Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout- - Additional Documents - 8/4/2015CC -3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Payment Date Remittance to: Remittance Payment Explanation of payment Ref. ID: Amount 0190111 7/17/15 CDW Government 5402 $3,008.94 What was this for and where? The monitor is for the Network Operations to display all network activity from one monitor for the entire room. Operations will be able to monitor network traffic, threats to the network and troubleshoot network flow issues for the City, the display will also be used for remote IT training within the department. 0190127 7/17/15 Enterprise FM Trust 23151 $4,274.03 What is this? Do we pay to a trust for this lease? Police Dept. Police vehicles - Enterprise FM Trust is the name/owner of the vehicles. 0190129 7/17/15 Express Pipe & Supply 10920 $11,877.93 What is an Acorn Silk? Where is it located? Co. Stainless steel toilets and sinks for Lion's Park restrooms. 0190239 7/24/15 Animal Pest Mgmt. 1049 $3,648.00 Do we have a problem or is this routine? Are their methods safe? Services We manage the populations of damaging rodents and a quarterly basis in parks or as needed if populations cause damage. It is routine maintenance. The materials used and the application methods are performed by State Licensed applicators in strict compliance with State and Federal regulations with oversight by the County Agricultural Commissioner's Office and direct supervision by City staff with similar licenses. The entire program and methods are reviewed by the Division Manager, who is also licensed Pest Control Advisor and Certified Applicator. It is safe for the applicators and the public. There is no risk to non -target pests, such as dogs, coyotes, raptors or other birds. 0190259 7/24/15 Brown & Bigelow 23552 $271.14 What were these t -shirts for? Recreation Neighborhood Homeless Solutions Task Force work shirts. 0190391 7/24/15 National Data & 21249 $225.00 What was this for? What is it? Surveying Services Public Services Transportation Traffic Data (Counts) Collection intersection of Labrador Dr., Samoa Place, and Monte Vista Ave. This is for traffic data collection conducted in order to respond to resident complaints on the above streets. PH -1 WMA :4 N 9: a 1•• PH - 1 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ' California Apartment Association Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Park in -lieu Impact Fee Dear Mayor Mensinger, On behalf of the Orange County Division of the California Apartment Association (CAA), I am writing regarding a newly proposed park -in -lieu fee for apartment communities. It is my understanding that this proposed fee will be considered at your August 4th Council meeting. The California Apartment Association is a non-profit association whose membership owns and manages more than too,000 residential rental units in Orange County, many of which are located in the City of Costa Mesa. We are the definitive voice of the multifamily housing industry in Orange County. As the voice for the rental housing industry in Costa Mesa we feel that the proposed park fee of $10,598 per unit is excessive, considering the numerous amenities which come with newly constructed apartment communities in Costa Mesa. We fully understand the desire of the City to have new apartment communities help mitigate their impacts on city facilities. However, future apartment communities will be amenity rich which will help satisfy the demand for recreational parks by future apartment residents. Additionally, with housing affordability nearing unattainable levels, we are concerned of adding any new cost or regulation to residential development. Adding additional costs would be extremely problematic to future residents as apartment owners would inevitably pass on this cost to residents, further exacerbating the affordability crisis. We encourage you to find ways to encourage development of new housing in your city without increasing the cost of doing business. For the reasons listed above, I respectfully request that you recognize the minor impact future apartment residents will have on the park system. If you have any questions related to this request, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tommy Thompson Executive Director Cc: City Council PH -2 PH - 2 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CITY OF COSTA MESA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Costa Mesa City Council at its regular meeting on Tuesday, August 4, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers, 77 Fair Dr., to consider the following item: Description: A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CASE NO. PA -08-27 Al — 1827 NEWPORT BLVD. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA -08-27 ALLOWING A JEWELRY STORE TO OPERATE WITH A PAWNBROKER LICENSE (JACK'S JEWELRY AND LOAN), TO REMOVE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRING THAT PAWNBROKER SERVICES BE LIMITED TO WATCHES AND JEWELRY ONLY, AND PROHIBITING LOANS FOR LESS THAN $2,500.00. Environmental Determination: THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 15301 OF THE STATE CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT) GUIDELINES — CLASS 1 (EXISTING FACILITIES). Public Comments: Public comments in either oral or written form maybe presented during the public hearing. Any written communication, photos or other materials for copying and distribution to the City Council must be received by the City Clerk (15l floor) no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing, August 4, 2015. If you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you, or someone else raised, at or prior to the hearing. For further information, telephone (714) 754-5245, or visit the Planning Division, Second Floor of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. The Planning Division is open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The City Council agenda and related documents may also be viewed on the city's website at: http://costamesaca.gov, 72 hours prior to the public hearing date. Brenda Green, City Clerk, City of Costa Mesa Published on: July 24, 2015 III JUL 242015 PH - 2 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CITY OF COSTA MESA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Costa Mesa City Council at its regular meeting on Tuesday, August 4, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers, 77 Fair Dr., to consider the following item: Description: A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CASE NO. PA -08-27 Al — 1827 NEWPORT BLVD. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA -08-27 ALLOWING A JEWELRY STORE TO OPERATE WITH A PAWNBROKER LICENSE (JACK'S JEWELRY AND LOAN), TO REMOVE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRING THAT PAWNBROKER SERVICES BE LIMITED TO WATCHES AND JEWELRY ONLY, AND PROHIBITING LOANS FOR LESS THAN $2,500.00. Environmental Determination: THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 15301 OF THE STATE CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT) GUIDELINES — CLASS 1 (EXISTING FACILITIES). Public Comments: Public comments in either oral or written form may be presented during the public hearing. Any written communication, photos or other materials for copying and distribution to the City Council must be received by the City Clerk (1 sl floor) no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing, August 4, 2015. If you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you, or someone else raised, at or prior to the hearing. For further information, telephone (714) 754-5245, or visit the Planning Division, Second Floor of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. The Planning Division is open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The City Council agenda and related documents may also be viewed on the city's website at: http://costamesaca.gov, 72 hours prior to the public hearing date. Brenda Green, City Clerk, City of Costa Mesa Published on: July 24, 2015 dq(Is- -Pftt-eCe-�ti-"-- 4-ep, sS - ei c, -a- o� --- • PH -3 PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RECEIVEL) CITY CLERK z� g15 July 18, 2015 l5 JUL 3fl Am � 38 Costa Mesa City Council CITY Gr COS [A MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger B�«-y�/�C, City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: Email: PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Jul 2s3'15aM3��`� St. John the Divine Parking Lot Thank You My name is lane Hyde I have lived in Costa Mesa for approximately 37 years. My husband and I were married at St. John the Divine. Our children were baptized there. I have been a member of St. John the Divine for most of the time I have lived in Costa Mesa. I Did leave St. Johns' for a period of time as we wanted our children to participate in Sunday school activities. With my children grown I came back to St. John's. I am thrilled that we have many children in the church school. With the growth of the church we need a larger parking lot to have parking for our increased membership. I support the request of Fr. Phil and our Vestry to enlarge our parking lot to accommodate our members. I also support the request to have a Farmers Market in our parking lot on Saturdays. If successful this will provide the neighborhood with locally grown food as well as provide revenue for organizations in Costa Mesa. Our seniors who live in the manor are supportive of the market as many of them are unable to travel distances to obtain healthy food. Thank you for your consideration and support. Jane Hyde Costa Mesa, Ca 92627 CU c-, —C=:i Ln CD l7r; —� C'; 7 O C-) Fr- 1771 (T. co PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ,� E l ` � CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 .U. 3o AN 9; 38 Costa Mesa City Council CITY of 'US [A MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger g"I I/s City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August Owhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: Email: cZ.1. t CITE CLERK July 18, 2015 � 5 JUL 30 PA 0� 38 Costa Mesa City Council CITY c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger �COS [A � City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS JUL 28'15 AH 8.55 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4th when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: �' Al _ka C, CCC - Address: Telephone: Email: COS�cc /"IeSG PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS riEGEI1v CITY CLERK JUL28515Nm8:45 5R July 18, 2015 15 JUL 30 AM 9: 38 Costa Mesa City Council CITY F C Q 3 FA MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger B— City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our focal community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: -..--- Address: CA-- q 2f, 3 Telephone: Email: Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger Costa Mesa City Hall 77 Fair Drive Costa mesa, CA 92626 RE: Proposed Eastside Farmer's Market Dear City Council Members: REGf PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CITY 15 JUL 30 M 9. 39 July L/1-Lu1D As a member of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church for nearly 25 years, I am unqualified, enthusiastic supporter of the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the grounds of the St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay St. in Costa Mesa. As a family member of small farmers who are an endangered species, I support Farmers Markets for the benefits they provide to our local community by offering fresh, high quality fruits and vegetables which are locally sourced. In addition, they provide a ready commercial outlet for the farmers and support the farm to table movement which benefits our community not just by offering healthy food alternatives, but also our environment as well. Money spent at the Eastside Farmer's Market will go directly to farmers, local men and women who are important members of our community. It's important to remember that from 1992 to 2007 nearly 21% of mid-sized farms were forced to close and/or cease operations. Farmers markets provide the men and women who run these farms an opportunity for increased financial stability as well as increasing their economic opportunity. I value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on our property. Please vote yes on August 4`h when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for supporting the families, both from the farms and the neighborhood, that will benefit from your affirmative action. Sincerely, PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CITY CLERK y am July 18, 2015 tS JUL 30 AN 9-- 39 Costa Mesa City Council CIS c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger� y City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4" when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: Email: PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RECFiVL, CITY CLERK JlJL 8'15Am8:54 July 18, 2015 fS AIL 34 AN 9: 39 Costa Mesa City Council CITY O OSSA ME3A c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger gy City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4' when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. I , Sincerely, Name: ��ns Aje.1-T Address: Telephone: Email: PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RECEN CITY CLERK AjL28'15MG°5e July 18, 2015 15 JUL 30 Ati 9. 39 Costa Mesa City Council CITY Gf STA MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger BY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers -markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4" when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, , Name: M i dietet^ j Air et (e Address: Telephone: Email: July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS 01 -Ty CLERK 15 JUL 30 A% 9, 39 Cj� ov LOS 1A 8Y SN S f9F S F 2�° _,, I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Say Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4" when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: Emai): PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: St. John's Episcopal Church: Proposed Farmer's Market at 1833 Bay Street (Please don't approve) From: Matt Christense Sent: Wednesday, July , To: Tim Sesler >; ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.ARMSTRO N G @costa mesaca.gov> Subject: Fwd: St. John's Episcopal Church: Proposed Farmer's Market at 1833 Bay Street (Please don't approve) ---------- Forwarded messa *---------- From: Matt Christensen Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at Subject: Fwd: St. John's Episcopal Church: Proposed Farmer's Market at 1833 Bay Street (Please don't approve) To: stephen.mensin�g_erkcostamesea.gov, iim.ri eimer a,costamesea.gou, katrina.foley cr,costamesaca.gov, sandra.genis(c_�,costamesaca.gov, gary.monahan cr,costamesaca.gov Dear Council Members, I am writing once again in OPPOSITION to the proposed farmer's market at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, 92627. I've included my original letter below for reference. I'd like to start by providing a little background on myself and my neighborhood. I am a commercial real estate broker who works the Costa Mesa / Airport Area market. I am typically pro -development both because of my career and I believe our cities need to adjust to the changing landscape and population that is Southern California. I believe Costa Mesa must upgrade its housing, infrastructure (sidewalksibike lanes) and image in order to attract the type of quality residents that city officials seek for tax dollars. This immediate neighborhood is comprised of long-term, multi -generational residents and new home owners such as myself. As new homeowners we pay approximately three quarters of a million dollars for starter, fixer -upper homes ($900K in today's market). Buoy Street and a few neighboring homes have five corporate attorneys, a doctor, fire fighter, real estate broker and several sales managers. There a five new babies just in 2015!! Is this not the type of demographics you seek for Costa Mesa? I am opposed to the farmer's market for the following reasons: 1. Traffic/Speeding: I welcome the city council to appoint a motorcycle cop on the corner of Buoy/Bay and Orange Street. The speeding down this street is absolutely incredible. I have never seen a police office monitoring this thoroughfare of a street. As residents we want to bike to 17th Street or the beach but it is very dangerous. Adding Saturday congestion will not do this neighborhood any favors. 2. Grower's Ranch Market: The same exact service is provided two block away. This business is a Costa Mesa staple and has supported the community for nearly 60 years. They work within the existing zoning laws and exist on a two land thoroughfare street. The city should support tax generating businesses. It would be shameful to cannibalize such a service to community. 3. Zoning adjustments: Within one block of the church their exists three sober living homes (2 on Bay St.). I understand the need but it does not add value to our neighborhood. I digress but there are already three zoning variances right here. Maybe I can start a bed and breakfast or hostel? 4. Traffic Study: The CUP process should require a traffic study. I know many businesses struggle to get CUP's through the city and I think the church should not be granted any special favors. Come to this intersection on a Saturday and see the flow for yourself. Try biking past or walker your stroller across the street...it harrowing. 5. Location: It's a terrible, hidden location...bottom line. How about 17th Street. Look at Santa Monica as model for a Class A farmer's market. 6. Per the City Land Use Document: "High -Density areas should be located in proximity to transportation routes, especially those served by public transit, and also within convenient distances to shopping and employment centers. Although proximity to the above uses and transportation routes often results in a residential development being subject to adverse impacts." The city already know this fact—please don't burden us further because we cannot afford to spend $1.2M dollars on a 1.,300 Sf home on Flower Street. 7. Loss of Landscape: I have never seen the church parking lot full. The proposed plan would eliminate a green buffer space between the street and a parking lot. Per the same Land Use Document noted in point 6., it discusses the need for screening high-density locations in low-density neighborhood. Removing the greenery will simply provide more area for people to park during the day, litter, sleep in cars. I urge the city council to revoke your approval for this project. Respectfully, Matt Christensen I like the idea of a Costa Mesa farmer's market but I cannot logically see how this location could ever be a logical ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Matt Christensen Date: Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:54 PM Subject: St. John's Episcopal Church: Proposed Farmer's Market at 1833 Bay Street (Please don't approve) To: Dear Costa Mesa Planning Commission, I am writing in OPPOSITION to the proposed farmer's market at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, 92627. As a home owner of 197 Buoy Street, my house is located two parcels from the proposed market. My points of my opposition are the following: - Zoning: The current zoning is not for commercial enterprises. Within one block of this church there are already several property owners who operate businesses our their homes for the use of substance abuse rehabilitation. This is a neighborhood for me to raise my four month old daughter and the residents of this community are very close knit. A church site should be used to bring the community together but not a profit center. If the church would Iike to partner with a local property owner in a commercially zoned parcel, I would support these efforts 100%. -Existing Competition: Please take note that there is an existing local "farmer's market" located within two blocks of this church. Grower's Ranch, recently renovated on Newport Blvd., has been serving this community with fresh produce since the 1960's. It is located within a five minute walk from the church site. This is a well established business that pays property taxes, sales tax and provides the same healthy food at competitive prices. Costa Mesa must remain a pro-business environment and to expect a business with tax overhead to compete with a church who has no tax burden is simply unfair. If the argue for a farmer's market is to provide fresh, affordable and locally grown produce to our city, this service already exists and I would be appalled to allow the city to have the church cannibalize this business. If there were a commercial strip mall, a pious owner would never permit competing interests in the same center. -Traffic: The parking lot can accommodate a farmer's market but not the parking required to make it successful. This will require people to park on Buoy Street, Bay Street and Orange Ave. Currently Orange Avenue has one of the highest speeding ticket numbers on the east side of Costa Mesa. It has become a thoroughfare through a residential neighborhood. On a personal note, I just brought my entire garden/parkway up to drought tolerant standards and cannot stop the foot traffic and litter from infecting the time and money I have spent to be a real example of what the city's planners are hoping for. On a personal note, I purchase my house 18 months ago. I love the neighborhood and my neighbors. I have a beautiful new baby girl and I think the fabric of our neighborhoods need to stay in tact. 1100% support a Costa Mesa farmer's market, my hometown of Santa Monica has one of the best in the country. What makes it great is its accessibility, full community support and the fact that it is held in an area where no residences are affected. would hope the planning commission drives down 17th Street and sees the potential to provide this service somewhere in this area. It would link Eastside Costa Mesa and Newport Heights including West Costa Mesa. Nobody knows Bay St & Orange Avenue and I believe the City should promote such a great service to the community in a more appropriate venue. Adamantly opposed, Matt Christensen _ L)L �3 15 AV, 21 x 31._ CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 31 AM 9' 56 Costa Mesa City Council [A f i r1 c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger BY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be meld each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA.92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: 17e_Yon y -c, 1n 1t ,Iirua.ti) Address: Telephone: Email: July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: a, ITY CLERK 15 JUL 31 tai 9. 56 -I E �nF COS [i� ME5A Qy_,_- JUL30 ' 15 ism 82 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4tE'when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: ACwcn.Z Rq wi? ,p n Address: Telephone: Email: August 28, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: L►v Lj CITY CLERK 15 JUL 31 P14 2. 46 CI TY OF U� i , 5r� I am writing to express my enthusiastic support forthe proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at a83 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high duality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 2111/0 of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow ourfood with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, worsen and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside f=armer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4'h when this agenda itern is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: Email: August 28, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92.627 Dear City Council Members: r LECIL iVi�L> CITY CLERK 15 JUL 31 PM 2. 4 s [A MIESA 8 YQ& i U L 31'x..5 �;m 8`9-61 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at -83 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 3.992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4`h when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name Address: Telephone: Email: MEJIA. JESSICA From: Mike Lingle Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 4:45 PM To: CITY CLERK Cc: RIGHEIMER, JIM; GENIS, SANDRA; MONAHAN, GARY; FOLEY, KATRINA; MENSINGER, STEPHEN Subject: Public Comment: Appeal of Approved PA -14-41 CUP for Farmer's Market I'd like to reiterate my strong support for the proposed Farmer's Market at St. John the Divine Episcopal Church. I live in East Side Costa Mesa. In my view, the Farmer's Market would be an asset for our neighborhood. It would provide a new option for fresh produce and other farm goods, it would benefit local charities, it would provide a regular neighborhood gathering place on Saturdays, and it would improve the waikability of our neighborhood by providing another destination to walk to, These are just the kinds of attributes that make East Side Costa Mesa a desirable place to live. Please uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Thank you for your consideration. Michael Lingle MlEJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: August 4th City council meeting- farmers market appeal comments -----Original Message ----- From: Laurene Keane Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 5:56 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: August 4th City council meeting- farmers market appeal comments To City Council members I am an Eastside Costa Mesa resident and I DO NOT support a Farmers Market at this location. believe the residents in the immediate area SHOULD NOT have their quality of life invaded by a weekly commercial event in a residential neighborhood. Sincerely, Laurene Keane Eastside Costa Mesa resident Sent from my Pad MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Farmer's Market, Aug. 4 agenda item From: Mary Spadoni Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 9:31 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.areen@costa mesaca.aov> Subject: Farmer's Market, Aug. 4 agenda item The idea of a Farmer's Market, on the face, appears to be a "good thing" until you consider the quality of life for all the neighbors within several square blocks and the community as a whole, who utilize Orange and Bay streets. This church is not the right location but one of the larger churches on Newport Blvd. seems to be a more appropriate choice, with available parking access and similar goals to establish a partnership. This event will. be EVERY Saturday, one half of your weekend disturbed, EVERY week. The need is great BUT not at this location. M.M.Spadoni lent from W1 !(abide !tail U i the ne%• it Ul. app: maiLmobile.aol.com M EJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: My appeal of Farmers Market From: carrie.renfro@att.net Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 9:30 AM To: MENSINGER, STEPHEN <STEPHEN.MENSINGER@costamesaca.gov> Subject: My appeal of Farmers Market Hi Mr. Mayor. This is Carrie Renfro and I am appealing the Planning Commission's approval of PA -14-41, CUP for a Farmers Market. The appeal will be heard this Tuesday, Aug 4 and I will present to you the reasons why this commercial venture in our residential area is detrimental . I am writing to ask you to please visit the location and premises of St. John's Church and St. John's Manor, which are both located at the Corner of Orange and Bay, prior to the hearing, in order to be familiar with the layout and connectivity of the two joined parcels. This project includes paving over the green space park area which was created when the Manor subsidized housing project was built. If you enter the Manor via the 2031 Orange driveway, pass through the parking lot into the Church's parking lot (183 E. Bary) you will have a better idea of the layout. Please go into the Manor lobby and view the inside common area to see what little open space area will remain after the park space is paved over. I appreciate you taking the time to check the property out and look forward to presenting my case to you. Two years ago, you came to my house for a neighborhood meeting, with then Mayor Righeimer. . I am located on the corner of Orange and Buoy, two doors away from the proposed project. I don't know if you recall, but the traffic was so busy during that meeting, that it was hard for people to hear the speakers due to the noise of the traffic and congestion along Orange. And they were using a microphone! I am pointing this out just to illustrate how busy this intersection is now, without the added traffic a cominercial farmers market will bring to us. Over the years, the lack of street parking has been exasperated due to the numerous sober living businesses on and around Bay Street that take up so much of the available parking, especially on the weekends. The increase in traffic due to this proposed commercial activity will only more negatively impact this location. Thanks very much. Carrie Renfro I August 28, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: CITY CLERK 15 Alii -3 AM If: 15 CITY OF COSTA MESA BY AUG 315 Ay 8:47 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4th when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: 15PN N Address: 61 iAJ Telephone: [i 3 5--y —7 ?, �,'6 Email:JF�iC%� % % C , % n l lV 50 IV CIT`( CLERK July 18, 2015 II: IS 0 "3 � r Costa Mesa City Council CIS't (jF �flsj c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger By City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmers markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmers Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmers market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4'"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, t Name: Address: Z�Le (Hw) cl-A 906—L7 Telephone: Email: RECEIVED CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 AUG —3 M N= 15 Costa Mesa City Council CITY OF COS FA MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: AUG 3115 art a:44 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4'h when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. FA Name: jtW 6Lf. ejw_ 4, Address: :?Z./n6qV!P1�06 �1 Telephone: ZV - 72 — 3©314 RECEIVED AUG 315PNS:114 CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 iS AIS —3 AN II= 1S Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger ���Y �� �flS lA MESA City of Costa Mesa �X 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid-sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4`hwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. mcerely, n J Name: ao SAY, Address: C ry��n� � C/� z-& Telephone: �l7 l� 27.7 - ,r l 0 Email: Z �1'V 44w .k. k F" v) VA 's A (A � ce c mn hr i I�u�i a , �tiz nlQA cit - bb - V E)V A- in CO$0. Ups a.� �P J 1Gvtou� 91n a f fjt-tt,� 41w, "ilk n I VLOJVL.,Vt PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum TO: CLAIRE FLYNN, AICP, ASST. DEV. SVS. DIRECTOR FROM: ANTONIO GARDEA, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JUNE 30, 2015 SUBJECT: ST. JOHN THE DIVINE (183 E. BAY STREET) & ST. JOHN MANOR (2031 ORANGE AVENUE) ENTITLEMENTS The purpose of this memo is provide a summary of the entitlements related to the St. John the Divine Episcopal Church and St. John Manor Senior Housing Development, highlighting the conditions of approval. 1. Variance Application #134: On July 18, 1955, the City Council approved the construction of the church. The approval was granted subject to conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission at the July 11, 1955 public hearing. The conditions of approval required the following: a. Adequate parking, blacktopped and marked. (78 parking spaces provided) b. A 50 -foot setback from the centerline of Orange Avenue — 20 -foot building setback from the property line. c. A 40 -foot setback from the north property line for proposed street purposes (Bay Street) — 10 -foot building setback from property line after street dedication. 2. Zoning Exception ZE-78-188: On October 14, 1985, the Planning Commission approved a reactivation of the permit allowing the day-care center. The conditions of approval limited the number of children (50 max.) and hours of operation (7 a.m. to 6 p.m.). 3. General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A / Rezone R-79-15: On November 5, 1979, the City Council approved an amendment of the General Plan designation for the properties at 183 E. Bay Street and 2043 Orange Avenue from Low Density Residential to Planned Development Residential High Density. On July 19, 1982, the City Council changed the zoning of the subject property from R1 (Single Family Residential District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential High Density). These changes were granted in conjunction with consideration of the Planning Application for the 36 -unit senior housing project. Although a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre was allowed, the overall density of the project is 18 dwelling units per acre. Zoning Exception ZE-82-88: On July 19, 1982, the City Council approved the Planned Development Review for the 36 -unit senior housing project and the correlated parking variances. The staff report outlined the PDR -HD development standards applicable at the time, including the requirement for a minimum of 42 percent of the site area to be provided as open space. The report notes that the senior residents could use the social and recreational facilities at the Church including the parish hall and other ancillary rooms to avoid having these built as part of the senior housing project. The conditions of approval required the following: a. Submittal of detailed floor plans for the church. (Cond. #1) b. Future development on the church parcel is considered only conceptual at this time. A separate final development plan must be approved prior to any additional development or construction on that portion of the property.' (Cond. #4) c. Review of parking plan and provision of parking on the church parcel if necessary. (Cond. #9) d. Provision of consistent landscaping for both the church and senior housing parcels. (Gond. #25) The approved conceptual site plan shows a new complex of buildings on the front portion of the site abutting Orange Avenue. The new sanctuary with 134 seats, chapel and administrative offices as well as a new 'education' building. No dimension is provided, but the buildings appear to be setback 20 feet from the property line along Orange Avenue. The applicant did not proceed with the development of the new church buildings. Instead, a decision was made to design and landscape the entire front portion of the property until expansion plans would be brought back to the Planning Commission for consideration. The City Council meeting minutes describe a suggestion by Mr. Bob Yoder that the housing project site be dedicated as a park and in return that the housing project be constructed on City property across from Lions Park. Vice Mayor Hall addressed the recommendation stating that the site would be too costly to develop for park use. On January 18, 1984, Rev. Nordquist requested a waiver of the park fees, which was denied. 4. Zoning Exception ZE-84-122: On June 25, 1984, the Planning Commission approved abandonment of six inches of public right-of-way along Laurie Lane and a variance to setback requirements to legalize an existing block wall. The conditions of approval required the following: a. Planting of trees and vines along the inside of the wall. b. Revision of the landscape plans for the housing project. City records indicate that none of the entitlements included any condition of approval requiring the front lawn area to be preserved as open space in perpetuity. Attachments: Email from J. Reeves RE: St. John's Manor CD of Microfiche Files: 1. Variance Application #134 2. Zoning Exception ZE-78-188 3. General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A 4. Zoning Exception ZE-82-88 5. Zoning Exception ZE-84-122 GARDEA, ANTONIO Subject: FW: Senior Seating Area on the property of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church From: REEVES, JACQU I E Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 9:30 AM To: FLYNN, CLAIRE Cc: BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Subject: Senior Seating Area on the property of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church Good Morning, A review of HCD records revealed that neither the Regulatory or the Affordable Housing and Home Investment Partnership Agreements between the City and St John Manor have any requirement related to maintaining a grassy knoll seating area for seniors on the property of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church, Costa Mesa, CA. Jacqueline Y. Reeves Management Analyst Housing and Community Development 714-754-4870(Phone) 714-754-4913 (Fax) Jacquie. reeves@ costamesaca.aov . *till.@& co no" COMM"cholomasImMum V Axon MA a+ 2 ' Ae Cs U' MAi* a W..Af - IAJ {x; R 2 Of s•,Py 9a ;. �Yra kRK eF..., vJ loop f: 1s �,��i all omp vU ivlg "tl auk Mme:! 3 4° :NP 7, - .. Moo T, h 6 5 � r r lit' 'i v 4011ARIM I ap 2 4 't-ze C'TY V COSTA MESS"r a 7txj 425.00 Application mist be jma-v- mlA-,ted in quadrMlicat-e. COM KMr CALV51M, TA f �, � 444PUM , 81S So,gi�usrpa fit. A, APX, - To oreci; Church p—v*"--v1q 00-2 06148mew /j- 7 &, J34Y -r7 A ri-ACH t�wft (3) plAns ( 'walch, � ", -t -..-a rt, bet-ee-,f ) on t I -e siibj act. property, Uve 1 demicripti,-m �f rrq°erty-. I too please attwh,) Div* s ad&*w of premises �r clearly to �nable pmparty to be rs&dUy i4mAMAM b-, Uie �71 elLA t 4 C f Awtina th "4 :Z5 ft. 0 © -A 0C V9 i &W fin .3a - j - LA AP &W Charles Prinslow am v1-te in " r*odL.UV 5,19W _; ,4 ,wne,l oT f ed by app1je&fts---VA2— ft"mat we Of woperty.—Y404AV Property alwasifW (zorAvi,, P,4 t StAte hareumftr in what m%*ot!, to t11,, -' s ur. -art-:$practical difficulty, Un- mmemery whips, or rea,0.11.,s tri -,e a1 purpose and intwit of the Wid U3e Ordinmnee thr-sugh 31,rict, of its regmUtionat LM 5, --low ' A►k � A,'R thr@P ( 3) nj?,r: hey,-�oC kin the subjert, [uvperty, CA vq IM91 fleme'ripti-m cf, r-00 'Le-,--�gthy, please attach.) rive mt4vet addreas of .,r n clearly to mable mperty., to-) be readilY IdwyWied tri tLie a ;gap W Or SMIX.28441f., I Sw IZ5 t of Sely Igo th 11*1 Q.A It V4 MMML Cbmri "Wite tin Ad ro*dL.Xay 5_ no ft4woft use Of Promity Propefty, dussifisi � !: ,v, . - Rpt Stateharmoarfidw 'M-1 what W t;;,L4 s.r ;��) Practical diffleulty" un- necessary, h&xdsh", or i.-okv 'oj.j ' s 0� wwal purpose i amd ntmt of the lam Use Ordino-we m cit itis regulations: q 1A SigmtUre of applimat (Pv win STO a I � - �f ad. '� i FROM T"a 93MG9 CFO, r"s PLAMP146 COMMIR111110H P. 0. NUX all CALIFORNIA ju ly 14, Thp Hororabl, City of Costa '=,e "i is .-o;t,a Mesa, f, allro-ni'a Anrli,-a4—ion Gentlemen: it is rec `.(fat Council the above zipplication for �im of prop,e.rty locate. -I 210th an; ! Stre-t on . ru,:, - on the condition that. in the forthcu.�iT3,1' Aot plan 4LX,, suhnitted by the aDplirant, --w�,arjlate 9-, and marked, be provided wnv t-.,iat be, mac;�, for �i 5(111 setback ff'rom the centerline of Or6x(7e Avenue and -, 1;01 setbac-z from the north property 'Line, for proposed street 7urpos:�o. sI cc: Building Dept. He:S�Pectfully SUI)Mittcr,.-:, COSTA 'W TNING _ZSA PLAh 1, alter Weizrier, Chair.,:j-:.-n Sybil lawis, Secratarr 9 F. a. sax stir maws oowrF�ow GATT or 00"A Mm= CALWOMMIA 12 July 19t,6 - TO FOR: FROM: ZONE: REQTW COWITSSION AMON: WLD: sat cc - Bldg. Dept. HON10ta1Z CITY IC'U CIL CITY [W C06 MESA CQ3TA MESAP CALL" 1:U41A Plot 'A an for 5t. John the Pivine Prorestant Episcopal Church William C. Fisher, Chairman, 61d1ding Conniti.ee 2603 bewport Blvd., Newport baacn, Calif. Lot No. 222 on Orange Avenue, between 20th Streei� and 21 Street R4 Plot Pian for St. John the Divine Ni ovestant Episc4 C h - Variance ho. 134 approved July9 recommended that the plot pian he accepted granting tEe applicant a delay in pav- n� the parking area until b -months after completion of the first unit provided the driveway leadinf,, from Cranre Avenue to t --e parking area is paved; orf in the event that onpFiecomlaainu are received within the six months' peri , that the applicant be required to ;gave and mark said parking area. A tie r William Planning Tecimician 10 r'7 - • • Yl17WARD 1, F®HM 1gli.�fAM C. F:&H9IP RICALTRRS • INSURANEE ��, ••• 2603 NEWPORT BOULEVARD • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA PHONE HARQUR 4429 jiily 3, 19:a6 Planning Commission, City of Costa 9'eaa, Costa �.esa, Calif. vast 1 �PB.� Tk ; Re. variance `s in accordance with tine tarn.e of the variance, fcy .;hurc 1, do6aribed on the attached siieet, as approved by tr.e City Cour�ail July 16, 19b5, we are oub- tritting far your aprroval the plot plan of propo4ed constru oticm arxv.-ing amplianee with r et -back and paryinF requirevento. Yours truly, � S Y Cimir::an Building Cc ittee 9t. John the Divine Protestant &piocopal Church ONE GOOD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT MAY EQUAL A L!F ET(ME OF HARD WORK Is �r PJZ0PF—rZTV 1. LIE 2 * 4 T jAI;% ADPItO X. .0CATI O N OF UNDe ul 1 t3T E G OM . WATER. # -5! VJ E.R W /s, I WS 4 ELEC. POWER LIMES 412E. LQ C JILT L t; 4 i O N G 03Lc�F &•4- L k M � r f � t P: 8 OWN Y q' U3 Cm- PULL Fes TU h6rCY At d l' i7ta C. f >ATl C3 L iiY yam. IL Ff * 1 in d� d . L.., TTD L c kuru i Li � C9 d 13 El n 1. g 14 R�. LRGAL DESCRIPTION LCT 222 of Newport Heights, M!4%83, Orange county, California, excepting therefrom b„wly 135 ft. of Sel-r 186 ft. Also excepting a one-half Int, in irrigation pice line along 5wly in ofsd land as reserved by Charles Prinslow and wife in dd read. May 5, 1925, k46 8, pg 231 Deeds* V1 u t, CP LPCA rACI L I Ti 7-1 Yrz T Gc6TA M ffA c � x g.. D H' 11K ,013DON A.I.A. ARCHITECT CERT -1560 400 . WESY COAST HIGHWAY SHEET # - NEWPORT BEACH CALIF. M__ y ist t r-t� t 17 t T',f T- 11 nr 17 • PLS DMSION STAFF REPORT i AGENDA Na. 'd SITE LOCATION 163 East Bay Street APPLICATION NO, ZE-78-183 AD � 426-191-29 MANDATORY ACT10N DATE APPLICANT The Bishop of Los Angeles, AUTHORIZED AGENT The Rea. Conrad Nordquist c%30WMM=3M 501 ADDRESS Post Office BOX 2154 ADDRESS 183 East Bay Street Los Angeles, CA 90051 Costa Mesa, 'C"a 92627 Applicant is reminded that all ordinances and regulations PREPARED BY governing the use of the land or building(s) to which this application pertains must be complied with whether speci- fied herein or not. REQUEST' WB. al -An APPLICANT NOTIFIED __ DATE_ lCj121185 _ CITY OF COSTA MESA. 77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 i7'4I 754-5245 C%'F 0369.30, row. A)BI bishop of IA/Norrdquist ZE-78-188 Pace 1 (SR -8-16) I. DESCRIPTION A. Subject Property I. Location - 183 E. Bay Street 2. General Plan designation - High Density Residential 3. Zone - PDR --HD 4. Present development - Church and Senior Citizens mousing Project 5. Lot area - Approximately 1 acre 6. CBA - Exempt, Class I - Existing Facilities B. Surrounding Property All surrounding properties are residentially zoned and developee. C. Wiest Reactivation of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a day care center for no more than 50 children at an existing chur.h. D. Background. This property recently underwent several public hearings tO al L-xa t"Le construction of a senior citizens housin:; project on a portion of th,, church's property. In 1972, Planning Commission approved a pre-school for 20 cnildren at the church. Hours of opeY=tion were from ":30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. weekdays. In 1378, thka church was approved to :ncr-ease the number of children r,, 60 total; 30 in a morning session and 30 in an afternoon sessi,3n. This permit was rerm?wed several times but'was allowed to lapse in mi.. 1°84. II. PRWECr DESCRIPTION Applicant proposes a nursery school for no more than 50 ctnildrer. Hours of operation would be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays. This request is similar r_,, the nursery school previously approved for this s_~e. III. PLANNING STAFF ANALYSIS A. Forty-eigt.. parkirxl stalls are locate(I to t' -ie church t')L t�,O church's use. Forty-eight spaces appear to bk- ��re than adt-caate for t'10 teachers and for parents picking up and dr-)opin f ot tre chilrh,,. n. Acces6 to this lot is from Bay Street, wtiz~. should ininimize tratLIL.- impacts on surrounding residences as ?day is already a r�l_-itively °)usy' street. Additionaily, most church activit; ,r, mould -x- other times than the nursery school. Consi:.,qu�_-Liy, nc, should occt4r because of the school. 19 Bishop of LA/Nordquist ZE 78-188 Page 2 (SR -8-16) B. 'Ihe play yard is to be on the west side of the church. The play yard is surrounded on 3 aides by the building and there is an existing block gall on the westerly property line. The combination of the two should shield surrounding residences from any adverse noise impacts the use might generate. C. The nursery scrK)ol, as it is to be located in a residential area, wi i i be in close proximity to those who potentially need such a service. D. Nursery schools are a use normally associated with churches. Ajditio'-- ally, many churches within the City have been permitted to conduct nursery schools on their grounds. IV. PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS A. Adequate parking exists for the nursery school use as the church anc school will not have the same hours of operation. S. Potential noise impacts should be shielded by the church buildirg a-.. block wall. C. The proposed use is normally associated with churches, and has teen PC-- mitted for other_ churches in the City. D. The evidence presented substantially satisfies conditions set fort; -.. Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13--347 as the proposed nursery sch —, will not be detrimental to subject or surrounding properties and consistent with the General Plan designation of the site. V. PLANNING STAFF RDCOHWNDATION Approve, subject to conditions. VI. ODUDITIONS, IF APPROVED Shall meet all the requirements of the various City Departments, copy attache hereto. 20 LA,/Nordquist CONDITIONS OF APPRJVAL Ping. 1. There shall be no more than 50 children on the premises at any one time. 2. Hours of operation shall be limited fran'1 a.m. to 6 p.m. 3. Approval shall be for a period of ane (1) year. Prior to expiration, applicant ;may request renewal, subject to reevaluation at that time. The Development Services Director may extend the Planning Action for a period not to emceed two (2) years if all conditions of approval have been satisfied, no complaints have been reoeived, and the site inspection reveals compliance with applicable ordinance requirements. Thereafter, the Development Services Director may extend the perrait k -3r successive two (2) year periods under; the same teams. APPLICANT IS REldINDED THAT TETE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIREMENTS OF FECAL, STATE, AND LOCAL ]LAW AND CANNOT BE MUVED OR MODIFIED: 4. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costar Mesa Sign Ordinw am - Fire 5. Provide fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A to be located within 75 feet of travel distance frau the front door of each unit. Extinguishers may be of a type rated 2A,10BC as these extinguishers are suitable for all, types of fires and are less expensive. 6. Provide approved smoke detectors of to be installed in accordance with the 1982 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code. 7. Provide address numerals which conform to fire Department standards with respect to size (12") and location. 8. The day care facility shall meet the requirements for Group E--3 occupan- cies from Title 19, California Administrative Code. Bldg. 9. Provide plans to show compliance with U.B.C. provisions for E-3 occupancy. 10. Show handicap access and facilities in canpliance -with State law. 1141 .. Y k4: 'x TW CENTER RECREh 163 E. dal Surf C95ft Mesa, CA 92627 (714) 645-0362 The foliowing is a daily program schedui,e: 7:00--8:00am Parent drop off. 8:00-8:30am Child drop off to school. PROGRAM CLOSED 11:30-12:00 Kindergarten pick-up. 12:15-12:45 Kindergarten lunch ---children bring lunch. 12:45-1:15 Children have a quiet rest time. 1:15-2:15 Children have free use of program activities such as arts and crafts. 2:00-2:30 Children are being picked up from school and dropped off at the center. Grades 1-3 2:30-3:00 Snack preparation 3:00-3:15 Snack served when grades 4 and up are dropped off here at the center. 3:30--4:30 Individual drop offs for special after school activities. 4:30-5:30 Individual academic help and review. 5:30-6:00 Quiet table time. Program hours: 7:00-8:00 12:00-6:00 MEAYL iYlS" Q11. DWCTOR bM pbi . (714) 645-4706 114 ca 0 V) 23 LJ _j T A I LW -D 14 '4-J 7K .0 23 f� 1 y� �� VI W r�{} "tel 4144 w w L 4 S 49 .� w 24 SEP. 30, 1985 R70L4;S -Pk00F LIST Mll PLANkIWG UEPARI<MENT WALIC MEAitilWS WILL BE HELD 81I THE COSTA MESA PLAtNI%. CUM€AISSI N+i AT THE CITY HALLa 77 FAIk DRIVE, COSTA Mf SA, CALIFORNIA, AT 6:30 Poo. wK A3 SLOW AS PUSSIBLE THtkE- HFTLk uN MU"VAY, USTOUK 14, 1961. RESAKulow IHE Ft;LLUM16 APPLICATIUN LU"E LACPSCIJV OLRM11 U-78-le8 Fbk THE QvtREND +.L: KAb lar )W IS4, A,JTMUKILE0 AGENT FGR IHE bll"U of ijS t sSIL03, A LLP+'nRAll"N KLt4 Fab REALTIVAT1uN w ! A .. s3 T li f!!4L JIL PLSMl i to ALLLo A ,SAY LAkt QNTtr r wh % -hc 1 tiA% 01 W HILonE'r AT A4 EX IS11hin LhiKuh, Lb.,CA LJ AT lis CAll hAY SIRU I, LJSTA MFSA, IN A I PDD -00 luAv. r.'.VIKUsAINIAL K]iMNATIUN: LAEMPI. k -.p. t2.,-111-1 3LdtPjr ILL JEaN idli UANu . 'TUE CLSIS XL;.., L.+ 12621 P40, PjAll4w ion no Kay LAY/041 ASK ..'. 430 -ill -i . ( IiICN , ss:.r.j , n I 22i 151m ST A.P. �"; L . 42;x--1�1-7,, EVANS• jJLlW! ZJ40 AWL rusil A V 4 OIL icon A.P. r -4c r10-1ti�=1� ALALk,,, [L--1I"Aa 2UL 0- Gr AVE ..L ` MESA, 0A 3ZL2 / A.P. %0. 42o-191-14 IC28 wILLE &JUSIAS EA[1:`v1IAS, LA is a Y A.P. NG, 4Lo- it 1-1 7 LEF"ASJ APUTMwNTS LTi., 17VS5 VENTvAA SLVL S&1..' CN4100, 4A 111k, A.v. %j. Ato-IS1-1c- iEJLIt 4 JUj&AS J `r2V ALEPPG ".fr sP—r• i otAuhs vAL v2c w , 1400. Aul 026-101-41 Ltol'„ hOnzY Tn 1&3u F JLLFAIL N AWL ILSIA MESA, Cc i4L,� A.?. • "L- '!at -1 1-23 25 w p 464.7r R %W" • 4..•���.�v ��. .as�..ti{��. A. P. NU r 446-141-24 A.P. Na. 426-191-25 GuL AY , KEITH J vGRt3UN, UONALD a 443 1 LALJR I1 - LA A iad7i VIA MLSSANA LL:,TA AILSAt LAL Y2bt7 IR41NE, LAL �tTl 4! b— i +1-1 A.P. �L. =,ctj— I`t 1-2 7 t.�:�►a„ , it -t. 1_41A LITEk, JJNALJ 202.-A LAJf',IW L.. 2325 LAURIE LN tc.,S Tf; It SA, ,AL 7 C,LSTA MESA, LA 7 =1. ? . lu o 42 b— 1.72— 1 A.P. At... 44- L— P3 2— j2 -,LnZRT t SAXTul., *ILL1A�'< rt i 1 : ut)Y S1 11 L B bLKKS.'llr E: Lf, -j2t17 4EviPt•PT i)EALoi, ..a %f'_c.,— +a. i�. . • '*� moi— 174x' 1 i • r '�:�. ` 2,A— L ' c.7 �� r �T I7—, �u-,Y ST C.ST.4 .ALSA, L,ri -Isr`s f'..■ 4�. ,,�1 Yt—.:J �. �. �L'a 'tcG'IYL'J`.e J441.j L L'uKL-1r ALAN F 1 7� F. ST 3d ASHftL iu rC-ai,: ;eCSAt -AL leb2l li<VINE. Ca 71y hsi?s •�Ls �i7-1`7G—..'f i �iiJ+r 5� 147 dULY �T I.:u LL,aTA At,a, -�• �. i.J. Y�v— L JC—JY .fir F. 1i ti. �tc'1 I L Y L E '^ UKPHV, J4NL:- AL Iy0 t u.lY ai L l�A .u� L IA M�.>•�, �,IA i �. t • 2A nLHL, VAL LuJ ?4t�•�z bL +`�7-Ky`28�. SfP.`� X95 1t7010n Pii�iUFI Si�AAIN3 APAR�l4hT A. Po MU. 426-192-11 A.P. Wo 426-192-14 FENLHAK, VIRMIA M RULFE, EJWIN ri 17' E MY ST 1513 VISTA WA MIA ALSA, A 44j27 UWPU01 UAW* :.AL 124t s K.a• Ins, +t7—ivi--Ia A.P. 40. iLu—lciC-1fi ASA,Kuth AILL101 T . "ILL, oAKsY J IQ L SAY ST 154 BAY ST AvPa eii. 42c3— A.P. Au. 156 OUB. Y ST 104 d'j. v ST ....ala munAl CA iU 7 oLsTA kc. wA, OIL .a.P. N ► =+: a,,.I`rj— )-. :..ear to. 42o-15+5-27 ,6-Eu11W, �A,.K` i s a ^hl.^ -PKI r M0 1UA L T 1 74 jot S i i on _ uU04 L IA f. 47 aAe 0" OPAL I Lwo A `'..ail, LLL 7LUC 7 A. e. *L.. -t2 r4-1 ii—_., a61• %W. AN HKL , JAV i o jutAri j[ e it] 1F. � i 8u bJoY ST i So = J4Y ST CUSIA AaSA. OIL 41127 CWST4 4ESA, tr 94aw? i.AA?•.INIs SILLY 4'i AL3cwOv nALTEK i - lob 3oW, ST 2J►1 ',r. K6E AVS 4 0 1 1 it 4 s H' 4 A 7 IL ] 1 A At JA, v A 1 c U t t A.F. ;rU• 1.'" A.Y • rto• fur E. U , JALI KELLY, K W 113 SIKKK; Sf SIV . 177KS 11 27 LuST!a MM e :A iZ r f VLSTA ^'StJAa uAn Y2UiI Li &i L A NN I i: L PAY T ME N i L c itsr - . " . . .- . - . , - . I - - - - - I J . I I . I . --t , ., — .' " I. - I I L 28 _ Date `e a _ r CERTIFIED FIRE DEPARTMENT RECOMIkENDATIONS C Addres DR s RA !! Evaluation - Findings =. (a) ib) (C) (d` 2. 3. l8i 4. Requirements 5. (a), location 6. (a) (b) (c) 7. 9. (a) (b) (c) 1�. (a) (b), (a),+ (c) 15. (a) (b) 15. 17. 18. 19. ,3- (a) (b) (c) Fire Department Conditions 22. (a) (b) 23, (a) (b) Additional Requirer-:►ents `ff/ L12- LtL , (location) 29 FDR PLANNING CO MISSION METING DUE BACK TO THE PLAMUM DMSIM BY October 2. 12a5 TO. { } Building Safety (Lg. Site) { ) police Department (8.1l2xII) ( ) Engineering Div, (Lg. Site) ( } Sanitary Engineer (Rob Hamers) (8.1!2x11) (. ? Eire Prevention (Lg. Set) ( ) Transportation Svcs. (Lg. Site) ( ) Leisure Services (8-112x11 ) ( ) Water Dist. - Inform. (8-1!2x11) ( ) Streets (8-112x11) A.P. ITU -BER 426-191-29 COr1PL`r F -R INPUT: 170112 851014ZF-1887821071 442 CagW NORDQUM, AUMORIZID AST FOR THE BISK)P OF 403 U)S MGff FS, A OOfPORATICN SaE, MR FEWTIVAT;C14 OF 444 A CCMITICNAL UM PERMIT TO AVOW A DAY CATS CENTER 405 FOR NO MIRE THAN 50 ClIII MN AT AN EXISrI% OKJFd li, 406 LOCATED AT 183 EAST BAY STREET, =-A ham, IN A 407 PDR -FID 7a E. IEMMnWICK: EXEwr. 408 409 410. The Bishop of Las Angeles, A Corp. Sole P.O. Box 2164 411 Los Angeles, CA 90051 412 413 The Rev. Conrad Nordguist 183 East Bay Street. Costa mesa, CA 92627 Conditions/?rdirknc,_ Requiremnts: (Ccs, -eats other than s'?n3ar-J conditions/ Ordinanoes, shoul' be addressed to the Planni-q. Ccrmission in 7w -c for,-- ) 30 '"c naas.an In— 3:85? FUR PLAMINC COMMISSION MEETING OF U=QbQr 14 - 1985 DUE BACK TO VE PLANNING DIVISION BY October 2, 1285 TO'. ( ) Bui{ding Safety (L.g. Site} (v`1 Police Department (81!2x,1) ( } Engineering Div. (Lg. Site) ( } Sanitary Engineer (Rob HamerO 18.11201) ( 1 Fire Nevention iLg. Set} ( } Transportation Svcs. (Lg. Site) ( 1 Leisure Services (8-1/20 1) ( } Water Dist. - inform, i8 -1,'2x11 } ( 1 Streets (8-1 /2x11 ) A. P. ITUSER 426-191-29 C3MVLTER INPUT: 170112 851014ZE1887821071 • • �l�i�f' ' 31', f A • • 4 402 C(MW NQi;!L7Q=, AXTI'MRIZED AQ'i' FOR THE BISHDP OF -_:. 