HomeMy WebLinkAbout26 - PH-2 - Attachment 2 - 3/17/2015ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT RESOLUTIONS
-3-
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF COSTA MESA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION PA -14-40 FOR THE RELOCATION AND
EXPANSION OF GANAHL LUMBER LOCATED AT 1100
BRISTOL STREET
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, an application was filed Patrick Ganahl, lessee of the property
owned by the County of Orange, requesting approval of the following:
Planning Application PA -14-40: The proposed project ("Project") involves the
development of a 6.6 acre vacant lot to accommodate the relocation of the Costa Mesa
Ganahl Lumber store to a site owned by the County of Orange and leased to Ganahl
Lumber. The existing Costa Mesa Ganahl Lumber store is located on an adjacent
property to the east and would be closed once the new store is completed. The
development proposal includes the following:
• Development Review for the construction of a 65,263 square foot building
materials retail store with administrative offices (Main Building A). A total of 286
parking spaces are proposed; 108 parking stalls would be provided on the roof of
the retail building; and 178 at -grade parking stalls would be provided throughout
the project site;
• Variance from front setback requirement for the parking lot, B Shed and Mill Shed
along Bristol Street (20 -foot setback required; 10 -foot setback proposed);
• Variance from maximum building height for the solar photovoltaic canopy and
elevator overrun on Main Building A (30 -foot maximum height allowed; 34 feet to
the solar canopy and 41 feet to the top of the elevator proposed);
• Variance from maximum building height for the B Shed (30 -foot maximum allowed;
34 feet proposed);
• Conditional Use Permit for the proposed outdoor storage yard consisting of three
sheds (B Shed, Mill Shed, and Pole Shed) totaling 40,925 square feet; and
• Planned Signing Program to allow the proposed 24 -foot high freestanding sign (12
feet allowed, 24 feet proposed).
WHEREAS, on or about January 19, 2015, the City filed the Notice of Intent to
Adopt A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project prepared by LSA Associates
Inc., with the public review period from January 23, 2015 through February 22, 2015;
and
WHEREAS, in response to the "Comment Letter to the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration", LSA prepared written "Responses to Additional Comments on
the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for Ganahl Lumber Hardware
Store and Lumber Yard Project" (Planning Application No. PA -14-40, Exhibit D); and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2015, a duly noticed public hearing was held before
the Planning Commission, which included presentation of the project by staff and the
applicant, as well as information related to the environmental impact analysis of the
project by LSA Associates; and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2015, prior to the Planning Commission meeting,
the City received an "Objection to the Proposed Ganahl Lumber Project" raising
numerous objections to the Project (Exhibit E); and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, the Planning Commission received public
comments and elicited responses from staff and LSA regarding the objections raised;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and testimony
presented during the hearing, voted to approve the project by a 5-0 vote; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2015, an appeal of the decision of the Planning
Commission's approval of the project was filed; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on March
17, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated from January
23, 2015 to February 22, 2015 for public review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa received written comments from the general
public, government entities, and other interested parties during the public review period;
and
,3(0—
WHEREAS, written comments received from the general public, government
entities, and other interested parties were responded to, where appropriate, in the
manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15073; and
WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and no changes to the proposed project have
occurred which would require recirculation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all environmental documents
comprising the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and has found that the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration considers all environmental impacts of the
proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project
reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA
FINDS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
BE IT RESOLVED, therefore, that based on the evidence in the record and the
findings contained in Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation
measures indicated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained within Exhibits B
and C, respectively, the City Council hereby ADOPTS the Initial Study/Mitigated
Declaration and APPROVES Planning Application PA -14-40.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby find
and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity
as described in the staff report for Planning Application PA -14-40 and upon the
applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibits B, the Mitigation
Monitoring Program in Exhibit C, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and
local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review,
modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if
the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval and/or mitigation
measures.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this
resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining provisions.
The City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this resolution and shall forward a
copy to the applicant, and any person requesting the same.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 17TH day of March, 2015.
STEPHEN M. MENSINGER
Mayor, City of Costa Mesa
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF COSTA MESA
-36-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of
the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 15__
as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 17th day of March,
2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City
Council held on the 17th day of March, 2015, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the
City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2015
- 3q-
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS (APPROVAL)
A. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code
Section 13-29(g)(2) because:
Finding: The proposed development is substantially compatible with developments
in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties
within the area.
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed use, with the recommended
conditions of approval, is compatible with the other uses in the immediate
vicinity. The proposed location for the Project is adjacent to its existing
facility. The existing Ganahl Lumber facility at 1275 Bristol Street, which is
zoned C2 (General Commercial), was originally built as Ward and
Harrington Home Improvement Center in the early 1970's and previously
used by Barr Lumber until the facility was acquired by Ganahl Lumber in the
1990's. The property is surrounded to the north, northeast and northwest by
the 73 and 55 freeways. Additionally, the northern portion of the property
line runs along the Santa Ana Delhi Channel. Compliance with the
conditions of approval will allow this use to operate with minimal impact on
other surrounding properties and uses.
The main building (Building A) contains the main store retail sales area,
which is a permitted use in the C1 (Local Business District) Zone per Zoning
Code Land Use Matrix Section 13-30(130 — Retail: General). Code requires
that the outdoor storage yard (containing lumber stock, a mill shed, and
storage sheds) be considered through a conditional use permit per Zoning
Code Section 13-30(d) — Citywide Land Use Matrix. Outdoor lumber yards
are not specifically listed in the corresponding Land Use Matrix, and the
Conditional Use Permit process allows the City to impose consider this type
of use on a case-by-case basis and impose conditions of approval, as
applicable.
Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or
improvements within the immediate neighborhood.
Facts in Support of Findings: With the exception of the building setback
and height as discussed above, the development is a commercial project
consistent with the C1 zoning of the property and the other commercially -
zoned properties in the vicinity. Compliance with the applicable Building and
Fire Safety Codes will ensure that the project is not materially detrimental to
the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to
property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood.
The properties on the south side of Bristol Street will not be adversely
affected by the project. Specifically, there are no modifications to the center
left turn lane on Bristol Street which would adversely impact access to the
properties on the south side of Bristol Street.
Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity
which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property.
Facts in Support of Findings: The project site is zoned C1 (Local
Business District) and has a General Plan Designation of General
Commercial. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the applicable
provisions of the General Commercial General Plan Designation.
The existing Home Depot at Harbor Center in Costa Mesa is also located in
the General Commercial land use designation. Home Depot required
discretionary approval of a Master Plan in the C1 -S zone.
Other jurisdictions also consider Ganahl Lumber stores as commercial uses.
For reference purposes, following is a list of similar Ganahl Lumber stores
located in commercial zones in other jurisdictions:
CG (Commercial General)
City of Buena Park
6586 Beach Blvd, Buena Park, CA 90621 1
City of Pasadena
3003 E Colorado
91107
Blvd, Pasadena, CA
City of Capistrano Beach
34162 Doheny Park Dr., Capistrano Beach,
CA 92624
(East Colorado Specific Plan -Commercial
General- The Chihuahuita area.)
C C/P (Community Commercial/Pedestrian)
C -G (General Commercial Zoning District) -
City of Los Alamitos Hardware Store
10742 Los Alamitos Blvd. Los Alamitos, CA
90720
This property is owned by the County Flood Control District and is limited in
development potential due to its location and required unbuildable
easements by Caltrans and the County Flood Control District. As noted in
the Planning Commission Staff Report, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the
project is 0.346, excluding the Pole Shed, which is not enclosed, and the
proposal will not exceed the City's maximum FAR requirement (.35 FAR
maximum allowed).
