HomeMy WebLinkAbout30 - PH-1 - Attachment 10 - 11/3/2015ATTACHMENT 10
%;► FirstCarbon-".
r S0L.UTI0NS
Response to Comments
on the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
forthe
2277 Harbor Boulevard Project
City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California
Prepared for:
City of Costa Mesa
Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714.754.5000
Contacts:
Ryan Loomis
Willa Bouwens-Killeen
Prepared by:
FirstCarbon Solutions
250 Commerce, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92602
714.508.4100
Contacts: Christine Jacobs -Donoghue
Liz Westmoreland
Date: October 27, 2015
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
- l Oq1 r
City of Costa Mesa — 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project
Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Section1: Introduction and Background........................................................................................ 1
Section2: Response to Comments................................................................................................. 3
2.1- Mesa Water District......................................................................
................................... 3
Response to Comment A-1....................................................................................
3
Response to Comment A-2....................................................................................
3
Response to Comment A-3....................................................................................
3
Response to Comment A-4....................................................................................
3
2.2 - City of Irvine, Community Development Department.......
......................... ................. 3
Response to Comment B-1....................................................................................
3
2.3 - SoCal Gas Company...........................................................................................................
4
Response to Comment C-1.....................................................................................
4
2.4 - Public Law Center....... ........... ...........................................
............................................... 4
Response to Comment D-1.......................................................
............................ 4
Response to Comment D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5 .............................................
............ -.. 4
2.5 - Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition ............................................
:.............................. 5
Response to Comment E-1 through E-6.................................................................
5
2.6 - Department of Transportation..........................................................................................
5
Response to Comment F-1.....................................................................................
5
2.7 - Orange County Airport Land Use Commission..................................................................
5
Response to Comment G-1....................................................................................
5
Response to Comment G-2....................................................................................
5
Response to Comment G-3....................................................................................
6
2.8 - State Clearinghouse........................................................................................................... 6
Response to Comment H-1....................................................................................
6
2.9 - State Clearinghouse...........................................................................................................
7
Response to Comment 1-1......................................................................................
7
Response to Comment 1-2......................................................................................
7
2.10 - Rick Huffman...................................................................................................................
7
Response to Comment J-1.....................................................................................
7
Response to Comment J-2.....................................................................................
8
2.11- Phil Luchesi and Luchesi Enterprises...............................................................................
8
Response to Comment K-1....................................................................................
8
Response to Comment K-2....................................................................................
8
Responseto Comment K-3....................................................................................
8
Response to Comment K-4....................................................................................
9
Section 3: Changes to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ....................................... 1I
3.1- Changes in Response to Specific Comments................................................................... 11
Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................ 11
Page86, Impact b)............................................................................................11
Appendix A: Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2277 Harbor Blvd.
Project
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-1N)\0080\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC dou
-I1C
rM
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Costa Mesa — 2177 Harbor Boulevard Project
Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction and Background
On September 11, 2015, the City of Costa Mesa (City) circulated an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) for the 2277 Harbor Blvd. project. The City received various comments during
the public review period (September 11, 2015 through October 10, 2014). CEQA does not require a
lead agency to prepare written responses to comments received on an MND; however, the City has
reviewed the comments received and prepared the following responses, in an effort to provide full
information to the decision -makers and the public. In addition, this document also includes
responses to late comments received beyond the public review period.
The 4.15 -acre project site is currently occupied by the 236 -room (94,500 square foot) Costa Mesa
Motor Inn motel at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, which is designated General Commercial under the
City's General Plan and zoned C1 (Local Business District). The proposal involves demolition of the
existing motel and the construction of a four-story, 224 -unit luxury apartment project, inclusive of
twenty affordable units for moderate -income households. Parking onsite would be accommodated
within a proposed five level parking structure containing 503 parking spaces. The proposed project
consists of the following discretionary requests:
1. General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 to change the land use designation from General
Commercial to High Density Residential. Per the applicant's request, the proposed base
density is 166 units (40 du/acre) with a density incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units
to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households; and
(b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Therefore, for the 4.15 -acre project
site, the General Plan Amendment would specify an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre
for the proposed 224 -unit apartment complex, and a site-specific building height for the 5 -
level parking structure.
2. Rezone R-14-04 from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development
Residential — High Density).
3. Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02 to make specific reference to the parcel, where
appropriate, and the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD
zone in Title 13 (Zoning Code) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, as well as any other related
changes.
4. Planning Application PA -14-27, a Master Plan for the 224 -unit apartment project with
specified deviations from the PDR -HD development standards, including the following:
i. Variance to allow deviation from required Open Space and Private Open Space
requirements;
ii. Variance from building height to allow a five level parking structure (a maximum of four
levels is permitted as of right; five levels are proposed);
iii. Administrative Adjustment for encroachment of ground floor private patios into required
perimeter open space area (20 feet are required; 15 feet are proposed).
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\0090\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC docs
Introduction and Background
City of Costa Mesa —1177 Harbor Boulevard Project
Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The City received a total of four comment letters in response to circulation of the IS/MND during the
official comment period from the following agencies: Mesa Water District; City of Irvine Community
Development Department; Public Law Center; and the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition. Six
additional comment letters were received after the close of the official comment period from the
State Clearinghouse (2); Department of Transportation (Caltrans); SoCal Gas Company; Phil Luchesi
(and Luchesi Enterprises); Rick Huffman; and the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. Each
individual comment within each letter has been assigned a code (i.e., A-1, A-2, A-3, etc.) to cross-
reference comments with responses. The comment letters and/or text of correspondence are
reprinted in Attachment A to this letter. Responses to Comments are provided in Section 2.0 and
Changes to the IS/MND are provided in Section 3.0 of this document.
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Cllent (PN-1N)\0080\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC dou
City of Costa Mesa —1177 Harbor Boulevard Project
Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments
2.1- Mesa Water District
Response to Comment A-1
The commenter states that data regarding Mesa Water's supply capacity is outdated, and provided
the correct statistics. The project's potential to deplete groundwater supplies is analyzed in Section
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the IS/MND, under Impact Question b). Additionally, a
corresponding update to the IS/MND text is included in Section 3 below.
Response to Comment A-2
The commenter outlines the plan check process. The comment also states that page 143 of the
IS/MND should state whether or not the project may require new or modified water facilities,
including potential offsite improvements. The commenter requests consultation with Water District
staff and asks that the analysis consider the total water demand versus the incremental demand,
Section 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems section of the IS/MND, Impact Question b) analyzes the
project's potential to require new or modified water facilities including offsite improvements. As
stated on page 143 of the IS/MND, the Applicant would be responsible for constructing all
conveyance facilities pursuant to Water Division criteria and standard regulations (i.e. Uniform
Codes, City Ordinances, etc.). Additionally, Impact Question d) addresses the potential for the
project to impact water supplies. As discussed in the IS/MND on page 146, the District tentatively
confirmed service on May 21, 2015, contingent upon the required District Plan check and
consultation with the district. Furthermore, the Applicant is also required to provide a will -serve
letter from the District. Thus, the IS/MND currently includes requirements to ensure the Water
District can provide service, and no further response is warranted.
Response to Comment A-3
The commenter provides additional requirements for the Applicant related to water metering,
including the need for a dedicated sole easement to Mesa Water. This comment has been noted.
Additionally, the commenter provides irrigation requirements. These requirements would be
incorporated into the site plans and verified during the District plan check process.
Response to Comment A-4
The commenter provides further requirements for the Applicant related to water conservation and
landscape irrigation. Refer to Response to Comment A-3, above.
2.2 - City of Irvine, Community Development Department
Response to Comment B-1
The commenter acknowledges receipt of the Notice of Intent and Initial Study for the project, and
states that they have no comments at this time. No further response is warranted.
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-1N\0060\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC docx
10--
City of Costa Mesa —1277 Harbor Boulevard Project
Response to Comments Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.3 - SoCal Gas Company
Response to Comment C-1
The commenter acknowledges receipt of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the project. The commenter requests that So Cal Gas Transmission also be notified
of work being conducted for the project, pursuant to California Public Utility Commission rules. No
further response is warranted.
