The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01 - - Additional Documents - 1/17/2017INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS "An Initiative to give the People of Costa Mesa control of their future." To the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa: We, the undersigned, registered and qualified voters of the State of California, residents of the City of Costa Mesa, pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance XI of the California Constitution and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 34450) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 4 of the Government Code, present to the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa this petition and request that the following proposed ordinance be submitted to the registered and qualified voters of the City of Costa Mesa for their adoption or rejection at an election on a date to be determined by the Costa Mesa City Council. We further request the Costa Mesa City Council place this amendment on the ballot pursuant to the California State Election Code 9200-9226. The proposed amendment reads as follows: The people of the Costa Mesa find that: (a) Environmental quality in Costa Mesa, which directly affects the quality of life of its residents, workers and visitors, is significantly and adversely impacted by excessive development, which causes severe traffic congestion and gridlock, degradation of Costa Mesa's infrastructure, as well as air, noise and water pollution; (b) Costa Mesa's traffic circulation system is already oversaturated. Several intersections are operating at or near failure during peak traffic hours and are inadequate to support existing development; (c) Furthermore, these existing traffic and traffic circulation system conditions result in adverse effects on public safety, public health and our quality of life; (d) Increased population density and overall population have stressed Costa Mesa's parks and other public facilities and services resulting in adverse effects on public well-being; (e) The City of Costa Mesa's existing land use and development review and approval procedures do not carefully or accurately consider, nor adequately weigh, the adverse impacts to the local environment and quality of life caused by increased density and congestion resulting from major changes in allowable land use; (0 The standards by which the City of Costa Mesa evaluates major changes in allowable land use are ill-defined and inadequate to avoid or effectively mitigate the adverse effects of those changes; and page 1 (g) The People of Costa Mesa, whose quality of life and property rights are at stake, should have the power to decide whether a proposed Major Change in Allowable Land Use, as defined below, is worth the added congestion and density it will cause, after careful, independent evaluation by the City of Costa Mesa of the adverse environmental effects of Major Changes in Allowable Land Use, based on clear and consistently applied standards. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF T14E CITY OF COSTA MESA DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Sec. I. Code Amendment. This ordinance amends the Costa Mesa Municipal Code as follows and supersedes any provisions that are inconsistent with this ordinance and shall be known as "Ordinance to give the people of Costa Mesa control of their future". Sec. -2. Purpose. It is the purpose of this ordinance to: (a) Give the voters of Costa Mesa the power to determine whether Costa Mesa should allow Major Changes in Allowable Land Use, as defined below, by requiring voter approval of any such proposed change and thereby ensuring maximum public participation in major land use and zoning changes proposed in Costa Mesa; (b) Ensure that the voters of Costa Mesa receive all necessary and accurate environmental information on proposals for Major Changes in Allowable Land Use, so that they shall intelligently vote on any such proposal; (c) Ensure that Costa Mesa officials provide timely, accurate and unbiased environmental review of all proposals for Major Changes in Allowable Land Use, so that they may minimize or mitigate their adverse traffic and land use impacts and maximize neighborhood compatibility before the voters decide on any such change; (d) Ensure that all elements of the land use change approved by the voters are implemented; and (e) Protect the public health, safety and welfare, and the quality of life, for all persons living or working or visiting in Costa Mesa. Sec. 3. Definitions. The definitions set forth in this section apply to the provisions of this ordinance only and do not page 2 affect any other provision of law. (a) "As -Built Condition" means the dwelling units, office and other nonresidential units, buildings and baseline traffic conditions existing at the time Costa Mesa issues the notice of preparation of an environmental impact report for the Major Change in Allowable Land Use, or, where no such notice is issued, on the date the application for the Major Change in Allowable Land Use is deemed complete. Illegal dwellings and other conditions that exist in violation of Costa Mesa's zoning ordinance and are subject to Costa Mesa's power of abatement, shall not be accounted for in the As -Built Condition for the purpose of determining a "Significant Increase," as defined in subdivision (h) below. (b) "Average Daily Trips" means the number of vehicle trips that a Major Change in Allowable Land Use would generate on a daily basis. Trips generated shall be calculated by using the most recent version of the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE") in effect on the date the City of Costa Mesa issues the notice of preparation of an environmental impact report for a Major Change in Allowable Land Use or, where no such notice is issued, on the date the application for the Major Change in Allowable Land Use is deemed complete. Further, a Daily Trip is a motor vehicle either leaving or arriving at said property during a given day. Also, for purposes of counting trips, any vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) greater than 6,000 (six thousand) pounds, shall be counted as generating two (2) trips for every trip attributed to this sized vehicle. (c) "General Plan" means the General Plan of the City of Costa Mesa in effect as of the effective date of this ordinance, or as may be amended pursuant to this ordinance. (d) "Intersection Capacity Utilization" or "ICU" means a quantitative measure of traffic flow of an intersection that includes critical turning movement volume/capacity (v/c) ratios. ICU is related to Level of Service (below) and augments the determination of LOS. An ICU of"1.00" is indicative of an intersection that is at maximum capacity. (e) "Level of Serviee" or "LOS" means a scale that measures the amount of traffic that a roadway or intersection can accommodate, based on the ICU of the intersection and such factors as maneuverability, driver dissatisfaction, and delay. (f) "Major Change in Allowable Land Use" means any proposed amendment, change, or replacement of the General Plan, or of Costa Mesa's zoning ordinance (as defined and contained in Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code) or any Specific Plan or Overlay Plan or adoption of a new Specific Plan or Overlay Plan meeting any one or more of the following conditions: page 3 (1) The proposed change in allowable land use would significantly increase traffic, density or intensity of use above the As -Built condition, as defined in (k), in the neighborhood where the major change is proposed. (2) The proposed change in allowable land use would change a public use to a private use. A Major Change in Allowable Land Use in this category shall include a change of use on: (i) land designated for a public use or a public right-of-way; provided, however, that the abandonment of a public right of way that is no longer needed, in conformity to the procedural requirements of the Government Code of the State of California, Section 65402 and the Municipal Code of the City of Costa Mesa, shall not be subject to voter approval. (3) land designated as utility right-of-way; (4) land donated, bequeathed or otherwise granted to Costa Mesa; (5) land used or designated for Costa Mesa school property; or (6) land owned, controlled or managed by Costa Mesa; (g) "Minor Change in Allowable Land Use" means any change in land use that does not meet or exceed the changes as defined in Major Change in Allowable Land Use, as defined in (t). (h) "Municipal Code" or "Costa Mesa Municipal Code" means the Municipal Code of the City of Costa Mesa. (i) "Overlay Plan" or "Overlay Zone" mean the same and refer to any zoning code plan covering a currently zoned area of the city that allows a land owner to change from that zone to another to further develop that owner's property. Said Overlay Zone would include certain restrictions or incentives to increase the likelihood of a property owner's desire to develop their property affected by the Overlay Zone. (j) "Proponent" means any individual, firm, association, syndicate, partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, corporation, trust or any other legal entity applying to Costa Mesa for a change in allowable land use. If Costa Mesa itself initiates the change, it shall be deemed the Proponent for the purposes of this ordinance. page 4 (k) "Significantly Increase" or "Significant Increase" means anyone or more of the following increases over or changes compared to the As -Built Condition: (1) The traffic generated by the proposal: (i) would generate more than 200 additional Average Daily Trip ends; or (ii) would increase the V/C ratio of the intersection operating condition in one of the following ways: a. would increase the V/C ratio to equal to or greater than 0.040 such that after implementation of the major change the LOS would be C or worse; b. would increase the V/C ratio increase to equal to or greater than 0.020 such that after implementation of the major change the LOS would be D or worse; or c. would increase the V/C ratio to equal to or greater than 0.010 such that after implementation of the major change the LOS would be E or F or ICU of 0.9 or higher; or (iii) any increase in ICU at any Costa Mesa intersection from less than 0.9 to 0.9 or higher; or any change in LOS at any intersection or on any corridor from better than "D" to "D" or worse. (2) For purposes of determining traffic increases attributable to a Major Change in Allowable Land Use, baseline and projected ICU and LOS conditions shall be determined considering weekday peak hour conditions at such time of the year when local public schools are in session. (3) The density increase generated by the proposal produces more than forty (40) additional residential dwelling units than As -Built conditions. (4) The intensity of use generated by the project produces more than ten thousand (10,000) additional square feet of retail, office or other nonresidential floor area than As -Built conditions. (5) 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 page 5 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. (1) "Specific Plan" means any existing Specific Plan in effect as of January 1, 2015 or any Specific Plans as may be amended pursuant to this ordinance or any new Specific Plans which shall be approved by both the Costa Mesa City Council as well as the voters of Costa Mesa pursuant to this ordinance. See, 4. Effective date; Applicability. (a) This ordinance shall be binding and effective as of the earliest date allowed by law (the "Effective Date"). At its first public meeting following completion of the canvass of votes, the Costa Mesa City Council shall pass the resolution required by Elections Code Section 9266. The following day, the elections official of Costa Mesa shall cause a copy of the complete text of the adopted measure to be filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to Government Code Sections 34459 and 34460. (b) Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9205, all Major Changes in Allowable Land Use approved by the Costa Mesa City Council on or after the date of publication of the notice of intention to circulate the initiative petition adding this ordinance to the City Municipal Code, shall be subject to the provisions of this ordinance. Sec. -5. Vote of the Costa Mesa Electorate on a Major Change in an Allowable Land Use. (a) Each Major Change in Allowable Land Use shall be put to a vote of the Costa Mesa electorate; provided, however, that no such change shall be submitted to the Costa Mesa electorate unless the Costa Mesa City Council has first approved the change pursuant to all state and local laws applicable to approval of land use changes by the legislative body. A Major Change in Allowable Land Use shall become effective only after approval by the Costa Mesa City Council and a majority of the Costa Mesa Electorate voting "YES" on a ballot measure proposing such change at either a regular or special municipal election. An advisory election does not satisfy the voter approval requirement. (b) The sample ballot materials mailed to the registered voters of Costa Mesa prior to an election shall describe any Major Change in Allowable Land Use in a manner that clearly discloses both the scope and main features of the proposal (including any and all phases) that the Major Change in Allowable Land Use consists of or depends on, and the location and the acreage of the project site. The description shall include the page 6 text of any proposed amendment to the General Plan, to Costa Mesa's zoning ordinance or of any proposed adoption or repeal of, or amendment to, a Specific Plan. The description shall clearly compare the proposal and its traffic impacts both to the As -Built Condition and to existing applicable land use designations and