This site has been vacant for about seven years since the Bristol Street Mini
Storage was removed. As indicated in the letter submitted by the County of
Orange Executive Office, which facilitated the lease of their property to
Ganahl Lumber, the County determined that the Ganahl Lumber proposal
was the least intensive land development that their office received
(Attachment 7). In November 2013, the County's evaluation panel gave
Ganahl the highest rating above one proposal from Lyon -NCA Bristol
Venture for 207 apartments and two other proposals for hotels. All of the
other proposals are not consistent with the current GP/zoning, and would
require a General Plan amendment and Rezone of the property.
The following describes the proposed project's consistency with specific goals and
objectives of the General Plan, Land Use Element.
Goal LU -1: Land Use: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to provide its
citizens with a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial,
recreational, and institutional uses to satisfy the needs of the social and
economic segments of the population and to retain the residential character of
the City; to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within
each land use classification within reasonable land use intensity limits; and to
ensure the long term viability and productivity of the community's natural and
man-made environments.
Consistency: The infill nature of the proposed commercial project protects
the balance of land uses satisfying the needs of the community as it pertains
to commercial retail uses. The project will ensure the long-term viability of the
natural and man-made environment and decreases the need for significant
infrastructure improvements. The project is consistent with this General Plan
goal.
Objective LU -1A.3: Locate high-intensity developments or high traffic
generating uses away from low-density residential in order to buffer the more
sensitive land uses from the potentially adverse impacts of the more intense
developments or uses.
Consistency: The project is a commercial development located along Bristol
Street, a major traffic arterial in the City. The project site does not abut
residential properties. As indicated in the IS/MND, adequate infrastructure is
available to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the project is consistent
with this General Plan objective.
Objective LU -1 C.1: Permit the construction of buildings over two stories or 30
feet only when it can be shown that the construction of such structures will not
adversely impact surrounding developments and deprive existing land uses of
adequate light, air, privacy, and solar access.
Consistency: The proposed buildings that exceed the 30 -foot height limit will
not adversely impact surrounding developments and deprive existing land
uses of adequate light, air, privacy, and solar access as the site is abutting a
major street on one side and freeways on the other side. The buildings that
exceed to the 30 -foot height limit do not immediately abut the existing Ganahl
Lumber site to the east. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General
-121—
Plan objective.
Goal LU -2: Development: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to establish
development policies that will create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing
and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical and
social resources.
Consistency: The project would allow for the redevelopment of a vacant
commercially -zoned property. On-site vegetation is minimal. The proposed
project would enhance the visual appearance of the site through the
construction of new buildings and implementation of the proposed landscape
plan. In addition, the project would provide a high-quality architectural design
to the community. As a result, the proposed project is consistent with this
General Plan goal.
Objective LU -2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to
improve and maintain the quality of the environment.
Consistency: As indicated in the IS/MND, the proposed project with
mitigation incorporated would not result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts. Because the project is an infill development, it would
not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure
improvements to provide service to the site. The project is consistent with this
objective.
B. The requested variance substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code
Section 13-29(g)(1) in that:
Findings:
• Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict
application of development standards deprives the property of privileges
enjoyed by others in the vicinity.
• The deviation shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with
other properties in the vicinity.
• The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not
in accordance with the general plan designation for the property.
Facts in Support of Findings:
Despite the request for deviations from Code requirements for the building setback
for the B Shed and Mill Shed (20 -foot setback required; 10 feet proposed) and the
height for the Main Building A (30 -foot height required; 34 feet to the solar panels
and 41 feet to the elevator shaft) and the B Shed (30 -foot height required; 34 feet
proposed), of the variances are justified based on the following:
The unique shape and location along the Bristol Street frontage justify
deviation from the front landscape setback requirement. Because of special
circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of
development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others
in the vicinity. The property is shaped triangular with the B Shed and Mill
Shed sitting within the apex. Additionally, the northern property line runs
adjacent to the Santa Ana Delhi Channel and 73 -freeway. The purpose of
the 20 -foot landscape setback (10 feet proposed) is to provide a visual
buffer between the public sidewalk and any perimeter walls or buildings. In
this case, the B Shed and Mill Shed are proposed to have a 10 -foot
landscape setback from property line, which is consistent with several
properties across Bristol Street, including the two-story office buildings at
1072 and 1182 Bristol Street, both of which have less than the 20 foot
landscape requirement. Additionally, because of the irregular shape of the
property, the 20 -foot setback is infeasible. The reduced setback enjoyed by
these two properties, in combination with the unusual shape of the subject,
property, creates a special circumstance applicable to the property where
the strict application of the 20 -foot landscape setback would deprive the
property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. The B Shed and Mill
Shed will also act a visual screen to the storage yard and the proposed 10 -
foot landscape setback will be required to be densely landscaped and have
exterior building treatments. Similarly, as to the height of the Main Building,
the irregular shape of the property, limits the space available for parking on
the ground floor, thus, necessitating rooftop parking.
The applicant's request includes a variance from the Bristol Street setback
(20 -feet required, 10 -feet proposed). Existing setbacks along Bristol Street
for neighboring properties also do not meet this requirement. These include
the following properties:
1. 1072 Bristol Street — approximate 12 foot setback.
2. 1182 Bristol Street — less than 10 foot setback.
3. 1312 Bristol Street — approximate 15 foot setback.
With regard to the building height, special circumstances exist in that the
proximity of the elevated freeways and Santa Ana Delhi Channel will limit
visual impacts to surrounding properties and does not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity and zone in which the pEoperty is situated. The proposed
buildings that exceed the 30 -foot height limit will not adversely impact
surrounding developments and deprive existing land uses of adequate light,
air, privacy, and solar access as the site is abutting a major street on one side
and freeways along with the flood control channel on the other side. The
buildings that exceed the 30 -foot height limit do not immediately abut the
existing Ganahl Lumber site to the east. Therefore, the increased building
height will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other
properties in the vicinity.
The deviations will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in
accordance with the general plan designation for the property. The granting
of the deviations will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
_41 —
welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity. The development is consistent with the General Plan goals and
policies as discussed earlier in this report, and will be required to comply
with all applicable Building and Fire Safety regulations to ensure that no
adverse impact to the public health, safety, or welfare is created as a result
of this project. The proposed project is a conditionally permitted use in the
C1 zone. This property is owned by the County Flood Control District and is
limited in development potential due to its location and required unbuildable
easements by Caltrans and the County Flood Control District. The Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) for the project is 0.346, excluding the Pole Shed, which is
not enclosed, and the proposal will not exceed the City's maximum FAR
requirement (.35 FAR maximum allowed). Due to the unique nature of the
use, a parking ratio of 2.87 spaces per 1,000 square feet was determined to
be required for the proposed project. When applied to Building A and Building
B, a parking demand of 239 spaces is forecast. With a proposed supply of
286 spaces, parking will be sufficient for this use.
C. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code
Section 13-29(g)(8) in that:
Finding: The proposed signing is consistent with the intent of Title 13, Chapter
VIII (Signs) and the General Plan.
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed 24 -foot high freestanding sign
will not constitute a grant of special privilege or allow substantially greater
overall visibility than the standard ordinance provisions allow. The purpose of
this planned signing program is to allow for approval of a freestanding sign that
is not subject to the typical code requirements. The square footage of the total
site signage will not exceed the maximum sign area allowed under the Costa
Mesa's Municipal Code: 1,329 square feet of total site signage allowed; 982
square feet of total signage proposed. On the City's Master Plan of Highways,
Bristol Street is designated as an Augmented Major Street (±120 feet in width)
and the proposed signage provides adequate visibility for two-way traffic on
Bristol Street for the business. The planned sign program is also consistent with
the following objectives of the City's General Plan:
Objective LU -1 B: Ensure the long term productivity and viability of the
community's economic base.
Consistency: The sign will be consistent in appearance with the proposed
wall signage as well as existing freestanding signs in the vicinity. As a result,
the sign will be compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Objective CD -13: Facilitate the installation of signs that contribute to a
positive image of the public realm, consistent with the Costa Mesa Zoning
Code.
