Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - PH-2 - General Plan Amendment GP-16-01 - 1/17/2017CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: PH -2 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -16-01 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 1.66 ACRE SITE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR); AND CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 17 -XX OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FOR REZONE R-16-01 TO REZONE (OR CHANGE) A 1.66 -ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 440 FAIR DRIVE FROM C1 (LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO PDR -HD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY) AND MASTER PLAN PA -16-46 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT -18064 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES FOR A 28 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 440 FAIR DRIVE DATE: JANUARY 5, 2017 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: RYAN LOOMIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RYAN LOOMIS, AICP (714) 754-5608 ryan.loomis@costamesaca.gov DESCRIPTION On November 21, 2016, Planning Commission reviewed a project involving the demolition of an existing 20,750 square -foot two-story retail/office center, and construction of eight new three-story detached residential units and 20 four-story (includes rooftop deck) duplex units. The project includes approximately 26,643 SF of private and communal open space. The proposed project involves the following discretionary applications: 1) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) 2) General Plan Amendment GP -16-01 to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR). 3) Rezone 16-01 to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4) Planning Application PA -16-46 to implement a Master Plan for the 28 -unit residential project with specified deviations from the PDR -HD development standards, including the following: Variance to allow a deviation from (42% required; 36.8% proposed); Variance for an encroachment of open space area (20 feet required; Carnegie Ave proposed); required open space requirements block walls into required perimeter 6 feet on Fair Drive and 4.7 feet on Variance to allow a deviation from required landscaped parkway requirements (10 feet with no dimension less than 5 feet on house side of private street required; 10 feet/3.6 feet proposed); • Variance to allow a reduction in guest parking spaces (14 guest spaces required; 5 guest spaces proposed) [NOTE: This variance was not reviewed by Planning Commission, although the same number of visitor spaces were proposed] • Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines for multi -story to first floor ratio (100% multi -story to first floor ratio recommended; 150% for 4 -story units and 114% for 3 -story units proposed). Administrative Adjustment for encroachment of building into the required perimeter open space area along Fair Drive (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed). Minor Modification for encroachment of building into the required perimeter open space area along Carnegie (20 feet required; 18 feet proposed). 5) Tentative Tract Map 18064 for Condominium Purposes: Tentative Tract Map 18064 for residential subdivision for condominium purposes. APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT Steve Sheldon is the authorized agent for Dalessio Investments, the property owner. RECOMMENDATION At their meeting of November 21, 2016, Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the project. PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY (DENIED BY COMMISSION) Location: 440 Fair Drive Application C1 Local Business District retail GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/T-18064 NC (Current); HDR (Proposed) South: Numbers: Plan: 42% (30,370 SF) of total lot 26,643 SF— 36.8%' General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Master Plan, and Tentative Tract Map for development of 28 units Request: SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: C1 (Current); PDR -HD (Proposed) North: C1 Local Business District retail General NC (Current); HDR (Proposed) South: C1 Local Business District and CL Commercial Plan: 42% (30,370 SF) of total lot 26,643 SF— 36.8%' Limited District (auto dealership); R3 Multiple area Perimeter Open Space Family Residential District (apartments) Lot 216 FT x 398 FT West: I&R Institutional and Recreation District (golf Dimensions: (across course); PDR -MD, Planned Development -Medium 4.7 feet from PL (Carnegie Ave)' Harbor) Density detaches residences Lot Area: 72,310 SF (1.66 ac) East: R1 Single -Family Residential District (single family Building Height N/A Plan 1-- 4 -stories/ 37 FT -6 IN homes Existing Development: Commercial retail use and surface parking DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON (Based on PDR -HD Zoninq) Standard Required/Allowed Proposed/Provided PDR-HDDevelopment • - Development Lot Area 43,560 SF 1.0 ac 72,310 SF 1.66 ac Density Max. 20 du/ac 33 Units Max 16.25 du/ac 28 Units Proposed) Maximum Site Coverage Overall Project): Buildings NA NA Open space 42% (30,370 SF) of total lot 26,643 SF— 36.8%' area Perimeter Open Space 20 feet abutting all public ROW Perimeter wall located 6 feet from PL (Fair Dr)' Front Courtyard retaining wall located 4.7 feet from PL (Carnegie Ave)' Landscape Parkway 10FT/No dimension less than 5FT 10 FT/3.5FT' on house side of private streets Building Height N/A Plan 1-- 4 -stories/ 37 FT -6 IN Four -Stories per General Plan Plan 2-- 3 -stories/ 33 FT Building Setbacks Overall Project): Front Fair Drive 20 FT 15 FTz Unit 8 Side (Carnegie Ave 20 FT 18 FT Side west side NA 10 FT Rear North side NA 11 FT % ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor Plan 1 149.7% 2nd Floor 100% 148.8% 3rd Floor 59.5% 4th Floor Plan 2 114.1% 2nd Floor 23.4% 3'd Floor On -Site Parking: 112 SPACES 117 SPACES Driveway Width 16 FT 18FT Back up Distance 25 FT 24 FT4 NA = Not Applicable or No Requirement. (1) Requires a Variance (2) Requires Administrative Adjustment (3) Requires a Minor Modification 4 24 -foot back okay with 18 -foot wide driveway per Transportation Division. CEQA Status Initial Study- Mitigated Negative Declaration IS -MND # Final Action City Council BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The 1.66 -acre project site is located at the northwest corner of Fair Drive and Carnegie Way (see Attachment 1). Surrounding land uses generally consist of residential and commercial uses. Land uses immediately adjacent to the project site consist of the following: • North: Commercial uses (Orange Coast Fiat) are zoned C1 and are located directly north of the site. • East: Single -story, single family residences are located east of the site across Carnegie Avenue, and are zoned R1. • South: An auto dealership (South Coast Mitsubishi) is located southwest of the site across Fair Drive, and is zoned C1 and CL. Also, a two-story apartment complex (Mediterranean Village) is located southeast of the site across Fair Drive and is zoned R3. • West: Commercial uses (US Gas and Orange Coast Fiat) within the C1 zone are located west of the site. The project site is currently occupied by a 20,750 square -foot two-story commercial building and a large, asphalt paved parking lot. The current structures were constructed at the site around 1962, originally as medical buildings. Today, the two- story building is used for commercial retail and general and medical office uses. City Council General Plan Screening On October 6, 2015, City Council considered General Plan screening request GPS -14- 04 to amend the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential (HDR) related to the development of a 28 -unit residential development at 440 Fair Drive. During the meeting, City Council provided direction on a 5-0 vote that the City accept for processing an application to amend the General Plan Designation and zoning for the subject property as described earlier. The applications were filed on May 19, 2016. A link to the General Plan Screening staff report is found below: http://www. costamesaca.gov/ftp/council/agenda/2015/2015-10-06/NB-3.pdf Community Meetings Prior to the General Plan Screening in 2015, the applicant held two community meetings, including one on Friday September 11, 2015, and Saturday September 12, 2015. Residents expressed concerns with the proposed high density, project ingress/egress on Carnegie Drive, lack of on-site parking and impacts of the project on street parking and traffic, and privacy impacts to neighbors with the proposed roof decks. A summary of the 2015 community meetings concerns are provided in the November 14, 2016 Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 7). On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, the applicant held a third community meeting to showcase the changes of the project from the first meeting, as well as to listen to the concerns from the residents. Residents expressed similar concerns discussed at the previous two community meetings, including concerns with high density, traffic and parking impacts, and privacy impacts to neighbors with the proposed roof decks. A summary of the October 19, 2016 community meeting is provided in the November 14, 2016 Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 7). On Wednesday, December 14, 2016, the applicant held two additional community meetings (one in morning and one in evening) to showcase a revised project in response to the Planning Commission action and concerns from the residents. Residents continued to express similar concerns discussed at the previous community meetings. A summary of the concerns brought up at the December 14, 2016 community meetings are below. Neighborhood Concerns Applicant Response Traffic increase from high density The project has been revised to eliminate the Carnegie Avenue entrance. The revised plans shows the entrance off of Fair Drive Project does not provide enough guest No change is proposed for parking. The parking project provides an overall surplus of 10 spaces. High density is still an issue No change to number of units. The 8 detached units along Carnegie Avenue are moderate density, and the higher density duplex units are closer to the neighboring commercial properties. The revised plan removes the third story from the 8 detached units and is now two-story. Buildings now meet setback requirements. Rooftop Decks are an issue Rooftop decks for duplexes look west toward commercial properties and are not visible from Carnegie Avenue due to line of sight. Screening for rooftop decks for unit along north property line could be provided Planning Commission Action The project was originally scheduled for review on November 14, 2016; however, due to the large number of items on the agenda, the item was continued to the November 21, 2016, Special Planning Commission meeting. Prior to the November 14th meeting, staff received 29 public comments stating opposition for the project. Additionally, 19 members of the public spoke in opposition to the project during the public comments at the November 14th Planning Commission. Prior to the November 21 meeting, staff received a total of 109 public comments, with the majority in opposition to the project and 4 in favor of the project. At the meeting, the Planning Commission heard presentations from staff and the applicant and took public testimony. Approximately 42 persons spoke in opposition to the request, the majority of whom were residents of College Park neighborhood. Based on the testimony presented by the residents at the hearing, the Commission recommended denial of the project on by a 3-0 vote (Chair Dickson and Commission Mathews absent). The denial was based on neighboring residents' concerns related to the request for high density zoning, traffic and parking impacts, and building height. A link to the November 14 Staff Report and the November 21 Supplemental Memo is found below: http://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/planningcommission/agenda/20l 6/2016-11-21 /PH-4.pdf ANALYSIS Project Description The proposed project reviewed by the Planning Commission involved a request to amend the City's General Plan to change the existing land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High -Density Residential and to rezone of the 1.66 -acre development site from Local Business District (C1) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD). The rezone to PDR -HD would be consistent with the High Density Residential General Plan designation proposed for the project site. The HDR designation would allow a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre, or 33 units. The proposed project includes a Master Plan application (PA -16-46) for the development of 28 units, which would create a density of 16.25 dwelling units per acre. The Zoning Code does not specify a maximum building height for the PDR -HD zone; however, the General Plan limits building height to a maximum four stories for buildings south of the San Diego (1-405) Freeway (Policy LU -2.8). Because the subject property for the proposed development is south of the 1-405 Freeway, the four-story maximum height would apply to the project. As revised by the Applicant at the December 14 community meeting, the project now proposes eight two-story units (previously three- story), with building height of 27 feet, and 20 four-story units, with a building height of 37.5 feet. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared to determine the environmental impacts associated with the original project submittal (see Attachment 11). The 28 -unit development is required to provide a total of 107 parking spaces, including 28 covered spaces, 65 open parking spaces, and 14 open guest spaces. This includes a five space reduction allowed due to carports being provided within each driveway (0.25 space per unit for the 20 duplex units). The proposed project will be providing a total of 117 spaces, 56 enclosed garage spaces, 56 open spaces on driveways (40 within carports), and five exclusive guest spaces within the development. The proposed project meets the overall parking space requirement; however, only five open guest parking spaces are provided instead of 14 required guest spaces. As such, a variance is requested to reduce guest parking from 14 spaces to 5 spaces. Although the proposed project provides ten more parking spaces than required, the number of guest open spaces is deficient. The variance request for reduced guest parking was not included as part of the Planning Commission evaluation as staff believed the excess parking provided offset the reduced guest parking. After further review, staff concluded the reduction in visitor spaces needs to be addressed as a variance request, even if excess parking is provided overall on the site. Revised Site Plan In response to the public testimony presented at the November 21, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has revised the project, including removing the ingress/egress on Carnegie Avenue and relocating it to Fair Drive (see Attachment 5). This new design includes a new hammerhead configuration for fire truck turnaround along the north -south private street. A slight shift in the eight detached units facing Carnegie Avenue would also occur to accommodate the new hammerhead turnaround. The new hammerhead design will provide additional open space areas by incorporating a grasscrete type surface (requires Fire Department approval) for potential recreational opportunities. As such, the proposed project would provide 27,786 square feet of open space (38.5% open space), or 1,143 additional square feet than originally proposed. However, open space would remain deficient. The revised design would remove two applications from the proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission: 1. The request for an Administrative Adjustment regarding the encroachment of the buildings into required perimeter open space area along Fair Drive would be removed as the new design proposes to meet the 20 -foot setback requirement. 2. The revised design would also remove the request for a Minor Modification regarding the encroachment of the buildings into required perimeter open space area along Carnegie Avenue as the new design proposes to meet the 20 -foot setback requirement. Finally, the project would also include removing the third story from the eight detached units fronting Carnegie Avenue to reduce building height and massing. These eight units would meet the two-story/27-foot maximum building height standards allowed by the neighboring R1 properties. With these changes, the project would now include the following five deviations from the PDR -HD development standards: • Variance to allow deviation from required open space requirements (42% required; 38.5% proposed); • Variance for encroachment of block walls into required perimeter open space area (20 feet required; 7 feet on Fair Drive and 4.7 feet on Carnegie Ave proposed); Variance to allow deviation from required landscaped parkway requirements (10 feet with no dimension less than 5 feet on house side of private street required; 10 feet/3.6 feet proposed); Variance to allow reduction in guest parking spaces (14 guest spaces required; 5 guest spaces proposed) [NOTE: This variance was not reviewed by Planning Commission. Overall, the project provides surplus of parking spaces (107 required; 117 provided)] Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines for multi -story to first floor ratio (100% multi -story to first floor ratio recommended; 150% for 4 -story units and 114% for 3 -story units proposed). Measure Y Measure Y, known as "An Initiative to Require Voter Approval on Certain Development Projects", was passed on November 8, 2016 and became effective December 23, 2016. The measure amends the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to require voter approval of certain changes in land use (referred to as "Major Changes in Allowable Land Use"), which are defined as those projects that amend, change or replace the General Plan, the Zoning Code, a specific plan, or an overlay plan, and that involve any one of the following increases/changes: • Generates more than 200 additional average daily trips; • Increases the volume/capacity of an intersection based on specified formulas • Changes the intersection capacity utilization or level of service based on specified formulas; • Adds more than 40 dwelling units; • Adds 10,000 square feet of retail, office or other nonresidential; • Or, where the proposed project, combined with other projects within 8 years and a half -mile of each other, meet the above criteria. The proposed project does not meet the first five Measure Y criteria listed above. However, when measuring a 0.5 -mile radius map from the project's boundary using city's GIS (see Attachment 10), the proposed project at 440 Fair Drive is located within 0.5 - miles of two projects approved in the last eight years resulting in an increase of 40 or more dwelling units. The two projects are: 1. A 224 apartment unit project located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard (GP-14-04/R-14- 04/CO-14-02/PA-14-27), which included a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Code Amendment, and Master Plan, approved by the City Council in November 2015; and 2. A 224 senior residential unit project located at 1500 Mesa Verde Drive East R-10- 01/PA-10-10), which included a Rezone and Master Plan, approved by the City Council in December 2010. According to Measure Y, if a proposed project, combined with one or more prior approved projects, increases or changes thresholds for traffic, density or intensity of use, is considered a Major Change in Allowable Land Use. Specifically, Measure Y provides: The voters declare that dividing a Major Change in Allowable Land Use, that would otherwise require their approval, into partial changes that would not by themselves require their approval obviates their intent to have control over major changes in allowable land use and is contrary to the purposes of this ordinance. For the purposes of this ordinance, a "significant increase" occurs if the combination of a proposed minor change in allowable land use with one or more other minor or major changes in allowable land use within a half mile which were approved within eight (8) years preceding issuance of the notice of preparation of an environmental impact report or other environmental review document for the proposed minor change, or, where no such notice is issued, within eight (8) years preceding commencement of the City's environmental analysis for the proposed minor change, meets any increase or change threshold for traffic, density or intensity of use defined in this ordinance. If this project is approved, it would appear to be subject to Measure Y based on its proximity to the above referenced projects. Under Measure Y, the project would need to be placed on the ballot at the next regular municipal election following City Council approval, unless the applicant wished pay for a special election. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (see Attachment 11). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the IS/MND was originally made available for a 20 -day public review and comment period from October 4, 2016 to October 24, 2016. The IS/MND found that the environmental effects from the project would be less than significant with the incorporation of standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures (see Exhibit C of Planning Commission Resolution in Attachment 7). A copy of the IS/MND prepared for the original project is included with this report under separate cover. Also, a Response to Comments to the IS/MND is also available (see Attachment 11) PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing: 1. Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners within a 500 - foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. Notices were also mailed to the existing retail center tenants. 2. On-site posting. A public notice was posted on each street frontage of the project site. 3. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper. FISCAL REVIEW Fiscal review is not required for this item. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the draft resolutions and it has been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may take the following actions: Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project. If the City Council believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, City Council must deny the application and adopt the attached resolution in Attachment 3. If the project were denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. 2. Reverse the Planning Commission's decision and approve the project. The City Council may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any of the additional requested changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or additional analysis. 3. Remit the project to the Planning Commission for review of the applicant's revised rp olect. After Planning Commission review and action, the project would return to the City Council for final action._ CONCLUSION At the meeting on November 14 and November 21, 2016, public testimony was taken and comment letters submitted to the City were provided to the Planning Commission. Based on the high number of public comments and testimony at the hearing in opposition of the project, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the project by a 3-0 vote (Chair Dickson and Commission Mathews absent). In response to the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the project, the applicant has revised the project and is requesting approval. If approved, the proposed project may require voter approval due to the passage of Measure Y. RYAN LOOMIS, AICP JAY TREVINO, AICP Associate Planner Economic Development and Services Director/ Consultant Attachments: 1. Location Map and Zoning Map 2. Site Photos 3. Resolution of Denial 4. Original Plans 5. Revised Plans (1/03/2017) 6. Correspondence From Public as of 1/05/17 Development 7. November 14, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Reports and Attachments 8. November 21, 2016 Planning Commission Supplement Memorandum and Attachments 9. November 21, 2016 Planning Commission Supplement Memorandum #2 10. 1/2 Mile Radius Map 11. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Response to Comments (Under Separate Cover) 12. Rezone R-16-01 Ordinance 17-xx 13 Supplemental Memo cc: Authorized Agent: Sheldon Development, LLC Attn: Steve Sheldon, Project Manager 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Property Owner: Dalessio Investments 440 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Costa Mesa VICINITY MAP: 440 FAIR DRIVE - [Created: 10/13/2016 5:34:19 PM] [Scale: 369.89] [Page: 8.5 x 11 / Portrait] r Overview Map 1 Map Display IT 04 Legend Addross Roads �% M4. fr.' SECONDARY Points 0/ C.Aftt r AI Nfwp-tBLVCF Hydrology Freeway irre ep inum Channels (C anti (Cont) z 1� T W (C) 2002-6 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec, Inc.) - (866)422-2505 e -q~ Tr 1;B1UCKWLC - 11W • a FZ r 6- IILff�-Jjj k ELMH[1RS7 LK ! ROM dt L • � .+ u J,'*a! - W i 4. >' y R. - m _ m4 Cr .! iC i 282.4 wrw-GaaPrea.NEf , s (C) 2002-6 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec, Inc.) - (866)422-2505 e -q~ Tr 1;B1UCKWLC - 11W • a FZ IILff�-Jjj .r >I 'tgt y 01VASSAU RD % r City of Costa Mesa ZONING MAP: 440 FAIR DRIVE - [Created: 10/13/2016 5:35:52 PM] [Scale: 369.89] [Page: 8.5 x 11 / Portrait] f Overview Map l Legend Addre s s Points Freeway Roads Codoctor Fromay 041 Maim (cont) NawpartBLVD // Parcel Lines C1 -S Prk%WY ❑ City C2 SEC CMI DARY Boundary CL l t/ drol agcy art Channels Water Ways IQ's Zani noll MG MP Street Names AP P Street ® C1 ® PCC Centerlines (cont) (cant) Map Display p L x E'i MHURST LN' IcF� 0.,;� i = 35 L) �d PDRAID OL s zBUCKM J, My ice PDR_ E� e - - m C7 j FE Cc UJIV � 638.07 � `,pI L;1 - — �- FAIR DR 0602160266H, 12103/2009 18R 84 V73 A M (C 1 2002-6 www.GeoPrsoM ET (C) 2002-6 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec, Inc.) - (866)422.2505 9T 1.11 AU M City of Costa Mesa GENERAL PLAN MAP: 440 FAIR DRIVE - [Created: 10/13/2016 5:3727 PIM] [Scale: 369.89] [Page: 8.5 x'11 /Portrait] Overview Map Map Display PI 53 z J ]C (L� I"! 638.07 z w z Q en Ce ul z 1r 0 DR I Legend < ai 4A J ` m <o ii l C`P.. B4 G.] ,0602160266H, 12103/2009 W m ( C 1 2W2 ,6 NKN. Geo Pr mc.N Er (C) 2002.6 GeoPrise.net (GeoVLc, Inc.) - (866)422-2505 Address 4; Msor Street Names 'Oda ter Mays Points Nawpc•rt13LVID Street Census Plrwmary Gentaarlines Tracts Freeway SECONDARY Roads Hydrology rf Parcel Liners Traffic C�nrioclm.r Channels � City Analysis ,41 F ro¢wvay Boundary Zones (conta < ai 4A J ` m <o ii l C`P.. B4 G.] ,0602160266H, 12103/2009 W m ( C 1 2W2 ,6 NKN. Geo Pr mc.N Er (C) 2002.6 GeoPrise.net (GeoVLc, Inc.) - (866)422-2505 it ,OWE LA.E I Itl tui I E—H-ST I A.W Y.Y. rWO IRAC 41 C M/ly A A I. 90 ,TL"' ITLA 216-23' 0. to to. rWO IRAC 41 C M/ly A A 0_ 0.513 5 90 ,TL"' ITLA 0. to to. PAR. L 73 • rj T a � + r t , I� ''�• Bey' a � .• �i�k� 1 �! S ,�"+,fix �• ,- ,k 1500 Mesa Verde Dr. E 224 Units -77: _ _ �r - f•- Zrr- �� _ 1 r Y -� _ � - 1 - iii f�� �++` - � _ r � - _ . —fir '' ; ?I� i '- F ?"yL �a _UAW_ PUP 440 Fair Drive i; Proposed Units '•+ _ �e _ 8 own ' � j •���,'. .. —'�- fir'_,+ b' ^i Vi • �• - j, .dry ',� �+I Q I INS ' r te' • ; ' 'i r C +. fir ' . s' �w `^ y�:,7J7J�1F L :fff r• ^� • - ! - - I qj 00 Measure Y Classification Half Mile Radius 1 r • • ■ • � ,� r� •? .i .t"� '. i.. 'irk '.a j� � } ter -• •r. ` ' -�� , u, ° y••�;. rr r' �r _ 7:�`. ;� i1jt..; jt'', ���.i-:'f�.1r, • tri ... .d �,'.� ..� - - �r.r - �rr • � � ,�� {�rj�g�4r �`i�� �1 � 3 +�- =ww - '-' . I �—, r e.�i .. .'r � • ' ', "? •" _ _� _ .. �� �. �[. 'Cs¢- �.... _ ti � ��•�• '� SII � r. ._\ R� �a�' + � t 1 LIM j IN- OwtK T R^ ..,,per •. r • s �. r, T R^ ..,,per •. P tau ksl,ti MMI n '- 7M4 668.gg}6 I IM 4li77{=� i *■ vt .10 .—Y fury O ti f c '3 0 P I s — Fes`: -.. F _ z '' r ` " ` J 4O`• ' 1 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FOR THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) DENY THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; (2) DENY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -16-01 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 1.66 -ACRE SITE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR); (3) DENY REZONE R- 16-01 FOR A REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.66 -ACRE DEVELOPMENT SITE FROM C1 (LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO PDR -HD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL- HIGH DENSITY); AND (4) DENY MASTER PLAN PA -16-46 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 18064 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 28 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 440 FAIR DRIVE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Sheldon Development, LLC, on behalf of owner of real properties located at 440 Fair Drive, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Certification of the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -MND) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -16-01. Change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential to allow for a maximum density of 20 du/acre. 3. Rezone R-16-01. A rezone to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4. Planning Application PA -16-46. Master Plan for the 28 -unit residential common interest development project with specified deviations from the PDR -HD development standards, including the following: i. Variance to allow deviation from required open space requirements (42% required; 36.8% proposed); ii. Variance for encroachment of block walls into required perimeter open space area (20 feet required; 6 feet (Fair Drive) and 4.7 feet (Carnegie Ave) proposed); 4 aZ iii. Variance to allow deviation from required landscaped parkway requirements (10 feet with no dimension less than 5 feet on house side of private street required; 10 feet/3.6 feet proposed); iv. Variance to allow reduction in guest parking spaces (14 guest spaces required; 5 guest spaces proposed) v. Administrative Adjustment for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Fair Drive (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed). vi. Minor Modification for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Carnegie (20 feet required; 18 feet proposed). vii. Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines for multi -story to first floor ratio (100% multi -story to first floor ratio recommended; 150% for 4 -story units and 114% for 3 -story units proposed). 5. Tentative Tract Map 18064 for Condominium Purposes: Tentative Tract Map 18064 for residential subdivision for condominium purposes. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on January 17, 2017, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the City Council hereby DENIES General Plan Amendment GP - 16 -01, Rezone R-16-01, Master Plan Application PA -16-46, and Tentative Tract Map 18064 for residential subdivision for condominium purposes. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of January, 2017 KATRINA FOLEY Mayor, City of Costa Mesa )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Ordinance Number as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2017, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2017 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: 1. A compatible and harmonious relationship does not exist between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhoods. 2. Safety and compatibility of the design of the parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have not been considered. 3. The use is not consistent with the General Plan. 4. The cumulative effect of all the planning applications have not been considered. B. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(11) because: 1. The proposed rezone is not consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. C. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29 (g)(5) because: 1. The Master Plan does not meet the broader goals of the General Plan and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, and integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. D. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) because: 1. The strict application of development standards does not deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. 2. The deviation does constitute a grant of special privileges consistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. 3. The granting of the deviations will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation. E. The proposed project does not comply with Code Section 13-29(g)(6) due to the following: vR 1. The improvement will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. 2. The improvement is not compatible and does not enhance the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. F. The proposed project does not comply with Code Section 13-29(g)(13) due to the following: 1. The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is inconsistent with the General Plan and this Zoning Code. 2. The proposed use of the subdivision is incompatible with the General Plan. 3. The subject property is not physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and will result in substantial environmental damage or public health problems, based on noncompliance with the Zoning Code and General Plan, and consideration of appropriate environmental information. G. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied General Plan Amendment GP -16-01, Rezone R-16-01, Master Plan Application PA -16-46, and Tentative Tract Map 18064 for residential subdivision for condominium purposes. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) (5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. H. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 2-(" - - ATTACHMENT 4 US GAS '' I � •� CAR WASH -, `• � �� � # �of . , 24.0' N 'r ~ 40 i _ I 6.0' =� 1 •5' PL I r , 4. .o' PL I 12.5' ,� 14 13 ZT S # GRANGE OAST FEAT 2 a �• N 'd' PL I °D rt PL I 6.0' °O : SITE PLAN SUMMARY PL I ' PL I I 5, r! $ OWNER: SHELDON DEVELOPMENT, LLC. :Z0O 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 00 16 _ NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 - _ 26 I' PHONE (949)777-9400 Ln C to o`y _ . -, Q :n G ,� O no P-4 LMIR 1� 0' 10 8 0' rn v rn a �' '-' `=' f 1.4' { f`y SITE ADDRESS: FAIR DRIVE AT CARNEGIE ,5' PL I C6 P-3 PROPOSED UNITS: 28 HOMES - 37 18 19 20 21 2�2 23 74 -�j 28 20 - 3 STORY DUPLEX 0, PL ( o ' R2 PL I PL 1 PL f PL I PL I PL I PL I PL I PL I PL I ti PL I PL I 8 - 2 STORY DETACHED Op P- IM'h'4C'-- + I • .I_ LOT AREA: 72,310S.F (1.66 ACRES) DENSITY: 16.25 UNITS PER ACRE SITE SUMMARY: m i 8,0' 8.0, -a L8'0, $'�' "� $'�' 8'0� '0 8.0' 8.0� •� $•0' 8.0� 8.0' 8.0' � BLDG FOOTPRINTS: 20,922 S.F. (289%) - A PRIV. STREETS/DRIVES: 24,745 S.F (34.3%) OPEN SPACE: 26,643 S F (36.8% AT GRADE) fr'f 8.0' A' 8.0' 0' `in 8.0� .0' m $,0' .0' 8.0' '"' ,0' 8.0' `in 8.0' .U' $A' ,�u BALCONIES I,080 S.F. (2ND FLOOR) ^ ROOF DECKS 7,240 S.F. go 9.)1W �3�Wr� [4.J} TOTAL OPEN SPACE 34,963 S.F (48.3% ) [pay [Pnw `'y '�' �'' '� 24.0' `! LL PLAN SUMMARY: I 14.5 19 1 �y 4 STORY 3 LIVABLE • ROOF DEC - 4 SDRM PL 2 PL 2 PL 2 PL 2 V 4Q PL 2 � PL 2 (] PL 2 Q PL 2 Q � PLAN I IST FUR 160 S.F. 2ND FUR 910 S.F, 5,2' LL > 3RD FLR 905 S.F. TOTAL LIVABLE 1,975 S.F. •_ ^ n GARAGE 448 S.F. BALCONY 54 S.F. 4TH (ROOF DECK) 362 S.F. e. 3 STORY - 3 BDRM _ PLAN 2 1 ST FLR 609 S.F. 2ND FURCARNEGIE AVENUE �A RDFLR 1245 S.F. �. _ _ . _ _ - •,_ _ _ •� _ _ _ _ _ TOTAL LIVABLE 2,050 S.F. - — GARAGE 439 S.F. PARKING SUMMARY: REQUIRED PARKING = 20 UNITS X 4 STALLS/UNIT = 80 STALLS 8 UNITS X 4 STALLS/UNIT = 32 STALLS x. -------- y 112 STALLS ti PLAN 1 2 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE X 20 UNITS = 40 STALLS PLAN 2 2 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE X 8 UNITS = 16 STALLS GUEST PRIVATE DRIVE STALLS = 56 STALLS GUEST ADD'L OPEN UNASSIGNED STALLS = 5 STALLS - - 117 STALLS SFD D SFD SFD CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA 28 H O M E S 0 8 16 32 SEPTEMBER Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 oey> Lcx�sEwY Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949)777-9400 SITE PLAN 9-111-1— • 4%. 5256 5 Mission Road, Ste 404Bonsall, CA 92003 www sunnnnarch conn 760 724 1198 1w tri;-.• _ � � � •" j � � „ �� F.Y :. � 4 l- � -.. laws ? ��. azy•T �1�� �r •��, ti •• a sem: e r ���� a v `tel ':.;� !' •^' 11;1 X till Jim Ak _ - 7=, �• �� �� ai � ���� �� i, 111.,, � � =� ;fin---• :� : • y._ �. '•��� �� ` �';�r' ' r � � i- pry; :F; :� .�: r`Al.: _ II _ :• e _ My _ Willi +I��ru � i�fiF1■r�� �:�� -'•moi `����t+nub _—r.�,r».r_ �ry ��+ii���,:,�t�r;eil�i�i�i �� ::. ' :�•�ra,�=,�ii?ai+n�' - �.�r•--.:_ --=v H ~ — "# i � . � ; � �'r^� ' - • � s _. s' •� Jr� s �' a -. !r,`= FOURTH FLOOR PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN Ba 2 PLAN SUMMARY LIVABLE AREA IST FLR 160 S.F. 2ND FLR 910 S.F. 3RD FLR 905 S.P Balcony Bdrm 4 SECOND FLOOR PLAN TOTAL LIVABLE 1,975 S.F. GARAGE 448 S.F. BALCONY 54 S.F. 4TH FLR (ROOF DECK) 362 S.F. MINIMUM FOOTPRINT AREA IST FLR 608 S.F. = 100% 2ND FLR 910 S.F. = 149.7% 3RD FLR 905 S.F. = 148.8% 4TH FLR (ROOF DECK) 362 S.F. = 59.5% CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S Sheldon Development, LLC. 0 2 4 8 Dove Street, Suite 0 iNVELOPMEIIT Newport Beach, CA 9266660 Phone: (949(777-9400 SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLAN 1- 4 STORY .• lrNi - IJQA6 S256 S Mission Road, Ste. 404 B-11 CA 92003 —.—nn—h.can 760.7241196 K, Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230DEVELOPMENT Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949)777-9400 0 RIGHT ELEVATION MATERIAL SCHEDULE I ROOF - CONCRETE TILE ROOF 2 FASCIA - 2X6 RESAWN WOOD 3 FASCIA - STUCCO OVER SHAPED FOAM 4 WALL - EXTERIOR STUCCO - SAND FINISH 5 WALL - HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING 6 WALL - BOARD AND BATTEN 7 TRIM - 2X RESAWN WOOD @ SIDING B TRIM - 2X STUCCO OVER FOAM 9 STONE VENEER 10 BRICK VENEER I I RAILING - COMPOSITE WOOD 12 DECORATIVE - WOOD SHUTTERS 13 DECORATIVE - WOOD POTSHELF 14 DECORATIVE - STUCCO OVER FOAM POTSHELF IS DECORATIVE - WOOD OUTLOOKERS 16 DECORATIVE.-iA16d8 Pe4q&SVr•.---.---._ _• 17DECOAATIVE - WOOD ARBOR 18 DECORATE - GABLE ACCENT LEFT ELEVATION CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 02 4 8 3 ll SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL EXTERIORS -PLAN I A 5256 S Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 www,summarch com 76Q7241198 Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEVELOvwENT Phone: (949)777-9400 RIGHT ELEVATION MATERIAL SCHEDULE I ROOF - CONCRETE TILE ROOF 2 FASCIA - 2X6 RESAWN WOOD I FASCIA - STUCCO OVER SHAPED FOAM 1 WALL - EXTERIOR STUCCO - SAND FINISH 0 S WALL - HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING 6 WALL - BOARD AND BATTEN 7 TRIM -2X RESAWN WOOD @ SIDING B TRIM - 2X STUCCO OVER FOAM 4 STONE VENEER 10 BRICK VENEER I I RAILING - COMPOSITE WOOD 12 DECORATIVE - WOOD SHUTTERS 13 DECORATIVE - WOOD POTSHELF 19 DECORATIVE -STUCCO OVER FOAM POTSHELF 15 DECORATIVE - WOOD OUTLOOKERS 16 DECORATIVE - WOOD CORBELS 17 DECORATIVE - WOOD ARBOR IB DECORATE - GABLE ACCENT LEFT ELEVATION CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0 2 4 8 `�i SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 REAR ELEVATION b I M FRONT ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL EXTERIORS - PLAN I S 5256 5 Mission Road Sm 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 —'s.—rchcom 76Q7241198 THIRD FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN PLAN SUMMARY LIVABLE AREA IST FLR 609 S.F. 2ND FLR I,196 S.F. 3RD FLR (ATTIC DEN) 245 S.F. TOTAL LIVABLE 2,050 S.F GARAGE 439 S.F. MINIMUM FOOTPRINT AREA IST FLR 1,048 S.F. = 100% 2ND FLR 1,196 S.F. = 1 14.1 3RD FLR (ATTIC DEN) 245 S.F. = 23 4% CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S Sheldon Development, LLC. �,� 0 2 4 8 Dove Street, Suite —�� Newport Beach, CA 9266660 1 0 " f DEVELOPMENT Phone: (949)777-9400 SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLAN 2 - 3 STORY SW S2S6 S Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall. CA 92003 w .summarch.com 76Q724 1198 M RIGHT ELEVATION MATERIAL SCHEDULE I ROOF - CONCRETE TILE ROOF 2 FASCIA -2X6 RESAWN WOOD 3 FASCIA - STUCCO OVER SHAPED FOAM 4 WALL - EXTERIOR STUCCO - SAND FINISH 5 WALL - H 6 WALL - Bi 7 TRIM - 2X B TRIM - 2X 9 STONE VI 10 BRICK VEI I 1 RAILING - 12 DECORAI 13 DECORAI 14 DECORAI IS DECORAI 16 DECORAI 17 DECORAI IB DECORAI LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION CARNEGIE AVENUE COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S Sheldon Development, LLC. 0 2 4 B 901 Dove Street, Suite 230DEVELOPMENT Newport Beach, CA 92660 3-3 Phone: (949)777-9400 0 SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 FRONT ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL EXTERIORS - PLAN 2A 91 T 5256 S Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 w .summarch.conn 760.7241198 rA RIGHT ELEVATION MATERIAL SCHEDULE I. ROOF - CONCRETE TILE ROOF 2 FASCIA - 2X6 RESAWN WOOD 3 FASCIA - STUCCO OVER SHAPED FOAM A WALL - EXTERIOR STUCCO - SAND FINISH S WALL - HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING 6 WALL - BOARD AND BATTEN .7 TRIM - 2X 0 TRIM - 2X 4 STONE VE 10 BRICK VEI I t RAILING - 12 DECORAI 13 DECORAI 14 DECORAI l5 DECORAI T6 DECORAI 17 DECORAI 18 DECORAI REAR ELEVATION Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949)777-9400 LEFT ELEVATION CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0 2 4 8 ? ,/ 0DEVELOPMENT I� a SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 FRONT ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL EXTERIORS - PLAN 2B H• GHITc.. it 5256 $ Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall. CA 92003 www.summarch.com 760.724.1198 24' INT. Sheldon Development, LLC, 901 Dove Street, Suite 230DEVELOPMENTNewport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949)777-9400 0 ITT 411 ' i `. FAIR DA .L'�{�:. WSRlafM_j I��.w. n.nn...a. SITE SECTION C t 1` i7-1 3J-T.S i rtS7 Z.F.7TFT7i >. �T �J I. �� �t ■ SIR -- — -------- 40' CARTAEGI E SITE SECTION A CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0 4 8 16�� SEPTEMBER ORANGE COASTRAT SITE SECTION B SITE SECTIONS PUNA 9 5256 5Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 www. sommarch.com 760 724 1198 STUCCO DAYBREAK SW 6700 BOARD &BATTEN 2: SAMOVAR SILVER SW 6233 SIDING 3: ZEUS SW 7744 TRIM /FASCIA 4: EXTRA WHITE SW 7006 STONEVENEER 5: MESQUITE - CLIFFSTONE Y ACCENT 6: OLYMPIC RANGE SW 7750 ROOF 7: SCB 8802 NANTUCKET BLEND CARNEGIE AVENUE COSTA MESA, CA. SHELDON DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 777-9400 ASARCHITECTURE 5256 S. MISSION RD. STE 404 BONSALL, CA. 92003 760.724.1 198 MANUFACTURER: SHERWIN-WILLIAMS ELDORADO STONE EAGLE ROOFING STORY - A STUCCO I EXTRA WHITE SW 7006 BOARD &BATTEN 2: E I CLARY SAGE SW 6178 SIDING 3: REALIST BEIGE SW 6078 TRIM /FASCIA 4: EXTRA WHITE SW 7006 STONEVENEER 5: MESQUITE - CLIFFSTONE ACCENT 6: DISTANCE SW 6243 000 momm-0 4689 BROWN RANGE CARN EG I E AVEN U E COSTA MESA, CA. SHELDON DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 777-9400 17y SAVC HITEECTUif �- 5256 S. MISSION RD. STE 404 BONSALL, CA. 92003 760.724.1 198 MANUFACTURER: SHERWIN-WILLIAMS ELDORADO STONE EAGLE ROOFING STORY - B STUCCO I DAYBREAK SW 6700 BOARD &BATTEN 2: SAMOVAR SILVER SW 6233 SIDING 3: ZEUS SW 7744 TRIM /FASCIA 4: EXTRA WHITE SW 7006 STONE VENEER 5: r - r 77 1 MESQUITE - CLIFFSTONE ACCENT 6: SAMOVAR SILVER SW 6233 ROOF 7: 4689 BROWN RANGE CARNEGIE AVENUE COSTA MESA, CA. SHELDON DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 777-9400 1 SAARCHITEMCTU% 5256 S. MISSION RD. STE 404 BONSALL, CA. 92003 760.724.1 198 MANUFACTURER: SHERWIN-WILLIAMS ELDORADO STONE EAGLE ROOFING 4%0 STORY -A STUCCO SAMOVAR SILVER SW 6233 BOARD &BATTEN 2: EXTRA WHITE SW 7006 TRIM /FASCIA 3: EXTRA WHITE SW 7006 BRICKVENEER 4: ASHLAND -TUNDRA BRICK ACCENT 5: DISTANCE SW 6243 4689 BROWN RANGE CARNEGIE AVENUE COSTA MESA, CA. SHELDON DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 777-9400 d PCH ECTUR ' 5256 S. MISSION RD. STE 404 BONSALL, CA. 92003 760.724.1 198 MANUFACTURER: SHERWIN-WILLIAMS ELDORADO STONE EAGLE ROOFING 49f 0 STORY - B LANDSCAPE NOTES PLANT LEGEND • SHRUBS & GRASSES Oi PROIECT ENTRY MONUMENTATION OSPLIT.FACE E}IPO64D TO PUBLIC AREAS COMMON (PLANT I. FO SYMB f IHIT. BOTANICAL NAME NAM, SIZE ,FACT" COMMENTS {I (MASONRY COLUMN-SEE ELEVATION AND �EEEEEOLEVAF ONTONSHL 2)E SHRUBS ! O PRECAST UNIT PAVERS AT PROJECT O YHIGH SPLIT- FACE TH EMT WALL BOTH •ARCSDSiAPvn05 ENTRY STREET SIDES ® H. �'1ENSIFLORA 'HOWARD �ZANOA CMINN 5 GAL L SHRUB ]'-6" OC .MGLINN' Oi PEMT ANPAVI CONCRETE 10 6' HIGH PRECISION BLOCK WALL BOTH I� CAR (1RlSSA AUCROGRPA ABO%WOOD BEAUTY 1 CAL FINIESTRIAN PAN NG WITH BROOM SIDES AT PROPERTY LINE + BB 'BOXNDOO BfAUEr' NATAL PLUM 5 GAL M SHRUB 2'-6' OG ISH O L:IOAAMUIVIlY MAIL BOX CARI$SA MACPOC PA EMERA.ID CARPET 'GROUNDLOVER . O TRT1'ATF YARD AREAS (TVR) BOU M, 1; CARPET' PLUM PLUM GAL Y igIANGUWt Q 2' NATURAE COLOR CONCRETE BANDS •SPACING i -o" oL, 1 ® 15 Qs PARKWAY PLANTING WITH BRbDMF 'lISH HEM MEMEROCALJS HYBRID DAYULY IGAL M PDLENNIAL I--6" 0 a12 SOO 'S E U Of ORO' IO C ® ! I O 6'HIGH VINYL FENCING (SEE ELEVATION O SPLIT FACE MASONRY THEME COLUMN ON SHT. 2) (SEE ELEVATION ON SHT. 2) EM BY LANTANA 'DWARF YELLOW' ISYELLOW SGL L SHRUB 2'-b" Q[ I O VINYL GATE (TO MATCH VINYL FENCE) Q COMBINATION WALLS PER 1 V HIGH MASONRY THEME WALL WITH ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS IAV ,1AVMDUTA ANCUSnFotu I_NGUSH _AVENDER 5 GAL L SHRUB 2'-6. OC 4 ANG "BLUE CUSHIOM PERENNNL I'-fi PER n II STATICE 1 GAL L OC • I I ® I - O Co. IUM COMPACT MAHONw 5 GAL L SHRUB J' -G' OC. WMICA HEAVENLY BAMBOO 5 GAL L SHRUB J'-0" 0C CA 'GULF CULE S REACS (HEAVENLY BAM800 5 GAL L SHRUB 2'-610 OG J i ti PHO PRORMIUM HI JACK INEW 2EAIAND M% 1 GAL L !SHRUB 2'-0• QG AS SPNTT' P-3 r GAL - PHO PNOnNM X ERASER( 'RED t,' IB 19 ZD 21 O O �+ Reew' PnaHNw s GAL M (SHRUB J'-6" 4G P—Z PR PIIR05PORUM TOBIRA NARICAIED '..IRA 5 CAL M SHRUB 4'-0• QC I • • ,Irt1 L{��^-{,jT� VAR VARIEfATA' HM ElrT ® RHA �RNAPRIINA' INOIfA INDIANEXIZR'. HA I ,i BAC "81LLEROI INDIAN ENCHANTRESS 5 GAL M SHRUB J'-0" O C RHA WHAPNIO("'S INDICA ENIAN HAWTHORN ENC 'ENCNANIRf$S' WDWN HAWTHORN - OG SHRUB 3' 6- Y •` 0 PN<PNRILEN. UMBEL(A!A GULF GREEN YEDDO 5 GAL M SHRUB 2'- QG CO 'GULF GREEN' HAWTHORN -------- (� RES ROS4 FORIBUNg9 F _ — — -- -------------------------------------- ------------------- — —------- -- ® ALE YC, ro ICEBERG ROSE 5 CAL M SHRUB J'-6" QC. RG' NW ROSA X 'NOASMUM' IPINK CARPET 5 GAL L SHRUB 2'-6. Or f (eR�®�Tap]1 1I[p�fC��yyi]I ROS ROI BLUE SPIRES 5 GAL L SHRUB 2'-6' OC HC 'BLUE SPIRES' ROSEMARY ROS R05MARINUS OFFICIN4LIS HIINDNGTGN 1 CAL L GROUNOLOVER 7RI - W 'HUIV IN CARPETCARPET ROSEMARY 'iPAGING 4'-0" QC o Mp SALVW MEXICANA MEXICAN SAGE 5 GAL L SHRUB 4'-0" QC r f� ,� '�'•`"� •� �. ��-A 1 ;BASSES � rx 1•-6' oc. PUF ARISTIOA PURPURFA PURPIE THREE AWN L CRDUNOCOVER UNERS 1'-0" TRI SPACwIG 1 CAL 1'-6" QG ` FESIUG ClAUCA (BLUE FESCUE JN RS LI GROUNDCOVER " TRI SPACING TEN - i - - - - - -- NAB MEXICAN FEATHER 1 GAL I'-� 6G .� - - -. ' --_' LL - - — NASSELIA TENUISSIMA GRASS L ,Gfl000A1COVFA I UNERS I' J- TRL cPACMO PLANTING LEGEND • TREES ��—_ ^--- — CA RN E G I E AVE N U E - —' . _ __ — . MD.IN7i. BOTANICAL NAME i CNA�N SIZE PLANT' COMMENTS 'FREES I SHELDON DEVELOPMENT 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 949.777.9400 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN CARNEGIE 4w i CIN CAT' E I m i i a i � STANDARD LANDSCAPE NOTES PLANT LEGEND • SHRUBS & GRASSES Oi PROIECT ENTRY MONUMENTATION OSPLIT.FACE E}IPO64D TO PUBLIC AREAS COMMON (PLANT I. FO SYMB f IHIT. BOTANICAL NAME NAM, SIZE ,FACT" COMMENTS {I (MASONRY COLUMN-SEE ELEVATION AND �EEEEEOLEVAF ONTONSHL 2)E SHRUBS ! O PRECAST UNIT PAVERS AT PROJECT O YHIGH SPLIT- FACE TH EMT WALL BOTH •ARCSDSiAPvn05 ENTRY STREET SIDES ® H. �'1ENSIFLORA 'HOWARD �ZANOA CMINN 5 GAL L SHRUB ]'-6" OC .MGLINN' Oi PEMT ANPAVI CONCRETE 10 6' HIGH PRECISION BLOCK WALL BOTH I� CAR (1RlSSA AUCROGRPA ABO%WOOD BEAUTY 1 CAL FINIESTRIAN PAN NG WITH BROOM SIDES AT PROPERTY LINE + BB 'BOXNDOO BfAUEr' NATAL PLUM 5 GAL M SHRUB 2'-6' OG ISH O L:IOAAMUIVIlY MAIL BOX CARI$SA MACPOC PA EMERA.ID CARPET 'GROUNDLOVER . O TRT1'ATF YARD AREAS (TVR) BOU M, 1; CARPET' PLUM PLUM GAL Y igIANGUWt Q 2' NATURAE COLOR CONCRETE BANDS •SPACING i -o" oL, 1 ® 15 Qs PARKWAY PLANTING WITH BRbDMF 'lISH HEM MEMEROCALJS HYBRID DAYULY IGAL M PDLENNIAL I--6" 0 a12 SOO 'S E U Of ORO' IO C ® ! I O 6'HIGH VINYL FENCING (SEE ELEVATION O SPLIT FACE MASONRY THEME COLUMN ON SHT. 2) (SEE ELEVATION ON SHT. 2) EM BY LANTANA 'DWARF YELLOW' ISYELLOW SGL L SHRUB 2'-b" Q[ I O VINYL GATE (TO MATCH VINYL FENCE) Q COMBINATION WALLS PER 1 V HIGH MASONRY THEME WALL WITH ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS IAV ,1AVMDUTA ANCUSnFotu I_NGUSH _AVENDER 5 GAL L SHRUB 2'-6. OC 4 ANG "BLUE CUSHIOM PERENNNL I'-fi PER n II STATICE 1 GAL L OC • I I ® I - O Co. IUM COMPACT MAHONw 5 GAL L SHRUB J' -G' OC. WMICA HEAVENLY BAMBOO 5 GAL L SHRUB J'-0" 0C CA 'GULF CULE S REACS (HEAVENLY BAM800 5 GAL L SHRUB 2'-610 OG J i ti PHO PRORMIUM HI JACK INEW 2EAIAND M% 1 GAL L !SHRUB 2'-0• QG AS SPNTT' P-3 r GAL - PHO PNOnNM X ERASER( 'RED t,' IB 19 ZD 21 O O �+ Reew' PnaHNw s GAL M (SHRUB J'-6" 4G P—Z PR PIIR05PORUM TOBIRA NARICAIED '..IRA 5 CAL M SHRUB 4'-0• QC I • • ,Irt1 L{��^-{,jT� VAR VARIEfATA' HM ElrT ® RHA �RNAPRIINA' INOIfA INDIANEXIZR'. HA I ,i BAC "81LLEROI INDIAN ENCHANTRESS 5 GAL M SHRUB J'-0" O C RHA WHAPNIO("'S INDICA ENIAN HAWTHORN ENC 'ENCNANIRf$S' WDWN HAWTHORN - OG SHRUB 3' 6- Y •` 0 PN<PNRILEN. UMBEL(A!A GULF GREEN YEDDO 5 GAL M SHRUB 2'- QG CO 'GULF GREEN' HAWTHORN -------- (� RES ROS4 FORIBUNg9 F _ — — -- -------------------------------------- ------------------- — —------- -- ® ALE YC, ro ICEBERG ROSE 5 CAL M SHRUB J'-6" QC. RG' NW ROSA X 'NOASMUM' IPINK CARPET 5 GAL L SHRUB 2'-6. Or f (eR�®�Tap]1 1I[p�fC��yyi]I ROS ROI BLUE SPIRES 5 GAL L SHRUB 2'-6' OC HC 'BLUE SPIRES' ROSEMARY ROS R05MARINUS OFFICIN4LIS HIINDNGTGN 1 CAL L GROUNOLOVER 7RI - W 'HUIV IN CARPETCARPET ROSEMARY 'iPAGING 4'-0" QC o Mp SALVW MEXICANA MEXICAN SAGE 5 GAL L SHRUB 4'-0" QC r f� ,� '�'•`"� •� �. ��-A 1 ;BASSES � rx 1•-6' oc. PUF ARISTIOA PURPURFA PURPIE THREE AWN L CRDUNOCOVER UNERS 1'-0" TRI SPACwIG 1 CAL 1'-6" QG ` FESIUG ClAUCA (BLUE FESCUE JN RS LI GROUNDCOVER " TRI SPACING TEN - i - - - - - -- NAB MEXICAN FEATHER 1 GAL I'-� 6G .� - - -. ' --_' LL - - — NASSELIA TENUISSIMA GRASS L ,Gfl000A1COVFA I UNERS I' J- TRL cPACMO PLANTING LEGEND • TREES ��—_ ^--- — CA RN E G I E AVE N U E - —' . _ __ — . MD.IN7i. BOTANICAL NAME i CNA�N SIZE PLANT' COMMENTS 'FREES I SHELDON DEVELOPMENT 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 949.777.9400 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN CARNEGIE 4w i RA{NVILLE�BYB CIN CAT' CINNAMOMUM GMPNORA CAMPHOR TREE M STANDARD CUPSET' —US SEMPERNRENS HALAN CYPRESS L STANDARD LAB ROB SAURUS NOBILIS 'SIlATOGA' IiAY LAUREL L 'STANDARD LOP CON 1.10110TEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX4 M STANDARD jh,71 PW CRA IPO—RPUS CRACILIOR FERN PINE Y STANOAflO RA{NVILLE�BYB LANO$CA1PE ARCIil7 C:7$ SHEET 01 150. MMr 54K7. LLQ; !I, R,gwA Tf ,gym TEL [1 14) 87B-1200 C -MSL note m COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NUMBER: BYE -2016"108.00 PLOT DATE:19 JULY 2016 9j' = KM wm F VrffL are PANEL s' MAX. • FENCE COLOR TO HE SELECTED -17 I ! AARHAfE %if >;9. YEIAL i ROAD VNEL PWE WRL FENCE PNil 1 Ril C111� VINYL &MAW FENCE . ELEYATIC)N F' N.suwv Amu -spur FREE ExRI__ Ry smEEF i aTt _._ _. +moi CARE LATCH VOWL GATE PAM! VK& CTE PANEL.. FRO WALE VINYL SIDEYARD CATE • MAMON 36' INCH PREMON KOC - u' MW IVRKi TOY' f mr Hmm Vona OLM IM VALE RSPUTFAf£ CAP i NAL F�RIZ=N FFM eayiil iEM !Yr/Q DAV + p MSS. •�•Ef CCEr WN NHLL AM FEFACC REFER M ARCWIECR.I PLAhs Ilime n Li � K A �� ir. 5•! SECTION A -A 2 SiQRY $WM FA NLY AT CARNEGE AVENUE SMELT MFYW FI y AIM LOW AAwm fJ+fjfr A1EM,E ► 'at ". a • • d �i. I I `� � si i�j •� !I� I■ MA.SOMY WALL VATH COLUMNS • ELEVAWN ) 909 DOVE STREET. SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, Cl 92660 A A DEVELOPMENT 949 777 9a 00 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN CARNEG/E COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NUMBER: BYE -2016 108 00 PLOT DATE: 30 AUGUST 2016 RAI N Vii. L E►BYE LANOSCA.PE' RRCEOTE[;Tg SHEET Im r xw sRl7, xn[ 17- H6Th u fE]V0 02 TEL p]q W nm L -AWL VVrpyemm COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NUMBER: BYE -2016 108 00 PLOT DATE: 30 AUGUST 2016 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 18064 SINGLE LOT SUBDIVISION FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PRO. CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SITE CARNEGIE AVE. - I LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND 15 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA. COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP FILED IN HOFMS 43. PAGE 44 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY EXCEPTING FROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING WITHIN LOT A OF THE BANNING TRACT, AS SHOWN ON A MAP ATTACHED TO THE REFERREE'S REPORT FILED APRIL 14, 1890 IN CASE NO 6385, IN SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, AN UNDIVIDED 40 PERCENT INTEREST IN AND TO ALL OIL AND MINERAL RIGHTS, BUT WITHOUT RIGHT OF ENTRY TO THE SURFACE OR THE SUBSURFACE THEREOF TO A DEPTH 500 FEET OF SAID LAND, AS GRANTED TO PEOPLES INVESTMENT CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 141958 IN BOOK 4197 PAGE 173 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS ALSO EXCEPT FROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING WITHIN LOT A OF THE BANNING TRACT, AS SHOWN ON A MAP ATTACHED TO THE REFERREE'S REPORT FILED APRIL 14, 1890 IN CASE NO 63135, IN SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, AN UNDIVIDED 00 PERCENT INTEREST IN AND TO ALL OIL AND MINERAL RIGHTS, BUT WITHOUT RIGHT OF ENTRY TO THE SURFACE OR TO THE SUB -SURFACE THEREOF TO A DEPTH OF 500 FEET OF SAID LAND AS GRANTED TO PALM INVESTMENT CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY t4�19581N BOOK 4157 PAGE 177 OF OrPK;utL RECORDS ALSO EXCEPT FROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING WITHIN TRACT NO 2750, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN dOGK 91. PALES i TMiOlif.}15 iF�A� IVE OF WCC IAaHS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, ALL OIL AND MINERAL RIGHTS, BUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY TO THE SURFACE OF THE SUB -SURFACE THEREOF TO A DEPTH OF 500 FEET OF SAID LAND, AS GRANTED TO PALM INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS, BY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 21. 1956 IN 0009 3819. PAGE 292 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS APN 141-421-23 $ITE 'QN. EASEMENT NOTES OAN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 3641 PAGE 69 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN FAVOR OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION TO BE VACATED OAN EASEMENT FOR COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED IN BOOK 3703, PAGE 115 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN FAVOR OF PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS TO BE VACATED OAN EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED IN$OOK 7129. PAGE 079 OF OFFICIAL RECORD IN FAVOR OF AARON SPIEGEL. A MARRIED MAN AS HIS SEPARATE PROPERTY RECORDED JULY 13, 1964 AS INSTRUMENT NO 11407 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE VACATED y� J JOB NO j 16C004.00 DRAWN BY TG/ IC H CHECKED BY PG DATE: 8/31/113 C1.0 SHEET 1 OF 4 MEI M MAY SHEETINDEX PMHCETpI DR MM40VER DR ff � FAq � OR $$$$ ` FMR OR 'Ig¢j�.1� O PRNLETON DR BUCKNDL RD .,M �m � :. CI VICINITY MAP FMR 09 1 dJ FAR DR ftiR OR J • °- 11 y� J JOB NO j 16C004.00 DRAWN BY TG/ IC H CHECKED BY PG DATE: 8/31/113 C1.0 SHEET 1 OF 4 _ SHEETINDEX ` - :. C70TITILE SHEET C20 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP VICINITY MAP • °- C3CONCEPTUAL GRADING NTS C40 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY Z GENERAL INFORMATION: LEGEND: Tr - 1 GROSS ACREAGE: 167 AC - 2EXISTING ZONING COMMERCIAL 3 PROPOSEDZ04ING RESIDENTIAL 4 EXISTING USE COMMERCIAL 5 CONTOUR INTERVAL: I FOOT PROPERTY LINE 6ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE I 7 ALL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF COSTA MESA SHALL RIGHT OF WAV F SSE •: INSTALLED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER _ - FENCE = W 1Q"1 _ B ANRARY SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE PRIVATE 9 ONSITE WATER SYSTEM SHALL BE PUBLIC, UNLESS NOTED ON PLAN --- ------ EASEMENT LINE yZj _' F Wm d _ SEPARATE METERS TO BE PROVIDED FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL fO ry i.- O 10 SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY SHALL BE CITY OF MESA WATER DISTRICT �� ---- CURB AND GUTTER W r <<m W d U �_ I• I 11 ON-SITE STREETS SHALL BE PRIVATE - CENTER LINE 3 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FLOW LINE Z 1. 1 LOT TRACT MAP PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT -. 2. 26 HOMES - 3. NET AREA: 166 AC 4. DENSITY: 28 HOMES/1.67 AC- 16 25 HOMES/AC PROPOSED WALK i _ BASIS OF BEARING rx[ �.- PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ' 4 - THE BASIS OF BEARING USED FOR THIS PROJECT IS THE BEARING BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR GPS STATIONS 6154 AND 6155R1 WHICH IS f4nIW36'1S-F e - PATIO BENCHMARK SLOPE ypa �a OCS BM CM -31-91 ALUMINUM BENCH MARK DISK AT INTERSECTION OF FAIRVIEW j -- - - ROAD AND FAIR DRIVE - --. —.• PROPOSED WATER LINE 'Dow, ELEV=7227(NAVD9B) 69875(NGV029) 2005 (YEAR LEVELED) -----T— PROPOSED SEWER LINE a PROPOSED STORM DRAIN � I �: ABBREVIATIONG �•'�-� PROPOSED STORM DRAIN r � m 4. CENTERLINE --^^--'^— EXISTING WATER LINE L d EG EDGE OF GUTTER FF FINISH FLOOR -SEWER LINE �/ ¢ m FH FIRE HYDRA M --.-- -.-- E%ISTING GAS LINE IA FL FLOW LINE V 0 $ FS FINIBH SURFACE �-•---.-- EXISTING ELECTRICAL LINE 2?� FG FINISH GRADE PROPOSED SEWER LATERAL GB GRADEBREAK ¢ GIFT GARAGE FINISH FLOOR INV INVERT o -- PROPOSED WATER METER MIN MINIMUM PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PKWY PARKWAY R PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED GATE VALVE RL RIDGE LINE RNV RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED AIR RELEASE VALVE SO STORM DRAIN Q PROPOSED MANHOLE SS SANITARY SEWER TC TOP OF CURB ^ PROPOSED CLEAN OUT - TG TOPOF GRAT E • PROPOSED AREA DRAIN ?. TW TOP OF WALL WP TYPICALWATER • PROPOSED CATCHBASIN U , 0 EXISTING MANHOLE � w C A 11J 3h L y 2 g LU rr J U ~? y� J JOB NO j 16C004.00 DRAWN BY TG/ IC H CHECKED BY PG DATE: 8/31/113 C1.0 SHEET 1 OF 4 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 18064 t F � w LEGEND: - �r PROPERTY LINE RIGHT OF WAY - _ FENCE eeAA1 EASEMENT LINE �.lt NEGIE AVE. - - CURB AND GUTTER CENTER LINE b FLOW LINE PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT 4—'-' �F __ _ --- b--'—'""'• �1I�- .�— .,,�,• _ Its --_— PROPOSED WALK .-_.... j 'h - !F r t y-� �'��'.,_r d PROPOSED LANDSCAPE r 124 120, T + a.B o 24. n.rc 26• 1 2 3 4 { 5$ 1 7 S PATIO HFF•72,22 i*F+71.72 HFF•ii.36 GFF=71.@6 ' .TFf't1.6! 072.11 .Y `,.lFSa7$,85 GFF�:L.35 GFF=7260 HFF=131 'GFF.13.15 kFF+7}A5 .. I! 4$� } ! GFF>•TS,1 FFF•7Gi6 GFF=7177 ! I7FF!3,11 ./ SLOPE LLI W 10 5' i '' !•�'" �44 ... _ Lu a 62 >-- -- - - - I I a PRIVATE STREET -- -- � b port^ --`—�_ - •1 � - — - — _ I t.e7 Ac NET T PRIVATE STREET 1 rj Ij II- --- - -- — -- — —F --'k n n — — — -- — ---- -- c D tis C : p FF =21.95 =_ 7 GFF_71 7L 0 GFF=7 31 GFF=34 9 .Ll �• �. 6 HFF=7372 Q 22 21 �L20 19 1 1 f6 28 27 ,; 26 ' 25 `� 24 23 „ $ a 17 _ _ ___ I HFF=71.63 HFF=7183 HFF=72,1 HFF=72.1 ' ` 07-TL35 HFF=7230 HFF=72.66 HFF=7266 uFF.:t96 _F=72.96 i7FFTM H77=73TJ.f �-2GFF=73.3-4 OX 9:0 4t.0' r .40 sD .... M 16GFF=73.62 11 I fI � HFF=74.00.. ..... _ - . • - - t2.5" HFF=74A0 Lu 1111 W _ W F _ 12 15 .l y GFF=73,62 - } I _ a GFF=73.62 Y HFF=7400 f HFF=7400 GFF=7178 14HFF IS ._ i eqqGFF=73,78 S'2.5 111F=74.16 - 1 .. EASEMENT NOTES EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES. RECORDED IN BOOK 3641 PAGE 89 OAN OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN FAVOR OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION TO BE VACATED OAN EASEMENT FOR COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 3703• PAGE 115 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN FAVOR OF PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, OAN A CORPORATION IT'S SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS TO BE VACATED EASEMENT FOR KDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, q3 RECORDED IN BOOK 7120, PAGE 679 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN FAVOR OF AARON SPIEGEL A MARRIED MAN AS HIS SEPARATE PROPERTY RECORDED JULY 13. 1964 AS INSTRUMENT NO 11407 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE VACATED GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 60 ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 20 6 V< gz og U A � < w o rA > o ~ U < z w JOB NO 16CO04.00 DRAWN BY TG/ IC CHECKED BY PC • DATE B129/16 C2.0 SHEET 2 OF 4 CONSTRUCTION NST RUCT ION NOTES: AC OVER B" AB O� B"CONCRETE CURB 11 GUTTER [ 4 F ROLLED CURB H GUTTER e/ 5 35F3 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK (ADA COMPLIANT) ( T CONCRETE GUTTER � V� DRIVEWAY PER CITY OF COSTA MESA eel! 1B'. 16'CATCH BASIN �OSTORM-ATE. INFILTRATION CHAMBER (CMP DETENTION SYSTEM) 10 DEMO EXISTING CURB AND CONSTRUCT NEW CURB RAMP PER CITY OF COSTA MESA STANDARDS 11 REMOVE THE WOODEN STREET LIGHT POLE AND REPLACE IT WITH CONCRETE POLE LEGEND PROPERTY LINE + RIGHT OF WAY FENCE EASEMENT LINE CURB AND GUTTER CENTER LINE FLOW LINE PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT PROPOSED WALK ,�•-• _ _•�, PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PATIO SLOPE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 18064 A CARNEGIE AVE. -�-�- -------------f— 'Y`T"---------- -----^`------- i - 7s xyr• � tC 1 R ( ) TYP y r..t w „ _ .- 5 w ..••�f' w w - w r �, + �..4.. ,..n'{'• _ TYP } I YS I 8 4 6 1.�.: 3 € 7� e (�'ff 4t2�, mF:71• GFF=71,72 11FF.77]Ai GFF=7t4y I L,1¢F.itllSl 0PP.Y?•11 HFF-6!� GFF.1Z35 GFF=7260 HFF=731 GFF=73.15 i 7rtf:t],� GFF=731 HFF=73,fi GFF=7337 ISF.7s.er �. Zff 10, ID.P .LIT r -a- _ I _ - 10.5_ K �• I I � _ I ' ' PRIVATE STREETN �M27 FS _ A 4 ' vJB a •�`f IL GFF=71,se GFF Ur 15 # : — ! OFF -1}.---- : . / 5 (F.77g pFsz72.50 LFF=72.f$ CdF17S5 GFF=7315GFF•GFF=7228 7_7 ali rs It {. , '4+ l�l rvP GFF=7339 28 27 26 25 24 23 '] 22 21 !: 20 19 18 17 2 HFF=7372 I i HFF=71-03 HFF=71,83 HFF=721 HFF=72' HFF=7236 HFF=7238 HFF=7266 HFF=12.66 1(FF.I2,96 HFF=7298 : I, HFF-73M HFF=7353 --' x. yi ���.: GFF-7339 FS F� .r 7_•µ' Ii.D' 12fi .. H =7372 i � � �•�-'�' 3ff 510' ..'ns, -,1v ... 1 �.�--r-r- - .. �rJ. • lir= 17 F5—__�_.� �.�.. . _ _. -,.. rrr-# ',••C-.tn.ir.-�- t:—=::T :• .� 6 TYP`r i-`.---� ^ -JF4 7L991.iT_•:.�.�_.._�_, ��... B.D' AD' •rC ► ;. 4FF=iJ,Bi 20.0 10A: 16 x73,67 HFFr ra.W -� �' f _ � � HFF•NAO H + E. s Lu _ GFF=7362 12 -. uj 5 TYA � t —_ TW ; if ro , d GFF=73 7.1 19 14 GFF=7378 11 HFF=7416 AFF 74-16 30' 1 PARKWAY 20-0' I 4.6 6.0 ISIDEWAiX ORNE'WRY 9 LCSr G8 : E GB t7� 0 SECTION A -A N!F SECTION B -B NTS JCI.I Ivry u_u Str 90 72.56 TC 2 35 FS _F,71-, 72.0fi FL 7 3 .50.G 0 n IirS O JOB NO 16CDD4-00 DRAWN BY TO/ I( CHECKED BY P( GRAPHIC SCALE II0 0 10 20 40 60 DATE: B/31/16 c3.0 IN FEET) 1 inch = 20 B SHEET 3 OF 4 LEGEND: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 18064 —'-- - - r .. --... ..- _- _. __ - .. _ �...,,.-._�_. __- - - • .._ .. .._ __ __ .. {JAI J' T Ij I CARNEGIE AVE. I ' PROPOSED WATER LINE - '�\+I° i' r�0 r_.y,\oPROPOSED SEWER LINE PROPOSED STORM DRAIN I� {f� PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EXISTING WATER LINE �,' r^ � rsc y���{' ra�rn• ran••�r \." f 1 EXISTING SEWER LINE y .31 1 2 3 -- �-"�--"�""- --f"•I' �m� ��f1! I�6�1 v i ' iI § la=i: GFF=7'72 uFr;.e fiiAl HFFacoGFF:yt I EXISTING GAS LINE 75, =69 ,l-7ls $ I Fx_SGFF=73!5 HF.i3, fly GFF.-5 37 EXISTING ELECTRICAL LINE PROPOSED SEWER LATERAL JI • fi PROPOSED WATER METER F f iSG r� PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT ---- - ---- _- ! - — 21 -- — �- - - PROPOSED GATE VALVE _ - - 1j x .. -- PROPOSED AIR RELEASE VALVE~ 9 TC% ^� /'/r a'1L T rl� r4q •• /� �• r 44 2111% e'ss i2 21 PROPOSED MANHOLE — -' a-- - e -�$ RE_RRR iii��� rw rN, y �,PROPOSED CLEAN OUT - f"F , PROPOSED AREA DRAIN "1' — -ti-ry—P PROPOSED CATCHBASIN GFF=714$ GFsa7 35 �Fa ""o",fFr: Zpj ro12AC ,fl i (pis:.. 72x39 '2 r I ! BFF'7S.IS.• EXISTING MANHOLE � � GFF='334 9 ! t I I [ 28 27 4 26 25 24 7�3 22 21 20 19 r 18 17LLHFF=" 93 HFF=x,.53 { HFF=72.1 HFF=7:' HFF=7^.1e HFF=l� 'IFF— 66 ' HFF=7_96 HF==72.96 11-7353 HFF=7353 r .. ' ✓—�, - 1 . '^� I ' I' ..-�—� -1,6 _ GF==r 31 10, a. ; ' I . F.F 32 'n? 33 1 t� c TYP n% w� 11 TYP '� `. jjj W GF= 62 V 16 HFF=74.01 44 GFF-7362 12 f TYP p HFF=.'.406 ail T. - 14 =x3,,8 HFA_ c,16� TYP\ ! �7e INV 74 !f 1 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: [21 ] 6-SDR35 SEWER PIPE n SEWER MANHOLE 7JV 4- SEWER SDR35 SEWER LATERAL 8� SEWER CLEANOUT 25 JOIN EXISTING SEWER 26 B -AWWA C900 CLASS 150 (DR16) PVC WATER PIPE 27 BLOWOFF VALVE 26 WATER METER RG JOIN EXISTING WATER ]p FIRE HYDRANT 71 8-P CSTORMDRAIN 32 4' PVC STORM DRAIN 7A 12' x 12' Area Drain NOTES: ALL UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM AS -BUILT PLAN SHEMN r f - - ■ - +.a - 'r a• z !� r aRMR• 1 91. • ~ d ..w i l != r f - - ■ - +.a - 'r 91. • ~ d ..w jor i • � L US GAS ' CAR WASH FM I ��. _ ' �II■ ■II� �II■ ■ i� II■ ■ii� �■ �Ifi�j ■ 1 1'algi Lr -u,'] rip!q p gil 10 Maj A-111 11' :1 1 I� -■ � iyMr11 � � II�1� }r:.r Ila= �rE �1 �I l�•� �� � 11 �.�n�1 I �.w,. �! K IM Sheldon Development, LLC. , 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 DEVELOPMENT Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (9A9)777-9400 AVENUE ORANGE COAST FIAT -•� ATTACHMENT 5 SITE PLAN SUMMARY -1111111116 +1 � ® A�1111IRE �r o .- OWNER: SHELDON DEVELOPMENT, LLC. =: Law � EEO 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 1 �■ FM I ��. _ ' �II■ ■II� �II■ ■ i� II■ ■ii� �■ �Ifi�j ■ 1 1'algi Lr -u,'] rip!q p gil 10 Maj A-111 11' :1 1 I� -■ � iyMr11 � � II�1� }r:.r Ila= �rE �1 �I l�•� �� � 11 �.�n�1 I �.w,. �! K IM Sheldon Development, LLC. , 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 DEVELOPMENT Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (9A9)777-9400 AVENUE ORANGE COAST FIAT -•� ATTACHMENT 5 SITE PLAN SUMMARY PLAN 12 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE X 20 UNITS = 40 STALLS PLAN 2 2 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE X 8 UNITS = 16 STALLS GUEST PRIVATE DRIVE STALLS = 56 STALLS GUEST ADDT OPEN UNASSIGNED STALLS = 5 STALLS 117 STALLS BUILDING HEIGHT: 3 STORIES, 38'-6" MAXIMUM HEIGHT SF D ' 2 STORIES, 27'4" MAXIMUM HEIGHT SFD Wima CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0� 8 16 32f JANUARY 3, 2017 �7 SITE PLAN gW,1­TF.1.jRA1 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 www.summarchcom 7607241196 -1111111116 OWNER: SHELDON DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Or-] 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 EA PHONE: (949)777.9400 - SITE ADDRESS: FAIR DRIVE AT CARNEGIE 1 �, 8 0� T 0• ` r PROPOSED UNITS: 28 HOMES z3 zs 27 20 - 3 STORY DUPLEX STORY DETACH ED Q 8-2 PL I PL I© PL I PL 126 PL I PL 128 U LOT AREA: 72,310 S.F. (1.66 ACRES) I� cg, DENSITY: 16.86 UNITS PER ACRE M f•1 M < SITE SUMMARY: 20,852 S.F. P N BLDG FOOTPRINTS: (28.8%) STREETS/DRIVES: 23,672 S.F. FIRE' PRIV. (32.7%) JA� Qt N HAMMERHEAD 18.41 10 OPEN SPACE: 27,786 S.F. (38.5% AT GRADE) U BALCONIES 1,080 S.F. (2ND FLOOR) ROOF DECKS 6,440 S.F. L1..1 TOTAL OPEN SPACE 35,306 S.F. (48.8.3/ ) TuR{ 1 �' `+•� LL_ PLAN SUMMARY: CRETE z 3 STORY 13 LIVABLE +ROOF DECK} -I BDRM 20 < W PLAN I IST FLR 160 S.F. PL 2 PL 2 PL 2 2ND FLR 910 S.F. 3RD FLR 905 S.F. Z, in 0 TOTAL LIVABLE 1,975 S.F. -1i+1 rn GARAGE 4485.F. 10 N BALCONY 545.F. ROOF DECK 322 S.F. 2 STORY - 3 BDRM PLAN 2 IST FLR 602 S.F. 2ND FLR 1,198 S.F. 'A TOTAL LIVABLE 1,800 S.F. GARAGE 439 S.F. _ PARKING SUMMARY: l REQUIRED PARKING = 20 UNITS X 4 STALLS/UNIT = 80 STALLS -� 8 UNITS X 4 STALLS/UNIT = 32 STALLS - 112 STALLS PLAN 12 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE X 20 UNITS = 40 STALLS PLAN 2 2 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE X 8 UNITS = 16 STALLS GUEST PRIVATE DRIVE STALLS = 56 STALLS GUEST ADDT OPEN UNASSIGNED STALLS = 5 STALLS 117 STALLS BUILDING HEIGHT: 3 STORIES, 38'-6" MAXIMUM HEIGHT SF D ' 2 STORIES, 27'4" MAXIMUM HEIGHT SFD Wima CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0� 8 16 32f JANUARY 3, 2017 �7 SITE PLAN gW,1­TF.1.jRA1 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 www.summarchcom 7607241196 IR _ ...x_54- •�, r✓��1Y,g C. ��y` �.. yµ, etiSa�:�"•ar_,�`.%;Syc•:_�••r. r. e' � �I+.� YY� 51i . " � �.i; :^'�- -:.+Fy �. "'� '. a �Y 11^-�i"y;[�• *; ' -{� �[ I.�tI1 4 9 10 lit twit f, MI il�fY: �ti�:ri 'o- i'�"-` �li�� �,�li'�a•�• } ! S I . t i iii W[ l ;mac - 1m 'emr ea ■ .f w -.r�r ROOF DECK PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN Balcony Ba 2 Bdrm SECOND FLOOR PLAN PLAN SUMMARY LIVABLE AREA I ST FLR 160 S.F. 2ND FLR 910 S,F. 3RD FLR 905 S.F. TOTAL LIVABLE 1,975 S.F. GARAGE 448 S.F. BALCONY 54 S.F. 4TH FLR (ROOF DECK) 322 S.F. MINIMUM FOOTPRINT AREA I ST FLR 608 S.F. = 100% 2ND FLR 910 S.F. = 149.7% 3RD FLR 905 S.F. = 148.8% ROOF DECK 322 S.F. = 52.9% CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S Sheldon Development, LLC ��` 0 2 4 8 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 , DEVELOPMENT Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949)777-9400 = JANUARY 3, 2017 L V n FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLAN 1- 3 STORY + ROOF DECK Li -IIT 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 www sommarch.com 760.724.1190 Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 , DEVELOPMENT Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949)777-9400 k t RIGHT ELEVATION MATERIAL SCHEDULE I ROOF - CONCRETE TILE ROOF 2 FASCIA - 2X6 RESAWN WOOD 3 FASCIA - STUCCO OVER SHAPED FOAM 4 WALL - EXTERIOR STUCCO - SAND FINISH t 5 WALL - HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING 4 6 WALL - BOARD AND BATTEN 7 TRIM - 2X RESAWN WOOD @ SIDING B TRIM - 2X STUCCO OVER FOAM 9 STONE VENEER 10 BRICK VENEER I I RAILING - COMPOSITE WOOD 12 DECORATIVE - WOOD SHUTTERS 13 DECORATIVE - WOOD POTSHELF 14 DECORATIVE - STUCCO OVER FOAM POTSHELF IS DECORATIVE - WOOD OUTLOOKERS 16 DECORATIVE - WOOD CORBELS 17 DECORATIVE - WOOD ARBOR IB DECORATE - GABLE ACCENT 1 JjC7 LEFT ELEVATION CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0 2 4 8 JANUARY 3, 2017 rV WI T74q: AIA K9321 Iff. 6I,ti444Z%[di CONCEPTUAL EXTERIORS -PLAN I A &W11'4 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 w .summarch.com 760.7241198 RIGHT ELEVATION Spr,,.. u MATERIAL SCHEDULE I ROOF - CONCRETE TILE ROOF Z FASCIA -2X6 RESAWN WOOD 3 FASCIA - STUCCO OVER SHAPED FOAM 4 WALL- EXTERIOR STUCCO -SAND FINISH 3 5 WALL -HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING 6 WALL - BOARD AND BATTEN i TRIM - 2X RESAWN WOOD @ SIDING 8 TRIM - 2X STUCCO OVER FOAM 4 STONE VENEER 10 BRICK VENEER I I RAILING - COMPOSITE WOOD 12 DECORATIVE - WOOD SHUTTERS 13 DECORATIVE- WOOD POTSHELF 14 DECORATIVE - STUCCO OVER FOAM POTSHELF IS DECORATIVE - WOOD OUTLOOKERS 16 DECORATIVE - WOOD CORBELS 17 DECORATIVE - WOOD ARBOR 18 DECORATE - GABLE ACCENT REAR ELEVATION Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 , DEVELOPMENT Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949)777-9400 LEFT ELEVATION CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0— �2 44 U JANUARY 3, 2017 5-/ FRONT ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL EXTERIORS - PLAN I B Spr,,.. u 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 w .summarchcom 760.724.1198 SECOND FLOOR PLAN PLAN SUMMARY LIVABLE AREA I ST FLR 602 S.F. 2ND FLR I,198 S.F. TOTAL LIVABLE 1,800 S.F. GARAGE 439 S.F. MINIMUM FOOTPRINT AREA I ST FLR 1,048 S.F. = 100% 2ND FLR 1,196 S.F. = 114.1% FIRST FLOOR PLAN CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S PLAN 2 - 2 STORY Sheldon Development, LLC. 0 2 4 8 901 Dove Street, Suite 2307 1 L Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEVELOPMENT u A Phone: (949)777-9400 JANUARY 3, 2017 5256 S Mission Road, Ste. 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 �� wwwsummarch.mm 760724.1198 Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEVELOPMENT Phone: (949)777-9400 RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION MATERIAL SCHEDULE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ROOF - CONCRETE TILE ROOF FASCIA - 2X6 RESAWN WOOD FASCIA - STUCCO OVER SHAPED FOAM WALL- EXTERIOR STUCCO - SAND FINISH WALL- HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING WALL- B(`.............�-.r.. TRIM - 2X TRIM - 2X STONE VE BRICK VEI RAILING - DECORAI DECORAI DECORAI DECORAI DECORAI DECORAI DECORAI REAR ELEVATION CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0 2 4 8 rum JANUARY 3, 2017 5-3 FRONT ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL EXTERIORS - PLAN 2A S'�i � -, -, - - �- 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste. 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 w .summarch.com 760.724.1198 . ..7 I � � [-I Ll �1 181 1 [F!0 Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEVELOPMENT Phone: (949)777-9400 RIGHT ELEVATION I 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 IB LEFT ELEVATION ROOF - CONCRETE TILE ROOF FASCIA - 2X6 RESAWN WOOD FASCIA - STUCCO OVER SHAPED FOAM WALL - EXTERIOR STUCCO - SAND FINISH WALL- HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING WALL - BOARD AND BATTEN TRIM - 2X RESAWN WOOD Q SIDING TRIM - 2X STONE VEI BRICK VEN RAILING - � DECORATI DECORATI DECORATI DECORATI DECORATI DECORATI DECORATI REAR ELEVATION CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0 2 4 8 717-1 JANUARY 3, 2017 5'y FRONT ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL EXTERIORS - PLAN 2B S M", 4� 5256 S Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 V www rornarch.com 760.7241198 I FAIR DR. - � iA' %T&ACK---J�—H.9' ORWWAY - - -Ii' INT. DRN-- - i E9A' (AWFWAT— wA K gcwr SITE SECTION C SITE SECTION A CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S Sheldon Development, LLC. 0 4 8 16 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEVELOPMENT Phone: (949)777-9400 IJJ'AANUARY 3, 2017 I SITE SECTIONS 1, 9 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 www. summarch corn 760.724.1198 PLAN I - 3 STORY + ROOF DECK PLAN 2 - 2 STORY EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME LINE OF SITE DIAGRAM • 38'-6" MAX. HEIGHT • ADDED 5'-6" PARAPET AT ROOF DECK TO OBSTRUCT VIEW OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660" DEVELOPMENT Phone: (949)777-9400 • 27'-0" MAX. HEIGHT • REMOVED ATTIC DEN AND DORMERS CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0 4 8 16 JANUARY 3, 2017 SITE SECTIONS P -l" 5256 S Mission Road, Ste 404 'Bonsall, CA 92003 10 www summarch com 760 724 1 198 Ci US GAS CAR WASH 4* a" P.0 L, ORANGE COAST F 4 CARNEGIE AVENUE SFD I�I SFD SFD CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S Sheldon Development, LLC. 0 8 16 32 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEVELOPMW L_J Phone: (949)777-9400 JANUARY 3, 2017 5-7 TRASH EXHIBIT 111MA11 5256 S Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 TR -summarch.com 760724.1198 Ryan Loomis, AICP, Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mr. Loomis, Jeff and Carole Call 2568 Carnegie Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 October 15, 2016 ATTACHMENT 6 Recelved City of Costa Mesa Development Services department OCT 18 2016 It has come to our attention that an Official Public Notice was issued 30 September 2016 and sent to "a few choice people" in College Park. We don't understand why you didn't feel that we and all of my neighbors that live on Carnegie were not included in this notice, unless you didn't want us to know. We are the ones that will be impacted by the increased traffic and parking problems that won't allow visits from friends or family. We see 2 reasons for not telling all the residents on Carnegie: 1) No objections from those who will lose parking spaces, increased time and difficulty to get out of our tract, and the lowering of our property values; and 2) The rush to get this passed by October 24th squeezes this in before the election in November when people can object by voting for the people to have a say about the cracker -box (high density) housing similar to those destroying the beauty of our major arteries of Newport Boulevard, Superior and 17th Street, Huntington beach and Garden Grove, and now Carnegie and Fair. How does it make sense to put in 13 beautiful, single houses on 21St Street on twice the amount of land and 28 ghetto homes on Carnegie? I understand single homes are also going to beautify the corner of Harbor and Merrimac. Have you done any research on the developer of this project and how dissatisfied the people of Huntington Beach and Garden Grove are trying to put a halt to their city development projects by this developer? Here are a few quotes I found this week about that. "(And have we forgotten, or never heard about, Sheldon destroying Garden Grove's downtown Main St businesses by plopping a huge condo building on the area's parking lot, with the connivance of the Broadwater machine?)" Ramada Guest roe-» -oru317, _._5 a _ 1_.