403 IDS ANGUM , A C OFTOER ICN SOLE, FOR RFACrIVAT�LON OF 404 A CJl'N]I a4AL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DAY CARE Car ?M 405 FOR NO ICRE THAN 50 C HILDMN AT AN EXISTING CHTUi, 406 LOCATED AT 163 EAST BAY ST=, COSTA MESA, IN A 408 409 410 The Bishop of Los A peles, A Corp. Sole P.O. Bo©c 2164 411 Los Angeles, CA gC051 412 The Rear. Conrad Nordcraist 183 East Bay Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 413 LE AS Cxnditions/Drdinance Require-ents: (C-M,"e-:ts Other 'chap sta^3a:d con�itio :�: Ordinanoes, si>cruld be addressed to the PlanningCcr-mission in me� form.) } 31 00 City or Costa Mesa Engineering Division STANDARD DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS 1. At the time of development submit for approval a Grading Plan, that shows Sewer, Water, Parkway/Street Improvements and the limits of work on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a Civil Engineer, to City of Costa Mesa Engineering Division, (tough grade approval must [>ta obtained prior to Building or Engineering Permits being issued by City of Costa Mesa. The extent of topography on this plan shall be sufficient enough to determine drainage impacts to adjacent properties. 2. A permit and deposit will be required from City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, prior to any on or off• site work to insure the integrity of remaining ar:d adjacent improve mentsdue to construction ingress/egress. 3. Maintain the site in a "wet -down" condition to the degree necessary to prevent excessive dust. Periodically re.rnove spillage from the public R/W by sweeping or sprinkling, however, watering that results in mud on public streets is riot permitted as a substitute for other cleaning methods. 4. Haul routes must be approved by City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division. 5. Obtain a permit from CALTRANS. prior to performing any work in the State R/W. 6. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, Street Improvement Plans, that show Sewer and Water improvements, prepared by a Civil Engineer, io fully improve to its ultimate width per City of Costa Mesa Master Plan of Highways/Standards. 7. Submit required cash deposit to guarantee construction of to its ultimate width per City of Costa Mesa Master Plan of Highways/Standards. Cash deposit to be determined by City Engineer. 8. Two copies of the Final Map and traverse closure calculations shall be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering Division for checking, 9. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. Residential/Commercial sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Grading Plan/Improvement Plan, including 4 feet clear around obstruction in the sidewalk. 10. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then reconstruct/construct Type 1/11 P.C.C. driveway approach per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Grading Plan /Impravr..ment Plan, location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Engineer, 1 1 . Obtairi a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the t;rnt: of dvvclo;tment and then remove any existing drives and/or curb denre�sions that will not be used and replace with full height curt) and sidewalk at arwlocAnt's expenses. 12. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then ronstrur_t Wheelchair Ramp on the cortier of .. and _ 13 Per requirements of Real Property, City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Divisiori, and prior to issuance of Building Permais, dedicate all land ... -. feet from the center line of-_----�._---- 14 Pei requ rernonts of Real Property, City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Divimin, and prior to issuanre of Building Permits, rjer irjrte all land .. _.feat from the center Hili,, of 15 Per requirHmerits of Real Property, City of Costa Mesa, Encfiw-tiring Division, and prior to issuance of Building Permits, dedicate a 3 foot public utility easerntint beh6nd existing right of way line on 163. Per requirprnenls of Real Prupeity, City of Costa Mesa, Engineering DIVI';inn, ;inti prior to issuance of Building Permits rhadir .it te ti foot diagonai corner cutoff at the corner of 32 +v > Y c I4 C C G_ CL r i s IM to to M cu CA Q C m '" C1 ' a O o` o L� o R C a ;x v c C r m m c o ejoo LL c w o N h vNs '`� N �J L• t'0 L i k ." j _ C v� G7 _ - ..... rC Lo j + O C O O L O ? Q �a_f7 'y r 4 I' '.' y O ll CT I Y p f O C! i O a U i rbc .� QCL y G Q L CL O o T a Q v c a, O O C C c >, a d E c o cc c2) Ic a c CC c c G c w c q' m �' s �, a to trJ ur o w LU w E R cv 0 0 Lu u ul r o U U U c) m (3 U E ¢© c 9Z� c a o f Q m o o o m r Y 1 U tti y n o, 13 cu ti u U C1R d CL O i a- J 4L C -t CL .� CL Q F r U .. y r\ crz Y w H y M N i w N Gi N r N to 5R E o c c c c mc n m u �Li aLU _ o is ,;, `g ■ ii :n _ 3 N .R CL •16 M R 61 QT ~ .� N — pc E E°; .0 � 4. eL a a Ln ° U C ri cg to cg E Q o ri m s c N N N N (ay R 33 a� ):: ?a .` -i r! •'k .� S h -f= - 6 - mow.°#C ,,. 5 TO: Dwactor of De"k9nmu Swvwm FROM: Transports;o„ Swviee, Engineer SUBJECT:,' .'- 7 ,/ The following suggestions are for your consideration as checked: 1. Internal parking circulation is poor requiring backing into streets if spaces are occupied. 2. Parking stalls difficult for access and/or exiting - turn around inadequate. I Stall and aisle dimensions are inadequate. 4. Parking allows side of le to be exposed to backing vehicles. 5. Other - CUNDITIONS: The following conditions show be included with the final development plan: �J 1. Submit Development Plan for review and approval of driveways and intemal circulation prior to issuance of permits. L 2. Construct standard driveway entrance per CM Standard Plan 5C4 (Type 11). Lj 3. Submit driveway improvement plan for approval prior to issuance of permits. 4. Install HPSV street lights on marbelite poles. 5. Other R COMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve with conditions as noted. 2. Approve with suggestions forwarded to developer. 3. Redesign plan to accommodate above comments. 4. Disapprove plan subject to submittal of additional information. 5. Deny. 6. See prior submit --al for previous comments. 7. Other 34 CMF n5A1-64. to.- 10/84 SArvi(*l \ M:�:«a+°w �;s! 44. �r ar;Fr MW r��..e :•! 1�.'_ . a ,��r It:aT„ a;iti FOR PLkWNG CCMMISSION F£MM OF DIM HACK TO THE PLANNING I)MSICN BY Octobes 2, 1985 TO: ( } Building Safety (!_.g. Site) ( 1 Police Department (8-1!2x11 ) } Engineering Div. (Lg. Site} ; 1 Sanitary Engineer (Rob Hamers) W-1 /2x11 ) r-� ; } Fire Prevention (Lg. Set} (v ) Transportation Svcs. (Lg. Ste) i Leisure Services (8-1,120 A I ( } Water Dist. - Inform, M-1 /2x11 } ( } Streets (8-1 /2x11 ) A.P. NUMER 426-191-29 OOMPMER INPUT: 170112 8510147•E1887821071 402 024RM NOMQUIST,•• ,+Er AGENT M• TBE : •r r• OF 403 IDS ANGELES, A CORPORATIM SME, • • MVTIVATJON OF 404 r MWITIONAL USE . E , M TO AU -CW DAY CARE CENTER 406 10MTED AT 183 Wr BAY STFM, COSTA MMA, IN A 408 409 410 The Bishop of Las Angeles, A Corp. Sole P.O. Haat 2164 411 108 Ades, CA 90051 412 413 The Rev. Coairad Nox.is`k / 183 East Bay Street Costa Mesa, CA, 92627 Conditions /Ordinance Requirements: (Cmrents other than standard con:]Itions/ Ordinances, should be addressed to the Planning Ccrrussion in memc fom- ) 35 r.M V UW 56 (Rev. 33/55! FUR PLANNING CCMMISSION MEETING OF Ckttcbr 14. 1985 DUE BACK TO THE PLANNING DIVISICIN BY QgtgkNr 2. 19SS TO: ( ) Building Safety (Lg. Site) ; I Police Department ;8-1 %2x11) ( 1 Engineering Div. (Lg. Site) ( ] Sanitary Engineer (Rob Hamersf (8-1 2K11) ( } Fire Prevention (Lg. Set) } Transportation Svcs. (Lg- c 'vs Leisure Services (8.112x11) ( } Water Dist. • Inform. (8.1 :. ` 1) ( } Streets (8-1:2x11 h A.P. NUIBER 426-191-29 C OM YrER INPUT: 170112 851+014ZE1887821071 401 ZONE EXf DTIC N FAIT 7.E-78-188 FUR TPZ RFS 402 Cir NC?MQUIS'T, AUn-URIZED AGMU FOR THE BISHOP OF 403 UOS A�� , A COMRATION SOLE, FtiFt RACTIVAT;ON OF 404 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALWK A DAY CARE CENTER 405 FOR NO MIRE THAN 50 allUMEN AT AN Cii[3RC7i, 406 IOU= AT 183 EAST BPS[ , COSTA MESA, IN A 407 PM—M ?.ONE. DE EFM1ATICN: OMMVr. 408 409 410 The Bishop of Ivs Angeles, A Corp. Sole P.O. Baas 2164 411 Ins Angeles, CA 90051 412 413 The Rev. Conrad Nordgt.>_ist � �L� 183 East Bay Street Costa mesa, CA 92627 Conditions /Ordinance Requirements: (Compents other than sta^3ar3 conditi� s;' Ordinanaesr should be addressed to the Planning Ccimmission in merb fori-� 36 -K— CMF D997-30 (Agv. 31851 4 t� r k` FOR PLANNING COHMISSION MEETIM OF nntn r 14.3985 DUE BACK TO ME PLAMING DIVISION BY _�ber_2. 1985 .+ TO: ( ) Building Safety (Lq. Sited ( i, Police Department (8-112x11) ( ) Engineering Div, (Lg. Site) (vf} Sanitary Engineer (Rob Hamers) (8-1 /20 1 ► { ) Fire Prevention (Lg. Set) I I Transportation Svcs. (Lg. Site) ( I Leisure Services (8.112x11) { ? Water Dist. - Inform. (8.112x11) { ) Streets (8-1;2x11) A.P. NUIBER 426-191-29 COMPUTER INPUT: 170112 851014ZE1887821071 - 401 KINE L"AC=ON PERMIT ZE-78-188 FOR T�1E REVEREND 402 CXON W NDFDQUIST, NMURIZED AGENT MR THE BISHOP OF •. res •a•�••--• a ai a- -a a s • •a }a • t. .'� . �. III t ii .� ae� �I• 405 FOR NO MORE THAN 50 CMIDM AT AN EXIS'T'ING Qui, 406 IDCATEU AT 183 EAST BAY Sna=, COSTA MESA, IN A - e ' a-' a • I a R,a a �r• s�•. is ►• •. a►s� �- 408 CMSD CONDITION X. 54 409 410 The Bishop of IAs Angeles, A Corp. Sole P.Q. Hex 2164 4.1 Los Angeles, CA 90051 412 413 The Rev. Cont -ad Nordqua.st 183 East Bay Street � Costa Mesa, CA 92627 — Conditions/Ordinance Requirestents: (Can7ents other than standarz conte.-itions/ Ordinances, should be addressed to the Planning Ccn,„ission in rner for:. ) 37 C -Mf 0297.30 (ROV. 3;851 a y�.� S�e�++ 1� �nt �fi TICM� RMUMMM FOR PLANNING CC MMLSSION 'MEETING OF =t4UZ 14, 1285 DUE BACK TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY TO: (fl Building Safety (Lg. Site1 ; ) Police Department 18-112x11) ( } Engineering Div. (Lg. Site) ; ) Sanitary Engineer (Role Hamers) (8-112x114 } Fire Prevention (tag. Set) ( ) Transportation Svcs. (Lg. Site) { ) Leiswe Services (8.112x11) { ) Water Dist. - Inform. 18-1 i2xl 1) ) Streets (8-112x11 F A.P. MISER 426-191-29 SSR INPtA': 170112 851014ZE1887821071 401 ZMEI'T,0N PfMIT ZE-78-188 FOR TIS PMEVEFOV, 402 OQ3l AD NORDQ( IST , AUMIORIZED AMU FOR THE BISHOP OF 403 IJOS A XLES, A COMaRMON SALE, EMF +L IVATTCN OF 404 A CSMI'1 OVAL = PEM TO ALLOW A DAY CARE C M?rM 405 FUR NO MM THAN 50 tZ'lIiDM AT AN EXISrING CMC1, 406 IOCATED AT 183 EAST BAY STREET, COSTA MESA, IN A 407 PDR -ice ZCHE. ENVIPCNMMMLI] CN: ExaIPT. 408` 409/,,-- 411) 09!, 41Q . The Bi of Los les A Corp. Sole Thele Aeiv. Conrad No st si'�oP . rP r�-z P.O. Boot 2164 183 East Bay Street 411 Los Angeles, CA 90051 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 412 413 Conditions/Ordirkince Requirements: (Corsaents other than starndara conditlons Ordirlarloes, should be addressed to the Plarr.ing Cc rz7a.ssion in mem for.-:.) 38 39 vine Episoop l Church at coats No= 92627 lm s W& 9 2, ------------,-_..-- �_ _ _ ZE-78-188 183 East Bay Street The Bim of Los les /NoxxkjLu5t 40 PpCa to Mesa. CA 926215 " � 47141754-5245 IPI S" Instruction Shoot) APPLICATION NO. (s) � I --r 4J -Tqr- LA-JI%31I E,f11 The Bishop of Los Angeles, A CoorfPMerebyapplyforthe Planning Actionfsbasindic e belowon sot my property which is described as follows: I2► Address: 183 E. Bay Street, Costa Mesa, 92'927 131 PLANNING ACTION!'► REQUESTED Account Nr (Office Use! _ (4) (5) (6) Variance(s) No — _ 0131110009 x_ Conditional Use Pei No. 0131110009 Development Review 0131110009 _ . Subdivision A. — Tentative Map of Tract __...__ _ -- 0131120004 B. — Parcel Map C. — Lot Line Adjustment 013112000-' Planned Development Review - A — Preliminary B. Final 0131110001-3- General 131110009General Plan Arnendment 0 131110009 _ Rezone 013111000-C Other _— Negative Declaration 0131 T 901 Oc NF = No Fee Reqi by Ordnance Total Fee $ Fee .x ALL REQUIRED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS ATTACHED !See Appropriate Ins -r-:—. c-�Sheetsl ,x PLANNING ACTION DESCRIPTION.,JUSTIFICATION FORM ATTACHED. APPLICANT (Property Owner Onlys Type or Print l attest under Per,;'. ^.' law to the truth 31td The Bishop ` Los �rgales Corn. S lcorrectnessofa -- exhpis rapsanc �_ ktachments prose-._: v..t, and Tare a Par- P.O. v ^e•: of this appi,cat.C' P.O. Box 2104 Los Angeles, California 90051 ---'- Phone: (213; 482-2040 ;Area Coael- 19l AUTHORIZED AGEN` Type or Prmr Conrad Nordquist(The Rev.) 1Aut-�or I red Awe*t' -- — 183 East: Bav Street %46,1ing AGdreSS`. -- — C o a _`i e s a, a 1 i i j_r_ 'C�"Y:S:ate Z:Ci 7 t I hereby a - C— ri d to act as r , --arese^tat,ve and ,o t -,c - e �, all matt-; : ce—ng to -+,s apwicat�a- 18) _ S�gr•a:�_•e -c., ca,.. a.,�e..y...�w�e-- ---- Subscr,bec �-. �.•.o•� -� 72sore me *� 5 SEAL, I ;� Phone'� n 17 (Arpa G i �l III . 1 NOTICE TO APPLICANT: If you cha nge th,s act on in cour?, you may be limited to ra s -c)y those $sues you Jr someone else raised at the Public Hear.ng for this .tern, or written correspondence delivered to the _a" Piann;nQ Comm ss on a- o- prior to. the Public Hearing or final decision. IOfliee Use Only? Assessors Parc I No. AP ``tµ --: _ - ...__- _----.--- - as per A+[a{�s 19.2i- at General Pian Deslgnatjon � 1 l ] _ 11' o Zone REQUEST: Reactivaticil of a Conditional Use `Pbrmit tc alba Day Care Center for nc more that~ 50 children at an escistinq church. .VPlannmg Commission Hearing — $ 30 p m �_ - �..• %_ /� _ Staff Review Only. You wilt be notified by mail of the f nal derision .Ani.+scat on Read, o e � 1 L � WHEN COMPLETED, PLEASE *ETV*N ALL COPIES TO PLANNING DlviSiON- Lrc 062 30 (Rev. 6, 951 wn to -Gty C)err c. a,annine. Camp' Aon ea.;. P „k F .,a,,:e. Goiden,oa A t- "ae' 41 Cly► of Cum DINWO Pon 011100 am IUD 77 F:CLW Ud" Comer AIM, CiliiiNTAM (714) 7546246 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION For Office Use Only: Project Number Z - ? Z Date Received/By C/= Zone � General Plan Designation— Eica�� Recommendation__.t 2 f` r Applications for projects in the City of Costa Mesa cannot be processed until an initial study of environmental impacts has been completed and an exemption granted or a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report prepared. Please fill out the following and return {with oralirninerti site,pla, including lavation and size of all existing and d trees) five (5) working days prior to subutittins g your application: Location of Project St. John's Church, 183 East $ay Street, Costa Mesa 92627 Description of Project Preschool and after school supervision of no more than 50 children, L. to 6 o.rr. lweekdays. Submitted by Mailing Add Conrad Nordquist (The Rev. i i%?� 1�"✓�%_Qate X6;'85 183 Fast Bay Street Phone (_!0548-223 Costa %Iesa, California Zip Code _y-,6-, Not ail projects will necessitate the preparation of an Environmental impact Report. In order to make a determina- tion as to whether any significant environmental impacts may result from the proposed project, the above informa- tion is necessary. As soon as possible, the Environmental Evaluator will determine whether or not the project will require an Environ- mental Impact Report and will notify the project sponsor accordingly. 42 CW 0325.30 Atn,, 121W aQF LOWA 11SA 77 Fair Drive Casts Mae. CWUwnia 92626 (714) 754-5243 PLANNING ACTION DESCRIPTIONJ3USIMCATION (Please See instructions) ( 1 ) Project Location St. Johns Church, 183 E. Bay Street, Costa Mesa 92627 (2) Describe Project and Request(s) Day Care Center 1Lf`id N• : - } }� �I • (.L r L i, ■ i 3) If application is for Conditional Use Permit(s), answer the following: Describe how the proposed use is substantially compatible with uses permitted in the same general area and how the pro- posed use would not be materially detrimental to ether properties within the same :area This use is com atible with uses over the past nine years, ., ;- de-, in 1983-84. It is compatible with the day care center across ts7e street op, Orange Avenue and with the zoning prescribed for the church. If application is for Variance(&), answer the following: Government Code Section 65906 states. "Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only when. because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surround- ings, strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification." Describe how.youur request for a variance(s) meets the above Government Code requirement. 43 City of Costa Mesa f 77 Fair Drive iPLANNING ACTION APPLICATIS Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 556-5245 (Please See Instruction Sheet) TL ut' L,Q APPLICATION NO.{s) (1) qL03t3�,,a FI LINO DATE. (2)--�— CERA (3)y_._� I• (4) u --t" r here4y apply for the Planning Actions} as indicated be3ow on my property which is described as follows: (5) Address: (6) Assessor's Parcel No AP # (as per Maps, 19 (7) Nearest Major Cross Streets +'t'�>1� �,_r - 1�r. 1�+t;. (8) PLANNING ACTION(s) REQUESTED Account No. (office use) C1 Zone Exception(s) Fee A. ❑ Variance(s) No. 0131110009 $ B. ❑ Co;.Jitional Use Permit(s) No. 0131110009 C. ❑ CPApproval No. 0131110009 ❑ Development Review ❑ Subdivision: A. ❑' Tentative Map of Tract _ 0131120004 S. ❑ Parcel M,o C. Cl Lot Line Adjustment 0131120004 ❑ Encroacnment Permit ❑ Planned Development Review A. ❑ Preliminary 8. ❑ Final G Relocation Mermit Other C- SeIrUi%- l 0Ott. 14 t I ��c� IL c k i 01 30 7 50000 JFINegative Declaration ❑ Environmental Impact Report - 0131190009 .z�n 02 �� NF � No Fee Required by Ordinance (9) Total Fee$ 15-01(-� (10) ALL REQUIRED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS ATTACHED (See Appropriate Instruction Sheets) (11) �' PLANNING ACTION DESCRlPT1ONIJUST1FICATION FORM ATTACHED. (12) APPLICANT (Owner of Record Only} Type or Print_ -rkL , jti(;r 4 �r� r ;fir j.# f () I it L �'�,f I attest under penalty of law to the truth and correctness of all facts, exhibits. maps and - In Cl L :Y c; f 7-1 Si !C attachments presented with and made a part (owiler of Record of this application. (Mailing Address) (13) 1 hereby authorizeli 1 t- IJr"d �• !YL't'( L" �r uJ A i,c,C, CLf (l fYFN I ti l Lr �-/ to act as my representative and to bind me in all matters concerning this application, (CityJState/21 p} g Phone: Z, 1.?/ (Area ode) (15) AUTHORIZED AGENT T pe rPri t ti (Autr+orizeaAgent) (Mailing Address) (Clty/state/Zip) Phone::"11 2 2 3 '/J Areat 117 f / 11J, 7W JO ice 11.3% only) r (14) 1 lt�t.E� f f.-�-<r gnature — Applirnt ( wner of Recnra only) Subscri d and sworn to before me this day of ��se!ltl1. OFFICr11L 5Lrt MAPW C IPEN.N.;, 711 Ir fli A f7Y frlli!, I My Comm�sslr:, Fapir..., (16) Zone Rn _T (17) General Plan Designation ��� O � `'? �DEIZMAL, (181 RECIUEST: C4* F -We Alla PLAli,) rl►1tt+� ffiMs�•7�^ yp o nr --ro N"44 Da-V-}srrY- (19) DePlanning Commission Hearing - 6:30 p.m. {20) ❑ Staff review Only. You will be notified by mail of the final decision. (21) Application Complete (Init+ai) 44 CMF 0602-32 White - City Clerk or Planning; Green - Planning; Canary - Applicant; Pink - Finance; Goldenrod - Authorizea Agent . CITY OF COSTA %1ESA 77 Fair Drive Crista Mesa, California 92621 (' 141 754-5245 PLANNING ACTION DESCRIPf7ON(JUST IFICATION Wle;[se See in�tlu,ii<r;l,t 0 } Project location�)}C J r; (2) Describe Project and Recluesttsl L-,} I? f rit L , L•f! i i_I.�{_ta 1�z al- �,L_ (Jul ;�. [.c 1^,_rti��iG�.���r_%_� �, J�[[r �lrr- (r/rlrr k �i S� 15 C� ��[ii{Cr[���?1�st� C{lltltlfrLrrlti�Fle T�b�L� J,_•r �r, fir. T t e. (3) If application is for Conditional Use Permits i, answer the Following: llescrihi how the propo,ed use is substantially compatible with uses perinitted in the ,;tore gener.il arta and how the pro- posed use would not be materially detrimental to other pro ertitm s within the sae arca. 7 c{ << �5i ')1411 (-2) c,� I- V t•i'ilir:r.Tf I d t (A. A"m Slr�uC ur�d C�lrt (.Cr .Sl J Cert- e�t'jL,L LtJ{ �f!{_ 1.lC:[ Ees.., .)i Z - r u,c -c I-V i 1Wi�7Yc�! ci Yc (•}{ .�EC� %ltr[� �t(' )J�!!L'ff.cl lid( L��['lit� iiR".. 14 b 4 C, c r t. sitrgt.0 t",ti rc T1�_f r {�trJ✓` ��� /�`i� It -1L �1 -s s L1 I t �r17 f lilf,[ r [- t^ti11�E.�r<<L4t (4) If application is for Variance(s), answer the following: Government Code Section 65906 states: "Variance from the terns of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size., shape, topography, location or surround- ings, strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identi :al zoning classification." Describe how your request for a variances) meets the above Government Code requirements. I✓1N [4-4 lif Ll er & I �f Lic� i[cl Lt4LV ttY f(l� Vit( �[t I?41t•�?L C, S H-42- 13 S �•. c k ltc rf cJ 1 I. C " r; t l � [ L ` [ c f 4 t � - � ` � t '�^' '� C�� IrC � [ [ [ � f P .. , e. �. tc(%�- < c•C. .le,�,t. i G (f a.1 .0 �tk S3i^ y[r t.,;i-tiGL� �^�/l�+E+�[�I�c( N-�i�l�•rl:�C{� j�-' Sc'c'(�i[ - �( Lt�i` /?�ritei rLrr,[� �:��- �t GJ tirGrt.tGltr•t C�<vc����E � L -.:r J I � 4•T T�-' �UC�C� �[c�.11 ��.y(• 1��iif`(I�[!f t"ice-.cL 12 4i&. EX �fAIIU4 IL,'" 1'IE: c!(F'P• 4,;( l,�,ti'_1`l�_n�l �irrt11ct4 _4-r fti (.lr�� nt�* vim...-+INl it-] CMF 0603-32 White - City Clerk or Planning; Canary • APpkcant; Pink - Planning; Goldenrod - Author lied Agent 45 l L ,kYroQ .L5:;; w 91�1 �•i Lam• ?.'� 4,., K, ...� 46 C l' Y OF COSTA M- SA F INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM Ze-`ii 2v —. 19 1 - TO CITY CX UtC I L - -- � - - -- - -- — ARUMLCA-tj C LAi-i_: . • ' f RE: SPECIAL ST;Ui SE61U; OF APkl:, 23, 197, fv}r.�ii:.I?�C� SL;;I�ir CITIGx;. fY� i'I r'c�r POSAL BY SZ. ,3c , THS. UI�JIN EYI L�Yr. CH r."i {G:r.`;�_ hl ht;u Ey'. ... - - - - A consultant for St. Jor,n the Divine (,A/,r. R. H. ydr=lr. - Resx atrc",� is c�r.tactr Staff regarding a proposed 36 -unit H-.1; Sectio,,. 42 prc3ect for tl,E tL--pr-rt;a'- Orange and Bay. Sore Section 202 units are availa: le for C;rart,� County b�.:t tt,c-- f inarr sing package oust be sutrr.itted to HuD by 1,pr;1 30, 1979. h concf-it i la:: submitted to Staff for review (cogf a`tact.ed;. ?,r. Yde�n ea_s reg;;estcd a frog Staff regardin�i the necessary steps to acccr i,.LIS;. tr,e rro3ect anc rlr,e i��- reception of the City to the proposal. Staff is rtes.rar.t to tare a Council discussion and review. rme Church is in the process of fcrr.drr-3 a Hrausi ty Corporat:or: tC'sponsor tr:e Pry.,F-ct. Thirty-six one-dedrocx.. (575 square feet) calling units are proposed. Tx-* existin: sanctuary would be used as the multi-pur-pr-�e r -.qac-, for senior and cr,urch activitie:Z A new sanctuary would be constructer at the .,orner of Lkag anc- Ctrar ;e. 'Re hot;S :.rry project would be constructed under 202 (noir-profit orc;a„ization) rr,ortJa�� financing and oarrbined with the 5Ec t ��, S F1Ent $i;bSl y Prrxira,.. for ttee It should be stressed that the attached plan is a conceit. The proponents realize that details such as setracks anc parking neer to be rE-f Yned. The proposed housing would front on Laurie Ia ne . Properties tc the ues t on Lar i e Lane contain two-story triplexes and one-story dupiexes. T`,e parcel tc the contains a two-story 40 -unit apart-nent building and the property to the east con- tains a two-story 5 -unit development. SlrGle family haroas are located co tF- nort:. across Bay Street. The Church property is zoned Rl with a General Piar: Designation of low �rsit Residential. Tris area will be considered ire the new Land use Eler�eent sc �c�lec for City Council review in March, 1980. There are two processing options available if the City wis:,es to encourage Lnis project: I. Amend General Pian and change zoning - Depending on time constraints of the applicant, a General Plan h,erna;,ent could either be processed as a separate amerxknent in October, 1979; or as a part of the new band Use Element in 19b0. 2. Amend Institutional and Recreational (I&R) Zone and rezone property tc. I&R - The I&R Zone could be amended to allcw, as a conditional use, houszrx; projects owTnec, %*rated or manages+ by the prin;ary conforming user of the property. This could be acccniplished within a 3-4 month period (by August, 1979). Continued.. . 47 Memo to City Council Re: St. John the Divine Church Property April 26, 1979 Page 2. The residential density of the prG ject is diff icolo W calc�:Iat_e arc Ta,• -r • ;s. meaningful since toe "people" density wili at relativelj ice+.. On entire- ZL_r._. site is slightly over two acres. Following are $.3i& of the, possisle aivantages a iC of tin =r :n:%. AiWantwes 1. Ttte units will be provided to Ow -income senior citize t:F- of ftux?ing frcr. tie City. No "4.: its• cKD,- -" T G: is 2. There is a need for tris type of ho: zing. lofornsti n avaiianie to ttr- City indicates there are arproxi:,ateil i,3-�v a;r..!: r houseinlos in need of rental assistance. 3. the Charcr,'s facilities (yroposoc racy, cc -Id ::Y,;. ide awi-- tioral ate#enities for tie pro-ect. 4. Two-story m ltiple family developments tree ,:=yerty or vxvo s..._ i. The "people" density would we similar to au ±cent yr: ot=s. 5. The proposal would assist the Cf'urcn to its appearance. 6. Public transit is available on orange h-1e-n-o- DisauvantacJ.es 1. As a Section SGL development (non-profit organization), tne +r :wct be tax exeqpt. No propert7 taxes wonIc ne paid to offset avt;c.;at& service costs. 2. It is anticipated that some service costs (e.g. paraaas:c; wools Do .. _ner than normal without offsetting revenue gains. 3. Thirty-six dwelling units in aidition to the multi-yor;..,ose rocs: and san _„a:l. on a 2 -acre site may be consioered to be too dense for the area. 4. Everyday shopping facilities are not availanie within wa-1king cist.anse. Reguested Action Staff requests that City Council indicate whether there is a desire to encourage this project so that a Staff letter may be prepared for we project proponents. WAS Attachments cc: City Manager City Attorney Public Services Director Fire Administration Planning & Development Services Director City Clerk 48 THE R. H. r:zCOMPAn' BACX.7'SIJ%: hs„ !1.~. jiff. Zt'. `3�. Reinhold H. Klein, ta=_ spent in excess W rine`eer years r - e ces_ w&ne-. e` special purpose ho.i5ing. His initis" a:• v�taes were in t`e Brea of E rb" Housinc utilizinS Spsticn 23; of the Nal,onel mows;ng Aft. ✓rs the firS* Exe._- Di rector of Re4 remeni Housing Foundat i c- , he p j onee-e: i ,r tse 0eve l olme-* c` she'ter ant full -Gare fec l i t ies for the e i le- ay w in Ine v ene' o` "*r-- its, -e_ financing. As the f i rSt Execu* i ve Wrecto- of Meal bijs n; Truji a- _ was: Re; eve i n ►_'-. Cor;,^,rat i on, he was an early part is i Fart in W r re,& , -a' ; sn an: Of low and moderate income fas-..; 1 y housing i r tMe i nne- c - ' . C4 Los A- ge; es , Activities were concentrateZ in the areawn;c" Curren*;Y cins—s`m inn G-eate- watts Model Cities Project an! tre Firesinve-k Vora; roc• Area, Pacnime arc La Puente. His extensive experiences with non-proli# corpwra iovs, commarity Ylarnn;, spec ai assistance hoes i ng and inner city hous i n de we i opment are a' crew ass:stance 1r, the development of we 1 l planned, functional an! e_onar • Ca 1 1 y sours de ve i o ne7o . In his capacity as the Executive Director & Wirener. Housing Fo,—ciiio-, r•.e purchased the lane sites, planned, proce55W, ar-angez toe finarcin;, COW!"nOV! the construction and plated the fojio,.inc eiderly ho.,_ ^rc'ec - ir`y o're-a'oo The first was initiatew in 1958 art the last canp;ete: in 196c. A:f were :-Ocessez and developed under Section 231 of the Na*iona'. Hous,rc Ac-. The projects are as follows; Twilight Haver Fresno, California r&A #'.21-381:! h= 74 units Mortgage Amount 1 77:,00:. Casa de Modesto Modesto, Ca I i f orn i a FWA 112t-36014 Q- 72 units Mortgage mount $ 8W I M . Pioneer House Sacramento, California FHA 4136-380:.3 W 132 units Dior# gage Mount S1,043,001. Trinity !douse Sacramento, Cal ; f orn i a FRA V36-35102 W; 71 units Wortgage AS ciot 11,143,00C. Plymouth Square Stockton. Ca l i f nr n i e FHA 1136-Q305 lW 108 units Mortgage Mao:irt S1,775,DCC. Plymouth Tower Riverside. Ca k f orn i a FHA 0122-38035 HP 108 units Mortgage Meow 0,748,000. 49 THE R. HL KIVA COMCAS- The Berx ?; t antes Cie un a is Sur WWI Lace 11C writs 911 Tcta" sr^.45 F".'e- v, i-'2a7c-. So- S l t . , A- , zc"a Nc -?;a a Amar -- V "' . S..22`..00 - In Ws capacity as Exe:at;ve Wrenw- c.s € E -ane: Hcw_ �_-�a' w re negsTOW the aeons icor of the fo lowon; tw: W! e.:e, nn_s,i � ���' `.r' i the FH4 Co r"ssione-_ Saic: prajec*s tai gone ;r -c as -a , projects were res*ruck-e' an man successf of . Ma ffoowe- Gardens Lancaster. C..at orris Frz 0.21-3.;-7 Q 555 units C-ocirzl me--tea2e S' ` : __. Bixty Knolls Towers Low.. War, Cay ;crr a - - 0 -: -_Z: .,v 169 units or g I nO Mortgage 12 , 6 7 724 Total Units In his capacity as Exe:ut:v€ W redo- & toe vea_ ho -v _ 'r;;=_' a^_ -e= the Meal Resevelopment Corporation, he dereOpe: the `c w r ., far mo.._ _ projects under va- i o.�s sect i oris of tine ha+ i ora : Hans 'b; ^ 1' . ! ne i . s w me-, initiated in 1967 anc the last coaqetel in 1972. All are subsidiZeW' units. Section 22€ (h) Sinele Family pe•%ai i ita`ior, 19 projects IMPC. i throe y 19 Section 235 ( j 1 Reh ab i 1 i tat i osn - S i rng I e Fac* i 1 y Los Angeles. Ca ; i f orn i a Section 235 IQ New Construction - SinS Ie FaV ly Los Angeles, California Section 235 Iii Experimental Hadatar Construction Single Family Los Angeles, California Section 221 (a) (2 ) No. ConstructOn - Sing ,1 r an: l y Los Angeles, California 2 .33 hooses $1,327,50. L Kouses SS 156,00. i E �v'.xSes 3 houses S 117,00a. 3 houses S 451000. 50 THE A. K. OWN M' SecTA0" 221 tae- &-struclaor - Lt—_- i'K. 'e;, Ce .for n: a Seel iom ?3E - C€a^WW Wr - ML * V -Far. 'i` 3 Prr lows Fs? 002-504 NT - Los AnWes, Ca. W 022-409E NF - :.Os .1i ny E_ , Rig.- *122-4042 hP - Los Angeies, Q_ Acte Ur7s 1E 'a-rnwose= I: C- 30 more recently, he `.es er;`erec Ma pra_ ;ce as a Aws . _ ZQ-S_ T,`-_ a-= r.as conc feted or has, "'e f :h uo-W emerw housi,r.! ;r'ojenTs w-__-wo, F: - vw non -prof it a ierts: a W N Nouys, na Casa de Los Was Rwana= Sew, a 136 eats Ret'noc Naze Redevelopment Project ect 6 Secy i rrn 7361 Mint w_;,e Ar-- . a PICCU Union Villa la Ws Angeles. Ca- Sect i o' 22 MUSec . 8 Mbrt cafe Want Danker Hill Plaza Les Anlepes, Ca. 764 units Bunker Hill Reaeve G a ent Projec' Section 220315ec.8 Ml Mage Wow- Phyf loser Gardew , y Lancaster. Ca. 76 units Action 221d3ISec-f Mbrtaye Amount Pilorim Tower East Pasa4ena, Ca. 158 wits SNFA/Sec.8 Abrtgage Want Wadsworth Place Los Aveles, Ca. 48 Uiis Section 202/Sec.& Nbrtgage MOW Casa de GoDdwill Los Angeles. Ca - 56 units Section 202/Sec.$ F*: Cir^ ez- Qnc e j v: 010-451:7 W -W S3',S7:,0GC. F Frotc? - Lite- ` is - FHA F -c 4c - Le ce r cons,_ CA ons, - CA W_8=3 --2;v CA 16 -DW -M S1,60.00C. Sta"e Roush:_ F : -a,ce Aae:nc Uncle, constrW > 0 75-17-S Prgject 12869 $9'34,0:. F i rr Com Nmert PHA 122 EHD 138 S3,598,V+l'v. 51 THE 4. R- KIEV% COMPAM Wh av Mbov- CMA Chinatown, Ws Annedes ver=gc k is endo Sour tam: . Coe N MyV q l exp Sam Foams ; = w i er- Jazenese AmerReen CellO'urras Arm, Fazaine. Ca. S1t_ va-*'s Lente Episcopal Cm,u:rV v r hu'vss, Ca - Mamas Plaza t rre"e t 4OUsNO FOU 1 -Ow.. Leme Bea&% Fafly saws i n r--' lenity Christian comytom, Ca. Diarcls NO- 2 56 Units M a s i, G stat ear: Mtr tgage amu,nt Section 216 Poco Union, Plaza Los Angeles, C_ 36 Units Vo rmanisew l P 5 cc Won NON Seer i oar 236 Mmari gage Reranwnt Wbrwandie/5 Los Amcedes. Ca - 16 Single Farm a j me l f k ng Warne W e r 3 OF relocated from *e_.tchvster to Normandie/5 NCF M rlgay Anew r:* Section MANOR NOR Pico Uneonfl-AX Los Angeles. W I Single f aRr y Dwe l l i eg Pico Won N= relocated from Westchester o PiOD k zon NOM skyrIgage un* /215t. Section 22M/215t Pot - W S 5__ SO :00 Corr I eve - " --' MC -+;a; = 3Z K. ON. 52 TE P;_ 141- MLI% Com^&" EvOcKikkA 24 UngRe CAme P41 rr _;,O" P At TOOSes S"O ate. 20:3 e=. CRSS MCC Vice 0, 4 11 iii "Noussm SAM= 20clMez-6 Los Ann es z _ an r NY M W —jaG = _ - ice. Owe—t za- p, r^ WS' Z, O Wompt Arc --- Or- Khe m's ervtt6r pmgrav Oev 8 sec O nve AR K Oewn an _ _ z - - ' porrympAm 11mi peqpeW arm. 7te Wif of the R. P_ v. -r"- 5-- Z ° Illi-- *-.f r `w tz: sssoc4,&Ie--- aT4 s pocer R- KeG M �.. i is he s C 4NDCAV as OSYS amt fir ;'!; Wfpo•_'•Q�' t = -_ I&' _ w e i Illa=ageoemt. r esoarcit apq51J ! r ii i' �y c"Y 14'�r_�x +"r� redevea !1. Rte -a i+ act a 0i t 4 e save i,,a`': amen as S'��"�a C 3w ! @ is "�•a!�' ;• 3 �_" --a;- Wr: wanagemens��o-,�i�� �`�" gam` �."'•VG';�'.a_ ^s,c = ryz`�"� - :? Cw4WV,aAKD0S frac WArioGi's:er�id C� F a ''Biu`'��`' - _ , ..r _.•" = �,y�- �� - Mod 4 nSpeCt j oT elf 4iliSrS n j; ;rZ a *. a W'' . Wcok 1 mg drawH ng}°{-a�, 7��m,y �6,y,, peciects; and R r�5Y�'411 ~=, �r" V,ks �•il li r li•V. A 9ridla of Of SCi off! ftsrw in the 1 WO cj AICKOIC"Une ar'z a a `s'_ . • •�� r � of Urban [!S w egn s. x tip an Mam'' �y� ass � ,, tfi ► a a.�� •,,�. 5 a- Man a ; E: rre Cc I l i 1) S h:)S I'. a 1. 4 ",e s,,aze a-,� fu-wtiona' prosra- �5- C>- t,*)f- LE,-�,Ce Ce --re- element a:)e,)C le'- including A. 8-_ the LC= A--ele5 Cr,1� College osez re a* Dns. 1 ps tc act'. ieve the 1 5 a I i r or- C a I i 0 r n i a r, jF r v & I n1e�nSr% i y with inas' r , D.0 . and i5 & o- AC- r I r at 'o r- frOrr Cal,fornia It IA -2 & 'r c the Greer 1'a I i e, Hopoeowners 0 Sorr* 5 QrJS res " beril 5, w � th a acre i -near pari, as the focus of IS -1 C! its kinC, and ray thus, functionally 1,e, for a res ider-I cam;, for the IL 14, a call fcr ass ;stance for A A .1 4;�' a E,keway Feasibility Study Team a c,- c' Governments, and as the Graduate anc Leisure Studies, California State c.- Spec a i Services, Recreation and program, staff, administered a va*,or education, services for the • ;.w cAmv- j e, cu I tura I arts. 54 ,.. M� Sol all rA&4 Irrr' i ,m.....m u fill low I 0 • 58 0 April 24, 1979 CITY OF COSTA MESA CAUFORNIA 42626 P.O. Box 1100 FROM THE OrF"ICE Of THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. Abland E. Camfield, Jr. Area Director Department of Housing i Development 2500 Wilshire Boulevard Las Angeles, California 90057 RE: CASA ST. JOF;tr', C OSTh MESA, CALIFQidrili Dear Mr. Camf ield: The City of Costa Mesa Planning Department has reviewed a proposal by St. John the Divine Episcopal Church to seek approval of a 34 -unit Section 202, Senior Citizen Housing Project. In addition, the "concQpt' of Cosa St. John has been reviewed with the Costa Mesa City Council in a Study Session on Monday, April 23, 1979. 7he Cknsta Mesa Planning Department will entertain the necessary appli- cations to process Casa St. John. Every effort will be made to expedite the processing of the project within the legal powers of the Planning Department and the City of Costa Mesa. The Costa Mesa Citi: Council indi- cated a willingness to process and consider the prc osal, agreeing in concept with the need for additional senior citizen projects of this type in the City. Neither the Planning Department nor the City Council can, of course, guarantee the outcome of the various public hearings which will be necessary to ooWlete this project. A General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Development Review will be required. if application is rade for a General Plan Amendment in June, 1979, it is estimated that the necessary project approvals could be obtained by January, 1980. If you have any additional questions regarding the Planning Department's position or this project please contact my office. Sincerely, Charles W. Aober'ts Planning i Development Services Director EWtC WR:dh ect City Manager city Cbz=il Planning 03=ieSion 77 FAIR DRIVE (714) 7545245 _._• ---- _ _ ..� _ _. 59 F- I. CITY OF COSTA MESA INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRON7ERML IMPACT'S This Initial Study provides the basis for the determination whether the subject project may have a significant effect on the environment. If it is determined that the project may have a significant effect, an Environ- mert.al Lypact Report will be prepared which focuses on the specific areas of concern identified by this Initial Stud?. BACKGRMN7D 1. Applicant 2. Address \ 1 Z ip Code t Z(p Z-7 3. Phone Number 4. Project Location ` 5. Project Title/Description �� S .-. t q-J' I. ENVIRO[+IMENTNL IMPA (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers attached. See Section V.) 1. Ehysical Environment Yes Maybe No Will the project have a significant impact on the physical environment? a. Hydrology b. Air Quality C. Geology d. Flora and Fauna ✓ e. Noise f. Archeological/fiistorical 2. brpact of Environment on Project Will the project be subject to impacts from the surrounding environment? a. Natural Environment - flood plains, seismic zones, landslide prone areas, etc. b. Manmade Environment - disruptive noise levels, degraded air quality, traffic, / etc. 60 3. on Public Services Yes nt No Will the project have a significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas? a. Fire Protection b. Fblice Protection ----- c. Schools - -� d. Parks or Other Recreational Facilities e. Maintenance of Public Facilities Including (bads f. Other Governmental Services ✓ 4. jffEEts on Traffic/Circulation Will the project result in: a. Generation of substantial vehicular movement? ./ b. A substantial impact on the surrounding "�— circulation system? c. Increased traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? 5. Iand Use a. Will the project result in a substantial alteration, of U* present or planned land use of ar. area? b. Will the project have a substantial impact on surrounding land uses? 6. PgNlation/Housing a. Will the project alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the '-iuman population of the area? b. Will the project affect the existing housing supply, or create a demand for additional housing? 7. Energy/Utilities a. Will the project result in a substantial increase in the use of an energy source or require the development of new sources of energy? f b. Will the project result in a need for new public utility systems or a substantial alteration to existing utilities? 61 S. Natural Resources Will the project result in a Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? III. OTHER AG D CIES k4D/0R PERSONS CJoWi,,LTED [ l See attached X Not applicable IV. MANEATOFff FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Will impacts have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? V. DISCUSSION OF ENVIROtMNIAL EVAL[ATION [/ySee attached VI. DEPEIRMINATION [ ] Not applicable On the basis of this Initial study: Yes Maybe No I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION DILL BE PREPARED. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DOCrARATION WILL BE PREPARED. [ } I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIFDNKENTkL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date ...h]t� �T� �q� 'X Signature 62 GP -79-3n 4a. Traffic Generation The General Plan Amendment to High Dezity Residential is being requested in order to permit the construction of 36 senior citizen using =its. Normally, 36 fitment units would be expected to generate approximateiy 290 vehicle tripends daily. However, since the subject units are intended for senior citizen housing, the traffic generation will be substantially less. The property has access from biz' -range Avenue and Bay Street, bots of which are designated as comwter highways by the Master Plan of Highways. No significant circulation inpacts are anticipated. Sa. imd use The amendment of the General Plan from Las to High Density Residential and the sutoequent develq=-.nt of 36 units is a substantial &Znge c` Ia.1d use. Since this change involves the rebuilding of a church on a different portio-: of the site and the construction of one residential cmplex similar to exiG:�- ing uses in the vicinity, the land use inpact is not expected to be signifi- cant. 6a. Population The comtruction of 36 wdti family units; would normally be expected to pro- vide housing for 72 persons. Since these units are intended for senior citizen bouseholds, a lame portion of which will be single persons, the number of occupants is expected to be less. 'The environoental effect should not be significant. r-�T STAT r . r l' �`" - � _t u __ I�j M �! ` ? I I City ofC Me ening Department Post Offic ox 1 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 fft 5fli (714) 754-5245 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION For Office Use Only: Project Number 4p- Date Received/By _ WWOik— Zone _ � Geriei.3l Piro De5icliwwjn _ Recommendation Applications for projects in the City of Costa Mesa cannot be processed until an initial study of environmental impacts has been completed and an exemption granted or a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report prepared. Please fill out the following and return (with_ preliminary site plans, and size of all existing structures and trees) five (5) working days prior to submitting your application: Description of Project M,7MF . / oi / r✓ i �., i �ti � LAAAt��I•)1 !%� yJL} A ice t!i ." � Wal 1 Zip Code O�. // Not all projects will necessitate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. In order to make a determina- tion as to whether any significant environmental impacts may result from the proposed project, the above informa- tion is necessary - As soon as possible, the Environmental Evaluator will determine whether or not the project will require an Environ- mental Impact Report and rr_ilI notify the project sponsor accordingly. CMF 0325-32. rev, 4/77 66 C D ,, City of Cots Mas Plsnninq D"ormwot Po=t office Boy. 1200 77 Fair Drive Cotta Mass, Ce ifamis 92626 l � i (714) X5245 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the Procedures of the City of Costa Mesa for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Evaluator has completed an Initial Study (copy attached) for the project described below: Project Number drat plan Amendment GP -79-U Applicant Rev. Oanrad NonkAxist- Project Location/Address 183 Hay Street Project Title/Description. Geral plan Nnm)d nt fzun Low iensit_y_ Resident -Lai to High Density lesWential to peanit oonstntct•ion of 34 urli.ts for senior citizen hausisyg. r • _ :a ��. • �• • 1 . - ..• .�� '1�.! ! .= -F-1111111-! !} !L! !ice!?! !_tel and does hereby find: ©That the proposed project cannot, or will not, have a significant effect on the environment. Negative Declara- tion Status is therefore granted for this project and the preparation of an Environmental impact Report is thereby not necessary. ElThat, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. APPROVED BY - DATE Environmental Evaluator This determination is not final until adopted by the decision-making body or administrative official, and a Notice of Determination filed. 67 CMF 050342 lbv. eJ77 wh11e—C0unty Clerk# C ft rt► PWJ@Ct File, MMr C y CWkr Ooitlinrod—APWieaM It r GP -79-3A DISCUSSION OF ENVIRO MENIAL F.VALUATICN 4a. Traffic Generation The General Plan Amendment to High Density Residential is being requested in order to permit the construction of 36 senior citizen housing units. Normally, 36 apartment units would be expected to generate approximately 290 vehicle tripends daily. However, since the subject units are intended for senior citizen housing, the traffic generation will be substantially less. The property has access from both Orange Avenue and Bay Street, both of which are designated as cocmuter highways by the Master Plan of highways. No significant circulation impacts are anticipated. 5a. land Use The amendment of the General Plan from Low to High Density Residential and tre subsequent development of 36 units is a substantial change of land use. Since this change involves the rebuilding of a church on a different portion of the site and the construction of one residential complex similar to exist- ing uses in the vicinity, the land use impact is not expected to be signifi- cant. 5a. p2pulation The construction of 36 multi -family units would normally be expected to pro- vide housing for 72 persons. Since these units are intended for senior citizen households, a large portion of which will be single persons, the number of occupants is expected to be less. The environmental effect should not be significant. 68 CITY OF COSTA MESA PLANNING DEPARTMENT This is to certify that & P - 71 — (Rezone Petition or Zone Exception Permit) for was Published on ! oZ p , (date) Posted on (date) 4�q^Post Cards mailed to property (no.) owners of record as shown in our files nn IV. Charles W. Roberts Director of Planning s CMF 0324-26 69 s 27& 1979 005 PROOF. LIST FOR OTHERPT MONOAYs OCTOBER OR& 1979• Pees $Ox 120 . COSTA MESA, "ALIFOR41A 92626 THE COSTA nESA PLANNING COMMISSION w'ILL HOLD A PJSLIC "EARINO AT TmE CITY MALI& 17 FvIR DRIVE• COSTA MESA& CALIFORNIA AT 3100 Pem* OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE THERE- AFTER ON MONDAY OCTOBER S& 1979• GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (IP -79-3A FOR REVERAND CONRAO As NOROOUIST, AuTHDRIZE❑ AGENT FOR THE BISHOP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURC,+& 1220 WEST FOURTM STREET& LDS ANOEL£S. CALIFORNIA# FOR A 3ENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO H13H DENSITY RESIDEN- TIAL* ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: NEGATIvE DECLARATION A*Ps Nps 118-061+11 GORTON, THOMAS M tJT1 134 E SAY ST COSTA MESA, CAL 92627 AsPs 400 118-G61-03 RDLFEj EDWIN H 2523 VISTA RAYA NEWPORT BEACH] CAL 92660 AsPs NOs 118-061-05 SKQRQj VAL IJT) 1601 SAYADERE TER CRONA DEL MAR& CAL 92625 AsPs Nos 118-051-07 MURP11Yj JAMES E (JT) 190 E KAY ST COSTA MESA. CAL 92627 AsPs NGs 118-061-09 SPAHRj CHARLES R (JT) 197 BUOY ST COSTA MESAS CAL 92627 AsPs NOs 118-061-11 LUKEI. ALAN F IJT) 34 ALDERBR00K ST IRVINEA CAL 92714 AsPs NO* 1186061-02 ASHCROFT, WILL14M T 5 (WR1 160 E BAY ST COSTA MESAS CAS. 92626 AsPs NOs 11$-061-04 FENC4AKi VIRGINIA M 1'401 172 E SAY ST COSTA MESA& CAL 92627 A+Ps NO, 118-061006 CRILLYP JAMES 184 E SAY ST COSTA MESA# CAL 92627 AsPs NO* 118-061-08 STEINHAUSERA MARILYN L ET AL IJT) 196 E SAY ST COSTA MESA► CAL 92627 AsP& NO* 118-061-11 ,TACK. GEORGE P lJT1 191 BUOY ST COSTA MESA& CAL 92627 AsPs NO* 1180061-12 JENNERI JAMES L 179 E BUOY ST COSTA MESA, CAL 92627 PA3E 01 70 71 J 7 rY Lar la. l:- � �f•. t - •a t. r ; o s r r,..r �. a u s P ►- .1 u .� I r to L,. lu fu s rk 0` 1 la 1 a f!' •• r•1 7 1-- D 4 J (' • • fY 7 1 r,{ Cl -1 4 CY 141 1 IA 11 t.. n r I • : J C (r v ILI "r 7 ? U C'. iT W -i LJ (•1 c� I Ca 7 � �� -• a u) q u m a R n. 1 .� t - LA. tL f C. 7 ac a w(r 0 tr In _ , c7 7 + -' w w J 1 C7 .LI 1, } P• a C7 IL- -1 v r c f.: Cl — o is rY a a w •: n Z OI (, ►. t M Y f- T If! 4 1- W f i7 Q En W • J 7 ft 4 ti' i t F- Cl , ( 1 Q L7 «+ IL) w C] 1-- 3 J 1 W a J f-• Z Q' M C] d U t7 or ► lu r~ I t} d I �. . J IL N n 71 R7U,2�01 SEP, 27, 1979 PAGE PUBLIC NEAkINGS WILL BE HELD +3Y TiE COSTA MESA PLANNIN! COMMISSION AT THE CITY +4ALL1 77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA/ AT 6:30 P.M. DR AS SOON AS POSSI3.E THERE- AFTER ON M4jN0AY, UCTOBER 081 1979. RE3AROINO THE FOLL.OWrNG APPLICATIONS; 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP.79-3►1 REVISED♦ FOR ROYALE 3USINESS CiNTER1 IvCORPORATEDi AJT40RIZED AGENT FOR ROY 40 SAKIGKA, SAKIOKA FA4MS1 INC. 14856 SUNFLOWER AVE1 SANTA ANA, FOR PERMISS10% TO AMEND THE LAND USE: DESIGNATIOry OF PROPERTY LOZATED N3R N OF TIME SAN DIEG3 FREEWAY1 WEST OF MAIN ST* AND TtiE COSTA MESA FREEmAY1 SDUTq OF SUNFLOWER AvEos AND APPR3XIMATELY 1,300 FEET EAST Or RRISTOL ST. FROM Law OENsr TY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL. CENTER (79.4 ACRES)14E13H8ORHOOD CO'MMER^IAS, 13s3 ACRESj. INDUSTRIAL PARK (699 ACRESI, LDw DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1898 ACRES)1 MED• DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 13L ACRESI; AND FOR PERMISSION TO AMEND THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT* ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 29 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC NEARING RE3A4DING A PUBLIC NUISANCE VEMICLE LOCATED AT 926 ws 18TH STREET* 3. REHEARING DF REZONE PETITION 4+79-13 FOR TARNtjTZER- HAMILTONi INCORPORATEDi AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR MORELANO DEVELOPMENT COMPANYI INCORPORATED/ P909 BOX 76001 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA/ Tp REzosE PROMERTY LOCATED AT 161 KAL'MUS DRIVE FROM MP TO PDT IDLA44ED DEVE-OPMENT INDUSTRIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL OETERMINATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION 49 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT TT 10564 FOR DONALD R9 WAR01 _ 2110 NEWPORT 90ULEV4441 We i. FGR TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT FOR SINGL.E`LOT SUBDIVISION FOR CONDOMINIUM PJR* POSES AT 380 w. WILSONs IN AN R3 ZONE* ENvIRONIENTAL DETERMINATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION S. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT TT 10879 FOR GARY E• MALAZIAN AUTHt3RIZED AGENT FOR ELIZAGETm M. wALLACEI 2017 E9 OCEAN 00ULEVARD• BALBOAI FOR APPROVAL OF TENTATIvE TRACT MAP FOR A ONEaL.OT SUBDIVISI34 IN CONJUNCTION WK A 3 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT LB14 FULLERTON AVENUE IN AN R2 ZONE• ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION! EXEMPT. 69 20NE ExCEPTIoN PERMIT FOR TADA 6 ASSOCIATES, AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR Co Jo SE3ERSTROM 6 SONS/ 3315 FAIRVIEw ROAD FOR VARIANCES FROM REIUIRED (RUNT AND REAR SETBACKS AND PARKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH CON= STRUCTION OF A 1980 SQ9 FTs DRIVEnTHRU RESTAURANT AT 3140 HARBOR BOULEVARD IN A Cl ZONE• ENVIRONMENTAL OCTERMIN TIdN! NE'liATl-VI DECLARATION 70 ZONE EXCEPTION PERMIT ZE079-147 FOR SERTHA E* SMIT�p 2397 wESTmiNsTER AVENUE FOR A CON31TIONAL USE PERilT TO ALLOw A PRE-SCHOOL FOR A MAXIIJ4 OF 20 CHILDREN IN CONJUNCTION wITM CONSTRUCTION OF TwE PRE-SCHOOL FACILITIES AND A DWELLING jNITi LO_ATEC AT 2245 ORAvG= AVENUE IN AN R2 ZONES ENVIRONMENTAL DETER41NATION: NE3ATIvE DECLARATIOr1 2• ZONE EXCEPTION PER41T ZE079-148 A43 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT TT 10871 FOR M* 0* JANES CajoANyj INC• AiTHORIZO ED ASENT FGR L* M* MILTENSJRGj 773 PAULARINO AvENwE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 52 -UNIT COND3%1IvIJ'l AND TENTATIVE MAP Or TRACT FOR A SINGLEOLOT Sj30Im VISION& LOCATED AT ABOVE A)DRE55& Iry AN R2 Z0=E• F-NvIRONmENTAL DETERMINATION: NE3ATIvE DECLAnATIu4 (907S+C21 9* ZONE EXCEPTION PERMIT ZE-790154 AVD REZONE PETITION R*79p14 FOR DAVID N• 90sJRKe& 1500 ADAMS AVE*& #3131 FOR A CONDITIONAL kjSE PERMIT FOR A 24•usIT CONDO- MINIUM PRO.jECT AND PERMISSION TO REZONE PROPERTY �.;s CATED AT 1013+2029 ANAHEIM 9TPEET FROM R2 TO R3* ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR FJRTHER INFORMATIDN ON THE A90VE APPLICATIONS& TELEP-QNEr 754o5245 OR CALL AT THE OFFICE OF TyE PLANNING )EPARTyENT& 1004 2081 77 FAIR DRIVE& COSTA MESA* CALIFORNIA* COSTA MESA PLAN14I'NG COMMISSI�N RICNAQD CARSTENSEN* CHAIRMA4 CHARLES we R0BE4TS SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR OF PLA.-4NI40 SE o 27, 1979 1005 PROOF LIST :`OR 3THER PT MA3E 0 ASPS NOS 118-061n13 BROWN& STANLEY C IJT) 173 BUOY 5T COSTA MESA, CAL 92627 A+P. Nos IISM061014 JARZOMBi LEC F I oR } JAR2019& FLOYD o O 93x 307 L38 ALAMyTO8& CAL 91720 ASP* NO• lib -061.15 A•PS Not 116-061016 wRIQHT& E5TMER L YOCEqs ROBEPT F 161 E PuOY ST 155 RUDY ST COSTA 1*ESA& CAL 92527 COSTA MESA& CAL 92627 ASPS %OS 118+0163-05 KALSMEA JOSEPH T IJf1 178 E PITH ST COSTA MESA, CAL 92627 Amps NOS 118-053+09 EVAyS& DONALD 0 199 E 2ITH ST COSTA MESA& CAL 92627 ASP* NO• ilBaC63w11 .ZONES♦ ALICE A ET AL 2035 ORAN3E AVE COSTA MESA& CAL 92627 ASPS NOS 116-063009 LAuTENSCMLAGERP R:)5Z-RT J cJT) 04 E 20TH ST COSTA MESA& CAL 92627 Asps NOS 11SpG1<+3�1:� JOtiES& ALICE A ET AL 2015 E ORANGE COSTA MESA, CAL 92627 ASPS 1400 118-063-12 9RULOTTE& WILFRED 2017 ORANGE AVE COSTA MES►• CAL 92627 A•pS NO* 118+063+13 Amps NOS 115-063-14 LAMIlERT& AOA B t filo $ MAU& oEN S I JT 1 2019 ORANGE AVE 2027 ORANGE AVE COSTA S?ESAj CAL 92627 COSTA MESA& CAL 92627 ASPS NOS i1B+0e3-27 SNORES♦ aENE L (UM) 309 LL JOLLA 6R NEWPORT SEACHA CAL 92663 A•P• NOS 118-063-30 I24THARAs ROBERT N (JT) 1997 ORANGE AVE COSTA MESA• CAL 92627 A.Q. NOS 1180063028 -OLLAV01 EDNA C (NO) cUMP& WALTER 4 12412 HALEY ST SiJN V4LLEY, CAL 91352 A.P. NDS 118-063-31 TAJIIA& 4ILLIAM T (SM) 1997 ORANGE AVE COSTA MESA& CAL 92627 0 0 74 SERA 27. 1979 r JOS PROOF LIST FOR 374ER PT ABPs tips 118w063w33 ASP@ NDS 116-063.34 2020 LTD I PT 1 ;JEVOs TAKENDRI 6858 WILSMIRE BLVD 166 E 20TH ST LOS A%IMELESs CAL 90036 COSTA MESA* CAL 92b27 AsP$ NO* !16®463m35 ASP@ Nos 138•x63.38 KINSFATHERs SAM CJSICK* MORRIS o 4CPI 16% E ST 229 L9TH ST COSTA MESA, CAL 92627 NENP34T BEACH* CAL 9266] AsPs tipS 118.063-39 TEULIFs DOUGLAS J (JT1 920 ALEPPO NEWPORT <SEACtis CAL 92660 ASP* NOS ilsfto63e4Ci KE%T* ROBERT C 1JT1 2332 FJLLERTON AVE APT A COSTA "ESA* CAL 92627 Asp• NOs 1180063041 AsP• NOS 116m063.42 LEDINs RORER tJT1 DICASC24s STACY (SM) 2036 FULLERTON AVE 2J40 CJLLERTOM AVE AA COSTA MESA& CAL 92627 C3STA MESA* CAL 94,627 ASPS NGS 1160063+43 SAUNDERSs EOwAA0 C (C01 8229 S CALIFORNIA AVE WSITTIEOP CAL 90602 ASPS NGS 116.063.45 GORDON& DONALD S tJT) 18671 VIA MESSINA IRVINE* CAL 92715 ASPS %0* 118-063.47 NEILLi CLYDE L (JT1 339 CWERRY TREE LN NEWPORT BEACH* CAL 92660 AsPs NOS 112-063009 RODRIGUEZ& JO ANN 1 JW 1 ISE E PrTw RT COSTA "ESA* CAL 92627 ASPS NOS 1190063-44 3OLAYs KEIT" i I*tft+) 2037 LAURIE 6N PA COSTA M2$A* CAL 92627 AsPs NOS 118-063&46 9ASAys WILLIAM IJT) 23290A LAURIE LN COSTA "ESA* CAL 92627 AsPs NO@ 118-063-48 C'ii coo BISHOP OF p4OTEST*NT EPISCO°AL :V A ICRf C•IURC4s ST JO+4N DIVINE 2043 ORANGE AVE 92627 AsP@ NO@ 116+101-31 CLARK& DONALD L (NO) 23O -E 20TH ST C3STA MESA* CAL 92627 HSPS 400 116-101-12 ASP@ Nos 1150101-03 ALSERS. WALTER F ALSEM WALTER F 2731 S IRAIRVIEw ORAN2E CST COLLEU COSTA MESA• CAL 92627 LOST A MESA. CAL 98626 75 PA3E 3; PT PA3E .I^*r+ ...+ r;r 11Li-1G1-21 +-«•`� 5 (JT) -f i.. CA�. 92627 PEARL ST • ,F.Z CA 6. 92651 ■ � �- r `, 116�1�3-v3 +. A:OEQT 5 TR IS: • f '■_ 92661 1 l 8sl'3-56 AVS cI A C A I 92627 1190103-64 _,•_,,, A�sERT a fJTl .• < •� 7•ANILA,3i t .;:74t 42627 a..,; ?'Ir -%4k t4W.r+wi ,. t)#. 9[ AVE ts+.. •' �. �;t y+ 1I 1f a r w A L 92627 s.f' _ CITY OF COSTA MESA INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM September 28 19 79 TO Dqxutment Heads FROM Doug Clark, Assistant Planning Director SUBJECr: OCZUNM 1979 GENERAL PIAN AMENDMa rS Attached for your review is the October 1979 General Plan Report. The item within the wort will be discussed by the Planning Cmutission at their meeting of October 8, 1979. If you have cauents regarding the Report, please famard them to the Planning Division by Thursday, October 4, 1979, if possible. Thank you for you assistance. WC:ks Attachment cc: Development Services Director Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Engineer Transportation Services Maxager City Manager City Attorney Fire Chief Public Services Director LPA sura Services Director Vic Newton, Acting Building Safety Director himioe ' Direftdt ✓ City Clerk Police Chief Cwt mucatiors; Chief Personnel Director 77 H$ T GENERAL PLAN AM NEME Nr [;P -78-3A ( Revised) ..........1 Ibyale Business Center, Inc./Sakioka Fars GENERAL PLAN AMEI DGM GP -79-3A ...................18 Nordquist/Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church *iV�dE: GENERAL PIAN AM NDOM GP -78-3". (Mesa Verde Shop- ping Center/C. J. Segerstran and Sons) and GP -79- 3B (Perez/Fairview State Hospital) were scheduled for this General Plan Review but have been con- tinued to the February 1980 General Plan Review. 