Consistency: The proposed sign will be compatible and harmonious with
uses that exist within the general neighborhood. The sign features quality
construction and materials. The proposed sign will improve and enhance the
appearance of the property from Bristol Street.
Objective LU -1 B: Ensure the long term productivity and viability of the
community's economic base.
Consistency: Ganahl Lumber provides large and specific purchases of
lumber products with a customer base spread over a large geographical area.
As a result, the signage will not constitute a grant of special privilege since it is
consistent with the signage for similar uses. Additionally, it will not allow
substantially greater visibility than what the standard sign provisions would
allow for commercial uses since the overall site signage is less than the
maximum allowed under the City's Municipal Code.
Objective CD -13: Facilitate the installation of signs that contribute to a
positive image of the public realm, consistent with the Costa Mesa Zoning
Code.
Consistency: With the implementation of the recommended conditions of
approval, the proposed sign will be compatible and harmonious with uses
that exist within the general neighborhood. The sign features quality
construction and materials. The proposed sign will improve and enhance the
appearance of the property from Bristol Street.
Finding: The proposed signs are consistent with each other in design and
construction – taking into account sign style and shape, materials, letter style,
colors and illumination.
Facts in Support of Findings: The freestanding sign, as conditioned, will
be consistent in color, height, and appearance with the proposed signage on
site.
Finding: The proposed signs are compatible with the buildings and developments
they identify – taking into account materials, colors and design motif.
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed signage is consistent with
current image standards for Ganahl Lumber as well as the City's Municipal
Code.
Finding: Approval does not constitute a grant of special privilege or allow
substantially greater overall visibility than the standard ordinance provisions allow.
Facts in Support of Findings: Ganahl Lumber provides large and specific
purchases of lumber products with a customer base spread over a large
geographical area. As a result, the signage will not constitute a grant of
special privilege since it is consistent with the signage for similar uses.
Additionally, it will not allow substantially greater visibility than what the
1-�(0—
standard sign provisions would allow for commercial uses since the overall
site signage is less than the maximum allowed under the City's Municipal
Code.
A survey of existing freestanding signs in neighboring properties along
Bristol Street provides information on pylon signs of comparable height:
Description
Address
Sign Height (Approx.)
Agape Wellness Center
1182 Bristol St.
22 feet
Animal Hospital
1206 Bristol St.
15 feet
Extra Storage
1250 Bristol St.
25 feet
Acapulco Rest.
1262 Bristol St.
19'6" feet
Travelod e
1400 Bristol St.
20 feet
Bill's Burgers
1476 Bristol St.
16 feet
Bristol Village Center
270 Bristol St.
25 feet
Car Wash
Bristol Design Center
2770 Bristol St.
2777 Bristol St.
24 feet
25 feet
D. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental
procedures. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been
prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Mitigation measures from the IS/MND have been included as Exhibit C. If
any of these conditions are removed, the decision-making body must make a finding
that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions
are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific
economic, social or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible.
E. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation
System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that the
development project's traffic impacts will be mitigated at all affected intersections
and by the payment of traffic impact fees.
F. The proposed buildings are an excessive distance from the street necessitating fire
apparatus access and provisions of on-site fire hydrants.
_q9_
FXHIRIT R
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Ping. 1.
Planning Application PA -14-40 shall comply with the conditions of
approval, code requirements, special district requirements, and mitigation
measures of the IS/MND for this project and as listed in the attached
Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit C).
2.
The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described in the staff
report. Any change in the operational characteristics including, but not
limited to, the hours of operation indicated, shall require review by the
Planning Division and may require an amendment to the conditional use
permit, subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission
approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant
is reminded that Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or
revoke any planning application based on findings related to public
nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13,
Section 13-29(0)].
3.
If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business
operator shall institute whatever reasonable operational measures
necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem.
4.
The business operator shall install bike racks for employees on the site.
This condition shall be completed prior to final occupancy/start of
business, under the direction of the Development Services Department.
5.
Mitigation measures from the IS/MND for this project have been included
as Exhibit C. If any of these conditions are removed, the Planning
Commission must make a finding that the project will not result in
significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the
responsibility of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or
other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible.
6.
The conditions of approval including Mitigation Measures incorporated by
reference in these Conditions of Approval as Exhibit C, code requirements,
and special district requirements of PA -14-40 shall be blueprinted on the
face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package.
7.
Prior to issuance of building permits, a final landscape plan indicating the
landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division.
8. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the
approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance.
9. Landscaping along Bristol Street shall be planted with trees and
vegetation. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of
building permits and shall contain additional 24 -inch box trees above the
minimum Code requirements to the satisfaction of the Development
Services Director. Compliance with this requirement may include
upgrading smaller sized trees to 24 -inch box trees or providing additional
24 -inch box trees.
10. Developer shall contact the City's Transportation Services Division and
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to replace the
-I F-
chain link fencing between the subject property and the Caltrans property
abutting the 73 and 55 Freeways with a combination wrought iron fence
with pilaster supports or other fence/barrier acceptable to both the City
and Caltrans. The fencing shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Planning Division. Issuance of certificate of occupancy shall not be
withheld pending the completion of this condition; however, the applicant
shall provide documentation of the progress and estimated time of
completion of the condition prior to the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy.
11. No mechanical equipment or other rooftop appurtenances shall be
located on the elevator overrun area of Main Building A above the
approved 41 -foot height limit.
12. Future installation of rooftop solar canopies on the outdoor storage
sheds (i.e. Pole Shed, Shed B, and Mill Shed) may be approved by the
Development Services Director as an amendment to the Conditional Use
Permit, provided that there are no adverse impacts (light, glare) to
surrounding properties.
13. Final location of the gate and proper signage of the hours of operation at
the gated entrance shall be approved by the Development Services
Director and Transportation Services Manager to avoid customer
confusion and circulation impacts on Bristol Street.
14. The business operator shall require that Ganahl Lumber employee
vehicles be exclusively parked in the rooftop parking level in order to
make the at -grade parking lot available for customers/contractors to the
fullest extent possible.
15. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall contact the U.S.
Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery
facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan,
and/or floor plan.
16. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not
limited to, change of architectural type, changes that increase the
building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish
material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning
Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division
approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the
applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review
process or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to
reflect the approved plans.
17. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain
downspouts are permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent
features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the
architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an
integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from
the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter
system which is painted to match the building would comply with the
condition. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the
. lq,
Planning Division.
18. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a
Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for the approval of the City's
Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan shall demonstrate
compliance with the following:
• All site lighting fixtures shall be provided with a flat glass lens.
Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass
lens fixture efficiency.
• Lighting design and layout shall limit spill light to no more than 0.5
foot-candle at the property line of the surrounding properties,
consistent with the level of lighting that is determined necessary
for safety and security purposes on site.
• Light standards located at the top level of the parking structure
shall be a maximum of 15 feet in height, located and oriented in
such a way as to minimize light spillage onto surrounding
properties. Light standards shall be custom -fitted with glare
shields to focus light spillage in the parking structure area to the
fullest extent possible.
19. It is recommended that the project incorporate green building design and
construction techniques where feasible. The applicant may contact the
Building Safety Division at (714) 754-5273 for additional information.
CAL Green Code or higher as determined by applicant.
20. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review
and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan features
methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring residential uses to the
fullest extent that is reasonable and practicable. The plan shall include
construction parking and vehicle access and specifying staging areas
and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan should mitigate
disruption to residents during construction. The truck route plan shall
preclude truck routes through residential areas and major truck traffic
during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200
trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the
site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or
Transportation Services Manager.
21. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be
filled/raised in excess of 36 inches above the finished grade of any
abutting property. If additional fill dirt is needed to provide acceptable
on-site storm water flow to a public street, an alternative means of
accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building
Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such
alternatives may include subsurface tie-in to public storm water facilities,
subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical
pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is
determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be
maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject
property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on
abutting properties.
22. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning
inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy/utilities. This
inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and code
requirements have been satisfied.
23. Transformers, backflow preventers, and any other approved above-
ground utility improvement shall be located outside of the required street
setback area and shall be screened from view, under direction of
Planning staff. Any deviation from this requirement shall be subject to
review and approval of the Development Services Director.
24. A comprehensive sign program shall be submitted for all on-site signs
(i.e., monument, directional, wall mounted) for review and approval of the
Development Services Director prior to issuance of building permits.
25. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its
elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any
claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding")
brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents,
officers or employees arising out of, or which are in any way related to, the
applicant's project, or any approvals granted by City related to the
applicant's project. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to,
damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of
suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in
connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the
City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This
indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the
City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in
enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. City shall
have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City's
interests, and applicant shall indemnify City for all such costs incurred by
City.
Eng. 26. Maintain the public right-of-way in a "wet -down" condition to prevent
excessive dust and promptly remove any spillage from the public right-of-
way by sweeping or sprinkling.
Trans. 27. Design and construct the improvements required for providing a
signalized access to the project site at the intersection of Bristol Street
and Newport Boulevard Northbound. The applicant will be responsible
for procuring all applicable permits and approvals from Caltrans and City
of Costa Mesa prior to beginning of construction.
Street 28. Trees within the 10 -foot landscape setback along the Bristol Street
Trees frontage shall complement the tabebuia avellanedae street trees
required to be planted within the public right-of-way per Code
Requirement number 34. The applicant shall contact the City Arborist for
preferred tree types and additional information.
City 29. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall remit
Atty, documentation verifying the approval of: (a) Required encroachment
—,5(—
permit from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and
(b) Ground lease from the Orange County Flood Control District. The
Development Services Director may modify/extend the timing of the
required submissions as necessary.
Ping. 30. The applicant shall submit a transition management plan to the
Comm. satisfaction of the Development Services Director that provides a
cohesive plan for the closure of the existing operation and opening of the
project prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy.
31. The applicant shall provide enhanced building treatment and materials
on the B Shed and Mill Shed elevations facing Bristol Street, subject to
review and approval by the Development Services Director.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been
compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the
City of Costa Mesa.
Ping. 1. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to
do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final
occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses
have been obtained.
2. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior
to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of
individual units, suites, buildings, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan
and on all floor plans in the working drawings.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall contact the US Postal
Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such
facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor
plan.
4. Hours of construction shall comply with Section 13-279, Title 13, of the
Costa Mesa Municipal Code.
5. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the
requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101
through 13-108 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines,
shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval
process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
6. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the
Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets.
7. All on-site utility services shall be installed underground.
8. Installation of all utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to
obscure the installation from view from any place on or off the property.
The installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the public utility and
16. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403,
Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best
available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule
403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable
SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the
site, the contractor would implement each of the following:
a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or
conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust
emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction.
b. Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed
grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust
suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized
surface.
c. Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary
coverings.
53
shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box under the direction
of the Planning Division.
9.
Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct
work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning
Division.
10.
Prior to approval of plans, the project shall fulfill the City of Costa Mesa
Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements.
Bldg. 11.
Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code,
2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013
California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013
California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 California Energy
Code (or the applicable adopted, California Building Code, California
Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code,
California Green Building Standards, and California Energy Code at the
time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of
Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as
amended by the City of Costa Mesa.
12.
Submit precise grading plans, an erosion control plan, and a hydrology
study.
13.
Submit a soils report for this project. Soil's report recommendations
shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans.
14.
On graded sites the top of exterior foundation shall extend above the
elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an
approved discharge devise a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent.
2013 California Building Code Section 1808.7.4.
15.
The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped
away from the building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum
distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall per
BCB Section 1804.3
16. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403,
Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best
available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule
403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable
SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the
site, the contractor would implement each of the following:
a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or
conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust
emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction.
b. Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed
grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust
suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized
surface.
c. Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary
coverings.
53
d.
Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm
conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds
are less than 25 miles per day or during very dry weather in order
to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible
emissions from the construction site.
e.
Wash mud -covered tired and under -carriages of trucks leaving
construction sites.
f.
Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to
19.
remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would
otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites.
g.
Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving
the construction sites to dispose of debris.
h.
Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per
hour.
Trans. 17. Construct
all proposed driveway approaches to comply with city
standards.
18.
Fulfill mitigation of off-site traffic impacts at the time of issuance of
occupancy by submitting to the Planning Division the required traffic
impact fee pursuant to the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by
the City Council. The traffic impact fee is calculated including credits for
all existing uses. NOTE: The Traffic Impact Fee will be recalculated at
the time of issuance of building permit/certificate of occupancy based
upon any changes in the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the
City Council and in effect at that time.
19.
Fulfill San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Ordinance (if
applicable) at the time of issuance of building permit by submitting the
required fee to the Transportation Services Division. Note that the fee is
subject to revision and possible increase July 1 of each year.
20.
Close unused drive approaches, or portion of, with full height curb and
gutter that comply with City Standards.
21.
Delivery truck gate shall be designed to prevent trucks from backing up
onto Bristol Street.
Eng. 22.
At the time of development submit for approval an offsite plan to the
engineering division and grading plan to the building division that shows
sewer, water, existing parkway improvements and the limits of work on
the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a registered civil
engineer or architect. Cross lot drainage shall not occur. Construction
access approval must be obtained prior to building or engineering
permits being issued by the city of costa mesa. Pay offsite plan check
fee per section 13-231 of the C.C.M.M.C. and an approved offsite plan
shall be required prior to engineering permits being issued by the City
Of Costa Mesa.
23.
A construction access permit and deposit of $1,230.00 will be required
by City of Costa Mesa, engineering division prior to start of any on-site
work, necessary during construction for street sweeping and to
guarantee replacement costs in case of damage to existing public
-5-
improvements.
24. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, engineering division, at the
time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches
per City Of Costa Mesa standards as shown on the offsite plan.
Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the
transportation services manager. ADA compliance required for all new
driveway approaches.
25. Obtain a permit from the City Of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at
the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or
curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb
and sidewalk.
26. Fulfill City Of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements
prior to approval of plans.
27. Submit to the Engineering Division a storm runoff study showing existing
and proposed facilities and the method of draining this area and
tributary areas without exceeding the capacity of any street or drainage
facility on-site or off-site to the satisfaction of the city engineer. If
possible, drain the entire site directly to the flood control channel.
Fire 28. Provide (4) Class A fire hydrants at the direction of the Fire Department.
See Fire Prevention.
29. Flammable Fuel Storage and use shall comply with California Fire
Code, 2013.
30. Provide fire sprinkler systems for all buildings per NFPA 13, 2013.
31. Provide Fire Department key access per CMFD standards.
32. Provide 12 inch address on building and at street. Address must be
visible form the street and contrast in color with its background.
33. A Fire Master Plan shall be approved by CMFD prior to formal building
submittal.
Street 34. Create not more than fifteen (15) — 4'X4' tree wells adjacent to curb and
Trees plant fifteen (15) 24" Box size Tabebuia avellanedae along Bristol
Street.
SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant:
Sani. 1. Applicant will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his
own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District.
2. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, inspection fees, and sewer
permit are required prior to installation of sewer.
3. Applicant shall submit a plan showing sewer improvements that meets
the District Engineer's approval to the Building Division as part of the
plans submitted for plan check.
4. The applicant is required to contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at
(714) 754-5307 to arrange final sign -off prior to certificate of occupancy
being released.
5. Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 654-8400 for
any additional district requirements.
AQMD 6. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at
(800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for
additional permits required by AQMD.
Water 7. Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District — Engineering Desk and
submit an application and plans for project review. Customer must obtain
a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water
District.