-' 1 =`•' Sheldon's trying to drop some cookie -cutter townhomes right on top of Garden Grove's Main Street, and we've already got a new housing development going in across the street in the next few months. Has he ever not been allowed to put up one of his quick flips? If so, how was the project stopped? I keep hearing rumblings that he's gonna roll deep at the next council meeting with a bunch of paid support." Even Steven - s = - = > - • - - - - 11. - "Built right up to the SIDEWALK? I'll bet you $1.00 those walls will be a graffiti magnet. Hell, someone could flip an egg without needing to cock their arm! (Someone irresponsible that is). Not trying to create a nuisance. Overcrowding people just wears on the soul like lab rats in a maze..." We want to go on record as opposing the HD housing project the Costa Mesa City Planning Commission and City Council thinks will beautify our city, It will NOT beautify, it will bring down property values and make many of us want to move away to the quiet beauty my family has experienced here for the last 40 years. Please reconsider your position, or at least wait and see what the people feel in the upcoming election about HD housing in our community. Thank you, s Carole and Jeff Call 3� 'I b lw3 Co O Ryan Loomis, AICP, Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Kevin McDavid 2569 Greenbriar Lane Costa Mesa, CA 92626 October 13, 2016 Re: Public review and comment Initial Study/ Mitigated Declaration 440 Fair Drive Dear sir, I am writing in regard to the notice that was sent to a select few of my neighbors in College Park about the referenced report. In my response I address in general the subject matter presented in the report, not a line by line critique. To begin, the rezoning of this property is wrong. It's as wrong today as it was nine years ago when the very same owner/ developer proposed building only eleven units there. In its recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission at that time denied the zoning change request. Among several justifications for denial this comment was included: "Specifically, denial is based on the fact that the proposed change applies only to a small area, and the change would make the property incompatible with surrounding properties." Nothing has changed in College Park in the last nine years that would make this rezoning any more compatible today. Current access to the property is from Fair Drive, that location kept business traffic out of our tract. Moving the entrance to Carnegie means every trip to/ from the property now goes through our tract. The stand of mature trees lining the parkway and brick wall along Carnegie segregates the business property from the residents and provides both visual and acoustic relief. The report mentions lighting conditions for the new residences will be the same as the existing business. Not true, the trees blocked that light. (See Photo 1 & 2) I disagree with the aesthetics impacts in the report. All four issues addressed would have significant impacts on our tract. As mentioned, the mature tree stand along the street will be removed. The trees have been part of College Park vista for many decades and are the first thing noticed when entering Carnegie from the south end. S�1 Changing that vista degrades the neighborhood visually. They were not mentioned in the report nor were there photos. There are no ocean or mountain views but the trees have always been been part of the character and vista of College Park. Once they're gone, unwanted nighttime lighting and glare will impact residents to the east. Noise from Harbor Boulevard will be more apparent without the trees. Three-story buildings will act as an echo chamber. At the north end of Carnegie, the vista once included treetops and blue sky over the homes. Today the view behind those homes is of a two story, block long concrete monolith of a parking structure. Just like the current project, the Planning Commission approved that project despite myriad resident complaints, their vistas ruined forever. The south end of Carnegie now faces the same fate. (See Photo 3 & 4) The new project provides only five guest parking places. That may be acceptable per code but in reality, for 28 residences, there will be parking spillover on Carnegie, Bucknell and other streets in our tract. The parking situation on the south side of Baker Street in between Target and Jack -In -The -Box exemplifies the result of bad planning and gives a preview of what this development will bring to College Park. (See Photo 5) The access road within the project may be per code but if our Fire Department needs to respond there's only one way in and out. If there is ever a multi -house fire, or more than one engine called, families could not drive out. Their escape would be over walls and fences. The two weekly trash trucks will navigate the narrow street and then go in reverse for a block to turn around. This manuever is dangerous for the drivers as well as children and pets. This is bad design, an accident waiting to happen. A current project in Mesa Verde will build 10 new two-story homes on a 2 acre plot. In Mesa Del Mar a new project will build 24 new two-story homes. Both projects were designed to be compatible with existing neighborhoods. College Park on the other hand faces 28 three-story and three-story w/ deck residences crammed into a 1.7 acre lot. The initial proposal had two-story homes lining Carnegie, now they are three story. More bait and switch. A similar project is being built on west 18th Street, also not compatible with one-story homes. (See Photo 6) OCC proved to be a friend of our neighborhood, unlike the city. When it presented its plan for future expansion to the public (including College Park residents) many neighbors were rightfully concerned that a new four-story hotel and parking structure were planned on opposite corners of Fairview and Merrimac. Those structures were not compatible with College Park. Many voiced their disapproval of the plan and as a result the College revised it to delete the two structures. M The City however continues its efforts to add developments that adversely affect the nature and character of College Park. Keeping the 440 property zoned for commercial business makes sense. Leasing to neighborhood -friendly businesses makes even better sense. Rezoning for single story family homes matching the density of College Park makes sense. High density housing makes absolutely no sense, please reconsider what this development will do to us. Once it's built it's forever. Sincerely, Kevin McDavid College Park resident 34 years or w4h -AW J 7 117-1 1 1- - - - '40-n.. � 2595 Carnegie Ave, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 1 N�lf qw�' �.N"m Photo 5 Photo 6 6 NOW 1*4 LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: GPS -14-04 440 Fair Drive - Proposed Development of 28 units From: David E. Fred [mailto:davidefred mail.com] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 4:38 PM To: rdickson-crn Pc @gmaiI.com; Mayor <Mayor@costa mesa ca.gov> Subject: GPS -14-04 440 Fair Drive - Proposed Development of 28 units October 21, 2016 Robert L. Dickson, Jr. Chairman City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 The Honorable Stephen Mensinger Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa, CA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: GPS -14-04 440 Fair Drive Development Proposal Gentlemen: Thank you for the opportunity to be heard on this matter. Having been a homeowner in College Park since 2001, I have experienced several disturbing changes to the neighborhood, all of which impacts the reason why I moved to this neighborhood to begin with - quiet, a sense of suburban living, knowing my neighbors and raising fsing a, mostly due to the price of home ownership, and, the needs of the community pertaining to affordable housing for college students (Vanguard University and Orange Coast Community College) and affordable housing for moderate and low income housing. As we saw in 2007, at the height of the prior real estate market, many homes in the College Park area were inhabited by many more individuals that would normally inhabit a single family home. Within eyesight of my home, there were no less than 4 homes, each with 12 — 15 residents living in 3 and 4 bedroom homes. With the real estate crash and revised lending requirements, much of this has been abated and the single family homes are now, again, occupied by single families. Additionally, as rental housing continues to become scarce, at a price point that many can achieve, there are more and more people sharing apartments and single family homes than ever before. An estimated 50% of the homes in college park are now rentals. The multi -family housing community known as Mediterranean Village Apartments has already caused an overflow parking issue for the residents in the neighborhoods south of Fair Drive and East of Harbor Boulevard. In my block alone, there are as many as 10 — 15 cars parked at various 1 K times (sometimes blocking my driveway) and creating quite a mess (trash, empty alcohol containers, vomit, noise, loud music, etc.). I believe that, other than those blocks which were able to apply for and get parking access restrictions for residents, are also experiencing such impacts from overcrowding at Mediterranean Village. Notwithstanding the impact of additional vehicles, the traffic on Fordham, Nassau and Wilson has increased substantially in the past 4-5 years, and at times has become very dangerous at times. Now, with the development of 28 high density homes at 440 Fair Drive, will, contrary to impact studies, increase traffic on Fair, Fordham, Princeton and Bucknell, require parking for additional vehicles (currently parking in front of certain single family homes is at full capacity) and possibly, be the beginning of a decline in home values (especially along Carnegie Avenue and immediately surrounding areas) that will spread outward. In reading the proposal by the developer, they have outlined 92 parking spaces for these 28 units, or just over 3 spaces per unit. These units will be built as townhomes, some with 3 bedrooms. Given the lack of affordable housing, it is with a high degree of certainty that some of these townhomes will be converted to rental units by their owners, and a 3 bedroom townhome could easily house upwards of 5 or 6 people — each with a vehicle in most cases. Where will these residents park when their allotted spaces are full? The neighborhoods in the surrounding community will necessarily have to take up the slack. Not to mention guests of residents will also need to be managed and handled by the side streets. This is not a "NIMBY" letter, rather, a plea for responsible development that is correct for the community and not on behalf of the developer who needs to build as many units as possible to maximize its profitability. There is a need to balance space use with space impact - at the expense of developer profit. I applaud capitalism, but not on the backs of others who are powerless to combat the residual effects. Please consider the impact on the neighborhood before granting approval for this development. Have the developer "right -size" the development with appropriate parking to housing ratios (including the impact of townhomes becoming rental units) and make a bit less profit from the sale of townhomes once completed. With thanks and regards, David E. Fred 2427 Vassar Place Costa Mesa, CA 92626 davidefred rte maii.com 11/09/2016 To: Planning Commission Staffs 1 Re: 440 Fair Proposed Project From: Donald Haddock To Whom it may Concern, I am writing in opposition to the Proposed Maximum Density residential project at 440 Fair Drive in Costa Mesa. This project is poorly suited for many reasons. 1] Three and four story homes do not belong within the boundaries of the College Park single home community. It is not a viable fit for a well established single home neighborhood. It will have a negative impact on the surrounding neighbors by encroaching on existing hours of available sunlight for yards, as well as increase noise from unwanted residents who will never be a part of the College Park family. 2] Having access onto Carnegie requires the removal of approximately 10 beautiful Mature Trees .These trees have always provided a sound and visual buffer to the commercial property ( which this is, and should remain) and shade and a uniqueness to the Carnegie Street addresses. This is a negative environmental impact to the area and the City's "Green Initiative". 3] Adding a mass residential project will greatly impact the College Park neighborhood traffic patterns with additional "pass through traffic" which is already a dangerous hazard and is an issue that the city is already well aware of. It will also affect residential parking causing overcrowding when they are given placards to park in the neighborhood, which they would have every right to demand by being designated as College Park residential . 4) The addition of a maximum density residential facility also brings maximum numbers of guests and unwanted foot and vehicle traffic that will bleed into the quiet neighborhood impacting crime and reports of strangers passing through this close knit neighborhood. Make no mistake about it, we are united against this project and will call the police on strangers that are not known as our neighbors and friends, thus impacting calls for police officers. 440 Fair as it exists, may not be a perfect business, but the current owner or new owners could bring in better clients if they were to clean up and modernize the facility. As it stands, there are already good businesses there now that are frequented by the neighborhood regularly. This is a Commercial Zone, and should stay a Commercial Zone. Measure YY was recently passed by the voters as a shot over the bow of the City Planners, Council, and Developers. This is not what we want. Leave College Park alone. Leave 440 Fair as a Commercial Zone. Do not shove this project down our throats. Sincerely Concerned Citizen Donald H Haddock 276 Princeton Dr. Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department NOV 14 2016 P4_q 2949 Pemba Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Costa Mesa Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, Ca November 13, 2016 Dear Commissioners: We are owners of the property at 2381 Cornell Drive in the College Park area of Costa Mesa. We are strongly opposed to the proposed high-density, multi -story development you are considering. The high-density, tall structures are not in keeping with the style of the College Park area. The proposed high-density development will create even greater traffic problems for the city. We would expect this inappropriate high-density development to decrease the value of surrounding property values. Very truly yours, William S. and Sara C. Walker Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department NOV 14 20% LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: Lena Backhouse fmailto:lenabrettb_ackhouse yahoo.co n] Sent: Monday, November 14,2016 11:04 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Ms. Green, I strongly oppose this development for many reasons. One being there are too many units per acreage. The design of the units also does not fit with our single family homes in the area. The increase of traffic and parking will be deeply impacted. We already have people parking their cars on our street from Mediterranean Village. The plan to access the complex from Carnegie is a horrible idea. Is the city going to put in speed bumps so Carnegie does not become a speedway? This High Density Residential area should not be allowed in our neighborhood. Thank you, Lena and Brett Backhouse 450 Elmhurst Ln. Costa Mesa, CA L� Nov. 14, 2016 Planning Committee and City Council and City staff Thank you all for your hard work for our city. I am very concerned about the proposed redevelopment located at 440 Fair drive in Costa Mesa. ■ This development doesn't fit into the current single family 1 story homes. ■ The developer is asking to change the zoning from neighborhood to HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTAL • NO to high density residential. It's too much ■ The community does not want 3 and 4 story units. ■ No driveway access onto Carnegie at Bucknell, please. • New residents will use Bucknell, Princeton, Fordham, Carnegie and other streets to access Harbor blvd and Fair drive. ■ Princeton and Bucknell already have many cars, often going too fast. • The developer wants many variances for open space, parking, density and other existing requirements. • The plan includes only 5 guest parking spaces for 28 houses, not enough. People will we parking on Carnegie and Bucknell. We already have people that live at Mediterrarian Apts that park on these streets • The Mediterranean Apts are already HIGH DENSITY and in the middle of College Park. ■ This will overwhelm the existing neighborhood of College Park • This project would require cutting down the large, mature Ficus trees to build these units. Raptor birds use these trees to nest and live while they hunt for rats and mice. ■ This redevelopment is too much for the this location, as it is proposed. No high density and variances. The scope of this project is too much. Please help us keep the family friendly feeling of College Park Thank you for your time and consideration Alexandra Shannon 714-557-1725 2541 Greenbriar lane I Received City of costa Mesa Development Services Department NOV 14 20% LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair letter for the Public Record from Tamar Goldmann Attachments: City 440 fair Nov 13 16.docx From: Dan Goldmann [maiito:dangoldmann2ca.rr.com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 9:08 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair letter for the Public Record from Tamar Goldmann To Brenda Green: Please accept the attached letter for the public record and also to Planning Commission and City Council members. would appreciate acknowledgement and also either approval of my submission or instructions for any necessary additions. I understand that this must be submitted by 3:00pm today, October 14, for inclusion in the public record for tonight, so a prompt reply is necessary and would be greatly appreciated. Tamar Goldmann Costa Mesa -711 1 City 440 fair Nov 13 16 Re: the 28 -unit housing project proposed for 440 Fair Drive. To Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council: With the numerous rezones, variances, and special definitions regarding this project: 1. It is wrong both in actual, immediate application and as a precedent for the whole city to allow entrance to higher -density zoning, and especially to a high-density development through an RI residential zone. This single wrong start is detrimental to privacy, traffic, and parking availability, and makes all the other intrusions and variances requested for this project even more unacceptable. a. The fact that this project, 440 Fair, is, and has always been accessible through a more - traveled thoroughfare make this intrusion into the local neighborhood unnecessary and unacceptable. No matter what excuses have been provided, the fact remains that access could easily be maintained through an entrance on Fair Drive. 2. The guest parking allowance for 28 units of only 5 spaces is completely unrealistic, allowing insufficient parking for even such regular occurrences as birthday parties, Super -Bowl viewings, and Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners. The inadequate "solution" is to send the unfortunate guests out searching through previously quiet and open streets as more and more streets are deservedly labeled, "Resident permit only," and where streets are not yet reserved for residents, there is often no available parking at all. There is no excuse for continuing to perpetuate the mythical "sufficient parking" allowances. a. A personal note: When driving to visit a friend on the Westside, I encountered a new housing project where I expected to turn left. I had to drive for four blocks before I could even find an open place to pull over and look at my map. When I got to my address, there was no place to park. This was in a neighborhood of modest houses— punctuated by the type of development proposed for 440 Fair. Where this type of development has not yet intruded, parking is still available. 3. Height: Three- and four-story houses do not fit in with the neighborhood character of mostly one-story houses on generous lots. 4. Destruction of trees: There is absolutely no excuse for chopping down mature trees in order for a developer to squeeze in more units. Costa Mesa rightfully values and protects its trees. Residents often have to beg to have a tree removed that is damaging sidewalks and plumbing and otherwise creating what the residents see as a serious nuisance. Many of these concerns are rejected, and often rightly so. it is totally inappropriate to give as a gift to a developer all these trees which provide shade and character to the street— and all at the same time that the city is planting parkway trees. That is simply a gift of city resources to a developer. 5. Preservation of the aquifer: Given our perennial drought conditions, water districts have gone out of their way to encourage homeowners to replace their turf with drought -resistant water - permeable landscaping. When rebates were being offered, any hardscape was specifically excluded from eligibility for rebates. Given the importance of permeable space, the reduction of ground -level open space and the inclusion of rooftop decks as open space negatively affect our water resources. Alternatives: 1. Housing could be put in this space—R1 housing with NO variances and no destruction of trees. In another neighborhood,R1 was, I believe, chosen for an entrance to Mesa Verde, directly from a major street and not necessitating a change in the traffic patterns within the Mesa Verde neighborhood. All neighborhoods in the city, all residents in the city, deserve the same consideration. 2. 440 Fair could be refurbished for neighborhood services, perhaps even housing some of the small businesses that were kicked out of the Mesa Verde Drive area. In summary, changes to zoning, increased height, variances, removal of city trees, and insufficient parking would be bad enough in an isolated development. Pushing it into and R1 neighborhood goes far beyond what should be tolerated. It should be noted that throughout the city the residents have voted, by a greater than 2 to 1 majority on Measure Y, the Smart Growth Initiative, that we do not want any more of this kind of development foisted on our neighborhoods. It's time to stop. Tamar Goldmann Costa Mesa 13 LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46?TT-18064 For the Public Record From: Scott McLaughlin [mailto:diehardbr:icefan @hotmail,coriiI Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 10:17 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.areenPcosta mesaca-go y> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46?TT-18064 For the Public Record Attn: City of Costa Mesa I am writing in regards to my family's concerns with the 440 Fair/Great Park high-density housing project. We live just down the street, on Gisler and Iowa St. We have read about it in local news, and it was brought to our attention as well by local community members. Our main concern lies with the increase of traffic this new project will bring. Harbor is already a very high traffic street, and this will only add to that problem. Not only will local residents be negatively impacted, but so will business in the surrounding area. The new development will also cause more parking issues, giving little room for all those residents to park with the necessary permits. Our family asks that you consider all these issues and reject the plans for this development. We really want to keep College Park and the surrounding areas safe and less congested with traffic. Thank you for your time. iv Nzid LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: PA-16-46/TT-1806440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Carl and Amy Stuetzel 296 Bucknell Road Costa Mesa, CA 92626 November 14, 2016 Brenda Green City Clerk City of Costa Mesa bread a . g regi r,. Lycos t a ni esaca . qov Re: PA-16-46/TT-1806440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Dear City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission, On behalf of my family, I am writing to you to voice our concerns over the redevelopment planned near our home in the neighborhood of College Park. It has come to our attention that a redevelopment is planned to demolish the existing two- story office/commercial building located at 440 Fair Drive, and build 28 single-family residential units. This redevelopment is currently under consideration by the planning commission (agenda item PA-16-46/TT-1806440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16- 01 /PA-16-46/TT-18064). We do not oppose the redevelopment of the commercial property in question into residential housing units. We feel that most of the tenants currently occupying the property are not conducive to the family friendly environment that College Park exemplifies. We also support the redevelopment of the property into more affordable housing. As a young family, we can appreciate the difficulty that exists for most new families to find affordable housing in safe, clean family -friendly neighborhoods such as College Park. However, we feel that the proposal that is before the planning commission is too extreme: 1. All of the housing in the immediate vicinity is only one to two stories high. We do not understand the developer's desire to build three to four story residences on the property. We feel that this does not fit with the aesthetics of the rest of the neighborhood. 2. The development intends to exceed the city's standards for built-up areas in the neighborhood with decreased vegetative spaces, decreased setbacks, and increased perimeter walls. We feel that this also does not fit with the aesthetics of the neighborhood. 3. We have been told by the developer that the planned development intends to provide Covenants Codes and Restriction (CC&Rs) that will encourage residents to park on the property. However, from my own personal experience, these regulations are difficult, if not impossible to enforce. We feel that the development will place a very heavy burden on the street parking and traffic flow on the streets in close proximity to the development. Based on these factors, we feel that the proposed development will be out of place in the neighborhood, and we feel that it sets a bad precedence for future development in our neighborhood to use this as a model for continued exceedance of the current neighborhood standards. We encourage the planning commission to reject the above referenced proposal, and encourage the developer to find a way to redevelop the property into something more befitting the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Carl and Amy Stuetzel Residents of College Park �s November 14, 2016 Costa Mesa Planning Committee 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Committee, My husband, Dane, and myself are very unhappy with the proposal for 440 Fair Drive. We do not want four story housing in College Park. We do not want high density. -We do not want the trees on Greenbriar cut down. We believe that if that area is developed, it should mimic our existing development of single family housing, one or two stories on 60 by 100 foot lots. That is what we bought into and that is the way College Park should remain. Respectfully, Dane and sue Till 2549 Fordham Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 c7� COLGAN, JULIE r� r From: Cristina Mayer <cristinaamayer@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 14,2016 10:04 AM To: PLANNING COMMISSION Subject: Sheldon Development LLC at 440 Fair Drive Hi, I am writing with great concern regarding the proposed Sheldon Development LLC project at 440 Fair drive. I recently bought a home in the College Park neighborhood because it is a single family residential zoned area. I didn't want to live in a neighborhood that was filled with multi story condo units. Now this proposed development is going into my neighborhood and will have entrances off of a College Park street that will increase traffic exponentially. I strongly appose this development project - there are enough neighborhoods to put multi story condos in, you don't need to destroy the remaining quiet neighborhoods to put this project in. This project will lower my property value and I don't see the city of Costa Mesa willing to reimburse me for the money that I will lose because of it. The only way I would support this project is if the zoning and set backs are kept on Carneige, the trees aren't knocked down on that street, and the entrance is only off of Fair or Harbor - NOT off of Carneige. I hope that you will listen to the community and respect the zoning of that neighborhood. thank you. Cristina Mayer and Daniel Schutt 17 Vn/illliam and America Manwarren 2553 Oxford Lane Costa Mesa, CA 92626 November 14, 2016 Costa Mesa Planning Commission Robert Dickson, Chair 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Costa Mesa Planning Commission: As homeowners in College Park, we wish to state our objection to elements of GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 (redevelopment of 440 Fair Drive). Our objections to the proposed development are as follows: i;igh density housing does not match the existing neighborhood: The current residential and neighborhood commercial environment is established. Adding high density housing is aesthetically unappealing for the neighborhood. Structure height: The neighborhood enclosed by Fair Drive, Harbor Boulevard, Princeton Street & Fairview Street has no structures taller than two stories. Adding three and four story structures does not match the neighborhood, One and two story residential structures would be an alternative that matches the existing College Park neighborhood. Variance requests: The requested variances on open space, landscaped parkway, block wall encroachment & open space area along Carnegie should be denied. Reduction in open space, green area and shrinking the distance from Carnegie street will further lessen the beauty of the neighborhood. Removal of trees on Carnegie: The trees on the street have been there for decades. They provide natural beauty and green area for the neighborhood. They form a "natural" border for the neighborhood. Any development of 440 Fair Drive should require inclusion of these trees, in their current location. Under no circumstances should the proposed development include elimination of these trees. Increased vehicle traffic on Fair Drive: Traffic is already adversely impacted by increased traffic on Fair Drive. The addition of --,igh density housing at the proposed site will cause additional increases in traffic, and diminish driving conditions in the neighborhood. Increased cut-thru traffic through College Park: Addition of the proposed high density development, combined with existing traffic congestion on Fair Drive and Harbor Boulevard, will result in an increase in drivers using College Park as a shortcut when commuting to and from the 55 Freeway. This is already a problem, with commuters using Princeton Street to cut across the neighborhood. These drivers regularly exceed the 25 MPH speed limit in the neighborhood. We are concerned that the potential rezoning and exemptions being requested for this development project prioritizes developer profits, at the expense of existing resident's concerns. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, William and America Manwarren COLGAN, JULIE Subject: 440 Fair Drive Project From: JohnJillJessicaLucasLayne <iohniil@gacbell.net> Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 at 1:20 AM To: Gary Armstrong <GARY.AR[VI STRONG @cost@mesaca. ov> Subject: 440 Fair Drive Project Mr. Armstrong, My wife and I have been College Park homeowners for nearly 15 years and I have lived in Costa Mesa my entire life. We selected this area to raise our family due to the quiet streets and neighborhood environment. We are very concerned that the building type and concentration of the project proposed for 440 Fair Drive will negatively affect the aspects that we enjoy about our neighborhood. The multiple stories and duplexes proposed are inconsistent with the construction in College Park. Additionally the proposed entry into the project will have a direct affect on the noise and safety of our streets. There are no benefits to the current residents and there are many young families, pedestrians, and cyclists in this area that will be needlessly put at risk. I appreciate the profit motives and the city development needs of both the builders and City Planners, but believe that the entry into the new project should be built outside of the established neighborhood in order to minimize impact to the current residents. We respectfully request that you consider these issues to assure that the construction of this project is consistent with the character and concentration of the established neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. John Woodruff 408 Bucknell Road ?q November 12, 2016 To: City of Costa Mesa Re: "440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record" There could be serious and, possibly, deadly situations as a result of the proposed, inappropriate development in College Park. When high-density, multistory units are built along Carnegie drivers will start cutting through neighborhood streets that were never designed for that kind of traffic or for that volume of traffic. Throughout the College Park Neighborhood, you see signs posted by parents reminding drivers to slow down for the safety of their children who may be playing outside. Why? Because excessive speed is a problem. College Park Elementary School is just a few blocks away and many students use our streets to get to school. Additional traffic and speeding coming from these proposed high-density structures will increase the chances of accidents. Along with the increase in traffic comes the increase in noise pollution. We are already exposed to traffic noise from Fair Drive, Harbor Blvd., and Fairview. Whatever happened to Domestic Tranquility? An article published in the Southern iI\Jedical Journal actually compared 'second-hand noise' to second- hand smoke, They expounded on this comparison stating; "Second-hand noise is an un+wanted airborne pollutant produced by others; it is imposed on us without our consent, often against our wills, and at times, places, and volumes over which we have no control." Noise can actually produce a host of adverse effects on physical health and overall psychological well-being. Many aspects of our lives are affected including our sleep, concentration, communication, and recreation. P�+_Lj I implore our City Council and city planners to take a closer look at the multistory development that is running rampant in Costa Mesa and that will turn us into another gridlocked city and destroy what we love most about our city and College Park, a quiet, walkable, safe family friendly neighborhood. Please, at least consider low-density housing which is more appropriate to our community. Sincerely, Judy Booth 2523 Duke PI. Costa Mesa, CA SI t�f� IP4 _q LOOMIS, RYAN P4 -y Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: Kaylin Diercksmeier[mailto:diercksmeier@gmaiLcQmj Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 2:00 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@co.stamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record To the members of the City Council, I am a current resident of College Park, living on Elmhurst Ln, and am very concerned with the 440 Fair Project. Having grown up in College Park, I've always thought of this neighborhood as home. There's something about driving into College Park that makes you feel safe and brings a smile to your face. Houses are well maintained and neighbors are friendly. When it was time for my husband and me to buy a home, College Park was on the top of our wish list and we were fortunate enough to find a house. Now we live here with our two children, and think it's just as homey as it ever was. That said, the new development would seriously impact that feeling, and also create quite a headache for us current residents. The thought that we would drive into our neighborhood on Carnegie and see 3 and 4 story modern homes instead of the beautiful trees makes me quite sad. When we bought our home I thought the neighborhood would be the perfect place to have our kids learn how to ride a bike, but with the increase in traffic, their safety would be majorly affected. I also understand that there is minimal parking planned for the development, which means our streets, and mine specifically, would receive that spillover. I think that is not fair to current residents who also have their own guests parking to accommodate. On top of that the idea that there's a likelihood that investors would be buying up units, as they're out of the price range for middle income families, and renting them out worries me. Lastly, I understand that the current strip center may not have ideal tenants, but never once have we ever felt that it negatively impacted our neighborhood. I've never once seen a person that made me uncomfortable entering or leaving those businesses. Please take this letter into consideration before moving forward with the project. This development is simply the wrong choice for our neighborhood. Thank you for your time, Sara Diercksmeier LOOMIS, RYAN To: COLGAN, JULIE Cc: SCHNEBLE, PEGGY Subject: RE: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: Gregg Schmidt[mailto:greg--schmidt3l@sbcglobal-net] Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 3:25 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA<brenda.greenC7costame_s_a_ca_.gov> Subject: Fw: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record On Sunday, November 13, 2016 3:21 PM, Gregg Schmidt <c1regqschmidt31 sbc lobal-ne > wrote: Brenda, My name is Gregg Schmidt and my family and I are 20+ year home owners at 300 Bucknell Road in College Park. We are very opposed to the above named high density housing project for many obvious reasons. Isn't Mediterranean Village high density enough? The proposal to change the zoning to high density residential is not in the College Park resident's best interest. The project will negatively change the traffic on Bucknell Road, which is already a drag strip in it's current state. With only 1 drive way access planned all of that residential traffic will be going down Bucknell and Carnegie totally destroying the quiet neighborhood quality for all of us. It's amusing how all these city officials during their lame campaigns pledge to keep Costa Mesa neighborhoods great places to live and preserve the the "quality" of our neighborhoods and then this type of issue keeps rearing it's greedy head. Why not just plunk another 3 story development that doesn't fit in the charm of our mid century homes? This development has only 5 guest parking spots planned? It's common knowledge that the owner of the subject property has been keeping shady business ("massage spas") operating in his current buildings to make this bad idea seem like the better alternative. I understand he is also the developer of this proposed bad idea. Despite this the crime issues in this area are minimal. We strongly urge common sense and decency to prevail in this matter to preserve the College Park residential community's quiet style of life. Thank you for your time. Gregg and Lori Schmidt 300 Bucknell Road Costa Mesa, CA 22 714-751-2504 �J M-.40 LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: "440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record" From: J. Norman Smith f rn,-)ilto:normal65@9mail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 3:33 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda ;greengc,Dstamesaca.aaNi> Subject: "440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/Tr-18064 For The Public Record" I have resided in the College Park tract of Costa Mesa for the past Forty -Three (43) years and have brought up our children and subsequently seen our grandchildren blossom in this neighborhood. It appears that there is one or more money hungry individuals itching to change the character of the neighborhood to enhance their own value monetarily or politically. I strenuously object to this change in our neighborhood. The removal of trees on Carnegie is contrary to city policy, to wit when I needed to have a tree removed I was told by the city that trees can not be removed unless they have impeded city services (sewer or water). Willy Nilly removal of trees is not permitted, as one neighbor in this tract is being penalized by the city for removing one tree and replacing it with two like specimens. The trees on Carnegie apparently are impeding money into developers pockets. Opening the traffic onto Carnegie will increase traffic throughout the tract wherein Bucknell and Princeton have already become raceways. Increased wealth and the coming of age of resident's children have increased the number of automobiles in the area and with today's smooth running cars it is easy to exceed the speed limit easily. Not withstanding even the Costa Mesa Police use Princeton to transit to Harbor from Fair and generally at an increased speed without use of lights or siren. We have young children and our elderly that walk and cross streets, and more traffic is not needed. It is apparent that 440 Fair is nothing more than a target by developers and the minions of council to make a pile of money. The proper use is fix up the building and have doctors and dentists return to an area where they will be welcomed. Leave the zoning alone. Why don't you put these extravagant buildings at the entry to Mesa Verde where the monetary income from the sale will be near to the values there and the traffic can exit out onto Mesa Verde West or Adams Ave. Yours respectfully J. Norman Smith 2539 Columbia Drive LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair Gp-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record From: John Fletcher mailto:kanetsu sbc lobaLnet] Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 4:42 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costarnesaca.goV> Subject: 440 Fair Gp-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record Dear Brenda, I write to voice our opposition to the above referenced project on Fair Drive. My wife and I have lived a few houses down from the proposed project for 13 years, and we would be extremely disappointed if the project were allowed. I will not enumerate the various reasons for our opposition, and there are many, as I am sure you are familiar with them. I know all the neighbors we have discussed this with are in agreement with our opposition, and they too have made their opposition clear to the city. The purpose of government is to serve the people and I certainly expect that our city representatives will rule in the spirit of this concept and deny approval of this project. Best regards, John and Terumi Fletcher 2530 Lehigh Place Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair - general plan amendment -----Original Message ----- From: Linda Dixon [mailto:walker260@icloud.com] Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 5:45 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair - general plan amendment Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: As I read the staff report for the 440 project what came to mind was the story of Cinderella and how the wicked stepsisters tried to fit the big feet into the tiny shoe. A project similar to this project was brought to the city council several years ago. At the time the council found the project would be harmful to the College Park community putting an undue burden on the traffic, quality of life and open space. By allowing a general plan amendment to create a high density residential zoning area with more units than allowed, less open space and parking than required will be harmful to the neighborhood. College Park is an area of predominantly one story homes with driveways, front and back yards and parkway landscaping, all of which is missing in the proposed project. Just last week another pet was killed by a speeding car driving down Princeton Drive. Additional traffic from 28 proposed units with likely more than one car will add to the increasingly dangerous, speeding traffic cutting through the neighborhood. A safety issue already exists at Princeton and Harbor where traffic turning right onto Harbor has an obstructed vision on oncoming, speeding cars and the cars turning left onto Princeton have a difficult time crossing Harbor in order to cut through the neighborhood. Before any council considers a project for the corner of Fair and Harbor, the traffic impacts for the small College Park subdivision must be addressed. The recommended painted sign in the street saying "keep clear" is not a viable solution. Also, as I read the staff report I found no evidence of a traffic impact report and I wonder if one has been completed. Please send this project back to the drawing board. It is not worthy of consideration when it demands so much of a small area of town. To allow a project requiring so many deviations is an insult and detrimental to the existing homeowners and the citizens of Costa Mesa who are very concerned with the overbuilding being approved throughout the city. With respect, Linda W Dixon IH LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: Nikki Plaster [ma ilto:nikkiplaster@grnail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 9:16 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda,green@costamesaca.go%i> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Dear members of the Costa Mesa city council, I am an Elmhurst Lane resident and homeowner nearby the proposed 440 Fair high-density development. I have many concerns regarding the re -zoning of the 440 Fair property for high-density residences and the specifics of the properties planned by the Sheldon group as detailed in the community meeting held on October 19th, 2016. In particular I feel the following items make this project a very bad fit for our quiet, single-family residence neighborhood and strongly urge you to stop this development. - The 3- and 4 -story buildings do not fit in a primarily single -story ranch style neighborhood with a well -loved mid-century modern feel from its Eichler -style architecture. - Moving the entrance/exit traffic onto our quiet residential streets where many children ride bikes and play put our children at a higher risk for accidents as residents race to and from work each day, - Our cul du sac (being the closest not requiring a parking permit) is already used as the parking area for Mediterranean Village. Building additional high-density residences with limited parking will push this from being a manageable annoyance to an unacceptable parking situation. - Up until this development, our neighborhood has been held to the open space requirements keeping structures back from the sidewalk, maintaining an opening welcome environment in our neighborhood. Making exceptions to the open space requirements for this already large intrusive development is not fair to the residents, particularly those on Carnegie who will face this giant wall of buildings everyday. - Many large ficus trees that bring an enormous diversity of important wildlife into our neighborhood would be removed. Loss of animal diversity because of development is a threat to the local ecosystem. For example, loss of space for raptors like hawks would cause an increase in the rodent population that we are already battling. Additionally, the removal of these trees goes directly against literature that was circulated in our neighborhood by the city encouraging us to keep, maintain, and develop tree -lined streets. These items detail a few of my largest concerns. I fear that the decision to allow this type of high-density residential area is being driven by all of the wrong reasons. By allowing our unique mainly single -story neighborhood to be developed in this way, Costa Mesa is slowly losing what draws many people here. Keeping the demand for homes in our neighborhood high helps current homeowners and their property values. I would hope the current homeowners have a say in our own neighborhood and its future. Please consider these reasons and the many more I am sure my neighbors are also writing and speaking about, and do not allow this development to continue. Maintain the open space requirements of this quiet beautiful neighborhood and stop forcing high-density living into areas it does not fit. Bn 1 / Sincerely, Nikki Plaster 443 Elmhurst Ln Costa Mesa, CA 92626 li% LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/P16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record -----Original Message ----- From: Christine Leffeler [mailto:cleffeler@me.com] Sent: Sunday, November 13, 201610:25 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/P16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record City of Costa Mesa, We have been residents of Costa Mesa for 23 years and have loved living in College Park community. The new plans for High density Residential homes to be added at 440 Fair to our current single family ranch style track of homes is not something we want in our community. This will negatively impact our neighborhood . 1. The proposed homes are 3 story units that are not the style of the community and will de -value our homes and neighborhood 2. The traffic impact will be negative with too many cars on our family streets which will be speeding cars. 3. The Parking is a huge issue with the parking pushing into our neighborhood because ample parking for residents and guests are not planned in the community 4. The high story design will decrease the privacy of the single family homes around them. 5. They will be accessing these homes through our neighborhood turning a quiet treelined street into a high traffic zone. There are many high density areas in our city and we need to protect the single family communities. We strongly disagree with this direction for our city. We are requesting the city to protect our safe, family neighborhood for everyone to enjoy this lifestyle now and in the future. College Park United Homeowners Christine Leffeler 2520 Duke Place City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 November 11, 2016 Ten copies HAND DELIVERED 11/14/2016 10:30 a.m. Re: Appin. Nos. GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46[TT-18064 Applicant: Sheldon Development, LLC Public Hearing Date: Nov. 14, 2016; 6:00 p.m. Dear Commissioners: As a long time resident of College Park, I am writing this letter with regard to the proposed high-density development at Harbor and Fair Drive, referenced above. I live at 2528 Littleton Place on the corner of Bucknell Road and Littleton Place near Columbia and Fairview. My main concern with the proposed development is the increase of traffic ON BUCKNELL and the loss of the beautiful trees at the end of Bucknell Road and Carnegie Avenue to make way for an entrance to a high-density development. Bucknell Road is an interior single-family residential street in a family friendly neighborhood with many people walking with children and pets. Also I witness many young students every day (many on skateboards or bicycles in the street) coming home from C.M. High School after class or after a sporting event. Future residents of the proposed development will more than likely choose to take Bucknell Road home if the entrance is at the end of that street. They may be in a hurry to get home from work and may not drive cautiously through our residential neighborhood if the entrance is at the end of Bucknell Road. There are ten beautiful healthy trees on Carnegie Avenue, which offer a tree -lined view. The trees are not disrupting the sidewalk. They will buffer the view of a three/four story housing development. The existing or a wider entrance off Fair Drive could serve the new residents of the development adequately and not infringe on our neighborhood with increased traffic on Bucknell Road and Carnegie Avenue or require the removal of ten healthy trees which have been there for several years along with many College Park residents. I hope you sincerely consider my concerns regarding the proposed entrance on Carnegie, traffic on Bucknell Road and removal of the trees. I would appreciate your attention to these matters. Thank you. 2 photos attached Sincerely, Ianda Lambert �y 2528 Littleton PI pL Costa Mesa, CA 92626-6340 AP Ak- IFL .� _kyr Y • � -� � S• • '� .• . _ � t -- - _ - - --�--•rte- ' - ...��y.� LOOMIS, RYAN From: Iindaglambert@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 11:56 AM To: LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: 440 Fair Drive Project; GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 November 15, 2016 Dear Mr. Loomis: I attended last night's PC meeting and heard the public comments presented on the above project. In addition to the hand delivered letter and photographs I submitted on 11/14/16, please consider the following comments. I believe the best advice the Planning Commission should now give the developer (Sheldon Dev.) is to revise their proposed plan as follows: Place the entrance to the development where the existing one is off Fair Drive and NOT off Carnegie Avenue; 2. Save the sidewalk and the ten healthy beautiful trees to buffer the view of the development; and 3. Heighten and improve the block wall behind the trees. Only then should the City even further consider the development of homes on this property. The City has the power and obligation to protect the safety and integrity of our neighborhood and citizens. Please distribute this E-mail to the Commissioners and hopefully the Commission will implement this suggested next step. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Linda Lambert 2528 Littleton Place Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 545-0327 1 11 COLGAN, JULIE Subject: "440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record" From: Rice, Bryan [maiito:brice tustin.kl2.ca.us] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 12:29 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Cc: marrice deloitte.com Subject: "440 Fair GP -16-01/11-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record" Bryan and Myra Rice 350 Bucknell Road Costa Mesa, CA 92626 November 14, 2016 Brenda Green 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Ms. Green, I am writing today to raise objections to the proposed high density housing development proposal scheduled for 440 Fair Drive. (440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064) After reading through the 145 page planning commission report, I am very concerned that the proposed changes will negatively affect the College Park neighborhood that I have called home for most of my life. While I do agree that change is inevitable, I feel compelled to do what I can to stop this development as currently written. I am not against that parcel of land being developed into single family residences; I am opposed to 3 and 4 story units. As a current homeowner on Bucknell I am concerned for the safety of my two young children. I have seen many close calls as already too many people use Bucknell and Princeton as a cut through between Harbor and Fairview. I believe adding 28 new units will create an even larger traffic concern, especially considering the single entry on Carnegie at Bucknell. I love my City of Costa Mesa, and I believe that the general direction/growth of the City has been positive. I am wholeheartedly against this project as it will fundamentally and negatively change the nature and culture of my community of College Park. Thank you for your time and consideration, Bryan and Myra Rice 714-321-8608 `13 1 November 13, 2016 Costa Mesa Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: 440 Fair Drive Project Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Respected Planning Division: Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department NOV 14 2016 This letter is to express deep concerns and objections regarding the project proposed at 440 Fair Drive. I disagree with this project for the following reasons: 1) I live on Princeton Drive, just past the Fordham stop sign. Cars speed down our street as it is, regarding us as a speedway/thoroughfare between Fairview Road and Harbor Blvd. We don't need more cars coming from this new proposed HD project on our residential streets! 2) Just last week one of our neighbors' young dogs was hit and killed on Princeton Drive by a speeding car. I myself have had to run across my own street to avoid being hit by a car racing through on more than one occasion. I have also had to pick up my little dogs and run across my street to avoid any or all of us being hit. You are proposing to add MORE traffic, increasing the chances of our neighbors, pets and even children who are playing being hit. In the end that costs lives, which are irreplaceable, and will most undoubtedly cost the City millions in rightful litigation. 3) We do not want the zoning changed to PDR High Density from its current C1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning classification - if it were proposing additional SFR, no more than 2 stories, it could possibly make a difference. Instead the builder is proposing multiple stories and multiple units, resulting in high density not only of people, but also multiple vehicles for which there will NOT be sufficient parking which will subsequently drive the overflow onto OUR streets instead of their own because there will be no room. 4) The proposed variances and encroachments reduce open space and put these proposed residences right on to Carnegie - it will be similar to the Azulon apartments at Merrimac and Harbor - they are right on the street and people's living spaces are right above the street and sidewalk. Because Harbor and Merrimac is not a residential area, but its own racing thoroughfare, the only thing Azulon does is loom there, blocking the sun earlier than sundown, and replacing the much -loved Kona Lanes Bowling Alley that used to be there, complete with its final stand of palm trees which, sadly, were replaced by parking for these apartments. The same fate will befall the beautiful trees that currently line Carnegie Avenue. Please note that Yelp reviews for Azulon include complaints about qq insufficient parking inside the gates of that apartment complex if you arrive home after 7pm! Guess where all those residents end up parking?! 5) Entrances and/or exits onto our residential streets are already in question by residents opposing the current 440 proposed plan. An additional current issue that is being forced by the residents of College Park to Raja Sethuraman of the Transportation/Public Services Department of our city is the rate of speed on Princeton Drive, spurred by the death of one of our neighbors' dogs. The response was tremendous in support by fellow residents and Mr. Sethuraman responded with the It will do a comprehensive study of traffic on Princeton Avenue (which should read "Drive") to document and analyze the conditions, and develop recommendations to address them." I highly suspect the same will be necessary on Bucknell Road as well as Carnegie itself - even BEFORE there is an additional proposed complex at 440 Fair Drive! 6) We live in a Single Family Residence neighborhood. We already have an apartment complex with the Mediterranean Village on Fair Drive in College Park, which is high density. The minimal number of two-story homes in College Park does not encroach on our neighborhood. They have carefully cleared city building inspection - WHY SHOULD THIS PROJECT BE PERMITTED ITS ENCROACHMENTS AND VARIANCES TO CREATE BUILDINGS THAT ARE 3 AND 4 -STORY??? This is no place to crowd more people and more cars into such a small area!! In closing, I have been a resident of Costa Mesa for over 59 years. I have lived on the Westside, the Eastside, and in College Park - the latter in which I have been a proud owner and resident for over 21 years. Part of Costa Mesa's charm is its history - my grandparents lived here before me for over 40 years. While many changes have taken place, this one is unnecessary and driven by greed. The propaganda says this will bring middle class families to our area - as if that is not who WE are! The $850,0004900,000 price tag on these units are NOT middle class prices, and there is NO guarantee that these proposed units will not be bought and then turned into rental properties, which will drive our home value down, not improve it. Respectfully, Denise E. Davis 384 Princeton Drive Costa Mesa i5_ Public Hearing Concerning College Park © Council Chambers Ci Hall at 77 Fair Drive ❑ 0 a_ca u City �o ©_0 _ November 14th, 2016 at 6:00 PM r... The are requesting�h�h demon � plus more vaz'' � ' ' �� �,, ' They g density iancesf end�X the rules that single residen s'tlave to ad- here to. A copy of the application can be viewed at www.costamesaca.gov under the heading Develop- ment Services Department/Planning Division only 72 hours prior to the hearing. Public comments either oral or written form may be presented during the hearing. It would be great to get as many letters as pos- sible addressing the concerns of the project and the College Park area on the record. The height, variances and entrance are big issues. Any written communication and photos for distribution to the Planning Com- mission must be received by the Planning staff prior to 3:00 p.m. on the 14th so copies can be made for hearing. After 3:00 p.m., if you bring the communications with you, 10-copies will be needed. Even if you plan on attending, providing written form is good to have on the record. If their decision is chal- lenged in court, you may be limited to raising only those iis]sue1s raised, at or prior to the hearing. I 1, T' - i1n`"0� � R-1in��1[M-1644 f1 A, 41\Q Please bring all your fri'�?)ids in -Costa Mesa not just College Park. ThOssue may concern their neigh- borhood in the future. If they are going to put 4 story homes in the College Park area, what other 2 -story neighborhoods will they approve these projects outside of the Revitalization area of West Costa Mesa. No one wants td add tall buildings and more traffic in the neighborhood. Ifyou want to know about fu- ture meetings, have questions or want me to pick up your letters, give me a call at 949-644-2144. COLGAN, JULIE Subject: 440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA -16-46/17-18064 For The Public Record From: grayson diercksmeier [rriailto: diercksmeier rnail.carn] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 1:21 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda. reen costamesaca. rav> Subject: 440 Fair GP -16-01/11-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Attention City Council Members, The new development planned for 440 Fair Project is 100% not fair to College Park residents and should be stopped. I currently reside on Elmhurst Lane, and use Carnegie to exit and enter multiple times a day. The traffic alone would very negatively impact my comings and goings. The parking is also a major concern as we're told that the new residents would get parking permits for the streets, but we don't have access to permits. That alone seems absurd. Also, when you drive into the neighborhood there's a distinct look/feel to the houses. This development with three and four story units, minimal lots and a modern look is in direct contrast with current College Park. 1 think it's greatly important to take the neighborhood resident's thoughts into account as we would have to deal with the ramifications on a daily basis. I appreciate your consideration, Grayson Diercksmeier qq COLGAN, JULIE PO — LI Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: Sarah Babovic fmaAo:sarah@babcvic.org Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 2:25 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda. reen costamesaca,gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Dear members of the Costa Mesa City COuncil and Planning Comission, This is regarding 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record I am a long-time resident of College Park. I live at 223 Wellesley Ln with my husband and three young children. College Park is a great neighborhood with close neighbors and I love living here. I am worried about high density zoned developments cutting into the corners of our neighborhood and am writing to express my concerns with the proposed high-density housing development at 440 Fair Dr. This development is bad for College Park for so many reasons. Some of them include: 1. The developer is asking to change the zoning from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential. Not only do 3-4 story dwellings invade current College Park residents' privacy, but what stops other developers from purchasing homes on the periphery of the tract and building high density housing on the lots? College Park residents do not want to be overlooked or closed in upon by high density complexes. 2. The only driveway access to the complex is on Carnegie at Bucknell. This seems ridiculous - instead of 440 Fair residents entering the complex on either Fair or Harbor, they will use Bucknell, Princeton, Fordham, Loyola and Columbia to access both their homes and Fair and Harbor. This will increase traffic in College Park. Princeton and Bucknell are already racetracks -- I already fear for my children's safety when they are playing outside, even though my neighbors and I have put up "Drive Like Your Kids Live Here" signs all over the place. I can only imagine how much worse it will be when more cars will be speeding down our streets getting to/from 440 Fair. Family pets have already been killed by speeding cars in out neighborhood -- the danger of a child being hit seems only too real with the entrance to 440 FaIr right in our neighborhood. 3. There are only 5 guest parking spots on the plans. This lack of parking will inevitably lead to guests of 440 Fair parking on surrounding streets like Carnegie, Bucknell, and the nearby cul-de-sacs. My neighbors on these streets already deal with residents of Mediterranean Village parking visitors or extra cars in front of their houses. I hope they will not have to experience more of the same from 440 Fair. I know from living on the periphery of the neighborhood close to the OC Fairgrounds what that can be like -- late, loud, and inconvenient. All in all, another high density residential complex (in addition to Mediterranean Village) in College Park detracts from residents' quality of life, safety, and therefore, property value. My neighbors and I are very happy here, but I wouldn't be surprised if many families decide to move elsewhere if 440 Fair goes through as planned. Nobody wants that. We fought hard together to stop plans for a parking structure on the OC Fairgrounds at Fairview and Arlington, as well as a retail/hotel complex on OCC's property at Fairview and Merrimac. We are ready to work together again to stop the erosion of our fun, friendly, family neighborhood by high density development. I hope you will consider our input and stop or make appropriate changes to the current plans for 440 Fair. Thank you, Sarah Babovic LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46?TT-18064 For the Public Record From: Kristen Martin [m__a_ilto_ ki-nartin8479@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 2:32 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda. reen costamesaca. ov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46?7T-18064 For the Public Record Attn: City of Costa Mesa Please do not move forward with the development of 440 Fair/Great Park high-density housing project. My husband and I live in the Mesa Verde area of Costa Mesa and feel there would be much negative affect from this project that would be felt all around the city. It would bring more traffic to the area, less parking for homeowners in the College park area and would be removing some small businesses that are the heart of Costa Mesa. Our family asks that you consider all these issues and reject the plans for this development. We really want to keep College Park and the surrounding areas safe and less congested with traffic. Thank you, Kristen McLaughlin 51 November 13, 2016 RE: the project at 440 Fair Drive. To whom it may concern, As longtime residents of College Park, we would like to vehemently express our disapproval with the proposed project at 440 Fair Drive. The proposed development does not fit with the current neighborhood. We have now told the developer twice, as did our neighbors, and it appears he again has completely ignored the resident's concerns. The current property at 440 Fair has little impact the neighborhood. We are not opposed to a new use for that property, just not the current proposal as of November 13, 2016. Following are the reasons why we are opposed to the project: • There was no Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. • We already have a massive high density development in College Park. • There are already parking problems in College Park in the area surrounding 440 Fair due to Mediterranean Village not providing enough parking, this project will only make the parking issues worse. ■ The traffic study fails to take into consideration the traffic generated from the new apartments planned for Harbor at Wilson, the new project at Harbor at Merrimac and the development of Fairview Hospital. ■ The traffic study in the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not include a traffic study of Bucknell or Princeton. • There will be a significant increase in traffic on Carnegie, Bucknell, Princeton, Fordham, and Loyola from this project. • The new development will receive parking permits that are not available to the residents on Lehigh Place or Elmhurst. • There is only one driveway for the entire complex and it spills out onto Bucknell. • Drivers exiting the development will not be able to turn on to Fair from Carnegie during peak traffic times. • There are only 5 small guest parking spots for the 28 units. • The front of the homes along Carnegie will be right on the sidewalk which is a deviation from current city building requirements and does not fit with the neighborhood. What precedence allows this? • They will have to cut down the big trees along Carnegie to build the project and yet regular people in the neighborhood cannot remove trees that are damaging property. • The rooftop decks are out of character for the College Park neighborhood. • The new project homes will look into the backyards of the existing homes. ■ There is no green space in the property. Please consider these issues and reject this terrible project. Sincerely, Kell! & Todd Weber 2513 Lehigh Place `0Q Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department NOV 14 MIS LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW:"440FairGP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: Carole W Call rmailtomicelady2@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 2:58 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costam_esaca.gov> Subject:"440FairGP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/7T-18064 For The Public Record"" To be considered with the hearing today 11/14/2016 at the Costa Mesa City Hall regarding the high density housing proposed at 440 Fair Drive, I am writing this email to express to the city again my concerns about the impact that proposed housing will have on me personally, and the College Park Community of which I am a part. Please reconsider this proposal and vote against it for the following reasons: 1. It will impact the traffic where we now have several young families with children that are just learning to stay away from the streets. 2. Since there are only 5 open parking spaces in the 28 unit complex, we know that we will have to fight for parking on our street (Carnegie Ave) 3. It is advertised as affordable housing when it also says they will sell for 600-700,00 which is the going rate for similar houses with yards in our area. 4. This price is probably not accurate as my son checked out the same type homes across from Trader Joes on 17th and they were more like 1 million dollars 5. The appearance is grotesque 6. The top floor is by definition a bedroom, not an attic Thank you for considering the citizens of College Park in you vote to illuminate this building HD project. Sincerely, Carole and Jeff Call 2568 Carnegie Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714-751-4551 '0I LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 for the Public Record From: Flo Martin [mailto:flomama@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 9:45 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brendagre_en@costamesaca,ov> Subject: 440 Fair GP -16-01/11-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 for the Public Record TO: The Members of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission FROM: Flo Martin, 49 -year Costa Mesa resident (46 years in College Park) RE: 440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 I am opposed to the project as currently proposed. I recommend a renegotiation with Mr. Steve Sheldon on the density of his project. ■ High density is unacceptable! • The many variances he requests are unacceptable, especially the multi- story to f irst floor ratio! Please vote against the proposed project and send Mr. Sheldon and his architects back to the drawing board. Thank you. Flo Martin 2442 Andover Place Costa Mesa, CA 92626 949.933.3699 "It is when we are alone that we are the least alone." St. Augustine LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: "440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record" Attachments: 440Fair.pdf From: Mel Quattrocchi [mailto:melgtiattrocchi@Qmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 3:27 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <bre nda.green @ cc) starresaca. = ov> Cc: Lori Robnett <iorirobnett aai.corn> Subject: Re: "440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record" Hello Brenda: Please see the attached letter regarding the proposed 440 Fair Drive Development. Thank you, Maryellen Quattrocchi 11/14/2016 To Whom It May Concern: My husband and I bought our home on Bucknell Road and moved into College Park in 2001 and for the past 15 years have enjoyed living in this neighborhood due to the neighbors, community, safety and relatively peaceful and quiet streets. We are raising two boys, ages 11 and 13, both of whom enjoy riding bikes, scooters, etc around our streets. They are old enough now to walk to close friends homes, play out front and enjoy the freedom that living in a quiet and safe neighborhood brings. The proposed development on 440 Fair Drive would greatly impact our quality of life the and the safety and freedom of my boys and family. We already experience periodic "speeders" down Bucknell who are NOT neighbors but merely using our street as a thoroughfare to get to Fairview Road, the 55 Freeway, Newport Blvd, etc. There have been many occasions that a speeding car barely slows down when they see my boys going to get a ball that goes in the street or biking across to the other side. The addition of 28 new residences which have a single point of entrance and exit at Carnegie and Bucknell would ENSURE that Bucknell, Princeton and other "through" streets would be used as a speedway for these cars to get to the other side of the neighborhood. Why would they bother going down Fair- with lights and more traffic? The long time neighbors of College Park are against such a development which not only negatively impacts their quality of life but also does not fit into the architecture and general aesthetics of our development. We already have a large apartment complex sitting between the two sides of the neighborhood. That is enough. While no one can argue that the current "wellness' building isnt an eyesore with questionable businesses; there has to be a happy medium between what is there now and the proposed 4 story residences. Thank you, Maryellen Quattrocchi I D9 P4 -q Received r City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department Pg1of2 November 15, 2016 NOV 15 2016 Dear City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission/City Council: Re; The proposed Development at 440 Fair Drive My name is David McAllister, a resident of College Park since 1964. 1 raised 6 children in the same 3 bedrom home that I still occupy. They went to all the local schools that was provided for them in the local College Park area. My background is that of a "developer". Before I retired in 1998 1 was Vice President of Operations for the Irvine Company subsidiary, Irvine Pacific Development, Irvine Affordable Housing, and Irvine Apartment Communities. Some sites were throughout southern and northern California, so I know of what I speak We, as devevelopers always took in to consideration what would be imposed on a neighboring site or existing community. It's totally absurd the idea of foisting upon the residents of College Park all the negatives that the proposed development would bring about, Such as: Four story buildings peering into the private areas of existing homes Removal of 50 plus year old ficus trees that harbor crows that inhibit rat infestation A high volume of traffic travelling on "our" streets which are not designed for all the traffic the propsed site would introduce. Most of our streets have only a 3-4" asphaltic concrete surface over native soil. Not designed for heavy traffic. The above mentioned traffic at rush hour would cause our streets to become a "parking lot" like some of our freeways. Leaving us with no ingress or egress. Also, when traffic allows, we are faced with "short cut" drivers that speed through our development, this problem will only increase We as college Park residents would suffer a great loss of equity in our homes! l�� P4 -q Pg 2of 2 I know of at least two former mayors, some former city council members, and police officers to name a few that live in C.P.. How would they like to have their property values compromised? With the lack of proper building and wall setbacks, we'll be fsced with an ugly walled in edifice on the northwest side of Carnegie. What about the parking ratio? Any subterranean parking? Where does the the site parking ocurr? I'm having to assume all the way up and down Carnegie, Princeton, Bucknell, etc.. If any new building is to take place on this site, please let it be "normal" condominiums or SFD's! Three to four story with virtually no setbacks are totally out of place in our neighborhood! 0 P4 -H LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: No on 440 Project. -----Original Message ----- From: Nafey [mailto:nafeygirl@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 2:57 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costa mesaca.gov> Subject: No on 440 Project. To The city of Costa Mesa , My name is Nafey Wennerberg I live at 457 Elmhurst In. I oppose the 440 project that the developer is trying to get approved. As a resident of 19 years I don't want this in our college park community. It will congest our our neighborhood and our streets. The parking will be a mess. We already have people from Mediterranean Village parking on our streets. Now we will have a 28 house development with only 5 extra parking spots for there friends? So there banking on our street to provide parking for them? I don't think so! Has there even been a traffic assessment done? If so, I don't see how this can pass?! We never in all these months received any paperwork regarding this project starting AGAIN? Some how they just happen to mysteriously miss our street or most of the houses on it! Humm a little fishy to me! This can not and should not be passed! I was at your meeting last night the 14th and it seems many were saying the same thing, do not approve this project! So please do your job for us and listen by not allowing this to go through in our small quant community we love so much! See you all on the 21st for the meeting then! Thanks, Nafey Wennerberg 457 Elmhurst Lane 107 PH _H Jessica L Cvetas 2542 Oxford Ln Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714-287-1099 terram arkova a m ail. co m Addressing Costa Mesa Planning Commission Mr. Ryan Loomis & Whom It May Concern I am writing in regards to the project referred to as GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-461TT-18064 where as it is proposed to demolish the retail/office center located at 440 Fair Drive in favor for the development and construction of 8 new three-story detached units and 20 four-story duplex units. Ah, forgive me this is where I drop the legal pleasantries. As a recent (and proud) home owner within the College Park community, I chose this city and general location based on a fair (ha ha, get it? Fair- the fairgrounds- you get it) number of reasons. Not least of which was the fact this area is just the perfect amount of city meeting suburbia. A nice balance of easy to reach businesses, schools and recreation without the over crowdedness that will accompany added development of residential complexes. Our neighborhood just went through the construction of the dealership on the other side of the entrance off of Harbor. Boy, was that fun. I feel I speak for many when I say we wish not to go through that again. There are many families that have made the houses of College Park their homes. The proposed structure of this project would jeopardize the safety of these families by means of added traffic (both vehicle and foot). My last concern is the property values of the College Park homes. Where as sometimes development can add to real estate, in some cases it hinders more than it thinks it will help. Please, I implore the Planning Commission to reconsider this proposed contract with Sheldon Development, LLC, whom I am sure are very nice people with families of their own and will take to heart the grievances of the College Park community. Authoritatively and Sincerely, Jessica L Cvetas Homeowner 2542 Oxford Ln, Costa Mesa oil 1 11, -LI LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: Melissa Lippand [mailtomiippand@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 8:36 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record To City Hall: We are long time College Park residents living at 354 Bucknell Rd. I grew up in this house and my husband and I purchased it from my parents in 1992. We are opposed to the 440 Fair proposal (referenced above) and request that the City Planning Commission and the City Counsel do the right thing and reject the proposal. This proposed development will adversely affect our peaceful neighborhood in many, many ways. Our main concerns follow: • The units are too high - 3 and 4 stories. Overshadowing existing homes; blocking views; higher than power lines • Developer is asking for zoning change from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential. We already have a high density development in our neighborhood - Mediterranean Village. • Only resident access is one driveway on Carnegie at Bucknell • Increased traffic negatively affecting neighborhood. Traffic study is flawed as it only studied Carnegie and Fair. Residents in this development will use Bucknell, Princeton, Fordam, Loyola and Columbia to cut through the neighborhood. Drivers currently speed down Princeton and Bucknell - traffic will increase through the neighborhood due to this high density development. ■ Not enough parking - only 5 guest parking spots. Our neighborhood is already impacted by people from Mediterranean Village parking on our streets. • CC&R requirement for residents to have to use garages can easily be changed by new HOA board - further contributing to the lack of parking in the development. • Rooftop use reduces privacy of existing homes and increases noise. • Ficus trees removal is simply wrong. The neighborhood benefits from these 60+ year old trees. The loss of the trees will eliminate any kind of "buffer" that would separate this high density development from the existing single family resident make up of the neighborhood. • Developer is asking for a deviation from too many code requirements, i.e. the city's open space requirements - toc close to sidewalks on Carnegie etc. • Developer is asking for too many deviations from code requirements. • College Park residents who live next to the current building have not complained about criminal activity. • Property owner is purposely renting to some unsavory businesses. Please do the right thing and reject this proposed development. Thank you. Melissa and Vello Lippand 354 Bucknell Rd. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714/342-1996 714/557-6212 jol N,q COLGAN, JULIE From: gaelstales@netzero.net Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 6:56 AM To: PLANNING COMMISSION Subject: 440 Fair Drive November 18, 2016 Costa Mesa Planning Commission RE: 440 Fair Drive development A 35 year resident of Costa Mesa, I have seen many changes in our city, some for the better, some not so much. I was here when Nabors Cadillac attempted to close off Princeton Drive to increase the size of his car dealership. This was viciously knocked down by College Park residents. I was here when Harbor Shopping Center still housed the movie theaters, became vacant and blighted and was replaced by the Home Depot/Albertson's center, an improvement for College Park residents when the entry to the back of the property was closed off. I am not against all development but I do oppose the high-density proposal at 440 Fair Drive that will impact the existing neighborhood. I attended the presentation given by the builder. First, he kept stating that the eight houses on Carnegie were to be two-story. Not true. When caught in the deceit, he had to back down and admit that they were indeed three -stories high. Then there was the flawed traffic study that included only traffic going left or right out of the complex onto Carnegie, then exiting on Fair Drive or from Princeton onto Harbor. This study did not even take into account Bucknell when that street is essentially across from the planned exit. It is obvious that Bucknell would certainly be the most impacted by the increased traffic in an attempt to avoid exiting the tract on Fair Drive and Princeton due to congestion. It also did not take into account the apartments on Fair Drive that also exit directly across the street from Carnegie. The incomplete and sloppy study was based on the "Bible" of traffic studies, which was cited often during the presentation, but did not even include the impact on Bucknell and other streets further down the line that exit the neighborhood. By my simplistic calculations, 28 dwellings with at least two cars each equals at least 56 more cars in the College Park neighborhood. The proposed "visitor parking" is obviously inadequate and parking will be a big problem, especially on Carnegie, but will disperse onto Bucknell and the outlying cul-de-sacs as well. 1 The 28 units with at least three to four occupants each equals at least 84-112 people crammed into a relatively small area with no place for kids to play but for the top fourth story deck. These occupants will undoubtedly own at least two dogs per unit (face it, it's true, everyone has at least two) in abodes that have no back yards. Guess where they will be "walking" their 56 dogs - in our neighborhood. And guess where they do their duty - in our yards! That problem is bad enough as it is, as is the barking. Guess where those dogs will spend their day — on the rooftop decks echoing across the neighborhood in a never ceasing bark fest. I don't have a problem with housing being built on the site but I would like to see something that is not of such high density, more in keeping with the homes that already exist. This builder has in his mind that he must make a certain amount of money to make it a viable venture. I get that. But fewer homes, no more than two -stories with enough parking provided within the space, I don't think anyone in the neighborhood would be disagreeable to that ... but I would miss the crows. Gail White z LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For Public Record -----Original Message ----- From: tr4afan@netzero.net [mailto:tr4afan@netzero.net] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 8:01 AM To: plan ningcomission@costamesaca.gov; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For Public Record To Costa Mesa Planning Commission, Concerning site: 440 Fair. I find the high density designs you are planning to put into the College park neighborhood to be highly inappropriate. The neighborhood is composed of mostly single story homes and you are allowing 3 and 4 story structures to be constructed! The homes that the developer wants to build should blend into the neighborhood, not stick out like sore thumbs! From my point of view, the design that places a deck on the fourth floor so the home owners can have a view of the Fiat dealer, Harbor Blvd and our backyards is ludicrous. The light and noise generation at that height will be a potential problem. It appears the roof top decks were only included to allow the ownerto step outside because there is insufficient outdoor ground level area. Traffic is also a concern. 