4401 GENERAL PLAN A24i1QDMEM GP -78-3A ( REvism ) 114 0 1 (t Z A.•r t+•� it General Plan Amendment GP -78-3A was initiated by the Royale Development Cerny, authorized agent for Roy K. Sakioka and Sakioka Farms, Incorpor- ated, in May 1978. The subject property of this application contains approximately 165 acres of agricultural fields located north of the San Diego Preeway, west of the Costa Mesa Freeway and Main Street, and south of Sunflower Avenue (map 1). The original request proposed to mend the existing land use designation of Law Density Residential to Medium Density Residential (23 acres), General Comanercial (11 acres), Cammercial Center (77 acres), and Industrial Park (47 acres). In order to facilitate the proposed land use pattern, an amendment to the circulation element to revise the proposed alignment of Anton Boulevard through the property was also requested. ' The requested amendment and accompanying Draft Environmental InVact Report were first heard by the Planning Cc mission at the October 9, 1978 meeting. At that time, the Planning Staff recommended denial of the requested land use and circulation amendments. These recmmendationLs were designed to preserve the status quo until sufficient progress on the General Plan Review Program and the Central Orange County Circulation Study (CE TTROCCS) had been made. 1b provide additional review time, both the Draft EIR and General Plan Amendment were continued to February 13, 1979. At that meeting, these items were continued to June 11, 1979 in order to allow additional review and revision of the original request. During this time, the requested lard use and circulation amendments were substantially revised. General Plan Amendment GP -78-3A (Revised) proposes to retain 8.8 acres as Low Density Residential and to amend the remaining area to Medium Density Residential (16.5 acres), High Density Residential (30.0 acres), Neighborhood Ccmvercial (3.5 acres), Commercial Center (79.4 acres) and Industrial Park (6.9 acres). The revised request also proposes to alter the alignment of Anton Boulevard and the intersection of Main Street and Sunflower Avenue. Because of the scope of the revisions, the Draft EIR was also revised. At the June 11 meeting, GP -78-3A (Revised) was continued to the October E', 1979 meeting. However, consideration of the Draft EIR was continued to the July 23, 1979 meeting to correct discrepancies in the document. Further discrepancies mandated additional continuances to August 13, August 27 and September 11, 1979. At the September 11 meeting, the Planning Caoamission forwarded the Draft EIR to the City Council and reca vended that the document be accepted as adequate. II. AREA DESCRIPTION The 165 -acre Study Area is primarily used for agricultural purposes (Map 2). it is zoned Al except for the easterly 13 acres which are zoned C2. The agricultural portion of the property is designated as -1- so f 1 ,%I OtEC�O F�kJ�1Y LOW D104 S/7Y 2ff5rGfiNrMl- U* ._ GP -78-3A [REVISED1 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP 1 0 At tl a M-115=2 mm C2 O 7m " Ioc' icm' @= ram OpVK�Vv r: Low OE'9&re F-E.140KY7141- p�rlGw MED/V" Arwsl ry k'&M-�w- C•2 (awwaecpu &'E'51 ) "(5UWJ?&4H AAMZTAN--M 3 G 5 (r4,emeiA1. Ce*l/NEowH[.} O (OPEN JP4CE�) 81 AMCW M DEA45fiY 1?�S1DEN77AL HAr m DENSITY RE-stDEM1AJ. C&47LF-Z (aWM MESA) -COMMEGCML comm "fiY 6MVPP1N4 CSwEe (54-4TA AA44) CA6rXAL INOv.ST UAL (WViNP- GP -78-3A [REVISED1 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP 1 0 At tl a M-115=2 mm C2 O 7m " Ioc' icm' @= ram OpVK�Vv r: Low OE'9&re F-E.140KY7141- p�rlGw MED/V" Arwsl ry k'&M-�w- C•2 (awwaecpu &'E'51 ) "(5UWJ?&4H AAMZTAN--M 3 G 5 (r4,emeiA1. Ce*l/NEowH[.} O (OPEN JP4CE�) 81 GP"78'3A{REVISED] LAND USE MAP 2 ACrPJCLIL7'EAR6 JWC" AWL'? M&OENM L MULT/Pt E MANLY RE.50kc- JTiAL, %+DMME2Ci4L AKSTPT�TJbrWL ,� mv YACAf-cT WA Prime Agricultural Land under tt* California card Conservation Act of 1965. Farm related structures and residences are located on the east- ern astern portion of the site. A gas station used for automobile repair is located on the northeast corner of the site. The Study Area adjoins the San Diego Freeway to the south and the Costa Mega Freeway to the east. Across Sunflower Avenue to the north are single-family and multiple -family homes in the City of Santa Arta. The western boundary of the Study Area is coterminous with the Town Center Area. Farther west is South Coast Plana. East of the Costa Mesa Fr--e- way is the Irvine Industrial Complex -►Test. Freeway access to the Study Area is provided by the San Diego Freeway intersection with Bristol Street. Additional freeway access is avail- able from the Costa Mesa Freeway via MacArthur Boulevard and the Corona Del Mar Freeway at Bear Street. Surface street access is available ;from Sunflower Avenue (approximately three-quarters of a mile of frontage) . The Master Plan of Highways des- ignates Sunflower Avenue as a Secondary Highway. Horan -south access can be obtained from Bristol Street, a Major Highway, via Anton Boulevard or Sunflower Avenue. Additional north -south access is possible from Flower Street and Main Street in Santa Ana. Iii. PRW= DESCRIPTICK The requested amendments are graphically illustrated by Map 3. T ^ larg- est portion of the site is allocated for general commercial devel,XMnt immediately adjacent to the San Diego and Costa Mesa Freeways, laloDg both aides of Anton Boulevard and at the realigned intersection of Sunfd7wer and blain. The applicant indicF -es that typical development within this designation would consist : one and twee story office buildings. A smaller area at the intersection of Flckwer and Sunflower is designated for Neighborhood Commercial uses which will be occupied by a one story camiercial development. Tido story research and development bu4 -ings are anticipated to occupy the industrial Park property between Anton and the Oostwa Mesa Freeway. She remaining lard south of Sunflower Avenue is allocated to varying densities of resid-eirtial development ranging from two stories and 7.9 units per acre to 'three stories over a one story perking gafage at 27 units per acre. Proposed Circulation Element amendments oonsist of the extorsion of Anton Boulevard through the total project to iitersect with Main Street and Sunflower Avenue. The Main/Sunflower intersection would be realigned to became a four-way intersection. Flower Street would be extended to the south into the project to intersect with Anton Boulevard. IV. ENVIRONMEWAL FOVIEW An noted in Section I, a Draft Environmental Ta ct Report has been pre- pared for the proposed amendments and has been reccmmendej for acceptance by the Planning Oasmission. A summary of the more significant impacts is provided in this section. -2- The uses proposed are a significant alteration to the current use of the property and Law Density General Plan designation. Development in accord- ance with the proposal mould eliminate 165 acres of Prime Agricultural Lard. Future residential development on the largest piece of land avail- able for residential development in the City would be precluded. The eastern portion of the site is impacted by aircraft -generated noise frau Orange County Airport. The southern and eastern portions are also affected by freeway traffic noise. Mitigation would be required to reduce the noise to appropriate levels for the particular use developed. An archaeological survey of the Study Area has revealed a light shell scatter indicative of aboriginal habitation. Scientific excavation to determine the significance of this site has been proposed as a mitigation measure. A Circulation and Traffic Study has been conducted and is included in the Draft EM Circulation is a serious concern in the arca and has been studied in conjunction with several other high traffic volum:, generators in this vicinity. EIRS prepared for the South Coast Plaza, Arnel, Downey Savings and Loans, Town Center, Orange County Airport, and `rvine Industrial Qomplex-lest projects have all indicated that ultimate buildou,_ of this general area wii_l result in more traffic than the circulatory system can adequately handle. These previous EIRs assumed either law or medium den- sity residential development for the Sakioka property. The Circulation and Traffic Study determined development in accordance with the requested amerktrent would generate a Natal of 26,700 vehicle trip ends per day. Fourteen intersections in the vicinity were studied as to their capacity and the impact of the project upon then. Currently, all of the intersections are operating within their capacity. With full develop- meent of the area, including the Sakioka property, eight of these intersec- tions will be operating beyond capacity during the afternoon,/evening peak period. An additional five intersections would operate at a level of service approaching unstable flow. Implementation of the mitigation mea- sures in the Draft EIR would reduce traffic denands to capacity or lower for all but one of the fourteen intersections under study. Four other intersections, however, would be rear capacity and have undesirable vehicl%opacity ratios. Existing or anticipated public utility capacities/facilities are adequate to acca nxUte project -related demand and consumption. The proposed pro- ject may require additional manpower and equipment for police and fire protection in addition to a new fire station site within the project bound- aries. Traffic congestion in the area may impede public safety and emergency vehicle access throughout the project area. Full development could result in the creation of These new a Vloyment opportunities will increase of housing (especially in the lower and moderate area of high demand, limited supply and rapidly The inoorporation of various densities arra types in the proposed project could provide 983 units and reduce this demand. -} jobs for 9,025 person. the demand for all types inane ranges) in an increasing housing casts. of housing opportunities to house 1,817 residents 84 The uses proposed are a significant alteration to the current use of the property and Low Density General Plan designation. Development in accord- ance with the proposal would eliminate 165 acres of Prime Agricultural Land. Future residential development on the largest piece of land avail- able for residential development in the City would be precluded. The eastern portion of the site is impacted by aircraft -generated noise from Orange County Airport. The southern and eastern portions are alp affected by freeway traffic noise. Kitigation would be required to reduce the noise to appropriate levels for the particular use developed. An archaeological survey of the Study Area has revealed a light shell scatter indicative of aboriginal habitation. Scientific excavation to determine the significance of this site has been proposed as a mitigation measure. A Circulation and Traffic Study has been conducted and is included in the Draft EIR. Circulation is a serious concern in the area and has been studied in conjunction with several other high traffic volume generators in this vicinity. £IRs prepared for the South Coast Plaza, Arnel, Downey Savings and Loan, Town Center, Orange County Airport, and Irvin Industrial Complex -west projects have all indicated that ultimate buildout of this general area will result in more traffic than the circulatory system can adequately handle. These. previous EIRs assumed either law or medium den- sity residential development for the Sakioka property. 7he Circulation and Traffic Study determined development in accordance with the requested amendment would generate a total of 26,700 vehicle trip enols per day. Fourteen intersections in the vicinity were studied as to their capacity and the impact of tra project upon than. Currently, all of the intersections are operating within their capacity. with full develop- ment of the area, including the Sakiuka property, eight of these intersec- tioms Will be operating beyond capacity during the afternoon/evening peak period. Ark additional five intersections would operate at a level of service approaching unstable floor. Implementation of the mitigation mea- sures in the Draft £IR would reduce traffic demands to capacity or laser for all but orae of the fourteen intersections under study. Four other intersections, however, would be near capacity and have undesirable vehicle/capacity ratios. Existing or anticipated public utility capacities/facilities are adequate to aoca modate project -related demand and consumption. The proposed pro- ject may require additional manpower and equipment for police and fire protection in addition to a new fire station site within the project bound- aries. Traffic congestion in the area may impede public safety and emergency vehicle access throughout the project area. !►ill development could result in the creation of jobs for 9,025 perste. These new employment opportunities will increase the dammer) for all types of housing (especially in the loiter and moderate income rarges) in an area of high demand, limited supply and rapidly increasing housing costs. The incorporation of various densities and types of housing opportunities in the proposed project caaild provide 983 units to mouse 1,817 residents and reduce this demand. 3- 85 SAW 011roo r-wy ^MARTO MEDAM QUM Uftaft, wo Awtoftp ftA QWWq VMOPAAi Sao pv.� GP -78--3A REVISED REQUESTED AMENDMENTS MAP 3 fr4o"It $7. T- ^1 oy 2X as AM:P poor - 4L4 f 86 The 1-+. , 4.ffi. "a t L V�' ci y (W-76-3A in October 1976 was based LqPCVk r. � s« •� r-f had -waken a major progran to revise the entkry tio-vow w.! F,�Ar wry that consideration of a proposal of this scale would ►,tet �- 1-a" until xtifficient progress had been made to ccm- pletfi the awnwrwl Viae Feview Pv gram. Since that time, the Environmental Rr�a, r Element was drafted and accepted as accurate and adequate by t.'* Planning Camaissiom (February 26, 1979) and City Council (April 2, 1979). Additionally, research and analyses of all segments of the Camuanity Development/Management and Land Use Elements have been initiated while drafts of portions of the Camnunity Development/ Manage- ment Eluent have been completed. Sufficient progress on the entire program has been made to determine, in a general sense, the degree to which the requested amendments conform with the revised General Plan. Table I provides an identification of the various components and status of the General Plan Review Program and a comparison of the applicant's proposal with the applicable General Plan Elements. Because of the nature of the General Plan at this point in time, this comparison is limited to the background discussion, research and analysis contained in each element or subelenent. A direct aanparison of the proposal to appli- cable goals and policies is not appropriate since the documents contain alternative policies which indicate varying degrees of ccanitment for the Cit~, Which have yet to be a3apted. Also, as the alternative policies now exist, internal inconsistencies and conflicts are apparent because the policies have not been subjected to inter -element cross examination to balance competing environmental, social and economic demands and con- straints. VI. COJaP.ATION OPTIONS The requested averdrent to the Land Use Element wr)uid also require an amendment to the Circulation Element since the proposed street layout does not conform to the Master Plan of Highways. Discussed in this sec- tion are the circulation system specified by the Master Plan of F ighways , the proposed realignment of the Main Street arx' Sunflower Avenue inter- section, and an alt+ernitive Anton Boulevard extension. A.yon 1 consists of a street system within the Study Area as called 'for by the Master Plan of Highways. Antes Boulevard is planned to he extended beyond its present easterly terminus as a Primary Hilrrway. Anton Boulevard would curve northward to connect with Flower Street in Santa Ana (Map 4A). The completion of the Anton/Flower oonnection can be expected to serve as s major access road to the subject property and Town Center cevel- opnent. internal service within the subject property would have to be provided by a network of local and collector streets with intersections on the extension and Sunflower Avenue. 'Luis level of the circulation netw3rk is not addressed in the current Master Plan of Highways. -4- GP- 7 8 -8A (REVISEDI CIRCULATION OPTIONS 1. Existing Master Plan of Highways MAP 4 11, Proposed Main/Sunflower 4-wAy Intersection 1. Alternative Anton Extension Proposal Dq WWrA1s mm or Implementation of this option would require substantial modifications to the proposed land use amendment submitted with this application. Both the location and orientation of the major land use Components would be altered because of the importance the posed alignment of Anton and the realignment of the Main/Sunflower intersection play in the applicant's proposal. Information received from the Public Services Department indicates that this alignment follows the higher volume traffic flow. Addi- tionally, the existing alignment of the Anton/Flower connection is in Conformance with the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. B. Option II (Map 4) presents the requested realignment of the Main Street Sunflower Avenue intersection. Under this option, Anton Boulevard would extend eastward across the Study Area and connect with the north - south portion of Main street in the City of Santa Ana. Zt* east -west portion of Main Street, going toward Irvine, would connect with Sunflower Avenue. Thus, a conventional four-way intersection would be established. This alternative alignment would provide for direct movement into and out of the subject site via the north leg of Main Street, thereby reducing turnip movemments and volumes on Sunflower Avenue adjacent to the Study Area. However, this alignment conflicts with the major through demand on Main Street between Santa Ana and Irvine. Map 4B depicts an alternative alignment which maintains a direct Main Street connection. Realization of this alternative is campiicated by design constraints related to the adjacent development and freeway bridge which may preclude its implementation. Because of the heavy through traffic demands an Main Street, the four- way intersection which requires this demand to negotiate a turning movement while allowing more freedom to less traveled routes is not a desirable solution to the area's circulation problems. As a result, the City's Transportation Services Manager indicates that this alter- native merits the least consideration of the available options. C. Cption III would amend the Master Plan of Highways by extending Anton Boulevprd farther east before curving north to intersect with Sunflower Avenue. Under this alignment, Anton would intersect Sunflower at a point between Ross and Timber Streets in Santa Ana. Option III would also call for the extension of Flower Street into the project to inter- sect with Anton. The alignment is similar to the original request contained in GP -78-3A. Option III differs in its location of the intersection with Sunflower (between Ross and Timber Streets as compared to a four-way intersec- tion with Timber) and its deletion of the Boss Street extension to Anton. Option III could be implemented with minor modifications to the pro posed land use amendments. All of the residential areas as well as -5- 89 VII. the Neighborhood Commercial site mould not be impacted. The revised alignment of Anton would separate the eaatern-mast High Density Resi- dential area from the Commercial Center area immediately south of Sunflower. Kinor modifications to the Industrial Park area located between Anton and the Costa Mesa Freeway and the Commercial Center areas in the Northeast portion of the project area and north of the Anton aligment east of the Flower Street extension would also be required. An additional alternative would be to Construct an east/west str•aet between the newly -aligned Anton extension and Main Street. 1hiE proposal could be used to separate the Industrial Park area frcri the northeast Commercial Center area while also providing an additional access point to the project area. Because of the constraints with regard to the freeway bridge, special care must be taken in the design of the intersection with Main. This can be accomplished by restricting turning movements (especially left hand turns) or limit- ing the new connection to one—way eastbound traffic. A number of alternative lard use options have been evaluated in conjunc- tion with the requested amendment. The revision of the original request to reduce the proposed intensity of development of the subject property is one example. other options were evaluated in the preparation -f the Draft EIR in Section IV (Alternatives) of that document. lbree o -tions are also being evaluated in the Land Use Element of the General r in. Although ars infinite number of options can be generated, thi_: Seg _ i Dn of the report will review five of the options discussed in the Draft FIR and the Land Use Element. 7mree options assume completion of the Maste r Plan of Highways with the Anton/Flower Connection while the remaining t.,o options include additional circulation alternatives. The following paragraphs discuss each of the five land use options. Table 2 provides a c mparative summary of the intensity of dev,_.upment which could be expected from each land use and land use/circulation alternatives. A. Cption I retains the present Low Density Residential 13nd use desig nation%O Master Plan of Highways alignments. Ultima .e development could range from 632 to 1,248 dwelling units housing t!tween 1,990 to 3,931 residents. With RI zoning, 916 single-family residences with a population of 2,885 persons could be anticipated. Low Density Residential development is the most vulnerable to impacts from adjacent uses, particularly noise. The EIR prepared for this project identified the eastern and southern portions of the Study Area as being impacted by high noise levels. This can be mitigated through the provision of mise walls and setbacks to reduce freeway - generated noise. Aircraft -generated noise foam the Orange County Airport my require attenuation in building design for the eastern half of the site, which is within the 64 CEE. contcxr, in order to achieve a 45 CIL interior noise level. -6- 90 Low density residential development has the least potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Traffic generation is the lowest of the three options. It would also he compatible with the residential area north of Sunflower Avenue. Aetention of a residential land use designation would preserve the opportunity to provide !rousing near several large employment centers. The Growth Inducing Impacts section of the EIR points out that the demand for housing will increase as new employment opportunities became available in the area. The present shortage of low and moderate income housing is also mentioned. The Study Area is located between major emplogment areas. To the west are South Coast plaza and Tbwn Center. Tb the east are the Irvine Industrial park and Irvine Industrial Complex -West. These industrial centers contain many vacant acres and can be expected to employ several thousand more persons in the future. Thus, the need for additional homing in the area is evident. B. Option II would require the continued use of the property for agricul- tural production. This option is one of three included in the Iand Use Element and would require the adaption of an "Agricultural" land use designation in the General Plan. 7b is differs from the 'No Project" alternative in the Draft EIR because of the assumption that the Anton/ Flower connection mould be completed and that Sunflower would be fully moved to mitigate the circulation impacts from existing and approved projects in the vicinity of the subject property. This option would avoid the adverse environmental impacts associated with development of the property for urban uses. The site could be reserved for future land use options or for long-term agricultural production. Because of intense development pressures in the area, it would be necessary to establish the property as an Agricultural Preserve in conformance with the 1965 Williamson Act. This legisla- tion was enacted to encourage long-term agricultural production by offering reduced property tax assessments for owners of property in excess of 100 acres who contract with a local government to retain their land as agricultural fields. C. 2ELtion III would redesignate the area as Medium Density Residential and retain the existing Master Plan of Highways alignments. This aption was discussed in the Draft EIR and is included as the second alternative in the Land Use Element. Permited development could range from 1,264 to 2,370 multiple family units with populations ranging from 2,212 to 4,148 persons. Based on current construction trends, 1,980 units and 3,465 residents could reasonably be expected. As with las density development, a medium density residential develop- ment would also be exposed to impacts from the adjacent environment. Wine ixpacts could be mitigated as described in option I. -7- 91 Traffic generation for medium density residential development would not increase substantially over that created by a low density develop- ment. lie range of development generated -project traffic would increase fram 8,216 to 16,224 trip ends in Option I to 10,996 to 20,619 trip ends in this option. Asnmentioned in the discussion of Option I, retention of a residential designation for the Study Area will retain future housing opportuni- ties. However, a medium density designation will permit more afford- able housing which may be more within the reach of low and moderate income employees in the adjacent industrial and commercial areas. Provision of a substantial number of housing units in this vicinity could also be a significant contribution towards alleviating local and regional circulation problems. D. Wtion IV represents the requested amentTent to both the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. This option is the third alternative reviewed in the Land Use Element portion of the General Plan Review Program. Full development unde. these conditions could permit 917 to 963 dwelling units in the Low, Medium and High Density Residential areas; 38,115 square feet of retail commercial uses in the Neighborhood Commercial area; 1,518,742 square feet of office space in the Commercial Center areas, and 134,862 square feet of industrial space in the Industrial Park District. Maximum popula- tion would total 10,642 persons (1,817 residents and 9,025 engployees). A schematic site plan submitted with the requested amendment indicates development at a slightly less intense scale. This plan proposes 910 residential units; 35,000 square feet of retail uses; 1,403,500 square feet of office area, and 115,700 square feet of research and development industrial space. This plan Would anticipate a total project population of 10,256 persons (1,593 residents and 8,663 employees). It should be noted that these two scenarios represent potential development intensities which could be accommodated by the proposed General Plan Amendments. Granting of the requested amendment does not guarantee the specific number of residential units, an amount of retail, office or industrial space. These allocations are determined during the site plan review stage. Additional employment in the area would also create additional demand for toAing far in excess of that included in the residential compo- nent of the proposal. Tte removal of these 165 acres of land available for residential use would increase pressures on existing housing. Because of the limited amount of land available for residential pur- poses in the vicinity, many of the future employees within the Study Area would have to commute from more distant locations. Vis would result in greater traffic congestion and pollution for th? area and region. Traffic congestion is a :major concern in the rapidly developing North Costa Mesa area. As noted in the Draft EIR, four intersections in this area will operate beyond capacity even without the proposed pro- ject. Development of the project will double the nmurber of intersec-- -8- 92 tions which will operate beyond capacity. Total project-generated traffic will total 26,740 vehicle trip ends per day on an average weekday. This will result in 1990 daily traffic volumes on Bristol Street of 68,800 vehicles bebgeen Anton and the San Diego Freeway. This represents an increase of 50 percent over 1979 volumes and approximates the 1979 volume on Newport Boulevard between 17th and Rochester Streets. Volumes on Anton would increase to 31,600 vehi- cles per day, approximating the daily volumes on Fairview Rud between Adams Avenue amd the San Diego !Freeway. While certain adverse environmental impacts can be anticipated frcxn, the development of an intervie urban center such as the Sakioka and Tbwn Center projects, a certain number of benefits are also provided. The additional full time jobs created by the subsequent businesses and temporary jobs created by construction activities will aid the economies of Costa Mesa, neighboring cities and all of Orange County. If the same square footage and number of units were developed as low rise garden offices or low density single -family tracts, a sub- stantial increase in land eowumpti.on would result. Concentrated developments also increase public transit opportunities. As public transit usage increases, automobile trips decrease, lessening air pollution and congestion. As distances between uses are reduced, increased pedestrian and bicycle usage is encouraged resulting in similar benefits. As a variety of employment, retail service and recreational facilities are located in a relatively small area, the needs for trips outside the developments are reduced. Table 2 and Map 5 depict two modifications to the applicant's proposal based on alternative circulation configurations. One option (Map 5B) modifies the distribution of carmercial and industrial areas to delete the four-way Main/Anton/Sunflower intersection and to extend Anton to intersect with Sunflower between Foss wA Timber Streets. This option reduces the amount of potential office area from 1,518,741 square feet to 1,462,996 square feet and increases the amount of potential indus- trial area from 134,862 square feet to 205,436 square feet. Total project traffic remains nearly the same while total project population is reduced less than two percent. A secorjd alternative would add an additional east/west link between the Anton extension: arra Main Street. This results in another reduc- tion in the amount of potential office space (1,447,677 square feet) and a slightly higher increase in potential industrial development (186,436 square feet) than proposed by the applicant. An approxi- mately one percent reduction in total project-generated traffic acrd an approximately three percent reduction in total project popula- tion would also result. Elimination of the four-way Main/Sunflower/Anton intersection and replace ant with the Anton extension results in more favorable traffic flaw. This condi:`iont removes the constraints to the major through travel demand on Main Street and allows this intersection to operate within its design capacity. -9- 93 £.ikon V represents a modification of the applicant's propo�;al to allocate a greater portion of the site to residential develcjxment and a smaller portion to office development (see Table 2 ark Poarp 5) This option also assumes the same circulation alternatives as illus- trated in Option rV. While the amount of Neighborhood Commercial land is retained, this option suggests a relocation to the intersec- tion of the Flower and Anton extensions. Another modification results in the deletion of the Irdustrial Park designation. While a portior, of the lard area is allocated for oorporate research and development uses, it is recmmended that these uses be incorporated into the Ommrcial Center lard use designation and that the PLC (Planned Development Camiercial) zone be amended to permit norcial uses of a light industrial/research and development nature. This would reduce the potential for inccxnpatible industrial uses which may be permitted if the same area were planned and zoned for industrial Qa.~k uses. In allocating a larger area for residential uses, this option also includes minor revisions to the proposed designation of densities within the residential sector. The proposed low and high der--ity areas within the eastern loop road are redesignated to Medium Density Residential. Ibis would allow the same intensity of development as proposed by the applicants by averaging the overall density antici- pated for this area. Also, the Medium Density area which abits the Commercial Center area in the eastern portion of the residential sector is redesignated as High Density Residential. The Neighborhood Commercial and High Density areas south of Sunflower between Flower and Ross are redesignated as Medium Density Residential. Generally, the rodifications result in the location of the proposed Medium Density Residential areas imediately south of Sunflower anti within the proposed loop roads which connect with the Flower Street extension. The High Density Residential areas would extend to the Anton extension and provide a buffer between the proposed Medium Density areas and the Tbwn Center development and the proposed office camxx it of this proposal. Except for the Neighborhood Commercial area, all residential areas would be separated fram crnmercial uses by a major street. The use of major streets as buffers between c=uer- cial a€d residential developments has been supported by the Staff in other areas of the City (i.e., the proposed General Plan Amen±ment at the southwest corner of Hear Street and Sunflower Avenue). TAhile such uses can be developed along conron property lines, situations like these require oonsiderable detention and sensitivity regarding the placement and design of buildings, the selection of compatible oamrnercial uses and the use of sufficient buffers to ensure the privacy and protection of the residential uses. A pritmaty goal of this option is to better balance future employment and housing opportunities. While it is unrealistic to assume all mployees in the prV,4W ommuercial sectors will went to live in the adjoining residential areas, this option provides greater opportuni- ties for those who do wish to live and work in the same area. *1+m _. 94 The proportion of resident population to total project -generated Population would increase from a range of 15.8 to 17.2 percent to a range of 16.5 to 31.1 percent. This series of options reduces the amount of total project population and traffic generation beboeen am to four percent and two and four- teen percent, respectively. Reduction in traffic -generated impacts of a similar scope would Also be anticipated. These; options also increase the number of residential units located within the 60 to 65 CNEL contours for highway and airport --generated mise. The option which includes the Double "T" extension between Anton anti Main would locate a portion of the units within the 65 to 70 CNEL contour of Costa Mesa Pireeway--generated noise. VIII. ANALYSIS OF MAJOR ISSUES Consideration of this application involves two central issues of city- wide and regional significance. The first issue relates to the increas- ing level of traffic congestion generated by developments in North Costa Mesa, South Santa Ana and West Irvin. The second issue relates to the impact of the expanding employment base in this same area on the local and regional housing market. Relationships between these issues and the requested General Flan Amendment will be discussed in the following Paragraphs. A. Traff is The degree of area -wide concern in regard to existing and anticipated traffic and circulation problems is illustrated by the initiation of the Central Orange County Circulation Study (EM?rRDCCS). In this study, the County of Orange and impacted cities combined efforts to review existing traffic problems and to develop a coordinated solution to these concerns. Full development in the area will create traffic volumes on Bristol Street which exceed the highest volumes on harbor Boulevard in 1979. Volumes will also approximate current levels on Newport Boulevard in the Downtown area. Full development without the proposed project generate demand which exceeds the capacity of four major intersections: BristoVhacArthur, Bristol/Anton, Bristol/Northbound 405 off -ramp and the proposed Main/ Sunflower/Anton intersection. Buildout of the proposed project will add four additional intersections to this list; Bristol/s4nflower, lain/ MacArthur, Flower/Sunficwer and Fairview/MacArthur. MWIsmentatioan of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and the elimination of the Main/Sunflower/Anton four-way inter- section will result in only one intersection (Bristol/Anton) where demwwi exoeeds capacity. While the other intersections in the Area will, theoretically, operate within their capacity, delays and congestion will still occur during peak hours. As noted in the Staff Report for the 1977 ftrendment to the Town Center gaster Plan, -11- 95 congestion is to be expected in an intense urban development. :fie cc munity, through its elected officials, must decide what level of congestion can be tolerated to accrue the benefits of Ll' -e iwreased business and employment base. B. Housing The local and regional dousing market is in a crisis of critical proportions. This crisis is fueled by dramatic increases in housing costs, extremely low vacancy rates, dwindling supply of developable residential land and rapidly growing employment opportunities. 1ihile these constraints are felt in all price ranges, the needs are greatest in the low and moderate income categories. The proposed project will convert the largest single land area in the City designated for future residential development to an intense business and employment center. Vbile a large number of residential units will be provided with the project, the eployment generated by the commercial and industrial sectors will be far in excess of that which can be supplied within the project. While a certain percentage of the future employees will already live within the cc munity, it can reasonably be assumed that a larger percentage will be drawn from outlying areas or will require relocation in the vicinity. Because of current housing conditions, may of the future employees may be forced to locate in areas with a larger stock of affordable mousing in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, r,sulting in longer commuting distances, increased congestion and pollut.-)n. While cities cannot reasonably be expected to provide a one-tc--ane balance between employment and housing opportunities, cities ca-, be expected to mately accommodate a reasonable share of the ho sing demand to not overburden adjacent communities which do not benr_it from the assets of the commercial/business developteent. This application also raises two additional policy considerations which relate specifically to this arty. one issue dea' Frith the park dedication requirements of the residential components of Land Use Options N and V while the second relates to the intensity of development which may be appropriate for high density residential portions of these boo land use options. C. Park Dedication The schematic site plan submitted with the requested amendments pro- vides a ventral open apace corr..-dor of approximately 5.5 acres which continues in an east/west direction through the residential portions of the property. This corridor was designed to serve the. recreational gads of the project residents and to provide a link with the open space component of the Town Center. Based on existing parkland dedication requirements, this area is sufficient to meet the demand generated by the future project residents. -12- 96 Preliminary discussions regarding the ownership and maintenance responsibilities have been held between the City and the applicants One proposal which has received considerable attention would allow general public use of the central park but would retain private ownership. Ender this arrangement, maintenance responsibilities would rest with the project homeowners' association. Public use of the park could be guaranteed thrcxmgh the dedication of development rights, the execution of an open space easement or some other arrangement to ensure public access. The cQen space easement in the Town Center development is one example. While such ownership and maintenance arrangements could provide additional public recreational opportunities and reduce public maintenance costs, the provisions of the Municipal Code which relate to park land dedication (Sections 13-397 to 13-404 and 13-484 to 13-494) do not provide for these arrangements. These sections permit the payment of fees to acquire needed parkland or the actual dedica- tion of land for public parks. Sections 13-407 and 13-443 allow credit to be given for private open space facilities available to the general public. However, only 50 percent of the area may be credited to the dedication requirements. In light of rapidly escalating costs of park mmainterkLwe, easement atrarugenents such as that Proposed in this case could result in substantial public benefits. Additional public recreational opportunities would be provided with minimal public cost impacts. Atte---native public/private arrangements for the public provision of future parkland were discussed in the Open Space segrent of the Environmental AesouroesJManagement Element. As such, the City may wish to consider amendments to the Municipal Code which would capitalize on these benefits and permit the use of arrangements such as those proposed for future developments. D. Residential Densities land Use Options N and V a.,aume two different intensities of develop - went in those areas designated as High Density residential. The more intensely developed areas approximate 27 units per acre and the less intensely developed areas apptoximate 17 units per acre. The schematic development plan indicates that buildings within the higher density areas would be three stories or three stories over one level of parking. A two story height will be retained in all other resi- dential areas. Based on the intensity of development and scale establiOmed by the Rbwn Canter and the demand for housing which will be generated by U* expanding local employment bane, residential developments of a more intense nature may be appropriate for portions of the Sakioka property. This is especially true for that area slang the western property line adjacent to the Town Center. Mid or high rise residential towers in this area could provide a transition between the Zb7rnS Center and the less intense residential arms to the east. Using the tame number of dwelling units, additional --13- 97 land area would be available for open space uses. By increasing the density of the existing residential la.r-%j area, additional hDas iN opportunities are created. Lsrn�'. the appl--la-I trtke-,, amt- °nts to the General Plan ar%4. P : eu� ; iie^fe : '.' F s ilie� • i a: z w -e- may to required to permit 11W a'. t, -P. rs .n thi: area. While the High ft- , . ia: k - , se ; , jr. at i Df. and PM -W zone do not :.8;==s ifications do include maxima^ As such, the density • z , . �. ' _ :. t r i;xl to the number of per- - th- gest and lower densities S._,�:zy does not exceed 34 units ur. i is which cause the would recr :ire the amerri- �. tr-x- previous section, the _ .Iti7iq develo{ment may :.. .. r - �--- '--• �►�-' x t•�° n is . r. _, �• will have significant a -x! . -+.. b - �... 7 :a•.�.•3 i rM carrrl W. 1 t i e s. •24_. rejLx-sted amendrr_rlts ,. : ,. - , I • _ . r : ' &n- i e nv i m men t.a 1 con- n S , a• terTted to discuss the circ ilation Gnr; one '.nfuture USE G4,7 this What level for the pro]ect ben --• r . r; •� a,`, ept to provide ac3ec3a3te k �.}f. a-.•. _ . ,� Iasi_.? Wtrat are the _ . eact, Iand Use and :'r ttw• 1977 Town Center �.. . r r ',i` discussion relates ,�•,; �.A PCpreted by the Planning •a � • ! r . r IL I � � _ ir.S.J. .r •,.s r ,'�, r�£_;ire modification to y &.i. , �h A S a -k i oka grope r ty reg a rd- :.. of the three circulations Anton Boulevar,3 extension 4.-:F �.. ��. . r.. •-� w -.r �,a� the greatest overall .. . • ,.� - - �.r . mai:-,/Sunflower/Anton inter- r,r _ 4 *. A : A_ L . p ; _ Le ma It 1 ve . r .. .,.L , ..til -k .. _ to rrcuide a reasonable p.. ,k ,; r .■.4 -: . _ -, • t t les. Further , that the 98 City has the responsibility to provide a wide range of housing opportunities for all socio-eoonmic segments of the community's existing and future population. This application presents a number of complex issues which must be resolved during the Catmission and Council consideration of the requested amendments. The decisions which must be made extend beyond the selections of the most appropriate circulation and land use options. In order to aid the Commission and Council, the issues or policy ques- tions which must be addressed are listed below. 1. Which Circulation Element option (Section VIj provides the most desirable solution to both the local and regional traffic/circula- tion problem? 2. Which Land Use Element Option (Section VII) provides the hest balance between the competing social, economic and environmental benefits or impacts? 3. Relating to Lana Use Option IV, are all of the uses permitted by the Industrial Park General Plan designation and zoning district crn,patible with the other adjacent planned land uses? Relating to both Land Use Options IV and V, should the Cammercial Center General Plan designation and the PDC (Planned Development Cannercial) zoning district be amended to permit noncommercial uses of a research and development or light industrial nature to prevent the location of incompatible industrial uses in the subsequent development of the subject property? (Section VII E). 4. Should the sections of the Municipal Code relating to parkland dedication requirements for residential developments be amended to allow alternative solutions (i.e., dedication of develoTxnent rights, open space easements, public use/access easements, etc.) to the dedication of land in fee? (Section VIII C). 5. Should the maximum permitted densities in the High Density Resi- dential General Plan designation and PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) zoning district be amended to permit densities in excess of 34 units per acre? (Section VIII D). X. GENERAL PLMI GUIDELINES Previous sections of this report and the Draft EIR for this project have indentified significant environmental impacts which require mitigation to reduce the adverse impacts to acceptable levels. This is especially true for Land Use Options IV and V which propose intense multiple -use urban environments. Without mitigation, the only acceptable alternative may be continued agricultural production Low Density, or possibly, Medium Density Residential. Because of the critical relation of these mitigation measures to the acceptability of options IV and v, additional direction is needed to -15-- 99 ensure that the appropriar-:� measures are w planted in a timely arra oonsi�stent manner. Since the project will be constructed in phases i by, possibly, a number of developers, it would be appropriate to provide the needed direction at this point in the planning prok-ass. The follow- ing r.inplementation guidelines are presented to serve this function. A. project Phasing. To provide adequate housing opportunities for the future employees, portions of the residential and commercial/ industrial components shall be developed concurrently. As noted previously, the proposed residential components will not provide housing opportunities for all ultimate employees of the project. As such, a one-to-one balance of housing units and employment Opportunities will not be possible. This project timing guideline does, however, require equal proportions (as a percentage of the total residential or ccrminercial/industrial component) to be con- structed within the scone project phase. These proportions shall be as equal as is practical and as approved by th� Planning Ca-.rlssion and City Council. B. Construction Timing. Tb ensure that the development of the project does mat utidueiy burden the surrounding circulation netwrork, con- struction of phases within the project shall not be completed prior to the completion of necessary street and/or intersection improve- ments to carry the traffic generated by each project phase. IN= C ENYM CS study has identified a variety of circulation syster, improvements which will be required to service anticipated develop- ment within the Study Area. The key to the success of the st,,dy recommendations lies in the concurrent improvement of the area's circulation system and developr.+ent of the major projects in the area. Phase I developments wit -bin the proposed project shall not exceed 750,000 square feet of office development and 475 dwelling units, slightly share than half of ultimate development. Phase II developments withi•i the project area shall not be commenced until Phase II CEbn'WCC-c improvements have been funded by the appropriate implementing agencies unless alternative measures are approve6 by the Planning Comr,4ission arrd City Council. C. Trans rtation System Mann ement. To reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the veh_, a trip demands on the surrounding street and freeway netzaork, sur=aquent land and/or building leases shall include provisions whluh will require tenants/developers/building owners to implement the transportation system management measures included in the Draft £IR to the extent feasible considering the mature of the proposed use. Such measures include: staggered/ flexible working schedules; transit fare reimbursement; adequate transit stop facilities; preferential, management controlled parking for high -occupancy vehicles; passenger matching services; preferen- tial freeway on-ramp use for high -occupancy vehicles; employer - owned, employee -operated vehicles; bike paths and storage racks; and similar measures. -16- D. Housing Opportunities. '!b provide adequate Musing acorn rations to serve all economic segments of the comunity and to aid in minimizing traffic trip -ends, 25 percent of the future residential units shall be available for low-- and moderate-incame households. Every attempt shall be made to provide a balance of such units in sales and rental housing. Appropriate agreements shall be executer to ensure continued availability of these units for low- and woderate-income households. E. EneM Cons02tion. 7b reduce the rate of consumption of natural gas and oil, the incorporation of solar energy systems in all omponents of the project shall be encouraged. Reliance on renewable energy sources has the potential for significant, long term benefits -- reduced oonsumption of nonrenewable energy sources, reduced air pollutions and potential cost savings for future energy consumers. -17- 101 CMMRAL PLAN AMENDKD'r GI -79-3A I. 117M UCTICN This privately initiated General plan Amendunent concerns the :Saint John the Div_ne Protestant Episcopal Church property located southwest of Orange Avenue and Bay Street (Hap 7) . This property is currently= designated Law Density Residential by the General Plan and a High Density Residential designation is requested in order to enable the construction of 36 senior citizen housing units. These units would be financed through HUD Section 202 funds. The proposed project includes a new church with ancillary facilities to also be located on the site. The Amendment is requested by Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist as authorized agent for the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church. I I . AREA DESCRI PrlC U The subject property is 2.015 acres in area. The westerly portion of the area is developed with the existing church and parking lot. A single-family residence occupies the southeasterly corner of the site. The remainder of the site is vacant. In order for HUD funds to be used in financing the proposed project, a Parcel Hap will have to be processe-6 to separate the Church and housing sites, although the church would retain manage-ent of both parcels. Adjoining the subject property to the south are properties developed wit single - and multiple -family uses (Map B). the General Pian designates this area s Medium Density Residential and the zoning is R2 except for oine parcel at 20 ' orange Avenue. ibis property is developed with a five unit apartment althougl zoned R1 and designated Low Density Residential. West of the Study Area across Laurie Lane is also designated as Low Density Residential by the General Plan, although zoned R2 -CP. This area of inconsis- tency includes ten parcels fronting on Laurie Lane and Fullerton Avenue which ar developed with duplexes and triplexes. Horth of the Study Area are single-family hones along the north side of Hay Street. These properties are designated for Low Density Residential use and are zoned R1 The area east of Orange Avenue, zoned R1, is also indicated as Lad Density Resi- dential by the General Plan. Although most of the parcels ar, developed with single-family hams, there are several nonconforming properties w., :h more than one unit., a frequent occurence throughout this easterly section of Costa Mesa. Directly across the street from the subject property is a day care center. The Study Area for this hwndment has not been expanded to include adjacent areas with inconsistencies between the General Plan, zoning or land use. 7hese areas are being examined in the studies being conducted for the Land Use Element of the General Plan. r'1S- 102 Burr .�rFr��r 7 � B/�Y STPE�T I Iw�,rri�rtt 5iR--ET t �r �IF`l. � r �q a GENFRAI. iOLAV Drs/GNArICIN Lo✓ D`rrsfrr FtfvPr-rltL NrarvA► Dr►rs.rr l�t��dr/+FrrfG GP•79*3/4 OPTION I EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP l 103 Sr.r�r� lK rt J 103 V Z Jt +,F,apr t Lw.re � V 6,q)- 5rRE4r D2 D2 D, Dz � D: Dx ` i D, Vi4M D: D2 `' D3 s D s Ds Dr Doc D, D. De Da II D. D, Da Dz Tw,cIV r,E rH $ rRr c 7 - GP -79-3A LAND USE ISA A P 8 D� Day CAR! Ow rra 2 � Srw�rr D, Dz � i D, Q D. ox GF UN 173 {i/r.C3 104 III . 