School 8. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building
Division prior is issuance of building permits.
State 9. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and
Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants (RIFA) exist on
the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Call CDFA at
(714) 708-1910 for information.
EXHIBIT C
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
-6-7-
y
-,5 6r
C. 7 v
U ;d C may. J ''' J ,.. '7 b J y .7 .•. ^ ""'' y .y.
n ~ b tib... ..
72
v
V
toU'..
v v v w v 5n v
to an 7� :3 b ? o
? ~ "J'' 'r U • ? � V � ri ,� .�+ '� 4, '_nd U .J. G J ' O T� .� :d cd ."�' :V '� :�
C b
'1.) `�y~^" y , ti •• j ti O .~y.,
L. � n ❑ k' '� = n O J :d . U b 1.,
o0 C14
v b a b
p G CL
�J
jf)
�b
S — f{
J
r
77
j
�U
7=
J_
J
J
_
J-
... -U
j —
J
; •
-
.,U
j
r ' J = ,.J.
_
� — �
�
__
•' �
-_
._ �
_
!
�
�
_ -
— - "r. -
_J _
_
_
_
_�
Willi
_LJ
7
we
,t
Zo
=L
— —
—
—
C _
—
_
-
-
—
J
=
1
1J
_
rJ
J
_
'J J
Y
Y
4P I
r
ki
4
U
v o
n U
U
v o
n U
�
v
v
�I
j'J
3
b
bth
v
v
v
..
O
n
O
^
v
b 7
C
t4 b
.�
:`j lj ti L �
U
t
U
^ j � �_ J U 1+
❑� 2�
y
O
71
73
_
n
3 •�
3
> �
�
�
rn n � v �
a C
n
r
U
U
U
U75
C
:J
c
b
214
^�
C
t1
4' b
•�
C
'� �� 3
r b '� �U
Iti
.a V
� 54
'J
b
'->
'�
..,
� O
"• U
'�
U
.U�. y ,.
a 3 7 -10
ay+
�
.i C ? � �
]�
„yj �
•�
'n
J [ 'r""i � C �
�
�
'J
� � U b7,.i '�' T � .� U
I � � ,�^� � Y
y
�
U
.
rAh
. ,�,
rr��
_
O
z
^
b
O
b
b
C��
r+l
4P I
r
ki
a
,s
Il
is
r
N
is
n
o�
z`
> Z
3
A
•
q
:a .v
7Q � •ll
a z! 7� y Y v
4 -5 b n
0
b
w
-o 0
� � �, � U '� ' � � � r --i i"' '" ^O v ..f"'., ll n �" CLQ � ' • y � � O O --y ~ ; w
-� ;J b ;d b O .� y•� J -y. n• O - Y U � n 7 Q
o>
a c ? v
CZ t
Oi
,� � b � .? ami • � � 'd -°�. v o � � q J v � L u ? I ca
O ,y. 3 •� � b v y y O y I"'l ° o -y., w -°~i U y>,°
j •�° u M n .J ^�" '�], Q y v J •� O, b `' i
n •� `-, v v r3' «., b O 5A n v W �. _' b y U
U v?v -a o b y b 7u v 3 a n 0 3
v O .] b y ++ y. o '-' :d v .-�, b_ y n A J (U
:J CL 4" o 'y .
I! .7 •, 3 O" y y p 50 > CL y GQ ^u q j 4
- y 0 "7yU>U-50 V"
-ri U i••, �.p
J o 4
" �N
Lo
v v �' v 34�:°
i••, U 4" cC y v > .°. .� �i ❑ '� U l• -~i y� -ri -�-i 3 4 ee q v 7 'd i
tLo
C y°Q o v6.
> •>zn-
v :v 5nb 7' > ❑ o [� a b a
v :64 Qn
b [ T b n ? b b a y b b o ►� >gn
b„ b •� I
v y Qv an G G 73
O ca
`6. 4�. aoi u a [ y
x Q o. Z r b on d n: a v r ❑o �n . 0 5u u° ro U U cL Aal
��
G ..
i
.---
-
rl
•--, .4
i J J
✓
Z
77
^ I
ti
� f rJ ��
12 F
- T
I 1 J
� - -
J - J J_
i
•} J
._
-
Zoo
fj
Fj
r
_
I
1 1
-
J
- _
- - - -
`••i .t
-
7'
-
..-.
-
-
71
=L
1. � ! `J
�
J
_
y �J � L
�
✓
. _
�
�? _9 rte-'
�
j =
= J
= _
=_
-
- -
ZL
71
7-1
'
-
r
�
� � J J � JJJ -
! j = - fL-• JJ - r
-_ ;- ..f."I � =f' J
- - r- _
_
� =
J
T
N
w
�
v
ti
n
U
n V
U
'n
OO
:J �A
U �
r
w6-1
,
b�
v
y
�o
v
.
0
r3.
b v
U r i � � 7.1 � r
lJ
�
�
r
�
lv..,
4
V
4v-•
v
1)
v
v
v
ti � J t•n
V
>
u
U
V
�^
c q:
71 71J n
4
Il
76�
]0
U
�,,
js
�; ; � v � > •� �
3
$
•q
3 w
3
iLy � '� n G'�r
3
b
3
3
�
�
ar
cJ
g
v
CZ
40
a
a"
n
-!:1
oz
o
y
u
v
m
v
4,
d
C
r
Q.
cl
b�
�
O
�
O
�
7
7
�
7
y
7
Fes..
�
♦.
U
V7
Pry
M
M
M
Z
M
en
.ci
Nl
T
EXHIBIT D
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
-W-
L A LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
\20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 200
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 23, 2015
BERKELEY FRESNO RIVERSIDE
949,553.0666 TEL CARLSBAD PALM SPRINGS ROCKLIN
949.533.8076 FAX FORD COLLINS PT. RICHMOND SAN LUIS OBISPO
TO: Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Costa Mesa
CC: Claire L. Flynn, AICP, Assistant Development Services Director, City of Costa Mesa
FROM: Ryan Bensley, Senior Environmental Planner, LSA Associates, Inc.
SUBJECT: Responses to Additional Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration Prepared for the Ganahl Lumber Hardware Store and Lumber Yard
Project (Planning Application No. PA -14-40)
Following the distribution of a Supplemental Memorandum to the Planning Commission on Friday,
February 20, 2015, the City of Costa Mesa (City) received one additional comment letter regarding
the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Ganahl Lumber Hardware
Store and Lumber Yard Project (proposed project). The purpose of this supplemental memorandum is
to address this additional comment letter regarding the environmental information and analyses
contained in the Draft IS/MND.
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (State CEQA
Guidelines) Section 15087, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft IS/MND for the proposed
project was filed with the State Clearinghouse on January 22, 2015, and the Notice of Intent (NOI) to
Adopt an MND was filed with the County of Orange (County) Clerk on January 23, 2015.
The Draft IS/MND was circulated for public review for a period of 30 days, from January 23, 2015,
to February 22, 2015. The NOI and/or copies of the Draft IS/MND were distributed to all Responsible
Agencies and to the State Clearinghouse in addition to various public agencies, citizen groups, and
interested individuals. Copies of the Draft IS/MND were also made available for public review at the
City's Public Counter, the Mesa Verde Library, and the Costa Mesa/Donald Dungan Library, and on
the City's website.
As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b), "[p]rior to approving a project, the decision-
making body of the lead agency [in this case, the City's Planning Commission], shall consider the
proposed... mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public
review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed... mitigated negative declaration
only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments
received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment and that the... mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent
judgment and analysis."
Although the City is not required by CEQA to respond to the comments submitted on the Draft
IS/MND, a summary of each comment is provided below along with a draft response.