28 domiciles with one exit onto Carnegie will create decidedly more traffic in the future than what the traffic study indicates. Once all the motel developments are complete there will be decidedly more traffic on Harbor and Fair. I also have a side observation. The conduct of some (not all) of the people on the board at the November 21, 2016, meeting was highly inappropriate. I have had to attend many meetings in my years in the workforce and have never witnessed such disregard for the proceedings as I did that night! Two members seated on the board were busy reading/shuffling paperwork or playing with their phone. Is this a common occurrence? You may not want to be there but as an official you should be attentive to the proceedings! In closing I disapprove of the current design you are trying to place in our neighborhood at 440 Fair. A concerned citizen, Robert White 445 Swarthmore Lane 10- PR -q LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: Colinvaught fmailto:colinvaught@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 12:18 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brend i.,green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record 440 FAIR DRIVE PROJECT 2526 CARNEGIE AVENUE IMPACT To Whom It May Concern, I am the homeowner at 2526 Carnegie Avenue, directly across from this proposed project entrance. Our family has lived at this location for over 18 years. We have made this our home, and because of that we have built relationships with our neighbors and local businesses. Your proposed project is going to impact our neighborhood negatively in many ways. Firstly, the increase of traffic and cars on both Carnegie and Bucknell streets. Being the corner house we will be directly affected by both flows of traffic, potentially 52 cars a day, coming and going. Additionally, there will be an increase of pollution on our street and property. More cars and more people generate more trash. Currently, we experience an overflow of this from the apartments down the road, Mediterranean Village. They already park on our street in front of our house during all hours of the night and leave their trash in our gutters and on our sidewalks. Moving in at least 28 more families will increase this exponentially. Next, this development will also affect our direct sunlight. The proposed properties will be more than 40 feet tall, which will block our current sunlight, leaving us in the shade indefinitely. This also enables the new properties to have a bird's eye view into our yard and home from their rooftop decks, thereby eliminating any privacy we have. We currently enjoy our green space with our large trees, a variety of nature, and a lovely view of sunsets through the tree line. Finally, the obvious decrease in our property values is extremely concerning. This neighborhood is currently at maximum capacity. Adding at least 28 more families will put a hardship not only on the current families, but also on all our local schools. WE DO NOT WANT OR NEED MORE HOMES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. Being a homeowner and community member, our family, home, and neighborhood will be directly impacted negatively by your proposed project. Our local relationships with both our neighbors and the small business are extremely important to us and we ask that you please do not upset the neighborhood! Respectfully, Dawn Vaught Homeowner at 2526 Carnegie Avenue I.� PN -4 LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 for the public record From: Croft Long Lmailto:mccroft@aol.com] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 8:39 AM To: brenda.green@costamesa.gv- Cc: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda. reen costamesaca. ov> Subject: Fwd: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 for the public record To confirm receipt, this message is being re -sent. Begin forwarded message: From: Croft Long <mccroftflaol,com> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 for the public record Date: November 18, 2016 at 8:33:50 AM PST To: brenda.green a-costamesa. gov Dear Ms Green & Costa Mesa Planning Commision: Greetings. I am in oposition to high density development imapcting College park neighborhood, the community where I live. Please take just a few minutes to let me explain why... About 20 years ago, my wife and I were looking for single family home in Costa Mesa. When we found College Park we really liked the great location, freeway close ( but not too close), OC Fairgrounds nearby, and the commercial businesses on Harbor boulevard nearby. We liked the fact that our home, and many others here, were constructed in the late 50's and early 60's... and that the neighborhood was fully "built out". This signaled to us that the future of the neighborhood was stable and stablished, and that we could rely on local government to continue the single family ranch home use that makes up College Park. Since the neighborhood was almost 40 years old, we felt we could rely on local government to maintain that status for at least the next 40 years.. that we would have a predictable environment and neighborhood to live. That schools and community around the neighborhood were well established, and we knew there would not be convenience stores or coffee shops put in the middle of the neighborhood. The fact that some commercial development was existing along Harbor Boulevard was re- assuring to us.... showing us a dividing line between commercial area and residential area. It was clearly delineated with walls and separate traffic flow. What has changed now? Well, an entrepreneurial developer has arrived, and is proposing a game changing rule revision... to take commercial zoned property, turn it into high sity residential, and USE OUR QUITE 1 11en November 14, 2016 To the Costa Mesa Planning Commission: kq NELEIVELi CITY CLERK 16 NOV 17 PH 4: 48 C1�TY CQSiA MiSA Regarding the building of three-story and four-story buildings in the College Park community along Carnegie and Fair, I do not wish to have the intrusion of those buildings in my neighborhood. I do not wish to have the beautiful trees along Carnegie torn out. The Developer is also asking for other variances. This development is totally inconsistent with the College Park community of single story homes and will then have a negative impact on the values of College Park. College Park is one of the older communities within Costa Mesa and besides the impact on values, it will also have an impact on traffic and the quality of life. I am a long-term resident of College Park having lived here since 1979. This project will hurt my property's value, increase traffic in this quiet community, and impact the quality of life of the residents in College Park. I am against this project and request the Planning commission deny the developer's request and preserve the College Park Community. By doing this, people will want to buy in College Park; and thus, continue to increase the value of living in Costa Mesa. Not only will this development impact the College Park community, but it will impact the desirability of living in Costa Mesa. We have enough building going on in Costa Mesa, and it is starting to look like Los Angeles. Please do the right thing and reject this development. Regards, arily Packer 2557 Oxford Lane To: The City of Costa Mesa From: Margarita Garcia 2530 Colby Place Costa Mesa CA 92626 ttECE1WE1; N-4 CI'i7' CLERK 16 NOY!7 PH4:48 CITY OS�TAM]16'.SA By Regarding: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Publick Record I purchased my home in College Park late September 2004 since I fell in love with the tranquility of the neighborhood. I was looking for an area that I can raise my five children away from crime and busy streets. My 3 oldest children attended Tewinkle Intermediate School, Estancia High, Costa Mesa High, OCC and The Art Institue of California and my two youngest children have attended The Pegasus School and now Sage High School. My oldest son Eduardo proudly served his contry for 9 years as a Navy Corspman he did a tour in Iraq and the UAE (United Arab Emirates) then later medically discharged because of his injuries. I have been a Registered Nurse for over 22 years on which I have always worked in Los Angeles area but for the past 12 years have been commuting from Costa Mesa to Los Angeles this speaks volumes of how safe I feel my family is living in this community. I had many opportinuties to move my family to a much less expensive area and much closer to my work however this did not outweight the tranquility of this neighborhood. I would like to continue living in this neighborhood and continue feeling the same family oriented neighborhood on which I would also like to raise my grandchildren the same as I raised my 5 children. I am asking the City of Costa Mesa to please reject the proposal of changing the zoning four Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential. This type of development will change the dynamics of this neighborhood, it will bring so much additional traffic to the area, the same way that the other large developments have brought in to Harbor Blvd. I am asking not to make the neighborhood streets as crowded as Harbor Blvd. I am asking to prevent additional foot traffic as well, this has a potential to increase crime in our neighborhood. If the intentions of city is to revovate the neighborhood why not add regular homes that will add value to the area. Adding 3 and 4 level units will devalue the homes right across the street from these units and not to mention will decrease the privacy they currently have. To the developer, we were miss lead during the meeting we attended the week of September 10th, 2015 on which we were informed that no cars will be parked around our neighborhood becuase the development will have enough parking spaces. We were also misslead by -the develper that attended this meeting, that the city had decided the number of homes for the small square footage. I now wonder what other things were we miss lead on? Sincerly MargJcuu ita Garcia I1(0 To: The City of Costa Mesa From Pricilla Pedroza 2530 Colby Place Costa Mesa CA 92626 RF,CEIVEU CITY CLERK 16 NOV 17 P1 lo 47 EITY LISTA MESA Regarding: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Publick Record I moved to College Park 12 years ago from Norwalk California with my mother and 4 siblings. Growing up in Collegae Park has been a very positive experience for me, I attended Estancia High then OCC I now work in South Cost Plaza. College Park has been the ideal safe neighborhood for me, I now have children of my own and hope to continue providing them with a safe environment to grow up. I am asking the City of Costa Mesa to please reject the proposal of changing the zoning four Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential. This type of development will bring additional traffic to our neighborhood since the only entry will be located on Carnegie and Bucknell right directly to my street on which my kids currenly play. To develop 28 units some 3 levels some 4 levels this type of develpment does not fit in our neighborhood. If the city would like to improve the area why not build regular homes that fit in to the type of zoning we currently have. To approve high density residential zoning will open up the doors to other same type of develpments. I would like to notify the City that during a meeting that I attended at our local Coco's the week of September 10th, 2015 we were misslead by the developer who attended this meeting when he informed us that the project will have enough parking spaces therefor there will be no need for additional cars spilling to our neighborhood, When one of the attendees asked him, why so many units for such small square footage, he instructed us that it was the city's decison. Sincerly '21, ��&&14 Pricilla Pedroza 11Y. �f y November 11, 2016 To: Costa Mesa Planning Commission/ College Park Variances From: Elizabeth Walker College Park Resident I have lived in Costa Mesa since 1959. For many years our city upheld building and planning restrictions that were implemented to uphold the quality of life in our prestigious city. I was privileged to reside in an upper middle class neighborhood of Mesa Verde. I enjoyed amenities of the MVCC. Over the years I have witnessed degradation of our city. The tolerance of undesirable retail establishments, the allowance of variances, over building, over crowding. Having a negative impact on traffic and temperament. Business have been forced to move, trees uprooted making way for unattractive high density buildings. Over looking established properties, invading privacy with increased traffic. I fail to see that these variances have little or no impact on the infrastructure, traffic, noise, pollution, public safety and crime that are associated with over crowding. What is the environmental impact? Over development has fauna in peril. California is in a serious drought with water restrictions. Presently I fear for my safety, motorists exceed 40 MPH on Princeton and 50 plus on Fair Drive. I am honked at when I yield to a pedestrian or turn into the parking lot of my bank. It took me 20 minutes to get to Target at 12:30 PM on a Saturday afternoon from Princeton and Harbor. Traffic was the only issue. ask you, if this plan is so desirable and will maintain or improve the quality of life in any neighborhood. Than please take it to the comm unit in which you live. If space doesn't permit, than create it as you have don r' theP o parts of Costa Mesa and wish to do in College Park, where I resi ecn $ r" Re: `1440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record" To: The City of Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Brenda, It was Year 1980 when I moved to Southern California and made my new home here in the beautiful town of Costa Mesa. At first I lived, for several years, on the east side - witnessing the city's transformation, some good and some bad. Besides all other the bad resulted in to very unpleasant traffic congestions, lack of parking and brought more safety issues... The latest sad, even though somewhat impressive, is transformation of the intersection on Old Newport Boulevard and Del Mar Ave. Yes, right by the Starbucks. This, so-called improvement, TOTALLY wiped out our bike lanes, right at the intersection, and it created a very hazardous passage for all bikers!!!!!!! Accident waiting to happen : {{ I recommend to whom designed and or planned this beautiful improvement to get on the bike at the City Hall and ride toward and back from the Back Bay, that we all adore so much. Some 20+ Years ago I was looking for a safer and calmer place where I can create, build a safe nest for my new, than, upcoming family. This is when I discovered the JEWEL of Costa Mesa, "The Collage Park". My kids now walk, ride bike, SAFELY to and from nearby Davis Magnet school and the CM High school. Perhaps will continue to the OC Collage... We, the residents, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles..., do NOT want the kids, nor us, to LOSE any of what we invested in - in to our pressures neighborhood. We do not want to add more danger and or jeopardize safety of our kids or our Collage Park neighborhood's!! As we all know the congestion and parking is already an issue at the Harbor Ave. and Fair Drive area. The nearby, high-density, apartment complex "Mediterranean Village", where the apartment residents are parking on our streets, in front of our homes and it is all because the apartment complex parking is insufficient and unable to absorb the number of cars. Now imagine what one more, high density, housing project, multifamily complex, would bring to our neighborhood...??? More cars parked all over? More traffic? More congestions? More Safety issues? Perhaps we are going to lose one or more BIKE lanes? [Type here] [Type here] 0 a% w Cr] y r ; 0 M 15.216 Specially looking at the number of parking spots and or guest parking planed at this high-density housing project. Perhaps the projects parking schedule complies with planning and or regulations? BUT we all know, that in the real-life, that is NOT enough! Of course, there are other, VALID, concerns raised by nearby residents and or our neighbors. Yes, we support each other in all those, VALID, concerns. Just because we care! ! ! We care about our neighbors and Yes, we care about our Collage Park neighborhood!! Below are some other, very valid, concerns that we have and or are raised by my neighbors who also, STRONGLY, oppose the project: 1. Developer is asking to change the zoning from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential. 2. The homes along Carnegie will be 3 -story units and the buildings in the back of the project will be 4 story duplexes. 3. There are only 5 guest parking spots on the plans. 4. Architecturally this Development doesn't fit with the current neighborhood of ranch style mid-century modern type homes. 5. New residents will use Bucknell, Princeton, Fordham, Loyola and Columbia to access Fair, Fairview and Harbor thereby increasing traffic in College Park. 6. The only driveway access to the complex is on Carnegie at Bucknell. 7. Princeton and Bucknell are already racetracks, how many more cars will be speeding down these streets? 8. The developer is asking for a deviation from the city open space requirements meaning the front of the homes will be right on the sidewalk of Carnegie. 9. The project will overshadow the existing houses around it and reduce privacy 10. Our big Ficus trees will be cut down to build these homes : {{ ... 11. As I already mentioned above, we already have a high-density development in College Park, it is called Mediterranean Village 12. CC&R's for the project requiring residents to park in their garage can easily be changed by a new governing board - as always is.. 13. Sadly, the property owner is purposely blighting the property. 14. Lastly - the BIG issue is that this would set a precedence and most likely will open the door for other high-density projects in Our Beloved Collage Park. Before we know, we will end up just like our east side neighbors, unable to move around, park, Etc.... ";vZ9,4S5, &ea &0 & iaar4 � 4 cmfej&oa aadJEWEL toaa—, [Type here] [Type here] 1 010 11.15.2016 Thank You for caring with us! The Batlik's Family 1A [Type here] [Type here] 11.15.2016 LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-1646/TT-18064 For the Public Record -----Original Message ----- From: GREEN, BRENDA Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 8:11 AM To: LOOMIS, RYAN <RYAN.LOOMIS@costa mesaca.gov>; COLGAN, JULIE <JULIE.COLGAN@costamesaca.gov>; TRAYLOR, MARIAN<MARIAN.TRAYLOR@costamesaca.gov> Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-1646/TT-18064 For the Public Record Brenda Green City Clerk City of Costa Mesa 714/754-5221 -----Original Message ----- From: Phil [mailto:fsbpross@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 9:07 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com; fsbpross@aol.com; drdecarlson2@gmail.com Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-1646/TT-18064 For the Public Record Dear Brenda Green and Costa Mesa City Council, My name is Phil Ross and I'm writing on behalf of my wife and family to protest the redevelopment of 440 Fair Drive. We live in College Park on Fordham Drive. As residents of College Park, we are strongly opposed to the city taking liberty to rezone a commercial property to the benefit of developers and government insiders. Those of us living in College Park are already surrounded by the OC Fair, Orange Coast College and Mediterranean Apartments. It is unacceptable to increase this density and direct even more traffic and population into our neighborhood. We appreciate your consideration and will continue to pursue the termination of this plan. Best regards, Phil Ross 1.)—")L Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Leslie Sterrett 442 Princeton Dr Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Sirs: This letter is written in objection to the proposed housing project at 440 Fair Dr in Costa Mesa. This multi story, high density project will conflict directly with the low density single story aesthetic of the surrounding College Park neighborhood. The 3 and 4 story units will be out of place visually, as well as blocking the sun, casting intruding shadows over the neighbors houses which border the project. This will negatively affect the natural light on their property potentially affecting the health of the landscape. The lack of sunlight will also affect the well being of the residents of those properties. The extra traffic volume associated with this project will create a busier flow of cars to an already burdened area. As you are aware this area of College Park is used as a cut -through / by pass for the Harbor / Fair intersection. It is already too busy in our neighborhood from this cut through traffic. In addition a lack of extra parking will force these new homeowners / guests to park their overflow parking on the surrounding streets. I understand the need for new housing in the area. I'm also in favor of improving the look of the corner at Fair and Carnegie. But let's add in housing which matches the current aesthetic of the College Park neighborhood. To reiterate, I am not in favor of this project at 440 Fair Dr. Sincerely, Leslie Sterrett IAS Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department NOV 212016 Pµ 4 LOOMIS, RYAN From: Brian <vote2016@earth Iink.net> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 7:32 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record November 21, 2016 Costa Mesa Planning Commissioners City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/7T-18064 For The Public Record Dear Commissioners, I am opposed to the proposed high-density residential project at 440 Fair Drive, asking you to reject the proposed project. It is simply too dense for the size and shape of the property. My mom stills lives in her College Park home and I can attest that this is a great neighborhood in which to grow up. 440 Fair Drive is a threat to the heart and soul of College Park. This project adversely impacts the quality of life and significantly jeopardizes health and wellbeing of children and animals. There are so many design issues that need to be addressed before considering this project for approval; it is difficult to know where to start. Nevertheless, let us try: Proiect Entrance: Nowhere in any documentation I have seen, from the 2015 project submittal or this submittal, a discussion with the reason and rationale for placing the main and only entrance on Carnegie Avenue. Moving the entrance to Fair Drive and moving the Fire Department access to Carnegie would mitigate a significant number of the traffic -related issues and objections to this project. Traffic Study: The traffic study conducted by Infrastructure Group, Inc., a company owned by Denis Bilodeau, is of concern. Mr. Bilodeau sits on the OCWD Board of Directors with the developer Steve Sheldon. A quick web search shows Infrastructure Group, Inc. has one Director, Mr. Bilodeau. A Google maps search shows the company is located in a residential neighborhood. Given that the City of Costa Mesa generally follows a protocol for bidding this scope of work, how is it that Infrastructure Group, Inc. was selected for this project? Why wasn't, and why isn't, the apparent relationship between the vendor and developer clearly disclosed or a concern for the Commissioners? The traffic study contains information and assumptions that are presented in a manner that understates or omits the impacts on College Park. The second submittal of the Report on September 20, 2016 should have addressed these concerns after receiving objections from the residents of College Park. These are not unforeseeable conditions. I )a� 1. Either the proposed parcel outline used throughout the report is drawn too small or the line representing Bucknell Road is drawn too far away from the project entrance. Your choice. The reality is the proposed entrance and Bucknell Road is in alignment. The report does not properly communicate or address this significant impact to College Park. 2. The number of stories of each building type is incorrectly stated in the Project Description. 3. The Study Area intersections selected by Infrastructure Group and City staff omitted the Bucknell and Carnegie intersection, the main entrance to the proposed development. It may be traffic study protocol to study only circulation network locations but complete silence on the impact from the point on the development where traffic emanates cannot be proper. Really, on oversight? This omission must be corrected before the Traffic Study can be considered a real world depiction of the traffic generated by this project and the significant impact to College Park. 4. The traffic study does not include any analysis of drive-through traffic in College Park. 5. While I do not have expertise in the science of traffic analysis, I do understand that a pizza parlor generates more trips per unit of time than just about any other business in the current location that is not operating at full capacity. The traffic study does not appear to adjust for the pizza parlor traffic but instead credits the reduction in trips to the proposed development. Without a footnote, this is misleading. 6. On the other hand, all trips from the current location are known to ingress and egress onto Fair Drive. This can equally be written as the proposed development will INCREASE the number of trips in College Park, which currently gets no traffic from the commercial property. This is a significant impact to College Park. 7. The Trip Distribution paragraph on Page 9 assigns 10% of the traffic originating from the proposed development onto Carnegie and onto Princeton. This is a many -hundreds -of -percentage increase over the current traffic on Carnegie, a significant impact to College Park. 8. The Trip Distribution paragraph on Page 9 assigns 35% of the traffic originating from the proposed development onto Harbor Blvd. The flawed assumption is that 0% will travel north on Carnegie and 100% of this traffic will turn right out of the development, right on Fair Drive, through an impacted intersection, and right onto Harbor Blvd. This is pure fantasy and a significant impact to College Park. 9. The Trip Distribution paragraph on Page 9 assigns 40% of the traffic originating from the proposed development onto Fair Drive. The flawed assumption is that 0% will travel through College Park on Bucknell and 100% of this traffic will turn right out of the development and left on Fair Drive through an uncontrolled intersection. This is pure fantasy and a significant impact to College Park. 10. The Trip Distribution paragraph on Pages 9 and 10 does not assign any of the traffic originating from the proposed development onto Bucknell. Without traffic diversions installed as part of the development, none of which are planned or conditioned, this is pure fantasy. Another significant impact to College Park. 11. The Project Conditions, Section 4.0 on Page 15, only counts Existing plus Project traffic. This is misleading as there are two approved projects on Harbor Blvd (Costa Mesa Motor Inn and Merrimac Way) which will generate traffic at the studied intersections and from which traffic studies are available. 12. It is pure fantasy to assume that this development, and only this development, contributes to the existing traffic. By not addressing the cumulative effect of all known projects in the area, this traffic study dismisses the likelihood of drive-through traffic in College Park. This is pure fantasy and any traffic from this development is a significant impact to College Park. 13. The Project Conditions, Section 4.0 on Page 15, only counts Existing plus Project traffic. This is misleading because the City of Costa Mesa's General Plan identifies another three or four parcels on Harbor Blvd for future development to High Density Residential (HDR). The cumulative effect of all these HDR developments will bring Harbor Blvd closer to gridlock than any single, stand-alone traffic study will show. Anecdotal evidence that everyone sits in when waiting for the light to change shows that Harbor Blvd is already spawning significant impacts onto Fair Drive, Merrimac, and College Park with drive-through traffic. 14. The Findings and Recommendations paragraph on page 18 states the proposed project will have no significant impact to the surrounding circulation network. This may be somewhat true. The traffic study briefly identifies an impact on Carnegie and Princeton Avenues but omits all other impacts on Bucknell and through College Park. The omission of these non -circulation network roads from the study must be corrected before the Traffic Study can be considered a real world depiction of the traffic generated by this project. Parlci11g: � 2 Where to start? For one, Exhibit A in the Facts in Support of Findings, Item C, Costa Mesa Municipal Code, handwritten Page 44 on the web link documents and Page 68 in the Planning Commission Agenda Report, Paragraph 5 states that the project proposes a new 5 -level parking structure for 503 covered parking spaces with subterranean parking for a portion of guest spaces, and includes privacy gates for added security. This parking structure is not shown in the drawings. As long as this parking structure is completely underground, the overflow parking problem of this development and from Mediterranean Village apartments is solved! Back to the proposed development. Exhibit A -Facts in Support of Findings, Item C, Costa Mesa Municipal Code, handwritten Page 44 on the web link documents and Page 68 in the in the Planning Commission Agenda Report, Paragraph 6 states there are 14 open guest spaces when only 5 are actually shown. Won't the owners of nine units be surprised to learn that an overnight guest is parking on their driveway and they cannot leave their garage? Exhibit A -Facts in Support of Findings, Item C, Costa Mesa Municipal Code, handwritten Page 44 on the web link documents and Page 68 in the Planning Commission Agenda Report, Paragraph 7 states the project is designed as a self- contained residential community. This statement is the cultural antithesis of College Park. Will the Commissioners condition this development with its own parking permits and zone to guarantee no parking in College Park? Exhibit A -Facts in Support of Findings, Item E, Costa Mesa Municipal Code, handwritten Page 48 on the web link documents and Page 72 in the Planning Commission Agenda Report states the Minor Mod encroachment into the required perimeter open space along Carnegie Avenue will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project. The Planning Staff and Commissioners are aware of the So Cal Gas letter, Attachment 5, handwritten Page 108, which identifies the high-pressure gas line, would now be closer to the homes if this encroachment is allowed. Do you remember San Bruno? SoCal Gas has setback requirements for these valves which are not addressed anywhere in the application package. Conditions of Approval, Exhibit B, handwritten Page 52 on the web link documents and Page 76 in the Planning Commission Agenda Report, Paragraph 5 requires a Parking Management Plan prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy. This Parking Management Plan should be required, approved, and conditioned to be implement in the CC&Rs prior to issuing a Building Permit. If you cannot manage the parking, you should not build the project. This Parking Management Plan must also address where the currently parked vehicles will go AND where the residents' cars will be parked when appliance repair, cable TV, and other service providers are on site. There are only driveway and garage parking available in this self-contained residential development and service providers generally drive commercial vehicles larger than the proposed parking is sized to accommodate. Conditions of Approval, Exhibit B, handwritten Page 57 on the web link documents and Page 80 in the Planning Commission Agenda Report, Paragraph 32 must be made permanent and irrevocable in perpetuity by the HOA, their Board of Directors, or any other governing entity. Eliminating the annual garage inspection is not simply acceptable, Code Requirements section, handwritten Page 60 on the web link documents and Page 84 in the Planning Commission Agenda Report, Paragraph 15 requires parking structure landscaping. This parking structure is not shown in the application documents. Cars and Trucks: Finally, the cars and trucks that will reside in and access the proposed development need real world parking. The proposed development appears to be based on only small to mid-sized cars. No provisions are made for pick-up trucks or delivery vehicles. Did you know that the 2017 Ford F-150 regular cab pick-up truck is 227.9 inches long? That is a 19 -foot long truck that must be parked in a 20'-2-1/2" garage because it will not fit onto the 16 -foot long driveway. U�ti� Do not even think about bringing the 2017 Ford Super Cab truck home. At 243.7 inches length, it will not fit into any of the proposed parking options in this development. In addition, did you know that both trucks are 96.8 inches wide with the mirrors extended? That is an 8 -foot wide truck parking in a 9 -foot wide parking stall. Bet you cannot open the doors and get out with another car next to you. Even with the mirrors folded, the trucks are 83-1/2 wide, or 6 -feet 9 -inches wide. I do not know the door swing needed to get out of the truck but the windows are large enough for a NASCAR -like entry and exit from the vehicle when parked on the property. Looking at an SUV, the Mercedes GL350 is a manageable 16 -foot 9 -1/2 -inches in length. At least this can park in the garage but still cannot park on the driveway. Its 7 -foot width might allow you to open your doors in the 18 -foot wide garage with another car next to you. On the other hand, maybe you can NASCAR your way out from this vehicle too. What could possibly go wrong with this minimized parking plan and standard sized cars and trucks? Will the CC&Rs be written to require all buyers to only own, live, and park only small to mid-size cars? The point if all this is that even though the proposed development meets parking code requirements, the development is so dense and under -sized for the real world as to be unresponsive to the physical realities of the vehicles the prospective buyers will bring to the property. Unless the vehicles can be housed in this self-contained residential community, they will spill out into College Park. This is a significant impact to College Park. This is not an unforeseeable condition. The parking plan in not feasible and must be redesigned or this project must be denied. 440 Fair Drive is a threat to the heart and soul of College Park. This project adversely impacts the quality of life and significantly jeopardizes health and wellbeing of children and animals. If this proposed development is allowed to progress, the taxpaying citizens of Costa Mesa will be saddled with new and additional code enforcement, parking, and property service costs that are not likely forecast in the current City budget. Failure to plan is planning to fail and this project must go back to the drawing boards. The residents of College Park deserve a better than this project. Please deny this project. Sincerely, Brian West 131 LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record From: Bonnie [mailtc:bonmail acbell.netj Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 2:38 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda-green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record Please put me down as one of the MANY Costa Mesa residents opposed to this project. Here are a few of my reasons: • The neighborhood does not want the project, as indicated by the number of residents who turned out to oppose it at the Planning Commission meeting on 11/14/16. • The project design does not include sufficient guest parking. Only 5 guest spots are planned for 28 units. This will cause major issues on streets that are already congested with parked cars. ■ The project design does not fit the existing neighborhood of mid-century single family homes. • The project design abuts the sidewalk on Carnegie. The fact that this requires a variance indicates that it does not meet Costa Mesa's architectural requirements. • The project requires a zoning change from neighborhood commercial to high density residential. The fact that a zoning change is required indicates that the project does not fit the neighborhood where it is situated. • Traffic is already AWFUL in Costa Mesa and we know that more high-density projects are in the pipeline. This project will add to current resident's stress, driving time, and frustration... things that will turn our beautiful city from a pleasant place to live into a congested nightmare. The majority of Costa Mesa citizens attending the meetings that led up to the General Plan were clear about our vision for the City's future. We said, and we meant, that we DO NOT want dense residential or high rise projects. We asked for single family, owner occupied projects that fit the architectural and aesthetic character of our existing neighborhoods. We asked for development that was walk -able and bike -able. We asked for less, traffic, not more! Even though the final plan reflected developer rather than citizen input, we will continue to insist that our vision dominate. WE live here, and we should have the neighborhoods WE want! 440 Fair is an example of the sort of development we DO NOT WANT in Costa Mesa, and should be denied. If you MUST approve dense residential high-rises, please put them in the Mesa Verde neighborhood They clearly do not have their "fair share." J93"wk I?Vpeleli nd Costa Mesa resident since 1992 PVL� LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP16-01 R-16-01 PA 16-46 TT 18064 -----Original Message ----- From: Nancy Perkins [mailto:Zimzala47@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 8:12 AM To: brenda.green@costamesaca.gov. Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair GP16-01 R-16-01 PA 16-46 TT 18064 I am writing on behalf of college park united and against the building of three and four story residendences on the corner of fair and harbor. College Park is a one story residential mid century community which exemplifies family atmosphere. To put these out of character monstrosities on this corner would not only invade privacy block light impact traffic but over saturate the land use. Twenty eight homes with 5 extra guest parking spaces doesn't work. Garage parking is not used for cars doesn't even fit many trucks so they take up the guest parking and where do people park then on public streets overtaking the parking places used by current residents. Very few people have just two cars, especially considering that many of these will probably be rentals. The light will be blocked to the one story homes in college park. There was a time in Costa Mesa when this was an important factor in approving new development but no more. The removal of established trees was also a consideration Has any one looked at superior point not one tree in sight and it will be a long time if ever. And then the things that no one seems to even touch on... what about the impact on schools Schools in Costa Mesa are pretty maxed out and and operating above state mandated class sizes. i don't know how many students the 28 units would produce but I can pretty much bet it has not been a topic of discussion. The infrastrastructure in costa mesa is already outdated and overburdened these things should be taken care of before development. The streets planned to be used for access and egress are subdivision streets from the 50's they are not prepared to carry this extra burden. access directly off of harbor would be more reasonable though perhaps not as convenient for these new residents but atleast they would bear the burden of the traffic they would bring and not the residents of College Park. What contributions is the developer prepared to make to mitigate these issues? The project involves a general plan amendment (therefore does not fall within the general plan) and a land use change from neighborhood commercial to high density residential . It has multiple deviations and variance after variance, administrative adjustment, minor modification encroachment into open space Seriously why do we set the rules and guidelines if they are just going to fall by the wayside but only for large developers and not for the owner builder. I will be glad to see a new council and planning commission be seated so the city can fall in line more with what the city and not the developers want. X_q LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: CM Humphreys (mailto:chumph303@gmaii.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:00 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costa mesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record To: Brenda Green, City of Costa Mesa From: Helen Humphreys, Home Owner, 360 Bucknell Road at Fordham Drive Date: November 20, 2016 I am one of the last original home owners in College Park. We moved to this location from Newport Beach in May of 1957.We liked the area so much we added on to our home as our family grew. It has always been a safe location for the children to travel on foot or bicycle to elementary school, middle school, high school, and Orange Coast College.I think it's important for the young families in College Park to continue to feel safe here. Many of them go by my house with all of the family members on bicycles. I remember 440 Fair Drive when it was a well-maintained medical building and pharmacy. Several of the doctors who practiced there lived in the neighborhood. Unfortunately over the years the owner has chosen to lease to less than desirable businesses which have attracted problems to the area. I recall the history of the Mediterranean Village development. When my husband was Assistant City Attorney and legal advisor to the Planning Commission, he raised the issue with Bill Dunn that there was insufficient parking planned for the development. Nothing was done to address this issue. It was assumed that Harbor Shopping Center would provide overflow parking. It may have been the case early on but later owners of Harbor Shopping Center put a stop to it. Please don't make the same mistake with this development. It's the College Park residents who have :o put up with the short-sightedness. Helen Humphreys 360 Bucknell Road Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.546.6517 Sent on behalf of Helen Humphreys: Cynthia Humphreys 714.955.2321 churnph303 (gmail.com I 3 LOOMIS, RYAN From: Donald Schenk <dwschenk@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 3:54 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record My name is Donald Schenk, I live at 434 Elmhurst Lane, Costa Mesa, California 92626. I bought this home about one year ago. I spent all of my savings on this house to make it my retirement destination. I spent another 40,000 dollars on the property to comply with the requirements of the City of Costa Mesa to bring the electrical, underground waste system and the above ground plumbing up to city code. This was a major hit on my finances as I am 75 years old and past the time of earning new money. The intended major high density project you are looking to approve is actually right across the street from my new home. I will be looking up at 3 and 4 story buildings! The increase in traffic and noise will be immense and my property value will drop like a rock! I moved here to be located inside a very small, quiet, community of like homes and so I have invested both my energy and money and time to do this! Now you are in a position to approve this monstrous, bad project or deny it. I beg of you to stop this bad project! Please do your elected job and protect our city from these very bad projects, sure it lines the pockets of a few, however, it ruins our way of living. I expect you to deny this project! Protect my property rights. Thank you, Donald Schenk 131 LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: "440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record" -----Original Message ----- From: Elizabeth Walker [mailto:walkerhousekeeping@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 11:23 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: "440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record" Dear Brenda, I strongly oppose The developers proposal to tear down the existing office complex, re -zone the land to high-density residential and build 28 homes (3 -story units in front & 4 -story duplex in back) with only 5 guest parking spaces and the entrance on Carnegie at Bucknell. I have lived in Costa Mesa since 1959. 1 am disappointed in the decisions made by our counsel members and city planning as of late. I see a patch work of unattractive costly improvements that share no commonality in the existing landscape. I want to live in a beautiful safe city. I do not opposed change. I support responsible spending to preserve and enhance our city. I do not like over crowding and excessive building. I appears our city officials show no consideration to the tax payers concerns or desires. The residents of College Park do not want this style of dwelling mixed in with our single family homes. I would not oppose a 2 story project that blends in and improves the existing neighborhood. I want to preserve the beautiful trees. These trees filter sound and the pollution generated from Harbor Boulevard. I believe most neighborhoods would oppose a project like this. The general population refer to these units as "ugly colored boxes, that are right up to the street." We are moving toward big city living, over crowding, angry people, increased homeless, beggars, and blaring sirens. Would the residents of Mesa Verde want parts of the golf course dug up to build like units? Absolutely not! A proposal of this nature would be ludicrous and squashed upon verbalizing. As a College Park homeowner I feel the same way. This is my neighborhood. I want my property value to increase not be devalued. I do not want apartment style units in my tract. I do not want more cars that ignore speed limits. These units often house more people that intended. In some instances a family of 3 or more in one room. The West Side and Baker Street Units are examples of multi occupants with multi cars. Inadequate parking that over flows into the housing tracts. Angry home owners with cars parked from outside areas. Imagine 3 stories of unsightly personal belongings stored on balconies, to be viewed by all whom pass by. Last week I saw a roll away bed stored on the flat part of a roof on Wilson Street. Possibly a place to sleep. Where is code enforcement? I am also deeply disappointed in the condescending attitude our council leaders have displayed when addressing fellow members and citizens. It is sad that some of our elected and non elected officials have lowered themselves to play ground bullies. I am also surprised that variances are even considered. We rely on our officials to uphold the rules not bend them. f3a LOOMIS, RYAN P4,q Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: james hambly [mailto:wormwood29@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 1:25 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064/TT-18064 For The Public Record Hello, I have lived at 420 Bucknell Rd. In College Park since 1973. My mother before me bought the home New in 1955. My house is DIRECTLY across the street from the proposed entrance to the proposed development. If the development is voted for, I will and my neighbors will lose our sunsets, lose our trees, lose our crows and other birds, lose our privacy in our backyards including swimming pools, the roof rat problem will get worse because the crows will be gone, it will be even harder to get to my house off of Fair via Carnegie, cars will be constantly going past 2 of my 3 bedrooms that are just several feet away from the street, with the windows pointed to the street, parking issues, traffic, I'm probably missing some problems, oh, yeah, I'm young and hope to live another 30-40 years AND plan on staying in my home. Once these proposed buildings go in, after 20-30 years, they will get run down, people will move ou, then lower income will move in, whilst our neighborhood is a middle to high middle income bracket. Developments like this turned city's that were once like Costa Mesa, into horrible places to live, with bad nicknames, like, GARBAGE GROVE. People that live in Newport Beach have called COSTA MESA, "Costa Misery". So far, I don't feel that at least my neighborhood fits the costa misery name. But if this development goes through, it's only a matter of time where Costa Mesa is less like Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, and more like Garbage Grove and Little Saigon, thus becoming Costa Misery. Thanks for reading my concerns. I am on record for AGAINST the 440 Fair Project, via Prop Y - James Hambly, 420 Bucknell Rd. Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone 1-3 K.� LOOMIS, RYAN From: GREEN, BRENDA Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 9:46 AM To: TRAYLOR, MARIAN; COLGAN, JULIE; LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair Brenda Green City Clerk City of Costa Mesa 714/754-5221 -----Original Message ----- From: Christine Morgan [mailto:christine.morgan@telesproperties.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 9:45 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair Good morning Brenda - I am emailing you to show my SUPPORT for the proposed project at 440 Fair. As a resident of College Park, I would like to see the current building demolished as I believe it is an eye sore. Additionally, I would like to see the potential criminal element associated with the massage parlors removed. Best regards, Christine Morgan, Broker Associate Teles Properties, BRE 01839037 O: 949-734-6220 C: 949-910-1042 Www.ChristineMorganHomes.com 13q LOOMIS, RYAN From: John Hodges <John-Hodges@ca.rr.com> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 3:52 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA Subject: 440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Ms. Green, I wanted to voice my concern about the proposed high density project at 440 Fair Drive. I live in College Park and I am a business owner. My business is located on Superior right next door to the Superior Pointe condos, literally in it's shadows. These 4 -story monstrosities have created a horrible traffic problem in the area and I can no longer safely make a left turn out of my business onto Superior. The Superior/17th Street intersection has become one of the most dangerous intersections in all of costa mesa and will become even worse when this and the many other high density projects on the westside are sold out and filled to capacity! As a resident in a neighborhood where one of these high density projects is being proposed, I am really concerned. I have seen how it has impacted the area around my business and I don't want that in my neighborhood! We live in a quiet family neighborhood with single family homes on decent sized lots. If this property is to be rezoned with access from Carnegie, it should be zoned the same as the rest of our neighborhood, absolutely not high density! John Hodges Owner of Brothers Plumbing at 1675 Superior Resident of College Park at 2519 Columbia Drive 13s LOOMIS, RYAN From: BRUCE MUNSON <bkmunson@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 3:43 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record To whom it may concern: When is enough, enough... As of this writing Costa 'VIesa is already at maximum capacity just by the virtue of 24/7 traffic grid lock on Harbor Blvd. alone due to the recently two large housing developments that hold hundreds of new people surrounding us in our College Park neighborhood. The city is always pounding away at conserving water and yet you want to add more projects and people that are going to be draining our water reserves even more. Also this is going to be putting more and more strain on our already overburdened infrastructure i.e. sewers, water supply/ delivery, electrical, road repair, etc. Many of us long time Costa Mesa residents (46 yrs.) have experienced continued growth and expansion to the point of "critical mass" which we are now at, right NOW! So go back and look at the real practicality of implementing this hair brain project and quit giving in to the politics of the desires of some builder/ contractor who doesn't care about the people only the MONEY they are going to get and hopefully no kick backs to the city because that would not be right thing to do at this or any other time. Regards, William Munson 1 3� LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Attachments: DSC06181.JPG; DSC06182.JPG; DSC06183.JPG From: emy bowman[mailto:emygenesattic@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 2:31 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Cc: lorirobnett@aol.com Subject: Fw: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record On Sunday, November 20, 2016 2:10 PM, emy bowman <emygenesattic(-3a.sbc-global,net> wrote: Nov. 20, 2016 Good Morning, My name is Emy Bowman. I live at 2502 Carnegie Ave., Costa Mesa. The Bowman family has been Costa Mesa residents since 1962 and Carnegie Ave residents since 1967. 1 want to thank you for the opportunity to have my opinion of the 440 Fair Drive Project entered into public record. - I do not mind the commercial building right across the street. For many years it filled a need for the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. I do mind the decline of upstanding businesses that have worked from that location. I didn't like the late nights and meetings in the parking lot for the hookah lounge. Didn't like the multiple number of medicinal marijuana businesses with the smell of the joint smoking groups that would meet in the back of the building. Don't like the multiple massage parlors that fronted for prostitution, some of which are still there. Didn't like the unsightly containers in the back parking lot, which are finally gone. With all that I didn't and still don't like about that building, in my opinion it could be a home for thriving businesses. If it is decided that the zoning MUST be changed, why not R-1? Why High Density Residential? We already have HDR right across the street from us on Fair Drive. We already have many cars parking on Carnegie that belong to very late night guests and/or overnight guests. We constantly clean up trash that has been thrown out as they clean our their vehicles... wrappers, cans, bottles, etc. HDR overload. Do you know how voices carry at night? We hear the parties and even conversations as the guests of Mediterranean are leaving or residents are walking their pets at night. Three and four stories, some with open top decks? I hear it already. Directly across the street from Carnegie's first four established homes will be eight THREE story homes with back patios facing us. The design of almost any new homes can be desirable, but not twice as many, close together, making it look like row houses or even apartments. I believe...... CD -7A.2 - Preserve the character and scale of Costa Mesa's established residential neighborhoods; where residential development or redevelopment is proposed, require as a condition of approval that it is consistent with the prevailing character of existing development in the immediate vicinity, and that it does not have a substantial adverse impact on the adjacent areas. the proposed building plan does not fit into this category. This project is in the neighborhood of College Park, not Mediterranean Village, or it would be on the other side of Fair Drive. We are not high density nor are we 3 and/or 4 stories high. On Mesa Verde East, there is a commercial 2 acre parcel that is debating 16 R-1 zoned homes. Here we have 28 homes on 1.6 acres! Why is that?? I'll tell you why .... $$$greed$$$. It's all about the money. When I look across the street at 440 1 can see by the height that the 3 story homes are going to be like huge walls, right in our faces. The trees are beautiful. Between the leaves and the trees we see our beautiful sunsets that we look forward to nightly. That is important to us, as well -as the breezes we enjoy. On our street we are fortunate enough to rarely have to use our air conditioners. When we walk north on Carnegie, the breeze is cut down a bit, but these high rise homes will really block those breaths of fresh air. Now, how about our loss o privacy? We are fortunate to have a large back yard, but we already have the apartment balconies right across Fair Drive overlooking our yard. Now we will have the three and four story homes in the front. Its just way too much. How about that parking??? I can't imagine that a home with 4 cars are going to park 2 in the garage and 2 in the drive, Would you? Who's going to want to park in the garage and have someone else park behind them in the driveway? Playing musical chairs ... errr.. musical cars? They will be parking in the streets of the College Park neighborhood. There are 1IJJ more streets than just Carnegie that already have parking problems with Mediterranean Village parking. How about that traffic? Yes, more problems. The argument that the traffic from the commercial building is higher than that of the 28 homes is not a valid excuse. You see, the traffic from 440 Fair Drive does not dump out into our neighborhood. You are comparing apples to cans of spam .... not the same. It will affect more than just College Park. Take a drive through our local thoroughfares at peak times, you'll then understand. What is wrong in keeping with the "flavor" of Costa Mesa? Does it really have to have so many people jammed into small spaces. It's happening more and more and it's time to slow down. The warm, cozy small time feel that drew people to Costa Mesa is just about gone. It's so very sad. Oh ya, it's about the $$$greed$$$. Thank you, Emy Bowman IJ� N --q LOOMIS, RYAN From: Fionnuala <figthepig@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 2:16 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: College Park 440 Fair project To Whom it May Concern, The 440 Fair project leaves our family with many concerns. Mostly, we are concerned about the increase in traffic. We live on the corner of Bucknell and Fordham. We want this to be a safe neighborhood for our young 3 children. We would have never bought a house on this street 2 years ago if we had known about his project. We don't want people cutting through the neighborhood. Our street will become high traffic and I would never have bought a house on a street like this. Also, it seems there is not enough parking in this proposed complex (5 guest spots). Since we know not everyone parks in their garage, there will be a lot of people using our streets to park, taking parking away from existing residents. The only driveway for access to the 440 Fair complex is on Carnegie at Bucknell. It seems the traffic issues could be solved by making the driveway access on Harbor Blvd. Then those residents could come and go via Harbor Blvd. and not our neighborhood. Another issue for many resident in our neighborhood is privacy. Since most of our homes are one story, this new complex will stand high above many of our homes. These residents will have no privacy with 3-4 story units hovering about them. Please take our concerns seriously. This project greatly impacts our neighborhood. Many of us moved here because of this being a small neighborhood. Thank you. Fionnuala Fitzgeorge 366 Bucknell Road 714-454-3326 61 LOOMIS, RYAN From: Michael Taylor <scuba@pacbell.net> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 11:16 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA Cc: info@collageparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record To Whom It May Concern, We have lived in the Collage Park area for the last 10 years. We Truly enjoy the neighborhood feel that Collage Park offers. As you know we deal with the fair every year, but with the fair, we know its only for a short time and it is something we all enjoy. The impact of this new development would be detrimental to our wonderful neighborhood and unlike the fair it would increase traffic and congestion year round. In our opinion this new development would have a severe and negative impact on our wonderful neighborhood. Please take into account our concerns when making this decision. Thank you Michael Taylor 2513 Littleton Place No N-9 LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: "440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record" -----Original Message ----- From: Elizabeth Walker [mailto:walkerhousekeeping@yahoo.comj Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 5:57 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: "440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record" Dear Brenda, As a concerned citizen of Costa Mesa I question the judgments and motives of our Elected and Non Elected Officials. The request for high density plus more variances (bending the rules) that single residents have to adhere to. Proposing the removal of an existing office complex, mature parkway trees to re -zone the land to high density residential and build 28 homes (3 -story units in the front & 4 -story duplexes in the back) with only 5 guest parking spaces and the entrances on Carnegie at Bucknell. I am not sure of the benefit this project will serve our community. However this eyesore will devalue the College Park Neighborhood. This is an established community. The residents purchased the properties for what they offered. We did not seek communities that had apartment style living intermixed among single family homes. I if that was my intent, I would have purchased a home in the East or West Side of Costa Mesa. My concerns of the judgements of some of our CITY OFFICIALS is prompted by their support of the legalization of Marajuanian and the proposed sites of dispensaries before the law was passed. The horse before the cart. It has not served Colorado well. At best we have to deal with drivers under the influence, on our overcrowded streets, who presently.BEND THE RULES. The law is absurd to partake of this drug in your own home if you are 21 years or older. WHEN PEOLPE BEND THE RULES. Not to mention -the -fact -that -no -test have -been implemented -to detect drivers -under the influence. To further my suspensions I watched the council meeting on TV Friday November 18 TH. It appeared Mayor Steve Mensinger had awarded a contract of planting in his neighborhood before it was approved. I recall $250,000 budget for mature specimen plants. He was challenging Katrina Foley and a citizen over the heavy budget and high maintenance associated with the project, rebuking savings of $35,000 or more on plant material desired was insignificant and petty. He also had to be asked by Katrina Foley several times to leave the chair. She reminded him he had a conflict of interest. Apparently he had received campaign contributions from the vendor, I recall a $1000. He left in a sharp manner, again after being asked several times. Prior to him leaving he and vendor fought vehemently for the planting of specimen foliage of their choice in Mesa Verde community. This is Mensinger's community. The mater as I recall was postponed. I call fowl. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. 1 am with Kartina this $35,000 to $50,000 savings could be could be better spent elsewhere. She mentioned the schools. I see other problems in our community as a priority, such as homeless, code violations lack of police officers, the list goes on. LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For Public Record From: Patrick R. Clark [mailto:Patriclark@ca.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 6:18 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.areen@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For Public Record Patrick Clark Kimberly Aikin 2431 Duke Place Costa Mesa, CA. 92626 November 20, 2016 Planning Commission, PH y We are 26 year residents of College Park and 50 year residents of Costa Mesa. We are writing to voice our opposition to the proposed Zoning change for AP #141-421-23 from Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Development Residential High Density. Though not without some sympathy for the subject property owner's rights of ownership this seems no more sensible to us than acquiring 8 contiguous homes within College Park then requesting a Zoning change to Commercial. College Park, as the City is well aware, is already under street parking stress as the result of higher density developments abutting us on three sides; The Mediterranean Apt's. to the West of College Dr., The duplex rental units and apartments to the South of Wilson and the Monticello Condos, Pine Creek Apt's., Fairgrounds and Amphitheatre to the East. The proposed project would only foster further off site parking. Not conversant in Planning speak, we can only add our perception of recently completed and similar developments throughout the city; the speed of Zoning change, degree and number of Deviations included in those Changes would indicate an urgency never expressed by the residents. We were in attendance at the Commission meeting 11/14/16 even though the public hearing on PH 12 was rescheduled until 11/21/16. We were encouraged that so many residents approached the podium in opposition to this development. It gives one pause to wonder, not just how this proposal had ever gotten this far this fast, but who's interest the commission is upholding. Regards, Patrick Clark & Kimberly Aikin INS LOOMIS, RYAN From: GREEN, BRENDA Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 9:35 AM To: TRAYLOR, MARIAN; COLGAN, JULIE; LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Brenda Green City Clerk City of Costa Mesa 714/754-5221 From: Daniel Thomas Morgan [mailto:danielthomasmorgan@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 9:24 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Good morning Brenda - I am emailing you to show my SUPPORT for the proposed project at 440 Fair. As a resident of College Park, I would like to see the current building demolished as I believe it is an eye sore. Additionally, I would like to see the potential criminal element associated with the massage parlors removed. Sincerely, Daniel Thomas Morgan 2424 Andover P1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOOMIS, RYAN PR' y Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record From: Paulette Pattullo fmailto:paulettepattullo@icloud.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 9:19 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record To whom it may concern, I am an owner resident in College Park at 284 Bucknell Road. I chose to purchase my home in College Park, in the city of Costa Mesa for the wonderful, family friendly, quiet, safe, neighborhood. The proposed development at 440 Fair Drive, tearing down an existing office complex, re -zoning the land to high-density 3-4 story, 28 homes with only 5 guest parking spaces will most negatively impact all College Park as well as Costa Mesa residents in multiple ways and needs to be terminated. According to the developers at a recent meeting at City Hall, their statement that the city of Costa Mesa would not allow an entrance on Fair Drive, but, instead, only on Carnegie at Bucknell Road to the proposed development, brings forth great concern about traffic congestion as well as traffic hazards for all Costa Mesa citizens, not only College Park residents. One of the reasons that I chose to purchase a home in College Park in particular, was due to the lovely residential neighborhood with little traffic on the streets. Admittedly, the city of Costa Mesa for a residence was not at the top of my list when considering a city for a home purchase. However, when I became acquainted with College Park environs and the quiet, safe residential neighborhood, I was convinced that this was the neighborhood where I would choose to purchase my home and reside. The proposed development will most certainly cause the quality of life for me and my neighbors to drastically decline. Presently, due to various Apps, more drivers are choosing to cut through Bucknell Road, ostensibly to avoid traffic on Fair Drive. Since purchasing my peaceful, quiet home more than 3 years ago, the traffic on Bucknell Road has increased significantly. My home is adjacent to the dedicated pedestrian walk way, with a clearly marked crosswalk, created for the purpose of children walking to College Park Elementary School. Unfortunately, I regularly observe drivers driving pell-mell on Bucknell R ad at a high rate of speed, ) `� with little regard for pedestrians, including children and elderly residents, apparently in an attempt to avoid traffic on Fair Drive. With the proposed development's only egress on Carnegie/Bucknell Road, it is obvious that many more vehicles will travel down Bucknell Road on the way to several freeways and major thorough fares. In conclusion, this proposed development will ultimately cost the City of Costa Mesa much more than dissatisfied residents in College Park. It is not difficult to predict traffic accidents, injuries/possible fatalities to citizens, and property damage due to greatly increased traffic flow. Necessary call outs by Costa Mesa Fire, Police and Paramedics in response to the increased traffic hazards on Bucknell Road as well as other streets in College Park will over tax city coffers with the demand for Emergency Services. This proposed development must be terminated or at the very least significantly revised immediately in order to maintain the safety of Costa Mesa residents and not place more of a burden on this city's resources. Please feel free to contact me with any pertinent questions or comments. Sincerely, Paulette Pattullo 284 Bucknell Road Costa Mesa, CA 92626 pauletteyattullo(@icloud.com BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: Jeanie [mailto:aprilbjs@sb global.netj Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 3:05 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costarnesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Please mark this for formal disapproval of this zoning change & project The impact of the high-density project with the entrance/exit on Carnegie will impact the quality of life for the residents as well as the safety of all, including pets. The increase of traffic will also impact Harbor Blvd, via Princeton and will turn Carnegie into a very busy street. Also, the change of the neighborhood charm. Please do not destroy the trees and the College Park neighborhood. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Jeanie <a rilbis sbc lobal.net> To: "cityclerkacostamp:e ca.goy" <cityclerk ,_costamesaca.gov> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 11:53 AM Subject: Concerned resident - 2544 Carnegie Ave - rezoning impact Hello, Being a resident of Costa Mesa for over 30 years and enjoying the general plan for our area as Neighborhood Commercial; the news of a rezoning initiative is being considered for 440 Fair Drive. Personally, the negative impact for our household would far exceed the positive -Just as a minimum, here are a few: • Traffic increase - danger to the children/pets, etc. • Water use increase - we are in a drought • Power use - our area is already included on a wide area grid, which has seen increased power outages Neighborhood -wide. Obviously - same impact as our household but also 1. Privacy issues with a 2-3 story structures 2. Access to -from the new structure on Carnegie creates congestion 3. Breezes/airflow will be eliminated to the houses 4. Removing the restaurant, other local business conveniences 5. Destroying the beautiful trees which also act a heat shade & contribute to our clean air I am writing to ask the Costa Mesa City Council to consider an alternative plan or to abandon this rezoning action. Please accept this notice for review & consideration. Thank you. Respectfully, Beverly Jean Schwenk (Jeanie) 2544 Carnegie Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 )Lfllrn' (714) 545-6491 N —4 COLGAN, JULIE Subject: 440 Fair - SUPPORT From: Johnson, Jordan maiito:JBJ eamc.ccm] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 10:41 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda. reen costamesaca. av> Subject: 440 Fair - SUPPORT Good Morning Brenda - I am emailing you to show my strong SUPPORT for the proposed project at 440 Fair. As a resident and homeowner in College Park (2403 College Dr), I would like to see the current building demolished and replaced with a quality project. Additionally, I would like to see the removal of the sketchy massage parlors currently occupying part of the current improvements. Thank you for your attention and consideration on this matter. Best, Jordan B. Johnson, CFA Vice President EMMES Realty Services of California, LLC 3161 Michelson, Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92612 T: (949) 852-8900 1 C: (949) 212-1999 www.emmesco.com EMMES* a 0 0 0° Disclaimer added by CodeTwo Exchange Rules 2010 www.codetwo.com 1q7 COLGAN, JULIE Subject: 440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: Mark Meyers mailto:mark me ers mail.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 10:17 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda,green@costamesaca.gov_> Subject: 440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA -16-46/17-18064 For The Public Record Costa Mesa City Council Members, My name is Mark Meyers and I am a resident of College Park, on Elmhurst Lane specifically. I have been following the plans for the proposed project at 440 Fair somewhat closely, and am growing more and more concerned as more information is released. It has come to my attention that the parking situation within this development will be under served, and as such, tenants/owners of the 440 project would be granted neighborhood parking permits. As a resident of the street that borders the proposed development, I am convinced that the lack of public parking within the development walls will lead to spillover parking and traffic on my street. Current residents should not be punished or have to scramble to figure out parking for ourselves and our guests because of poor planning and a developer trying to squeeze as many homes onto the lot as possible. I certainly shouldn't have to be worried about increased traffic being a detriment to the ability for my children to play safely in front of our house, especially when we made it a point to buy a home within a cul-de-sac for that very purpose. It seems abundantly clear that the decision to move forward with this project is to drive a hefty profit for those involved, rather than a focus on truly improving the neighborhood that I call home. If the 440 lot is going to be re -developed, it must be done with a more sensible approach, and one that will not impede on the standard of living that we looked forward to when we bought our home. To move forward with the project as is would be to ignore the wishes of the established residents, many who have called the neighborhood home for 30 -plus years. Regards Mark Meyers iNd COLGAN, JULIE Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Record From: Jack Morrison mailto:275imm mail.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:03 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Cc: info Pcollegeparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Record AGAINST PROPOSED housing project. Bad for neighborhood, environment and eventual denumeration of total property tax revenue for the College Park area. Bad for the schools. I also feel that the contractor proposing this project willfully presented false information to the city. Find a better contractor with a better project. Jack Morrison Nq BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: Sean Baume [mailto:sbaume recisiono tical.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 2:57 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brend a, reen castamesaca. ov> Subject: [BULK] 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Importance: Low To whom it may concern, As a lifelong resident of College Park and 3`d generation Costa Mesan, I find it ridiculous to rezone 440 Fair Dr. to high density residential. Traffic concerns, which, ultimately lead to safety concerns are at the head of this issue, Nor does the current plan look anything like the homes in College Park. I have no problem with renewing the community with new development. Why can't we just add more homes that model the current homes in College Park? NO HIGH DENSITYM Sean Baume Quality Control Technician Precision Optical Phone 949-631-6800 [Email] sbaume recisiono tical.coni This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential, privileged, and proprietary information. It may also contain technical data as defined in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Neither this information, nor any portion of the information contained herein, may be exported, released or disclosed to any foreign entity or foreign national inside or outside of the United States without first obtaining required U.S. Government approval or a validated export license. Violators of the ITAR are subject to a penalties or fines, under 22 U.S.C. 2778. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete this email BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Subject: FW: 440FairGP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 for the public record From: Rick Cirino [mailto:encdr@ca.rr.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 2:49 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440FairGP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/17-18064 for the public record Sirs Please do not approve this project. Life around here will degrade by 25%, and we like it the way it is now. Traffic is getting bad on every major street, and in College park. This high density housing is a curse to the neighborhood. Do not approve this project. Richard N. Cirino 244 Bucknell Rd. Costa Mesa, Calif. Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 14481 (20161121) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. hLtp://www.eset.com 15-1 I PH �4 City 440 fair Nov 2116 Re: the 28 -unit housing project proposed for 440 Fair Drive. To Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council: I want to reiterate in the strongest terms my objections to the 440 Fair project, as I already described at length in my previous letter of November 14. A summary: This project is unacceptable based on the following. 1. It is wrong both in actual, immediate application and as a precedent for the whole city to allow entrance to higher -density zoning, and especially to a high-density development through an R1 residential zone. This single wrong start is detrimental to privacy, traffic, and parking availability, and makes all the other intrusions and variances requested for this project even more unacceptable. 2. Destruction of city -owned trees as a gift to a developer. 3. Height totally incompatible with the neighborhood. 4. **Inusfficient open space to allow optimal replenishment of the aquifer. (I did not see this objection in the summary of problems with the project. Please add it. 5. Disregard of the wishes of the whole city as evidenced by the extraordinary support for Measure Y. If you have any doubts about the severity of these problems, please reread my letter of November 14. **Two additional issues: 1. The staff report mentions the below: "Code violations still remain on the property....Staff does not support granting additional entitlements to a property that is in violation of an existing conditional use permit or is out of compliance with applicable codes." A common tactic of developers is to run a property down and then ask for special favors to make it "better than what's there." This is unacceptable. 