and/or dancing is occurring.

4. To ensure parking is not Impacted a parking study was conducted in August 2016 to analyze parking availability. The Study determined that at peak utilization there is only 49% occupancy for the overall area, which means that of the 384 public parking spaces, approximately 196 are still available. It was not confirmed that events were or were not taking place at the two other event centers (the Casino and the Ole Hanson Beach Club) during any of the surveys, so staff analyzed the numbers assuming events were not occurring to be conservative. Based on parking requirements the Ole Hanson Beach Club requires 35 parking spaces, and the Casino requires 64 spaces for a total of 99 spaces. Subtracting 99 spaces from the avialable196 leaves 97 spaces available. This is sufficient parking for the 92 historic waivers to be supported. This calculation is a conservative approach to reviewing parking impacts as it does not take into account the mix of uses in the area that typically result in a reduced overall parking impact, or if events at the existing facilities were occurring at that time of the survey.

D. The proposed use will not negatively impact surrounding land uses as stated in the environmental analysis provided under Exhibit B and in that:

1. The project is required to operate within the City's noise ordinance ensuring permitted noise levels are not exceeded, and the outdoor patio and courtyard areas are to close no later than 10:00 p.m. to minimize ambient noise levels.

2. The project is conditioned to comply with the local and state requirements for the on-site sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages.

3. A parking study has concluded that there is sufficient parking in the area to support the historic parking waivers requests, and the project is consistent with the goals of the General Plan to rehabilitate the Miramar Theater with an adaptive reuse. The proposed project is also consistent with goals of the pedestrian overlay to promote a pedestrian enhancing experience that promotes and supports outdoor dining areas and courtyards along the public right-of-way.

E. The structures are listed on the City's Designated Historic Structures List as the Miramar Theater was built in 1937 and the Bowling Alley was constructed in 1946. 41 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar !=vent Center & Restaurants Page 9 of 33 The Miramar is eligible for a state and national listing as a historic resource, as well as eligibility to be designated as a local historic landmark.

F. The parking required by the zone and/or district within which the property is located cannot be provided without altering or modifying the historic structures in a manner which is incompatible with the historic structures' original architectural style and character in that there are zero parking spaces currently located on-site. Sufficient parking could not be established on-site without demolition of one of the existing historic structures to create more surface parking, or modifying the historic structure to create underground parking. Both options would greatly impact the historic structure and result in demolition of large components of the resource.

G. Public parking is available In close proximity to the structure in that there is public parking located across the street in a public lot, as well as substantial on-street public parking located around the project. This past August (2016) staff completed a parking study of North Beach. Currently there are 586 public and private parking spaoes in the North Beach Study Area. Of these, 230 of the space are public offstreet spaces (in parking lots) and 154 are on-street parking spaces, for a total of 384 public parking spaces. The study found that the overall peak occupancy for the area was Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. with 49% occupancy. This means, of the 384 spaces, approximately 196 spaces are still available. The 196 vacant spaces is more than adequate supply to accommodate the ninety-two (92) historic waivers requested by the applicant.

Additionally, in consideration of potential future parking that has been identified for development on the MO2 Channel, Marblehead Coastal Site, and a portion of the water reclamation plant on Pico, there will be sufficient future parking infrastructure to provide the necessary parking for the 92 historic parking waivers if the existing parking supply is reduced,
H. The modification of the parking requirements will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of either the people residing in the area or the general public in that staff has determined that there is currently sufficient available public parking directly adjacent to the project site, and allowing the historic structure to be rehabilitated and revitalized will be a substantial improvement to the North Beach area. Additionally, in consideration of potential future parking that has been identified for development on the MO2 Channel, Marblehead Coastal Site, and a portion of the water reclamation plant on Pico, there will be sufficient future parking infrastructure to provide the necessary parking for the 92 historic parking waivers if the existing parking supply is reduced.

Section 4. Site Plan Permit Findings
With respect to Site Plan Permit (SPP) 16-378, the Planning Commission finds as follows:

A. The proposed development is permitted within the subject zone pursuant to the approval of a Site Plan Permit and complies with all the applicable provisions of this title, the goals, and objectives of the San Clemente General Plan, and the 42 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 10 of 33 purpose and intent of the zone in which the development is being proposed, in that the proposed project is for the rehabilitation of two historic resources and the minor additions that require approval of the site plan permit meet the zoning ordinance and are necessary to meet health and safety requirements pertaining to plumbing and environmental health requirements. The development is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan for the redevelopment and adaptive reuse of the subject historic structures on the property and the proposed adaptive reuses are an event center and restaurant which are permitted in the subject zone pending approval of a conditional use permit. The following table identifies the General Plan policies the project is consistent with.

HP 3.03 Incentives. We pursue and
support the use of appropriate federal,
state, local, and private grants, loans, fee
waivers and tax credits and relief to
promote historic preservation.

LU-10.01 . Historic Preservation. We
preserve North Beach historic resources,
through measures such as considering
the establishment of a historic district,
ensuring new development is consistent
with the Historic Preservation and Urban
De~ign Elements, providing historic
preservation incentives and enforcing the
protective measures of the Zoning
Ordinance.

LU 10.02 Miramar Theater
Rehabilitation. We encourage the
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the
historic Miramar Theater.

HP-2.04. Adaptive Reuse. We
Consistency
Consistent. The proposed project is a
rehabilitation and adaptive reuse with
minor modification to the historic
structures. The Miramar Theater is a
Historic Landmark with historic and
cultural significance to the City of San
Clemente.

Consistent. The proposed project does
rehabilitate the Miramar Theater with an
adaptive reuse.

Consistent. The vacancy of the Miramar
43 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 11 of 33 General Plan Policy Consistency
encourage adaptive reuse of historic for the past several decades has led to resources to preserve them and prevent disrepair of the historic structure. The architecturally inappropriate changes, adaptive reuse will allow the rehabilitation disrepair and demolition. of the development and prevent further decay from happening.

HP-2.05. State and Federal Standards. Consistent. A historic structures report We ensure projects follow the Secretary was developed and approved in 2013 for of the Interior Standards for the the project site and a subsequent historic Treatment of Historic Properties and analysis was prepared this year by the standards and guidelines as prescribed applicant to ensure the project follow the by the State Office of Historic Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Preservation for any listed historic Treatment of Historic Properties and resources or properties eligible for historic standards and guidelines as prescribed listing. by the State Office of Historic
Preservation for any listed historic
resources or properties eligible for
historic listing.

Historic Preservation Implementation Consistent. The proposed project would Measure 23, Working with the property eliminate the need for a CIP program to owner, citizens, San Clemente Historical rehabilitate the Miramar, while achieving Society, school's, performing arts ttie goal of rehabilitating the historic business and other community groups, structure.
adopt a CIP program to assist in the
rehabilitation of the Miramar Theater.

B. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of development that is proposed in that it meets required development standards including floor area ratio, height, and setbacks. The project is requesting a CUP for 92 historic parking waivers associate with a historic property as is permitted by Section 17.64.125(8)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. As a historic property parking waiver can be issued is public parking is available near the project site. The City completed a parking study in North Beach this past August. The study in its entirety is provided under Attachment 7 of the Staff Report. The study was conducted over two weeks during peak summer hours when occupancy is highest in the area. Although the peak usage was identified as Wednesday evenings at 7:00 p.m. the next busiest time occurred at 9:00 a.m. Saturday with approximately 45% occupancy. It is anticipated that the peak usage of the Miramar Event Center will be Friday and Saturday evenings.

At a peak 49% occupancy for the overall area, that means that of the 384 public parking spaces, approximately 196 are still available. It was not confirmed that events were or were not taking place at the two other event centers (the Casino and the Ole Hanson Beach Club) during any of the surveys, so staff analyzed the numbers assuming events were not occurring to be conservative. Based on parking requirements the Ole Hanson Beach Club requires 35 parking spaces, and the Casino requires 64 spaces for a total of 99 spaces. Subtracting 99 spaces from 44 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 12 of 33 the avialable196 leaves 97 spaces available. This is sufficient parking for the 92 historic waivers to be supported. This calculation is a conservative approach to reviewing parking impacts as it does not take into account the mix of uses in the area that typically result in a reduced overall parking impact, or if events at the existing facilities were occurring at that time of the survey. It also assumes that the project peak operating hours will be Wednesday at 7:00 p.m., when it is anticipated that the peak operating hours for the Miramar Event Center will be Friday and Saturday evenings when available parking is significantly higher.

Therefore the site is suitable for the type and intensity of development that is proposed.

C. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity in that the proposed project is required to comply with the Building and Safety Code, City Municipal Code and Fire Code.

D. The proposed development will not be unsightly or create disharmony with its locale and surroundings in that the proposed development is a rehabilitation of two historic resource that have deteriorated since they have become vacant in the 1990's. This continued vacancy and decline in the structures has created a blighted development. The rehabilitation and reuse of the development will improve the existing site conditions and improve the surrounding area.

E. The proposed development will minimize or eliminate adverse physical or visual effects which might otherwise result from unplanned or inappropriate development, design or location in that the proposed project will rehabilitate a landmark historic resource, the Miramar Theater (opened in 1938), and the historic bowling alley (opened in 1946), which are part of the City's original planned development and are an integral part of the City's history and pride. This rehabilitation is a specific goal identified in the General Plan and the project will implement that goal. The proposed rehabilitation and reuse has minimal modifications to the site and minimal additions are prosed to accommodate for modern health and safety code requirements. Should the proposed historic resources not be retained and rehabilitated, the General Plan land use designation is Mixed Use and permits up to a three story mixed-use development with a 1.0 FAR. The current project is a single story development with approximately a 0.5 FAR and is substantially less dense than what would be ailowed under the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance minimizing adverse physical and visual effects.

Section 5. Planning Commission Approval.

Based on the foregoing recitals and findings above, and the written and oral comments, facts, and evidence presented, the City of San Clemente Planning Commission Cultural Heritage Permit(CHP) 16-376, Conditional Use Permit(CUP) 16-377, and Site Plan Permit (SPP) 16~378, Miramar Event Center and Restaurants, subject to the above Findings, the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A. and the Categorical Exceptions analysis provided under Exhibit B.
45 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 13 of 33 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of San Clemente Planning Commission on June 7, 2017.

Chair
CERTIFICATION:

I HEREBY CERTIFY this Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City of San Clemente Planning Commission on June 7, 2017, carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

COMMISSIONERS:

Brown, Crandell, Blackwell, Talley, Wu, Smith
Eggleston
46 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 14 of 33

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) 16-376, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 16-377, and Site Plan Permit (SPP) 16-378, Miramar Event Center and Restaurants

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. The applicant or the property owner or other holder of the right to the development entitlement(s) or permit(s) approved by the City for the project, if different from the applicant (herein, collectively, the "lndemnitor'') shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of San Clemente and its eleded city council, its appointed boards, commissions, and committees, and its officials, employees, and agents (herein, collectively, the "lndemnitees") from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, fines, penalties, and expenses, including without limitation litigation expenses and attorney's fees, arising out of either (i) the City's approval of the project, including without limitation any judicial or administrative proceeding initiated or maintained by any person or entity challenging the validity or enforceability of any City permit or approval relating to the project, any condition of approval imposed by City on such permit or approval, and any finding or determination made and any other action taken· by any of the lndemnitees in conjunction with such permit or approval, including without limitation any action taken pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), or (ii) the acts, omissions, or operations of t~e lndemnitor and the directors, officers, members, partners, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors of each person or entity comprising the lndemnitor with respect to the ownership, planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the project and the property for which the project is being approved. The City shall notify the lndemnitor of any claim, lawsuit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding (herein, an "Action") within the scope of this indemnity obligation and request that the lndemnitor defend such Action with legal counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City. If the lndemnitor fails to so defend the Action, the City shall have the right but not the obligation to do so and, if it does, the lndemnitor shall promptly pay the City's full cost thereof.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the indemnity obligation under clause (ii) of the first sentence of this condition shall not apply to the extent the claim arises out of the willful misconduct or the sole active negligence of the City. [Citation - City Attorney Legal Directive/City Council Approval June 1, 2010] (Ping.) __

2. Thirty (30) days after project approval, the owner or designee shall submit written consent to all of these imposed conditions of approval to the Community Development Director or designee. [Citation - City Attorney Legal Directive/City Council Approval June 1, 2010] (Ping.) __

3. A detailed landscape plan shall be prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect and shall be submitted for approval by the City's contract Landscape Architect prior to issuance of Building Permits. The property owner or designee shall maintain all landscaped areas as approved on the final landscape plans in an orderly, attractive and healthy condition. This shall include proper pruning, mowing of turf areas, 47 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 15 of 33 weeding, removal of litter, fertilization, replacement of plants when necessary, and the regular application of appropriate quantities of water to all landscaped areas.

The property owner or designee shall maintain all irrigation systems as approved on the final landscape plans in proper operating condition. Waterline breaks, head/emitter ruptures, overspray or runoff conditions and other irrigation system failures shall be repaired immediately. [Citation - Section 17. 68. 060.A&B of the of the SCMC] (Ping.) __

4. CHP 16-376, CUP 16-377 and SPP 16-378 shall become null and void if the use is not commenced within three (3) years from the date of the approval thereof.

Since the use requires the issuance of a building permit, the use shall not be deemed to have commenced until the date that the building permit is issued for the development. [Citation - Section 17. 12. 150.A. 1 of the SCMC] (Ping.) __

5. A use shall be deemed to have lapsed, and CHP 16-376, CUP 16-377 and SPP 16-378 shall be deemed to have expired, when a building permit has been issued and construction has not been completed and the building permit has expired in accordance with applicable sections of the California Building Code, as amended. [Citation - Section 17. 12. 150. C. 1 of the SCMCJ (Ping.) __

6. The owner or designee shall have the right to request an extension of CHP 16- 376, CUP 16-377 and SPP 16-378 if said request is made and filed with the Planning Division prior to the expiration date as set forth herein. The request shall be subject to review and approval by the final decision making authority that ultimately approved or conditionally approved the original application. [Citation - Section 17. 12. 160 of the SCMC] (Ping.) _ _
Signs

7. Signage is not part of this review. Any signage for this proposed development shall require the owner or designee to submit for review and obtain approval of a Sign Permit or Master Sign Program in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance. [Citation - Section 17.16.240.D& 17.16.250.D of the SCMCJ (Ping.) __

8. Window and banner signage is not part of this review. Window or banner signage shall comply with Zoning Ordinance Table 17.84.030A & Section 17.84.030(H), and any applicable Master Sign Programs. [Citation - Section 17.16.240.D of the SCMC] (Code Enforce.) __ (Plng.) __
Special Activity Permit (SAP) - One-time Administrative

9. The applicant shall inform Code Enforcement staff two weeks prior to the beginning of any specia.1 event. The applicant shall provide to staff in writing information associated with hours, verification of event parking, and security, and new information associated with the proposed special event for review by staff. [Citation - Section 17.28.295F of the SCMC) (Code Enforce.) __
48 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 16 of 33 Special Activity Permits (SAP) - Zoning Administrator review

10. For more than one special activity in a year a Special Activity Permit must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. This is a public hearing proces~. [Citation - Section 17. 28. 295F of the SCMC]
(Plng.) __ (Code Enforce.) __
Alcohol/ Live Entertainment

11. The sale of alcohol and indoor on-site consumption shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., and outdoor onsite sale and consumption of alcohol shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (all outdoor areas must close at 10 p.m.) Any proposed change in the hours of operation shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit. {Citation - Division 9 (Alcoholic Beverages), Section 25631 to 25633of Business & Professions Code, State of California] (Ping.) __

12. The owner or designee shall obey all rules, regulations and conditions imposed upon the project through, but not limited to, the Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC) and relevant State laws. Revocation of, or sale of said ABC license to another person at another location, shall render this Use Permit null and void. Prior to any sale of the ABC license, the owner or designee shall notify the Community Development Department of the sale. [Citation - Division 9 (Alcoholic Beverages), Business and Professions Code, State of California] (Ping.) __

13. The owner or designee shall obey all rules, regulations and conditions imposed upon the project through, but not limited to, the Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC) and relevant State laws. Revocation of, or sale of said ABC license to another person at another location, shall render any City approved CUP for alcohol service at the subject property null and void. Prior to any sale of the ABC license, the owner or designee shall notify the Community Development Department of the sale. [Citation - Division 9 (Alcoholic Beverages), Business and Professions Code, State of California] (Ping.) __

14. The sale and consumption of alcohol use shall be deemed to have lapsed, and shall be deemed to have expired, ninety (90} days after the date the on~site sale and indoor and outdoor consumption of alcohol ceases operation and/or the business closes at such location. [Citation - Section 17. 12. 150(C) of the SCMCJ (Ping.) __

15. The owner or designee shall be responsible for closing, and keeping shut, all exterior windows, doors, and skylights when live entertainment and/or dancing is being conducted, with the exception of when doors are used to enter-and-exit the building. ■■(Sheriff) __

16. The owner shall have a manager on the premises at all times during the hours of operation when live entertainment and/or dancing are occurring. ■ (Ping.) __ 49 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 17 of 33

17. The property owner, applicant, or designee shall be responsible for immediately resolving any problems associated with the activity and/or issues of concern raised by neighbors. ■■ (Ping.) __

18. The live entertainment and dancing may be closed down at the discretion of the Police Department if it becomes unreasonably loud or boisterous, if it exceeds the standards contained in the City's noise ordinance, or results in a public safety hazard. The live entertainment and dancing may be closed down at the discretion of the Fire Department due to overcrowding or other hazardous conditions. ■■(Fire)(Sheriff) __

19. The applicant shall inspect the property and all surrounding properties following each live entertainment and/or dancing activity and remove all debris to the extent permitted by the property owner (Code Enforce.)(Sheriff) _ _

20. Only bartenders and waitresses may sell alcoholic beverages. Roving promotional persons, engaged in the sale of liquor, will not be permitted during live entertainment and/or dancing activity. ■■ (Sheriff) __

21. The applicant shall have security be on site at all times while live entertainment and/or dancing activity are conducted, stationed at the front door, rear door, and within the building for a minimum of two (2) security personnel during live entertainment. All security personnel shall wear a shirt or jacket with the word "security" in 2 inch or larger letters visible at all times while on the property. If it is found that two (2) security guards are not adequate, at the discretion of the Police Department, they may require additional security on site. ■ ■ (Sheriff) __

22. After 10:00 p.m. security personal shall check the identification of live entertainment and/or dancing activity attendees to confirm they are at least 21 years old before allowing them to access the event. At the discretion of the City Planner, applicant may make a formal request to the Planning Division to allow persons under 21 years of age after the hours of 10:00 p.m. for special events. ■■ (Sheriff) __

23. If for any reason City Staff determines the live entertainment and/or dancing use is not in compliance with the conditions of approval or intent of the Zoning Code related to Conditional Use Permits, the permit may be revoked and/or sent to the Planning Commission for modification. Any request for expansion of the activity must be approved by the Planning Commission as an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. ■■ (Ping.) __

24. Live entertainment and amplified sound is permitted to be conducted until 2:00 a.m. daily inside the Miramar Event Center as shown on the approved plans submitted as part of this CUP. ■■ (Ping.) __

25. At any time during permitted hours, live entertainment and amplified sound shall be set-up in only one of the music locations as specified on the approved plans submitted as part of this CUP. ■■ (Ping.) __
50 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 18 of 33 Conditions that Apply to Operations at All Times

26. Discharge of washwater and other pollutants is prohibited from entering the storm drain system. Applicant must prevent pollutants (e.g. sediment, trash, food waste etc.) and any washwater used during cleanup from entering the storm drain system. ■■(Eng) (Code Enforce.) _ _

27.Abide by all applicable laws, including Orange County Health Department and the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) laws. (Code Enforce.)(Health)(ABC) _ _

28. Security personnel shall ensure patrons don't loiter on and in front of the premises, disrupt neighbors, and direct and ensure patrons to leave the property immediately after the facility closes. ■■ (Code Enforce) (Sheriff) __

29. The applicant or designee shall be responsible for directing speakers away from doors and windows at all times. ■■(Sheriff) --

30. The owner or designee shall post conditions of approval for the Miramar and the Restaurants in a location clearly visible to employees to ensure they are informed of and adhere to requirements and policies for all operations of the restaurant, including but not limited to live entertainment and/or dancing activity and alcohol service. ■■ (Code Enforce) (Sheriff) __

31. The business owner shall use their best judgment and best management practices to ensure activities on the premises will be conducted in a manner that will not be disruptive to other commercial or residential neighbors and result in police services, which cost the City of San Clemente expense. ■■ (Code Enforce) (Sheriff) __ ~t-aecomes necessary to open doors and ·.vindov.is after 9:00 p.m., the volume of amplified sound shall be lowered to maintain the same volume of sound outside the building that is audible with the building openings shut. Deleted by Planning Commission June 7, 2017. .. (Code Enforce) (Sheriff) __

33. In the event that noise impacts neighboring properties, the tenant must soundproof the facility, or use other best management practices as determined by the City Planner, to eliminate the problem and comply with the City's noise ordinances. ■■ (Ping.) _ _

34. No trucks shall remain idling for more than five (5) minutes when loading or unloading deliveries. ■■ (Ping.) __

35. If necessary due to multiple noise complaints and documented violations, a volume regulator shall be installed to ensure that noise levels do not exceed an appropriate level. Additionally, a manager will always be onsite to regulate the sound volume. ■■ (Ping.) __

36.A separate Building Permit is required. Plans to construct new building, add or alter the existing building configuration, change in use, add or alter structural, mechanical, 51 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 19 of 33 electrical or plumbing features of the project must be reviewed and approved through a separate building plan check/ permit process. (Bldg.) __ [S.C.M.C - Title 8 - Chapter 8.16- Fire Code, Title 15 Building Construction - Chapters 15.08, 15.12, 15.16, 15.20]

37. Project has not been reviewed for Building Code compliance. Prior to issuance of building permits, code compliance will be reviewed during building plan check. (Bldg.) __
[S.C.M.C - Title 8 - Chapter 8.16- Fire Code, Title 15 Building Construction - Chapters 15.08, 15.121 15.16, 15.20]

38. Building permits shall not be issued unless the project complies with all applicable codes, ordinances, and statutes including, but not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance, Grading Code, Security Ordinance, Transportation Demand Ordinance, Water Quality Ordinance, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as adopted by the City including, but not limited to the California Building Code, Administrative, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Energy, Green, and Fire Codes. (Bldg.) __ [ S. C.M. C - Title 8 - Chapter 8.16 - Fire Code, Title 15 Building and Construction Chapters 15.08, 15.12, 15.16, 15.20, 15.21, Title 16 Subdivisions, Title 17 Zoning]

39. This project would be eligible to use the California Historic Building Code (Title 24- Part 8), the property owner would be required to request the use of this code.