2/23/15 (C:\Users\LEE_M\AppData\Local\Microsoti\Windows\Temporary Intemet Files\ContenL0utlook\2VAZIGDW\Responseto 1072 Bristol
Comments.doc) ' ��
1072 Bristol Partners, LP I-1
1072 Bristol Street, Suite 100
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
February 19, 2015
VIA E-MAIL & FACSIMILE
Claire Flynn, Asst. Development Services Director
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
Re: Comment to Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
proposed Ganahl Lumber Project
Dear Ms. Flynn:
I am an owner representative of the ownership of 1072 Bristol Street. Our
property is across Bristol from the proposed Mega Ganahl Lumber project. I 1 1
We are not being provided with adequate information about this giant project right
across the street. What is referred to as "The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration" does not come close to addressing the many impacts of the Mega Ganahl. A I- I-2
great deal of it is false. What remains is inadequate, The "conclusions" asserted are not
made in good faith.
The "analysis" regarding land use is based on many wrong assumptions. A
fundamental wrong assumption is that the Mega Ganahl is permitted under the City's I 1 3
zoning. It does not come close.
The traffic "analysis" is also totally inadequate and seems to be purposefully so, It
fails to address the traffic impacts on the south side of Bristol. I 1
1460456.1
The aesthetics "analysis" is also not adequate.
S' rely,
Joseph E. Miller
I-1-5
I.i -k \ii1)CI k r F i I\(-
1072 BRISTOL PARTNERS, LP
LETTER CODE: I-1
DATE: February 19, 2015
RESPONSE I-1-1
This comment explains that the commenter represents 1072 Bristol Partners, LP, the owner of 1072
Bristol Street, which is located across Bristol from the project site.
Comment noted,
RESPONSE I-1-2
This comment claims that the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) does not
contain adequate information about the proposed project, fails to address the proposed project's
environmental impacts, and contains false information.
The commenter appears to suggest that the proposed project would result in impacts related to
environmental topic areas without providing any basis for their claims. The commenter also appears
to be unfamiliar with the CEQA-mandated scope of environmental review and the concept of
thresholds of significance.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c), [rjeviewers should explain the basis for their
comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on
facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. CEQA Guidelines Section
15204(c) also states that effects shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial
evidence. Therefore, because the commenter fails to provide any facts or evidence in support of the
claims included in their comments, such comments are considered to be personal opinions and no
further response is required by the City.
As described on page 1 of the Draft IS/MND, "[t]he purpose of this Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts that would occur as a
result of construction and the subsequent operation of the Ganahl Hardware Store and Lumber
Yard...," as required by CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, a "significant impact"
or "significant effect" means "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the
physical conditions within the area affected by the project." For each environmental impact issue
analyzed, the Draft IS/MND includes a detailed explanation of the existing conditions, thresholds of
significance that will be applied to determine whether the project's impacts are significant or less than
significant, analysis of the environmental impacts against established thresholds, and a determination
of whether the project would have a significant impact if implemented.
A proper understanding and application of thresholds of significance is an essential part of the CEQA
process. Thresholds of significance are identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level
metrics for a particular environmental effect, which form the basis of conclusions of significance in
the Draft IS/MND. While public agencies in California are free to adopt their own significance
2/23/15 (C:\Users\LEE_NI\App Data\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Fi1es\Content.0utlook\2VAZIGDW\Response to 1072 Bristol 3
Comments.doc)
I ; \ \;;Oi i v rrs INC
thresholds, most agencies, including the City of Costa Mesa, rely on the significance thresholds
included in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the City has adopted its own
format for Initial Study and Initial Study Checklist forms. For each environmental topic analyzed in
the Draft IS/MND, the measured impacts of the project were evaluated against the significance
thresholds for that topic. In this manner, the Draft IS/MND presented a qualitative or quantitative
impact discussion for each applicable environmental topic.
The Draft IS/MND was prepared in a manner consistent with professional industry standards. Chapter
2.0, Project Description, of the Draft IS/MND contains a detailed description of the proposed
project's various design elements, including the height and square footage of the proposed project's
structures, floorplans, elevations, and renderings, and information regarding the operational
characteristics of the proposed project.
This comment does not explain the basis for their claim that the Draft IS/MND contains false
information. Therefore, the City is unable to respond to the commenter's claims regarding the alleged
inclusion of false information in the document.
RESPONSE I-1-3
This comment asserts that the land use analysis in the Draft IS/MND is based on many wrong
assumptions and claims that the proposed project is not permitted under the City's Zoning Ordinance.
As described in Section 3.10, Land Use/Planning, of the Draft IS/MND, the Zoning Ordinance
designation for the project site is C1 (Local Business). The Cl zoning designation allows for a variety
of commercial and industrial land uses, including hardware stores and the retail sale of building
supplies, which are applicable to the proposed project.
Further, as described in Table 3.10.A of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would be consistent
with all applicable City development standards set forth in the City's Zoning Ordinance for the C 1
zoning designation; however, as described in Table 3.10.A, the proposed project would require
variances from the maximum height limit of two stories/30 feet in the C 1 zone to allow a maximum
height of 41 feet related to the elevator/stairwell overrun, and 34 feet for the solar roof canopy, B
Shed, and the roof -deck parking level. In addition, a Planned Sign Program would be required to
allow a proposed sign height of 25 feet, which is higher than the maximum 12 -foot height allowed by
the development standards contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance. With approval of such
variances, the proposed project would be consistent with the City's Zoning Code.
The proposed project would be a compatible use subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that
would allow for a hardware store and outdoor storage yard in an area zoned for commercial uses.
These uses are similar to the uses at the existing Ganahl hardware store and lumber yard adjacent to
the project site. With approval of the CUP and Development Review, the proposed project would be
consistent with applicable goals and policies outlined in the City's General Plan and development
standards outlined in the City's Zoning Code. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project
would not result in conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation applicable to the
project.
2/23/15 (C:AUsers\LEE_blvAppDatavLocalv[\,licrosoft\Windows\Temporary lntemet FilesVContent. Out lookCVAZIGDW-Response to 1072 Bristol 4
Comments,doc)
liA 1ii1)(IA FI:i I"( -
This comment does not explain the basis for their claim that the land use analysis in the Draft
IS/MND is based on wrong assumptions. Therefore, the City is unable to respond to the commenter's
claims regarding the assumptions in the document.
RESPONSE I-1-4
This comment claims that the traffic analysis in the Draft IS/MND is intentionally inadequate and
fails to address the traffic impacts on the south side of Bristol Street.
Section 3.16, Transportation/Traffic, of the Draft IS/MND analyzes whether the proposed project
would result in significant environmental impacts related to traffic and transportation. As described
above in the Response to Comment I-1-2, the environmental impact analysis contained in the Draft
IS/MND is based on the thresholds included in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Other
than claiming that the traffic analysis fails to address the traffic impacts on the south side of Bristol
Street, this comment fails to explain why the analysis included in Section 3.16 of the Draft IS/MND
is inadequate. The traffic analysis evaluated traffic impacts at three existing study intersections along
Bristol Street (Southbound Newport Boulevard at Bristol Street, Northbound Newport Boulevard at
Bristol Street, and Red Hill Avenue/Santa Ana Avenue at Bristol Street). These key locations were
selected for evaluation based on discussions with City staff and in consideration of the Orange
County Congestion Management Program. The traffic impact analysis considered potential increases
in traffic volumes and delay at each of the legs of the study intersections. Therefore, the impact
analysis considered the potential for traffic impacts to occur along both northbound and southbound
Bristol Street in the vicinity of the project site.
RESPONSE I-1-5
This comment asserts that the aesthetics analysis contained in the Draft IS/MND is inadequate.
Section 3.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft IS/MND analyzes whether the proposed project would result in
significant environmental impacts related to aesthetics, including scenic vistas, scenic resources,
visual character, or light or glare sources. As described above in the Response to Comment I-1-2, the
environmental impact analysis contained in the Draft IS/MND is based on the thresholds included in
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. This comment fails to explain why the analysis included
in Section 3.1 of the Draft IS/1VIND is inadequate. No further response is required.
