Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout31 - PH-1 - Attachment 11 - 11/3/2015111 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 11 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 _7�! 949,631,1200 r -i < 949.574,1036 info(MMesaWater,org Mesalplater.org ATTACHMENT 11 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 Water Supplies and Demand: Information is outdated or incorrect.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. 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 WaterO Rules and Regulations for Water Service and Mesa Water® Standard Specification and Standard Drawings. Both documents are available online at www.MesaWater.o. Please contact Tim Beaman of my staff at (949) 207-5483 with any questions. Regards, f� Phil Lauri, P.E. District Engineer OF 1j4 Community Development cityofirice.org City or Iriine, One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Invine, California 92623-9575 (949) 724-6000 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 Intent 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@cityofirvine.org. Sincerely, David R. Law, AICP Senior Planner cc: Barry Curtis, Manager of Planning Services (via email) Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner (via email) PRIM ED ON RECYCLED R4PEP LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel @ 2277 Harbor Blvd. From: Lopez, Ryan[mailto:RLopez2@semprautilities,com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 1:49 PM To: PLANNING COMMISSION<PLANNINGCOMMISSiON@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel @ 2277 Harbor Blvd. 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 Joey of your request and plans to: Rosalyn Squires So Cal Gas Transmission 9400 Oakdale Ave Chatsworth, CA 91311 818-701-4546 RSquires@semprautilities.com 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@semgrautilities.com SoCalGas A *5empla Lnergy wtuay THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS 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. ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY A "77 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.2S2.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 October 9, 2015 eco Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Subject: 2277 Harbor Boulevard 224 -Unit Apartment Project Dear Mr. Loomis: Thank you for the oppotrtunity 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 for Johp Wayne Airport (JWA AELUP). 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 imorder to change the existing land use designation from General Commercial tb High.Density Residential. 'We wish to offer tliel following comments and respectfully request consideration of these comments as you proceed with prep4ration of your Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). } i As discussed in the initial study, the proposed project is >ocated within the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. We suggest that the MND discuss the height at which the not) fication 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 projecCs'location within the FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces far 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 ALUC may be required for this project due to the location of the proposal within a JWA AELUP 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. ALUC Comments -2277 Harbor Blvd. 224 -Unit Apartment Project October 9, 2015 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this initial study. Please contact Lea Choum at (949) 252-5123 or via email at lchoum cn�c.ocair.com if you need any additional details or information regarding the future referral of your project. Sincerely, /Z�9-4-� Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer PUBLIC LAW CENTER PROVIDINC ACCESS TO JUSTICE October 9, 2015 FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S !OW INCOME RESIDENTS [van Loomis .=associate Planner, Department Sorvices City of Costa Mesa 77 fair Drive Costa Mesa, CES 92628 RE: Comment on Initial Study,/Mitigatcd Negative Declaration, 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Dear Mr. Ryan Loomis: This letter is a comment to the September 10, 2015, Initial Study/1 litigated Negative Declaration, 2277 Harbor Boulevard Prafecl, City, vf'Costa Mesa, Orange County, California ("'Initial Study"). This letter is written on behalf of the Costa Nlesa Motel Resident Association ("CMMRA"). CMMRA consists of short- and long -terra 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 CMMRk 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 CEQA is inappropriate. The conversion of CMMI is likely to have a significant impact due to the adverse social kind economic effects on the people of Costa Mesa. CWrR . urges its City's Planning Commission to reject the current proposal for a luxury apartment project at the Costa Mesa Motor Inn ("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 tacks 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. .—)57i 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 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 Inilial 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 CNIMI are low-income and unable to afford the luxury apartments proposed for this location. This displacement will have an adverse impact. Contrary to the Inilial 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 Studv makes no reference to the number of currently available affordable units in Costa Mesa. In fact, the Inilial 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. 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 CNfMI from becoming homeless? What specific assistance will a relocation consultant provide? With a lack of available 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 C,IMMI 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 81) people currently live at CNINII 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 Dadev, et al v. City of Costa Mesa, No. 30 -2014 -00757962 -CU- CR-CJC. Additionally, as stated in its 2008-2014 Housing Element, Costa Nlesa has relied on nloteI5, 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 Sty ((y claims CMMI only offers "limited stay options, and does not represer..t a permanent housing use," while at the same time reco<gnizin; 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. N J J 601 Civic Center Drive West •- Santa Ana, CA 927014002 � (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 What data has the Initial Stwc y 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 inconsistent with the Initial .SIzi ✓v. What data does the lnitial Stately rely on For calculating the present 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 Housing Authority is not accepting any new applicants for these vouchers. What vouchers and other housinc assistance are currently available to low-income residents of Costa Nlesa? 