2. Because of proximity to other new developments, this project may fall under the principles of Measure Y and not be allowed at all. Thank you for your time, and especially, thank you to the staff for their hard work. Tamar Goldmann 1ST BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Subject: FW: GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 From: Gregory Tong [mailto:gregrkytek@att.net] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 2:48 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <bre nda.green@costamesaca.gov> Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 To Whom It May Concern: I am a resident of College Park, Costa Mesa, and have lived at 2556 Greenbriar Lane since 1989. I'm also a retired architect. The proposed housing project at the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Fair Drive with Carnegie Avenue on the eastern border, is just too dense a project for the low-density, mid -twentieth century development known as College Park. Stop packing the vacant and underdeveloped parcels with high-density housing. If the City of Costa Mesa city planners won't control overdevelopment then we as citizens need to replace you. Greg Tong Costa Mesa, CA GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064: 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONE, PLANNING APPLICATION FOR MASTER PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW THE 2. DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 3 TWO-STORY RETAIL/OFFICE CENTER AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF 8 NEW THREE- STORY DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS AND 20 FOUR-STORY DUPLEX UNITS AT 440 FAIR DRIVE November 21, 2016 Dear Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, We are writing to you today to express our opposition for the proposed housing project in and around 440 Fair Drive. The College Park neighborhood is currently zoned for low density single family residences. This is the main reason we live here. A majority of the homes are single story homes. The high density residences currently around the College Park neighborhood (The Mediterranean Village and The Monticello) already create too much crime and traffic including murders in both communities, The proposed project is not in scale and character to the existing neighborhood. The 3 and 4 story units would create privacy issues for the long time residents in the neighborhood. Also we feel the city has not been transparent with the details of the project and this project does not protect the current residents of this city. This project has a great appearance of corruption by city officials. Sincerely, Andrew and Jean Bergelin (College Park Residents) And Charles and Yoko Zirkel (College Park Residents) I -q 14 November 2016 Julie Foster 232 Amherst Road (2529 Littleton Place, family home 1963-2015) Costa Mesa CA 92626 City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department/Planning Division 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa CA 92626 RE: proposed project 440 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa 92626 Gentlemen of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Division: PN=q Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department NOV 212016 College Park became my family's home in 1963. It's been a safe and peaceful neighborhood through the decades, and residents would like to keep it that way. In just the past few years College Park has lost many of its original and long-time residents as they've moved to assisted living or passed away - two of the seemingly most common reasons one leaves College Park. Many of the new families who have chosen to purchase their homes in this special enclave have based their decisions to buy and live in College Park on its qualities of quietude and its well-established sense of tranquility. With that in mind, the proposed project for the C1 property at 440 Fair Drive, CM 92626, raises many concerns that would have a detrimental effect upon not only the residents of College Park, but the future of residents of other established neighborhoods of our lovely city who could find themselves up against the same threat, the loss of their neighborhoods as they know and love them by way of developers' satisfied desires. Among concerns I have about the proposed 440 Fair Drive project: - Increase of automotive traffic within College Park: it brings noise, loitering, littering, emissions, excessive activity (some illegal), and safety concerns for all residents; - Overuse of an already overburdened infrastructure: the streets of College Park are badly in need of resurfacing as it is; - Insufficient onsite parking for residents and visitors of the proposed high density project: this insufficiency has been a very real problem for the long-time neighboring high density Mediterranean Village whose residents and their guests experience insufficient parking and are unable to park on Carnegie and some neighboring streets as City -issued parking permits are required for College Park residents and their guests. Permitted parking preserves residents' parking and discourages loitering, littering and "lovers' lane" activities in front of and near their homes, problems that )57 come with overflow parking; College Pharmacy does not offer parking to non -patrons. Furthermore, the proposed project's sole entrance on Carnegie would erode potential street parking by several spaces. Entrance/Exit on Carnegie: would adversely affect the quality of life these families now enjoy, not only on Carnegie but all routes leading to Carnegie; property values could be significantly affected, and no longer could College Park be considered a nice, quiet neighborhood; Loss of natural light to College Park homes: repealing height requirements for the sake of the developer's desires is a direct imposition to our neighborhood's quality of life. The ill effects, literally, would be felt by Carnegie residents with darkening of the day by loss of natural light approaching around midday. At dusk that light is unobstructed; felt and seen all the way down Bucknell Road to Columbia Drive. Natural light is life, we value it, and the beautiful sunsets we enjoy bring us out, sometimes with cameras, to our yards and driveways; familiarity and friendships have actually been forged over the beauty of the setting sun in our College Park. Removal of several beautiful trees along Carnegie: tho the trees are on the property of the proposed project, those trees add not only beauty, but symbolize one of the beloved traits of central Costa Mesa's College Park as a well-established neighborhood of over 55 years. And, after all, Costa Mesa is an official "Tree City". Maintaining 440 Fair Drive's Zone as C1 (Local Business District) and Land Use Designation as NC (Neighborhood Commercial), while maintaining the boundaries of setbacks with no entrance and no exit, neither to nor from Carnegie, with density restrictions and height restrictions (maximum 2 -story) would be most desirous; include with that realistic and sufficient parking considerations. So I ask, Gentlemen, please require that the developer of this proposed project be required to build within the current parameters of density restrictions, height restrictions and setbacks; deny special requests and deviation from variances. Costa Mesa's College Park is our home; we are its families Thank you, each one of you, for your consideration. Most Sincerely, Julie Foster College Park Resident COLGAN, JULIE Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: Jim Lindsay <iflindsay2002@_yahoo.com> Date: Mon, November 21, 2016 11:20 am To: "brenda reen costa mesa. ov" <brenda,green@costamesa._Cav> As a long time College Park resident, I adamantly oppose the aforemetioned development, as well as others along the Harbor Blvd. corridor. This project would do little or nothing to enhance the community, but would be detrimental to property values in every surrounding neighborhood. It would also create traffic problems associated with developments like this, as well as require infrastructure upgrades that plagued the development of the other side of Harbor Blvd. for months. Please vote against approval of this project. Jim Lindsay 208 Loyola Rd. Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626. /sV COLGAN, JULIE Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/17-18064 From: Kathryn Waterman <kateyb4@pacbeli.net> Date: Thu, November 17, 2016 9:13 pm To: brenda.green@costamesa.gov Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com To Whom It May Concern, We feel that this development will be extremely disruptive to the quality of life in our neighborhood. One thing we don't need is an increase in traffic as it is already becoming an issue in our neighborhood. Please take the concerns of ourselves as well as our College Park neighbors into consideration when making your decision. Thank you. y-1 R-4 COLGAN, JULIE Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 From: Carol Morrison [mailto:275cam.m@email.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 1:56 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda�. _reen@Costamesa_c_a,gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 Members of the Planning Commission: As 47 -year residents of College Park, we would like to express our objection to the plans to build a high-density project at 440 Fair Drive. • We believe that the traffic studies that were conducted for this project are inaccurate and did not take into consideration that all traffic generated by the current commercial use is emptying onto Fair Drive, whereas this project will direct all cars onto Carnegie. Most of those cars will either turn left on Carnegie and proceed to Princeton Drive for access to Fairview or Harbor or continue straight down Bucknell so that they can exit onto Fair Drive at a traffic signal. At a meeting between the residents and the developer a month or two ago, this was pointed out to the developer by the residents present and made no impact. As I recollect, the traffic study projected about 280 trips per day would be generated by these 28 homes, and yet I pointed out as retirees, my husband and I alone had generated 14 trips ourselves in ONE DAY. The architectural style doesn't fit with the current neighborhood of single-family (mostly one story) residence. Most families now own 2-3 cars, which will possibly be able to park in the garage and driveway for each building; however, five guest parking spaces for 28 homes is totally unreasonable. It will be necessary for the majority of guests to park on the adjoining streets. Adding 28 homes and duplexes in this limited area is equal to adding the same number of homes which are currently on THREE BLOCKS of Bucknell—the cul de sac streets ranging from Carnegie to Colby to Lehigh to Fordham. In summary, we are asking you to deny this project. Thank you for your consideration. Carol and Jack Morrison COLGAN, JULIE Subject: Stop High Density Housing in Costa Mesa From: Dwain/Gaelyn Pautsch[mailto:snowflake4famiiy@vahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 1:40 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda, reen costamesaca. ov>; info@col!egeoarkunited.com Subject: Stop High Density Housing in Costa Mesa Dear City of Costa Mesa, Stop High Density Housing in Costa Mesa !!! This would be the worst decision the City of Costa Mesa could ever make. Traffic and parking is just some of the major concerns. I live on Nassau Road and Mediterranean Village is using our street (Nassau Rd) to park their cars, leave trash, play load music at night, ruining private property... etc. It took over a year to get a non-resident sign posted from College to Fordham on Nassau Rd. Now, Mediterranean Village people are parking on Nassau Rd, between Fordham and Vassar. I have taken photos of cars parking (non-residents) parking, we have talked to the City and all we get is "We are reviewing the parking policy" and its going on 3 years. This is not even talking about kids playing and their endangerment with more traffic on the Nassau Rd. So, If 440 Fair project passes, more traffic more parking issues will arise and it will be on Nassau Rd and someone getting injured. Just look at the current problem, until the City post (non-residential) more parking signs, my property is headed lower with non residents parking on our streets and leaving trash and not caring about my neighborhood. Dwain Pautsch 341 Nassau Rd Costa Mesa, CA 92626 November 20, 2016 Brenda Green City Clerk, CEO's Office City of Costa Mesa City Hall RE: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 "FOR PUBLIC RECORD" To Whom It May Concern: Tiffany Hamilton 414 Bucknell Road Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department NOV 212016 I am writing in opposition of the 440 project that is being considered by the city of Costa Mesa. I have been a resident of College Park for over 21 years now and love our quiet neighborhood. My grandparents were long-time residents prior to that time and moved into College Park back in the late 1960's. The 440 project being considered would greatly impact me personally and my residence as I am only 3 houses from Carnegie. While many of us college park residents have not been happy with the tenants that the current property owner has chosen to lease to, it doesn't lend for tearing it down and replacing it with 28 high density residential housing that will not only impact the traffic and safety on our quiet streets, it will impact our parking for our fami ly and guests. One of my concerns is that the increased traffic would impact the safety of the children and animals playing in the neighborhood, as it would only increase the traffic down Bucknell as well as Princeton. Another concern I have is the impact it will have on the parking situation directly in front of our houses. We had previous problems with this that involved the l SOI neighboring apartments, which is why the city agreed to provide the college park residents with permit parking. If the city were to approve this project, it would only further impact our parking situation as the plans clearly show that there is NOT enough parking for the residents of this project or their guests. Therefore, it would be a direct impact on the parking for our family members and our visiting guests. I don't believe that the city should agree to rezoning the property from commercial to residential, but instead consider ways of rebuilding the current shopping center and bringing it up to today's standards. I believe a more favorable option would be to tear down the current center and rebuild it with family friendly options, such as a local coffee/bagel shop, and some family friendly restaurants where our current college park families could walk down and support. It is my thought that the college park residents would be more favorable to this option, which would not impact our parking, or traffic and safety concerns down our currently quiet streets. There is no reason for more housing in this area of Costa Mesa. It was zoned for commercial for a reason, and it should be kept commercial and updated with better tenants that our local neighborhood would be happy to support. We have more than enough housing in Costa Mesa that has already impacted and increased the traffic on Fair Drive as well as Harbor Boulevard with the addition of Azulon and the current multi -family apartments currently being built off Harbor and Merrimac which were also zoned as "commercial properties." I have discussed this 440 project with many of the residents in college park, and have NOT found one of the residents that supports this project. If this project moves forward, it will only destroy our quiet neighborhood and the beauty of what College Park has become. Please consider keeping the property zoned as commercial and rebuild it as it was designed to be, "commercial property." Regards, Tiffany Hamilton College Park Resident 1P. COLGAN, JULIE Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT18064 For the Public Record From: J Drain [mailto:idrain01maii.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 1:10 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green costamesaca� > Cc: LOOMIS, RYAN <RYAN.LOOM I5 costamesaca. o > Subject: Fwd: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT18064 For the Public Record Date: Nov 21, 2016 7:13 > > *Hard copy hand delivered to City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa > Jim Drain > 427 Princeton Drive > Costa Mesa, CA 92626 idrainOingmail.com > 20th November, 2016 > Mr. Ryan Loomis > AICP / Associate Planner > City of Costa Mesa > 77 Fair Drive > Costa Mesa, CA 92628 > Subject: > 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record > Dear Sir, Planning Commission, City Council, > I would like to be on the record as a College Park homeowner, who is opposed to the project at 440 Fair Drive. > The developer is proposing a zone change from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential (HDR). As Costa Mesa residents, the Planning Commissioncrs must realize that this zoning change does not 11 V� keep with the character of the neighborhood. I believe a similar zoning change request was made some years back, and was denied, due to being incompatible with the surrounding properties. The surrounding properties, the residents, have not changed for this rezoning request to make any more sense now than it did then. > College Park is already affected by the under -parked, High Density Residential apartments, Mediterranean Village. An additional high density complex in College Park will only serve to further detract from our quality of life, increase safety concerns and decrease property values. Please reject this zoning change request and preserve our quality of life in our College Park Community! > Traffic is already heavy in College Park, which should be a quiet neighborhood. Cars speed down Carnegie & Princeton, Bucknell & Fordham, some cars cutting through to Fair, some to Fairview. The Traffic Division is well aware of these current hazards, and is currently working with neighbors to address them. Traffic will only increase with this proposed project as well as with all the projects currently in development at Harbor and Merrimac and the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. At least the current property has egress on Fair. The proposed plan would make the only entry/exit onto Bucknell at Carnegie. How is that GOOD COMMUNITY PLANNING? > Our neighborhood streets, are used regularly by school children, walkers, cyclists, joggers, skateboarders, etc., who do not deserve to be burdened with even more traffic that a high density development like 440 Fair would generate. > Before considering this project at Fair and Harbor, good Planning Commissioners should have a detailed traffic impact report for College Park which encompasses the approved developments and the future developments at the Fairview Developmental Center property. > The parcel at 440 Fair is too small for the number of units proposed. Too small for the requested zoning change, numerous variances (i.e. reduced setbacks), building heights which are not allowed in College Park, and removal of mature, shade -giving and habitat sustaining trees. > All these deviations to this Rl neighborhood ignore many of the reasons that our current homeowners chose to live in College Park. In fact, many residents in Costa Mesa have been ignored where recent high density developments have impacted their RI neighborhoods and their quality of life. > Please hear and heed our concerns regarding this project & have the developer come back with plans for a development that more closely mirrors the look and feel of our R1 College Park neighborhood. > Alternatively, I believe that a good landlord could acquire the good tenancy that, for 35-40 years, thrived in this location: the doctors, the dentists, a pharmacy and other health and wellness related businesses. This return to good stewardship would again serve the needs of the community and relieve us of the current `blight'. > Sincerely, > Jim Drain R-4 COLGAN, JULIE Subject: 440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: joslyn mcnaughton mailtojosl nincal whoo,cornl Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 1:11 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca-ov> Subject: Re: 440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Dear Ms. Brenda Green, I heard their will be a traffic study in College Park on Princeton. The traffic engineers, James Lizzi and Ruth Smith that will complete the study are highly trained and understand traffic patterns and their implications. I am requesting that my street, Loyola and Fair Dr are included in the study. The light at the corner of Fair and Loyola has long been a EXTREME hazard. It finally happened last year, a truck went through the light crashed into a pole and the city as well as the driver were lucky there was no fatality... this time. Over the years I have called and spoke to many people at the City of Costa Mesa about this intersection and the problem of RED LIGHT RUNNING.. Drivers blow through the light on Loyola and Fair ALL the time especially coming from Fairview because of the curve of Fair Dr. before Loyola road. Our family has almost hit/would of been hit, by a speeding motorist that run the light at Loyola to many times to count! Drivers run the light from both directions. This summer I was running late with my son in the car, looked towards Fairview and started into the intersection, my glasses fell off and I slightly put on my break. Thank god I did, a car ran the light coming from the opposite (good) direction and narrowly missed us. In general we always sit at the green light and make sure cars are stopped from both directions, we learned never trust this light. Once we waited after it turned green and a 2 ton dump truck, pulling roofing tar and barrelling down Fair, ran the red light at high speeds. If we hadn't waited he certainly would of killed us all. My biggest concern is that not all drivers who use the light know the problem. My neighbor who has 3 small children didn't know and was almost hit! With the Costa Mesa council pushing through so many large new multi home developments and large apartment buildings they have failed to taking in consideration the problems that already exist will be intolerable with additional traffic. I have asked before and am asking again Please consider shutting down our short side of Loyola to traffic crossing either 1 direction or both. It is my biggest hope that both Mr. Lizzi and Ms. Smith agree this should be done for the safety of the intersection. I would also suggest setting up a different crossing for the school children who cross the street at our light!! Loyola residents for 18 years, Tim and Joslyn McNaughton 2519 Loyola Rd �(� W -q COLGAN, JULIE Subject: Planning Application PA -16-46 (440 Fair Drive 28 -Unit Project) From: Jason Richart fmailto:Jason richartdesign.net] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 1:09 PM To: LOOMIS, RYAN <RYAN.LOOM IS costamesaca,gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <b+-enda. reeri costamesaca. ov> Subject: Planning Application PA -16-46 (440 Fair Drive 28 -Unit Project) I currently live at 2518 Carnegie ave and is directly across the proposed development. I have the following concerns for the above subject and will be speaking on this later tonight. As a designer, I have been developing custom homes and remodels in Costs Mesa for several years and have inquired on variances several times. From what I have been directed there is/has been NO leniency to deviate from the open space requirements nor the front/rear setback. The proposed development is requesting too many variances jam packing pack 28 units in an undersized lot. It's clear there is no concern about following rules that are set forth by the planning dept. The only thing that has been illustrated to me is how many homes can fit in a undersized lot for financial gain only. If they want to be part of College park then propose standard 2 -story SFR homes that will aesthetically benefit the area and not overburden the "Permit parking only" or thru traffic that we deal with on a daily basis. There is no way this should be allowed and you will be setting presidence to all future inquires "bending" the rules is ok. This is not fair to me as an neighboring owner and someone in the industry. Regards, Jason Richart RICHART D�S:GV Architecture - Planning - Interiors 1041 W. 18th Street, Suite A106, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 B. 949.422.9191 1 F. 949.548.3707 www,richartdesi n.net i 0a COLGAN, JULIE From: ty brown <ty.brown@mac.com> Sent: Monday, November 21, 201612:39 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Attachments: proposed curb extensions carnegie.pdf Importance: High Hello, I am a college park resident just off of Carnegie would like voice my concerns and propose a solution for the added cut through traffic that will occur on Carnegie with a new residential development. I want to keep our community and kids safe from the current speeds we are seeing and the additional traffic we will see from the development. First, I feel the existing building at 440 fair must go. I prefer residential, just not high density. Medium density, with the entrance remaining on fair, would be much better for all. If the entrance must remain on Carnegie, please consider of my proposal and keep it medium density. I attached a proposed solution for the traffic. It's a map requesting curb build outs on Carnegie to calm the increased traffic we will see on this street. Please review the attachment. Note that the plans are just a quick sketch and not taking into consideration driveways, etc. Obviously placement may vary. I also feel this would be effective on Princeton to slow down traffic and limit cut throughs. This expense should be pushed back on the developer. Please feel free to contact me directly at any time. Sincerely, Ty Brown 949-205-5285 I� � 0 n .1� m 0 - lsd n�l �--►--::i �dol� �1�-zle�ns COLGAN, JULIE Subject: 440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From:joslyn mcnaughton [mailto:ioslynincal vahoc com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 1:05 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green costamesaca.goy_> Subject: Re: 440 Fair GP -16-01/R-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record To the City of Costa Mesa Counsel, am against this project! I have been a College Park resident for almost 19 years and live on Loyola Road. am concerned about the traffic study that was done that didn't include Loyola, Columbia, Fordham, Princeton, and Bucknell. We already have a red light problem at Loyola and Fair with the current traffic. If the corner changes from very low traffic business to high density residential zoning. Adding 28 homes, if each home has only 2 cars that is 56+ additional cars driving our neighborhood streets and fair drive. The purposed development also only has 5 guest parking spots which sounds insane for that many residents. Over flow guests would have to park on Carnegie and Bucknell. They are purposing cutting down the trees and changing the variance closer to the street which isn't consistent with our neighborhood. It seems a lot of large projects are being pushed through without the proper parking or thought of how additional traffic will impact our neighborhood. There seems to be no thought to how much all these projects will add to traffic congestion. This isn't the only large development being purposed, I don't see how the City will make Wilson, Fair, or Merrimac Way larger to accommodate more traffic. Fair drive is the main entrance to the 55 fwy so it will see the largest increase in traffic due to these new projects specifically 440 Fair. Changing the zoning to high density doesn't make sense considering there is already a large complex on the opposite -side of fair. Thank you, Joslyn McNaughton 2519 Loyola Rd Costa Mesa, 92626 10 November 14, 2016 To the Costa Mesa Planning Commission: ki ECEIVE CITY CLERK 16 NOV 17 PH 4: 48 UT ]Y� �CUSTA Regarding the building of three-story and four-story buildings in the College Park community along Carnegie and Fair, I do not wish to have the intrusion of those buildings in my neighborhood. I do not wish to have the beautiful trees along Carnegie torn out. The Developer is also asking for other variances. This development is totally inconsistent with the College Park community of single story homes and will then have a negative impact on the values of College Park. College Park is one of the older communities within Costa Mesa and besides the impact on values, it will also have an impact on traffic and the quality of life. I am a long-term resident of College Park having lived here since 1979. This project will hurt my property's value, increase traffic in this quiet community, and impact the quality of life of the residents in College Park. I am against this project and request the Planning commission deny the developer's request and preserve the College Park Community. By doing this, people will want to buy in College Park; and thus, continue to increase the value of living in Costa Mesa. Not only will this development impact the College Park community, but it will impact the desirability of living in Costa Mesa. We have enough building going on in Costa Mesa, and it is starting to look like Los Angeles. Please do the right thing and reject this development. Regards, �w 2� arily Packer 2557 Oxford Lane ku( COLGAN, JULIE From: Sarah Star Real Estate <touchalife@msn.com> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:25 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA Subject: IN SUPPORT OF 440 Fair Dr Project: for Public Comments To Whom It May Concern, My family and I have been residents and homeowners in the College Park neighborhood for the past 8 years. We love our neighborhood and are VERY EXCITED about the proposed project on 440 Fair dr. Despite what other (trouble making, busy body) neighbors are trying to portray about us neighbors, many of us are actually very excited and looking forward to the improvements to the property at 440 Fair. I have personally been to city hall and reviewed the plans, the pictures and the requested variances. Nothing seems extreme, audacious or sinister as to generate so much hatred from these neighbors. Quite the opposite, I found the designs to be very beautiful, family friendly and overall quite regal. These lovely homes would help increase our property value and bring good families into our schools and neighborhoods. We live on Loyola (the only through street that crosses Fairview and Fair) and we are NOT concerned about extra traffic nor do we think our neighborhood traffic will be that impacted by this development. The "College Park United" group's claims about cars traveling throughout our neighborhood streets instead of using the major streets of Harbor and Fair is just an absolutely ridiculous claim with no validity to it. We think the high density housing is appropriate to this location - it is right on the boarder of 2 major cross streets. It is not in the middle of our residential neighborhood, and we are thrilled that it is replacing a property currently zoned commercial (which is less of a fit in our neighborhood). I think the high density designs are extremely appealing to our younger generation and millennials and I for one enjoy the look and feel of it. Again, we and all of the neighbors near us who whom I have spoken are STRONGLY in favor of the proposed 440 Fair Dr. project and wish to express our support for it! Thankyou! —Sarah Schlatter Loyola, Costa Mesa Who do YOU know that's thinking about buying or selling Real Estate? We love non-profit groups and if your group is looking to raise $5000, $10,000 or even $20,000 this year - we can help you reach that goal! Contact us today to find out how! P�-y COLGAN, JULIE From: Gayle Clanton <gayle2518@att.net> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 12:28 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record To whom it may concern, We would like it noted for the public record that we are strongly opposed to the project at 440 Fair. MWe already have parking problems on Lehigh Place with Mediterranean Village and the Mitsubishi dealership and this project will make the parking problem worse. (2)They should not be allowed to cut down the Ficus trees as we have been unable to have trees removed from our yard. (3)The new development does not fit with the surrounding neighborhood (ranch style mid century modern). (4)The extra traffic that we will incur on Carnegie, Bucknell, Princeton, Loyola and Fordham will interrupt our children being able to walk to and from school and play in a safe environment. (5)The only driveway to the project is on Carnegie at Bucknell which means the people will be cutting down Bucknell. (6)The new homes will overshadow the existing homes and knock property values down. (7)There is not enough guest parking on the new development for visitors. (8)The residents of the new development will get parking permits, but Lehigh Place has been denied parking permits for years. We feel this development is a punch in the gut for existing residents. Please do not approve it. Resident since 1958 Walt & Gayle(Hoelderlin) Clanton iia 7� - �4 BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Subject: FW: "440 Fair GP-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record" From: Ron McLean [mailto:ronaldmclean _ sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 3:34 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda. reen @ costa mesa ca. ov> Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: "440 Fair GP-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record" We are writing you to stop the insanity of over building housing in College Park. We have lived in College Park for forty- five years and have watched the increased problem of growth and traffic. We are already a high density community, and have difficulty commuting already. This zoning change will only hurt the existing community, and traffic close to schools, endangering children. We ask that you reconsider your plans and make Costa Mesa great again! We have so many current problems IE: Homeless people, parks that children cannot go to due to homeless. Coyotes Endangering our pets and children. We have a daughter in Costa Mesa with a day care business. She has lost her car, hopefully will not lose a child, due to the coyote problem. Her daycare is on Princeton, so this car infringement will hinder her parents, delivering children and picking them up, also causing more un -needed traffic. I am south of the project, but have difficulty getting out of the track onto Fair, or the other end due to traffic on Wilson currently. I implore you to look at this growth problem with the current Voters, and not the ability to gain more taxation! Fair Drive is a problem street already, due to College, High School, Fair grounds. Causing more traffic at Fair and Harbor will enclose the community And endanger the children, who must cross these streets. I currently walk my neighborhood, and find that parking from the Mediterranean Village, in the track, a large problem due to cars with no parking At the Village. They are parked on Fordham and Nassau daily, which is not liked by homeowners. Crime has escalated due to homeless at Wilson Park, and my vehicle has been broken into recently. Costa Mesa has many old tract homes, We have some well kept housing, and some other. We do not want three and four story units, included with no parking changing our landscape and community. Act like it is your neighborhood, and you have to put up with the noise, traffic and looked down from the storied buildings. Turn down this request and govern with integrity! Sincerely John & Chris McLean 2348 Rutgers Dr. Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 i13 Received _ (� C4ty of Caata Mesa 7 Development Services pepartment Nov 212616 To: City of Costa Mesa Leaders From: Carole Steele, College Park Property Owner (single family residence at 304 Joann St.) Re: 440 Fair Project (440 fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/Pa-16-46/TT-18064 For Public Record) The purpose of this communication it to state my opposition to the proposed development at 440 Fair. As a longtime property owner in College Park, I'm not in favor of the proposed high density housing project in the College Park neighborhood. This type of housing is inconsistent with our neighborhood and I believe this development would only be a detriment to those of us that live in the area. I'm hopeful that as city leaders you'll listen to the residents of College Park and reject this proposal. 114 November 21, 2016 Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa Email: ryan.loomis@costamesaca.gov RE: DENY the proposed 28 -unit residential development at 440 Fair Drive Dear Mr. Loomis: I am opposed to the proposed development on 440 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa `College Park' neighborhood. It is not appropriate for our neighborhood and too many unresolved issues plaguing the project. Resident concerns have not been adequately addressed and the project requires too many variances to be considered in character with the rest of the neighborhood. • Deny zanin, chap a from NC to.HigLiDensity Residential. College Park is already an impacted community where high density residential occurs within several areas. The cumulative impacts of increased development planned for Orange Coast College, exhibit expansions/additions at Orange County Fairgrounds and future proposed development at the Fairview Developmental Center would increase commuter traffic and clog Fair Rd, Harbor Blvd and the adjacent neighborhood streets. • Deny excessive amounts ofyaria aces. Please do not allow proposed variances to have less open space, reduce landscaped parkway areas, have encroachment, and deviate from Residential Design Guidelines for the project. Cumulatively, it will result in a residential building that is out of character with the surrounding 19SOs ranch style homes and congest a small area. • Impacts to Bikeway Corridpr not considered. Harbor and Fair Drive are part of the OCTA bikeway corridors. Impacts to bike commuters from increased traffic from automobiles not adequately addressed. • Traffic Study submitted by applicant is inadequate, The applicant submitted a 'Traffic Study' completed by Denis Bilodeau of the Infrastructure Group in Orange, California, which provides very little information. The time of observation is not reported, the total time of observations is not reported, and the study is focused on one intersection. To adequately address resident concerns, a full traffic study with impacts to morning (7-9am) and evening (4:30-6:30pm) commuter traffic should be employed. Additional intersections should be added to the scope of study and include: Harbor and Fair Drive, plus all impacted adjacent neighborhood streets. The study should contain recorded observation times and the duration of study should be noted. The estimate of traffic patterns that the proposed development would bring should be based on actual commuter traffic data specific to this area, not estimates drawn from a textbook. Thank you for your time and serious consideration. Sincerely, Carla Navarro Woods 2279 Rutgers Drive Costa Mesa CA 92626 i7� Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department �� —Z1 City of Costa Mesa 7 77 Fair Drive NOV 212016 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record I am against this project! My family has been deep rooted in Costa Mesa since the early 50's. I bought my grandparents home and I have been a College Park resident for over 25 years. My aunt and uncle were original owners on Duke Place prior to their passing, so I can say I have been in the neighborhood since I was young. have I have voiced my concern over this project many times over the past year during the meetings. I have called out the developer many times on items that were not truthful. The recent example is, the amount of stories they were building he was stating they were 2 and 3 stories which in fact they are 3 and 4 stories which is not what our neighborhood is. The traffic study was incomplete, not including Bucknell, Princeton, Fordham, Loyola and Columbia was a blatant disregard of our quality of life. Let alone the increased traffic that Fair and Harbor will receive. Over and over these projects are being pushed through without the proper open parking spaces. Saying that they will park in the garages or on the driveway on a daily basis is unrealistic. HOA rules can be changed by the board members and a vote of the community so saying they must follow the rules isn't flying with me. Asking for variances to change set backs, open space size, parking spaces and height are all negate impacts. We have the Mediterranean Village, OCC and Orange County Fair Grounds already impacting our neighbor streets, the 440 Fair project would make the parking situation unbearable and our neighborhood will be devastated. Lori Robnett 2528 An Iver Place J ✓ IJ —L/ Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive NOV 212016 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record City of Costa Mesa , my name is Bob Ponewiez I live at 446 Elmhurst Lane. oppose the project 440. Seems to me to be complete arrogance and disrespect toward the people of college park to try to put such an obnoxious project as this into our quiet neighborhood by the city council and owner of this property. Why doesn't this city counsel try to preserve and respect the people who live in this neighborhood instead cramming disproportionate development any where they can? I guarantee this type of development would never fly in mesa verde. I wonder who on this council is benefiting in they're back pocket if this project moves forward? This city council should trying to improve life and improve the look of this city instead of helping friends make money to no benefit of this city or neighborhood. Wake up! A lot of people here have put money into they're homes and love living here, they shouldn't have to fight city council for the quality of life in they're own neighborhood. Do the right thing and deny this disproportionate obnoxious project. 199 11/20/2016 Print Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record T � — �j% From: Allen Bowman (bowmanbird@sbcglobal.net) To: brend.green@costamesaca.gov; Date: Sunday, November 20, 2016 4:09 PM My name is Allen Bowman. My wife, Emy and I live at 2502 Carnegie Ave. My Mother and Daughter live at 2510 Carnegie Ave. My parents, Jack and Alice along with my brother and myself moved to Costa Mesa in 1962. My parents bought their house in 1967 and I bought the house at 2502 when it became available about 10 years ago. First off I would like to say I am disappointed that I did not get a response from Commisioner Dickson from an e- mail request to meet me at the sight to discuss the proposed project. I had supplied my e-mail address, cell phone number as well as my home phone number. As important as this proposal is to the quality of life for not only the Bowman but for the rest of the residents of College Park. You really do need to take the time to listen to what the citizens want for Their city. When we moved into 2510 the building at 440 Fair Drive was already there. The building housed Doctors offices,Dental offices Orthopedic Surgeons and a Pharmacy. The building was thriving. It was always well maintained and an asset to the neighborhood. I am sure the owners of the building were making money. Several years ago the condition of property started to decline. Along with the property declining the professionals left as well. Our own family doctor left for a new location as well. With the flight of professionals, in came Cyber Cafes, Hookah lounges, Medical Marijuana offices, Massage Parlors, Car Rental agencies and God knows what else. The people that the building now attracted were suspect at best. Some of the upstairs offices were turned into apartments to be rented out. This of course is not allowed in a commercial building but was allowed by the owner of the property. I can understand wanting to make money but we really need to do this in a legal manner. Now that the owner has been unable to run a profitable business he wants to turn the property into a high density residential project. With no consideration for the residents of College Park he wants to build the newest BLIGHT for Costa Mesa. As you well know the size of the buildings do not fit the neighborhood. This is a single story, single family neighborhood. We already have High Density across Fair Drive. We do not need nor do we want a project like this in Costa Mesa much less College Park. For almost 50 years we have had the Ficus trees across from our homes. They have created shade on hot days as well as a sound buffer for the noise on Harbor Blvd. The plan for the project would eliminate those trees. This is not acceptable. The nightly sunsets we have enjoyed would be gone. This is not acceptable. We have enjoyed the afternoon breeze. This would be cut off because of the height of the buildings. This does not only affect us on Carnegie but the streets further into College Park. These are ALL QUALITY OF LIFE issues. Certainly one of your jobs is to insure the QUALITY OF LIFE for the residents of Costa Mesa. The way the project is set up, the traffic would be dumping right on to Carnegie, Bucknell, Fordham, Loyolla as well as Princeton. There are many new families in this tract with young children. The added traffic would have a negative impact on the safety of these families. DO NOT put these families in jepordy.We do not want or need anymore traffic in this tract. This is a bad proposal and should not pass. Now what should go into the building is what was in there when they built it. I am sure if you look around Costa Mesa, you will see there is a lack of Family Care Centers. I am sure if the owner spoke with Hoag Hospital, they would get on board with putting in sattelite medical services such as x-ray labs, blood draw stations as well as medical services for the community. This is what would be considered QUALITY OF LIFE enhancements. I trust you will make the right decission and REJECT this proposal. Allen Bowman I 1e about:blank 111 November 21, 2016 Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department Mr. Ryan Loomis NOV 212016 AICP / Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record Dear Mr. Loomis, I am writing to document my objection to the development as proposed. I have been a College homeowner for over 18 years. My home is on the corner of Princeton at Carnegie. I believe that the intensity of the proposed development is not compatible with College Park. I would like to acknowledge that the developer, Steve Sheldon, has been exceptionally open and receptive to hearing the concerns of the neighbors. His meetings to reach out to the homeowners and neighbors have set a precedent that I would like to see adopted for all developers with projects that affect residential quality of life in Costa Mesa. My questions and objections are as follows: Concerns discussed at General Plan screening of October 6, 2015: Parking: There is a contradiction that leaves this very important topic unclear. The applicant's response to parking concerns states that the parking along Carnegie will continue to be resident parking only. However, in the Planning Commission Agenda Report for the meeting date of November 14, 2016, under section titled "Justifications for Approval" on handwritten page 19, states: "...street parking would be available along Carnegie Avenue with a residential parking permit only." Water Usage: this addresses only the use by landscape as compared to existing. The established landscape is minimal, and the new plantings are to be drought tolerant. The amount of area of existing, unplanted "landscape areas" are not compared to the proposed new planting areas, so I am not convinced that the actual water usage will be reduced. The addition in the number of toilets, showers/baths, lavatories, washing machines, and hose bibs, etc. for these 28 homes has not been compared to the existing number. Loss of commercial zoning: The answer given was that "Property taxes are estimated to increase with the new community. The real estate tax base increase is capped at 2% per year. The impact of public services costs of a high density residential development compared to the costs of commercial; and the income of the real estate taxes collected (residential capped at 2% per year) versus the reduction of commercial license and business taxes income has not been addressed. 1 -11 Page 1 of 5 Concerns discussed at Second Community Meeting of October t9.2016 this was actually the third community meeting): Carnegie traffic backs up on due to traffic along Fair Drive: "Keep Clear" street markings at this intersection will increase visibility, but I am unclear as to how the paint markings will address the back up of traffic. The Project adds no value to the College Park Neighborhood: Although the project appears to be high quality, it does not address the incompatibility of the existing neighborhood and loss of aesthetics. It does not address the fact that by cleaning up the existing commercial building to the standards kept for other commercial properties, this property would not be blighted. Concerns with Amending the General Plan to accommodate this development: The development of the General Plan is established with consideration and input of the residents of the city. Changes to the General Plan should also be with consideration and input of the residents, especially with the residents adjacent to the property with major classification changes proposed. This change proposes a disparate change from Commercial to a classification of residential. In addition, it completely disregards the established limit of 2 story height limit in the College Park area. Concerns with Table 1. Planning Application Summarv: In the Development Standard Comparison (Based on PDR -HD Zoning), the development standards are not met in seven of the comparisons. The changes to the standards require a Variance, Administrative Adjustment, or Minor Modification. It complies with Density, on-site parking, and driveway width, but this is only if the change in the General Plan is granted. Concerns with Open Space Requirements: The requested open space not only requests variances, it greatly reduces the existing open space conditions. The open space does not take into consideration the reduction of views due to the building heights proposed. Concerns with Access/Traffic/Parkin : The traffic study did not include Bucknell, which abuts the project access, Princeton, Fair, Fordham or Loyola. The traffic study should include all streets with access into College Park, as well as to the project itself. Although the comparison of the Commercial trips to residential trips is reduced, this does not take into consideration that that the access for the commercial will be closed, and 100% access for residential will be onto Carnegie. The reduced number of total trips to and from this project will be a 100% addition into the residential tract. This is not an honest comparison. The amount of permit parking space on Carnegie will be reduced by the addition of a driveway access and any limitations of parking along the driveway skirt. The report does not address the impact of the traffic and parking from the existing Mediterranean Apartment complex. This complex of over 500 units was originally parked at 1.5 spaces per unit as a "Senior Living" development. The change to remove the "Senior Living" Ibo Page 2 of 5 only designation should have included the accompanying higher parking requirement for apartments. Also, the development of the Harbor Center cut off and reduced the amount of parking available to these tenants. The streets East and North of the Mediterranean Apartments are already impacted by these historical changes and the under -parked conditions. The open space parking requirement is reduced due to the variance in building coverage. These variances create a "snowball" effect, by allowing one variance, it impacts and allows another. The layout of the units does not allow for turn -around space to accommodate the trash trucks. Trash pick-up access, which is now handled by 2 separate trucks, requires that these trucks back up in multiple areas of the complex, and law requires these trucks to sound back-up "beeping" warning. The noise impact to the surrounding residences is not addressed. Currently, the trash trucks are able to service College Park with minimal, if any, backups. Concerns with Hazardous Materials: My concern is that the removal of any "lead walls" for the dentistry use has not been addressed. I believe these would have been installed if the dentistry tenants utilized x-ray equipment in their tenancy. Concerns with Noise: The "windows closed" condition is a requirement for the new units, but the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/NVEVD) has not addressed the noise impact of the existing residences. In fact, It is unclear if the IS/MND has addressed any of the adjacent properties for negative declaration. The adjacent neighborhood is affected by this proposed development. Concerns with Residential Design Guidelines: The enhanced architectural details added by the developer are appreciated. However, addition of aesthetic appointments does not address the incompatibility of these structures with the existing styles College Park neighborhood, as outlined in the objectives of the Community Design element of the General Plan. Concerns with Subdivision: The establishment of a homeowner's association and recordation of CC&R's does not preclude future changes to the CC&R's by the homeowners to allow for changes to the initial conditions of approval for this development. Concerns with General Plan Conformance: The General Plan is "...the primary source of long-range planning and policy direction intended to guide growth and preserve the quality of life within the community. With a foundation based on citizen's input..." There are ten elements to the General Plan, with objectives in each element. This conformance touches on two of the ten elements, Land Use and Community Design. Of those two elements, only 5 objectives are addressed. Of the objectives considered, three do not address the project's consistency with those objectives. Concerns with Justifications for Approval, Rezone R-16-01 Findings: Page 3 of 5 Why was there no consideration of a rezone to a lower density proposed, as requested by the residents in attendance of the General Plan screening meeting? Concerns with Justifications for Approval, Master Plan PA -16-46: Again, the architectural style complies with the "broader" goals of the General Plan and Zoning Code as it relates to one objective, CD -7.1, but does not address any of the other objectives. In other words, it relates to the broader goals of the narrow scope of one objective. In addition, the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines is not met without variance. The on-site parking spaces exceed parking standards, but only if other variances are met. The number of guest open parking spaces are greatly under parked (5 provided, a deficiency of 9 spaces). The Justification for Approval includes the contrary statement that street parking would be available along Carnegie. No Justifications for Denial are not provided. Have these been considered, or is this project approval Concerns with Variance Findings: These findings refer to "special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications" but does not outline which properties in the vicinity enjoy these variances. Without the identification of these properties, it is unclear if special privileges are being granted. The open space variance requests includes the roof decks, which is not generally allowed to be counted toward open space criteria. The comparison lists the similar product types found in live/work units in Urban Plans, but it is unclear if this project is in an Urban Plan area. Reference to existing walls along the north side of Fair Drive, East of Carnegie Avenue, are adjacent to the sidewalk with no landscape buffer. These walls are adjacent to the sidewalk, but the sidewalk is separated from the curb by a wider landscape buffer than other streets. This placement may be due to the existing sidewalks in College Park that "meander" from the normal parkway setting to abutting the curb. The meandering sidewalk places the parkway landscape adjacent to the homeowner's property. The concept of an "improvement" to the existing conditions is a subjective comparison. The placement of these walls may be related to when the street access to Fair were closed off. The "granting of variance of the open space landscaped parking requirements does not allow a use which is not in accordance to the general plan designation for the property" is a circular argument, as this is assuming that the General Plan zoning changes from Commercial to PD -HDR is granted, yet is being used under the General Plan conformance justifications. Concerns with Administrative Adjustment Findings: It is unclear if the special circumstances applicable to the property (item 1.) conflict with the deviations allowed not constituting a grant of special privileges (item 2). Also, findings for approval of the granting of the deviations is based on the assumption of the granting of the General Plan amendment and Zoning Change. I�� Page 4 of 5 Concerns with Minor Modification Finding The granting of requested code deviations is based on two things: 1. The improvements not being detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. I am unclear as to where this has been addressed with regard to the property and improvements within the College Park neighborhood. 2. The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the Vicinity, which includes scale of structure and open space. Both the scale of the structures and open space is not compatible with the existing College Park neighborhood. Again, the College Park neighborhood does not allow 3 stories, and there are variances and adjustments to the open space requested for this project. Minor Modifications for the approval of the encroachment of the building into required perimeter open space is based on the design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity, but this encroachment does not exist in the established College Park neighborhood. Concerns with Environmental Determination Finding The Potentially Significant Environmental Effect of Noise and the Level of Significance After Mitigation was considered for the proposed project, but was not considered for the existing residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the project. The Conclusion of the impacts identified in the IS/MVIlVD do not address any impact of the existing College Park neighborhood. Concerns with Altemative Findings: Since no alternative findings were outlined in this Agenda Report, this does not allow the Planning Commission a fair and balanced amount of facts for complete review. I would like the Planning Commission to address the false dichotomy of either "blighted commercial" or "High Density Residential" choices, and consider other appropriate uses for this property. Thank you, Iesa Callo Drain 5 Page 5 of 5 Anthony P. Massaro 2533 Greenbriar Lane Costa Mesa, CA 92626 City of Costa Mesa Planning and Zoning Department 55 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA November 13, 2016 Subject: Formal complaint against General Plan Amendment GP-16-01/Master Plan PA -16-46 440 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA To Whom it May Concern: I am a neighbor being affected by the above-mentioned project and am formally submitting this letter of complaint and opposition to the project. After reviewing the staff report, I believe there are many technical and factual inaccuracies pertaining the project. I have outlined them in detail below and they clearly demonstrate that the proposed project is not compliant with the Costa Mesa Municipal Code nor are the requested variances justified. I will be attending all Planning Commission meetings as well as City Council meetings concerning this project. Item 1: Per the Land Use Element, page LU -27 one of the requirements for a High -Density Development: "...is dependent on site characteristics. A site should be of appropriate size and dimension before the higher densities within the designation are allowed." S Pecific Com plaint: The developer is requesting seven different variances, all of which are to create more mass and buildable area and increases the intensity of the development to an unreasonable level. The request for that number of variances is a clear indicator that the site cannot support the level of intensity desired by the developer. As is demonstrated in Item 4 below, the Staff Report has failed to make any kind of analysis or distinction between the terms site "density" versus "intensity." Item 2: Page 20 of the staff report, three sections of the Code Section 13-29 (g) (1) are cited as findings required for the requested variances. Item (a) states: "Because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprive the property of privileges not enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications." Specific Complaint: 1. Nowhere in the documentation has a presentation of what the "special circumstances" of this property are. The site is rectilinear, flat and has no topographic features that create any developmental issues. There is no evidence of any "special circumstances" on this property. 2. The justification on page 24 of the staff report is technically flawed. It shows an aerial photograph of single family residences on Fair Drive east of Carnegie and tries to make the case that some of the fifty -year-old single family residences in the R1 zone may not comply with current setback requirements along Fair Drive and thus have privileges not enjoyed by the developers of the 440 Fair Drive site. It is important to note that this is not a legitimate comparison. Based on the language of Code Section 13-29 (g) (1) Item (a), they are not comparable as they are not identical zoning classifications. Item 3: Page 20 of the staff report, three sections of the Code Section 13-29 (g) (1) are cited as findings required for the requested variances of reducing the Perimeter Open Space. Item(b)states: "The deviation granted shall be subiect to such conditions as will assure that the deviation authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated." Specific Complaint: The justification provided on page 20 does not provide any mention of what "such conditions" are and provides no explanation as to how and why the requested variance doesn't constitute "a grant of special privileges." The paragraphs on pages 20-23, which are purported to provide justification of this code section, describe the following: (none of these actually address the code section requirement) 1. Description of the open space and how the project does not comply. 2. Proposal of using roof decks and how similar product types use them as well and they don't count towards open space. 3. The duplex units provide private backyard space. 4. Description of proposed walls and landscape around the Perimeter Open space. 5. The project proposes a landscaped parkway of 3.5 feet along the eight detached homes on Carnegie instead of the required five feet and does not comply. Those paragraphs are superfluous at best and a smoke screen at worst as they don't address the code section's requirements. The irony of the justification paragraphs is that they clearly demonstrate that the developer is in fact seeking special privilege because they don't comply with the development requirements. A more accurate representation of project comparisons would be the Azulon Apartments at the corner of Harbor Blvd and Mesa Verde. This High Density Residential project is located roughly 2,000 feet from the subject property and complies with the Perimeter Open Space requirements of 20 feet. This is a very recent project in the vicinity and they were not granted deviations from the required Perimeter Open space. Allowing reduced Perimeter Open Space for this development would constitute a special privilege. 195 Item 4: Page 20 of the staff report, three sections of the Code Section 13-29 (g) (1) are cited as findings required for the requested variances of reducing the Perimeter Open Space. Item (c) states: "The granting of the deviation will not allow o use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property." 5 ecific Complaint: The justification on page 25 of the staff report is flawed because it is incomplete. Item (c) has three requirements that must be met. The proposed project successfully complies with two of the three. They clearly meet the use requirements for type of use (Residential) plus they both meet and exceed the density requirements of 20 units per acre. There is no complaint with those proposals. 1. However, the Staff report does not address or justify the increase in "intensity." Page LU -20 of the Land Use Element in the second paragraph of that section states: "Intensity refers to the degree of development based on building characteristics such as height, bulk, floor area ratio, and percentage of lot coverage." 2. The fundamental complaint of this project with myself and neighbors deals with its intensity. A close review of the Staff Report demonstrates that staff was remiss in not addressing this. It is very troubling that this significant issue of "intensity' is not defined or mentioned anywhere in the report; however, the fact that the "density" being proposed is under the maximum and adding perimeter landscape is mentioned multiple times and presented as a noble effort. 3. What is particularly troubling about the requested variances is that they are "compound variances." The developer is not simply asking for the Perimeter Open Space variance in order to comply with the development codes on the site, but they are asking for this in order to facilitate additional variance requests for increases in intensity. 4. The granting of the reduction of the 20 -foot Perimeter Open space requirements does not solve the designer's developmental issues to comply with the required standards, but is being used to overbuild the site. However, even with the reduced setbacks, the property still does not comply in the following areas: a. Open space requirements are not met. (42% required but 36.8% provided.) b. Floor Area Ratio: Second story shall not exceed 100% of the first story. (149% for plan one and 114% for plan two provided.) c. Guest Parking: (14 spaces required, 5 spaces provided.) It is important to note, the inability to meet the open space requirements as well as the guest parking requirements are direct evidence that the intensity (Floor Area and bulk of the buildings) are too large for the site to support, even with reduced setbacks. 5. Although not formally making the request, as evidenced by Table 1 on page 8, the Staff report page 20 references Section 13-60 (e) trying to justify the use of roof decks to address the 6 shortfall and noncompliance of required open space which is a direct result of excessive site intensity. The code specifically states: "... where for other reasons the planning commission finds that the provision of all or part of the required private open space in the aforementioned manner is impractical or undesirable." No presentation or description of the "impracticality" or "undesirableness" is provided by the applicant or staff. Additionally, this is another example of how a "compound variance" could be attempted in this scenario: the developer seeks a first variance (being allowed to use a provision to use rooftop decks to increase open space) in order to facilitate a second variance of reducing the Perimeter Open Space. Then, the developer presents a case of impracticality and undesirableness based upon the increased floor area (intensity) granted by the second variance which was facilitated by the first variance they sought. 6. The developer's proposals clearly indicate that the intensity of the project being proposed is not in accordance with the general plan designation of the property and thus, does not meet the requirements for the deviation are required in Code Section 13-29 (g) (1) Item (c). As an affected neighbor by this proposed project, it is important to note that I am very open to the development of 440 Fair Drive property and these complaints are only specifically addressed to the request for the High Density Residential proposal and the impact of the intensity of the project in our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Air honv T Ma cavo Anthony P. Massaro 2533 Greenbriar Lane Costa Mesa, CA 92626 J�q Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department .NOV 212016 To: Costa Mesa City Hall Re: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Date: November 13, 2016 To Whom it May Concern, We purchased our home in College Park 20 years ago as a young, recently married couple. We were drawn to the feel of this neighborhood with the older, single story ranch -style homes with nice sized yards and children playing in the cul-de-sacs. We were stretching our budget to get here and a condo would have been much more affordable for us, but this was the style of living we wanted. What a perfect neighborhood to live in and start a family! We are very concerned and dissappointed with the plans for the 440 Fair Drive project and how it would affect our neighborhood! Carnegie Avenue is a quiet street lined with beautiful, huge ficus trees. The proposed development with it's 3- and 4 -story plans does not fit in our neighborhood and it would greatly increase traffic not only on Carnegie, but Bucknell, Princeton, Fordham, Loyola and Columbia which would directly impact the current homeowners here. If the access to this development will open into our neighborhood, it should be zoned the same, R1 Single Family Residential with similar lot sizes. We understand how that would be much less profitable for the owners and developer, but what they are proposing is absolutely wrong! High density with multiple variances does not belong in our neighborhood for so many reasons: The aesthetic of the homes/duplexes, the added traffic through the neighborhood, the invasion of privacy for the homes on Carnegie, the destruction of beautiful old trees, the lack of additional parking, the list goes on... We already have a problem with cars speeding through the neighborhood and we are sure you're aw�xe of the recent complaints about this and the traffic study that will be done. People use Princeton to cut through our neighborhood to avoid traffic. It's a danger to our children and pets which would only increase if this project goes through. The traffic evaluation done in the General Plan Screening Request is very misleading. It states that the proposed project would result in "484 ADTs fewer than the existing development". Currently, there are ZERO average daily trips from 440 Fair Drive onto Carnegie Avenue! So what this study shows is that there will be approximately 268 Al2DI1IONAL ADTs with this proposed project! This is most defiitely a negative impact on our neighborhood! The evaluation needs to include Carnegie, Bucknell, Princeton, Loyola, Fordham and Columbia. The GPS also states that "The site and building design are ocnsiderate of the low density development to the east". How are 3 -story homes looking down into a currently private front yards and living room windows considerate? How are garages, driveways and five guest parking spaces enough parking for the residents and guests of 28 new homes? Nearly everyone I know in our neighborhood has at least one vehicle parked on the street. Not only will the residents and guests of this proposed project be parking on Carnegie, they will spill over onto Bucknell, Princeton and nearby cul-de-sacs making parking for existing homeowners very difficult. J The recent project at 2850 Mesa Verde Drive East has a slightly larger site at 2.05 acres but with only 11 2 -story single family homes built which is low density residential, same as what College Park currently is. Miraval at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East has approximately 2 acres with only 10 homes. These projects prove that low density can still be profitable to a developer. Bottom line is that the land owners and developer are motivated completely by profit with no regard at all for the neighbors and their quality of life. I do agree that the massage parlors should go but this isn't the only way to achieve this. If the zoning is changed to residential, it should be low density to fit in with our neighborhood. However, ifthe zoning is changed to High Density Residential then the access absolutely must be off Fair Drive, not Carnegie. That is the only way to minimize the negative impact on the current residents. We hope that you can place yourself in our shoes and really consider the negative impact the proposed 440 Fair Drive project would have on current residents here in College Park. We thank you for that consideration. Yours sincerely, John & Jeanne Hodges 2519 Columbia Drive, College Park Costa Mesa From: Gerard J Stukkie <gjstukkie@sbcglobal.net> To: brenda.green <brend a.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP -16-01 /R-16-01 /PA-16-46/TT-18064 Date: Mon, Nov 14, 2016 7:05 am To Whom it May Concern, ?1q - �f I am a resident of College park. I am opposed to the proposal as it is written. I for one, do not agree with the size of the project. High density in this neighborhood is not a good "fit." The proposal does not even come close to an attempt to match the surrounding homes and will violate privacy for many. There are a few 2 story homes that have been added by remodeling, but not 3 and 4 story! Only one driveway for an entrance is a joke and will create much additional traffic in what is a fairly quiet neighborhood. The 5 guest parking spaces is also ridiculous. Most every apartment and business complexes are already under parked as it is. Parking is already heavy and controlled by resident permit only because of Mediterranean Village Apartments on the south side of Fair Dr. The variances requested for this project are far too many to be allowed in my opinion. These are supposed to be single family residences, but in reading what is proposed, it sounds like a mix of God knows what. In speaking of the proposal, I never received any notice to review this project. I heard that there were 3 separate forms that I should have been provided with. I am not a fan of the current use at this location which used to be a medical building. I am not opposed to change, but this current offering is definitely something that I oppose. There is not even an artists rendering to review what it might look like. Based on what I have heard and read, this would be a bigger eyesore than what is existing, not to mention it just doesn't even come close to matching the surrounding area. Sincerely, Gerard Stukkie 1g0 To: The City of Costa Mesa From: Steve Pedroza 2530 Colby Place Costa Mesa CA 92626 Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department NOV 212016 Regarding: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/17-18064 For The Publick Record I have been living in College Park for 8 years it has been a very safe neighborhood to raise a family with minimum crime and well controlled traffic in and out of our enghborhood. am asking the City of Costa Mesa to please reject the proposal of changing the zoning four Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential. This type of development will bring additional traffic to our neighborhood since the only entry will be located on Carnegie and Bucknell right directly to my street on which my kids currenly play. To develop 28 units some 3 levels some 4 levels this type of develpment does not fit in our neighborhood. If the city would like to improve the area why not build regular homes that fit in to the type of zoning we currently have. To approve high density residential zoning will open up the doors to other same type of develpments. I would like to notify the City that during a meeting that I attended at our local Coco's the week of September 10th, 2015 we were misslead by the developer who attended this meeting when he informed us that the project will have enough parking spaces therefor there will be no need for additional cars spilling to our neighborhood. When one of the attendees asked him, why so many units for such small square footage, he instructed us that it was the city's decison. The developer also informed us that the city will have a tight control of how the residents on the proposed development store itmes in their garages to make sure they will not over stock their garage to prevent them from parking their cars out of their garages. He also stated that the residents will have 4 parking spaces, 2 in the garage and 2 on their drive ways. He also shared to the attendees that he is currently living in development similar to the proposed development and he does not have any problems. Sincerly Steve Pedroza NI Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department To: City of Costa Mesa NOV 212016 Re: "440 Fair GP -16-01/11-16-01/ PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record" Dear City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission I'm strongly against the 440 Fair project the owner and developer are trying to push through. I have lived in our home since 1970 and although I have enjoyed College Park all these years I have also noticed the increased traffic and parking in our streets. The Mediterranean Village High Density Apartments have contributed to this and the proposed 440 Fair project would make the situation unbearable. The peoposed cutting of the trees along Carnegie would eliminate the much needed green in our area and the proposed structures are totally incongruous with family home styles of College Park. Please do not allow this project to proceed. Thank you, Antonia Nina Luke 2532 Carnegie Ave ria From: Nafey <nafeygirl@aol.com> To: Lori Robnett <lorirobnett@aol.com> Subject: No on 440 project revised statement Date: Sun, Nov 20, 2016 4:05 pm Please delete my prior email and remove from public comments. To The city of Costa Mesa , My name is Bob Hill, I live at 456 Elmhurst In. I oppose the 440 project that the developer is trying to get approved. As a resident of 40 + years I don't want this in our college park community. It will congest our our neighborhood and our streets. Only adding rif rad to our track of homes. The parking will also be very very bad. Worse then ever. We already have people from Mediterranean Village apartments parking on our streets for sometimes days. Now we will have a 28 house development with only 5 extra parking spots for there friends? So there banking on our street to provide parking for them? Has there even been a traffic assessment done? If so, I don't see how this can pass?! At least if there are done correctly not fraudulent assessments! We never in all these months received ANY paperwork regarding this project starting AGAIN? AGAIN!! Some how they just happen to mysteriously miss our street or most of the houses on it! There were a few Commissioners , that had told someone in our track that They seems to think that We that bought on Elmhurst lane, got some low price on our homes because we bought along a commercial wall, i.e. Fiat. I hate to tell him or you that was NOT the case! And I'd like for them to prove those facts because those are not facts!? If you are a true member of Costa Mesa you'd know that these homes were here long before the dealerships was built. Before they make comments on what people bought there's homes for he had better be able to back it up! That's ridiculous, and what does that comment even mean? Where does that comment go? Sounds like slimy lawyer talk to me! This can not and should not be passed! We are also he ONLY Track off of Harbor that has an opening off of Harbor Blvd that should be closed up to prevent more crime and people speeding down our streets to get to Fair Dr. Or Fairview! There should be a wall put up at Harbor and Princeton. From all of our neighbors , seems many were saying the same thing, do not approve this project! So please do your job for us and listen by not allowing this to go through in our small track. See you all on the 21 st for the meeting then! No on 440 project! Thank you, Bob Hill 456 Elmhurst Your are more then welcome to come to my home to verify this letter if needed. 