2/23/t3 (C:\Users\LEE_N[\NppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary [nternet Files\Content. Out look\2VAZIGDW\Response to 1072 Bristol 5
Comments.doc)
EXHIBIT E
OBJECTIONS TO PROJECT
ANGELO J PALMIERI (1223 1208)
ROBERT F WALDRON (1027-1208)
MICHAEL J. GREENE'
DENNIS 'N. GHAN'
DAVID D PARR'
CHARLES H KANTER'
PATRICK A HENNE33EY
DON FISHER
GREGORY WEBER
WARREN A. WILLIAMS
JOHN R LISTER
MICHAEL H LEIFER
SCOTT R. CARPENTER
RICHARD A SALUS
NORMAN J. RODICH
RONALDIA COLE
MICHAEL L D'ANGELO
STEPHEN A SCHECK
DONNA L SNOW
PALMIM.
TYLER, WIENER, WILHEL,M &WALDRON
RYAN M EASTER
ELISE M KERN
MELISA R. PEREZ
MICHAEL 1. KEHOE
CHADWICK C. BUNCH
ANISH J. BANKER
RYAN M PRAGER
ERIN BALSARA NADERI
ERICA M- SOROSKY
JERAD BELTZ
CANDICE L LEE
MICHAEL P BURNS
JOSHUA J. MARX
ERIN K OYAMA
STEVEN R. GUESS
KATHERINE M HARRISON
BRIAN GLICKLIN
ALAN H. WIENER', OF COUNSEL
ROBERT C IHRKE. OF COUNSEL
MICHAEL C, CHO, OF COUNSEL
JAMES E WILHELM RETIRED
DENNIS G TYLER% RETIRED
'A PROFE 1310NAL CQRPORATION
VIA E-MAIL
Planning Commissioners
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
2603 MAIN STREET
EAST TOWER — SUITE 1300
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614-4281
(949) 851-9400
Www.Ptwww.com
February 23, 2015
Re: Obiection to the Proposed Ganahl Lumber Project
Dear Honorable Members of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission:
TH-2-
P O BOK 19712
IRVINE, CA 92623-9712
WRITER'S DIRECT
DIAL NUMBER
(949) 8517294
WRITER'S DIRECT
FACSIMILE NUMBER
(949)825-5412
FIRM'S DIRECT
FACSIMILE NUMBERS
(949) 851-1554
(949) 757.1225
mleifer(aptwww.com
REFER TO FILE NO
36650.003
This office represents the ownership of the 1072 Bristol Street property --1072
Bristol Street Partners, LP (1072 Bristol).
1072 Bristol objects to the proposed very large Ganahl Lumber Project directly
across Bristol. We request that this letter be included in the administrative record for this
project.
The public has not been provided correct or adequate information about this mega -
lumber yard project. In reviewing the Staff Report, the Staff Report omits material and
fundamental information. Further, it lacks analysis and support. In many areas, the
words that are strung together are bureaucratese. The mega Ganahl simply does not
comply with the City's Zoning Code.
This Planning Commission is required to apply the Zoning Code even if it receives
an inadequate Staff report. The number of years a company has been in business is no
1461587.3
--73
PALMIERI,TYLER.WIENER, WILHELM &WALDRON
Planning Commissioners
February 23, 2015
Page 2
justification for non-compliance with a request to build a mega project (as the Staff
Report ridiculously seems to suggest).
Here, this applicant is seeking to be excused from compliance with nearly all of
the requirements of the Zoning Code. The use is not permitted in the zone. The buildings
proposed are far too big. There is woefully insufficient parking and the buildings are too
close to the street.
Staff seems to focus the Ganahl business as a justification for wholesale
noncompliance with the City's code. There is no "likeability" exception. The City cannot
award a privilege or series of privileges to the applicant.
This applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission approve a project that
requires the City to essentially disregard the Zoning Code, while there is a pretense of
compliance.
Based upon the actual requirements of the City's Zoning Code, this is not a close
call. The proposed Ganahl mega lumber yard project should be denied.
1. The lumber yard project does not comply with the City's C1 Zoning.
Without any analysis, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this
project and the Staff Report claim that the proposed lumber yard complies with the City's
C 1 zoning. It does not even come close.
This is a lumber yard. Ganahl Lumber is a lumber company. It is a lumber and
building materials dealer. A significant component of the project is a request for a
sawmill. A retail use under the zoning code does not include or allow lumber yards or
sawmills.
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration spins the project as a "hybrid"
use. There is no "hybrid" use in the Municipal Code.
At best, the Ganahl lumber yard mega project is a lumber yard with an ancillary
retail use --not the other way around. This is evident by the proposed site configuration
and design and the building layout.
It is evident by the proposed location and distribution of parking. Retail uses do
not provide a significant number of parking spaces behind guard gates or on a roof of a
1461587.3
7.i
PALMI ERI. TYLER, WIENER. WILHELM &WALDRON�
Planning Commissioners
February 23, 2015
Page 3
building. There are less than 50 surface parking spaces that are not behind guard gates
for a 65,263 square -foot "retail" building. That is a parking ratio of .75 spaces for every
1,000 square -feet of the "retail" building --a far cry from the City's 4 spaces for every
1,000 square -feet of retail requirement (this ratio is even more egregious when
considering the rest of the proposed buildings in the calculation).
Further, the Staff Report admits that the City's Municipal Code does not provide a
parking requirement for lumber yards. (Staff Report, p. 13.) This proves that this is not
retail --this is a lumber yard. A lumber yard is not permitted.
2. The Staff Report does not inform the Planning Commission of the proposed
modifications to be made to Bristol that will impact access to the properties
on the south side of Bristol.
One of the aspects of Ganahl's mega lumber yard project that is completely absent
from the Staff Report (and the conditions of approval) are the proposed changes to be
made to Bristol.
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration provides some information
regarding the modifications. Even then, the information provided lacks detail and
analysis.
From the little information provided, the Ganahl lumber yard project will make
significant modifications to Bristol in order to accommodate the two new entrances to the
Ganahl property.
Instead of taking access from the existing curb -cut at the middle of the property,
Ganahl is proposing two new access points on Bristol. To provide access to those two
new proposed access points, there will be modifications made to Bristol (changes to the
Newport Blvd./Bristol intersection and a dedicated left -turn in to the new driveway at the
east end of the property from Bristol).
Those modifications will negatively impact access to the properties on the south
side of Bristol including the 1072 Bristol property for vehicles travelling west on Bristol.
Yet, no information was provided in the Staff Report of these modifications and neither
14615873
PALM[ ERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM &WALDRON3
Planning Commissioners
February 23, 2015
Page 4
the Staff Report or the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration analyze or discuss
the impacts to the properties opposite the proposed Ganahl lumber yard site.
3. The proposed building setback variance does not comply with the Zoning
Code requirements for a variance.
This project requests a very large variance from the building setback requirements
in the Zoning Code. The variance is not justified. There are no special circumstances to
justify this significant of a variance. Approving a variance here would provide a
privilege to Ganahl. The proposed variance is inconsistent with other properties in the
area. As such, the Planning Commission cannot make the required findings.
The Staff Report attempts to justify the variance from the setback requirements by
comparing the proposed project to the 1072 Bristol property and the property located at
1182 Bristol Street claiming that both of these properties have less than the 20 foot
landscape requirement. (Staff Report, p. 10.)
The comparison fails for a number of reasons. One of the more significant reasons
is the amount of building that is being proposed in the setback area. The comparison
properties (1072 and It 82) each have less than 50 lineal feet of building in the required
setback area. The Ganahl project plans to put nearly 450 lineal feet of building (without
any break), a building that is already oversized (proposed with an objectionable height
variance), in the required setback area. Allowing a height variance and a setback
variance for a building with a use not allowed by the C-1 zoning, spanning nearly four -
and -a -half football fields of frontage on Bristol is not comparable to the 1072 and 1182
Bristol properties.