Specific impacts of the use of this code has not been evaluated at this time and would be addressed during the review for Building Code compliance. (Bldg.). __ [S.C.M.C- Title 15 Building Construction]

40. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall secure all utility agencies approvals for the proposed project. (Bldg.) _ _
[S.C.M.C- Title 15 Building Construction]
41 . Prior to the issuance of building permits, the owner or designee shall submit plans that identify the intended use of each building or portion of building and obtain approval of the Building Official. (Bldg.) __
[S.C.M.C - Title 15 - Chapter 15.08]

42. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the owner or designee shall pay all applicable development fees in effect at the time, which may include, but are not limited to, Regional Circulation Financing and Phasing Program (RCFPP), park acquisition and development, water and sewer connection, drainage, Public Facility Construction, transportation corridor, Avenida La Pata Supplemental Road Fee and school fees, etc. (Bldg.) __
[S. C. M. C. - Title 15 Building and Construction, Chapters 15. 52, 15. 56, 15. 60,

15.64, 15.68, 15.72}
52 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 20 of 33

43. Prior to issuance of any building permits, an acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical design features of the structures required to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be submitted to the Building Division for approval along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report have been incorporated into the project. (Bldg.) __
[General Plan - Noise Element - Implementation Program I 14.4 and California Building Code Chapter 12 - Section 1207]

44. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner or designee shall submit a copy of the City Engineer approved soils and geologic report, prepared by a registered geologist and/or soil engineer, which conforms to City standards and all other applicable codes, ordinances, statutes and regulations. The soils report shall accompany the building plans, engineering calculations, and reports. (Bldg.) __
{S.C.M.C- Title 15 - Chapter 15.08 - Appendix Chapter 1-Section 106.1.4]

45. Prior to the Building Division's approval to pour foundations, the owner or designee shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the City Building Official or designee that a registered civil engineer that is licensed to do surveying or land surveyor has certified that the forms for the building foundations conform to the front, side and rear setbacks are in conformance to the approved plans. [S.C.M.C - Title 15- Chapter 15.08, Title 17-Chapter 17.24] (Bldg.) __

46. Prior to the Building Division's approval of the framing inspection, the owner or designee shall submit evidence to the satisfaction of the City Building Official or designee that a registered civil engineer that is licensed to do surveying or land surveyor has certified that the height of all structures are in conformance to the approved plans. [S. C.M. C - Title 15 - Chapter 15. 08, Title 17- Chapter

17.24] (Bldg.) _ _

47.Prior to the review of grading plans, soils report and documents, the owner or designee shall deposit a minimum of $5,000.00 for plan check. [Citation - Fee Resolution No. 08-81 and Section 15.36 of the SCMCJ (Eng.), _ _

48. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the owner shall pay all applicable development fees, which may include, but are not limited to, City Attorney review, development, water and sewer connection, drainage, grading, RCFPP, transportation corridor, etc. [Citation- Fee Resolution No. 08-81& S.C.M.C. Title 15, Building and Construction, Sections 15. 52, 15. 56, 15. 601 15. 64, 15. 68,

15.72] (Eng.) __
Reports -Soils and Geologic, Hydrology

49. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer or designee for, a soils and geologic report prepared by a registered geologist and/or geotechnical engineer which conforms to City standards and all other applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. [Citation - Section 15.36 of the SCMCJ (Eng.) __ 53 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 21 of 33

50. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the City Engineer shall determine that development of the site shall conform to general recommendations presented in the geotechnical studies, including specifications for site preparation, treatment of cut and fill, soils engineering, and surface and subsurface drainage. [Citation - Section 15.36 of the SCMCJ (Eng.) _ _
Grading

51. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and obtain the approval of the City Engineer, a precise grading plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, showing all applicable frontage improvements and onsite improvements, including but not limited to, grading, building pad grades, storm drains, sewer system, retaining walls, water system, water quality features, erosion control devices, etc., as required by the City Grading Manual and Ordinance. [Citation - Section 15.36 of the SCMC] (Eng.) __ Improvement Plans

52. Prior to issuance of any permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review, and shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer or designee for frontage improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer. The owner or his designee shall be responsible for the construction of all required frontage and onsite improvements as approved by the City Engineer including but not limited to the following: [Citation - Section 15.36, 12.08.010, and 12.24.050 of the SCMCJ ■ (Eng.}, _ _
A. Per City Municipal Code Section 12.08.010 (A}, when building permit valuations exceed $50,000, the owner or designee shall construct sidewalk along the public property frontages. This includes construction of compliant sidewalk around drive approach or other obstructions to meet current City standards (2% cross fall) when adequate right-of-way exists. Since the street right-of-way varies along the frontage, a sidewalk easement may be required to be granted to the City for any portion of sidewalk needed to go up and around the drive approach or other obstructions.

B. In the event that areas of sidewalk or other street improvements are disturbed or damaged during the construction project, the applicants shall be responsible for replacing said sidewalk or other street improvements prior to the finalization of any Engineering or Building Permits.

C. The developer shall be responsible for adjusting all utilities to grade that conflict with necessary sidewalk and drive approach improvements.

D. An Engineering Department Encroachment Permit shall in place prior to the commencement of any work in the public right-of-way. 54 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 22 of 33

53. Prior to any changes in the project application or site activities that involve valet services or modified passenger drop-offs, or other such activities which may effect traffic circulation won surrounding public streets, the owner or designee shall submit such a request for review and shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer and City Planner. Service and supply deliveries shall be done from Calle Deshecha to the maximum extent feasible ■■ (Eng.) __

54. Prior to issuance of any permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review and shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer or designee for water improvement plans specific to the project, prepared by a registered civil engineer, which reflect consistency with the City's Water standards. Said plan shall provide for the following: [Citation - Section 15.36 of the SCMCJ (Eng.) _ _ A. All water meters shall be tapped into the public water main and be located in the public ROW.

B. A double detector check shall be installed at the transition from public to private for water systems.

NPDES

55. Prior to issuance of any permit, the owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the project meets all requirements of the Orange County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Drain Program, and Federal, State, County and City guidelines and regulations, in order to control pollutant run-off. The owner shall submit for review, and shall obtain apptoval of the City Engineer for, plans for regulation and control of pollutant run-off by using Best Management Practices (BMP's). [Citation - Section 13.40 of the SCMC] (Eng.) __

56. Prior to issuance of any permit, the owner or designee shall submit for review a project binder containing the following documents: [Citation - Section 13.40 of the SCMCJ (Eng.) _ _
A. Since the site is determined to be a "Priority Project" (as defined by the Orange County's MS4 Permit for the South Orange County Model WQMP ,http://www. waterboards. ca .gov/sandiego/water issues/programs/sto rmwater/ ) a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be approved by the City prior to issuance of any permits. The final WQMP shall recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office and filed with the City prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Site improvement plans shall incorporate all necessary WQMP requirements, including but not limited to co'-'.'ered trash enclosures.
55 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 23 of 33

57. Prior to release of financial security, the owner or designee shall have completed the stenciling of all catch basins and/or storm drain inlets with labels 3" high in black letters, on either the top of the curb or the curb face adjacent to the inlet "NO DUMPING - DRAINS TO OCEAN". These markers shall be maintained in good condition by the Property Owner.[Citation - Section 13.40 of the SCMCJ (Eng.) __
Financial Security

58. Prior to issuance of any permits, the owner shall provide separate improvement surety, bonds, or irrevocable letters of credit, as determined by the City Engineer for 100% of each estimated improvement cost, as prepared by a registered civil engineer as approved by City Attorney/City Engineer, for the following: grading improvements; frontage improvements; sidewalks; sewer lines; water lines; onsite storm drains; water quality improvements, and erosion control. In addition, the owner shall provide separate labor and material surety for 100% of the above estimated improvement costs, as determined by the City Engineer or designee. [Citation - Section 15.36 of the SCMCJ (Eng.) _ _
Planning Conditions

59. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate that they have entered into a Historic Property Preservation Parking Waiver Incentive Agreement with the City of San Clemente. The Agreement will ensure the historic preservation and reuse of the Miramar Theater and Bowling Alley building. The Agreement will ensure that the City will provide a non-exclusive right to ninety-two (92) public parking spaces, the number of required spaces waived, as an incentive to reuse and restore the Miramar Theater and Bowling Alley per Secretary of Interior Standards. Additional public spaces will be provided by the City at a time deemed appropriate as described in the agreement. The spaces will be maintained by the City, and at City expense, as long as the Miramar Theater and Bowling Alley are maintained and reused in accordance with the agreement and Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Structures. ■■ (Ping.) _ _

60. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the project shall be develop in conformance with the site plan, floor plans, elevations, details, and any other applicable submittals approved by the Planning Commission on June 7, 2017, subject to the Conditions of Approval.

Any deviation from the approved site plan, floor plans, elevations, details, or other approved submittal shall require that the owner or designee submit modified plans and any other applicable materials as required by the City for review and obtain the approval of the City Planner or designee. If the City Planner or desi_gnee determines that the deviation is significant, the owner or designee shall be required to apply for review and obtain the approval of the Zoning Administrator. [Citation - Section 17. 12. 180 of the SCMC] (Ping.) __ 61 . Prior to issuance of any commercial building permits, the owner or designee shall submit for review and obtain approval of the Director of Community Development 56 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 24 of 33 or designee plans indicating that the height of any roof mounted equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall to the extent possible, to screen the equipment, and the equipment will be painted in such a manner as to cause the equipment to blend with the roof when viewed from surrounding areas. Additional screening devices may be required in conjunction with tenant improvements if deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development. [Citation - Section

17.24.050.C.2 of the S.C.M.C.} (Ping.) __

62. The applicant shall apply for the necessary tenant improvements utilizing a Historic Preservation Consultant. A Historic Preservation Consultant shall be retained through the completion of the rehabilitation of the Miramar and Bowling Alley to ensure any changes that may be proposed for the project site shall be completed in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Structures so there will be no negative impacts to the historic resources. ■■ (Ping.) __

63. Any future improvements to the facility shall be done with the use of a Historic Resource Preservation Consultant .to ensure any changes that may be proposed for the project site shall be completed in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Structures so there will be no negative impacts to the historic resources. ■■ (Ping.) __

64. The design goal is to protect and maintain all historic features and materials. The applicant will follow all recommendations outlined in the Historical Structural Report (HSR) dated 2013, 2017 Historic Analysis and Matrix, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation addressing each historic character defining material or feature . A Documentation Plan will be provided through the construction process to record all decisions to support the Historic rehabilitation of the property. If necessary an update to the 2017 Historic Analysis Matrix shall be prepared if changes are deemed necessary for finalizing construction documents, and final rehabilitation plan to ensure no impacts to the historic resources. ■■ (Ping.) _ _

65. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee that approval by the California Coastal Commission has been obtained for the project. [Citation - Division 20 of the Public Resources Code & Section 17.56.050 of the S.C.M.C.] (Ping.) __

66. Prior to the issuance Certificates of Occupancy, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee that all exterior lighting is designed, arranged, directed or shielded per the approved plans, and in such a manner as to contain direct illumination on site, thereby preventing excess illumination onto adjoining site( s) and/or street( s ). [Citation - Section 17. 24. 130 of the SCMCJ (Ping.) __
57 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 25 of 33

67. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Planner or designee that the development has been rehabilitated in conformance with the 2013 Historic Resources Report, 2017 Historic Analysis and Matrix. {Citation - City of San Clemente Design Guidelines, November 1991) ■■ (Ping.) __

68. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the owner or designee shall include within the first four pages of the working drawings a list of all conditions of approval imposed by the final approval for the project. [Citation - City Quality Assurance Program] (Ping.), __ (Bldg.) __

CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY

69. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, the owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Maintenance Manager or their designees that all frontage improvements have been completed, and accepted and that any damage to new or existing street right-of-way during construction have been repaired/replaced. [Citation - Title 12 of the SCMC) (Eng.) __ (Maint. ) __ Orange County Fire Authority

70. Plan submittal: the applicant or responsible party shall submit the plan(s) listed below to the orange county fire authority for review. Approval shall be obtained on each plan prior to the event specified. __ (OCFA)
Prior to issuance of a building permit:
• architectural (service codes PR200-PR285)
• underground piping (service code PR470-PR475)
• fire sprinkler system (service codes PR400-PR465)
Prior to concealing interior construction:
• sprinkler monitoring system (service code PR500)
• fire alarm system (service code PR500-PR520)
hood and duct extinguishing system (service code PR335)

71. This approval includes 92 historic parking waivers. At no time shall the development exceed the 92 space parking requirement. Should modifications or additional information regarding the historic structures result a change in the parking requirements, the project shall comply with the 92 space maximum.

72. All windows shall be inset six to eight inches, and all doors shall be inset ten to twelve inches. This shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to building permit issuance.

All Conditions of Approval are standard, unless indicated as follows:
■ Denotes a modified standard Condition of Approval.
■■ Denotes a project specific Condition of Approval
58 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 26 of 33

MIRAMAR THEATER AND BOWLING ALLEY REHABILITATION

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is found to be categorically exempt from CEQA under two different Classes, Class 31, Historic Renovation and Class 32, Infill Development.

The Miramar Theater and Bowling Alley project is the rehabilitation of a historic landmark and resource in the City of San Clemente that is situated on a single lot. The Theater improvements include: rehabilitating the 7,327 square foot theater into an ·event -center, reconstructing· and repurposing the 464 square foot addition from 1964 for restrooms, and adding a 262 square feet "green room.'' The 5,200 square foot bowling alley improvements include repurposing the space into culinary specialty restaurants. A basement will be constructed under the bowling alley (approximately 5,200 square feet) to help meet modern health code requirements, and a 1,035 addition will be added to the northeast side of the building for an additional restaurant space and to provide restroom facilities. The overaU rehabilitation and the approximate 6,497 square feet of additions to the historic structures will be completed using the Secretary of Interior's Standards.

The following analyzes how the whole of the project meets the criteria for the previously identified Categorical Exemptions. Each of the following exemptions would independently exempt the whole of the action:

Class 31, Historic Resource Restoration or Rehabilitation Consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards. The Miramar and Bowling Alley are historic resources that have been left vacant for several decades. This vacancy has deteriorated the structures due to neglect and lack of maintenance. In addition a fire in 2005 damaged the interior lobby of the Miramar Theater. The proposed project will restore the original structures and rehabilitate them with compatible uses, while upgrading necessary facilities and mechanical equipment to meet building and safety requirements.

The project is located in an urbanized area and proposes additions of 6,497 square feet which is less than 50% of the total floor area (13,036 square feet existing / 2 = 5,518), and is less than a total of 10,000 square feet (262 square feet for the Miramar and 6,235 square feet for the Bowling Alley).

All rehabilitation and additions will be completed consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. All character defining features on the resources shall be maintained and restored consistent with the Secretary's Guidelines. In 2012, the City of San Clemente received a grant from the State Office of Historic Preservation for a Historic Structures Report (HSR) for the Miramar Theater and Bowling Alley. The purpose of the architectural and structural study was to create a report that the property owner and the City could utilize for the successful rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the historic structures. The report includes:
59 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center& Restaurants Page 27 of 33

1. Examination of the 1,istoric significance and construction methods of the structures.

2. The identification of significant character defining features and spaces.

3. Existing condition drawings of the structures.

4. Evaluation of alterations to the original structures.

5. Recommendations for proposed work related to the adaptive reuse of the property.

6. Conceptual drawings for proposed improvements and adaptive reuses.

This project is relying on the 2013 HSR. To ensure the project would have no significant impacts to the historic resources, the applicant has provided a project specific historic analysis. A copy of the applicant's analysis, credentials, and appendix is attached. Unfortunately there has been additional damage to the structures since the time the 2013 report was written due to continued neglect and lack of maintenance.

The applicant has also provided a matrix identifying rtems included in the proposed project that vary from the 2013 report and why the proposal is still consistent with the Secretary's Standards for rehabilitation. This is also attached.

The proposed project is consistent with the 2013 HSR,is an adaptive reuse that is appropriate for the historic structures, and results in minimal visual additions to the site.

Due to the retention of character defining features, minimal altera.tion to the existing structures, and rehabilitation of the historic resources, the conclusion of the historic analysis is that there will be no impact to the historic structures and the rehabilitation, additions, and adaptive reuse will be consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Structures. Therefore, the City finds that the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Class 31 , Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation.

Class 32, In-fill Development Project. The proposed project is an infill development in an urbanized area.

A. General Plan and Zoning Consistency. The project is consistent with the General Plan, which has the following goal for North Beach, (the area the project is located in):
11Re-establish and maintain a vibrant community- and visitor-serving, mixed use entertainment center which capitalizes on its proximity to the beach and significant historic resources."
The proposed project includes the last two historic commercial resources to be rehabilitated in the North Beach Area. The Casino was rehabilitated in 2010 and the Ole Hanson Beach Club renovation was completed in 2016. In addition, the proposed adaptive reuse are an event center and specialty restaurants, which will add to the vibrant community, and visitor serving mixed use entertainment center capitalizing on their significant historic resources, consistent with the goal of the North Beach area.

The project also complies with the following policies of the General Plan. The following are applicable policies from the North Beach land use focus area and how the project complies with them:
60 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar (=vent Center & Restaurants Page 28 of 33 LU-10.01. Historic Preservation. We preserve North Beach historic resources, through measures such as considering the establishment of a historic district, ensuring new development is consistent with the Historic Preservation and Urban Design Elements, providing historic preservation incentives and enforcing the protective measures of the Zoning Ordinance.

The proposed project preserves the Miramar Theater and Bowling Alley through the rehabilitation of the two structures and adaptive reuse compatible with the buildings' existing configuration thereby resulting in minimal modification to the historic structures and maintenance of the buildings character defining features.

LU-10.02. Miramar Theater Rehabilitation. We encourage the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the historic Miramar Theatre.

LU-10.05. Ocean Views. We preserve the General Plan-designated public view corridor from Avenida Pico through North Beach and encourage new development along El Camino Real to take advantage of ocean vistas.

Although not located in a pub/le view corridor, the proposed bowling alley eatery will add windows and an entry area that will provide ocean views. The proposed additions will also be located in areas that Will not impact potenfja/ ocean vistas from surrounding properties.

LU-10.06. Quality Development. We require that site, building and landscape development be of high quality design and materials and that promote pedestrian activity, in accordance with the Urban Design Element, North Beach Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

The proposed project will provide a high quality, pedestrian friendly development with a sophisticated drought-tolerant plant pallet of decorative native plants along with new street trees. The building will be rehabilitated to the original glory of the iconic Miramar Theater and the Bowling Alley will host restaurant eateries with a large outdoor patio for dining that will be covered by a decorative pergola providing shade for patrons. Building materials will include traditional high quality Spanish Colonial Revival architectural details and finishes adding to the ambiance.

LU-10.07. Public Streetscape. We provide a distinctive visual and physical environment for the public streetscape, in accordance with the Urban Design Element, including standards for the consistent use of street trees, landscaping, street furniture (benches, trash receptacles, news racks, etc.), decorative street and crosswalk paving, pedestrian-scaled lighting, public and entry signage and other appropriate streetscape elements.
61 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 29 of 33 The proposed project has pedestrian scaled lighting and decorative elements.

The required Washingtonian street tree shall be planted continuing the rhythmic pattern consistent with the surrounding area.

LU-10.12. Shared Parking. We encourage the development of shared parking facilities and shared parking management techniques.

The proposed project will utilize the parking in the adjacent public parking lot, which it has utilized historically. The mix of uses in the area has varying peak operating times with the event center used less frequently and in the evenings while the restaurants will operate daily.

LU-10.13. Parking Incentives. We use parking incentives ( e.g., subsidies or provision of public parking) to stimulate historic preservation or other public purposes and reserve the right to subsidize parking to provide community-wide economic benefits.

The Miramar Theater and Bowling Alley were originally developed with no on-site parking because their parking was provided in the adjacent public parking /of.

Due to the site configuration the development cannot provide on-site parking and wishes to utilize the pub/le parking area again for its parking requirements by requesting 82 parking· waivers. These waivers will preserve the historic structures and provide for their adaptive reuse, providing community-wide and economic benefits.

LU-10.15. Automobile-Related Land Uses. We support the conversion of automobile-related land uses in the area to conforming uses, such as recreation, entertainment and retail sales. We prohibit new automobile-related uses and proactively work with property owners of existing automobile-related land uses to improve the appearance and compatibility of such properties.

The proposed project is an entertainment and service use, which Is consistent with the desired uses as stated above.

LU-10.16. Residential Buffers. While entertainment and cultural uses are focuses of the Area's revitalization, we require new development to be compatible with nearby residential uses through horizontal distance requirements and building and site design standards established by the Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan.

The nearest residential neighborhood is located approximately 200 feet south of the project site. The proposed project has no openings along the south wall of the Theater, and very few window openings along the south Bowling Alley wall.

The 2013 Historic Structures Report (HSP) notes that the Miramar Theater walls were constructed out of eight to twelve inch thick reinforced concrete. The project is proposing indoor live entertainment in the Miramar Theater, but due to construction materials of the building, noise is not anticipated to be audible from outside the building. An outdoor patio js proposed on the east side of the Miramar Theater, and although no live entertainment or amplified sound is 62 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 30 of 33 proposed on the patio, a six foot tall block wall will be constructed along the south elevation and a majority of the east property line to minimize any potential noise impacts to residents in the neighboring area.

LU-10.19. Property Improvements. We encourage property owners to renovate or upgrade their properties through a combination of incentives, grants and other programs (e.g., fagade improvement programs).

The rehabilitation requires substantial improvements. The applicant is seeking parking waivers and a Historic Property Preservation and Parking Waiver Incentive Agreement to incentivize the parking waivers and ensure the rehabilitation of the historic resources as a benefit to the community for those parking waivers.

The Zoning for the project site is Mixed Use, which permits public assembly and restaurants with alcohol sales with the approval of a conditional use permit. The project complies with the zoning regulations and has applied for the required conditional use permit.

B. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The proposed rehabilitation project occurs within the City If mits on a parcel measuring less than one acre in size and surrounded on all sides by urban development. The project is in an entertainment district with an event center to the south, car-dealership and residences to the east, hand car wash service station to the north, and convenience store and parking lot to the west.

C. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

The project site Is currently developed with a historic theater and bowling alley with very little pervious space. The pervious area existing is covered with mulch and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

D. The approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air, or water quality for the following rec1sons:

Traffic. The level of service (LOS) for the combined uses in the North Beach area has recently been studied as a result of the EIR done for the General Plan update and subsequent zoning code updates. Based upon the traffic modelling done by the EIR Consultants, and reviewed by the engineering staff, there are no significant deficiencies noted either for the roadway links or intersections of the North Beach area and they meet the LOS requirements of the General Plan.

Parking. The City completed a parking study in North Beach this past August. The study in its entirety is provided under Attachment 7 of the Staff Report. The study was conducted over two weeks during peak summer hours when occupancy is highest in the area. Although the peak usage was identified as Wednesday evenings at 7 p.m. the next busiest time occurred at 9 a.m. Saturday with approximately 45% occupancy. It is anticipated that the peak usage of the Miramar Event Center will be Friday and Saturday evenings.
63 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 31 of 33 At a peak 49% occupancy for the overall area, that means that of the 384 public parking spaces, approximately 196 are still available. It was not confirmed that events were or were not taking place at the two other event centers (the Casino and the Ole Hanson Beach Club) during any of the surveys, so staff analyzed the numbers assuming events were not occurring to be conservative. Based on parking requirements the Ole Hanson Beach Club requires 35 parking spaces, and the Casino requires 64 spaces for a total of 99 spaces. Subtracting 99 spaces from the available 196 leaves 97 spaces available.

This is sufficient parking for the 92 waivers to be supported. This calculation is a conservative approach to reviewing parking impacts as it does not take into account the mlx of uses in the area that typically result in a reduced overall parking impact, or if events at the existing facilities were occurring at that time of the survey. It also assumes that the project peak operating hours will be Wednesday at 7 p.m., when it is anticipated that the peak operating hours for the Miramar Event Center will be Friday and Saturday evenings when available parking is significantly higher.

Noise. The nearest residential neighborhood is located approximately 200 feet south of the project site. The proposed project has no openings along the south wall of the Theater, and very few window openings along the south Bowling Alley wall. The 2013 Historic Structures Report (HSP) notes that the Miramar Theater walls were constructed out of eight to twelve inch thick reinforced concrete. The project is proposing indoor live entertainment in the Miramar Theater, but due to construction materials and the elimination of openings, it is anticipated that noise levels during events will be below the threshold of significance per the City's Noise Ordinance. An outdoor patio is proposed on the east side of the Miramar Theater. and although no live entertainment or amplified sound is proposed on the patio, a six foot tall block wall will be constructed along the south elevation and a majority of the east property line to minimize any potential noise impacts to residents in the neighboring area; the nearest resident is approximately 100 feet away to the southeast. Additionally all outdoor patio and courtyard areas will be closed at 1 O p.m. to also minimize potential noise impacts.

Construction will be required to comply with the City's standards which limits hours and days of operation to minimize noise impacts.

Air Quality. The proposed project is a Event Center and Restaurant establishment with no anticipated air quality impacts as the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan and analyzed under the General Plan EIR and Air Quality Management Plan.

Restaurants may generate odors but odors associated with restaurant uses are not deemed significant. Concerning construction impacts, the proposed project is a rehabilitation of the existing buildings. The buildings will not be demolished and will be retained in place. The project does include a 1,303 square foot addition, along with an addition of a 5,200 square foot basement. These additions are minimal and the applicant will utilize best management practices for construction when redevelopment is underway. The project tis also required to comply with the City's Health and Safety Code which includes fugitive dust control requirements as required by AQMD.