zoning classifications, providing accurate comparative data concerning existing as well as proposed densities (in units per acre) and intensities of use (in square footage, types of use and traffic impacts). If a site-specific development is proposed in connection with a Major Change in Allowable Land Use, and existing densities or intensities of use in such site-specific development are less than the densities or intensities the Major Change in Allowable Land use proposes, the text of the ballot shall clearly disclose the maximum total residential, commercial, industrial or other nonresidential build -out potential, and traffic impacts under build -out, compared to the As -Built Condition. Easily readable maps shall be used to assist the voters in the proposal description. All of the information called for by this subdivision shall be posted on Costa Mesa's website no later than ten (10) days prior to the Costa Mesa City Council's action on a Major Change in Allowable Land Use, and such information shall be updated no later than two business days following the Costa Mesa City Council's action. (c) For all Major Changes in Allowable Land Use approved by the Costa Mesa City Council on or after the effective date of this ordinance, the resulting election required by this ordinance shall be set for the first regular municipal election following City Council approval of the Major Change in Allowable Land Use; or, by mutual agreement with the Proponent, the Costa Mesa City Council may call a special municipal election, with the cost of the special election borne solely by the Proponent. (d) The popular vote required by this ordinance shall be in addition to all other applicable review and approval requirements for such Major Change in Allowable Land Use, including environmental review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). (e) All subsequent City permits and approvals necessary to implement all or part of a Major Change in Allowable Land Use shall conform to the voter -approved change. Under no circumstances shall any subsequent permit or approval authorize, allow or otherwise accommodate higher densities, intensities of use, or trip generation than the densities, intensities and trip generation approved by the Costa Mesa City Council and the voters. (1) No certificate of occupancy for any structure built as part of a proposal that depends on a Major Change in Allowable Land Use shall be issued until: (1) All mitigations of traffic impacts, including control signals, increases in right- of-way capacity via widening roads, or other right-of-way or intersection improvements, as may be required by the Costa Mesa City Council, have been page 7 developed and implemented, and the City Engineer has certified completion and operation of all traffic impact mitigations in full compliance with the Costa Mesa City Council's approval action; or (2) Costa Mesa has received payment of the then current trip fees and a fully enforceable agreement between Costa Mesa and the Proponent specifying any other considerations to implement the appropriate mitigation measures. (g) Except as provided in Section 6, Paragraph (b) below, any permits or approvals issued without voter approval, where such voter approval is required under this ordinance, shall be null and void. Sec.6. Application for Major Change in Allowable Land Use; City Review. (a) To carry out the purposes of this ordinance, any application for a Major Change in Allowable Land Use shall contain accurate and up-to-date factual data and information, and the subsequent written City review shall include the following (in addition to all other disclosures required under CEQA and Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code): (1) The information required by Section 5, subdivision (b), above; (2) A site plan or diagram, drawn to scale for any site specific amendment; (3) A complete, objective discussion of the potential inconsistencies between the proposal that consists of, or depends on, the Major Change in Allowable Land Use, and: (i) surrounding uses in the neighborhood; (ii) the General Plan; (iii) the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances; and (iv) any applicable Specific Plan or Overlay Plan. (4) To the extent the proposal differs from existing uses, a full description of the mitigations necessary or recommended for adoption to minimize neighborhood impacts and incompatibility shall be provided. (b) A complete, objective analysis of the traffic circulation and traffic safety impacts of the proposal that consists of, or depends on, the Major Change in Allowable Land Use. The traffic analysis shall be prepared directly by, or under direct contract to, the City, page 8 and shall make accurate determinations for the purposes of Section3, subdivision (b)(1), above. ICU and LOS impact analysis shall be provided for all corridors and intersections subject to any significant impacts due to the Major Change in Allowable Land Use. LOS analyses shall use current best practices described in the current Highway Capacity Manual published by the Transportation Research Board, a division of the National Research Council. The traffic analysis shall adequately disclose the direct, the indirect or secondary, and the cumulative impacts of the proposal accounting for all relevant factors, such as proportion of heavy weight vehicular traffic, bus stops, intersection and corridor oversaturation (downstream traffic queuing impacts), pedestrian traffic, side street and driveway entrances and exits, ingress stacking and overflowing, and turn lane queuing and overflow. The traffic analysis also shall identify the mitigations necessary or recommended to reduce the traffic impacts to an ICU below 0.90 or LOS D or better for the corridors and intersections subject to this analysis. The location, nature and adverse construction -phase impacts of the traffic impact mitigations shall be clearly described. (c) To reduce delay for Proponents, the City's decision-making bodies may review and conditionally approve discretionary permit applications required for a proposal prior to the Costa Mesa electorate's vote on a Major Change in Allowable Land Use on which such proposal depends; provided, however, that no conditional permit approval will become effective unless the related Major Change in Allowable Land Use is passed by the voters and has itself become effective. If the related Major Change in Allowable Land Use is rejected by the voters, such change and all conditional permits shall have no force and effect. Sec. -7. Exceptions. (a) This ordinance shall not apply to any Major Change in Allowable Land Use that is limited to allowing the development of a public school or a hospital. (b) This ordinance shall not preclude completion of a site-specific development that depends on a Major Change in Allowable Land Use approved before the effective date of this ordinance, if before such date, the holder of any permit or other entitlement for use for such development has lawfully and in -good faith acquired a vested right, under state law, to carry out the development to completion. (c) The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to the extent that they would violate state or federal laws. (d) This ordinance shall not be applied in a manner that would result in an unconstitutional taking of private property. page 9 (e) This ordinance shall not apply to affordable housing proposals required by state or federal law. (f) This ordinance shall not apply to any Major Change in Allowable Land Use of property with legal non -conforming residential units that were occupied on the date of publication, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9205, of the notice of intention to circulate the initiative petition adding this ordinance to the Municipal Code, so long as the proposed change in allowable land use meets all the following conditions: (1) the existing residential units are rendered conforming under the proposed change; (2) the proposed change does not allow an increase in the number of residential units on the property; (3) the proposed change does not create a Significant Increase in traffic or intensity of use; and (4) the proposed change does not create a reduction in open space or in any set back. Sec. -8. Relationship to Municipal Code. If any provision of this ordinance conflicts with other provisions contained in the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the provisions of this ordinance shall supersede any other conflicting provision. Sec. -9. Amendments. No provision of this ordinance may be amended or repealed except by a vote of the people of Costa Mesa. Sec. 10. Judicial Enforcement. Any aggrieved person shall have the right to bring an action to enjoin any violation of this ordinance or to enforce the duties imposed on Costa Mesa by this ordinance. Sec. 11. Construction. This ordinance shall be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes. Nothing herein shall be construed to make illegal any lawful use being made of any land in accordance with City land use and zoning regulations in force before the effective date of this ordinance. Sec. -12. Consistency with Other Ballot Measures. If another ballot measure is placed on the same ballot as this measure and deals with the same subject matter, and if both measures pass, the voters intend that both measures shall be put into page 10 effect, except to the extent that specific provisions of the measures are in direct conflict. In the event of a direct conflict, the measure which obtained more votes will control as to the directly conflicting provisions only. The voters expressly declare this to be their intent, regardless of any contrary language in any other ballot measure. Sec.13. Severability. If any section, subdivision, clause, sentence, phrase or portion of this ordinance is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining sections, subdivisions, clauses, sentences, phrases and portions shall remain valid and enforceable. The voters declare that they would have passed all sections, subdivisions, clauses, sentences, phrases and portions of this ordinance without the section, subdivision, clause, sentence, phrase or portion declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. page 11 CC -2 Additional Documents WARRANT INFORMATION (01/17/17) Payment Date Remittance to: Remittance Payment Explanation of payment Ref. ID: Amount 0201674 01/06/17 Prosurface - Sport Court 0000010334 $3,000.00 Where was this work completed? Repair Resuraced The work was on basketball courts at four arks. • Wakeham Park • Wimbledon Park • Smallwood • Tanager Park The resurfacing work consists of grinding and filling cracks and repainting the key also known as the free throw area on each of the courts with SportMaster Surfacing System. 0201427 12/23/16 AAA Animal Hospital - 0000021235 $172.50 What was this for? These are cost CMPD Spay/Neuter program associated with the City's Spay/Neute Voucher program. The City issued two ca and three dog vouchers. The City wil provide low-income individuals with a voucher to spay or neuter their dog or cat. A spay/neuter certificate is required for a discounted City dog license. Eligibility requirements for the voucher are listed on the City's website and our Animal Contro Officers personally meet with voucher applicants to ensure their eligibility. Th City retains documentation of voucher issuance, to include owner & pe information. 0201448 12/23/16 BKF Engineers 0000024944 $8,700.00 Where was this work done. Victoria/Fairview do not connect? The progress payment made to BK Engineers was for the initial topographic surveys and preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates to close ofi wall openings along Victoria Street (a Puente Avenue, Meyer Place, Miner Street, Wallace Avenue, Raleigh Avenue (South), Raleigh Avenue (North), and Sterling Avenue) and one location at the intersection of Fairview Road and Dorsett Lane. Th project is currently under design an tentatively scheduled for construction i late Spring, 2017. 0201463 12/23/16 CNC Engineering Inc. 0000008798 $4,844.40 What was this for? This is a progress payment for design work for the Fairview Park ADA Parking Lo Improvements. The Fairview Park ADA Parking Lot Improvements consists o grinding and overlaying the existing parkin lot (west of Placentia Avenue) due to decay and includes modifying ramps an sidewalks to be compliant with current ADA standards. The parking lot rehabilitation work will be 100% within the existing parking lot footprint. 0201548 12/23/16 National Institute of 0000003308 $350.00 What does this group do? Who is this Governmental membership for? The Institute for Public Procurement is a national, membership-based non-profi organization providing support to rofessionals in the public sector procurement profession. NIGP provides it members with many services, including education, professional networking, research, and technical assistance. Th NIGP promotes: Ethical behavior, customer service, innovation, collaboration and bes business practices for governmenta purchasing professionals. Annua membership dues for 3 finance staff. Urueta, Hull, & Erickson. CC -3 - Additional Documents Proposed updates to PD Tow Policy Guidelines & Requirements CC -3 Additional Documents Additional Revisions to Proposed Updates to Police Department Tow Policy Guidelines and Requirements In Attachment 2 to the Agenda Report for CC -3, page 12, paragraph 5 of the Police Department Tow Policy Guidelines and Requirements has been further revised as follows: 5. All drivers will be required to submit to a City of Costa Mesa criminal history records check including Live Scan fingerprinting, which will be conducted at CMPD. Felony and misdemeanor convictions may be disqualifying. The City of Costa Mesa may elect to issue identification (IDS cards to those employees that successfully pass the background check. CC-6 Additional DoCu_..ents aiming Project • Landscaped Chokers at Intersections • Landscaped Medians Only at Entry Points at Fullerton Avenue and Irvine Avenue • Entry Monument Signs at Fullerton Avenue and Irvine Avenue 4tn Street Prd a Y.aY •Y. do a. //�' 6 .I `y• ,'moi . `♦ J"lot r AJ2 A.