1N1I FC*0: AL REVI E G An Initial Study of Environnental Impact was conducts for Lne proposed to the General Plan .a.*d the subsequent development of 36 senior c.tizen units avid nes: ehurc. facilities, 'Ite impacts identified relate t c:rculati�-., Land use and population. Since the nen; charch is actually a reloca-:ion of ar, existing use, no new traffic or land use ir.Epacts would be caused. The 36 un z - senior citizen apartment would have three potential areas of impact. PLIt.*:otyg an apartment building this size would normally generate appy€ xineteiy 290 vehicle trip ends daily, the tenant composition of this development is expected to ret "'t in substantially lesser traffic generation. Similarly, 36 apart -en-, -.alts rr�.ld normally house an estimated 7Z persons , however, the Small u . ', t s z zc ar,d te: pan tl composition of this project will result in many single terka.^.: units. Since the use is caV.atible with adjacent uses, no significa-;t 1&-Y-" use irpacts are pated. The Initial Study concludes that a Negative Declaration of Lnvitt7r� _al Impact can be adopted. N. GENERAL PLN CONFORKITY The requested Ainendrent has been exx-dried in respect tc tie various ele~aents az� subelements of the [general Flan currently being prepared. Althougt: the Ger3era Plan has not been adopted, the proposed Arentrient acid subsequent deeveloe^.: have been compared to those applicable components Which will bG included in the General Plan (Table 3). Of the eight sections of the Environmental Aesources/M4a*fagerent Eiemnt, the irpact on open space appears to be the only significant concern. The majority of the site is vacant and planted with grass. ileveloFnent of the project will elLnarote this private open space, which is not incl,.Xwe in the City's inventory of interi7 open space. Several applicable concerns were identified in ca—,,arirg the propos--:: , tenement and development with the sutelements of the Corr xiity Developrte�t�'aram,e�r�t Element. 2 -►e project involves private redevelopment of the property, 't`;e r� development will play a significant role in maintaining or altering the inage of the existing neighborhood. The church, which Will be located or. a tyre visible portion of the site, will be a prominent feature. The housing arra other facilities to be provided for elderly persons are consistent with the needs identified in bath the fiumara Resources and Housing Subelemients. Becaus? of the density of the units, an amendment to the current General Plan and Land Use Ordinance may be necessary to permit more than 30 units per acre, 7,e Housim Subelentent be=.-ig prepared will include a means of permitting increased densities for projects which deet the needs of households with specialized housing reguirements. The proje.- will c em an increased demand for public services in this area. however, trrF property will not generate property taxes since it will be operated by a non�rofl-t organization. the land use ocn*rns, discussed in greater length later in this report, are also taring examined in the studies being conducted for the Land Use Element. The requested High Density Residential designation is one of three being considered for the area. Int and Medium Denisty Residential are also being considered for the subject and adjacent properties. r�- 105 TABS 3 . GENERAL: KAN,, P ET CCK"— — I. 2wironmertal Resources/ MW-63 +eS3t EleMent t I A. C1pen Space A. Althosagh a large portions of this sate is i! vacant, it is not included in the inventory of inte:-ir open space, II. Ca%nariity Developrent/ i l wuv)ement Element A. AedevelopAent A. Reglace'tient of C#-ae existing strictures wits j those included in tris proeec: is a for7 of private redevelaFuent , i � B. LtraaTi Design B. Tt* design of the proposed develop-ent, particL:larly t: at of the Churc^, w:11 irpact the iuragz of tt�e reig^bor'►oac. C. Haman Resources C. Providing hoasinc and recreation facilitie, for persDns with specialize,_1 requir r.: is consistent wit:: nes identified. D. Hoi1i ng D. Project provides mousing for households with special needs. Project may exp' t e maxim-, density of the iiig}. Density R°sl- dential designation, res7uirira a dersit_ bonus for including specialize' hDasina. E. Public Facilities E. Project will cause general increase i- ard Services de-and for public services. F. Flcorrsnic F. Being tax ex°7pt, the project will not ge--,zate g. :.ax reven,e. III. Idud Use Element tie proposed designation. of High Density ?e=i- den*ial is one of three being oorrisiderec' fir the subject and adjacent properties in tsw la,x3 use studies, -20- 106 Four land use options have been prepare] whict care the existing General Pla-. and zoning (Option 3 i gaitt thi E- :eq estei Arendment. 0,117% ii, 111 anG I•= alp discuss a Hign Dens:;; Besident.& Lane_ Use Qs:gnatic>n but present dirfere^t zoning alternatives. A. Stion I ON 7 ))y 77-is a'YL} retains the existix U)w Density Widentiai ILandLse lgrati�n'+ and he Q zoming. :is arrerre it wool] be ca ?ga*_1. A w=-. the General #alar. Zmd z ony cf properties across the street: to ttie nc;rt-. and east, a.ltkovgh dissir__ar to the General Pian designativ%, zcq:n, or development of ad3acent ;,:gerties in. the sarc- blacf. it, e spec:iic use being costsWerY for t33e site uculd not be pernnto: ir. the ?: zD_, a -i the unit dent yy exams tis Goneral Plan Low Density Issidentla_ raxi •.7 . If the Rl zoning is retai-*d, eventual reside -:tial permit t')e subdivision of sub;ect property a --r,: c=strjcti�n of apTroxiaatell 14 single -Manny horns an the subject pr,qerty. B. tic.^. II (Map 9) woalr ane -ed the G newt Plan desi75atiwn to. - Denvir. Fesir ntiai and esthalis! Pl...-n& Development inside^.=i i-zsg POP-HD, zoo i -g on � entire St ady Area. Pianne;a Development zontigac has the paxpose of encosra;irr, t'�- app_1c� ___ _ W more inaginative and innovative planning concepts t.a- would be p r• it urx3er camvi-tion d zoning caterer xes . One of the ate;, i i a:' irate.. _ _ of � � - e7� Tom. r � 4+ ♦ � V... Planned re i1'E� + t ari:inanz_ in is: e a zis i�-Ich 'nee= the bro ver goals of the Corerai Pian t roup` the integration of uses. The PUG. zooms per^.it oxip.'Lnentary uses of a reliq.,00s or ed cctivr i stare. '7;us the ch=c : and related c?assr�aa-s woala be cr;sAered =r-pl imenv:ry uses and tv& dual use of the p_oper;; wDold be acccrrodated. The exist.n? church, tui} ding is propos& !.o be used by hots. the V arV congre;ation a'•IC the senior citizens. Isis shared we is an --c= -a.-ce with Uni Plan Development Wit, which er>ccpLrages t_3K- integratlo7 of uses an! swarwres. 7he PORAMD ate permits residential development at a density of 1-'-:: :v, 3C units to the acre. %isideri.c the entire site in. t� o: density would ressit in a ratio of 11.9 Nits }ler acre with the 36 unm- proiosed. A oanoeptua : site plan had been ptvpared which places the 01L.—a-& o-, . the miner of Coranry,- Avenue and Bay Street and the zlartment units near the southerly end of Larurie Lane. This plan did not have the 25 foot setbaur or the aPOLnt of parking required try Planned EavelopmEn.t zoning. It als✓ appeared that maxima site coverage of 29 =percent was exoeeded a -d that the idninvi 42 percent open ,space rvquiremeit was rat attained. Noweve: , Wds initial plan was intended to be crdy oaxoptu d. Tie project p='>' pxwnts are see that the preparation of the actual site plan will require a mare careful consWeration of applicable develcipnent standards. 107 �Ypr• a.STF•� � 495A),- .�+7FtEt r I S- ZEA Vz,v,CA f 2 F4,1 A ,44pr Dcraorr Rrs,er.rr.at AWt mi~ Dxm*rrr �?e�,p�•rr,p t hwff DJW3,7r +-[ES/AE�rTte GP -79-3A OPTIONS 11,111. & iU IMAP 9 oPr/ajt ZT: PDA -Hid xorars. RV scwd•vs rox f�p ah 3 rs, I tR ~ �tr•cw„ras+e �i.�x ��r+ItOKi'+�IT JSlOr l3sc+rr�_ �vf �� rfs.�+-f 108 Z li Q oPr/ajt ZT: PDA -Hid xorars. RV scwd•vs rox f�p ah 3 rs, I tR ~ �tr•cw„ras+e �i.�x ��r+ItOKi'+�IT JSlOr l3sc+rr�_ �vf �� rfs.�+-f 108 7 •: - Geral Plan designation of the A.. The portion of the site to be be rezoned R4 and the rema inde r 7* aAS`+� + ..; .. - a +.v- ' • t� the High Density Residential { more than 30 units to the acre, -e pr tiT . e :. '. igw~' ,t; two parcels, the residential AW a. <".. .. r�. 5 respective parcel. 7be residential acres in area, resulting in a A, -.r - .. .� -� :assification tr allow mre than .. - _ its application in the Downtown A..•*r '• Y. . Aa ea Plan, an element of the General over 35 units per acre can be K A t R r e . : ; ; . A .: zed housing. In order to acoom- or . %A Le e ' d'r Ar o- a ,' .. , .: a: proposals in the f uture , the S� wL-end d to allow densities in r.as the specific intent of provid- .. , ax. h: •.- fa:.,.lxes and individuals with ., W A J« .. : �,. G ��r,, -.� of such hols+eholds would be :A- classification, the property - ?A zcne (OVC§ 13-178) would also ATS. TT. K - : processing of a Conditional Use P- r .. - . .. .-- perr fitted by the R4 zone in the k> r ti . , �- s .•- Y was 1 d have to be expanded to Citywide when a project has ry>- TW'- L W AW••- _ rt list of permitted uses in the .. Churches are not listed as a . ' ,•- j • K +. . �'q` they have been allowed in this �- x it I r +a►s ' ? S a • 1►.: '. J� a 'Zone Exception could be -t, . , it may be appropriate to add .-•. t . �- =1 _: -,r K _ . ;.tents for religious worship as r- .. :,►• �� ur a . �.r Ax{ate the current proposal as well v.w:-:ter:# .d. �y �*,. General Plan to High Densityq� L•. �'_, �, � Lr.r BT• .c.�..� 3r i � zoning, In addition to adding an Y,..� t- �- •• •. ,••_� *: P Zone as discussed under Option III, amended to include hmming as • &rx-bd '.o= u ..:r Permit could be granted to allow >y . 'lA p'f T! V+t- ', 1 C.rt'.�►' or4s '3 ;. i.4 f,, Atiar.w;wd by the prmiry conformirog user :X !frr • . ? . r ac allow the proposed units since f *rri racy;; .'d n r wwr wgw[ ^ "w Z ` k rV t -r r ^_k v irw church. 109 Fr . it should be pointed out that the General Pian would not necessarily require ameniment if the I i R zoning is modified as discussed above. However, the retention of a Low Density Residential Land Use designation may not be appropriate if the City actually plans to allow a development with a unit density which far exceeds that associated with a Law Density Residential area. Costa Mesa contains 1,763 acres of land zoned Institutional and Recreational. Amending the I & R zone to allow housing as a conditional use could have widespread potential applicability. VI. RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff ends implementation of Option II. The proposed developu ent is in accordance with Housing Element Coal No. 2 in that it provides housing for families and individuals with specialized Dousing requirements. A High Density Residential General Plan designation and PDR -FID zoning will permit the uses proposed without requiring modification to the existing General Plan classifica- tions or Land Use Ordinance. Although the size of the parcel for the apartment development results in a density exceeding 30 units per acre for that individual parcel, both the church and apartment parcels can be used in the calculation of density since a Planned Development is defined as an area develqped as an integrated snit under single ownership or control and having a Planned Development designation. The shared use of the existing church building is an example of the integration of uses on the subject property. Establishment of Planned Development zoning on the site will also afford review of the development by both Planning Commission and City Council. A High Density Residential designation would be consistent with existing General Plan designations east of Orange Avenue, which are predaninantly Medium and High Density Residential. The adjacent areas of inconsistency will remain as Loa Density Residential; however, they will be re-examined in the considerations of the upcoming Land Use Element. -23- i RE:SOLUI"ION NO. PC -79-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF QOSTA MESA, CALIFORUA, REMMMMING TLS THE CITY COUNCI:. APPROVAL, OF GENERAL PLAN AMEN94ENT, GP -79-3A TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PICPERTY LOCATED AT 183 E:. BAY STREET AND 2043 ORANGE AVENUE FROM LCW DENSITY RLSIDENT°IAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. TH£ 03GrA MESA PLANNING OCIMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLD34S THAT, WHEREAS, pursuant to applicable provisions of the California Govern- ment Code, Title 7, Ch&pter 3, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission has processed and reviewed the proposed amendment to the General Plan of the City of Costa Mesa as designated herein; and WHEREAS, the purpose of General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A is to enable the construction of low and/or moderate income senior citizen housing units; and WHEREAS, the requested amendment is consistent with the goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan to provide housing for families and individuals with specialized housing requirments; and WHEREAS, the requested General Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan designations and development in the immediate vicinity; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Government Code Section 65351, said Planning Commission herewith transmits its recommendation to the City Council, as found, determined arra decided upon at a duly noticed public hearing thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the findings as set forth in the Planning Division Staff Report for General Plan Amerdment GP -79-3A be, and is hereby recommended for approval to amend the ''neral Plan Resignation of the property located at 183 E. Bay Street and 2043 Orange Avenue from Lcw Density Residential to High Density residential. PASSED ANDIS da toter, 1979 Richard Carstensen, Chairman of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission IBM STATE OF CALIFUMIA ) C L"N OF ORANGE ? SS. CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, DOUGLAS K. CLARK, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ff,' I Li. was duly adopted a: a regular meting of the Costa !+esu Planning Commission which was geld can the �Oth day of a t 1979, and carried by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: 00 MISSIONERS: NOES: 03MMISSIONERS: ABSENT: ODMMISSIONERS: /I Acting 5ecr ry, Costa Mesa Planning Cession APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATIDRNEY By. t �{��Ass start City Attorn. APPROVED AS TO CDNTENT: Devei nt Services Director IMM CITY OF 009TA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California TO: ReVerend Conrad A. Nozdquist DA1"E.: 183 Day Stream Costa Mesa, CA 92627 RE: F": THE PLAMIM DE PAF' 92626 October 11, 1979 General Plan Amendment �-P-.79--3A Specific Plan Precise Plan (Streets) Abandonment Other At the regular meting of the ODsta Mesa Planning Cbmnission held on October Q, 1979 , the abrre was oxmidered and the following action taken: It Ms maved by Mrs. Dinomwdm, Seca xW by Dr. ifwen ani carried 5-0 that: Option 2 contained in the Planning Division Staff Report, be reomrwoed for t%mwal. 2 SUM &444,11ev Charles W. Foberts, Planning Director -.4 Wa CITY OF COSTA MESA CAUFORWS^ 92626 P.O. box 1200 (714) 556.5223 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TO: Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist 2043 Orange Avenue Costa Mesa, California, 92627 FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CC: Bishop of the Episcopal Church Planning Department DAVE; October 17, 1979 RE: Zone Exception Perrn,i No. Subdivision No. Rezone Petition No. Tentative Tract No. Final Tract No. Building Moving No. Cenera`�n� �an Rm rr:en At the regular meeting of the Costa Mesa City Council held on October 15, 1979 the above was considered and the following action taken: General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A, to amend the land use designation for property located at 183 East Bay Street and at 2043 Orange Avenue, was set for public hearing on November 5, 1979, at 6:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Yours very truly, EILEEN P. PHINNEY City Clerk V14-16 114 Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds, including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, Catifornia, Number A•6214, dated 29 September, 1%1, and A-24831, dated i 1 June, 1963 STATEOF CALIFORNIA County of Orange ►rrttc 049ttc• Aa�e.littn0 carOrN by tows iHN1401t is wi to • Point with 10 mica coiamq *.*In I am a Citizen of the t.'nited States and a resident of the County aforesaid. I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. 1 am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT. with which is combined the NEWS-PRF,SS, a new%paper of general circulation. printed anti published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California. and that a Notice of Public Hearing of cogta mg -sal of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa. Newport Beach. Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley. Irvine. Saddleback Valley, Laguna Beach and the South Coast communities issues of said newspaper for one ""*1K=7l*7IKftxtx*x1Kxlwx issuers► of October 26 .197 9 197 . 197- 97 197— 197 197 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 26 197-2-- at 979at Costa Mesa, California. Lx Signature This This spats Is for the County Cleric's Filing Stomp proof of Publication of / ]PUN= NOTICE .PCs 4symaw Give" OMa Iry11M vm M Will M rr CAtr Y of the cm M Calla W" M Nw14 t±t1& at M bUr M *:M M tt 1 Mau earww.a W CKY R 0<& a0tni. Cailr OW& M 0a0 .Kvwww apa *W W& Fr1 � � V" Fill" t. W Agr0iM 00 avo" ** wo w" MMtMIM Irr av"M f.cawr at M[ar1 Rw 111raM atr .t me Gram J�yewM. Ewrirawwttr=si OrMrNtitralha: M�brxa Is PUKMR am" Mt M �rtr wtr aer aft" Al" ser all r.ar„ktMw.tr wow aper A" be Mara ,p iM CtW cattwcB on tlw ltlrw. CHY r. F�twE• Gr R CMM D WY1! pt+.rar 90.10:0 PROOF OF PUBLICATION 115 CITY OF COSTA MESA INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM I3rnar,�er 1 19 79 TS�O++ City Council }����{y/��l�f /� FROM Daus Claris, Assistar:t X=lanninc Dixc�-t�: RE: GENTWI I rLAN iY'�Li1µJa'lltl l 7i -3A, ST. JOW-' THE DIVRT EPISCOPAL CLTOi CITY COEAdCIL INTI% wwasFp. 5, 1979 the City Council will omsider General Plan. Amend-f-L.it 9=-79-3h for St. .7olvi the Divine Episcopal Church at Orange and Bay Streets at thi- hover 5, 1979 mec:in'^-. The Staff Report on this itesp, was distributed to t Y Cozncil along with the repos~ for the Sakioka proposal. Therefore, a new report will not be distributed. If you need an additional copy, please contact the Plateninn Departine--it DC:sm 116 "m RESOLUTION NO. 79-132 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY M CIL OF TK CITY OF T4 #TifCITY Of COSTA wESA CA,LI- FORN:A, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AVTN-VF%T G? -79-3A, AMENDING THE GEirFRAL PLA►i OF THE CITY r1F COSTA YESA. W4-ER£AS, the General Plan 1990, as arsended, was adopted by *+^e r" -v Council of the City of Costa !less by Resolut fon No. 71-27 on Ap7'il �, 1971 ; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A, a plan to change *,the pro- posed land use at 183 East Bay Street and at 204: Orange Avenue bas beer recomynended for adoption by the planning Commission; and WHEREAS. the change recce ended for adoption by the Planning Cor-ris- Sion is Option II, from Lox Density Residential to Planned Development Residentia'-High Density, PDR -HD; and WEREA5, public.hearing ws duly field in accordance with Section 65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, all persons hav- ing been given the opportunity to be heard, hoth for am ag�ins` 5a4� Amendment GP -79-3A to the General Dlan; and WKREAS, this Council deers it to be in the best interest of the City that said Amendment to the General Plan be adopted; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Counc i 1 of the City of Costa mesa that General Plan 1991 is hereby amended by the adoption of Option 11 of General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A, as shown on Exhibi* "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 1979. ATTEST: 4y*erk of the i ty o o a esa Mayor of the 1 y of Uosta Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) PPRDIVD Al TO FORM COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS �' CITY OF COSTA t�SA ) C.Te F=NEY I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex --officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 79-132 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of November, 1979. 118 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set spy hand and affixed the Seal - .. ... - ... - . ..- .... _ - I__. _e 1n7n WHIR' -AS, General Plan Amendment Gv-79-3A, a plan to change the pro- posed land use at 183 East Day Street and at 204? Orange Avenue has been recorcnended for adoption by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the change recomsrsended for adoption by the Planning Cori' i s- sion is Option II, from Lown Density Residential to Planned Development Residential -nigh Density, PDR -HD; and WFEREAS, public.hearing ws duly held in accordance with Section 65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, all persons hav- ing been given the opportunity to be heard, hoth for ano ag?'•,r, 'S?:ri Amendment GP -79-3A to the General 'Dlan; and WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City that said Amendment to the General Plan be adopted; NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that General Plan 1990 is hereby amended by the adoption of Option 11 of General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A, as shown on Exhib;t "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 1979. ATTEST: I '"Clerk of Cofa Mesa f Mayor `of the -City o osta Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA j PPROVD AS TO 10R11 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF COSTA MESA ) C;j{ Ri'�EY I, EILEEN P. P4IIINEY, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 79-132 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of November, 1979. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 5th day of November, 1979. CT y Clerk and ex -officio CleyV of the City Council of the City of to Mesa F,(r: the Df5k of . . CHARLES W. ROBERTS XL --- r - _4A d 120 CITI 41F COSTA MESA � ...• •••:• P. o. •ox ttoo (714) SW5223 -� }•► "t 00►"'c a or THE CITY CLERK '�! _ •-rad r, A + tin ati ,'-'4TE No,,ember 7, 1979 RE Zone Exception Permit No. Subdivision No. - Rezone Petition No. Tentative Tract No. Final tract No. Building Moving No. Communication of a.t, u.,. •, c,,..,c,; t,c4d onMooddy,_ November S. 1979 �y bo'war.!..' .Wt �.a��V+la�;� me— �' - 'ti•' -mow ., M t -+Y` Taken k tip. ► � 'o..TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE �. .► ,A, = ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT X^ nr• ."AN OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, r..•, .tea ��� Yours very truly, EILEEN P. PHINNEY Cfty Clerk IPA City of Costa Mesa Planning Department Post Office Bax 1200 77 Fair Drive Fri Costa Mesa, California 92626 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: Clerk of the Board County of Orange P. O. Box 687 Santa Aria, CA 92702 Project Number _ Applicant Proiect Title Project Location Decision Decision By " : Date L7Negative Declaration Published Date _ ❑Environmental Impact Report Filed Date . Environmental Impact Determination Approved by`_ `tet' c ' ' -� D ate' -, "v CMF 0342-32 Rev. 7/78 White - County Clark; Canary - Project File. 122 OW 6 u �Z B�►r Sra�r r N a D z Da D, D 4 s : MOWZ e r tw/+c Ctr rgq 1+W SY.1ErT Dwo 02 LD, 1 '#i tF DS - of 4ftA" kvVcj 123 ' f 3A %- TIQN e i BXIBYING-COREIIAL PLM AND ZMNG ~ 7 LAW ZkUssrr R"'VJW r"& • Adomow Zb mrrr 14ss.# • 124 p 00 LA) 1149 tn q ft MtAy :t>T 125 mm�m MMM4.1mmme Mo emom so= .F aA CWTICHS 11.111, biu ftp 9 iIti I alk Gaymagw- PLA w ix-30vw0wr/,o* Gaw err Rxwow-rarrc awn Dwwawr Rp.D�wo rt r s frr RRS.arwra. 0l7lan+ .ZZ7 : PDR -NO =a v A s oo* Aravr~ s.rw 0i'ridy III : R,/ zap wc. soot Aetr r Asaa aw c r s ars, ddr i A ~ -rarwONCWR OPP., AAm 4caq `Zorv/OVG �ewro f .Sdra, RAoFffMOA4WWF MVr X=AWr+a. AM&-fr AhV"3. 126 Ti<BLl: I IContill cdl LLf ill til SL "I'Ll-M[ATS F. I'llblic f=a sii11" 6111.1 SCr6I:C1, 1 E;t VnInNIruct.:re i 0 1 rall,l`, it i.l l it'll rr: ( irCLdlltlt)ll 11 Somit v Other C«mrnunn S,:rLicl:, 0 City Scr�ii�cs G. E.::(.,nm lic Re;tlurtcl I1. Ener��c 3 a i M. Land Use Elernent 1 PltOGR \\l S VITS Ili !'r• s;,�r.,, 127 -1,11 111L COM %I I \ I S 4'. Project will inL:r,:a-.c tie111aid for wiht,, .w,i Skit ;1 ::iJ I I I to NL!r%c, pro tlt.'!nvid ;)I to tfic puifli,: of urroUllditI2 strLCI C1 11N. tl C I 1 1 t 11 Ili P1.111% M6 ill r07.1Ljk:V HIC 14()j)e I I I I) I J).1 t %. ":]I,l I j k: ;'Citi ;11)111 1 -J 11 111 4 jmkmd mem Ill PJN"eN -.11) C \I'cFINk 11.11 k'.% I!11 i ;)f I'. CHI%' [It k:k 1111 j)(1$jC "It I'l lj'. k,kt re-, ittent I a I areal, -.vL I] 'in crc.tW J ermoi, I or L,,-flo ()I I m , . ,,;I% " �! VrOP,)Ncki jlrkr I C,: t Will "C110ral demand r'4)r pulfli;: xr%i�es prmid1:11 hL 1 7t,; ML',A fj1j1!j'i -'1 .111([ -(1111 I'tI I c fOr police and fife Pri)tek:ti,]Jj Will JJC rC( imr,-J ,(-n.- -st !oti 'T1 im ,,afeiv ;jnd vehicic uccc%s. A nL,%t Cir-,* SZ,11 Lkl?,l 11i required to PI-Ovidt: --dequAL: firs: prot,,:uim ind ,i,m ,Cr% i� G. Conversion of exiNting -M-mcuittmi I hchk to [.,itcn,,- ;-han 1c%elopmk--.I1 -,.dl reNull m ,ul ,i mcrcaNe,; in bolt municipalw.d ;t7 I I I' I L' . 1 1.11'(711,'!:% i 11i degrev to wkich rc%:mik:N h.d.im:c i:i Oic I17711 jnd 11)riL-- LLITW! rL,11111 furthcr analysiN. H. Project will incre:jw conumption lo n, Fri rc -,. 1 k i r, c,, I)C% Ili _0111t" wilb ipplicable enct-gi, rL:,!-.dat (m, f I ai-, 241 ind legislation. The ipplicantsproposal is t}11 C' of 111FL:L ;I%c the land u., k--lemcut. 128 t--- -- -- --- 129 o � . / ' - ---�- - ' | � . E 130 TABLE i GENERAL PLAN.TROPOSED AMENI ELEMENT1SUBELEMEN'TS I PROGRAM STATUS I. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES! }fANAGEMENT ELEMENT A. Climate B_ Air Quality C. Hydrology D. Binfoeiial Resources I=lernent Accepted I)% Planniiw,L Contmksion E. Open Space and Cir: Council F. Geoloey G. Historical Resources H. Noise Il. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/ MANAGEMENT ELEMENT A. Redevelopment Draft Complete B. Coastal Resources Draft Complete C. Urban Desi_n Draft Complete D. Human Resources Draft Cornrlcte E. Housing I In Progress 131 OPOSED A.41ENDM. ENI CONFORtilITN' CONINIL_\TS A. Proposed pr(>_iect '`till be Intl „r,vni,,: I' 1.: i.. .,,.\... i• ...: . B. Propo,ed praiect will in,:TeT11t:n1aH; ,i:_ ati: l ...... . .,. 1401 a ..... , S.. expnccd to high 1raf cn rw.. PLIK!" r. t. .I... ............. ,.., �1 concept anti Prop(„cd IT.r11--pt,Ti.!IIt' r; yy �1t';a` 1.... ' Air Quality Slanageimcnt Pian, C. Subject property is not .t'. in suh,tantial intr,`as-, in (1e1,1a01d 107 VNAL-7 1). No rare or endangered plini t= -- exist within the protect ht,:,11-.i,�r::•. E. Development of the psopn.ct9 ;'rc r_:1 %k I' r:,..., _ I':..., 1._ 7! . of interim open space. Atl(iitlon l p.a k 1.:11:. "T 'r: .. wrW t. . . F. Sul-ieet property has a nunlerat: p,Icyral N 1no: , .!h,v Site-specific eng mechng Iutlw, «til v 1:.;nuct. h. identify appropriate foundaIw,”; JTIt':...;i,'.1 _ _ Q A 1igbi shell scatter is loaded n:ar Il:. wuu _......'. necessary to determine .is'niil4.inir 0. .C1 ' ... ... 7 11 ff. Subject property is impacted by .:ill• rmv Vow!, _ ,_,'. K% Orange County Airport, ATew, t,, iI _l:.tet .1, development subject to tittil'�£ ,I.:TI,'.:i. 11111 ` =A. NOT APPLICABLE B. NOT APPLICABLE C. Schematic site plan Rdi,:ate:.zrt•.r1p w ars WP ..,at:... K,—;. . • . . multiple use t:it elation P1.111 Cr:aIC. Iniv n"! ^',":.. wW ;1:: He project to Town Center. up.•; ,ra;: D. The increase in the number (it employ meni Oppo ,,UMTI , t-,,N;,';i,a1\ income range) will incrcat,e th-, ci:11 .md l( -,T ihilti .,aN- IL Proposed protect would preclud: ti; :lt'prneni t'! If-: 04ec; f' P 'i\ kv . '., (pMentlal dC>elopment of Qlh roddonw, ., t'tlttmml;`,I % vv .. _ (.. .. P 1 ttltt construction of 917A83 nuih4Q 1shit\ unns and pi-si t: L`1', on KY .7,v Would increase local demand for houmn; 4eTecoll\ 1,)\ki' aad commuting distance. Incorpora,ion (it %ar\ I11_L' 1\ pc% :Ill,l PI l c t.;::!_; I k reduce impact on local houicin,,. niarl,o. litl»CWr.:,tlKl,Ad! =P01 ML generated by commercial and induQW1 onnp,ln.-lu< "01 acme ., Mat which can be %mislted by the TC',identldl oonipon Tn ,,1 ih --- 132 TABLE 2 — GENERAL PLAN/CIRCULATION C w°'. ` ti , ► *11i 1VT RESIDENTIAL _ N SAcres' Units" Population"* Acres ems,= f 158 632 1,990 158 1,248 3,931 a 158 158 1,264 2,212 w ' 158 2,370 4,148 ,. 55.3 917 1,693 82.9 55.3 917 1,693 74.4 983 1,817 55-3 917 1,693 73.4 983 1,817 85.8 1,478 2,586 52.5 _ 1,521 2,661 71.7 1,218 2,131 62.6 1,259 2,203 84.3 1,553 2,717 49.4 1,599 2,748 JO Y:k 48.9 910 ; 1,593 72.3 "}' LAW. ^'ti r»av;..+-.t:.+-,..:.. .ores► because of assumptions for streetderiir.ations. ::t•S.¢ .• ..:: ,�r.�., r" " r ,r ., . ,. ;�s.rk lard dedication requirements. 133 :ULAT10N OPTION IMPACT SUMMARY COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL Total Project Total Percent Acres* ; Sq. Ft, �- -* Traffic Project Resident 4 Emp4oyees Acres 5q. Ft. Employees {Trip Ends} Population Population 1� 8,216 1,990 100.0° 16,224 3,931 100.0% •eet dedications. 134 Nominal i 10,996 2,212 100.0`« 20,619 4,148 100.000 82.9 8,755 6.9 134,862 270 30,550'"' 10,718 15.8% 1,556,856 31,119" ` 10,842 16.8% 74.4 ; 1,501,111. 8,436 11.8 205,370 411 30,536* 10,540 16.1 0 3 1, 105 " ' 10,664 17.01!r'- 7.0973.4 73.4 1,485,792 8,348 10.7 186,436 372 30,177"' 10,413 16.3% 30,746" , 10,537 17.210 52.5 11,093,32`) 6,104 6.9 134,862 270 29,403"' 8,960 16.5"� 30,171"' 9,035 29.4`10 j 62.6 411 30,362"' 9,452 22.5`'-j 1,209,320 6,910 11.6 ! 205,370 i 30,699* 9,524 23.1 49.4 1,008,000 l 5,835 10.7 186,436 372 29,528* 8,924 30 4"- i 29,911"' 9,005 31.1`;.. l 72.3 1,448,400 '; 8,432 6.$ 115,700 731 29,650"' 10,256 15.5`0 •eet dedications. 134 V. In 64N DOE40 FWY A. MAIN/SUNFLOWER 4 -WAY b 10 agoj fw `•}-' .-AS40 FWY B. ANTON EXTENSION 135 G O lV1110.4 L -ow D=-p54T`f `ala�NTIA MSWpIuw gz6aamaL CCM K A'- C,,, KTM, Z I WDu57Rj AF, PAX< GP -78-3A [REVISED] MAP 5 OPTION IV FLc'u---g glaf6 n AVE -1 C. DOUBLE "T" 136 01600 F UY C. DOUBLE "T" 136 0 n 4t k In a D. l;GD Fkr A. MAIN/SUNFLOWER 4 -WAY FlAt SM V* t � 01540 FW'f B. ANTON EXTENSION 137 EM/ C. DOUBLE "T75 GP -78-3A iREVIsEDI MAP 6 OPTION V FIVY 138 APPLICATION ADDRESS 7 4-, A. P.4' OFFICE SEARCH SURVEY STREET,. EX IST C. a G. j (DIM. C. to C.) At 4 PROPOSED ULT. CURB LOCATION EXISTING R/W q_ to FL FLto FL ULT. R/W PER MASTER PLAN - EASEMENTS ZONING OF LAN PRECISE PLAN DRA'- TENT TRA S Z.E.*-*- MASTER PJ R. A.;# C- 10 REF - FIELD SEARCH EXIST. CURB 8 GUTTER EXIST. SIDEWALKS ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS DRIVE APPROACHES DEVELOPED LAND: YES � NO 139 n"'al n"n PPR ZONING: YES— NO— PPLICATION SURVEY DRA' TENT TRACT$* S4* Z.E'* MASTER PLAN R. A.;P C- 10 REF - ~5 D/ 44-1 140 ]RECr*90IDED ODNDITIONS/ORDINANCE REQEJIRI14ENTS FOR PLANNING ODMISSION MEMNG OF _ . _ jlm 281 1982 DUE BACK TO THE PLANNING DMSIC N BY a'um 16, 1982 PLANNER TO: uilding Safety Engineering Division Fire Prevention { ) Leisure Services { ) Police Department (2)-( ) Sanitary District (RDb I ( ) Transportation Services ( ) Water District (Informa, ( ) Streets & Sanitation (B A.P. NUMBER 426_191-16 _Applicant/Authorized Agt Phone No. C0' PU.N'ER INPLTI` 17011 F + �, r � �r�• a � If7 •< � J� i i i � � �.2 �� Y it • � � • •,• k� VI �#' �• ' • •i,l •,ri { � ' j 'ill • mil r •fir 1 • Y• '11 117 �I °• ` i� 1 I � '� � 1 ` • � F�r r Y1 ` ` '�� ` � � ` 1 408 36-LVIr SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING PRD= IN C MJUNC- . 4 0 9 TICN WITH AN EXISTING C HUFC-i, IDWED AT 183 FAST 141 All ] . IGN: NFI', rrTx7F: rmy-r anwrTmT A.P. NLMER 426-191-16 Appl icantjAuthorized Agt Phone No. O I,lrU1ER INPUT: 17011 •' • � � M31• � • �`• /, : • � ` `� �` .� it •. - • i 402A. NDFDQUIST, MIMR=M AGENT FOR THE BISHOP OF THE ,1 M. `1Y '1 1e: r ! �� r �! f• NINO'i ' ',• If ' 1 408 36 -WET SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING PROOECr IN CIDNJUNC-- . 411MIT ICV: 412 413 " 414 we, -.-W kyj m i,, 74w P41 -,7.-,y v • • - n• • Conditions Ordinance Requirements: (Ccwents other than standard condi lt Ordinances, should be addressed to the Planning Commission in memo forr.' CMF 0934-30 142 MOTION Ordinance 82-12 Adopted cct,,�t iHt Um COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE ZONING OF A PCRTION OF LOT 117 OF TRACT NO. 300 FROM R1 TO PDR -LD, in connection with Rezone Petition R-82-07, Norma Hertzog, for property located at 273 and 277 Monte Vista Avenue, was given second reading and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, McFarland, Johnson NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Schafer ABSTAINING: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hertzag U_t-) u.Lk l J LA tLLC-CL--) R-79-15 The Clerk presented for second reading and adoption, Nordquist/ Ordinance 79-32, to change the zoning of property Episcopal Church located at 183 East Bay Street from R1 to PDR -HD, in connection with Rezone Petition R-79-15, the Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist, authorized agent for the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 1220 West Fourth Street, Los Angeles. Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration adopted for General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A. ZE-82-88 The Clerk also presented Zone Exception ZE-82-88, for variances from parking requirements including reduction in total parking, parking in a street setback, and inadequate turn -around area, in conjunction with a Planned Development Review, for a 36 -unit senior Citi- zens housing project in connection with an existing church. The Development Services Director presented the back- ground for the subject project and reported that first reading was given to Ordinance 79-32 on December 17, 1979, with second reading and adoption held until fund- ing was approved by Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The funding has been obtained by the applicant. The Director further reported that at the request of the Planning Commission, new site plans have been submitted which will eliminate the need for a turn -around and will provide improved traffic circulation; the proposed auto- matic gate at the entrance to the Orange Avenue parking area will be deleted, thereby eliminating concerns about adequate stacking area and traffic congestion on Orange Avenue; and the modified site plan will allow greater joint use of parking between the church and housing parcels. At the request of Vice Mayor Hall, the Development Services Director explained the Federal funding for non- profit organizations in which the tenants' rents are in an amount equal to 25 percent of their income, with the balance funded by HUD. Reinhold H. Klein, 1910 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, housing consultant for the project, stated that the maximum height of the project is 30 feet and pointed out on the slide screen the location of the two- and three-story structures. Mr. Klein also mentioned that because of the revised plan, only two variances are now needed: setback on Bay Street, and reduction in total parking. He also reported that based on a survey of similar projects, the need for the same number of park- ing spaces which would be required for family housing is not necessary since many of the elderly do not drive automobiles. Mr. Klein also stated that surveys indi- cate that as the project matures, use of automohiles decreases. In response to Vice Mayor Hall's questions regarding selection of tenants, Mr. Klein detailed the procedure required by HUD which includes priority being given to qualified citizens of the community. , 4 7 143 4 8 Reverend Conrad Nordquist, St. John the Divine Episcopal Church, spoke in support of the project stating that there was a crucial shortage of housing in the area, and he felt this project would alleviate at least a small portion of the low -rent housing shortage. Responding to questions from the Council, Reverend Nordquist stated that van transportation is not being planned at this time but such a service is a possibility, and that the tenants of the project will have the use of the Church's recreational facilities. Jerome Vandewalle, 2810 San duan Lane, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the project and pointed out the following reasons: additional housing is needed in Costa Mesa, especially senior citizens housing as evidenced by the waiting list at the Casa Bella development; the project is weir -conceived and will not cause additional taxation of Costa Mesa residents; the community has an obligation to the elderly who have spent their lives in the commun- ity and who have contributed to all; the project will not be detrimental to the community and will not be an incon- venience to Costa Mesa citizens. Walter Miller, 275 East 18th Street, Apartment 37, Costa Mesa, supported the project and related the plight of an elderly friend living in a small room for which he must pay a rental of $300.00 per month. Anna Shereshevsky, 21b2 Elden Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated that there should be no objecttions to caring for the elderly and the handicapped, and there was a need for this type of development based on the waiting list which exists at the Casa Bella Senior Citizens Apartments. Cigi Nordquist, 974 Modjeska Circle, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the project because of the need that exists for senior citizens housing. Vice Mayor Hall asked if any communications had been received opposing the project, and the City Clerk responded that there were none. Bob Yoder, 155 Buoy Street, Costa Mesa, voiced his objection to the proposed project and submitted for the record the following communications in opposition to the development: a petition containing 52 signatures, a letter from Alyce H. McCardle, 1997 Fullerton Avenue, Costa Mesa, and Roy R. McCardle, 273 East 21st Street, Costa Mesa. Mr. Yoder stated that he is not against homes for the elderly, however, he was concerned with the quality of life on the eastside, and suggested the City purchase subject site for a park. He based his objection to the the project for the following reasons: traffic increase on Bay Street and Orange Avenue which are already heav- ily traveled, lack of sidewalks; density too high for the neighborhood; insufficient parking; and project is not easily accessible to stores and reasonably -priced restaurants. Mr. Yoder proposed that the Church dedi- cate subject site to the City for a one -acre park, and in return the City allow the project to be built on City property across from Lions Park, within the Redevelop- ment Area. Linda Young, 252 Sierks Street, Costa Mesa, opposed the project, stating that it would cause an increase in traffic. She suggested that since there were two vacant school sites in the neighborhood, one of those sites would be more appropriate for the project. Ms. Young also objected to the three-story design for a portion of the development. 144 �.1; L) Thomas Barr, 218 Sierks Street, strongly objected to any three-story structures in the neighborhood. Albert Ogden, 2066 Orange Avenue, and James Crilly, 184 East Bay Street, stated that they agreed with the objections presented by Mr. Yoder. Keith Hall, 1958 Fullerton Avenue, Costa Mesa, opposed three-story development. Fran Albers, 2012 Orange Avenue, owner of four R1 lots in the area, voiced opposition to any other zoning except R1. Eileen White, 543 West Wilson Street, Apartment C-1, Costa Mesa, former resident at 184 East Bay Street, opposed the project because as a child a Church official promised that the children could play on that property. Stanley Brown, 308 Robinhood lane, Costa Mesa, stated that he did not know if he was for or against the project, however, since residents moved into the area with R1 zoning, this should be an overriding considera- tion in making a decision. Reinhold Klein again spoke to clarify issues that had been addressed. He stated that three sides on Bay Street are higher density than R1. As to the three- story structure, it will be located from 175 feet to 200 feet from Bay Street and only 7 of the 36 units will be in the three-story structure. Mr. Klein responded to a suggestion made by Mr. Yoder that the project be transferred to another site, stating that this is not permitted by HUD. He also suggested that the two vacant school sites in the area would be more appropriate locations for parklands. Mr. Klein reiter- ated that the height of the proposed project does not exceed 30 feet. Mr. Yoder disagreed with Mr. Klein's statement concern- ing present zoning in the area, and expressed his doubt regarding Mr. Klein's statement that the project could not be transferred to another site. Mr. Yoder also stated that if the higher density is approved, it will set a precedent to allow higher density for other properties in the area. There being no other speakers, Vice Mayor Hall asked for Council comments. Councilman Johnson commented that both the applicant and the residents had valid arguments and it would be difficult to reach a decision. In view of this, he asked that this item be continued for further study. Councilman McFarland expressed appreciation for the input from the residents and their concerns, however, he stated his opinion that in view of the present housing shortage, it is imperative to allow higher densities. Referring to the concerns of the residents regarding traffic, Councilman McFarland stated that RI development would generate more traffic than the proposed project. He further stated that the need for this type of housing cannot be questioned, that he felt it was an excellent project with an excellent location, and that since Council has dealt with the request for over two years, there was no reason to delay a decision. Councilwoman Hertzog commented that everyone ac-ees that senior citizens housing is needed but not in their own neighborhood. She also voiced her opinion 145 I.50 that traffic would not be significantly increased, the 30 -foot height would blend in with the surrounding area, and that although changes are difficult to accept, they must be made to alleviate the present housing shortage. Vice Mayor Hall asked the Director of Public Services for an estimate of additional traffic generated by RI zoning, family units, and the proposed zoning for senior citizens housing. It was concluded that assuming all residents of the proposed project drove automobiles, increase in traffic would be approximately the same for all three uses. Vice Mayor Hail addressed Mr. Yoder's recommendation that the subject site be developed as a park, responding that priorities must be considered, and it would be too costly to develop the site for park use. The Vice Mayor also alluded to the concern over increased traffic, and voiced his opinion that heavy increase in traffic throughout the City is inevitable. Referencing Rl zon- ing, Vice Mayor Hall stated that it is very difficult to retain this designation, that higher densities must be allowed in order to alleviate the shortage of hous- ing. As to parking, the Vice Mayor reported that the parking situation will be reviewed in six months in order to determine if more parking spaces will be required. MOTION Ordinance 79-32 On motion by Councilman McFarland, seconded by Council - Adopted woman Hertzog, the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was adopted, and Ordinance 79-32, being AN ORDI- NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE ZONING OF A PORTION OF LOT 901, NEWPORT MESA TRACT, FROM RI TO PDR -HD, was given second reading and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Hertzog, McFarland NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Johnson ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Schafer Responding to Vice Mayor Hall's question regarding the variances, the Development Services Director reported that the zone exception and two variances are under consideration at this time, the variances being for setback on Bay Street, and reduction in total parking. MOTION ZE-82-88 On motion by Councilman McFarland, seconded by Council- Approved woman Hertzog, the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was adopted, zone and Exception ZE-82-88 was approved based on the analysis and findings contained in the Planning Staff Report, and subject to all condi- tions also contained in the Staff Report. Vice Mayor Hall asked if the applicant agreed to all conditions, and the Reverend Nordquist replied he had read the conditions and agreed to all of them. The motion to approve the zone exception carried 3-1, Councilman Johnson voting no. RECESS Vice Mayor Hall declared a recess at 8:55 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. WARRANTS On motion by Councilwoman Hertzog, seconded by Council- MOTION man McFarland, Warrant Resolution 1184, including Warrant 1184 Payroll 8214, was approved by the following roll call vote: Approved AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Hertzog, McFarland, Johnson NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Schafer 146 lJl/J _Vi. OLD BUSINESS: (Continued) �ff`)�U�C�rt!`y'! Ly�if1J.�� ZE-82-79 Approval was based on findings that approval would not lead (ContinLk-d) to precedent setting irasnuch as the trailers are totally non-visible from the street and appear to be. a]most a part of an older mobile hone park adjacent to subject property. The Ccnrnission felt there was sufficient justification to grant use of the trailers due to the unique situation and circumstances that exist.. Mr. Davenport stated that he. had voted against the motion because he felt the applicant was rr3miss in not disclosing previously the charitable nature of his involvement in the community. Mr. Davenport felt that Staff findings were valid and he had difficulty in approving the. Conditional Use Permit. Zone Exception The: Commission considered the public hearing continued from Permit ZE-82-81 the meeting of June 14, 1982, for Zone Exception Permit Dave Lavin/ ZE-82-01, for Rave Lavin, authorized agent for TFinple Sharon, Temple Sharon 617 Hamilton Street, for a Conditional Use Permit, to allow a school in an Pxi.st.ing building currently occupied by Tvnple Sharon, located at. the above address, in an R2 zone. EnvironnPntal Determination: Exempt.. Planning Staff recorunPnded approval., subject to conditions. Mr. Dave Lavin, representing the applicant, stated he had received a copy of the Staff Report and was in agreement with the con3iti.ons contained therein. Mr. Sloate asked various questions concerning proposed use of the: tFsnple. There being no one else wishing to speak on this item, the Chairman closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Ms. Sawyer -Watson, secomlf-d by Mr. Clarke, Approved and carried 5-0, that. Zone Exception Permit ZE-82-81 be -I^7roved, based on the analysis and Eindings and subject to the conditions contained in the Planning Division Staff Report. Zone Exception The Commission considerd the public hearirx7 continued from Permit M-82-88 the meeting of June 28, 1982, for Zone Exception Penni.t Reverend Conrad A. ZE-82-88, for RevQrPnd Conrad A. Nordquist, authorized Nordquist/Bishop agent for the Bishop of the Protestant. Episcopal Church, of Protestant 1220 West Fourth Street, Los AN41les, for variances Fran Episcopal Church parking requirements including reduction in total parking, parking in a street setback, and inadoTuate turn -around area, in conjunction with a Planned Development Review Ear a 36 -unit senior citizens' housing project in conjunction with an existing church located at 183 East Bay Street, in an R1 zone. (Rezone to PDR -HD pending.) Environnental Determination: Negative D°clarat.ion for GP -79-3A. Planning Staff recommended that. this application Le reo m- inended to the City Council for approval, subject. to condi- t. ions. Reverand Conrad Nordquist, representing the applicant., stated he had received a copy of the Staff Report and was in ayrne- mens with the coniiti,ons contained therein. re.ve:rend Nord- quist explained that the plans had been modified to relocate one unit, to resolve the problem of turn -around area on-site. He felt the project. was now ready for construction. Mr. robert Yoder, 155 Way St.rret., informed the Ccamnission he had a petition with approximately 36 signatures of resi- dents opposed to the planned develoixrnnt of the subject. property. Mr. Yoder further stated that the project did not canply with the 30 -foot., two-story height limitation and'was lJl/J _Vi. OLD BLE INFSS : ( Cont i.nued ZS -82-88 three stories in some areas. Mr. Yoder also felt the planned (Continued) parking was too far away from the units; he thought the units were being jammed in arra would not serve the bast interests of the neighborhood as a whole. Ms. Su;7erlin informed the Commission that a Planned Devel- opment does not have a height limitation. Mr. Valantine stated char at the previous public hearing the Staff recommendation was for denial; ho-revcr, since that time significant improvements have been made to the on-site parking and traffic circulation for the project, which was the reason for the change in the Staff recarune.rdation. Mr. Yoder asked further questions concerning the lack of garages for the units, and noted that the property is s0.11 zoned Rl. Mr. Valantine informed the Commission that. the. Rezone. Ordinance had received first hearing by the City Council; the second reading and adoption of the ordinance are still pending and would be heard in conjunction with the City Council hearing of the Planned Development. Mr. Yater stated he would present his petition to the City Council at that. time. Score discussion of the parking faci.lit.ies followed. Mr. Albert Ogden, 2066 Orange Avenue, asked questions con- cerning the institutional --Looking elevations of the. build- ings. Mr. Davenport stated that. the Commission had been concerned with this issue due to the fact the drawings ori- ginally did not show any detailed elevations. However, since that time the applicant had provided drawings that relieved the Commission's and StdfP s concerns .in this respect. Mr. Davenport asked the arrdmit.ect. who was in attendance to show the concerned members of the public the drawings which depict the t-.hrae-dimensional design of the buildings. Mr. W. F. Albers, 2012 Orange Avenue, stated that he owns several properties in the area and had recently constructed a new home. He. noted that. a number of restrictions had been placed on his project and objected to the fact that the sub'-- ject, project. had progressed this far with the neighbors being unaware of what is really goirxg on. Ms. Jran.ie Murphy, 190 East Bay Strcaat, stated that she lives directly across the street fran the church. She was not opposed to senior citizens' housing but was opposed to sub -standard housing which she: felt, the project will pro- duce due to insufficirot parking. Ms. Murphy further stated there are traffic probl(no in the area and less traffic was needed—not more. Mr. Reinhold Klein, represent.img the applicant, gave an informative explanation of his years spent. in planning housing for senior m TTs-.rs of the carununit.y. He informed the Carunission that. the higher structures will be located closer to the church, with rwo-ct,_)ry structures located closer to the residential neLghbors. Mr. Kirin also des- cribed the design of the project., and urged the neighboring rP.sWe.nts tra support. this plan for senior citizens' housing. Mr. Yoder stated that. the federal goverrunent dial not. have a good track record for providiN attractive developments and had produced sane very poor devPiopments. HE, did not feel it was fair to suggest, rhe neighbors were opposed to homes for the aged; hvox:ver, Mr. Yoder suggested there are other ( locations where the. proposed housing would be appropriate. OLD SUSIN£SS: (Continued) Z-82-88 More discussion followed concerning parking for the Casa in the area of the (Continued) Bella project, and the traffic situation proposed project. There being no one else wishing to speak on this item, the Chairman closed the public hearing. MOTICN It was moved by Mr. Van Aken, seconded by Mr. Clarke, and Recomme.nd Approval carried 5-0, that. Zone Exception Permit ZE-82-88 be recan- to the City Council for approval, based on the anal- nended ysis and findings and subject. to the conditions contained in the Planning Division Staff Report.. Zone Exception The Commission considered the public hearing continued from for Zone Exception Permit Permit ZE-82-93 Craig Chamberlain/ the meeting of June 28, 1982, ZE-82-93, for Craig Chamberlain, authorized agent for Robert for Robert J. Krogh J. Krogh, 17781 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, and setback requirements to variances from density, parking legalize the use of a fiberglass done as a second dwelling unit, located at 1984 Church Street, in an R2 zone. Environ- mental Determination. Exempt. Planning Staff recernmx-.nded denial and removal of the dome structure within 30 days of Commission action. Ms. Summerlin informed the Commission that Condition 03 in the Staff Report should be corrected to show that Conditions #14 through 418 must be completed within thirty (30) days or the structure refnoved (with demolition permit.). Mrs. Gfnrgt.ana Ml.nor, 1986 Church Avenue, informed the Commission that the applicant had left the Council Chambers and had informed her he had another meeting to at--t-.end. There was nobody in atteryJance to represent the applicant In this matter. Chairman Eevenport asked Mrs. Minor to make any statements she wLshr�3 concerning the application. She informed the Commission that she lives next door to the subject property and the only way for access to the fiberglass done was via an easement.. Although some people feel it is an alley, Mrs. Minor st.rnsspd that it is shcam on her deed as a 7 -1/2 - foot utility easement. She further stated she has a 4 -car garage on her property facing the easement and noted that she frequently has difficulty in get-t-Ang out of her garage because the tonants of the subject property park on the e ascrosne n . Although Mr. Davenport felt the item was a somewhat contro- versial issue, he t.tsought. that as the applicant had left the public hearim] and would not be returning, khe Corenis- sion should take action. There being no one else wishing to speak on thLs ir.fin, the Chairman closed the public hearin,3. MOTION It was moved by Mr. Clarke, secory3ed by Ms. Sawyer -Watson and carried 5-0, that the variances from parking and setback requirrToonts to legalize the use of a fiberglass done as a secorxd dwolli.ng unit be denied, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Planning Division Staff Report for Zone Exception Permit. ZE-82-93. The density variance was approved subject. to condLtions contained in the Staff Report with additional conditions to read: 21. Applicant. shall direct the tenant to vacate the done as soon as is legally possible under tile. terns Of the lease.. 