Water Quality. The proposed project has a preliminarily approved Water Quality Management Plan that shows how the project shall treat and store water onsite consistent with state permitting requirements and therefore no impact is anticipated. 64 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 32 of 33 E. The site can adequately be served by all required utilities and public services because it is the rehabilitation of existing buildings with adaptive reuses. The City has evaluated the development and the proposed adaptive reuses and has found that the required utilities and public services can be provided.

Exceptions to Exemptions
According to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2, categorical exemptions are qualified by the exceptions listed below. For the reasons outlined in detail below, none of the exceptions to the exemptions would apply.

A. 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.

Over time the project is not anticipated to have a cumulative impact of successive projects that is significant as the proposed project is a rehabilitation of a historic building that is proposing similar commercial uses to the original historic use. Overtime it is anticipated that the development will continue to operate with similar commercial uses as adaptive reuse of historic buildings are limited due to building configuration, development standard requirements limiting more parking intense uses, and the requirement that all improvements be done consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards.

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

Based on the above analysis, the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The project is for the retention and rehabilitation of two historic resources. The historic resources are proposed to be retained in place with small additions for plumbing and health and safety requirements.

Therefore there is no reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

C. 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 building, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements that are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

The project does not have trees, outcroppings or similar resources on site. The project is for the rehabilitation of two historic buildings that will be rehabilitated consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards and no damage is proposed to the historic buildings.
65 PC Resolution 17-017, Miramar Event Center & Restaurants Page 33 of 33 D. 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.

The site is not listed on the Cortese List.
(http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/sitecleanup/cleanup _ sites _index.cfm#M) E. 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.

The proposed project is for the rehabilitation of the theater to an event center, and the bowling alley to a culinary eatery. The character defining features of the historic resources shall be retained with minimal changed to the structures as a whole.

Because the character defining features will be retained and all rehabilitation and additions will be completed consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards the project will not have a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Therefore, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemptions applies and the exemptions remain applicable.
66 Attachment 3
67 68
69 70

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

PLANNING COMMISSION
December 17, 2025 @ 5:00 p.m.

San Clemente City Hall Council Chamber
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
Teleconference via www.san-clemente.org

1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cosgrove called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente to order at 6:03 p.m. The meeting was offered in person at San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers, 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California, 92673, and also via live stream from the City’s YouTube Channel

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Cameron Cosgrove led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chair Cameron Cosgrove; Vice Chair M. Steven Camp; Karen Prescott-Loeffler; Gary McCaughan; and Brett Freeman
Commissioners Absent: Chair Pro Temp Scott McKhann; and Patrick Griffin Staff Present: Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner
Zach Rehm, Principal Planner
David Carrillo, Associate Planner
Gena Burns, Deputy City Attorney
Tamara Tatich, Recording Secretary
These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.

4. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/SPECIAL PRESENTATION
None.

5. MINUTES
None.

6. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.

Attachment 4
71 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2025 Page 2

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.

8. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Public Hearing Project (PHP) 25-527, Amending CHP 16-376, Miramar Events Center, Patio Wall and Foundation at 1700 N. El Camino Real A public hearing to consider an amendment to CHP 16-376, Miramar Events Center, 1700 N. El Camino Real, a request to modify previously approved project plans to infill portions of an existing exterior security wall and add a fountain feature within the Miramar theater patio.

The Planning Commission will also consider whether the project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and §15311 (Class 11: Accessory Structures).

Commissioners Prescott-Loeffler, Freeman and Chair Cosgrove disclosed that they toured the Miramar property.

Chair Cosgrove opened the public hearing.

City Planner Lightfoot summarized a presentation titled, “Miramar Theater Courtyard Revisions, December 17, 2025.” A copy of the presentation is available by contacting the City of San Clemente Planning Division.

City Planner Lightfoot explained that the requested amendments involve enclosing portions of a courtyard wall that currently have wrought iron railings with stucco to create privacy, reduce noise from the nearby intersection, and improve aesthetics by blocking views of a used car lot across the street. City Planner Lightfoot stated that utilities equipment behind some arched openings are now visible, prompting requests to infill these openings to screen the equipment while maintaining architectural relief; and that a proposed freestanding fountain with self-circulating water would be installed adjacent to the wall; the applicant seeks to fill the gap between the fountain and wall for cleanliness and aesthetic reasons.

City Planner Lightfoot stated that he reviewed the proposal with a consultant from GPA, who found that infilling does not violate Secretary of the Interior Standards because the wall is a new element separate from the historic building and reversible. However, GPA recommended modifications regarding materials and design, particularly advising that the fountain’s primary material match existing site materials (stucco, tile, wood) rather than introduce stone, and suggested redesigning or removing a faux arched plant on architectural element above the fountain to avoid false historic replication. Further, landscape changes include removing one raised planter bed and rejecting the proposed use of Podocarpus hedges around the exterior due to maintenance concerns 72 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2025 Page 3 and height control; staff recommended retaining existing drought-tolerant succulent species instead and staff recommended adopting the Resolution with modifications to reflect these material and design adjustments, clarifying tree counts, and removing the faux arch element.

Commissioners Questions and Clarifications:
• Questions arose regarding the nature of existing wall elements such as recesses, grills, lighting fixtures, and gate materials. Staff confirmed that the courtyard gate is a solid wood gate.
• The courtyard’s lighting plan was discussed, with recessed and mounted fixtures currently planned. Commissioners indicated potential for enhanced lighting, noting concerns that current lighting may not be sufficient for evening events outdoors.
• The fountain’s purpose was confirmed as sound masking for traffic noise, with operational considerations during ceremonies (e.g., turning off the fountain during speeches).
• Landscape questions focused on tree wells versus raised planters and the types of existing and proposed plants, with a consensus that tree wells would remain for some locations, while one raised planter bed would be removed to increase usable space.
• The height of the wall was noted as approximately six feet on the inside and up to ten feet on the exterior due to grade changes.

Applicant Statement:

Roger Cellini, Wedgewood Weddings stated the following:
• The goal is to create an intimate, secluded atmosphere for event guests, especially during cocktail hours, by increasing privacy and reducing distractions from street noise and views of neighboring commercial properties.
• The applicant expressed willingness to adapt the fountain materials as recommended and maintain the architectural style consistent with the building.
• Preference was stated to keep the arched element over the fountain as it adds character, but they are open to removing it if necessary. • The applicant supports removing some of the less attractive succulent tree wells and is open to exploring alternative landscaping. • They favor using Podocarpus outside the wall to soften the appearance and are willing to maintain plant height as required by the city. • The applicant addressed public concerns by emphasizing the compromise reached with the visible ticket booth and courtyard privacy balance.

Public Comments:

Amanda Quintanilla, resident, emphasized the importance of preserving the historic character and a welcoming atmosphere consistent with Spanish cultural values, cautioning against creating a secluded appearance. She supported removing raised planters to improve ADA access and expressed concern about a dying tree.
73 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2025 Page 4 Larry Culbertson, resident and Historical Society representative, opposed infilling the wrought iron openings, citing concerns preserving views into the site.

He suggested that potted plants could suffice for screening, stressed the public’s right to view the historic resource and questioned the long-term impact of irreversible changes.

Applicant’s Response:

Mr. Cellini reiterated the intent to create a finished, attractive, and intimate environment for events; acknowledged the potential to soften the exterior wall with landscaping, but noted the time required for plants to mature; confirmed that events like cocktail hours will frequently use the courtyard, with ceremony transitions planned inside and outside; and expressed openness to feedback and adjustments.

Chair Cosgrove closed the public hearing.

Commission Deliberation:
• Commissioners expressed general support for infilling the wrought iron sections to create privacy and a finished appearance, noting the ticket booth remains visible as a historic feature.
• Most supported removal of interior raised planter beds to increase usable space, with some tree wells to remain flush with the ground for safety and maintenance reasons.
• Commissioners debated the location of the fountain: some preferred it remain on the wall as proposed, while others suggested relocating it to a less crowded wall in the courtyard to preserve historic architectural composition and avoid proximity to ceremony areas. The applicant was open to flexibility, and ultimately there was consensus to leave placement discretion to the applicant.
• Landscape plant choices were discussed, with a preference for droughttolerant species such as bougainvillea over Podocarpus hedges due to maintenance concerns and aesthetics.
• Lighting was identified as an important element to address before operations commence; the commission recommended the applicant coordinate with staff to develop an administrative lighting plan that avoids undesirable glare or impacts on neighboring properties.
• String lighting was discouraged due to potential glare and ordinance concerns but not outright prohibited; staff would work with the applicant on acceptable lighting solutions.

IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR COSGROVE, AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR CAMP, AND CARRIED 5-0, CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN AND COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN

ABSENT, TO DETERMINE THE PROJECT IS CATEROGRICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA, AND TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC 25-022, TO APPROVE PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT 25-527, AMENDING CHP 16-376, MIRAMAR

EVENT CENTER, MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT PLANS TO

INFILL PORTIONS OF AN EXISTING EXTERIOR SECURITY WALL AND ADD A

FOUNTAIN FEATURE WITHIN THE MIRAMAR THEATER PATIO, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:
74 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2025 Page 5 • CONVERT THE ARCHED WALL OPENINGS NEAR THE ALLEY TO
RECESSES;
• CONVERT THE COURTYARD PATIO PORTION WITH PARTIAL STUCCO AND WROUGHT IRON WALL TO FULL STUCCO WALL;
• REPLACE FREESTANDING POTTED PLANTS WITH A COURTYARD
FOUNTAIN, ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY IN PLACEMENT;
• REMOVE THE PLANT-ON FAUX ARCH PROPOSED ABOVE THE FOUNTAIN; • MODIFY COURTYARD LANDSCAPE FEATURES TO ALLOW REMOVAL OF RAISED PLANTER BEDS, WITH TREE WELLS TO REMAIN; AND
• REQUIRE APPLICANT FOLLOW-UP WITH STAFF TO DEVELOP AND

ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE A COURTYARD LIGHTING PLAN AND AN EXTERIOR WALL LANDSCAPING PLAN TO SOFTEN THE APPEARANCE.

B. Streamlining Batch Amendments
A public hearing of the Planning Commission to consider amendments to the City of San Clemente Municipal Code Title 12 and Title 17, to streamline review processes for various types of projects, and be consistent with State Law.

Staff recommends that the zoning amendments not be considered a “project” as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(5), because the revisions relate to the ongoing administrative or discretionary activities and organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, and therefore do not constitute a “project” as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 15000 et seq.).

Chair Cosgrove opened the public hearing and disclosed that Commissioners received prior staff briefings in compliance with the Brown Act.

Associate Planner Carrillo summarized a presentation titled, “Streamlining and Cleanup Amendments, December 17, 2025.” A copy of the presentation is available by contacting the City of San Clemente Planning Division.

Associate Planner Carrillo introduced to a proposed Zoning Amendment intended to streamline development review processes and clarify zoning code text. He explained that the amendment includes five streamlining items and five cleanup items, some of which were deferred from prior City Council actions in 2023. The staff invited feedback and direction, with the plan to return with revised proposals in January 2026 for formal consideration.

Commissioners provided feedback that included:
• Zoning Administrator Public Hearings would be scheduled by exception only when the public has expressed interest on a project.
• Public noticing by mail is important for all public hearing projects. • Recommends clarity on City website and to capture a public interest list for public notices.
• Preference was provided to have Planning Commission the review body for appeals.
75 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2025 Page 6 • In favor of being objective, but also practical as it relates to lighting plans; to not have a standardized lumen, as people will search out compliant products; and to be consistent with “dark sky” guidelines.
• Would like confirmation of City Councils position on the Parklet Program, as it is impacting parking.
• Suggested the Parklet Program be a stand-alone discussion on a future City Council Agenda.
• City Planner Lightfoot will reach out to the Downtown Business Association and Chamber for input on the Parklet Program.
• Would like an update on the Public Works utility upgrades in the downtown area; Parklets will need to be removed at such time, making it a good time to reaffirm the program with City Council.
• Staff is to recap commissioners’ feedback

IT WAS MOVED BY CHAIR COSGROVE, AND SECONDED BY COMMISSOINER FREEMAN, AND CARRIED 5-0, CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN AND COMMISSIONER

GRIFFIN ABSENT TO CONTINUE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 12 AND TITLE 17, TO STREAMLINE

REVIEW PROCESSES FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF PROJECTS AND BE CONSISTENT

WITH STATE LAW TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2026.

9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Parking and Transportation Demand Management Plan – Summary of Technical Work Completed
Request for the Planning Commission to review and provide feedback for the draft Parking and TDM Plan being prepared for the certification of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP).

Principal Planner Rehm summarized a presentation titled, “Parking and Transportation Demand Management Plan and Policy Development for Local Coastal Program.” A copy of the presentation is available by contacting the City of San Clemente Planning Division.

The presentation highlighted the following:
• Project framework: current conditions; strategies; and plan • Project schedule
• Outreach: numerous community events and stakeholder engagement • Review of the study area
• Data collection methodology and analysis
• Results
• Insights to plan development
• Best practices by other cities
• Preliminary strategies
• Revenue analysis
• Implementation
76 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2025 Page 7 • Responses to commissioners’ comments from previous update in November, 2025
• Next steps: Coastal Commission staff review is ongoing; and City Council review in 2026
Commissioner Questions and Discussions:
• Inquired about how many employees from downtown businesses are occupying parking spaces.
• Discussed possibility of parking meters along Avenida Del Mar; revenue generation from meters; and campaign to encourage residents to purchase annual parking passes.
• Interest in feedback (revenue/controversy) from San Juan Capistrano and other neighboring cities since parking fees have been implemented for all downtown.
• Consultant should prioritize the recommendations: simplify, prioritize and actionable
• Perceived value in perception of parking: parking costs can be a deterrent. • Increase in annual parking passes a consideration.
• Supportive of paid parking downtown at a reasonable rate. • Consider bonds to finance a parking structure.
• Purpose is Local Coastal Program, but this is also a good opportunity to have an actionable Parking Management Plan.
• Avenida Del Mar: peak periods also correlate to drop off in enforcement • Upgrade existing meters/boxes.
• Consider Implementing seasonal parking rates.
• Private lots: why are leases dropping off?
• Can we actually capture more capacity?
• Interest in structure: but needs to narrow to 2-3 locations

IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PRESCOTT-LOEFFLER, AND SECONDED BY COMMISSOINER MCCAUGHAN, AND CARRIED 5-0, CHAIR PRO TEM MCKHANN

AND COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN ABSENT TO PRESENT THE TRAFFIC DEMAND

MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT IS BEING PREPARED FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF

LOCAL COASTAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE AT THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2026.

10. OLD BUSINESS
None.

11. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF
A. Commissioner Reports
None.
77 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2025 Page 8 B. Tentative Future Agenda
Written report provided.

C. Administrative Permit Report
Written report provided.

D. Staff Reports
• City Planner Lightfoot advised that City Hall would be closed beginning December 25, 2025 and will reopen on January 5, 2026.
• Next Planning Commission Meeting is January 21, 2026. • Sea Cliff Hotel and Hotel Clemente have been approved by the City Council and are under review by the Coastal Commission; while Hanson Hotel appeal has been continued to a date uncertain with an expected hearing date in Spring 2026.

12. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission adjourned to the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to be scheduled for Wednesday, January 21, 2026 at 6:00 p.m., which will be held at the San Clemente City Hall Council Chambers located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente, California.

Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Cameron Cosgrove, Chair
Attest:
___________________________
Jonathan Lightfoot, Secretary to the Planning Commission 78 AGENDA ITEM: 8-A
4928-7824-4726 v5

STAFF REPORT

SAN CLEMENTE PLANNING COMMISSION
Date: December 17, 2025
PLANNER: Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner
SUBJECT: Hearing for Public Hearing Permit (PHP) PHP25-527, Amending CHP 16-376, Miramar Events Center, Patio Wall and Fountain at 1700 N. El Camino Real, a request to modify previously approved project plans to infill portions of an existing exterior security wall and add a fountain feature within the Miramar theater patio.

The Planning Commission will also consider whether the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities), §15302 (Class 2: Replacement or Reconstruction), and §15303 (Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).

LOCATION: 1700 N. El Camino Real / APN 057-193-05
ZONING/ GENERAL PLAN: Mixed Use 1
ZONING OVERLAYS: Central Business / Pedestrian (C/P); Architectural (A); Coastal Zone (CZ)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND REQUIRED FINDINGS
This request is for a modification to a Cultural Heritage Permit CHP 16-376, which was issued to the applicant by the Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC 17- 017, pertaining to the Miramar Events Center. There, the Planning Commission made the required findings to issue a CHP pursuant to San Clement Municipal Code (SCMC) Section 17.16.110 (as cited below). The findings made by Resolution PC 17-017 remain operative.

The Planning Commission also approved a prior Amendment (Cultural Heritage Permit 25-306) on November 13, 2025 which approved a change to from a fountain feature to a faux fireplace in the exterior patio and approved various interior modifications, including a bridal stairway access, demising partitions in the auditorium, and plaster treatment to the auditorium side walls to create Moorish arches instead of the previously existing gothic murals.

Attachment 5
79 December 2025 Miramar Event Center Amendment Page 2
4928-7824-4726 v5
SCMC Section 17.16.110 Cultural Heritage Permit Findings:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan; b. The proposed project complies with zoning regulations; c. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity; d. The proposed project is in character and compatible with the properties in the neighborhood;
e. The proposed project is in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and City's Design Guidelines to substantially further the City's goals of historic preservation, and f. The proposed project preserves to the extent feasible the character defining features.
g. For projects in the Architectural Overlay District, the Review Authority shall find:
the proposed project complies with the purpose and intent of the Architectural Overlay District, Section 17.56.020; and
h. The proposed project/use preserves and strengthens the pedestrian-orientation of the district and/or San Clemente's historic identity as a Spanish village.

Development Management Team Meeting
The City's Development Management Team (DMT) was made aware of these proposed modifications; however, the project was not circulated for additional comments or conditions of approval as the requested modifications are aesthetic in nature only.

Noticing
Public notices were distributed as required per City and State requirements. As of the date of publication, staff have received one public comment by email which stated:
“Opposed to more changes Miramar Theater” in the subject line, but no text in the body of the email message.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION1
The applicant wishes to modify the exterior site walls near the intersection of El Camino Real and Boca de la Playa to:
• Convert the portion of the wall that is part stucco and part wrought iron into fullheight stucco in order to reduce traffic volume, provide additional privacy for events, and to close off the existing view out of the car lot to the used car lot; and 1 Sheet 5 of the plans indicate a chair plan for outdoor ceremonies. The original approval allows amplified sound only indoors. Exterior amplification will require an amended CUP, which must meet the standards of SCMC 17.24.055 – Commercial Amplified Sound. This permit is not being requested at this time. 80 December 2025 Miramar Event Center Amendment Page 3
4928-7824-4726 v5
• Convert arched wall openings near the alley into recesses because the adjacent utilities cabinets are prominently visible through those openings; and Figure 1: Existing Perimeter Landscaping
Figure 2: Proposed Fountain
• Replace freestanding potted
plants with a new courtyard
fountain that is free-standing,
but with the upper half attached
to the building wall (to infill the
offset above the wainscot) and
surrounded by a new faux arch
that reflects the geometry of the
arched doors to either side of
the fountain; and
• Modify courtyard landscape
features to remove three interior
planter beds. Trees will remain
in wells (instead of beds) along
the southern wall; but the fan
81 December 2025 Miramar Event Center Amendment Page 4
4928-7824-4726 v5
aloe in the east bed is proposed to be deleted and replaced with pavers and a decorative sconce above.
• Replace succulent plantings with plum pine (podocarpus) along the exterior of the perimeter wall near the public sidewalk along Boca de la Playa.

Figure 3: Existing Perimeter Landscaping
Proposed plans are included as Attachment 2, while an excerpt of the 2021-approved landscape plans are included as Attachment 3.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
The alterations to the walls are proposed to resolve aesthetic and operational issues.

From multiple visits to the site, staff and the applicant have observed that there is substantial roadway noise along El Camino Real. At the November 13, 2025 public hearing where the Planning Commission declined an extension of the wall, one consideration discussed was to more fully enclose the existing patio. Doing so would remove visually detracting elements (utilities cabinets and a used car lot) from the perspective of venue guests within the courtyard while also providing added sound attenuation. The applicant also proposes a free-standing fountain (superficially attached to the Miramar building) to mask some of the ambient noise.

For the landscaping requests, staff supports replacing raised planters with tree wells; however, it is recommended that the trees illustrated on the south edge of the patio remain. These provide a functional visual and noise buffer between the Miramar, the alley, and the adjacent historic Casino property. Staff does not recommend modifying the exterior landscaping from the more diverse succulent palette to the more monoculture podocarpus. Podocarpus is often used and intended to function as a hedge. Hedges are governed by the same height standards as walls. If additional privacy is warranted and supported by the Commission, a uniform allowable height of the podocarpus would need 82 December 2025 Miramar Event Center Amendment Page 5
4928-7824-4726 v5
to be identified as a component of the approval. The draft resolution (Attachment 1) declines this landscape change, but would authorize the other modifications requested.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/COMPLIANCE (CEQA)
The Planning Division completed an initial environmental assessment of the project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommends the Planning Commission determine the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) §15302 (Class 2: Reconstruction or Replacement) and §15303 (Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) because the project involves modifications to accessory features and structures that are not historic within the courtyard at the property. The proposed project does not include a change to the approved use of the property and the proposal merely includes alterations to existing (or previously approved) features of the Miramar Event Center Project.

Further, none of the exceptions to the exemptions apply. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.) The project will not contribute to significant cumulative environmental impacts when considered with other related projects, does not involve "unusual circumstances" that could have a significant environmental effect, would not damage scenic resources within an officially designated state scenic highway, does not involve a known hazardous waste site ("Cortese List"), and will not cause a substantial adverse change to a historical resource based on compliance with the Secretary of the Interior standards. The exterior courtyard wall is a recently constructed, non-historic feature; and the proposed modifications to add a fountain and modify landscaping similarly are not historic and can be removed. Thus, the historic resource is not impacted, and no further CEQA is required.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION REVIEW
The project was approved by the Coastal Commission in 2017 via Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 5-17-0539, and the applicant must abide by all conditions of approval specified therein.

ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission may take any of the following actions:

1. Approve the requested modifications as requested or with changes.

2. Continue the hearing to obtain additional information from the applicants or staff.

3. Deny the requested changes. If the Commission wishes to pursue this option, the hearing will need to be continued to allow the appropriate resolution to be prepared.

These actions may be appealed by application to the City Council within ten days of the decision pursuant to San Clemente Municipal Code § 17.12.140 or be called up by the City Council for review and action.
83 December 2025 Miramar Event Center Amendment Page 6
4928-7824-4726 v5

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Determine the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and §15302 (Class 2: Replacement and Reconstruction), and §15303 (Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); and

2. Adopt Resolution PC 25-022, approving PHP 25-527, amending CHP 16-376, Miramar Event Center, to modify previously approved project plans to infill portions of an existing exterior security wall and add a fountain feature within the Miramar theater patio.

Attachments:

1. Resolution No. PC 25-022

2. Project Plans

3. Excerpt of 2021 Approved Landscape Plans
84 Resolution No. PC 25-022 ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC 25-022

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
PUBLIC HEARING PERMIT (PHP) 25-527, AMENDING CHP
16-376, MIRAMAR EVENTS CENTER, LOCATED AT 1700 N.