2.4 - Public Law Center
Response to Comment D-1
The commenter states that the letter is written on behalf of the Costa Mesa Motel Resident
Association (CMMRA). The commenter asserts that members of the CMMRA and other residents
staying at the motel are considered low to extremely low income, veterans, and people with
disabilities.
The comment has been noted and no further response is warranted.
Response to Comment D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5
The commenter states that a negative declaration is not appropriate due to adverse social and
economic effects on the people of Costa Mesa, that a substantial displacement would occur, and
that low-income units should be included in the project. The commenter also asserts that significant
low-income housing units specifically would be lost.
The Initial Study discusses the potential for displacing housing and individuals in Section 4.13
Population and Housing. Although the Costa Mesa Motor Inn is considered a commercial use, and is
not recognized as housing in the City's General Plan Housing Element, the IS/MND provided a
conservative analysis, evaluating 50 units as housing since they are used on a longer-term basis.
Furthermore, the Applicant has volunteered to provide housing relocation assistance to existing
occupants in the form of a housing relocation consultant (refer to Standard Condition 4.131). The
Applicant has also volunteered to provide financial assistance to residents.
Nonetheless these 50 motel units are not considered permanent housing, are not included within
the City's housing allocation, are not considered housing in the City's Housing Element, and do not
directly contribute to the City's population. Therefore, the IS/MND provides a conservative analysis
of the project's potential to displace individuals and housing, and impacts are less than significant.
Furthermore, CEQA only requires the analysis of physical changes in the environment. As such,
analysis of socio-economic impacts from the elimination of a motel use is not required under CEQA,
particularly where the motel use will be replaced with a new development and will not result in
physical impacts from a vacant building such as blight. (See CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e);
15382) Additionally, the City's current housing element indicates the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) obligations as two units (one low and one very low income), and motels are not
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\[Ilam (PN-1N)\0080\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC docx
City of Costa Mesa — 2177 Harbor Boulevard Project
Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Response to Comments
required to satisfy the current RHNA allocation. Thus, impacts are less than significant and no
further response is warranted.
2.5 - Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
The commenter states that the initial Study is incorrect in stating the project will have a less than
significant impact concerning displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing, and that
removal of the current motel would adversely impact existing housing in the City because low-
income units are not included in the proposed project. The commenter states that no relocation
plan has been provided, and that there is no existing low-income housing for the current occupants
of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn (CMMI). The commenter provides general comments regarding the
City's housing availability and variety.
Response to Comment E-1 through E-6
Refer to Response to Comment 2.4 (D-2 through D-5) above. The City's current housing obligation
includes the allocation of one low-income unit and one very low-income unit, and motels are not
intended to satisfy the current RHNA allocation. Additionally, the project would provide 20
affordable units, thereby contributing to the City's stock of affordable units. As previously discussed,
the Applicant is also volunteering to provide relocation assistance and has provided a Relocation
Plan that includes financial support for existing customers at the motel. Only 50 units are utilized on
a longer-term basis. All reasonable efforts will be made to give existing motel occupants enough
time to vacate and find a new form of temporary or permanent housing. The financial contribution
of the Applicant and assistance of the Relocation Consultant would aid existing residents in their
efforts to find a new place to stay. Impacts remain less than significant, and no additional mitigation
is required. No further response is warranted.
2.6 - Department of Transportation
Response to Comment F-1
The commenter acknowledges receipt of the IS/MND and provides a project description. The
commenter states that they do not have any comments at this time, but that if any activities should
occur within Caltrans' right-of-way, then an encroachment permit would be required. No changes to
the circulated site plan have been made, thus an encroachment permit is not required. No further
response is warranted.
2.7 - Orange County Airport Land Use Commission
Response to Comment G-1
The commenter acknowledges receipt of the IS/MND, and provides a brief project description. No
response is warranted.
Response to Comment G-2
The commenter refers to the IS/MND's Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials discussion
regarding airport and airport land use plan (ALUP) hazards. The commenter suggests that the
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Cli,n[ (PN-1N)\0080\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC docx
_,ate,
City of Costa Mesa — 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project
Response to Comments Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
IS/MND discuss the height at which notification is required versus the height of the proposed
buildings. The commenter also requests the IS -MND include a discussion of the project's location
within the FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for the John Wayne Airport (JWA).
As discussed in Impact e) of Section 4.8 of the IS -MND, the project site is located approximately 5
miles southwest of John Wayne Airport and outside of the Airport Impact zones and Airport Safety
Zones. The proposed building height is restricted, due to its location within the Airport Environs
Land Use Plan (AELUP) Height Restriction Zone. The project currently proposes buildings of no
greater than 50 feet in height. As acknowledged by the commenter and the IS/MND, the Applicant is
required to notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for project review.
Furthermore, according to Section 4.11 of the JWA AELUP, should the project be found inconsistent
with the AELUP, the commission shall promptly notify the affected local agency. The agency may
then modify the submitted project so as to be consistent with the AELUP, and resubmit the project
to the Commission for a determination of consistency, or the local agency may choose to overrule
the Commission by following the procedure established in California Public Utilities Code Sections
21676 and 21676.5. Thus, notification and review by the ALUC would ensure that impacts are less
than significant.
Response to Comment G-3
The commenter states that a referral by the City to the ALUC may be required due to the location of
the project, due to the City approvals that are required. Additional suggestions regarding time frame
for submission of the aforementioned referral are included.
The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) provided comments on the IS/MND on October 15, 2015,
several days past the close of the public review period. Additionally, the commenter suggests that
the ALUC determination be made prior to the City Council hearing. However, the City Council
hearing is scheduled for November 4, 2015, making a prior decision by the ALUC infeasible.
Therefore, as discussed in the IS/MND (p. 84) and Response to Comment G-2, notification to the FAA
and a review are required, which would ensure that impacts related to airport and airport land use
plans are less than significant. No further response is warranted.
2.8 - State Clearinghouse
Response to Comment H-1
The commenter states that the State Clearinghouse (SCH) has submitted the IS/MND to State
agencies for review, and as of the date the comment period ended no state agencies had submitted
comments. The commenter acknowledges that the City has complied with the SCH review
requirements pursuant to CEQA.
The comment has been noted, and no further response is warranted.
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\C11-t (PN-1N)\0080\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor BWd RTC dock
City of Costa Mesa — 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project
Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments
2.9 - State Clearinghouse
Response to Comment 1-1
The commenter states that one letter was received after the end of the comment period and that
Lead Agencies are not required to respond. However, the commenter encourages Lead Agencies to
take all comments into consideration prior to taking final action on the project.
Response to Comment 1-2
The commenter forwarded the comment from the Department of Transportation. The comment
was identical to the comment discussed in Section 2.6. No further response is warranted.
2.10 - Rick Huffman
Response to Comment J-1
The commenter expresses concern regarding the overall vision of the City. The commenter discusses
the height and character of the project, including concerns regarding the density of other projects in
the area. The commenter states that the project appears to be a spot zone change.
The commenter does not provide any comments specifically addressing the IS/MND. As discussed in
Section 4.1 Aesthetics, the project would be in keeping with the modern architectural style of the
nearby shopping area. The adjacent uses are also considered residential and open space uses, thus
the project would convert a commercial use to a compatible residential use. Zoning and density are
discussed in Section 4.10 Land Use Planning, and impacts were found to be less than significant.
In the event that the General Plan Amendment (from General Commercial to High Density
Residential) and rezone (from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development
Residential — High Density) are approved as part of the project, this would not constitute "spot
zoning." The legislative body of a City may amend all or part of a General Plan, subject only to the
limitation that a mandatory element of a General Plan may not be amended more than four times
per each calendar year (See Cal. Govt. Code § 65358(b)). A General Plan is not intended to be a
static document that is not subject to change, because a city's needs and vision may change due to
growth or other factors. Amending a General Plan in connection with a particular development
project does not constitute "spot zoning."