193 Ryan Mr. R Loomis AICP / Associate Planner R/ Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT 18064 For the Public Record Dear Mr. Loomis, From a professional Realtor's point of view I am voicing my opinion against the 440 Fair project. I have been living and selling Real Estate in Costa Mesa for over 22 years, I have also sold and listed many College Park Homes and from my experience I see many issues with this project with all the variances the developer is requesting. All of these high density homes are be- ing built without proper parking all over Costa Mesa, burdening the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Sheldon claims the 28 homes (maybe more) will not impact College Park and I beg to differ, I feel this development will drastically reduce the value in many of the homes closest to the project. Having these high-density homes looming over single story homes is a complete disre- gard for the neighbors who have owned their homes for many years. I don't need to go into all the details why, because you already know that. As I recall the 440 Fair owner proposed a project back in 2007 for 11 homes and was rejected because those homes did not fit the neighborhood, yet 9 years later he is back proposing 28 homes. I am not understanding this, can you please explain to me why 9 years later the project is now over double the size and it's under consideration? As a Costa Mesa homeowner I am VERY disappointed how projects have been approved throughout our city without proper traffic studies. When the Costa Mesa Motor Inn is redevel- oped into the 250+ apartments, the 33 homes are completed, and the other projects on Harbor completed we are going to be hurting on Harbor which is already classified as a "D". I do except the Planning Commissioners to listen to the College Park Homeowners, they are speaking loud and clear about this project! Lori Robnett, Realfo with First Team Real Estate f Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department NOV 212016 LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record From: "Ranell" <private-idaho c comcast.net> To: "brenda green" <brenda.green 2costamesaca.a v> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 1:11:00 PM Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Dear Ms. Green, Please accept this email as a formal statement of opposition on the subject proposal and make this statement a part of the public record. I urge the Commission to stop approval of the 440 Fair project and renegotiate with the developers and/or property owner for a low density option. I do not want to see Costa Mesa negatively impacted by a poorly planned and executed development. This proposed development is in no way consistent with the current neighborhood aesthetic. College Park is a neighborhood of single family homes, not 3 and 4 story vertical high density units that will overshadow and crowd the surrounding College Park homes on Carnegie and Bucknell and eliminate privacy, as well as blight the neighborhood around it. College Park does not need another high density development like Mediterranean Village. Fair and Harbor Blvd, two of the most traveled streets in Costa Mesa, already have major traffic issues and their level of service cannot accommodate so many dwelling units. The existing neighborhood permitted parking is already hindered by large scale events at the OC Fairgrounds and should this project be approved, the inhabitants of 440 Fair will use College Park's neighborhood streets, specifically Carnegie and Bucknell, to access Costa Mesa's major arterials. Additionally, the only access at Carnegie and Bucknell is not viable and will greatly decrease the quality of life for the current residents on those streets. Increased traffic in College Park is not acceptable. Loss of neighborhood open space is strongly perceived as a negative impact. The developer is asking for a deviation from the City's open space requirements, allowing little to no setback for the homes fronting Carnegie. There is a real attachment to the loss of open space within neighborhoods and this can be felt long after a development is completed. The loss of both public and private neighborhood open space is deeply felt by the neighborhood community and eliminating its ocean breeze and sunsets, as well as destroying the existing treescape by cutting down the mature ficus trees to accommodate the ingress of this proposed development in College Park is abhorrent and completely unacceptable. This property should not be rezoned High Density Residential to accommodate this flawed proposal that will destroy the integrity of the existing neighborhood. Redevelopment of this property will overtax its urban environment and the increased population will place significantly higher demands on its limited natural resources and infrastructure. For all these reasons, a low density option must be sought. Please stand up for the residents of this neighborhood and safeguard their rights and their quality of life. Deny 440 Fair. Sincerely, Ranell Nystrom 420 Bucknell Road Costa Mesa CA 92626 206.240.8305 LOOMIS, RYAN From: justteach@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 9:25 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record Brenda - Please print and add to our College Park Community's Voice - Thank you, Robin Taft Please confirm you've received this so I know our political process is working... (: To All Invested Parties: We have been College Park residents for over 13 years and we plan on owning our home for the rest of our lives. Our son goes to school locally and WE STRONGLY OPPOSE the new housing project and development!!!!! WE DO NOT APPROVE! We LIVE and RAISE FAMILIES HERE- We are the ones who would have to deal with the MANY issues and consequences of this- YOU DON'T LIVE HERE so you Don't have to PUT UP WITH THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS, PLEASE LISTEN TO YOUR RESIDENTS. We Do Not Want This Project! IF You Lived Here..... WOULD YOU?? Please hear our voices! Vassar Place Resident of 13+ years )q,q LOOMIS, RYAN From: John Zindler <zindlerj@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 8:12 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA Subject: 440 fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 No high density residential in college park area! John Zindler 204 Amherst PI Costa Mesa Ca 92626 198 LOOMIS, RYAN From: Elizabeth Rhinesmith <aerhinesmith@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 1:33 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA Cc: lorirobnett@aol.com Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record To Brenda Green and The City of Costa Mesa, My name is Ashley Rhinesmith and I am a Newport Beach born, Costa Mesa raised resident. I have recently purchased a home in the beautiful and quiet College Park neighborhood with my husband in hopes to start a family in a SAFE neighborhood. We are located on Greenbriar Lane just off of Princeton and absolutely adore this neighborhood. Recently we have learned of the plans for a development to go up at 440 Fair and requests for the zoning to be changed to High Density Residential. This is devastating news not just as a homeowner in the area but as a Realtor in Costa Mesa as this jeopardizes many homes privacy and the safety of their families. All of these people who spent their lives saving to live in the beautiful sought after Costa Mesa will now be burdened with a huge development that will also effect the value of their homes. Costa Mesa has been cleaning itself up and has done a beautiful job over the last 10-15 years, things are seriously changing and people are taking notice. Let's keep this momentum going and not let these huge developers with no love for our city come in and change that. The residents in College Park love this city and the unity in this neighborhood is beautiful, I know because prior to becoming a homeowner in College Park I rented over on Bowling Green. I strongly urge the city planning commission to seriously reconsider this development as it will be devastating to the residents here who are trying to protect thcir children, families and City. Keep Costa Mesa special and help protect this beautiful community that we are. Warmest Regards, Ashley E. Figlewicz (Rhinesmith) Realtor 949.307.2729 aerhinesmifhf Dgrnail.ccm Ashle welchmanrealtors.com Mr. Ryan Loomis AICP / Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record Dear Mr. Loomis, I am writing to document my objection to the development as proposed. I have been a College Park resident for 52 years. Our family home is located on Bucknell, and will be directly impacted by the new access on Carnegie. My concerns include the increase in parking and traffic through the neighborhood, as well as the loss of businesses. As a former Planning Commissioner, Chairwoman of the Redevelopment Agency, Executive Manager of the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce, and Mayor, I supported incentives to keep business in the city. As Mayor of Costa Mesa from 1980-1982, I worked to bring the interests of both the community and business together. Over 30 years ago, when Costa Mesa's population was only about 86,000, homeowners were already unhappy with traffic congestion, and raised concerns about too many cars cutting through neighborhoods. In 1988, I was part of a non-profit organization called "Mesa Pride Organization" that awarded quality housing developments that maintained the quality of neighborhoods. This organization arose because of the concerns that residents had over the rapidly increasing housing developments. I see the same concerns being raised by many Costa Mesans, as well as my neighbors in College Park. I encourage the Planning Commission to hear the concerns of the existing residents. I believe an honest consideration should be given to both the existing residents as well as the developer. Sincerely, Arlene C. Schafer LOOMIS, RYAN To: GREEN, BRENDA; TRAYLOR, MARIAN; ROSALES, MARTHA Subject: RE: 440 FAIR GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18084 For the Public Record From: Molly McLarney (mail to:gunnerratdog@mac.com] Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 4:25 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA<brenda.areenr?costa_mesaca.goa> Cc: info@colleFeparkunited.com Subject: 440 FAIR GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18084 For the Public Record Dear Ms. Green, I am writing to express my disapproval for the new high density housing being proposed at 440 Fair Drive in the neighborhood of College Park. As a College Park resident, OC business owner and one of the few local residents who's children attend our neighborhood school, College Park Elementary, I am opposed to adding more projects like this to our neighborhood. More high density housing is a terrible burden for our community. On a daily basis, we already deal with College Park being used as a speedway and the streets in front of our single family homes are used as parking lots for other high density projects off Fairview Rd. We do not need more of this type of housing in our community. Please know that this project does not have my support nor the support of my neighbors. Sincerely, Molly McLarney 208 Dartmouth Place Costa Mesa, CA 92626 L^ .Y.. GAgRIE.LENO P)AND OF MISSION INDIANS- ICIZH NATION J Historically known as The San Ga6riel Sand of Mission Indians recognized 6.9 the State of California as the akoriginal tri6e of the Los Angeles 6asin Ryan Loomis, AICP Associate Planner RE: AB52 consultation response for 440 Fair Drive in the city of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California Dear Ryan, Nov 17, 2016 Please find this letter in response to your request for consultation dated Oct 17, 2016. 1 have reviewed the project site and do have concerns for cultural resources. Your project lies in an area where the Ancestral territories of tate Kizh (Kite) Gabrieleiio's villages adjoined and overlapped with each other, at least during the Late Prehistoric and Protahistoric Periods. The homeland of ire Kizh Gabrieleno was probably the most injluential Native American group in aboriginal southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a:538), was centered in the Los Angeles Basin, and reached as jar east as the San Bernardino - Riverside area. The homeland of our neighbors the Serranos was primarily the San Bernardino Mountains, including the slopes and lowlands on the north and south flanks. Whatever the linguistic afiliation, Native Americans in and around the project area exhibited similar organization and resource procurement strategies. Villages were based on clan or lineage groups. Their home base sites are marked by midden deposits ofien with bedrock mortars. During their seasonal rounds to exploit plant resources, small groups would migrate within their traditional territory in search of specific plants and animals. Their gathering strategies often left behind signs of special use sites, usually grinding slicks on bedrock boulders, at the locations of the resorerces. Due to the project location and the high sensitivity of the area location, we would like to request one of our certified Native American Monitor to be on site during any and all ground disturbances (including but not limited to pavement removal, post holing, auguring, boring, grading, excavation and trenching) to protect any cultural resources which may be effected during construction or development. In all cases, when the Native American Heritage Commission states there are "no records ofsacred sites in the project area" the NAHC will always refer lead agencies to the respective Native American Tribe because the NAHC is only aware ofgeneral information and are not the experts on each California Tribe. Our Elder Committee & Tribal Historians are the experts for our Tribe and are able to provide a more complete history (both written and oral) regarding the location of historic villages, trade routes, cemeteries and sacred/religious sites in the project area. While the property may be located in an area that has been previously developed, numerous examples can be shared to show that there still is a possibility that unknown, yet significant, cultural resources will be encountered during ground disturbance activities. Please note, if they haven't been listed with the NAHC, it doesn't mean that they aren't there. Not everyone reports what they know. The recent implementation ofAB52 dictates that lead agencies consult with Native American Tribes who can prove and document traditional and cultural affiliation with the area of said project in order to protect cultural resources. However, our tribe is connected Ancestrally to this project location area, what does Ancestrally or Ancestral mean? The people who were in your family in past times, Of, belonging to, inherited from, or denoting an ancestor or ancestors lirtn: ' >i kr 5i.tlis li'eeiliciiotterr-t.cntn/ancestral Our priorities are to avoid and protect without delay or conflicts —to consult with you to avoid unnecessary destruction of cultural and biological resources, but also to protect what resources still exist at the project site for the benefit and education of future generations. At your convenience we can Consultation either by Phone or Face to face. Thank you CC: NAHC With respect, �- Andrew Salas, Chairman cell (626)926-4131 Andrew Salas, Chairman Albert Perez, treasurer I Nadine Salas, Vice -Chairman Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders FO box 393 Covina, CA `% 1 723 www. Tahrie�e: uin iiansvailanu .corn pa6rielenoinciians9p600.com L,v City of Costa Mesa Ryan Loomis, AICP Associate Planner 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Dear Ryan, Real Estate Development November 21, 2016 I am writing to follow-up to our conversation on Friday pertaining to the staff report which stated incorrectly that there were no changes to the project from the community meeting on October 19, 2016. The over-riding concern was that there would be a significant amount of cut through traffic through College Park; especially from home owners avoiding the Carnegie/Fair intersection because it is difficult to make a left or right hand turn to Fair Drive and instead go up Princeton or Bucknell to Fairview. I volunteered to investigate the following traffic issues: 1. Carnegie/Fair intersection 2. Cut through traffic on Bucknell/Columbia to Princeton and left on Fairview to 405 south 3. Create within the project an exit only opening on Fair Drive I reviewed all these items with our traffic engineer and scheduled a conference call with our traffic engineer, yourself and Raja Sethuraman to discuss the various facets. Our traffic engineer did a field observation and found very little if any queuing problems while exiting from Carnegie in the morning. However, I suggested and it was agreed that a white strip and "Keep Clear " could be painted at westbound Fair Drive and Carnegie to discourage vehicles from blocking left and right hand turning movements. This has been added as a condition of approval. We reviewed Google Earth as the likelihood of a vehicle that is going north on the 55 or south on the 405 freeway to cut through College Park and to Fairview and go up Fairview past the high school and college to enter the 405 south freeway. It was felt that Fair Drive to the 55 north required less effort and travel time. We also discussed that an exit only from the project to Fair Drive could be created and staff agreed. I rejected that option at the time because the "Keep Clear" striping would eliminate the problem. That option, however, is available to the planning commission to recommend to the city council. Additionally, keeping the current ingress/egress on Fair Drive with no access on Carnegie was rejected by staff, but many neighbors have expressed support for that design feature. Thank you. Very truly yours, A-1-2 /%66)1t - Stephen R. Sheldon Sheldon Development, LLC 901 Dove Street, Suite 230, Newport Beach, CA 92660 • phone 949-777-9400 • Fax 949-777-9410 ATTACHMENT 7 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT T MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -16-01/ REZONE R-16-011 MASTER PLAN PA -16-46 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT -18064 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES FOR A 28 - UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 440 FAIR DRIVE DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2016 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION / DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: RYAN LOOMIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RYAN LOOMIS, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER (714) 754-5608, ryan.loomis@costamesaca.gov DESCRIPTION The project involves the demolition of an existing 20,750 square -foot two-story retail/office center, and construction of eight new three-story detached residential units and 20 four-story (includes rooftop deck) duplex units. The project also includes approximately 26,643 SF of private and communal open space. The proposed project involves the following discretionary requests: 1) Adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) 2) General Plan Amendment GP -16-01 to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR). 3) Rezone 16-01 to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4) Planning Application PA -16-46 to implement a Master Plan for the 28 -unit residential project with specified deviations from the PDR -HD development standards, including the following: • Variance to allow deviation from required open space requirements (42% required; 36.8% proposed); • Variance for encroachment of block walls into required perimeter open space area (20 feet required; 6 feet on Fair Drive and 4.7 feet on Carnegie Ave proposed); • Variance to allow deviation from required landscaped parkway requirements (10 feet with no dimension less than 5 feet on house side of private street required; 10 feet/3.6 feet proposed); • Administrative Adjustment for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Fair Drive (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed). • Minor Modification for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Carnegie (20 feet required; 18 feet proposed). • Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines for multi -story to first floor ratio (100% multi -story to first floor ratio recommended; 150% for 4 -story units and 114% for 3 -story units proposed). 5) Tentative Tract Map 18064 for Condominium Purposes: Tentative Tract Map 18064 for residential subdivision for condominium purposes. APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT Steve Sheldon is the authorized agent for Dalessio Investments, the property owner. ENIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study -Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -MND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for a 20 -day public review and comment period beginning on October 4, 2016, and remained available for comment until October 24, 2016. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council take the following actions, by adoption of the resolutions described below. 1. Adopt IS/MND and adopt General Plan Amendment GP -16-01 by resolution. 2. Approve and give first reading to the Ordinances for Rezone R-16-01. 3. Approve Master Plan PA -16-46 and Tentative Tract Map 18064 for Condominium Purposes, subject to conditions of approval (and mitigation measures contained in the IS/MND). BACKGROUND History The project site is currently occupied by a 20,750 square -foot two-story commercial building and a large, asphalt paved parking lot. The current structures were constructed at the site around 1962, originally as medical buildings. Today, the two- story building is used for commercial retail and general and medical office uses. General Plan Screening GPS -14-04 On October 6, 2015, City Council considered General Plan screening request GPS -14- 04 to amend the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential (HDR) related to the development of a 28 -unit residential development at 440 Fair Drive (see General Plan Screening Minutes, Attachment 8). A link to the General Plan Screening staff report is found below: http://www.costamesaca_gov/ftp/council/agenda/2015/2015-10-06/NB-3.pdf Prior to the General Plan Screening, the applicant held a community meeting to address concerns. According to the applicant, neighborhood concerns included the following: • Adequate sewer capacity for residential development • Water capacity and usage • Loss of commercial zoning • Re -design entrance to minimize headlights • Cut -through traffic • Three-story structures and loss of privacy because of roof decks • Parking on Carnegie Avenue The neighborhood concerns and City Council comments from the General Plan Screening, along with applicant's response, are highlighted in below table. City Council Comments Re -design entrance to minimize headlights Line of sight from rooftop decks along Carnegie Avenue Setback from units to gas station 1 Medium densitv more NeighborhoodI Applicants Response Concerns Re -design entrance to minimize headlights Line of sight from rooftop decks along Carnegie Avenue � * Plan were modified to show project entrance to align with Bucknell Road. Development Plans were modified and removes roof top decks on detached homes along Carnegie Avenue Plan were modified and adjusted Unit 13 from 15 feet to 17.8 feet from property line next to gas station. Unit 14 remains 12 feet. The proiect density is proposed appropriate Setbacks need to conform to 20 -foot setback per Code at 16.25 du/acre, which is less than 20 du/acre minimum permitted by PDR -HD. The setback was increased setback from 16 feet to 18 feet along Carnegie Avenue. Portion of homes along Carnegie meet 20 -foot setback. Adequate sewer Project will be required to capacity construct sewers at own expense meeting approval of CMSD. Parking Plan modified and added 5 open guest parking Parking on Carnegie Avenue will Second Community Meeting on October 19, 2016 On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, the applicant held a second community meeting to showcase the changes of the project from the first meeting, as well as to listen to the concerns from the residents. The following are concerns addressed by the neighbors: Neighborhood Concerns Traffic will increase along neighborhood streets, including Bucknell Rd., Carneqie Ave, Princeton Dr., etc. Carnegie Avenue backs up due to traffic along Fair Drive. Don't want high density project. The project should be 2 -story low-density to match with neighborhood. Do not support rooftop decks Applicants Response Proposal to have Traffic Impact Report analyze the impact on traffic on these streets Proposal to place "Keep Clear" street markers at intersection of Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue Low density project would be unfeasible Deve 91,31 Plans were r)revio continue to be resident parking only Water Quality + Pending will -serve letter from Mesa Consolidated Water District Will comply with local and state standards for stormwater run-off Water Usage Landscape Plans refer to use of drought tolerant landscaping, and water efficient appliances Loss of commercial Property taxes are estimated to zoning increase with new community. Second Community Meeting on October 19, 2016 On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, the applicant held a second community meeting to showcase the changes of the project from the first meeting, as well as to listen to the concerns from the residents. The following are concerns addressed by the neighbors: Neighborhood Concerns Traffic will increase along neighborhood streets, including Bucknell Rd., Carneqie Ave, Princeton Dr., etc. Carnegie Avenue backs up due to traffic along Fair Drive. Don't want high density project. The project should be 2 -story low-density to match with neighborhood. Do not support rooftop decks Applicants Response Proposal to have Traffic Impact Report analyze the impact on traffic on these streets Proposal to place "Keep Clear" street markers at intersection of Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue Low density project would be unfeasible Deve 91,31 Plans were r)revio The project adds no value to College Park neighborhood Project Site/Environs modified to remove roof top decks on detached homes along Carnegie Avenue. Rooftop decks for duplexes look west toward commercial properties and not visible from Carnegie Avenue The project is high quality and removes a commercial building that is blighted The 1.66 -acre project site is located at the northwest corner of Fair Drive and Carnegie Way (see Attachment 1). Surrounding land uses generally consist of residential and commercial uses. Land uses immediately adjacent to the project site consist of the following: • North: Commercial uses (Orange Coast Fiat) are zoned C1 (Local Business District) and are located directly north of the site. • East: Single -story residences are located east of the site across Carnegie Ave, and are zoned R1. • South: An auto dealership (South Coast Mitsubishi) is located southwest of the site across Fair Drive, and is zoned C1 and CL (Commercial Limited). Also, a two- story apartment complex (Mediterranean Village) is located southeast of the site across Fair Drive and is zoned R3. ■ West: Commercial uses (US Gas) within the C1 zone are located west of the site. ANALYSIS General Plan Amendment GP -16-01 The proposed project involves an amendment to the City's General Plan to change the existing land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High -Density Residential. The HDR designation would allow a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre, or 33 units. The proposed project includes the development of 28 units, which creates a density of 16.25 dwelling units per acre. Friatinn (Zanaral Plan l and Use. NC Proposed General Plan Land Use- HDR The Zoning Code does not specify a maximum building height for the PDR -HD zone; however, the General Plan limits building height to a maximum four stories for buildings south of the San Diego (1-405) Freeway (Policy LU -2.8). Because the subject property for the proposed development is south of the 1-405 Freeway, the four-story maximum height would apply to the project. The project proposes 8 three-story units, with building height of 33 feet, and 20 four-story units, with a building height of 37.5 feet. As discussed below, a shade and shadow analysis indicates no shade or shadow impacts to sensitive land uses. Rezone R-16-01 A rezone of the 1.66 -acre development site from Local Business District (Cl) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD) is proposed. The rezone to PDR -HD would be consistent with the High Density Residential General Plan designation proposed for the project site. Existing Zone- C1 Proposed Zone- FOR -HD Zq I w 1 ]. Zq Project Site Plan The proposed plan includes construction of eight new three-story detached single-family units and 20 four-story (includes rooftop deck) attached duplex units within a residential common interest development. The site is accessed from Carnegie Avenue with one individual private street 24 -foot right -of way. Although the project is a tentative tract map for condominium purposes, the development functions partially as a traditional subdivision with eight detached residential units facing Carnegie Avenue. These eight units are located closest to the single-family residences on the east side of Carnegie Avenue. The 20 four-story attached units are located within the interior portion of the project site and along Fair Drive. The project proposes a density of 16.25 dwellings per acre, which is below the maximum 20 dwelling units allowed by the PDR -HD zone. The project provides 117 spaces total within the project site, including garage, driveway, and open guest parking. Table 1 below provides a development summary showing the various Code deviation requests. The project requests a variance from required perimeter open space requirements; a variance to allow a perimeter wall located along Fair Drive (behind Units 8-13) and a combination four -foot retaining wall/three-foot open fence along Carnegie Avenue (in front of Units 1-8), which are both considered structures, to be located within the perimeter open space; an administrative adjustment to allow buildings to be minimum 15 feet from property line along Fair Drive; and a minor modification to allow portion of buildings to be 18 feet from side property line along Carnegie Avenue. The PDR -HD standards do not include minimum interior side or rear setbacks; however, the project proposes a minimum of 10 feet for interior side setbacks (westerly property line), and minimum 11 -foot rear setback (northerly property line). To reduce potential noise and odor issues with the neighboring gas station to the west, Unit 13 (closest unit to gas station) proposes a 17 -foot- 8 -inch setback from westerly property line. V0 Table 1. Planning Application Summary Location: 440 Fair Drive Application APN: 141-421-23 Number: I I GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 General Plan Amendment; Rezone; and Master Plan for development of 28 units Request: SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: C1 (Current); PDR -HD (Proposed) North: C1 Local Business District retail General NC (Current); HDR (Proposed) South: C1 Local Business District (retail); CL Commercial Plan: Buildings Limited District; R3 Multiple Family Residential NA Open space District (apartments) Lot 216 FT x 398 FT West: I&R Institutional and Recreation District (golf Dimensions: (across course); PDR -MD, Planned Development -Medium Harbor) Density Lot Area: 72,310 SF 1.66 ac East: R1 Single -Family Residential District Existing Development: I Commercial retail use and surface parking DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON (Based on PDR -HD Zoning) Standard Required/Allowed Proposed/Provided PDR-HDDevelopment • - Develo ment Lot Area 43,560 SF 1.0 ac 72,310 SF 1.66 ac Density Max. 20 du/ac 33 Units Max 16.25 du/ac 28 Units Proposed) Maximum Site Coverage Overall Project): Buildings NA NA Open space 42% (30,370 SF) of total lot 26,643 SF— 38%' area 20 feet abutting all public ROW Perimeter Open Space Perimeter wall located 6 feet from PL (Fair Dr)' Front Courtyard retaining wall located 4.7 feet from PL (Carnegie Ave' Landscape Parkway _ 10FT/No dimension less than 5FT 10 FT/3.5FT' on house side of private streets Building Height N/A Plan 1-- 4 -stories/ 37 FT -6 IN Four -Stories per General Plan Plan 2-- 3 -stories/ 33 FT Building Setbacks Overall Project): Front Fair Drive 20 FT 15 FTS (Unit_8) Side (Carnegie Ave 20 FT 18 FT' Side west side NA 10 FT Rear (North side) NA 11 FT % ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor Plan 1 149.7% 2nd Floor 100% 148.8% 31d Floor 59.5% 4th Floor Plan 2 114.1% 2nd Floor 23.4% 3rd Floor On -Site Parkin2: 112 SPACES 117 SPACES Driveway Width 16 FT 18FT Back up Distance 25 FT 24 FT NA = Not Applicable or No Requirement. (1) Requires a Variance (2) Requires Administrative Adjustment (3) Requires a Minor Modification 4 24 -foot back okay with 18 -foot wide driveway per Transportation Division. CEQA Status I Initial Study- Mitigated Negative Declaration(IS-MND # Final Action I Ci!y Council Master Plan PA -16-46- 28 -Unit Common Interest Development Project The project involves the construction of eight new three-story detached single-family units and 20 four-story (includes rooftop deck) duplex units (total 28 -units). The unit types are summarized in the following table: Table 2. Unit Twe Summa Unit Size 1,975 Sq. Ft, Not Including Garage) Garage size 448 Sq. Ft. 2,050 Sq. Ft. 439 Sq. Ft Balcony 54 Sq. Ft. N/A Roof Deck 362 S . Ft N/A Total Unit Size w/garage 2,839 Sq. Ft. 2,489 Sq. Ft. No. of Bedrooms/Baths 4Beds/3 Bath +Den 3Beds/2.5 Bath+ Den No. of Stories/ Height 4 Stories/37.5 ft. 3 Stories/33 ft. No. of Garage Spaces 2 spaces 2 s aces 2 spaces No. of Open Spaces 2 spaces No. of Guest Spaces 5 space 117 parking spaces Total On -Site Spaces The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. The project includes a contemporary architecture style for the two Plan types. Plan 1 units are four- story attached structures designed with articulating roofs, including combination of gable and hipped roofs; combination of wall treatments, including stucco, shingle siding, board and batten siding, and stone veneer; decorative window treatments; and concrete tile roofing. Plan 2 units are three-story detached structures also designed with articulating roofs, including combination of gable and hipped roofs; combination of wall treatments, including stucco, shingle siding, board and batten siding, and stone veneer; decorative window treatments; and concrete tile roofing. Plan 2 units also provide a third story den, which includes dormer windows and appears as attic space. Although no balcony or roof decks are proposed for Plan 2, the 8 detached units provide front courtyards and decorative entryways along Carnegie Avenue. Open Space The project site is a 72,310 square -foot (1.66 -acre) development lot. According to the residential common interest development standards, 42% minimum open space, or 30,370 square feet, would be required for open space. The project requests a variance to allow less than 42% open space, or 26,643 square feet (38%) of open space at ground level. The project is designed as a traditional subdivision with private yards for all units, including private courtyards along the entryways for the eight detached units, and private backyards for the 20 attached units. In addition, roof decks and second -story balconies are proposed for the 20 attached four-story units; the roof decks would provide 21 percent of private open space. Access/Traffic/ Parking Access to the site is currently from Fair Drive. The proposed development will eliminate access off of Fair Drive and create a new private street entrance off of Carnegie Avenue, which will align with Bucknell Road. No on -street parking opportunity is available to the site; parking on both sides of Carnegie Avenue is resident only parking. The proposed plan provides for a small pedestrian only access gate to Fair Drive from the private street. Based on the current mix of office, medical, retail and service uses within the 20,750 SF building, it is anticipated that the new proposal will reduce the number of average daily trips by approximately 484 trips. A full trip generation analysis including AM and PM peak hours is discussed in more detail within the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 28 -unit development is required to provide 107 parking spaces, including 28 covered spaces and 65 open parking spaces (includes 14 open guest spaces). The proposed project will be providing 56 enclosed garage spaces, 56 open spaces on driveways, and five exclusive guest spaces within the development lot, for a total of 117 parking spaces. The proposed project meets the overall parking requirement due to the two -car garages provided for each unit and open driveway parking (56 enclosed garage spaces, 56 open spaces along each driveway); however, only five separate open guest parking spaces are provided instead of 14 guest spaces. Although the number of guest open spaces is deficient by nine space, overall the proposed project provides ten additional parking spaces than required. Driveway lengths are proposed to be 19 feet in length. The project proposes 18 -foot wide driveways to allow for adequate maneuvering in and out of the driveways and due to the private roads being 24 feet. Unit Type Required Tenant Covered Plan 1 1 -car garage Plan 2 1 -car garage Table 3. Parkin Required Required Tenant Open Guest Parkin 2.25 tenant 0.5/unit open /unit' Required Parking 20 tenant covered 45 tenant open 10 quest 75 total 2.5 tenant 1 0.5/unit 1 8 tenant covered open/unit 20 tenant open 4 quest 32 total Total 'Open oarkina can be reduced by 0.25 s Landscaping Provided Parking 40 garage 40 carport 80 total 16 garage 16 open 32 total 5 separate open guest parking 107 117 unit if covered parking provided in carport. The project provides for enhanced landscaping along Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue. In addition, trees, shrubs, and groundcover are proposed throughout the common open space areas and along building front landscaped areas. The remaining side and private X13 rear homeowner areas will be landscaped and maintained by each homeowner. The property is currently separated from Carnegie Avenue with a block wall and a row of mature trees along Carnegie Avenue that have intrusive root systems and will be removed with this development. The landscape plan includes replacement trees along Carnegie Avenue and Fair Drive. Trash Pickup The 28 -unit development will require sanitary disposal services from Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD). The project includes trash can storage area within each garage. Trash pick-up will be provided along the new private streets. A Will Serve letter will be provided by CMSD. Shade and Shadow A shade and shadow study was prepared (see Attachment 7) to determine the shadowing effects of the eight three-story units and 20 four-story units on neighboring properties. General Plan Land Use Policy LU -2.7 states that development of buildings over 30 feet in height should be permitted only if it can be shown that the structure will not adversely impact surrounding developments in terms of light, air, privacy and solar access. The City has not adopted a threshold for shade and shadow impacts; however, referring to other local jurisdictions, the threshold could range from two to three hours during winter months. The closest residential uses, or sensitive land uses, are located east of the project site across Carnegie Avenue, which is a 60 -foot right-of-way. Assuming each existing residential use along the east side of Carnegie Avenue is developed with a 20 -foot front setback, the proposed project is more than 80 feet from existing nearby residences. As shown in Attachment 7, no nearby residences will be affected by shade and shadowing during either the summer solstice (June 21) or the winter solstice (December 21St). The only areas potentially affected by shade and shadowing during the winter months are the commercial uses located north and west of the site. Hazardous Materials A Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (Phase I ESA) was prepared by AEI Consultants for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for 440 Fair Drive project. The Phase I ESA conforms with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13 and the EPA Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312). The Phase I did not identify evidence of Recognized Environment Condition (REC), Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC) in connection with the subject property during the course of their assessment. The property located west of the project site (2502 Harbor Boulevard) is a gasoline station that has operated at this site at least since 1963. The site is listed in the Cleanup Program Site database with Closed Status. A release of diesel and a mixture of waste oils impacted groundwater. According to the most recent groundwater monitoring report for the site prepared by KCE Matrix and dated June 2013, one 4,000 - gallon diesel underground storage tank (UST) and one 280 -gallon waste oil UST were removed from the site during December 1991. Using the groundwater data for the closest sampling point to the subject property with the highest concentrations detected, the results of this screening tool indicated that the potential for vapor -phase migration is not expected to be significant. The leaking underground storage tank (LUST) case received regulatory closure on June 2014 from the OCHCA. Based on the remediation work completed at the site, the low residual concentrations remaining onsite, and the closed regulatory status of the site, this site is not expected to represent a REC at this time. Buildings that were constructed prior to 1978 are likely to contain asbestos -containing material (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP). Based on the age of the existing two-story multi -tenant commercial office building that was first constructed circa 1962-63, ACM and LBP are likely to be present at the site. All such materials would be removed by properly licensed abatement contractors. Compliance with applicable rules and regulations would ensure impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment during project construction would be less than significant. Noise The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration provided a Noise Study to determine the noise impacts associated with the project. According to the Noise Study, the two monitoring sites exceeded the City exterior residential noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. As a result, the IS/MND provides the following mitigation measures to reduce exterior noise levels: 1. The project applicant shall construct a minimum 5.0 -foot high solid wall on the south side of the proposed private backyards for Units 8 through 13. The sound walls shall be required to be constructed of a solid material (e.g., concrete block or plaster) that are free of any cutouts or openings. 2. The project applicant shall provide a "windows closed" condition for each proposed home. A "windows closed" condition requires a means of mechanical ventilation per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. This shall be achieved with a standard forced air conditioning and heating system for each residential unit.) rating 26, or if necessary STC 28-30 windows, which typically provide 25-30 dB of noise reduction, would reduce interior noise levels to below General Plan thresholds. 3. The project applicant shall construct a minimum 8.0 -foot high solid wall along the west property line that is adjacent to the carwash. This sound wall should connect to the sound wall described in Mitigation Measure 1, with no openings or gaps permitted along Fair Drive. The sound walls shall be required to be constructed of a solid material (e.g., concrete block or plaster) that are free of any cutouts or openings. 4. The project applicant shall provide windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 29 STC for all west facing windows on the proposed Units 13 and 14. The PDR standards require an acoustical analysis be required with a development is located in a noisy environment. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring an acoustical analysis to ensure the roof decks do not exceed 65 CNEL. Residential Design Guidelines The Residential Design Guidelines recommend buildings be designed with articulation and off -sets, including a 100 percent second floor to first floor ratio for better massing and improved aesthetics of the elevations. This is to avoid a boxy appearance from the street and neighboring views. Also, long, unbroken building facades should be avoided and offsets and architectural projections should be made an integral part of residential design to enhance variety and interest. Varying roof forms and identifiable entries to units is also encouraged to add interest and variety to the street scene. Since there are carports on the ground floor which are not included in the building footprint the proposed ratio is higher than recommended; however, the proposed units meet the intent of the Residential Design Guidelines by providing a combination of materials, varying roof forms, and architectural projections. Subdivision The proposed subdivision is an air -space subdivision, so there are no individual lots. Since the applicant is proposing a common interest development, Code requires establishment of a homeowner's association and recordation of CC&Rs. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed General Plan land use designation for the project site is High Density Residential. Per the General Plan, High Density Residential is intended for residential development with a density up to 20 units to the acre (maximum 33 units). Because the density of the proposed project is 16.25 units to the acre (proposed 28 units), it is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The following analysis evaluates the proposed project's consistency with specific goals, and objectives of the 2015-2035 General Plan. Objective LU -1A: Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to preserve the residential character of the City at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure. Consistency: The project is an infill residential project within the allowable density for high-density residential development. According to the IS/MND prepared for the project, the project will create a decrease in average daily trips compared to the existing development, and would result in a less than significant increase in water demand. In addition, the project would result in a decrease in impervious surface areas on the site (by as much as 13.9 percent). The project would also be subject to compliance with the CMMC provisions, and thus, would result in less than significant impacts on drainage patterns and flooding. Therefore, adequate 2,1(p infrastructure would be available to serve the proposed project and the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. 2. Objective LU -1.3: Strongly encourage the development of...owner-occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Consistency. Because the proposed project is for ownership units, the project is consistent with this General Plan goal. 3. Goal CD -6: Image: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to enhance opportunities for new development and redevelopment to contribute to a positive visual image for the City of Costa Mesa and consistent with district image. 4. Goal CD -7: Quality Residential: Objective CD -7.1: Encourage excellence in architectural design. Policy CD -7.A: Ensure that new and remodeled structures are designed in architectural styles that reflect the City's eclectic quality, yet are compatible in scale and character with existing buildings and the natural surroundings within residential neighborhoods. Continue to update and maintain the Costa Mesa Residential Guidelines. Consistency: The project is consistent with Goal CD -6, CD -7, Objective CD.7.1, and Policy CD -7.A because the project would allow for the redevelopment of property containing an aging commercial building and parking lot with residential units that exhibit quality architecture and enhanced landscaping. A standard condition of approval recommends that perimeter wall treatments consist of decorative materials, and ornamental site landscaping will be provided throughout the project. As a result, the proposed project is supportive of these General Plan goals, policies, and objectives. 5. Goal LU -4: New Development that Is Sensitive to Costa Mesa's Environmental Resources Objective LU -4: Encourage new development and redevelopment that protects and improves the quality of Costa Mesa's natural environment and resources. Policy LU -4.1: Ensure that appropriate watershed protection activities are applied to all new development and significant redevelopment projects that are subject to the NPDES Stormwater Permit during the planning, project review, and permitting processes. 6. Objective LU -2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: Because the project is an infill development, it would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide 1,q service to the site. According to the project's IS/MND, the project would result in a decrease in impervious surface areas on the site (by as much as 13.9 percent). Less than significant impacts will occur to on- or off-site erosion and/or siltation. The project would also be subject to compliance with the CMMC provisions, and thus, would result in less than significant impacts on drainage patterns and flooding. The project is consistent with this objective. 7. Policy LU -2.7: Permit the construction of buildings over two stories or 30 feet only when it can be shown that the construction of such structures will not adversely impact surrounding developments and deprive existing land uses of adequate light, air, privacy, and solar access. 8. Policy LU -2.8: Limit building height to four stories above grade south of the 1-405 Freeway, except for special purpose housing such as elderly, affordable, or student housing, unless otherwise approved by a General Plan amendment. (A four-story/five-level parking structure with roof deck parking on the fifth level is considered a four-story structure.). Consistency: The project proposes a maximum of four stories, which is permitted by the PDR -HD zone, and per the General Plan policy for areas south of 1-405. Plan 1 units include three stories and a rooftop deck, which is considered a fourth story. A shade and shadow graphic (s) illustrates no impact to surrounding sensitive land uses. The project is bound by a commercial parking lot used by Orange Coast Fiat to the north, and single-family residences are located across a 60 -foot right-of-way to the east (Carnegie Avenue). As such, the project would be compatible with Policy LU -2.7 and LU -2.8. JUSTIFICATIONS FOR APPROVAL Rezone R-16-01 Findings Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(11), Planning Application Review Process, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Planning Commission shall find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets specified findings. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project, based on the following assessment of facts and findings which are also reflected in the draft resolution. Rezone to Planned Development Residential — High Densis (PDR -HD) is consistent with the proposed General Plan. On October 6, 2015, City Council approved General Plan screening GPS -14-04 requesting to amend the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential to accommodate a proposed 28 -unit residential development at 440 Fair Drive. The HDR General Plan land use designation allows densities between 12 dwelling units per acre to a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is seeking a rezone to PDR -HD zone, which is consistent with the HDR land use (max 20 dwelling units per acre). The proposed density of the project is 16.25 du/acre, which is slightly less than permitted under HDR land use. Per Sec. 13-59 of Zoning Code, density increments up to maximum shown in Table 24b 13-58 may be approved in order to provide an incentive for design excellence. The project is requesting 4.25 more dwelling units per acre above medium density's 12 du/acre. Incentives provided include: 1) location within '/ mile of public transit along Harbor Blvd; 2) distinctive high quality design and architecture; and 3) removal of an older marginal commercial building. The project is also consistent with many of the goals, policies, and objectives set forth in the General Plan Update adopted in 2016, as stated above. According to the IS/MND, it is anticipated that the new proposal will reduce the number of average daily trips by approximately 484 trips compared to the current mix of office, medical, retail and service uses within the existing 20,750 square -foot building. The City of Costa Mesa considers a significant traffic impact when project - generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (Level of Service A, B, C, or D) to deficient operation (LOS E or F). Currently the Harbor Boulevard/Fair Drive intersection is operating at LOS A during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C during p.m. peak hour. In addition, the Carnegie Avenue/Fair Drive intersection is operating at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C during p.m. peak hour. With the proposed project, these level of service are forecasted to continue at these levels during both peak hours. Master Plan PA -16-46 Findings The following are justifications for approval of the Master Plan request per Title 13, Section 13-29 (g)(5): • The project meets the broader goals of the General Plan and Zoning Code. As discussed above, the project meets goals of the General Plan, including Objective CD -7.1 which encourages excellence in architectural design for new projects. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. The project includes a contemporary architectural style for the two Plan types. Plan 1 units are four-story attached structures designed with articulating roofs and wall treatments including stucco, shingle siding, board and batten siding, and stone veneer. Each unit provides for a second -story balcony and roof decks. Plan 2 units are three-story detached structures also designed with articulated roofs, including combination of gable and hipped roofs and combination of wall treatments. Plan 2 units also provide a third story den with dormer windows so that the structure appears as a two-story building from Carnegie Avenue. Enhanced architectural treatments, including window treatments and combination of materials are proposed to provide visual interest along the public right-of-ways. The developer will also be required to build a minimum 5 -foot high block wall along Fair Drive to mitigate noise issues. In addition, enhanced landscaping will be located along the perimeter open space, and the units along Carnegie Avenue will include private courtyards and entryways. .' jj'!j i The project meets the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with the exception to the second -story design standards (second story shall not exceed 100% of first sty). Both plan types exceed the second floor to first floor ratio requirement, as the footprint of the second floor is larger than the first floor (149% for Plan One and 114% for Plan Two). For Plan One, the 149% second floor to first floor ratio is to accommodate a carport. For Plan Two, the 114% second floor to first floor ratio is to provide articulation and to create a more prominent front fagade and less prominent garage. Although the second floor to first floor ratio exceed design guidelines, the buildings enhanced features, articulation, and unique design meets the intent of the guidelines. The visual prominence associated with the construction of the units has been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors. The building elevations incorporate variation in surface planes to create interest and visual relief from off-site. The images below indicate these unique characteristics for both plan types. czav Plan 1 1.- s rim ® El L Plan 2 Li m,`�. o eye The landscape concept plan is consistent with the City's standards. The proposed project includes landscaping within the setbacks abutting the public right-of-ways (Carnegie Avenue and Fair Drive), within the private open space areas, and along the driveway and parking areas for each unit. The concept plan shows large trees along the perimeter of the development lot along Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue. Street trees in the landscape parkway will be consistent with requirements of Appendix D of the City's Streetscape and Median Development Standards and appropriately sized and spaced. In addition, drought -tolerant shrubs and groundcover will be located along Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue, and along the front portion of each unit to provide softening and interest. The enhanced private street entryway along Carnegie Avenue also includes a sign feature in the development site. As stated in the conditions of approval, two sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. The project will provide on-site parking spaces exceeding the current parking standards (107 required; 117 spaces proposed). To comply with the parking standards, the project will require a total of 107 parking �� 1 spaces total (four spaces per unit for eight detached three bedroom units; three and three-quarter spaces per unit for twenty attached four-bedroom units with carports; 14 open guest parking spaces at a rate of half space per unit). The proposed project meets the overall parking requirement due to the two -car garages provided for each unit and open driveway parking (56 enclosed garage spaces, 56 open spaces along each driveway); however, only five exclusive guest spaces are provided within the development lot. Although the number of guest open spaces is deficient by nine spaces, overall the proposed project provides 10 additional parking spaces than required. Also, although not counted towards parking requirements, street parking would be available along Carnegie Avenue with a residential parking permit only. + The lnitial StudylMrfgated NegativeDeclaration complies with CEQA requirements. The environmental analysis indicates that there are no significant, unmitigated environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. Mitigation measures are primarily required noise issues related to nearby commercial uses. A minimum eight -foot high wall is required along the westerly property line near the existing car wash, as well as a minimum five-foot wall along Fair Drive. Tentative Tract Map Findings The following are justifications for approval of the Tentative Tract Map request per Title 13, Section 13-29 (g)(13): ■ The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code, is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and is consistent with the State Subdivision Wrap Act. The proposed subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Policy LU -1.3 by developing owner - occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. The property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision for condominium purposes. Engineering staff has confirmed that there are no interferences with the City's or other utility right-of-way areas and/or easements within the tract. .r Variance Findings Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(1)(2), Findings, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Planning Commission shall find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets specified findings. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project based on the following: Code Section 13-29(g)(1) requires the following findings for variances: a. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. b. The deviation granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the deviation authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. C. The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. The project includes variance requests from open space requirements, encroachment of walls into required perimeter open space area, and variance to allow deviation from required landscaped parkway requirements; however, staff believes that approval of the variances is justified based on the following: • The strict a lication of develo ment standards de rives the ro ert of rivile es en'o ed by others in the vicinity and does not constitute a grant of special privileges. According to the PDR -HD standards, 42% minimum open space, or 30,370 square feet, would be required for open space, which includes areas not occupied by buildings, structures, parking driveways, or streets. The project's overall open space at ground level is 36.8% (42% required). These open space areas include private courtyards for the eight detached units, and private backyards for the 20 attached duplex units. The project also proposes roof decks for the 20 attached four-story units to address the shortfall. With these roof decks, the overall open space will be raised to 46.9%. The Planned Development Residential open space criteria generally does not allow roof decks to be counted toward open space if units provide ground floor access, unless, "where for other reasons, the Planning Commission finds that the provision of all or part of the required open space is impractical or undesirable. In such cases, each dwelling unit above the first floor shall be provided with patio or deck area of not less than 100 square feet". Each of the 20 duplex units propose a 362 square -foot roof deck, which exceeds the 100 square foot requirement. Many similar product types found throughout the City (i.e. multi-level live/work units in Urban Plans), are permitted to use roof decks as open space. Staff believes the 20 duplex units are similar to the live/work product found throughout the Urban Plan areas. Also, the duplex units do provide for private backyard spaces. Therefore, staff recommends allowance of deck space to be counted toward open space. Conditions of approval require an acoustical analysis be prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer prior to issuance of building permits, to ensure the noise levels in common and private open spaces areas, including roof top decks, is 65 CNEL or less. The Code requires the perimeter open space for Planned Development Residential be land areas that are not occupied by buildings, structures, parking areas, driveways, streets, or alleys. The project proposes walls and stoops along the perimeter open space areas along Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue. As such, the project requests a variance to allow these features within the perimeter open space areas. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures requiring a minimum five-foot high solid wall on the south side of the proposed private backyards for Units eight through 13 to address noise issues. The project proposes approximately 10 feet of enhanced landscaping between the sidewalk and walls along Fair Drive to soften the appearance. Currently, the site has an existing wall approximately eight feet behind the existing sidewalk, as shown below. Also, existing walls along the north side of Fair Drive, east of Carnegie Avenue, are adjacent to the sidewalk with no landscape buffer. As such, the proposed walls will be an improvement to existing conditions seen along Fair Drive. Proposed walls I? i L rr Fl*. Z eL f. i[7` J"_1% F Existing walls east of Carnegie Existing wall on project site ZN The eight detached residential units along Carnegie Avenue provide unique courtyard and stoop designs along the entryways of Units one through Unit eight. The proposed stoops are elevated from the Carnegie Avenue sidewalk behind a combination four -foot retaining wall and three- foot open decorative fencing. This design follows the Residential Guidelines, which recommend elevations to incorporate multiple building planes and offsets, including porches. These walls are buffered by landscaping to help soften the appearance along Carnegies. As shown in second picture below, the streetscape currently includes overgrown trees, a cracking wall, and razor wiring along the top of the wall. Staff believes these stoops and courtyards will provide a unique and visually interesting pedestrian experience along Carnegie Avenue, and be a vast improvement to existing conditions. Conditions of approval require a provision in the CC&R's that prohibit future solid walls or fencing along these courtyards above the existing three-foot open fencing. Stoops proposed along Carnegie Ave Existing view along Carnegie Ave Regarding the landscape parkway variance, the Code requires landscaped N parkways with a combined width of 10 feet, but not less than three feet on one side; the parkway on thef I� 'N house side of private streets shall be minimum of r five feet in width. The project proposes a landscaped parkway of three and one half feet ,# along the eight detached homes instead of the required five feet. The project, however, does provide for 19 feet of landscaping and hardscape along the private driveways of each attached duplex unit. As such, more than 10 feet of combined parkway is proposed along the private streets. It should be noted that these parkways are only visible within the interior of the project site. The parkway visible from public right-of-way (Carnegie Avenue) includes the private street entrance off of Carnegie Avenue. This street entrance exceeds parkway standards by providing for a 20-foot combined parkway, with no width less than 10 feet. This parkway will be heavily landscaped with a column entry sign to provide for interest and relief. With these enhanced features, staff supports a variance to allow a three and one-half-foot minimum parkway along the front of the detached units. • The granting of the variances for the open space and landscaped oarkwa requirements will not allow a_ use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the Qeneral plan designation for the pMperty. The granting of the variances for open space and parkway widths would not increase the intensity or density of the project. The project proposes a density below the maximum allowable density set forth by the HDR land use designation. The development is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as discussed earlier in this report, and will be required to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Safety regulations to ensure that no adverse impact to the public health, safety, or welfare is created as a result of this project. Z2� Administrative Ad'ustment Findin s The appropriate findings can be made for the requested code deviations. Code Section 13-29(g)(1) requires the following findings for the administrative adjustment, as described at the beginning of this report: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. 2. The deviation shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. 3. The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Administrative adiustment for encroachment of building into re aired perimeter open space area along Fair Drive would be justified by the fact that the strict application of the development standard de rives the prope_rtY of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity and does not grant special privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity (20 feet required; 15 feet ro osed). The Code requires a 20 -foot perimeter open space for Planned Development Residential zones. This includes land areas that are not occupied by buildings, structures, parking areas, driveways, streets, or alleys. The project proposes buildings to be between 15 feet (Unit eight) and 16 feet (Units nine through thirteen) from the front property line along Fair Drive. A five-foot high wall is also proposed, through a variance request, which would be built six -feet from the front property line along Fair Drive; this is required per the mitigation measures highlighted in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Enhanced landscaping will occur between the sidewalk and walls along Fair Drive to soften the appearance. Currently, residential units along north side of Fair Drive, east of Carnegie Avenue, have walls adjacent to the sidewalk with no landscape buffer; in addition, many of these residences are less than 10 feet from the ultimate right-of-way, as indicated in the photo below. As such, the proposed project would be considered an improvement to existing conditions as the increased building and wall setbacks, and enhanced landscaping, would improve existing conditions seen along the north side of Fair Drive. In addition, increasing the setback along Fair Drive would result in changes to the site plan which are not preferred, including causing a possible reduction ip"131 of open guest parking along then north side of the east -west private street, and reducing the rear setbacks of the units along the north property line. As such, the administrative adjustment request is justified and is not considered granting special privilege. • Granting of the deviation will not allow a use density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan desJgnatign for the property (33 units allowed, 28 units proposed). The project proposes a general plan amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential, which would allow up to 20 units per acre. The project site is 1.66 acres and, therefore, would allow for a maximum of 33 units. The request to allow encroachment into the front setback for the buildings does not increase the density or intensity of the common interest development, as the proposed development requests only 16.25 dwelling units per acre. Requiring the 20 - foot setback may require a complete redesign of the project that would possibly reduce open guest parking and rear setbacks for units along the north property line. The project does propose enhanced landscaping along Fair Drive, which will be an improvement to the existing conditions. This will provide visual enhancement for surrounding neighbors. As such, granting the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Minor Modification Findings The appropriate findings can be made for the requested code deviations. Code Section 13-29(g)(6) requires the following findings for a minor modification, as described at the beginning of this report: 1. The improvement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. 2. The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. Minor Modification for encroachment_ of_buildirg into required perimeter open space area along Carnegie Avenue would_ be justified by the fact that improvement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood 24 feet re airedro osed .The Code requires a 18 feel 20 -foot perimeter open space for Planned Development Residential zones. This includes land areas that are not occupied by buildings, structures, parking areas, driveways, streets, or alleys. The project proposes a portion of the detached residential buildings to be 18 feet from the side property line along Carnegie Avenue; however, a portion of each building's fagade will remain behind the 20 -foot setback. This configuration provides offsets and a horizontal plane break in the L�� building's fagades to enhance variety and interest. A combination four - foot block retaining wall with three-foot open fence is also proposed within the 20 -foot setback through a variance request, which will allow for a private courtyard area along each unit facing Carnegie Avenue. Enhanced landscaping will occur between the sidewalk and private courtyards along Carnegie Avenue to soften the appearance. As shown in the exhibits below, the 18 -foot setback will not encroach into the required 35 -foot visibility triangle along the corner of Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue, nor will it affect the 10 -foot visibility triangle at the driveway entrance to the project site. As such, allowing the buildings to encroach two -feet into the required 20 -foot setback would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project. Minor Modification for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along QarnegiLAvenue would be justified by the fact that is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity (220 feet required; 98 feet proposed). As discussed, the project proposes a portion of the detached unit's facade to be 18 feet from the side property line along Carnegie Avenue. A portion of each building's fagade will remain behind the 20 -foot setback. A combination four -foot block retaining wall with three-foot open fence is also proposed within the 20 -foot setback (through a variance request) to allow for a private courtyard area along each unit facing Carnegie Avenue. This courtyard will provide for an enhanced entryway and provide an area for residents to congregate within the front yards. Also enhanced landscaping will occur between the sidewalk and private courtyards along Carnegie Avenue to soften the appearance. The architecture, building layout, courtyards and landscaping are a unique design that will provide interest for pedestrians strolling along Carnegie Avenue. Currently, the site is developed with a sidewalk, overgrown landscaping, and a six-foot wall behind the property line. Conditions of approval require a provision in the CC&R's that prohibit future solid walls or fencing along these courtyards above the �5 CO Minor Modification for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along QarnegiLAvenue would be justified by the fact that is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity (220 feet required; 98 feet proposed). As discussed, the project proposes a portion of the detached unit's facade to be 18 feet from the side property line along Carnegie Avenue. A portion of each building's fagade will remain behind the 20 -foot setback. A combination four -foot block retaining wall with three-foot open fence is also proposed within the 20 -foot setback (through a variance request) to allow for a private courtyard area along each unit facing Carnegie Avenue. This courtyard will provide for an enhanced entryway and provide an area for residents to congregate within the front yards. Also enhanced landscaping will occur between the sidewalk and private courtyards along Carnegie Avenue to soften the appearance. The architecture, building layout, courtyards and landscaping are a unique design that will provide interest for pedestrians strolling along Carnegie Avenue. Currently, the site is developed with a sidewalk, overgrown landscaping, and a six-foot wall behind the property line. Conditions of approval require a provision in the CC&R's that prohibit future solid walls or fencing along these courtyards above the existing three-foot open fencing. As such, the proposed project will enhance the neighborhood. Finally, increasing the setback along Carnegie Avenue would cause changes to the site plan which are not preferred, including causing a possible reduction of open guest parking along then north side of the east -west private street, and reducing the side setbacks of the units along the west property line. SECTION A -A- 2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY AT CARNECIE AVENUE ENIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study -Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -MND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for a 20 -day public review and comment period beginning on October 4, 2016, and remained available for comment until October 24, 2016. The Mitigated Negative Declaration document can be found on the City's website at the below link: htt://www.costamesaca. ov/index.as x? a e=151 CD copies can also be obtained from the Planning Division at no charge. Hardcopies are also available for review at the following locations: City of Costa Mesa Planning Division/Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 The Costa Mesa/Donald Dungan Library 1855 Park Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Mesa Verde Library 2969 Mesa Verde Drive East Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing: 1. Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners within a 500 - foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. (See attached Notification Radius Map.) 2. On-site posting. A public notice was posted on each street frontage of the project site. 3. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper. Response to Comments As of November 4, 2016, there has been 6 public comment letters received regarding the project. Any additional public comments received will be incorporated, where appropriate, as a supplemental memo. Brief Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Under CEQA, a "significant impact" represents a substantial or potentially substantial adverse physical change to the environment. In evaluating specific effects of the project on the environment, the IS/MND identifies thresholds of significance for each effect, evaluates the potential environmental change associated with each effect, and then characterizes the effects as impacts. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels, as briefly summarized in the table below: Potentially Significant Environmental Effects Noise Mitigation Measure Summary' /'.." Level of Significance After The project applicant shall construct a minimum 5.0 -foot high solid wall Less than on the south side of the proposed private backyards for Units 8 through significant 13. The sound walls shall be required to be constructed of a solid material (e.g., concrete block or plaster) that are free of any cutouts or openings. • The project applicant shall provide a "windows closed" condition for each proposed home. A "windows closed" condition requires a means of mechanical ventilation per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. This shall be achieved with a standard forced air conditioning and heating system for each residential unit.) rating 26, or if necessary STC 28-30 windows, which typically provide 25-30 dB of noise reduction, would reduce interior noise levels to below General Plan thresholds. 3I • The project applicant shall construct a minimum 8.0 -foot high solid wall along the west property line that is adjacent to the carwash. This sound wall should connect to the sound wall described in Mitigation Measure 1, with no openings or gaps permitted along Fair Drive. The sound walls shall be required to be constructed of a solid material (e.g., concrete block or plaster) that are free of any cutouts or openings. + The project applicant shall provide windows with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 29 STC for all west facing windows on the proposed Units 13 and 14. ■ Implementation of the following multi -part mitigation measure is required to reduce potential construction period noise impacts: • The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall ensure that unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., idling in excess of 5 minutes) is prohibited. • The construction contractor shall utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • At all times during project grading and construction, the construction contractor shall ensure that stationary noise - generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from adjacent residences. • The construction contractor shall ensure that the construction staging areas shall be located to create the greatest feasible distance between the staging area and noise -sensitive receptors nearest the project site. (1) Refer to the IS/MND document for detailed descriptions of each mitigation measure. LEGAL REVIEW The IS/MND and draft resolutions have been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. CONCLUSION With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood. The project features quality construction and materials. The project will provide for adequate parking spaces required per Table 13-85 of the City's residential parking standards. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project; adopt General Plan Amendment GP -16-01; approve and give first reading to the Ordinances for Rezone R-16-01; and approve of Master Plan PA -46-46 and Tentative Tract Map 18064 for Condominium Purposes, subject to Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. alZ ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following alternatives: Recommend approve of the project with modifications. The Planning Commission may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any of the additional requested changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or additional analysis. In the event of significant modifications to the proposal, should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. Recommend denial of the project. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, Planning Commission must deny the application and provide facts in support of denial. If the project were denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. R LOOMIS, AICP JA TRV , AICP A sociate Planner Economic Development & Development Services Director/ Consultant Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map, Zoning Map, General Plan Land Use Map and 500' Radius Map 2. Existing Color Site Photos 3. Applicant's Project Description 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution for Design Review 5. Public Correspondence/Emails 6. Plans and Color Elevations/Renderings 7. Shade and Shadow Exhibit 8. General Plan Screening Minutes 9. IS/MND (Provided Separately) Also available on City Website at http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=151 cc: Economic Development & Development Services Director/ Consultant Sr. Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst File (2) �) �_; Authorized Agent: Sheldon Development, LLC Attn: Steve Sheldon, Project Manager 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Property Owner: Dalessio Investments 1777 Newport Blvd Costa Mesa, CA 92627 a 34 ATTACHMENT 1 City of Costa Mesa VICINITY MAP: 440 FAIR DRIVE - [Created: 10/13/2016 5:34:19 PM] [Scale: 369.89] [Page: 8.5 x 11 / Portrait] Overview Map 1 Legend Address POMAM Freeway Roads Ie Major SCC ON hA R Y OV COSK&e No NrwpatBLVD Hydrology AV Fneowotp 04/ inkay Channels (Cott) (Coirik) Map Display 6L Q t. �. i x ELMHURST LN : -- IV WA �a ' ❑ !k .I uj A( t� airSUCKNEL' • T ti IN TAU AIR QR 4. .` � 40 do t 1 � d �.r NASSAU RD . + ' 0 ' A o � t {C 12m-41 xn1P-m, GeaPr ;o.N C i (C12002-6 GeoPrisemet (GeoVec. Inc.) - (8661422.2505 City of Costa Mesa ZONING MAP: 440 FAIR DRIVE - [Created: 10/13/2016 5:35:52 PM] [Scale: 369.89] [Page: 8.5 x 11 / Portrait] Overview Map Map Display PI z J 638.07 �� Legend 0602160266H, 12103!'2009 f I&R 84 G A IC 12o 4 www-GooPriso.N ET ELMHURST LN -L R, x _ a O G- iC-R(x tt i O J BUCKNELL RD w FAIR DR - f � B7 I4ASSAt! RD O' U 1 HD Address Newpa4 BLVD ;/ Parcel Lines ci.s Points Prrrswy city C2 Freeway !'!' 