Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout78-68 - Adopting SP-78-01, North of San Diego Freeway between San Leandro Drive & Bear StreetRESOLUTION NO. 78-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN SP -78-01 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF THE SAN DIEGO FREEWAY BETWEEN SAN LEANDRO LANE AND BEAR STREET. WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Costa Mesa City Council a certain Specific Plan for property located north of the San Diego Free- way between San Leandro Lane and Bear Street; and WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission has recommended the adoption of said Specific Plan as amended at their regular meeting of June 26, 1978; and WHEREAS, public hearing on the adoption of said Specific Plan has been duly held and conducted by the Costa Mesa City Council on the 21st day of February, the 3rd day of April, and on the 3rd day of July, 1978; and WHEREAS, this City Council, after hearing all the evidence, deems it to be in the best interest of the City that said Specific Plan be approved, ratified, and adopted as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that said Specific Plan SP -78-01, as amended, for property located north of the San Diego Freeway between San Leandro Lane and Bear Street, all as shown in Specific Plan SP -78-01 attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, be, and the same is hereby approved, ratified, and adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of July, 1978. 11 Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: 01 City Clerk of the City of Co a Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 78-68 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regu'ar meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of July, 1978. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 5th day of July, 1978. 6 Ci y Clerk and ex -officio Clerkdf the City Council of the City of Cos6A Mesa EXHIBIT for Resolution No. 78-68 Page 1 I I . INTIRODUCTI ON Specific Plan SP-78-01was originally prepared as a result of a Costa Mesa Planning Comunission directive following consideration of Rezone Petition R-77-35. This rezone prcpy_�sed to change the General Agricultural zoning (Al) to Plannod T_-velgpr�2nt Residential - Medium Density (PDR --MD) for a 4.6 acre parcel at the soutlnwc,st corner of BcarStreet and Sunflower Avenue. Tine Co;iunission expressed a concern that the develowirent of this prc>;xrty should be considered along with the larger parcel to the south. I9nese two properties coiprised the orginial Specific Plan Area. Wi th tyle paSSage of the 7,onJnq In] dative in the March 7, 1978 eIect]on, this area lac ilre zoned Rl a7 onq w] th the v;jc< nt p:. CrJ�.L ty `x-,t.ween T?�­.ar St.rc-e t and San Leandro Lane along South Coast Drive ( See Fi ciure 1) . Thus, the Specific Plan Area has been exu.anded to include all the area affected by the 7oni.nq Initiative, a total of 64.29 acres. A previous Specific Plan, SP -1/6-02A, has t _,en for Areas 3 and 4 as shoN-n on Figure 1. licmwever, SD' --76-02A to the previous PDR -LS) and PDR -MD zoning of the area. Should legal proceedings overturn the effects of the March 7, 1978 election, the zoning would revert from the imcyosed RI classi-"ication to the previous classifications. Tnus, SP -78--01 would no longer r• applicable to Areas 3 and 4, which wcx]ld then be governed by SP -76-02-,. This Specific Plan has been prepared so as to consider develop- ment under either R1 or PDR -MD zoning for Areas 1 and 2. Interest has been demonstrated in amendinq the General Plan to a camercial designation for the Bear Street properties. Tnis Specific Plan shall not apply to any area for which the underlying General Plan designation is amended in the future. II. AUTHORITY FOR SPECIFIC PLANS Section 65450 of the Government Code permits local governments to adopt Specific Plans for the systematic implementation of their General Plans. This Specific Plan is intended to implement certain goals and objectives of the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, and Environmental Management Elements of the City's General Plan. III. AREA ANALYSIS The Specific Plan area can be divided into four smaller areas. Area 1 is the 4.61 acre parcel which is the subject property in Rezone Pee on R-77-35. The parcel extends approximately 607 feet west from Bear Street and about 280 feet south from the intersection of Bear Street and Sunflower Avenue. This property was previously zoned Al and is designated as Medium Density Residential by the General Plan. Area 2 is a 13.54 acre parcel which, along with Parcel 1, c Trised the original Specific Plan. Area. It extends southward approximately 1000 feet from the southern property line of Area 1 to South Coast Drive and about 600 feet west from Bear Street. This parcel was also zoned Al and is desig- nated as Medium Density Residential. EXHIBIT for Resolution No. 78-68 Page 2 r JR1 is?