Rather, the essence of spot zoning is "irrational discrimination", as explained in Arcadia Development
Co. v. City of Morgan Hill (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1526, 1536 [129 Cal.Rptr.3d 369]: "Spot zoning
occurs where a small parcel is restricted andgiven lesser rights than the surrounding property, as
where a lot in the center of a business or commercial district is limited to uses for residential
purposes thereby creating an "island" in the middle of a larger area devoted to other uses" (Avenida
San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201 Cal. App. 4th 1256; emphasis added). The
project's request for a General Plan Amendment and zone change, if approved, will not result in any
discriminatory zoning. In addition, project applicants are permitted to seek amendment of the
General Plan and changes to the zoning designation of their property pursuant to Title 13 of the
Costa Mesa Municipal Code.
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client CPN-JN)\0090\00800025\RTC\00600025 2777 Harbor ENd RTC d..
City of Costa Mesa — 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project
Response to Comments Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Response to Comment J-2
The commenter expresses concern that the project is out of character for the City, and does not
provide community benefits. The primary benefit and purpose of the project is the provision of
housing, including affordable apartment units. The commenter provides suggestions for building
guidelines. Refer to Comment J-1 for discussion regarding community character. No further
response is warranted.
2.11- Phil Luchesi and Luchesi Enterprises
Response to Comment K-1
The commenter, Rutan & Tucker LLP is writing on behalf of his clients, the adjacent property owner
and his company Luchesi Enterprises. The commenter expresses general support for the project,
with the exception of some concerns.
The comment has been noted and no further response is warranted.
Response to Comment K-2
The commenter provides an outline of the proposed project, and states that the project exceeds
height limits. Thus, the commenter is concerned that the proposed project may interfere with
cellular reception provided by the mobile service providers on his property. The commenter
discusses their concerns regarding interference and potential impacts to the new residents of the
project site, requesting that an additional study be conducted analyzing potential impacts.
The comments do not directly address the IS/MND. Cellular tower sites are under the exclusive
authority of the Federal Communications Commission, which generally preempts local land use
authority regarding the placement of, or potential interference with cellular communications.
Additionally, the commenter incorrectly states that the proposed building height is 60 feet, whereas
the existing plans available for public review show buildings up to 50 feet, with the parking structure
at approximately 46 feet, including the average car height. Potential solar panels would not exceed
the height of the buildings at 50 feet.
Response to Comment K-3
The commenter expresses concern regarding other potential impacts to private property such as
traffic, drainage, and parking. The commenter is concerned that guests at the proposed apartment
complex would park at his business.
As discussed in Section 4.16 Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND, 503 parking spaces would be
provided to serve the proposed project, including the provision of guest spaces in accordance with
the City of Costa Mesa's parking code. The Applicant is not requesting any variances with regard to
parking, and the project would require adequate parking for all residents and visitors to avoid the
need for any "overflow" parking on adjacent streets or private property. Additionally, the project
would not include any features that would impede customers from traveling to the private property.
FirstCarbon Solutions
HACRent(PN-1N)\0080\00800025\RTC\008000252777 Harbor Blvd RTC.docx
1 iq _o-
City of Costa Mesa — 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project
Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments
As discussed in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, Standard Condition 4.6-3 would require the
preparation of a detailed Hydrology Study. As discussed in Impact Questions c), d), and e), the
existing drainage course would remain essentially the same, with additional BMPs implemented to
improve water quality. Thus, the proposed project would not be expected to create any drainage
issues for the adjacent property owner.
Response to Comment K-4
The commenter presents concerns regarding potential challenges to the project and environmental
documentation. The commenter suggests that the project entitlements would be inconsistent with
the City's General Plan; that the project may be subject to a spot -zoning challenge; and that the
project proposes a density bonus that is greater than allowed by state and local law.
The commenter does not identify any other specific inconsistencies with the General Plan to allow
for a detailed response; however, a General Plan amendment would resolve any inconsistencies with
the City's General Plan. In addition, the City is the local land use authority that governs the nature
and density of uses within the City of Costa Mesa, consistent with State law (Gov't Code §§ 65915, et
seq.). State density bonus laws provide mandatory concessions (e.g. increased density, parking
requirement waivers) in exchange for the provision of affordable housing. The proposed project is
based on a specific development application and does not have any relationship to, or conflict with
State density bonus laws. Rather, the project would require discretionary approval of the proposed
entitlements in order to be developed.
With regard to the concerns related to potential "spot zoning," please refer to Response to Comment
J-1, above.
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-1N)\OOBO\OOB00025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC docx
-12o--
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
- I21'
City of Costa Mesa — 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Changes to the Initial Study/
Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigated Negative Declaration
The following changes and additions to the IS/MND have been made and are detailed below. These
revisions do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the
IS/MND. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined and bold
and all deletions from the text are stricken.
3.1- Changes in Response to Specific Comments
Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Page 86, Impact b)
According to General Plan El Exhibit 4.8-2, Water Supply Agency Boundaries, Mesa Consolidated
Water District (Mesa Water) supplies water to the project site. In compliance with legislative
requirements, Mesa Water has prepared their 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The
UWMP provides information on the present and future water resources and demands, and assesses
Mesa Water's water resource needs. According to the UWMP, Mesa Water's main sources of water
supply are groundwater pumped from wells within the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin
(Orange County Basin) and imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
through Municipal Water District of Orange County. Mesa relines on ately 15,900 aere
mately 47 p Pe e .,t .,f P4e6a;s teta1 a a( .,,man The water supply capacity of Mesa
Water is approximately 64.8 million gallons per day (mgd). The total water supply capacity
consists of 14.1 mgd from clear well groundwater pumping, 8.6 med from the Mesa Water
Reliability Facility, and 42.1 m d from imported water'.
' Data provided by Mesa Water District in their comments on the public draft IS -MND dated 9.21.15.
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-1N)\0000\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC,d-
11
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Costa Mesa — 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project
Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-1N)\0090\00600025\RTC\00600025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC.d-
124
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
AXXf
MesaWater
DISTRICT
Dedicated to
Satisfying our Community's
Water Needs
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Shawn Dewane
President
Division V
Ethan Temianka
Vice President
Division III
Jim Atkinson
Director
Division IV
Fred R. Bockmiller, Jr., P.E.
Director
Division I
James R. Fisler
Director
Division II
Paul E. Shoenberger, P.E.
General Manager
Phil Lauri, P.E.
Assistant General Manager
Coleen L. Monteleone
Assistant General Manager
District Secretary
Andrew N. Hamilton
District Treasurer
Bowie, Arneson,
Wiles & Giannone
Legal Counsel
1965 Placentia Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
tel 949.631.1200
Fax 949.574.1036
info@MesaWater.org
MesaWater.org
LETTER A
page 1 of 2
September 21, 2015
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
To Whom It May Concern,
Re: 2277 Harbor Boulevard Mitigated Negative Declaration Review
Comments
Mesa Water® appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the
subject project Mitigated Negative Declaration. A review and comments of
the 2277 Harbor Boulevard Development (Proposed Project) Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration document as it pertains to Mesa Water@
are provided as follows:
1. Water Supplies and Demand: Information is outdated or incorrect. The
water supply capacity of Mesa Water@ is approximately 64.8 million
gallons per day (mgd). The total water supply capacity consists of 14.1
mgd from clear well groundwater pumping, 8.6 mgd from the Mesa
Water@ Reliability Facility, and 42.1 mgd from imported water.
2. Infrastructure Impacts: In order to determine if the Proposed Project
would require expansion of existing facilities, a hydraulic model analysis
will be required. Through the plan check process the residential,
business, irrigation, and fire sprinkler demands will be used to model
the effects of the additional demands on the system and determine if
upgrades are required. Mesa Water@ Standard Specifications shall be
used to calculate residential demand requirements based upon floor
plans and the number of fixtures. The discussion on page 143 should
clearly state whether or not the proposed project may require new or
modified water facilities, including any potential offsite improvements.