31-CONDARY Boundary CL 4R Hydrology Roads Channels Water Ways AR -S CvHocter Zoni ng MG Fraow Street Names MP Maur APP (Cant} Street Ci PDC Centerlines (Cont) (cant) 0602160266H, 12103!'2009 f I&R 84 G A IC 12o 4 www-GooPriso.N ET ELMHURST LN -L R, x _ a O G- iC-R(x tt i O J BUCKNELL RD w FAIR DR - f � B7 I4ASSAt! RD O' U 1 HD City of Costa Mesa GENERAL PLAN MAP: 440 FAIR DRIVE - [Created: 10/13/2016 5:37:27 PM] [Scale: 369.89] [Page: 8.5 x 11 / Portrait] Overview Map Legend Street Names Street Centerlines hr Parcel Lines 13 City Boundary Water Ways Census Tracts Traffic Analysis Zones Map Display 3 Z W x o Q 6L ]� L x ELMHURSTLN O LDZP za LU 85 ty4CR 8I 13 BUCKNELL R Dd by S 9- i .p m C7 y v P1 A r FAIR DR r 84 GG G 0602160266H, 12/0312009 HD VTOUASSAUIRD 0 ;CI Z1JD2•6worv-Ck-aPrf.e-N IT 0 zz (C) 2002-6 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec. Incl - (B66)422-2505 Address W w13pr Points 1vo�p n 13LVD Freeway PrinsarV Roads SCCONDARY Hydrolaagy Co.ik�dar Channels F rxoray (cont) Street Names Street Centerlines hr Parcel Lines 13 City Boundary Water Ways Census Tracts Traffic Analysis Zones Map Display 3 Z W x o Q 6L ]� L x ELMHURSTLN O LDZP za LU 85 ty4CR 8I 13 BUCKNELL R Dd by S 9- i .p m C7 y v P1 A r FAIR DR r 84 GG G 0602160266H, 12/0312009 HD VTOUASSAUIRD 0 ;CI Z1JD2•6worv-Ck-aPrf.e-N IT 0 zz (C) 2002-6 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec. Incl - (B66)422-2505 2AlbO IWNObDi N 6L ` "•.ice -T":. _'It -aI f�.�...:' $� toll Oj i 3NY1• ., •• rb0lXO ��Y�� 3.�V7d e° N3IN37 S '° A67a7 ° 3NC'7 37r7Q dlV/b9N33b9 t - �`-'3OV 7d • I x , I�21 V fit Qj ^: ' �� �nN�Av �iD3NNtl7 : 3nN3/IV '4=_.6. 4-t �0 6d79dr►'n.� � � `D' I _ .1v77; •� 617 �-� a I I S � 1 2,3 r- -j : 3Alba NYM7bpX . �.. . 1 _ 3AlNO 1 3D377Q7 ..['S6 .�ti Y4� OZ o `rJ p w q I s �7i; T Im 5 r I� i a - kK gr•n� i 6 OL ATTACHMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION May 19, 2016 Project Name: Carnegie Avenue Project Location: 440 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Assessors Parcel Number(s): APN 141-421-23 Developer: Sheldon Development, LLC. Stephen R. Sheldon, Managing Member 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 777-9400 Entitlements Requested: The developer is proposing a 28 -unit residential development on the site of an existing 72,310 square foot mixed use building. If the General Plan Screening is accepted for processing, the proposal would require approval of the following: • General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential; • Rezone to change zoning from C1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential High Density); • Master plan/site plan; and, ■ Tentative Tract Map Project Setting: The existing property is a 1.66 -acre site located at 440 Fair Drive corner of Fair Drive and Carnegie Ave. To the west is the south-west corner of Fair Dr. & Harbor Blvd. Currently, the property is zoned as C 1 Neighborhood Commercial. The property is surrounded by existing single-family homes to the east designated as low density residential; an apartment complex to the south designated as high density residential; a car dealership to the south; a gas station with car wash to the west; and a used car dealership and parking lot to the north all designated as commercial. The site is rectangular configuration and is relatively flat (see attached project aerial). R4s Attachment A - Project DPcr-rintinn Page 1 of 4 Project Description: The proposed project submitted involves a General Plan amendment to change the to High Density Residential, which allows up to 20 dwelling units/acre. The site would be rezoned from Cl (Neighborhood Commercial) to a corresponding zoning that would allow up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The 28 -unit residential development on the 1.66 acre site results in a density of 16.86 dwelling units per acre. The proposed product type consists of two story detached homes that front on Carnegie with garages in the rear and three story homes that front on Fair Drive and the commercial side of the property with garages in the rear. Other entitlement applications include a tentative tract map and a master plan/site plan. The developer is proposing to demolish the existing two-story commercial building to accommodate the future, proposed development. The proposal is to construct a total of twenty-eight (28),detached single family homes. Eight (8) units are 2 -story units and twenty (20) units are three-story on a portion of a 1.66 -acre parcel (72,310 s.f.). The proposed units are an average of 1,786 and 1,811 square feet in area and include a roof deck (pending) and a two -car garage as follows: Unity type Unit Number Total SF Garage (SF) Roof Deck (SF) 3 -story - 4 bedroom unit + den (Duplex) 20 1,975 SF 448 SF 362 SF 2 -story - 3 bedroom unit + den 8 2,050 SF 439 SF No roof deck Total 28 Setting The project site contains one parcel (APN 141-421-23) is developed with a two-story office building that contains 13,500 square feet of medical office, 600 square feet of storage and 6,650 square feet of office and retail space. The project site has a Neighborhood Commercial land use designation that allows for convenience shopping and service needs of local residents. The current building and the neighboring dealerships have been in place since 1960s. Parking / Access Access to the site is currently from Fair Drive. The proposed development will eliminate that access and create a new one on Carnegie Avenue; this access is across from low density residential development. No on -street parking opportunity is available to the commerical site; parking on both sides of Carnegie Avenue is resident only parking, The proposed plan provides for a required fire department access on Fair Drive that will be restricted for emergencies. Based on the current mix of office, medical, retail and service uses within the 20,750 SF building, it is anticipated that the new proposal will MW r Attachment A - Project Description Page 2 of 4 reduce the number of average daily trips by approximately 484 trips. A full trip generation analysis including AM and PM peak hours will be required for the general plan amendment. The proposed project provides a total of 117 parking stalls (a two -car garage and two open parking spaces in driveways); and five open guest parking spaces are provided. Unit Type Garage Tenant / Guest Required Provided parking Parking parking Plan 1 Two -car 2 guest stalls 20 Units x 4 Stalls 2 Car Attached garage /Unit = 80 Garage x 20 Units 40 Stalls Plan 2 Two -car 2 guest stalls 8 units x 4 Stalls 2 Car Attached garage /Unit = 32 total Garage x 8 Units 16 Stalls Guest Private Drive Stalls in Driveways 56 Stalls Guest O en Guest S aces 5 Stalls Total Required Total Provided 112 117 Building Design and Setbacks The proposed site plan provides 18-20 foot building setbacks along Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue. The minimum front setback for corner lots is 20 feet on both street frontages in Planned Development zoning districts and the proposal will be subject to approval of a minor modification, administrative adjustment or a variance depending on the provided landscape open space. The site design allows for installation of a perimeter wall along Fair Drive to enclose the private open spaces for those units and mitigate any potential noise from Harbor Boulevard. The units along Carnegie Avenue are designed with front facing yards that are visible and accessible from that street frontage. This configuration allows a good interface with the single family residences on the east side of Carnegie Avenue. The residential property to the south and east of the project site are two-story and single story structure. Since the single family residences on east side of the Carnegie will be mostly impacted by visual effects of the new development, the units along Carnegie Avenue are designed with two stories. The three-story units are positioned along the commercial properties and Fair Drive frontage. The site is currently bounded by a concrete block wall along Carnegie Avenue and mature Ficus trees (on private property) that will be replaced with other tree species with less -intrusive root system and landscaping complementing the proposed front yards and the building designs. Attachment A — Project Description Page 3 of 4 The following is a list of proposed setbacks in comparison with the development standards of the Planned Development Residential zoning: Criteria PDR -HD requirement Proposed Perimeter Open 20 feet - along Fair Drive and 18-20 feet on Carnegie Drive - Space Carnegie Avenue includes front yard hardscape and stoops (1 st floor at 18ft) 5 -feet on Fair Drive Open Space 42% inclusive of perimeter 38.2% at grade open space Balconies - 1080 SF Roof Decks - 7,240 SF Total Proposed - 49.7% Interior Setbacks N/A 10 ft. and 1 1 ft. - north 1 Oft. - 17ft. - west Max. Height Four stories Three -stories and a roof deck Plan 1 - 38 feet Plan 2 - 33 feet Minimum lot size 1.0 acre 1.66 acre Maximum density 20 du/acre 17 du/acre Distance between N/A 8 -10 ft. Buildings A Attachment A - Project Description Page 4of4 [1 GTOTR 001 m WIRR Fam 0 �. Ok ta14i V i♦ 4 Puintor 33'39'49 I _ , �■� ■.rM• a*.. �a 6 WDRIVE � •a/ � • 4t ��} � +- � jet= 1 sonw ' �r •� _ . ,l.�_ r�+2007,Europe Tach no logi Kts ■ - -. +• � � • 11 ' N 11 5510�4.061 W elel 721it,_- __ S1reafning llflltlill 100%" Eye aft s+ • Air. L6. )A j _ it \ � • � moi' i5: � � '�yAt ,r� 04 � r gym. .� __ �. 4_ '� �` - -�• •.- --Now, dMAM �.Wdd�,..: --soft- Aft �y - .�� '•..`IIP• -'.+►•• .. _ �.ry�. ma rto io A*i, r 1, I 'ry r- 46, do '• All 46 TW MIUMMINr. . r-.!" 1 '9� View of the existing 6 -foot wall on the west of the subject site 2! .3 Looking south toward Fair Drive on subject site Looking north across Fair Drive at subject site from existing car dealership ass 440 Fair Drive View from the corner of Fair Drive and Harbor Boulevard Looking west at existing commercial building �A i Existing High Density Residential across Fair Drive, south of the subject site Existing car dealership across Fair Drive, south-west of subject site IQJ-b Looking west at Fair Drive toward the existing gas station Existing single-family home across Carnegie, east of the subject property e � _ 'c r coo eve: •, — , ,�~` - � •i -1 r.,,.- - ;rte ��• + �����- �•'�• r i `/ t rte• of Tqtl;hoelTAW, "Waft- JK- View of the existing 6 -foot wall on the west of the subject site Lookin south toward Fair Drive on subject site Iry ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. PC -16- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; (2) ADOPT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -16-01 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 1.66 -ACRE SITE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR); (3) APPROVE AND GIVE FIRST READING TO REZONE R-16-01 FOR A REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.66 -ACRE DEVELOPMENT SITE FROM C1 (LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO PDR -HD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL- HIGH DENSITY); AND (4) APPROVE MASTER PLAN PA -16-46 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 28 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 440 FAIR DRIVE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2015-2035 General Plan on June 21, 2016; WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65358(a) authorizes the City Council to amend the General Plan if it deemed to be in the public interest; WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of the City of Costa Mesa; WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan is subject to update and revision to account for current and future community needs; WHEREAS, an application was filed by Sheldon Development, LLC, on behalf of owner of real properties located at 440 Fair Drive, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Certification of the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -MND) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -16-01. Change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential to allow for a maximum density of 20 du/acre. 3. Rezone R-16-01. A rezone to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4. Planning Application PA -16-46. Master Plan for the 28 -unit residential common interest development project with specified deviations from the PDR -HD development standards, including the following: i. Variance to allow deviation from required open space requirements (42% required; 36.8% proposed); ii. Variance for encroachment of block walls into required perimeter open space area (20 feet required; 6 feet (Fair Drive) and 4.7 feet (Carnegie Ave) proposed); iii. Variance to allow deviation from required landscaped parkway requirements (10 feet with no dimension less than 5 feet on house side of private street required; 10 feet/3.6 feet proposed); iv. Administrative Adjustment for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Fair Drive (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed). v. Minor Modification for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Carnegie (20 feet required; 18 feet proposed). vi. Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines for multi -story to first floor ratio (100% multi -story to first floor ratio recommended; 150% for 4 -story units and 114% for 3 -story units proposed). 5. Tentative Tract Map 18064 for Condominium Purposes: Tentative Tract Map 18064 for residential subdivision for condominium purposes. WHEREAS, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is proposed to change the land use designation of the site for the development of the project as described above; WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment involves an amendment to the Land Use Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit 1) and a text amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (Exhibit 2); WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment approval is pending the adoption of Ordinance No. 16- for Rezone R-16-01 (Exhibit 3); WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2016, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; ZUT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the abovementioned land use entitlements; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated, and the required 20 -day public review period was specified from October 4, 2016 to October 24, 2016 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the final adoption of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration shall be considered by the City Council as the final approval authority, after evaluation of the environmental document and all comments on the IS/MND received during the public review period; WHEREAS, written comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to, where appropriate, in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15073; WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would require recirculation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the environmental documentation comprising the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and has found that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and identified potentially significant impacts related to noise; WHEREAS, the IS/MND identified appropriate measures that will mitigate the identified impacts to a level that is less than significant; WHEREAS the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; ?We WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit B and Exhibit B1, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THAT CITY COUNCIL take the following actions: (1) ADOPT the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) ADOPT General Plan Amendment GP -16-01, as shown in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2; (3) GIVE FIRST READING to Rezone R-16-01, as shown in Exhibit 3; (4) APPROVE Master Plan PA -16-46 and Tentative Tract Map 18064 for Condominium Purposes, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for General Plan Amendment GP -16-01 and Rezone R- 16-01, and upon the applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibit B and Exhibit B1, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November, 2016. Robert L. Dickson Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission 20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Jay Trevino, Acting Secretary to the Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Planning Commission of the City of Costa Resolution was passed and adopted at a Commission held on November 14th, 2016 Jay Trevino, Acting Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission Z�� EXHIBIT A FINniNns A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: Finding: A compatible and harmonious relationship exists between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhoods. Facts in Support of Findings: With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND for the proposed project, all potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood. The project features quality construction and materials. The proposed parking is adequate to meet the demand for this project. Finding: Safety and compatibility of the design of the parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed on-site parking will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed mix of units within this project. The project will provide adequate sight distance for vehicles at all project drive approaches. A surplus of parking will be provided throughout the project. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study. The project has been conditioned to comply with these conditions; as a result, the safety and compatibility of the project has been insured. Finding: The use is consistent with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The project proposes 28 dwelling units; the existing General Plan and zoning designations would allow up to 33 dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Finding: The cumulative effect of all the planning applications have been considered. Facts in Support of Findings: The cumulative effects of General Plan Amendment GP -16-01, Rezone R-16-01, and Master Plan PA -16-46 have all been considered. The project required the preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which discovered potential noise impacts. As a result, the IS/MND provides mitigation measures to reduce exterior noise levels for this project. Otherwise, no significant impacts were identified. .��I� B. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(11) because: Finding: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: On October 6, 2015, City Council approved General Plan screening GPS -14-04, which requested to amend the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential to accommodate a proposed 28 -unit residential development at 440 Fair Drive. The HDR General Plan land use designation allows maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is seeking a rezone to PDR -HD zone, which is consistent with the HDR land use and allows a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density of the project is 16.25 du/acre, which is slightly less than permitted under HDR land use. Per Sec. 13-59 of Zoning Code, density increments up to maximum shown in Table 13-58 may be approved in order to provide an incentive for design excellence. The project is requesting 4.25 more dwelling units per acre above medium density's 12 du/acre. Incentives provided include: 1) location within '/4 mile of public transit along Harbor Blvd; 2) distinctive high quality design and architecture; and 3) removal of an older marginal commercial building. The project is also consistent with many of the goals, policies, and objectives set forth in the General Plan Update adopted in 2016. According to the IS/MND, it is anticipated that the new proposal will reduce the number of average daily trips by approximately 484 trips compared to the current mix of office, medical, retail and service uses within the existing 20,750 square -foot building. The City of Costa Mesa considers a significant traffic impact when project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (Level of Service A, B, C, or D) to deficient operation (LOS E or F). Currently the Harbor Boulevard/Fair Drive intersection is operating at LOS A during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C during p.m. peak hour. In addition, the Carnegie Avenue/Fair Drive intersection is operating at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C during p.m. peak hour. With the proposed project, these level of service are forecasted to continue at these levels during both peak hours. C. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (g)(5): Finding: The Master Plan meets the broader goals of the General Plan and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, and integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. Facts in Support of Findings: The Master Plan application is for the proposed development of 28 -unit residential common interest development with two plan types, including 20 four-story units (Plan 1) and eight three- story units (Plan 2), 117 parking spaces throughout the site, and enhanced landscaping. With regard to the master plan, the following is noted: a 10 The proiect features quality construction and materials. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. The project includes a contemporary architecture style for the two Plan types. Plan 1 units are four-story attached structures designed with articulating roofs, including combination of gable and hipped roofs; combination of wall treatments, including stucco, shingle siding, board and batten siding, and stone veneer; decorative window treatments; and concrete tile roofing. Each unit provides for a second -story balcony and roof decks. Plan 2 units are three-story detached structures also designed with articulating roofs, including combination of gable and hipped roofs; combination of wall treatments, including stucco, shingle siding, board and batten siding, and stone veneer; decorative window treatments; and concrete tile roofing. Plan 2 units also provide a third story den. Enhanced architectural treatments, including window treatments and combination of materials are proposed to provide visual interest along the public right-of-ways. The developer will also be required to build a minimum 5 - foot high block wall along Fair Drive to mitigate noise issues. In addition, enhanced landscaping will be located along the perimeter open space, and the units along Carnegie Avenue will include private courtyards and entryways. The proiect meets the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with the exception to the second -story design standards (second story shall not exceed 100% of first story). This master plan includes preservation of overall open space, landscaping, appearance, mass and scale of structures, location of windows, varied roof forms and roof plan breaks, and any other applicable design features. Both plan types exceed the second floor to first floor ratio requirement, as the footprint of the second floor is larger than the first floor (149% for Plan One and 114% for Plan Two). For Plan One, the 149% second floor to first floor ratio is to accommodate a carport. For Plan Two, the 114% second floor to first floor ratio is to provide articulation and to create a more prominent front facade and less prominent garage. Although the second floor to first floor ratio exceed design guidelines, the buildings enhanced features, articulation, and unique design meets the intent of the guidelines. The visual prominence associated with the construction of the units has been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors. The building elevations incorporate variation in surface planes to create interest and visual relief from off-site. Architectural elements include stucco with accents, horizontal lap siding, and board and batten. Roof materials include concrete tile. The eight detached units include a front entry porch that will enhance the front elevations and views from Carnegie Avenue. The landscape concept plan is consistent with the City's standards. The proposed project includes landscaping within the setbacks abutting the public right-of-ways (Carnegie Avenue and Fair Drive), within the private open space areas, and along the driveway and parking areas for each unit. The concept a71 plan shows large trees along the perimeter of the development lot along Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue. Street trees in the landscape parkway will be consistent with requirements of Appendix D of the Streetscape and Median Development Standards and appropriately sized and spaced. In addition, drought -tolerant shrubs and groundcover will be located along Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue, and along the front portion of each unit to provide softening and interest. The enhanced private street entryway along Carnegie Avenue also includes a sign feature into the development site. The proposed project meets the parking requirements per the Zoning Code. The project proposes a new 5 -level parking structure for 503 covered parking spaces. The parking structure provides for subterranean parking for a portion of guest spaces, and includes privacy gates for added security. The 5 -level structure will be wrapped around on three sides (excluding south elevation) by the proposed apartment building, and a welded wire mesh grid system that supports the growth of landscape vines, and woven metal wire cloth will be used for screening the 5 -level parking structure. The pMiect will provide on-site parking spaces exceeding the current parking standards 107 re uired; 117 spaces ro osed . To comply with the parking standards, the project will require a total of 107 parking spaces total (4 spaces per unit for eight detached 3 bedroom units; 3.75 spaces per unit for twenty attached four-bedroom units with carports), which includes the 14 open guest parking spaces at a rate of 0.5 per unit. The proposed project meets the overall parking requirement due to the two -car garages provided for each unit and open driveway parking (56 enclosed garage spaces, 56 open spaces along each driveway); however, only five exclusive guest spaces are provided within the development lot. Although the number of guest open spaces is deficient by nine spaces, overall the proposed project provides ten additional parking spaces than required. The protect has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding uses in the area and future apartment tenants will be notified of the exisfing uses_in_the vicinity of this project. The project has been designed as a self-contained residential community. The project includes a contemporary architecture style for the two Plan types. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility with the surrounding area. D. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(1) because: Variance Finding: Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. Finding: The deviation granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the deviation authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. a&b) Facts in Support of Finding: The strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity and does not constitute a grant of special privileges. According to the PDR -HD standards, 42% minimum open space, or 30,370 square feet, would be required for open space, which includes areas not occupied by buildings, structures, parking driveways or streets. The project's overall open space at ground level is 36.8 percent (42% required). These open space areas include private courtyards for the eight detached units, and private backyards for the 20 attached duplex units. The project also proposes roof decks for the 20 attached four-story units to address the shortfall. With these roof decks, the overall open space will be raised to 46.9 percent. The Planned Development Residential open space criteria generally does not allow roof decks to be counted toward open space if units provide ground floor access, unless, "where for other reasons, the Planning Commission finds that the provision of all or part of the required open space is impractical or undesirable. In such cases, each dwelling unit above the first floor shall be provided with patio or deck area of not less than 100 square feet". Each of the 20 duplex units propose a 362 square -foot roof deck, which exceeds the 100 square foot requirement. Many similar product types found throughout the City (i.e. multi- level live/work units in Urban Plans), are permitted to use roof decks as open space. Therefore, staff recommends allowance of deck space to be counted toward open space. The Code requires open space for Planned Development Residential be land areas that are not occupied by buildings, structures, parking areas, driveways, streets or alleys. The perimeter open space areas along Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue includes walls and stoops, which are considered structures. As such, the project requests a variance to allow these features within the perimeter open space areas. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures requiring a minimum 5.0 -foot high solid wall on the south side of the proposed private backyards for Units 8 through 13 to address noise issues. The project proposes enhanced landscaping between the sidewalk and walls along Fair Drive to soften the appearance. Currently, existing walls along north side of Fair Drive have walls adjacent to the sidewalk with no landscape buffer. As such, the proposed walls are similar and are an improvement to existing conditions seen along Fair Drive. Regarding the stoops along Carnegie, the proposed stoops include combination four -foot retaining wall and three-foot open decorative fencing. The stoops provide private courtyards along the entryway of Units 1 through Unit 8. This design follows the Residential Guidelines, which recommend elevations to incorporate multiple building planes and offsets, including porches. These walls are buffered by landscaping to help soften the ,C>2-113 appearance along Carnegies. Code requires landscaped parkways with a combined width of 10 feet, but not less than 3 feet on one side; the parkway on the house side of private streets shall be minimum of 5 feet in width. The project proposes a landscaped parkway of 3.5 feet along the eight detached homes instead of the required 5 feet. The project, however, does provide for 19 feet of landscaping and hardscape along the private driveways of each attached unit. As such, more than 10 feet of combined parkway is proposed along the private streets. It should be noted that these parkways are only visible within the project site. The private street entrance off of Carnegie Avenue into the project site provides for a 20 -foot combined parkway, with no width less than 10 feet. This parkway will be heavily landscaped with a column entry sign to provide for interest and relief. With these enhanced features, staff supports a variance to allow a 5 -foot minimum parkway along the front of the detached units. Finding: The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. c) Facts in Support of Finding: The granting of the variances for the open space and landscaped parkway requirements will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. The granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The development is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as discussed earlier in this report, and will be required to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Safety regulations to ensure that no adverse impact to the public health, safety, or welfare is created as a result of this project. Administrative Adjustment Finding: Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. Finding: The deviation granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the deviation authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. a&b) Facts in Support of Finding: Administrative adjustment for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Fair Drive would be justified by the fact that the strict application of the development standard deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity and does Id-l"I not grant special privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed). The Code requires a 20 -foot perimeter open space for Planned Development Residential zones. This includes land areas that are not occupied by buildings, structures, parking areas, driveways, streets or alleys. The project proposes buildings to be between 15 feet (Unit 8) and 16 feet (Units 9-13) from the front property line along Fair Drive. A 5 -foot high wall is also proposed, through a variance request, which would be built six -feet from the front property line along Fair Drive; this is required per the mitigation measures highlighted in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Enhanced landscaping will occur between the sidewalk and walls along Fair Drive to soften the appearance. Currently, residential units along north side of Fair Drive, east of Carnegie Avenue, have walls adjacent to the sidewalk with no landscape buffer; in addition, many of these residences are less than 10 feet from the ultimate right -right-of-way, as indicated in the photo below. As such, the proposed project would be considered an improvement to existing conditions as the increased building and wall setbacks, and enhanced landscaping, would improve existing conditions seen along the north side of Fair Drive. In addition, increasing the setback along Fair Drive would cause changes to the site plan which are not preferred, including causing a possible reduction of open guest parking along then north side of the east -west private street, and reducing the rear setbacks of the units along the north property line. As such, the administrative adjustment request is justified and is not considered granting special privilege. Finding: The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. c) Facts in Support of Finding: Granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property (33 units allowed; 28 units proposed). The project proposes a general plan amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential, which would allow up to 20 units per acre. The project site is 1.66 acres and, therefore, would allow for a maximum of 33 units. The request to allow encroachment into the front setback for the buildings does not increase the density or intensity of the common interest development, as the proposed development requests only 16.25 dwelling units per acre. Requiring the 20 -foot setback may require a complete redesign of the project that would possibly reduce open guest parking and rear setbacks for units along the north property line. The project does propose enhanced landscaping along Fair Drive, which will be an improvement to the existing conditions. This will provide visual enhancement for surrounding neighbors. As such, granting the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. E. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(6) because: ;2 Finding: The improvement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: Minor Modification for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Carnegie Avenue would be justified by the fact that improvement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood (20 feet required; 18 feet proposed). The Code requires a 20 - foot perimeter open space for Planned Development Residential zones. This includes land areas that are not occupied by buildings, structures, parking areas, driveways, streets, or alleys. The project proposes a portion of the detached residential buildings to be 18 feet from the side property line along Carnegie Avenue; however, a portion of each building's facade will remain behind the 20 -foot setback. This configuration provides offsets and a horizontal plane break in the building's facades to enhance variety and interest. A combination four -foot block retaining wall with three-foot open fence is also proposed within the 20 -foot setback through a variance request, which will allow for a private courtyard area along each unit facing Carnegie Avenue. Enhanced landscaping will occur between the sidewalk and private courtyards along Carnegie Avenue to soften the appearance. As shown in the exhibits below, the 18 -foot setback will not encroach into the required 35 - foot visibility triangle along the corner of Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue, nor will it affect the 10 -foot visibility triangle at the driveway entrance to the project site. As such, allowing the buildings to encroach two -feet into the required 20 -foot setback would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project. Finding: The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. Facts in Support of Finding: Minor Modification for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Carnegie Avenue would be justified by the fact that is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity (20 feet required; 18 feet proposed). As discussed, the project proposes a portion of the detached unit's facade to be 18 feet from the side property line along Carnegie Avenue. A portion of each building's facade will remain behind the 20 -foot setback. A combination four -foot block retaining wall with three-foot open fence is also proposed within the 20 -foot setback (through a variance request) to allow for a private courtyard area along each unit facing Carnegie Avenue. This courtyard will provide for an enhanced entryway and provide an area for residents to congregate within the front yards. Also enhanced landscaping will occur between the sidewalk and private courtyards along Carnegie Avenue to soften the appearance. The architecture, building layout, courtyards and landscaping are a unique design that will provide interest for pedestrians strolling along Carnegie Avenue. Currently, the site is developed with a sidewalk, overgrown landscaping, and a six-foot wall behind the property line. As such, the proposed project will enhance the neighborhood. Finally, increasing the setback along Carnegie Avenue would cause changes to the site plan which are not preferred, including causing a possible reduction of open guest parking along then north side of the east -west private street, and reducing the side setbacks of the units along the west property line. F. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(13) because: Finding: The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Objectives adequate infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project; the project promotes homeownership opportunities to improve the balance between renter and owner occupied housing in the City; and the project would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. The project design complies with development standards for residential common interest developments, however the project is requesting a variance from open space requirements, and an administrative adjustment and minor modification from building setback requirements. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: The project proposes residential uses on the property. The project has a density of 16.25 units per acre, consistent with the General Plan designation of High Density Residential, which allows 20 dwelling units per acre. Finding: The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the Zoning Code and General Plan, and consideration of appropriate environmental information. Facts in Support of Finding: The City of Costa Mesa prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS/MND), which was conducted pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. The a�� project complies with the maximum allowed density for the site and provides adequate open space, parking and setbacks from adjacent properties. Finding: The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by State Government Code Section 66473.1. Facts in Support of Finding: The project provides private open space areas under partial roof canopies and incorporates landscaping, such as trees, to ensure natural and passive heating and cooling from the sun exposure. Approximately 70% of the units are designed in a north -south position allowing for narrow portion of homes along the southern elevation to minimize sun exposure. The project also provides private open space areas under entry canopies. Finding: The subdivision and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project does not interfere with the public right of way. Per the Public Services Division, the project will require easements along the front property line abutting Fair Drive right-of- ways for a future bike path. The project will also require undergrounding of existing utility poles along the frontage and within the property. Finding: The discharge of sewage from this subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code). Facts in Support of Finding: The applicant will be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District. G- The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval that reduce impacts to the fullest extent reasonable and practicable. H. Mitigation Measures from the Final IS/MND have been included as conditions of approval. If any of these conditions are removed, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the condition(s) are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. C7 . 6- The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. a�9 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The expiration date of the Final Master Plan PA -16-46 shall coincide with the expiration date of the tentative tract map for condominium purposes, which is valid for two years. An extension request is required to be approved by the Planning Commission to extend the expiration for each additional year. 2. Final Master Plan PA-16-46/TT-18064 shall comply with the conditions of approval, code requirements, special district requirements, and mitigation measures of the IS/MND for this project. Mitigation measures from the IS/MND for this project have been included below. If any of these conditions are removed, the City Council must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. 3. The conditions of approval including Mitigation Measures incorporated by reference in these Conditions of Approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA -16-46 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the building plan check submittal package. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide a Buyer's Notice for review/approval to the Development Services Director. It will serve as written notice of the then -existing noise environment and commercial operations of neighboring properties. Buyers must sign a disclosure to acknowledge that they have read and understand the existing land use conditions. The disclosure notice shall be kept on file by the developer and shall be approved in form and substance by the City Attorney's office. 5. A residential parking management plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Director and the Transportation Services Manager prior to issuance of first certificate of occupancy. The parking management plan shall denote the following: a. Method of allocation of assigned parking, as applicable. b. Location of visitor parking, including appropriate signage. c. Location of security gates, if any, and how gates will be operated. d. Provide proof of a contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations if parking problems arise. 6. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 7. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 30 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional fill dirt is needed to provide acceptable on-site storm water flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may include subsurface tie-in to public storm water facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. Applicant is advised that recordation of a drainage easement across the private street may be required to fulfill this requirement. 8. The developer shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy. This inspection is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 9. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) the applicant shall provide a scaled and dimensioned digital site plan(s) for the project site, on either a CD or thumb drive, to the Planning Division. All site plans shall include an accurate and precise drawing of all building footprints and property line locations for the entire project site. All buildings shall be annotated with its corresponding address and suites if applicable. 10. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of individual units, suites, buildings, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 11. The project shall incorporate green building design and construction techniques where feasible; CAL Green Code or higher as determined by applicant. The applicant may contact the Building Safety Division at (714) 754-5273 for additional information. 12. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter system which is painted to match the building would comply with the condition. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 13. All proposed signage must conform to residential sign regulations per Zoning Code. 14. Demolition permits for existing structures shall be obtained and all work and inspections completed prior to final building inspections. Developer is notified that written notice to the Air Quality Management District may be required ten (10) days prior to demolition. 15. The private, interior fences between the proposed home shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height. 16. Developer shall submit a detailed Landscape Plan for the public and private open spaces, for review and approval by the Development Services Department, prior to any construction landscape improvements. The plan shall include all decorative hardscape and landscape improvements as shown on the conceptual plans to provide visual relief for the project from the street. Final materials shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. Perimeter landscaping shall be planted with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits and shall contain additional 24 -inch box trees above the minimum Code requirements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller sized trees to 24 -inch box trees or providing additional 24 -inch box trees. Existing mature trees shall be retained wherever possible. Should it be necessary to remove existing trees, the applicant shall submit a written request and justification to the Planning Division. A report from a California licensed arborist may be required as part of the justification. Replacement trees shall be of a size consistent with trees to be removed and may be required on a 1:1 basis, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. This requirement shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 17. Street trees in the landscape parkway shall be selected from Appendix D of the Streetscape and Median Development Standards and appropriately sized and spaced (e.g. 15 -gallon size planted at 30' on centers), or as determined by the Development Services Director once the determination of parkway size is made. The final landscape concept plan shall indicate the design and material of these areas, and the landscape/hardscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 18. Developer shall provide to add "Keep Clear" marking on Fair Drive at Carnegie Avenue. 19. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the private street shall not be entirely paved with asphalt nor be developed with a center concrete swale. The private street shall be complemented by stamped concrete or pervious pavers. The final landscape concept plan shall indicate the landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas. 20. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall identify to the Development Services Director a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site activity, including resolution of issues related to dust generation from grading/paving activities. 21. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan features methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring uses to the fullest extent that is reasonable and practicable. The plan shall include construction parking and vehicle access and specifying staging areas and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan should mitigate disruption to businesses during construction. The truck route plan shall preclude truck routes through eIntial areas and major truck traffic during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200 trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or Transportation Services Manager. 22. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading as well as the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Building official prior to issuance of grading permits. 23. Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of (1) City's approval of the project, including but not limited to any proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. 24. Transformers, backflow preventers, and any other approved aboveground utility improvement shall be located outside of the required street setback area and shall be screened upon view, under direction of Planning staff. Any deviation from this requirement shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Director. 25. Prior to issuance of building permits, the building plans shall demonstrate that all residences are equipped with a mechanical ventilation system that will properly filter the indoor air. The ventilation system can be a component of the air conditioning system, with the distinction being that clean, ventilated air flow does not necessarily need coolant. The ventilation system shall be effective with all doors and windows closed. It shall be required to have a filtration efficiency of at least 90 percent and the ability to remove particulate matter with diameters equal to or greater than 0.5 micron. 26. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for the approval of the City's Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following: • The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 ft. in any location on the project site unless approved by the Development Services Director; • The intensity and location of lights on buildings shall be subject to the Development Services Director's approval; • All site lighting fixtures shall provided with a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency; • Lighting design and layout shall limit spill light to no more than 0.5 foot-candle at the property line of the surrounding neighbors, consistent with the level of lighting that Is deemed necessary for safety and security purposes on site; and, • Glare shields may be required for select light standards. 27. Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. 28. In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during grading and construction, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of archaeological materials as determined by the City, who shall establish, in cooperation with the project applicant and a certified archaeologist, the appropriate procedures for exploration and/or salvage of the artifacts. 29. In the event that paleontological resources are unearthed during subsurface construction activities, all earth -disturbing work within a 100 - ft radius of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until a paleontologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. 30. If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 require that no further disturbance shall occur until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who will then serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office for review. The CC&Rs must be in a form and substance acceptable to, and shall be approved by the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office. a. The CC&R's shall contain restrictions requiring residents to park vehicles in garage spaces provided for each unit. Storage of other items may occur only to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the required garage at the number for which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. b. The CC&R's shall contain restrictions on street parking, stating interior road is limited to access only. No parking allowed along private streets. c. The CC&R's shall include a provision that prohibits front entry courtyards for Units 1 through 8 along Carnegie Avenue to be enclosed by a solid wall or fence above and beyond the proposed retaining wall. Any fencing over and above the proposed retaining �,r t wall shall be of an open design, such as decorative wrought -iron fencing, under the direction of the Development Services Department. d. Any subsequent revisions to the CC&Rs related to these provisions must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office and the Development Services Director before they become effective. 32. The Homeowner's Association shall submit a signed affidavit to the City of Costa Mesa on an annual basis to certify the following: a. The two -car garages in the residential community are being used for vehicle parking by the resident(s). b. The vehicle parking areas within the garage are not obstructed by storage items, including but not limited to, toys, clothing, tools, boxes, equipment, etc. c. The resident(s) have consented to voluntary inspections of the garage to verify the parking availability, as needed. The form and content of the affidavit shall be provided by the City Attorney's office. Failure to file the annual affidavit is considered a violation of this condition. 33. Applicant shall provide proof of establishment of a homeowner's association prior to release of any utilities. 34. Prior to Issuance of building permits, developer shall contact the U.S. Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. If the project Is constructed in phases, the -perimeter wall, landscaping along the frontages, and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of utilities for the first phase. 35. Prior to demolition activities, removal and/or abatement of asbestos containing building materials, lead based paints, and hazardous materials associated with the existing building materials shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with the Costa Mesa Fire Department. An asbestos and hazardous materials abatement specification shall be developed by the qualified environmental professional, in order to clearly define the scope and objective of the abatement activities. 36. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 37. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead -contaminated 1 debris and other wastes shall be 7VY managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 38. Visual inspections for areas of impact to soil shall be conducted during site grading. If unknown or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the contractor that are believed to involve hazardous wastes or materials, the contractor shall: • Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing workers and the public from the area; • Notify the City Engineer and Costa Mesa Fire Department; • Secure the area(s) in question; Implement required corrective actions, including remediation if applicable. 39. Prior to investigations, demolition, or renovation, all activities shall be coordinated with Dig Alert (811). 40. An acoustical evaluation of the working drawings of the proposed residential project shall be submitted to the Planning Division by a licensed acoustical engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. The engineer shall certify that the construction will reduce residential interior noise levels to 45 CNEL or less and residential exterior noise levels in common and private open spaces areas to 65 CNEL or less. 41. Design of the perimeter wall along Fair Drive shall incorporate landscape elements to soften the appearance of the block wall and incorporate material, color, and texture that will be compatible with the surrounding community. A wall treatment plan shall be prepared that includes wall location, height, and landscaping in the final landscape plan. The block wall shall be Orco Block, La Paz color, with a brick cap, or other similar design as approved by the Development Services Director prior to issuance of building permits. The location of proposed perimeter walls along Fair Drive shall be a minimum of 6 -feet from the property line. Bldg. 42. Submit grading plans including a hydrology report and soils report. 43. Provide an erosion control plan. Eng. 44. Comply with requirements contained in the letter prepared by the City Engineer (Exhibit 131). Trnsp. 45. Close unused drive approaches per City Standards. 46. Construct commercial drive approach per City Standards at the proposed location on the site plan. Fire 47. Provide (2) Class A Fire Hydrants. Location to be determined by the Fire Department. IS/MND 48. Implementation of the following multi -part mitigation measure is required Mitig. to reduce potential construction period noise impacts: • The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • The construction contractor shall ensure that unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., idling in excess of 5 minutes) is prohibited. • The construction contractor shall utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • At all times during project grading and construction, the construction contractor shall ensure that stationary noise - generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from adjacent residences. • The construction contractor shall ensure that the construction staging areas shall be located to create the greatest feasible distance between the staging area and noise -sensitive receptors nearest the project site. IS/MND 49. The project applicant shall construct a minimum 5.0 -foot high solid wall Mitig. on the south side of the proposed private backyards for Units 8 through 13. The sound walls shall be required to be constructed of a solid material (e.g., concrete block or plaster) that are free of any cutouts or openings. IS/MND 50. The project applicant shall provide a "windows closed" condition for Mitig. each proposed home. A "windows closed" condition requires a means of mechanical ventilation per Chapter 12, Section 1205 of the Uniform Building Code. This shall be achieved with a standard forced air conditioning and heating system for each residential unit.) rating 26, or if necessary STC 28-30 windows, which typically provide 25-30 dB of noise reduction, would reduce interior noise levels to below General Plan thresholds. IS/MND 51. The project applicant shall construct a minimum 8.0 -foot high solid wall Mitig. along the west property line that is adjacent to the carwash. This sound wall should connect to the sound wall described in Condition 44, with no openings or gaps permitted along Fair Drive. The sound walls shall be required to be constructed of a solid material (e.g., concrete block or plaster) that are free of any cutouts or openings. IS/MND 52. The project applicant shall provide windows with a minimum Sound Mitig. Transmission Class rating of 29 STC for all west facing windows on the proposed Units 13 and 14. CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping. 1. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 2. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the � 0 following Federal holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 3. Development shall comply with all requirements of Article 1, Chapter 5, and Article 9, Chapter 5 of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relating to development standards for multi -family residential projects. 4. Developer shall pay any applicable park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. As of November 30, 2015, the new park impact fee is calculated at $13,829 per new multi -family dwelling unit. The project applicant shall pay park impact fees prior to the issuance of the Occupancy Permit. The total park impact fee is $387,212. 5. Street address shall be visible from the public street and shall be displayed on the complex identification sign. If there is no complex identification sign, the street address may be displayed on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or on another prominent location. Street address numerals shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height with not less than one -half-inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Identification of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with not less than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 6. Parking stalls shall be double -striped in accordance with City standards. 7. Driveway ramp slope shall comply with the standards contained in the City's parking ordinance. 8. All new on-site utility services shall be installed underground. 9. All existing utilities shall be installed underground on the building site in accordance with the serving utilities' rules, regulations and tariffs on file with the State Public Utilities Commission. 10. Installation of all new utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure the installation from view from any place on or off the property. The installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the public utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box under the direction of the Planning Division. 11. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 12. The project shall be subject to the submission of legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of all common open space and other facilities provided in the final development plan. 13. All landscaped areas shall be separated from paved vehicular areas by 6 - inch high continuous Portland Cement Concrete curbing. 14. The parking structure shall be landscaped per the provisions of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-105(4) - Parking Structure Landscape Requirements. 15. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, Z_�6,I shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. The two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 16. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 17. Trash enclosure(s) or other acceptable means of trash disposal shall be provided. Design of trash enclosure(s) shall conform to City standards. Standard drawings are available from the Planning Division. 18. If present and/or projected exterior noise exceeds 60 CNEL, California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL for residential structures. If required interior noise levels are achieved by requiring that windows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. 19. In compliance with the City's mitigation monitoring program, the applicant shall submit a compliance report to the Planning Division along with plans for plan check or prior to commencement of the project's activity if no construction is involved, that lists each mitigation measure and states when and how the mitigation measures are to be met. 20. Proof of recordation of the final parcel map/tract map/lot line adjustment shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. Bldg. 21. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. 22. Projections, including eaves, shall be one-hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into a 5 -foot setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3 -foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1(1) and R302.1(2). 23. Submit a soils report for this project. Soil's Report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and the precise grading plans. 24. Show compliance with Chapter 11A and 11B of the 2013 California Building Code. 25. On graded sites the top of exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved discharge device a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent. 2013 California Building Code CRC 403.1.7.3. 26. Lot shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of'.6_inches within the first 10 feet. CRC Iib (I y R401.3 27. Submit a precise grading plans, an erosion control plan and a hydrology study. 28. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of plans for plan check, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation for compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality Order 99- 08-DWQ; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS000002 for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit); the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2002- 0010 and NPDES Permit No. CAS618030; and, the City of Costa Mesa Ordinance No. 97-20 for compliance with NPDES Permit for the City of Costa Mesa. Such documentation shall include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying and detailing the implementation of the applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs). 29. Prior to issuing the Building permit the conditions of approval shall be required to be incorporated on the approved Architectural plans. 30. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of on-site soils to cause unstable conditions. 31. Construction General Permit Notice of Intent (NOI) Design: Prior to the issuance of preliminary or precise grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the SWRCB or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. Eng. 32. For demolition, grading, or building permits involving projects with a valuation of $10,000 or more, the contractor shall use a City -permitted hauler(s) to haul any debris or solid waste from the job site (refer to Section 8-83(h), Regulations, of Title 8 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code). Use of a City -permitted hauler for such projects is the responsibility of the designated contractor. Non-compliance is subject to an administrative penalty as follows: $1,000 or 3% of the total project value, whichever is greater. 33. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. ADA compliance required for all new driveway approaches. 34. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk at applicants expense. 35. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division for any work in the City public right-of-way. Pay required permit fee & cash deposit or surety bond to guarQntee construction of off-site street improvements at time of permit per section 15-31 & 15-32, C.C.M.M.C. as approved by City Engineer. Cash deposit or surety bond amount to be determined by City Engineer. In order to comply with the 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the proposed Project shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan conforming to the Current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Model WQMP, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. a) A WQMP (Priority or Non -Priority) shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. b) Location of BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 36. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that complies with the Construction General Permit and will include at a minimum the following: • Discuss in detail the BMPs planned for the project related to control of sediment and erosion, nonsediment pollutants, and potential pollutants in non -storm water discharges; • Describe post -construction BMPs for the project; • Explain the maintenance program for the project's BMPs; • List the parties responsible for SWPPP implementation and BMP maintenance during and after grading. The project applicant shall implement the SWPPP and modify the SWPPP as directed by the Construction General Permit. 37. In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the proposed project shall prepare a Storm Drain Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. • The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows, and for nuisance flows during construction. • A WQMP shall be maintained updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. • Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. Transp 38. The project Applicant shall be responsible for the payment of fees in accordance with Costa Mesa's traffic impact fee program to mitigate � 6 SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR PA -16-46 The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani 1. It is recommended that the developer contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to obtain Sanitary District requirements. AQMD 2. Prior to demolition contact South Coast Air Quality Management District located at: 21865 Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Tel: 909- 396-2000 AQMD 3. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the site, the contractor would implement each of the following: • Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. • Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface. • Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. • Water exposed surfaces atAgst� twice a day under calm conditions. project -generated traffic impacts (including regional traffic). Fire 39. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 40. Project construction shall comply with Chapter 33, California Fire Code, 2013. Please review carefully. 41. The project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13D. 42. The project shall provide approved smoke detectors to be installed in accordance with the 2007 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code. 43. Street addresses shall be visible from the public street and may be displayed either on the front door, on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance, or on another prominent location. When the property has alley access, address numerals shall be displayed in a prominent location visible from the alley. Numerals shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height with not less than one -half-inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 44. Provide on-site Fire Hydrants and Access per approved Fire Master Plan. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR PA -16-46 The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani 1. It is recommended that the developer contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to obtain Sanitary District requirements. AQMD 2. Prior to demolition contact South Coast Air Quality Management District located at: 21865 Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Tel: 909- 396-2000 AQMD 3. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the site, the contractor would implement each of the following: • Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. • Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface. • Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. • Water exposed surfaces atAgst� twice a day under calm conditions. 0 School 5 State 6 Water 7 Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. • Wash mud -covered tired and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction sites. • Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. • Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. • Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits permanently installed wood burning devices into any new development. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet -fueled wood heater, or a similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space -heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants (RIFA) exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Call CDFA at (714) 708-1910 for information. Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District — Engineering Desk and submit an application and plans for project review. Customer must obtain a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water District. 2Y 3 EXHIBIT 131 November 3, 2016 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING DIVISION Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract No. 18064 LOCATION: 440 Fair Drive Dear Commissioners: Tentative Tract Map No. 18064 as furnished by the Planning Division for review by the Public Services Department consists of subdividing one lot to construct 28 -units for condominium purposes. Tentative Tract Map No. 18064 meets with the approval of the Public Services Department, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Tract shall be developed in full compliance with the State Map Act and the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (C.C.M.M.C.), except as authorized by the Costa Mesa City Council and/or Planning Commission. The attention of the Subdivider and his engineer is directed to Sections 13-208 through 13-261 inclusive, of the Municipal Code. 2. The Subdivider shall conduct soil investigations and provide the results to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering and Building Divisions pursuant to Ordinance 97-11. 3. Two (2) copies of the Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for checking. The Map check fee shall be paid per C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-231. 4. A current copy of the title search shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. 5. Dedicate an ingress/egress easement to the City for emergency and public security vehicles purposes only. The maintenance of the easement shall be the sole responsibility of a Homeowners Association formed to conform to Section 13-41 (e) of the C.C.M.M.C. 6. Vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue shall be released and relinquished to the City of Costa Mesa except at approved access locations. 7. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk. 8. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct a P.C.C. driveway approach as per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. The location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. f PHONE: (714) 754-5335 FAX: (714) 754-5028 TDD: (714) 754-5244 www.costamesaca.gov Planning Commission 2016 9. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. sidewalk. The final design of the sidewalk and parkway shall be subject to the approval of the Public Services Director. 10. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, Street Improvement and Storm Drain Plans, that show Sewer and Water Improvements, prepared by a Civil Engineer. 11. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa preliminary plans that show the undergrounding of the utility poles along Fair Drive to the extent practical or feasible. 12. The Subdivider shall submit a cash deposit of $730 for street sweeping at the time of issuance of a Construction Access permit. The full amount of the deposit shall be maintained on a monthly basis prior to and during construction until completion of project. 13. Fulfill the City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of the Final Tract Map. 14. The Subdivider's engineers shall furnish the Engineering Division a storm runoff study to the City of Costa Mesa showing existing and proposed facilities and the method of draining this area and tributary areas without exceeding the capacity of any street or drainage facility on- site or off-site. This study is to be furnished with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. Cross lot drainage shall not occur. 15. In order to comply with the latest DAMP, the proposed Project shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan conforming to the Current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Model WQMP, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering Division for review and approval. • A WQMP (Priority or Non -Priority) shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES Program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. • The location of BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 16. Ownership and maintenance of the private on-site drainage facilities, BMPs, parkway culverts, and other common areas shall be transferred by the owner to the Homeowner Association to be formed pursuant to C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-41 (e) and said association shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Costa Mesa for any liability arising out of or in any way associated with the connection of the private drainage system with the City's drainage system and shall execute and deliver to the City of Costa Mesa the standard (indemnity) Hold Harmless Agreement required for such conditions prior to the issuance of permits. 17. Sewer improvements shall meet the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; call (949) 631-1731 for information. 18. Water system improvements shall meet the approval of Mesa Water District; call (949) 631- 1200 for information. 19. Dedicate easements as needed for public utilities Z,q 5 Planning Commission 2016 20. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 21. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital -graphics file of said map in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 22. Survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and replaced after construction, pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Profession Code. 23. The elevations shown on all plans shall be on Orange County benchmark datum. 24. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, submit the required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee monumentation. The deposit amount is to be determined by the City Engineer. 25. Prior to occupancy on the Tract, the surveyor/engineer shall submit to the City Engineer a Digital Graphic File, reproducible mylar of the recorded Tract Map, an approved off-site plan, and nine copies of the recorded Tract Map. Sincerely, Baltazar Mejia, P. E. City Engineer (Engr. 2016/Planning Commission Tract 18064) &-I (P 3 EXHIBIT "1" Map Amendment to the Land Use Map Change the land use designation of the 1.66 -acre development site at 440 Fair Drive from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR) Exis ting General Plan Land Use- NC Proposed General Plan Land Use- HDR �A7 HDR -:E "S � - �A7 EXHIBIT 6'211 Text Amendment to Land Use Element The proposed General Plan Amendment GP -16-01 would amend Table LU -3: Land Use Designations (2015), of the Land Use Element as indicated by strikeout and bolded numbers below: c,1 - -)a4 N o 0 o O Q n � V1 w Ln 1.0n U c -I n 00 m p N C) O O n O N O �4 00 o� U~ U u ~ U v ~ v ~ v u Q Cu O w a N . -' rn o� 1D v n m rn f0 fp O f0 f6 0f6 of 1n 06 cr n n ,-i 0J H J C' 00 � 00 p� lD LL LL rl L_0 T - r -I l0 H LT "a 0 0p 00 -0 30 CD O � _cc 00 0O 0 0 O00 0 O 00 0O Ci00 0 0 W S G J S L J> S G J> S G J> S G \ S G J> CL Ln O O Ln coo Ln Ln v) v1 O 0 0 v) ui Ln Ln un 00 n in O O O Ln 0 -i m i n N mlz� .-i N m n N m v n N m n Lq l0 n tp w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 Coco 0 0 0 0 00 -1 w 00 -1 Ll o N Li m 1D o o O c O O 00 O 1.0 O O N d N D v Q U f0 10 U 01 CLl j \ l6 o M (0 \ \ 6 \ \ 00 O a \ \ m rn D O u1 � 7 M O Lr,O -0 N O � n O O O 00 00 O O l0 r -I c -I lO In N N N O f0 N N vl vl vl vl v Q vl vl N > vl vl in c O Y U U U U U U U M W w U~ U u ~ U v ~ v ~ v u Q Cu O w Cu O fC co O ro ra to ` O f0 fp O f0 f6 0f6 f0 ro O _O H 0) H J N H 0J H J 0J F-- J I--' Cu H J 01 p� 0J F - LL LL L_0 T L LT "a 0 0p 00 -0 30 CD O � _cc 00 0O 0 0 O00 0 O 00 0O Ci00 0 0 S G J> S G J S L J> S G J> S G J> S G \ S G J> Ln O O Ln coo Ln Ln v) v1 O 0 0 v) ui Ln Ln un 00 n in O O O Ln -i m i n N mlz� .-i N m n N m v n N m n Lq l0 n tp N M n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 Coco 0 0 0 0 00 -1 0 0 0 0 0 .N c d D U f0 10 U \ l6 M (0 \ \ 6 \ \ \ O a \ \ 00 � 7 7 0: -0 N O n O O O O O 00 r -I N -1 N N N O f0 N N vl vl vl vl vl vl vl N > vl vl in c m_ Y m Y N U (0 C v 0J 0J 01 O Cu c0 m L Cu E C ` .L C -O -O O 'V Cu + E � ` i +�+ a) _ 'in a) U Cu c Cu O v Cu E �n _0 E (> L U Y V �.. C >, v +� O O 01 +J LnE O m J <O } In d fO L O V f6 L Q G_ �C L L u NCu p 7 0Cu E L L��j E c +J 3 Lan c E .op c j E �' -E Cu r U CCC -j 2 S z u° Z U' u w � LM 0 � c 0 � � .;A- D ■ M M c � � 0 u � ■ � � 0 Ln q « m m (U % 4 Q14 o_ a - E ru Ln & = N e r- o • m 46k 06 r 0 \ § \ \ 2% E 0 2 - § o m o 0 o q 2§ I d a e a c 2$ § e § coa u &3 0 IL § ) (6 o Lnf 7 Q § ] \ \ \ k 1.0\ � m U) Ln Ln H o e § 2 G 5 f) f�mB= u0W\7 > ' W ] r -0 (V $ CU 9 § a f 2 2 m; 2 / / a 3mU M - 2 {//{\ e u # a« o a 2%§ o w R § 0 j (/ § # 2 E_ -¥ o . L m ¥ -Jm k2R± :3m § _ '-0`:®� 3 0 > ® E _ k @) $ ƒ ( � Ln Ln S @ $ R § 0 E d e a d _ 2 E 2 2, _ §o« \\\2\§ £ u &2»#tom )§�j2 c k o � R E = c � / © \\2\2% ' 1 i ®• ■z3t § 2 0 i 2 a c=< vi 2 © elk)\k cc%-§ L3ƒ k r a u _. u= CC q ! E / 22523E § S e { - k - k o c t{/\as Ln z 0LW m =��$ §e ;2o�\a o E\//)i dEa=R a - £ u c ®' ]\ 2 / 2 / / 2 2 ( E / $ 7 $ \ m J5n§2 }§§%%{ u / 2 .- 2 G E \-D to ' \ 0 2 2 I -sou EXHIBIT 3 ORDINANCE NO. 16 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, TO REZONE A 1.66 - ACRE PARCEL FROM C1 (LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO PDR -HD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL — HIGH DENSITY) FOR A 28 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 440 FAIR DRIVE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Sheldon Development, LLC, on behalf of owner of real properties located at 440 Fair Drive, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Certification of the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -MND) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -16-01. Change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential to allow for a maximum density of 20 du/acre. 3. Rezone R-16-01. A rezone to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4. Planning Application PA -16-46. Master Plan for the 28 -unit residential common interest development project with specified deviations from the PDR -HD development standards, including the following: i. Variance to allow deviation from required open space requirements (42% required; 36.8% proposed); ii. Variance for encroachment of block walls into required perimeter open space area (20 feet required; 6 feet (Fair Drive) and 4.7 feet (Carnegie Ave) proposed); iii. Variance to allow deviation from required landscaped parkway requirements (10 feet with no dimension less than 5 feet on house side of private street required; 10 feet/3.6 feet proposed); -301 iv. Administrative Adjustment for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Fair Drive (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed). v. Minor Modification for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Carnegie (20 feet required; 18 feet proposed). vi. Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines for multi -story to first floor ratio (100% multi -story to first floor ratio recommended; 150% for 4 -story units and 114% for 3 -story units proposed). 5. Tentative Tract Map 18064 for Condominium Purposes: Tentative Tract Map 18064 for residential subdivision for condominium purposes. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2016, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, at the November 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council take the following actions by separate Planning Commission resolutions: (1) ADOPT the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) ADOPT General Plan Amendment GP -16-01; (3) GIVE FIRST READING to Rezone R-16-01; (4) APPROVE Master Plan PA -16-46 and Tentative Tract Map 18064 for Condominium Purposes WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated, and the required 20 -day public review period was specified from October 4, 2016 to October 24, 2016 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the final adoption of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration shall be considered by the City Council as the final approval authority, after evaluation of the environmental document and all comments on the IS/MND received during the public review period; ,.70 WHEREAS, written comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to, where appropriate, in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15073; WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would require recirculation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the environmental documentation comprising the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and has found that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and identified potentially significant impacts related to noise; WHEREAS, the IS/MND identified appropriate measures that will mitigate the identified impacts to a level that is less than significant; WHEREAS the City Council finds that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby APPROVES as follows: SECTION 1. REZONE. The City of Costa Mesa Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows: a. There is hereby placed and included in the PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) zoning district a 1.66 -acre parcel, identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers 141-421-23 and as shown in attached Exhibit "1," situated in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of Cn1ifornia. -5 b 3 b. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 13-22 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Official Zoning Map of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby amended by the change of zone described in subsection a hereof and in the respective Exhibit "'IA". A copy of the Official Zoning Map is on file in the office of the Planning Division. Based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY GRANTS APPROVAL TO ADOPT R-16-01, which amends the Zoning Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit 1A) with respect to the property described above. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. The proposed rezone was processed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated for the required 20 -day public review period from October 4, 2016 to October 24, 2016. The City Council found that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. SECTION 3. INCONSISTENCIES. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 5. PUBLICATION. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and, prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage, shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa or, 309 in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Ordinance Number -- as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2016, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2016, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2016 30(o `MEET I OF! 614LST RT EXHIBIT 1 1 ,r W PARCEL w e9 -Le• 1T^t. MAP INTML CITY OP COSTA MSS^. COUNTY OP O1LANaL• STATS, OF CALIFORNIA. O SHOWN ON iCiILIg -* L bfiA OLa�COLOiNT VON FA�IFO AOL A21D OF aAdCtL MAA9. K.TCOY09 lN61NFcEl2'4 CG RTIFICAT @ TNI% MAP WAS PRl PARS* fY ML OR uNO{i MY OIRLCT1oN ND J9 Ia AfLD ON A FI LLD L euR vLY 1N CONIlo#MANCs P ITN THS, RGGIU IRLIvtENT9 Or THa EUfolvistON MAp ACT AT TNS, IRl QUIZ b -r OF PAUL F. O19}IN lR. M.D. ON Au0U9T 2,1771. = HLRlfv CERT10T THAT IT ca-Fo4MS TO TME hPP T4u TA71VE MAP AND TML. CDN DIT 1q N! DF APV NGRLOF� THAT ALi PROVISIONS OF APP614AALA f7 p'yN0 LPCAL ORDINANCLf HAVE S!!rN COM• PL L I104b4 OAYL LLARINf9 SHOWN ON TNN MAP ARL b•.9ED ON TML CLNTaR- LINL OF CARNaGle AVGNUG FEIN% ".Go am As flowu ON A MAP OF TRACT NT 21GO RLCORD9O IN 254=' 91, PAG%S 1-S, RLaolaos OF ORANSa COUNTY, OALIFORNIA. moan I MAC of W^v i} `-�..¢lµ.-�. e�'•ev (�.+Y.eo�Po It! n.nlyl II` 14 SCALE V-40' f W-04 lip R.s.r. 6492 i" CITY CLIGIN&ILM's Cfi.RTICICATR w TuJ% MAP NAS ■LAN ENAMINoo FOR CONFORMANC& WITH THS, RLOUIRLM%N T% ON SLCTION 410'1E OF THE yu001 V i910N Mhp ACT TN14 716 oAY OF. /i L1l, _ _i1n�i G+TY GN6i LR - CITY OF G TA MASA. CouN'rY suRyaycolt's GaArrIFri CATIf ND APP■OVSO TNI% AAY OF L- M9 CONVIJ_La fY COUNTY oVKV6YOq OGPIJTY f 1 1 ,r W e w e9 -Le• 1T^t. e n $ b e� I t FAIR A �� a I 8 Q 8 1„IONu1.,TfudT N� N i p PARCILL 2 V i" 2.DG1 -Acral a� 9 ; � n n � a • 0 -61-lx av . ifl $ G A pI 4�n 4, n. - PARC&L 1 ,V Or^ c•YnM.+ . wl.� 1.669 A6r9s - 'JIg:— — Daiwa 6GI.9 L' 1 ROAO R 1 ,r W $ b t FAIR A �� a I 8 8 1„IONu1.,TfudT N� Von �t IN DICAT is FONNO MONUM LIJT! As NOTA D. �--��NOICATEs SET !-P•AN4 TAG RG.L. 11=04!3 ,Uoic s NOTLD OT Rlf HSWI• V - 'JIg:— — Daiwa 6GI.9 L' 1 ROAO R sc 14 n.r 1 S:S �. �S"ao` n dd o 1 a 8 8 Von sc 14 n.r 1 S:S �. �S"ao` n EXHIBIT 1A Amendment to the Zoning Map Change the zoning designation of the 1.66 -acre development site at 440 Fair Drive from Local Commercial District (C1) to Planned Development Residential- High Density (PDR -HD) Existing Zone- C1 Proposed Zone- PDR -HD EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(11) because: Finding: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: On October 6, 2015, City Council approved General Plan screening GPS -14-04, which requested to amend the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential to accommodate a proposed 28 -unit residential development at 440 Fair Drive. The HDR General Plan land use designation allows maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is seeking a rezone to PDR -HD zone, which is consistent with the HDR land use and allows a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density of the project is 16.25 du/acre, which is slightly less than permitted under HDR land use. The project is consistent with many of the goals, policies, and objectives set forth in the General Plan Update adopted in 2016. According to the IS/MND, it is anticipated that the new proposal will reduce the number of average daily trips by approximately 484 trips compared to the current mix of office, medical, retail and service uses within the existing 20,750 square -foot building. The City of Costa Mesa considers a significant traffic impact when project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (Level of Service A, B, C, or D) to deficient operation (LOS E or F). Currently the Harbor Boulevard/Fair Drive intersection is operating at LOS A during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C during p.m. peak hour. In addition, the Carnegie Avenue/Fair Drive intersection is operating at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C during p.m. peak hour. With the proposed project, these level of service are forecasted to continue at these levels during both peak hours. The following analysis evaluates the proposed project's consistency with specific goals, and objectives of the 2015-2035 General Plan. Objective LU -1A: Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to preserve the residential character of the City at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure. Consistency: The project is an infill residential project within the allowable density for high-density residential development. According to the IS/MND prepared for the project, the project will create a decrease in average daily trips compared to the existing development, and would result in a less than significant increase in water demand. In addition, the project would result in a decrease in impervious surface areas on the site (by as much as 13.9 percent). The project would also be subject to compliance with the CMMC provisions, and thus, would result in less than significant impacts on drainage patterns _and flooding. Therefore, adequate 30 infrastructure would be available to serve the proposed project and the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. 2. Objective LU -1.3: Strongly encourage the development of...owner-occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Consistency: Because the proposed project is for ownership units, the project is consistent with this General Plan goal. 3. Goal CD -6: Image: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to enhance opportunities for new development and redevelopment to contribute to a positive visual image for the City of Costa Mesa and consistent with district image. 4. Goal CD -7: Quality Residential: Objective CD -7.1: Encourage excellence in architectural design. Policy CD -7.A: Ensure that new and remodeled structures are designed in architectural styles that reflect the City's eclectic quality, yet are compatible in scale and character with existing buildings and the natural surroundings within residential neighborhoods. Continue to update and maintain the Costa Mesa Residential Guidelines. Consistency: The project is consistent with Goal CD -6, CD -7, Objective CD.7.1, and Policy CD -7.A because the project would allow for the redevelopment of property containing an aging commercial building and parking lot with residential units that exhibit quality architecture and enhanced landscaping. A standard condition of approval recommended requiring that perimeter wall treatments consist of decorative materials, and ornamental site landscaping will be provided throughout the project. As a result, the proposed project is supportive of these General Plan goals, policies, and objectives. 5. Goal LU -4: New Development that Is Sensitive to Costa Mesa's Environmental Resources Objective LU -4: Encourage new development and redevelopment that protects and improves the quality of Costa Mesa's natural environment and resources. Policy LU -4.1: Ensure that appropriate watershed protection activities are applied to all new development and significant redevelopment projects that are subject to the NPDES Stormwater Permit during the planning, project review, and permitting processes. 6. Objective LU -2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: Because the project is an infill development, it would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide SIO service to the site. According to the project's IS/MND, the project would result in a decrease in impervious surface areas on the site (by as much as 13.9 percent). Less than significant impacts will occur to on- or off-site erosion and/or siltation. The project would also be subject to compliance with the CMMC provisions, and thus, would result in less than significant impacts on drainage patterns and flooding. The project is consistent with this objective. 7. Policy LU -2.7: Permit the construction of buildings over two stories or 30 feet only when it can be shown that the construction of such structures will not adversely impact surrounding developments and deprive existing land uses of adequate light, air, privacy, and solar access. 8. Policy LU -2.8: Limit building height to four stories above grade south of the 1-405 Freeway, except for special purpose housing such as elderly, affordable, or student housing, unless otherwise approved by a General Plan amendment. (A four-story/five-level parking structure with roof deck parking on the fifth level is considered a four-story structure.). Consistency. The project proposes a maximum of four stories, which is permitted by the PDR -HD zone, and per the General Plan policy for areas south of 1-405. Plan 1 units include three stories and a rooftop deck, which is considered a fourth story. A shade and shadow graphic (s) illustrates no impact to surrounding sensitive land uses. The project is bound by a commercial parking lot used by Orange Coast Fiat to the north, and single-family residences are located across a 60 -foot right-of-way to the east (Carnegie Avenue). As such, the project would be compatible with Policy LU -2.7 and LU -2.8. B. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval that reduce impacts to the fullest extent reasonable and practicable. C. Mitigation Measures from the Final IS/MND have been included as conditions of approval. If any of these conditions are removed, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the condition(s) are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. MSoCalGas A I Sempra Energy utility October 6, 2016 City of Costa Mesa 11 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Email: Ryan Loomis - ryan.loomis@costamesaca.gov ATTACHMENT 5 Estefania Sanchez Program Assistant 3 9400 Oakdale Blvd Chatsworth, CA 91311 ESanchez5@semprautilities.com Subject: Notice of Intent to Adop a Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Title: General Plan Amendment GP -16-01, Rezone R-16-01, Planning Application PA -16-46 and Tentative Tract Map 18064 DCF: 1527-16-1017 Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), Gas Transmission Department, operates and maintains high-pressure natural gas transmission pipeline 1017 in the vicinity of your project. The pipeline is shown on the attached atlas prints. Please note: only the high-pressure transmission pipeline information is current on these atlas prints. Our Gas Distribution Department may have other gas facilities within your project area. To assure no conflict with the SoCalGas' distribution pipeline system, please call (714) 634-5067. This is only a response to a gas facility map request; a review of potential conflicts associated with your request has not been conducted. Consequently, this letter does not constitute clearance for any construction work near or around SoCalGas' Diyelinef s). As your project plans are developed, you must notify SoCalGas - Gas Transmission Department regarding the improvements that are proposed near our pipeline(s) and within our easement(s) before you begin any construction, including potholing. In doing so, please allow sufficient time as there may be certain requirements that need to be incorporated into your project's design and could significantly affect your project construction schedule. Sincerely, Estefania Sanchez Program Assistant 3 ESanchez5@semprautilities.com October 6, 2016 �'� 9i�� X3113 tl315YN .LSVO0 30NVHO a3H1f1QS Z-6Zb 00 ❑r. W13M 10 -ZZ -9 r1a -A9 931VT4 4OL33A 99-C-9 r u9 om9 m 313 1LSV0� 39MdL10 ?l3HSf1O5 i_isv VWM6" •3., .13n. w .•. wi M o11.3.0 WM] CYL-6C :3113 63n :A 03S163tl Msp 314 N I rn N U O M Ryan Loomis, AICP, Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mr. Loomis, P14 -5 - Jeff and Carole Call 2568 Carnegie Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 October 15, 2016 Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department OCT 18 2016 It has come to our attention that an Official Public Notice was issued 30 September 2016 and sent to "a few choice people" in College Park. We don't understand why you didn't feel that we and all of my neighbors that live on Carnegie were not included in this notice, unless you didn't want us to know. We are the ones that will be impacted by the increased traffic and parking problems that won't allow visits from friends or family. We see 2 reasons for not telling all the residents on Carnegie: 1) No objections from those who will lose parking spaces, increased time and difficulty to get out of our tract, and the lowering of our property values; and 2) The rush to get this passed by October 24th squeezes this in before the election in November when people can object by voting for the people to have a say about the cracker -box (high density) housing similar to those destroying the beauty of our major arteries of Newport Boulevard, Superior and 171h Street, Huntington beach and Garden Grove, and now Carnegie and Fair. How does it make sense to put in 13 beautiful, single houses on 21St Street on twice the amount of land and 28 ghetto homes on Carnegie? I understand single homes are also going to beautify the corner of Harbor and Merrimac. Have you done any research on the developer of this project and how dissatisfied the people of Huntington Beach and Garden Grove are trying to put a halt to their city development projects by this developer? Here are a few quotes I found this week about that: "(And have we forgotten, or never heard about, Sheldon destroying Garden Grove's downtown Main St.businesses by ploppinga hu 'e condo building on the area's parking lot, with the connivance of the Broadwater machine?)" "Ramada Guest' - Sheldon's trying to drop some cookie -cutter townhomes right on top of Garden Grove's Main Street, and we've already got a new housing development going in across the street in the next few months. Has he ever not been allowed to put up one of his quick flips? If so, how was the project stopped? I keep hearing rumblings that he's gonna roll deep at the next council meeting with a bunch of paid support." Even Steven s: u3ry 17, a_ `;! "Built right up to the SIDEWALK? I'll bet you $1.00 those walls will be a graffiti magnet. Hell, someone could flip an egg without needing to cock their arm! (Someone irresponsible that is), Not trying to create a nuisance. Overcrowding people just wears on the soul like lab rats in a maze..." We want to go on record as opposing the HD housing project the Costa Mesa City Planning Commission and City Council thinks will beautify our city. It will NOT beautify, it will bring down property values and make many of us want to move away to the quiet beauty my family has experienced here for the last 40 years. Please reconsider your position, or at least wait and see what the people feel in the upcoming election about HD housing in our community. Thank you, Carole and Jeff Call 16 2016 Co OC� Ryan Loomis, AICP, Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Kevin McDavid 2569 Greenbriar Lane Costa Mesa, CA 92626 October 13, 2016 Re: Public review and comment Initial Study/ Mitigated Declaration 440 Fair Drive Dear sir, I am writing in regard to the notice that was sent to a select few of my neighbors in College Park about the referenced report. In my response I address in general the subject matter presented in the report, not a line by line critique. To begin, the rezoning of this property is wrong. It's as wrong today as it was nine years ago when the very same owner/ developer proposed building only eleven units there. In its recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission at that time denied the zoning change request. Among several justifications for denial this comment was included: "Specifically, denial is based on the fact that the proposed change applies only to a small area, and the change would make the property incompatible with surrounding properties." Nothing has changed in College Park in the last nine years that would make this rezoning any more compatible today. Current access to the property is from Fair Drive, that location kept business traffic out of our tract. Moving the entrance to Carnegie means every trip to/ from the property now goes through our tract. The stand of mature trees lining the parkway and brick wall along Carnegie segregates the business property from the residents and provides both visual and acoustic relief. The report mentions lighting conditions for the new residences will be the same as the existing business. Not true, the trees blocked that light. (See Photo 1 & 2) I disagree with the aesthetics impacts in the report. All four issues addressed would have significant impacts on our tract. As mentioned, the mature tree stand along the street will be removed. The trees have been part of College Park vista for many decades and are the first thing noticed when entering Carnegie from the south end. 3�1� Changing that vista degrades the neighborhood visually. They were not mentioned in the report nor were there photos. There are no ocean or mountain views but the trees have always been been part of the character and vista of College Park. Once they're gone, unwanted nighttime lighting and glare will impact residents to the east. Noise from Harbor Boulevard will be more apparent without the trees. Three-story buildings will act as an echo chamber. At the north end of Carnegie, the vista once included treetops and blue sky over the homes. Today the view behind those homes is of a two story, block long concrete monolith of a parking structure. Just like the current project, the Planning Commission approved that project despite myriad resident complaints, their vistas ruined forever. The south end of Carnegie now faces the same fate. (See Photo 3 & 4) The new project provides only five guest parking places. That may be acceptable per code but in reality, for 28 residences, there will be parking spillover on Carnegie, Bucknell and other streets in our tract. The parking situation on the south side of Baker Street in between Target and Jack -In -The -Box exemplifies the result of bad planning and gives a preview of what this development will bring to College Park. (See Photo 5) The access road within the project may be per code but if our Fire Department needs to respond there's only one way in and out. If there is ever a multi -house fire, or more than one engine called, families could not drive out. Their escape would be over walls and fences. The two weekly trash trucks will navigate the narrow street and then go in reverse for a block to turn around. This manuever is dangerous for the drivers as well as children and pets. This is bad design, an accident waiting to happen. A current project in Mesa Verde will build 10 new two-story homes on a 2 acre plot. In Mesa Del Mar a new project will build 24 new two-story homes. Both projects were designed to be compatible with existing neighborhoods. College Park on the other hand faces 28 three-story and three-story w / deck residences crammed into a 1.7 acre lot. The initial proposal had two-story homes lining Carnegie, now they are three story. More bait and switch. A similar project is being built on west 18th Street, also not compatible with one-story homes. (See Photo 6) OCC proved to be a friend of our neighborhood, unlike the city. When it presented its plan for future expansion to the public (including College Park residents) many neighbors were rightfully concerned that a new four-story hotel and parking structure were planned on opposite corners of Fairview and Merrimac. Those structures were not compatible with College Park. Many voiced their disapproval of the plan and as a result the College revised it to delete the two structures. 2 3q The City however continues its efforts to add developments that adversely affect the nature and character of College Park. Keeping the 440 property zoned for commercial business makes sense. Leasing to neighborhood -friendly businesses makes even better sense. Rezoning for single story family homes matching the density of College Park makes sense. High density housing makes absolutely no sense, please reconsider what this development will do to us. Once it's built it's forever. Sincerely, Kevin McDavid College Park resident 34 years 318 L F ! AMR 000t r •i a j•. � � e 2595 Carnegie Ave. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Photo 5 r Photo 6 6 3 LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: GPS -14-04 440 Fair Drive - Proposed Development of 28 units From: David E. Fred [maiito:davidefreea7gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 4:38 PM To: rdickson.cmoc@gmai1.com; Mayor <Mayo r 2 costa m esaca.gov> Subject: GPS -14-04 440 Fair Drive - Proposed Development of 28 units October 21, 2016 Robert L. Dickson, Jr. Chairman City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 The Honorable Stephen Mensinger Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa, CA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: GPS -14-04 440 Fair Drive Development Proposal Gentlemen: Thank you for the opportunity to be heard on this matter. Having been a homeowner in College Park since 2001, I have experienced several disturbing changes to the neighborhood, all of which impacts the reason why I moved to this neighborhood to begin with - quiet, a sense of suburban living, knowing my neighbors and raising fsing a, mostly due to the price of home ownership, and, the needs of the community pertaining to affordable housing for college students (Vanguard University and Orange Coast Community College) and affordable housing for moderate and low income housing. As we saw in 2007, at the height of the prior real estate market, many homes in the College Park area were inhabited by many more individuals that would normally inhabit a single family home. Within eyesight of my home, there were no less than 4 homes, each with 12 — 15 residents living in 3 and 4 bedroom homes. With the real estate crash and revised lending requirements, much of this has been abated and the single family homes are now, again, occupied by single families. Additionally, as rental housing continues to become scarce, at a price point that many can achieve, there are more and more people sharing apartments and single family homes than ever before. An estimated 50% of the homes in college park are now rentals. The multi -family housing community known as Mediterranean Village Apartments has already caused an overflow parking issue for the residents in the neighborhoods south of Fair Drive and East of Harbor Boulevard. In my block alone, there are as many as 10 —15 cars parked at various times (sometimes blocking my driveway) and creating quite a mess (trash, empty alcohol containers, vomit, noise, loud music, etc.). I believe that, other than those blocks which were able to apply for and get parking access restrictions for residents, are also experiencing such impacts from overcrowding at Mediterranean Village. Notwithstanding the impact of additional vehicles, the traffic on Fordham, Nassau and Wilson has increased substantially in the past 4-5 years, and at times has become very dangerous at times. Now, with the development of 28 high density homes at 440 Fair Drive, will, contrary to impact studies, increase traffic on Fair, Fordham, Princeton and Bucknell, require parking for additional vehicles (currently parking in front of certain single family homes is at full capacity) and possibly, be the beginning of a decline in home values (especially along Carnegie Avenue and immediately surrounding areas) that will spread outward. In reading the proposal by the developer, they have outlined 92 parking spaces for these 28 units, or just over 3 spaces per unit. These units will be built as townhomes, some with 3 bedrooms. Given the lack of affordable housing, it is with a high degree of certainty that some of these townhomes will be converted to rental units by their owners, and a 3 bedroom townhome could easily house upwards of 5 or 6 people — each with a vehicle in most cases. Where will these residents park when their allotted spaces are full? The neighborhoods in the surrounding community will necessarily have to take up the slack. Not to mention guests of residents will also need to be managed and handled by the side streets. This is not a "NIMBY" letter, rather, a plea for responsible development that is correct for the community and not on behalf of the developer who needs to build as many units as possible to maximize its profitability. There is a need to balance space use with space impact - at the expense of developer profit. I applaud capitalism, but not on the backs of others who are powerless to combat the residual effects. Please consider the impact on the neighborhood before granting approval for this development. Have the developer "right -size" the development with appropriate parking to housing ratios (including the impact of townhomes becoming rental units) and make a bit less profit from the sale of townhomes once completed. With thanks and regards, David E. Fred 2427 Vassar Place Costa Mesa, CA 92626 davidefredtb inail.com 3,)_3 /1" AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ORANG COUNTY FOR ORANGE COUNTY btu 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626.949.252,5170 fax: 949.252.6012 October 24, 2016 Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Subject: MND for 440 Fair Drive Residential Development Dear Mr. Loomis: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study for the proposed residential development project located at 440 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, in the context of the Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (JWA AEL UP). The proposed project involves the development of eight new three-story detached single-family units and twenty four-story duplex units on a 1.67 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 Neighborhood Commercial to High - Density Residential. 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 Surfaces 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 -440 fair Drive Residential Development October 24. 20ib 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 Ichoum(2ocair.com if you need any additional details or information regarding the future referral of your project. Sincerely, _ Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer 3a5- BOARD OF DIRECTORS Lori Donchak Chair Michael Hennessey Vice Chair Lisa A. Bartlett Director Andrew Do Director Steve Jones Director Jim Kalapodis Director Jeffrey Lalloway Director Gary A. Miller Director Al Murray Director Shawn Nelson Director Miguel Pulido Director Tim Shaw Director Todd Spitzer Director Michelle Steel Director Tom Tait Director Frank Ury Director Gregory T. Winterbottom Director Ryan Chamberlain Ex -Officio Member CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Darrell Johnson Chief Executive Officer October 24, 2016 Mr. Ryan Loomis Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 SUBJECT: 440 Fair Drive Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mr. Loomis: Thank you for providing the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) the opportunity to review the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project. The following comments are provided for your consideration: Page 131, Table 20: Please consider modifying the title to read: "Existing Bikeways within the Project Vicinity." Page 131, Table 20: Please change the type of bicycle facility on Fairview Road from "Regional' to "Class 2" consistent with the Costa Mesa General Plan (2006). Page 131: Please note that Fair Drive and Harbor Boulevard are both designated as a Regional Bikeway (Corridor K) in the Districts 1 and 2 Bikeway Strategy (OCTA, 2013). hitD://www.octa.net/Bikei6ikewa�/s-Fllannina/ Throughout the development of the proposed project, we encourage communication with OCTA on any matters discussed herein. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me by phone at (714) 560-5907, or by email at dphu@octa.net. Sincerely, i i Dan Phu Manager, Environmental Programs 3.A9 Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street / P.O. Box 14184 /Orange /California 92863-1584 / (714) 560 -OCTA (6282) Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 DEVELOPMENT Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949)777-9400 ORANGE COAST FIAT lama CARNEGIE AVENUE �A CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0 8 16 32 SEPTEMBER ATTACHMENT SITE PLAN SUMMARY OWNER SHELDON DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PHONE (949)777-9400 SITE ADDRESS: FAIR DRIVE AT CARNEGIE PROPOSED UNITS: 28 HOMES 20 - 3 STORY DUPLEX 8-2 STORY DETACHED LOT AREA: 72,310 S.F (1.66 ACRES) DENSITY: 16.25 UNITS PER ACRE SITE SUMMARY: BLDG FOOTPRINTS: 20,922 S.F. (28.9%) PRIV. STREETS/DRIVES: 24,745 S.F. (34.3%) OPEN SPACE: 26,643 S F (36.8-A AT GRADE) BALCONIES 1,080 S.F. (2ND FLOOR) ROOF DECKS 7,240 S.F. TOTAL OPEN SPACE 34,963 S.F (483% ) PLAN SUMMARY: 4 STORY 13 LIVABLE + ROOF DECKS • 4 BDRM PLAN I IST FLR 160 S.F. 2ND FLR 910S ' F. 3RD FLR 905 S.F. TOTAL LIVABLE 1,975 S.F. GARAGE 448 S.F. BALCONY 54 S.F. 4TH (ROOF DECK) 362 S.F. 3 STORY -3 BDRM PLAN 2 IST FLR 609 S.F. 2ND FLR 1, 1965.F. 3RD FLR 245 S.F. TOTAL LIVABLE 2,050 S.E GARAGE 439 S.F. PARKING SUMMARY: REQUIRED PARKING = 20 UNITS X 4 STALLSIUNIT = 80 STALLS 8 UNITS X 4 STALLSIUNIT = 32 STALLS 112 STALLS PLAN 1 2 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE X 20 UNITS = 40 STALLS PLAN 2 2 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE X 8 UNITS = 16 STALLS GUEST PRIVATE DRIVE STALLS = 56 STALLS GUEST ADDT OPEN UNASSIGNED STALLS = 5 STALLS 117 STALLS SITE PLAN sumb SA. 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 -summarch.com 7607241198 1 - I— wQ LU LL 0 0 a ATTACHMENT SITE PLAN SUMMARY OWNER SHELDON DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PHONE (949)777-9400 SITE ADDRESS: FAIR DRIVE AT CARNEGIE PROPOSED UNITS: 28 HOMES 20 - 3 STORY DUPLEX 8-2 STORY DETACHED LOT AREA: 72,310 S.F (1.66 ACRES) DENSITY: 16.25 UNITS PER ACRE SITE SUMMARY: BLDG FOOTPRINTS: 20,922 S.F. (28.9%) PRIV. STREETS/DRIVES: 24,745 S.F. (34.3%) OPEN SPACE: 26,643 S F (36.8-A AT GRADE) BALCONIES 1,080 S.F. (2ND FLOOR) ROOF DECKS 7,240 S.F. TOTAL OPEN SPACE 34,963 S.F (483% ) PLAN SUMMARY: 4 STORY 13 LIVABLE + ROOF DECKS • 4 BDRM PLAN I IST FLR 160 S.F. 2ND FLR 910S ' F. 3RD FLR 905 S.F. TOTAL LIVABLE 1,975 S.F. GARAGE 448 S.F. BALCONY 54 S.F. 4TH (ROOF DECK) 362 S.F. 3 STORY -3 BDRM PLAN 2 IST FLR 609 S.F. 2ND FLR 1, 1965.F. 3RD FLR 245 S.F. TOTAL LIVABLE 2,050 S.E GARAGE 439 S.F. PARKING SUMMARY: REQUIRED PARKING = 20 UNITS X 4 STALLSIUNIT = 80 STALLS 8 UNITS X 4 STALLSIUNIT = 32 STALLS 112 STALLS PLAN 1 2 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE X 20 UNITS = 40 STALLS PLAN 2 2 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE X 8 UNITS = 16 STALLS GUEST PRIVATE DRIVE STALLS = 56 STALLS GUEST ADDT OPEN UNASSIGNED STALLS = 5 STALLS 117 STALLS SITE PLAN sumb SA. 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 -summarch.com 7607241198 :;i: •�.. Wil... � '��� 7r1 a '[ * ^'e ,��� a.. _.yam ^¢ � -- -. .�:- '--ii"'" i K� - ._� �.h ��. a, •'�� �7� ���,��. �: a ���Ira� ��e;�WMi�� . �. !�I 1 I�� - ��� li � ?�:,i __ i _ I � � �, , , 1, - • -- ^~ � �, �, r�;i'� ii i i liii ,-T I� � >r- ti.:..,,. �.I �I - - �� � �� �� I ���i• i= i�.iii��•i'i.i'>�,_�:i'i •ilii �4 all - _ _ e ,�• � _ _ ,.ray. -r•• low _ _ ` •11 y� `y y.. ■ n i .—. -4 Al,,� /IqI' �I 1 ■moi +.n. ,,. + tl ii ti l ' d- S .: 1, -4 .I It a a 1 ■ ul 1I' III- - It d l� ,�� - • Y J 71 ILI Ulm Roof Deck (OPEN TO SKY) FOURTH FLOOR PLAN Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 „ DEVELOPMENT Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949)777-9400 THIRD FLOOR PLAN in Balcony I r+i Living E I Dining in Umm 7-1 0 N a Kitchen D v F• Sa 2 FF -11 — `II Bdrm 4 SECOND FLOOR PLAN PLAN SUMMARY LIVABLE AREA I ST FLR 160 S.F. 2ND FLR 910 S.F. 3RD FLR 905 S.F. TOTAL LIVABLE 1,975 S.F. GARAGE 448 S.F. BALCONY 54 S.F. 4TH FLR (ROOF DECK) 362 S.F. MINIMUM FOOTPRINT AREA IST FLR 608 S.F. = 100% 2ND FLR 910 S.F. = 149.7% 3RD FLR 905 S.F. = 148.8% 4TH FLR (ROOF DECK) 362 S.F. = 59.5% CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S Q 2 4 8 SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 IT, IIR I LJLJ Garage Den � 18.0' FIRST FLOOR PLAN .5' PLAN 1- 4 STORY 91. CTIRC 5256 S. Mission Road. Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 -summarch.com 760.724.1198 3 4 Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949)777-9400 RIGHT ELEVATION MATERIAL SCHEDULE I ROOF - CONCRETE TILE ROOF 2 FASCIA - 2X6 RESAWN WOOD 3 FASCIA - STUCCO OVER SHAPED FOAM .4 WALL - EXTERIOR STUCCO - SAND FINISH 'S WALL - HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING 6 WALL - BOARD AND BATTEN 7 TRIM - 2X RESAWN WOOD @ SIDING 8 TRIM - 2X STUCCO OVER FOAM 9 STONE VENEER i0 BRICK VENEER I RAILING - COMPOSITE WOOD 12 DECORATIVE -WOOD SHUTTERS I7 DECORATIVE -WOOD POTSHELF 14 DECORATIVE- STUCCO OVER FOAM POTSHELF 15 DECORATIVE - WOOD OUTLOOKERS 16 DECORATIVE-AVQOL GC%014¢— ------ -WOOD ARBOR _ _ _ ____DECORATIVE 18 DECORATE - GABLE ACCENT REAR ELEVATION FD1 S1. Ell, LEFT ELEVATION CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0 x 4 8 SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 FRONT ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL EXTERIORS -PLAN I A W,K­,t 4 5256 S Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 www summarch corn 760 724 1 198 Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660vE�aratsF�T Phone: (949)777-9400 RIGHT ELEVATION 10 MATERIAL SCHEDULE I ROOF - CONCRETE TILE ROOF 2 FASCIA -2X6 RESAWN WOOD 3 FASCIA - STUCCO OVER SHAPED FOAM 4 WALL - EXTERIOR STUCCO - SAND FINISH 5 WALL - HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING 6 WALL- BOARD AND BATTEN 7 TRIM - 2X RESAWN WOOD Q SIDING 8 TRIM - 2X STUCCO OVER FOAM 9 STONE VENEER t FA X LEFT ELEVATION CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0 2 4 8 SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 _331 KEAK LOVA I IUN ;'J FRONT ELEVATION 10 BRICK VENEER I I RAILING - COMPOSITE WOOD 5256S Mission Road, Ste, 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 12 DECORATIVE - WOOD SHUTTERS 13 DECORATIVE - WOOD POTSHELF 14 DECORATIVE - STUCCO OVER FOAM POTSHELF 15 DECORATIVE - WOOD OUTLOOKERS I j 16 DECORATIVE - WOOD CORBELS I7 DECORATIVE - WOOD ARBOR 111 IB DECORATE - GABLE ACCENT t FA X LEFT ELEVATION CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0 2 4 8 SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 _331 KEAK LOVA I IUN ;'J FRONT ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL EXTERIORS - PLAN I B SL c*Ir�E UIT 5256S Mission Road, Ste, 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 www summarch com 760 724 1 198 THIRD FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN Di Ani ci IMMAov MINIMUM FOOTPRINT AREA IST FLR 1,048 S.F. = 100% 2ND FLR 1,196 S.F. = 1 14.1 3RD FLR (ATTIC DEN) 245 S.F. = 23.4% CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S Sheldon Development, LLC. 0 2 4 8 901 Dove Street, Suite 230, , DEVELOPMENT Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949)777-9400 SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLAN 2 - 3 STORY K . uv 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 w .summarch.com 760.7241198 LS LIVABLE AREA IST FLR 609 S.F. 2ND FLR I,196 S.F. 3RD FLR (ATTIC DEN) 245 S.F. TOTAL LIVABLE 2,050 S.F. GARAGE 439 S.F. MINIMUM FOOTPRINT AREA IST FLR 1,048 S.F. = 100% 2ND FLR 1,196 S.F. = 1 14.1 3RD FLR (ATTIC DEN) 245 S.F. = 23.4% CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S Sheldon Development, LLC. 0 2 4 8 901 Dove Street, Suite 230, , DEVELOPMENT Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949)777-9400 SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLAN 2 - 3 STORY K . uv 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 w .summarch.com 760.7241198 LS Sheldon Development, LLC. 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEVELOPMENT Phone: (949)777-9400 RIGHT ELEVATION 4 -- LEFT ELEVATION MATERIAL SCHEDULE I ROOF - CONCRETE TILE ROOF 2 FASCIA - 2X6 RESAWN WOOD 3 FASCIA - STUCCO OVER SHAPED FOAM 4 WALL - EXTERIOR STUCCO - SAND FINISH 5 WALL - 1- 6 6 WALL -8 7 TRIM -2? 8 TRIM -2? 9 STONE V 10 BRICK VE II RAILING 12 DECORA 13 DECORA' 14 DECORA' IS DECORA 16 DECORA' 17 DECORA 18 DECORA REAR ELEVATION CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0 2 4 8 SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 6,33 FRONT ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL EXTERIORS - PLAN 2A 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste. 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 w .summarch.com 760.724.1196 RIGHT ELEVATION MATERIAL SCHEDULE 1 2 3 4 5 ROOF - CONCRETE TILE ROOF FASCIA - 2X6 RESAWN WOOD FASCIA - STUCCO OVER SHAPED FOAM WALL - EXTERIOR STUCCO - SAND FINISH WALL - HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING ALL - BOARD AND RATTFN IM -2X IM - 2X ONE VE ICK VEI ILING - CORAT CORAT CORAT CORAT CORAT CORAT CORAT REAR ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S Sheldon Development, LLC. 0 2 4 8 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 F— ----7Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEVELOPMENT [j Phone: (949)777-9400 SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 h FRONT ELEVATION CONCEPTUAL EXTERIORS - PLAN 2B 91, E 5256 5. Mission Road, Ste. 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 wwws --Kcom 760-724-1198 Sheldon Development, LLC, 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 DEVELOPMENT Phone: (949)777-9400 !fit® f S.d A.7 6d SETBAC% 9,01 INM tWiVi- 7A'PRNCvr.l-� WALK PK SITE SECTION C 17 { . t 1J Is.. I ,1 24' INT OK 9L' ORNEWAT 1&0' SETBACK 73.0' ORANGE COASFFL47 30.0'OR1V�+r+f- ORANGE COAST FIAT PL SITE SECTION B SITE SECTION A CARNEGIE AVENUE - COSTA MESA - 28 H O M E S 0 4 8 16 SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 SITE SECTIONS r -IT u 9 5256 S, Mission Road, Ste 404 Bonsall, CA 92003 -summar&com 760 724 1 198 STUCCO 1: DAYBREAK SW 6700 BOARD & BATTEN 2: SAMOVAR SILVER SW 6233 SIDING 3: ZEUS SW 7744 TRIM / FASCIA 4: EXTRAWHITE SW 7006 STONEVENEER 5: t 77, - mmom -7, - } MESQUITE - CLIFFSTONE ACCENT 6: OLYMPIC RANGE SW 7750 ROOF 7: SCB 8802 NANTUCKET BLEND CARN EG I E AVEN U E COSTA MESA, CA. SHELDON DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 777-9400 1 eL ARCHITECTURE 5256 S. MISSION RD. STE 404 BONSALL, CA. 92003 760.724.1 198 MANUFACTURER: SHERWIN-WILLIAMS ELDORADO STONE EAGLE ROOFING `� 30 3 STORY - A STUCCO I: EXTRAWHITE SW 7006 BOARD & BATTEN 2: CLARY SAGE SW 6178 SIDING 3: IN REALIST BEIGE SW 6078 TRIM / FASCIA 4: EXTRA WHITE SW 7006 STONEVENEER 5: MESQUITE - CLIFFSTONE ACCENT 6: DISTANCE SW 6243 �p� In4689 BROWN RANGE CARN EG I E AVENUE COSTA MESA, CA. SHELDON DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 777-9400 SLARWCHITECTURe 5256 S. MISSION RD. STE 404 BONSALL, CA. 92003 760.724.1 198 MANUFACTURER: SHERWIN-WILLIAMS ELDORADO STONE EAGLE ROOFING ?';% 3STORY- B STUCCO I DAYBREAK SW 6700 BOARD &BATTEN 2: SAMOVAR SILVER SW 6233 SIDING 3: ZEUS SW 7744 TRIM /FASCIA 4: EXTRAWHITE SW 7006 STONE VENEER 5: l MESQUITE - CLIFFSTONE ACCENT 6: SAMOVAR SILVER SW 6233 ROOF 7: 4689 BROWN RANGE CARNEGIE AVENUE COSTA MESA, CA. SHELDON DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 777-9400 SVACMHlTECMTURA__ 5256 S. MISSION RD. STE 404 BONSALL, CA. 92003 760.724.1 198 MANUFACTURER: SHERWIN-WILLIAMS ELDORADO STONE EAGLE ROOFING STUCCO I SAMOVAR SILVER SW 6233 BOARD &BATTEN 2: EXTRA WHITE SW 7006 TRIM /FASCIA 3: EXTRA WHITE SW 7006 BRICKVENEER 4: ASHLAND -TUNDRA BRICK ACCENT 5: DISTANCE SW 6243 CARNEGIE AVENUE COSTA MESA, CA. SHELDON DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 777-9400 S LA ARCHITECTURE d 5256 S. MISSION RD. STE 404 BONSALL, CA. 92003 760.724.1 198 MANUFACTURER: SHERWIN-WILLIAMS ELDORADO STONE EAGLE ROOFING 0 SCALE. T/:6"�I'-O' rc a— ie' Jx' SHELDON DEVELOPMENT 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 949.777,9400 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN CARNEGIE PLANT LEGEND • SHRUBS & CRASSU SYiA8 4HIT- BOTANIM NAMi I CHRMFON I SIZE FALL. SHRUBS ®7A^rR105 ARC ARCTOS LpM ipMRO 1 HOWARD MCMINN 5 GAL I SHRUB Y-6' O,G NM MCMIN MCMINM ,CARISSA MANZA1 ..>W►R- .•yrYl.- ter•,, -..�, 4 o . o T GAL. M 1SHRUB 2'-6' OG . BB BEAUTY' NATAL PLUM 5 GAL BOU "MSSI MACROC4RPA EMERALD CARPET 1 GAL M ,ROU OVER BRANGULAR SON 'EMERALD CARPE. NATAL PLUM SPACING 4--T OC. • • HEY NEMEROGV.US NYBRID DAYULY I GAL M ERNdAT PE1'-6' 500 5lE(LA 1)E OBD' arl LAM UWfANA DWARF YELLOW' DWARF 5 GAL L SHRUB 2'-6' OC . LANTANAYELLOW it�ilr IAV 'AWW""A A425LMTA'M 'a'LE ENGLISH LAVENDER 5 GAL L 'SHRUB 2'-6' OC it AND M'X/$AyTIV'. _rM,, 11 • • LM PER LIMONIUM PERf711 STATICE 1 GALL PERENNIAL V-6" PERENNIAL ®1! two) pili COMPACT MAHONA 5 GAL L SHRUB J'-6' OC. i COM 'COMPACTA' ss 1' MAN DOM NANDINA DOMESTIC HEAVENLY BAMBOO 5 GAL L 13HROB J'-0' OG s ® ` 'GULF MNL NANOINA DOMESTICA GULF STREAM 5 CAL L SHRUB 2'-6' OC GS STREAM' HEAVENLY BAMBOO w ''ICK PHO T NEW 2EALAND FW( 1 GAL L !SHRUB 2'-0' O.G l Q Ion ® 1*i PHO PHORNM X FRASEM 'RED PHOPNN 5 GAL M SHRUB J'-6' OG - RR ROBIN' Log�,�� P; r�V r! fV +1 ' I i= 1�1 !�h .. r+•A 7�1 rel r�1 ; . l,l r✓♦V rif * r,RS 1f ■4 lA1', : 1�1 r�1 - :: 7�I1 r�i M y.v. •�� - L,�•f ,,,,{ w .r .r f. .ar A t9 gA}q q Q BAELERINF 5 GAL �� !SHRUB J'-0' 0 G BAT 'BALLERINA' � a 1� RHA `v' A ENCHANTRESS 0.11 ISI aa • 1�1 �1 r•.y ��1' �i,f•TD ENC �� 01 Fy.. INDIAN HAWTHORN ® ® .fir LE RHA PMPHIOL£PIS UMSELLAM 'GULF GULF GREEN YEDDO 5 GAL •rr�� !iFMRUB 2'-6' OC +►Y: fir- • r•rr. v.P . w•y r.: rr.'. � .�. �A_ • � ROS r VM1.' • , •ly, }AL1 '•:�'.L. c A rT �4 1 i.. . Y .. V y: i ^ �L :� •'�a°o-'i e.r.•S.� r • i, _.. �,6�'•L, i If! .�Sa+.� .�A �,ti ��[�yGG(t ��2�:!}'. �1.: pp i ROS ' arm' PINK CARPET 5 GAL L +SHRUB 2'-6' OC it - 7 A - \ lip 1 t ROSMAR/NUS OFFICINV.IS 'BLUE BLUE SPIRES CAL L 'iHRUB 2'-6' OG ' FC SPIRES' ROS— NOS ROS R05MMRINUS OFRCINALIS . 1 CAL L 1"".RMINDCOAER TRL HC 'HUNRNCTON CARPET, CARPET ROSEMARY ;SPACANG 4'-T OG SAT S4LW MEXICANA M[16CAx SAGE 5 GAL L SHRUB 4'-0' OC NIX I GAL V-6' BC PM PUR ARISROA PURPUREA PkW5U THREE AWN 0 SCALE. T/:6"�I'-O' rc a— ie' Jx' SHELDON DEVELOPMENT 901 DOVE STREET, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 949.777,9400 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN CARNEGIE PLANT LEGEND • SHRUBS & CRASSU SYiA8 4HIT- BOTANIM NAMi I CHRMFON I SIZE FALL. SHRUBS ®7A^rR105 ARC ARCTOS LpM ipMRO 1 HOWARD MCMINN 5 GAL I SHRUB Y-6' O,G NM MCMIN MCMINM ,CARISSA MANZA1 4 CAR MACROCARPA 'BOXWOOD 111-101 BEAUTY T GAL. M 1SHRUB 2'-6' OG . BB BEAUTY' NATAL PLUM 5 GAL BOU "MSSI MACROC4RPA EMERALD CARPET 1 GAL M ,ROU OVER BRANGULAR SON 'EMERALD CARPE. NATAL PLUM SPACING 4--T OC. • • HEY NEMEROGV.US NYBRID DAYULY I GAL M ERNdAT PE1'-6' 500 5lE(LA 1)E OBD' arl LAM UWfANA DWARF YELLOW' DWARF 5 GAL L SHRUB 2'-6' OC . LANTANAYELLOW IAV 'AWW""A A425LMTA'M 'a'LE ENGLISH LAVENDER 5 GAL L 'SHRUB 2'-6' OC AND M'X/$AyTIV'. • • LM PER LIMONIUM PERf711 STATICE 1 GALL PERENNIAL V-6" PERENNIAL ®1! LMAH AWIONIA AOWFOLIUM COMPACT MAHONA 5 GAL L SHRUB J'-6' OC. i COM 'COMPACTA' MAN DOM NANDINA DOMESTIC HEAVENLY BAMBOO 5 GAL L 13HROB J'-0' OG s ® ` 'GULF MNL NANOINA DOMESTICA GULF STREAM 5 CAL L SHRUB 2'-6' OC GS STREAM' HEAVENLY BAMBOO w ''ICK PHO PHORMIUM 7ENM' NEW 2EALAND FW( 1 GAL L !SHRUB 2'-0' O.G -s SPRATT' ® 1*i PHO PHORNM X FRASEM 'RED PHOPNN 5 GAL M SHRUB J'-6' OG RR ROBIN' PR AT7A75TYftw 16" 1WIb6YIM TOBIRA 5 GAL M SHRUB 4'-0' QC. VAR VARIECATA' ® RHA AWIMM EPS /MPA BAELERINF 5 GAL M !SHRUB J'-0' 0 G BAT 'BALLERINA' INDIAN HAWTHORN 1� RHA RIUMIXCFG 19M ENCHANTRESS M N-6,GAL !SHRUB N-6' 0G �F ENC 'ENCRAMRESS' INDIAN HAWTHORN ® ® RHA PMPHIOL£PIS UMSELLAM 'GULF GULF GREEN YEDDO 5 GAL M !iFMRUB 2'-6' OC . GG GREEN' HAWTHORN f2 ROS )?M re"MUMN ICEBERG ROSE 5 GAL M !iHRUB 3'-6' 0.G W ICE ' B[WC pp i ROS ROSI X 'NOAS7RUM' PINK CARPET 5 GAL L +SHRUB 2'-6' OC xa ROS ROSMAR/NUS OFFICINV.IS 'BLUE BLUE SPIRES CAL L 'iHRUB 2'-6' OG ' FC SPIRES' ROS— NOS ROS R05MMRINUS OFRCINALIS HUMINGTON 1 CAL L 1"".RMINDCOAER TRL HC 'HUNRNCTON CARPET, CARPET ROSEMARY ;SPACANG 4'-T OG SAT S4LW MEXICANA M[16CAx SAGE 5 GAL L SHRUB 4'-0' OC NIX I GAL V-6' BC PM PUR ARISROA PURPUREA PkW5U THREE AWN I f,IRdJN000Y4R UNERS V-0" TRI SPACING 1 GAL !'-6' OIC. FES GU FFSTUCA CLAUCA OM FESCUE L/M IDROUNUCUVLR UNERS '1.`0' TRI SPACING 1 CAL TTEN A1A53Et� R , FEATHER L VRo—LD", UNERS I' -C• Tal SPACM• PLANTING LEGEND • TREES CDTWMPIAHE SYIM6. ma BOTANICAL HAVE VE PAON 512E C9MT.IEHiS HACT. TREES - CIN CAM G� &Wh g - CAMPHOR TREE M STANDARD CIN SEM CUPRESSUS SEMPfRNRENS ITALIAN CYPRESS L STANDARD LU MOB LAURUS NOBIUS 'S4TATOW' BAY LAUREL L STANDARD lDP CON LOPHOSIEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE R1k M :STANDARD POD GRA PoDOCARPUS CRACILIOR FERN PINE M 'STANDARD RnIAVItLE�BYE LANDSCAPE ARCHETECTS SHEET 01 IW w VAN 5irfil, '11[ :l, IL Zul, [A 59i8) TEL (714) M-). M E -MM( gorybyA llnel COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA D V PROJECT NUMBER:BY:19JU .2010 PLOT DATE:19 JULY 2016 a' Rnx. • Fl710E L'OIaR TO HE SEIECIFL I Or SCL 1 I _ wm POST %TK FERM Pon I EPRiN W'm VINYL SIDEYARD FENCE • ELEVATION �._o. W' SA IIETAE i PO NOTE: r' utsV r1Y1 - SHEI wTrE POST FACE EXMSED ro 57REFT NMYLgWGA CaEAR TO K FAR a%W NANIM STREET TREE an EARSI WOL ah PACE wrti GATE Piga FVM aux VINYL SIDEYARo LATE • ELEVATION *' HM PRECOM •Li•• WN $KSffNS Elea •se' s rTMet E.0m VOLL RH OON •RPL[TFAx CW WU •TTR PRS „ I ml r omE � "Iftw a w r1-1!w4i1 4 �va SECTION A -A: 2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY AT CARNEGE AVENUE n n t1W1 SLiJi MASONRY WALL VATH COLUMNS • ELEVATION cokt wTRN aWL ATO Mom. REFER ARV^ RTEL'11AW - smm TRK N ..urtnc COLUMN ON r AwAur MLALCH ONLY E� FEDESn?1AN SIDEWALK f ■ • ! • ' - — �i=ill � � � � � �� -��_ �� gra ri ��ri tri i op � iia � - r, E-' ki II ■ e i i' i i it Uli II I `, �`•. .iIS, 11 �.� Ijl Rjj! !1 Ij! ��Ij IttI� _� � • ' -_- ';, � �:a s�''�+�+'r� r • a •�E,n r I r oAm PRECAST CONCRETE CAP PRGXCT IOENRTY SICNACE SR/CCO RNSH PRECAST CONRETE SQL DOVE STREEI, SUITE 230 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 0901 DEVELOPMENT 949 1779400 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN RAINVILLEiBYE LAN[75CAPE AfiCry1TL-CTS SHEET 02 CA RNEGI E ? ( j COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NUMBER: BYE -2016.108.00 1�` PLOT DATE: 30AUGU5T2016 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 18064 SINGLE LOT SUBDIVISION FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES RO CIN OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA s'� n CMNEIA A R• P• F• 3 __-, s;- - g• T LEGAL DESCRIPTIO f✓ F THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA. COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP FILED W BOON 6J. PAGE 64 OF MnffjMP.S, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY EXCEPTIT4C PROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LXN0 LYING WITKN LOT A OF THE BANNING TRACT, A$ SHOWN ON A MAP ATTACHES TO THE REFS RREE'S REPORT FILED APRIL 14, 1 NO V4 CASE NO 83aS. IN SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIIL• AN UNDIVIDED 40 PERCENT WTEREST IN AND TO ALL CA AND MINERAL RIGHTS, BUT WITHOUT RIGHT OF ENTRY YO THE SURFACE OR THE SUB -SURFACE THEREOF TOA DEPTH 590 FEETOF SATS LAND, AS GRANTED TO PEOPLES INVESTMENT CORPORATION BY OEEO RECORDED FESRUARY _14 IM aOINK /197 PAGE 173 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS ALSO EXCEPT FROM THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING WR} -RN LOT A Of THE BANNING TRACT. AS SHOWN ON A MAP ATTACHED TO THE REFERREM REPORT FILED APRIL 14• 1090 IN CASE NO 6855 w SUPERIOR COURT 0 ATH] FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORN06 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNYA, AN UKOWIDED DD PBROENT VNTEREST IN AND TO ALL OIL AND MINERAL RIGFT78, BUT WITHOUT RIGHT OF ENTRY TO THE SURFACE OR TO THE SUS -SURFACE THEREOF TO A DEPTH OF SW FEET OF SMD LAND AS GRANTED TO PADANIVE.VMENT CORPORATION BY OF -ED RECORDEDFEBRUARY 1N. 1456 tJ_.' 9Mµ 4.17• RAGE 177 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS ALSO EXCEPT FROM THAT PORTION OF SAN) LAND LY 6JG WITHIN ZRAC[,�Q 2?fi0. AS PER MAP RECORDED IN1 P 1 TH I �"-� OUB P , IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. ALL OIL AND MWERAL RIGHTS, SVT WITHDUT THE RIGHT OF ENTRY TO THE SURFACE OF THE SU"URFACE THEREOF TO A DEPTH OF LOO FEET OF SAID IA 0 AS GRANTED TO PALM RJVE611.1 Nl CORPORAT{ON AHP OTHERS BY DEED RECORDER AUGL16T�'9$¢ ly 800113610. PRGE S)''i[]i dy11f 613LI3! 1 =r 11 i{ }L 1 C• i.l -1 m EASEMENT NOTES OAN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 3541 PAGE 69 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN FAVOR OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION TO BE VACATED OAN EASEMENT FOR COMI.WNICATION FACILITIES AND INC IOEKTAL PURPOSES. RECORDED IN BOOK 37A PACE IIS OF OFFICIAL RECORDS W FAVOR OF PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY. A CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AMIYOR ASSIGNS TO SE VACATED OAN EASEMENT FOR PEMTRWJ AND VEHKIILAR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED IN BOOK 1129. PAGE 079OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN FAVOR OF AARON SPIEGEL, A MARRIED MAN AS HIS SEPARATE PROPERTY RECORDED JULY 13, 1964 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 11407 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. TO BE VACATED SHEETINDEX Cl 0 TITLE SHEET C2 D TENTATIVE TRACT MAP C30 CONCEPTUALGRADING C40 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 GROSS ACREAGE' 167 AL 2 EXLSTWGiONING' COMMERCIAL 3 PROPOSE 0 ZONRIG: RESIDENTIAL 4 EXIS TRIG OSE- COMMERCIAL 5 CON4TOLRI INTERVAL IF 007 6ALL DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 7 ALL IMPAOVELLENTS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF COSTA MESA SHALL N INBTALLEO TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER B SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM SMAII DE PRIVATE 9 ON-SITE WATER SYSTEM SKALL SE PUBLIC. UNLESS QOTE4 ON PLAN. SEPARATE METERS TO BE PROVIDED FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL 10 SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY SHALL BE CITY OF MESA WATER OMTRICT 11 ON-SITE STREETS SHALL BE PRIVATE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION 1. 1 LOT TRACT MAP 2 2BHOMES 3. NET AREA: 1.66 AC 4. DENSITY: 28 HOMES/1.67 AC- 1625 HOMESAC BASIS OF BEARI N G THE BASIS OF BEARING USED FOR THIS PROJECTIS THE BEAR! NG BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR GPS STATIONS 6154 AND 6155131 WHICH IS N00°36'15'E BENCHMARK OCS BM CM -31-81 ALUM NUM BENCHMARK DISK ATINTERSECTI ON OF FAIRVIEW ROAD AND FAIR DRIVE ELEV=7227 (NAVD88) 69875{NGV029) 2005(YEAR LEVELED) EG EDGE OF GUTTER FF FINISH FLOOR FH FIRE HYDRANT FL FLOW LINE FS FINISH SURFACE FG FINISH GRADE GB GRADEBREAK GFF GARAGE FINISH FLOOR INV INVERT MIN MINIMUM PKWY PARKWAY R PROPERTY LINE RL RIDGE LINE R/W RIGHT OF WAY SO STORM DRAIN SS SANITARY SEWER TC TOP OF CURB TG TOP OF GRATE TW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL W WATER » UT PItlNu-Ip: DR KWDJER DR FAR OR vRKC£reN DR Y�r�j BLrcx+ID L w ` C0Y HILL - FNP? DR !F aj FAR 09 FAR DR VICINITY MAP Nis LEGEND: PROPERTY LINE -��•���� RIGHT OF WAY 0. ➢'- I 0 FENCE --«---- EASEMENT LINE CURB AND GUTTERLu - CENTER LINE -- - - - - - - FLOW LINE PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT PROPOSED WALK PROPOSED LANDSCAPE Z W NJ W C7 C S I- I�WD m LLAi Z yfi� •R PATIO A ry - i SLOPE �... —.. —.- PAOPOM WATER LINE �..�..�...� OkOPOSED SEWER LINE ^^ O �.. �.. •-....� PROPOSED STORM DRAW i•f• c PROPOSED STORM DRAIN C m — —.— — ---- EXISTN4G WATER LINE rL d EXISTING SEWER LINE EXISTINGOASLMIE a N OO$ u --.---.-- EXITING ELBCTR_4L LINE 0 caittm PROPOSED SEWER LATERAL �' PROPOSED WATER METER r Q PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT ¢I PROPOSED GATE VALVE •- PROPOSED AN RELEASE VALVE O PROPOSED MANHOLE • PRGPOSEOCLEANOUT • PROPOSCIAREADRAIN • PROPOSEDCATCHBASM 17 U O MANHOLE Sw EXISTNO w '�. Cz I:%J W � � U 'o JOB NO 16C004.00 DRAWN BY: TG/IC CHECKED BY: PG ac 8131116 1 .o 1 OF 4 PRELIMINARY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND: PROPERTY LINE RIGHT OF WAY FENCE EASEMENT LINE CURB AND GUTTER CENTER LINE FLOW LINE PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT PROPOSED WALK PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PATIO SLOPE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 18064 oxt ^� 1 CARNEGIE AVE. s:-—�---�, EASEMENT NOTES OAN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED IN BOOK 3641 PAGE 69 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN FAVOR OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION TO BE VACATED OAN EASEMENT FOR COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED IN BOOK 3703, PAGE 115 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN FAVOR OF PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS. TO BE VACATED OAN EASEMENT FOR.PeOP—STRIAN AND VEHICULAR NORMAND EGRESS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED INB0OI9712➢, PAGE 679 OF OFFICIALftCORDTa IN FAVOR OF AARON SPIEGEL, A MARRIED MAN AS HIS SEPARATE PROPERTY RECORDED JULY 13,19B4 AS INSTRUMENT NO 11407 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. TO BE VACATED rvx C'l Jly f J J 6 7 8 GFF=7315 HFs-7348 GFF=731 HFF.7A$ ,_; GFF=7337 WF -7U7 f _ _ _ _ _ r _ _ I I 'a PRIVATE STREET s — — F< m� 5 0' — d ) HFF=7372 �] 16 17 1 < y�IFFsi33,7 HFF=73T3 LJS C iif 12.0V� 12-0' I GFF=� I; 24.x"A' HFF=7372 e. x —: .n I GFF=7362 I /I 16 CFFnsBz HFF=74.00 r-12.9; HFF=7400 i�• 1 I W ---- 12 _ 12 h M: f8A'i.• 15 [#'F=7S.BI WGFF=73.62 I HFF=79 HFF=74,� F ,00 i av a J . I GFF=7376 13 . 14 GFF=7376 NFF•T4.l6 HFF=7416 r4 T I GRAPHIC SCALE J4 p 10 20 40 60 ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 20 0 a� Q 3 A F� � w IT O Q U F- LU H JOB NO 160004.00 DRAWN BY: TG/IC E CHECKED BY: PG 1 DATE 6129/16 C2.0 SHEET 2 OF 4 PRELIMINARY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1Q� 3"ACOVERII"AB FP IP 1 3"AC OVER 6"AS Q6" CONCRETE CURB 8 GUTTER V� ROLLED CURB 8 GUTTER [ v 7 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK (ADA COMPLIANT) (V2' CONCRETE GUTTER (D 1 DRIVEWAY PER CITY OF COSTA MESA 6 16" x 10" CATCH BASIN O STORMWATER INFILTRATION CHAMBER (CMP DETENTION SYSTEM) 10 DEMO EXISTING CURB AND CONSTRUCT NEW CURB RAMP PER CITY OF COSTA MESA STANDARDS 11 REMOVE THE WOODEN STREET LIGHT POLE AND REPLACE IT WITH CONCRETE POLE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 18084 Ix i "x A x CARNEGIE AVE. --- Nu LEGEND .PROPERTY LINE - - - RIGHT OF WAY - FENCE -- - - - EASEMENT LINE - CURB AND GUTTER 2 � CENTER LINE - FLOW LINE GFF tiNFi=7236- =71.06 . HFF.77.61 GFF=72.11 PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT 60 5 PROPOSED WALK 7 PROPOSEDLANDSCAPE IN FEET) PATIO �: (� 1 inch =206 r--^�•� SLOPE < nre fl -11 ��_ PRIVATE STREET sra 1 - - GFF=71.45 GFF=7i 45 GFF=71.72 I GFF=71.72GFF=72.60 GFF=7200 :� t11 GFF=7226 5T(- O JOB NO 160004.00 �•x, 2 � 3 1,xF=7711 GFF=71.72 GFF tiNFi=7236- =71.06 . HFF.77.61 GFF=72.11 nre fl -11 ��_ PRIVATE STREET sra 1 - - GFF=71.45 GFF=7i 45 GFF=71.72 I GFF=71.72GFF=72.60 GFF=7200 :� t11 GFF=7226 5T(- GFF=72.60 GFF=72.60 I GFF=7315 •` GFF=73.15_.- rbh L I D- ` Q ' S �7VP GFF=nmr,GFF7334 9 • -- ` HFF=7372 _,,❑ I] ` LL jk 28 27 26 25 24 23 122 21 20 19 18 17 z HFF=71.63 HFF=71,63 HFF=721 HFF=72.1 HFF=7236 HFF=72.36 •I HFI 66 HFF=7266 HFF=72,96 HFF=7298 '� - HFF=7353 HFF=7353 R an PARKWAY 20,0' 4.a 6.P j$IDMALH DRIVEWAY 1 Gfi E GB T q Ji FS GFF=7334 10 rr Ji HFF=7372- •; C 9 - so- .. •::: •: ::.. ... . .' .i?-�1' 7.71 FS .,.:r. -lT zaxfi 5.0 TYl'.- 6.6 177 X 16 CxF.TSti7 4 ,,, GFF=7362 ...16F 7LW� 10.6 f •.� , I HFF=74.00 I 1 -9 x - _ �.. GFF=7362 12 1Y _ _ _ X �x s Y. _ \ % -! 15 GFFy7d.6Y I HFF=74.00I TYP HFF=74 00 - i � , GFF-7376 13 r' [ _..I 14� GFF=7376 i HFF=74,16 HFF=74.16 �F . I x � fix. i .� x NTS 72.56 TC 2.35 S :F 73,34 72.06 FL SECTION C -C NTS IV U 1011 O JOB NO 160004.00 DRAWN BY TG/IC S CHECKED BY: PG GRAPHIC SCALE DATE: 673116 20 10 20 40 60 5 6 7 IN FEET) 8 �: (� 1 inch =206 GFF=72.66 HFF=73.1 GFF=73,15 HFF=7365 ' GFF=73,1 HFF=736 GFF=73.37 HFF=73.67 7.1 1�■11 �rzzi Fs .--- 4en.zrs a r:wFy r� b rz31R I GFF=72.60 GFF=72.60 I GFF=7315 •` GFF=73.15_.- rbh L I D- ` Q ' S �7VP GFF=nmr,GFF7334 9 • -- ` HFF=7372 _,,❑ I] ` LL jk 28 27 26 25 24 23 122 21 20 19 18 17 z HFF=71.63 HFF=71,63 HFF=721 HFF=72.1 HFF=7236 HFF=72.36 •I HFI 66 HFF=7266 HFF=72,96 HFF=7298 '� - HFF=7353 HFF=7353 R an PARKWAY 20,0' 4.a 6.P j$IDMALH DRIVEWAY 1 Gfi E GB T q Ji FS GFF=7334 10 rr Ji HFF=7372- •; C 9 - so- .. •::: •: ::.. ... . .' .i?-�1' 7.71 FS .,.:r. -lT zaxfi 5.0 TYl'.- 6.6 177 X 16 CxF.TSti7 4 ,,, GFF=7362 ...16F 7LW� 10.6 f •.� , I HFF=74.00 I 1 -9 x - _ �.. GFF=7362 12 1Y _ _ _ X �x s Y. _ \ % -! 15 GFFy7d.6Y I HFF=74.00I TYP HFF=74 00 - i � , GFF-7376 13 r' [ _..I 14� GFF=7376 i HFF=74,16 HFF=74.16 �F . I x � fix. i .� x NTS 72.56 TC 2.35 S :F 73,34 72.06 FL SECTION C -C NTS IV U 1011 PRELIMINARY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O JOB NO 160004.00 DRAWN BY TG/IC S CHECKED BY: PG GRAPHIC SCALE DATE: 673116 20 10 20 40 60 C3.0 11 IN FEET) 1 inch =206 SHEET 30F 4 PRELIMINARY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 18064 �x , Y ;1 `(� I I CARNEGILAVE. � I PROPOSED WATER LINE - ��T.}.•'..—+..'.- �""Ti---—� _ •f ••�.'. ti PROPOSED SEWER LINE L - f 6'e0 b'>,D r6D �• —.� y¢p R• ��� - .... —T } , PROPOSED STORM DRAIN'+FF:� PROPOSED STORM DRAIN x f ; 1, EXISTING WATER LINE I..3 Zb EXISTING SEWER LINE _x_ rug O 6, 1 2 l 3 4 5 _ 6 7 $ I I I Il1f=. �1#i,HF 427[ GFF=71.72 r F•773!• GFF=71.66 f6jb1 GFF=7211 1tl#.77,67 GFF=7235 GFF=72.66 HFF=73,1 GFF=7315 MISx73y$ GFF=73.1 HFF=736 GFF=Ts3? HFF=r`.�67 I I EXISTING GAS LINE c7 EXISTING ELECTRICAL LINE F _ " ` {j YJ I j 1 1 Yif - ` r•' Y j j PROPOSED SEWER LATERAL mx •( I 111 II ' 1333 3 'L PROPOSED WATER METER " Q ,IL;,7 J [ _ j I ' I S "II PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED GATE VALVE f l — — — — — — — '—• — — 0.78% raI x0.7. ` r'ea ISA raa 67otc 4 • S,i ��. PROPOSED AIR REi.EASE VFLVE PROPOSED MANHOLE n— _- a rw r'r7 6w p g REQ ray PROPOSED CLEAN OUT rH' ww PROPOSED AREA DRAIN --- I� — -• — � — - — —• •-- - � � — — — — � — - — -- ' 11 _ 26 •r .��1 A I f xi - 1� r I ! n 7rP L � PROPOSED CATCHBASIN GFF=71.45 GFF=71,45 - {jFF= GFF=71.72 GFF=7266 GFF=7260 GFF=?226 ' - mx •{� GFF=7228 GFF=72.60 GfF=72Sk GFF=7315 UF, EXISTING MANHOLE • I I I I IT. _ GFF=? 34 9 _ • 1 f 28 27 28 25 24 2322 21 20 19 18 17 - HFF=73.72 I� 1... LL C HFF=7103 HFF=71 83 mFF-nA HFF=721 HFF=7236 HFF=7236 HFF=72,6E HFF=7266 HFF=7298 HFF=7298 HFF-7353 HFF=7353 r ryi I GFF=73341111 10 , Ii j I. �r J HFF=73.72 ..lam �3 1 jF 1 �_.!•!�.- - = 31 _-"ter -,l- =�r i.� Ex BUILDING , 1 ` 1 , , \ lI� + �% TYP 73 ~ I W, GFF=7362 11 16 33 �• / ;, i - LL �I - , \ m� nr I$Fr7,3-67 .. HFF=74.00 %1 •, n 1 HFF=74.00 fl CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 81 6• SDR35 SEWER PIPE SEWER MANHOLE 25 4• SEWER DR35 SEWER LATERAL xa SEW ER CLEANOUT 23 JOIN EXISTING SEWER 2B B' AW WA C901 CLASS 150 (DRIB) PVC WATER PIPE 27 BLOWOFF VALVE 2! WATER METER JOIN EXISTING WATER OFIRE HYDRANT B" PVC STORMDRAIN (31 V 4• PVC STORM DRAIN [987 12" x 12' Area D.Il I - EX :,r PARKING !,)T 1� x -- rx x x - 1 GFFr3a2 X = r �c _ . � TYP gs � HF,=70.00 E>, BUI' DING 31 14 GFF=73 78 HFF=74,16 -'X ` x TYP •137 I' I mx IF7. M s Lu x I I{ ti i II a {J I j GFFF7362 12 HFF=74.68- 23 !IJ I c II GFF=73,78 HFF 3 16 I (, x ui Z W d N U, m 0 G U � N ui c 2 jftkI -R CL O F o L 4 m u,2 ,w v 0m co U U 0 Zw Z?� U¢_m K � a V 'o JOB NO 16C004M DRAWN BY_ TG/ IC CHECKED BY PG NOTES: DATE: 8129116 ALL UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM AS -BUILT PLAN C4.0 SHEET 4 O d PRELIMINARY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I f � I �"' cam" J I k+�w.wi • t`" ' i I. .�;, ICf . . •.. I r�_ � r�a ri ii .,,r+ �� 477AA= 1} b._ i f .f��� r. -- .. ■ ti R •�+��t� 1w s' KIM +�. •air ... �� 1 } �,. , f y •,.wry 't �� ,... '�a 11 .r y wR rr K } an 49 1� .a M At 1 t �•�=1wi-� .� .FI SHIR ON + a� I• • Z/ ATTACHMENT 8 MOVEDISECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer/Council Member Monahan The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: City Council directed Staff to proceed with an Urban Plan Amendment to amend the SoBECA and Westside Urban Plans. 3. GENERAL PLAN SCREENING GPS -14-04 FOR PROPOSED 28 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT 440 FAIR DRIVE (05:16:44) Staff report, including a PowerPoint presentation presented by Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner. (05:17:02) Steve Sheldon, Applicant of Sheldon Development, presented a PowerPoint presentation. (05:22,30) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: City Council approved to continue the meeting passed midnight. Public Comments: Teresa Drain, Costa Mesa, thanked applicant for the community meetings; spoke on maintaining current land use element; and requested lower density, (05:36:40) Carolyn Van Hosen, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of the project; substantial improvement; and complimented design. (05:39:45) Walt Clanton, Costa Mesa, expressed concern with traffic patterns. (05:41:09) Corina Bellino, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the project; and less traffic trips. (05:43:24) Minutes — Regular Meeting — October 6, 2015 - Page 15 .i I Tara McFadden, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of the project. (05:44:35) Ahmet Demirel, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of the project. (05:45:49) Doug Vogel, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of the project. (05:46:22) Stephen Thornton, Costa Mesa, spoke in favor of the project. (05:48:16) Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the project; and the need for additional open space. (05:49:18) Christopher Otis, Costa Mesa, suggested adding another exit. (05:50:17) Council Member Foley spoke on the odor of the gas fuels; and issues with roof decks. (05:51:07) Council Member Genis spoke on focusing on amending the General Plan; and concern with density. (05:53:20) Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer spoke on proposed density. (05:58:55) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Foley/Council Member Monahan The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: City Council accepted the General Plan Amendment request for processing to amend the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Development Residential related to development of a 28 -unit residential development at 440 Fair Drive. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (06:06:25) 9. FAIRVIEW PARK NORTH BLUFF TRAIL REALIGNMENT — CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 (06:06:28) Council Member Genis spoke on concerns with lighting; no provisions in Fairview Park Master Plan. (06:06:50) Staff report, presented by Director of Public Services, Ernesto Munoz. Minutes — Regular Meeting — October 6, 2015 - Page 16 ATTACHMENT 9 IS/MND and Appendices for 440 Fair Drive available on City Website at htto://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=151 31/-17 ATTACHMENT 8 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -16-011 REZONE R-16-01/ MASTER PLAN PA -16-46 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT -18064 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES FOR A 28 - UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 440 FAIR DRIVE DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 2016 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: RYAN LOOMIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RYAN LOOMIS, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER (714) 754-5608, ryan.loomis@costamesaca.gov At the meeting on November 14, public testimony was taken and comment letters submitted to the City were provided to the Commission. The item was then continued to the November 21 meeting date. Staff subsequently learned code enforcement violations continue to exist at the site, despite our efforts to encourage the applicant to correct them. As a result, at this time the staff is recommending the Commission: 1. Receive any additional public comments 2. Close the public hearing. 3. Direct the applicant to meet again with the residents to address their concerns and/or revise the project. 4. Direct the applicant to continue to work with Code Enforcement staff to clear all violations on the property. Provided below is additional information with regard to the proposed project, including the following: 1. Mesa Water District provided comments on November 1, 2016 (see Attachment 1) regarding the IS/MND for 440 Fair Drive project. These comments have been addressed in the IS/MND Response to Comments (see Attachment 3). 2. A letter from Infrastructure Group, Inc. (applicant's Traffic Engineer) has been provided to update new field observations to assess queuing of vehicles on southbound Carnegie Avenue at Fair Drive. Also, updated information related to trips exiting the project site proceeding northbound towards Princeton Drive, or eastbound on Bucknell Road, has been provided. (see Attachment 2). 3. First Carbon Solutions (Environmental Consultant) has provided a Response to Comments report regarding comments received for the IS/MND (see Attachment 3). 4. First Carbon Solutions has provided a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the IS/MND, which has been included as Exhibit C in the Resolution of Planning Commission. Conditions of Approval 48 through 52 have been removed from the Resolution since they are now a part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Exhibit C. 5. The project was continued to the November 21, 2016 Planning Commission. As a result, the Resolution of the Planning Commission and voting page have been updated to reflect the current date. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program from Item 4 above has been added to the Resolution as Exhibit C (see Attachment 4). 6. Thirty-two public comments have been received by staff in opposition to PA -16-46 (see Attachment 5). The letters cited the following concerns: a. Increased traffic through College Park neighborhood b. Project access should not be along Carnegie Avenue c. Removal of 10 mature trees along Carnegie Avenue d. High density of the project e. Insufficient parking provided f. Insufficient open space provided g. Three and four story homes are not compatible with th e Park neighborhood h. Loss of equity in existing homes from the development i. Too many variances requested 7. Code Violations at 440 Fair Drive: Since June 8 2016, Code Enforcement staff has attempted to work with the property owner, Mr. Dennis D'Alessio and the developer, Mr. Steve Sheldon, regarding code violations located at 440 Fair Drive. This included site visits, phone calls and email correspondence providing property maintenance, zoning regulations and direction on how to correct the violations. After approximately three months of attempting to work with Mr. D'Alessio and Mr. Sheldon, on September 9, 2016, an official notice and citation(s) were issued to Mr. D'Alessio due to failure to act on addressing the City's concerns. The civil fines associated with the violations total $3,150.00. Of this amount, $1,500 has been paid and $1,650 is outstanding. Staff has worked with the applicant to encourage him to correct all of the violations prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. However, on November 16, 2016, Code Enforcement staff conducted a follow up inspection and second violation notice and citation(s) will be issued to Mr. D'Alessio. He will be granted an 351 additional eleven days to comply with the notice. A follow up inspection will be conducted by Code Enforcement staff on Monday November 28, 2016. ALTERNATIVES: For your information, no revisions to the project have been made in response to the concerns expressed by the residents. Although community meetings were held as recently mid-October, the applicant has not resolved the concerns expressed by the neighbors. Staff is also concerned that code violations still remain on the property. Whether or not the development project moves forward, the violations need to be addressed in order to return the site to a condition that complies with city standards. Staff does not support granting additional entitlements to a property that is in violation of an existing conditional use permit or is out of compliance with applicable codes. The Commission has a few options available on how to proceed with the project: 1. Take an action on the project and recommend the City Council either: a. Approve the project b. Deny the project The City Council is the final approval body on all of the project applications due to the inclusion of a general plan amendment and zone change. 2. Receive any additional public comment and then close the public hearing. Direct the applicant to return with the project after meeting with the residents to address their concerns and/or revise the project, and clear all code enforcement violations on the property. With this option, a new public noticing process would occur when the applications are ready to return to the public hearing process. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive any additional public comments. 2. Close the public hearing. 3. Direct the applicant to meet again with the residents to address their concerns and/or revise the project. 4. Direct the applicant to continue to work with Code Enforcement staff to clear all code violations on the property. Attachments: 1. Mesa Water District Comments 2. Letter from infrastructure Group, Inc. FCS 4. Updated Planning Commission Resolution 5. ents �q fpr _� Ptl ��m�� G o C� Car�c 12Q�or� 35-d, Distribution: Director of Economic & Development Services/ Consultant Interim Assistant Director, Planning Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Director Fire Protection Analyst File (2) 35'3 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK AXV ATTACHMENT 1 MesaWater DISTRICT® November 1, 2016 Dedicated to City of Costa Mesa Satisfying our Community's 77 Fair Drive Water Needs Costa Mesa, CA 92626 To Whom It May Concern, BOARD OF DIRECTORS Re: 440 Fair Drive Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Review Comments Shawn Dewane President Mesa Water® appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Division V subject project Mitigated Negative Declaration. A review and comments of Ethan Temianka the 440 Fair Drive Development (Proposed Project) Draft Mitigated Vice President Negative Declaration document as it pertains to Mesa Water® are provided Division III as follows: Jim Atkinson 1. Water Supplies and Demand: Information in Section 2.3 Project Director Features, Utilities, is incorrect. There is not an existing connection that Division IV is capable of serving the proposed number of units. Mesa Water's Fred R. Bockmiller, Jr., P.E. Single Meter Policy for individually owned units will be applied. Director Division I 2. Water Conservation & Irrigation: Dedicated irrigation metering for landscaped areas greater than 2,500 square feet shall be required. All James R. Fisler landscaping shall be in accordance with the City of Costa Mesa Director Division II Landscape Ordinance, irrigation fixtures shall be drip -irrigation type, and shall be a Water -Sense certified irrigation controller. 3. Operating Pressure: The Developer/Home Owners Association (HOA) shall be responsible for providing the necessary pressure increase Paul E. Shoenberger, P.E. beyond the meter above the minimum required (40 psi) by the Division General Manager of Drinking Water Standards to ensure proper functioning of all fixture Phil Lauri, P.E. units and fire protection systems. Assistant General Manager 4. Site Access: Private gates shall be prohibited where Mesa Water® Coleen L. Monteleone facilities are blocked from access, including valves, backflow devices, Assistant General Manager service laterals, and meters. District Secretary Andrew N. Hamilton 5. Other Requirements: All development work shall comply with Mesa District Treasurer Water® Rules and Regulations for Water Service and Mesa Water®, Standard Specification, and Standard Drawings. Bowie, Arneson, Wiles & Giannone Legal Counsel Please contact Tim Beaman of my staff at (949) 207-5483 with any questions. Regards, 1965 Placentia Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 fax949.574103 Phi Lauri, fax 949.574. ter. Assistant General Manager 35,57 info@MesaWater.org Mesa .org INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP, INC. Traffic Engineering Services 2672 N. Vista Crest Road Orange, CA 92867 (714) 749-6386 November 7, 2016 Ryan Loomis Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 ATTACHMENT 2 IV %-1 \--1 Re: 28 homes at 440 Fair Drive ("Project") - Traffic Observation Follow-up Dear Mr. Loomis, On the morning of Thursday November 3rd I made a field observation to assess the queuing of vehicles on southbound Carnegie Avenue at Fair Drive. At no time was there more than one vehicle queuing to turn right or left. I also observed the Carnegie/Bucknell intersection to assess the traffic volume and capacity. Approximately every six to seven minutes a vehicle entered the intersection. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) manual, the Project will generate 19 AM Peak Hour trips (3 entering and 16 existing) and 21 PM Peak Hour (14 entering and 7 exiting) trips. if every AM Peak Hour trip exiting the site proceeded northbound towards Princeton Drive, or eastbound on Bucknell Road, that would equate to one vehicle every 3:45 minutes. Those trips are diminis and would not create a noticeable travel delay to the existing traveling public in the College Park tract. Additionally, the existing medical office and retail building at 440 Fair currently contributes a small number of vehicles to the College Park tract which would be eliminated with the Project. I recommend that the city stripe a "KEEP CLEAR" within the intersection of Carnegie Avenue and Fair Drive to facilitate the movement of vehicles exiting and entering the College Park tract. Denis Bi/odeau, PE &6(1C' 1 ra f� ructue Group lnc. A California Corporation 35� ATTACH M ENT 3 REFER TO ATTACHMENT 11 OF CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 37 ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. PC -16- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; (2) ADOPT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -16-01 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 1.66 -ACRE SITE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR); (3) APPROVE AND GIVE FIRST READING TO REZONE R-16-01 FOR A REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 1.66 -ACRE DEVELOPMENT SITE FROM C1 (LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO PDR -HD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL- HIGH DENSITY); AND (4) APPROVE MASTER PLAN PA -16-46 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 28 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 440 FAIR DRIVE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2015-2035 General Plan on June 21, 2016; WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65358(a) authorizes the City Council to amend the General Plan if it deemed to be in the public interest; WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of the City of Costa Mesa; WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan is subject to update and revision to account for current and future community needs; WHEREAS, an application was filed by Sheldon Development, LLC, on behalf of owner of real properties located at 440 Fair Drive, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Certification of the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -MND) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -16-01. Change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential to allow for a maximum density of 20 du/acre. 3. Rezone R-16-01. A rezone to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 5 �� 4. Planning Application PA -16-46. Master Plan for the 28 -unit residential common interest development project with specified deviations from the PDR -HD development standards, including the following: i. Variance to allow deviation from required open space requirements (42% required; 36.8% proposed); ii. Variance for encroachment of block walls into required perimeter open space area (20 feet required; 6 feet (Fair Drive) and 4.7 feet (Carnegie Ave) proposed); iii. Variance to allow deviation from required landscaped parkway .requirements (10 feet with no dimension less than 5 feet on house side of private street required; 10 feet/3.6 feet proposed); iv. Administrative Adjustment for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Fair Drive (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed). v. Minor Modification for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Carnegie (20 feet required; 18 feet proposed). vi. Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines for multi -story to first floor ratio (100% multi -story to first floor ratio recommended; 150% for 4 -story units and 114% for 3 -story units proposed). 5. Tentative Tract Map 18064 for Condominium Purposes: Tentative Tract Map 18064 for residential subdivision for condominium purposes. WHEREAS, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is proposed to change the land use designation of the site for the development of the project as described above; WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment involves an amendment to the Land Use Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit 1) and a text amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (Exhibit 2); WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment approval is pending the adoption of Ordinance No. 16-...... for Rezone R-16-01 (Exhibit 3); WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2016 and November 21, 2016, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal;r� WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the abovementioned land use entitlements; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated, and the required 20 -day public review period was specified from October 4, 2016 to October 24, 2016 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the final adoption of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration shall be considered by the City Council as the final approval authority, after evaluation of the environmental document and all comments on the IS/MND received during the public review period; WHEREAS, written comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to, where appropriate, in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15073; WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would require recirculation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the environmental documentation comprising the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and has found that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and identified potentially significant impacts related to noise; WHEREAS, the IS/MND identified appropriate measures that will mitigate the identified impacts to a level that is less than significant; WHEREAS the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; 3 1, r WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit B and Exhibit B1, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THAT CITY COUNCIL take the following actions: (1) ADOPT the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) ADOPT General Plan Amendment GP -16-01, as shown in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2; (3) GIVE FIRST READING to Rezone R-16-01, as shown in Exhibit 3; (4) APPROVE Master Plan PA -16-46 and Tentative Tract Map 18064 for Condominium Purposes, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for General Plan Amendment GP -16-01 and Rezone R- 16-01, and upon the applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibit B and Exhibit B1, and all the mitigation measures indicated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained within Exhibit C, respectively, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of November, 2016. 