EL CAMINO REAL, TO MODIFY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

PROJECT PLANS TO INFILL PORTIONS OF AN EXISTING

EXTERIOR SECURITY WALL AND ALTER LANDSCAPE

FEATURES IN AND AROUND THE PATIO INCLUDING THE

ADDITION OF A FOUNTAIN FEATURE AND FINDING THE

PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES §15301
(CLASS 1: EXISTING FACILITIES), §15302 (CLASS 2:

REPLACEMENT OR RECONSTRUCTION) AND §15303
(CLASS 3: NEW CONSTRUCTION OR CONVERSION OF

SMALL STRUCTURES)
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2017, the Planning Commission approved Cultural Heritage Permit 16-376, Conditional Use Permit 16-377, and Site Plan Permit 16-378 for the Miramar Event Center and Food Hall Rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Commission preliminarily approved the project in December of 2017 and issued the Coastal Development Permit in May, 2020; and WHEREAS, the project is currently under construction; and WHEREAS, the property ownership has entered into leases with tenants for the property, including Wedgewood Weddings, which will occupy the Miramar Theater building for the purposes of a wedding and event venue, consistent with CUP 16-377; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on a prior amendment (CHP 25-306) and approved various interior modifications and a change from a new fountain to new fireplace in the patio, but declined to approve the applicant’s request to extend the patio security wall; and
WHEREAS, the tenant desires modifications to the approved plans to provide additional security and privacy to the existing courtyard and wall and to modify landscape elements therein; and
WHEREAS, on November 26, 2025, an application was submitted by AAHA Studio, 9856 Vidor Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90035, for Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) 25- 306, amending CHP 16-376, Miramar Events Center, located at 1700 N. El Camino Real; and
85 Resolution No. PC 25-022 Page 2
WHEREAS, the revised plans are considered insignificant pursuant to San Clemente Municipal Code (SCMC) section 17.12.180 – Insignificant Modifications; however, the City Planner referred the item to the Planning Commission due to the significance of the historic property and public concern surrounding its rehabilitation; and WHEREAS, the Planning Division has completed an initial environmental assessment of the above matter in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends that the Planning Commission determine the project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section §15301 (Class 1: Existing Facilities) and §15303 (Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This is recommended because the project includes modifications to accessory structures and finishes to an existing building; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, considered written and oral comments, and facts and evidence presented by the applicant, City staff, and other interested parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of San Clemente does hereby, finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals.

Section 2. CEQA Findings.

The Class 1 exemption specifically exempts from further CEQA review the operation, repair, maintenance, and minor repair of existing public or private structures, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. This exemption covers, but is not limited to, interior or exterior alterations, additions to existing structures that will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. Here, the proposed project includes modified courtyard walls and landscape features, and will not increase the floor area of the structure by more than 50 percent of the existing floor area, or more than 2,500 square feet. The project does not increase or otherwise change the existing use of the site. Thus, the project qualifies for the Class 1 exemption.
86 Resolution No. PC 25-022 Page 3
The Class 2 exemption specifically exempts from further CEQA review replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced, including but not limited to replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity. The project merely involves the modification of an exterior security wall and alteration of related landscape and hardscape features.

The proposed project does not include a change to the approved use of the property and the proposal merely includes alterations to existing (or previously approved) features of the Miramar Event Center Project.

Section 3. Insignificant Modifications to Cultural Heritage Permit Findings The Planning Commission finds that the proposed modifications to the previously approved project plans site are insignificant modifications in that they are consistent with the approved rehabilitation use intended for the property, and they are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The modifications are consistent with the SOIS in that no modifications are being made to the historic building itself other than a superficially attached wall fountain within the courtyard area which can be removed in the future; any new features are compatible in style and scale with extant historic materials and features; and the exterior courtyard wall/fence provides security for the historic Miramar property and improves privacy and sound reduction in a location intended for private events. As such, with respect to Public Hearing Permit (PHP) 25-527, amending CHP 16- 376, the Planning Commission affirms the findings made within Planning Commission Resolution 17-017 (included as Exhibit A to this Resolution and fully incorporated herewith by reference). Specifically, the Planning Commission affirms that the proposed project modifications are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, given that the proposed modifications do not remove primary walls or 87 Resolution No. PC 25-022 Page 4
add new permanent primary walls within the interior assembly space; the project modifies non-historic elements with compatible finishes or features; and it provides additional site security through unobtrusive means.

Section 4. Planning Commission Approval in part.

Based on the foregoing recitals and findings, and the written and oral comments, facts, and evidence presented, the City of San Clemente Planning Commission approves Public Hearing Permit (PHP) 25-527, amending CHP 16-376, Miramar Events Center, to:

1. Convert arched wall openings near the alley portion of the patio wall into recesses; and

2. Convert the portion of the patio wall along Boca de la Playa that is part stucco and part wrought iron into full-height stucco; and

3. Replace freestanding potted plants with a new courtyard fountain that is superficially attached to the Miramar building and surrounded by a new faux arch that reflects the geometry of the arched doors to either side of the fountain; and

4. Modify courtyard landscape features to remove three interior planter beds (but leaving two trees in tact within tree wells).

However, the Planning Commission declines the proposed change in exterior landscape to replace the approved succulent palette with a singular podocarpus hedge.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of San Clemente Planning Commission on December 17, 2025.
___________________________________
Chair
CERTIFICATION:

I HEREBY CERTIFY this Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City of San Clemente Planning Commission on November 13, 2025, carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner’s last names
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
_______________________________________
Secretary of the Planning Commission
88 Miramar Theater
Proposed Courtyard Adjustments
AAHA.STUDIO 213.373.4581 [email protected]
04 DECEMBER 2025

WEDGEWOOD WEDDINGS
COPYRIGHT © AAHA STUDIO, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THIS DESIGN PACKAGE IS INTENDED FOR DESIGN INTENT ONLY AND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THESE DRAWINGS, OR PARTS THEREOF, MAY NOT BE

REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION ATTACHMENT 2
89 WEDGEWOOD WEDDINGS

PROPOSED PLAN
DN
DN
DN
UP 21'-2"

CURB TO CL
135.3' PL
26'-9"

PL TO CURB
13'-8"

CL TO CURB
3'-8"

PL TO BLDG
10'-0"

PL TO CURB
DN
propose to add hedge
planting at the perimeter
[see page 5]
previously approved
ornamental fireplace
[see page 4]
new freestanding
removable wall fountain
[see page 3]
fill in corner walls
[see page 2]
fill in arched
portals show relief
[see page 2]
add (one) additional
sconce to match existing
[see page 2]
90 WEDGEWOOD WEDDINGS

MIRAMAR THEATER PROPOSED COURTYARD ADJUSTMENTS
04 DECEMBER 2025
COPYRIGHT © AAHA STUDIO, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED | THIS DESIGN PACKAGE IS INTENDED FOR DESIGN INTENT ONLY AND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.THESE DRAWINGS, OR PARTS THEREOF, MAY NOT BE RE PRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING COURTYARD WALLS
fill in w/ stucco and finish to
match adjacent finishes
fill in w/ stucco relief and finish
to match adjacent finishes
add sconce
eq distance from pilaster as
existing next to gate
91 WEDGEWOOD WEDDINGS

FOUNTAIN
Rustica House
Hand carved stone with Redwhite Talavera checkerboard
pattern. Spout is a carved
medallion, non-plumed,
bucket filled
existing stucco wainscott
new stucco arch flush with
wainscott below finished to
match adjacent
new freestanding fountain
positioned at face of wainscott
wall gap created above the line
of the wainscott to be filled in
and finished to match stone of
fountain
potted plants to create
balanced symmetry
stucco fountain wall
frame mimics line of
existing arched opening
design intent for stone
finish to be lighter in
color
EQ EQ
existing wall finish
shows between arch and
fountain
92 WEDGEWOOD WEDDINGS

STUCCO FIREPLACE AND HEARTH ELEVATION
focal point

CHIMNEY POT
Super Clay Corp
13” X 13” Classic
24” Tall 58lbs. 7.5”x7.5”Top Opening

11.25”x11.25” Base I.D.
customization availble to shorter
chimney pot
MANTLE
Rustic Wood Slab 6” x 1” sand blast
finish and dark stain

FIREBOX TILE
EcoOutdoor
Pendell Baton
1/2”-3/4” - 2” x 8” (nom.)
herringbone pattern
93 WEDGEWOOD WEDDINGS

SDGE PAD

SDGE PULL SECTION
FOR 1200A

THEATER
142

COURTYARD

STUCCO CLAD

PLANTER WALL
4'-10 1/4" 7'-6" RAMP 7'-10 3/4" CLEAR 3'-1 3/4" 3'-0 3/4"

45.88 FS
6'-0"
J
J

LANDSCAPING LEGEND SYM COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME QTY SIZE

RED YUCCA BRAKELIGHTS HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA BRAKELIGHTS H2O

PERENNIALS

MAORI QUEEN NEW ZEALAND FLAX PHORMIUM 'MAORI QUEEN'
L
L

SUCCULENTS

FAN ALOE L ALOE PLICITALIS

FLAX LILY LITTLE REV L DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV'
5 GAL
5 GAL
3 0
0 0 5 GAL
L 0 5 GAL
AGAVE GUIENGOLAS L AGAVE GUIENGOLAS 0

CORDYLINE RED STAR CORDYLINE AUSTRALIS 'RED STAR'
AGAVE BLUE FLAME L AGAVE BLUE FLAME 0 5 GAL
L 1 GAL

ALOE STRIATA L ALOE STRIATA
CAMPFIRE PLANT L CRASSULA CAPITELLA 'CAMPFIRE' 13 1 GAL SHORT LEAFED ALOE L ALOE BREVIFOLIA 0 1 GAL
BLUE CHALKSTICKS SENECIO MANDRALISCAE 0
SEDUM COPPERTONE SEDUM NUSSBAUMERIANUM 'COPPERTONE' 16 1 GAL COPPER PINWHEEL AEONIUM 'KIWI' 17 1 GAL
L
L
AGAVE BLUE GLOW L AGAVE 'BLUE GLOW' 6 5 GAL
5 5 GAL
0 SQ FT
0 SQ FT
26 SQ FT
NOTE: ALL SUBSTITUTIONS TO BE COMPARABLE WITH CHARACTERISTICS OF SPECIFIED PLANT SPECIES 15 GAL
15 GAL

LANDSCAPING LEGEND COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE

MEXICAN FAN PALM WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA

SYM QTY

TREES & PALMS
L
H2O
MEXICAN BUSH SAGE 'SANTA BARBARA' 3
SHRUBS
L
L

COASTAL ROSEMARY L WESTRINGIA 'BLUE GEM'

SALVIA LEUCANTHA 'SANTA BARBARA'

ROSE ICEBERG ROSA ICEBERG
SPOON YUCCA L DASYLIRION WHEELERI 15 GAL
5 GAL
5 GAL
5 GAL
15-20' TF
0 3
4 3
OLIVE SWAN HILL L OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' 0 24" BOX
SCALE: 1" = 8'-0"
REVISED PLANTING PLAN N NOTE: ALL SUBSTITUTIONS TO BE COMPARABLE WITH CHARACTERISTICS OF SPECIFIED PLANT SPECIES CREEPING ROSEMARY L ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'PROSTRATUS' 0 5 GAL YELLOW WOOD YEW PINE M PODOCARPUS HENKELII 42 24" BOX
VINES
ROYAL TRUMPET VINE M DISTICTIS 'RIVERS' 0 15 GAL
PLANTS TO BE 15 GALLON ESPALIERED. WHEN PLANTING REMOVE NURSERY TRELLIS AND TIE PLANT TO WALL.

DRACEANA DRACO L DRAGON TREE 2 36" BOX
LAGERSTROEMIA "NATCHEZ" M CRAPE MYRTLE (WHITE) STANDARD 1 24" BOX DSD #:

DATE:

JOB #:

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO ARCHITECTS LOCAL. IT IS FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF EVALUATION, BIDDING ORREVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT AND ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHERPURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHER WITH THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF ARCHITECTS LOCAL. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, © COPYRIGHT 2019

A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q
1 R
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 15
S
S
05/30/25
SHEET: OF
05/30/2025

BUILDING PERMIT
No. Description Date
NS
S
S
T

E C E I L
V
H
8 I
2 E
R O
F
Signature
Renewal Date
6/30/26

E T A O
T
C A L
Date

IF IA N
7 8 T E C T
E
H
N
E
L D A
S M
DSCA
ER
P
AN
RC A
5/30/2025
1 COURTYARD REVISION COURTYARD MOD Miramar Event Center 1700 N. EL CAMINO REAL SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
2 3
4 760.809.3241
CA 92057
Unit 41, Oceanside
3685 Vista Campana N.

N O P R O P O S E D C H A N G E S

TO EXISTING
on site and per city approved
plans in this area

D A S H E D L I N E

I N D I C A T E S

E X T E N T

O F N E W

P R O P O S E D

PLANTING
94 COPYRIGHT © AAHA STUDIO ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THIS DESIGN PACKAGE IS INTENDED FOR DESIGN INTENT ONLY AND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THESE DRAWINGS, OR PARTS THEREOF, MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION95

SAN CLEMENTE
FOOD HALL + EVENT CENTER
(B) THEATER 7,836 SF
APN: 057-193-05, TRACT 821 BLK 5
1700 N EL CAMINO REAL
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92627
(E) STRUCTURE NOT IN SCOPE

PERENNIAL &

SUCCULENT PLANTING

PLAN - EAST
LP-9
9 NORTH EL CAMINO REAL

CALLE DESHECHA

SERVICE
DRIVE

COURTYARD
GARDEN

ENTRANCE
PATIO

COURTYARD

BOCA DE LA PLAYA
B
B
B
DSD #:

DATE:

JOB #:

ARCHITECTS
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO ARCHITECTS LOCAL. IT IS FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF EVALUATION, BIDDING ORREVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT AND ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHERPURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHER WITH THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF ARCHITECTS LOCAL. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, © COPYRIGHT 2019

A B C D E F G H J K L MN P Q
1 R
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 A B C D E F G H J K L MNP Q R
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 15
S
S
710 13TH ST, #307
SAN DIEGO CA | 92101
619.535.0537
[email protected]
WWW.ARCHITECTSLOCAL.COM
06/15/20
SHEET: OF 5
05/11/2020
190515

BUILDING PERMIT
No. Description Date




    






 

Signature
Renewal Date
6/30/22
   

  
Date
  
 
   




  
 




 
11/10/2021
760.809.3241
1 CITY SUBMITTAL SHELL PHASE Miramar Event Center
1700 N. EL CAMINO REAL
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
2 SHELL SUBMITTAL 07/06/20
3 CITY SUBMITTAL 11/10/21
C
C
C
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

PERENNIAL & SUCCULENT PLANTING PLAN - EAST N

LANDSCAPING LEGEND SYM COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME QTY SIZE

RED YUCCA BRAKELIGHTS HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA BRAKELIGHTS H2O

PERENNIALS

MAORI QUEEN NEW ZEALAND FLAX PHORMIUM 'MAORI QUEEN'
L
L

SUCCULENTS

FAN ALOE L ALOE PLICITALIS

FLAX LILY LITTLE REV L DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV'
5 GAL
15 GAL
21 10
1 61 5 GAL
L 17 15 GAL
AGAVE GUIENGOLAS L AGAVE GUIENGOLAS 4

CORDYLINE RED STAR CORDYLINE AUSTRALIS 'RED STAR'
AGAVE BLUE FLAME L AGAVE BLUE FLAME 12 15 GAL
L 1 GAL

ALOE STRIATA L ALOE STRIATA
CAMPFIRE PLANT L CRASSULA CAPITELLA 'CAMPFIRE' 14 5 GAL SHORT LEAFED ALOE L ALOE BREVIFOLIA 41 5 GAL
BLUE CHALKSTICKS SENECIO MANDRALISCAE 70
SEDUM COPPERTONE SEDUM NUSSBAUMERIANUM 'COPPERTONE' 75 1 GAL COPPER PINWHEEL AEONIUM 'SUNBURST' 28 5 GAL
L
L
AGAVE BLUE GLOW L AGAVE 'BLUE GLOW' 7 5 GAL
19 15 GAL
142 SQ FT
41 SQ FT
150 SQ FT
15 GAL
15 GAL
CAREX PANSA M SAN DIEGO SEDGE 40 5 GAL

ORNAMENTAL GRASS
NOTES:
1) ALL SUBSTITUTIONS TO BE COMPARABLE WITH CHARACTERISTICS OF SPECIFIED PLANT SPECIES 2) ALL PLANTS MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SITE SURVEY AGRONOMIC REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS.

NATURAL TERRA COTTA - DECO
RIM # 7802
34 X 23

POT TYPE SIZE (D X H) IN PLANTING LIST CONTAINER QTY

DECORATIVE POT SCHEDULE
A
B
EUPHORBIA AMMAK 15 GAL (1), ECHEVERIA FIRE AND ICE 1 GAL (1), SEDUM ANGELINA 4" (3)
3 NATURAL TERRA COTTA - BIG BELL
POT # 7821
ALOE BARBERAE 15 GAL (1), SENECIO TALINOIDES 1 GAL (1), KALANCHOE BLOSSFELDIANA PINK 1 GAL (1), SEDUM BLUE SPRUCE 4"(3)
NATURAL TERRA COTTA - GREEK D BELL # 7815
E
F ZAMIA 5 GAL (1)
ANIGOZANTHOS BUSH RANGER 5 GAL (1), ECHEVERIA AFTERGLOW 1 GAL (1), AEONIUM KIWI 1 GAL (1), CRASSULA PERFORATA 4" (1)

NATURAL TERRA COTTA - PICKLE JAR
# 7810
26 X 25.5

35.5 X 24
30 x 41
2 10
10 3
PHOENIX ROEBELLINI 6' (1) C 3
Manuf: Pottery Manufacturing and Distributing Inc.

Wholesale: +1 310 323-7754
18881 S. Hoover St.,
Gardena, CA 90248
Local Source: Tree of Life Nursery
Retail: 949.728.0685
33201 Ortega Highway
San Juan Capistrano CA 92675
NOTES:
1) PLANTER MIX FOR POTS TO BE: E.B. STONE ORGANICS EDNA’S BEST POTTING SOIL OR EQUIVALENT. SEE MANUFACTURER'S PRODUCT SHEET FOR SOIL SPECIFICATIONS AT:
https://www.ebstone.org/product/ednas-best-potting-soil/ 2) POTS SHOULD BE ORDERED WITH AN AWARENESS OF DELAYED PRODUCT AVAILABILITY DUE TO PANDEMIC SUPPLY SHORTAGES.

AGAVE DESMETTIANA 5 GAL (1), AEONIUM KIWI 1 GAL (2), CRASSULA PERFORATA 4" (2)

NATURAL TERRA COTTA - GREEK
BELL # 7815
26 X 25.5

NATURAL TERRA COTTA - DECO
RIM # 7802
34 X 23
ATTACHMENT 3
96 DN
DN

NEW TENANT IMPROVEMENT

SAN CLEMENTE
FOOD HALL + EVENT CENTER
2-STORIES APPROX. 12,632 SF
APN: 057-193-05, TRACT 821 BLK 5
1700 N EL CAMINO REAL
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92627

SAN CLEMENTE
FOOD HALL + EVENT CENTER
(B) THEATER 7,836 SF
APN: 057-193-05, TRACT 821 BLK 5
1700 N EL CAMINO REAL
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92627
(E) STRUCTURE NOT IN SCOPE

TREE & SHRUB LEGEND COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE

MEXICAN FAN PALM WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA

SYM QTY

TREES & PALMS
L
H2O
MEXICAN BUSH SAGE 'SANTA BARBARA' 4
SHRUBS
L
L

COASTAL ROSEMARY L WESTRINGIA 'BLUE GEM'

SALVIA LEUCANTHA 'SANTA BARBARA'

ROSE ICEBERG ROSA ICEBERG
SPOON YUCCA L DASYLIRION WHEELERI 15 GAL
5 GAL
5 GAL
5 GAL
15-20'
2 11
11 4
OLIVE SWAN HILL OLEA EUROPAEA 'SWAN HILL' L 5 48" BOX
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"

TREE & SHRUB PLANTING PLAN N

TREE & SHRUB
PLAN
LP-7
7 NORTH EL CAMINO REAL

WEST AVENIDA PICO

BOCA DE LA PLAYA

CALLE DESHECHA

OUTDOOR PATIO AREA
GARDEN

COURTYARD

ENTRANCE
PATIO

COURTYARD

SERVICE
DRIVE
1) CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN THE EVENT THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE DESIGNS ARE REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE VARYING FIELD CONDITIONS OR MODIFIED PLANT ARRANGEMENTS. 2) QUALITY AND SIZE OF PLANTS TO MEET AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS. 3) ANY DISCREPANCIES THAT ARE FOUND IN LANDSCAPE LEGEND THAT DO NOT CORRELATE WITH PLANTINGS INDICATED ON PLAN, THE QUANTITIES INDICATED ON PLAN SHALL GOVERN.
4) MULCH: ALL REQUIRED PLANTING AREAS AND ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS WITHOUT VEGETATION SHALL BE COVERED WITH BARK MULCH AS AVAILABLE FROM MIRAMAR GREENERY APPLIED 3" DEEP, EXCLUDING SLOPES REQUIRING RE-VEGETATION.

ORGANIC RECYCLED OR POST-CONSUMER MULCH SHALL TAKE PRECEDENT OVER INORGANIC OR VIRGIN FOREST PRODUCTS UNLESS THE RECYCLED POST-CONSUMER ORGANIC PRODUCTS ARE NOT LOCALLY AVAILABLE. 5) TREE ROOT BARRIERS SHALL BE INSTALLED 3" FROM EDGE CONDITION WHERE TREES ARE PLACED WITHIN 5 FEET OF PUBLIC

IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING WALKS, CURBS, OR STREET PAVEMENTS OR WHERE NEW PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE PLACED ADJACENT TO EXISTING TREES. THE ROOT BARRIER SHALL EXTEND 10' FROM CENTER OF TREE IN EACH DIRECTION ALONG EDGE AND WILL NOT WRAP AROUND THE ROOT BALL AND BE MANUFACTURED BY "DeepRoot" OR EQUAL. 6) ALL AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED BY DRIP IRRIGATION. IRRIGATION DRAWINGS WILL BE INCLUDED. 7) ALL TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUND COVERS SHOULD BE FREE OF INSECTS, PESTS, OR FUNGUS DISEASE OR THE EFFECTS OF PREVIOUS INFESTATIONS. THEY SHOULD HAVE NORMALLY WELL DEVELOPED BRANCH SYSTEMS AND A VIGOROUS AND FIBROUS ROOT SYSTEM WHICH IS NOT ROOT OR POT BOUND.
8) TREES SHALL BE STAKED UNTIL THEY ARE SELF-SUPPORTING AT WHICH TIME TREE STAKES SHALL BE REMOVED. 9) SHRUBS SHALL BE GUARANTEED AS TO HEALTH AND GROWTH FOR 90 DAYS AFTER END OF MAINTENANCE PERIOD. TREES SHALL BE GUARANTEED AS TO HEALTH AND GROWTH FOR ONE YEAR. 10) WATERING SHOULD BE SCHEDULED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00PM AND 8:00AM OR AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL WATER AGENCY. WATERING PRACTICES SHALL BE UTILIZED TO PROMOTE DEEP ROOTING OF TREES AND SHRUBS. 11) TREES AND SHRUBS SHOULD BE TRIMMED OR PRUNED TO PREVENT BLOCKING OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE FOLLOWING:

A. SIGHT DISTANCE VIEWS.

B. PEDESTRIAN OR MOTOR VEHICLE ACCESS.

C. INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR OF ANY PUBLIC UTILITY OR FIRE LANE.

D. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY LINE FENCES OR STRUCTURES ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES. 12) ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHOULD BE REGULARLY WATERED, FERTILIZED, WEEDED AND OTHERWISE KEPT IN GOOD CONDITION.
13) THIS PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. 14) LANDSCAPE SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO BUILDING OCCUPANCY. 15) ALL PLANTER AREAS IN PARKING AND OTHER LANDSCAPE SPACES SHALL HAVE ALL DELETERIOUS MATERIALS SUCH AS ROCK, DEBRIS, AND TRASH REMOVED PRIOR TO PLACING TOPSOIL OR SUBSOIL BACKFILL. 16) SHRUBS AND TREES SHALL BE PLACED IN PREPARED PLANTING PITS TWICE THE DIAMETER OF THE PLANT CONTAINER. 17) SOIL TESTING TO BE COMPLETED BY:

WALLACE LABS
365 CORAL CIRCLE
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245

1.310.615.0116
[email protected]
18) A PLANT ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD, UNDER THE INSTALLATION CONTRACT, IS REQUIRED FOR ALL INSTALLATIONS FOR A MINIMUM OF SIXTY DAYS (60) AFTER ALL LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE INSTALLED. 19) ALL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY-WIDE REGULATIONS AND THE CITY OF

SAN CLEMENTE LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AND ALL OTHER LANDSCAPE RELATED CITY AND REGIONAL STANDARDS.
20) MAINTENANCE: ALL REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION AREAS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER. THE LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE OF DEBRIS AND LITTER, AND ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY GROWING CONDITION.