This evaluation should include consultation with District staff, and must
consider the total water demand for the site, not just the incremental
demand from this proposed project, per CEQA and District policy. As
noted in Comment 4 below, the MND should at minimum acknowledge
the potential for typical appurtenant utilities, such as new or modified
hydrants, meters, vaults and valves, in order to provide water service to
the project.
3. Single Meter Policy: Mesa Water's Single Meter Policy for individually
owned units will be enforced and require the developer to provide a
dedicated and sole easement to Mesa Water@.
4. Water Conservation & Irrigation: Dedicated irrigation metering for
landscaped areas greater than 2,500 square feet shall be required. All
landscaping shall be in accordance with the City of Costa Mesa
Landscape Ordinance, irrigation fixtures shall be drip -irrigation type,
and shall be a Water -Sense certified irrigation controller.
2
3
LETTER A
page 2 of 2
5. Operating Pressure: The Developer/Home Owners Association (HOA)
shall be responsible for providing the necessary pressure increase
beyond the meter above the minimum required (40 psi) by the Division
of Drinking Water Standards to ensure proper functioning of all fixture
units and fire protection systems.
6. Site Access: Private gates shall be prohibited where Mesa Water®
facilities are blocked from access, including valves, backflow devices,
service laterals, and meters. Exclusion of gates shall be incorporated
into the dedicated Mesa Water® easements.
7. Other Requirements: All development work shall comply with Mesa
Water® Rules and Regulations for Water Service and Mesa Water®
Standard Specification and Standard Drawings. Both documents are
available online at www.MesaWater.org.
Please contact Tim Beaman of my staff at (949) 207-5483 with any
questions.
Regards,
Phil Lauri, P.E.
District Engineer
�-12-7-�-
4
Community Development
City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza, P.O, Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623-9575
September 28, 2015
Mr. Ryan Loomis
Associate Planner
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
P.O. Box 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Subject: Notice of I stent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) and Initial Study for a 224 unit Apartment Project
Dear Mr. Loomis:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Intent to adopt a MND
and Initial Study for the 224 unit apartment project located at 2277 Harbor
Boulevard. City of Irvine staff has reviewed the submittal and has no comments
at this time.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 949-724-6314 or by email at
dlaw ,cityofiniine.orc .
Sincerely, ly
A),
Ks t � - —
David R. Law, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: Barry Curtis, Manager of Planning Services (via email)
Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner (via email)
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
LETTER B
cltyofirvine.org
(949) 724-6000
1
LETTER C
Frorn: Lopez, Ryan [ma ilit):RLopez2tg-.Senl[V ru1iIItieSX01111
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 1:49 PNI
To: PLANNING COMMISSION <PLANNINGCOMMISSION(cbci.costa-mesa.ca.us>
Subject: Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel (u 2277 Harbor Bled.
Hello:
Your notification to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Report has been received
by So Cal Gas Distribution.
Be aware for your reference: It may take 30 business days for a response.
California Public Utility Commission Rules require notification of both SoCal Gas
Transmission and SoCal Gas Distribution of all work being conducted. You will need to
send a copy of Your request and plans to:
Rosalyn Squires
So Cal Gas Transmission
9400 Oakdale Ave
Chatsworth, CA 91311
818-701-4546
R5auires c1semprautiiities.cam
Thank you for your patience and cooperation,
Ryan Lopez
SoCalGas
Southeast Region - Anaheim HQ
Gas Operations - Planning & Engineering
Maps & Letters Desk
1919 S. State College Blvd
Anaheim, CA 92806
(714) 634-5067
(714)634-7287 Fax
rlopez2@semi)rautilities..com
THIS MESSAGE I5 INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED
AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT I5 PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE
UNDER APPLICABLE LAWS If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, forwarding, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, and delete the original message immediately. Thank you.
LETTER D
PUBLIC LAWCENTER page of
PROVIDING ACCESS TO JUSTICE
October 9, 2015 FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S LOW INCOME RESIDENTS
Robert I.. Dickson Jr.
Planning Commission
City of Costa Mesa
77 Pair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
RE: Comment on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, 22771Iarbor Boulevard Project
Dear Commissioner Robert L. Dickson Jr.:
This letter is a comment to the September 10, 2015, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,
2277 harbor Boulevard Prgject, Cily of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California ("Initial Study").
This letter is written on behalf of' the Costa Mesa Motel Resident Association ("CMMRA").
CMMRA consists of short- and long-term residents who consider the motels in Costa Mesa home. A
majority of the members of CMMRA currently reside at Costa Mesa Motor Inn ("CMMI''), the
location of the proposed project. In general, the members of CMMRA and the other residents of the
motel are low-, very -low-, and extremely -low-income families, veterans, and other residents, many
of whom are disabled.
A negative declaration under CIQA is inappropriate. The conversion of CMMI is likely to have a
significant impact due to the adverse social and economic effects on the people of Costa Mesa.
CMMRA urges its City's Planning Commission to reject the current proposal for a luxury apartment
project at the Costa Mesa Motor Inri ("CMMI"). This project will cause a substantial displacement
for the neediest and most vulnerable residents of Costa Mesa. CMMI has at least 63 units that are
set aside for long-term occupancy and a similar amount of low-income units should be included in
the new project.
The Planning Commission should reject the current proposal of converting CMMI into luxury
apartments for a number of reasons, including: a) the plan lacks any requirement for providing low-
income units; b) the inducement for substantial population growth will completely displace the
current residents; c) there will be a significant loss of existing, low-income housing units; and d)
there is a lack of alternative housing for Costa Mesa residents. The Planning Commission must
require that a portion of the redevelopment project will include low-income units.
Plan Lacks Requirement for Providing Low-income Units
The current plan for redeveloping the CMMI does not include any low-income units, even though a
substantial number of low-income people will be displaced by the demolition of the CMMI. The
owner's about-face to create luxury apartments when the same owner has been operating a motel for
low-income residents should not be encouraged. This owner for years has relied on the income of
low-income residents and advocated on their behalf when City Council members from Costa Mesa
targeted the CMMI for its poor operation. Yet now they do not want to work with low-income
residents. It is this City's obligation to ensure that redevelopment occurs in a sensible way that meets
the needs of all of its residents, without exclusion of is lowest income residents.
,_Oo_�_
601 Civic Center Drive West - Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 - (714) 541-1010 - Fax (714) 541-5157
2
LETTER D
page 2 of 3
Complete Displacement of Current Motel Residents
This project will displace current residents and does not consider appropriate affordable replacement
housing. The analysis of the population and housing impact is flawed as the Initial Study does not
take into account that the inducement for population growth is for an altogether different
demographic. The Initial Study fails to recognize the adverse impact of the project because it fails to
recognize that the people that currently live and stay at the CMMI are low-income and unable to
afford the luxury apartments proposed for this location. This displacement will have an adverse
impact.
Contrary to the Initial Study's conclusion, the displacement of the low-income residents of CMMI
will have a significant impact and require the construction of replacement housing. While the Initial
Study references affordable housing constructed between the years of 2008-2011, the Initial Study
makes no reference to the number of currently available affordable units in Costa Mesa. In fact, the
Initial Study entirely omits any data on current, available resources for low-income residents. This
quite simply is because there is a major shortage of available affordable housing in Costa Mesa,
which is why the City has relied on motels to shelter its low-income residents. Additionally, as
recently as February 2015, Orange County Housing Authority reported that because the demand for
affordable housing in Costa Mesa is so great, most of the affordable housing units currently have
multiple -year waiting lists. Because of this lack of affordable housing, many residents displaced by
the project will become homeless. Any project that increases homelessness is a significant adverse
impact on the greater Costa Mesa community.
2
CONT
What affordable units are actually available at present in Costa Mesa? What services will be
provided and measures will be taken to prevent any current residents of CMMI from becoming
homeless? What specific assistance will a relocation consultant provide? With a lack of available 3
affordable housing, replacement housing is necessary and any new construction at 2277 Harbor
Boulevard should contain low-income units.