0 0".) PLANNING 01YISION STAFF REPORT AGENDA IVC3. SITE LOCATION 183 East Rw 5tr t APPLICATION NO. ZEE -62-88 AP* 42 - - MANDATORY ACTION DATE J._1:1e 4, 1933 APPLICANT Bishop of Protestant Epi.s. Cj�,ch FL -v. Conrad A. r;Drdquist (owntr or R:co+G) AUTHORIZED AGENT ADDRESS 1220 West Fourth Street 2043 Orax�e AL",.xne ADDRESS Los Angeles, CA 90051 Costa Nessa, CA 92627 Applicant is reminded that all ordinances and regulations governing the use of the land or building(sl to nn^lith this PREPARED BY application pertains must be Complied With whether speci- fied herein or not. REQUEST: Variances frcm, parking regu3rements, includ=q ruction in total nig in a street setback, aro in area, in conjuConjunctionit'� n with a ' pa mate �-�� rking PLVmed DeveloFiment P, -View for a 36-tzdt Senior Citizens' Housing project in con - j unclaon with an existing chtsc h . FINAL COMMISSION ACTION. APPLICANT NOTIFIED DATE CITY OF COSTA MESA, 77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA KIESA, CA 92626 (71 :) 754.5245 I • DESCRIPTION -1- A. Subject Property 1. Location - Scuth-west of n Age nda t ]o . ZE-8 2-88 Nbrdquist/Epis. church range Avenue and Bay Street, and East of Laurie Lane 2. General. Plan Cesignation - High Density Residential 3. Zone - RI (PDR -HD pending, under Rezone Petition R-79--15) 4. Present Development - Chinch, residence, vacant 5. Property Size - 2.01 acres 6. CEQA Determination - Negative Declaration adopted for General 7. Background - Plan Amendment GP -79-3A a. GP -79-3A amended the Land Use Designation of suMect property from Low Density Residential to Hick Density P.esidential. b. R-79-15 has had f s t rear? ing Of the Ordi ranee (79-32). Second reading was held c..Itil IT_T] approved the project funding and the Project was filed with the City. This rezoning would establish Planned Development Residential -High Density zoning on the property. B. Surrounding Property - I. North -- Single-family residences, PI zone. 2. South - Multiple -family development, RI and R2 zorr�s. 3. est - Day Care Center, single-family and ;multiple -fa. dly dwellings, RI zone. 4. West - Multiple -family development, R2 zone. I I . -3T SR --4-10 A. Request is for variances from parting requirements including reduction in total parking, parking in a street setback, and inadequate turnaround area, in conjunction with a Planned Leveloprent Review for a 36 -unit Senior Citizens' Project in conjunction with an existing church (St. John the Divine Episcopal Church). B. Project proposes a 3 -story residential structure containing 36 1 -bedroom dwelling units. Project funding will be through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The church is and will refrain the s Pro7Ect. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, convr, of the requixs,� that a non-profit � h�^�v='r, has P corporation be formed to own and manage the Project. The housing project will occupy a 3 separate 9 622 ft, the church and related facilities will retain a rate 3 q� parcel; -sq . f t . parcel. C. Applicant has proposed that residents of the housing facility be permitted to utilize the social and recreational facilities of the church on a sched- uled or as -needed basis to avoid the need for mare extensive social and recreational facilities to be built as part of the housing project. 151 Agenda No. 2E-8 2-88 tbrdquist/Epis. Church -2- II REQUEST (continued) D. The apprOVed General Plan Amendment and pending rezone were initiated specifically for this project. The shared use of facilities and special- ized housing provided in the proposed development were cited in the General Plan Report as examples of Planned Development features. III. ANALYSIS A. Planned Developr int Review - 1. It is the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance to accommodate developments which utilize innovative planning concepts and which meet the broader goals of the General Plan, but which may not amply strictly with zoning regulations. Compliance with the General Plan can be ex- hibited through excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protection of the integrity of neighboring deve loprre n t . 2. The Planned Development Residential - High Density zone all resi- dential developments to be combined with religious, educational, or recreational uses if the City Council finds such uses to be 0a:mpatible with the residential project. With the shared use of recreational facilities, it appears that the uses in the proposed project will be compatible. 3. Da ns i ty - a. Permitted: 15.1 to 30.0 units per acre Proposed: (1) Overall site: 17.9 units per acre (2) Housing parcel: 39.56 units per acre b. Subject application proposes the concept of a density transfer wherein development rights of the church parcel are transferred to the housing parcel. Within an overall Planned Development, this is an acceptable develop*ent technique inas=much as the project is viewed as a whole rather than as separate parcels. C. Applicant is advised that, due to the density transfer, should the church elect to develop additional chaeiling units on its parcel, the maximum allcwable units would be 24. Prior to such development, it would be necessary to amend subject Planned Development (if approved). d. Based on the provisions of the Planned Development Ordinance, subject project is entitled to 15 units per acre (30 units total). However, increased density may be obtained if a project meets some or all of 11 specific design criteria. The requested density (17.9 units per acre) is warranted based on the project's c=ompliance with the follow- ing criteria: (1) Provision of low or moderate income housing, (2) Location within one-quarter mile of a public transit route. SR -4-10 152 III. ANALYSIS (continued) SR-4-10 4. 5. Agenda ib. ZE-82-88 '~ -3- Nordquist/Epis. Churc , Open Space - a, Required: 42%; Provided: 42.76% b, Site Coverage: Housing Existing Church and P ect Future Expansion Total Building Area (sci.ft.) Paved Vehicular Area 13,146 14,146 {s q,ft) _n Space (s q,f t ) , 6,687 19, 789 16,599 27,292 23,286 Percent Open Space 49.9 17,991 37,780 36.9 42 7 Traffic circulation _ . 6 a. The new Parking area for the church will be located off bay Street and parking for the housing project will have access frcr� Orange Avenue. There will be no access to any parking area from Laurie Lane. b, It does not appear there will be a ny Church and the senior Citizens' h sinoint use of parking }etween the C* A card -.operated automatic gate is shown protect. Avenue parking. There is only 25 feet of -stacking area', nce of the Prange Pr�=tY line and this gate, sufficient area for only one vehicn the This limited stacking area could create additional traffic congestion r Orae Avenue. Staff suggests that a minimum 40 -foot deep stackin area be provided. d. Since the g gate is card -actuated, able to utilize this parking areait appears that guests would not be a marking agreement allowing , Thus it will be necessary to record the church lot. visitors of the senior citizens to park on 6. Building Height and resign - a, The Planned Levelc!)Mnt Ordinance does not i. rather, requires that the designmoose a height limit but, of the Ordinance. of the building comply with the intent b• Details are not available on the design and height facilities. Thus, a final development plan for that f the future church ject will need to he submitted separately. portion of the pro -- c• The l resthe building step es the iconfiguration is approxim Lely a "T" with the containing 2 stories and the top containing 3 stories. The intent of this design is to minimize, the impacts of the structure on adjacent residential d• The 2 -story Properties to the south, zY roofline has a height of 21 ft. 6 inches, the 3 -story roof - line is 29 ft. 6 inches high, and other portions of the building extend to a maximum height of 36 feet. e. Fran the submitted plans, the box -like and institutional. Proposed residential structure aPtoears other "relief" materials. The exterior is stucco, apparently without f. The structure also a The roof is flat. otinding devel appears massive, especially in relation to the surr- eprr nt. Parallel to Bay Street, the residential structure has width feet. Parallel to Laurie Lane, the length is imate feet. 150 feett.. a ppox- 153 III. ANALYSIS (continued) SR -4-10 Agenda No. ZE-82-88 11ordquist/Epis. Church -4- g. The structure does not appear to be particularly compatible with surrounding development. 7. Perineter fencing -- a. There are no specific fencing ,:equirem nts in the Planned D�velop- ment.Ordinance for residential developments. This Ordinance does require that "Each planned development shall provide reasonable visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units" and that fencing "shall be used as appropriate for the aesthetic enhancement of (the) property." b. This application proposes 6 -foot high chain-link fencing between the housing and church parcels, and betwx--en the housing parcel and the adjacent residential properties. (1) Staff suggests that chain-link fencing will not enhance the property nor will it protect the privacy of the residents of either the housing project or adjacent properties. (2) The chain --link fencing between the church and housing portions of the project may create a "fish bawl" effect for the resi- dents of the housing project. Additionally, several of the residential units are located opposite the church parking and could be adversely impacted by the church and day school, traffic without more substantial fencing. c. In keeping with the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance, Staff is recanm>vnding installation of 6 -foot high wood fencing on interior property lines. d. A separate section of City Code regulates fencing within street setbacks and prohibits fencing in excess of 39 inches in height within 10 feet of the street property lines. A 3 ft. 6 -inch con- crete block wall is shown on the housing parcel within 3 feet of the ultimate property line on Laurie Lane. It will be necessary to reduce this wall to 30 inches in height or to obtain a separate variance. Additionally, it appears that there is an 8 -ft. high entry gate connected to this low wall. An 8 -ft. high gate would only be permitted 25 feet behind the property line. 8. Dedication of Land - The Engineering Division is requiring additional right--of-way dedica- tion on Laurie Lane and at corners of the property. On the submitted plans, this dedication is shown on the housing parcel but not on the church parcel. Applicant is advised that development standards, in- cluding density and open space, are based on net land area after dedi- cation. Thus, at such time as the church parcel is developed, open space and overall density, etc., will be reevaluated based on total net parcel size. 154 5- III. ANALYSIS (continued) B. Variance: Amount of Parking 121vg�_ nda No. - ZE-82-68 Nordquist/Epis.Church 1. Plans have not been submitted showing the floor plan and seating arrangemnt of the existing or proposed church. However, the project architect indicates that the existing facility contains pew seating for 132 persons. Based on this information, the proposed 44 parking spaces would be adequate for the church (1 space for each 3 fixed seats within the main auditorium or assembly area). Staff requests that two copies of a detailed floor plan of the existing facilities be submitted for Eire and Planning Division records and also to verify the parking requirement. 2. The existing parking for the church is 69 spaces. Staff has received calls from surrounding property owners indicating that currently there is significant pzrking congestion during church services. 3. 20 parking spaces are provided for the housing parcel. 58 are required by Code. This represents a 65.5% reduction in required parking. (Ratio = 0.56 space provided per unit). 4. The basis for this reduction is an ass7zption that elderly people do not have as many vehicles as the ge,n,.:ral populace. 5. The Casa Bella Senior Citizens' Housing Project at 1840 Park Avenue was granted a parking variance in 1977 based on a similar assumption. Additionally, Casa Bella is located within the downtown area and it could also be assumed that the need for cars would, therefore, be reduced. Thus, a 77% redaction in parking was granted (0.37 space provided per unit). Unfortunately, however, there appears to be a decided parking problem at that site. 6. Subject property is not conveniently located to shopping or recrea- tional facilities, thus there may be even a greater need for parking than at Casa Bella. 7. The Pblice Department indicates that there is already significant off-site parking congestion on the streets surrounding subject prop- erty and suggests that the variance request is unreasonable. C. Variance - lnadquate Turn around - SR --4-10 1. Code requires that a turn -around be provided at the end of dead --end parking aisles in excess of 100 feet in length. An adequate turn- around is not provided at the end of the Orange Avenue parking lot; thus, if all spaces are occupied, a vehicle would be required to back out onto the street. Such an exit would be difficult due to the auto- ratic gate and would be hazardous due to traffic on Orange Avenue. 155 -6- III. ANALYSIS (continued) Age nda No. ZE-8 2-88 Nordquist/Fpis.Churdh 2. There is no hardship warranting the omission of a turn -around. 3. The lack of a turn -around and lack of adequate stacking area at the automatic gate entrance are inconsistent with development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance which require "smooth traffic flow" and "minimum hazards." D. Variance -- Parking in Street Setback -- 1. For Planned Development zoned parcels, Code requires a 25 -foot deep landscaped setbad; adjacent to arty public right-cf-way. 2. Applicant is requesting a variance to provide parking within 5 feet of the Bay Street property line. 3. The property has a unique ci rcurrs tance i na srrluch as it is abutted by streets on three sides. Few properties are faced with this condition. 4. A significant amount of landscaped area will he available on the remain- der of the Bay street setback. E. Sunlrrary - The concept of providing low- to moderate -income housing for senior citi- zens is both acceptable and desirable, as evidenced by the City's approval of a General Plan Amendment on subject property to acccnurodate such a pro- ject. It appears that the implementation, hcnaever, needs some modifications before findings can be Trade that the project meets the intent of the Planned Developrrent Ordinance, especially with respect to adequacy of parking ani traffic circulation. Staff would be reluctant to recommend approval of subject proposal unless at least 50% of the required parking for the housing project were provided arra unless the traffic circulation problems were re- solved. IV. PLANNING STAFF FI11L7DINGS SR -4-10 A. The project is consistent with a goal of the City's General Plan by pro- viding low- to rroderate-income housing. B. The combination of uses will, be acceptable inasmuch as the church and the residential development should be compatible. C. The proposed shared use of facilities and the proposed density transfer are acceptable functions of a Planned Development. D. Housing parcel parking: 1. The overall property is large and does not have any inherent site hardships which warrant the proposed reduction in parking for the housing parcel. 2. The parking reduction appears excessive, particularly since subject property does not have convenient, nearby shopping and recreational facilities. 156 Agenda No. ZF-82-88 Nordquist/Epis.Church -7- IV. PLAIZ;ING STAFF FINDINGS (continued) 3. With respect to parking and circulation, the project fails to meet the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance that projects exhibit excel- lence in site planning, and the specific requirements that there be smooth traffic flaw and minimum hazards. E. The appearance of the proposed residential structure is institutional and box -like, with little visual relief. Other low- to moderate -income projects approved by the City have not demonstrated such starkness. F. The proposed variance to allow parking in the Bay Street setback is accep- table due to subject property's frontage on three streets. V. PLAMING STAFF RECCE TU1MTICN Reccumn nd denial to the City Council. VI. CONDITIONS, IF APPROVED Shall meet all requirements of various City departments, copy attached hereto. VII. PLANNING CaVISSION ACTION - MEETING OF JUNE 28, 1982 Continued to July 12, 1982. FOR MEETIPIG OF JULY 12, 1982 VIII. EVALUATION A. The applicant met with the Planning Comnussion at the Study Session of July 6, 1982 and suggested passible modifications which appear to resolve the major problems. Plans showing the modifications, however, have not been submitted, B. Traffic Circulation C. SR -4-10 1. The proposed revisions include modifying the easterly end of the ape.rtmant building by removing a one-story end unit and providing one additional third -story unit. This will allow a driveway betgeen the housing project parking and the church parking area which will elimin- ate the need for a "turn -around" and will provide improved traffic circulation. 2. The proposed automatic gate at the entrance to the Orange Avenue perking area will be deleted, thereby eliminating concerns about adequate stack- ing area and traffic congestion on Orange Avenue. 157 ,,ge nda 1b. Z E-8 2-88 -8- Nordquist/Epis. Chum VIII. EVALUATION (Cont.) C. Building Design Apparently, the applicant demonstrated at the Study Session that the building is not as stark as it appears in the submitted elevation draw- ings. D. Parking Variance 1. The modified site plan will allow greater joint use of parking between the church and housing parcels. Should there be a higher demand for tenant and/or guest parking for the apartment project than anticipated by the applicant, it can be accc=dated on the church parcel. 2. Staff has included a condition of approval which requires review of the parking six months after completion of the housing project. If, at that time, it is determined that there is a parking problem, provision of additional parking on the church parcel could be required. IX. PLAP NIt1G STAFF FI14DINGS A. The project is consistent with a goal of the City's General Plan by pro- viding low- to moderate -income housing. B. The combination of uses will be acceptable inasmuch as the church arAl the residential development should be compatible. C. The proposed shared use of facilities and the proposed density transfer are acceptable functions of a Planned Developr-,ent. D. The joint use of the overall parking between the housing parcel and the church parcel may accc=date the needs of both activities. Should over- all parking be inadequate, additional parking can be provided on the church parcel at a later date. E. The proposed variance to allay parking in the Bay Street setback is accept- able due to subject property's frontage on three streets. X. PLANNING STAFF REC(X'IM=TI0N Recommend approval to the City Council. XI. CONDITIONS, IF APPROVED Shall meet all the requirements of the various City Departments, copy attached hereto. 158 Age rOa Cx> . ZE-8 2-88 Nordqu.i st/E.pi s. Church COVDITIOtS, IF APPROVED (REVISED FOR PLANNING COH,1ISSION MEETING CiF TJLY 12, 1982) Plan. 1. Prior to issuance of building permits: a. Detailed floor plans (2 copies) of the existing charch facilities shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review. b. The new parking area for the church shall be pa��ed and striped in accordance with City standards. c. A trash enclosure shad be provided for the churc`:. parcel. d. The method of trash pickup for the housing project is unclear. Details shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. An exterior trash enclosure may be required. 2. Prior to occupancy of the housing project, an agreerx�nt shall be appra,ed by the Planning Division and recorded with the County, t%tiich allows joint parking between the housing parcel arra the church parcel., 3. Six-foot high opaque fencing shall be provided on all. interior property lines. Type of fencing shall be approved by the Plannirx; Division. 4. Future developrrent on the church parcel is considerend only conceptual at this time. A separate final developmlent plan must baa approved prior to any additional development or construction on that portion oL the property. 5. Grading and construction can increase the amount of airborne dust in the vicinity of the proposed development. To control the dust, the developer shall spray and water the construction site under the direction of the Building and Safety Division and all construction vehicles shall be sprayed prior to leaving the site. 6. All on-site utility services (Edison and Telephone) shall be installed underground. 7. Installation of all utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure said installation from view from array place on cr off the property. Said installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the Public Utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or Mall box, and shall be installed in accordance with standard plans aryl specifications of the City of Costa Mesa. 8. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning i ressors and duct work shall be screened £ran view. 9. The parking for this project shall be reviewed by the Plarming Commission six months after opening of the senior citizen's apartimnts. If it is determinad that there is a parking proble-n, provision of additional parking on the church parcel may be required. 10. Revised site plans shall be available for Staff review at least one week prior to City Council action on this matter. Hull -size and reduced site plans shall be submitted for City Council review under the direction of the Planning Division. • Eng. ' 11. Submit current Title Report. • 12. Submit Grading Plan. Leis. 13. Existing trees shall remain. Serv. APPLICANT IS REMINDED THAT TEE FOLLalll G C011DITIONS ARE REQUIREME1,TrS OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL, LAYZ3: ' Eng. 14. • Construct P.C.C. residential sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Starr3ard Drawings at applicant's expense on Orange Avenue, Bay Street and Laurie Lane. 159 Pgenu3a No. ZE-8 2-88 Norrdqui s t/Epis. Church -IO- CONDITIONS IF APPRfJVED - ORDINANCE REQUIPOIEtTS (Continued) 15. Construct P.C.C. driveway approach per City of Costa Mesa Standard Plans. Location, width and type are subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 16. Any existing drives and/or curb depressions that will not be used shall be removed and replaced with full height curb and sidewalk at applicant's expense. 17. a. Dedicate all land 25 feet from the centerline of Laurie Lane. b. [dedicate all land for cul-de-sac on Laurie Lane. c. Dedicat.c a 3-ft. public utility easement behind existing right--of-way Line on Laurie Lane. 18. Fulfill Drainage Ordinance Fee requirements prior to issuance of building permits. Fire 19. Provide for the installation of fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A to be located within 75 feet of travel distance from the front door of each unit. Extinguishers may be of a type rated 2A10BC as these ex- tinguishers a?:e suitable for all types of fires and are less expensive. 20. Provide for ;.pproved detectors of products of combustion other than heat to be installed in accordance with the 1973 Edition of the Uniform Build- ing Code. 21. Provide an approved fire alarm system in accordance with Section 13.307 of the Uniform Fire Code - 1976 Edition. Plan. 22, Approval of the Planned Development shall be for a period of one (1) year. Prior to expiration of that titre an extension may be requested or the permit will lapse. 23. Any subdivision of the property shall meet all requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and of City Codes. 24. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with City Standards prior to issuance of building permits. 25. Care and maintenance of open space and other cr=on facilities shall be be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Planned Developr7ent Ordinance. Both parcels shall be fully landscaped in conjunction with developnent of the housing project to provide a unified appearance for the overall planned development. 26. All fences and required street setbacks shall comply with City Code. 27. A detailed landscape/irrigation plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to: type, size, and location of all plants and trees; type of ground cover; sprinklers; all walls, fences, or barriers; trash enclosures; driveways; parking lots and security lighting; and type, location, and assignment of street addresses on property. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to release 28. All landscaped areas shall be separated frau paved vehicular areas by 6-inch high continuous Portland cement concrete curbing. 29. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions'of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. 30. In canplianee with the provisions of the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Sub-chapter 1, Article 4, the applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis of the proposed development, prepared under the supervi- sion of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering. Two copies of said report shall be submitted with the application for building permits. The acoustical analysis shall evaluate existing and projected 160 -11- CCNDITIaIS, IF APPROVED (continued) Agenda No. ZE-3 2-88 tiordquist Epis.Church noise levels, noise attenuation measures to be applied, and the noise insula- tion effectiveness of the proposed construction. The person preparing the report shall► under the direction of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, perform an inspection of the project prior to or at the time of the framing inspection to certify that construction techniques comply with reca=endations contained within the acoustical analysis. Upon canpletion of the subject structures, field tests may be required under the provisions of Title 25. of utilities. REQUMLMENTS OF THE FOLL WING SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARE HEREBY FORIARDED TO APPLICRTT Sani. 31. Dist. 32. Water 33. Dist. SR -4-10 Developer will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his cwn expense, nnetng the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, and sewer perrut required prior to installation of sewer. Applicant is reminded that additional conditions of developrmnt may be imposed by Mesa Consolidated Water District and/or other serving utilities. 161 FULL ER TON 889ilis ry (R, 99 64.9," 55 0 A% r. ORA JVGj- MARCH 1979 NEWPORT M 4-� TRACT rIwO 3106 Af 41 9" d -j T)94CTIVO 7714 M"293 'j, Ju 20 THA C T 24 7 162 w 7 existing multi, purpose 'c center bc existing multi, purpose 'c center by street T! r,�& Mp L Co - mangy / IN Saint -i-,n chur-cr AUCWC`, i �! lot, Jf saint the divine cape. church CL or. -F 0 J Q c f -L- 0 °duc atc n e; �7 F -- - 0 165 (711 Ex 1. z lx�i 0 165 Tc�7A4 �• r.. � t 3z yA 4€� , -1 - EE Tom__ NO ED C� Z 166 Z Q () :D Z r� L y o '7 r CFS r � Q Cil � 166 , 3-� -- 7r�l � E i . Chi 167 W SFrF f"' 1� �-x��t"! wry 2 �ToFzY x s� . , ATT 168 1, A W SFrF f"' 1� �-x��t"! wry 2 �ToFzY x s� . , ATT 168 duc atic II fj." A!"f. z Erc-5K-T 10 T. e 'UT 169 E.Ki-,T-P,44:6. 1�" PKojac-r W5 tqT TAW�`3L; 0 c�E c ca C). 170 TELEPHONE RECEIVED FROM PLANNING. DRAWN IN C-10 FILE. APPLICATION SURVEY OFFICE. DONE' APPLICATION SURVEY FIELD. DONE ENGINEERING CONDITIONS WRITTEN RETURNED TO PLANNING FEES AND RECORDS FEE AMOUNT DATE PAID ❑ MAP CHECK ❑ DRAINAGE [� WATER ACREAGE [� ADVANCE ENERGY ❑ INSPECTION TELEPHONE PLANNING COMMISSION AC APPROVE D CITY COUNCIL ACTION. D. ❑ APPROVED. TENTATIVE MAP EXPIRE t IS MONTHS FOR TRAC (CHECK Q IF APPLICABLE) CITY OF COSTA MESA ❑ LOG SHEET II TRACT NO. PARCEL MAP NO HYDROLOGY CALCS ❑ ZONE EXCEP L� COUNTY CHECK LETTER Z -/i MISC. IMPR . ❑ CROSS REF. A.P. NO . LOCATION.?. _.._ ` _ ; .- -, -� ENGINEER _ DEVELOPER -1- ADDRESS ADDRESS ADDRESS L TELEPHONE RECEIVED FROM PLANNING. DRAWN IN C-10 FILE. APPLICATION SURVEY OFFICE. DONE' APPLICATION SURVEY FIELD. DONE ENGINEERING CONDITIONS WRITTEN RETURNED TO PLANNING FEES AND RECORDS FEE AMOUNT DATE PAID ❑ MAP CHECK ❑ DRAINAGE [� WATER ACREAGE [� ADVANCE ENERGY ❑ INSPECTION TELEPHONE PLANNING COMMISSION AC APPROVE D CITY COUNCIL ACTION. D. ❑ APPROVED. TENTATIVE MAP EXPIRE t IS MONTHS FOR TRAC (CHECK Q IF APPLICABLE) RECORD ❑ TITLE REPORT TRAVERSE SHEETS ❑ HYDROLOGY CALCS ❑ SOILS REPORT L� COUNTY CHECK LETTER C] DRAINAGE FEE DRAWN IN CMCWD BOOK 1 ❑ WATER ACREAGE FEE DEPOSITS TYPE AMOUNT BOND PERFORMANCE LABOR, MATERIAL SURVEY !MONUMENT CHECK NO RECEIVED DEPOSIT INFORMATION REF. AMOUNT BOND NO. INSURANCE COMPANY ADDRES£ 171 SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RECEIVED. _ HELD BY TSTA MESA LOG SHEET 'ARCEL MAP N4 ZONE EXCEPTION N0. r ~- `�'=► TOSS REF. ' " 1 �� II A, P. NO. DEVELOPER -L - )L L\ ADDRESS- T ELE PHONE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ,*-APPROVED CITY COUNCIL ACTION. DATE ❑ APPROVED. TENTATIVE MAP EXPIRES ( IS MONTHS FOR TRACTS & DATE. w. 0 DENIED. Q DENIED. 12 FOR PARCEL MAPS i 5 (CHECKED IF APPLICABLE) ATE PAID RECORD DATE RECEIVED Q TITLE REPORT Q TRAVERSE SHEETS [3 HYDROLOGY CALC S ❑ SOILS REPORT E7 COUNTY CHECK LETTER }OK ❑ WATER ACREAGE FEE DRAWN IN CMCWD BOOK K NO RECEIVED DEPOSIT INFORMATION REF. NO SENT TO FINANCE. OND NO_ INSURANCE COMPANY ADDRESS RECEIVED HELD BY 172 HELD BY n 4c Ell al s. fi 12 IML 4J 4J 42) U4 4-)4J 0 C cr 04 Cl) ra � pyo a -rq j +nR ;i V! wo T 04 CO � - y � w rg 4 ',�u tq . ` � . � -4 4J 41 4) 41 p� �0 �1 �, �2 ��� �► m 4 Ul co Pcn � .- � - 4j to N . Q4 N 49 N4 91 4j iy 46 1-4 poo j V 40 7� 0. bit CIA 4 ,MV� 40 -ga „ 173 0 7 I MPIPMIL� A P-1 t Vag - 174 14 Ift It E 4 0 C3 ® o oc p '+ h1 r- '4) '4) J-1 4 4-4 --4 EiF Ri Ci b • 1 � � W VY W � � � � 10 C u ; y > ,A 00 a Q ar 4) .V •v ,H w slaw s be r-4�as�.-a�,,�� ria• . 40 4) a : 4 C a 4.J a 4► L cr V-4 z 0 14 1 a IV .c u tai a = $+ V4 r-# w D 41 go 41 T1 V "✓� +s ,� 'v u V , 40 C 41 P.1 .0 -ri to a Cl 10 4a 0. ,r1 a " 41re " 41 O , cq C6 O C* V 4, t.+IN 0 t! + L+ �a C 0 4A 41 c 41 9, 4+ w ili CV Ct+ -' 0 M � � - 13. it � p .t a u �s ci CL $490 6 V4 41 �! coin is sii.. d 0 1rr 1 is . ,f,i �. . � . afr � � Vii• � �7 � �, � '' 175 M ' l � O ' C4LP4. a N Qe. v ~Z e7e"� Z zi al s ? •� e w� Jaz ' .i A e i D� I I 1 F c: w x 0 E� OD GO i7c7 C4 C4 Cc to RPp 4J EP in -04-04 178 180 1w Otiarian ai dna SmVtian ftmit 1"2-ee wa on I NIP "2-360 tw ft"z nd Owed A. W dWL#t, Oftwisad pint for the Bishop of the Prwwttestant SwW390 Ch1R'dis LM Mist 4th Start, us Angsl.ra, for an of tin for a Plamad Drnlcp wnt 1Wiew for a ha 36 -unit Mniar eitims' timing profit in cimjurxtion with 1pinoW an aaiating awreh, with rariwan from parking rewirwants irxdWing a reduction in total parking, pa ting in a stmt w h, and inadep ats amend am, and a Parcel Mpg located at 3 ;fit in metal t;t i M sane Ow Drt,Rwdnetiont vs Declaration io Miqpw• ftwu to City Council setting of 6eptanbrr b, 1943,. with a r+avasaondetion to grant the rw*mts8 extenaicm to July 1!, 1984 and August 23, 1994, respectively. 180 Q n mai i� O � a.+ � V 2 .E V 0 M �1 ` I �000 .P f C C r' ` I �000 .P f tit r' i -4� k cl LU �4- i -4� k �4- 14 186 i i r' a r fif F Rev. Cbnrad A., 163 East Ha y` Street costa Hasa, Califoaiiat. ':9627; Re: Abarxkx=pn't of rtti t i 4v Fj Sirceroly, MUM L0WES Associate Plater ICI. M= (C-9-63) 188 Dealer' IieV. Ntudquistz In 'tansoe with City; `'s denial of for ; prvp�oeed abandon- bandon-ment menton T& ie Tam, £the 4aock <�ell not be =^ d I so that it is not located within theright,pt-4rayjc the 3' utility wmaent. AO the existing wall is `1o�ted tt� .right-a�-+rsy, it will hMM to b& j saved at lea nt 3X1/'2' tt► _fly Witt# a City Cooncill s decision. Due to the delay : invtxlwd nth City Oxrcil's t for a second bowing sacs► the , ' a , planning rill extern the deadlirrm . for xesta &Xi. of ; tbe 4 wall . to-'-* Deem ber 50`-2W. This al lows 30 days freethe, =� fade . ot._ Mty t -ills decisim, 'fw removal of 00 rc h Pleeea be remitxied that both deoolition of the wall and rebuilding in a raw location `moire pa mits.- frm the BuildUQ Safety Division (located an the Zed floor of. City hail). Sirceroly, MUM L0WES Associate Plater ICI. M= (C-9-63) 188 �:�-ice s- r+ ••.t - • �r.t•.� 163 East Aay Street Cots tea, Calitomia 92627 Doar P verend Nordquist: As you are amm, the int of 6' of right-cf-+gay and the public utility ea"wert along .linty ,s iAm was denied by City Council or. &,gLst 61, 1984. ConsgZantly, the misting 6' block gall that was constructed 6' into the public riot-o&%W on the east side of Im to LAne ant be relocated. Saeed on the Council's decision, it appears that the wall should be planed at ]oast 3' away frau the praparty lies on Laurie Lane. Demolition of the eocistiM blade wmll should be o3ml®ted b_v October 6, 1984,' thus allowing 60 days. for the dowlition work. If you desire to construct : a new wall, please obtain the manes ry building permit Bram the Pluming and Building Safety Divisum,. If you have any questions, please kali As at (714) 754-5604. Sinowely, Or 189 September 5, 1984 Reverend Gonad bbrd uist 183 East Bay Street Costa Mesa, California 92637 Dear Reverend Nordquist: As you are a wa m, the atandacmnt of 6" of right- af-wny ard the public utility eassww*. abxQ Laurie Lars was dKd ed by City Council on Asst 5, 1984. ConseFantly, the aadstir; 6' block wall that was comtructsd 6' into the public right-of-way on the east side of Laurie Lam awst be relocated. Based on the Council's decision, it arppaaxv that the rash should be plaosd at Least 3' array frcas the pccperty lire on Laurie Lara. Demolition of the existing block wall should be empleted by October 6, 1984, thwa ' ailowing 60 days for the daaolition mock. If you desire to construct a nwr grail, please obtain the necessary building permit fran the I -lancing, and Building Safety Divisions. If ycu have any questions, plea. call w at ( 714) 754-5604. Selye VU THM LOT ES Associate Fla wA r KLz has (C-8-50) 190 rev. O=ad s=dquist 183 Fist Hay street 4b8ta I%Sa, CalMnis 92M Piet Block wall an lAurte tam The October 6, 19" amine fw dimeolition Of the blcx* tall an Lawie Lane is rapidly a ac g. Please be teindod that 4owditiron of the wall east be meted by this date &A stated in my latter to you dated September 5. 1984. - once the existing Xll is talon dors, a raw wall nay be comtructed that is at least 3' away frac the property lips on Imcie law. if the row wail in of bloc* ictionp a Ix, -4'e'4 ptmmit not be obtained prior to . 1f you ham any qusst%asr plwa Call we at (714) 754-5604. warily, tic m IAttaa - Assistant plaaaot KL=alm (C-3.4) cc pain Mark 191 September 17, 1994 rev. O=ad s=dquist 183 Fist Hay street 4b8ta I%Sa, CalMnis 92M Piet Block wall an lAurte tam The October 6, 19" amine fw dimeolition Of the blcx* tall an Lawie Lane is rapidly a ac g. Please be teindod that 4owditiron of the wall east be meted by this date &A stated in my latter to you dated September 5. 1984. - once the existing Xll is talon dors, a raw wall nay be comtructed that is at least 3' away frac the property lips on Imcie law. if the row wail in of bloc* ictionp a Ix, -4'e'4 ptmmit not be obtained prior to . 1f you ham any qusst%asr plwa Call we at (714) 754-5604. warily, tic m IAttaa - Assistant plaaaot KL=alm (C-3.4) cc pain Mark 191 April 10, 1985 Rov. Conrad A. Nardquist ' O ta_ ►, CA 92M Dear Rev. Nordqu ietx Thai* you for re=vUq the =fit adjaomt to the nw Laurie iacwe well as was rrquW.ed in my IOU= at f4bri t><y 4, 1985. It has reomtly ccoe to aur attention hat several Boston ivy plants Oartitiw=Lssus Tc' - . -pinata? Nava not been planted along the outside Of the iamie Lane rail' ae . by the approved la ubwape plans. Please add tures, evoily Un Ivy plants al+org they 6- nigh portion of the Lwwis Lwe w&U, " required, by Moly 6, 1985. in addi- tion to the ivy plants. !t would be bweficiaal to add either grass or ground cover to the area which is naw bare sail iaa order to prevent roil erosion ( that avoid ult imt+ely expose the fcxrndatian of the block wall) . Cnce the ivy is planted, to shw1d reach clow" on all matters per- ta"ing to the Liurio Lade will. Uwk you bor your a xperatiau Sincerely, A800ciats Plannw XUaln (C-2-50) 192 193 194 3 vLJ r .} ,J n �: ,p 3 .e" D tA ..4 1— CL If— t r S LJ 20 -71 .. .. , .. (.j uj r' elf T 9C LL 194 195 a 196 T - -- VMA Mumaff Of NOA TO pla Isl 1200 am M. - l ac cram of sem) (Sheet m P wmit) - (Cit;►, 5tme, Ad ZIP' Com) t �e ��Muwir� i i� rs4rdiri (�1� i� 5'im oo ubm Mrd *m log o ed .. ,.........�. a ftw b ww. ddl, .=w "iftm of dei vFv-. !.fl vanuwm Y TWA_ . XEV. CDm. vis r a3 � t%4)' - -7 `3TC M JP -7,40-2:51 CS2- i1 wm� y�er ��ew�<artiRs� � THE "* FICE OF THt CITY CLERK The Reverend Conrad Nordquist TO: St. John the Divine Episcopal Church 183 East Bay Street Costa Pbw, California 92527 FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CC: Pla sung Division r Peak. Prt4xrty DATE: NmNaber 9, 1984 RE: Zone Exception Permit No. General Plan Anrmeinve►t . Rezone Petition No. Enaroadment Pwv*t Final Tract No. At the regular ntaesiing of the Costa Mesa City Council +d on Nos 5 19841 ,the above was comidered and the following action: taken: 7he abandonment of public right-of-way along the east side of Laurie Dane mw denied, and Qatri1 directed that the wall be moved to the location mj 1r ed under Zane MKcWticn ZE-B4-38. Yours very truly, EILEEN P. PHINNEY City Cleric 77 FAIR DRIVE (714) 7545223 cup 0014�16. rev. IM 199 August 6, 1984 , the above •...Tas covsi :ere! ant Tt,e following action taken: A ration to caber the abandonment on the east side of Laurie Lane failed to carry. 77 _ "f : C-- 200; INTER -OFFICE MEMO FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK !?I!:. August 9, 1984 TO: City Manager RE: .'=xiance No. Director of Public works ':o. Director of Public Safety F zar.e pct iti V, 7 Building Safety . _ntative Traci No. ';ranee Final Traci Q. Planning _ Buildinz . vin. Street Fermi' fcr Precise plan for City Attorney Ccm rica*icn of City Engineer "XX t on Laurie Tare Traffic Engineer (ZE-84-112) x{ Real Property Right of Way Folice Fire parks Planning Cxwdssion Traffic CommissLon I� Se ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- it he regular meeting of the City Council nelo ...... Iftowdua+ August 6, 1984 , the above •...Tas covsi :ere! ant Tt,e following action taken: A ration to caber the abandonment on the east side of Laurie Lane failed to carry. 77 _ "f : C-- 200; } i to -._ 9-v` � ""yA �''� xay4 �eT` !� .ii' � ':'S � _- 3 �� "�' ] ��,' " � R '3✓,` .. - , INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM e October 31 , isX34 Ar4 City Council FROM Kathryn Lottes, Associate Planner Re: Abandonment of Public Right -of -Way and Public Utility Easement 183 Bast Bay street CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1984 City Council has requested reconsideration of the abarK3omnent of 6" of public right-of-way and 3' public utility easAmnt along Laurie Lane. This proposed abandonment was denied at the City Council meeting of August 6, 1984. aim (C-8-64) cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager Public services Director Fire Administration Development Services Director City Clerk (12) Staff (3) File (2) Can -rad Nordquist 183 East Bay street Costa. Mesa, California 92627 201 INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM e October 31 , isX34 Ar4 City Council FROM Kathryn Lottes, Associate Planner Re: Abandonment of Public Right -of -Way and Public Utility Easement 183 Bast Bay street CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1984 City Council has requested reconsideration of the abarK3omnent of 6" of public right-of-way and 3' public utility easAmnt along Laurie Lane. This proposed abandonment was denied at the City Council meeting of August 6, 1984. aim (C-8-64) cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager Public services Director Fire Administration Development Services Director City Clerk (12) Staff (3) File (2) Can -rad Nordquist 183 East Bay street Costa. Mesa, California 92627 201 TO City Council S A WTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM Aivat , 1 19 84 FROM _ Kathryn Lottes, Associate Planner - Re: ABANDON ENr CF PUBLIC RIGHT -CF --WAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 183 EAST SAY STREET CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 1984 on June 25, 1984, a variance tram setback requirements was approved in ordler to legalise an existing 6' block wall that was constructed 6" into the public right - of -may on the east side of Laurie Lane. In conjunction with the approved variance, Staff recamaends abandonment of 6" of public right-of-way arca also abandonment of a 3' public utility easement located just inside (to the east) of the wall. As discussed in the attached Staff Report, abandonment of the richt--of-way does not preclude installation of normal street irWovements, including a 4' sidewalk and 6" curb. Additionally, no utilities are located in, or planned for, the public utility easement nor is the ea_snent needed for installation of public fixtures such as street lights or fire hydrants. Abandon 6" of public right-of-irdy and 3' public utility easement. hwa (C-8-23) Attachments cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager Public Services Director Fire Administration Development Services Director City Clerk (12) Staff (3) File (2) Conrad Norquist 183 East Fray Street Costa Mesa, California 92527 202 INTER-OFFYCE FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK LATE: Jualy 3 1984 TG: City Manager FE: Variance Director of Public •4orks suhti ,isLn. -c' _ Director of Public Safety Reza: - .:-i _i:;n-•1 buiid ]..ng Safety Teni.iivn act No Finance Fi:.,_ Tr_ _n .c. X Planning 8a? _ 2_r _vin � . Street r erTMw i _v - Proust Flan for City Attorney Cci—:u;d:: _ L :n cf City Engineer ineer X j&qxWvgQ.on Laurie Traffic Engineer Engineering Fight of w'ay -ice Fir.-. LEPC parKs -nir.g T:d C iss::.cn ElFla Traffic C dssior, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E-7 _._e -._ _;-._z At he regular meeting of in 7Lt -�unv„ .-=_: ; I'Zrj_� July 2, 1984 _. _ abc•. a was 2ansifered art 0. following action talon: Resolution 84-85, being A RESCLUT'ION OF THE CITY COLWIL OF THE CITY OF CC"'M MESA, CALIPt ENIA, € RAW NG ITS INTENTION TO OBLER THE VACATION OF SURPLUS CITY RIQHi' 4101E-iAY L+OCATM ALONG 'PEE EAST SIDE OF LAURIE LANE, setting a public hearing for August 5, 1984, at 5:30 p.m., .as adapted. A copy of Resolution 84-85 is attached for your records. nsowrI ON No. -3'4f- rS- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OOS'TA MESA, CALIFURNTA, DECLARING ITS IMIMION TO ORDER THE VACATION OF SURPIIIS CITY RIGHT-OF- WAY LACATED ALIO[, THE EAST SIDE OF LAURIE LANE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DDL'� HEREBY RMLVE AS FOLLONS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa does hereby declare its intention to vacate surplus City right-of-way located alrxig the east side of Lawrie Lane, described as follows: Those portions of Lot 2 as shown on a map filed in Bode 182, Page 23 of Parcel Maps, records of the County recorder, Orange County, California, more particularly described as follows: Parcel 1: All that land lying 0.50 feet nortmesterly of the follao- Ing ribed line; beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 20- thence ;thence south 50000100* east 4.50 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 40000'42* east 121.22 feet. Parcel 2: All that land lying 1.00 feet southeasterly of the follar- Ing-5iscribed line; beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence south 50000100" east 4.50 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 40°00142" east 121.22 feet. RESERVIFG therefran an easement for all existing underground and overhead public utilities together with the right of ingress and egress for the purpose of maintaining, replacing, and upgrading said existing public utilities. SECTION 2. Monday, the 6th day of August, 1984, at the hour of 6:30 p.m., in the Council Charters of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa mesa, California, is hereby fixed as the time and place for hearing all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation. SECTION 3. These proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Section 8300 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. SECTIGN 4. The City Manager of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby direct cause notices of the said proposed vacation to be conspicuously posted alorg said strips of land for at least ten (10) days before the date of said hearing. Said notices shall be posted not more than three hundred (300) feet apart, but in no event shall less than three (3) notices be posted. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. PASSED AND ADDPTED this 2nd day of July, 19 ala D the Ci D CaSta Mesa C'04 Parcel 1: All that land lying 0.50 feet northwesterly of the follow- ing ollow- inng�scribed line; beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence south 50000100" east 4.50 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 40°00142" east 121.22 feet. Parcel 2: All that land lying 7.00 feet southeasterly of the follow- ing —gibed line; beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence south 50"00100" east 4.50 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 40000142' east 121.22 feet. PiNER IPG therefrom an easement for all existing underground and overhead public utilities together with the right of ingress and egress for the purpose of maintaining, replacing, and upgrading said existing public utilities. SDCPICN 2. Monday, the 6th day of August, 1984, at the hour of 6:30 p.m., n the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California, is hereby fixed as the time and place for hearing all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation. SECTION 3. 'hese proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to the prwisions of Section 8300 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. SWTICJN 4. The City Manager of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby direct -e73 notices of the said proposed vacation to be conspicuously posted along said strips of land for at least ten (10) days before the date of said hearing. Said notices shall be posted not more than three hundred (300) feet apart, but in no event shall less than three (3) notices be posted. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall be published once in the CPANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, Orarrae County, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July, 19 /l r/ Ma o C of Costa Mesa ATTEST: ,V'PROVE_D AS TO FQRM Deputy C#y Clerk of the City Of rT`� %' : •' �`'� :r Costa Mek§a rsTY ATTORNEY .84 ra o 41 o w trr U o� 41h w 7--1W4wo2C' N4 om o 0 QS i 0 .� '44 0 •.t �s } .f u t 206 AGENDA NO. r �93 . 183 East Bay Street M-84-112SITE LOCATION APPLICATION NO, AP 10.- — -426-191-16 - MANDATORY ACTION DATE May 30, 1983 APPLICANT Bishop of Prot. EpisCOPal 92PgUTH0RIZED AGENT Conrad Nordquist (owner of pyiCorai ADDRESS 1220 Nest 4th Strut ADDRESS 183 E. Bay Street Las Angeles, CA 90051 Costa 14--sa, CA 92627 REQUEST: nc } ;diE# . " =ti t : tt a analysis . and firsUms aid ming '33iv . 5 f- import, with APPLICANT NOTIFIED 0 DATE June 28, 1984 CITY OF COSTA MESA, 77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 0 w*th v�-Uke plants shall ler A#h of thr Fi--faot high wader the direct i m of the (5-0) (7141 754"5245 CMF 0260-30, ser. 1/152 207 Location 183 Fast ft _ Application ZE-84-1,12 Request Abandonment of 50_ of public right-of-way and a_31 public utility ease - went; variance from setback K22airements to legalize an existing block wall. SUBJECT PROPE RN : Zone PDR -HD General Plan High DensRy R@sldentia Lot Dimensions Lot Area 2.01 acres _ Existing Deve opwnrnt Church i Ings a: Development Standard Lot Size Lot Width Lot Area Density (Residential) Building Coverage Buildings Paving Open Space 'DOTAL Building Height Setbacks Front Side (left/right) Rear Parking Covered Open (Standard Size) (Ca pact ) (Handicapped) 'IAL Driveway Width interior LandscapiN SURRCMDU PROPERTY: North Rl/single-family, residence South Rl 6 R.2/nulti-family R.2/multi-familyresidences East Rl d -care center single/mlti West lti ie-famil de-velopnent. senior citizens housing proiect Code Requirement SIA w Not Applicable or No Requirement CEQA Status n t: CHS General Rule Final Action City Council _ Fr, _ �i Rff Protestant EpiaNV&I ClwdlAk dquist ZE-84-112 Page 1 (SR -7-42) 1. DESCRIMON See Planning Action Summa ry . II. PFWEM DESCRIPTIM A. Applicant proposes to legalize an existing 6' block wall that is con- structed 6" into the public right-of-way along Laude Lane. The wall was recently constructed without building peumits, and does not comply with a previously granted variance from setback. requirements. B. A variance from setback requi raments (ZE-84--38) , approved by Planning Commission on February 27, 1984, allowed the wall to be constructers approximately 3' to 4' behind the property line. Additionally, a Con- dition of Approval required the existing, mature trees to be retained to the greatest extent possible. Applicant has rred three of the existing trees without authorization from the City. III. PLANNIM STAFF ANALYSIS A. The present location of the wall will permit construction of a 4' wide sidewalk, although the proximity of the wall to the sidewalk may not allow two pedestrians to pass side--by-side, B. Abandorwwnt of 6" of the public richt-of-way does not preclude install- ation of nounal street hrprovemments, including a 4' sidewalk (measured from curb face to wall face) . C. Plant of the wall between the public utility easerent and the side- walk effectively eliminates usefulness of the 3' public utility easement. The primary purpose of the public utility easements P1,E) is not for installation of rater, sewer and electrical lines, but _or the purpose of providing roam for public fixtures, such as street ihts and fire hydrants. No utilities are located i n , or planners for, the easepTent area. Staff recommends abandonment of the public utility easement as the easemrent is not needed for the City's :.ti lization. 209 N. V. Ptrvtest " Episcopal ChurchA* dquist Wo -84-112 Page 2 (SR -7-42) U. The wall only partially screens church activities from the street and fkcm homes across Laurie Lane because there is a 21-3' grade difference between the base of the wall and the church courtyard area. Az it is not possible to install landscaping between the wall arra the sidewalk, Staff suggests that the applicant add trees and vine -like plants behind the wall. In order to soften the block wall, the vine -like plants should be installed to encourage a cascading growth over the outside of the wall. Trees behind the wall will soften the streetscape and pro-- vide ro^vide additional screening of church activities. They will also replace the mature trees that were rmoved without City approval. PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS A. Additional landscaping behind the wall will buffer church activities from adjacent residences and will soften an otherwise stark appearance of the wall. B. Abandonment of the 6" public right-of-way and the 3' public utility ease- ment will not preclude the installation of necessary street ir:xovemnts including a standard 4' sidewalk; additionally, the public utility ease•-- nent is not needed for installation of public fixtures such as street lights or fire hydrants. C. The evidence presented substantially satisfies ccr itions of set forth in Ccsta Dies, Municipal Code Section 13.347 in t1ot: location of the wall does not preclude installation of necessary right-of-way imprave- wants and therefore the requested variance is warranted on the basis of special circunkstances; additional landscaping will runimize visual impacts on the streetscape thereby making the project canpatible with subject and surrounding properties, and the project will not result in a use or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation for the property. PLANNING SWF RB03MMENDATICN 1. Approve variance from setback requi ranents, subject_ to condi t ions . 2. Reccamnd to the City Council abandonment of the pubii4 right-of-way and public utility easement. VI. CONDITIONS, IF APPRGVM Shall meet all of the requirements of t.the various City Departments, copy attached hereto. 210 ccPal ixrch/Nevdquist Z"4-112 OONDITIONS OF APPFMAL Plrg. 1. A minim+.m of fear 24" boat trees interspersed With vine -like plants shall be installed just inside, and along the entire length of the 6' high block wall and shall be properly irrigated, under the direction of the Planning Division. 