• wf' 1, • What makes 19th Street different than any other street? — Terminus of SR -55 Freeway — Connection to Irvine Avenue • What is the overall vision for Eastside by the • Why not put in speed humps? - Speed humps result in diversion of traffic to other adjacent streets • Are we going to lose parking if these improvements are done? - No parking impacts are anticipated with the proposed • Why isn't bike lane striped on East 19th 0 Street? Can we put markers to show that we are sharing road with bikers? — East 19th Street is narrow and with on -street parking, there is not enough width to accommodate bicycle lanes — Markings could be added on pavement to show bicycle use cQk r�fOce._:,bikes to moue into MAR t Daae to on -street parking, bicycles are already on the street By adding chokers, the goal is reduce speeds and mare Ivers._more aware of bicyclists pedestrians ,� ` y�.��st� ani .._,.. _,. a IVA 0 All. a Oda GRAPE MYRTLE MEDIAN TREES, TYP. ENTRY SIGN -REFER TO SWEET L -S FOR SIGNAGE ALTERNATIVES. SIGN SHALL BE ONE SIDED AT THIS LOCATION. PARKWAY PLANTING, TYP. - PHOTOS HEREON ARE FOR PROPOSED 5HRUB5 IN THIS PARKWAY I INTERSECTION, r� N Ve Vnrc S 1 GRAPE MYRTLE PARKWAY TREES, TYP. East 19th Street/ Fullerton Avenue ...... L.cmmaw. wr.'Lr..w L. aaR. TSL. .aw.. m.L. FULLERTON AVENUE MEDIAN PLANTING, TYP. PHOTOS HEREON ARE FOR PROPOSED `y SHRU55 IN THIS INTERSECTION. mnrn Le NOTES' ,} / / _..` gLxFmlilWNv.VdF6N.' I'O.7. CPMu[ C4LiMPbI 1Ne.6 tll0.A,gP. wuemnmwr Lncx azn w+xrov nin East 19th Street/ West of Fullerton Ave, EXISTING CONDITIONS VCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENT SIMULATION GATEWAY SIGNAGE, NEW CURB & GUTTER BULB -OUTS, NEW PLANTED PARKWAYS WITH FLOWERING TREES & )RFUL WATER EFFICIENT PLANTING LgpNp ..W Im4P Crape m,tla ow.0-6, Collb*oon'We John' Went Oottlatau,h Soo Laventlor Ph rvdum tonna N"36alantl F� Fbwor Carpot Rotl Roso fnMob Punk Pkklekla .'r a m PAWWAY PLANTMG, TYP. PHOTOS HEREON ARE FOR PROPOSED SHRUBS IN THIS INTERSECTION. GRAPE MYRTLE PARKWAY TREES, TYP. xuvis uuc.n eom�w w rngg��lln� East 19th Street/ Orange Avenue (Typical) ORANGE AVENUE i 1 2. I RDLRtlMfIR®ICR Ip W1�RR! NOTES: axnrmcsr.^� I, urmroolmuroa vt evomx � V w P P 1 .LYIRNINKI4YIp1 WXWtl^L'IYJNXOYIR _ �--� I rz#• btt MAP w.. EXISTING CONDITIONS East 19th Street/ West of Orange Avenue CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENT SIMULATION NEW CURB & GUTTER BULB -OUTS, NEW CROSSWALK STRIPING, PLANTED PARKWAYS WITH FLOWERING TREES & COLORFUL WATER EFFICIENT PLANTING d Bristol Street Median City Council Meeting January 17, 2017 • Enhancing the Character of Bristol Street South of Baker Street • Construction of Landscaped Medians Between Baker Street and Newport Boulevard •Mid Block Traffic Signal Between Baker treet and Randolph Avenue • Poor Condition of the Roadway • Speeding of Vehicles • Multiple Driveways and Complex Traffic Operations • Pedestrians Crossing Bristol Street Mid Block lestrian and Vehicular Accidents , ® LEGI dye © ... .. • Restricted Movement XX Maximum Peak llour�Maximum Thro.& N; XX Maximum Mld-Blaa�k I PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND WITH LANDSCAPING TRAFFIC COLLISION DIAGRAM Z LEGEND • BROADSIDE HEAD -0N • HIT OBJECT REAR -END SIDESWIPE VEHICLE -PED BRISTOL STREET BAKER STREET TO NEWPORT BOULEVARD in 0 tiristol Street Pra Cle MI ^♦ y fop �A ` 1-� e"#.,;yl.{�g�'. .,. "`�1 t • \ -nom ^ d If Bristol Street Project • I• • 'fs iN•� • BRISTOL ST p BPt5TQL ,I �r►'°�. v'+1,y�r Y.i'\%+ )"° "' .""".; �...�...-- - ..� f �� r --;0- _4 BPt5TQL ,I �r►'°�. v'+1,y�r Y.i'\%+ )"° "' .""".; �...�...-- - ..� f �� r • PALO VERDE e A KANGAROO PAWS PINK TRUMPET OMPOSED NITE- -' �'y�a��►',��, PINK MUHLY & ��%!�r► !�� j� ��/ BLUE OAT GRASS r _ i - DEORATVIE "NZEALAND FLAX ROCK & BLUE ELF ALOE DECOMPOSED GRANITE RIVER ROCK IN LITTLE REV-,.,. MORTAR, FLAX LILY Plant Palette LEGEND LANDSCAPE IMA B R I S T O PLANT IMAGES REf'; HARDSCAPE IMAGES 4iRU6$ d ORL.IMYC.1, ti i t GES & PERSPECTIVE L S T R E E T M E D I A N P R O J E C T M�t"�tRFE.1`ONt "UJt;t, Ni to Man- re 1 I 0 d c r AL ,400*40� 0000e 'mr. z000r ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PH -2 *DEVELOPMENT Real Estate Development January 17, 2017 The Honorable Katrina Foley and Members of City Council Costa Mesa City Hall 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628 RE: 440 Fair Drive project Dear Mayor Foley and City Council: I respectfully request that this project be directed back to planning commission for review of the recent changes that include the relocation of the entrance to Fair Drive and reduction in the height of single family homes on Carnegie to 28 feet, among other potential changes. Thank you. Sincerely, Stephen R. Sheldon CEO, Sheldon Development, LLC 901 Dove Street, Suite 230, Newport Beach, CA 92660 • phone 949-777-9400 • fax 949-777-9410 PH -2 - Additional Documents AGAINST - PA -16-46 (440 Fair Project) Page 1 of 2 17 January, 2017 Dear Members of the Costa Mesa City Council: Re: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 My name is David McAllister. I've been a resident of College Park since 1963, and I have always taken much "pride of ownership" in my home. My background is that of a builder, as such I was a V.P. of Operations for two large builders throughout the state of California, in charge of low, medium, and high density sites. I know how important it is to work with existing neighbors as far as product type and density. Being aware of how increased density can affect traffic flow/automobile congestion. This additional traffic can cause unsafe conditions for existing neighborhood children, let alone the potential for speeding through our neighborhood. As I mentioned in my previous appearance at the Planning Commission meeting. I feel that it's totally absurd to foist all the negativity upon College Park that this propsed development would bring, ie: four story buildins decreasing the privacy of adjacent neighbors, out of place setbacks (non -configuring), the removal of the mature ficus trees that harbor rat killing crows. The existing street pavement section would not be able to withstand the elevated number of traffic let alone the traffic generated by construction vehicles, lumber trucks, concrete trucks, etc.. If this project is allowed to be constructed, I dread to see the traffic at rush hour. Fair Dr, Carnegie, Bucknell, and Princeton would become "parking lots". Driving out of Carnegie to Fair you're taking your life in your hands (very dangerous)! Right turn is bad enough. When some of these streets clog up, Princeton Drive will become a speedway, the answer to that is speed bumps as on EI Camino Dr, orclose Princeton off from Harbor Blvd—now what happens to the proposed site congestion? It's been stated by the developer that our property values will elevate as their asking price would be in the $800,000 plus range--- it's the opposite, the traffic and proposed high density will do us in Page 1 of 2 17 January, 2017 There are just too many negatives to mention in this brief iteration. We as College Park residents STRONGLY oppose the development as submitted. It's more fitting to emulate detached single family units in order to become "part of" College Park. It would be like having a four story weed patch in the middle of a rose garden. TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record PH -2 Additional Documents From: Jim Lindsay[mailto:iflindsav2002@vahoo.comI Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 11:18 AM To: CITY COUNCIL<CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Fw: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record As I have previously submitted, I oppose the rezoning of this property on the basis that it would benefit few (the developers) and add nothing of value to the large established neighborhoods that surround it. Jim Lindsay On Monday, November 21, 2016 10:20 AM, Jim Lindsay <JfIindsay2002@yahoo.com> wrote: 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. TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 For The Public Record PH -2 Additional Documents From: RR !mailto:iustteach@vahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 8:41 PM To: FOLEY, KATRINA <KATRINA.FOLEY@costa mesa ca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.aov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; MANSOOR, ALLAN <ALLAN.MANSOOR@costa mesa ca.eov>; STEPHENS, JOHN<JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.ereen@costa mesa ca.eov>; Collegeparkunited Info <info@colleseparkunited.com> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/11-16-01/PA-16-46 For The Public Record On Monday, November 21, 2016 9:24 PM, "iustteach(a)yahoo.com" <justteachayahoo.com> wrote: 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!!! Concerned Vassar Place Resident for 13+ years TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair or GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents From: Renee Petersen imailto:renesioy2@vahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 6:41 PM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA. FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costa mesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; MANSOOR, ALLAN<ALLAN. MANSOOR@costa mesaca.gov>; STEPHENS, JOHN<JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <bre nda.green@costamesaca.goy> Cc: info@collegeparkunited.gov Subject: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 Dear Costa Mesa City Council, I am writing to inform you that I, as a College Park home owner, am extremely opposed to the development at 440 Fair Drive. It is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and will impost severe parking and traffic problems. I trust that you will, as City servants, represent your constituents at the public hearing on Tuesday, January 17th. I am unable to attend and have therefore reached out to you on my behalf. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, C. Renee Petersen 347 Nassau Road Costa Mesa, CA 92626 I TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: Proposed 440 Fair Development PH -2 Additional Documents From: Melissa Lippand [mailto:mlippand@sbcalobal.net] Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2017 3:58 PM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costa mesaca.eov>; GENTS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.eov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; MANSOOR, ALLAN<ALLAN.MANSOOR@costamesaca.eov>; STEPHENS, JOHN<JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <bre nda.areen@costamesaca.eov> Subject: Proposed 440 Fair Development Dear All, After attending several meetings with the developer and planning commission we oppose this development. It is our understanding that the new members of the City Counsel have been briefed on the objections raised by College Park residents. In an effort to not repeat ourselves, but to be fair to the new counsel members, in summary, we object to this high density development containing 4 story units because it does not fit in with the existing neighborhood of mostly 1 story single family homes. In addition it will create cut -through traffic in College Park, the traffic study was inadequate in that there was no study of traffic impact on Harbor and streets in College Park except for Carnegie, there is a lack of parking, lack of open space and the request for zoning change and multiple variances from existing codes creates other problematic issues. While we do appreciate the developer's concessions by moving the entrance/entry from Carnegie to Fair drive and removing the 3rd story on the eight single family residences facing Carnegie, this is enough. The changing of the zoning and requests for multiple variances set a dangerous precidence for future requests for development near College Park and other neighborhoods. Please, please, please uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the project for high density residential housing for 440 Fair. We will be happy to meet to discuss our objections in more detail at any time convenient to you but we wanted to keep this letter as brief as possible. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter that is so important to us all. Sincerely, Vello and Melissa Lippand 354 Bucknell Rd. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 cell 714/342-1996 TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-O1/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents On Jan 13, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Jeannine Marold <jeanninemarold@gmail.com> wrote: Suggest that entry/exit only off Fair, that homes along Carnegie & Elmhurst no more than 2 stories, that a wall be built between those backyards & single family homes already on Carnegie & Elmhurst & that a green landscaped area with trees/bushes with potential to grow/hide cover the wall on Carnegie be planted. If you lived on Carnegie or Elmhurst would you like the development as proposed by the developer to move Forward? College Park is a kid -friendly single-family home neighborhood & I have lived in my home since 1967 and raised my son here. He loved it and I love it. To chip away at it is disrespectful and quite frankly a slap in the face of Costa Mesa family neighborhoods. Thank you. Sincerely, Jeannine Marold, 306 Princeton Drive TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: subject 440 Fair Dr. GP-16-01/R-160-1/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents On Jan 14, 2017, at 12:26 PM, BRUCE MUNSON <bkmunson(Esbcelobal.net> wrote: Please stop the over building, over population of Costa Mesa. This entire project for College Park is ill-conceived from the get go. Way to much density for the amount of land to build on and the new proposal of using Fair Rd. to leave and enter the project from is absolutely fool hardy. Can you imagine the back up at that intersection and the danger of multiple accidents that could/will occur. This entire campaign is all about the money for the builders and everyone else who is in bed with them, Hummm. A more practical use of the land would be to build office, retail or individual business spaces. How many times do we have to go to the well to get this shut down. How many times is the builder and the council going to put on this dog and pony show with everyone giving a wink and nod to the other. Quit playing games with the citizens of Costa Mesa and reach down and grab a hand full of doing the right thing for a change. We need ZERO growth. You already have Green Lighted yet another project on Harbor and Merrimac all that will do is add yet more traffic on the over burdened Harbor Blvd. We have already reached the over saturation point lets stop it here and now. I don't care who knows who or what kind of back room deals are made but I do know when it is not in the best interest of the people you were elected to serve. Don't make me regret my voting decisions. Sincerely, William Munson TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair Drive project PH -2 Additional Documents From: Sue Kroesen Till [mailto:sdtill@sbcelobal.net] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 5:38 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.ereen@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair Drive project January 14, 2017 Costa Mesa City Council Members 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Members, My husband and I would like to express to the council that we are not at all in favor of the 440 Fair project as it is purposed to date. If a developer is going to come in and establish new homes on the property, we would like them to blend into our community in size and character. There is definitely not enough guest parking. The lot size should be closer to the size of our 60 by 100 ft lots. The 3 and 4 story house would be noisy and overpower the size of our existing homes. We would like no taller than two stories. And last, but certainly not least, is the beautiful trees on Carnegie Ave. should not be disturbed in anyway. We DO want to see this property redeveloped either with a new business/office project that would benefit our community OR residential homes that are more compatible with ours that wouldn't be a burden or problem for the residents of College Park. High density housing is ruining the city of Costa Mesa. We could go on and on about that issue but please see our side of this matter and stop the plan that Sheldon Development is proposing. Respectfully, Dane and Sue Till 2549 Fordham Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 sdtill aa)sbcglobal.net TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/11-16-01/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents Resent -From: <katrina.folev@costamesaca.gov> From: Bill McCarty <billmccartv2012@gmail.com> Date: January 15, 2017 at 8:51:59 AM PST To:<katrina.foley@costa mesaca.g.ov>, <sandra.genis@costamesaca.gov>,<jim.righeimer@costa mesa ca.gov>, <allan.mansoor@costamesaca.gov>, <lohn.stephens@costa mesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 Dear Mayor Foley, Mayor Pro Tem Genis and Concil Members Mansoor, Righeimer and Stephens, I'm writing to express my opposition to the development plan for 440 Fair Drive. The proposed plan is not appropriate for the lot or the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully, Bill McCarty Costa Mesa TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair or GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents From: J Drain imailtoddrain0l@amail.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 9:16 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.ereen@costamesaca.eov> Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair or GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 *Hard copy hand delivered to City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa 16th January, 2017 For the Public Record: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: 440 FAIR DRIVE; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -16-01 ITEM NUMBER: PH -2 Honorable Members of the Costa Mesa City Council, As a Costa Mesa resident and College Park homeowner, I most strongly urge you all to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of 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, this City Council must realize that this zoning change does not keep with the character of our College Park 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 constantly 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. 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, please have a detailed traffic impact report done 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 RI neighborhood ignore many of the reasons that ourselves and 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 listen 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 R 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 jdrain0l@gmail.com TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: "440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents From: Robert Van Sweden [mailto:robt4@hctmail.com1 Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 2:35 PM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; sand ra.genis@gostamesa ca.goy; allen.mansoor@costamesaca.gov; STEPHENS, JOHN<JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.goy>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.greenCa@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM <JIM.RIGHEIMER@costa mesaca.gov> Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: RE: "440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/11-16-01/PA-16-46 16 January 2017 To: Members the Costa Mesa City Council Attn: Costa Mesa City Clerk: Brenda Green Subject: "440 Fair Or GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46" As a city council, you must have many decisions to make regarding issues facing the citizens of Costa Mesa. M ost, I assume, are most difficult. The request before you, I believe, should be relatively easy for you to make a judgment. The developer of the property located at Harbor and Fair Drive, has little of no regard for the neighborhood or the existing laws of the city regarding development. Unable to gain approval under the current city guidelines, he is hoping to be able to fit his unwise project into a small area through the process of variances. His project does not meet the "Residential Design Guidelines" which states new construction is to be compatible in scale and character with existing development in the immediate vicinity. Knowing that his proposal is nothing like the College Park 1& 2 story homes, he therefore needs an outright change from Residential Design to Commercial zoning. Next, the area already has parking problems due to the Mediterranean Village apartments. There are only 5 guest parking spots in his plans, but the requirement is for 14. Another variance request is requested. It seems as if the developer of this property knows the rules in place by the city for the project development, but does not want them applied to his project. His multiple requests for variances and zoning change is asking you not to apply the standard rules to this project. His only chance of success is to request a zoning change and variances to exiting laws, otherwise his project would have been rejected upon being submitted. In addition, he minimizes the major impact the increased traffic his project will bring to the area. He quotes a formula that does not take in account the consideration that that the area already has traffic problems. He ignores the current traffic and parking problems, but refers to his traffic statistics. He states that his project would have little or no impact on the neighborhood or the existing traffic on Harbor and Fair Drive. Surely, he knows different. The motivation is this developer appears to be neither neighborhood or city friendly, but financial. I urge you to tell the developer his project is denied. The City of Costa Mesa has rules for building development, and they apply to all developers in Costa Mesa. Sometimes a square peg does not fit into a round hole. It is an error to try and force it to fit. Respectfully submitted, Robert C. Van Sweden 254 Nassau Road Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714-557-3746 TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair Dr. GP-16-01-/R-16-O1/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents From: Geraldine Warkentine[mailto:threegrands2328@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:38 PM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costa mesa ca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; alan.mansoor@costamesaca.gov; STEPHENS, JOHN <JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costa mesaca.gov> Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair Dr. GP-16-01-/R-16-01/PA-16-46 To whom this does concern: My name is Gerry Warkentine, my husband Bruce and I and our four children first moved into our home in College Park in May of 1988. That was twenty eight years ago; twenty nine this May. We purchased our home at 239 Princeton Drive. While our children were growing up they were never allowed to shoot hoops, ride scooters, roller skate in the front; all due to the fast and frequent traffic on Princeton. Now let us fast forward to 2017; well those four kids are well grown and the grandchildren come over to visit or stay over at our house. The traffic on Princeton has more than doubled speeding down Princeton. We are on the corner of Princeton and Columbia; the average speed has to be 45-50 flying down this street. During the time we have lived here we have seen two children hit on their bikes trying to cross the street. Thank God they were not seriously injured; let me tell you it is horrible to see, hear and witness. Do we want more development in College Park, which would lead to more drivers using Princeton as a cut through, the answer is NO!! the project is still unacceptable to us. For the safety and well being of all College Park residents; men, women, children and dogs who also live here. We clearly and loudly say: No we do not approve of the project, it is unacceptable to us in it's current form. In any form!! Thank you for your time, Gerry and Bruce Warkentine 239 Princeton Drive Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626. TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/P16-46/TT-18064 For the Public Record PH -2 Additional Documents -----Original Message ----- From: Christine Leffeler [mailto:cleffeler@me.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:46 PM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; MANSOOR, ALLAN<ALLAN.MANSOOR@costamesaca.gov>; STEPHENS, JOHN <JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: Fwd: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/P16-46/TT-18064 Forthe Public Record > City of Costa Mesa, > We have been residents of Costa Mesa for 23 years and have loved living in College Park community. We choose this neighborhood because it was 40 years and very established. The surrounding areas were zoned for commercial and the community was build out. Now 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 a huge departure from the neighborhood. It does not fit into the existing family environment ad not something 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. This area should remain commercial. > 2. The traffic impact will be huge negative. The developer has argued that the commercial is more traffic which is obviously not the case as they have plenty of parking and operate business with a flow of people, not residing in the spaces full time. > 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. Regardless if there is access is kept on Fair the parking issue and the direct access to the homes from the street will impact that street. 6. The small adjustments that were made by the developer do not at all address the overall issue that this should remain commercial. > 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. This area should remain commercial. The fact that this commercial area has not been upgraded over time seems to be connected to the desire to rezone this area. There should be equal effort to revitalize this area to commercial. > 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 TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/11-16-01/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents From: Beth-TWC Imailto:bwest62@twc.