Loss of Low-income Housing Units
The Initial ,Study errs in claiming that the "existing use only provides temporary housing." The
CMMI has been used as long-term housing for low-income residents for over a decade. As recently
as October of 2014, CMMI reported to Costa Mesa that approximately 89 people currently live at
CMMI in a long-term capacity. Even though Costa Mesa has attempted to eliminate long-term
occupancy at motels, convert motels to only temporary housing, and updated its Housing Element to
no longer rely on motels for affordable housing, these 89 residents are able to maintain their status as
long-term residents under the grandfather clause of Costa Mesa's ordinance and the preliminary
injunction granted in the case of Dadey. et al v_. -City of Costa Mesa, No. 30-2014-00757962-C1J-
CR-CJC. Additionally, as stated in its 2008-2014 Housing Element, Costa Mesa has relied on
motels, including CMMI, to provide affordable housing to Costa Mesa residents. CMMI has
historically been allowed to use as much as 40 percent of its rooms to provide long-term housing. To
the extent that the Initial Study claims CMMI only offers "limited stay options, and does not
represent a permanent housing use," while at the same time recognizing that at least 50 units are in
fact used on a long-term basis, it is inconsistent. Additionally, there is no data in support of this
number.
�131 1---
601 Civic Center Drive West - Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 - Fax (714) 541-5157
E
LETTER D
page 3of3
What data has the Initial Study relied on in claiming that the current use provides only temporary
housing? This conclusion is not based on any evidence, is in fact contrary to the actual use, and is 4
inconsistent with the Initial Study. What data does the Initial Study rely on for calculating the present CONT
number of units used as long-term housing?
Lack of Housing for Costa Mesa Residents
While the Initial Study makes note of resources to assist low-income residents in need of housing, it
makes no reference of their present availability. As but one example of scant resources available to
low-income residents, while hundreds of Orange County residents are receiving Housing Choice
Vouchers, currently Orange County I lousing Authority is not accepting any new applicants for these
vouchers.
What vouchers and other housing assistance are currently available to low-income residents of Costa
Mesa? What capacity in Costa Mesa do these resources have to provide for additional residents?
Even if such resources were presently available, displacing a minimum of 89 residents would cause a
major strain on these resources. Such an impact would adversely affect all those who presently rely
on those resources and such a social and economic effect would be significant.
Most of the long-term residents of CMMI have built their lives around living at CMMI. They are
near their jobs, their doctors, and their children's schools. Many residents at CMMI do not have
personal transportation and rely on CMMI's location for its convenient access to shopping centers
and all of life's basic necessities. Such convenience is especially critical to the disabled residents of
CMMI.
What support is there for the claim that the majority of residents will leave by attrition? What
support is there for the claim that residents may not even stay in Costa Mesa when these residents
have built their lives around living in Costa Mesa? The conclusion that these residents will leave by
attrition or not stay in Costa Mesa is not based on any credible evidence and is just self-serving
speculation. Instead of providing for its residents, including its most needy, the City is turning its
back on their needs in exchange for just profit.
Sincerely,I
Lill Graham
Richard Walker
Public Law Center
Attorneys on Behalf of CMMRA
601 Civic Center Drive West - Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 - (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157
k,
LETTER E
page 1 of 6
Costa Mesa .11fordable [ioissimag Coalition
October 10, 2015
Chair Robert L. Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commissioner Members
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
RE: Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration- 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project
Dear Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members:
On behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition), I am writing to
express our concerns about serious inadequacies in the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Initial Study) regarding the 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project (the project). We are
particularly disturbed the Initial Study mischaracterizes the effect that closure of the Costa Mesa
Motor Inn (CMMI) will have on the city's housing stock available for lower income residents.
The Initial Study is wrong in stating the project will have "less than significant impact" in regard
to displacing "substantial numbers of existing housing" and that, as a result, there is no need for
'`construction of replacement housing elsewhere." (Initial Study, p. 12 L)
As our Coalition has explained to the Planning Commission at numerous public hearings, the
CMMI has for years served as last resort housing for Costa Mesa's poor. Until 2014, when the
City began aggressively pushing the owner of the CMMI to change the property's use to upscale,
high density residential, the motel's 236 rooms, 40% of which were used for "long term stays,"
were consistently full, providing housing for hundreds of lower income residents, including
families with children, disabled people, and seniors who could find no alternative affordable
housing in Costa Mesa. Consequently, the closure of the CMMI to make way for luxury
apartments that include zero units affordable to these lower income households will result in a
significant adverse impact on "existing housing" in our City.
236 rooms of last resort housing will be lost. CMNII's existing tenants will be priced out of
the new apartments, displaced without effective relocation benefits/assistance and at risk of
becoming homeless. The Coalition is very concerned the proposed development will not only
effectively remove existing "affordable homes" from the City's housing stock, but it will very
likely increase Costa Mesa's existing homeless problem.
Obviously, the Coalition has serious concerns about the project. The Coalition believes the
success of the project will depend on the City's leadership in thoroughly analyzing and 2
addressing the project's environmental impacts. The Coalition urges the City to take the
following recommendations into consideration:
-133-
LETTER E
page 2 of 6
Place this agenda item on hold and not vote on it. The project has the potential to
impose a negative impact on our community. The timeline for the project is being rushed
throuc,h and the concerns of the community have not been thoroughly addressed. The
Coalition has outreached to the developer and its local representatives over the past
couple of months to discuss our concerns on the project. To -date, we have not received
any response from them.
There needs to be meaningful community outreach and the incorporation of public input
that reflects the decision-making and planning process for the project. The City has the
ability to slow down the process to ensure the needs of the community are addressed.
The Coalition requests the City to place this agenda item on hold and help facilitate a
meeting that will include the developer, city staff, the Coalition and the community to
further discuss the concerns on the project.
2. Under the Population/ Housing environmental factor, re-classify the displacement of
existing housing and residents from "less than significant impact" to "potentially
Significant impact" necessitating the construction of replacement housing. The Initial
Study did not thoroughly evaluate and analyze the potential impacts the proposed project
would have on the displacement of current tenants at the CMMI. There is no specific
relocation plan in place to ensure the tenants, especially the long term tenants, have
affordable housing options that are readily available near transit and job centers in the
City.
At the last City Council meeting on October 6, Mayor Mensinger stated that over 150
tenants are currently living at the CMNII. Significantly, according to the Initial Study,
there are long -tern tenants in 50 units of the CMMI. I Because the project includes zero
units affordable to the lower income tenants who currently live in the CMMI, all these
existing tenants will be displaced, including the long-term tenants living in 50 of the
units. While the developer will hire a relocation consultant to provide at least one on-site
visit and offer relocation services to assist tenants in finding replacement housing,2 these
set -vices would not be enough to realistically help tenants relocate and find housing in the
City.
The chances of finding existing housing that are affordable to lower income families in
the City or anywhere else in the County is extremely low. In the City's 2008-2011
Housing Element planning period, only one low-income home was constructed in the
City; and there are currently no other proposed affordable home developments for lower
income families in the City's development pipeline. With the serious lack of affordable
homes, the housing crisis in the City is exacerbated with the rising and out -of --reach rents
in the City. The average asking rent in the City is S1,8'10 and that is a 6.3% increase from
the year before .4 While the term "affordable" is defined as a household that spends less
Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 1larhor Boulevard Pro jcet, City of Costa Mesa. p_ 121, September 10, 2015,
Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of 'osta Mesa, p. 122. September 10. 2015_
I lousing Element For 'rhe Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021 , City of Costa Mesa, p. 10, January 21, 2014.
Fee Iin, the Pinch:' Local Rent Prices IIit A Record High, The Orange County Register, IanuaiN, 16, 2015-
�� 1
2
CONT
LETTER E
page 3of6
than 30 percent of their household income on housing costS,5 many renters are paying
more. In the City, many renters overpaid and spent approximately 44% of their income
towards rent.b In addition, a substantial amount of households in the City are lower
income families. Approximately 39 percent of households earned less than $50,000 per
7
year.