DISEASED OR DEAD PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SATISFACTORILY TREATED

OR REPLACED PER THE CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT
21 LANDSCAPING – DROUGHT TOLERANT, NON-INVASIVE PLANTS. VEGETATED LANDSCAPED AREAS AND PLANTERS SHALL ONLY CONSIST OF NATIVE PLANTS OR NON-NATIVE DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS, WHICH ARE NON-INVASIVE. THE USE OF PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES SHALL BE PROHIBITED. NO PLANT SPECIES LISTED AS PROBLEMATIC AND/OR INVASIVE BY THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY (HTTP://WWW.CNPS.ORG/), THE CALIFORNIA INVASIVE PLANT COUNCIL (FORMERLY THE CALIFORNIA EXOTIC PEST PLANT COUNCIL) (HTTP://WWW.CAL-IPC.ORG/), OR AS MAY BE IDENTIFIED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHALL BE EMPLOYED OR ALLOWED TO NATURALIZE OR PERSIST ON THE SITE. NO PLANT SPECIES LISTED AS A “NOXIOUS WEED” BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHALL BE UTILIZED WITHIN THE PROPERTY.

ALL PLANTS SHALL BE LOW WATER USE PLANTS AS IDENTIFIED BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (SEE:HTTP://WWW.WATER.CA.GOV/WATERUSEEFFICIENCY/DOCS/WUCOLS00.PDF).

GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES
RAMP
LOW WALL +48
RAMP
RAMP

BIKE RACK

SIDEWALK

SIDEWALK
6 FT HT

STUCCO WALL
RAISED PLANTER TYP. OF 3
(SEE SHEET LP-9 FOR
ADDITIONAL PLANTING.)

FOUNTAIN
WATER

FEATURE
ROOT BARRIER.

SEE NOTE 5.

CREEPING ROSEMARY L ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS 'PROSTRATUS' L 6 5 GAL DSD #:

DATE:

JOB #:

BUILDING PERMIT
No. Description Date
05 5
5 6
' % ' + .
8 *

+

'
4 1
(
Signature
Renewal Date
6/30/22
' 6 # 1
6 % # .

Date
+( +# 0

6 ' % 6
'
*
0 '
. & #
5 /
&5%#
'4
2 #0
4% #
11/10/2021
760.809.3241
1 CITY SUBMITTAL SHELL PHASE Miramar Event Center
1700 N. EL CAMINO REAL
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
2 SHELL SUBMITTAL 07/06/20
3 CITY SUBMITTAL 11/10/21

FOUNTAIN
CRAPE MYRTLE M LAGERSTOEMIA "NATCHES" 2 48" BOX
W.I. FENCE
STUCCO

WALLS &

PILASTERS
W.I. RAILING
VINES
ROYAL TRUMPET VINE M DISTICTIS 'RIVERS' 6 15 GAL
PLANTS TO BE 5 GALLON ESPALIERED. WHEN PLANTING REMOVE NURSERY TRELLIS AND TIE PLANT TO WALL.

TREE GRATES
TYPICAL OF 11.

SEE SHEET
LP-10 DETAIL 8.
48" BOX
DN
DN
DN
DN
UP
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN

FILTERA
BASIN
HERCULES TREE ALOE L ALOE 'HERCULES' 3
SEE SHEET LP-9 FOR

ADDITIONAL
PLANTING.

SEE SHEET
LP-9 FOR

ADDITIONAL
PLANTING.

SEE SHEET
LP-9 FOR

ADDITIONAL
PLANTING.

SEE SHEET LP-8 FOR

ADDITIONAL
PLANTING.

SEE SHEET LP-8 FOR

ADDITIONAL
PLANTING.

NOTES:
1) ALL SUBSTITUTIONS TO BE COMPARABLE WITH CHARACTERISTICS OF SPECIFIED PLANT SPECIES 2) ALL PLANTS MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SITE SURVEY AGRONOMIC REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. 97 910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 8C.

Submitted By: Public Works
Prepared By: David Rebensdorf, Public Works Director/City Engineer Subject:
..titl e

OBJECTION HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED WATER FEES, PURSUANT TO PROPOSITION 218 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 53750 THROUGH 53759.2, TO IMPLEMENT EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES ..body
Fiscal Impact:

There is no direct fiscal impact from conducting a public hearing for objections to proposed water rates. Obviously, the final decision of the City Council on the water rates has significant fiscal impacts that have been addressed in previous staff reports on this matter.

Summary:

On September 25, 2024, the California Governor signed Assembly Bill 2257 (AB 2257) into law, adding Sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 to the California Government Code. AB 2257 legislation mirrors the California Environmental Quality Act process, emphasizing transparency and early resolution of disputes. It does not bypass the public participation process mandated by Proposition 218, but enhances it by creating an additional objection mechanism. By fostering communication between agencies and ratepayers, AB 2257 seeks to minimize litigation risks and promote increased communication and collaborative problem-solving in public rate-setting processes.

Following AB 2257, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-151 at its October 7, 2025 City Council meeting to establish rules and regulations to include an exhaustion of administrative remedies procedure for challenging water fees.

At its November 18, 2025 meeting, the City Council instructed staff to send out the Notice of Public Hearing on proposed adjustment to water rates and charges, which included information regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies procedure and how ratepayers/property owners could submit an objection to the proposed water rates and fees. The public hearing notice advised ratepayers and property owners that the City Council will consider and respond to all timely written legal objections to proposed water rates and charges at its February 3, 2026 meeting and consider proposed adjustments to water rates and charges at its February 17, 2026 meeting.

Background:

On December 1, 2025 (which was at least 45 days prior to January 15, 2026), the City mailed the “Notice of Public Hearing” to each ratepayer/property owner served by the City and posted the Notice of Public Hearing on the City’s webpage (www.sanclemente.gov/water-rates). The Public 98 Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 8C.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
Hearing Notice identified supplemental documents that were concurrently posted on the City’s webpage, including the Water Rate Study Report that provides detailed information on the proposed water rates, how they were calculated and the reason for the proposed change in water rates. The Water Rate Study Report was included on the City’s webpage, and it is labeled “2025 Water Rate Study Final Report – November 2025” (prepared on behalf of the City by Water Resources Economics).

The Public Hearing is scheduled for February 17, 2026 for the City Council to hear protests and consider a recommended update to water rates, in accordance with the requirements of “Proposition 218” (California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6) for approving increases to “property related fees.”
The Public Hearing Notice also explained the exhaustion of administrative remedies procedures for challenging proposed water rates and charges and how to submit a “written objection” to the proposed water rate and charge increases by no later than the identified deadline of January 15, 2026, at 5 p.m.

The City received two letters that identified opposition to the proposed water rate update prior to the January 15 deadline, both of which were labeled an “objection”; however, neither letter complied with the definition of a “written objection” as defined by “AB 2257” (California Government Code Section 53759.1) and Resolution No. 25-151.

One letter was submitted by an individual that did not identify specific property in San Clemente.

City staff sent a letter to the respondent to attempt to identify the property and the respondent provided an address via email on January 28, 2026, which was after the January 15, 2026 deadline. Therefore, that letter did not timely comply with requirement to identify the property that is subject to the proposed water rates (per Resolution No. 25-151, Exhibit A, Section 3(b)).

Additionally, neither of the letters met the definition of a “written objection” (as defined by California Government Code Section 53759.1(c)(4)) because they did not include sufficient grounds for alleging the proposed water rates and charges do not comply with any substantive requirement of Proposition 218. One letter claims the City is double-dipping charges since Metro Water D-MWDOC submits an annual charge on the property tax bill, and the City charges a monthly fee for purchased water from Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC).

However, to the extent that MWDOC directly bills a tax to its customers, that payment results in revenue to MWDOC that reduces the costs MWDOC charges to the City. To clarify, the City only passes through to customers the proportionate share of costs that MWDOC directly imposes on the City. As described and calculated in Section 4.4 of the Water Rate Study Report, a significant portion of the City’s water costs are for water purchased from MWDOC and passed through to City water customers. Therefore, the two letters do not identify any portion of the proposed water rates that violates Proposition 218.

Nonetheless, the City has prepared responses to the letters that provide the grounds and substantive basis for which the concerns identified in the letters do not justify any clarification, reduction or abandonment of the proposed water rates. While the City is not legally obligated under AB 2257 to provide a written response to the letters, the City provides its responses to 99 Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 8C.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
explain why the concerns raised in the letters do not establish grounds for amending or altering the proposed adjustments to the City’s water rates.

As documented on the Notice of Public Hearing, which included documents available on the City’s website (www.sanclemente.gov/water-rates), the City calculated the amount of the proposed water rates and charges in accordance with Proposition 218 in order to charge each customer the amount needed to pay the proportionate cost of providing water service to each property. The City carefully selected proposed water rate and charge amounts that were limited to what will be needed to provide the water service to customers. Furthermore, the City complied with the requirement of Proposition 218 that water rates and charges be set in an amount proportional to the cost of service attributable to each parcel, as documented in the Water Rate Study.

Council Options:
 Conduct an objection hearing and adopt Resolution No. 26-20, which will consider and respond to all timely written legal objections to proposed water rates and determine whether clarifications, further review or reduction or abandonment of the proposed water rates is warranted in accordance with Government Code Sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 and make no changes to the Water Rate Study or the proposed adjustments to water rates.  Modify and approve Resolution No. 26-20.
 Continue the Item and direct staff to provide additional information.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines section 15378 (14 CCR section 15378). Conducting a public hearing to consider exhaustion of administrative remedies for proposed adjustment to water rates has no potential to result in either a direct or physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
STAFF RECOMMENDS the City Council:

1. Conduct the objection hearing; and

2. After conducting the hearing, adopt Resolution No. 26-20, which will:
a. Determine that there were no timely written legal objections to proposed water rates and charges received;
b. Direct staff to respond in writing to the communications received; c. Determine that clarifications, further review or reduction or abandonment of the proposed water rates, fees and charges is not warranted in accordance with Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2; and
100
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 8C.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 4
d. Make no changes to the Water Rate Study Report nor the proposed adjustment to water rates and charges.
..end
Attachment:

1. Resolution No. 26-20

2. Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed Water Rates and Charges

3. Water Rate Setting Procedures

4. Letters Received (two)

5. Draft City Responses (two)
Notification:

None.
101
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 26-20

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS

FOLLOWING OBJECTION HEARING, DIRECTING

WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMUNICATIONS

REGARDING PROPOSED UPDATES TO WATER RATES
(EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES) AND

DETERMINING THAT NO CHANGES ARE WARRANTED IN

IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS
53759.1 AND 53759.2
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates approximately 230 miles of water lines, 15 reservoirs, 16 pump station and 56 pressure reducing stations; and WHEREAS, the City receives imported water from Metropolitan Water District from Northern California and the Colorado River Basin through its wholesaler Municipal Water District of Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the City has local water resources from two wells and produces recycled water at the Water Reclamation Plant for irrigation purposes; and WHEREAS, the City provides water service meeting state and federal standards to approximately 17,600 service meters consisting of residential, multifamily, irrigation and commercial accounts; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide service to City customers and maintain operation of the water system, the City Council hired Water Resources Economics, LLC on May 6, 2025 to conduct a Cost-of-Service Study to evaluate the City’s expenses and revenues; and WHEREAS, Water Resources Economics, LLC reviewed the City’s water finances, presented preliminary recommendations and received direction from the City Council on September 16, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2025, the City Council adopted water rate setting procedures under Proposition 218 and Government Code sections 53750 through 53759.2 and 54354.5 to establish a process for property owner objections to proposed water fees; and
WHEREAS, Water Resources Economics, LLC completed a Cost-of-Service Study (November 2025 Water Rate Study Final Report) that recommended changes in the rate structure, five-year rate adjustments, fixed and pass through of charges from the Municipal Water District of Orange County, and establishment of recycled water rates and demand manager rates in the event there is a required reduction in water use; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, based on the November 2025 Water Rate Study Final Report prepared by Water Resources Economics, LLC, the City Council directed staff 102
Resolution No. 26-20 Page 2
to mail a Proposition 218 public hearing notice to all property owners served by City water, and that notice established a deadline to receive written objections by January 15, 2026 at 5:00 p.m., set a Public Hearing for February 3, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. to consider all timely written objections and set a Public Hearing for February 17, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. to conduct a protest hearing under Proposition 218 and to consider proposed adjustments to and adoption of water rates and service charges; and
WHEREAS, those Proposition 218 public hearing notices were mailed to all property owners receiving City water services (including tenants who are directly liable to pay water rates) on December 1, 2025, a minimum of 45 days prior to the requirement for objections to be received by the City on January 15 at 5:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, the City received one letter from a ratepayer/property owner and one letter from an unknown property that were labeled as an objection and were received by the City prior to January 15 at 5:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly notice public objection hearing on February 3, 2026 to consider and respond to all timely written legal objections to proposed water rates and fees and determine whether clarifications, further review or reduction or abandonment of the proposed water rates, fees and charges is warranted in accordance with Government Code sections 53759.1 and 53759.2, during which all those wishing to be heard were heard.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and fully incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. The City Council determines the two letters labeled as objections and referenced in the recitals do not meet the definition of a “written objection” as defined by the California Government Code Section 53759.1(c)(4) because they did not include sufficient grounds for alleging the proposed water rates and charges do not comply with the requirements of Proposition 218 and one did not timely identify a property address.

SECTION 3. The City Council determines that the written responses to the two letters (as provided in the attachments to the February 3, 2026 Staff Report) adequately address the concerns raised in the two letters labeled objections, and direct staff to mail the responses in substantially the same forms as presented on February 3, 2026 to the City Council.

SECTION 4. The City Council determines that that no clarifications or changes are warranted for the Water Rate Study Report or the proposed adjustments to water rates or charges as described in the Proposition 218 public hearing notice.

SECTION 5. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of February, 2026.
103
Resolution No. 26-20 Page 3
ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Rick Loeffler, Mayor of the
San Clemente, California City of San Clemente, California

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 26-20 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of February, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _____________, ______. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
104
WHY ARE YOU RECEIVING THIS NOTICE?
The City of San Clemente will hold a public hearing (a Proposition 218 Protest Hearing) on February 17, 2026, at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chambers located at 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, to count timely written protests and to consider changes to the City's water rate structure, potential rate increases over a five-year period, implementation of wholesale water costs pass-through adjustments, and implementation of a "demand management rate" to offset revenue fluctuations during periods of reduced water demands (such as a prolonged drought) to stabilize City revenues so the City can continue to operate and maintain the City's water system. These rate changes, if approved, will take effect on March 1, 2026. This notice describes the reason for the new proposed rates, how they were calculated, the amount of the proposed new rates, and how to file a protest and/or objection to this proposed action. While the proposed new rates cannot be adopted until after the Proposition 218 protest hearing on February 17, 2026 the public hearing on exhaustion of administrative remedies (the objection hearing) will be held by the City on February 3, 2026, at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chambers located at 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, to consider written objections timely received before January 15, 2026, at 5 p.m.

WHAT DO WATER RATES FUND?
The water utility must be financially self-sufficient. Monthly rates paid by users are the primary sources of revenue to fund water operations. All revenue generated from rates on your water utility bill is used to maintain and operate the water system, purchase imported water and provide emergency supply and storage. It is not used for other general governmental purposes. These revenues must meet costs such as purchased raw water, electricity, chemicals, maintenance, and salaries and benefits for water utility enterprise staff. The City of San Clemente is committed to providing a safe and reliable supply of water now, and into the future.

THE CITY’S WATER SYSTEM SERVES ROUGHLY 83% OF CITY RESIDENTS While some residents are served by other water districts. The boundaries for customers served by the City’s water system are identified in the City’s Water Service Area Exhibit at www.sanclemente.gov/water-rates. The Water Rate Study Final Report dated November 2025 was prepared on behalf of the City by Water Resources Economics (WRE) to evaluate the City’s costs of providing water services to customers, and to recommend rates to cover the City’s proportionate costs of providing those services to customers, as summarized in this notice.City water customers receive water sourced from local groundwater, imported water, and recycled water. In normal conditions, about five percent of the City’s water supply is groundwater pumped from two City owned wells, 80 percent is imported water from the Northern California State Water Project and from the Colorado River by Metropolitan Water District as purchased by the City through the City’s wholesaler Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), and 15 percent is recycled water treated at the City’s Water Reclamation Plant and distributed for irrigation purposes only. The water system infrastructure includes: 230 miles of water pipelines, two groundwater wells, 15 local and two regional water storage reservoirs, 16 pumping stations, 56 pressure regulating stations, and one filtration plant.

WHY WATER RATE INCREASES ARE NEEDED?
As documented in the Water Rate Study Report, the City reviewed operational costs, planned capital projects, and water revenues that revealed a shortfall and the need for continued annual rate increases to address the following issues:

Address rising costs of wholesale water supply, utilities, chemicals, and supplies.

Replace, rehabilitate, and modernize aging infrastructure to prevent breaks and service disruptions and improve system resiliency.

Maintain financial sustainability while addressing debt service coverage ratios for the expansion of the recycled water system, reducing the City’s dependency on imported water. .

Meet minimum reserve requirements and fund emergency/unplanned expenses.

The majority of funds required to operate and invest in the City’s water system come directly from the rates customers pay for water service. Revenues from current rates are no longer adequate to support operations and fund the much-needed system improvements and maintenance planned over the next five years. With costs continually outpacing revenues in recent years and the last rate increase occurring January 1, 2022, the City enlisted utility finance experts at WRE to examine the City’s costs to purchase water and operate the water system. The proposed changes to water rates and charges described in this notice are necessary to proactively maintain the water production and distribution systems, so it doesn't cost more later to do so; and the City incorporates ongoing evaluations of operational and capital expenses to minimize costs whenever feasible.

THE MAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN OBJECTION AND A PROTEST:
a) an objection has an earlier deadline for timely submission; b) an objection must include the substantive basis to claim the rates do not comply with Proposition 218 (summarized below); c) an objection must be submitted for a property owner to preserve a right to challenge the water rates in court; d) an objection may be submitted via email (with a signature sent electronically), but a protest must be submitted in paper form; and (e) the objection hearing and protest hearing occur on different dates (as described below).

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:

Timely Written OBJECTION
A timely written objection must be received by the City at a SUBMITTAL LOCATION identified below no later than January 15, 2026, at 5 p.m. A written objection must describe the reason that the owner claims a particular portion of the proposed water rates identified in this notice does not comply with a particular requirement of Proposition 218 (California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6). A statement that the proposed rates violate Proposition 218 without an explanation as to the basis of the claim is not sufficient to constitute a valid written objection. For a summary of relevant requirements of Proposition 218, see the Water Rate Setting Procedures (particularly Section 3(c)).

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:

Timely Written PROTEST
A timely written protest must be received by the City at a SUBMITTAL LOCATION identified below prior to the close of the public testimony portion of the Public Hearing on February 17, 2026. A written protest must: (a) clearly indicate that the property owner opposes the City’s approval of the water rates, and (b) be submitted in paper form. Any non-paper form will not be accepted as a protest (such as e-mail, facsimile, or spoken protests via telephone or in person). Only one written protest will be counted for each parcel served.

SUBMITTAL LOCATIONS:

Mail…
San Clemente City Clerk
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
Email (for objections only; note: a written protest may NOT be submitted via email) [email protected]

IN PERSON
San Clemente City Clerk
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERING WRITTEN OBJECTIONS AND WRITTEN PROTESTS:

WRITTEN OBJECTIONS - At the public hearing on Tuesday, February 3, 2026, at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at their regular meeting, the City Council will consider all timely written objections and the City shall respond in writing to any timely written objections. The City’s responses shall explain the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed water rates in response to written objections, including any reason to reject requested changes. The City Council will consider all timely written objections, along with the City’s response, and determine whether clarifications or further review or deduction or abandonment of the proposed water rate increases is warranted.

WRITTEN PROTESTS - At the public hearing on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, at 5:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at their regular meeting, the City Council will consider all written protests and hear all oral comments on the proposed water rates as well as a staff presentation of the proposed rate modifications. The City Council will then close the public hearing in order to count written protests. If there is a “majority protest” (50% + 1) for the proposed modified water rates, the City may not approve those proposed rates. There is a majority protest only if the number of timely written protests exceeds one-half of the parcels served by the City. If there is not a majority protest, the City Council may then consider adoption of the proposed rates.

PRESERVING A PROPERTY OWNER’S RIGHT TO LEGALLY CHALLENGE THE PROPOSED WATER RATES:

You are hereby notified that, in order to file a judicial action or legal proceeding to challenge the proposed rates described in this Notice, you must file a timely written objection, and you must commence the action or proceeding within 120 days of the adoption of the rates by the City Council.

FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TIMELY WRITTEN OBJECTION bars any right to challenge the proposed rates through a judicial action or proceeding. (Government Code Section 53759.1(b).)
There is a 120-day statute of limitations for judicially challenging the rates set forth in this Notice that runs from the date of the City Council action to approve the rates, and any legal action is limited to the issues raised in a timely written objection. (Government Code Section 53759.) If adopted, the proposed rates will take effect beginning March 1, 2026. The reasons for the rate adjustments, the basis upon which they were calculated, and the amount of the proposed rates are described in more detail in the Water Rate Study Report posted at www.sanclemente.gov/water-rates and available through an appointment at the City Clerk's office.

TO SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT or to receive a written copy of the Water Rate Study Report, please call (949) 361-8200 or send an email to [email protected]

NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND TENANTS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS

ON PROPOSED WATER RATES
Objection Hearing Date/Time: February 3, 2026 5:30 PM
Protest Hearing Date/Time: February 17, 2026 5:30 PM
Location: City Council Chambers
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673

PRSRT STD
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Irvine, CA
PERMIT NO. 84
.
.
.
.

Attachment 2
105
Recycled Water $3.29 $3.52 $3.65 $3.78 $3.92 $4.06
** Subject to Pass-through adjustments for MWDOC Supply Unit Costs summarized above.

Proposed Bill Impact
The table below is based on a monthly bill for a typical Single-Family Residential (SFR) customer with a 1" meter. For average usage of 10 ccf, the Single-Family Residential customer will see an increase of $7.71 on their monthly water bill over the first year. If approved, first year rate adjustments will go into effect March 1, 2026. Bill impacts will vary based on customer type, meter size, and water usage.

Sample Bills for Single Family Residential up to 1” meter size Line Single Family Customer
Impacts ccf Current Bill Proposed Bill Difference ($) Difference (%) 1 Low Usage 5 $52.96 $59.65 $6.69 12.6%
2 Average Usage 10 $78.51 $86.20 $7.69 9.8%
3 High Usage 20 $129.61 $139.30 $9.69 7.5%
4 Very High Usage 50 $282.91 $298.60 $15.69 5.5%
Recycled Water Rates
Recycled water is used by irrigation customers where it is available and utilized for irrigating parks, schools, golf courses, slopes and medians throughout the City. The use of recycled water is a local supply of tertiary treated wastewater and offsets the amount of imported water the City needs from MWDOC.

Currently, the City Portion of monthly fixed charges is the same for both potable and recycled water customers and the proposed rates are recommended to retain the current rate policy. However, recycled water customers will not be charged the MWDOC monthly fixed charges because they do not use MWDOC water. The recycled water consumption rate is calculated based on Section 5.4 of the Water Rate Study Report.