4. The proposed height variance does not comply with the Zoninz Code
requirements for a variance.
The requested variance from the height standards is not justified. There are no
special circumstances requiring the variance. Rather, the "special circumstance" cited by
the Staff Report is the use that is not permitted by the Zoning Code.
1461587.3
PALM IERLTYLER, WIENER, WILHELM &WALDRON3
Planning Commissioners
February 23, 2015
Page 5
Further, the condition of approval that provides that the B -shed, that requires a
height variance, can later install "rooftop solar canopies" that will increase the height of
the B -Shed even further, through a simple approval from the Development Services
Director is also not supported.
Approval of the si na a that doubles the height allowed by the Zoriigg Code
provides a privileze to Ganahl.
There is no justification for the Planned Sign Program that proposes to approve a
24 -foot high freestanding sign --a 100 percent increase from what is allowably by the City
Code. The Staff Report's claim that the approval "will not constitute a grant of special
privilege or allow substantially greater overall visibility" is without support.
6. The Staff Report does not explain what the CUP is required for. There is no
evidence to support the approval of the proposed CUP.
Generally, a Staff Report will clearly state what use requires a CUP. Here, the
Staff Report makes no such statement. The use proposed for the CUP is not permitted in
the C 1 zone. There is no analysis of the "CUP" sought. There are no real conditions of
approval being applied to the use proposed.
7. The parking analysis does not make sense.
As discussed above, the parking discussion demonstrates that the proposed use is a
lumber yard --not retail. If this was a retail use, the parking requirements would be much
greater -4 parking spaces for every 1,000 square -feet of building.
Further, the discussion of the number of parking spaces provided on-site is
misleading. While the project proposes 286 parking spaces, there is no discussion of the
location of those spaces. For example, it appears that nearly 60 spaces are behind gates,
108 of the spaces are on the roof of the building. As a condition of approval, the
employees are to exclusively use the roof parking. (Staff Report, p. 13.) Elsewhere the
Staff Report discusses that the "proposed facility would employ approximately 120
1461587.3
PALM IERI. TYLER. WIENER. WILHELM &WALDRON?
Planning Commissioners
February 23, 2015
Page 6
employees at full capacity..." (Staff Report, p. 7.) This means that all of the roof
parking would be taken by employees with some spilling over to the surface parking
spaces. As discussed above, that means that there are really less than 50 parking spaces
available for customers for the 99,516 square -feet of building in this project.
8. The Ganahl Proiect does not comply with the FAR requirements of the
Zoning Code.
The proposed project does not comply with the FAR requirements. In an attempt
to claim the project complies, the Staff Report includes a footnote explaining that the
FAR calculation does not include the 6,672 square -foot "Pole Shed" because the "Pole
Shed" is not an enclosed buildings. The Zoning Code does not provide such an exception
to the FAR calculation.
9. The Initial Study/Mitiaated Negative Declaration does not consider the real
impacts of the proiect.
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is deficient. Its analysis is
premised on the application of an incorrect zoning assumption --that the proposed project
complies with the C-1 zoning. It does not consider the impacts to access to properties on
the south side of Bristol caused by the project's proposed modifications to Bristol. It does
not consider the light and glare impacts caused by the numerous reflective surfaces being
added.
10. Conclusion.
To approve this proposed project would relieve Ganahl lumber of virtually all of
the requirements of the Zoning Code that are applied, on a regular basis, to other property
owners and users. The Ganahl lumber yard project cannot exist here. It is too big. It is
too close to the street. There is no evidence to support the deviation from the Zoning
Code.
1461587.3
PAL Nil ERL TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM &WALDRON I
Planning Commissioners
February 23, 2015
Page 7
1072 Bristol Partners requests that the Planning Commission not adopt the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and deny the Ganahl Lumber application,
Very yours,
'— Michael H/Leifer
MHL:ebn
cc: Brenda Green, City Clerk
Me] Lee, Senior Planner
[$615873
-�Q
RESOLUTION NO. 15-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF COSTA MESA REVERSING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION PA -14-40 FOR THE RELOCATION AND
EXPANSION OF GANAHL LUMBER LOCATED AT 1100
BRISTOL STREET
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, an application was filed Patrick Ganahl, representing the County of
Orange, the property owner, requesting approval of the following:
Planning Application PA -14-40: The proposed project involves the development of a
6.6 acre vacant lot to accommodate the relocation of the Costa Mesa Ganahl Lumber
store to a site owned by the County of Orange and leased to Ganahl Lumber. The
existing Costa Mesa Ganahl Lumber store is located on an adjacent property to the east
and would be closed once the new store is completed. The development proposal
includes the following:
• Development Review for the construction of a 65,263 square foot building
materials retail store with administrative offices (Main Building A). A total of 286
parking spaces are proposed; 108 parking stalls would be provided on the roof of
the retail building; and 178 at -grade parking stalls would be provided throughout
the project site;
• Variance from front setback requirement for the parking lot, B Shed and Mill Shed
along Bristol Street (20 -foot setback required; 10 -foot setback proposed);
• Variance from maximum building height for the solar photovoltaic canopy and
elevator overrun on Main Building A (30 -foot maximum height allowed; 34 feet to
the solar canopy and 41 feet to the top of the elevator proposed);
• Variance from maximum building height for the B Shed (30 -foot maximum allowed;
34 feet proposed);
• Conditional Use Permit for the proposed outdoor storage yard consisting of three
sheds (B Shed, Mill Shed, and Pole Shed) totaling 40,925 square feet; and
• Planned Signing Program to allow the proposed 24 -foot high freestanding sign (12
feet allowed, 24 feet proposed).
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2015, a duly noticed public hearing was held before
the Planning Commission, which included presentation of the project by staff and the
applicant, as well as information related to the environmental impact analysis of the
project by the City's consultant. In addition, public comments were received by the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and testimony
presented during the hearing, voted to approve the project by a 5-0 vote; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2015, an appeal of the decision of the Planning
Commission's approval was filed; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on March
17, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA
FINDS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
BE IT RESOLVED, therefore, that based on the evidence in the record and the
findings contained in this resolution, the City Council hereby reverses the approval of
the Planning Commission and DENIES PA -14-40 with respect to the property described
above.
The City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this resolution and shall forward a
copy to the applicant, and any person requesting the same.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 17TH day of March, 2015.
STEPHEN M. MENSINGER
Mayor, City of Costa Mesa
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF COSTA MESA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of
the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 15
as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 17th day of March,
2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City
Council held on the 17th day of March, 2015, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the
City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2015
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS (DENIA
A. The requested variances do not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section
13-29(g)(1) in that:
Findings:
• Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict
application of development standards does not deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity.
• The deviations constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other
properties in the vicinity.
• The granting of the deviations will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in
accordance with the general plan designation for the property.
B. The requested conditional use permit does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal
Code Section 13-29(g)(2) because:
Finding: The proposed development is not compatible with developments in the
same general area and would be materially detrimental to other properties within the
area.
Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will be materially detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or
improvements within the immediate neighborhood.
Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will t allow a use, density or intensity
which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property.
C. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code
Section 13-29(g)(8) in that:
Finding: The proposed signing is not consistent with the intent of Title 13,
Chapter VIII (Signs) and the General Plan.
Finding: The proposed signs are not consistent with each other in design and
construction — taking into account sign style and shape, materials, letter style,
colors and illumination.
Finding: The proposed signs are not compatible with the buildings and
developments they identify — taking into account materials, colors and design
motif.
Finding: Approval does constitutes a grant of special privilege or allow
substantially greater overall visibility than the standard ordinance provisions allow.
D. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied Planning Application PA -14-40.
—'S3—
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) (5) and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been
rejected and will not be carried out.
E. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System
Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code.