According to the report, "...even if localized displacement occurred, it would not occur
in substantial amounts as to warrant the need for replacement housing that would have a
significant effect on the environment." s We believe this is a wildly misleading statement,
The amount of tenants being displaced will be much larger than the report indicates. The
reason the report says localized displacement will not occur in "substantial amounts" is
because it is not going to happen all at once. Instead, localized displacement at the
CMMI is already happening, discreetly, in preparation for the project. Once the current
tenants vacate the units, none of the newly vacant units are "advertised as vacant."9
Since 2014, the CMMI has been systematically displacing potential tenants by
intentionally not allowing them to rent these vacant rooms. Thispractice has negative
impacts on the community as more and more individuals and families who are at -risk of
being homeless will have not where else to go. They may end up on homeless on the
streets. Because this displacement is happening discreetly at a slower rate, it is not being
analyzed and quantified.
Re -analyze and re -confirm the correct number of affordable units constructed in
the City. The Initial Study states: "Between 2008-201 1, a total of 618 affordable units
were constructed."10 However, in the City's 2014-2021 Housing Element, the report
identifies only one low-income home was constructed in the City during the 2006-2014
Housing Element planning period." Where in the city were these "618 affordable units"
constructed? Are these units affordable to lower income working families or are the units
affordable to moderate and above moderate income households? Also, are these units
deed -restricted?
4. Not exclude affordable homes from detailed analysis in the Initial Study. With high
housing costs and significant lack of affordable homes, many workers and families,
especially those who earn lower wages, struggle financially to live close to where they
work. Compared to other cities in Orange County, housing costs are significantly higher
in Costa Mesa and simply out of reach for extremely low-, very low- and low-income
families. These impacts not only hurt workers and families, but may also have negative
environmental impacts to the City.
With the lack of vacant land in the City, the project at the CMMI provides a great
opportunity for the development of homes to be set-aside as affordable to lower income
Flo using [:lenient For Ilie Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City ol'Costa Nlesa, p. 3 L .lanuary 21. 2014,
Lower Rents Might Cost You More: High Cost Orllousing Chips Deeply into Low-wage Earners Pay, The O.C. Register, \pri1 13, 2015.
Profile of the City of Costa t1desa Local Profiles Report2015, SCA6, 1). 10, iAlay 2015,
Initial study- Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Flarbor Boulevard Project. City of Costa Mesa- 1). 122. September 10. 2015.
Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Flarbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 122, September 10, 2015.
Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City orCosta Mesa, 1). 121. September 10. 2015.
Housing Element For [lie Costa Mesa Generat Plan 2013-2021, City of CostaMesa, p_ 10, January 21, 2014.
-13-5
3
CONT
ld
LETTER E
page 4 of 6
working families. By living in an affordable home development that's near transit
services, such as the frequent OCTA buses servicing Harbor Boulevard, many residents,
especially lower income working residents, can rely on the bus for their commute to and
from work and to other destinations. Residents and workers who take transit become less
dependent on driving their automobiles and can help decrease the environmental impacts
of traffic congestion, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. In addition, lower wage employees working at the Harbor Center across the
street from the CMMI can also greatly benefit from living in close proximity to where
they work. The employees would only have to walk across the street to their job site
without needing to drive. Not only will the development of affordable homes help reduce
VMT and GHG emissions, the proximity of the affordable homes to jobs will create a
more walkable and healthier Costa Mesa.
The environmental impacts of a development are especially less drastic when people can
afford to live and spend their money in the same community in which they work. With
low wages and high housing costs, many workers live in other cities and become
dependent on "their automobile to commute to and from work and other destinations.
These trips may increase traffic congestion and air pollutants that not only negatively
impact the environment but also the quality of life for residents in the City. Addressing
these enviromnental impacts will also align with the Sustainable Communities and
Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and help the City implement and comply with
the regional goals of SB 375.
5. Only approve the Initial Study in exchange for community benefits where the
developer commits to dedicating at least 20% of homes affordable to families at
extremely low-, very low- and low-income levels at the project. Given the City's high
housing costs and serious lack of affordable homes, many individuals and families have
turned to motels such as the CMMI as their last resort housing. With the proposed
residential development, nearly all of the motel's existing tenants will be priced out,
displaced, and may be at -risk of becoming homeless.
One of most effective solutions to homelessness is the development of permanent
affordable homes. The proposed project will effectively take out existing "affordable"
homes from the City's housing stock. The City has control over land use decisions and
should take this great opportunity to request for community benefits that addresses the
existing housing needs of the City. By changing the land use designations and up -zoning
the existing property, the City has created additional value on the property and would be
giving away these tremendous benefits to the developer. While these giveaways provide
significant windfalls and increases the property values of the proposed development,
what community benefits does Costa Mesa get in return? With the lack of vacant land
and funding for the development of affordable homes, the City should capitalize on this
great opportunity by recapturing the increased value through community benefits. New
proposed developments requesting additional development standards should only be
approved in exchange for community benefits such as a set-aside of affordable homes for
lower income families.
—)340_
4
CONT
5
LETTER E
page 5 of 6
Other jurisdictions in Orange County have taken a stand for their residents and have
requested new residential developments provide community benefits to the City. In the
City of Santa Ana, the Housing Opportunities Ordinance applies to residential
developments that request a discretionary approval (e.g., change in land use designation,
zoning, density etc.). The Ordinance requires 15 percent of new homes to be affordable
for low and very low-income households. In the City of Laguna Niguel, the City's
Gateway Specific Plan allow increases in density in exchange for the provision of
important community benefits such as the development of affordable homes. Laguna
Niguel has two market rate rental developments that have set-aside homes that are
affordable to lower income families.
6. Reinstate extended stay units/ long term stays at motels in the City. As stated
throughout this letter, the CMMI provides last resort housing for hundreds of low income
individuals and families. Currently, the CMMI has at least 50 units that are occupied by
long-term tenants. Until 2014, the CMMI had a Conditional Use Permit that allowed up
to 90 rooms (40 percent of all rooms) to be rented out as long-term stay units. In 2014,
however, the City adopted an ordinance effectively outlawing long-term stays at the
motels, including the CMMI, that provide last resort housing to the City's poor. Without
long term stays at the motels, individuals and families are only allowed to stay 28 days
before they are kicked out the motel. Without any other viable housing options, many
individuals and families are subjected to moving from motel to motel.
In the years before it adopted that ordinance, the City specifically identified motels as an
alternative option for affordable housing. In the City's 2008-2014 Housing Element, it
specifically states: "the City recognizes a need to use motel/hotel rooms as a housing
alternative for extended stay... extended stay units provide alternative affordable housing
choices." Since that planning period, the City has not added any affordable housing for
lower income households. Consequently, motels are still needed in the City to "provide
alternative affordable housing choices." In light of this recognition, the City should
reinstate its policies regarding extended stay units/long term stays at motels.
7. Be consistent with the General Plan goals, objectives and policies. The Initial Study
states the project is consistent with the General Plan goals, objectives and policies; however,
it is actually not consistent in that it is failing to meet the expectations of the following:
a. Goal Lu -1, Land Use: "...to provide its citizens with a balanced community of
residential uses... to satisfy the needs of the social and economic segments of the
population"t2 and;
b. General Plan Land Use Objective LU-IAt: "to provide for the development of a
mix and balance of housing opportunities... in consideration of the needs of the
business and residential segment of the community."' 3
Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 1larbor Boulevard Project, City or Costa Mesa, p. 100, September 10, 2015,
Initial Study tilitigated Negative Declaration 3377 Harbor Boulevard Project, City or Costa Mesa, p, 100, September 10, 2015.
5
CONT
L
LETTER E
page 6 of 6
The City has not expanded housing choices for lower income residents living near transit
and job opportunities. In the City's Housing Element 2008-2014 planning period, while
1,047 moderate and above moderate income homes were constructed, only one low-
income home was constructed in the City. 14 In the City's Urban Master Plan, 501 units
are entitled, under -construction or completed. 15 Not one of these units are affordable to
lower income working families. The City has only prioritized it's efforts to building
homes that are affordable to moderate- and above moderate -income households.