3� Robert L. Dickson Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Jay Trevino, Acting Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on November 21 st, 2016 by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Jay Trevino, Acting Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: Finding: A compatible and harmonious relationship exists between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhoods. Facts in Support of Findings: With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND for the proposed project, all potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood. The project features quality construction and materials. The proposed parking is adequate to meet the demand for this project. Finding: Safety and compatibility of the design of the parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed on-site parking will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed mix of units within this project. The project will provide adequate sight distance for vehicles at all project drive approaches. A surplus of parking will be provided throughout the project. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study. The project has been conditioned to comply with these conditions; as a result, the safety and compatibility of the project has been insured. Finding: The use is consistent with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The project proposes 28 dwelling units; the existing General Plan and zoning designations would allow up to 33 dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Finding: The cumulative effect of all the planning applications have been considered. Facts in Support of Findings: The cumulative effects of General Plan Amendment GP -16-01, Rezone R-16-01, and Master Plan PA -16-46 have all been considered. The project required the preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which discovered potential noise impacts. As a result, the IS/MND provides mitigation measures to reduce exterior noise levels for this project. Otherwise, no significant impacts were identified. N'93 B. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(11) because: Finding: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: On October 6, 2015, City Council approved General Plan screening GPS -14-04, which requested to amend the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential to accommodate a proposed 28 -unit residential development at 440 Fair Drive. The HDR General Plan land use designation allows maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is seeking a rezone to PDR -HD zone, which is consistent with the HDR land use and allows a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density of the project is 16.25 du/acre, which is slightly less than permitted under HDR land use. Per Sec. 13-59 of Zoning Code, density increments up to maximum shown in Table 13-58 may be approved in order to provide an incentive for design excellence. The project is requesting 4.25 more dwelling units per acre above medium density's 12 du/acre. Incentives provided include: 1) location within '/ mile of public transit along Harbor Blvd; 2) distinctive high quality design and architecture; and 3) removal of an older marginal commercial building. The project is also consistent with many of the goals, policies, and objectives set forth in the General Plan Update adopted in 2016. According to the IS/MND, it is anticipated that the new proposal will reduce the number of average daily trips by approximately 484 trips compared to the current mix of office, medical, retail and service uses within the existing 20,750 square -foot building. The City of Costa Mesa considers a significant traffic impact when project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (Level of Service A, B, C, or D) to deficient operation (LOS E or F). Currently the Harbor Boulevard/Fair Drive intersection is operating at LOS A during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C during p.m. peak hour. In addition, the Carnegie Avenue/Fair Drive intersection is operating at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C during p.m. peak hour. With the proposed project, these level of service are forecasted to continue at these levels during both peak hours. C. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (g)(5): Finding: The Master Plan meets the broader goals of the General Plan and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, and integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. Facts in Support of Findings: The Master Plan application is for the proposed development of 28 -unit residential common interest development with two plan types, including 20 four-story units (Plan 1) and eight three- story units (Plan 2), 117 parking spaces throughout the site, and enhanced landscaping. With regard to the master plan, the following is noted: The project features quality construction and materials. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. The project includes a contemporary architecture style for the two Plan types. Plan 1 units are four-story attached structures designed with articulating roofs, including combination of gable and hipped roofs; combination of wall treatments, including stucco, shingle siding, board and batten siding, and stone veneer; decorative window treatments; and concrete tile roofing. Each unit provides for a second -story balcony and roof decks. Plan 2 units are three-story detached structures also designed with articulating roofs, including combination of gable and hipped roofs; combination of wall treatments, including stucco, shingle siding, board and batten siding, and stone veneer; decorative window treatments; and concrete tile roofing. Plan 2 units also provide a third story den. Enhanced architectural treatments, including window treatments and combination of materials are proposed to provide visual interest along the public right-of-ways. The developer will also be required to build a minimum 5 - foot high block wall along Fair Drive to mitigate noise issues. In addition, enhanced landscaping will be located along the perimeter open space, and the units along Carnegie Avenue will include private courtyards and entryways. The project meets the purpose and intent of the Residential Design Guidelines, which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with the exception to the second -story design standards (second storZ shall not exceed 700% of first sto . This master plan includes preservation of overall open space, landscaping, appearance, mass and scale of structures, location of windows, varied roof forms and roof plan breaks, and any other applicable design features. Both plan types exceed the second floor to first floor ratio requirement, as the footprint of the second floor is larger than the first floor (149% for Plan One and 114% for Plan Two). For Plan One, the 149% second floor to first floor ratio is to accommodate a carport. For Plan Two, the 114% second floor to first floor ratio is to provide articulation and to create a more prominent front fagade and less prominent garage. Although the second floor to first floor ratio exceed design guidelines, the buildings enhanced features, articulation, and unique design meets the intent of the guidelines. The visual prominence associated with the construction of the units has been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors. The building elevations incorporate variation in surface planes to create interest and visual relief from off-site. Architectural elements include stucco with accents, horizontal lap siding, and board and batten. Roof materials include concrete tile. The eight detached units include a front entry porch that will enhance the front elevations and views from Carnegie Avenue. The landscape concept plan is consistent_ with the City's standards. The proposed project includes landscaping within the setbacks abutting the public right-of-ways (Carnegie Avenue and Fair Drive), within the private open space areas, and along the driveway and parking areas for each unit. The concept 30 plan shows large trees along the perimeter of the development lot along Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue. Street trees in the landscape parkway will be consistent with requirements of Appendix D of the Streetscape and Median Development Standards and appropriately sized and spaced. In addition, drought -tolerant shrubs and groundcover will be located along Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue, and along the front portion of each unit to provide softening and interest. The enhanced private street entryway along Carnegie Avenue also includes a sign feature into the development site. The proposed protect meets the parking requirements per the Zoning_Cade. The project proposes a new 5 -level parking structure for 503 covered parking spaces. The parking structure provides for subterranean parking for a portion of guest spaces, and includes privacy gates for added security. The 5 -level structure will be wrapped around on three sides (excluding south elevation) by the proposed apartment building, and a welded wire mesh grid system that supports the growth of landscape vines, and woven metal wire cloth will be used for screening the 5 -level parking structure. The prolect will provide on-site parking spaces exceeding the current parking standards 107 re uired: 117 spaces pmposed . To comply with the parking standards, the project will require a total of 107 parking spaces total (4 spaces per unit for eight detached 3 bedroom units; 3.75 spaces per unit for twenty attached four-bedroom units with carports), which includes the 14 open guest parking spaces at a rate of 0.5 per unit. The proposed project meets the overall parking requirement due to the two -car garages provided for each unit and open driveway parking (56 enclosed garage spaces, 56 open spaces along each driveway); however, only five exclusive guest spaces are provided within the development lot. Although the number of guest open spaces is deficient by nine spaces, overall the proposed project provides ten additional parking spaces than required. The project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding uses in the area and future apartment tenants will be notified of the existing uses in the vicinity of this protect. The project has been designed as a self-contained residential community. The project includes a contemporary architecture style for the two Plan types. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility with the surrounding area. D. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(1) because: Variance Finding: Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. Finding: The deviation granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the deviation authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. a&b) Facts in Support of Finding: The strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity and does not constitute a grant of special privileges. According to the PDR -HD standards, 42% minimum open space, or 30,370 square feet, would be required for open space, which includes areas not occupied by buildings, structures, parking driveways or streets. The project's overall open space at ground level is 36.8 percent (42% required). These open space areas include private courtyards for the eight detached units, and private backyards for the 20 attached duplex units. The project also proposes roof decks for the 20 attached four-story units to address the shortfall. With these roof decks, the overall open space will be raised to 46.9 percent. The Planned Development Residential open space criteria generally does not allow roof decks to be counted toward open space if units provide ground floor access, unless, "where for other reasons, the Planning Commission finds that the provision of all or part of the required open space is impractical or undesirable. In such cases, each dwelling unit above the first floor shall be provided with patio or deck area of not less than 100 square feet". Each of the 20 duplex units propose a 362 square -foot roof deck, which exceeds the 100 square foot requirement. Many similar product types found throughout the City (i.e. multi- level live/work units in Urban Plans), are permitted to use roof decks as open space. Therefore, staff recommends allowance of deck space to be counted toward open space. The Code requires open space for Planned Development Residential be land areas that are not occupied by buildings, structures, parking areas, driveways, streets or alleys. The perimeter open space areas along Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue includes walls and stoops, which are considered structures. As such, the project requests a variance to allow these features within the perimeter open space areas. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures requiring a minimum 5.0 -foot high solid wall on the south side of the proposed private backyards for Units 8 through 13 to address noise issues. The project proposes enhanced landscaping between the sidewalk and walls along Fair Drive to soften the appearance. Currently, existing walls along north side of Fair Drive have walls adjacent to the sidewalk with no landscape buffer. As such, the proposed walls are similar and are an improvement to existing conditions seen along Fair Drive. Regarding the stoops along Carnegie, the proposed stoops include combination four -foot retaining wall and three-foot open decorative fencing. The stoops provide private courtyards along the entryway of Units 1 through Unit 8. This design follows the Residential Guidelines, which recommend elevations to incorporate multiple building planes and offsets, including porches. These walls are buffered by landscaping to help soften the 30 appearance along Carnegies. Code requires landscaped parkways with a combined width of 10 feet, but not less than 3 feet on one side; the parkway on the house side of private streets shall be minimum of 5 feet in width. The project proposes a landscaped parkway of 3.5 feet along the eight detached homes instead of the required 5 feet. The project, however, does provide for 19 feet of landscaping and hardscape along the private driveways of each attached unit. As such, more than 10 feet of combined parkway is proposed along the private streets. It should be noted that these parkways are only visible within the project site. The private street entrance off of Carnegie Avenue into the project site provides for a 20 -foot combined parkway, with no width less than 10 feet. This parkway will be heavily landscaped with a column entry sign to provide for interest and relief. With these enhanced features, staff supports a variance to allow a 5 -foot minimum parkway along the front of the detached units. Finding: The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. c) Facts in Support of Finding: The granting of the variances for the open space and landscaped parkway requirements will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. The granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or .welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The development is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies as discussed earlier in this report, and will be required to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Safety regulations to ensure that no adverse impact to the public health, safety, or welfare is created as a result of this project. Administrative Adjustment Finding: Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. Finding: The deviation granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the deviation authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. a&b) Facts in Support of Finding: Administrative adjustment for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Fair Drive would be justified by the fact that the strict application of the development standard deprives the property of privileges e joyed by others in the vicinity and does not grant special privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed). The Code requires a 20 -foot perimeter open space for Planned Development Residential zones. This includes land areas that are not occupied by buildings, structures, parking areas, driveways, streets or alleys. The project proposes buildings to be between 15 feet (Unit 8) and 16 feet (Units 9-13) from the front property line along Fair Drive. A 5 -foot high wall is also proposed, through a variance request, which would be built six -feet from the front property line along Fair Drive; this is required per the mitigation measures highlighted in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Enhanced landscaping will occur between the sidewalk and walls along Fair Drive to soften the appearance. Currently, residential units along north side of Fair Drive, east of Carnegie Avenue, have walls adjacent to the sidewalk with no landscape buffer; in addition, many of these residences are less than 10 feet from the ultimate right -right-of-way, as indicated in the photo below. As such, the proposed project would be considered an improvement to existing conditions as the increased building and wall setbacks, and enhanced landscaping, would improve existing conditions seen along the north side of Fair Drive. In addition, increasing the setback along Fair Drive would cause changes to the site plan which are not preferred, including causing a possible reduction of open guest parking along then north side of the east -west private street, and reducing the rear setbacks of the units along the north property line. As such, the administrative adjustment request is justified and is not considered granting special privilege. Finding: The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. c) Facts in Support of Finding: Granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property (33 units allowed; 28 units proposed). The project proposes a general plan amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential, which would allow up to 20 units per acre. The project site is 1.66 acres and, therefore, would allow for a maximum of 33 units. The request to allow encroachment into the front setback for the buildings does not increase the density or intensity of the common interest development, as the proposed development requests only 16.25 dwelling units per acre. Requiring the 20 -foot setback may require a complete redesign of the project that would possibly reduce open guest parking and rear setbacks for units along the north property line. The project does propose enhanced landscaping along Fair Drive, which will be an improvement to the existing conditions. This will provide visual enhancement for surrounding neighbors. As such, granting the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. E. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(6) because: (� �p I Finding: The improvement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: Minor Modification for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Carnegie Avenue would be justified by the fact that improvement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood (20 feet required; 18 feet proposed). The Code requires a 20 - foot perimeter open space for Planned Development Residential zones. This includes land areas that are not occupied by buildings, structures, parking areas, driveways, streets, or alleys. The project proposes a portion of the detached residential buildings to be 18 feet from the side property line along Carnegie Avenue; however, a portion of each building's fagade will remain behind the 20 -foot setback. This configuration provides offsets and a horizontal plane break in the building's fagades to enhance variety and interest. A combination four -foot block retaining wall with three-foot open fence is also proposed within the 20 -foot setback through a variance request, which will allow for a private courtyard area along each unit facing Carnegie Avenue. Enhanced landscaping will occur between the sidewalk and private courtyards along Carnegie Avenue to soften the appearance. As shown in the exhibits below, the 18 -foot setback will not encroach into the required 35 - foot visibility triangle along the corner of Fair Drive and Carnegie Avenue, nor will it affect the 10 -foot visibility triangle at the driveway entrance to the project site. As such, allowing the buildings to encroach two -feet into the required 20 -foot setback would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project. Finding: The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. Facts in Support of Finding: Minor Modification for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Carnegie Avenue would be justified by the fact that is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity (20 feet required; 18 feet proposed). As discussed, the project proposes a portion of the detached unit's facade to be 18 feet from the side property line along Carnegie Avenue. A portion of each building's fagade will remain behind the 20 -foot setback. A combination four -foot block retaining wall with three-foot open fence is also proposed within the 20 -foot setback (through a variance request) to allow for a private courtyard area along each unit facing Carnegie Avenue. This courtyard will provide for an enhanced entryway and provide an area for residents to congregate within the front 3r7O yards. Also enhanced landscaping will occur between the sidewalk and private courtyards along Carnegie Avenue to soften the appearance. The architecture, building layout, courtyards and landscaping are a unique design that will provide interest for pedestrians strolling along Carnegie Avenue. Currently, the site is developed with a sidewalk, overgrown landscaping, and a six-foot wall behind the property line. As such, the proposed project will enhance the neighborhood. Finally, increasing the setback along Carnegie Avenue would cause changes to the site plan which are not preferred, including causing a possible reduction of open guest parking along then north side of the east -west private street, and reducing the side setbacks of the units along the west property line. F. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(13) because: Finding: The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Objectives adequate infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project; the project promotes homeownership opportunities to improve the balance between renter and owner occupied housing in the City; and the project would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. The project design complies with development standards for residential common interest developments, however the project is requesting a variance from open space requirements, and an administrative adjustment and minor modification from building setback requirements. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: The project proposes residential uses on the property. The project has a density of 16.25 units per acre, consistent with the General Plan designation of High Density Residential, which allows 20 dwelling units per acre. Finding: The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the Zoning Code and General Plan, and consideration of appropriate environmental information. Facts in Support of Finding: The City of Costa Mesa prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS/MND), which was conducted pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. The project complies with the maximum allowed density for the site and provides adequate open space, parking and setbacks from adjacent properties. Finding: The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by State Government Code Section 66473.1. Facts in Support of Finding: The project provides private open space areas under partial roof canopies and incorporates landscaping, such as trees, to ensure natural and passive heating and cooling from the sun exposure. Approximately 70% of the units are designed in a north -south position allowing for narrow portion of homes along the southern elevation to minimize sun exposure. The project also provides private open space areas under entry canopies. Finding: The subdivision and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project does not interfere with the public right of way. Per the Public Services Division, the project will require easements along the front property line abutting Fair Drive right-of- ways for a future bike path. The project will also require undergrounding of existing utility poles along the frontage and within the property. Finding: The discharge of sewage from this subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code). Facts in Support of Finding: The applicant will be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District. G. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval that reduce impacts to the fullest extent reasonable and practicable. H. Mitigation Measures from the Final IS/MND have been included as conditions of approval (Exhibit C). If any of these conditions are removed, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the condition(s) are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. 25 7a The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 373 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The expiration date of the Final Master Plan PA -16-46 shall coincide with the expiration date of the tentative tract map for condominium purposes, which is valid for two years. An extension request is required to be approved by the Planning Commission to extend the expiration for each additional year. 2. Final Master Plan PA-16-46/TT-18064 shall comply with the conditions of approval, code requirements, special district requirements, and mitigation measures of the IS/MND for this project. Mitigation measures from the IS/MND for this project have been included below, and as listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit C). If any of these conditions are removed, the City Council must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. 3. The conditions of approval including Mitigation Measures incorporated by reference in these Conditions of Approval and Exhibit C, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA -16-46 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the building plan check submittal package. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide a Buyer's Notice for review/approval to the Development Services Director. It will serve as written notice of the then -existing noise environment and commercial operations of neighboring properties. Buyers must sign a disclosure to acknowledge that they have read and understand the existing land use conditions. The disclosure notice shall be kept on file by the developer and shall be approved in form and substance by the City Attorney's office. 5. A residential parking management plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Director and the Transportation Services Manager prior to issuance of first certificate of occupancy. The parking management plan shall denote the following: a. Method of allocation of assigned parking, as applicable. b. Location of visitor parking, including appropriate signage. c. Location of security gates, if any, and how gates will be operated. d. Provide proof of a contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations if parking problems arise. 6. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process, or in the requirement to modify the 3-79 construction to reflect the approved plans. 7. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 30 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional fill dirt is needed to provide acceptable on-site storm water flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may include subsurface tie-in to public storm water facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. Applicant is advised that recordation of a drainage easement across the private street may be required to fulfill this requirement. 8. The developer shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy. This inspection is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 9. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) the applicant shall provide a scaled and dimensioned digital site plan(s) for the project site, on either a CD or thumb drive, to the Planning Division. All site plans shall include an accurate and precise drawing of all building footprints and property line locations for the entire project site. All buildings shall be annotated with its corresponding address and suites if applicable. 10. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of individual units, suites, buildings, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 11. The project shall incorporate green building design and construction techniques where feasible; CAL Green Code or higher as determined by applicant. The applicant may contact the Building Safety Division at (714) 754-5273 for additional information. 12. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter system which is painted to match the building would comply with the condition. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 13. All proposed signage must conform to residential sign regulations per Zoning Code. 14. Demolition permits for existing structures shall be obtained and all work and inspections completed prior to final building inspections. Developer is notified that written notice to the Air Quality Management District may be required ten (10) days prior to_demolition. 15. The private, interior fences between the proposed home shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height. 16. Developer shall submit a detailed Landscape Plan for the public and private open spaces, for review and approval by the Development Services Department, prior to any construction landscape improvements. The plan shall include all decorative hardscape and landscape improvements as shown on the conceptual plans to provide visual relief for the project from the street. Final materials shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. Perimeter landscaping shall be planted with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits and shall contain additional 24 -inch box trees above the minimum Code requirements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller sized trees to 24 -inch box trees or providing additional 24 -inch box trees. Existing mature trees shall be retained wherever possible. Should it be necessary to remove existing trees, the applicant shall submit a written request and justification to the Planning Division. A report from a California licensed arborist may be required as part of the justification. Replacement trees shall be of a size consistent with trees to be removed and may be required on a 1:1 basis, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. This requirement shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 17. Street trees in the landscape parkway shall be selected from Appendix D of the Streetscape and Median Development Standards and appropriately sized and spaced (e.g. 15 -gallon size planted at 30' on centers), or as determined by the Development Services Director once the determination of parkway size is made. The final landscape concept plan shall indicate the design and material of these areas, and the land scape/hardscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 18. Developer shall provide to add "Keep Clear' marking on Fair Drive at Carnegie Avenue. 19. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the private street shall not be entirely paved with asphalt nor be developed with a center concrete swale. The private street shall be complemented by stamped concrete or pervious pavers. The final landscape concept plan shall indicate the landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas. 20. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall identify to the Development Services Director a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site activity, including resolution of issues related to dust generation from grading/paving activities. 21. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan features methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring uses to the fullest extent that is reasonable and practicable. The plan shall include construction parking and vehicle access and specifying staging areas and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan should mitigate 3"N disruption to businesses during construction. The truck route plan shall preclude truck routes through residential areas and major truck traffic during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200 trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or Transportation Services Manager. 22. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading as well as the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Building official prior to issuance of grading permits. 23. Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of (1) City's approval of the project, including but not limited to any proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. 24. Transformers, backflow preventers, and any other approved aboveground utility improvement shall be located outside of the required street setback area and shall be screened upon view, under direction of Planning staff. Any deviation from this requirement shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Director. 25. Prior to issuance of building permits, the building plans shall demonstrate that all residences are equipped with a mechanical ventilation system that will properly filter the indoor air. The ventilation system can be a component of the air conditioning system, with the distinction being that clean, ventilated air flow does not necessarily need coolant. The ventilation system shall be effective with all doors and windows closed. It shall be required to have a filtration efficiency of at least 90 percent and the ability to remove particulate matter with diameters equal to or greater than 0.5 micron. 26. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for the approval of the City's Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following: • The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 ft. in any location on the project site unless approved by the Development Services Director; • The intensity and locatio1-� ff lights on buildings shall be subject 3 to the Development Services Director's approval; • All site lighting fixtures shall be provided with a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency; • Lighting design and layout shall limit spill light to no more than 0.5 foot-candle at the property line of the surrounding neighbors, consistent with the level of lighting that Is deemed necessary for safety and security purposes on site; and, • Glare shields may be required for select light standards. 27. Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. 28. In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during grading and construction, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of archaeological materials as determined by the City, who shall establish, in cooperation with the project applicant and a certified archaeologist, the appropriate procedures for exploration and/or salvage of the artifacts. 29. In the event that paleontological resources are unearthed during subsurface construction activities, all earth -disturbing work within a 100 - ft radius of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until a paleontologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. 30. If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 require that no further disturbance shall occur until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who will then serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office for review. The CC&Rs must be in a form and substance acceptable to, and shall be approved by the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office. a. The CC&R's shall contain restrictions requiring residents to park vehicles in garage spaces provided for each unit. Storage of other items may occur only to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the required garage at the number for which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. b. The CC&R's shall contain restrictions on street parking, stating interior road is limited to access only. No parking allowed along private streets. c. The CC&R's shall include a provision that prohibits front entry courtyards for Units 1 through 8 along Carnegie Avenue to be K01 enclosed by a solid wall or fence above and beyond the proposed retaining wall. Any fencing over and above the proposed retaining wall shall be of an open design, such as decorative wrought -iron fencing, under the direction of the Development Services Department. d. Any subsequent revisions to the CC&Rs related to these provisions must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office and the Development Services Director before they become effective. 32. The Homeowner's Association shall submit a signed affidavit to the City of Costa Mesa on an annual basis to certify the following: a. The two -car garages in the residential community are being used for vehicle parking by the resident(s). b. The vehicle parking areas within the garage are not obstructed by storage items, including but not limited to, toys, clothing, tools, boxes, equipment, etc. c. The resident(s) have consented to voluntary inspections of the garage to verify the parking availability, as needed. The form and content of the affidavit shall be provided by the City Attorney's office. Failure to file the annual affidavit is considered a violation of this condition. 33. Applicant shall provide proof of establishment of a homeowner's association prior to release of any utilities. 34. Prior to Issuance of building permits, developer shall contact the U.S. Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. If the project Is constructed in phases, the -perimeter wall, landscaping along the frontages, and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of utilities for the first phase. 35. Prior to demolition activities, removal and/or abatement of asbestos containing building materials, lead based paints, and hazardous materials associated with the existing building materials shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with the Costa Mesa Fire Department. An asbestos and hazardous materials abatement specification shall be developed by the qualified environmental professional, in order to clearly define the scope and objective of the abatement activities. 36. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 37. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 38. Visual inspections for areas of impact to soil shall be conducted during site grading. If unknown or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the contractor that are believed to involve hazardous wastes or materials, the contractor shall: • Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing workers and the public from the area; • Notify the City Engineer and Costa Mesa Fire Department; • Secure the area(s) in question; CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. } y'� Implement required corrective actions, including remediation if applicable. 39. Prior to investigations, demolition, or renovation, all activities shall be coordinated with Dig Alert (811). 40. An acoustical evaluation of the working drawings of the proposed residential project shall be submitted to the Planning Division by a licensed acoustical engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. The engineer shall certify that the construction will reduce residential interior noise levels to 45 CNEL or less and residential exterior noise levels in common and private open spaces areas to 65 CNEL or less. 41. Design of the perimeter wall along Fair Drive shall incorporate landscape elements to soften the appearance of the block wall and incorporate material, color, and texture that will be compatible with the surrounding community. A wall treatment plan shall be prepared that includes wall location, height, and landscaping in the final landscape plan. The block wall shall be Orco Block, La Paz color, with a brick cap, or other similar design as approved by the Development Services Director prior to issuance of building permits. The location of proposed perimeter walls along Fair Drive shall be a minimum of 6 -feet from the property line. Bldg. 42. Submit grading plans including a hydrology report and soils report. 43. Provide an erosion control plan. Eng. 44. Comply with requirements contained in the letter prepared by the City Engineer (Exhibit 131). Trnsp. 45. Close unused drive approaches per City Standards. 46. Construct commercial drive approach per City Standards at the proposed location on the site plan. Fire 47. Provide (2) Class A Fire Hydrants. Location to be determined by the Fire Department. CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. } y'� Ping. 1. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 2. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 3. Development shall comply with all requirements of Article 1, Chapter 5, and Article 9, Chapter 5 of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relating to development standards for multi -family residential projects. 4. Developer shall pay any applicable park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. As of November 30, 2015, the new park impact fee is calculated at $13,829 per new multi -family dwelling unit. The project applicant shall pay park impact fees prior to the issuance of the Occupancy Permit. The total park impact fee is $387,212. 5. Street address shall be visible from the public street and shall be displayed on the complex identification sign. If there is no complex identification sign, the street address may be displayed on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or on another prominent location. Street address numerals shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height with not less than one -half-inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Identification of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with not less than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 6. Parking stalls shall be double -striped in accordance with City standards. 7. Driveway ramp slope shall comply with the standards contained in the City's parking ordinance. 8. All new on-site utility services shall be installed underground. 9. All existing utilities shall be installed underground on the building site in accordance with the serving utilities' rules, regulations and tariffs on file with the State Public Utilities Commission. 10. Installation of all new utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure the installation from view from any place on or off the property. The installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the public utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box under the direction of the Planning Division. 11. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 12. The project shall be subject to the submission of legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of all common open space and other facilities provided in the final development plan. 13. All landscaped areas shall be separated from paved vehicular areas by 6 - ?4 inch high continuous Portland Cement Concrete curbing. 14. The parking structure shall be landscaped per the provisions of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-105(4) - Parking Structure Landscape Requirements. 15. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. The two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 16. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 17. Trash enclosure(s) or other acceptable means of trash disposal shall be provided. Design of trash enclosure(s) shall conform to City standards. Standard drawings are available from the Planning Division. 18. If present and/or projected exterior noise exceeds 60 CNEL, California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL for residential structures. If required interior noise levels are achieved by requiring that windows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. 19. In compliance with the City's mitigation monitoring program, the applicant shall submit a compliance report to the Planning Division along with plans for plan check or prior to commencement of the project's activity if no construction is involved, that lists each mitigation measure and states when and how the mitigation measures are to be met. 20. Proof of recordation of the final parcel map/tract map/lot line adjustment shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. Bldg. 21. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. 22. Projections, including eaves, shall be one-hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into a 5 -foot setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3 -foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1(1) and R302.1(2). 23. Submit a soils report for this project. Soil's Report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and the precise grading plans. 24. Show compliance with Chapter 11A and 11B of the 2013 California 39P Building Code. 25. On graded sites the top of exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved discharge device a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent. 2013 California Building Code CRC 403.1.7.3. 26. Lot shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of 6 inches within the first 10 feet. CRC R401.3 27. Submit a precise grading plans, an erosion control plan and a hydrology study. 28. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of plans for plan check, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation for compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality Order 99- 08-DWQ; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS000002 for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit); the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2002- 0010 and NPDES Permit No. CAS618030; and, the City of Costa Mesa Ordinance No. 97-20 for compliance with NPDES Permit for the City of Costa Mesa. Such documentation shall include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying and detailing the implementation of the applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs). 29. Prior to issuing the Building permit the conditions of approval shall be required to be incorporated on the approved Architectural plans. 30. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of on-site soils to cause unstable conditions. 31. Construction General Permit Notice of Intent (NOI) Design: Prior to the issuance of preliminary or precise grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the SWRCB or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. Eng. 32. For demolition, grading, or building permits involving projects with a valuation of $10,000 or more, the contractor shall use a City -permitted hauler(s) to haul any debris or solid waste from the job site (refer to Section 8-83(h), Regulations, of Title 8 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code). Use of a City -permitted hauler for such projects is the responsibility of the designated contractor. Non-compliance is subject to an administrative penalty as follows: $1,000 or 3% of the total project value, whichever is greater. 33. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. ADA compliance required for all new driveway approaches. 34. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk at applicants expense. 35. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division for any work in the City public right-of-way. Pay required permit fee & cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee construction of off-site street improvements at time of permit per section 15-31 & 15-32, C.C.M.M.C. as approved by City Engineer. Cash deposit or surety bond amount to be determined by City Engineer. In order to comply with the 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the proposed Project shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan conforming to the Current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Model WQMP, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. a) A WQMP (Priority or Non -Priority) shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. b) Location of BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 36. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that complies with the Construction General Permit and will include at a minimum the following: • Discuss in detail the BMPs planned for the project related to control of sediment and erosion, nonsediment pollutants, and potential pollutants in non -storm water discharges; • Describe post -construction BMPs for the project; • Explain the maintenance program for the project's BMPs; • List the parties responsible for SWPPP implementation and BMP maintenance during and after grading. The project applicant shall implement the SWPPP and modify the SWPPP as directed by the Construction General Permit. 37. In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the proposed project shall prepare a Storm Drain Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. • The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows, and for nuisance flows during construction,�� Transp Fire • A WQMP shall be maintained updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. • Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 38. The project Applicant shall be responsible for the payment of fees in accordance with Costa Mesa's traffic impact fee program to mitigate project -generated traffic impacts (including regional traffic). 39. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 40. Project construction shall comply with Chapter 33, California Fire Code, 2013. Please review carefully. 41. The project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13D. 42. The project shall provide approved smoke detectors to be installed in accordance with the 2007 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code. 43. Street addresses shall be visible from the public street and may be displayed either on the front door, on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance, or on another prominent location. When the property has alley access, address numerals shall be displayed in a prominent location visible from the alley. Numerals shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height with not less than one -half-inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 44. Provide on-site Fire Hydrants and Access per approved Fire Master Plan. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR PA -16-46 The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani 1. It is recommended that the developer contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to obtain Sanitary District requirements. AQMD 2. Prior to demolition contact South Coast Air Quality Management District located at: 21865 Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Tel: 909- 396-2000 AQMD 3. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the site, the contractor would implement each of the following: • Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from 36- C! School 5 State 6 Water 7 exceeding 100 feet in any direction. • Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface. • Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. • Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. • Wash mud -covered tired and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction sites. • Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. • Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits permanently installed wood burning devices into any new development. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet -fueled wood heater, or a similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space -heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants (RIFA) exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Call CDFA at (714) 708-1910 for information. Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District — Engineering Desk and submit an application and plans for project review. Customer must obtain a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water District. November 3, 2016 CITY OF COSTA MESA P O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE - CALIFORNIA 92828-1200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICESIENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT BI Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract No. 18064 LOCATION. 440 Fair Drive Dear Commissioners: Tentative Tract Map No. 18064 as furnished by the Planning Division for review by the Public Services Department consists of subdividing one lot to construct 28 -units for condominium purposes. Tentative Tract Map No. 18064 meets with the approval of the Public Services Department, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Tract shall be developed in full compliance with the State Map Act and the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (C,C.M.M.C.), except as authorized by the Costa Mesa City Council and/or Planning Commission. The attention of the Subdivider and his engineer is directed to Sections 13-208 through 13-261 inclusive, of the Municipal Code. 2. The Subdivider shall conduct soil investigations and provide the results to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering and Building Divisions pursuant to Ordinance 97-11. 3. Two (2) copies of the Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for checking. The Map check fee shall be paid per C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-231. 4. A current copy of the title search shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. 5. Dedicate an ingress/egress easement to the City for emergency and public security vehicles purposes only. The maintenance of the easement shall be the sole responsibility of a Homeowners Association formed to conform to Section 13-41 (e) of the C.C.M.M.C. 6. Vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Fair Drive and Camegie Avenue shall be released and relinquished to the City of Costa Mesa except at approved access locations. 7, Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk. 8. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct a P.C.C. driveway approach as per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. The location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager PHONE: (714)7S4-5335 FAX: (714) 754-5028 TDD: (114) 754.5244 www.costameaamoov ')� Planning Commission 2016 9. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. sidewalk. The final design of the sidewalk and parkway shall be subject to the approval of the Public Services Director, 10. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, Street Improvement and Storm Drain Plans, that show Sewer and Water Improvements, prepared by a Civil Engineer. 11. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa preliminary plans that show the undergrounding of the utility poles along Fair Drive to the extent practical or feasible. 12. The Subdivider shall submit a cash deposit of $730 for street sweeping at the time of issuance of a Construction Access permit. The full amount of the deposit shall be maintained on a monthly basis prior to and during construction until completion of project. 13. Fulfill the City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of the Final Tract Map. 14. The Subdivider's engineers shall furnish the Engineering Division a storm runoff study to the City of Costa Mesa showing existing and proposed facilities and the method of draining this area and tributary areas without exceeding the capacity of any street or drainage facility on- site or off-site. This study is to be furnished with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. Cross lot drainage shall not occur. 15. In order to comply with the latest DAMP, the proposed Project shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan conforming to the Current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Model WQMP, prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering Division for review and approval. • A WQMP (Priority or Non -Priority) shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES Program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. • The location of BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 16. Ownership and maintenance of the private on-site drainage facilities, BMPs, parkway culverts, and other common areas shall be transferred by the owner to the Homeowner Association to be formed pursuant to C.C.M.M.C. Section 1341 (e) and said association shall indemnify and hold harmless the City of Costa Mesa for any liability arising out of or in any way associated with the connection of the private drainage system with the City's drainage system and shall execute and deliver to the City of Costa Mesa the standard (indemnity) Hold Harmless Agreement required for such conditions prior to the issuance of permits. 17. Sewer improvements shall meet the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; call (949) 631-1731 for information. 18. Water system improvements shall meet the approval of Mesa Water District; call (949) 631- 1200 for information. 19. Dedicate easements as needed for public utilities 3sa Planning Commission 2016 20. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 21. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital-graphics file of said map in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 22. Survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and replaced after construction, pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Profession Code. 23. The elevations shown on all plans shall be on Orange County benchmark datum. 24. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, submit the required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee monumentation, The deposit amount is to be determined by the City Engineer. 25. Prior to occupancy on the Tract, the surveyortengineer shall submit to the City Engineer a Digital Graphic File, reproducible mylar of the recorded Tract Map, an approved off-site plan, and nine copies of the recorded Tract Map. Sincerely, Baltazar Mejia, P. E. City Engineer (Engr 20161PIanning Commission Tract 18064) 3 30 FI RSTCARBO N SO LUTIONS"' EXHIBIT C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the 440 Fair Drive Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 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, Associate Planner Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 250 Commerce, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Frank Coyle, Project Director Kim Burnell, Project Manager Report Date: November 14, 2016 NORTH AMERICA I EUROPE I AFRICA I AUSTRALIA I ASIA VVVYVV FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS COM V AN ADEC INNOVATION Sq D ( , O O O p S - n O 3 n aim = CO-v� N O n oo a Z O a v m p '+ a Ln va 0 10 0 0 v, 0 vrri M j r•r � a m •.+ NO N O a m rp O- ,••' o g s� 0- s c o O m a ni r* O S m 7 ID m o4 N " c C m ro a s O n 0 7 Q 7 NO �• LA = o 7 0 S7 p O a 7 rmi 00 O a a- lD z CL)C S ,••r r•r 6* m N 3 a O o m -D rD ,-r m a - S ani -0 O _ DO S rD LA O S C n O C� I C M� a W rt o Q O 'a -h- fD y CL S ,rt * O O , rD m a a O EF S O w a (DO np m m S m a S p T a m , O nA 0 GQ Q m 'y 7 DSj Gil K1 p m a C oSi M w Q On rD n+ ,•* a W -< a m S a ,O•. O a ,'m m �m3 O rD -„ a OarD d S M D, rD- Ln O Ln a c o a��'+m m 3 X'S' r O rD Lq m • • • • • n0 3 A p O S a 0 rrDD nO D rD n0 --i u-1 a� 0 Q- Ln� N S S S L-ncm, m m m v 3 m 3' m r, < m a o r�D p m 0 w� r o O C o n0 N 3 O n O m ,v' -r 0 7 a rD ,•+ C m 7 ,-r O, O Ln ID = S 7 '''• 7 ( Z fD r -r a v' OQ 'rt' m Oo ~ '; a o g r; o - C K O- m 3 -0 m 3 m N - rev 'n- "ate rrDD n C X. a rnr 3 = 3 rp QrD OCL Oa 3 mS 3v7= DC 0op -p OQ s S O O ' O 7 rD 47 ` O Vf O- `O - N d C N Q cu m .fD a-' n m CU a u m v n u n m C n C O m,O+ a a" O, O ? O m O O a O r' a "O m m Q 7 S m S O O S O S Ln m= d (n CU = 3• a s O a a Dm 0i v( rD . rD m (DCLm N c �, m p �. m a 0 m = o r m a r* m= = = a- m S 0 ut n N m ,,,* 7 O_ ut v, m V n 0 m cni c m O a S a Mn F' c a v, c m g (n rt N v a K n m m (D r*: O m a S N ti LA 7 O� 7 a dC n M. ,-r a a s Ln O O a- a rD *• 3(an O n m 7 C a m a ni rr m m ,ter 7 ,••'• Ln 00 7 a rD= - i a p Q a 7 S O 7 n C N a .. O p r�D X m p r o n -0o CL m N• nni �' m m m a m a m �(D O� vv < am m a O m ,0• �* rGD •n m O d 3 m m 0 �* a+ v, o a 3 c �� 3 �00Ma 3 �•(0 3°; r* 7p nr a g 3 a?? y Ma w g m O(D oo � 0 a O n v, O.Ln 0 v, D O ,•* n m m SO 0 owe m om m �, Q In (� < o a 3 Q c n 3 m W -117 n n-. MrD r01 n m Ln Ln (DD 0= 7 C C � 0 m 7 3 rD Ln 7 o � � �v o 3 W 0 0 '-* opo n O !^ o �. c : < a Qq n CD O 7 0 � n n O O < m in n n o Oar n N a a w Z 0 m (mn (mn 7 r O a a v d 3 K d < m 0 z 0 n 0 3 R m ct0 . g` n m -0 v S-0 � a o 7 S 0 0 m ��=fD�`Da) �N"LAL3 (DD o 3 Z O O (D s Z ID s s Q D -Z n ON O c m S 0 0) w O n LA 0 Q Q f1 ('1 O O c C un Oq un N f�D r2 O O O? Oq rD 7 7 bJ a ?. c S m (D= v or =r CL CL a Q d N a Q m �_ -0 'o a n m r j S o o 3 OLA 'D O v, m -0 Lnw d "6 m to 3 7 O� `f D' 0cu 0 3 o rD a 3 c `D �• Q_ 7 a v (D • N( ^ d t Vii O p DJ c a. 7 =r -O S N Dr O !v a n O„ 9 m ci' `n N Ln o Q. sv r)=•' m o a O Q CU 7 O D] O K Q al rLn Ln rte•' pp' r*. ID Ln v, C W w O-0 s 0. d m Q T O 7 w a O �' 7 0 °� �• S a a= O W aqq 0O O .a < rDD O (^D O Oh �' (D" m y rD n �_ F m 3 < ° y a N m0 o n -I 3' w W D m - • s m m ^ c n' a o A Q < m cu O p N j < Q `t oO rrl h n— O r•r S 7 O_ == O 3. `n w LA C rD 3 3, ORL O 0 '* Lnr0•r =ro cn 7 m E5' SS O O_ 0 0 00 Dp 7 lu , O a �'o 03 C a' y S m^< 3 < O ^• N W 7 N `2' (D 00 n 7 3 m U 7 L.0 � -h j. 7 K M S Q �. 3 n 3 g. 3 a -' 1 ?: �° a 3 3 C Q p O N 0- O m aCL 3 0 O N � 0 0 0 p� fl 3 � C ^ .ter a r^r ar �1 C O O o. W N Q g rD _ Q (D OJ � m L m O a^ CL CUri S 7 O a r 3 or M On O 0 ((D m Q 4�h m O -0 O -0 O -0 r) ^ ^ o o o c c c < < Q Q a aq oo aq n n n o O o O N O � O � rY Gl cu O1 rF v m m m L Dl d Ln DJ w 3qa K� 9 m 0 a 0 M n d 7 3 m m m 0 O 0 3 R m d o t 0 3 EXHIBIT 661" Map Amendment to the Land Use Map Change the land use designation of the 1.66 -acre development site at 440 Fair Drive from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HDR) Existing General Plan Land Use- NC Proposed General Plan land Use- HDR 393 HDR 393 EXHIBIT "2" Text Amendment to Land Use Element The proposed General Plan Amendment GP -16-01 would amend Table LU -3: Land Use Designations (2015), of the Land Use Element as indicated by strikeout and bolded numbers below: 34`I N `e ` L O � Q � lD O� {A l\D L!) lD r,e-I n 00 M N O O lrqp O �0�1 O N O r4 '0,01 00 I N W N .--I lD I� Ql u Q 00 D1 yl N 0^ 06 -;t`1 l ri r r O 00 ORO co M O N F- V a 0 w X00 00 r-1 3.1 O N Vl Mo O R C O ri R O O 00 O LDD O O N N u u Q w CL o d pO Ln R M O Ln O LnKr 1.0 N N 00 00 ri ri lD I ++ U _U _U U U UEFE U W fa � (6 f6 N L m - m L m L m L L m u F- u- u F- u u F- u H u F- u u F- u F u F- cu aJ aJ I\LSMOO \LM \M \O \L\C\ \ \ \JM \>O \ \ \M \O \ \ \ \JO MC 0L 6 L L N cu F -cu F- F- N a) F- N J OLL3LL-0Loo 3o 3: O _0 J> O O\_C 0 p N > \ u7 O O u1 O O O Ln Ln ul ul O O O Ln Ln l/l v) u) 00 I- L() O O O Ln ri M I� N M �--� N M I� N M I� N M I� I.f) lD r- lD N M I� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r -i O 0 0 0 0 N C u To u \ c u u u u u u u w u m mO m ry O m \ 7 7 _° 3 7 7 00 7 7 N 7 'D d: '° O a! C WO r^ -I O O O cli C) C O O vi vi vl vi VI cq vl vi N > vl vI N _ C _ c N 70cu m m•� •L CC m E <C G Ln 01 to L u cu N Y a) U a1 O U E C � E U U Y L E L v � w o cu a u a '9 .o 0 Q 0 v u L v c v E v o 7 v u7-0 ar p p oc E L v E ° 3 s c E °0 c E 0O aJ to 0 O 'N a) O L 7 w OC J S Z u Z C7 D u w � ■ � � ,3q 0 \ / / k / # / \ 6 a Q Q D j . . E e\ ®o L ~ m e / \ / k 0 K -Cm Ln e / 7 2 ® © 2 e$ 2@ 2 (j ( g m 0 0 0 q 2) 00 ) $ m\ a k/ $ 0 /\ o � / ¥ r, G 0 / @ 0 J ± E m @ LI)e $ a 22 § o �) < a ±®$@_ X230; -0§� .._ u 0 % 3 Q� / \\\ a a 2 2 z 2 u 9 m - *ate°CLm § \ � @ G S a 2 / \ / Ae u k k k \$\\�� 2 \0-0aj0 w = °' U.b73± ® m - f t 3±@=�= a 2 $ ` o \ § \ $ \ \ S Q $ \ o $ E dad a _ ƒ / e E c o3 X\\\\§ E e > ®® ± R 2 0\ 9\ u a » a = c E M0At2u = I l 3 ƒ3%%�{ 2 ® 2 Ln 70 \ ) (§ ) 3 U:6 E 7@/2u r a ©� — E k k E B e 00 w> A ® OJ 2 \ Eai 0/\ \ - '2 >Sdi , m e o�23 / 9r� V \ u }ƒ§A§\I m' k ®#2x, 7 2Ln ) S 3 }fi%u« k k 3 )}i/a)} _ Q 2 I z ,3q 0 EXHIBIT 3 ORDINANCE NO. 16 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, TO REZONE A 1.66 - ACRE PARCEL FROM C1 (LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO PDR -HD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL — HIGH DENSITY) FOR A 28 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 440 FAIR DRIVE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Sheldon Development, LLC, on behalf of owner of real properties located at 440 Fair Drive, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Certification of the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -MND) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -16-01. Change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential to allow for a maximum density of 20 du/acre. 3. Rezone R-16-01. A rezone to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4. Planning Application PA -16-46. Master Plan for the 28 -unit residential common interest development project with specified deviations from the PDR -HD development standards, including the following: i. Variance to allow deviation from required open space requirements (42% required; 36.8% proposed); ii. Variance for encroachment of block walls into required perimeter open space area (20 feet required; 6 feet (Fair Drive) and 4.7 feet (Carnegie Ave) proposed); iii. Variance to allow deviation from required landscaped parkway requirements (10 feet with no dimension less than 5 feet on house side of private street required; 10 feet/3.6 feet proposed); 31-7 iv. Administrative Adjustment for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Fair Drive (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed). v. Minor Modification for encroachment of building into required perimeter open space area along Carnegie (20 feet required; 18 feet proposed). vi. Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines for multi -story to first floor ratio (100% multi -story to first floor ratio recommended; 150% for 4 -story units and 114% for 3 -story units proposed). 5. Tentative Tract Map 18064 for Condominium Purposes: Tentative Tract Map 18064 for residential subdivision for condominium purposes. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 14, 2016 and November 21, 2016, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, at the November 21, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council take the following actions by separate Planning Commission resolutions: (1) ADOPT the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; (2) ADOPT General Plan Amendment GP -16-01; (3) GIVE FIRST READING to Rezone R-16-01; (4) APPROVE Master Plan PA -16-46 and Tentative Tract Map 18064 for Condominium Purposes WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated, and the required 20 -day public review period was specified from October 4, 2016 to October 24, 2016 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the final adoption of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration shall be considered by the City Council as the final approval authority, after evaluation of the environmental document and all comments on the IS/MND received during the public review period; 318 WHEREAS, written comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to, where appropriate, in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15073; WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would require recirculation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the environmental documentation comprising the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and has found that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and identified potentially significant impacts related to noise; WHEREAS, the IS/MND identified appropriate measures that will mitigate the identified impacts to a level that is less than significant; WHEREAS the City Council finds that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby APPROVES as follows: SECTION 1. REZONE. The City of Costa Mesa Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows: a. There is hereby placed and included in the PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) zoning district a 1.66 -acre parcel, identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers 141-421-23 and as shown in attached Exhibit "1," situated in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California. b. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 13-22 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Official Zoning Map of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby amended by the change of zone described in subsection a hereof and in the respective Exhibit "1A". A copy of the Official Zoning Map is on file in the office of the Planning Division. Based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY GRANTS APPROVAL TO ADOPT R-16-01, which amends the Zoning Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit 1A) with respect to the property described above. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. The proposed rezone was processed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated for the required 20 -day public review period from October 4, 2016 to October 24, 2016. The City Council found that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. SECTION 3. INCONSISTENCIES. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 5. PUBLICATION. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and, prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage, shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same. ATTEST.- CITY TTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA 9bi STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Ordinance Number — as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of 2016, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2016, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2016 �0')L IF 0010 wear 1 Of 1 S.&ST EXHIBIT 1 PARCEL MAP IMTMt CiTT OP C"TA M\\A" aO+UMTV 0I OKA YY\.pp;YIIyyAT\ Ow 0^6ifOAYIA. .w' 11i�l llCa�Q/,oN �OIOwl�Cl �Aaa �1p 0/4iIG RF ar�iaµa■, C��Ctla �aOwY DY � 9;wllw! CPV rT1b, t ■pa J -A. ..mai awal■ rials CIRTIRICAT! T41! a■ Waa ■aa04MRO \Y M! 0■ ..ORA My 0I814TIO. �,/. �r0 -a ltAR4 0. 4 ■I*,a 0 ,RY i 40�V IiOKMAI.CR /ITr� T4• llgV14R+�arr Yr aM T��KaI 'y�ayV`al�d l.,l�i=�IvI.I MAP a4T IYyT/4 la! aUl.■av C!l T�.r i`I+D I Ca+ a-41 Tp Tal wr✓` Tl YTaT-6 AP wa TI•► Gda 6lTtp Yr o/ RPP N4040e; Ty aT 044 agOVlal0 arl O/ wrialcwl L! aY ■ !Yp 4.00A. allow.YClm V■ !■\1101 40" iV IY\ ■I.O.\- Iioa.4 OATS ,10 SAss `I'4�SL1Rira4 ■WIaN aN■Wa OY TNI■ MAI AA/ a/.■aa as Ta! Qa YT\!. 41Ya OWCA;Yla•a AVlYu■ 64 H.O¢'aal•M'w. A■ ■• 30"" aY A MAS or TaAOT Y. *,Go laCYRaLdIY Mae. 01, raa" I -a, aadOq O! O/ am-44 aay.v` , aw•41/OKWA, � M!/. YZiwA wG wAV •� Aw go " 4.0 r. 44-$A CITY amaiw*LAV C\IlT1CICAT! Iq Tal■ MAI "0 A84 W ISAM—Sa FOR gOM>rOK MAyC! W' M T44, RMM■■Mawr'� O/ aaCTIOM �i■T! OA YM! ■y /aIv•lfOai MAA AOT Twoe' OA- 9f, IIw, CITU !Ya71 ■• CITY OF C TL msli _COU+IT'Y aU4VlY0R'* c1b A1rIPIGAT= •� o w*.gaO ■a r.m W►Y off A I■ J Y• M• OyVI yf !'+ � ��l/ElI��1�� a.Tr 1uAvaYOA QawuTT F r /AIR I 'J M01J [J NlIJT 4pT� -ale Taa IOVYO r.wvMl.A'■ a■ —me lNat:O O alaW N TAA aG.a- llOac 40� !!'.ice ! `..11�.. li..► yyywu'y I»f V! !, iw. ti'.. � n 2 � x 1 • 9 e M. WM - ■ stow O t ■ r i s ■uv\ r.0 S t�� = 1 � PA■G!L S , Aa z•+J I ar i 1 a i r I weerr n � g 8 i ■O' Y I tt � 4 ! �4�� '?• PAIR CSL 1 ■ �.N F r /AIR I 'J M01J [J NlIJT 4pT� -ale Taa IOVYO r.wvMl.A'■ a■ —me lNat:O O alaW N TAA aG.a- llOac 40� !!'.ice ! `..11�.. li..► yyywu'y I»f V! !, iw. ti'.. � n 2 �• wwii�� 1�/ryy�CMY4Vt •1,01 Mr�a• 11. stow O t $ i = i f v I ;i f �n i a ` I weerr EXHIBIT 1A Amendment to the Zoning Map Change the zoning designation of the 1.66 -acre development site at 440 Fair Drive from Local Commercial District (Cl) to Planned Development Residential- High Density (PDR -HD) Existing Zone- C9 Proposed Zone- PDR -HD i qw EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(11) because: Finding: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: On October 6, 2015, City Council approved General Plan screening GPS -14-04, which requested to amend the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential to accommodate a proposed 28 -unit residential development at 440 Fair Drive. The HDR General Plan land use designation allows maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is seeking a rezone to PDR -HD zone, which is consistent with the HDR land use and allows a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density of the project is 16.25 du/acre, which is slightly less than permitted under HDR land use. The project is consistent with many of the goals, policies, and objectives set forth in the General Plan Update adopted in 2016. According to the IS/MND, it is anticipated that the new proposal will reduce the number of average daily trips by approximately 484 trips compared to the current mix of office, medical, retail and service uses within the existing 20,750 square -foot building. The City of Costa Mesa considers a significant traffic impact when project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (Level of Service A, B, C, or D) to deficient operation (LOS E or F). Currently the Harbor Boulevard/Fair Drive intersection is operating at LOS A during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C during p.m. peak hour. In addition, the Carnegie Avenue/Fair Drive intersection is operating at LOS B during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C during p.m. peak hour. With the proposed project, these level of service are forecasted to continue at these levels during both peak hours. The following analysis evaluates the proposed project's consistency with specific goals, and objectives of the 2015-2035 General Plan. Objective LU -1A: Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to preserve the residential character of the City at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure. Consistency: The project is an infill residential project within the allowable density for high-density residential development. According to the IS/MND prepared for the project, the project will create a decrease in average daily trips compared to the existing development, and would result in a less than significant increase in water demand. In addition, the project would result in a decrease in impervious surface areas on the site (by as much as 13.9 percent). The project would also be subject to compliance with the CMMC provisions, and thus, would result in less than significant impacts on drainage patterns and flooding. Therefore, adequate infrastructure would be available to serve the proposed project and the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. 2. Objective LU -1.3: Strongly encourage the development of...owner-occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Consistency: Because the proposed project is for ownership units, the project is consistent with this General Plan goal. 3. Goal CD -6: Image: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to enhance opportunities for new development and redevelopment to contribute to a positive visual image for the City of Costa Mesa and consistent with district image. 4. Goal CD -7: Quality Residential: Objective CD -7.1: Encourage excellence in architectural design. Policy CD -7.A: Ensure that new and remodeled structures are designed in architectural styles that reflect the City's eclectic quality, yet are compatible in scale and character with existing buildings and the natural surroundings within residential neighborhoods. Continue to update and maintain the Costa Mesa Residential Guidelines. Consistency: The project is consistent with Goal CD -6, CD -7, Objective CD.7.1, and Policy CD -7.A because the project would allow for the redevelopment of property containing an aging commercial building and parking lot with residential units that exhibit quality architecture and enhanced landscaping. A standard condition of approval recommended requiring that perimeter wall treatments consist of decorative materials, and ornamental site landscaping will be provided throughout the project. As a result, the proposed project is supportive of these General Plan goals, policies, and objectives. 5. Goal LU -4: New Development that Is Sensitive to Costa Mesa's Environmental Resources Objective LU -4: Encourage new development and redevelopment that protects and improves the quality of Costa Mesa's natural environment and resources. Policy LU -4.1: Ensure that appropriate watershed protection activities are applied to all new development and significant redevelopment projects that are subject to the NPDES Stormwater Permit during the planning, project review, and permitting processes. 6. Objective LU -2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: Because the project is an infill development, it would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide Ytj� service to the site. According to the project's IS/MND, the project would result in a decrease in impervious surface areas on the site (by as much as 13.9 percent). Less than significant impacts will occur to on- or off-site erosion and/or siltation. The project would also be subject to compliance with the CMMC provisions, and thus, would result in less than significant impacts on drainage patterns and flooding. The project is consistent with this objective. 7. Policy LU -2.7: Permit the construction of buildings over two stories or 30 feet only when it can be shown that the construction of such structures will not adversely impact surrounding developments and deprive existing land uses of adequate light, air, privacy, and solar access. 8. Policy LU -2.8: Limit building height to four stories above grade south of the 1-405 Freeway, except for special purpose housing such as elderly, affordable, or student housing, unless otherwise approved by a General Plan amendment. (A four-story/five-level parking structure with roof deck parking on the fifth level is considered a four-story structure.). Consistency: The project proposes a maximum of four stories, which is permitted by the PDR -HD zone, and per the General Plan policy for areas south of 1-405. Plan 1 units include three stories and a rooftop deck, which is considered a fourth story. A shade and shadow graphic (s) illustrates no impact to surrounding sensitive land uses. The project is bound by a commercial parking lot used by Orange Coast Fiat to the north, and single-family residences are located across a 60 -foot right-of-way to the east (Carnegie Avenue). As such, the project would be compatible with Policy LU -2.7 and LU -2.8. B. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval that reduce impacts to the fullest extent reasonable and practicable. C. Mitigation Measures from the Final IS/MND have been included as conditions of approval. If any of these conditions are removed, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the condition(s) are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. qui ATTACHMENT 5 REFER TO ATTACHMENT 6 OF CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT NSB ATTACHMENT 9 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM #2 MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: i q SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -16-01/ REZONE R-16-01/ MASTER PLAN PA -16-46 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT -18064 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES FOR A 28 - UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 440 FAIR DRIVE DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2016 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: RYAN LOOMIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RYAN LOOMIS, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER (714) 754-5608, ryan.loomis@costamesaca.gov Provided below is additional information with regard to the proposed project, including the following: Staff has removed the second paragraph of handwritten page 68 of the November 14th Staff Report, and handwritten page 44 of the first Planning Commission Supplemental Memorandum regarding discussion of a 5 -level parking structure, as this is an error. The project does not include a parking structure. �£ MWJ YA�iV+f. � � A � • oil MINNIN-0 w Z 11L!L� 2. Staff has removed Code Requirement No. 14 regarding "Parking Structure Landscape Requirements" of handwritten page 84 of the November 14th Staff Report, and handwritten page 60 of the first Planning Commission Supplemental Memorandum, as this is an error. The project does not include a parking structure. i . r A w r •. a r w w �NOW W - 3. Staff has received additional public comments since the first Planning Commission Supplemental Memorandum. A copy of the public comments has been provided to Planning Commission. Distribution: Director of Economic & Development Services/ Consultant Interim Assistant Director, Planning Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Director Fire Protection Analyst File (2) Authorized Agent: Sheldon Development, LLC Attn: Steve Sheldon, Project Manager 901 Dove Street, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Property Owner: Dalessio Investments 1777 Newport Blvd Costa Mesa, CA 92627 40