_ CP 1 R1 I AREA 1 __ SCHOOL Sp E R (AlI R1 i R1 -- I &R RFA 2 WAKEHAM R1 I I PARK VR 1 Z L— I Al I&R AREA 4 Y— R1 ' AREA 3 I PDR•LDL,'� R1 I PDR -MD I .E4N c>/Hao—F E-Etim y mmm� SP -78-01 LIMITS R1 EXISTING ZONING I PDR I PRE-ELECTION ZONING I Area 3, the largest of the four areas with 37.68 acres, was rezoned from PDR -ND to R1 by the Zoning Initiative. This area includes all the property between the San Diego Freeway, Bear Street, and South Coast Drive which had been studied in a General Plan Report in June, 1976 (GP -76-2A). The General Plan was amended at that time from a Public and Semi -Public designation to Medium Density Residential. A Specific Plan has already been adopted for this area, SP -76-02A, which considered only the PDR41D zoning. Area 4 was also affected by the Zoning Initiative. It is a 8.46 acre parcel located northwest of Area 3 and was rezoned from PDR -LD to R1. This Area was also affected by GP -78-2A and SP -76-02A. All four areas have been used for agricultural purposes and are presently undeveloped IV. PLAN ELEMENTS The elements of the Specific Plan are described in the following sections. These elements take the form of policies, programs, and standards which can be used to implement the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan. The General Plan Elements which are of most concern in this Specific Plan are the: 1) Land Use Element; 2) Environmental Management Element; 3) Hous- ing Element; and, 4) Circulation Element. A. GDMZAL PLAN DESIGNATION Areas 1, 2, and 3 are shown as Medium Density Residential on the General Plan. Area 4 is designated as Low Density Residential. The R1 zone is consistent with both the Loa and Medium Density designations, thus the Zoning Initiative did not create any General Plan/Zoning conflicts. B. ZCNING PLAN Although several zones are consistent with the Low and Medium Density General Plan designations, only the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, and R1 zones are considered. The applicable zoning depends upon the decision of the judicial system regard- ing the Zoning Initiative. Should the Initiative be upheld, the entire Specific Plan Area shall remain zoned R1. Application of the R1 zone to the subject parcels will limit development to single family residential dwelling units. Development within this zone would be the most compatible with the adjacent single family resi- dential tracts but would be the most susceptible to the adverse impacts of noise and air pollution generated by high traffic volumes on Sunflower Avenue, Bear Street, South Coast Drive, and the San Diego Freeway. Typical development within the standards of the R1 zone would permit approximately 316 single family hones to be constructed on the subject properties. Unless additional development standards are applied to these properties, the future residents will be subject to significant adverse environmental conditions. The properties would revert to their pre-election zoning if the Zoning Ini- tiative is found to be invalid. If this should be the case, Areas 1 and 2 should be rezoned from Al to PDI -MD. This rezone would establish Planned Development zoning for the entire Specific Plan Area. The PDR zones permit densities near the maximum allowable if the proposed project fulfills certain design criteria. This flexibility can be used to provide for the attenuation of identified environmental concerns, a feature not provided in the convention- al zoning categories. EXHIHLT for Resolution No. 78-68 Page 4 The following table compares the effects of R1 with PDR -LD and PDR -MD zoning. The anticipated number of units, population, and vehicle trip ends per day are presented. Although it is expected that development under PDR -LD and PDR -MD zoning would result in over twice as many units as R1 zoning, the resultant population would not be proportionately greater. This is attributable to the large household size for single family homes in north Costa Mesa, 3.43 persons per household (See Reference No. 1). Thus, the major population difference is not quantity, but conposition. Development under R1 zoning would result in children compris- ing a larger portion of the population. Traffic generation is also not proportionately different because of the greater number of vehicle trip ends per day generated by single family development. Development under the Planned Development zones would result in a 37 percent increase of vehicle trip ends per day. C. PARK DEDICATION Every residential development within the City is required to contribute to the provision of adequate parkland for its residents. This contribution may be in the form of a dedication of land from the project site or payment of fees for parkland acquisition (See Reference No. 2). The amount of land dedication is based on providing 2.