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:50 PM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA. FOLEY@costa mesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; MANSOOR, ALLAN <ALLAN.MANSOOR@costa mesaca.gov>; STEPHENS, JOHN<JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.goy> Cc: Collge Park United <info@collegeparkunited.com> Subject: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/11-16-01/PA-16-46 Costa Mesa City Council Members, I'm writing on behalf of my mother-in-law, Rosemarie West. Rosemarie has lived in College Park since 1961. For the past 55+ years College Park has been home. She wishes to state that she is opposed to the current 440 Fair development as it would alter the feel of her beloved neighborhood. At 89 years of age, she is unable to write an email/letter or attend the City Council meetings on this subject. She is most grateful for those in the community who have organized against this development. She fondly reflected upon a time many years ago where she was involved in voicing her opinion to issues that would have negatively impacted the neighborhood and championing those that made a positive difference. She wishes she still had that strong voice. Her feelings about this project are strong. Her voice is now reflected in her daughter -in-laws words. Please consider rejecting this project in its current state on behalf of a very long time resident of College Park. Thank you, Beth West Costa Mesa Resident TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents -----Original Message ----- From: Evelyn Colley [mailto:evelyn_colley@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 5:35 PM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA,FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; MANSOOR, ALLAN<ALLAN.MANSOOR@costamesaca.gov>; STEPHENS, JOHN <JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 I am opposed to the current project at 440 Fair Drive for the following reasons: The developer is asking to change the zoning from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential. The developer is asking for a deviation from the city open space requirements and the front of the homes will be right on the sidewalk of Carnegie and the beautiful Ficus trees will be cut down. My family and I will be directly affected by the increase in traffic that this high density housing project will create. Our home is located on Princeton Drive. The style of the homes will be an eyesore to the neighborhood of ranch style mid-century modern type homes. I hope the City Council denies the developer's appeal so that we can all continue to enjoy College Park as it is today. Thank you, E. O. Colley 323 Princeton Drive PH -2 Additional Documents 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 TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/11-16-01/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents From: Tom Long [mailto:rubbermoio@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 8:10 PM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; MANSOOR, ALLAN <ALLAN.MANSOOR@costa mesaca.gov>; STEPHENS, JOHN<IOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <bren da.green@costamesaca.gov> Cc: into@collegeparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/11-16-01/PA-16-46 The "440 Fair" project, as currently proposed, is unacceptable. We do not fee] that a housing development of the proposed density is appropriate in this long-established neighborhood. Something like 1/3 the proposed density seems more like it. We are opposed to the removal of the mature trees on Carnegie Ave. Tom Long Jennifer Slater 265 Princeton Drive Costa Mesa CA 92626 TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/11-16-01/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents From: J. Norman Smith fmailto:normal65@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 12:47 PM To: FOLEY, KATRINA < KATRINA. FOLEY@ costamesaca.goy>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.goy>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; MANSOOR, ALLAN<ALLAN.MANSOOR@costamesaca.goy>; STEPHENS, JOHN<JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <b re nda.green@costa mesa ca.goy> Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair Dr G13-16-01/11-16-01/1DA-16-46 Members of the Costa Mesa City Council I would like to make clear my thoughts on the 440 Fair Drive Project. 1. Over twenty (20) residences (Stack -A -Shacks) is not within the character of College Park. This area of College Park is single family single story dwellings with the occasional two story home. We already have high density housing (Mediterranean Village) along with apartments on our northern border and multi -family units to our south, and condominium complex to the east. 2. At this point in time there are "on street" parking problems because of the existing high density housing. Currently residents from the Mediterranean Village park on Lehigh, Carnegie and Bucknell. The size of the proposed housing units at 440 Fair would suggest that families either purchasing or renting would have the possibility of more than two (2) drivers in residence. The proposed units provide for a two (2) car garage and only five (5) guest parking spaces total. This will create an over -run of cars onto the streets of College Park. The revised exit from the proposed housing development, to Fair Drive will only create more havoc to an already busy intersection and entry via that opening will be almost an impossible task. If the entrance exit is put back to Carnegie then College Park will have a greatly increased traffic problem. Traffic today on Princeton and Bucknell typically exceeds the posted speed limits and is being used as alternatives to the traffic lights along Fair Drive. Even our illustrious Police Department utilize Princeton as a faster or more convenient alternative for transiting from Fairview to Harbor. A good number of civilian drivers have found this also to be the case. 4. It seems possible that the previous city council with persons allied to the real estate business may have been persuaded to re -zone 440 Fair Drive to High Density Residential from Light Commercial for future benefits. It is sad to see that commercial plots along Harbor Boulevard suddenly sporting High Density housing. Pressure on a Motel to be closed and allow for high priced condominiums. Sad. I wonder who really wants to purchase a home to raise a family with a strip mall next door or a used car lot as a neighbor. It may only appeal to renters who then have no pride of ownership. 5. A better alternative is to retrofit the current office and commercial property to the point that it was formally, that with doctors and dentists and a pharmacy. I have been a resident in College Park for over Forty (40) years and enjoy the peace and serenity even with the Fair Grounds which is seasonal. Allowing this transition from Commercial to High Density Housing will all but start a destruction of a heretofore great neighborhood. I implore the council to deny the re -zoning application. Yours Sincerely J. Norman Smith TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents From: CM Humphreys fmailto:chumph303@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 11:12 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.sreen@costamesaca.eov> Cc: info@colleeeparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 To: Brenda Green, City of Costa Mesa From: Helen Humphreys, Home Owner, 360 Bucknell Road at Fordham Drive Date: January 16, 2017 After learning of the developer's proposed changes, the new plan for 440 Fair Drive is still not compatible with the College Park neighborhood. With the high density and so few extra parking spaces for guests, the overflow will still affect the neighborhood streets. College Park already experiences overflow parking from Mediterranean Village, from the car agencies, and from OCC students. And what is going to happen to the overflow from Mediterranean Village once they can no longer park at 440 Fair Drive? Helen Humphreys 360 Bucknell Road Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.546.6517 Sent on behalf of Helen Humphreys: Cynthia Humphreys 714.955.2321 chum hn 303ggmail.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: CM Humphreys <chumph303na@exnail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:00 AM Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record To: brenda.g_reen(c�r�,costamesaca.gov 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 to 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 chum2h303&gmail.com Lee Place 2524 Andover PI Costa Mesa, CA January 14, 2017 Costa Mesa City Council Re: 440 Fair Project `I7 JAN 17 AN 10 49 C1 r CI COSTA &',A I have resided in Costa Mesa for 57 years, 33 of those years in College Park. Our city is managed by the following the adopted Municipal Code. A part of the code allows the City Council to make adjustments to the code and the public to oppose them, since all things are not equal. Please consider the following points in regard to the project before you. I start with the zoning code section below. Costa Mesa Zoning Code ARTICLE 6. Planned Development. Sec.13-55 PURPOSE (a) "Provide a method by which appropriately located areas of the City can be developed utilizing more imaginative and innovative planning concepts than would be possible through strict application of the existing zoning and subdivision regulations. It is intended that these developments will meet the broader goals of the General Plan and Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and the protection of the integrity of neighboring development." The density of the project, though it fits mathematically, does not fit within the shape of the parcel. The parcel acreage, configuration and the development standards of the zoning must all be taken into account. Adhering to these points would be the starting point for an architectural design that promotes excellence and compatibility with in the neighborhood. The Intensily of this project is very high. The building heights combined with the proposed density present the visual impact of a solid building. The Plan 1 buildings are higher then the existing commercial building and occupy almost three quarters of the perimeter of the parcel. This impact is present on the interior also. Perimeter Open Space Development standards for any PDR zone require a "Perimeter Open Space of 20 feet abutting all public right-of-ways, excluding alleys."' "This Area shall be kept free of buildings and structures and permanently maintained in landscaping.'°Z There are no exceptions to this requirement in the CM Zoning Code that could be applied to this planning area. "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)" 3 The variance as requested is for the encroachment of block walls into the Perimeter Open Space and does not take into account the entry patios, private back yards and walkways that are to be built within the space. This space is to be landscaped. "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" 4 The comments above, regarding the removal of the Administrative Adjustments for the building encroachments discount the importance of the Perimeter Open Space. The 20 foot is not a set back for building but rather a fully landscaped area between the project and the street. I believe that the purpose of the perimeter area as required by the Zoning Code, is to soften the intensity of the project and protect the integrity of the existing neighboring developments. I respectively request that the City Council deny the project. Thank you, Lee Place 1 CMZC Art.6, Table 13-58 3 CMZC Art.6, Sec. 13-61 3 City Council Agenda Report, January 17, 2017, ItemPH-2, pg 7 4 City Council Agenda Report, January 17, 2017, ItemPH-2, pg 7 TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 4401'air development PH -2 Additional Documents -----Original Message ----- From: Debra Morgan [mailto:morgan2543@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:16 PM To: RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; MANSOOR, ALLAN <ALLAN.MANSOOR@costamesaca.gov>; STEPHENS, JOHN <JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>; FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SAN DRA.G EN IS@costamesaca.gov> Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: 44017air development I would like the complex to stay as commercial businesses. The owner needs to upgrade the tenants that he rents to. Also the businesses should be offering services And products the neighborhood can buy and or use. Sent from Debra's !Phone M PH -2 - Additional Documents January 13, 2017 Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: Protest Against the Appeal of the Denial of 440 Fair Drive GP-16-01/R-16.01/PA-16-46 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Respected Katrina Foley, Sandra Genis, John Stephens, Jim Righeimer, Allan Mansoor, and Brenda Green: This letter is to again express my deep concerns and objections regarding the appeal Of the denial of the project proposed at 440 Fair Drive. I continue to disagree with this project for the following reasons: 1) I am deeply concerned that the Notice of Public Hearing regarding this project was identical to the original proposal the developer set forth before we protested this at the November Council Meeting and two separate Planning Commission meetings. It seems as if we are moving backward on a project that we, the people, thought we were making some progress. I find this disheartening and confusing that we are starting from square one again, although I WILL be following through with my protest, wherever it takes us and whatever it takes. 2) 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! 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. 