2. The landscape and irrigation plan submitted in conjunction with the hous- ing project shall be amended to incorporate the plant materials required along the inside of the wall on Laurie Lane, under the direction of the Planning Division. PiANNIM CU44ISSION AMON - Meeting of June 25, 1984. Modification of Condition Pao. 1 to read: 1. A mi Timm of four 157gallon trees interspersed with vine -like plants shall be installed just inside and along the entire length of the 6 -foot high block wall, and shall be properly irrigated, under the direction of the Planning Division. PAS s t Li tj /r s C xg'-11 �wJ w r ' 04M 7 3 • r -.r � N � W .4 1 ur U .y Ci s t Li tj /r s C xg'-11 �wJ w r ' 04M 3 • r -.r � N � W .4 Ci L y U E � r�9 s t Li tj /r s C xg'-11 �wJ w r ' 04M 213 T, SA, CWY INTER OFFICE MEASORANOW __ 19 84 TDPlanningCaunission. FROM Perry L. Valantine, Senior pLanner akr- I Re: ST. JC*N THE DIVINE SENIORS HOUSINGY r1'VELCPME9r 2031 ORANGE PAME TREET �1133 EAST BAY S Ycu way be xiere of the complaints recently f iled with the City Council on tr*_- above project. For your infometion, and as you may gDon beccn* involved in res-d'Lution of the block wall i ss, je , I have attached a copy of the Staff's re pDrt on the al lega- tiom. Also attached is a copy of the letter sent to the church outlinia,- --heir apt ions relative to the wall. Nn (C-6-16) Attachments CC* neve lcpxent Services Direct .r Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Engineer Fire Protection Anaiyst Staff (4) File (2) May 18, 1984 Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist 183 East Bay Street Costa Mesa, California 92627 Dear r'beverend Nordquist. On Wednesday of ternoon, May 16, members of the Ci ty Staff ;net with yo'.:r cmtractor, L,ioyd Beach, regarding the blo& wall recently installed along Laurie Lane. it was agreed by all parties that the Wall had been constructed in aux improper location and wittaut benefit of buil iri3 pernits. While the variance (2E-84-38) apprcxred by the Plannin3 C.cxsmission on February 27, 1984, allowed the wall to be constructed approximately 3' W 4' behind the property line, actual construction of the wall places it 6" within the City riot -of -way. This has also plac:eu the wall between the sidewalk acid 3' public unity easement, effectively elimi- nating the usefulness of the easement. To accamrrociate constructions of the wall, three of the existing trees in the area dere ramwed without authorization fray the City. ;7mdition No. 1 ot the variance required that "applicant small retain the existing, mature trees to the greatest extent paesibla, under the direction of the Planning Divisi<:)n." There appear to be two aptions for solutions to the problgn: (1) Demolish the wall and reconstruct it at the approved location, or ( 2') Request abardorment of the 6" of right-of-way where the wall is located and request and )btain a setback variance to allay ttY: wall to remain at its present loca t ion . if the wall is allowed to zemin as constructed, it is likely that the City would also abandon the portion of 3' public utility easement which is located behind the wall. 215 loweived CanaA.. Mordyinst NOV 10, 1984 Page 2 The Planning Division is currently awaiting SMOKE of the landscape pian for the church parcel as required by Condition 025 of Zone Excep- tion Permit. ZE-82-88. Review of this plan will include consideration A apecieen trees to replace thaee removed without proper approval. in order to resolve these problems as quickly as possible, it is requested that action towmrd one c# the options outlined above t)e initiated no later than. M2ry 30, 1984. This is the final filing date for the P iann i ng Cassini hearing of lone 25 shall d you elect to request abandcnment of the right-of-way and a setback variance for the wail. For information or applications for the variance, please contact Kathryn Lottes, Associate Planner, at 154--5604. The 3U" high olock wall located along Laurie Lane at the rest bcandary of tie housing site was also constructed without +buildirg permits. As this wall has been completed and as the location appears praper, it is suggested that building permits be applied for as soon as possiole. Permits far use 6' well adjacent to church property may not ne applied for until the matters discussed above have been resolved. If you have any questions regarding the s i teat ion, please fee i free c^ call me at 774-5609. Sincerely, PERRL" L. V LANTINE Senior Planner PiV:hwm (C-8-56) cc: AM= Newton Kathryn, ottes 06 C A 1iYM 01FRCE MEMOIRANOW f 17 - , 19BA _.s UMFWWM TT— :- R Re: ST. JOHN THE DIVINE SENIORS HOUSING LEVELMMEW 2031 ORANGE AVENUE 183 EAST BAY STREET Mr. Robert Yoder has alleged several irregularities in the construction of the hous- ing development, block wall, and sidewalk at the refereneai location. The allega- tions and results of Staff investigation are detailed below. 1. DEDICATION Allegation: Insufficient dedication was taken for *F,p, sidewalk on the east side of Laurie Lane. Response: The 416" dedication required on the east side of the street equal- izes the two halves at 25' from centerline, allowing 4'6" fran back of curb to property line on both sides in accordance with City standards. A 3' public utility easement (P.U.E.) was ais%-) dedicated behind the now property line. 2. WAM LOCATION Allegatim- Block wall was not built in tam proper locations it should have been set back 3' to 4' behind the property line. Response: The Staff Report and approved plan for ZE-84-38, a variance to allow the wall to encroach into the reTuired 10' setback, indicate that the gall would be built 3' to 4' behind the property line, thus behind the P.U.E. Adjacent to the existing church buil_.: ings, the wall was actually constructed 4' behind the back of curb, encroaching 6" into the right-of-way. This pla-es the wall betoeen the sidewalk and the P.U.E. The portion of wall adjacent to the housing project was constructed 7' behind the back of curb. -hough this encroaches 4" into the P.M., there is sufficient nu,,n tum c=onstruct a standar6 width sidewalk. The wall gas con- structed without benefit of building permit. In addition, three of six existing trees were reiroved to accan X>_ date the wall. Condition #1 of ZE-84-38 required ,} ! ,r «f tine trees "to the greatest extent possible, under di ,_ ection c± '- Planni:,g Division." Planning Staff was not o sulted prior their removal. 3. SIDEWALK WiDN Allegation: Sidewalk width on the east side of the street is about 6" narrow -r than on the west side. PAN Ift 117. 2 Response: The standard sidewalk detail calls for a 4'4" sidewalk behind the curb and a 2" separation between the sidewalk and property line (to accannodate 2" by 4" forms) . The sidewalk on the west side of the street cmplies with this standard. Due to the encroachment of the now wall into the right-of-way, the area available for side- walk is reeked to 41; 4" less than standard. (The 2" space for forms is not required as the wail will act as a form.) 4. PDBUC UTILITY EPSEMM Allegation: Utility lines were installed under the sidewalk rather than in the P.U.E. because of the location of the new wall. Response-. Nccording to the contractor, electrical conduit was buried in the area where the sidewalk will be installed. Engineering Division permits are required to install utilities in the right-of-way or P.U.E. No such permits have been obtained. 5. CITY Allegation: Density approved for the housing project conflicts with the stan- dards of the axe. CMMC Section 13-252.1(b) indicates that the density of the residential component of a mixed use development is based on the "portion of the total site area devoted to resi- dential, uses, including required parking, landscaping, open space, and driveways to serve the residential canponent." Response: The project was approved on July 19, 1982, under ZE-82-88. A1 - though the Staff Report identified the density based on the entire site as IS units per acre, density of the residential portion ajone is approximately 40 units per acre. The Staff Report indicated that the excess density, above the 30 units per acre allowed ty the PUI--H© cone, was acccmplished by transfer of developmnt rights from the vacant portion of the church parcel to the residential parcel. This would reduce the number of units which could be cor,; structed on the remainder of the site in the future. In addition, a Condition of Approval was added requiring recordation --ii an agreement allowing joint use of parsing between the housing parcel and church parcel. The residents of the housing project wil 1 a I.sro have use of certain church facili ties for recreation/meeting rcX:ras. This would increase the land area availab'a for calculation of density in accordance with CMC Section 13-252..1(b). 218 6. CIMER Allegation: Mr. Yoder has heard rumprs that parking is being developed in the open space area to the west of the housing project at the end of Laurie Lane, aryl that retail stores may be installed on the lower level of the residential building. Response: Neither parking nor commercial activities have been approved in these areas; such amendments to the plan would require additional hearings by the Planning Ccmmission and City Council. The appear- ance of access for a parking lot may result from a gap in the block wall which has been left open for construction access. Masonry blocks are stockpiled near this area to cacmplete the wall, and this will be clone prior to ocaupany of the development. Of the allegations made, there appears to be validity to those relating tc the location of the block wail adjacent to the church buildings. The church has been advised of the two options available to remedy the problem: (1) Demolish the wall and reconstruct it at the approved location, or (2) Request abandonment of the 6" of right-of-way where the wall is located and obtain a setback variance to allow the wall to remain at the property line. If the setback variance is approved, tvie P.U.E. behind the wall my also be aban- doned. the Engineering Division indicates that abandonrfent of the 6" of right-of- way and P.U.E. should not significantly affect the design or impraRrement of public facilities in the area. Review of the required landscape plan for the churn: par- cel (required by Condition 125 of 2E-82-88 will include consideration of specimens trees to replace thosa removed without approval. hwm (C-4-92) cc: Doug Claris 219 Al ian M:jiKMr P,e jott"i I*vi�. ofvL-OF SUIlL Lkxb W (I UP AkLL f1i U"tUE LA�� va lant i no For ycxw t4omation, anr-' in case iou want tc, A on w, une n I aux Attached a copy rA trw letter vent to Keverenfj W-,rdqui;-.t out lini!-,, Lola rvocessari to loqolize tiv7r olock wall. 220 C-111 BY CUT& MESA G"Irgww A 22INWtan P. 0. box 1200 ' {►EYELDPM W WAVI[E: DEPARTMENT May 18, 1984 Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist 183 Fast Say Street Costa Mesa, California 92627 Dear Reverend Nordquist: On Wednesday afternoon, May 1£, members of the Civy staff met with your contractor, Lloyd Beach, regarding the block wall recently installer: along LaLtrie Lane. It was agreed by all parties gnat the wall had bee- constructed in an improper location and without benefit of building pe rani ts. While the variance (ZE-84-38) approved by the Planning Cannission ^n February 27, 1384, allowed the wail to be constructed approximately 3' to 4' behind the property lige, actual construction of the wall place= it 6' within the City right--of--way. This has also placed the wal between the sidewalk and 3' public utlity easa7ent, effectively elim_- nating the usefulness of the easement. To acca uodate construction c t'"e wall, three of the existing trees in the area were removed withour authorization from the City. Condition No. .l the variance requirc-4 that "applicant shall retain the existing, etjre trees to the greatest extent possible, ;ander the direction of the Pleasing Division." There appear to be two options for solution to the problem: (1) Demolish the gall and reconstruct it at t,' approved location., or (2) Request abandonment of t} e V of right-of-way where the wa1 is located and request and obtain a setback variance to allcy'.d the wall to remain at its present lxation. If the wall is allowed to remain as constructed, it is likely that the City would also abandon the portion of 3' public utility eiset>ler` whim is located behind the wall. Building Division (714; 7554.5626 Ccde Enfc ceme-ItBusiness Ltc4rse i.714?54-52334 77 FAA R D9WE Pk,rviLrg 1-4.'5).)!1 1 i I , 21� My I8. 1984 Page 2 The Planning Division is c urrercly awaiting submittal of the landscape Plan for the church parcel as required by Condition #25 of Zone Excep- tion Permit ZE-82-88. Review of this pian will include consideration of specimen trees to replace those removed without proper approval. In order to resolve these probleas as gxickly as possible, it is requested that action toward one of the options outlined above be initiated no later than flay 30, 1984. This is the final filing date for the Planning Caaadssion hearing of ,lune 25 should you elect to request abandonment of the right-of-way and a setback variance for the wall. For information or applications for the variance, please contact Kathryn Lottes, Associate Planner, at 754-5604. The 30" high block wall located along Laurie Lame at the west boundary of the housing site was also constructed without building permits. As this wail has been completed and as the location appears .)roger, it is suggested that building petmits be applied for as soon as possible. Permits for the 6' wall adjacent to church property may not be api,iied for until the matters discussed above have been resolved. If ycu have any questions regarding the situation, please feel free to wall ire at 754-5,)UD. Sincerely, PEM L�'.AIAANTINE Senior Planner PLV : hwstt (C-8-56) cc: Victor Newton Kathryn Lottes pjwa 010 '0 AM PWW IP 1111111APHOW PACIFIC R ICH: 5 Third met, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94103 MO SCOW AVON Is* 4fti 9"14111111111111W YON(, N.Y. loci i 42121 "I -OM 01 AGENT: Charter Insurance Agency, 510 5hatto Place, Los Angeles, CA 5000 Quarterly premium $262.00 Policy Type: Comprahmsive Policy Into. _ Renewws Policy No. P-2101-0(}8 Certificate - Account No.—.-.,- 2879 _ Named In red and Post Office Addres ; The Bi silo of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Los A ---- _ nge es, a corporation oTe, eta - -- -_ P. 0. Box 2164, Los Angeles,_Ca1if_orrtia_90051__ _ Policy Period: From _April 1, 1483- - - To April 1, 19136__ - Noon Stannard Time at the location of the described ��at 16 1t,JYls@pidCt?llfent rC35t Location and description of Premises: --_.--_4_ _— ill nq ---- Contents St. John the Divine Church, Costa -Mesa_ aj Church 183 East Bay Street b Ioo $274,04.6 _ - $27,390 Included IncIuded Coinwranceclausetsl_ Coverages A & B - 90% (Agreed Amunt Endorsement) Loss Deductible Clauses): Co-v-6-rage--sA-U�.- 1 sappearingvat $500; Coverages D -None; coverages �. ��-ander:-Cbj - I --fTat eac+; ocrurret Form:Applying: - , X7;8 a I8 S=73r; =�1 T-8[1 CP�1� and 25rt2flw7R) ; - an3�E"III .I.4�I I �$ t 18A 11- 771 and cartifipte ixst�ad St. -J in__the._piYine._ Edi_scopal_ __Churcft- __._...- Address: 183 East _Bay_Sireet, Costa- Mesa z_ CA 92627 This is tr) Certify that the desuibed policy providing, subiect to the terms thereof• the ins4irance set forth abovo has b•.. cc i lav theCompanyandisinforceart this date. The insurance afforded is Only with respect to such and so many of the Covoran, a limit of liabdky' is owtt. In the event thill 000ef b om Hetd, the Company agrees to notify the mortgagee r Med herein tw°nty (20) days prior t,. ceilation. Notifttef Certified mail shall be ckemer' to he sufficient notice. If, a�ltisf to notify the pity to 4vhom th s certifiCato ' , issued said caiieellat+Ortel Arlo Dn tlt�, r par,; to gtye sri 111 FW *Ott -.Vt. hoVltevet, impose r•ly ll.fb{lity on its Bart. fes/ p �y 13dtt!rl March 1, r9C3 ,,qr� l+��i •/ ��r..�y.�el f 223 crqur'nil 1q-761 Limit o'F Liability W— W COVERAGETT� Perils Insured Against Ps 33,404,964 A- & B. Building(sl & Pe�rsonat Property irL,ghlnina. SECTION C Loss of Inrn me _ _ - -. - - - - - �- _.._ R. Additronat Expense E xtenderf CpVP+a4e, vandal sm; Mar _ ous A4 ech,<>. i a� SDer:1ar, Cove-a�e,_ i S QQQ I Property $ over E. Fane Arts and Other Valuable EL]uipment - -- E�a�rhPtl. 1ncivetnq Mortes 81 S,-curiiies - ----- -__... _..-- - --- ' ----- . comp'enensrVP:as% - AVi R-sk - - __ - - .....- - --- - 1 r5 S Per Farm CP -5 ry�,ry S 1,000 s -Per oral C. -5 S H. Other4sl s 1,500 E. W Theft, Excluding Monies COVERAGE Securities Limit of Liability SECTION ll LiaW ity Covera" S 2,Csa0,W0 Y uab,tity - Cornprehens ve - Persrrtal 1njurylPr0tserty Damane aaC" r.Cr etrPhCs Products - Aggregate Limit of Liability — Ii MMedFml PgVmenr_s - Each Person T Mod+cal Payments Each Occurrence - s 2,000,=_ $I 'UW /� __....____... S 5,000 S K. Otherlsl, — -- -- - -- - --- i - Coinwranceclausetsl_ Coverages A & B - 90% (Agreed Amunt Endorsement) Loss Deductible Clauses): Co-v-6-rage--sA-U�.- 1 sappearingvat $500; Coverages D -None; coverages �. ��-ander:-Cbj - I --fTat eac+; ocrurret Form:Applying: - , X7;8 a I8 S=73r; =�1 T-8[1 CP�1� and 25rt2flw7R) ; - an3�E"III .I.4�I I �$ t 18A 11- 771 and cartifipte ixst�ad St. -J in__the._piYine._ Edi_scopal_ __Churcft- __._...- Address: 183 East _Bay_Sireet, Costa- Mesa z_ CA 92627 This is tr) Certify that the desuibed policy providing, subiect to the terms thereof• the ins4irance set forth abovo has b•.. cc i lav theCompanyandisinforceart this date. The insurance afforded is Only with respect to such and so many of the Covoran, a limit of liabdky' is owtt. In the event thill 000ef b om Hetd, the Company agrees to notify the mortgagee r Med herein tw°nty (20) days prior t,. ceilation. Notifttef Certified mail shall be ckemer' to he sufficient notice. If, a�ltisf to notify the pity to 4vhom th s certifiCato ' , issued said caiieellat+Ortel Arlo Dn tlt�, r par,; to gtye sri 111 FW *Ott -.Vt. hoVltevet, impose r•ly ll.fb{lity on its Bart. fes/ p �y 13dtt!rl March 1, r9C3 ,,qr� l+��i •/ ��r..�y.�el f 223 crqur'nil 1q-761 -j a 8 41 0 N-4 -j a i 6 44 4-4 0 Ul $4 224 N-4 (n C14 i 6 44 4-4 0 Ul $4 224 N-4 (n i 6 44 4-4 0 Ul $4 224 � _ t 'M.444 .S iiILL#I 8Y THE COSTA XESA PLAN G 141 SUON AT THE CITY HALL, 77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AT 6:30 P.M* OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE THERE- AFTER ON MOWAY, JUNE 25* 1984. REGARDING THE F©LLUWING APPLICATION LASE EXCEPTICN PERMIT ZE'--84-112 rOR Lit"NRAP NJKDQUIST, AUTtACRIZEO AGENT FOR THE dISHGP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCCPAL CHURCH, A CORPORATIGN SQLE, 122u 'WEST FUijklti STREET, LOS ANGELES, FUR ABA:NDCNMENI L� 611 ijf- PURL,IC RIGHT-LiF-WAY. AND VARIANCE FVUM SETBACK REQUiR,FMENTS TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTI4G 9LGCK ix ALL LCrArEO AT 1�i3 EAST BAY STREET IN AN Rl 10NE. ENV IRONMENT4L. JETCRMIN— ATION: EXEMPT. A.P. NO. 426-191-01 RUORLGUEZ, JC ANN 152 E 20TH ST COSTA MFLSA, CAL 12627 A.P. NO, 425-191--03 GUMP 9 -pi 0 1241.2 H AL EY ST SiN VALLEY, CA ?1:352 A.P. NO, 426-191-05 UENG, TAKENCRI 166 E 20TH ST COSTA 4tSA9 CAL w027 A.P. WO. 4?6-191-07 ISHIHARA, ROBERT N 1947 `3xANIG E AVE GUST A 'DESA, CAL 92627 A.P. NO* 420-191-0'+ 4flbDHEA0, WILLIAM H 15 3 L BCNN1 f 300N NF�OPOkT BEACH, CA 92vb0 A.P. N04 426-191-11 ALBERSs ILA JEAN 2012 URANGE AVE MESA, CA 125 2 1 £~'4.N..LTTE• �A 1-F �� mil L +.• rr A.P. ISL). 426-191-02 SHORESr uENE L , !4C K[NZIE. RCGER G 2625 ''sEST',fl!i5T=R PL COST: MESA, iA 926C7 A. P. NIL. 4?6-191-94 1 4 E 20Tl 51' A.P. ri:�. 42;`,—L. I-Jb WAL S -it. JGSFPH T 17= E2�Th :T COSTA�2tc2 4.13. ,r 426-I91-ob 14JImA g1LLIAA T 13-1 --a L 2-T�4 C' STA `AEs'%' LA 1;2ti,27 EVAN, A/.` PC. "��'��. ,542 -I-)1-10 11 1 - 3 E ST Cl ---JT 1 '�EsAr --Al. 2r, i A, P. 'Nt;. 42h—l;,1-12 RS, ILA JEA'i C..+ST t �+LLi ?. 1•k;. IT 225 PLANN%ING DEPT A.P. 40. 426-191-15 PAUL WEN S 18012 STARMUNT LN HUNTINCTUN BLACHr CA92649 A.P. NL?. 426-1Y1-17 LEEWARD APARTMENTS LTD 17635 VENTURA BLVD 4213 ENCINut CA 91316 A.t'. NO. 426-191-19 TEULIFr DOUGLAS J 920 ALEPP` NEWPOkT t3tACHo CAL 92660 A.P. ,N 426-191-21 LEt)IN, RUDER TR 2036 FULLERTON AVE COSI A MESA* CA 92627 A.P. ii,. 426—IG1-23 SAVNJEicS,, EDWARD C TR 8229 ,i CALirLIR IA hVE WHITi[Ekv CA 94602 A.P. +NOo 426-19[-02 SAXTUNr w ILL iAM W 1118 0ERKS14IRE LN NE wPGRT 3EACH9 CA 926bo A -P. NO. 426--192-04 HECK* CHRISTINE B 173 BUOY ST LGSTA MESAr CA 92627 A.A. NO. 426-192-06 LUKE I, ALAN F 36 ASHWOOD IRVINE* CA 92714 4.p. N'J. 425-192-j3 GILBERT, SUSAN v 197 BUOY ST 0,135T'A ME SJis CA 92627 A, P. NO. 426-191-16 CHURCH* RISHOP CF PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL IN 1. A MR) I CHURCH, ST JCKN DIVINE. 2043 DRANGF AVF 92623 A.P. Nu. 426-1�,I-ld CUS I CK, 40kR I S W 229 19TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CAL 1420t.) A.P. N . 42`3-t 31-2J KENT, RcackT C 2032 FiJLLErTtsta AV APT A COSTA MESA, CAL '12627 A.P. 3;;. �t2t,-1'yl-22 PiCASICIA, STACY 2040 FULLEPT: N AvE #A ::OSTA `AESA, CAI 1,252. 7 -1.P. "i . YUDEP * kErPER f f 155 5u0lY ST COSTA 4E iA, CAL `f261 t A.P. VC. 4. -1 ,2-;3 JAR. LL MBs LEJ F lel 3uoy ST C, -STA MESA, LA 261r A. p. 1114c. it iU-L-i2-;`J JENNER, JA4ES L 179 E OuCY ST )STA -AF SA, 'AL i2t27 A. P. iU. 426-- 1'-)2— f 7 JACK, GE04tc;f P 191. BUOY S7 A.P. 42 — L , STEINNI,USEk. ""1�.tLY's 1_ Fi AL 19b E RAY (;--STA MF rAl 0 0 226 A.P. NO* 426-•192-10 MURPHY# JADES E 190 E BAY ST COSTA MESA• CAL 92627 A.P. NG. 426--192-12 SKGRG, VAL 16J1 BAYP.DERE TER GRONA DEL MAR, CAL 92625 A.P. *40. 426-192-1+4 ROLFE, EDWIN H 2523 VISTA BAYA NEWP6RT BEACH, CAL 92660 A.P. NU. 426-192-16 HILL, HA;',RY J 154 BAY 5T COSIA MESA, CA 92627 A.P. NO. 42�-201-03 ALSERS. HALTER F 2012 GRANGE AVE COSTA MESA, CA 92627 A.P. "ifs. 426-231-05 FOREHAND, JACK P 213 SiERKS ST COSTA 4ESA, C.A 921-27 A.P. IAC. 426-232--J3 FENTON* PETER J TR %KING, M E 2040 URANGE AVE COSTA MESA, CAL 92627 A.P. NG. 426-20Z---';5 IELLC, ARTHUR 516 TOSTIN AVE NEMPUkT BEACH, CA 92b,6I A,*P.. NO. 421,y-202-01 SPARKS, ARVI L 710 S ANAHEIM BLVD #332 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 A.P. N%'J. J926 -2J2-313 :J SER r WAR GAk ET E TR 1645i MALDEN CIR HUNT INGTUN BEACH# EAV2649 A.P. NO. 426--192-11 CRILLY, JAMES 184 E BAIT ST COSTA MESA& GAL 9262"r A.P. NU. 426-192-13 EFNCHAK, VIR61NI A M 172 E BAY ST COSTA MESA, CA 92627 A.P. NO. 426-192-15 ASHCROFT, WILLIA-A T S 160 E RAY ST CGSiA MESA, CAL 92626 A.P. %n. 42v-20i1—i}2 4 AALTE� r- 2012 CLRANu L COSTA MESA, CAO 92627 A.P. ,,. 4 e,—_31—J)4 LEAKE, KE'TNE.Tn J 2022 OPANGF svF COSTA .MESA, CAL ti "1.627 A.P. Ni:. 42-L1—i4 PETERKA, JOHN L 216 E 20TH ST COSTA MESA, CA 92627 A. P. 111.. 42t-21)2-04 wHITEHFAJ. BwnvY 2044 .li;'IANGE A'vr COSTA DESA, CAL 92627 A.P. 'Y;i. 4 6-202—uo SPARKS* ARVIL 20356 URA%:GE VE CUSTA MESA• CA 92b27 q/y 0 - C UUUF�vt ALP! -RT 2066 Ok4NGE :+r' i-OSTA 14ESA, CAI- %. .I- 9?0? L,ARG14, L.J15 227 227 SHEPW01") PL WSrA MESAr CA '2617 A.P. -NO. 426-2J2-49 A. P. NO. 4&6-2 ]2—r,`) FARRELL. RC3FRT L ET AL BARR, THOMAS A �T AL 22S R05INHOOD PL 218 SIERKS ST LDST.A MESA, CA 52627 COSTA MLSA1j f,A 92627 M r 1 A.P. NO. 426-232-60 A.P. NO. 426-202-63 ASST STANCE LEAGUE OF STANCE LEAvi3w a7� NEWPGkT 8EAGN CAI.IFURNIA NE001( H 535 32NO ST 505 32N7 ST NEWPORT 3EACii, CA 42663 IEWPCRT BEACH* CA x2663 0 0 228 is RCZL- 71 3 ,RAR Z E I� ORAA4F'ilF el —Ce -TT.9F STA MESA AA4NMM&Wr w= - g91ri1 5i •It a /YNrry !K? ty f11t! gw7+N 229 F M 00 —4 43 m .�i F r"L 41 e1i v -I co vi flpsta Men, CA 9206 (7114) 754-5245 (base Sae Instruction Shaet) alum APPLICATION NO. (s) (Office We Only) Assessors Parcel No. AP i s per Naps, 19&A* CEGA QKNI r1alp Fiwi aaa ku-- Zone Hvg-&W Genera(Ptan Designation " — .- REQUEST: Abandcxm nt of 6" of public right­of-way-, and variance from setback re- gUireMEntS to legalize an existing block wall. Planning Commission Hearing - 6:30 p.m. _--- �Staff Review Only, You will be notified by mail of t1W final decision Appi+cation Ready to Process W09N COMPLLTED, PLEASt RETURN ALL COVES TO PUNNING DIVISION. 7' a MF 0602.30 ray. 7183 wrnts - City Clarx or Planning; Canary - Applicant; Pink , Finance; Goloenroe . Authorized Agent 230 1, (1)ZLIi.,) h/ -6 .72 M Pim �2: u I S L..�_� , hereby apply f�he Planning Actionls) as indicated below on my property which is described as follows: (2) Address: : 3 ;E 17.4+e ? T - - --- - 13) PLANNING ACTION(S) REQUESTED Account No. (Dffice UM) �i Zone Exceptions) Fee A. Variance(s) No. 013111DD09 S CU B. ❑ Conditional Use Permits) No. 0131110009 Development Review 013111 0009 Subdivision: A. :E Tentative Map of Tract - 01 31 1 20004 B. ❑ Parcel Map C. 0, Lot Line Adjustment 013112DD04 Planned Development Review A. C Preliminary B. El, Final 0131110009 General Plan Amendment 013111 0009 El Rezone 013111 ()009 - Other ►yty_�__ :f..Y ^�f� Negative Declaration €nvironmenta4 Impact Report - 0131190706 Z At NF = No Fee Required by Ordinance Total Fee S r W ALL REQUIRED PIANS AND DOCUMENTS ATTACHED (See Appropriate Instruction Sheets) c 15) PLANNING ,ACTION DESCRiPTIONIJUSTiFICATION FORM ATTACHED. ea }„ W APPLICANT (Property Owner Only) T pe or Prinz Y Y I attest under penalty at law to the truth and > correctness of all facts exhibits, maps and � E i�► • 1�di' P` .P."� .ld� attachments presented with and made a part ( al5vrty owner) � of this application. of tMahsMg ACCT (7) t hereby 3uthorize 0 to act as r.,v •epresentat1we and to b+nd me - — in all matt --s concerning this application (CitY:Statel2lo) ?hone: 2 1 3 -- Z — -1—-117 �. l`I �t1-1 V I_nt. s - ,} csi (Aria Coo!) Signature - AppkCant (Property Owner (9) AUTHORIZED AGENT Type or Print Subscribed and Sworn t0 before.rtze ms 0 LWTnd.14"'eyL ti day of t9 enw;z.a neem) `` -- -- (Mailing rA46rren) / Signature I Ury# (SEAL} (CityfStatelzip) Phone: i - S L� �'--Ari 21 Z (Office We Only) Assessors Parcel No. AP i s per Naps, 19&A* CEGA QKNI r1alp Fiwi aaa ku-- Zone Hvg-&W Genera(Ptan Designation " — .- REQUEST: Abandcxm nt of 6" of public right­of-way-, and variance from setback re- gUireMEntS to legalize an existing block wall. Planning Commission Hearing - 6:30 p.m. _--- �Staff Review Only, You will be notified by mail of t1W final decision Appi+cation Ready to Process W09N COMPLLTED, PLEASt RETURN ALL COVES TO PUNNING DIVISION. 7' a MF 0602.30 ray. 7183 wrnts - City Clarx or Planning; Canary - Applicant; Pink , Finance; Goloenroe . Authorized Agent 230 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION For Office Use Only: Project Number, -- Date Received/By �� �`� O g Zone General Plan Designation c ° Recommendation Applications for projects in the City of Costa Mesa cannot be processed until an initial study of environmental impacts has been completed and an exemption granted or a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report prepared. Please fill out the following and return (with- preliminary simians, including location and size, of all existing structures and trees) fine (b) worki da for to submittiN your a _R lication: Location of Project 1 � 3 z ` Submitted by Mailing Address ' f /-7- r.J/ Date Phone�r �/ . - -, ., Zip Code 4 - Not all projects will necessitate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. In order to make a determina- tion as to whether any significant environmental impacts may result from the proposed project, the above informa- tion is necessaru. 231 As soon as possible, the Environmental Evaluator will determine whether or not the project will require an Er,L'zron- mental Impact Report and will notify the project sponsor according) V. RE J-iA NA f' - D Ake ;'IC, F kk e SVfrAr.lj Li� F ir IALL 232 A! C$ WOW 4: WIDS ce*'Jc 54CS04W si MULTI L A Ake ;'IC, F kk e SVfrAr.lj Li� F ir IALL 232 HY '>TKIEFT ,� � •----i-'-- ----- - `�__..__-__ �i.nw r ►1�U.] 'moi 40 ~� W _ L-4 kit OhCOC cmc Swa i a* wtfit' � �►r��r. s 4 - `i' - y y ti I i 1L! Xur N Lit : 200" I - - i ; vv • 1+{fit] COW WALL MfUt � LtliL' =_8 -�?I 233 CF' OWNTNA WMA 7711%k e CoCeti 92626 (714) 754-5245 PLANNING ACJr'ION DESCRIMONJJUSI`IFICATION (Please See Instructions) t l y Project Location 193 E. Bay Street. (along Laurie bane) ('_) Describe Project ,and Request(s) Abandonment of 6" of right-of-way where the wall was constructed according to variance ?.E-84-0 , and a set -back variance to allow the wall to remain in its present location as well as the abandonment of the 3' public utility easement located behind the wall, If application is for Conditional Use Permit(s). answer the following- Describe now the proposed use is substantially compafible with uses permitted in the same general area and how the pro- posed use would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the same ar; a (4) If application is for Variance(s), answer the following. GoYernment Code Section 65906 states: "Variance from the terns of the toning ordinance shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography. location or surround- ings, strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification." Describe how your request for a variance(s) meets the above Government Code requirement. The .granting of this variance l+ouid conform to Government Code Section 65906 because it would acknowledge that the wait, constructed according to the intent of all parties Mould conform to the drawings, which had previously been approved. 234 CMF ¢803.36 i7S 6Z r-7.�/U vv s e i 235 J, �I-73Y-ZS 4V67 M V T- ,v- /Z�c 236 237 S"'sA*lsrRp y,taw r r- 1L __ ..._ - .•.r�� _.. _.. __. --.. �_ _ - "�� -� _w t t' F�6E A)ALt. + ABET M90P LAE "'a �•�' 238 too CL 239 ]�OD w 239 Yaa tAC. N Ar-. T W rr 1A.7 car - W" low Moir SAUD"W' UL 49 L MF 0" 4: WIM C*iJc IL Exl-:�-llt: MULTI !"itrCol L -N -mc Wit;' 26D%A /W cow VvCN %Oate. "PO MSET 5ue!5-A��- 4 9N& Up 240 -.:-� aft, Ak MVELOPkUNT URVICU DIPARTMI"T Building Safety Division Business License Division CbnYmicrtions County Adridnistration Office County Clerk County Registrar of voters Cotmty Tax Assessor Engineering Division. --(2) Finance, Revenue Division Fire Prevention Manager, MID Mesa Cansolidated Vbter District Newport -Masa Unified School District (2) Pacific Telephone CaqDiny (2.). Police Department - Ping. & Research Santa Ana Heights Water Cmp3ny Sanitary District Engineer Southern California Edison Co. Southern California Gas Co. State Board of Equalization Street Division United States Post office, Adams Avenue United States Post Office, Santa Ana Zip 4 - Santa Ana File (2) The City of Costa Mesa wishes to advise you that, io aorrjunction with a new pro- ject, the following addresses have been changed: '183 East Bay Street A 183 East Bay Street * See attached plan NEW ADDRESS* Parcel 2 - IL03 East Bay Street Parcel 1 - 2031 Orange Avenue A.P. We 426-191-16 426-191-16 For your convenience we are listing the agencies above that we have notified of the change. In addition to those listed,, you are advised to notify your correspondents of the change in order to avoid any possible interruption of mail service. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, MILLIE SUMMEFLIN Associate Planner MS-.hwm (F-1-81) cc: Rev. Conrad A. Nordquist 183 East Bay Street Costa Mesa, California 92627 Code Enforcement/Business License (714) 754-5234 Building Division (714) 7643626 Manning Division (714) 754-5245 77 FAIR DRIVE 241 sd i l Vus SWT L V0600uLAt94VU 4W ISOLdpw Mt.. RM M �1. Y�Mi:.M� Ch fpC� 4 . �1am• WhIMMSEM _ pM,'qL AWWANL sale&"*ALi Wn ,qa*L rr M W# MM -A arm rtit�.MWTl- --voo affd +Fo w+sa's 91.. •iws as. Lo doL� a. "a p4wsww ..aas•.d eusrw abbsd c V%ANLN '�•r 3 ji v 3 14ffimw� am Ift off 3 • ga� nw►.►nsx a•Mos•eeu� um wwwrisr� ap 31 Oran �r- u comr ..�. I- rwwcwo+ti wroc nar•r'n ,C►p syusrwc s ►rT 'NINE PA= MAP S -82-38t Hey.Np st,/ Epi.s=)al Bish#7 183 Bav Street (2) Pacific 7whophapo company ( 2 ) Police 13".1 rt AV, RMO%;V6 Santa W700*& NOW chn;OMY Witary Witclet Engineer Soothe California Edisan Co. Southern California Gas Cu. State Doard of Equalizatboarl Stroet Division Unit& Statfehs -0061, Avenue, 4iited States Vmt )*-f ice, gwita. ZiQ 4 - 5asta Ana File (2) The City, of Costa Mesa iWL11jig to advise you that, in Oanjunction with a now pr'01- nott we fulowinj Wdres= have teen dhanuou: 01r..) iLZORMI, -- IM -1 - W. MW 133 Last Say Street warcol 2 - 103 FAst say Street 05051-51 L;3 ZASt StreeL Parcel 1 - 2031 Male Avenw, 426-19WIC * See attached plan "'or ,"- rX tt* C`ary,.P. Xti addition. t� tIrEe yw dr -a advis,-<I to notiiy ycx.,r cceivajandarets of the diwwp- in onKv tD ew)ij a, xszDsle interruptim cjl: sail service. Ibur cooperation in his matter is rt,r,Leciated- Sincerely, MI ULM XIMMI 14, IN Associate Plarnmner cc-, IVA.7, CoriraCl A. lu L;a�Iit Ccxit.i *sar Califqmia 92 +17 243 PH -4 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MINUTES OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MAY 26, 2015 3:30PM CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mr. Shaw at 3:30 p.m. in Conference Room 1A at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair Terry Shaw, Members: Jeff Arthur, Howard Hull, Robert Juneman, Tom Pollitt, Richard Riva, Mayor's Designee - Katrina Foley Staff Present: Interim Finance Director Stephen Dunivent, Assistant Finance Director Colleen O'Donoghue, Revenue Supervisor Jennifer King, Executive Secretary Kathy Ulrich Members Absent: Vice -Chair Jim Fisler, Members: Christopher Graham, Colin Smith, CEO Tom Hatch PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. MEMBER'S REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS There were no member comments. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Meeting of April 28, 2015 — MovedlSecond: Richard Riva/Jeff Arthur The motion carried, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Terry Shaw, Jeff Arthur, Howard Hull, Bob Juneman, Tom Pollitt, Richard Riva Nays: None Absent: Jim Fisler, Christopher Graham, Colin Smith, Tom Hatch Abstain: Katrina Foley Motion carried: 6-0-1 OLD BUSINESS — a) BUSINESS LICENSE UPDATE Ms. King updated the Committee on the status of business licenses — applications and on-line renewals, as well as the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) data sharing UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED program. The Committee has asked Staff for estimated costs associated with the Business License program, to include mailings and staff time. NEW BUSINESS - a) INTRODUCE NEW FINANCE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Mr. Dunivent introduced new Treasury Management staff; Melynda Shank, Matt Schmelzel and Jon Kondo, and Budget staff: Anna Baca and Dustin Bim. b) FILLED & VACANT REGULAR FULL-TIME POSITION UPDATE Mr. Dunivent updated the Committee with a chart indicating filled & vacant full-time employees, but will be updated to reflect part-time employees too. c) CAPITAL ASSET IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE Mr. Dunivent reviewed the draft ordinance, followed by discussion. A motion was made by Mr. Pollitt, seconded by Mr. Riva to accept the draft as written. The motion carried, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Jeff Arthur, Howard Hull, Tom Pollitt, Richard Riva Nays: Terry Shaw, Bob Juneman Absent: Jim Fisler, Christopher Graham, Colin Smith, Tom Hatch Abstain: Katrina Foley Motion carried: 4-2-1 The ordinance is scheduled to go to Council at the June 161h Council meeting. d) THE MILLS ACT Mr. Dunivent and Mr. Shaw explained the concept of the Mills Act, which is sometimes difficult to qualify for and homeowners have to maintain and rehabilitate their structures if necessary. e) FY 15-16 PRELIMINARY BUDGET UPDATE Mr. Dunivent updated the Committee on the upcoming budget adoption, scheduled to go to Council at the June 161h Council meeting. OPEN DISCUSSION / FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Business License Updates ■ Business Development • Dashboard request on the City website for the FAC • Meet new Finance personnel ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. to the regular meeting on June 30 at 3:30 p.m. Terry Shaw, Chair 7.FCC� IGL�%GGCtIc.�.l-" Stephen Dunivent, Interim Finance Director PH -1 -ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS e®v IIID III i I I I M June 6, 2015 LEGACY PARTNERS Ms. Claire Flynn City of Costa Mesa Rental Real Estate 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 Property Management RE: Proposed 2015 update to the Park In -Lieu Impact Fees (Park Fees) Acquisitions Dear Claire, Development Construction As a follow up to our conversation last week, I am writing to seek clarification regarding the Management proposed update to the Park Fees which will be in front of the City Council in late June or early July. Financial Services While the new park fees would appear to apply to 580 Anton since it is a residential development Marketing project (which is currently in plan check where building permits are still pending), it is not clear Services about the intent to apply the new park fee to projects approved under previously approved vesting Design Services tentative tract maps. Renovations As you know, the 580 Anton project actually has a vested tract map, however, will be developed, held and operated as luxury rental (apartment) project. Under the conditions of approval for the project the Park Fees were established at $7,829 per unit. Similar to other recently approved apartment projects in the City of Costa Mesa (Symphony Towers & Baker Street/Red Oak), 580 Anton is providing a high level of amenity, recreation and open space within the project. In the case of 580 Anton, we anticipate investing over $4,250,000 in these areas including improving a portion of the common area adjacent to the lake which is also accessible to the public. In the event, the City Council does approve the Alternate 2 proposal, i would ask that they consider the applicability of the reduced apartment fee to the 580 Anton project. Based upon the level of amenity and recreation space in the project, I believe it is justified. While the new Park Fee would be higher than both Symphony Towers and Baker Street/Red Oak rental projects, it would be more in line than the current Park Fee and help reduce the current competitive advantage these projects have over 580 Anton. Similar to Symphony Towers, we would be prepared to enter into a covenant agreement prohibiting us from filing a condo regime without the payment of the higher fee structure associated with Condominium developments. I appreciate yours and the City Council's consideration and clarification on this matter. Please contact me if you would like to discuss or have any questions. SincerelXanaging Timon SenioDirector 5141 California Avenue, Suite I D0, Irvine, CA 92617 Legacy Partners • T: 949.930.6600 F: 949.833.3062 www.legacypartnerLcom PH -1 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. It ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER BIA August 4, 2015 Mayor Stephen Mensinger and Honorable Councilmembers City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair View Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PARKLAND IMPACT FEES Dear Mayor Mensinger and Honorable Councilmembers, On behalf of our membership, we would like to offer comments on the proposed update to the City's Parkland In -Lieu Fees Program (Parkland Impact Fees). We would like to thank City staff for their outreach and for the opportunity to review the proposed fee adjustment. The Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter (BIA / OC) is a non-profit trade association of over 1,000 member companies employing over 100,000 people affiliated with the home building industry. The Orange County Chapter represents the largest member base within BIA Southern California. Our mission is to champion housing as the foundation of vibrant and sustainable communities. After review of the City staff's report related to the proposed Parkland Impact Fees, we would like to offer our support for the reduction from the current fee program for Single Family and Multi -Family Owner dwelling units (condominiums) as enumerated in Alternative 1 within the staff report. Additionally, with the numerous recreational amenities offered in newly constructed apartments, we would like to urge the council to consider a lower apartment fee due to the already high cost of housing as it stands today. Housing costs in our region are affected greatly by development fees. Statewide, Orange County is second only to the Bay area in terms of housing costs. We encourage the City to maintain its in -lieu park fees at the lowest rate possible in accordance with the requirements of State law. As always, we remain a resource to the City on important issues that are related to the well-being of our local communities. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Respectfully, Michael Balsamo Chief Executive Officer PRESIDENT JOAN MARCUS-COLVIN THE NEW HOME COMPANY VICE PRESIDENT JIM YATES RANCHO MISSION VIEJO TREASURER PHIL BODEM TAYLOR MORRISON SECRETARY MIKE GARTLAN KB HOME IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT DONNA KELLY LENNAR TRADE CONTRACTOR V.P. ALAN BOUDREAU BOUDREAU PIPELINE CORPORATIO ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT MARK HIMMELSTEIN NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP MEMBER -AT -LARGE MIKE MCMILLEN TRI POINTE HOMES MEMBER -AT -LARGE SCOTT STARKEY STARKEY COMMUNICATIONS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MICHAEL BALSAMO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Tonight's City Council Meeting From: Janet Krochman Sent: Tuesday, August4, 2015 8:44 AM To: Mayor <Mayor@costamesaca.gov> Cc: RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIG HEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; MONAHAN, GARY <GARY.MONAHAN@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Tonight's City Council Meeting Good Morning Gentlemen: will be speaking tonight on the City's Homeless Population and its impact on Harbor Blvd businesses (as that is my only direct area of knowledge). In the last week, I have had three visits to the office building at Baker & Harbor, one in the middle of the day. Two calls to CMPD-one resulted in arrests (I believe but have yet to confirm). The impact to my business alone has been substantial and it has been an issue since I moved in one year ago. I have worked with CMPD, the landlord and neighboring businesses but the issue only seems to be alleviated for a short time before it returns. have employee safety issues and client concerns on top of my own safety issues. I am hoping to work with the City in a more proactive way (as does my landlord) in addressing these issues. Thank You Janet Lee Krochman, CPA PH -3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS From: Marlo Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 10:01 AM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; MENSINGER, STEPHEN <STEPHEN.MENSINGER@costamesaca.gov>; RODELIUS, SHARON <SHARON.RODELIUS@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Saint John the Devine parking lot/farmers market To: Jim Righeime , SANDRA GENIS <SANDRA. GENI S (a), costamesaca. gov> Subject: Saint John the Devine parking lot/farmers market Ladies and Gentlemen: I oppose the farmers market/lot expansion. My over all concerns regarding the proposed St. John the Divine farmers market and parking lot increase in correlation with, the prevalent growth of slh/AA meetings hosted by the church are as follows: Whether intended or not, St. John the Divine church has become a large hub for group home/AA meetings. In comparison, St. Joachim's has 5000 attendees, 3000 of which are registered parishioners and they offer 1 AA meeting/monthly for 35, St. Andrews, another substantial parish, has I AA meeting and 3 Alanon meetings/weekly and St. Mary's, with 2000-3000 parishioners offers 0 meetings. However, St. John the Divine has 12 meetings/per week (that's 6 days a week), of heavily attended meetings scattered throughout the day from 6:30am to 8:30pm which generate increased traffic, smoking and loitering. I understand Pastor Phil's hopes to increase the number of parishioners beyond the now 200 or 300 and increase the church masses beyond the scheduled 4/weekly. In the past 10 yrs there has not been enough interest to warrant a Saturday evening service. Yet, they do offer a Saturday 6pm AA meeting. I appreciate Pastor Phil's passion for a farmers market as I myself am fond of the occasional farmers market, but the above statistics are real and concerning. Our neighborhood is inundated with slh homes and all that is associated with them, high traffic volume, compromised street parking outside our homes and the increasing number of unsavory characters and their "friends" aimlessly roaming our surrounding streets. It seems fair to say with only 4/weekly church related services and I farmers market /weekly, one might deduce that the request for additional parking is to meet the potential growth needs of the predominate slh community. The pastor insists that he has no intensions too increase the actual number of AA meetings beyond the current weekly 12, but he will not clarify any restrictions as to the number of persons attending each of these 12 meetings. In summary, regardless of the weekly farmers market success or failure, essentially you are being asked to approve a larger parking lot potentially for increased AA attendants, which this neighborhood should not have to accommodate. I have had the pleasure of meeting most of you at neighborhood gatherings regarding all of the many sober living homes surrounding our Bay Street. With all that comes with those homes, we have been forced to as they say, suck it up and have faith in the new ordinances. If and when an actual "parking lot" expansion must occurs, please consider the residents on Bay Street who will be directly impacted by these changes and unknowns. * Reevaluate overall parking lot design to incorporate parking spaces aligned from east to west. According to the proposed design there will be 10 north facing parking spaces provided. This will mean car lights at all hours of the day/weekly, intruding on the residential homes on Bay Street. As for residents of 2040 Orange Ave, they would have the shield of their high fence. * Increase the easement on Bay Street back more than the proposed 5 feet from the outlined sidewalk. This being a hot topic for many living in the neighborhood, I appreciate your time and thought on all of the above issues and interests. Best regards, Marlo Steinhauser PH -1 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Appeal Fees from other Cities From: FLYNN, CLAIRE Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 12:54 PM To: ARMSTRONG, GARY<GARY.ARMSTRONG@costamesaca.gov> Cc: ARIOS, JUSTIN <JUSTIN.ARIOS@costamesaca.gov>; ASHABI, MIN00<MINOO.ASHABI@costamesaca.Fo+/>; STEPHEN MENSINGER <stePhenmensing2r2gmail.com>; SHELTON, KELLY<KELLY.SHELTON@costamesaca,gov>; HATCH, THOMAS <THOMAS.HATCH @costamesaca.Rov> Subject: Appeal Fees from other Cities Gary: Based on a very quick survey completed by Planning staff today, it appears that the City of Costa Mesa's appeal fees are among the lowest of the Cities randomly surveyed. The following fees are ranked from highest to lowest. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH: $4,289 Appeal fee to City Council $4,575 Appeal fee to Planning Commission https://www.newportbeachca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=131 CITY OF SANTA ANA $3,751 Appeal Fee for Applicants http://www.santa-ana.org/finance/budget/documents/15-16 Misc-Fee%20Sch_Proposed- F1NAL-DRAFT3.pdf CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH $3,383 Appeal Fee to City Council $2,501 Appeal Fee to Planning Commission htt ://www.huntin tonbeachca. ov/files/users/ lannin /Plannin Fee Schedule Se t2014. df CITY OF IRVINE: Varies from $3,000 to over $10,000 per appeal. Charge per hour is $128/per hour. http://legacy.cityofirvine.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=25632#page=3&zoom—aut o,-74,363 CITY OF ANAHEIM Varies; $2,300 Appeal Fee to City Council, http://www anaheim net/departmentfolders/ lap nning/Fees/feeschedule pdf CITY OF MISSION VIEJO $2,000 Appeal fee to Planning Commission http://cityofmissionvieio.org/viewdocument.aspx?id=3282 CITY OF ORANGE $1,000 Appeal fee http://www.cityoforange.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload aspx?BlobID=12704 CITY OF COSTA MESA $690 Appeal fee to the Planning Commission $1,220 Appeal fee to the City Council Thanks. ffldle AICP Asst. Development Services Director Development Services Department City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 754-5278 PH -3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MIEJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Public Hearing Item #3 on tonight's City Council Agenda (St. John the Divine Episcopal Church proposed farmers' market) Attachments: Orange County Farmers Markets.pdf; Orange County Farmers Markets.pdf From: Cynthia McDonald Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 1:00 PM To: GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.gov>; FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; MENSINGER, STEPHEN <STEPHEN.MENS] INGER@costamesaca.gov>; MONAHAN, GARY <GARY.MONAHAN@costamesaca.gov> Cc: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Public Hearing Item #3 on tonight's City Council Agenda (St. John the Divine Episcopal Church proposed farmers' market) Councilmembers: I am a great fan of farmers' markets. Each Saturday, rain or shine, I shop at the SOCO Farmers' Market. In fact, most of my grocery money is spent there. I've shopped at many farmers' markets. All have been in areas that are either zoned commercial or on public land, such as parks. None have been in a residential area. While I think the Eastside of Costa Mesa could benefit from a farmers' market, I feel the proposed location would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: There will be a negative impact of increased traffic on the neighborhood. Most clients will arrive by car, as riding a bicycle on Orange Avenue is precarious at best, and carrying a bag or two on a bike makes it difficult to prevent bruising of fruit and veggies (we use a trailer when shopping by bike, which takes up more parking space). The market will be busier at certain times as opposed to others, and if the popularity of the SOCO market is any indication, the proposed number of off-street parking spots will not be enough and overflow will impact the nearby streets. Parking on the Eastside is almost always a problem, so why make it worse? • Adding a stop sign on a street that is used for emergency vehicles is likely going to cause a delay in providing fire, ambulance and police services. • Many vendors use generators for equipment or refrigeration units, as health department inspectors require food to be kept at safe temperatures. The generators are loud and emit fumes. • There is always trash, dropped food, etc. and farmers' markets need to provide the cleanup after the vendors depart. This will require the use of water to wash away sticky fruit at a time when we are to be conserving. • Farmers' markets are commercial operations designed to make money for the Iessors, operators and vendors. While I understand the church will be providing a service to the community, there is no way the City can confirm that the church is not benefiting from the operation of the farmer's market or using it as a fundraising vehicle for its proposed expansion. The church property is not zoned commercial and should not be used as such. In addition, I was unable to confirm that this will be a Certified Farmers' Market, which is a very important distinction. If the farmers' market is unsuccessful, then the church has received an entitlement for additional parking that it may not have received otherwise. While I have nothing against the church, rules are rules and the City should protect the interests of all Costa Mesa residents. I believe a better solution would be for the church would use a van or bus to transport parishioners to the Saturday SOLO Farmer's Market or the one on Thursdays at the Fairgrounds. SOCO has the added value of shops that supply additional food products and kitchen equipment. There are cooking classes where the chef takes students to the farmers' market, helps them select food and then teaches them how to prepare it. I guess I'm proselytizing a bit, but I doubt the church's market will be able to provide the same benefits. Attached is a list of farmers' markets in Orange County and their locations. Please review this list, as it will give you further indication of why the location of the proposed market is untenable. Thank you for your consideration. Cynthia McDonald Costa Mesa, CA 92626 8/4/2015 Visitors Center Orange County Farmers Markets DC Farmers Markets V Fun Zone Orange County Farmers Markets - Listed by city - Surf & Sand **Due to possible seasonal or weather related changes to times & locations, we encourage you to click on the Art MUSK link of the event holder to get the most updated Shop & bine information. DC Business Anaheim Buena Park Corona Del Mar Health & Beaut Costa Mesa Dana Point Living In OC Fullerton Huntington Beach Education Irvine Laguna Beach Real Estate Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel Advertising Newport Beach Orange (:0n}Oct Us San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Horne Santa Ana Seal Beach Tustin Yorba Linda SHOP BY DAY OF THE WEEK search - Related Sections - Organic Food / Stores Food Product Compliance / Marketing List of Farmers Markets in Orange County Anaheim Farmers Park Certified Farmers' Market WwrmMMr Anaheim Packing District 400 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA Sundays LOAM-3PM More Information Operated by Downtown Anaheim, the vision for this new urban market is to offer the . community high quality agricultural goods from local growers and ranchers, as well as gourmet artisan foods. Whale Watching Cruise Special 16 http://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 1/10 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Downtown Anaheim Certified Farmers' Market & Craft Fair Center St. Promenade & Lemon Sts. Thursdays 12 PM-7PM *January 17 -March 7, 2013 12 PM - 4 PM (Winter Hours) More Information Local California certified Farmers, International Foods, craft fair and Homegrown Music series. ------------ Anaheim Kaiser Permanente CFM 3440 E. La Palma Ave. Anaheim, CA PUMANEME, Fridays 9AM-2PM More Information In Located across from the parking structure. Affiliated with California Federation of Certified Farmers' Markets. The certified farmers market concept is an effort to re-establish the traditional link between farmers and consumers in California. Buena Park Corner of La Palma and Stanton Sears Parking Lot Saturdays 9AM-2PM More Information Affiliated with California Federation of Certified Farmers' Markets. Farm fresh fruits & vegetables, free range eggs, raw honey, baked goods. Along with your fresh produce, shoppers can enjoy a variety of hot, fresh foods made to order! Corona Del Mar Margarite & Pacific Coast Hwy Saturdays 9 AM - 1 PM More Information Limited parking on -street and in a small lot. Affiliated with California Federation of Certified Farmers' Markets. Open since 1996, look for prepared foods, honey, fresh fish, and flowers—and lots of fruits and vegetables from premier growers often not seen at other markets. Costa Mesa Orange County Fairgrounds 88 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa Thursdays 9 AM - 1 PM (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified hftp://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 2110 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. SoCo Farmers' Market F ' SoCo Collection 3315 Hyland Ave Saturdays 9AM-2PM More Information Certified Farmers' Market run by community non-profit, Sprouts of Promise Foundation. Featuring local farm fresh fruits and vegetables, raw honey, fresh almonds, fresh eggs, meat, and poultry. Dana Point Pacific Coast Hwy & Golden Lantern S Saturdays 9 AM - 1 PM More Information Affiliated with California Federation of Certified Farmers' Markets. The certified farmers market concept is an effort to re-establish the traditional link between farmers and consumers in California. Put simply, certified farmers' markets (CFM's) are "the real thing," places where genuine farmers sell their crops directly to the public. It is where the agrarian community relates to the urban community Fullerton Independence Park, 801 W. Valencia Drive Wednesdays 8 AM - 1:00 PM More Information The Farmers Market offers fresh fruit, vegetables, eggs, honey, fish, flowers, plants, nuts and bread. It is operated by the nonprofit Fullerton Certified Farmers Market Board Downtown Plaza, Wilshire & Pomona Thursdays 4 PM -8:30 PM / April -Oct More Information OPEN APRIL - OCTOBER Fullerton Market offers farm -fresh produce, flowers, fresh-baked breads, live entertainment, outdoor beer garden, arts and crafts, and activities for children. In addition to the traditional favorites, new vendors will be added each week. The market is free. http://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 3110 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Huntington Beach Surf City Nights is a Weekly Street Fair and Certified Farmers Market Tuesdays 5PM - 9PM More Information Orange County's largest weekly street fair and certified farmers' market. Every Tuesday from 5 pm to 9 pm, 90 vendors presents unique handcrafted wares: furniture, jewelry, art, clothing, live music, street performers, community groups and kids' activities. Pier Plaza Main Street & Pacific Coast Highway (next to the pier) Fridays 1 PM - 5 PM (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. 