8. Provide a detailed jobs -housing "fit" analysis. Different from jobs -housing balance,
which evaluates the number of jobs to the number of homes in a specific geographic
location, the jobs -housing fit provides a more detailed analysis. The jobs -housing fit
analyzes the discrepancies between the types of jobs and wages (especially for low-wage
jobs) that are available in a City and the housing costs and opportunities that are available
in the City.
Locating homes, especially affordable homes, near job centers (i.e. Harbor Center), mass transit
and neighborhood amenities will create a more walkable, healthier and sustainable Costa Mesa.
As the City evaluates and addresses the potential environmental effects of the project at the
CMMI, the Coalition strongly urges the City to prioritize the development of homes
affordable to lower income working families as an effective strategy to decrease negative
environmental impacts.
The Coalition looks forward to hearing the City's response to our concerns. We hope that the
City and the CMMI developer/ owner will be a community partner in helping facilitate the
1-1
development of affordable homes for lower income families. Not only will affordable homes
help mitigate negative environmental impacts by decreasing VMT and GHG emissions, it will
also make Costa Mesa a better place to live in.
Please keep us informed of any upcoming meetings and proposed changes regarding the
proposed project. if you have any questions, please free to contact Kathy Esfahani at
kmesfahani@att.net.
Sincerely,
�a 64, ��al air/
Kathy Esfahani
For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition
'' Housing Element For The Costa iAIesa General Plan 2013-2021, City orCostn Mesa, p. 10. January 21, 2014,15 .
City orCosta Mesa Urban blaster Plan Developments Attachement 2, City Council Planning Commission Joint Study Session, Proposed
Urban Plan Amendment to Amend the SOBECA and Westside Urban Plans, p, 9, September 3, 2015.
6
CONT
SPALL OF, CAL IhORNIA--CALIFORN1A5'CSCE_TRANSL'LAIATION-LWEYCY _ _ _ 1.1]MIJNU G. BROWN h . ckuemur
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 12 '
3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100
IRVINE, CA 92612-8894 Serious
ought
PHONE (949) 724-2000 Serious drought.
FAX (949) 724-2019 ifelp save water!
"TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
LETTER F
October 12, 2015
Mr. Ryan Loomis
File: IGR/CEQA
City Of Costa Mesa
SCH#: 2015091026
77 Fair Drive
IGR Log #: 4495
P.O. BOX 1200
SR -55
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
Dear Mr. Loomis:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) the Costa Mesa Motor Inn Motel. The 4.15 -acre project site is
currently occupied by the 236 -room (94,500 sf) Costa !Mesa Motor Inn motel at 2277 Harbor
Boulevard in the General Commercial land use designation and C1 zone (Local Business
District). The proposal involves demolishing the existing motel and construction of a four-story,
224 -unit luxury apartment project. The project requests a base density of 40 du/acre, and a
density incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) Provision of a 20
affordable units for moderate -income households, and (b) Complete demolition of the Costa
Mesa Motor Inn. Parking will be provided on a five level parking structure containing 503
parking spaces. The project site is located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard in the in the City of Costa
Mesa and the nearest state facility is SR -55.
Caltrans is a commenting agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However,
in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right of way, an encroachment permit will be required.
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could
potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us,
please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2241.
Sincerely,
MAUIRF1EL HARAKE
Branch Chief, Regional -Community -Transit Planning
District 12
"Provide a sale, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system
to enhance California's economy and livability"
13�1J
ORANGE COUNTY
LETTER G
page 1 of 2
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FOR
ORANGE
COUNTY
3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012
October 9, 2015 1�
Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
Subject: 2277 Harbor Boulevard 224-iJnit Apartment Project
Dear Mr. Loomis:
"Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study for the proposed residential
development project located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa, in the context of the
Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan foj' John Wayne
,41ir port (JIG'A AEL UP). The proposed project involves the development of 224 apartment
units on a 4.15 acre site. The proposed project would also require an amendment to the
City's General Plan in order to change the existing land use designation from General
Commercial to High -Density Residential. We wish to offer the following comments and
respectfully request consideration of these comments as you proceed with preparation of
your Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
As discussed in the initial study, the proposed project is located within the Federal
Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. We suggest that the
MND discuss the height at which the notification surface would be penetrated compared
to the proposed building heights. The initial study states that notice to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) is required. We also recommend that the MND include a
discussion of the proposed project's location within the FAR Part 77 Obstruction
Imaginary Slu'fdees for JWA. As noted in the initial study the proposed project is not
located within the Airport Impact Zones or Airport Safety Zones for JWA.
A referral by the City to the ALLJC may be required for this project due to the location of
the proposal within a JWA AF,L.UP Planning Area and due to the nature of the required
City approvals (i.e., General Plan Amendment and "Zone Change) under PUC Section
21676(b). In this regard, please note that the Commission suggests such referrals be
submitted to the ALUC for a determination, between the Local Agency's expected
Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC meets on the third
"Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by
the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing.
2
3
ALUC Comments -2277 Harbor Blvd.
224 -Unit Apartment Project
October 9, 2015
Page 2
LETTER G
page 2 of 2
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this initial study. Please contact Lea 3
Choum at (949) 252-5123 or via email at lchowwa:.oc:air.coin if you need any additional CONT
details or information regarding the future referral of your project.
Sincerely,
/Z�g�
Kari A. Rigoni
Executive Officer
-191-
° o
c'S:i on• .
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
October t3,2015
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Ryan Loomis
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
Subject; 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project
SCH#; 2015091026
Dear Ryan Loomis:
� FiAyyrNC
'es
3'+ p
s
• �fa� OF RALiF�*
Ken Alex
Director
LETTER H
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state
agencies for review, The review period closed on October 12, 2015, and no state agencies submitted
comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearuighouse
review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the
ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
Scott Igan
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 TNNTII STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 96812-3044
TEL (916) 446-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
E
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor
October 16, 2015
Ryan Loomis
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
Subject: 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project
SCH#: 2015091026
Dear Ryan Loomis:
lot Q
a444� 9f PF�
Ken Alex
Director
The enclosed comment (s) on your Mitigated Negative Declaration was (were) received by the State
Clearinghouse atter the end of the state review period, which closed on October 12, 2015. We are
forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be
addressed in your final environmental document.
The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments.
However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental
document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project.
Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the
environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project, please refer to
the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (2015091026) when contacting this office.
Sincerely, ,-�
4
Scott Morgan
Director, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
-193-
LETTER I
page 1 of 2
1
„%LAIIiOFCAL[FojtN10--,4L1 S}H�IrJI t10ZiNtiy
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 12
3347 NUCIIELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100
IRVINE, CA 92612-8894
PHONE, (949) 724-2000
FAX (949) 724-2019
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
October 12, 2015
Mr. Ryan Loomis
City Of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
P.Q. BOX 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
Dear Mr. Loomis:
L
VE( \1E0 V
OCT 14 2015
5'fAiE GLEoUSE
AR__ H
File: IGR/CEQA
SCH#: 2015091026
IGR Log #: 4495
SR -55
0
Serious Drought.
Serious drought.
Help save water!
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (ISIMND) the Costa Mesa Motor Inn Motel. The -4.15 -acre project site is
currently occupied by the 236 -room (94,500 sf) Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel at 2277 Harbor
Boulevard in the General Commercial land use designation and C1 zone (Local Business
District). The proposal involves demolishing the existing motel and construction of a four-story,
224 -unit luxury apartment project. The project requests a base density of 40 du/acre, and a
density incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) Provision of a 20
affordable units for moderate -income households, and (b) Complete demolition of the Costa
Mesa Motor Inn. Parking will be provided on a five level parking structure containing 503
parking spaces. The project site is located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard in the in the City of Costa
Mesa and the nearest state facility is SR -55.