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 persons. Park fees are determined by eonpleting periodic appraisals of existing parks and applying the average square footage cost to the dedication requirements for single and multiple family units. It is the City's decision whether to accept fees or land dedication. The determination as to whether land dedication or fee payment should be accepted can best be made if the ultimate population of an area is known. The Study Area for SP -78-02 is a portion of a larger residential area bound by the San Diego Freeway, Fairview Road, Bear Street, and the northerly city limits. The ultimate population of this area can be estimated by determining the eventual number and type of residential units which will be developed. EXHIBIT for Resolution No. 78-68 Page 5 R1 -SINGLE FAMILY PDR -PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL Traffic Traffic Units Population Generation Units Population Generation AREA 1: 23 79 299 52 911 416 AREA 2: 66 226 858 152 266 1,216 AREA 3: 185 635 2,405 424 742 3,392 AREA 4: 42 144 546 47 161 611 TOTAL: 316 1,084 4,108 675 1,260 5,635 Although it is expected that development under PDR -LD and PDR -MD zoning would result in over twice as many units as R1 zoning, the resultant population would not be proportionately greater. This is attributable to the large household size for single family homes in north Costa Mesa, 3.43 persons per household (See Reference No. 1). Thus, the major population difference is not quantity, but conposition. Development under R1 zoning would result in children compris- ing a larger portion of the population. Traffic generation is also not proportionately different because of the greater number of vehicle trip ends per day generated by single family development. Development under the Planned Development zones would result in a 37 percent increase of vehicle trip ends per day. C. PARK DEDICATION Every residential development within the City is required to contribute to the provision of adequate parkland for its residents. This contribution may be in the form of a dedication of land from the project site or payment of fees for parkland acquisition (See Reference No. 2). The amount of land dedication is based on providing 2.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 persons. Park fees are determined by eonpleting periodic appraisals of existing parks and applying the average square footage cost to the dedication requirements for single and multiple family units. It is the City's decision whether to accept fees or land dedication. The determination as to whether land dedication or fee payment should be accepted can best be made if the ultimate population of an area is known. The Study Area for SP -78-02 is a portion of a larger residential area bound by the San Diego Freeway, Fairview Road, Bear Street, and the northerly city limits. The ultimate population of this area can be estimated by determining the eventual number and type of residential units which will be developed. EXHIBIT for Resolution No. 78-68 Page 5 At present, 1,085 residential units are either built or approved within the north Costa Mesa residential area. The only site outside of the Specific Plan Area for which the exact density of development is not known is the 11.32 acre vacant parcel northeast of the San Diego Freeway and Fairview Road. This parcel is involved in a density transfer with 36 acres of land to the north for which a 189 unit Planned Development project has been approved. The density transfer would allow the 11.32 acre parcel to be developed at an approximate density of 19 units to the acre, thus permitting 215 multi- family units. With this knowledge, and the probable development of the Specific Plan Area under either R1 or PDR zoning, the ultimate population and park land requirements can be calculated as follows: With Rl zoning of Specific Plan Area: Unit Type Units Population Conventional Single -Family X83 3,372 PDR -LD Single -Family 245 840 Multi -Family 388 679 Total,�_1 4,891 4,891 person X 2.5 acres/1,000 persons = 12.23 acres of parkland required. With PDR zoning of Specific Plan Area: unit Units Population Conventional Single -Family __U�7 2,288 PDR -LD Single -Family 292 1,001 Multi -Family 1,016 1,778 Total T,T75-- 5,067 5,067 persons X 2.5 acres/1,000 persons =12.67 acres of parkland required. Wakeham Park is 10.00 acres of developed parkland. Tracts 9866 and 10275 have dedicated 3.19 acres for public park use..-- The total 13.19 acres of parkland meets the standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons. Thus, the City should require payment of in lieu fees for recreational facilities. The amount of fee payment can be estimated by making certain assumptions regarding development in both the R1 and PDR zones. R1 Development Assumptions Forty percent of the homes will have three bedroom, fifty percent will have four bedrooms, and ten percent will have five bedrooms. EXHIBIT for Resolution No. 78-68 Page 6 Calculations: 126 - 3 bedroom homes x S 983.13 a $123,874.38 158 - 4 bedroom homes x 1,260.33 a 199,132.14 32 - 5 bedroom homes x 1,476.32 = 47,242.24 316 homes *Tbtal Estimated Park Fees: M0,248.76 PDR -LD and PDR -MD Development Assumptions The hones built under the PDR -LD zoning of Area 4 will have the same bedroom characteristics as R1 development. One half of the remaining 628 medium density units will have two bedrooms and the other half will have three bedrooms. Calculations: PDR -LD: 19 - 3 bedroom