1-1 Irvine Irvine Kaiser Permanente CFM 6670 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA Wednesdays 9 AM - 1 PM More Information Located in front of the Medical Office Building. Affiliated with California Federation of Certified Farmers' Markets. The certified farmers market concept is an effort to re-establish the traditional link between farmers and consumers in California make sure http://www.orangecounty.netihtm I/shop-produce.htm 1#cm 4/10 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Mariners Church parking lot, On the corner of Bonita Canyon & Turtle Ridge Saturdays 8 AM - Noon (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. The Great Park in Irvine, Marine Way off Sand Canyon Sundays 10 AM - 2 PM (rain or shine) More Information 4' Every week, rain or shine, the Great Park Certified Farmers Market features fresh, locally grown fruits and vegetables, handcrafted artisan products, live music and entertainment, and a selection of gourmet food trucks. Take home fresh produce grown on the Great Park Farm and other local farms and enjoy live entertainment, including live music, car shows, and more. J Laguna Beach Lumberyard Parking Lot - next to the City Hall Saturdays 8 a.m. - Noon 8 - 11 a.m. July and August (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. J Laguna Hills Laguna Hills Mall Parking Lot the 5 Freeway and EI Toro Road Fridays 9 AM - 1 PM (rain or shine) More Information http://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 5110 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. Laguna Niguel Plaza De La Paz Shopping Center on the Corner of La Paz and Pacific Park Sundays 8 AM - 12 PM (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. Newport Beach TEMPORARILY CLOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION Newport Beach Farmers Market Lido Marina Village Sundays 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Open Rain or Shine More Information Established in 2010, this certified farmers' market is located in Lido Marina Village of Newport Beach. Orange Orange Farmers &Artisans Market Located at 304 N. Cypress Street on the corner of Cypress & Palm in Old Towne Orange Saturdays 9AM - IPM (rain or shine) More Information r 10 ORANGE FARMERS ARTISANS MARKET The Old Towne Orange Farmers and Artisans Market is a certified farmers market operated by the non-profit Orange Home Grown, Inc. The market features a large selection of fruits, vegetables, nuts, mushrooms, honey, free range eggs, hormone free beef, poultry and milk, and shell fish from a local aqua farm, fresh bread, baked goods, jellies and more. Enjoy complimentary coffee while you shop. hftp://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 6/10 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Orange Irvine Regional Park I Irvine Park Road, Orange, CA Tuesdays 9 AM - 1 PM (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. San Clemente Y1F, 200 block Avenida Del Mar Dr. Sundays : 9 AM - 1 PM (rain or shine), } More Information Affiliated with California Federation of Certified Farmers' Markets. The certified farmers market concept is an effort to re-establish the traditional link between farmers and consumers in California. Put simply, certified farmers' markets (CFM's) are "the real thing," places where genuine farmers sell their crops directly to the public. It is where the agrarian community relates to the urban community San Juan Capistrano EI Camino Real & Yorba Street Wednesdays Spring & Summer 3pm - 7pm Fall & Winter 3pm - 6pm More Information More than 30 vegetable, fruit and flower vendors will be selling farm -fresh goods. The Market also includes fresh breads, olives, eggs and Hummus with pita chips, all right in the heart of San Juan Capistrano historic downtown! Seal Beach Seal Beach Village 13960 Seal Beach Blvd., Seal Beach Tuesdays 9am-1 pm Opened in 2010, this small Tuesday market is convenient for nearby Leisure World residents. Around 15 vendors that and include many familiar to other Orange County farmers markets. J http://www.orangecounty.net/htm I/shop-produce.htm I#cm 7/10 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Santa Ana &.4 Cu]irsamy flerbc Spurgeon Promenade / Between 3rd and 4th _ _ Street on Spurgeon Street Thursdaysr 4-8pm More Information Opened in March 2014. The DTSA (Downtown Santa Ana) Farmers' Market is a community -oriented, chef -driven Farmers' Market that strives to bring the highest quality produce at the best price possible. J Tustin Corner of EI Camino Real and 3rd Street Wednesdays 9 AM - 1 PM (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau ■w?+ I Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. Yorba Linda Main St. & Imperial Highway Saturdays 9 AM - 1 PM More Information Crafters, Food Vendors and Certified Farmers. Featuring produce grown naturally or organically, honey, flowers, eggs. back to top Organic Food / Stores Hanson's Market San Clemente & San Juan Capistrano San Clemente & San Juan Capistrano's Hanson's Market Natural & Organic community food nuturulfoods stores featuring organic fruits and vegetables, deli with meat, cheese sandwiches to order, raw juice & smoothie bar, wine, craft beers plus a Health & Wellness Center with staff available for your holistic and nutritional questions at any time!!! LOCATIONS: 415 Avenida Pico #P http://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 8110 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets San Clemente, CA 32382 Del Obispo St San Juan Capistrano, CA J back to top Food Product Compliance / Marketing Food Trade Consultants Start you own food business! Do you have a secret recipe or food idea? FTC provides newcomers to the commercial food manufacturing business with a crash course in the basics. We will take you step-by-step through the process and show you how to get your stovetop recipe converted into a certified, FDA compliant, commercial manufacturer's formula, into production, packaged and ready for sale to the mass market. 949-584-2079 back to top OrangeCounty.net - Premier listings for all of Orange County Featuring Orange County Farmers' Markets http://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 9/10 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Home - Orange County Visitor Information - Fun things to do in OC - OC Beaches - Art & Music in Orange County Shopping & Dining in Orange County Orange County Business - Orange County Health Infomnation - Orange County Rescources for Residents - Orange County Education - Orange County Real Estate Facebook - Twitter - Site Map - Disclaimer © 2015 OrangeCounty.net All rights reserved worldwide. Site Owned and Operated by Purpose Media For info on ad rates call 949.443.1323 or sales(a)orangecounty.net Many photographic images courtesy of OCBook.com oncaor iso - ;, rrin san inn-cs�rano�ncE http://www.orangecounty.netihtm I/shop-produce.htm I#cm 10/10 PH -3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MEJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Farmer's Market SUPPORT ---Original Message ----- From: Taylor Dunn [mailto:tjdunn23@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 1:38 PM To: stephen.mensinger@costamesaca.gov Subject: Farmer's Market SUPPORT Hello Mr. Mensinger, I'm a 15 year resident here on the east side (Santo Tomas avenue). O I just wanted to let you know that I support the east side farmer's market proposed by Philip DeVaul of St. John the Divine. I'm not a parishioner but I support the work the church does and I really want this Farmer's market! Unfortunately I don't think I can make it to the city council meeting tonight, I have a friend in need O Thank you so much for your time. Taylor Dunn Sent from my iPhone r.�ECEIVEU CLERK Exhibits toS AUG -4 M " 44 Cil sF i,i��i i, 5s1 Appeal of Planning Application PA -14-41 SECTION I Application to Rezone From Vacant R-1 To Erect a Church 00 N9fAX CITY via j ��' COSTA MESS Ell t $25.00 Application MjMt be ejab- TG Ya CT1'?,' PLmvA3 CO"8't + +� . mii.ted in qusdr¢pliceLe, COBT1 K4 FA, CALj?Q0;TA i tn•: en r, uu wtrueui aw roof I�ae 618 So -Figueroa at. ANN WMELsqpm s A6010a 14,Calif. . •7t To sr*ot Church rz,.. y� /JC' 3 4, A309Y rr. AWACH three (3) pLsns (w:':'..= -.h \;�.....�..., :„..r•r, ;wrarnC} on tSie 3uriject Giveproperty, logal deseriryt'on o.i ra:A,^Lr; tt, Loo 1t171Athy, please attach,) Girt street addteta of pre,jse-j ar 10reWit,” 1M'cLcjrG clearly to enable property to be readily identified in 000ti:e ,'1,y:t;i� T.nt to ....r-_--- i7_. — ___ .._ _. Rropart.! .i� orae,., or itta;'c�d by applioaatt Ao "----- Present use of propertyr TAO"t- .._. Ps'operty oitasified (zax:ed,' A�' ._. -4, ,_...._. ._...._ Stats hereunder in xtsst rte,,ecL.s. .<^ to t '_ n'r.,N; •:, practical difficulty, un. Mmessery hardships, ormrel purpose and itttsttt Of the land UsB Grdinur.. : c w th g; ;+rjc= ani; i :lei .vi o.t its regulations tios -r<... 1`l'ttlk 1'06 J4 'YI IN1f. a A. .il M: SECTION II Request for A General Plan Amendment from Low Density to Planned Developmental Residential GP -79-3A Citta of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive PLANNING ACTION APPLICATI Costa Mesa, CA 92 (714) 556-5245 -" - (Please See Instruction Sheet) " 7` n/i' 1 179 TL APPLICATION N0.{sj:. (t) G{' 1. (4) DATE (2) --� — CEQA (3) 1 _hh, igkr apply for the Planning Action(s) as indicated below on my praperty which is described as follows: (5) Address: 9$ /i, fes.#_— f' ..ic. (y ,• (6) Assessor's Parcel No AP# 11s- (7) Nearest Major Cross Streets C'Tkt ,, - �l ., y311t� to t� ..J - ..-- (as per Maps, 19 (8) PLANNING ACTION(s) REQUESTED 01 Zone Exception(s) Account No. A. ❑ Variance(s) No. S. ❑ Go. ditional Use Permit(s) No. 0131110009 C. ❑ CPAPprovdl No. 0131110009 ❑ Development Review 01 31 1 10009 ❑ Subdivision: A. ❑ Tentative Map of Tract _ 0131120004 B. ❑ Parcel i.".ao C. 1 Lot Line Adjustment 0131120004 ❑ Encroacnment Permit ❑ Planned Development Review A. ❑ Preliminary R. ❑ Final G ( Relocation Permit Other C- l!(�tvt 0130750000 Se i Wv"1 i`.i-L tYtl4 r.c�/Yf(• k7 Negative Declaration ❑ Environmental Impact Report — 01 31 1 90009 NF = No Fee Required by Ordinance (9) Total Fee 00) LJ ALL REQUIRED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS ATTACHED (See Appropriate Instruction Sheets) (11) [B' PLANNING ACTION DESCRIPTION/.JUSTIFICATION FORM ATTACHED. (12) APPLICANT (Owner of Record Only) Type or print (on;5< use) Fee �02 $ T�¢ r , I :1 itc Jt t. � •�(.{( �.c �t ;�<.-r,tt C )'l)>t 4 (s,:( I attest under penalty of law to the truth and In o L: C�.� yl (, Yz„), - S 1[ correctness of a71 facts, exhibits, maps and (owner or r:eoortll attachments presented with and made a part Of this application- ON pplication. /�t�-o 4�F.sf Jz •ld1r S�-tf(� {Mallin//g Ad,o.,J (131 thereby authorize.1. C%Ilr.(c�A h'f �t•ip it At C[a 1, 4tY L. 44 to act as my representative and to bind me (city/State/215) in all matters concerning this application. Phone: 21� •��� Zc`VU '7 .� _ r 05) AUTHORIZEDAGENT T�perp��riJ, +t J . Iry r[�IY`•rGL (Au[norizetl ant) (City/State/Zip) Phone: %it 1 .:YYk 2237, (14) .a[ J -,4—c i gnat., — ApSar)6nt ((Ane, W Recortl on,) Subscri d and sworn to before me this day of OFFtCIAL SCr,t i.u.nar .... {oftiice LIU Only) ... . ?06) Zone V4 (17) General Plan Designation VC-+Ll� ff—oJr'if RgtipEizr tl�i.--^•A (181 REQUEST: G� +se►4l.. Ta N 1G� ! C -�Jsr l f;.- VZ it Jul (19) C Planning Commission Hearing — 6:30 p.m. (20) C1 Staff Review Only. You will be notified by mail of the final decision. (21) Application Complete - .P 0602-32 White - City Clark or Planning; Green - Planningi Canary - ASPnaant; Pink - finance; Goitlanrod - Authwlzve Agent —__ RESOLUTION NO. 79-132 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Imo' >3517� CITY OF COSTA MESA CALI-FORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLA+: AMEhD MESA. NE`:T GP -79-3A, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF COSTA, WHEREAS, the General Plan 1990, as amended, was adopted by the r;,v Council of the City of Costa Mesa by Resolution No. 71-27 on Ap;il 5, 1971; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A, a plan to change the pro_ posed land use at 183 East Say Street and at 2043 Orange Avenue has been recorriended for adoption by the Planning Commission and WHEREAS, the change recommended for adoption by the Planning Comr.is- Sion is Option, II, from Low Density Residential to Planned Development Residentia'.-High Density, PDR -HD; and WHEREAS, Public.hearing ars duly held in accordance with Section 65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, all persons hav- ing been given the opportunity to be heard, hath for and agains' sa'd Amendment GP -79-3A to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City that said Amendment to the General plan be adopted; NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that General Plan 1990 is hereby amended by the adoption of Option 11 of General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A, as shown on Exhibit "A", -- attached hereto and made a part hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 1979. ATTEST- �(/,r/J�y�j 1�t� tty o n -a ,esa Mayor OT the L try o T 1, osta Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) fPROV D AS TO FORM COUNTY Of ORANGE ) SS �� CITY OF COSTA MESA C;TfRitiEY ! I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 79-132 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of November, 1979. � 118 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal " _r ,n,n r WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A, a plan to change the pro- posed land use at 183 East Bay Street and at 20443 Orange Avenue has been recorv,ended for adoption by the Planning Com9iSsion; and WHEREAS, the change recommended for adoption by the Planning Conr-is_ Sion is Option 11, from Low Density Residential to Planned Development Residential -High Density, PDR -HD; and WHEREAS, Public -hearing w5 duly held in accordance with Section 65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, all persons hav- ing been given the opportunity to be heard, both for ann aga'nz•. sa`d Amendment GP -79-3A to the General clan; and WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City that said Amendment to the General Plan be adopted; NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that General Plan 1990 is hereby amended by the adoption of Option 11 of General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A, as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 1979, ATTEST_ t� Y e ity o o a Y.esa ayor of the -City ofr o`Sta Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA } PPROV D AS TO FORM COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF COSTA MESA ) �Te R'b iVEy I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 79-132 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of November, 1979. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 6th day of November, 1979, City C e of the City Council of the City of to Mesa CITY OF COSTA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Hese, California 92626 TO: PaVerCMdCalrad A. Nordquist 183 Bay S 006ta Mwa, CA 92627 FROM- WE PI,AMM DUARIMTTI am: October 11, 1979 RE: General Plan Amendvent (71-79-3A Specific Plan Precise Plan (Streets) AbandOment Other At the regular seting of the Costa Mesa Planning Cartmission held on Qztobe= Q, 1979 , the ebc-e was considered and the following actio, taken: It was moved by lea. =orenimeecondo � Dr. +Hyen and c uziec3 5-0 that l2'oontained in the Platzng Mvisim Staff Report be rem for -a E GENERAL, PLM AMENDN=T GF-�9-3A 1. IRMDUCfICN This privately initiated General Plan hnendment concerns the Saint John the Divine StreProet ItantpEp;scopalsChurch property located southwest of Orange Avenue and Bay the General Plan and a High Densrty ity Residentiallddesig Low Density Residential requestedtion is eby r to enable the construction of 36 senior citizen housiing units ' These would be financed through HfJD Section 202 funds. The proposed project includes a new church with ancillary facilities to also be located on the site. The Amendment is requested by Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist as authorized agent for the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 11. AREA DFSCRI PTIOt. The subject property is 2.015 acres in area. The westerly portion of the area is developed with the existing church and parking lot. A single-family residence occupies the southeasterly corner of the site. The remainder of the site is vacant. In order for HUD funds to be used in financing the proposed project, a Parcel Map will have to be processed to separate the Church and housing sites, although the church would retain manage ent of both parcels, Adjoining the subject property to the south are properties developed wit single - and multiple -family uses (Map 8). the General Pian designates this area s Medium Density Residential and the zoning is R2 except for one parcel at 20 orange Avenue. This Property is developed with a five unit apartment althcugt zone Rl and designated Low Density Residential. West of the study Area across Laurie Lane is also designated as low Density Residential by the General Plan, although zoned R2.CP. This area of inconsis- tency includes ten parcels fronting on Laurie Lane and Fullerton Avenue which ar developed with duplexes and triplexes. North of the Study Area are single-family hones along the north side of Bay Street, These Properties are designated for Low Density Residential use and are zoned Al The area east of Orange Avenue, zoned Rl, is also indicated as Lxw Density Resi- dential by the General Plan. Although most of the parcels an developed with single-family homes, there are several nonconforming properties w;ch more than one unit, a frequent occurence throughout this easterly section of Costa Mesa. Directly across the street from the subject Property is a day care center. The Study Area for this Amendment has not been expanded to incl' -Oe adjacent areas with inconsistencies between the General plan, zoning or land use. These areas are being examined in rhe studies being conducted for the Land Use Element of the General Plan. -1s- to B✓Or �r'FifET BAY STP.££% ri.wr Lwwi I THLNT/ETH .5rRfF7- �a GZ,VZoQAL PLAN DES/GNATION ULew Z>s&s,rr Ar,!/OrN1,A4 ,VroRAy Dems,rr Ar3,GrNr,A4 GP -79-3A i V -3A OPTION I EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP 7 103 R1 W Sro�r. L } __ Z C 103 GP•79.3A LAND USE MAP g BVGr .STREET D, D, B �r Sr.QEer W DZ D, D 4 Dz E D, Dz C MsDs [ Hru.,.� D Curie, Lira a I n., 1 D, 1 D, 1 D, j D, ! Ds T1YLNr/E rF/ 5r.4Er7- 4 �4 Ds: ®wr44~C1NV,v®t,t or a,v,rs (r,r6] 104 D W Sr+er. D, D 4 Dz E D, D, C Ds: ®wr44~C1NV,v®t,t or a,v,rs (r,r6] 104 III. EVVIW71-AL REVIEN An Initial Study of Envirorrrental Impact was conducted for t..�e proposed pry e t to the General Plan and the subsequent development of 36 senior citizen: i»asirn Units arce nchurch facilities. laThe impactsde identified relate t-,c:rculatu land use arc population. Since the new drurch is actually a reloca_ion of an existing use, no new traffic or lard use ir!pects would be caused. The 36 unit se for citizen apartment would have three potential areas of impact. apartzment building this size would normally generate approxilia tely 290 vehicle. trip ends daily, the tenant composition of this development is expecte^ to res,:lt in substantially lesser traffic generation. Sisrilarly, 36 apertr*nt snits wD;ld normally louse an estimated 72 persons, however, the small u -.rt s>zF. &-Y-4 tenant acsposition of this project will result in many single tenant units. Since the use is compatible with adjacent uses, rn significant land use impacts are a^,tici_ pated. She Initial Study concludes that a Negative Declaration. ofviro r enol Impact can be adopted. IV. GDERBL PLAN CXXFORkial The requested Amendmer:t has been examined in respect to tyre various eleaents anj subelements of the General Plan currently being prepared. Although, the Genera: Plan has not been a9opted, the proposed pemendrent and subsequent development have been compared to those applicable ecuponents which will be included in the General Plan (Table 3). Of the eight sections of the Environmental Resources/Manaoement Elerent, the irc�zr on open space appears to be the only�iorrif: a The majority of the site is vacant and planted with grass. Development of the project will e1L;inate this private open space, which is not included in the City's inventory of inter1 open space. Several applicable cmncerns were identified in corparirg the proposed Are-drrent and development with the subelements of the Ctrrr,unity Developren. anagerent Element. She prefect involves Private redevelopment of the Property. Tie ne. development will play a significant role in maintaining or altering the image of the existing neighborhood. The church, which will be located on a more visible portion of the site, will be a prominent feature. She housing and other facilities_ to be provided for elderly persons are consistent with the needs identified in both the Human Reams and fusing Subelements. Because of the density of the uxeits, an amendrnenE to the current General Plan and Land Use Ordinance may be necessary to perait more than 30 units per acre. She Housing_ Subelement being prepared will include a means of permitting increased densities for projects whi-n ■eet the needs of hmtseholds with specialized housing requirements. The proje.- will cause an increased demand for public services in this area. However, tix prvferty will not generate property taxes since it will be operated by a non-profit organization. 'lhe Lad use concerns, being examined in discussed in greater length later in this report, are also requested High the Density studies being conducted for the land Residential designation is one three Lise Element. The for the area. Low and of Medium Denisty Residential are also being considered being considered for the subject and adjacent properties. 105 .. . —._ Mew TABLE 3. C TTtiA PRti, PR�CYo?T AK?ZDr'y'! C�N�jfl+S"' I. 3rvirorrertal Resources.! Hanagenent Element A. Cpen Space A. Although a large portion of this site is vacant, it is rot included in the invent�ry of interim open, space. II. Crncwnity Development! l6anagernent Ele rent A. Fedevelognent A. Replacerent of tip existIna str ctures with those included in t�.is proiect is a for- of private redevelopment. B. Ligan Design B. The design of the proposed development, particularly that of the Churc,., will inract the iuraae of the neig;bor!)ood. C. Fhxran Resources C. providing housing ad recreation facilities for persons with specialized require -en -:,s is consistent with needs identified, D. Housing D. project provides housing for households with special needs. Project may excee-3 the maximum, density of the High. Density P--si- dential designation, requiring a density bonus for including specialized housing, £. public Facilities E. Project will cause general increase in and Services demand for public services. F. Economic F. Being tax exempt, the project will not generate p;-ap-.-t.' tax revenue. III. Lard Use Elemevt the proposed designation of High Density Resi- dential is one of three being considered for the subject and adjacent properties in ts,r lard use studies. mi47 V. 1 ND. USE OPTIC[;= Pour lard use options have been prepared,ic.; arrpare tine existing Gene, -a. ?lar and zonirn (OPtio:: Ii with the requestedt. Oat.o^s II, In ani I': discuss a Hign, Dens;t,: Residert.a: Ia-r_' Use desigrati;>n but present different zoning alternatives. A ion I (Map 7) retains the existing Iota Density Pesidential landUse designatioa and the Rl zc:dng. Thos arra.-r4eTent wood be ca -ca-- the Genera? Plan and yan;.r_ of pro=perties across the streets to the .-r.:rt`, and east, aithougi: dissi.;lar to the General Pian designatiDn,za._m_ or development of adjacent properties in the swe bloc%:. 7b- spec;f;c use being considered for the site wasld not be per-ittei jr, the P_ zone, ale the unit tiensltM exceeds the General Plan Lob- Density Resi3ert2ai rax�..r. If the F1 zaning is retained, eventual residential re e-:e'_o;.ra_nt pewit the subdivision of the subject property ane construrtix o-_ approximately 14 single-fa:ily hares on the subject prcoert-,. i B. option II ;aw; M 9) wa.21dacrend tr-e General Plar. designatio-. Aesi'3entia. and eztablis.L . Plated De✓elgrment FiEside.^.0-1-tg. 17E^s_ POR -M, zoning on tr entire Stud;- Area. Planned Development zoning has the pzrpose of enco.uay;Tr t! -r-- applica.-.-n Of more imaginative rrd innovative planninsc, concepts than wo::ld bepe^.:tt unr3=z oornentio,ai zoning catea�ries. one c? t`Y a✓;'Iic_.2e i^tent= ti•e Planned Development ordinance is tc era le developreato tit.lc:. r'L-et to broa3er goals of the Genera: Plan t3,xos3.`. the i.,tegration of uses. TY,e P5. Zones PeMit cYmplisoentarl uses of a relig;:ws or educatioxl nature. Thus the church and related classrrrss would be considered corrrli^nent r: uses and the dual use of the r* opervy world be accarodated. . Tt;e` existingchurch building is prcQosed to be used cy both the cl:,rc.n congregatix: anc the senior citizens. Ttiis shared u-_ is in :�crordance wit:. the P/a-L-e3 Development eft, which encourages tC integr>_tio.^. of use- and str;ctures, The PLit-FID Zone Permits residential develor+ezt at a de -sits of 1�- 30 tants to the acre. Consider; -c thr entire site in the calculator. a density would result in a ratio of 17.9 units per acre with the 3£ units proposed. A oonC pt;al site plan had been prepared which Dlaces the C ff^ on the corner of Orange Avenue and Bay Street and t1� apartent units near the southerly end of Laurie Lane. ?his plan dig rpt riz.:e the 25 foot setba-- or the anent of ffirkino rea. t" ?_1 :'i" Tt e1 -21- 1 �' I ASAr SrREEr GP•79.3A OPTIONS 11,111, d to I MAP B I TlY£w'TfE rM SrR£r- t �4 GENERAL r'LAK OED/LNATrOn ® for Dexs rr Rca,u,.r.na AP✓ailMr Dawoirr Rca �D[rT.:��, ��/ DcvsJrf Rtslawr... I rrO��PP/oN E-: POR -HD zay.Irs OVIR fMrlltS Xlrr VPTioK ZT: YR $owe*,a rom utero. cw sfrt, .19 R ~ tr. ,vocsi e✓PTfol d/( /lzavava jmtvc t.rrdAj n,rg, Cu�cax< L4X RYrA'D Hr YT DIUT Lya A'TV. �YJ dCIY3Ji'K log— OLL go it — ': M General Plan designation of the l' � � , . • ^ -!' nfR l,a =Rl k ' 1 , . The portion of the site to to � a.: d be rezoned R4 and the rens inde r "" `� ' *• i Y t the High Density Residential a, more than 30 units to the acre. P" 12r, :nt;, two Parcels, the residential '� = d< •'"' - _ <<. , respective parcel. The residential ac -res in area, resultirrl in a �'^' * M• :assification tc allow nDre than ^4 its application in the Dnwntown . u ea plan, an element of the General ti-, over 35 units per acre can be s;+r ,a.; led housing. In Order to acoln- ',r < `s• "•� +'•' _...:ar proposals in the future, the • r '< 4 :,e amended to allow densities in ':as the specific intent of provid- fa::aies and individuals with _"' _. - ^-'r ! ..�'•, ...s of Such households would be • ... •...• ti!_ •mor .. .:r•,- "'' e:a.- classification, the property +•- ,_� ,.L r P{ zone (CMMC§ 13-178) mould also •" `Y • • ::4 processing of a Conditional Use ht ^ •• �' pern::tted by the R4 zone in the P woj1d have to be expanded to ' e::Owed Citywide when a'project has t'a" •" '" +- '.'- list of permitted uses in the �•' + --' °� ^': sxe. Churches are not listed as a P '' " _ • - • ': • xx� they have been allowed in this ,`• :' +•, _ a hax�Y: a Zone Exception could be °���'•"' •- ►--^ - v ,: « r X .r., it may be appropriate to add d ^� ''�'* a Ya -> . Y - - .. • w - rnr n nts for religious worship as F.W-r"' .. �' :J :A %r �-':< • P Y..r ;. n��Y3RY1ate the current proposal as well P` : `+ `-• , *' •:fix=f' s• . ,y Lh, General Plan to High Density °'" �'� �� e+' i./_f .wr7^ �' 4. F zoning. In addition to adding tea.., •' :- �'N L P sore as discussed under Option III, ricer amended to include housing as a . d uMl• ,.rr un.+. v:,. ,n.,.c< zrti . ,< Permit could be granted to allow Yanw .-w P:r r, hem •,, °w.. .�+ al'.F>;''actrl rr, rr•`J'9e� by the primary contorming user 3f ',.M 7}!:?P!•- ? .e u •r'.�.r^• ✓.q..d thus allow the prapnsed units sirxe tl.e;, .q•:. d a. .rr:rq..t ',, 3 mor,• vK n.i v !nr Church. � 10 It should be pointed out that the General Plan would not necessarily require amendment if the I i R zoning is modified as discussed above, however, the retention of a Low Density Residential Lard Use designation may not be appropriate if the City actually plans to allow a development with a unit density which far exceeds that associated with a Low Density Residential area. Costa Mesa contains 1,763 acres of lard zoned Institutional and Recreational. Mending the I c R zone to allow housing as a conditional use Could have widespread potential applicability. VI. RECaMMMpgq`ICN Planning Staff reaxrMMI-Ids implementation of option II. The proposed development is in accordance with housing Element Goal No. 2 in that it provides housing for families and individuals with specialized housing requirements. A High Density Residential General Plan designation and PDR -M zoning will permit the uses Proposed without requiring modification to the existing General Plan classifica- tions or Land Use ordinance. Although the size of the parcel for the apartment development results in a density exceeding 30 units per acre for that individual parcel, both the church and apartment parcels can be used in the calculation of density since a Planned Development is defined as an area developed as an integrated unit under single ownership or control and having a Planned Development designation. The shared use of the existing church building is an example of the integration of uses on the subject property. Establishment of Planned Development zoning on the site will also afford review of the development by both planning Ccmnission and City Council. A High Density Residential designation would be consistent with existing General Plan designations east of Orange Avenue, which are predominantly Medium and High Density Residential. The adjacent areas of inconsistency will remain as Ina .Density Residential;. however, they will be re-examined in the considerations of the upcoming Land Use Element. RE:SOULTfICN NO. PC -79-14 A RESOLUtICN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ME CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, REC MMENDING To THE CITY COUN. APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMEN MENUnCI:T, GP -79-3A gq A+Y74fE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPEKPY LOCATED AT 183 E. BAy STREET AND 2043 ORANGE AVENUE FROM L01 DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES REREBy RESOLVE AS FOLLUZ- THAT, WHEREAS, pursuant to applicable provisions of the California Govern- ment Code, Title 7, Chapter 3, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission has processed and reviewed the proposed amendment to the General Plan of the City of Costa Mesa as designated herein; and WHEREAS, the purpose of General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A is to enable the construction of low and/or moderate income senior citizen housing units; and WHEREAS, the requested amendment is consistent with the goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan to provide housing for families and individuals with specialized housing requirments; and WHEREAS, the requested General Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan designations and development in the immediate vicinity; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Government Code Section 65351, said Planning Camnission herewith transmits its recommendation to the City Council, as found, determined and decided upon at a duly noticed public hearing thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Cased upon the findings as set forth in the Planning Division Staff Report for General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A be, and is hereby re=w ended for approval to amend the C:neral Plan Designation of the property located at 183 E. Bay Street and 2043 orange Avenue from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. PASSED AND ZS r da Jxtober, 1979 Richard Carstensen, Charman of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission e STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNLY OF ORANGC ) ss, CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, DXGGLAS K. CLARK, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. jt'was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission which was held on the *_ day of ('%�pp 1979, and carried by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: Oa MISSIONERS: ABSENT: 014KISS I ONERS : Acting Secr ry, Costa Mesa P1annin� Connission APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY BY: CC yrn Ass Stant City Attorn i2 G W� bevel ntServices Director v// SECTION III Zoning Exemption ZE-82-88 Variance and Conditions for Construction of St. John Manor r� "l Ju_b_( ! i uz. MOTION Ordinance 82-12 Adopted Ctf �, J int CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE ZONIMG OF A PORTION OF LOT 117 OF TRACT NO. 300 FRO14 RI TO VUR -LD, in connection with Rezone Petition R-82-07, Norma Hertzog, for; property located at 273 and 277 Monte Vista Avenue, was given second reading and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, McFarland, Johnson NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: done ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Schafer ABSTAINING: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herttog C• L to [LtiLC.t lLC_T� R-79-15 The Cleric presented for second reading and adoption, Nordquist/ Ordinance 79-32, to change the zoning of property Episcopal Church located at 183 East .Bay Street from R1 to PDR -N0, in connection with Rezone Petition R-79-15, the Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist, authorized agent for the Bishop Of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 1220 West Fourth Street, Los Angeles. Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration adopted for General Plan Amendment GP -79-3A. ZE-82-138 The Clerk also presented Zone Exception ZE-82-88, for variances from parking requirements including reduction in total parking, parking in a street setback, and inadequate turn -around area, in conjunction with a Planned Development Review, for a 36 -unit senior, citi- zens housing project in connection with an existing church. The Development Services Director presented the back- ground for the subject project and reported that first reading was given to Ordinance 79-32 on December 17, 1979, with second reading and adoption held until fund- ing was approved by Housing and Urban DOVelnpment (HUD). The funding has been obtained by the applicant. The Director further reported that at the request of the Planning Commission, new site plans have been submitted of which will eliminate the need for a turn -around and wil1G"`—' provide improved traffic circulation; the proposed auto- matic gate at the entrance. to the Orange Avenue parking area will be deleted, thereby eliminating concerns about adequate stacking area and,traffic congestion on Orange Avenue; and the modified site plan will allow - greater joint use of parking 'between the church and housing parcels. At the request of Vice Mayor Hall, the Development Services Director explained the Federal funding for non- ' profit organizations in which the tenants' rents are in an amount equal to 25 percent of their income, with the balance funded by HUD. Reinhold 11. Klein, 1910 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, housing consultant for the project, stated that the maximum height of the project is 30 feet and pointed out on the slide screen the location of the two- and three-story structures. Mr. Klein also mentioned that because of the revised plan, only two variances are now needed: setback on Bay Street, and reduction in total parking. He also reported that based on a survey of similar projects, the need for the same number of park- ing spaces which would be required for family housing is not necessary since many of the elderly do not drive automobiles. Mr. Klein also stated tl_.:t surveys indi- cate that as the project natures, use of automobiles decreases. In response to Vice Mayor Hall's questions regi -ding selection of tenants, Mr. Klein detailed the procedure required by HUD which includes priority being given to qualified citizens of the cmvnunity. I4'y 143 Alb J- Reverend Conrad Nordquist, St. John the Divine Episcopal r Church, spoke in support of the project stating that there was a crucial shortage of housing in the area, and he felt this project would alleviate at least a small portion of the low -rent housing shortage. Responding to questions from the Council, Reverend Nordquist stated that van transportation is not being planned at this time but such a service is a possibility, and that the tenants of the project will have the use of the Church's recreational facilities. Jerome Vandewalle, 2810 San Juan Lane, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the project and pointed out the following reasons: additional housing is needed in Costa Mesa, especially senior citizens housing as evidenced by the waiting list at the Casa Belladevelopment; the project is yell -conceived and will not cause additional taxation of Costa Mesa residents; the community has an obligation to the elderly who have spent their lives in the comnun- ity and,who have contributed to all; the project will not be detrimental to the community and will not be an incon- venience to Costa Mesa citizens. Walter Miller, 275 East 18th Street, Apartment 37, Costa Mesa, supported the project and related the plight of an elderly friend living in a small room for which he must Pay a rental of $300.00 per month. Anna Shereshevsky, 2152 Elden Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated that there should be no objecttions to caring for the elderly and the handicapped, and there was a need for this type of development based on the waiting list which exists at the Casa Bella Senior Citizens Apartments. Gigi Nordquist, 974 Modjeska Circle, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the project because of the need that exists for senior citizens housing. Vice Mayor Hall asked if any communications had been received opposing the project, and the City Clerk responded that there were none. Bob Yoder, 155 Buoy Street, Costa Mesa,. voiced his objection to the proposed project and submitted for the record the following communications in opposition to the development: a petition containing 52 signatures, a letter from Alyce H. McCardle, '1997 Fullerton Avenue, Costa Mesa, and Roy R. McCardle, 273 East 21st Street, Costa Mesa. Mr. Yoder stated t he is not elderly, however, he twas concerned homes with the qualityoflife on the eastside, and suggested the City purchase subject site for a park. He based his objection to the - the project for the following reasons: traffic. increase , on Bay Street and Orange Avenue which are already heav- ily traveled, lack of sidewalks; density too high for the neighborhood; insufficient parking; and project is i not easily accessible to stores and reasonably -priced restaurants. Mr. Yoder proposed that the Church dedi- cate subject site to the City for a one -acre park, and In return the City allow the project to be built on City property across from Lions Park, within the Redevelup- ^� ment Area. Linda Young, 252 Sierks Street, Costa Mesa, opposed the traffic. stating suggested that that thatl since cause there were two vacant school sites in the neighborhood, one of those sites _ would be more appropriate for the project. Ms. Young --------- also objected to the three-story design for a portion of the development. 144 ob Thomas Barr, 218 Sierks Street, strongly objected to any three-story structures in the neighborhood. Albert Ogden, 2066 Orange Avenue, and James Crilly, 184 East Bay Street, stated that they agreed with the '- objections presented by Mr. Yoder. Keith Hall, 1958 Fullerton Avenue, Costa Mesa, opposed three-story development. i Fran Albers, 2012 Orange Avenue, owner of four RI lots in the area, voiced opposition to any other zoning except Rl. Eileen White, 543 West 'Wilson Street, Apartment C-1, Costa Mesa, former resident at 184 East Bay Street, Opposed the project because as a child a Church official promised that the children could play on that property. Stanley Brawn, 308 Robinhood Lane, Costa Mesa, stated that he did not know if he was for or against the project, however, since residents moved into the area with Rl zoning, this should be an overriding considera- tion in making a decision. Reinhold Klein again spoke to clarify issues that had been addressed. He stated that three sides on Day Street are higher density than Rl. As to the three- story structure, it will be located from 175 feet to 200 feet from Say Street and only 7 of the 36 units will be in the three-story structure. Mr. Klein responded to a suggestion made by Mr. Yoder that the project be transferred to another site, stating that this is not permitted by HUD. He also suggested that the two vacant school sites in the area would be more appropriate locations for parklands. Mr. Klein reiter- ated that the height of the proposed project does not exceed 30 feet. Mr. Yoder disagreed with Mr. Klein's statement concern- ing present zoning in the area, and expressed his doubt regarding Mr. Klein's statement that the project could not be transferred to another site. Mr, Yoder also stated that if the higher density is approved, it will set a precedent to allow higher density for other properties in the area, There being no other speakers, Vice Mayor Hall asked for Council comments. Councilman Johnson commented that both the applicant and the residents had valid arguments and it would be difficult to reach a decision. In view of this, he asked that this item be continued for further study. Councilman McFarland expressed appreciation for the input from the residents and their concerns, however, he stated his opinion that in view of the present housing shortage, it is imperative to allow higher densities. Referring to the concerns of the residents regarding traffic, Councilman McFarland stated that Rl development would generate more traffic than the proposed project. He further stated that the need for this type of housing cannot be questioned, that he felt it was an excellent project with an excellent location, and that since Council has dealt with the request for over two years, there was no reason to delay a decision. Councilwoman Hertzog comnented that everyone a:- -ees that senior citizens housing is needed but not �n their own neighborhood. She also voiced her opinion 50 that traffic would not be significantly increased, the 30 -foot height would blend in with the surrounding area, and that although changes are difficult to must be made to alleviate the accept, they present housing shortage, Vice Mayor ball asked the Director of Public Services for an estimate of additional traffic generated by Rl zoning, family units, and the proposed zoning for senior citizens housing. It was concluded that assuming all residents of the proposed project drove automobiles, increase in traffic would be approximately the same for all three uses, Vice Mayor Hall addressed Mr. Yoder's recommendation that the din that prioritiestee must be considered,aand int rWouldsbe ntoo9 costly to develop the site for park use. The Vice Mayor also alluded to the concern over increased voiced his opinion that heavy itraffic, and ncrease in traffic throughout the City is inevitable. Referencing R1 zon- ing, Vice Mayor Hall stated that it is very difficult be retain this designation, that higher densities must be allowed in order to alleviate the shortage of hous- ing. As to parking, the Vice Mayor reported that the parking situation will be review required. ed in six months in order to determine if more parking spaces will be MOTION Ordinance 79-32 On motion b y Councilman McFarland, Adopted woman Hertzog the seconded by CoUnCil- the Negati Impact was ad;ted Declaration of Environmental , and Ordinance 79-32, being AN ORDI- NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, GFIANGING THE ZONING OF A ---,.. NEWPORT MESA TRACT, PORTION OF LOT 901, FROM III TO PDR -HD, was given second reading and adopted by the following roll call AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Hertzog, vote; NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS; McFarland Johnson ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Schafer Responding to Vice Mayor Hall's question regarding the variances, the Development Services Director reported that the zone .exception and two variances are under consideration at this time, the variances being for setback on Bay Street, and reduction in MOTION total parking. ZE-82-88 Approved On motion b y Councilman McFarland, seconded by Council - woman Hertzog, the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was adopted, and Zone Exception ZE-82-88 was approved based on the analysis and findings contained in the Planning Staff Report, and subject to all condi- tions also _contained in the Staff Report. - v } vice Mayor Mall asked if the applicant jf agreed to 4111 conditions, and the Reverend Nordquist replied he had ead the condition= and�agreedTtQ,-.47.,1-,a.f...11Tem. __ The motion to approve the zone exception carried 3-1, Councilman Johnson voting no. RECESS Vice Mayor Hall declared a recess at 8:55 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:10 WARRANTS p.m. MOTION On motion b man Mc Farland Councilwoman Hertzog, seconded by Council - Warrant Resolution Warrant 1184 1184, including Payroll 8214, was approved by the fell wing roll Approved call AYES: COUNCIL ,MEMBERS: Hall, HertzogNOES: C Johnson ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Schafer / / -/. b` „'�'.., OLD BUSINESS; (Continued) .. - - - ZE-82-79.� Approval was based on ftrdings that -would lead (Continixd) approval not to precedent setting inasnuch as the trailers are tonally non-visible from the street. and appear to be aL'mst a part Of an older nmbile home park adjacent. to subject property. The Comniss Lon felt there was sufficient. justification to grant use of the trailers due to the unique situation and circlumstances that exist. ' Mr. Davenport stated that he. had voted against rhe mxption because he felt the applicant was remiss in not disclosing previwsly the charitable nature of his involvement in the Immunity. Mr. Davenport felt. that Staff findings were valid and he had difficulty in approving the Conditional USB. Permit. Zone Exception The CCMission Mnsidnttd the public hearing continued from Permit ZE-82-81 the. me ting of June 14, 1982, for Zone Exception permit. Dave Lavin/ ZE-82-01, for Cave Lavin, authorized agent for Tar¢pin Sharon, Temple Sharon 617 Hamilton Street, for a Conditional Usn Aennit, to allow a school in an ex Lst.Lng building currently occupied by Teanple Sharon, located at the above address, in an R2 zone. Environmental De term ir,at.tpn: Exrampt. Planning Staff racas, -n3ed approval, subject to conditions. Mr. Dave Lavin, repcesentiml the applicant„ stated he. had received a copy of the Staff Report and was in agreem nt with the conditions contained tierp.Ln. Mr. Sloate asked various questions concerning proposed use of the. tmple. There being m one else wishing to speak on this item, the, Chainilan closed the public hearing. TION It was moved by Ms. Sawyer -Watson, secon3ed by Mr. Clarke, Approved and carried 5-0, that Zone Exception Darn Lt 2E-02-01 be ^^,roved, based on rhe analysis and findings and subject. to the conditions contained is rhe Planning Division Staff Report. Zone Exception The Commission considerd the public hearing continued from Permit ZZ -82-88 the nmeting of June 28, 1982, for Zone Exception per nitr. Reverend Conral A. ZE-82-88, for Reverend Conrad A. Nordyutst, authorized Nordquist/Bishop agent for the. Bishop of the Protestant b� (-copal Gmrch, of Protestant. 1220 West Fourth Street, Los Angeles, for variances from Episcopal Church parking requlre .nts including reduction in total parklnr3, parking in a street setback, and inadwluate turn-arouno area, in conjunction with a Planned M:veloFapunt Pry Law for a 06 -unit senior citizens' Musing project in conjunct Lon with an existing church located at 181 East Bay street„ in an R1 zone. (Rezone, to PDR -HD pending.) Environmm-ital Determination; Negative Declaration for GP -79-3A. Planning Staff recomnenled that this appltcati.on be rec n - mended tv the City Council for approval, subject, todt_ tions. _ 13:verernl COnral Nonlqu Lstr representi-ng the appl.icant, stated he had received a copy of the Staff Report and was in agree- ment with the conlittons contained therein. Rxvnrervd Nord- qutsr. explained thit. the plans had been maiifted two relocate one unit to resolve. the Problem of turn -around area on -sire. He felt the projeet was now ready for construction. Mr. fbbert Yoder, 155 Buoy Street, informed the cc ntssl.on he had a petition with approximately 36 signatures of resi- dents opposed to the planned develoixnant of the subject property. Mr. Yoder further stated that the project did not conply with the 30-faon, two-story height limitation ard'was OLD BUSINESS: (Continued) 2E-82-82 three stories in some arras. Mr, Yoder also felt the planned (Continued) parking was too far away from the. units; he. rhovght the units "Fere bein3 jammed in and would not serve the ixs r. interests the neighborhood as a whole, Ms. Su —rlin informer] the. Crn ission that a Planned Cevel- ognent does not have a height, limitation, Mr. Valantine stated that at the previous public hearine the Staff remrinandation was for denial; however, since that tie= significant improvements have W.en made to the on-site parking and traffic circulation for the project, which was the reason for the change in the Staff re m-ne rdar. i.on.. Mr. Yoder asked further questions conceming the lack of garages for rhe units, and noted that the propexty is still zoned Rl. Mr, valantine informed the Commission that the, Re2one Ordinance hal received first hearing by the City Council; the second reading and adoarion of the Ordinance are still ixndierg and Would be hear;] in conjunction with the City Counc]1 hearing of the planned Cevelopnmnt. Mr, yoder sta rd he would present his petition tO the City Cmhoc l at char, time Some dlscuss].cn Of the parking facilities follo J. Mr, p -art Olden, 2066 Orange Avenue, asked questions con- cernin3 the institutional -looking elevations of the build- -ngs• Mr. DavenI;ort stated that the COMission had been concerned with [his issue due to the fact the drawings orl- gina..ly did net sP.ow any derailed elevations, However, since that tine the app] leant hal pmvuin] drawings that relieved the Cgmniss ton's ad Staif's concerns in this resttect. Mr, Davenport asked the architect. who was in attendance to show the concerned I�aabnrs of the pijblic rha drawings which depict the t.,hree-d );�,�ional design of the buildings. Mr. W. F. Albers, 2012 Orange Avenue, stated that he odes several properties in the area and had recently constructed a new ho.. lie noted that a nw Ce.r of rpstrictl.om had been placed on his project and objected to the Eact that the sub- jecr project had progressed this Ear with the neighbors being unaware of what is really going on, Ms, daanie Murphy, 190 East Day Street, stated that. she lives directly across the stretet fron the church, She was not opposed to senior cit.izpns' housing but was oir,xvsed to sub -standard housing which she felt the project will pro- duce due to insufficient parking. Ms. Murphv further stated there are traffic probinns in the area and 1pss traffic was needed—not Imre. Mr. Reinhold Klein, representing the applicant, gave an in formative explanation of "his years spent in planning housing for senior m nbers of rhe mmnuniry, He WOMIxe the COmnission that the higher structured s will be locate] closer to the church, with no-st.Jrl structures located closer to the residential ne Lghbors. Mr. Klni.n also des_ res idrnrsptUsu design of the pro jecr, arc] urged rha neighboring Lrt this plan for senior cit).zens' housing, •-, Mr. Yoder stated that the federal gcvenntm..n. did not have a good track record for providing attractive develolamnts and had Produced saM: very Poor develo,anrnts. Hee did mt. Ern ;t "as fair to sugy,=s t. rhe ] neighbors were q)pOsed to hones for t'ne aged; bcna:ver, Mr, Yoder suggesred there are other 00011,61-1 lxar.io s Where the proposed housing Would be. appropriate. OGD BUSINESS: (Continued) ZE-82-88 More dl.scussian follom-d concerning parking for the Casa (Continued) Bella project and the traffic situation in the area of the proposed project. There being reo one else wishing to speak on this item, the Chair, n closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Mr. Van Aken, seconded by Ms. Clarke, and R:canrend Approval carried 5-0, that Zone Exception Permit ZE-82-88 be. recon - mended to the City Council for approval, based on the anal- ysis and fLndings and subject to the coiditions contained in the Planning Division Staff Report. Zone Exception 'Ihe Commission considered the public hearing continued from Permit ZE-82-93 the meeting of June. 28, 1982, for Zone Exception Permit Craig Chamberlain/ ZE-82-93, for Craig Chamberlain, authorized agent for Robert Robert J. Krcr3h J. Krogh, 17781 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, for variances from density, parking and setback requirements to legalize the use of a fiberglass dare as a second dwelling unit, located at 1984 Church Street, in an P2 zone. Environ- mental D:terml.nat.icn: Exempt, Planning Staff reccxmxmded denial and removal of the done structure. within 30 days of Ccomiss ion action. Ms. SmrmrlLn informed the Commission that Condition X3 in the staff Report should be. corrected to show that, CorvItti.ons filo through $18 must be camleted within thirty (30) days or the structure r,aroved (with c1molit.i.on pernit.), Mrs, Ctnr3 Lana 'Aiwc, 1986 Church Avenue, informed rhe Conmi,ss Lon that the applicant had left the Council Chambers and had tnformrt3 her he had another meeting to attend, 'there was nobody in at,tendanm to represent the applicant in this matter. Chal.man Davenport. asked Mrs. Minor to make any statements stir. wished concern Lny the application. She informed the Conmisston that she lives next door to the subject property and the. only way for acenss to the. fiberglass clone was via an eascartant.. Although sora pe, pin feel it is an alley, Mrs. Ml.nor stressed that. it is sham on her deed as a 7 -1/2 - foot utility easement. She further stated she has a 4 -car garage on her property facing the easewtnt. and noted that she frequently has difficulty in getting out of her garage because the tenants of the subject property park on the east nt. Although Mr. Davenport felt the item was a so.