Proposed Rate Schedule
Revenue Adjustment
FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030

9.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
Proposed Recycled Water Monthly Fixed Water Service Charge Line Monthly Fixed Water
Service Charge
Effective
3/1/2026
Effective
1/1/2027
Effective
1/1/2028
Effective
1/1/2029
Effective
1/1/2030
1 Up to 1" $27.76 $28.74 $29.75 $30.80 $31.88
2 1.5" $76.67 $79.36 $82.14 $85.02 $88.00
3 2" $118.60 $122.76 $127.06 $131.51 $136.12
4 3" $251.37 $260.17 $269.28 $278.71 $288.47
5 4" $447.03 $462.68 $478.88 $495.65 $513.00
6 6" $1,124.86 $1,164.24 $1,204.99 $1,247.17 $1,290.83
Proposed Recycled Water Consumption Rate
Line RW Consumption Rate
($/ccf)
Effective
3/1/2026
Effective
1/1/2027
Effective
1/1/2028
Effective
1/1/2029
Effective
1/1/2030
1 All Customers $3.52 $3.65 $3.78 $3.92 $4.06
from MWDOC will replace the projected MWDOC Supply Unit Cost shown in Table 4-14 of the Water Rate Study Report (shown below) for 2027 through 2030, which will be added to the City Delivery Cost to result in a corresponding recalculation of the per ccf charge to All Customer Classes.

Consumption Rate Components ($/ccf)
3/1/2026 1/1/2027 1/1/2028 1/1/2029 1/1/2030
All Customer Classes Total
Unit Cost
$5.31 $5.50 $5.70 $5.90 $6.11
MWDOC Supply Unit Cost $4.03 $4.03 $4.03 $4.03 $4.03
City Delivery Cost: Delivery,
Conservation and Revenue
Offset
$1.28 $1.47 $1.67 $1.87 $2.08
The proposed rate schedule table below shows the current and proposed monthly water service charge by meter size.

Note: One unit of water is 100 cubic feet (ccf) or approximately 748 gallons of water. Additional detail regarding the rate components are provided in the notice and in the Water Rate Study Report at www.sanclemente.gov/water-rates.

Proposed Rate Schedule
Revenue Adjustment
FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030

9.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
Monthly Fixed Water Service Charge – City Portion
Up to 1” $27.41 $27.76 $28.74 $29.75 $30.80 $31.88

1.5” $67.72 $76.67 $79.36 $82.14 $85.02 $88.00
2” $102.09 $118.60 $122.76 $127.06 $131.51 $136.12
3” $211.23 $251.37 $260.17 $269.28 $278.71 $288.47
4” $372.08 $447.03 $462.68 $478.88 $495.65 $513.00
6” $756.96 $1,124.86 $1,164.24 $1,204.99 $1,247.17 $1,290.83 Consumption Rates ($/ccf) **
Single Family
Residential
$5.11 $5.31 $5.50 $5.70 $5.90 $6.11
Multi Family
Residential
$4.92 $5.31 $5.50 $5.70 $5.90 $6.11
Commercial $4.95 $5.31 $5.50 $5.70 $5.90 $6.11
Irrigation $6.01 $5.31 $5.50 $5.70 $5.90 $6.11
Current Rates 3/1/2026 1/1/2027 1/1/2028 1/1/2029 1/1/2030 Monthly Fixed Water Service ChargeMWDOC
Pass-through from MWDOC
Up to 1” $0.00 $5.34

1.5” $0.00 $17.80
2” $0.00 $28.48
3” $0.00 $62.30
4” $0.00 $112.14
6” $0.00 $284.80
The City is proposing five years of rate adjustments for adoption by the City Council based on financial expert analysis from Water Resources Economics. Balancing affordability with financial needs is a key consideration for developing the proposed changes to water rates. The justification and methodology for the proposed rate changes are set forth in the Water Rate Study Report that is posted at www.sanclemente.gov/water-rates.

Demand Management Rates
Demand Management Rates work to offset reduced revenues when the City is in a declared water shortage emergency. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan includes six stages of water shortages, which all require a different level of usage reduction from the City’s customers. When customers reduce their usage in each stage, the City’s rate revenues from variable charges are directly impacted. When water shortage emergencies occur, especially during more severe stages, the amount of lost revenue can significantly impact the City’s ability to meet its operating, capital, and reserve requirements.

Demand management rates are a tool for the City to effectively respond to water shortage emergencies while maintaining financial sufficiency and operational reliability. Demand management rates are designed to recover the costs of water shortages, which include loss of variable revenues and cost differences (savings) from purchased water supply changes. Demand management rates are only in effect to the extent that the City Council declares a water shortage at Level 1 through Level 6, as shown in the following table.

Proposed Demand Management Rates
Line Shortage Level Usage
Reduction
Effective
3/1/2026
Effective
1/1/2027
Effective
1/1/2028
Effective
1/1/2029
Effective
1/1/2030
1 Level 1 up to 10% $0.21 $0.22 $0.23 $0.24 $0.25
2 Level 2 up to 20% $0.46 $0.48 $0.50 $0.52 $0.54
3 Level 3 up to 30% $0.78 $0.81 $0.84 $0.87 $0.91
4 Level 4 up to 40% $1.21 $1.26 $1.31 $1.36 $1.41
5 Level 5 up to 50% $1.81 $1.88 $1.95 $2.02 $2.10
6 Level 6 >50% $2.71 $2.81 $2.91 $3.02 $3.13

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WATER RATE SETTING PUBLIC HEARINGS Any member of the public may submit written comments and present spoken testimony during the public hearing. However, only a property owner has a right to submit a Written Protest and/or a Written Objection as summarized below. For additional detail regarding these procedures, please see the “Water Rate Setting Procedures” posted at www.sanclemente.gov/water-rates.

HOW TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN OBJECTION OR A WRITTEN PROTEST
Any objection OR protest must: (1) be in writing identifying the name of the property owner, and the street address or other clear identification of the property subject to the rates; (2) be signed by the property owner, unless alternative proof of property owner authorization is provided to and verified by the City; and (3) comply with the relevant ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS for a written objection or written protest (as identified below). NOTE: As used in this Notice, the phrase "property owner" includes a tenant who is obligated to pay the water rate.

PROPOSED WATER RATE STRUCTURE CHANGES:

The City’s current water rate structure includes a monthly fixed service charge based on meter size and variable charges based on customer class and units of water used in increments of one hundred cubic feet (one unit = one ccf = 748 gallons). Upon examining the existing rate methodology, given the City’s water supply profile, the proposed updated rates implement a uniform consumption rate for all customer classes consistent with cost-of-service principles. Additionally, to properly pass through to customers the City’s costs of purchasing water from MWDOC, the City’s main water supplier, the proposed updated rates include a separate MWDOC monthly service charge based on meter size and a continued pass through of the purchased water cost on the variable commodity component of the rate. There are no proposed changes to the recycled water rate structure.

PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR POTABLE AND RECYCLED WATER RATE STRUCTURE SCHEDULE:

As described in the Water Rate Study Report, the proposed five-year potable and recycled water rate schedules are based on changes to the rate structure and methodology, the updated cost-of-service analysis, and the revenue adjustments needed to cover the City’s costs of providing water service in the five-year period. The rate schedule in this notice shows the proposed potable and recycled water rates to be implemented in March 2026 through January 2030. Note that, since the City does not currently know its cost of purchasing wholesale potable water supply from MWDOC, those costs will be billed to customers as pass-through charges, as authorized by Government Code Section 53756.

Overall annual increases in potable and recycled water rate revenues resulting from rate increases are referred to as “revenue adjustments” to meet increases in operating costs. The proposed rates identified in the rate schedule include five years of revenue adjustments, which are required to meet the debt coverage ratio as well as maintain financial sufficiency and resiliency.

FIXED WATER SERVICE CHARGE (SECTION 4.3 OF THE WATER RATE STUDY REPORT) The monthly fixed charge is based on the size of the water meter (in inches) serving a property and is calculated to recover a portion of the City’s annual fixed costs of providing water service, such as utilities, equipment, materials, billing, collections, customer service, meter reading, and meter maintenance. The fixed water service charge includes a “(City Portion)” which covers costs directly incurred by the City, as well as a “MWDOC” portion which covers the fixed costs of wholesale water charged by MWDOC to the City. MWDOC fixed costs are billed to the City regardless of imported water purchases. Beginning with the annual adjustment on January 1, 2027, MWDOC fixed costs to the City will be passed through to customers as described in Section 4.3 and illustrated in Table 4-1 of the Water Rate Study. This use of a pass-through charge will enhance revenue stability for the City and reduce the City’s financial risk related to MWDOC water supply in case of decreased future water consumption. This approach will also increase fixed revenue recovery to approximately 36% and ensure for more accurate pass-throughs.

CONSUMPTION BASED RATE (VOLUMETRIC OR COMMODITY RATE, SECTION 4.4 OF THE WATER RATE STUDY REPORT) The proposed updated rates implement a uniform consumption rate for all customer classes consistent with cost-of-service principles. The consumption based rate takes into account base costs (including baseline supplies, treatment, distribution, and storage, up to a level that meets the City’s baseline demands throughout the year), and they are split into two components: “MWDOC Supply Unit Cost” and “City Delivery Cost.” The MWDOC Supply Unit Cost includes potable water supplies from MWDOC, Imported Water from Metropolitan Water District, Baker Treatment Plant, and delivery to the City’s service area. The Proposed Rate Schedule table below includes MWDOC costs for FY 2026, which is shown as the same rate for 2027 through 2030; however, future MWDOC consumption based costs will be calculated as described in Section 4.4 and Table 4-13 of the Water Rate Study Report and passed through to City customers, as authorized by Government Code Section 53756. Each year, the updated per ccf cost from MWDOC will replace the projected MWDOC Supply Unit Cost shown in Table 4-14 of the Water Rate Study Report (shown below) for 2027 through 2030, which will be added to the City Delivery Cost to result in a corresponding recalculation of the per ccf charge to All Customer Classes. $3.29 $3.52 $3.65 $3.78 $3.92 $4.06
** Subject to Pass-through adjustments for MWDOC Supply Unit Costs summarized above.

Recycled Water
$7.69
106
Resolution No. 25-151
1 Water Rate Setting Procedures
These “Water Rate Setting Procedures” (“Procedures”) describe the processes that will be followed by the City of San Clemente (“City”) in establishing any new or increased water rates, as summarized in the Resolution identified in the header of this Exhibit “A.” The Water Rate Setting Procedures include compliance with Proposition 218 (including the consideration of “written protests” from record owners) as well as the procedures for exhausting administrative remedies under Government Code section 53759.1 (including the consideration of “written objections” from record owners).

For the purpose of considering written protests and written objections, the City will consider the term “record owner” to include tenancies of real property where tenants are directly liable to pay the rates to the City (consistent with Proposition 218; California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 2(g)).

1. Overview of Exhaustion Procedure
If the City publishes a notice of public hearing identifying procedures for property owners to submit written objections (described in Section 2(b), below),¹ the City will follow the “exhaustion procedure” set forth herein, to be conducted concurrently with or before the Proposition 218 process, for the City Council’s consideration of any proposed new or increased water rates. This exhaustion procedure shall be conducted in accordance with “Proposition 218” (California Constitution Article XIII D; as it is implemented by the Legislature1 at Government Code sections 53750 – 53759.2; and as it has been interpreted by judicial decisions), and the particular procedures set forth in Government Code section 53759.1. The exhaustion procedure provides an opportunity for record owners to submit a “timely written objection” to identify substantive bases for asserting proposed water rates do not comply with Proposition 218. A ”record owner” may be referred to in these Procedures as the “owner” or “property owner.” The processes described herein may be referred to as “these Procedures.”
a. City staff will post on its internet website a notice of the exhaustion procedure, and this notice will be prominently incorporated in the Proposition 218 public hearing notice mailed to each record owner.
b. The notice will identify the date and time by which timely written objections must be submitted to the City, and the date will be no less than 45 calendar days after the notice is mailed to record owners.

1 If the City publishes a notice of public hearing that does not identify procedures for property owners to submit written objections, the City will conduct the public hearing in compliance with Proposition 218, and consider any written protests in accordance with these Procedures.

Attachment 3
107
Resolution No. 25-151
c. City staff will review timely written objections and draft written responses providing the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed water rates in response to the written objections. City staff will present its written responses to the City Council prior to the close of the public hearing for the Proposition 218 protest hearing and the City Council will review them to determine whether action is needed in response to the written objections or written responses. d. Following the City Council’s review and response to timely written objections and written responses, it is within the discretion of the City Council to proceed with the Proposition 218 protest hearing process, as described herein, to consider approval of the proposed water rates.
e. Rate Challenger Must Exhaust Administrative Remedies. No claim, suit for damages, suit for injunctive relief, petition for writ of mandamus, or administrative or judicial proceeding shall be brought against the City (including the City Council, or its employees, officers, or designees) regarding a challenge to a proposed water rate unless the challenging party first exhausts its administrative remedies by complying with these Procedures and submitting to the City a timely written objection.

2. Notice of Proposition 218 Public Hearing and Initiating Exhaustion Procedure Prior to approving or imposing any new or increased water rates, the City will conduct a public hearing and provide prior written notice to each record owner of the hearing and the exhaustion procedure as described in these Procedures. To the extent that the City sends a regular billing statement for water service provided to a “customer” (e.g., a “tenant” or other “ratepayer”) who is not the record owner, the City will also mail the written notice to the customer at the address for the billing statement. The City will mail the public hearing notice to each record owner no later than 45 days prior to the public hearing. The contents of the hearing notice will include:
a. Compliance with Proposition 218:
(1) The date, time, and location of the public hearing. (2) The amount of the water rates proposed to be imposed on each parcel.

This may be satisfied by identifying the rate amounts for each customer type subject to the rates.
(3) The basis upon which the amount of the proposed water rates were calculated.
(4) The reason for the proposed water rates.
(5) The location to which owners must submit written protests via mail, email, fax, or personal delivery.
108
Resolution No. 25-151
(6) To the extent required by Government Code section 54354.5, the notice will identify the opportunity for record owners to be heard as to whether the proposed water rates are not in compliance with any requirements of the Revenue Bond Law of 1941 (Government Code Sections 53000 – 55821), including: (a) the rates are discriminatory or excessive, or (b) the rates will not be sufficient under the provisions of any outstanding revenue bonds (including Government Code section 54515). (7) How members of the public may obtain additional information regarding the proposed new or increased fee, including a link to information that is available on the City’s website or by requesting a mailed copy. This will include a copy of the resolution or ordinance by which the proposed new or increased water rates are proposed to be adopted.
b. Compliance with the Exhaustion Procedure for Written Objections. If the City chooses to follow the exhaustion procedure for written objections, substantially concurrently with mailing the public hearing notice, the City will post on its internet website the written basis for the proposed water rates and a link to the Proposition 218 public hearing notice, which will be supplemented with the following prominently displayed information:
(1) The “deadline” (date and time) by which a “timely written objection” must be submitted to the City. The deadline will be no earlier than 45 days after the City mails to property owners the notice of the public hearing. (2) The location to which written objections must be submitted to the City via mail, email, fax, or personal delivery.
(3) All substantive requirements for submitting a written objection. The record owner must comply with the requirements set forth in Procedures section 3, below, including specifying the grounds on which the owner alleges the proposed new or increased water rates does not comply with Proposition 218.
(4) Notice that: (a) any person’s failure to submit a timely written objection bars any right of that person to challenge the proposed new or increased fee through a legal proceeding; and (b) there is a 120-day statute of limitations for challenging the proposed new or increased water rates (in accordance with Government Code section 53759).
c. The City will mail the public hearing notice to each record owner of a parcel that is subject to payment of the new or increased fee. The notice shall be mailed to owner’s address shown on the last equalized property tax assessment roll. (1) There is a rebuttable presumption that the most recent equalized property tax assessment roll of the Orange County Recorder is sufficient 109
Resolution No. 25-151
evidence of the record owner of each parcel. A person may rebut the presumption by providing to the City written proof of ownership. (2) The City Clerk, or designee, may certify by affidavit the proper mailing of notices described in these Procedures, and any such affidavit shall constitute conclusive proof of mailing in the absence of fraud. (3) Failure of any person to receive notice shall not invalidate the hearing or its results.
(4) The City will also provide supplemental notices to the address where the City customarily mails the billing statement for water rates. d. Concurrently with publishing and mailing the public hearing notice, the City will post on its website relevant information regarding the proposed new or increased fee including a copy of the cost of service analysis (which may be referred to as a water “rate study”) which provides documentation of compliance with all substantive requirements of Prop 218 regarding the calculation of the amount of the proposed new or increased fee.

3. Requirements for Submitting Timely Written Objections In order for a record owner to submit a timely written objection, it must:
a. Be received by the City at the location identified on the public hearing notice, no later than the deadline identified on the public hearing notice. The deadline may be no earlier than 45 days after the City mails to record owners the notice of public hearing.
b. Be in writing (i) identifying the name of the record owner, and the street address or assessor’s parcel number (or other clear identification) of the property subject to the water rates; and (ii) signed by the record owner, or otherwise identifying that the record owner submitted the written objection, subject to verification by the City.
c. Specify the grounds for alleging the proposed rates do not comply with Proposition 218. The grounds must identify (i) the substantive requirement of Proposition 218, and (ii) the reason the proposed water rates do not comply with that requirement. For any proposed new or increased “fee” for a property-related service (such as water rates), relevant substantive requirements of Proposition 218 include:
(1) Revenues derived from the water rates shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related water service. (2) Revenues derived from the water rates shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed. 110
Resolution No. 25-151
(3) The amount of the water rates shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.
(4) No water rates may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Water rates based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted.
(5) No water rates may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners.

4. Requirements for Submitting Timely Written Protests
In order for a record owner to submit a timely written protest, to be considered as a part of the Proposition 218 protest hearing described in Section 6, below, it must:
a. Be received by the City at the location identified on the public hearing notice, no later than the close of the public testimony portion of the public hearing. b. Be in writing (1) identifying the name of the record owner, and the street address or assessor’s parcel number (or other clear identification) of the property subject to the water rates; and (2) signed by the record owner, or otherwise identifying that the record owner submitted the written objection, subject to verification by the City.

A written protest must be submitted in paper form. Any protest will not satisfy this requirement if it is submitted in any non-paper format such as: email, facsimile, or spoken protest via telephone or in person.
c. Must clearly identify that the record owner opposes the proposed new or increased water rates that are the subject of the hearing. d. Will only be counted as one protest per parcel. That means that if any one or more record owners of a parcel submits a timely written protest (or timely written objection) for the same parcel, it will be counted as one timely written protest. e. Record owners of multiple parcels within the City may file one protest for each parcel owned within the City’s service area.
f. A record owner may withdraw a written protest only if the withdrawal is submitted in writing by the record owner clearly indicating an intent to withdraw for an identified property, and it is received by the City at the location (and no later than the time) for submitting written protests. After a written protest is withdrawn, a record owner may submit a new or replacement written protest in accordance with the requirements of these Procedures. No other modification to a timely written protest may be made.
111
Resolution No. 25-151
g. The City Clerk shall take custody of all submitted written objections and written protests.
(1) In order to protect the integrity of the procedures for considering written objections and written protests as described in these Procedures, all written objections and written protests shall remain confidential until the City Manager (or designee) has determined they may be published in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 4(g)(2).
(2) Any submitted written objection and written protest shall be a public record, subject to public disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Government Code sections 7920.000, et seq.); however, the City may withhold the record if the City determines that the public interest served by not disclosing clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure under Government Code section 7922.000. As a general rule, the City finds there is a substantial public interest in not disclosing written objections and written protests to protect the integrity of the process described herein during the time that: (A) written objections are still being submitted and (B) prior to the time that the Brown Act meeting agenda is posted (e.g., at least 72 hours before a regular meeting under Government Code section 54954.2).

5. City’s Response to Timely Written Objections
At the close of the written objection period, City staff shall review timely written objections and shall draft written responses to the written objections. The City’s written response will include: (i) the grounds on which the objection is (or is not) resulting in amendments to the proposed new or increased water rates; and (ii) an explanation of the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed new or increased water rates.

City staff shall present the written responses to the City Council at the public meeting that was specified in the public hearing notice described in Section 2, above. a. In accordance with the Brown Act, the public will be provided an opportunity to address the City Council prior to the Council’s action related to the timely written objections and written responses. (See Government Code section 54954.3(a).) b. In accordance with Government Code section 53759.1(d), the City Council, in exercising its legislative discretion in considering timely written objections and written responses, shall determine for the proposed new or increased water rates whether further review, clarification, or reduction is needed, and whether to proceed to the Proposition 218 protest hearing.
112
Resolution No. 25-151

6. Conducting the Proposition 218 Protest Public Hearing If the City Council determines to proceed to the Proposition 218 protest public hearing for proposed new or increased water rates (as previously noticed in accordance with Section 2, above), the public hearing shall be conducted consistent with the following:
a. The City Council will open the public hearing and consider all evidence presented during the hearing including the public hearing notice and all documents referenced therein (particularly including the Rate Study), all written objections, written responses, written protests, and any testimony, documents, or information presented during the public hearing.
b. Prior to closing the public hearing, the City Council will request if there are any additional written protests to be submitted to (or withdrawn from) the City. c. The City Council will then close the public hearing and request a report from the City Clerk to identify the number of timely written protests compared to the total number of parcels subject to the new or increased fees. (1) A majority protest exists only if the number of timely written protests exceeds one-half of the parcels served by the City.
(2) If the City Clerk determines that additional time is needed to tabulate timely written protests, the City Council shall recess or continue the public meeting to provide sufficient time for the City Clerk to complete the tabulation.
(3) If the City Clerk determines that there is a majority protest, the City shall not impose the new or increased water rates.
(4) If the City Clerk determines that there is not a majority protest, the City Council shall continue its deliberations and take action on the proposed new or increased water rates.
(5) The City Clerk’s determinations under these Procedures shall be the final determination of the City subject to appropriate judicial review. This shall include the City Clerk’s determinations that: (a) a written protest meets the requirements for a timely written protest in accordance with these Procedures; or (b) a majority protest has (or has not) been submitted for the proposed rates.
113
$WWDFKPHQW
114
115
116
117
Public Works 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
http://san-clemente.org
City of San Clemente
Public Works
David Rebensdorf, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Phone: (949) 361-6130 Fax: (949) 361-8234
[email protected]
February 4, 2026
William and Mary Ellen Bobp
303 E. Avenida Magdalena
San Clemente, CA 92672
Re: Response to letter challenging proposed water rates Dear William and Mary Ellen Bobp,
The City of San Clemente received your letter on December 9, 2025 regarding a concern for the potential of double dipping since property tax bills contain an annual charge for Metro Water D-MWDOC. Your letter does not identify any portion of the City’s proposed water rate increase that is not in compliance with Proposition 218 and does not meet the definition of a “written objection,” as that term is used in Government Code Section 53759.1. Nevertheless, the City wishes to address the comments provided in your letter.

While the City understands your concerns regarding the proposed adjustment to water rates, nearly 54 percent of the City’s operating and maintenance expenses in Fiscal Year 2025 is for administration and supply of water from Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). This is described in Section 2.3 Operating Expenses under Potable Water Supply Costs within the Water Rate Study Report at www.sanclemente.gov/water-rates.

The City’s main potable water supply is imported water from Metropolitan Water District, which has also imposed an annual property tax on its customers for a portion of its costs related to the State Water Project. In addition to those costs which Metropolitan Water District directly charges its customers, MWDOC also charges the City a fixed and volumetric wholesale water charge which the City passes through to City customers, as further defined in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the Water Rate Study Report. The MWDOC Supply Unit Cost is comprised of potable water supplies from MWDOC, imported water from Metropolitan Water District, Baker Treatment Plant and delivery to the City’s service area.
118
City of San Clemente Page 2
There was also another objection raised related to the proposed rate adjustments for five years. The proposed future rate increases are a maximum rate and cannot be increased without a new Proposition 218 process notifying customers along with providing a nexus for the any adjustments. City Council and staff are dedicated to providing quality water service and finding cost saving measures whenever possible to minimize future customer rate increases.

Thank you for taking the time to provide comments on the proposed water rates.

Sincerely,
David Rebensdorf
Public Works Director/City Engineer
119
Public Works 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673
http://san-clemente.org
City of San Clemente
Public Works
David Rebensdorf, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Phone: (949) 361-6130 Fax: (949) 361-8234
[email protected]
February 4, 2026
Suzi Corman
15818 Parkridge Ave.