units 23 - 4 bedroom units 5 - 5 bedroom units __47 hones PDR -MD: 314 - 2 bedroom units 314 - 3 bedroom units 28 units x $ 983.13 = $18,679.47 x 1,260.33 28,987.59 x 1,476.32 7,381.60 *Estimated Park Fees: $55,048.66 x $ 718.80 = $225,703.20 x 1,135.66 356,597.24 *Estimated Park Fees: $582,300.44 *Total Estimated Park Fees: $637,349.10 * Based on fees effective June, 1978. Per unit fees may vary before buildinq permits are issued. The inplementation of both the Housing and Environmental Management Ele- ments (See References No. 3 and 4) of the City's General Plan can be encouraged through the environmental inpact review process. This process ensures that the broad scale public interest will be furthered by ascer- taining that major developments are consistent with the goal of providing a high quality living environment for the residents of Costa Mesa. The proposed development standards contained in this plan are the result of the mitigation measures for adverse inpacts presented in the Enviran- mental Impact Report for the previously requested General Plan Amendment (GP -77-28) and proposed zone change for Area 1 (See Reference No. 5), and the Environmental Impact Report for a proposed project on Area 3 (See Reference No. 6) . EXHIBIT for Resolution No. 78-68 Page. 7 The most significant impact upon the study area appears to be noise from the adjacent streets and the San Diego Freeway. The majority of the study area is within the 65 CNEL contour which, according to State standards, is not compatible with residential use unless mitigation measures are in- corporated into the projects. The proposed development standards are as follows: I. Flood protection measures must be taken for any development on this property. The first finished floor of any residential structure shall be elevated at least 2 feet above the existing grade level unless other floodproofing measures are approved by the Federal In- surance Administration. 2. A detailed noise study shall be conducted to identify noise attenu- ation systems, relating to wall and/or berm locations, height and b.�L_'b_4 ss, and setbacks from they freeway, which would be incorporated into the project plot plan for a�-ea� 3 and 4. This study would be accom- by X0'"""'"9 plished in conjunction with and in addition to the tests and desicrn analysis required by the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Article 4: Noise Insulation Standards. 3. The developer of the property shall provide evidence from a licensed acoustical engineer that interior dwelling unit noise levels shall not exceed 45 CNEL and exterior noise levels for all recreational areas shall not exceed 65 CNEL. 4. If the R1 zoning remains, setbacks along Sunflower Avenue, South Coast Drive, and Bear Street shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. The setback line shall be offset or meandered at least five (5) feet for every one hundred twenty-five (125) feet of linear distance. The setback shall average no less than twenty (20) feet. The setback within one hundred (100) feet of any vehicular entrance and exit and along Bear Street between the San Diego Freeway and South Coast Drive shall be twenty-five (25) feet. If the properties are rezoned to PDR -MD, the minimum setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet as es- tablished in the Planned Development Ordinance. The required setback from the Freeway shall be determined by the noise study. 5. A solid opaque wall at least six (6) feet high shall be constructed along the required setback lines. 6. All setbacks shall be heavily landscaped with plant materials and landforms. The perimeter setback shall provide a uniform appearance through the use of similar plant and fencing materials. 7. A detailed landscape plan for all setbacks and renderings of finished elevations of. all walls, buildings and structures constructed along the required setbacks or visible from a public right-of-way shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of building permits. B. A private mandatory homeowners association or landscape assessment district must be established for each development in the Specific Plan area. Such an association or assessment district shall be res- ponsible for the maintenance of their portions of the required set- backs along Sunflower Avenue, Bear Street, South Coast Drive, and the San Diego Freeway. EXHIBIT for Resolution No. 78-68 Page 8 9. Park requirements shall be fulfilled through in -lieu fees collected from the developments. These fees will be applied to parklanc acqui- sition in the same park district. 