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, with 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 Ir / own because there will be no room. This is not even taking into account the already -overflow of parking from the Mediterranean apartments just across the street! �) 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 Mesa Verde Dr. and Harbor - they are right on the street and people's living spaces are right above the street and sidewalk. Because Harbor and Mesa Verde Dr.3 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 insufficient parking inside the gates of that apartment complex if you arrive home after 7pm! Guess where all those residents end up parking?! j 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 Dr., 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 ".we 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! NOTE: the results of that traffic study have not been released, to the best of my knowledge and that of my neighbors. pg 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 %Pn who WE are! The $850,000-$90%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 I fought hard in the battle to replace previous City Council members who appeared to have no regard for the overbuilding of our city - despite the history I presented at the City Planning Meeting in November that we were reaching capacity manyyears ago. I am imploring our new City Council to listen to we, the people of Costa Mesa! :+ ,' MI r. N. Drive TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-O1/R-16-01/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents From: IRWIN SAUER fmailto:irwinws@vahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 1:23 PM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.gov>; limrigheimer@costamesaca.gov; MANSOOR, ALLAN<ALLAN.MANSOOR@costamesaca.gov>; STEPHENS, JOHN <JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>; info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 I fail to understand why we are considering residential housing in a commercial district. If the present structure is undesirable and not rentable, let it be demolished and replaced with a modern building built to modern standards. Perhaps it could be designed and built for renters who are procured and built to their needs beforehand. Additional eateries like "Hotties Pizza" would probably do well in that location. We don't need local streets like Princeton and Bucknell become shortcuts for residents traveling between Fairview and their home at Fair and Harbor. 440 Fair Dr. has served the community well as a commercial location. Let's keep it that way! Irwin Sauer@ Anthony P. Massaro 2533 Greenbriar Lane Costa Mesa, CA 92626 City of Costa Mesa Planning and Zoning Department 55 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA January 17, 2017 ECENEU CITY CLERK I I JAN i 7 PH 2- 18 CITY 8F COSTA SA By Subject: Analysis and comments on Staff Report generated for General Plan Amendment GP-16- 01/Master Plan PA -16-46 440 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA To Whom It May Concern: The following is a technical analysis of the staff report highlighting five items that I believe are inaccurate, incomplete or not in actual compliance with the code. Item 1: Per the parking table in code Section 13-85 and as described in the staff report on page 10, the project is deficient in Guest parking: Plan 1: For the 20 units, 10 guest spots are required. Plan 2: For the 8 units, 4 guest spots are required. The project requires 14 guest spots, but is only providing 5. Technical issues: 1. The original staff report, acknowledges that, even though 14 guest spots are required, they are only providing 5. This is being justified by demonstrating that they have more tenant covered and open spaces than required. This was not addressed at the Planning Commission meeting and was presented as a viable solution to the shortfall of guest parking. 2. In the updated Agenda Report PH -2, Dated January 17th, staff now is asking for a Variance for the parking shortfall. 3. After reviewing all of the related documents for the January 171h Planning Commission Meeting, no documentation of iustifications for the Variance has been presented. Code Section 13-29 (g) (1) provides the requirements for Variances and Administrative Adjustments. Item 2: Code Section 13-29 (g) (1) is cited as findings required for the requested Variances and Administrative Adjustments. 13-29 (g) (1) Item (c) states: "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." Technical Issues Found: 1. The applicant is seeking two Variances that do not comply with this section, the Open Space Variance and the Parking Variance. 2. 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. 3. However, the Staff report does not addressor 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." 4. A close review of the Staff Report demonstrates that staff was remiss in not addressing this. The concept or application of "intensity" is not defined or mentioned anywhere in the report. It appears staff and the applicant may have thought "density" and "intensity" as synonymous. S. The area of the site used for calculations go into one of three categories. Building Footprint, Streets- Drives- Parking, and Open space. The proposed allocation of the areas on the site in the staff report show: a. Open space requirements are not met. (42% required but 36.8% provided.) b. Guest Parking is short nine spaces. (this would require additional site area of 3,024 square feet at 336 square feet per space times nine spaces.) By definition, this is an increase in intensity. If both the parking areas and open space areas are deficient, there is only one other element that could be using the available site area, and that is the buildings. This is then causes the increase in intensity because the floor area ratio, percentage of lot coverage and bulk are increased. Item 3: Pages 20 and 24 of the staff report, Code Section 13-29 (g) (1) is cited as findings required for the requested Variances and Administrative Adjustments. 13-29 (g) (1) 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." Technical issues found: 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 provided to demonstrate any "special circumstances" on this property. 2. No projects in the vicinity under the identical zoning classifications enjoying a shortfall of guest parking or open space are provided as evidence that is causing this project to be deprived. Item 4: Pages 20 and 24 of the staff report, Code Section 13-29 (g) (1) is cited as findings required for the requested Variances and Administrative Adjustments. 13-29 (g) (1)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." Technical Issues: 1. 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." It simply makes the assertion. 2. The paragraphs on pages 20-23, which are purported to provide justification of this code section, don't provide any justification but simple describe elements of the project (none of these actually address the code section requirement) Items in the paragraph are: a. Description of the open space and how the project does not comply. b. Proposal of using roof decks and how similar product types use them as well and they don't count towards open space. c. The duplex units provide private backyard space. d. Description of proposed walls and landscape around the Perimeter Open space. e. 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. 3. Those paragraphs are superfluous 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. Item 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 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." Technical Issues: 1. No presentation or description of the "impracticality" or "undesirableness" is provided by the applicant or staff. Additionally, the code states the "planning commission" needs to make these findings. No evidence of this was presented. 2. The staff report assumes the use of roof decks to increase open space could be a viable solution. However, Section 13-60 only allows roof decks for these increases only in the North Costa Mesa District. 3. Wouldn't the applicant or staff have to justify why North Costa Mesa District standards can apply to this project? Would this need some kind of variance? The use of roof decks was simply asserted and not explained. This is not an exhaustive list of technical issues; however, I think these are the most glaring ones. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Anthony P. Massaro 2533 Greenbriar Lane Costa Mesa, CA 92626 January 13, 2017 CEIVE' CITY. CLERK ti X11 PH2-t$ 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 CITY OF CZSfA KES Dear Brenda Green and the City of Costa Mesa Council members,- iYLW� My name is Bob Ponewiez and I live at 446 Elmhurst Lane. I oppose the project 440. This project seems to me to be a complete disrespect toward the people of College Park to put such an obnoxious project as this into our quiet neighborhood by the owner of this property. A lot of people here have put money into their homes and love living here, they shouldn't have to fight a developer for a quality of life in their own neighborhood. Please do the right thing and deny this disproportionate obnoxious project. Thank you, Bob Ponewiez 446 Elmhurst Lane January 15, 2017 To The city of Costa Mesa, 440 Fair Dr GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46 Dear Council Members, tiECEIVED CITY CLERK: As a resident of 40 + years I don't want this in our college park community. It will congest our neighborhood and our streets. The parking will also be very bad. 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 their friends? So there banking on our street to provide parking for! We are also the ONLY Track off of Harbor that has an opening; this should be closed up to prevent more crime and people speeding down our streets to get to Fair Dr. I was happy to hear the planning commissioners denied the project and I am hoping you will also. Thank you, Bob Hill 456 Elmhurst You are more than welcome to come to my home to verify this letter if needed. January 17, 2017 To The city of Costa Mesa Council members, RE: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46 E CEN 1M. CITY CLERK 17 ,lAli 17 PH 2 16 1 As a resident of 19 years I don't want this in our College Park community. It will congest our neighborhood and our streets. The parking will be a mess. As you are aware we already have people from Mediterranean Village parking on our streets. Please deny this project like the Planning Commissioners did. Thanks, Nafey Wennerberg 457 Elmhurst Lane v � in Lr cc January 17, 2017 The Honorable Katrina Foley, Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa, and Ms. Sandra Genis, Mayor pro Tem of the City of Costa Mesa, Mr. Allan Mansoor, councilmember, and Mr. James Righeimer, councilmember, and Mr. John Stephens, councilmember 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: 440 Fair Drive Public Hearing Dear Mayor Foley and Members of the City Council, CITY CLERK {7 JAN 17 PH27 69 sm I am writing to encourage you to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the project as proposed at 440 Fair drive. The College Park neighbors have repeatedly expressed their desire to welcome positive changes by D'Alessio Investments. However, this project, as proposed, requires: several Variances to allow deviations from requirements and encroachments; Deviations from Residential Design Guidelines; Administrative Adjustments for encroachments; and Minor Modifications for encroachments. In addition, this project includes an additional variance for Guest Parking that was not reviewed by the Planning Commission. After consideration of the developer's many requests, this project was denied by a Planning Commission which generally proved to be favorable to redevelopment. I am appreciative of Mr. Sheldon's outreach efforts over the past several years. However, there has not been enough significant changes to this latest version of development. Please recognize and support the Costa Mesa citizens of College Park and uphold the design guidelines of our established General Plan and Zoning Code. Thank you. Sincerely, Teresa C. Drain College Park homeowner since 1998 ____-___ _ _ ____- ___ _l_ �-1� -_�_� ., January 17, 2017 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 Dear City Council members, I have already expressed my feelings about this project to the planning commission so I don't need to give you an emotional or technical reason why this project should be denied. I wanted to let you know that many of us have attended the developer's neighborhood meetings including the last meeting in December, and at this point it's become just wasted time for everyone. The minor changes he makes every time is basically the same lipstick just a different color. Mr. Sheldon has stated many times he is only interested in building 28 homes period, but to do so 7 variances need to be granted. The project is so overwhelming for the site that the planning commissioners voted against 3-0. Please support the planning commissioner's decision and deny this project. Thank you, Costa Mesa resident for over 30 years College Park Homeowner Lori �tob tt 0 e w 0 ca Jan 17 2017 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 44 -+ �1 2541 Greenbriar lane 400 P —e t 'C`F1 CO TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: RE: 440 Fair Drive GP-16-01/R-10-01/PA-16-46 PH -2 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS From: patelaine@reagan.com [mailto:patelaine@reagan.