�.what contro- versial issue, he. Viought, that as the applicant had left the public hearia3 and would not be. returning, the Ca Ls- sion should take action. 9iere being no one else wLsh Ln3 to speak on this item, the Chairman closed the ix,blic hearing. MOTION It was moved by Mr. Clarke, se. n,3ed by his. Sawyer -Watson and carr Lai 5-0, that the variances Iran park Lrx3 and setback rtx)uirnnrnts to legalize the use of a fiberglass dam as a second dwelll.n3 unit be denim, based on the analysis and flndimJ3 contained in the Planning Division Staff Report Ear Zone Exception Fermat. ZE-82-93. 'the density variance was approved subject to conditions contaireed in the Staff Report with additional corA it.i.ons to read: 21. Applicant, shall di€€i@t the tenant to vacate, the dorm as scan as is legally Wggible under tlie• t,,rms of the lease. 00*J 3 0 11. SR -4-10 d• surrounding Property - 1' rbrth - Single-f&m ly residences, Rl zone. Sout3. East - Multiple -family develoorent, R1 and R2 zO r s. - Day Care Center, single-fam dwellings, RI zone. ily and multiple-fa;ily 4. Piest - MultiPle-fa,-uly development, R2 zone. REQUEST` A. Request is for variances fr in total Parki om pared g requirerments including reluctinO ng, parking in a street setback, and inadequate turn -around area, in conjunction with a Planned Development Review for a 36 -unit Senior Citizens' Project in conjunction with an existing church (St, John the Divine Episcopal Chard ). g Project lin Proposes a 3 story residential structure containing 36 I -be dwelling units. Project funding will be through the Decrirtnent of H and Urban Develcpnent. The church is and will retain the s projEct, The casing DePartment of Housing and Urban Develop ent, sponsor of the required that a non-profit corporation be formed to c�,n a ', has Project. The housing Project will occupy a se nrpnage the the church and related facilities will retain pparate 39,622 -sq ft. Parcel; C, -s4. ft. parcel. APPlicant has proposed that residents of the horsing facilitybe to utilize the social and recreational facilities of the church on a uled Or as -needed basis to avoid the need for more extensiveemitted recreational facilities to to sched built as part of the social and hOusirg project. Agenda No. ZE-32-88 — -- — I• DESCRIPriai -1- �brdquist/EPis.Church A. Subject Property I. Location - ScIth-west Of Orange Avenue and gay Street, and East of Laurie Lane neral Plan 3. Designation - High Density Residential one - R1 (PDR -HD pending, 4. 5. under Rezone Petition R-79-15) Present )Dec'elcprent - Church, residence, Property 6. vacant Size - 2.01 acres CDQA Determination - Negative Declaration adopted for 7. General Backgrotrx3 - Plan Almy-daent GP -79 --IA a. GP -79-3A are yded the Land Use Designation of subject or., from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. b. R-79-15 has had f± st rea?ing of reading ties held u: til the Ordinance (79-32). SecondDry approved the project funding and the protect was filed with the City. This rezoning ,ould Planned Development es Residential -High Density r19 w tahl=sh Property. on the 11. SR -4-10 d• surrounding Property - 1' rbrth - Single-f&m ly residences, Rl zone. Sout3. East - Multiple -family develoorent, R1 and R2 zO r s. - Day Care Center, single-fam dwellings, RI zone. ily and multiple-fa;ily 4. Piest - MultiPle-fa,-uly development, R2 zone. REQUEST` A. Request is for variances fr in total Parki om pared g requirerments including reluctinO ng, parking in a street setback, and inadequate turn -around area, in conjunction with a Planned Development Review for a 36 -unit Senior Citizens' Project in conjunction with an existing church (St, John the Divine Episcopal Chard ). g Project lin Proposes a 3 story residential structure containing 36 I -be dwelling units. Project funding will be through the Decrirtnent of H and Urban Develcpnent. The church is and will retain the s projEct, The casing DePartment of Housing and Urban Develop ent, sponsor of the required that a non-profit corporation be formed to c�,n a ', has Project. The housing Project will occupy a se nrpnage the the church and related facilities will retain pparate 39,622 -sq ft. Parcel; C, -s4. ft. parcel. APPlicant has proposed that residents of the horsing facilitybe to utilize the social and recreational facilities of the church on a uled Or as -needed basis to avoid the need for more extensiveemitted recreational facilities to to sched built as part of the social and hOusirg project. PLANNING DIVISION ��- STAFF REPORT AGE^1D SITE LOCATION 183 East gev gtreet A h0. AP APPLICATION ND. zE-82-88 �_ 4nF-191-t6 MANDATORY ACTION DATE JLiae 4, 1833 APPLICANT 3.15.'IOP Of protestant Epic, a,,cll, to^^r. ci ae�a.ai AUTHOR[ZED AGENT PeV' C711ra3 A. rAr'dquist ADDRESS 1220 West Fourth Street ADDRESS_2043 Ura--)ge A%,Mue I.Os Angeles, C7L 900!51 + M sa C- 92627 Applicant is reminded chat all ordinanaez and requtatiorls application governing Pertai the s the land or bui[dingfzl to Wlicb this PREPARED BY fieri herein or not. tains mvzt be wMPlied with whether sPe6_ REQUEST: Variances frm parking ra nts, incl in a street setback, and inadequate ud'rKJ =eduction in total. pazic_ng Planned DeveloFtrent � g 3�� �osazea, in conjun�on with a�nF kms' junction with an exis tizeas Haas FINAL COMMISSION ACTION: APPLICANT NOTIF1 DA CITYOF COSTA MESA,77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA, CA 92676 CMF 0360.30. ", I.®? f714f 754-5245 11. Agenda tb. ZE-82-88 I DESCRIprICt7 -1- �Iord7uist/Epis.Church A. Subject Property 1• location - Scuth-west of Orange Avenue and Bay Street, and 2. General Plan DesignnatonFast Of ttiHelah L�nsi 3• Zone - R1 (PI$t_Hp g ty Residential 4. Presentsel Pending, under Rezone Petition R-79-15) 5. pr cPrent - Church, residence, vac operty Size - 2.01 acres ant 6. CDMA Leterrrination - r1egative Declaration adopted for General 7. Background - Plan Anmrtinent GP -79-3A a. ffrom Low a ��ed Resxde�i�eto Hi tion of subject uccoorty b. R-79-15 has had fist rea9i c3h Dansity Residential. reading was held c: til fF J e r thvede Ordinance (79-32), Second Protect was filed with the Ci�o the project funding and the Planned Develo Y• This rezoning would estahlish Property. Arent Residential -High Density zonimi on the B. Surrounding Property - 1, Porth - Single -fainly residences, R1 zone. 2' 3. South - Multiple -family developrent, Rl and R2 zorrQs. Fast - Day Care Center, single-family and 7Ultiple-fa,,dly 4. vies dwellings, RI zone develoPent, R2 zone. REQUEST A. Request is for varian �s fromparking in total parking, Parking in astret setb",Icrkmats including reduction area, in conjunction with a Planned Devel nd inadequate turn -around Senior Citizens, Project in conjunction with an existing for a 36 -unit the Divine Episcopal Church), ng church (St. ,john Project B• duelling Proposes Pro tOrY residential structure containing 36 1-bedr dolling units. 3 funding will be throe and Urian �lapmant. The church is and will the DePartrnnt of H ool ProjEct. The De remain the s casing z uirc�3 that a Partrrent of Housing and Urban Devel hf1Sve of the non-profit corporation be formed oPrent, hown has Project. The housing Project will occupy to and ma e the the ��� a� related facilities will rhe a seForate 39,622 -sq. ft. fain a 48,736 Parcel; C. -sq. ft. parcel. Applicant has Proposed that residents of the housing facilit be to utilize the social and recreational facilities of the uled or as-neededY n a sched recreational facilities to s to avoid the need for nore extensive s ,a a sch 3 - be built as usnsocial and port of the housir� project. SR -4-10 t1 1 Agenda Fq, 2E-82-88 �- -2 11ordquist/Epis. Church ZZ REQUEST (continued) D• The approved General Plan Amendrre,it and pending rezone were initiated specifically for this project. The shared use of facilities and Special- ized housing provided in the proposed development were cited in the General Plan Report as examples of Planned Developrent features. ZII. ANALYSIS A. Planned D--velcprrxnt Review - 1. It is the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance to acccMMdate developments which utilize innovative planning concepts and which meet the broader goals of the General Plan, but which may not with zoning regulations. comply strictly Compliance with the General Plan can be ex- hibitt�3 through excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protection of the integrity of neighboring develcprrent. ?• The Planned Davelcprrent Residential - High Density zone alloys resi- dential developments to be combined with religious, educational, or recreational uses if the City Council finds such uses to be ccnpatible with the residential project. With the shared use of recreational facilities, it appears that the uses in the proposed project will be compatible. 3 Density - a. Permitted: 15.1 to 30.0 units Per acre Proposed: (1) Overall site: 17.9 unitse ro parcel: 39 (2) Housing Per acre b. Subject application .56 units per acre wherein c�vel Proposes the concept of a density transfr e thedecprent rights of the church parcel are transferred to housing Parcel. Within an overall Planned Development, this Is an acceptable development ted nique ina mwch as the project is viewed as a whole rather than as separate parcels. c. Applicant is advised that, due to the density transfer, should the church elect to develcgr additional dcelling units on its parcel, the maximum allawable units would be 24. Prior to such development, it would be necessary to amend subject Planned Developrent (if approved) . d. Based on the provisions of the Planned Eevelcpment Ordinance, subject Project is entitled to 15 units per acre (30 units total}• However, 11 sincreed density may be obtained if a project meets Mme or all er, specific design criteria. The re{luested density (17.9 omits peof r acre) is warranted based on the project's compliance with the units - ing criteria: (1) Provision of low or moderate ino me housirg, (2) location within one-quarter mile of a public transit ro te. SR -4-10 152 III• ANALYSIS (continued) 4. OPen Space - a. Required: 428; b. Site Coverage: E -3- Provided: 42.768 Building Area (sq.ft.) Paved Vehicular Area (sq.ft) Open Space (sq.ft.) Percent Open Space agenda t1o. M-82_88 tbrdquist/Epis. Churg, Housln,g Existirr., Church and Pr_, o,Ze,ct Future E xpansion Total 16,687 14,146 �'%'� 27,292 19,789 ` + 17,991 i 23,286 49.9 36.9 37,780 Traffic Circulation - 42.76 a, The new Parking area for the church will b4 located off Ea. 5 and parking for the housing project will have access fr m Orange Avenue. There will 1 tree Lane. be no access to any Parking area from Laurie b. h does not appear there will be any joint use of Church and the Senior Citizens' housing project. parkin between the C1 v�rnSv' -e c• A card operated au pn taaatic gate is shown at the entrance of } pr Parking. There is only 25 feet of "stac.in the Crang, This limitedstacking gate, sufficient area for only �, g area,' betceen the w frei /e Avenue. ng area could create additional traffic congone vehicle estion ° Mn Ora Staff u area be Provided, suggests that a minimum 40 -foot deep stac1;ing d. Since the gate is card -actuated, it appears that able to utilize .this Pxarking area. T}ws it will a park' gu_�ts would ld not be the church agreement allowing visitors Of the senior citizens to record churtil lot. Park on 6. Building Height and Design - a• The Planned Development Ordinance does not i --IPOs- a height limit but rather. requires that the design of the building comply with the of the Ordinance, b. Details are not available on the intent facilities. Thus, a final de 10 and height of the jest will need to he s Pm nt plan for that future church c. The residential buildiUbMItted Sedately. port; of the pro_ stem of the "T" ng colnf guration is approximatel a The intent containing 2 stories and the to y .L" with the on arijacent residenis tial is to minima the p containing 3 stories. The 2 sto facts of the structure d. 2 --story roofline haspa 4lesof2t e Sou�nches, line a Maximum ft. 6 ht Des high, and other portions of the to a maximum hei ht the 3 -story roof_ e. From the submitted Plans6 feet. building extend box -like and institutional. he pressed residential structure a other "relief" The exterior is stucco apparently appears f. The strict materials. The roof is flat. with.t Minding development also ap ears massive, especially in relation to the s has a widthf 185 ' Parallel to Bay Street, the residential structure of 185 feet, Parallel to Laurie urr 'mately 150 feet. Lane, the len gth is approx- SR-4-10 i, III• ANALYSIS (continued) 4. OPen Space - a. Required: 428; b. Site Coverage: E -3- Provided: 42.768 Building Area (sq.ft.) Paved Vehicular Area (sq.ft) Open Space (sq.ft.) Percent Open Space agenda t1o. M-82_88 tbrdquist/Epis. Churg, Housln,g Existirr., Church and Pr_, o,Ze,ct Future E xpansion Total 16,687 14,146 �'%'� 27,292 19,789 ` + 17,991 i 23,286 49.9 36.9 37,780 Traffic Circulation - 42.76 a, The new Parking area for the church will b4 located off Ea. 5 and parking for the housing project will have access fr m Orange Avenue. There will 1 tree Lane. be no access to any Parking area from Laurie b. h does not appear there will be any joint use of Church and the Senior Citizens' housing project. parkin between the C1 v�rnSv' -e c• A card operated au pn taaatic gate is shown at the entrance of } pr Parking. There is only 25 feet of "stac.in the Crang, This limitedstacking gate, sufficient area for only �, g area,' betceen the w frei /e Avenue. ng area could create additional traffic congone vehicle estion ° Mn Ora Staff u area be Provided, suggests that a minimum 40 -foot deep stac1;ing d. Since the gate is card -actuated, it appears that able to utilize .this Pxarking area. T}ws it will a park' gu_�ts would ld not be the church agreement allowing visitors Of the senior citizens to record churtil lot. Park on 6. Building Height and Design - a• The Planned Development Ordinance does not i --IPOs- a height limit but rather. requires that the design of the building comply with the of the Ordinance, b. Details are not available on the intent facilities. Thus, a final de 10 and height of the jest will need to he s Pm nt plan for that future church c. The residential buildiUbMItted Sedately. port; of the pro_ stem of the "T" ng colnf guration is approximatel a The intent containing 2 stories and the to y .L" with the on arijacent residenis tial is to minima the p containing 3 stories. The 2 sto facts of the structure d. 2 --story roofline haspa 4lesof2t e Sou�nches, line a Maximum ft. 6 ht Des high, and other portions of the to a maximum hei ht the 3 -story roof_ e. From the submitted Plans6 feet. building extend box -like and institutional. he pressed residential structure a other "relief" The exterior is stucco apparently appears f. The strict materials. The roof is flat. with.t Minding development also ap ears massive, especially in relation to the s has a widthf 185 ' Parallel to Bay Street, the residential structure of 185 feet, Parallel to Laurie urr 'mately 150 feet. Lane, the len gth is approx- SR-4-10 III. ANALYST -S (continued) SR -4-10 Agenda No. ZE-82-88 tbrdquist/Epis. chu.:ch g. The structure does not appear to be particularly compatible with surrounding develoogent. 7. Perireter fencing - a. There are no specific fencing requirements in the Planned Develop-- ment,Ordinance for residential developments. This Ordinance does require that "Each planned develepmnt shall provide reasonable visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units" and that fencing "shall be used as appropriate for the aesthetic enhancement of (the) property." b. This application proposes 6 -foot high chain-link fencing between the housing and church parcels, and between the housing parcel and the adjacent residential properties. (1) Staff suggests that chain -lin, fencing will not enhance the Property nor will it protect the privacy of the residents of either the housing project or adjacent properties. (2) The chain-link fencing between the church arxi housing portions Of the project may create a "fish bawl" effect for the resi- dents of the housing project. Additionally, several of the residential units are located opposite the church parking and could be adversely impacted by the church and day school traffic without ore substantial fencing. C. In keeping with the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance, Staff is reconnending installation of 6 -foot high wood fencing on interior prcperty lines. d. A separate section of City Code regulates fencing within street setbacks and prohibits fencing in excess of 30 inches in height within 10 feet of the street property lines. A 3 ft. 6 -inch con- crete block wall is shown on the housing parcel within 3 feet of the ultimate property line on Laurie Tane. It will be necessary to reduce this wall to 30 inches in height or to obtain a separate variance. Additionally, it appears that there is an 8 -ft. high entry gate connected to this law wall. An 8 -ft. high gate would only be permitted 25 feet behind the property line. 8. Dedication of Land - The Engineering Division is requiring additional right-of-way dedica- tion on Laurie Lane area at corners of the property. On the submitted plans, this dedication is shown on the housing parcel but not on the church parcel. Applicant is advised that development standards, in- cluding density and open soace, are based on net larx3 area after dedi- cation. Thus, at such tine as the church parcel is developed, open space arra overall density, etc., will be reevaluated based on total net parcel size. M7= III. ANALYSIS (continued) B. Variance: Arount of Parking Agenda tio. ZE-82-88 - Nbrdquist/Epis.Church 1. Plans have not been submitted showing the floor plan arca seating arrangement of the existing or proposed church. Hodever, the project architect indicates that the existing facility contains pew seating for 132 persons. Based on this information, the proposed 44 parking spaces would be adequate for the church (1 space for each 3 fixed seats within the main auditorium or assertbly area). Staff requests that two dies of a detailed floor plan of the existing facilities be submitted for Fire and Planning Division records and also to verify the parkirg requiremmnt. 2. The existing parking for the church is 69 spaces. Staff has received calls from surrounding property owners indicating that currently there is sign parking congestion during church services. 3. 20 parking spaces are provided for the housing parcel. 58 are required by Code. This represents a 65.58 reduction in required parking. -(Ratio =,4...56 4pace provided per unit). 4. The basis for this reduction is ar, as szmption that elderly people do not have as many vehicles as the,ger.r:ral populace. S. The Casa Bella Senior Citizens' Housing Project at 1840 Park Avenue was granted a parking variance in 1977 based on a similar assumption. Additionally, Casa Bella is located within the dcwmtom area and it could also be assumed that the need for cars would, therefore, be reduced. Thus, a 77% reduction in parking was granted (0.37 space provided per unit). Unfortunately, however, there appears to be a decided parking problem at that site. 6. Subject property is not conveniently located to shopping or recrea- tional facilities, thus there may be even a greater need for parking than.at Casa Bella. 7. The Police Department indicates that there is already significant off-site parking congestion on the streets surrounding subject prop- erty and suggests that the variance request is unreasonable. C. Variance - Inadquate Turn -around I. Code requires that a turn -around be provided at the end of dead-end parkirx3 aisles in excess of 100 feet in length. An adequate turn- around is not prarided at the end of the Orange Avenue parking lot; thus, if all spaces are occupied, a vehicle would be required to back out onto the street. Such an exit would be difficult due to the auto- matic gate and would be hazardous -due to traffic on Orange Avenue. SR -4-10 Agenda No, ZE-82-88 dbrdquist/Epis.Churcih III. ANALYSIS (continued) 2. There is no hardship warranting the omission of a turn -around. 3- The lack of a turn -around and lack of adequate stacking area at the automatic gate entrance are inconsistent with development standards Of the Planned Development Ordinance which require "smooth traffic flow" and "uninimum hazards." D. Variance - Parking in Street Setback - 1, For Planned Developrent zoned parcels, Cade requires a 25 -foot deep landscaped setback adjacent to ary public right-of-way. 2. Applicant is requesting a variance to provide parking within 5 feet of the Bay Street property line. 3. The property has a unique circumstance inasmuch as it is abutted by streets on three sides. Few properties are faced with this condition. 4. A significant amount of landscaped area will be available on the remain- der of the Bay Street setback. E. Summary - She concept of providing lar- to moderate-incane housing for senior citi- zens is both acceptable and desirable, as evidenced by the City's approval Of a General Plan Amendment on subject property to acc+smndate such a pro- ject. It appears that the implementation, however, needs sore modifications before firdings can be made that the project meets the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance, especially with respect to adequacy of parking and traffic circulation. Staff would be reluctant to reccmmnd approval of subject proposal unless at least 508 of the required parking for the housing project were provided aM unless the traffic circulation problers were re- solved. IV. PI-MUNG STAFF FINDINGS A. The project is consistent with a goal of the City's General Plan by pro- viding low- to moderate-inoom housing. B. The combination of uses will be acceptable inasmuch as the church and the residential development should be compatible. C. The proposed shared use of facilities and the proposed density transfer are acceptable functions of a Planned Development. D- Housing parcel parking: 1- The Overall property is large and does not have any inherent site hardships which warrant the proposed reduction in parking for the housing parcel. 2. The parking reduction appears excessive, particularly since subject Property does not have convenient, nearby shcoping and recreational facilities. SR -4-10 Agerda too. ZE-82-88 -7- hbrdquist/Lpis-Church IV. PLrtMMG STAFF FINDITiGS (continued) 3. With respect to Parking and circulation, the project fails to meet the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance that projects exhibit excel- lence in site planning, and the specific requirements that there be snooth traffic floe and minimum harards. E. The appearance of the proposed residential structure is institutional and box -like, with little visual relief. Other low- to nnderate-incorm projects approved by the City have not demonstrated such starkness. F. The proposed variance to allow parking in the Bay Street setback is accep- table due to subject property,s frontage on three streets. V. PLANNING STAFF RECCfM1i2MTION Recamiand denial to the City Council. VI. CONDITIONS, IF APPROVED Shall meet all requirements of various City departrmnts, copy attached hereto. VII. PLANNING CCM-IISSICU ACTIM - MELTING OF JUNE 26, 1982 Continued to July 12, 1982. FOR MEETING OF JULY 12, 1982 VIII. EVAWATICBa A. The applicant met with the Planning Commission at the Study Session of July 6, 1982 and suggested possible rmdifications which appear to resolve the major problems. Plans suing the modifications, however, have not been submitted. B. Traffic Circulation 1. The proposed revisions include modifying the easterly end of the apartment building by removing a one-story end unit and providing one additional third --story unit. This will allow a driveway between the housing project parking and the church parking area which will elimin- ate the need for a "turn -around" and will provide inpr ved traffic circulation. 2. The prc:posed automratic gate at the entrance to the Orange Avenue parking area will be deleted, thereby eliminating concerns about ade�luete stack- ing area arra traffic congestion on Orange Avenue. C. SR -4-10 ii , ,genda No. ZE-82-88 -8- tbrdquist/Epis. Church VIII. EVALUATICN (Cont.) C. Building Design Apparently, the applicant demonstrated at the Study Session that the building is not as stark as it appears in the submitted elevation draw- ings. D. Parking Variance 1. The modified site plan will allow greater joint use of parking between the church and housing parcels. Should there be a higher demand for tenant and/or guest parking for the apartment project than anticipated by the applicant, it can be accammdated on the church parcel. 2. Staff has included a condition of approval which requires review of the parking six tmnths after completion of the housing project. If, at that time, it is determined that there is a parking problem, provision of additional parking on the church parcel could be required. IX. PLAIT RIG STAFF FINDINGS A. The project is consistent with a goal of the City's General Plan by pro- viding low- :o moderate-income housing. B. The combination of uses will be acceptable inasmuch as the church and the residential develcpnent should be compatible. C. The proposed shared use of facilities and the proposed density transfer are acceptable functions of a Planned Development. D. The joint use of the overall parking between the housing parcel and the church parcel may accommodate the t)eedp of both activities. Should over- all parking be inadequate, additional parking can be provided on the church parcel at a later date. E. The proposed variance to allow parking in the Bay Street setback is accept- able due to subject property's frontad on three streets. X. PLANNING STAFF RECCORENDATIal Recommend approval to the City Council. X1. CONDITIMS, IF APPROVED Shall met all the requirements of the various City Departments, copy attached hereto. Agenda R>. zE-82-8a PEordq ui s t/Epi s . Church -9- MIDITIONS, IF APPROVED (REVISED FUR PLANNING COMMISSIal MEE PS CF .T.ILY 12, 1582) Plan. 1. Prior to issuance of building permits: a. Detailed floor plans (2 cries) of the existing church facilities shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review. b. The new parking area for the church shall be paved and striped in accordance with City standards. c. A trash enclosure shall be provided for the church.parcel. d. The irethud of trash pickup for the housing project is unclear. Details shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. An exterior trash enclosure may be required. 2. Prior to occupancy of the housing project, an agreement shall be appra•ed by the Planning Division and recorded with the County, at,ich allows joint parking between the housing parcel and the church parcel. 3. Six-foot high opaque fencing shall be provided on all interior property lines. Type of fencing shall be approved by the Planning Division. 4. Future development on the church parcel is considered only conceptual at this time. A separate final development plan must be approved prior to any additional development or construction on that portion of the property. 5. Grading and construction can increase the amount of airborne dust in the vicinity of the procKsed development. To control the dust, the developer shall spray and water the construction site under the direction of the Building and Safety Division and all construction vehicles shall be sprayed prior to leaving the site. 6. All on-site utility services (Edison and Telephone) shall be installed underground. 7. Installation of all utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure said installation from view from arty place on or off the property. Said installation shall be in a m miner acceptable to the Public Utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box, and shall be installed in accordance with standard plans and specifications of the City of Costa Mesa. S. Any mechanical eguip¢ent such as air-conditioning caTpressors and duct work shall be screened frau view. 9. The parking for this project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission six aonths after opening of the senior citizen's apartments. If it is determined that there is a parking prcble,.n, provision of additional parking on the church parcel may be required. 10. Revised site plans shall be available for Staff reviRa at least one week prior to City Council action on this natter. Full-size and reduced site plans shall be submitted for City Council review under the direction of the Planning Division. Eng. ' 11. Submit current Title Report. •12. Submit Grading Plan. Leis. 13. Existing trees shall remain. Serv. APPLICANT IS RFMINDED THAT THE FOLLCWIM CaMITIalS ARE R.D3UIRLMEIM OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LLGAL LA45: M Eng. 14. • Construct P.C.C. residential sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standard Drawings at applicant's expense on Orange Avenue, Bay Street and Laurie Lane. Agenda No. 7.E-82-88 hbrdquist/Epis.Church -10- CONDITIONS IF A.PPR= - ORDINANCE RDWIRE`1E'M (Continued) 15. Construct P.C.C. driveway approach per City of Costa Mesa Standard Plans. Location, width and type are subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 16. Any existing drives and/or curb depressions that will not be used shall be removed and replaced with full height curb and sidewalk at applicant's expense. . 17, a. Dedicate all land 25 feet from the centerline of Laurie Lane. b. Dedicate all land for cul-de-sac on Laurie Lane. c. Dedicatc a 3 -ft. public utility easement behind existing right-of-way line on Laurie Lane. 18. Fulfill Drainage Ordinance Fee requirements prior to issuance of building permits. Fire 19. Provide for the installation of fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A to be located within 75 feet of travel distance from the front door of each unit. Extinguishers may be of a type rated 2A10BC as these ex- tinguishers a? -e suitable for all types of fires and are less expensive. 20. Provide for approved detectors of products of combustion other than heat to be installed in accordance with the 1973 Edition of the Uniform Build- ing Code. 21. Provide an approved fire alarm system in accordance with Section 13.307 of the Uniform Fire Code - 1976 Edition. Plan. 22. Approval of the Planned Development shall be for a period of one (1) year. Prior to expiration of that time an extension may be requested or the permit will lapse. 23. Any subdivision of the property shall meet all requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and of City Codes. 24. Paris fees shall be paid in accordance with City Standards prior to issuance of building permits. 25. Care and maintenance of men space and other common facilities shall be be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Planned Development Ordinance. Both parcels shall be fully landscaped in conjunction with development of the housing project to provide a unified appearance for the overall planned development. 26. A11 fences and required street setbacks shall comply with City Code. 27. A detailed landscape/irrigation plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to: type, size, and location of all plants and trees; type of ground cover; sprinklers; all walls, fences, or barriers; trash enclosures, driveways; parking lots and security lighting; and type, location, arra assigrarent of street addresses on property. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to release 28. All landscaped areas shall be separated from paved vehicular areas by 6 -inch high continuous Portland cement concrete curbing. 29. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. 30. In compliance with the provisions of the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Sub -chapter 1, Article 4, the applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis of the proposed development, prepared under the supervi- sion of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering. Two copies of said report shall be submitted with the application for building permits. The acoustical analysis shall evaluate existing and projected -11- CCUDITIOVS, IF APPRWM (continued) Agenda 11ba. ZE-02-88 Nordquist Epis.Church noise levels, noise attenuation measures to be applied, and the noise insula- tion effectiveness of the proposed construction. The person preparing the report shall, under the direction of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, perform an inspection of the project prior to or at the time of the framing inspection to certify that construction techniques comply with recommendations contained within the acoustical analysis, upon completion of the subject structures, field tests may be required under the provisions of Title 25. of utilities. REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOUCHIM SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARE HMEBY FMARDED TO APPLICRZT Sani. 31. Developer will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at Dist. his own expense, meetng the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 32. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, and sewer permit required prior to installation of sewer. Water 33. Applicant is reminded that additional conditions o Dist. imposed by Mass Consolidated Water District and/or SR -4-10 f development may be other serving utilities. SECTION IV Interoffice Memorandum dated May 17, 1984 Regarding the explanation of the Transfer of Development Rights INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM M :. :rte,- • r7n, Re: ST. JOHN THE DIVINE SENICFS HCUSIWI EEVELOPWtTr 2031 ORANGE AVENUE/183 EAST BAY STREET Mr. Robert Yoder has alleged several irregularities in the construction of the hous- ing development, block wall, and sidewalk at the referenoai location. The allega- tions and results of Staff investigation are detailed below. t Wry i4SCJ 2. 3. Allegation: Insufficient dedication was taken for the sidewalk on the east side of Laurie Lane. Response: The 416" dedication required on the east side of the street equal- izes the two halves at 25' frau centerline, allowing 416" from back of curb to property line on both sides in accordance with City standards. A 3' public utility easerient (P.U.E.) was also\ dedicated behind the new property line. CN Allegation: Block wall was not built in the proper location it should have been set back 3' to 4' behind the property line. Response: The Staff Report and approved plan for -M--8- variance to allow the wall to encroach into the required 10' setback, indicate that the wail would be built 3' to 4' behind the property line, thus behind the P.U.E. Adjacent to the existing church build- ings, the wall was actually constructed 4' behind the back of curb, encroaching 6" into the right-of-way. This pla-es the wall between the sidewalk and the P.U.E. The portion of wall adjacent to the housing project was constructed 7' behind the back of curb. =;though this encroaches 4" into the P.U.E.: there is sufficient rk-xm to construct a standar;; width sidewalk. The wall was con- structed without benefit of building permit. In addition, three of six existing trees were rc,mved to accauQm- date the wall. Condition $1 of ZE-84-38 ,aqui n :if the trees "to the greatest extent passible, under directs Ct Planni.g Division." Planning Staff was not consulted p 'or their removal. Sidewalk width on the east side of the street is about 6" narrower than on the west side. "a: n • The standard sidewalk detail calls for a 4'4" sidewalk behind tke curb and a 2' separation between the sidewalk and property Lin (to accomodate 2' by 4" forms). The sidewalk on the west sid;Et the street complies with this standard. Due to the encroach of the new well into the right-of-way, the area available fo ide- walk is reduced to 41; 4" less than standard. (The 2" pace .torms is not required as the wall will act as a fo PUBLIC UTILITY EASEi4ENr Allegation: Utility lines were installed under the sidewalk rather than in the P.U.E. becaise of the location of the new wall. Response: According to the contractor, electrical conduit was buried in the area where the sidewalk will be installed. Engineering Division permits are required to install utilities in the right-of-way or P.U.E. to such permits have been obtained. 5. DENSITY Allegation: Density approved for the housing project conflicts with the star-,- dards tarrdards of the Zone. OW Section 13-252.1(b) indicates that the density of the residential component of a mixed use development is based an the "portion of the total site area devoted to resi- -dential uses, including required parking, l.anJscaping, open space, and driveways .to._serve_the_residential-eonp�nent." - Response: The project was approved on July 19, 1982, under 2E-82-88. Al- though the Staff Report identified the dersity based on the entire site as 18 units per acre, density of the residential portion alone is approximately 40 wits per acre. The Staff Report indicated that the excess density, above the 30 units per acre allowed by the PM -HD acne, was accanplished by transfer of developuent rights from the vacant portion of the church parcel to the residential parcel. this would reduce the number of units which could be cor.- structed on the remainder of the site in the future. In addition, a Condition of Approval was added requiring recordation :f an agreement allowing joint use of parking between the housing parcel and church parcel. The residents of the housing project will also have use of certain church facilities for recreation/meeting roods. This would increase the land area availabl- for calculation of density in Wcordance with C414C Section 13-252.1(b). SECTION V August 4, 2015 City Council Agenda Report Reference pages Parking Lot Temporary lighting for potential Installation of low hedge / shrubs along Reconfiguration / evening hours. Bay Street frontage to shield light and Lighting (night hours) glare from headlights. Fire Department Parking lot reconfiguration allows Submittal of an emergency access plan Access to St. John's vehicle circulation and access to St. to be approved by the Fire Chief Manor John's Manor from the Church parcel. ensuring direct access for emergency fire response/paramedic vehicles to St. John's Manor senior housing complex. Revised Site Plan Residents living across Bay Street expressed a concern with light and glare as a result of the reconfiguration of the parking lot. A condition of approval required construction of a low wall or planting of a hedge along the Bay Street frontage of the parking lot to mitigate this concern. In response, the applicant further revised the site plan to increase the landscaped area along the Bay Street frontage. The parking spaces that faced north were eliminated, reducing the total number of on-site parking from 80 to 70 spaces. As the conceptual landscape play. shows, the additional landscaped area would be planted with drought tolerant shrubs and ornamental plants (Attachment 8). Existing Open Space Area Originally Considered for Future Church Building 19 The church has a large lawn area (approx. 17,000 SF) that faces Orange Avenue that was intended as a future development site. At the time that the City Council approved the neighboring senior housing complex (Zoning Exception Permit ZE-82-88), a Church expansion concept was also granted. The site plan included a complex of buildings in the location of the front lawn area. The new buildings were not constructed and instead the entire front portion of the property was landscaped until more definitive expansion plans would be submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission. Review of City records, including the HCD records of Agreements between the City and St. John Manor, indicates no requirements or conditions of approval mandating the preservation of the front lawn area as open space. Public Correspondence Received to Date A total of 35 form letters have been received in support of the proposed farmers market. The reasons provided in support of the farmers market included support of locally sourced agriculture and the fostering of a sense of community. Eight emails and letters in opposition were submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting. As noted above, the concerns included the appropriateness of the use within the residential neighborhood, noise, litter, items for sale by vendors, increased traffic, sufficiency of parking, and provision of emergency response vehicle access to St. John's Manor. Since the Planning Commission meeting, one phone call and letter were received in opposition to the proposed project reiterating land use compatibility and traffic concerns. All of the public correspondence is included as an attachment. `Appeal/De Nova Hearing The City Council hearing for this appeal is a de novo hearing in which the City Council may consider the project in its entirety. The purpose of this report is to provide responses to the issues raised by the appellant, and to highlight and/or clarify the evidence in the administrative record that was presented to the Planning Commission prior to its action. Issues Raised by Appellant in Appeal Application On June 12, 2015, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed by Carrie Renfro, a neighboring property owner. The following is a listing of the concerns described in the appeal application: • Concerns with additional traffic and parking. The appellant stated that a traffic study should be conducted for the intersection of E. Bay Street and Orange Avenue. • Farmers market would be an incompatible commercial use in this residentially zoned neighborhood. ANALYSIS The following analysis provides responses to the concerns raised by the appellant. More detailed information is provided in the Planning Commission staff report. • Traffic and pedestrian safety The Transportation Division determined that since the farmers market would take place on Saturday during off-peak hours, the traffic volume is anticipated to be low. The Planning Commission concurred with the information included in the supplemental memorandum dated June 3, 2015 (Attachment 3), and required a traffic study to be completed to determine if a stop sign and cross walk are warranted at the intersection of Orange Avenue and E. Bay Street before the farmers market operations could commence. • On-site Parking The farmers market would take place on Saturdays when no other church activities are being held. Based on a parking ratio of two parking spaces per vendor booth, 30 parking spaces are required. A minimum of 46 on-site customer parking spaces would be provided. As conditioned, parking attendants would be present to direct and guide patrons onto the site and would post temporary signs directing customers to the parking lot. In addition, a condition of approval would require reducing the number of vendors, if parking impacts are experienced. The church is located at the intersection of two collector streets and is readily accessible via alternate modes of transportation, including walking, biking and a transit line. M-17EL " lei; tO 5, y 1, 4"1 I I discretionary review but is subject to the City's development standards and code requirements. Parking Lot Improvements The applicant intends to expand the existing parking lot into the front lawn area. The parking lot would be reconfigured to add 34 more spaces for an overall total of 80 parking spaces. Six existing trees on the front lawn would be removed. As part of the improvements, the freestanding wood sign would also be removed and replaced. The replacement sign will be submitted under a separate permit and is subject to a specific sign provisions in residential zones. The vehicular connection to the St. John's Manor parking lot would be closed but pedestrian access would remain. The parking lot improvements are subject to the City Zoning requirements and development standards. The PDR -HD zone requires a 20 -foot minimum, perimeter landscaped setback. As mentioned above, a variance was granted to the church allowing a five-foot setback along Bay Street; the proposal is consistent with the approved setback along that frontage. The emergency preparedness bin would be relocated further to the east and along the south side of the expanded parking area. The container would be screened from view from Orange Avenue by landscaping but would be directly accessible from the parking lot. A new trash enclosure would be constructed near the southeast corner of the property and would also be accessible from the expanded parking lot area. The parking lot expansion will need to meet the minimum landscape requirements; six trees per each parking space are required, with at least half of the trees required to be evergreen. Because of the number of new parking spaces and impervious surface area, a water quality management plan has been submitted for review and approval by the Public Services Department. ANALYSIS Farmers Market The applicant proposes to establish an outdoor farmers market in conjunction with the parking lot expansion. The farmers market would take place on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on a weekly basis. A maximum of 15 vendors would be accommodated on the proposed parking lot expansion area. According to the applicant, the farmers market would support local, independent, and small-scale farmers and artisans selling high quality fruits, vegetables and other products. The Episcopal Church is looking to bring the community and farmers together to promote the value of locally sourced products. Although proceeds will support Costa Mesa based charitable organizations, social services, in terms of providing food or social services for the homeless, will not be provided at the site as part of the farmers market activities. The proposal is a typical outdoor farmers market open to the public and operated by a nonprofit organization. The majority of the goods are farm products, sourced within a specific distance of the site. As a condition of approval, the majority of the booths would -31- Y•Q I AI [a SECTION VI E -Mails from Staff regarding 1) Confirmation of Open Space Requirement 2) Definition of Open Space ASHABI, MIN®O From: fi Subject: GARDEA, ANTONIO Monday, June 08, 2015 10:57 AM ASHABI, MINOO RE: St John the Divine Farmers Market The,two iawn are elped-fulfil l-thgopen space requirement -for the St- John's Manor project. The parcels are considered as one projecEsite in terms ofiallowable density and minimum open space. l A/conceptual approval was granted for eas sio arose Church which jw as not carried out. mbined site complies with the 421 open space requirement , From: ASHABI, MINGO Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 10:21 AM To: GARDEA, ANTONIO Subject: FW: St. John the Divine Farmers Market Please see Claire' email below. For examples of PDR -HD, I only found these two uses. Wyndham Hotel and The Lakes Shopping Center Page 1 of 1 From: "GARDEA, ANTONIO"<antonio.gardea@costamesaca.gov> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 3:37 PM To: Subject: RE: farmers market appeal Carrie, As I mentioned both parcels, St. John's Manor and the Church, are considered one site. The total site area is 88, 358 sf Building and parking areas are 51, 176 sf Open space is 37,183 sf. Here is the zoning definition of open space. Open space. An area that is intended to provide light and air, and is designed for either environmental, scenic or recreational purposes. Open space may include, but is not limited to, lawns, decorative planting, walkways, active and passive recreational areas, playgrounds, fountains, swimming pools, wooded areas; first floor decks; unenclosed patios with solid or lattice roofs; water courses; and surfaces covered by not more than 5 feet in depth by projections which are at least 8 feet above grade. Open space shall not include the following: driveways; parking lots; other surfaces designed or intended for vehicular travel; and upper floor decks, balconies or areas under projections which are less than 8 feet above grade. From: Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 3:01 PM To: GARDEA, ANTONIO<antonio.gardea@costamesaca.gov> Subject: farmers market appeal Hi, Carrie Renfro here. Can you please give me a specific breakdown of square footage for how you are calculating the open space for the farmer's market? • 172 o* SECTION VII Photos: 1) Manor Resident Parking Lot 2) Newport Blvd. at Bay Street 13 0 SECTION VIII Costa Mesa Bicycle Map And Safety Guide is r Civic _ + Center Get Mar h Park yaeglaai Pl //; - /f Community Garden 6 Van ;<; so guard : ' 4%. Costa Mesa Telae R1 University / e Pi 4eAent Ra \aAi i i / 9�db ie + '04 44 BICYCLE MAP = o55 ANDz` y SAFETYGUIDE 141 v DF/d O r[tOrlay/ / \�0 6 Qp t� f d Xanitee it z e � % / a +f/Lindbergh 9jd+�P Park p Hamilton Community em we f a'c 1J�rCD Garden IF Bay St _ WBay St aas\ ' // oa as, <//, ZZ+ vaa9 I Core St f Terkslin St W 20tk St Seal St -e .. / q f9°`% V/111/as� S M Ross Slsis e Fail Rd N f + n Bo Sort St a Reined Sf© 4 enai B151 s d Read St a DMV 11eolytn / i / ��a `\`oe i�\ yam 9afd�+ae le 19111 St O Jordan nior CenterCosta Mesa TriangWi / e rp B�fi'+F Park Plower St Courtyards S u / Go 71 Center St Q 9 JS Enter St �p{�, dfi Beale Dr \' • a e Lions Park e ar Janes St Park Or o pa fo P/ SAalimar Dr 110p4 Ternioalwy / `s, ti� P 3a P'® '!dam Q0 EIYtk St a o�P/! `soa- Oda+s used Sl oil p Dkws WY / Harper Waetaersof Park �; e� 4ddP i� -r�C' /e / /Q®iJ,l.. /+,d Pmkley �...� faG io ✓66+ '!•/. --":. LEGEND / f a e /6/ Oy/ �' :c 12 / FaP+e aq% Multi -Purpose Multi-Puro rt Trail QV ryd_ 1" Bike Lane �aDaa a Signed Bike Route �c Volumes 4w. I , SECTION IX Costa Mesa Code Enforcement Brochure regarding Garage Sales Q ,N L •N N L tJ CD O OS � O S S S a 6 L O) 3 C7 Q. rt- 'O •«- p O Q Q5i Q) LY vO Q5 Vj © Q) N N D) " O r- 0 - C N N U b p -0 O O j O O� v r N 0 C mS > O" U O ,O) a i Oy a Q p '� O U N iA •C 'j C Q) L C O>,O .0 6 C 0 Sv C O a) N a OU }6CS'C •6 •s O O N E tpU Q 0 •" O a S N N E S L C O C a- C 0 Cn r E +C w L© O' rs N U �. cy "CS q 4•- C O O L D] N C S O ° Q il➢ i3 Q. � d p o' mi) L C y Cry o C x S p tW U '.S) S C C. p as (/a.. � � � .eL-5... C Ve EA ._ _0� O a CL °0 o o � tpg wp � Z3 q 4 M CS u_ • Q a) • mai O N O E 'v5 O p E q RS va G v q Z v ° 0 p o C R "0 to w 6 v O q 0 O q E iet aa)) N c q i7 47 N O C 0 t/f t7 iGD q v N C Q 4g — 4i °) zs q a E` L 'C CLO CL L is Q) 47 Q Ln v JL4 Gs n) 0 W u 0 q) O O � .- (D N z q " E w 3 E to 0 Q ,N L •N N L tJ CD O OS � O S S S a 6 L O) 3 C7 Q. rt- 'O •«- p O Q Q5i Q) LY vO Q5 Vj © Q) N N D) " O r- 0 - C N N U b p -0 O O j O O� v r N 0 C mS > O" U O ,O) a i Oy a Q p '� O U N iA •C 'j C Q) L C O>,O .0 6 C 0 Sv C O a) N a OU }6CS'C •6 •s O O N E tpU Q 0 •" O a S N N E S L C O C a- C 0 Cn r E +C O' .Uo0)a°n O _ L S 41 O C S O N U � Q. � a o a'o o' mi) o C x S p U '.S) S p (/a.. � � � .eL-5... C D 11 0 ,--mmn�nonom�n h N00400 S7Nt} n h; -i "t nMOD� nf nho '+# �'Y V .4 'V' *7 -i0� V' �1' .� O � n nhnnhp.hlTn1\ � m en tl7 N 'wti y© ori i.. 4:. o Q p �'. V1 E.i CN P10 d c m S a O Y U p w c H w .°�. h ''�" O a Ln N 07 N �. � 'y S C C •O ,E- d , V4 W CLt h o U -MCN om �'a C n� un q o c E c '9 m G N 0 t N cv a, �S v a o ¢ a 0 0 �b o oc`N` 5--o—°—' E ww,, 0 2^oVI rn w O O 'c'5 ou °� a o a E <CmUCJ(�c°�v°,�`t=t`Ni c ?. N ate- C A N U t i a O a Ltiz- C a U N E 3m p p p a c c- E pa 0 E w c -a > 01 p m E $ o® i LL E U> p.S a v � o O LAa a _00 00 4) G o E = Q E C W C3 d' cs a � U (D s° a v i S h E v T m v m s p a p a°Elz a) a s a N* o y c c o h p m o 0-0 c ®�am> H a w p E pc0 )a o p4 -,=,) F a e 1 p A ,ao Q u o 0 00 .: •Qi L. 4.1 4.3 ''� v UC, la tL G) Ol N La a% a7 p 44 0 .-r w -0 00'10 ,p vajuaCa.c mac >>ar�+,a oo_ > 1054 'wnAm�'v,i ar m as��awcC. * 3 400 .c m as :a acs .� 4%m Q w O6 4'O G N•H b w cv t j ,,.4 d u 44 � Qw: Id w Di iw L �a 41 Vim+ U r+aU w oo4a10>,4s 41 w;Co c:w af3 A. o rn vc b..o� io, d -Dm 44 a " V CN0 41+ 0 ~ NC O C6 L as ap . A i s V Ir a us ay 'tAQU 41 Q o Vi Id140 x+ .-t tq aE p .a a ;1, r • Q O f! tJY o i s,t9 . �+ tr'�.► �e ,tn a+ of , . _ 175 4 •0 C4 It C4 ja-4 . 40 vj L 3, 6 i*q -,ilf 4i fj: CL 0In 40 C6 M -AN JX 406 A S fa cm Off Ti 4 •0 C4 It C4 Ad- a JL L 3,