10. The developer of Area 4 shall provide a street along the northerly 50 feet of the property at the time of development. This street will provide access to and visibility for Wakeham Park. Two pedestrian bridges over the drainage ditch at the southern edge of Wakeham Park shall be provided to allow access to the park. 11. Additional development standards not specified in this Specific Plan, shall be governed by the requirements of the underlying zoning dis- trict. In cases where development standards appear to conflict, the most restrictive shall apply. Additional development standard pertinent to PDR -MD zoning: 12. The privacy of the existing residences to the west of Areas 1 and 2 shall be protected. There shall be adequate distance between the single- family residences and any two-story structure to minimize loss of privacy. A Line -of -Sight Study shall be submitted by the project architect for Areas 1 and 2 as a part of the Preliminary Development Plan for all two-story units with westerly facing windows adjacent to the existing single-family residences. Such a study will indicate specific design techniques (building orientation, architectural details, landscaping, etc.) employed to protect the privacy of the residences to the west. E. CIRCULATION PLAN Sunflower Avenue and South Coast Drive are both designated on the Master Plan of Highways to be impm,.,ed as secondary highways with 84 foot rights-of-way (See Reference No- - ). At the time of development, the developer shall be required to ooVlete the improvements in conformance with the Master 'Plan. The Master Plan of Bikeways, designates South Coast Drive as Route 6 (See Reference No. 8). The combined development of Areas 1 and 2 have nearly a quarter mile of frontage on Bear Street, a major highway. Since some access fran Bear Street appears necessary, one major access point for Area 2 shall be located about 450 feet south of the intersection of Bear Street and Sunflower Avenue, across from. the entrance to South bast Plaza. Future traffic volumes may warrant' a traffic signal at this location. The developer of Area 2 shal ? responsible for 50 percent of the signal-: ization cost and shall osit the estimated amount of this cost. .j Access to Area 1 shall be limited to Sunflower Avenue. This access point shall be located a minimum of 450 feet west of the Bear Street - Sunflower Avenue intersection as illustrated in Figure 2. Preferably, this entrance should be located as far west (approximately 600 feet) as possible. EXHIBIT for Resolution No. 78-68 Page 9 Areas 1 and 2 shall be required to provide for internal circulation. At the time the owner of one of these two properties proposes to develop the property, an agreement shall be obtained from the other property owner as to the location of the connecting point. The devel- opments on both properties must then provide streets which align at this point and must either establish a mutual access easement to permit access to Sunflower Avenue and Bear Street or dedicate the streets. Area 3 shall have its primary access on South Coast Drive directly across from Pansy bane. This intersection will probably require signalization with the developer of Area 3 responsible for fifty (50) percent of the cost. Another vehicular entrance and exit for Area 3 is warranted. Access from South Coast Drive for Area 2 is also required. These access points shall be between 450 and 600 feet west of Bear Street. The owner of the property to be developed first shall obtain an agreement with the other property owner as to the exact location of the access points. Both developments shall align the entrance and exit directly across from each other at this point. Area 4 shall not have direct access from South Coast Drive. Access to the development in this Area shall be provided from the park fron- tage road which will intersect San Leandro Lane at Redding Avenue. The intersection of South Coast Drive and San Leandro Lane is to be signalized and the developer of Areas 3 and 4 shall be responsi- ble for 25% of the cost. EXHIBI'r for Resolution No. 78-68 Page 10 SCHOOL SITE WAKEHAM PARK —AREA 4 546/611 ® TRAFFIC SIGNAL ❑ POSSIBLE SIGNAL CIRCULATION. FIGURE Z CIRCULATION PLAN SP- 78.01 it AREA 3 2405/3392 SNvDIE!y0 )-e—MVW if AREA 1 299/416 AREA 2 '~ 858/1216 it ACCESS POINT 4108/5635 VEHICLE TRIP ENDS I R11 1 PDR 1 GENERATED PER DAY Internal circulation between Areas 1 and 2 . Area 1 access on Sunflower Avenue at least 450' west of Bear Street Primary access for Area 2 on Bear Street across from entrance to South Coast Plaza If signalization from Area 2 onto Bear Street is required, the developer of Area 2 shall be responsible for 50% of cost . Areas 2 and 3 access on South Coast Drive at least 450' west of Bear Street . Primary access for Area 3 at Pansy Lane, developer to pay 50% of signalization cost, if Signalized Developer of Areas 3 arra 4 to pay 25% of cost for signalization of South Coast Drive and San Leandro Lane . Area 4 shall not have direct access from South Coast Drive ro oa ro w 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ncc+r[')r'KI/Ic c 1976 Special Census, C.T. 939.01, Blocks 903, 904, 951-960. Costa Mesa Park Fee/Land Dedication Requirements Housing Element, Program 1, Page 26. Environmental Management System, Goals 1 and 2, Page 19. Environmental Impact Report on General Plan Amendment and Zone (GP -78-2B) May, 1977. 6. Environmental Impact Report on the Bear Street Project, May, 1976. 7. Master Plan of Highways, Revised June 3, 1975. 8. Master Plan of Bikeways, Page 10. EXHIBI`C for Resolution No. 78—�-')8 Page 12 r,