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:01 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Cc: info@collegeparkunited.com Subject: 440 Fair Drive GP-16-01/R-10-01/PA-16-46 Thank you for this opportunity. As I scan this, after reading, I see mostly negative words: encroachment, denied, density, deviation, all of which send out red flags to me. Respectfully, I request that you deny this high-density proposal which will encroach upon our way of life here in College Park. TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair drive GP- 26- 92_R- 10- 01/PA- 16- 46 PH -2 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS From: baharann8 [mailto:baharann8Caemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:05 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.ereenCd)costa mesaca.aov> Subject: 440 Fair drive GP- 26- 92_R- 10- 01/PA- 16- 46 Our neighborhood has a rat problem, the crows help us to keep it in check. If the trees come down on Carnegie many of those crows will be displaced and our problem will get worse Powered by Cricket Wireless January 17, 2017 Mayor Katrina Foley, The proposed 440 Fair project as is, is way over built. I've sold real estate in the College Park neighborhood for 25 years. The current owner of 440 Fair Dr has turned the property into disgusting commercial building, no arguments there. He has even rented rooms on the 2"d floor probably because he can't attract good businesses with the current businesses that he has. There are pictures of the property with one showing an old mattress leaning up against the block wall. This was probably from a tenant that was living there which he evicted. This property needs to be cleaned up at the owners expense not the College Park neighborhoods expense by inserting a high density project into a single family low density. One distressed property is temporary but over building a high density project that isn't similar in scale and character of existing neighborhoods character will be a lasting issue. Zoning Code: Needs too many variances because proposal is over built doesn't meet requirements Anthony Massaro sent in a great analysis pointing out all the variances the developer is asking for which makes this project too dense for the allowed density for the size of the project. His summary is very detailed which points out this project should be denied as the Planning Commission did, it does not meet requirements. Anthony is an architect and has been denied variances that aren't as extreme as what the developer has asked for. I've had clients over the years ask for small variances and have also been turned down. Developer was denied in 2007 when he was asking to build 11 homes, now he's asking for 28 homes. Another architect, Lucien Runge has looked over the project and came up with the same, the developer has blatant disregard for the zoning regulations. Parking: Asking to reduce parking by 9 parking spaces College Park residents have dealt with and are still dealing with parking issues from apartments, condos and townhouses. The developer at 929 Baker asked for a variance to add parking not reduce parking as 440 is trying to do. He asked to make the park .10 acres instead of .1 I acres so that he could add 13 more parking spaces. 440 is asking to reduce guest parking by 9 parking spaces. I've included a map(') of streets in College Park that are dealing with parking issues. How many City Council meetings have parking issues that need to be voted on? Compatibility, Scale and Character? 4 Story vs one story homes in existing neighborhood College Park area has 992 single level homes. There have been 20 to 25 homes that have added a second story but the floor ratios haven't been exceeded by any of these home additions. I've included a page (2) showing that the 4 story roof homes are not similar in scale, character. 'There have been 3 developments in College Park since the original homes were built. I've included a map (3) showing the infill. The developers kept the homes similar in character and scale. West Side Redevelopment: Costa Mesa has tried to redevelop the West Side of Costa Mesa for more than 25 years. It has many, many new 4 story roof top homes which are making that area unique. To keep the progress going, I would think keeping the 3 story/4 story roof top homes unique in that area would help to keep the revitalization going. If any school property was ever closed in the Mesa Verde area or Eastside Costa Mesa, will it be ok to build 4 story roof top homes among the one story or 2 story homes? Overlays are being used to revitalize West Side, College Park does not need revitalizing. Over Building 3 story or 4 story roof top homes? Who will occupy them? The majority of people that stop by my open houses are looking to downsize from a 2 story home or young couples with children and an elderly family member. I had two couples in their 305 come through my open house in College Park this weekend. One couple said they were going to rent the 4 story roof top home for a couple of years but then they want a one or two story home for their permeant home. The other girl said her knees (32 years old) can't take going up and down the stairs of the 3 story home. She wants one story preferable but a 2 story might not be too bad. As a realtor, I see the 4 story with roof tops being rentals for OCC students, which means more rentals in the neighborhood. The developers on West Side have started renting the homes because they aren't selling very well. Some have had them listed for sale and also for rent. Developer misled neighbors from beginning: The developer told the neighbors that the project will improve the neighborhood and increase the prices higher than other side of College Park south of Fair. I've worked this neighborhood since 1992 and the North side of Fair has always been preferred because it doesn't have any attached high density homes in the neighborhood or apartments. This project will actually be a negative for the surrounding homes, not a positive. Some people say this project will come before the people to vote on because of Measure Y. However, this project does not qualify for HDR designation otherwise he wouldn't have to ask for so many variances and it was denied by the Planning Commission. The neighbors hate the condition of the building and its current tenants. It would be easy for the Council to approve it, rather than the City working hard to deal with the owner of the building. The College Park homeowners take great pride in their homes and the neighborhood and prefer to take the hard option. They look at long term. They want to maintain the great neighborhood of single family, one story homes. Many homeowners have called me and asked me to share their feelings. I use to live in Costa Mesa but at this time, I'm writing to give you a view point of a realtor that has worked the neighborhood, seen children grow up and sold homes throughout Costa Mesa. I'm concerned about the patch work of development on West side. Some developers have built 2 story homes and others are building the 3 stories with no rhyme or reason. I don't think Costa Mesa wants to start putting up 3 story/4 story homes every time a commercial property becomes blighted. If a commercial building can change the zoning and build multiple dwellings because it's more lucrative, what will their incentive be to keep up their property? The College Park homeowners that have expressed their feelings feel they weren't being heard by the old City Council. They feel that the developers are able to do anything they want. The project doesn't meet the requirements for HDR, zoning requirements and the Residential Design Guidelines. If one developer can go so far out of the requirements, it would be setting a precedent for other developers. Thanks four time and attention to this matter. Ltn—od artman REIMAX Fine Homes 949-644-2144 Parking issues!!! Attachment #1 College Park has had parking issues because there are not enough parking for surrounding multiple dwellings off of Fairview and Harbor. Occ, Monticello Townhomes, apartments on Fairview, Wilson and Harbor. They are adding 28 units that require a minimum 14 guest parking spots is requesting a variance which would allow only 5 parking spots. The area al- ready deals with trash, late night parking and cars leaving at 2 am in the morning after parties from people that do not live in the area. Below are streets that homeowners already have been dealing with parking issues, they don't deserve to make room for parking for another developments parking. ickne,il Rd ,Arlin Streets that already have parking from apartments and condos. Some have received resident parking only but not all. Attachment—Linda Hartman, RE/MAX (, r r i ickne,il Rd ,Arlin Streets that already have parking from apartments and condos. Some have received resident parking only but not all. Attachment—Linda Hartman, RE/MAX Attachment #2 Residential Design Guidelines: Like in Character and scale? NO Section 3 of Residential Development Information Guide contains summary information on residential zoning regulations There are 450 single story homes between Harbor and Fairview & Fair to Merrimac where new proposed pro- ject would be. Approximately 10 have added a 2nd story but none exceeded the 1st floor to 2nd floor ratio re- quirement. Below is a look showing single story homes versus 4 story with roof deck. Ensure that new structures are compatible in scale and char- acter with existing buildings and natural surroundings within residential neighborhoods. (1. CD -7A. 1, Page 11) Preserve the character and scale of established Costa Mesa's residential neighborhoods (1. CD -7A.2, Page 11) 2554 Carnegie Telephone poles are 34 Ft tall. Proposed 20 units are 38 ft plus roof top living space 434 Elmhurst First street North of 440 Fair property 2502 Carnegie Across the Street from 440 Fair Attachment #3 Infill developments in College Park Previous New homes were built with character, scale and floor ratio requirements Per Costa Mesa "Residential Design Guidelines" frs r ;• ri,, "ancvcr Dr �`�•.;"r•,c� Gr��n Car n F'finretcra Ui S Bvckn-ll Rd r r•� x � L NEISSc:L- Rd :'1 U a r c a zl�.^.' l5 � ^ Mian; Rd Woke '7orest fid an n =a Purdue and 2300 block of Little- ton Built in 1979 homes were 2 story only, single family. Purdue -4 homes 1999 2 story, single family Heritage 1981 8 homes built single family, 2 story Attachment—Linda Hartman, RE/MAX PH -2 - Additional Documents (440 Fair Project) TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair GP-16-O1/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record' PH -2 Additional Documents From: Michael Regan[mailto:mdr@kpsportsmanagement.com] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 6:18 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.ereen@costa mesa ca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair GP-16-01/R-16-O1/PA-16-46/TT-18064 For The Public Record' Dear Brenda, I received another flyer at my house regarding the 440 Fair Drive project. I also attended the last city council meeting. In short, I really hope the council consider's approving the project the builder wants to develop on this property! We've lived in College Park for almost 7 years and want to see College Park thrive. The current shopping center consists of massage parlors (which I doubt actual give actual massages), a hookah lounge and a sub -par Pizza Restaurant. I'd never let my kids near this shopping center... ever! The parking lot is full of a bunch of drug addicts and people attending these businesses. What the developer is prosing makes complete sense for our community and especially if he's open to moving the entrance to Fair Drive and to reducing the number of proposed houses. I'm confident there will be very, very limited issues with increased traffic. Don't give into the "save our college park neighborhood" group. What we have now on that property is a disgrace to Costa Mesa and College Park specifically. Thanks, Mike Regan TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 PH -2 Additional Documents -----Original Message ----- From: ty brown [mailto:ty.brown@mac.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 8:42 AM To: katina.foley@costamesaca.gov; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA. GEN IS@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM <JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; MANSOOR, ALLAN <ALLAN.MANSOOR@costamesaca.gov>; STEPHENS, JOHN <JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: 440 Fair Dr GP-16-01/R-16-01/PA-16-46 0 PLEASE APPROVE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT! With ingress/egress on fair, this is a no brainer for College Park. I am a resident of College park and live off right off Carnegie on Swarthmore Ave. I would be directly impacted buy the traffic the residents claim the new project would produce. Unfortunately, they only hear what they want to and this project would actually reduce traffic in and out of that location. I still feel residents traveling south on harbor may turn onto princeton and cut down carnage to avoid the light at harbor and fair. With that being said, I feel curb build outs on carnegie should be required to be funded by the developer. This would reduce speeds on carnegie and make it a bit more visually appealing with tress. etc in buildouts. The current 440 Fair building must go. It is an eye sore to Costa Mesa and College Park. It has a negative impact on surrounding property values. New residential will bring families to the area rather than the clientele that the current building is attracting with it's seedy massage places, pot shops, tattoo parlors, etc. It's a midway point for the junkies on harbor traveling from motel to motel. My wife and I moved to College Park from Newport Beach. We sold our condo and needed more room to raise a family. My wife is a stay at home mom, we can't afford to live on the east side. We moved her with intentions the west side would one day develop and one day fell like the east side and be a safe, respectable area to raise a family with great schools. Unfortunately, the standard is not the same and the apartments, motels, and illegals impact the west side dramatically. Finally, the group that is leading the charge in College Park to deny this project are afraid of change. I wish that took the same drive and passion and put it into their personal property as most of them live at unmaintained properties in College Park. Thank you for considering the approval of this project. I feel it would be an asset to the city and College Park. Ty Brown 442 Swarthmore Ln 949-205-5285 OB -2 - Additional Documents West 19th St. Bicycle Trail Project M 0 MOAO�13 KAA M'v I 4416il PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITY ALONG WEST 19TH STREET BETWEEN PLACENTIA AVENUE AND THE GREENVILLE- BANNIfVG CHANNEL BIKEWAY fSim i 4S �. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ➢ Mitigated Negative Declaration for CEQA ➢ Categorical Exclusion for NEPA ➢Biological Assessment ➢Visual Technical Memorandum ➢Archeological Survey Report ➢Historical Properties Survey Report ➢Jurisdictional Wetlands/Waters Permitting ➢Coastal Development Permit ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SCHEDULE ➢ Initiate Caltrans Technical Studies, which will inform the MND (Early 2017) ➢ Caltrans approval of Tech Studies (late Spring 2017) ➢ 30 -day Public Review Period for MND (Summer 2017) ➢ Consideration of Project approval by City (late Summer 2017) ➢ Caltrans approval of Categorical Exclusion (early Fall 2017) ➢ Coastal Commission Hearing for Coastal Development Permit Approval (early Fall 2017) ➢ Regulatory Permitting Coordination and Permit Acquisition (late Fall 2017) Segment I TRAIL ALIGNMENT f i 2 1 k 1 I 1 � 1 I I` 1 • QUID .a _• '11112 s --------- ---t---' PROTECTED CYCLE TRACK AT STREET t LEVEL OH ST 0 U LANDSCAPE)POTENftrC PARKING AREA CYCLE r �# PROTECTED '-•-f CYCLE TRACK a !k `4KE LANE _y - INTA IN PARK T '7#44. —.ale Lmm 1.4 ---------------- . Ei 41 AL40Ary J00 Aso Subject: City Council Meeting January 17, 2017 — PAGE 11 v.1, 1/6/17 2. WEST 19TH STREET BICYCLE TRAIL PROJECT OB -2 - ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS From: cbreatore@yahoo.com [mailto:cbreatore@vahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 2:21 PM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.aov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.eov>; STEPHENS, JOHN<JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.aov>; MANSOOR, ALLAN<ALLAN.MANSOOR@costa mesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM <JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.eov>; SHELTON, KELLY <KELLY.SHELTON@costamesaca.eov>; CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: City Council Meeting January 17, 2017— PAGE 11 v.1, 1/6/17 2. WEST 19TH STREET BICYCLE TRAIL PROJECT To Costa Mesa City Council Members and Ms. Shelton, I would like to request that you to deny the West 19th Street Bicycle Trail item from the agenda as referenced in above subject line. A little background: As has been the case of Banning Ranch, and was true for Fairview Park before the protection of measure AA, Talbert Park seems to be the subject of more man made structures. There are already two existing well -traveled bicycle routes through south Talbert Park. There is no need to pave more trails (roads) to access either of these routes. This project proposes a 10 -foot wide concrete road with 4 -foot buffer, a total of 14 feet of hardscape directly through a wildlife corridor containing habitat for endangered birds and other special status species. This road would cause both temporary and permanent impacts to the wildlife. Temporarily in its construction, and permanent in the increased volume and faster traffic into this wildlife corridor. This fragile habitat is already in peril due to the illegal removal of mature willow trees and other native plants along the fence line that borders Banning Ranch over the last 4 years. Likely, in preparation for this project and other proposed projects that have been put on hold i.e., Southwest Costa Mesa Trunk Sewer Line. In the creation of the Habitat Restoration Plan proposed by OC Parks they held two public outreach meetings. The community consensus was to keep Talbert a natural preserve and only to remove invasive non-native plants. There was NO public outcry to put a ten -foot wide road through the park! My wife and I and many of our fellow residents would like to continue to enjoy the park in it's current natural state without adversely effecting the species and habitat with man made structures. Thank you for your time and consideration, Greg and Cynthia Benedict Costa Mesa 949-645-8735 TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: Keep Talbert Park natural 013-2 Additional Documents From: Koken, Debby [HMAj [mailto:dkoken@hmausa.comj Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 8:59 AM To: FOLEY, KATRINA <KATRINA.FOLEY(acostamesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.eov>; STEPHENS, JOHN<JOHN.STEPHENS @costamesaca.gov>; MANSOOR, ALLAN<ALLAN.MANSOOR@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.eov>; SHELTON, KELLY<KELLY.SHELTON@costamesaca.gov>; CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Keep Talbert Park natural There is no need to bulldoze a new bike path through Talbert Park. There are already sufficient bike paths (which could be better maintained). The community has made it clear they want the park to remain natural. Please preserve as much natural open space as possible. Sincerely, Deborah Koken 1778 Kenwood Place Costa Mesa, CA 92627 949-574-0333 The information in this email and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this message or attachment is strictly prohibited. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachment to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the email and all of its attachments. TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: Talbert Park Bike Trail OB -2 Additional Documents -----Original Message ----- From: Michelle Simpson [mailto:Michelle _Simpson@tjx.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 11:11 AM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.gov>; STEPHENS, JOHN <JOHN.STEPHENS@costamesaca.gov>; aIlan. monsoor@costamesaca.gov; RIGHEIMER, JIM <JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; SHELTON, KELLY <KELLY.SHELTON@costamesaca.gov>; CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Talbert Park Bike Trail Honorable Council Members, I hear that you will discuss the paving if the bike trail in Talbert Park and wish to let you know that it is unnecessary and potentially very harmful to the natural esthetic and sensitive wildlife there. We already have natural trails. Paving will disturb the birds and animals. Please do not go forward with this project. Thank you, Michelle Simpson Westside Costa Mesa resident Michelle Simpson Sent from my iPhone I TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: No concrete bike path in Talbert OB -2 Additional Documents -----Original Message ----- From: Jamie MacLeod[mailto:jamie_macleod@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 2:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: No concrete bike path in Talbert Dear Costa Mesa City Council: Please do not approve the proposed concrete bike path in Talbert Park. Just fix/improve the existing dirt road that the bicyclists already use. Talbert, like Fairview Park, should remain in its natural and passive state in perpetuity. Both should be protected by the city because of the rarity (and richness) of the biological, environmental, archeological, and historical elements they hold. Thank you, Jamie MacLeod PS ... what if the city buys the 440 Fair property and turns That into an "active" park to help improve our ratio of open space to population?? Sent from my iPhone TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: City Council Hearing jan 17/ West 19th St Bicycle Trail Project OB -2 Additional Documents -----Original Message ----- From: Kristen Petros[mailto:petrosfam@roadrunner.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 2:24 PM To: CITY CLERK <CITYCLERK@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: City Council Hearing jan 17/ West 19th St Bicycle Trail Project Dear City Clerk, Please forward the comments below to the City Council for the meeting of January 17th. Thank you. January 17, 2017 Dear Mayor Foley and City Council Members, The Orange Coast River Park, Inc. Board met today and would like to forward comments on the West 19th Street Bicycle Trail Project which is on your agenda this evening. As you may know, Orange Coast River Park envisions over 1000 acres of open space from Fairview Park southwards along and on either side of the Santa Ana River and includes the beach areas to the north and south. Our plan is to encourage the connectivity between the parcels of land owned by different entities so that the open space becomes more viable as habitat and is more accessible by people who want to recreate there. The West 19th Street Bicycle Trail Project would be a great addition to OCRP and help further the goal of connectivity. It would benefit bicyclists and pedestrians alike and provide a long needed link into the OCRP via the Santa Ana River Multipurpose Trail, the Greenville- Banning trail and West 19th Street. The Board is aware that the part of the trail traversing Talbert Regional Park contains or is near sensitive habitat and that there may be mitigation measures proposed as part of the project. The Board encourages any mitigation to take place as close as possible to the disturbed areas. In other words, mitigation within Talbert Regional Park is better than elsewhere in Orange County. OCRP, Inc. would be happy to work with staff on this project and is excited about its possibilities. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kristen Caspers Petros Vice -President OCRP, Inc. TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: WEST 19TH STREET BICYCLE TRAIL PROJECT 013-2 Additional Documents Resent -From: <katrina.foley@costamesaca.aov> From: Robert Pelletier <rpelletier@databolic.com> Date: January 17, 2017 at 2:21:37 PM PST To: "katrina.foIev@costamesaca.eov"<katrina.foley@costa mesa ca.aov>, "sandra.aenis@costa mesa ca.gov" <sandra.eenis@costa mesaca.gov>, "lohn.stephens@costa mesaca.Qov"<john.stephens@costa mesaca.vov>, "allan.mansoor@costamesaca.aov"<allan.mansoor@costamesaca.gov>, " jim.riaheimer@costa mesa ca.eov" <lim.rieheimer@costa mesaca.eov> Subject: WEST 19TH STREET BICYCLE TRAIL PROJECT Hello Councilmembers, I've never sent anything like this before but someone pointed out that you have an item on your agenda for tonight related to a proposed bike trail from the end of 19`" street to the Santa Ana river bike trail. I just want to tell you that I believe such a bike trail would be a Godsend to Westside Costa Mesa families and encourage you to support it. I have been a Westside resident for over 20 years and have navigated the existing horrible "trail" hundreds of times over the years with our kids and neighbors. That trail begins with a dangerous adventure trying to get your bike down a steep unstable slope and then has you riding on a rutted, muddy, puddle infested SCE service "road" that would be replaced by this new trail. The new trail proposed would be immensely safer and more convenient! Because the existing trail is such a dangerous mess, it is not used as much as it would be if it were a real bike trail. So often times you find yourself alone on that "road" with some "campers". If this were a real bike trail and there were more people using it I think everyone going down there would feel much safer. Maybe some of those "campers" would find someplace else to camp because of the use and maybe there would be less fires down there too! There are great bike trails through many other wild areas. Those are the best ways for people to get out and exercise and enjoy the nature being preserved for them. Please support this project as it would be an incredible improvement in the lives of thousands of people living on the west side of Costa Mesa! Regards, Robert Pelletier President Databolic Inc. 940 South Coast Drive, Suite 150 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 800-637-4175 Tel/Fax TRAYLOR, MARIAN Subject: FW: Proposed bicycle path Talbert Park OB -2 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS From: Susan Harker <susanharkerAsbc obal.net> Date: January 17, 2017 at 10:16:34 AM PST To: Costa Mesa City Council Katrina Foley <foley4costamesa(,P_'rnail.com> Subject: Proposed bicycle path Talbert Park Reply -To: Susan Harker <susanharker@sbcglobal.net> Please do not approve a paved bicycle path through southwest Talbert Park. Please support habitat restoration for this area instead. A bicycle path through Canyon Park connecting with Talbert Park to the Santa Ana river bike path already exists. It's open and well -traveled. Thank you for your consideration. Susan Harker 1930 Monrovia Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92627 NR -1- Additional Documents Mobile Recreation Program NB -1 Additional Documents J C) 3 N LD, M0 ° D 0 0 M Sponsorship 8 z n v N y Pro9 ra m n: O z Ensuring all Costa Mesb resident youth and teens are afforded an opportunity to participate In any Recreation class or program offered by the City or a partner organization. Sponsorship Lemis • Thank you letter • Recognition on City Website & Facebook Sks 111 dK"A Youth Supporter -$1,000 • Thank you letter • Recognition on City Website & Facebook • Press Release r 11L'. rr.•. Youth Advocate - $2,500 • Thank you letter • Recognition on City Website & Facebook • Press Release • Recognition in a Recreation Guide issue • Parks & Racreatinn Cnmmiccinn Chnirnerenn Tit yi2JIM Youth Champion - $5,000 • Thank you letter • Recognition on City Website & Facebook • Press Release • Recognition in a Recreation Guide issue • Parks & Recreation Commission Chairperson Award • City Council Meeting recognition • Business Card advertisement space in one Recreation Guide issue • Recognition on City Website & Faceboo • Press Release • Recognition in a Recreation Guide issue • Parks & Recreation Commission Chairperson Award • City Council Meeting recognition • Business Card advertisement space in two Recreation Guide issues Business Name: Address: _ Email: Sponsor Amount: $ (Donation is tax-deductible to extent permitted by law) Your Sponsorship will provide fee assistance opportunities to ensure all Costa Mesa resident youth and teens are afforded an opportunity to participate in any Recreation class or program offered bythe Cityor a partnerorganization . Please make check payable to: Costa Mesa Foundation (memo line: Recreation Programs) Mail to P.O. Box 10268 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 For more information contact the City of Costa Mesa Recreation Division 714-754-5300