Caltrans is a commenting agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However,
in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right of way, an encroachment permit will be required -
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could
potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us,
please.do not hesitate to call ��ryatt� Mulavi at (941) 724-2241,
Sincerely,
JVD.A� J
MAURF'T EL HARAKE
Branch Chief, Regional -Community -Transit Planning
District 12
"Provide a safe, srwfainahle, fnlegeaN d and efficlual irarmportaflon sysiem
to enhence CaJUraja's Economy and livability”
_ice._
LETTER I
page 2 of 2
2
ROSALES, MARTHA
Subject: FW: Planning Commission report item #PH3
-----Original Message -----
From: Rick Huffman [mailto:huffmonrj@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:49 PM
To: FLYNN, CLAIRE <CLAIRE.FLYNN@costamesaca.gov>; ARMSTRONG, GARY
<GARY.ARM5TRONG@costamesaca.gov>; rdickson.cmpc@gmail.com
Subject: Planning Commission report item #PH3
Dear Commission Members,
I want to talk about the developer's vision for the future of Costa Mesa.
For Harbor Bid, they want to go up, up, up,
iH_3
LETTER J
Harbor Bid, of Cars will also be known as Apartment Row. Think a scaled down version of Wilshire Bid. in L.A. for
Costa Mesa.
One overlay plan being proposed calls for changing commercial to mixed use high density residential on 6 sites
totaling 24.6 acres at 20 units per acre, 4 stories, 60' high. That is at least 492 units and even more for density
bonuses,
An additional plan calls for changing commercial to super high density on 6 sites totaling 27.4 acres at 40 units per
acre, 4 stories, 60' high and 5 or 6 level parking structures. That is at least 1096 units and even more with
bonuses.
Costa Mesa Luxury Apartments is part of this overlay proposal although it seems to be just a spot zone change at
the moment.
Similar zoning changes are in the works for Newport Bid. and SOBECA with similar 40 unit per acre zoning. Add to
that Home Ranch proposals for
1.2 million sq, ft. of office space. There is more in other areas but I'm running out of space.
I want to replace blighted areas too. But not by building a hodge podge of apartment buildings that are totally out
of character with our city.
Let's start listening to the residents! These zoning changes provide no proposals for parks, open space, village
centers with plazas and sidewalk shops. How about some lower density, lower height, bigger set backs? How about
bike -ways and walkways for safe active transportation?
Let's start embracing the principles of smart growth so we don't get overwhelmed by growth for the sole benefit
of the growth machine.
Sincerely,
Rick Huffman
1-05
2
RUTAN
RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP
October 12, 2015
VIA MESSENGER
AND E-MAIL
140norable Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair, and
Members of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Mark J. Austin
Direct Dial: (714) 662-4677
E-mail: maustin@rutan.com
LETTER K
page 1 of 3
Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item for October 12, 2015, Public Hearing No.
3, re: 224 -Unit Luxury Apartment Complex at 2277 Harbor Blvd.
Dear Chair Dickson and Members of the Planning Commission:
We are writing on behalf of our clients, Phil Luchesi and his company, Luchesi Enterprises.
Luchesi Enterprises owns Pals Vacuum Sewing Center, and Mr. Luchesi owns the underlying
property on which this business is operated, located at 2299 Harbor Boulevard. Mr. Luchesi's
property is located immediately adjacent to the proposed 224 -unit luxury -apartment project that is
on the Planning Commission's agenda for its meeting of October 12, 2015, as item PH -3 (the
"Project"). While our client is generally supportive of the Project, he does have concerns that he
would like to see addressed before the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the
Project to the City Council.
As you know, the Project proposes a General Plan amendment and a rezoning of the 4.15 -
acre Project site to accommodate 224 multi -family residential units. The Project would be built at a
density of over 2.5 times that specified for high-density residential development in the City's
current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance ("70"). It would also be built to a height of 60 feet,
including a 5 -story garage, which is taller than the 4 -story height -limit currently imposed by the
General Plan. By comparison, Pals Vacuum Sewing Center, a long-time City business, is a small,
single -story building, approximately 2,500 -square -feet in size, located on an approximately
11,000 -square -foot lot.
Mr. Luchesi leases portions of his property to five mobile -service providers, each of which
has erected a separate cellular tower—approximately 60 -feet in height—near the common
boundary with the Project site. Mr. Luchesi is legitimately concerned that the proposed Project—
with
rojectwith a building height of up to 60 feet (which is twice the height allowed under the site's current
zoning designation)—could interfere with cellular reception and thereby compromise the
substantial private and public value associated with the cellular towers. Mr. Luchesi thus
respectfully asks the Planning Commission to impose certain conditions on the Project to address
his concerns.
611 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1950 1 714.641.5100 1 Fax 714.546.9035 ?693099999-0071
Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 69379303a10/12115
2
LETTER K
page 2 of 3
RUTAN
RUTAN & TUCKER, ILP
Honorable Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair,
and Members of the Planning Commission
Page 2
First, prior to any approval of the Project, a qualified consultant should prepare a report
analyzing the potential impacts of the Project on the adjacent cellular antennas, and the Project
buildings should be modified as needed to eliminate any actual or potential risk of interference
with the equipment demonstrated by this report. Second, the Project proponent should be required
to indemnify Mr. Luchesi and his tenants, and their collective successors, against any damage or
interference to the cellular equipment that is directly or indirectly attributable to the Project. Third,
the developer should be required to provide appropriate notices to new residents informing them of
the nearby cellular equipment, and should require the Project's residents (on behalf of themselves
and their successors) to release Mr. Luchesi and his lessees, and their successors, from any claim
of damages related to the cellular equipment.
We would also like to ensure that the Project will not result in any other adverse impacts to
Mr. Luchesi's property, particularly with respect to drainage, traffic, and parking. Please ensure
that adequate conditions are imposed to ensure that the Project runoff does not discharge onto
neighboring properties, and that the proposed off-site median and related traffic improvements do
not adversely impact access to our client's property. The traffic study suggests that the Project will
only provide 13 guest parking spaces. Our client does not believe that this number of spaces is
sufficient for 224 residential units and is concerned that guests will end up parking on his property
as a result. Please require the developer to provide the number of guest spaces required by the City
Code. Mr. Luchesi would also like the opportunity to review and comment on the design and
height of the proposed block wall to be installed by the Project proponent between the two sites.
We think the above requests are reasonable and can be validly imposed as conditions on the
Project, especially given that new development in the City must be designed so as to "not
adversely impact surrounding developments," as well as to protect the "integrity of neighboring
development." (General Plan, Policy LU -1C.1; ZO § 13-29(g)(5).)i
Please note that we do have additional concerns regarding the City's proposed approval of
the Project entitlements. Amongst other issues, we believe the Project (i) could be subject to a spot -
zoning challenge, (ii) likely involves inconsistencies with the City's General Plan, (iii) proposes a
density bonus that is greater than allowed by state and local law, and (iv) is based on a mitigated
negative declaration ("MND") that contains various inconsistencies and shortcomings in the
analysis of the Project's impacts. That said, depending upon the resolution of our client's primary
concerns set forth above, we reserve the right to raise these additional objections in a separate
detailed letter to the City prior to final action on the Project.
1 See also, General Plan Policy LU-IF.5 (requiring compatibility between new uses and
existing uses); accord Policy HOU-3.2 and ZO § 13-29(e)(1).
2696/099999-0071
8937930.3 a[W12115
— H
2
CONT
3
4
LETTER K
RUTAN page 3 of 3
RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP
Honorable Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair,
and Members of the Planning Commission
Page 3
Please include this latter as part of the materials considered by the Planning Commission at
tonight's hearing on this item. We thank you for your consideration of our clients' views on these 4
important matters. Although neither I nor my client will likely be able to attend the meeting this C O N
evening, we look forward to hearing from the City in the near future. In that regard, please do not
hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this correspondence at any time.
MJA
cc: Ryan Loomis
Brenda Green
Tom Duarte, Esq.
26961099999-0071
9937930.3 a10/12/15
Very truly yours,
RAkL
Ptin
LP
1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Mq,