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. 'I hey 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_ Lili 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 Costa Mess Affordable ilons,in-c' 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: Or, 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. 121.) 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. CMMI'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 addressing the project's environmental impacts. The Coalition urges the City to take the following recommendations into consideration: 1. 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 through 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 CMMI. Significantly, according to the Initial Study, there are long-term 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 services 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 2008-2014 Housing Element planning period, only one low-income home was constructed in the City3 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 $1,840 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 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 121, September 10, 2015. Z [nitial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 122, September 10, 2015. ' Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p, t0, January 21, 2014. 4 Feeling the Pinch? Local Rent Prices Hit A Record High, The Orange County Register, January 16, 2015. 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.6 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 year.7 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."8 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. This practice 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. 3. Re -analyze and re -confirm the correct number of affordable units constructed in the City. The Initial Study states: "Between 2008-2011, 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.II 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 'Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p. 31, January 21, 2014. a Lower [lents Might Cost You More: High Cost of Housing Chips Deeply into Low -Wage Earners Pay, The O.C. Register, April 18, 20t5. 'Profile of the City of Costa Mesa Local Profiles Report 2015, SCAG, p.10, May 2015. a Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 122, September 10, 2015. ' Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 122, September t0, 2015. 0 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 121, September 10, 2015. Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p. 10, January 21, 2014. 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 environmental 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. 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"' 2 and; b. General Plan Land Use Objective LU -1A1: "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."t3 'Z Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 100, September 10, 2015. " Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 100, September 10, 2015. 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 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, Kathy Esfahani For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition a Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p. 10, January 21, 2014. City of Costa Mesa Urban Master 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 8, 2015. I N I!, UV ]I IU( KNIL� AL11 WoR1_41 STATE tK.Vvsru2TAT1oV .%t;L••vcYts_QRQWW truer .:mor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 ' 3347 L1ICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612-8894 PHONE 949 724-2000 Serious Drought. � Serious drought. FAX (949) 724-2019 Help save water! TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov 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 4.16 -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 C 1 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, MAURELYN EL HARAKE Branch Chief, Regional -Community -Transit Planning District 12 —140, -.11 "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" RUTAN PU rAiti & TUCKER, LL October 12, 2015 VIA MESSENGER AND E-MAIL Honorable 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,_cbrutan.com 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 pr ,perty 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 PII-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. Kr 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 y current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance ("ZO"). 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 Vit.. 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 towerapproximately 60 -feet in height—near the common boundary with the Project site. Mr. Luchesi is legitimately concerned that the proposed Project— s with 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. 1 An Iv Suite 14 `r � 61 ton Blvd., Su t 00, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 1 714.641.5100 1 Fax 714"546.9035 179303a10/1 /11 � 8931930 3 a 10/ I ?/ I S Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com t ". RUTAN RUTAN a TUCKER, LLP 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 Proi. ect 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).)1 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). ?696/099999-0071 rr� 8937930.3 a[O/Pm lVl RUTAN 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 important matters. Although neither I nor my client will likely be able to attend the meeting this 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. Very truly yours, RUT U KER, LLP i . J. tiro MJA cc: Ryan Loomis Brenda Green Tom Duarte, Esq, 2696/099999-0071 8937930.3 a10/12/15 ROSALES, MARTHA Subject: FW: General Plan Amendment 14-04; 2277 Harbor Boulevard From: Cynthia McDonald Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:16 PM To: FLYNN, CLAIRE <CLA: �w.