Sonora, CA 95370
Re: Response to letter challenging proposed water rates City address: 238 Avenida Cabrillo, San Clemente, CA 92672 Dear Suzi Corman,
The City of San Clemente received your letter on December 22, 2025. While the City understands your concerns regarding the proposed adjustment to water rates, your letter does not adequately and timely identify a property address (although the City did receive your property address via email on January 28, 2026, which was after the January 15, 2026 objection deadline) or any portion of the City’s proposed water rate increase that is not in compliance with Proposition 218. Therefore, your letter does not meet the definition of a “written objection,” as that term is used in Government Code Section 53759.1. Nevertheless, the City wishes to address the comments provided in your letter.

Comment 1 – People will use less water, (which can be a savings for water usage) but reduces money generated which then furthers the need for another increase in water prices.

Response 1 – When less water is used by City customers, it reduces the City’s cost for water production and imported water (which is proposed as a pass-thru) and is a direct saving to the customer. However, there are increased costs for system operation and maintenance due to price increases for materials, chemicals, and staffing to maintain a reasonable competitive wage rate compared to the employment market.

Comment 2 – Water rate hikes add to the overall cost-of-living inflation which are especially burdensome for low-income individuals and families. 120
City of San Clemente Page 2
Response 2 — The City is sensitive to impacts for low-income individuals and families and offers programs to assist customers with water conservation to reduce water use and costs. In the future, the City may consider providing programs for low-income customers, but funding would be needed from other City services since enterprise funding (water rates) cannot legally be used to fund these types of programs.

Comment 3 and 4 – Conservation can be achieved by tiered pricing and leak detection and system repairs.

Response 3 and 4 – Tiered pricing can be an effective tool in promoting water conservation. During the City’s previous water rate study, tiered pricing was considered, but due to new laws related to tiered pricing, the City’s differences in its tiered pricing was very minimal and was not enough to promote conservation. The City does have an active outreach program to promote water conservation to its customers and have seen steady increases in conservation over the past decade and continues to see lower water use. Regarding leak detection and system repairs, the City actively inspects its water system for leak with the use of sounding equipment and monitoring water use. When leaks are found, they are repaired as soon as possible as a best management practice.

Thank you for taking the time to provide comments on the proposed water rates.

Sincerely,
David Rebensdorf
Public Works Director/City Engineer
121
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10A.
122
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

Submitted By: Public Works
Prepared By: Fatana Temory, Management Analyst
Zak Ponsen, Assistant City Engineer
Dave Rebensdorf, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Subject:
..titl e
DISCUSSION OF TRANSIT PROGRAMS INCLUDING: SENIOR MOBILITY PROGRAM, SC

RIDES, THE LAST MILE PROGRAM, CMO SHUTTLE PROGRAM, AND THE SAN CLEMENTE TROLLEY ..body
Fiscal Impact:

None at this time. Any formal modifications to existing or proposed programs will require subsequent City Council action. The City’s fair share and operating cost for its transit programs are funded through the General Fund.

San Clemente Transit Programs
Name Type Funding Split OCTA Cap Approx. City
Cost
Senior Mobility Existing 80% OCTA, 20% City $108,000 $192-242,000 SC Rides Existing 50% OCTA- 50% City $150,000 $150-200,000 Last Mile Upcoming 50% OCTA- 50% City $325,000 $150,000* CMO Shuttle Upcoming ** ** $20-50,000
Trolley Existing 90% OCTA- 10% City $1,176,000 $150,000*** * Estimated annual program costs are $300,000.
** CMO Shuttle Program received a $1,800,000 grant from the Air Resources Board Clean Mobility Options Pilot Program. There is no match for the five-year program (four years of operation and one year of administration to start the program) with all costs paid by the grant, except funding for electric vehicle charging which is anticipated to be approximately $20,000 to $50,000 annually. *** Trolley Program Cost above do not include replacement cost for trolleys or future electric charging infrastructure to meet State requirements which are 100% the responsibility of the City, unless grants can be obtained.

Summary:

Staff is presenting a summary of each existing and upcoming transit program. Discussion includes each program’s grant funding, City cost, contracts, ridership, and potential future modifications. The City Council may consider providing direction on each program, but formal modifications may require subsequent City Council action.

Since 2016 and the cancellation of the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus routes 191 and 193, the City has worked with OCTA to obtain grant funding for new transportation services to serve the community. To offset a portion of the cost for transportation programs, OCTA Project V grant funds are awarded to the City to create and operate the Trolley 123
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
Program, SC Rides, and the newly awarded Last Mile On-Demand Program at different funding levels with offsetting General Fund match.

Transit programs have expanded since the loss of bus routes in the City and while new programs are intended to take the place of the former bus routes, it is important to take a holistic look at the current and planned programs along with impacts to the General Fund. Despite grants to fund each of the programs, there is an increased burden on the General Fund as grant matching percentages have changed over time and grants expire when grant funding for the program is consumed. Replacement of vehicles, especially for the Trolley due to State regulations to reduce carbon emissions will require more expensive vehicles and infrastructure in the future. The discussion section below provides detail on each of the programs along with several recommendations to reduce costs for current programs and consideration whether or not to continue programs that have not started. That said, staff recognizes that the programs benefit residents and every attempt has been made to provide an adequate level of service.

Discussion:

Senior Mobility Program:

Background: Since 2002, the City of San Clemente has provided senior transportation services through the Senior Mobility Program (SMP). The current program is currently a no-cost transportation system for residents age 60 and over serving a list of pre-approved locations. SMP services are currently provided by OCY Management, LLC (previously Cabco Yellow, Inc.), but the contract is set to return to City Council on February 17 for consideration of a new contract.

The purpose of the SMP is to provide a safe fixed-route transportation option to assist elderly residents lead independent lives with adequate accessibility allowing connection with the community. The program mission is to fill the gap between local fixed-route buses and ADA paratransit and participating cities are eligible to receive funds from OCTA to help operate transit programs that meet the needs of seniors. See Attachment 1 for the City’s Website Flyer for the program.

Grant Funding: OCTA and participating cities contribute financially to the program. Funding is provided from Measure M2, Orange County’s half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements, that includes funding for senior/disabled programs including the SMP. One percent of Measure M2’s net revenue is allocated to the SMP, and participating cities receive a formula allocation based on their share of Orange County's population of seniors age 60 years and older.

The City’s current allocation is approximately $105,000 per year and is expected to increase slightly each year to $112,500 by 2030. In general, cities are required to spend their yearly portion of the OCTA funding within 2 years, but certain allowances were made during the COVID pandemic. The City’s SMP Fund has a balance of approximately $370,000 in present and previous unused funding.

Cost to City: OCTA pays 80% and the City pays 20% for the program. OCTA’s contribution of funding for the next five years varies from $105,000 to $112,500 (an average of approximately $108,000 per year) and City is responsible for all costs above the OCTA’s maximum contribution.

The City funds its contribution from the General Fund and to reduce Genera Fund expense, staff continues to seek grant opportunities.
124
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
For years, the program was limited to only allowing seniors to request transportation to the senior center and certain grocery stores on select days. In accordance with OCTA's recommendation to increase fund utilization to minimize potential loss of unused funding that increased due to COVID, the program was broadened in late 2024 to include nearly all destinations within San Clemente, available seven days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., excluding holidays.

Destinations now include grocery stores, medical appointments, beaches, parks, movie theaters, retail stores, restaurants, sports facilities, and more. See Figure 1 below for recent ridership statistics.

Ridership has steadily increased since the program was modified and is currently averaging 825 one-way trips per month. Given the rate of current ridership, the estimated total annual cost for the expanded program is expected to be $300,000 - $350,000. This results in an average potential cost to the General Fund of approximately $192,000 - $242,000 per year after the unused OCTA funds are expended. Unless program modifications are made, the impact on the General Fund will increase.

Contract Status: On December 9, 2025, the City Council approved a resolution to amend the contract with OCY Management LLC (OCY) to terminate the contract on February 28, 2026, and directed staff to initiate a new Request for Proposal (RFP) for SMP services for implementation of a new contract starting March 1, 2026. It is expected that the new contract will operate services from March 1, 2026 through June 30, 2026, and include three one-year optional extensions. The RFP and proposed contract are flexible to allow the City to modify the program at any time.

Ridership: Currently, the program averages 825 one-way trips per month. It is not fully known if the increase in ridership over the past few years is due to the expanded program or more residents becoming aware of the program although staff believes the increased ridership is most likely due to increased knowledge of the program. Based on the ridership statistics (Figure 1 below), it appears most riders are still utilizing the program for the original pre-expansion destinations (Senior Center and a few select grocery stores).

During the months of October through December 2025, the program averaged 72 individual riders per month. Approximately 40% of these riders appear to have only used the program one to four times each month. Approximately 66% of the riders used the program ten times or less each month. Only one rider used the program nearly daily. See Attachment 2 for the latest ridership statistics for the program.

The Senior Mobility Program offers the following:
 Local Economic Benefit: All current trip destinations remain within San Clemente. In August alone, 215 seniors visited local shopping centers (see Figure 1 below) directly supporting the local economy through sales tax revenue. Reducing these services may inadvertently reduce City revenue.
 Senior Well-Being: Many trips are to religious institutions, medical facilities, and fitness/sporting locations that support senior mental, emotional, and physical health.  Lowest Cost, High Impact: Of the City’s five transit programs, SMP is one of the least expensive programs and provides significant benefits to the City’s senior community. 125
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 4
Figure 1: August 2025 Ridership Statistics
Potential Future Modifications:

To reduce program costs and impacts to the General Fund, the City could consider the following options along with monitoring any changes in ridership:

Option 1: Introduce up to a $5 Rider Fare
 Of the 27 cities in OC with an SMP, 17 cities charge a fare ranging from $.50 to $5.00.  Rather than limiting service, the City could introduce a nominal fee (e.g., $5 per ride) to help offset costs without eliminating access for those who rely on it most. A $5 rider fare may result in approximately $4,000 per month in offsetting revenue if the program continues at its current ridership. The annual revenue of approximately $48,000 per year would offset a portion of the City’s General Fund contribution estimated between $192,000 to $242,000 per year.  Introduction of a rider fare may result in a decrease in ridership, but it is not expected to change dramatically since approximately 66% of riders utilized the program 10 times or less per month.
 For comparison, a similar Uber or Lyft ride cost between $5-$15.  A rider fare would have to be considered at a future public hearing.

Option 2: Reduce Service Area Categories
 The City may reduce the number of available service area destinations. Prior to the program’s expansion last year, the City provided ride services only to the Senior Center and a few select grocery stores.
126
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 5
Option 3: Reduce Operating Days/Hours
 Rather than removing categories, reducing service days or hours offers a balanced way to potentially control costs without compromising the range of essential destinations.  Currently the program operates 7 days a week, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. (excluding holidays).  Many programs in the County (21 of 30) only operate Monday-Friday.

Option 4: Limit the Amount of One-Way Rides per Month
 Rather than removing categories, limited free rides offers a balanced way to control costs without compromising the program.
 Based on the current cost of the program of approximately $33 per ride and a funding limit of $130,000 (OCTA and City match), the funding can support approximately 300 one-way trips per month.
 October through December of 2025 data as provided in Attachment 2, a cap of approximately 14 one-way rides per rider per month will keep the program with its budget.  Although, as the program continues to gain popularity, the number of one-way rides per rider will need to be lowered in the future or additional funding will be required from the General Fund.

Option 5: Hybrid:
 Incorporate a combination of two or more of the potential options.

Staff is recommending Option 4 that limits the number of one-way rides to 14 per rider per month and monitoring the program to keep the number of rides within the budget. If the number of riders continues to increase, further reduction of one-way rides per rider per month may be needed.

Riders who desire more than 14 one-way rides per month could use other transit programs such as the SC Rides program, or private ride programs such as Uber or Lyft.

What’s Next: The program contract will be returning to City Council on February 17, 2026 for consideration of award of a new contract. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council prior to the meeting.

SC Rides:

Background: SC Rides was created after the OCTA cancelled bus routes 191 and 193 due to low ridership. In 2016, the City Council approved an agreement with Lyft to implement a pilot ondemand transportation service titled “SC Rides,” designed to mitigate the loss of the former local bus routes. The SC Rides program allows riders daily discounted rides within a 0.25-mile radius of the original 191 and 193 bus routes. See Figure 2 below for service areas. Riders save up to $9 on rides, and pay as low as $2 a ride. Under the current program, the rider pays the initial $2 for a ride, then the City/OCTA provide up to the next $9 of the ride, and the rider pays any additional amount if the total fare exceeds $11. The SC Rides program currently averages 3,200 rides per month.
127
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 6
The program is currently funded 50% by OCTA’s Project V Grant through 2030/31 with a 50% City match. The estimated total annual cost for the SC Rides program is $350,000. OCTA funds 50% of the program up to $150,000 per year, resulting in an estimated $200,000 annual match from the City. See Attachment 3 for the City’s SC Rides Handout.

Grant Funding: Until last year, the City’s SC Rides Program was funded by the previous Measure M2 Project V grant program. In that grant program, OCTA awarded funds to the City to provide up to 90% of the cost of this program through June 30, 2025. The City had a separate agreement with SC Rides for disabled riders that was fully funded by OCTA.

Due to the expiration of grant funding, the City submitted an application to OCTA for the 2024 Project V Grant, requesting a new grant to continue the program. On June 17, 2025, City Council approved a Resolution to accept the OCTA Measure M2 Project V grant funding through Fiscal Year (FY) 2030/31. This allowed for continuation of the SC Rides program and the creation of a new Last Mile On-Demand Transit Program (discussed further below) through the FY 2030/31.

The City will receive $3,264,428 through the 2024 OCTA Project V Grant to support on-demand transit programs through FY 2030/2031. This includes both the SC Rides Program and the proposed Last Mile On-Demand Transit Program. However, under the new grant guidelines, OCTA’s contribution will decrease to 50%, requiring the City to provide a matching contribution of 50%. Additionally, under recent OCTA requirements, the selected vendor must provide ADAcompliant rides, either directly or through a subcontractor. The City can no longer have two separate contracts for these services.

While the cooperative agreement is still in process, OCTA has granted the projects pre-award authority, allowing the City to begin implementation efforts. Staff will be returning to the City Council at a future date once the cooperative agreements are ready for final approval.

Cost to City: Effective July 1, 2025, OCTA funds only 50% of the program, with the remaining 50% to be provided by the City. OCTA’s maximum contribution of funding for the grant period through FY 2030/31 is approximately $150,000 per year. Annual program costs are projected at $300,000 - $350,000 if the program continues without modification, with the City’s share totaling $150,000 - $200,000. Unless program modifications are made, the General Fund budget recommendation will include this funding amount.

Contract Status: On June 17, 2025, the City Council approved a resolution to award a threeyear Professional Services Agreement contract to Lyft, Inc. for on-demand SC Rides rideshare services with the option, at the City's sole discretion, to award two additional years.

The program is anticipated to return to City Council in the near future to address potential contract modifications and clarify budget appropriations.

Ridership: Currently the program is averaging 3,200 one-way trips per month.

To be eligible, rides must be taken between 6 am and 8 pm, and must be both picked up and dropped off within a 0.25 miles radius of the original 191 and 193 bus routes. 128
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 7
Figure 2: SC Rides Service Area
Potential Future Modifications:

To reduce program costs, the City Council may consider the following options:

Option 1: Reduce Service Area
 The current coverage area includes a ¼-mile radius of former Bus Routes 191 and 193. The City may reduce the service area; however, the program cannot be eliminated entirely which would violate SB-2 requirements. Public transit access to the SC Business Park must be maintained from North Beach and, potentially, from other low-income areas.

Option 2: Decrease the City Subsidy
 The City/OCTA currently contributes up to $9 per ride to offset rider costs and maintain the previous $2 bus fare. The City may reduce the per-ride subsidy amount and OCTA has confirmed that it would be allowed. Modifications to the fare would require the initial $2 rider contribution to remain as-is since that is the average fare for bus service. As an example, if the City were to reduce the City’s current $9 subsidy to $5, the estimated annual revenue 129
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 8
could be as high as $100,000 to 150,000 to offset General Fund contribution based on current ridership. This value varies since not all rides are long enough to trigger the full amount of the City subsidy.

Option 3: Continue Monitoring the Program and Evaluate as Needed  Continue monitoring program performance and costs and evaluate potential adjustments as needed.

Option 4: Hybrid
 Incorporate a combination of two or more of the potential options.

Staff is recommending Option 2 and reducing the City’s maximum subsidy from $9 to $5 a ride.

This should significantly reduce the City’s overall cost for the program.

What’s Next: The program is anticipated to return to City Council in the near future to consider potential contract modifications and clarify budget appropriations. Direction is requested at this time if program changes are desired by the City Council.

The “Last Mile” Program:

Background: This is a new On-Demand program that has not been implemented. It is anticipated to begin in the summer of 2026. Under OCTA’s 2024 Project V Grant, the City was awarded new grant funding for the “Last Mile” program via micro-transit. To support the San Clemente Trolley and alleviate parking concerns near high-traffic areas of the trolley route, the Last Mile program will pick-up and drop-off passengers who reside within a mile of the trolley routes to and from their homes to the closest trolley stop via micro-transit. See Figure3 for the Last Mile service area. Rides may be booked on-demand via a smartphone app or through a call center. The project will use 100% electric vehicles to maximize environmental benefits to the community. The service will reflect the summer trolley season from Memorial Day Weekend through the end of September.

The program is currently funded 50% through OCTA’s Project V Grant through 2030/31 with a 50% City match. Cost to the City will depend on the popularity of the program. The City can create a rider fare for this program.

Grant Funding: The City submitted an application to OCTA for the 2024 Project V Grant, requesting a new grant for on-demand transit service to support the existing trolley program. On June 17, 2025, City Council approved a Resolution to accept the OCTA Measure M2 Project V grant funding through Fiscal Year (FY) 2030/31. This allowed for continuation of the SC Rides program and the creation of a new Last Mile On-Demand Transit Program.

The City will receive $3,264,428 through the 2024 OCTA Project V Grant to support on-demand transit programs through FY 2030/2031. This includes both the SC Rides Program and the proposed Last Mile On-Demand Transit Program. OCTA’s contribution will not exceed 50%, requiring the City to provide a matching contribution of at least 50%. OCTA will fund up to approximately $325,000 per year for this program.
130
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 9
While the cooperative agreement is still in process, the projects have been granted pre-award authority by OCTA to allow the City to begin implementation efforts. Staff will be returning to the City Council at a future date once the cooperative agreements are ready for final approval.

Cost to City: Through OCTA’s Project V 2024 Grant that
operates through 2031, OCTA will fund 50% of the program costs up to approximately $325,000 annually, with the remaining 50% funded by the City. Although actual cost is unknown, the total annual program costs are projected at $300,000 during the initial years and expected to grow each year as the program becomes more utilized. An estimated program cost of $300,000 results in a City contribution of approximately $150,000 from the General Fund, which is a new expenditure and will be proposed as part of the FY 2026/27 Budget, unless otherwise directed by the City Council. The City is allowed to charge riders a fare, but that reduction is cost is shared by both the City and OCTA.

Figure 3: Last Mile Service Area
Contract Status: Staff anticipates issuing a request for bids in early 2026 in preparation for potential summer 2026 operations.

Ridership: This will depend on the popularity of the program and if the City decides to charge a fare for ridership.

Potential Future Modifications:

Should the City wish to reduce program costs, the following options are available:

Option 1: Create a Ride Fare
 Creation of a rider fare would likely decrease ridership and help fund the program. Staff would research other coastal cities with similar on-demand services to determine the average similar fare (likely $2 per rider with a not to exceed $6 for groups). OCTA has confirmed that the City may charge a fare, but that revenue is offset evenly between the City and OCTA.  A rider fare would need to be considered at a future public hearing.

Option 2: Eliminate the Program
 Eliminate the program entirely and return grant funds to OCTA. Given the impact to the General Fund and potential for program cost increases or loss of grant funding beyond 2031, it may be advantageous to eliminate this program and continue to seek other transportation options.

What’s Next: This program is currently anticipated to seek proposals soon and start in the summer of 2026. Direction is requested at this time if program changes or elimination are desired by the City Council.
131
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 10
Staff is recommending elimination or delay of the program. Until the other programs have been modified and properly implemented, specifically the Clean Mobility Options Shuttle Program discussed below, it is difficult to assess the need for an additional program. If, in the future, the program is determined to be necessary, staff will present options to the City Council.

Clean Mobility Options (CMO) Shuttle Program:

Background: This is a new program that has not been implemented. The program was last discussed by the City Council on June 17, 2025 and Resolution 25-103 (Attachment 4) was approved. It is anticipated to begin in the late summer of 2026. To move forward with the program, the City must begin operations by December 31, 2026.

The San Clemente CMO Shuttle Project will provide all-electric fixed-route shuttle services to augment the existing transportation options in the City, primarily running along the Avenida Pico corridor, linking the North Beach area west of the freeway to the Rancho San Clemente Business Park, Plaza Pacifica shopping center, and other destinations east of the freeway. See Figure 4 below for potential route of the program. The program will be designed with the community’s input and participation to provide safe, convenient, affordable, and accessible first/last mile connections. The goals of the program will be to improve mobility options for the community, provide connections to public transit and key community services, improve social determinants of health related to transportation accessibility, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and reduce congestion. This program will utilize smaller-sized city-owned electric vehicle shuttles to be selected by the City using available grant funds.

The program will connect residents (including low-income residents as identified by the State and grantor) to key destinations including parks, healthcare facilities, grocery stores, employment centers, and other essential services. Service routes, hours, and stop locations will be refined through ongoing public feedback and performance data. Upon completion of the grant project, the City will retain ownership of the vehicles and will no longer be subject to grant-related service area or route restrictions.

Grant Funding: The City of San Clemente was awarded a $1.8 million Clean Mobility Options grant from the Air Resources Board to implement a five-year project supporting the purchase and operation of electric shuttle vehicles to augment existing transportation options. The City Council has already authorized acceptance of the grant and the first year of the project is ongoing, with focus on service planning, including community engagement and the pending purchase of vehicles. The City is not required to keep the program running beyond the five-year period of the grant and the City is allowed to keep the vehicles after the five-year grant period end.

At the end of the program, the City Council could consider the following options:
 Discontinue service, which may not be popular with the public if the service is widely utilized.

The vehicles have a life of approximately 10 years and could be repurposed for the Trolley Blue Line Route or utilized for City recreation activities since a commercial driver’s license is not required to operate the vehicles.
 Utilize the General Fund to continue service.
 Obtain additional grant funding for the service if funding is available. 132
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 11
Cost to City: Through California Clean Mobility Options grant program, the City will receive up to $1,800,000 for the initial five-year period. The only costs to the City for the initial five-year period is for the electricity to charge the vehicles, which is approximately $20,000 to $50,000 annually.

After the grant-funded term (one year of planning and four years of operations), the City would bear full operational costs from the General Fund (unless future grant opportunities are identified) if continued.

The approved budget for the program includes the purchase of two electric shuttles, which are reimbursed through the program. The vehicles are anticipated to cost approximately $350,000 each, which will require a General Fund appropriation as further discussed in the upcoming staff report requesting authorization of the vehicle purchase.

Contract Status: The grant agreement was previously authorized by Council as well as by CARB and the CMO program administrator. Prior to commencing operations later this year, staff will seek Council authorization of the vehicle purchase and a contract for the transit driver operations.

Ridership: Staff anticipates ridership at a level similar to the Blue Line Trolley (about 6,000 monthly riders). Ridership data will be collected once the service commences.

Figure 4: Anticipate CMO Route. Clouded
areas to be included if vehicle minimum
service times can be met.

Potential Future Modifications:

Should the City wish to reduce program costs,
the following options are available:

Option 1: Create a Ride Fare
 The preliminary program includes free
rides to blend seamlessly with the Trolley.

There will be one or more locations where
riders could hop off of the trolley and hop
onto the CMO Shuttle. The City could
request a program amendment to charge
for rides on this line. Creation of a rider
fare would likely decrease ridership, but
may allow for extended service hours for
the shuttle. Staff would research other
coastal cities with similar on-demand
services to determine the average similar
fare (likely $2 per rider with a not to exceed $6 for groups).  Setting a rider fare would need to be considered at a future public hearing. 133
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 12
Option 2: Eliminate the CMO Program
 Eliminate the program entirely and return the grant funds.

What’s Next: This program is currently anticipated to be brought back to City Council on February 17 for authorization to purchase vehicles.

San Clemente Trolley Program:

Background: The City currently has three trolley lines: Red, Blue and Green Lines, and five gas powered trolleys. The Red Line operates year-round from Friday through Sunday. The Red, Blue and Green Lines all operate daily from Memorial Weekend through the end of September. Since the formal addition of the Green Line, the City has utilized two privately owned shuttles under our contract with LAZ for the Blue Line.

The City Trolley Program is funded through a Measure M2 Project V Grant from OCTA. OCTA reimburses the City for 90% of operational costs within the allotted annual grant amounts. Last year the City was awarded a grant, which will support both existing operations and the new yearround Red Line on weekends and summer Green Line services through FY 2030/31. The City will receive $8,235,081 through the 2024 OCTA Project V Grant to support trolley service lines, and the purchase of a new gas powered trolley (expected delivery end of 2026).

Grant Funding: The City has received $8,235,081 through OCTA’s Project V 2024 Grant to support trolley operations through 2031. The grant also includes funds to purchase a new trolley, with delivery anticipated in late 2026 Under the grant terms, OCTA funds 90% of eligible costs, with the City responsible for the remaining 10%.

Cost to City: Annual OCTA funding for trolley operations and maintenance is estimated at $1.1 million. The City currently funds $150,000 from the General Fund to fund our portion of the program. Unless new grants are found, the City is 100% responsible for the cost of replacement vehicles. Each gas-powered trolley cost is approximately $250,000. The costs for an electric trolley vary, but are much higher at approximately $850,000 each. The City’s current fleet of five trolleys has three scheduled for replacement in 2027 and two by 2029. The replacement schedule for the trolleys is typically every 10 years or 250,000 miles. Currently, each trolley only has about 90,000 miles, and service costs have not been problematic. Based on maintenance, there is potential to extend the useful life of the trolleys. Unless program modifications are made, the General Fund budget recommendation for the upcoming years will include $150,000 for the required City match and a Decision Package of $250,000 to replace one trolley each year.

California Resource Board (CARB) requirements for State grant opportunities require the City to transition its trolley fleet to electric vehicles or zero-emission by 2040, and all new trolley purchases after 2029 to be electric vehicles or zero-emission to be eligible for State grants. The City will be finalizing a required Zero-Emission Bus Rollout Plan for City Council consideration in the coming months. This plan will outline the City’s transition and funding opportunities for converting to a zero-emission fleet.

Contract Status: On June 18, 2024, the City Council approved two three-year Agreements with LAZ Parking California LLC (LAZ) for operation of the trolleys. Each contract includes two 134
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 13
optional one-year extensions. One contract was for the Red and Blue Lines, while the second contract served for the new Green Line that was funded 100% by the City for the initial trial summer. These contracts were amended on June 17, 2025 to address the additional services awarded under the new grant.

Ridership: During the summer of 2025, the monthly average ridership for each trolley line was:

Red Line- 36,645, Blue Line- 6,092, and Green Line- 10,850.

Potential Future Modifications:
 Staff will continue to seek additional grant funding for purchase of new trolley vehicles since the current fleet is nearing its end-of-life expectancy. The life cycle for a trolley is approximately 10 years or 250,000 miles.
 Staff will continue to seek additional grant funding for potential new routes. The proposal to add a Yellow Line for operations from the Talega area to the Outlets was not approved by OCTA during the 2024 grant, but other grant options may exist.

What’s Next: Staff will continue to seek other grant funding opportunities for expansion of the program to other service areas and the replacement the aging Trolley fleet.

Transit Website:

The City has the existing transit programs on our City website, but potential modifications are possible. Staff will be moving forward to create a Transit page that is more easily navigated and combines all transit programs. There is also an interactive Public Mobility Map on our website (Figure 5), which shows locations for current bus stops, SC Rides stops, trolley stops, etc. 135
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 14
Figure 5: City website Public Mobility Map.

Council Options:
 Provide direction on any of the programs. Modifications to programs may require additional public hearings.
 Receive and file the report.
 Continue to the Item with direction to provide additional information.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Staff recommendations are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Future actions are likely statutorily exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(10) as projects for the institution or increase of passenger or commuter services on rights-of-way already in use with no direct or foreseeable indirect substantial impact on the environment.

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Direct staff to move forward with Option 4 for the Senior Mobility Program and limit ridership to 14 one-way rides per month;
136
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: 10B.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 15

2. Direct staff to move forward with Option 2 for the SC Rides Program and reduce the City maximum subsidy from $9 to $5 per ride;

3. Eliminate or delay implementation of the Last Mile Program;

4. Provide direction for the CMO Shuttle Program;

5. Provide direction for the Trolley Program; and

6. Receive and file the report.
..end
Attachment:

1. Senior Mobility Program Flyer

2. Senior Mobility Monthly Ridership Statistics

3. SC Rides Program Handout

4. CMO Shuttle Program Agenda Report for Resolution 25-103 Notification:

None.
137

FREE RIDES TO
SAN CLEMENTE:
• Grocery Stores
• Medical Appointments
(Non-Emergency)
• Personal Care
• Beach/Park
• Charity/Social Group Event
• Community Cultural Event
• Education/Employment
• Family/Friends
• Funeral/Memorial Service
• Government oce/Services
• Library/Historical Site
• Movies/Theater/Concert
• Religious Institutions
• Restaurant
• Sporting/Fitness
• Transit Center/Hub
• Dorothy Visser Senior Center
(Monday-Friday 8am to 4pm)
When are rides available?
7 days a week from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm
(excluding holidays). Services must be scheduled
at least 24 hours in advance.

Who is Eligible?
All San Clemente Residents ages 60 or older
How do I Apply?
Online: www.san-clemente.org/seniorservices
By email: [email protected]
By mail: Public Works Department
City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673
Questions?
(949) 361-6119 | [email protected]
The City of San Clemente is proud to o
er
curb-to-curb no-cost transportation within San
Clemente for residents age 60 and older, with a
mission to provide a safe
xed-route transportation
option, to help senior residents lead independent
lives while encouraging accessibility and
enhancing connection with our community!
Attachment 1
138
# of Seniors
# of Rides
(One-Way) # of Seniors
# of Rides
(One-Way) # of Seniors
# of Rides
(One-Way)
5 1 3 1 5 1
10 2 10 2 11 2
3 3 5 3 8 3
8 4 9 4 5 4
2 5 3 5 1 5
8 6 7 6 6 6
1 7 1 7 3 7
5 8 4 8 2 8
1 9 4 9 5 9
3 10 4 10 1 10
1 11 1 11 3 12
1 13 3 12 1 13
1 14 1 13 1 14
2 15 2 14 1 16
1 17 3 15 1 20
1 18 1 16 2 22
1 19 1 17 1 23
2 20 2 18 3 24
1 21 1 19 1 25
2 22 1 20 1 26
1 23 1 22 1 28
1 25 2 26 1 29
2 26 1 31 1 31
1 27 1 33 1 35
1 28 1 34 1 36
1 31 1 37 1 41
2 46 1 58 1 46
1 44 1 58
1 47
1 54
1 63
Senior Mobility Monthly Ridership Statistics
Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25
Total Rides: 754
Total Rides: 797
Total Rides: 923
Attachment 2
139
SC Rides On Demand Ride Program
The SC Rides On-demand Ride Program, which partners with Lyft and Butterfli, provides subsidized on-demand rides to and from select areas throughout San Clemente.

In 2016, the City started a pilot on-demand transportation service designed to help mitigate the loss of former local OCTA bus routes 191 and 193.

Under its Project V grant program, OCTA has awarded funds to the City to provide up to 90% of the cost of this pilot program.

Using the code SCRIDES, riders can enjoy discounted rides, courtesy of the City of San Clemente and the Orange County Transportation Authority.

Save up to $9 on your rides. That means for an $11 ride, you only have to pay $2.

To use the code, please download the Lyft app and go to the "Payment" section of the main menu (the main menu can be located in the top left corner with 3 horizontal lines). In the Payments section, go to "Add Lyft Pass." Simply type "SCRIDES" in the box. This will activate the SC Rides program on your Lyft app. From there, please feel free to book a ride per the usual Lyft process, and the discount will be applied after mapping a trip, if the ride is eligible.

To be eligible, rides must be taken between 6 AM-8 PM, and must be both picked up and dropped off within a .25 miles radius of the original 191 and 193 bus routes. To make sure you’re at the right space, look for signs at participating bus stops, or use the purple-text "View Coverage Area" portion of the coupon tile in the Promos section of the Lyft app.

For assisted rides and/or Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle (WAV) rides, please call our assisted ride vendor Butterfli, at 1-844-440-4672, and mention the SCRIDES code. You can also book a ride online, through Butterfli's Book a Ride feature at this link.

Attachment 3
140
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Meeting Date: June 17, 2025 Agenda Item: 11T.

Submitted By: Community Development
Prepared By: Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner
Jessica Gatny, Assistant Planner
Subject:
..titl e

CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE NECESSARY BUDGET REVISIONS TO A $1.8 MILLION GRANT AWARD FOR CLEAN MOBILITY OPTIONS (CMO) VOUCHER PILOT PROGRAM’S 2023 MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER, TO ENABLE

THE PURCHASE OF ALTERNATIVE, QUALIFYING ELECTRIC VEHICLES, AND FINDING

THE PROJECT STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT UNDER CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE § 21080.25. ..body
Fiscal Impact:

None.

Summary:

Before the City Council is a proposed budget revision for the Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program Grant, which enables the purchase of alternative, qualifying electric vehicles along a new public transit route. The proposed Resolution (Attachment 1) would direct staff to negotiate necessary revisions to the project budget to reallocate up to $400,000 of the $1,800,000 grant from vehicle operations funds to vehicle purchase capital costs (for total capital costs not to exceed $628,000) with no changes to the City’s previous commitment of $534,000 in matching funds for operations, and reiterate CMO program commitment and compliance with CMO program requirements.

Background:

On March 4, 2025, City Council authorized acceptance of $1.8 million grant award for The CMO Voucher Pilot Program. The CMO Voucher Pilot Program provides funding for community-driven mobility projects that increase residents’ access to key destinations by providing clean transportation options. All projects funded by CMO must directly benefit residents of a low-income community or a disadvantaged community (DAC). The project area must either be DAC as defined by SB 535, a low-income community or household as defined by Assembly Bill 1550 or Tribal land within DACs or low-income communities.

As identified in the March 4, 2025 City Council Agenda Report (Attachment 5), the first phase of the program included outreach and engagement with the community. Additionally, staff can recommend changes to the vehicle type or route to the Program Administrator as a result of community outreach findings. The initial CMO grant proposal designated four MotoEV Electro Transit Buddy vehicles at a total budgeted cost of $228,000. However, limitations such as speed restrictions and street-legal compliance issues with the vehicles were identified. After further 1 Attachment 4
141
Meeting Date: June 17, 2025 Agenda Item: 11T.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
discussions with the vendor’s sales and procurement team, it was determined that an alternative vehicle type would be necessary for the program.

Additional constraints, such as fixed-route ADA compliance requirements, further limit the availability of suitable vehicles on the market. To identify viable alternatives, staff explored options listed on the California HVIP website, which includes vehicles potentially eligible for incentive funding, pending availability. In addition, staff attended the Advanced Clean Transportation Expo to gather further insights into the current available vehicle options.

As a result, staff identified three alternative vehicle options: 1) Hometown Trolley, 2) KarsanDamera Mini Bus, and 3) EV Star Mobility Plus Shuttle. Images and descriptions of these vehicles are provided in Attachment 2. To gather public input, these options were presented at three community events: the Earth Day Fair on April 26, 2025; the Cinco de Mayo Festival on May 3, 2025; and the Annual San Clemente Car Show on May 31, 2025. Additionally, a map of the service areas and nearby amenities (Attachment 4) was also presented to collect community input, helping inform the number and placement of transit stops.

The first two events showcased all three vehicle options (Attachment 2), along with estimated costs and passenger capacities, to help inform public feedback. Following these events, staff analyzed the collected data, price points, and capacity metrics, and subsequently narrowed the selection to two vehicle options (Trolley or Shuttle). For the final community event, staff updated the presentation poster (Attachment 3) to feature only the two remaining options, detailing the features and benefits of each. Additionally, the shuttle image was revised – replacing the original plain white shuttle with a more visually engaging depiction of two shuttles featuring colorful vehicle wraps.

The survey results of the engagement sessions are as follows:

Events Option #1:

Trolley
Option #2: Mini
Bus
Option #3:

Shuttle
4/26/25 15 8 3
4/3/25 37 10 5
4/31/25 38 n/a 35
Community engagement data initially indicated a strong preference for the Trolley; however, responses from the final engagement session were nearly split between the Trolley and the Shuttle(s).

A key distinction between the alternative vehicle options is cost. Both vehicle options are substantially more expensive than the small electric shuttles cited in the original grant application, but two shuttles (approximately $300,000 each) can be acquired for approximately the same cost as a single trolley (approximately $550,000 to procure a model consistent with CMO Program requirements). Another significant difference is the level of service: with two shuttles, wait times would be reduced, and the shuttle vehicles would be better suited to navigate narrow streets if the route did not follow arterials.
1422
Meeting Date: June 17, 2025 Agenda Item: 11T.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
The data collected for the desired transit stop locations identifies numerous desired stops within and adjacent to the grant service areas (Attachment 4), which indicates a higher level of service could be warranted and supports the selection of multiple Shuttles, rather than a single Trolley.

Another factor to consider is the driver(s) costs, which is still expected to be the greatest cost of the program. Given the shift from four vehicles to one or two, staff costs are expected to be reduced enough to offset the increased vehicle purchase costs. Accordingly, staff are not requesting City Council authorization for additional City funding or grant match beyond the $534,000 that was authorized in March 2025. The grantor has indicated they are amenable to an amendment to their grant agreement and budget to enable the City to purchase the desired vehicles and that operational funds may be shifted from reduced driver costs.

Due to recent changes with the existing e-trolley manufacturer – including the adoption of a new electric chassis supplier and extended lead times – staff recommends proceeding with the acquisition of two electric shuttles in order to provide the service required by the grant terms and desired by the community. Staff proposes that the selection of the final make and model be made by staff through evaluation of price, lead time, and reliability ratings.

Council Options:
 Approve Resolution No. 25-103, directing staff to negotiate necessary budget revisions to the Clean Mobility Options (CMO) Voucher Pilot Program Grant to enable the purchase of the alternative, qualifying electric vehicles, and finding the project statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ) under California Public Resources Code § 21080.25.
 Continue the item and direct staff to provide additional information.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

The City of San Clemente’s proposed project under the Clean Mobility Options (CMO) Voucher Pilot Program is statutorily exempt from CEQA under California Public Resources Code § 21080.25 because it involves a new transit service on existing public right of way within an urbanized area.

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 25-103, which would:

1. Direct the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate necessary budget revisions to the Clean Mobility Options (CMO) Voucher Pilot Program Grant, to enable the purchase of the alternative, qualifying vehicles consistent with City Council recommendation and requirements of the grantor; and

2. Find the Clean Mobility Options (CMO) Voucher Pilot Program, as modified, statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Public Resources Code § 21080.25.
1433
Meeting Date: June 17, 2025 Agenda Item: 11T.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
..endAttachments:

1. Resolution 25-103

2. Community Engagement Poster – Vehicle Options 1

3. Community Engagement Poster – Vehicle Options 2

4. Community Engagement Poster – Desired Transit Stop Location Map

5. Resolution 25-18 and March 4, 2025 Agenda Report
Notification:

None.
1444
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-103

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING STAFF TO
NEGOTIATE NECESSARY BUDGET REVISIONS TO A $1.8

MILLION GRANT AWARD FOR CLEAN MOBILITY OPTIONS
VOUCHER PILOT PROGRAM’S 2023 MOBILITY PROJECT

VOUCHER, TO ENABLE THE PURCHASE OF

ALTERNATIVE QUALIFYING ELECTRIC VEHICLES, AND

FINDING THE PROJECT STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT UNDER
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE § 21080.25
WHEREAS, the Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program (“CMO”) provides funding for community-driven mobility projects that increase residents’ access to key destinations by providing various clean transportation options; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of San Clemente directed City staff to apply for a grant under the CMO Voucher Pilot Program’s 2023 Mobility Project Voucher (“MPV”); and
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente, qualifies as a voucher applicant per the Implementation Manual for the Clean Mobility Options (hereinafter “CMO”) Voucher Program (hereinafter “Program”); and
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente, as Lead Applicant, submitted a Mobility Project Voucher Application on March 1, 2023, for the Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program (“CMO”), which application was for the procurement of light or medium duty battery electric vehicles to serve local mobility needs for the AB 1550 Low-income Communities west of Interstate 5, south of Avenida Pico, and north of Avenida Valencia; and WHEREAS, CALSTART, as the CMO Program Administrator, desires to contract with City of San Clemente for, and City of San Clemente desires to provide mobility services described in its application for the CMO MPV; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente is eligible to receive funding through CMO, a statewide initiative funded by California Climate Investments and California Energy Commission Clean Transportation Program Investments, and administered by California Air Resource Board’s Program Administrator team to provide funding for zero-emission shared mobility options to under-resourced communities in California; and WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente will comply with the requirements of the program and on March 6, 2025 the City Council passed a resolution to accept CMO voucher funds in the amount of up to $1,800,000 for the San Clemente NEV Circulator Program for FY 2024/25 through 2029/30; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente staff have reviewed commercially available vehicle models and associated costs of procurement and operation, and procurement of any 1455
Resolution No. 25-103 Page 2
qualifying commercial vehicles will require a revision to the grant agreement to reallocation or potion of operations costs to capital costs, in order to provide the service required by the grant terms and desired by the community.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. That based on the record as a whole, as may be revised to enable purchase of alternative qualifying vehicles, the project is hereby determined to be statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under California Public Resources Code § 21080.25 because it involves a new transit service on existing public right of way within an urbanized area.

SECTION 2. That the City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to negotiate revisions to Agreement Number MP23W2A-11G, previously approved by City Council on March 4, 2025, to reallocate up to $400,000 from vehicle operations funds to vehicle purchase capital costs (for total capital costs not to exceed $628,000, with no changes to the City’s previous commitment of $534,000 in matching funds for operations, reiterate the City’s CMO program commitment and compliance, and solicit draft contract agreements with the CMO Program Administrator Team and a qualifying vehicle provider.

SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________________, _______.

ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk of the City of
San Clemente, California
__________________________
Steve Knoblock, Mayor of the
City of San Clemente, California
1466
Resolution No. 25-103 Page 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 25-103 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of _______________________, _________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
____________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
1477
Karsan-Damera e-JEST $290,000 10 Passengers, 2 fold-down seats, 1 ADA (& 9 max standing) Clean Mobility Options Voucher Program (CMO) CMO is a statewide initiative that provides funding for zero-emission shared mobility options to under-resourced communities in California. CMO is available throughout California to all eligible disadvantaged and low-income communities and tribal governments, to increase access to safe, reliable, convenient and affordable transportation options. For eligibility requirements, application information and to contact the technical assistance team, please visit: www.cleanmobilityoptions.org. $1.8 Million CMO Grant Project to Expand Transit Options Funds to be utilized for Vehicles & Drivers Vehicle & Route Selection Guided by Public Input Year-Round Route to Connect Business & Commercial Centers to Neighborhoods & Existing Routes Green Power Motor Company EV Star Mobility Plus $201,000 18 Passengers, 2 wheelchairs, & driver Hometown Trolley-Motiv $350,000 - $450,000 30 Passengers (configurations vary) Option 1 Trolley Option 2 Mini-Bus Option 3 Shuttle Attachment 2 8 Clean MobHlty Option$ Voucher Program (CMG} Clean ~Mo~ility Options (,~ • .<', - ~'<; ~ AA~«-<} - - f~ -, IU .lj • .l i1 .J - - \ ' ., ,' .......... 'II a -- \~ ~ , ' 1· -~ ... , 1,·' ·" ' ·~··· ' / ~. 'i'. ,, is-!'! . I .· 1 '.' '. · . i>1: .• . ',, I I lo,,' ,, ,.., .· 1 ~, ,, \1)f 1•1 r..-)~ , ... , i ' -=-- . '\. ' '~ .\ . ,,, _ _ ,, ' 148
Details:
• $200,000 - $300,000• 18 Passengers & 2 wheelchairs• $60k HVIP Zero-Emission Incentive• Range: 150 miles• Charging: Level 2 (8h) & DCFC (2h)• Weight: 14,330 lbs. “CMO is a statewide initiative that provides funding for zero-emission shared mobility options to under-resourcedcommunities in California. CMO is available throughout California to all eligible disadvantaged and low-incomecommunities and tribal governments, to increase access to safe, reliable, convenient and affordabletransportation options. For eligibility requirements, application information and to contact the technicalassistance team, please visit: www.cleanmobilityoptions.org.” Details:
• $480,000 - $520,000• 30 Passengers & 2 wheelchairs• $85k HVIP Zero-Emission Incentive• Range: 105 miles• Charging: Level 2 (3.75-8 hours)• Weight: 26,000 lbs.

Clean Mobility Options Voucher Program (CMO)
$1.8 Million CMO Grant Project to Expand Transit Options • Funds to be utilized for Vehicles & Drivers• Vehicle & Route Selection Guided by Public Input• Year-Round Route to Connect Business & Commercial Centers to Neighborhoods & Existing Routes
Option 2Hometown Trolley
Option 1Electric Shuttle
PROS
• Lower Cost – Could Acquire Two Vehicles• Shorter Wait Times with Two Vehicles• Nimble on Narrow Streets PROS
• Higher Capacity for Passengers• Matches Existing Trolleys• Open-Air Attachment 3
1499
10 Number of Pins by Looation
• 1 .4
• 5.9
- 10-13
• 14-18
19-22
•SWvk:e.Areas
- Shopping [)jlibict:I
Parks
Trolley~ .
• Blu~Une
- Red Une
-Greenune:
• Blueand Red Une.

II Green and Red Une
Attachment 4
150
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: February 3, 2026 Agenda Item: (1)
151
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
Council Chambers

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes
4:30 p.m. - Closed Session
5:30 p.m. - Business Meeting
Mayor Loeffler
Mayor Pro Tem Knoblock
Councilmember Cabral
Councilmember Enmeier
Councilmember Wu
These minutes reflect the order in which items appeared on the meeting agenda and do not necessarily reflect the order in which items were actually considered.

A Regular Meeting of the San Clemente City Council was called to order by Mayor Loeffler on January 20, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. in the San Clemente City Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente.

PRESENT: Cabral, Enmeier, Knoblock, Wu and Mayor Loeffler STAFF PRESENT: Andy Hall, City Manager; Elizabeth Mitchell, City Attorney; Laura Campagnolo, City Clerk; Megan Jimenez, Deputy City Clerk

CLOSED SESSION
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Knoblock, second by Councilmember Cabral, CARRIED 5-0, to recess to Closed Session at 4:31 p.m. to discuss the following:

A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Discussion concerning real property transactions in compliance with Government Code section 54956.8 regarding:

Real Property Negotiations: 150 Avenida Magdalena (APN 060-101-05) and 721 Avenida Salvador (APN 690-502-16)
Property: Wireless tower facilities located on City properties at the Municipal Golf Course site and at the Salvador Water Reservoir (aka Crown Castle Sites 823239 and 879058)
City Negotiators: Andy Hall, City Manager and Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner Negotiating Parties: Crown Castle and MD7
Under Negotiation: Price and terms
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a)&(d)(2)
Number of Cases: 1
Facts and Circumstances per Government Code section 54956.9(e)(2):

Litigation threatened by Beverly Wiesen as a result of the City Council’s

Page 1 of 29 ends

San Clemente City CouncilFebruary 3, 2026

San Clemente City Council
February 3, 2026