=:_YNN@costamesaca.gov>; ARMSTRONG, GARY<GA.IY.AR�,ISTRONG@costamesaca.gov> Cc: Robert Dickson <rdicksan.cmPc@gmaii.com>; aventrue@ca.rr.com; Stephan Andranian <sandranian@v�hoo.com>; colin <:mccar,;,Iy@ya;"ioc.com,; Tim Sesler <twsesler(@email.com> Subject: General Plan Amendment 14-04; 2277 Harbor Boulevard Commissioners: When I look at the new projects that come before the Planning Commission or City Council, I try to determine whether these developments will work toward the best interests of the city and its residents. While the existing building and business of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn no longer serves the residents in the best possible way, I believe this is a situation where its replacement, as currently proposed, will likely be worse. This aging motel has been a problem for a number of years, primarily because the owner has not maintained it. The result of the owner's inaction is that it is run-down and attracts certain types of residents and visitors, some of whom we all wish went elsewhere, but many of whom are simply impoverished and living there because there is nowhere else for them to go. Some of the later are working poor, and some are disabled and cannot work. These are individuals and families living there on a long-term basis unless they exceed the time limit imposed by the City's ordinance. When the owner evicts its remaining occupants, where will they go? Some of these poor families have been Costa Mesa residents for some time and the children are students in our schools. What provision will be made to house those with ties to the community? We need housing solutions and simply throwing these poor folks out on the street will only worsen our homeless problem. In making a decision to allow the proposed development, we need to know if the City is currently using the long-term occupancy rooms in the motel to satisfy its RHNA. If so, what will the City be doing to make certain it satisfies the RHNA now that those rooms are gone? With respect to the "affordable units" for moderate -income households, what is the justification for labeling them "affordable?" The term "affordable" should not be used if it is a unit that someone who makes more than what one-half to two-thirds of the wage earners in the County can afford to rent, because these new apartments are displacing people whose income is nowhere near that category. A density bonus should not be granted for these "affordable" units as currently defined. This large development is out of scale with the surrounding community, and should be significantly reduced in physical size and quantity of units unless modified to include low and very low income households. Part of this project will involve reworking turn lanes on Harbor to accommodate the extra flow of traffic in and out of this development. The LOS of the intersection of Harbor and Wilson is already impacted by heavy pedestrian traffic, which has been exacerbated by the widening of Harbor over the years. During the reconstruction of the turn lanes, the traffic on Harbor will undoubtedly slow. I hope provision will be made to have the construction occur during a time when traffic is at its lowest level, i.e., not during the running of the Fair. After the project is completed, auto traffic will significantly increase at peak hours from what it is now. Besides altering the turn lanes, there needs to be additional mitigation of that traffic by adding and/or extending protected bike lanes on Harbor and Wilson Streets to improve bicycle connectivity in that area. Finally, I note that the project will have the sort of exterior street furniture and exercise equipment that I have seen on public trails in nearby cities during my survey of those trails for the Bikeways and Walkability Committee. It would be a shame if the owner couldn't provide this equipment as an improvement to the Joann Street Trail to which it abuts, so as to benefit the health of the entire community. Again, just because something is bad, it doesn't mean that its replacement is good. I hope the Planning Commissioners can help the owner find a way to replace the Costa Mesa Motor Inn with something that truly benefits all of Costa Mesa. Thank you for your consideration. Cynthia McDonald Costa Mesa Resident and member of the Bikeways and Walkability Committee - I v, ROSALES, MARTHA Subject: FW: Planning Commission report item #PH3 -----Original Message ----- From: Rick Huffman [mailto Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:49 PM To: FLYNN, CLAIRE <CLAIRE. FLYNN@costamesaca.gov>; ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.ARMSTRONG@ 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. 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 50SECA 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 191-- STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research IO KGF Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor October 13, 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: sill *�o 4 � x s af4 eu1Fa S Ken Alex Director 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 Clearinghouse 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, r" Scotto a -an Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov _).1-_-�, ys ��v ra u' Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor Plq/yN�N0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA a°�9 x Ln Governor's Office of Planning and Research 5 a State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit �r+•Fafi�,�,FOQ�° Ken Alex Director 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: The enclosed comment (s) on your Mitigated Negative Declaration was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after 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, 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 --1-IA � ■ a ■ a i RC i R. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612-8894 PHONE (949) 724-2000 FAX (949) 724-2019 TTY711 www.dotca.gov October 12, 2015 Mr. Ryan Loomis City Of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive P.O. BOX 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Dear Mr. Loomis: REO .-N D � OCT 14 2015 STATE CLEARING 1 `OI Serious Drought. Serious drought, Help save water! File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2015091026 IGR Log #: 4495 SR -55 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 C 1 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_C949)_724-2241. Sincerely, av 1M i J MAURE EL HARAKE Branch Chief, Regional -Community -Transit Planning District 12 1I5_' "Provide a sufe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability"