Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 - PH-2 - City Council Review of Planning Applica - 4/6/20211 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 6, 2021 ITEM NUMBER: PH-2 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF PLANNING APPLICATION 20-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP T-21-01 (TTM NO. 19120) FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR AN EIGHT-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE MESA WEST RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP URBAN PLAN AT 1978 MEYER PLACE AND 1979 ANAHEIM AVENUE DATE: MARCH 31, 2021 FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: NANCY HUYNH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NANCY HUYNH (714) 754-5609 nancy.huynh@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt a Resolution to: 1. Find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects); and 2. Approve Planning Application 20-10 and Tentative Tract Map T-21-01 subject to conditions of approval. APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT: The authorized agent is Steve Jones with Olympia Capital Corporation for the property owner, Equimex Holdings, LLC. BACKGROUND: Project Site The project site is addressed 1978 Meyer Place and 1979 Anaheim Avenue. The site consists of two separate legal parcels abutting each other and under the same ownership. The combined project site area is 0.43-acre and contains five residential units (two, two-plex structures for a total of four attached rental units, and one detached rental unit) and two detached two-car garages. The site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density 2 Residential (HDR) and R2-HD zoning (Multifamily Residential District- High Density) and is also located within the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. The Urban Plan allows for flexibility in certain development standards in exchange for quality projects that further the goals of the Urban Plan. Projects proposed under the Urban Plan’s regulations are required to submit an application for a Master Plan subject to Planning Commission review. In addition, prior to submitting a formal Master Plan application, an “urban master plan screening” at the City Council level is required. Urban Master Plan Screening (UMP-19-01) On October 1, 2019, a project concept was presented to City Council. The screening process is an opportunity to determine whether a proposed project concept meets the City Council’s expectations for new projects in the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan (Urban Plan) area. The City Council provided feedback on the application and the applicant modified the project design before submitting the subject application. October 1, 2019 City Council Meeting Staff Report, minutes, and video: Staff Report: http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/council/agenda/2019/2019-10-01/NB- 3.pdf Minutes: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=44392 Video: http://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3456?view_id=10&redirect=true Proposed Project Planning Application 20-10 and Tentative Tract Map T-21-01 (also referred to as TTM No. 19120) is a request for a Master Plan for the development of an eight-unit attached residential common interest development intended for individual ownership under the Urban Plan. The proposed tentative tract map would establish one lot with eight airspace condominiums. The project proposes to utilize the flexible development standards within the Urban Plan in order to increase the density normally allowed under the base zoning district and deviate from certain development standards. The proposed development would include four buildings each with two attached units at four-stories that includes a roof deck level with an enclosed patio. The proposed floor plans feature three separate layouts with two-bedroom and three- bedroom types. The unit sizes range from 1,546 square feet to 2,088 square feet. The existing residential structures on-site would be demolished to construct the proposed project. The proposed deviation requests from the development standards include minimum lot size, open space (development lot and private), parkway landscaping, garage dimensions, and number of building stories. 3 Planning Commission Hearing On February 22, 2021, the Planning Commission approved the proposed project on a 6-1 vote (Commissioner Zich voting no). Over the course of its deliberations, the Planning Commission discussed the project design, requested deviations, and the following topics:  Shade and shadow: discussed the shade/shadow study and the potential impacts to the existing residential developments to the south and north of the subject properties;  Pedestrian connection along common drive: discussed the opportunity to create a pedestrian connection from Meyer Place to Anaheim Avenue;  Maximum building height proposed: discussed privacy of the existing residential developments to the south and north of the subject properties especially at the roof deck level;  Displacement of existing renters: discussed whether the project would displace the existing renters and whether they would be able to purchase a unit at the proposed project;  Affordable housing: discussed the affordability of the proposed project and whether the City could require the developer to provide affordable units; and  Mesa West Urban Residential Ownership Urban Plan: discussed the overall intent of the Urban Plan and its goal of balancing the ratio between rental units and homeownership modified in the future. Five written public comments were submitted and five members of the public spoke at the Planning Commission meeting. Public comments received on the item discussed the proposed height of the building in regards to impacts on privacy, project affordability, and shade and shadow for the adjacent residential properties. The February 22, 2021 Planning Commission staff report and meeting video can be found at the following links: Staff Report: http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/planningcommission/agenda/2021/2021-02- 22/PH-2.pdf Video: https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3658?view_id=10&redirect=true On March 1, 2021, the proposed project was called up for City Council review by Council Member Chavez. The description, details and staff’s analysis of the proposed project is within the February 22 Planning Commission Staff Report which has been included as Attachment 1 to this staff report. 4 PUBLIC NOTICE: Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing: 1. Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. 2. On-site posting. A public notice was posted on each street frontage of the project site. 3. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper. As of the date of this report, no written public comments have been received. Any public comments received prior to the April 6, 2021 City Council meeting will be provided separately. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32), In-Fill Development. Under Class 32, a project site less than five acres in area, no significant environmental effects, consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, has adequate utilities to serve the site, and has no valuable habitat species is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The proposed project is 0.43-acre in size which is significantly less than the five-acre maximum and is also consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Though the project would include deviation, the deviations are permitted under an approved Master Plan. In addition, the project would not result in significant effects on the environment or habitat and adequate utilities exist to serve the proposed project. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the following alternatives: 1. Approve the project with modifications. The City Council may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any of the additional requested changes are substantial, the item may be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or additional analysis. In the event of significant modifications to the proposal, staff will return with a revised Resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. Deny the project. If the City Council believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the City Council must deny the application, provide facts in support of denial, and direct staff to modify the Resolution to reflect the findings for denial. If the project were to be denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. 5 FISCAL REVIEW: No fiscal impact. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the attached resolution and approved it as to form. CONCLUSION: Approval of the Master Plan would allow for the development of eight residential units for home ownership on an R2-HD zoned property within the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. The proposed project would redevelop and consolidate two lots for a new residential development. The project is consistent with the intent of Urban Plan which encourages owner-occupied housing opportunities. Staff recommends the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project. NANCY HUYNH JENNIFER LE Associate Planner Director of Economic and Development Services ________________________________ _________________________________ CAROL MOLINA KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW Finance Director City Attorney Attachments: 1. February 22, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments) 2. Planning Commission Final Resolution 3. Applicant Letter 4. Vicinity Map and Zoning Map 5. Site Photos 6. Project Plans and Tentative Tract Map 19120 7. City Council Draft Resolution Upholding Planning Commission’s Approval Applicant: Steve Jones P.O. Box 1003 Garden Grove, CA 92842 Property Equimex Holdings, LLC Owner: 6055 Jeffrey Mark Street Cypress, CA 90630 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2021 ITEM NUMBER: N-2- SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION 20-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP T-21- 01 (TTM NO. 19120) FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR AN EIGHT -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE MESA WEST RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP URBAN PLAN AT 1978 MEYER PLACE AND 1979 ANAHEIM AVENUE DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2021 FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT / PLANNING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: NANCY HUYNH, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER NANCY HUYNH INFORMATION 714.754.5609 CONTACT: nancy.huynh@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution to: 1. Find that the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In -fill Development Projects); and 2. Approve Planning Application 20-10 and Tentative Tract Map T-21-01 subject to conditions of approval. APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT: The authorized agent is Steve Jones with Olympia Capital Corporation for the property owner, Equimex Holdings, LLC. 1 PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 1978 Meyer Place and 1979 Anaheim Application Number: PA-20-10/T-21-01 Avenue Request: Master Plan for eight -unit residential common interest development located in the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan area with a tentative tract map for condominium purposes. Q Q MPT pRnpFRTV: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone:�v R2-HD (Multiple Family North: R2-HD (Multiple Family Residential, High Residential, High Density) Density) General Plan: HDR; High Density South: R2-HD (Multiple Family Residential, High Residential Density) Lot Dimensions: 49.7 FT x 373.6 FT East. R2-HD (Multiple Family Residential, High Density) Lot Area: 18,562 SF (0.43-acre) West: (Across Ross Street) R1 (Single -Family Residential Existing Developed with five existing multi -family units (four attached, one detached) including two Development: detached garages to be demolished. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPARISON Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan and Residential Common Interest Development Development Standard Req u ired/Al lowed Proposed/Provided Development Lot Size Lot Width N/A 49.6 FT Lot Area 1 acre 0.43-acre 18,562 SF' Maximum Density 1 unit per 2,178 SF (20 units per acre) 8 Units Max Allowed 1 dwelling unit per 2,320 SF (18.77 units per acre) 8 Units Coverage Buildings N/A 27.9% 5,172 SF Paving Circulation and Parkin Area N/A 48.9% 9,082 SF Open Space 40% 7425 SF 23.2% 4,308 SF' TOTAL: N/A 100% 18,562 SF Private Open Space 100 SF / 10 FT Minimum Dimension 155 SF to 375 SF / 5 FT' Building Height 3-stories / 45 FT 4-stories / 44 FT' Distance between main buildings Attached or 10 FT 11 FT to 30 FT Development Lot Building Setbacks: Front 20 FT 20 FT Side north PL/south PL 5 FT / 5 FT 21 FT 6 IN / 5 FT Rear(two-story) 20 FT N/A2 Driveway Width 16 FT minimum 20 FT Driveway parkway landscaping 3 FT minimum/10 FT total 1 FT 6 IN on driveway side 3 FT 2 IN on house side 4 FT 8 IN total' Parkin Tenant (Open and Covered 22 spaces 8 covered / 14 open) 22 spaces 16 covered / 6 open) Guest 4 spaces 4 spaces Total Spaces 26 spaces 26 spaces Minimum interior dimension — garages 20 FT by 20 FT 19 FT 1 IN by 20 FT' CEQA Status I Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 In -Fill Development Projects ' Deviation requested; see staff report discussion. 2 The development has two frontages on Meyer Place and Anaheim Avenue, therefore, has no rear setback. Final Action I Planning Commission 2 BACKGROUND: Project Site The subject properties are two separate legal parcels under the same ownership that abut each other. The combined site area is 0.43-acre (18,562 square feet). The properties are zoned R2-HD (Multiple -Family Residential District, High Density) and have a General Plan Land Use Designation of HDR (High Density Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned R2-HD or R1 (Single -Family Residential). The property to the east is a two-story attached five -unit development; to the west across Ross Street are single-family homes; to the north are a one-story attached two -unit development and a two-story attached four -unit development; and to the south are a three-story detached five -unit development and a two-story detached two -unit development. The subject properties currently contain five residential rental units (four attached and one detached) and two detached two -car garages. The project site is also located within the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. The Urban Plan can be accessed at: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=314. The existing three-story detached five -unit development to the south of the subject property (1974 Meyer Place) was also developed under the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan (Planning Application No. 12-10; approved on September 10, 2012 by the Planning Commission). Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan On April 4, 2006, the City Council adopted the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan (Urban Plan). The subject properties are located within the Urban Plan area. The objectives of the Urban Plan include the following: • Promote economic viability in existing medium -density residential areas by encouraging construction of residential condominium projects that will add vitality to the neighborhood. • Strongly encourage the development of owner -occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership opportunities in the City. • Revise development standards that may facilitate condominium conversion or new construction of ownership housing to realize the vision of the Urban Plan. The Urban Plan encourages two types of developments: conversion of existing developments to residential common interest developments or new construction of residential common interest developments. The Urban Plan allows flexible development standards in exchange for quality projects that meet the Urban Plan vision. Flexible development standards allowed in the Urban 3 Plan include minimum lot size, maximum number of stories and building height, and maximum density. All other applicable development standards for common interest developments contained in Zoning Code Section 13-41 apply to a proposed project. However, the Urban Plan also allows for "deviations" from those Zoning Code development standards. In order to utilize the flexible development standards in the Urban Plan and to request deviations from the Zoning Code, a Master Plan is required. In addition, an urban master plan screening at City Council is required prior to submitting a formal Master Plan application. The screening process is an opportunity to determine whether a proposed project concept meets the City Council's expectations for new projects in the Urban Plan area. The City Council's comments do not set precedent for approval or denial. Rather the screening process allows the applicant to consider the City Council's initial comments and to refine the development concept based on City Council's feedback before moving forward with a formal application. Urban Master Plan Screening (UMP-19-01) On October 1, 2019, the proposed project concept was presented to City Council for an urban master plan screening. The proposed project concept included construction of eight detached residential condominium units, each with an attached two -car garage. The proposed condominium units were each four stories in height (three stories plus a roof deck level). The proposal included three different floor plans for the units, ranging from 1,600 to 1,628 square feet in area, each with two bedrooms, two full bathrooms, and one powder room. The City Council provided feedback on the application and the applicant modified the project design before submitting the subject application (as discussed below). The following is a summary of the City Council's feedback during the screening process: • Open Space: commented on the amount of open space provided at -grade, considering the lack of park space in the neighborhood; • Parking: commented on the parking spaces for the project being provided in two -car garages versus providing open parking spaces on the site; • Shade and Shadow: overall building height and its potential shade and shadow impacts on the surrounding residences; and • Building Design: design aesthetic should be more compatible with the existing neighborhood. October 1, 2019 City Council Meeting Staff Report, minutes, and video: Staff Report: http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/council/agenda/2019/2019-10- 01/NB-3.pdf Minutes: https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=44392 Video: http://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3456?view id=10&redirect=true 4 DESCRIPTION: Planning Application 20-10 and Tentative Tract Map T-21-01 (also referred to as TTM No. 19120) is a request for a Master Plan for the development of an eight -unit attached residential common interest development intended for individual ownership under the Urban Plan. The proposed tentative tract map would establish one lot with eight airspace condominiums. The project proposes to utilize the flexible development standards within the Urban Plan in order to increase the density normally allowed under the base zoning district and deviate from certain development standards. The proposed development would include four buildings each with two attached units at four -stories that includes a roof deck level with an enclosed patio. The proposed floor plans feature three separate layouts with two - bedroom and three -bedroom types. The unit sizes range from 1,546 square feet to 2,088 square feet. The existing structures on -site would be demolished to construct the proposed project. The proposed deviation requests from the development standards include minimum lot size, open space (development lot and private), parkway landscaping, garage dimensions, and number of building stories. Each of the requested deviations are further discussed below. Many of the deviation requests are due to the narrow width of the lots. The applicant redesigned the project based on feedback received during the City Council screening prior to submitting the formal Master Plan application. The application includes the following revisions: • Modified the design to include two attached units within four buildings total instead of eight detached units; • Increased open space at grade from 20.7-percent to 23.2-percent; • Addition of 3-bedroom floor plan type in the unit mix; • More variation in unit sizes ranging from approximately 1,500 square feet to 2,000 square feet; and • Modified the architectural style from contemporary to an eclectic style incorporating beach cottage design elements ANALYSIS: Residential Density The High Density Residential designation in the General Plan and the Urban Plan both allow a maximum density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre on the project site. The maximum density proposed (8 units on 0.43-acre) would equate to 18.77 units per acre which complies with the maximum allowed. Had the project not elected to pursue development under the terms of the Urban Plan, the base R2-HD zoning would have limited development of the two parcels to a maximum of six dwelling units (one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet). By utilizing the Urban Plan, the project is able to increase 5 the density for an additional two units creating more home ownership opportunities in the City and particularly in the Westside neighborhood. Site Design The project site includes two existing legal parcels abutting each other. The developer is proposing to consolidate the parcels as one lot and then subdivide the lot into eight airspace condominiums. The combined existing parcels are long and narrow at approximately 373 feet long and 50 feet wide and total 0.43-acre. The residential units would be located along the southern side of the site with a 20-foot wide common driveway serving the development along the northern side of the lot. The common driveway would be enhanced with permeable concrete pavers and decorative colored concrete. Project access points would be provided at both Meyer Place and Anaheim Avenue; however, the design does not include cross access between the two streets Each unit includes a two -car garage accessed from the common drive. The project proposes to provide 23 feet of backup area with wider garage doors at 18 feet wide. The Transportation Division requires a minimum of 25 feet for backup area; however, the standard may be reduced to 23 feet with provision of a wider garage door (18 feet versus 16 feet). Six uncovered tenant parking spaces are provided between the four proposed buildings and four uncovered guest parking spaces are provided towards the center of the project. The development proposal provides 26 parking spaces in total, which meets minimum parking requirements. Parkway landscaping would be provided along the common drive as well as the side of each house. Each unit includes a rear yard private open space area ranging from 155 square feet to 375 square feet in size depending on the unit type. Common open space is located mainly along the front setback areas on Meyer Place and Anaheim Avenue with additional open space provided between the second and third buildings. The total open space provided is 23.2 percent at grade level. A deviation request is required for both the private and development open space as explained further below in this staff report. Building Design The proposed project would include four detached buildings each containing two attached units. The buildings are proposed as four-story structures with a maximum building height of 44 feet. The first level is the two -car garage; the second level is the main living area (living room and kitchen) with a balcony; the third level includes the bedrooms and bathrooms; and the fourth level is a roof deck with an enclosed patio area. The Urban Plan allows a maximum building height of 45 feet with three -stories so a deviation request is required for the fourth story (roof deck) though the building height itself complies with the maximum allowed. The building design includes wall offsets, significant vertical and horizontal articulation and architectural elements such as second -story balconies to avoid bulk and solid massing. The design will also incorporate elevations with varied roof forms for visual interest and relief as viewed from the street. The roof design includes variation in height. L The exterior materials of the building are stucco in a light color with horizontal shiplap siding in a sage color. The roof material is composite shingle in a dark grey color. As indicated by the project's designer, the project proposes a beach cottage architectural style similar to other projects reflecting the coastal area. In general, the proposed landscaping, materials, finishes, and related architectural features wrap around on all four sides of the building to create a cohesive and internally consistent design. Since the proposed project exceeds two -stories and is adjacent to residentially -zoned properties, a shade and shadow study was required to be submitted per the Urban Plan and General Plan Land Use Policy LU-2.7. In general, shade refers to the effect of shadows cast upon adjacent areas by proposed structures. Shadow effects are dependent upon several factors, including the local topography, height and bulk of the project's structural elements, sensitivity of adjacent land uses, season, and duration of shadow projection. In order to identify the proposed project's potential shadow impacts, morning and afternoon shade patterns were compared for the proposed project throughout the four different seasons: the winter solstice (December 21) when the sun is at its lowest; the summer solstice (June 21) when the sun is at its highest; and the vernal and autumnal equinoxes (March 21 and September 21) when day and night are of approximately equal length. During the winter months, the sun drops lower which casts longer and larger shadows compared to the summer months which casts shorter shadows. Therefore, winter solstice is the worst -case condition. Based on the shade and shadow analysis (refer to Attachment 5, Sheets SD11 and SD12), the proposed buildings would not substantially affect shade and shadow for the surrounding residences since there would still be substantial sunlight throughout the year including during the winter months (worst case). Placement of the development along the south property line also minimizes any shadow impacts on the adjoining neighbors to the north. Floor Plan Type The master plan includes three different floor plans for the units as shown in the table below: PLAN TYPE NO. OF BEDROOM/BATHROOM SQUARE FOOTAGE QUANTITY Al 2 Bedrooms / 2.5 Bathrooms 1,546 s . ft. 2 A2 2 Bedrooms / 2.5 Bathrooms 1,648 s . ft. 4 B 3 Bedrooms / 2 Full Bathrooms / 2 Half Bathrooms 2,088 s . ft. 2 Plan type Al is the smaller units of the three but has been designed to be the two end units that would face the public street on the Meyer Place and Anaheim Avenue frontages. This design would enhance the development by providing visual interest and a more aesthetically pleasing streetscape view than if the buildings were to be oriented towards the interior lot where the side elevation would be facing the public street instead. Other enhancements to the front elevation at the two end units are proposed to include a porch and trellis for the entryway as well as ample landscaping. Plan type A2 has a similar layout as plan type Al but with a larger enclosed patio area at the roof deck level. Plan type A2 is proposed to be located in between plan type Al and B. 7 Plan type B is the larger three -bedroom unit and has been designed to be located towards the middle of the project site in order to minimize the perceived bulk and mass of the buildings from the public street. Deviations from Development Standards The proposed project includes the following deviation requests from the development standards in the Urban Plan and residential common interest development standards per the Zoning Code: DEVIATION REQUEST REQUIREMENT PROPOSED Minimum lot size Urban Plan: one -acre 0.43-acre 18,562 sq. ft. Open space — development lot Zoning Code: 40-percent 23.2-percent at grade 16.7- ercent at roof decks/balconies Open space — private Zoning Code: 100 square feet with 155 sq. ft. — 375 sq. ft. at 5 ft. deep no dimension less than 10 feet Parkway landscaping Zoning Code: Combined width of 4 ft. 8 in. combined width with 1 ft. 6 10 feet (but not less than 3 feet on in. on the common driveway side one side; minimum of 5 feet on the and 3 ft. 2 in. on the house side house side of common driveways) Garage dimensions Zoning Code: 20 feet by 20 feet 20 ft. 2 in. by 19 ft. 1 in. interior dimensions Number of stories Urban Plan: three-story Four-story with roof deck Minimum Lot Size The Urban Plan requires a minimum lot size of 1.0 acre to allow for a maximum density of 20 units per acre. The intent of the minimum lot size requirement under the Urban Plan is to encourage lot consolidation and improve the overall design quality of a proposed project. Minimum lot size under the R2-HD base zoning district is 12,000 square feet (with a maximum density of 14.52 units per acre) and both subject lots individually meet this requirement. There are no lots within this block that would meet the Urban Plan minimum of one -acre lot size. The project proposes to consolidate two adjoining lots into one to create one larger development lot which provides greater design flexibility. Previous projects approved under the same Urban Plan also did not meet the minimum lot size requirement and have been granted deviations from the lot size requirement (including the adjacent development to the south — 1974 Meyer Place approved under Planning Application No. 12-10 on September 10, 2012 by Planning Commission). Though past deviations do not set precedent as each Master Plan request is evaluated on its own merits, the Planning Commission has the flexibility to grant the deviation if it finds that the proposed lot consolidation and resulting lot size (despite falling short of one acre) results in a high quality project and are in the general public interest. Open Space — Development Lot and Private Due to the existing narrow lot width, opportunities for ground -level open space for the development are limited — especially when considering the design for the driveway, parking, and building setbacks. The existing lots are a little under 50 feet wide compared to the typical lot width for multi -family zoned properties which is about 60 feet wide. 0 However, each unit would include a second -floor balcony and roof deck for additional open space opportunities. With the upper level open space areas included in the calculation, the total open space would increase from 23.2-percent at grade level to 40- percent overall which would comply with the minimum requirement. Previous projects approved under the same Urban Plan also did not meet the minimum open space requirement at grade and were allowed to include the balconies and roof decks as part of the overall open space calculation (for example, 2068 Maple Avenue approved under Planning Application 15-08; and 2070 Maple Avenue approved under Planning Application 11-28). Each at -grade private open space area (patio at the rear yard) is only five feet deep, which is five feet less than the minimum 10-foot dimensional standard; however, the width exceeds the minimum 10-foot dimension. Though the depth of each patio does not meet the minimum dimensions, each private backyard area would range from 155 square feet to 375 square feet in size, which exceeds the resulting area of 100 square feet achieved from the required minimum private open space dimension of 10 feet. Parkway Landscaping Due to the narrow lot width, coupled with the requirement for vehicle backup area, building setbacks, and onsite parking, opportunities for parkway landscaping are limited. Providing the required 10-foot-deep parkway landscaping (with a minimum of 3 feet on the driveway side and 5 feet on the house side) would encroach into the required backup area. The applicant is proposing the maximum parkway landscaping possible without compromising safe vehicular access or constructing garages substantially smaller than required by Code. The applicant proposes to enhance the parkway and reduce the impact of the driveway through the use of vines with planter pockets along the decorative block wall as well as decorative driveway paving. Garage Dimensions Again, due to the narrow lot width — the depth of the garages are proposed to be less than the minimum requirement of 20 feet (proposed at 19 feet, 1 inch). Providing the required depth for the garages would affect the required backup area as well as the opportunity to provide parkway landscaping. To offset the undersized garages, a wider 18-foot-wide garage roll -up door is proposed to allow for better maneuvering. The adjacent Urban Plan development to the south at 1974 Meyer Place was also approved with undersized garages that were 19 feet 4 inches by 19 feet 4 inches. Number of Stories The Zoning Code's definition of a "story" includes roof decks. However, the Urban Plan does not specify if a roof deck is considered a story or not — unlike other urban plans for live/work developments in the Westside; therefore, the Zoning Code is relied on to make the determination regarding number of stories. Projects developed under the same Urban Plan have been approved with a roof deck at the fourth level R, (including 2068 Maple Avenue). Even though the proposed development exceeds the maximum stories allowed, the overall height is still under the maximum allowed of 45 feet (44 feet proposed). A roof deck has been a common feature for newer developments on smaller size lots because they provide recreational and open space areas in lieu of a ground -level front or backyard area. Tentative Tract Map 19120 (T-21-01) The proposed tentative tract map would establish one lot with eight airspace condominiums. There are no conflicts with the City's right-of-way or easements and/or other utilities. All utilities that would serve the project have been previously established onsite. Therefore, the tentative tract map is consistent with City codes and the State Subdivision Map Act. All common areas including the common landscaping, driveway and open parking spaces will be required to be maintained by a maintenance association or homeowners' association as stipulated in the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) for the development. The CC&R's would also include provisions requiring that each open parking space be unassigned, available for visitors, and requiring residents to park vehicles in the garage spaces provided for each unit. The CC&R's would be subject to review by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit (Condition of Approval No. 7). GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE CONFORMANCE The proposed project is a residential common interest development of eight units that would be developed utilizing the flexible development standards under the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. The project's proposed density of 18.77 units per acre is consistent with the maximum allowable density for the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation and Urban Plan which is 20 units per acre. The following analysis evaluates the proposed project's consistency with the most applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, Land Use Element. 1. Objective LU-1A: Establish and maintain a balance of land uses throughout the community to preserve the residential character of the City at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure. Consistency: The project is an infill residential project within the allowable density for the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation and the Urban Plan. Adequate infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. 2. Policy LU-1.3: Strongly encourage the development of residential uses and owner -occupied housing (single-family detached residences, condominiums, townhouses) where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. 10 Consistency: As an airspace condominium, the proposed project provides for ownership housing. 3. Objective LU-4A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: The project site is already developed with residential uses. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. In addition, the proposed project would consolidate two abutting properties for one larger residential lot that will facilitate the replacement of five older rental units built in the late 1950s and 1960s with eight new units for individual home ownership. Consequently, the project is consistent with this objective. JUSTIFICATIONS FOR APPROVAL Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(5)(13), Findings for Master Plan and Tentative Tract Maps, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, in order to approve the project, the Planning Commission shall find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets specified findings. Staff recommends approval of the proposed master plan and tentative tract map, based on the following assessment of facts and findings, which are also reflected in the draft Resolution: Master Plan Findings per CMMC Section 13-29(g)(5) • The master plan meets the broader goals of the general plan, any applicable specific plan and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. The Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan envisioned contemporary architecture and infill development that would be complementary to an urban setting. The proposed architecture and site design would enhance the street views on Meyer Place and Anaheim Avenue with units facing the public street with ample landscaping at the project frontage. The larger units would be designed to be located towards the center of the project site to avoid a bulky appearance from the public street. Though the project proposes deviations from the Zoning Code and Urban Plan due primarily to the narrow width of the site, it would redevelop two lots with a high -quality project that will enhance the site and its surroundings. The project would also provide for new housing intended for ownership at a level no greater than can be supported by the existing infrastructure which is consistent with the land use objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed residential project would be compatible and harmonious with the surrounding properties which include a mix of single and multi -family residential developments (including other Urban Plan projects such as the adjacent property to the south at 1974 Meyer Place as well as 2068 Maple Avenue, 2070 Maple 11 Avenue, and 531 Bernard Street) at varying building heights and densities. Although the development is not subject to the City's Residential Design Guidelines, the variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance. • Master plan findings for mixed -use development projects in the mixed -use overlay district are identified in Chapter V Article 11 mixed -use overlay district. The project is not within the mixed -use overlay district; therefore, this finding is not applicable to the proposed project. • As applicable to affordable multi -family housing developments, the project complies with the maximum density standards allowed pursuant to the general plan and provides affordable housing to low or very -low income households, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The project includes long-term affordability covenants in compliance with state law. The proposed project is a residential development intended for home ownership opportunities as single-family condominiums. The units are proposed to be at market -rate; therefore, this finding is not applicable to the proposed project. Tentative Tract Map Findings per CMMC Section 13-29(g)(13) • The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the general plan any applicable specific plan and this Zoning Code. The proposed parcel map is consistent with General Plan Land Use Objectives LU-1A, LU-4A, and Policy LU-1.3, in that adequate infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project; the subdivision allows for a project that would promote homeownership opportunities to improve the balance between renter and owner- occupied housing in the City; the tract map would allow for a residential project that would encourage redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment and neighborhood; and the project would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. The tentative tract map would allow for a new residential project that would not exceed the Urban Plan's maximum allowable density of 20 units per acre and, therefore, would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential. • The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the general plan. The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential, which allows a maximum of 20 units per acre. The proposed tentative tract map would allow for a residential use that would not exceed the maximum density allowed per the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed use is compatible with the General Plan. • The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of tWe design and density of development and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems based on compliance with the Zoning Code and general plan and consideration of 12 appropriate environmental information. The existing property is flat and physically suitable to accommodate four new buildings containing eight residential units. The combined size of the two lots would also be suitable since the proposed development would meet the minimum required building setbacks and driveway length/width. Though the project proposes to deviate from the open space requirement, the project would include a roof deck and backyard area for each unit to provide more open space opportunities. The lot would have one unit per 2,320 square feet of area, which will be consistent with the maximum density allowed per the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation as well as the Urban Plan (maximum allowed is one unit per 2,178 square feet). Adequate infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project and the project would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. • The design of the subdivision provides to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by State Government Code section 66473.1. The tentative tract map would include approximately 23-percent of open space at grade but would also include open space areas at second -story balconies and roof decks for a combined total of 40- percent open space, which would comply with the minimum open space requirement. The subdivision is proposing the most feasible amount of open space at grade given the narrowness of the existing site as well as the required areas necessary for compliance with building setbacks, parking — including minimum interior dimensions for garages — and driveway width/length. This would accommodate landscaping that can be provided throughout the site with adequate setbacks and operable windows, which would provide for natural/passive cooling opportunities. In addition, the tentative tract map would include a private backyard for each individual unit ranging from 155 to 375 square feet in size. • The division and development will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights -of -way and/or easements within the tract. The project has been reviewed by the Public Services Department and there are no conflicts with the City's or other utility agencies' rights -of -way or other easements. No easements or dedications would be required for the proposed tract map. • The discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with State Water Code section 13000). The lot has been graded in the past and contains connections to the public sewer system for the existing multi -family residences onsite. The tract map would allow for a residential project and would not propose physical changes to the lot that would result in discharge into the public sewer system in violation of State requirements. Furthermore, the applicant would be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as Mesa Water District. 13 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32), In -Fill Development. Under Class 32, a project site less than five acres in area, no significant environmental effects, consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, has adequate utilities to serve the site, and has no valuable habitat species is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The proposed project is 0.43-acre in size which is significantly less than the five acre maximum and is also consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Though the project would include deviation, the deviations are permitted under an approved Master Plan. In addition, the project would not result in significant effects on the environment or habitat and adequate utilities exist to serve the proposed project. PUBLIC NOTICE: Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing: 1. Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. 2. On -site posting. A public notice was posted on each street frontage of the project site. 3. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper. As of this report, no written public comments have been received. Any public comments received prior to the February 22, 2021 Planning Commission meeting will be provided separately. ALTERNATIVES: The Planning Commission has the following alternatives: Approve the project with modifications. The Planning Commission may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any of the additional requested changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or additional analysis. In the event of significant modifications to the proposal, staff will return with a revised Resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. Deny the project. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the Planning Commission must deny the application, provide facts in support of denial, and direct staff to incorporate those findings into a Resolution for denial. If the project were to be denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. 14 CONCLUSION: Approval of the Master Plan would allow for the development of eight residential units for home ownership on an R2-HD zoned property within the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. The proposed project would redevelop and consolidate two lots for a new residential development. The proposed project is consistent with the land use objectives, goals and policies of the General Plan. In addition, the project is consistent with the intent of Urban Plan which also encourages owner -occupied housing opportunities. Q, i '+►!4 Associat-- - �1 US" � I Z JENNiFLIR LE Director of Economic and Development Services Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Draft Resolution 2. Applicant Letter 3. Vicinity Map and Zoning Map 4. Site Photos 5. Project Plans and Tentative Tract Map 19120 Distribution: Director of Economic and Development Services Interim Assistant Director of Development Services Assistant City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Marshal File Applicant: Steve Jones P.O. Box 1003 Garden Grove, CA 92842 Property Equimex Holdings, LLC Owner: 6055 Jeffrey Mark Street Cypress, CA 90630 15 RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION 20-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19120 FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR AN EIGHT -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE MESA WEST RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP URBAN PLAN AT 1978 MEYER PLACE AND 1979 ANAHEIM AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Planning Application 20-10 and T-21-01 were filed by Steve Jones, authorized agent for the property owner, Equimex Holdings, LLC requesting approval of the following: 1) Master Plan for the development of an eight -unit residential common interest development intended for individual ownership under the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan on a 0.43-acre property; and 2) Tentative Tract Map 19120 to establish one lot with eight airspace condominiums. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2021 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15332 (Class 32) for In -Fill Development; and WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgement of the City of Costa Mesa. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions of approval contained within Exhibit B, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES Planning Application 20-10 and Tentative Tract Map 19120 (T-21-01) with respect to the property described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for Planning Application 20-10 and Tentative Tract Map 19120 (T-21-01) and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibit B, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the document in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of February, 2021. lanning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, Jennifer Le, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. PC-2021-01 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on February 22, 2021 by the following votes: AYES: de Arakal, Colbert, Russell, Stephens, Toler, Tourje NOES: Zich ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None QWJWIU �UA, Jen ifer Le, Secr Costa Mesa Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-2021-01 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A. The proposed master plan project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(5) because: Finding: The master plan meets the broader goals of the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. Facts in Support of Finding: The Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan envisioned contemporary architecture and infill development that would be complementary to an urban setting. The proposed architecture and site design would enhance the street views on Meyer Place and Anaheim Avenue with units facing the public street with ample landscaping at the project frontage. The larger units would be designed to be located towards the center of the project site to avoid a bulky appearance from the public street. Though the project proposes deviations from the Zoning Code and Urban Plan due primarily to the narrow width of the site, it would redevelop two lots with a high -quality project that will enhance the site and its surroundings. The project would also provide for new housing intended for ownership at a level no greater than can be supported by the existing infrastructure which is consistent with the land use objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed residential project would be compatible and harmonious with the surrounding properties which include a mix of single and multi -family residential developments (including other Urban Plan projects such as the adjacent property to the south at 1974 Meyer Place as well as 2068 Maple Avenue, 2070 Maple Avenue, and 531 Bernard Street) at varying building heights and densities. Although the development is not subject to the City's Residential Design Guidelines, the variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance. Finding: Master plan findings for mixed -use development projects in the mixed -use overlay district are identified in Chapter V, Article 11, mixed -use overlay district Facts in Support of Finding: The project is not within the mixed -use overlay district; therefore, this finding is not applicable to the proposed project. Finding: As applicable to affordable multi -family housing developments, the project complies with the maximum density standards allowed pursuant to the general plan and provides affordable housing to low or very -low income households, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The project includes long-term affordability covenants in compliance with state law. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project is a residential development intended for home ownership opportunities as single-family homes. The units are proposed to be at market -rate; therefore, this finding is not applicable to the proposed project. B. The proposed tentative parcel map complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(13) because: Finding: The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed parcel map is consistent with General Plan Land Use Objectives LU-1A, LU-4A, and Policy LU-1.3, in that adequate infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project; the subdivision allows for a project that would promote homeownership opportunities to improve the balance between renter and owner- occupied housing in the City; the tract map would allow for a residential project that would encourage redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment and neighborhood; and the project would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. The tentative tract map would allow for a new residential project that would not exceed the Urban Plan's maximum allowable density of 20 units per acre and, therefore, would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential, which allows a maximum of 20 units per acre. The proposed tentative tract map would allow for a residential use that would not exceed the maximum density allowed per the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed use is compatible with the General Plan. Finding: The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the Zoning Code and General Plan, and consideration of appropriate environmental information. Facts in Support of Finding: The existing property is flat and physically suitable to accommodate four new buildings containing eight residential units. The combined size of the two lots would also be suitable since the proposed development would meet the minimum required building setbacks and driveway length/width. Though the project proposes to deviate from the open space requirement, the project would include a roof deck and backyard area for each unit to provide more open space opportunities. The lot would have one unit per 2,320 square feet of area, which will be consistent with the maximum density allowed per the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation as well as the Urban Plan (maximum allowed is one unit per 2,178 square feet). Adequate infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project and the project would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. Finding: The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by State Government Code Section 66473.1. Facts in Support of Finding: The tentative tract map would include approximately 23-percent of open space at grade but would also include open space areas at second -story balconies and roof decks for a combined total of 40-percent open space, which would comply with the minimum open space requirement. The subdivision is proposing the most feasible amount of open space at grade given the narrowness of the existing site as well as the required areas necessary for compliance with building setbacks, parking — including minimum interior dimensions for garages — and driveway width/length. This would accommodate landscaping that can be provided throughout the site with adequate setbacks and operable windows, which would provide for natural/passive cooling opportunities. In addition, the tentative tract map would include a private backyard for each individual unit ranging from 155 to 375 square feet in size. Finding: The division and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights -of -way and/or easements within the tract. Facts in Support of Finding: The project has been reviewed by the Public Services Department and there are no other conflicts with the City's or other utility agencies' rights -of -way or other easements. No easements or dedications would be required for the proposed tract map. Finding: The discharge of sewage from this subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code). Facts in Support of Finding: The lot has been graded in the past and contains connections to the public sewer system for the existing multi -family residences onsite. The tract map would allow for a residential project and would not propose physical changes to the lot that would result in discharge into the public sewer system in violation of State requirements. Furthermore, the applicant would be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District. C. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32), In -Fill Development. Under Class 32, a project site less than five acres in area, no significant environmental effects, consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, has adequate utilities to serve the site, and has no valuable habitat species is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The proposed project is 0.43-acre in size which is significantly less than the five acre maximum and is also consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Though the project would include deviation, the deviations are permitted under an approved Master Plan. In addition, the project would not result in significant effects on the environment or habitat and adequate utilities exist to serve the proposed project. D. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that the development project's traffic impacts would be mitigated at all affected intersections by the payment of traffic impact fees. EXHIBIT B Ping. 1. The expiration of Planning Application 20-10 shall coincide with the expiration of the approval of the Tentative Tract Map 19120 (T-21-01) which is valid for two years (February 22, 2023). Approval will expire at the end of that period unless applicant establishes the use by one of the following actions: 1) a building permit has been issued and construction has commenced, and has continued to maintain a valid building permit by making satisfactory progress as determined by the Building Official or 2) a certificate of occupancy has been issued. A time extension can be requested no less than 30 days or more than 60 days before the expiration date of the permit and submitted with the appropriate fee for review to the Planning Division. The Director of Development Services may extend the time for an approved permit or approval to be exercised up to 180 days subject to specific findings listed in Title 13, Section 13-29(k)(6). Only one request for an extension of 180 days may be approved by the Director. Any subsequent extension requests shall be considered by the original approval authority. 2. The conditions of approval for PA-20-10 and Tentative Tract Map 19120 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 3. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, change of architectural type, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Elevations shall not be modified unless otherwise approved by Development Services Director as consistent with the architectural design and features of the proposed development. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 4. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 30 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional dirt is needed to provide acceptable on -site storm water flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may include subsurface tie- in to public storm water facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. Applicant is advised that recordation of a drainage easement across the private street may be required to fulfill this requirement. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan shall feature methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring residential uses to the fullest extent that is reasonable and practicable. The plan shall include construction parking and vehicle access and specifying staging areas and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan shall minimize disruption to residents during construction. The truck route plan shall preclude truck routes through residential areas and major truck traffic during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200 trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or Transportation Services Manager. 6. The applicant shall defend with attorneys of City's choosing, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of City's approval of the project, including but not limited to any proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Planning Division for review by the Development Services Director and City Attorney's Office. The CC&Rs must be in a form and substance acceptable to, and shall be approved by the Development Services Director and City Attorney's Office. a. The homeowners' association shall be established prior to the sale of any unit(s). b. Membership shall be mandatory for each owner and any successive owner. c. The CC&Rs shall contain restrictions requiring residents to park vehicles in garage spaces provided for each unit. Storage of other items may occur only to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the required garage at the number of which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. d. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions requiring that the maintenance or homeowner's association effectively manage parking and contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations. e. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions on the common driveway approach and ground rules related to: architectural control over future building modifications or additions, architectural design and guidelines for the property, and engagement in alternative dispute resolution before filing a lawsuit to resolve conflicts. f. Any subsequent revisions to the CC&Rs related to these provisions must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office and the Development Services Director before they become effective. The Development Services Director has the discretion to request any other provisions in the CC&Rs to promote self -governance. 8. A minimum of 18-foot wide garage door shall be required for each two -car garage in order to allow the reduced 23-foot back out distance. 9. Parking of vehicles within the private drive shall not be permitted and shall only be permitted in the designated parking spaces approved for the development. 10. The proposed second and third -story windows, second -story balconies, and roof decks shall be frosted, offset, elevated or incorporate other appropriate screening methods as determined by the Planning Division to ensure reasonable privacy is maintained for the project site and existing surrounding residential properties. 11. The common driveway shall be enhanced with decorative concrete pavers and colored concrete. The final landscape plan shall indicate the design/material of paved areas and shall be submitted at the time of plan check and approved by the Development Services Director or designee prior to issuance of building permits. 12. The parkway landscaping strip along the common drive shall be enhanced through the use of vines with planter pockets along a decorative block wall. The final landscape plan shall indicate the landscape palette and design for the decorative block wall and parkway landscaping. The plan shall be submitted at the time of plan check and approved by the Development Services Director or designee prior to issuance of building permits. 13. For proposed development adjacent to residentially -zoned properties that exceeds two stories, developer shall submit a shade/shadow analysis prepared by a professional aesthetic consultant. The conclusions of the aesthetic analysis shall specifically demonstrate that adequate daylight plane requirements for the abutting residential uses are provided. 14. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy/utilities. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 15. Prior to final inspections, the applicant shall provide a scaled and dimensioned digital site plan(s) for the project site, on either a CD or thumb drive, to the Planning Division. All site plans shall include an accurate and precise drawing of all building footprints and property line locations for the entire project site. All buildings shall be annotated with its corresponding address and suites if applicable. CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping. 1. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 2. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contact the US Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 4. Street addresses shall be displayed on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or front door in a manner visible from the private street. Numerals shall be a minimum 6 inches in height with not less than'/2-inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 5. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of individual units, suits, building, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 6. All on -site utility services shall be installed underground. 7. Installation of all new utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure the installation from view from any place on or off the property. The installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the public utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box under the direction of the Planning Division. 8. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 9. Transformers, backflow preventers, and any other approved above- ground utility improvement shall be located outside of the required street setback area and shall be screened from view, under direction of Planning staff. Any deviation from this requirement shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Director. 10. Two sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Final landscape plans shall generally be consistent with the preliminary landscape plans. The final landscape plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. 11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 12. The landscaping of this project shall comply with the City's landscaping requirements and any applicable guidelines (i.e. Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines). 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay a park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. The park impact fee shall be calculated based on the single-family residence fee rate applicable at the time of building permit issuance. 14. The applicant shall provide proof of final recordation of Tentative Parcel Map 19120. The final subdivision map shall be recorded with the County prior to issuance of precise grading permits or building permits for the proposed development. 15. Prior to final map recordation, the applicant shall file and record the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) on the property. A copy of the recorded CC&R's shall be provided to the Planning Division. 16. The applicant shall install a six-foot high decorative block wall around the perimeter of the proposed development lot. Where walls on adjacent properties already exist, the applicant shall work with the adjacent property owner(s) to prevent side -by -side walls with gaps in between them and/or provide adequate privacy screen by trees and landscaping. 17. Trash receptacles shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. All units shall be provided with a small alcove or other designated area inside or outside the unit to allow storage of at least three trash receptacles without encroaching into the interior garage space. The final location of the designated trash receptacle area shall be indicated on the plans submitted for plan check. Bldg. 18. Comply with the requirements of the adopted, 2019 California Residential Code or the 2019 California Building Code, 2019 California Electrical code, 2019 California Mechanical code, 2019 California Plumbing code, 2019 California Green Building Standards Code and 2019 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted, California Residential Code, California Building code California Electrical code, California Mechanical code California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Two separate plans for each address shall be submitted to the Building Division for review. 19. Prior to the Building Division (AQMD) issuing a demolition permit, contact South Coast Air Quality Management District located at: 21865 Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Tel: 909-396-2000 OR Visit their web site: http://www.costamesaca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid =23381 The Building Division will not issue a demolition permit until an identification number is provided by AQMD. 20. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants (RIFA) exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Call CDFA at (714) 708- 1910 for information. 21. Submit precise grading plans, an erosion control plan and a hydrology study. If it is determined that a grading plan is not required, a drainage plan shall be provided. Each parcel and address shall have a separate precise grading plan. A precise grading and a hydrology report plan shall not be required if any of the following are met: 1. An excavation which does not exceed 50 CY on any one site and which is less than 2 ft in vertical depth, or which does not create a cut slope greater than 1 '/2:1 (excluding foundation area). 2. Afill less than 1 foot in depth placed on natural grade with a slope flatter than 5:1, which does not exceed 50 CY on any one lot and does not obstruct a drainage course. 3. A fill less than 3 ft. in depth, not intended to support structures, which does not exceed 50 CY on any one lot and does not obstruct a drainage course. 22. On graded sites, the top of exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved discharge devise a minimum of 12 inches plus two percent (2%). 2016 California Residential Code CRC 403.1.7.3 23. The lot shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of 6 inches within the first 10 feet. CRC R401.3. 24. Submit a soil's report for the project. Soil's Report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and the precise grading plans. Fire 25. Comply with the requirements of the 2019 California Fire Code and referenced standards as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Eng. 26. The Tract Map shall be developed in full compliance with the State Map Act and the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC), except as authorized by the Costa Mesa City Council and/or Planning Commission. The attention of the Subdivider and his engineer is directed to Section 13- 208 through 13-261 inclusive, of the Municipal Code. 27. The Subdivider shall conduct soil investigations and provide the results to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering and Building Division pursuant to Ordinance 97-11. 28. Two copies of the Final Map shall be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering Division for checking. Map check fee shall be paid per CMMC Section 13-231. 29. A current copy of the title search shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. 30. Dedicate an ingress/egress easement to the City for emergency and public security vehicles purposes only. Maintenance of easement shall be the sole responsibility of a Homeowners Association formed to conform to Section 13-41(e) of the CMMC. 31. Vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Meyer Place and Anaheim Avenue shall be released and relinquished to the City of Costa Mesa except at approved access locations. 32. At the time of development, submit for approval an Offsite Plan to the Engineering Division and Grading Plan to the Building Division that shows Sewer, Water, Existing Parkway Improvements and the limits of work down on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or Architect. Cross lot drainage shall not occur. Constriction Access approval must be obtained prior to Building or Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. Pay Offsite Plan Check fee per Section 13-29(2)(b) of the CMMC and an approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. 33. Maintain the public Right -of -Way in a "wet down" condition to prevent excessive dust and remove any spillage from the public Right -of -Way by sweeping or sprinkling. 34. Submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee construction of off -site street improvements at time of permit per Section 15-32, CMMC and as approved by City Engineer. Cash deposit or surety bond amount to be determined by City Engineer. 35. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of the development and then construct P.C.C. sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. 36. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct drive approaches as shown on the Offsite Plan. 37. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, Street Improvement that show Sewer and Water Improvements, prepared by a Civil Engineer. 38. Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Draining Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of Final Tract Map. 39. The Subdivider's engineers shall furnish the Engineering Division a storm runoff study to the City of Costa Mesa showing existing and proposed facilities and the method of draining this area and tributary areas without exceeding the capacity of any street or drainage facility on -site or off -site. This study to be furnished with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. Cross lot drainage shall not occur. 40. In order to comply with the latest DAMP, the proposed Project shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Model WQMP, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering Division for review and approval. • A WQMP (Priority or Non -Priority) shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. • Location of BMPs shall not be within the public Right -of -Way. 41. Ownership and maintenance of the private on -site drainage facilities, BMPs, parkway culverts and other common areas shall be transferred by the Owner to the Homeowner Association to hold harmless the City of Costa Mesa for any liability arising out of or in any way associate with the connection of the private draining system with the City's drainage system and shall execute and deliver to the City of Costa Mesa the standard (indemnity) Hold Harmless Agreement required for such conditions prior to issuance of permits. 42. Sewer Improvements shall meet the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; call`(949) 631-1731 for information. 43. Water system improvements shall meet the approval of Mesa Water District; call (949) 631-1200 for information. 44. Dedicate easements as needed for public utilities. 45. Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, the surveyorlengineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 46. Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital -graphics file of said map in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 47. Survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and replaced after construction, pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Profession Code. 48. The elevations shown on all plans shall be on the Orange County benchmark datum. 49. Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee monumentation. Deposit amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 50. Prior to occupancy on the Tract, the surveyor/engineer shall submit to the City Engineer Digital Graphic File, reproducible mylar of the recorded Tract Map, and approved off -site plan and nine copies of the recorded Tract Map. Trans. 51. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay a Traffic Impact Fee to the Transportation Division. The fee is required in an amount determined by the Transportation Division pursuant to the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council. The fee will be calculated at the time of issuance of building permits with consideration of standardized trip generation ratios for proposed uses and includes credits for existing uses. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani. 1. Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 654-8400 for any additional district requirements. Water 2. Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District — Engineering Desk and submit an application and plans for project review. Customer must obtain a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water District. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay the applicable connection fees charged to new development by the Mesa Consolidated Water District. School 4. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. SCE 5. The applicant shall comply with guidelines provided by Southern California Edison Company with respect to easement restrictions, construction guidelines, and potential amendments to right-of-way in the areas of any existing Southern California Edison Company easements. 8-Unit Residential Development 1978 Meyer Place - 1979 Anaheim Ave. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION Page 1 of 4 The property is a 0.43-acre (18,562 sq. ft.) site located on two separate legal parcels under common ownership and which contains three existing units with detached garages. For its location, please refer to the map in Attachment 1. The property is zoned R2-HD (Multiple- Family Residential, High Density) and has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential. With the current zoning designation, a maximum of 6 units could be built at a density of 14.5 du/acre (1 unit per 3,000sq. ft.). However, the property is also located within the 2006 Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan which provides a process to allow for an increase in density to 1 dwelling unit per 2,178 square feet (20 du/acre) in order to encourage/incentivize the development of owner-occupied housing in the immediate area. Applying the criteria under the Urban Plan increases the development potential up to 8 units. The property is immediately adjacent (to the north) of a recently developed site at 1974 Meyer Place processed under the same Urban Plan criteria and approved in 2012 (see planning application Master Plan PA-12-10). This adjacent project has been well received by the market and has been handsomely maintained since its completion. This adjacent project is a fine example of the private redevelopment of property that the City intended to encourage within the Urban Plan area. The proposed project is for an 8-unit single family attached residential development in 4 sets of duet homes. The property is composed of two legal parcels which shall be combined into one subdivided lot with a condominium parcel map and processed under the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan overlay and the Residential Common Interest Development code all consistent with the R2-HD (Multi Family Residential – High Density) zone. 8 units developed on the property would equate to 18.77 du/acre which would be below the maximum allowed of 20du/acre. The proposed units are to be 3 separate plans with varying elevations in a beach cottage architectural style similar to the many projects being built in the immediate coastal area. The proposed design style allows for maximum utilization of the interior space where the majority of time is spent by each resident. The elevations of the units are enhanced with wall offsets, significant vertical and horizontal articulation and architectural elements to allow for a pleasing look to the eye and clearly avoids the solid massing identified in the Urban Plan Strategy D3. The design incorporates a significant roof terrace/garden area which will provide for substantial open space privacy and take advantage of the cooling sea breeze. Six of the proposed units are 2 bedroom 2.5 baths carriage units and are approximately 1,546 & 1,648 square feet in size. There are two 3-bedroom 2/2 bath larger units at the rear of each drive isle. Each unit shall be upgraded with a tankless water heater and shall have an energy efficient heating system with built in air-conditioning and slim AC condensers located at grade. Solar panels will be incorporated into the design and installed to meet the upcoming new energy code which went into effect earlier this year. Unit vehicular access shall be provided with a common driveway enhanced with permeable concrete pavers and colored concrete. 26 parking spaces are provided to meet the minimum Page 2 of 4 Meyer Place Project Description 02-10-2021.docx code requirements with 2 spaces in a private attached garage for each individual unit plus an additional 10 uncovered guest parking spaces. Current design standards advise 25’ of backup distance with an option to reduce this dimension to 23’ minimum from the garage face by increasing the garage door width to 18.0’. Because of the narrowness of the site, we have increased the garage door width to allow for 23’3” of backup distance to allow for as much parkway landscaping area as possible in front of the opposing perimeter wall and the minimum of 5’ of side yard setback. The project shall be completely landscaped and dramatically exceeds the code requirements for shrubbery. The landscaping is designed to complement and enhance the proposed architectural style. Private open space for each unit shall be provided by a significant roof terrace for each separate unit. A new slump stone wall adjacent to the common driveway on the north will be covered in vines and, in combination with the planter pockets and trees within, will effectively allow this wall to disappear behind a veil of greenery. A new wall was built on the previously mentioned project at 1974 Meyer place. An extension of this new adjacent wall would be built to separate the project from the project to the south at 1971 Anaheim Place. On a very positive note, the development of this project provides for a solution to inadequate drainage on the site and immediate area. Unlike the new project located at 1974 Meyer place and because the site is now is connected to both Meyer Place and Anaheim Ave., it allows for development of this site without the need for a sewer lift station or drainage easements over adjacent properties. Storm drainage and flooding has been a significant problem in this location and the development of this property will address and solve those issues. The project is located on a narrow rectangular site that is 49.68’ wide by 373.63’ deep. As previously mentioned, the proposed density of the project is within that allowed under the Urban plan and R2-HD zone, however, the property is unusually narrow in its configuration and which poses some unique constraints in meeting all of the necessary code requirements. In order that the project enjoy the same privileges of others in the same vicinity and zoning classification, the Urban plan allows for flexible development standards in return for a superior project design. Implementing flexible standards to allow for the following deviations would allow our proposed project to meet the intent of the code and Mesa West Residential Urban Plan: Deviation 1: Lot Size (one-acre lot required, 0.43 proposed) Though this lot does not meet the minimum 1-acre size, combined with the newly built adjacent project at 1974 Meyer place and the newer adjacent projects at 1971 & 1985 Anaheim Ave., these properties combined are 1.13 acres in total area. The urban plan incentivizes new development through a consolidation of parcels by calling for the 1 acre minimum to allow for flexible standards and density bonus. Since the adjacent parcels have already been newly developed, it is impractical for this site to meet this minimum standard, however, in the context of the overall area, the development of the site as proposed is consistent with the adjacent properties and the intent of the Urban Plan to encourage the development of owner-occupied housing. Page 3 of 4 Meyer Place Project Description 02-10-2021.docx Deviation 2: Total Open Space (40% required, 23.2% proposed at grade. With the addition of private balconies and roof decks, private open space increases to 40%) - Given the extreme narrowness of the site which severely limits design options, the developer is proposing enhanced hardscape and landscaping and superior architecture in conjunction with balconies and substantial roof terraces to provide for a far more usable private open space area. The adjacent property at 1974 Meyer Place was approved for 24.5% at grade and 27.1% open space with balconies included in the calculation and with a very similar development layout to the proposed project (See planning application Master Plan PA-12-10). The proposed project has significantly improved upon and increased the usable private open space area over the adjacent approved plan with 40% of private open space planned inclusive of balconies and roof terraces. This deviation is also consistent within other areas of the code that allow for a “deck’ with a minimum area of 100 square feet where it is impractical to require one at ground level (see Code section 13-60(e) and Table 13-83.64). Deviation 3: Private Open Space Minimum Dimension. (10’ required, 5’ proposed) Again, given the extreme narrowness of the site which severely limits design options, the developer is proposing enhanced hardscape and landscaping and superior architecture in conjunction with balconies and a substantial roof terrace area. Even though each unit has between 155 to 375 sq. ft. of open space at grade with a minimum dimension reduced to 5’, the additional significant open space area provided for on the roof terrace will be where each resident will enjoy the most practical use. The average size of the roof terraces is approximately 261 sq. ft with a minimum 14 to 15’ in width and 15’ to 20’ in length. This ample size will make for a very usable open space area and that will take advantage of the significant views about town and the cooling summer sea breeze. Some of the uses this roof terrace area can be used for would be a roof top garden, BBQ’s and/or other general socializing or relaxing. Deviation 4: Parkway Landscaping (10’ width combined, 4’ 8” proposed) – Again, with the extreme narrowness of the site limiting the design options, the developer is proposing the maximum amount width of area left after designing for adequate vehicle backup area, drive isle width and minimum side yard setbacks. The adjacent property at 1974 Meyer Place was approved with approximately 1’ of parkway landscaping. The proposed project has significantly improved upon and increased the provided parkway landscaping area over the adjacent approved plan. Combined, the perimeter wall covered in vines along with the landscaping provided in front of each unit will significantly improve the visual look over recently approved projects. Page 4 of 4 Meyer Place Project Description 02-10-2021.docx Deviation 5: Garage Size – A standard garage is required to be 20’ X 20’ inside and again, due to the narrowness of the site, 20’2”w X 19’-1”d is proposed on each of the units. Design standards advise 25’ of backup distance; 23’2” is provided to allow for a minimum landscape area along the opposing perimeter wall. To help mitigate these conditions, a wider than normal garage door (18’ vs. 16’) is proposed to allow for the slightly smaller garage depth and for superior maneuvering capability from the opposing perimeter wall. Deviation 6: 4 story vs. 3 story. (3 story allowed; 4 story proposed) The Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan is silent as to whether a roof terrace is considered a story. Other urban overlay areas do address this and do not consider a rooftop terrace as a story (see code section 13-83.64 - Residential incentive overlay district development standards). Given that the Urban Plan this project is located in is silent as to this issue, it defaults to the definition of a “story” in the code and which technically makes the project 4 stories. There have been other projects recently approved within the Mesa West Urban Plan (see PA- 15-08) allowing for roof top decks on top of the 3rd story. The overall project is below the allowed height of 45’ at 44’, however, the vast majority of the units are only 34’ above grade and the 44’ section is only where the enclosed roof deck areas are located. As previously described in deviation 2 and 3 above, we believe this deviation is justified give the utility and significant benefits of the private open space roof terrace to the resident. Deviations 2 thru 5 above are required because of the narrowness of the site. Working with staff, we have designed a site and landscape plan which allows for the property to function well, be aesthetically pleasing and meet the intent of the code with these deviations. Combined, this project with the requested deviations would result in a continuation of the re-development of the area with new attractive owner-occupied housing and that avoids solid massing. 1978 Meyer Place - 1979 Anaheim Ave. ELEVATION DESCRIPTION Units A1 What Color Stucco wall LH to match SW9116 (Serengeti Grass) Horizontal siding SW9116 - Serengeti Grass Stucco Accents LH to match field color Trim and Exterior Doors SW 7004 - Snowbound Metal standing seam roof: Dark Brown Garages field SW 7004 - Snowbound Garage lights acrylic opaque window lights Railings, wood SW9116 - Serengeti Grass Units A2 What Color Stucco wall LH P100 Base 100 (Glacier White) Horizontal siding SW9116 - Serengeti Grass Stucco Accents LH to match field color Trim and Exterior Doors SW 7004 – Snowbound Metal standing seam roof: Dark Brown Garages field SW 7004 - Snowbound Garage lights acrylic opaque window lights Railings, wood SW9116 - Serengeti Grass Units B What Color Stucco wall LH to match SW9116 (Serengeti Grass) Horizontal siding SW9116 - Serengeti Grass Stucco Accents LH to match field color Trim and Exterior Doors SW 7004 - Snowbound Metal standing seam roof: Dark Brown Garages field SW 7004 - Snowbound Garage lights acrylic opaque window lights Railings, wood SW9116 - Serengeti Grass SW = Sherwin Williams LH = La Habra stucco Vicinity Map 1: 1,665 Legend Costa Mesa Notes PA-20-101978 Meyer Place and 1979 AnaheimAvenue 0 0.03 0.1 Miles0.1 The City of Costa Mesa makes no guarantee as to the accuracy of any of theinformation provided and assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, orinaccuracies.WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere© City of Costa Mesa © City of Costa Mesa 0.1 WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.1 Notes PA-20-10 1978 Meyer Place and 1979 Anaheim Avenue Legend The City of Costa Mesa makes no guarantee as to the accuracy of any of the information provided and assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies. 0.030 1:1,665 Zoning Map Costa Mesa Zoning AP - Administrative Professional IR-MLT - Institutional Recreational Multi-Use R1 - Single-Family Residential R2-MD - Multiple-Family Residential, Medium Density R2-HD - Multiple-Family Residential, High Density R3 - Multiple Family Residential MG - General Industrial MP - Industrial Park PDI - Planned Development Industrial C1 - Local Business C2 - General Business C1-S - Shopping Center TC - Town Center PDR-NCM - Planned Development Residential - North Costa Mesa I&R - Institutional Recreactional I&R-S - Institutional Recreational - School P - Parking CL - Commercial Limited PDC - Planned Development Commercial PDR-LD - Planned Development Residential - Low Density PDR-MD - Planned Development Residential - Medium Density PDR-HD - Planned Development Residential - High Density 1978 Meyer Place – Existing Site Photos 1: Front view of existing lot 2: Front view of existing lot with adjacent urban master plan development 3: View of the existing adjacent development to the south 4: View of the existing adjacent development to the north 5: Front view of existing lot with adjacent properties on north and south side 1979 Anaheim Avenue – Existing Site Photos 5: Front view of existing lot with adjacent properties on north and south side 1: Front view of existing lot 2: Front view of existing lot 3: View of the existing adjacent development to the north 4: View of the existing adjacent development to the south JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD00 JOB. C002 WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP 2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504 t. 310. 217. 8885 f. 310. 217. 0425 PRINTED:March 26, 2021 COSTA MESA, CA SHEET ANAHEIM & MEYER SD 00 PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: FOUR 2-PLEX RESIDENTIAL UNITS ZONING SUMMARY PROJECT SITE NFORMATION APN #ADDRESS ZONE LOT AREA (SF)LOT AREA (ACRE) PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TYPE FOUR STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL TYPE V A SETBACKS ALLOWED PROPOSED NOTES SOUTH - SIDE EAST - FRONT (ANAHEIM AVE) WEST - FRONT (MEYERS PL) NORTH - SIDE DENSITY 5'-0" 20'-0" 20 DU/AC MAX. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY NET AREA (SF)PLAN TOTAL 18.6 DU/AC FLOOR AREA RATIO NUMBER OF STORIES 3 4 BUILDING HEIGHT 45' PARKING SUMMARY REQUIRED 2 BEDROOM PROVIDED UNIT SUMMARY TOTAL NET AREA (SF)GROSS AREA (SF)TOTAL GROSS AREA (SF) 2 BED. / 2.5 BATH 2 1,546 3,092 3,576A1 B 8 VICINITY MAP OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE / LANDSCAPE 4,308 S.F. (AT GRADE) = 23.2% PRIVATE OPEN SPACE COVERAGE / OPEN SPACE SUMMARY COVERED 26 STALLS NOTES GARAGE GROSS AREA (PROVIDED) 443 S.F. SHEET INDEX ARCHITECTURE COVER SHEET 00 PROJECT SUMMARY 01 COLORED SITE PLAN 01a ALTERNATE PEDESTRIAN PASSTHROUGH SITE PLAN DESIGN 02 LEVEL 1 SITE PLAN 03 LEVEL 2 SITE PLAN 04 LEVEL 3 SITE PLAN 05 LEVEL 4 SITE PLAN 06 UNIT A1 FLOOR PLANS 07 UNIT A2 FLOOR PLANS 08 UNIT B FLOOR PLANS 09 ELEVATIONS 10 ELEVATIONS 11 SHADOW STUDY 12 SHADOW STUDY 13 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE 14 AERIAL PERSPECTIVE 15 PRIVACY EXHIBIT - PLANS 16 PRIVACY EXHIBIT - PLANS 17 PRIVACY EXHIBIT - SECTIONS 18 PRIVACY EXHIBIT - SECTIONS 5'-0" 44' (FROM FINISH GRADE) 16 (COVERED) TOTAL NTS PROJECT LOCATION 3 BED. / 2 BATH / 2 PWDR 2 2,088 4,176 2,364 4,728 434 S.F. 3 BEDROOM 1 CAR / DU = 2 2.5 CARS / DU = 5 10 (UNCOVERED / GUEST) N/A 1978 MEYER PLACE & 1979 ANAHEIM AVENUE +/- 18,562 0.43R2-HD 20'-0" 10'-6" - 21'-6" 20'-0" 20'-0" 10'-6" 1,030 S.F. (PRIVATE DECKS / PORCHES) = 5.5% COSTA MESA, CA 92627 UNCOVERED GUEST 1 CAR / DU = 6 1.5 CARS / DU = 9 0.5 CAR / DU = 3 0.5 CAR / DU = 1 8 STALLS 14 STALLS 4 STALLS 26 STALLS 2 BED. / 2.5 BATH 4 1,648 6,592 1,889 7,556A2 429 S.F. 1,788 13,860 15,860 2,088 S.F. (ROOF DECKS) = 11.2% TOTAL 7,426 S.F. = 40.0% 40% OF TOTAL LOT AREA = 7,425 S.F. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY DECK (SF)PLAN TOTAL UNIT PRIVATE OPEN SPACE SUMMARY TOTAL DECK AREA (SF)ROOF DECK (SF)TOTAL ROOF DECK AREA (SF) 2 BED. / 2.5 BATH 2 105 + 50 (PORCH) 210 + 100 (PORCH)590A1 B 8 3 BED. / 2 BATH / 2 PWDR 2 120 240 325 650 2 BED. / 2.5 BATH 4 120 480 212 848A2 295 1,030 2,088 REQUIRED / ALLOWED PROPOSED NOTES COVERAGE BUILDING PAD: 5,172 SF (27.9%) DRIVE AISLE / PARKING: 9,082 SF (48.9%) JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD01COLORED SITE PLAN+/- 373'-7"SITE PLAN - KEY PLANA1 A2A2 BBA2A2 A120'-0" SETBACK3'-2"LANDSC.STRIPTYP.MEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUE UNIT A1UNIT A2UNIT A2UNIT B20'-0" SETBACK3'-2" LANDSC. STRIP TYP.UNIT BUNIT A2UNIT A2UNIT A11'-6"LANDSC.STRIP1'-6"LANDSC.STRIPMEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUESEGMENT ASEGMENT B1'-6"LANDSC.STRIP1'-6"LANDSC.STRIP49'-8"18'-0"TYP.8'-6"TYP.18'-0"TYP.8'-6" TYP. 1'-6" LANDSC. STRIP 1'-6"LANDSC.STRIP 11'-0"scale: 1" = 8'-0"08162432N15'-0" TO FRONT PORCH15'-0" TO FRONT PORCH30'-0"BETWEEN BUILDINGS @ LEVEL 130'-0"BETWEEN BUILDINGS @ LEVEL 123'-2" BACK-UP 24'-8" TO P.L. 24'-8" TO P.L. 23'-2" BACK-UP18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.21'-6"TO BUILDING/ SETBACK 21'-6" TO BUILDING / SETBACK 18'-0" TYP.8'-6"TYP.18'-0" TYP.8'-6"TYP.10'-0"23'-2" 30'-0" 18'-0"10'-0"23'-2" 30'-0" 18'-0" JOB. C002 WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP 2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504 t. 310. 217. 8885 f. 310. 217. 0425 PRINTED:March 26, 2021 COSTA MESA, CA SHEET ANAHEIM & MEYER SD ALTERNATE PEDESTRIANMEYER PLACEANAHEIM AVENUEUNIT A2 UNIT B 1'-6"LANDSC.STRIPscale: 1" = 8'-0" 0 8 16 24 32 N UNIT A2UNIT B WEST ELEVATION - UNIT A2 & B SHIPLAP SIDING ROOF SHINGLES1 2 3 4 LEGEND WOOD POST DECORATIVE BAND 5 6 7 8 EXTERIOR LIGHTING TRELLIS STUCCO GABLE VENT TRIM 9 10 GARAGE DOOR 11 12 RECESSED VINYL WINDOW EXTERIOR DOOR EAST ELEVATION - UNIT B 23 46 8 9 43P.L.P.L.P.L.P.L.MEYERS PLACEANAHEIM AVENUEsim sim sim sim ENLARGED PARTIAL SITE PLAN KEY PLAN 5'-0"FENCE5'-0"FENCE2'-0"LANDSC.STRIP01a PASSTHROUGH SITE PLAN JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD02BUILDNG PLAN 01+/- 373'-7"SITE PLAN - KEY PLANA1 A2A2 BBA2A2 A110'-0"18'-0" TYP.30'-0"BETWEEN BUILDINGS @ LEVEL 120'-0" SETBACK3'-2"LANDSC.STRIPTYP.MEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUE UNIT A1UNIT A2UNIT A2UNIT B30'-0"BETWEEN BUILDINGS @ LEVEL 120'-0" SETBACK3'-2" LANDSC. STRIP TYP.UNIT BUNIT A2UNIT A2UNIT A123'-2" BACK-UP 1'-6"LANDSC.STRIP1'-6"LANDSC.STRIPMEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUESEGMENT ASEGMENT B24'-8" TO P.L. 24'-8" TO P.L.1'-6"LANDSC.STRIP1'-6"LANDSC.STRIP49'-8"19'-1"20'-2"19'-1"20'-2"19'-1"20'-2"19'-1"20'-2"19'-1"20'-2"19'-1"20'-2"19'-1"20'-2"19'-1"20'-2"18'-0"TYP.8'-6"TYP.18'-0"TYP.8'-6" TYP. 23'-2" BACK-UP 1'-6" LANDSC. STRIP 1'-6"LANDSC.STRIP 11'-0"scale: 1" = 8'-0"08162432N15'-0" TO FRONT PORCH15'-0" TO FRONT PORCH18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.18'-0"TYP.21'-6"TO BUILDING/ SETBACK 21'-6" TO BUILDING / SETBACK 23'-2" 30'-0"8'-6"TYP.18'-0"10'-0"18'-0" TYP.23'-2" 30'-0"8'-6"TYP.18'-0" JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD03BUILDNG PLAN 2+/- 373'-7"SITE PLAN - KEY PLANA1 A2A2 BBA2A2 A120'-0"BETWEEN BUILDINGS @ LEVEL 220'-0" SETBACKMEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUE UNIT A1UNIT A2UNIT A2UNIT B20'-0"BETWEEN BUILDINGS @ LEVEL 220'-0" SETBACKUNIT BUNIT A2UNIT A2UNIT A1MEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUESEGMENT ASEGMENT B49'-8"scale: 1" = 8'-0"08162432N11'-0"10'-6" TO BUILDING / SETBACK 10'-6"TO BUILDING/ SETBACK 21'-6"TO BUILDING/ SETBACK 21'-6" TO BUILDING / SETBACK JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD04BUILDNG PLAN 03+/- 373'-7"SITE PLAN - KEY PLANA1 A2A2 BBA2A2 A120'-0"BETWEEN BUILDINGS @ LEVEL 220'-0" SETBACKMEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUE UNIT A1UNIT A2UNIT A2UNIT B20'-0"BETWEEN BUILDINGS @ LEVEL 220'-0" SETBACKUNIT BUNIT A2UNIT A2UNIT A1MEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUESEGMENT ASEGMENT B49'-8"5'-0"11'-0"scale: 1" = 8'-0"08162432N10'-6" TO BUILDING / SETBACK 10'-6"TO BUILDING/ SETBACK 21'-6"TO BUILDING/ SETBACK 21'-6" TO BUILDING / SETBACK JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD05BUILDNG PLAN 04+/- 373'-7"SITE PLAN - KEY PLANA1A2A2B BA2A2A120'-0"BETWEEN BUILDINGS @ LEVEL 220'-0" SETBACKMEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUE UNIT A1UNIT A2UNIT A2UNIT B20'-0"BETWEEN BUILDINGS @ LEVEL 220'-0" SETBACKUNIT BUNIT A2UNIT A2UNIT A1MEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUESEGMENT ASEGMENT B49'-8"5'-0"scale: 1" = 8'-0"08162432N11'-0"10'-6" TO BUILDING / SETBACK 10'-6"TO BUILDING/ SETBACK 21'-6"TO BUILDING/ SETBACK 21'-6" TO BUILDING / SETBACK JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD06UNIT A1 PLANSGROSS AREA: 216 S.F.NET AREA: 187 S.F.GROSS TOTAL: 1,788 S.F. NET TOTAL: 1,546 S.F.GROSS AREA: 647 S.F.NET AREA: 593 S.F.GROSS AREA: 679 S.F.NET AREA: 618 S.F.DECK AREA: 105 S.F.GROSS AREA: 246 S.F.NET AREA: 148 S.F.DECK AREA: 295 S.F.PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TOTAL: 450 S.F.LEVEL 1LEVEL 3LEVEL 2LEVEL 4UPentry8'-6" x 9'-6"garage19'-1" x 20'-2"storageDNUPclosetpwdrliving11'-0" x 18'-0"kitchen / dining15'-0" x 18'-0"deck7'-6" x 14'-0"pantryrefrangesinkd/wDNUPw/dbedroom10'-0" x 12'-0"closetm. bathbathm bedroom12'-0" x 13'-6"w.i.c.DNflex9'-6" x 12'-6"roof deckGROSS GARAGE AREA: 443 S.F.BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA: 659 S.F.scale: 1" = 4'-0"0481216porch4'-6" x 11'-0"PORCH AREA: 50 S.F. JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD07scale: 1" = 4'-0"0481216UNIT A2 PLANSGROSS TOTAL: 1,889 S.F. NET TOTAL: 1,648 S.F.PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TOTAL: 324 S.F.LEVEL 1LEVEL 3LEVEL 2LEVEL 4LEVEL 1LEVEL 3GROSS AREA: 170 S.F.NET AREA: 145 S.F.GROSS AREA: 702 S.F.NET AREA: 643 S.F.DECK AREA: 120 S.F.GROSS AREA: 685 S.F.NET AREA: 633 S.F.GROSS AREA: 332 S.F.NET AREA: 227 S.F.DECK AREA: 212 S.F.DNUPclosetpwdrliving11'-0" x 19-0"kitchen / dining15'-0" x 21'-0"deck7'-6" x 16'-0"pantryrefrangesinkd/wUPDNUPDNentry6'-6" x 9'-6"garage19'-1" x 20'-2"w/dbedroom10'-0" x 12'-0"closetm. bathbathm bedroom12'-0" x 15'-0"w.i.c.flex12'-6" x 13'-6"roof deckGROSS GARAGE AREA: 429 S.F.BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA: 599 S.F.storage JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD08UNIT B PLANSkitchen / dining16'-0" x 20'-0"living13'-6" x 18'-0"garage19'-1" x 20'-2"LEVEL 1scale: 1" = 4'-0"0481216closetdeck5'-10 1/2" x 21'-6"GROSS AREA: 295 S.F.NET AREA: 259 S.F.pantryDNGROSS TOTAL: 2,364 S.F. NET TOTAL: 2,088 S.F.GROSS AREA: 880 S.F.NET AREA: 804 S.F.PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TOTAL: 445 S.F.LEVEL 3LEVEL 2GROSS AREA: 847 S.F.NET AREA: 787 S.F.DECK AREA: 120 S.F.GROSS AREA: 342 S.F.NET AREA: 238 S.F.DECK AREA: 325 S.F.LEVEL 4UPpowderDNDN UPflex11'-0" x 12'-6"refrangesinkd/wroof deckGROSS GARAGE AREA: 434 S.F.BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA: 729 S.F.coatbathUPstoragew/dm. bedroom12'-6" x 13'-10"closetm. bathclosetbathbedroom10'-0" x 10'-0"w.i.c.bedroom10'-0" x 13'-0"entry8'-0" x 14'-6" JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD09UNIT A1 & A2 - ELEVATIONSscale: 1" = 8'-0"08162432NORTH ELEVATION - UNIT A1 & A2WEST ELEVATION - UNIT A1111MEYERS PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUE SHIPLAP SIDINGROOF SHINGLES1234LEGENDWOOD POSTDECORATIVE BAND5678EXTERIOR LIGHTINGTRELLISSTUCCOGABLE VENTTRIM910GARAGE DOOR1112RECESSED VINYLWINDOWEXTERIOR DOORSOUTH ELEVATION - UNIT A1 & A2EAST ELEVATION - UNIT A2simsimsimsimN910124634282347911829431112953P.L. P.L. P.L. P.L. P.L. P.L.47 JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD10UNIT A2 & B - ELEVATIONSscale: 1" = 8'-0"08162432NORTH ELEVATION - UNIT A2 & BWEST ELEVATION - UNIT A2 & B111MEYERS PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUE SHIPLAP SIDINGROOF SHINGLES1234LEGENDWOOD POSTDECORATIVE BAND5678EXTERIOR LIGHTINGTRELLISSTUCCOGABLE VENTTRIM910GARAGE DOOR1112RECESSED VINYLWINDOWEXTERIOR DOORSOUTH ELEVATION - UNIT A2 & BEAST ELEVATION - UNIT BsimsimsimsimN91012438223468943142953P.L. P.L. P.L. P.L.81176 JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD11SHADOW STUDYSEPTEMBER 21 - 9 AMMARCH 21 - 9 AMDECEMBER 21 - 9 AMJUNE 21 - 9 AMNMEYER PL.ANAHEIM AVE.ROSS ST.MEYER PL.ANAHEIM AVE.ROSS ST.MEYER PL.ANAHEIM AVE.ROSS ST.MEYER PL.ANAHEIM AVE.ROSS ST. JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD12SHADOW STUDYSEPTEMBER 21 - 3 PMMARCH 21 - 3 PMDECEMBER 21 - 3 PMJUNE 21 - 3 PMNMEYER PL.ANAHEIM AVE.ROSS ST.MEYER PL.ANAHEIM AVE.ROSS ST.MEYER PL.ANAHEIM AVE.ROSS ST.MEYER PL.ANAHEIM AVE.ROSS ST. JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD13AERIAL PERSPECTIVEN JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD14AERIAL PERSPECTIVEN SD15MEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUE11'-0"scale: 1" = 8'-0"08162432NMEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUE11'-0"1First Level Overall Building Plan2Second Level Overall Building Plan1 STORYRESIDENTIAL1 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL3 STORYRESIDENTIAL1 STORYRESIDENTIAL1 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL3 STORYRESIDENTIALAACACCACCACAFFDDFF11'-0"11'-0"JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERPRIVACY EXHIBIT - PLANSTAG SILL HEIGHTSIZE NOTESABCDEF2'-6" x 2'-6"3'-0" x 3'-0"3'-0" x 5'-0"3'-0" x 6'-0"3'-0" x 7'-0"3'-6" x 6'-0"N/AHIGH WINDOW AT STAIR LANDING. VIEW IS ABOVE AVERAGE EYE LEVEL AT THIS LOCATION5'-0" SILL5'-6" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 3'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-6".VIEW RANGES FROM 5'-6" (OVERLOOKS ADJACENT STUCCO WALL) TO 23'-6" (OVERLOOKS ROOF) AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.VIEW IS ACROSS VOLUME SPACE AT STAIR. FLOOR LANDING IS MIN. 12'-6" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.5'-0" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 2'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-0".THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE ADJACENT BUILDING. VIEW IS 11'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.5'-6" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 1'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-6".SILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 2'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-0".5'-0" TO CLEAR PANEVIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS 28'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE. THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE ADJACENT BUILDING.VIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS MIN. 20'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE; OVERLOOKS ROOF OF ADJACENT BUILDING.VIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS MIN. 20'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE; OVERLOOKS ADJACENT BUILDING WALL AND ROOF.G3'-6" TO HANDDRAIL6'-0" x 8'-0"OVERLOOKS OPEN SPACE OR ADJACENT 1-STORY BUILDING ROOF.VIEW IS ACROSS DECK. INSIDE FACE IS MIN. 28'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.TAG SILL HEIGHTSIZE NOTESABCDEF2'-6" x 2'-6"3'-0" x 3'-0"3'-0" x 5'-0"3'-0" x 6'-0"3'-0" x 7'-0"3'-6" x 6'-0"N/A5'-0" SILLVIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS 28'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE. THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE ADJACENT BUILDING.5'-6" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 3'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-6".VIEW IS ACROSS VOLUME SPACE AT STAIR. FLOOR LANDING IS MIN. 12'-6" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.5'-0" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 2'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-0".VIEW IS 11'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE. OVERLOOKS ADJACENT BUILDING STUCCO WALL AND ROOF.5'-6" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 1'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-6".VIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS MIN. 20'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE; OVERLOOKS ROOF OF ADJACENT BUILDING.SILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 2'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-0".5'-0" TO CLEAR PANEVIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS MIN. 20'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE; OVERLOOKS ADJACENT BUILDING WALL AND ROOF.VIEW RANGES FROM 5'-6" (OVERLOOKS ADJACENT STUCCO WALL) TO 23'-6" (OVERLOOKS ROOF) AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.G3'-6" TO HANDDRAIL6'-0" x 8'-0"OVERLOOKS ADJACENT BUILDING WALL AND ROOF.VIEW IS ACROSS DECK. INSIDE FACE IS MIN. 28'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.HIGH WINDOW AT STAIR LANDING. VIEW IS ABOVE AVERAGE EYE LEVEL AT THIS LOCATIONPRIVACY KEY (SD18)PRIVACY KEY (SD17) SD16MEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUEscale: 1" = 8'-0"08162432NPRIVACY EXHIBIT - PLANSMEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUE MEYER PLACE ANAHEIM AVENUE1Third Level Overall Building Plan2Fourth Level Overall Building Plan11'-0"11'-0"1 STORYRESIDENTIAL1 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL3 STORYRESIDENTIAL1 STORYRESIDENTIAL1 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL3 STORYRESIDENTIALECECBDDBCECEAACAACAAJOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERPRIVACY KEY (SD18)TAG SILL HEIGHTSIZE NOTESABCDEF2'-6" x 2'-6"3'-0" x 3'-0"3'-0" x 5'-0"3'-0" x 6'-0"3'-0" x 7'-0"3'-6" x 6'-0"N/AHIGH WINDOW AT STAIR LANDING. VIEW IS ABOVE AVERAGE EYE LEVEL AT THIS LOCATION5'-0" SILL5'-6" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 3'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-6".VIEW RANGES FROM 5'-6" (OVERLOOKS ADJACENT STUCCO WALL) TO 23'-6" (OVERLOOKS ROOF) AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.VIEW IS ACROSS VOLUME SPACE AT STAIR. FLOOR LANDING IS MIN. 12'-6" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.5'-0" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 2'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-0".THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE ADJACENT BUILDING. VIEW IS 11'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.5'-6" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 1'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-6".SILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 2'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-0".5'-0" TO CLEAR PANEVIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS 28'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE. THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE ADJACENT BUILDING.VIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS MIN. 20'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE; OVERLOOKS ROOF OF ADJACENT BUILDING.VIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS MIN. 20'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE; OVERLOOKS ADJACENT BUILDING WALL AND ROOF.G3'-6" TO HANDDRAIL6'-0" x 8'-0"OVERLOOKS OPEN SPACE OR ADJACENT 1-STORY BUILDING ROOF.VIEW IS ACROSS DECK. INSIDE FACE IS MIN. 28'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.TAG SILL HEIGHTSIZE NOTESABCDEF2'-6" x 2'-6"3'-0" x 3'-0"3'-0" x 5'-0"3'-0" x 6'-0"3'-0" x 7'-0"3'-6" x 6'-0"N/A5'-0" SILLVIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS 28'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE. THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE ADJACENT BUILDING.5'-6" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 3'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-6".VIEW IS ACROSS VOLUME SPACE AT STAIR. FLOOR LANDING IS MIN. 12'-6" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.5'-0" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 2'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-0".VIEW IS 11'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE. OVERLOOKS ADJACENT BUILDING STUCCO WALL AND ROOF.5'-6" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 1'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-6".VIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS MIN. 20'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE; OVERLOOKS ROOF OF ADJACENT BUILDING.SILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 2'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-0".5'-0" TO CLEAR PANEVIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS MIN. 20'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE; OVERLOOKS ADJACENT BUILDING WALL AND ROOF.VIEW RANGES FROM 5'-6" (OVERLOOKS ADJACENT STUCCO WALL) TO 23'-6" (OVERLOOKS ROOF) AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.G3'-6" TO HANDDRAIL6'-0" x 8'-0"OVERLOOKS ADJACENT BUILDING WALL AND ROOF.VIEW IS ACROSS DECK. INSIDE FACE IS MIN. 28'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.HIGH WINDOW AT STAIR LANDING. VIEW IS ABOVE AVERAGE EYE LEVEL AT THIS LOCATIONPRIVACY KEY (SD17) JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD17PRIVACY EXHIBIT - SECTIONS1Unit B Section 13Unit A2 Section 15Unit A1 Section 12Unit B Section 24Unit A2 Section 26Unit A1 Section 29'-0"9'-0"9'-0" 9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0" 9'-0"9'-0"9'-0" 9'-0"9'-0"9'-0" 9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"FAEACCAAFECCCCBAADDOBS.OBS. OBS.OBS. OBS.OBS. OBS. OBS. OBS. OBS.OBS. OBS.2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL2 STORYRESIDENTIAL3 STORYRESIDENTIALTAG SILL HEIGHTSIZENOTESABCDEF2'-6" x 2'-6"3'-0" x 3'-0"3'-0" x 5'-0"3'-0" x 6'-0"3'-0" x 7'-0"3'-6" x 6'-0"N/A5'-0" SILLVIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS 28'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE. THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE ADJACENT BUILDING.5'-6" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 3'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-6".VIEW IS ACROSS VOLUME SPACE AT STAIR. FLOOR LANDING IS MIN. 12'-6" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.5'-0" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 2'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-0".VIEW IS 11'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE. OVERLOOKS ADJACENT BUILDING STUCCO WALL AND ROOF.5'-6" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 1'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-6".VIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS MIN. 20'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE; OVERLOOKS ROOF OF ADJACENT BUILDING.SILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 2'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-0".5'-0" TO CLEAR PANEVIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS MIN. 20'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE; OVERLOOKS ADJACENT BUILDING WALL AND ROOF.VIEW RANGES FROM 5'-6" (OVERLOOKS ADJACENT STUCCO WALL) TO 23'-6" (OVERLOOKS ROOF) AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.GGGG3'-6" TO HANDDRAIL6'-0" x 8'-0"OVERLOOKS ADJACENT BUILDING WALL AND ROOF.VIEW IS ACROSS DECK. INSIDE FACE IS MIN. 28'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.HIGH WINDOW AT STAIR LANDING. VIEW IS ABOVE AVERAGE EYE LEVEL AT THIS LOCATIONPRIVACY KEY (SD17)LIVINGROOMENTRYBEDROOMHALLFLEXDECKBATHPARKINGKITCHENGARAGEMASTERBEDROOMW.I.C.DECKKITCHENGARAGEDECKW.I.C.MASTERBEDROOMDININGROOMGARAGEMASTERBEDROOMLIVINGROOMENTRYBEDROOMHALLFLEXLIVINGROOMENTRYHALLFLEXBEDROOMscale: 1" = 8'-0"08162432+/- 19'-0"+/- 21'-0"+/- 13'-0"+/- 40'-0"+/- 38'-0"+/- 32'-0"+/- 34'-0"+/- 13'-0"+/- 40'-0"+/- 32'-0"+/- 13'-0"+/- 32'-0"+/- 13'-0"+/- 38'-0" JOB. C002WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504t. 310. 217. 8885f. 310. 217. 0425PRINTED:February 08, 2021COSTA MESA, CASHEETANAHEIM & MEYERSD18PRIVACY EXHIBIT - SECTIONS7Unit B (Meyer) Section 19Unit A2 (Meyer) Section 111Unit A1 (Meyer) Section 18Unit B (Meyer) Section 210Unit A2 (Meyer) Section 212Unit A1 (Meyer) Section 29'-0"9'-0"9'-0" 9'-0"9'-0"9'-0" 9'-0"9'-0"9'-0" 9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0" 9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"DDAABCCCCAAFECCAAFEPRIVACY KEY (SD18)TAG SILL HEIGHTSIZENOTESABCDEF2'-6" x 2'-6"3'-0" x 3'-0"3'-0" x 5'-0"3'-0" x 6'-0"3'-0" x 7'-0"3'-6" x 6'-0"N/AHIGH WINDOW AT STAIR LANDING. VIEW IS ABOVE AVERAGE EYE LEVEL AT THIS LOCATION5'-0" SILLOBS.OBS.OBS.OBS. OBS.OBS. OBS. OBS. OBS.OBS. OBS. OBS.5'-6" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 3'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-6".VIEW RANGES FROM 5'-6" (OVERLOOKS ADJACENT STUCCO WALL) TO 23'-6" (OVERLOOKS ROOF) AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.VIEW IS ACROSS VOLUME SPACE AT STAIR. FLOOR LANDING IS MIN. 12'-6" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.5'-0" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 2'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-0".THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE ADJACENT BUILDING. VIEW IS 11'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.5'-6" TO CLEAR PANESILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 1'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-6".SILL OF OBSCURED PANE AT 2'-0". BOTTOM OF CLEAR PANE AT 5'-0".5'-0" TO CLEAR PANE1 STORYRESIDENTIAL3 STORYRESIDENTIAL3 STORYRESIDENTIAL3 STORYRESIDENTIAL3 STORYRESIDENTIAL3 STORYRESIDENTIAL1 STORYRESIDENTIAL1 STORYRESIDENTIALVIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS 28'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE. THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE ADJACENT BUILDING.VIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS MIN. 20'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE; OVERLOOKS ROOF OF ADJACENT BUILDING.VIEW IS ACROSS PROJECT DRIVE AISLE. VIEW IS MIN. 20'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE; OVERLOOKS ADJACENT BUILDING WALL AND ROOF.GGGG3'-6" TO HANDDRAIL6'-0" x 8'-0"OVERLOOKS OPEN SPACE OR ADJACENT 1-STORY BUILDING ROOF.VIEW IS ACROSS DECK. INSIDE FACE IS MIN. 28'-0" AWAY FROM PROPERTY LINE.LIVINGROOMENTRYBEDROOMHALLFLEXLIVINGROOMENTRYBEDROOMHALLFLEXDININGROOMGARAGEMASTERBEDROOMKITCHENGARAGEMASTERBEDROOMDECKDECKDECKW.I.C.KITCHENGARAGEMASTERBEDROOMW.I.C.ENTRYBEDROOMPARKINGLIVINGROOMLAUND.FLEXscale: 1" = 8'-0"08162432+/- 17'-0"+/- 25'-0"+/- 17'-0"+/- 17'-0"+/- 27'-0"+/- 17'-0"+/- 30'-0"+/- 19'-0"+/- 25'-0"+/- 28'-0" RESOLUTION NO. 2021-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION 20- 10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19120 FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR AN EIGHT-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE MESA WEST RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP URBAN PLAN AT 1978 MEYER PLACE AND 1979 ANAHEIM AVENUE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Planning Application 20-10 and T-21-01 were filed by Steve Jones, authorized agent for the property owner, Equimex Holdings, LLC requesting approval of the following: 1) Master Plan for the development of an eight-unit residential common interest development intended for individual ownership under the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan on a 0.43-acre property; and 2) Tentative Tract Map 19120 to establish one lot with eight airspace condominiums. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2021 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal, and the project was approved by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2021 on a 6-1 vote (Commissioner Zich voting no); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission’s approval of the project was called up on March 1, 2021 for review by City Council; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 6, 2021, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the project; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15332 (Class 32) for In-Fill Development; and WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgement of the City of Costa Mesa. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions of approval contained within Exhibit B, the City Council hereby UPHOLDS the Planning Commission approval of Planning Application 20-10 and Tentative Tract Map 19120. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _____, 2021. _____________________________ John Stephens, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ ___________________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk Kimberly Hall Barlow, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2021-xx and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the ___day of _____, 2021, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this ___day of _____, 2021. ___________________________ Brenda Green, City Clerk EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A. The proposed master plan project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(5) because: Finding: The master plan meets the broader goals of the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. Facts in Support of Finding: The Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan envisioned contemporary architecture and infill development that would be complementary to an urban setting. The proposed architecture and site design would enhance the street views on Meyer Place and Anaheim Avenue with units facing the public street with ample landscaping at the project frontage. The larger units would be designed to be located towards the center of the project site to avoid a bulky appearance from the public street. Though the project proposes deviations from the Zoning Code and Urban Plan due primarily to the narrow width of the site, it would redevelop two lots with a high-quality project that will enhance the site and its surroundings. The project would also provide for new housing intended for ownership at a level no greater than can be supported by the existing infrastructure which is consistent with the land use objectives and policies of the General Plan. The proposed residential project would be compatible and harmonious with the surrounding properties which include a mix of single and multi-family residential developments (including other Urban Plan projects such as the adjacent property to the south at 1974 Meyer Place as well as 2068 Maple Avenue, 2070 Maple Avenue, and 531 Bernard Street) at varying building heights and densities. Although the development is not subject to the City’s Residential Design Guidelines, the variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance. Finding: Master plan findings for mixed-use development projects in the mixed-use overlay district are identified in Chapter V, Article 11, mixed-use overlay district Facts in Support of Finding: The project is not within the mixed-use overlay district; therefore, this finding is not applicable to the proposed project. Finding: As applicable to affordable multi-family housing developments, the project complies with the maximum density standards allowed pursuant to the general plan and provides affordable housing to low or very-low income households, as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The project includes long-term affordability covenants in compliance with state law. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project is a residential development intended for home ownership opportunities as single-family homes. The units are proposed to be at market-rate; therefore, this finding is not applicable to the proposed project. B. The proposed tentative parcel map complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(13) because: Finding: The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed parcel map is consistent with General Plan Land Use Objectives LU-1A, LU-4A, and Policy LU-1.3, in that adequate infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project; the subdivision allows for a project that would promote homeownership opportunities to improve the balance between renter and owner- occupied housing in the City; the tract map would allow for a residential project that would encourage redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment and neighborhood; and the project would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. The tentative tract map would allow for a new residential project that would not exceed the Urban Plan’s maximum allowable density of 20 units per acre and, therefore, would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential, which allows a maximum of 20 units per acre. The proposed tentative tract map would allow for a residential use that would not exceed the maximum density allowed per the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed use is compatible with the General Plan. Finding: The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and will not result in substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on compliance with the Zoning Code and General Plan, and consideration of appropriate environmental information. Facts in Support of Finding: The existing property is flat and physically suitable to accommodate four new buildings containing eight residential units. The combined size of the two lots would also be suitable since the proposed development would meet the minimum required building setbacks and driveway length/width. Though the project proposes to deviate from the open space requirement, the project would include a roof deck and backyard area for each unit to provide more open space opportunities. The lot would have one unit per 2,320 square feet of area, which will be consistent with the maximum density allowed per the High Density Residential General Plan land use designation as well as the Urban Plan (maximum allowed is one unit per 2,178 square feet). Adequate infrastructure exists to serve the proposed project and the project would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. Finding: The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by State Government Code Section 66473.1. Facts in Support of Finding: The tentative tract map would include approximately 23-percent of open space at grade but would also include open space areas at second-story balconies and roof decks for a combined total of 40-percent open space, which would comply with the minimum open space requirement. The subdivision is proposing the most feasible amount of open space at grade given the narrowness of the existing site as well as the required areas necessary for compliance with building setbacks, parking – including minimum interior dimensions for garages – and driveway width/length. This would accommodate landscaping that can be provided throughout the site with adequate setbacks and operable windows, which would provide for natural/passive cooling opportunities. In addition, the tentative tract map would include a private backyard for each individual unit ranging from 155 to 375 square feet in size. Finding: The division and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the tract. Facts in Support of Finding: The project has been reviewed by the Public Services Department and there are no other conflicts with the City’s or other utility agencies’ rights-of-way or other easements. No easements or dedications would be required for the proposed tract map. Finding: The discharge of sewage from this subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000 of the Water Code). Facts in Support of Finding: The lot has been graded in the past and contains connections to the public sewer system for the existing multi-family residences onsite. The tract map would allow for a residential project and would not propose physical changes to the lot that would result in discharge into the public sewer system in violation of State requirements. Furthermore, the applicant would be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District. C. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32), In-Fill Development. Under Class 32, a project site less than five acres in area, no significant environmental effects, consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code, has adequate utilities to serve the site, and has no valuable habitat species is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The proposed project is 0.43-acre in size which is significantly less than the five acre maximum and is also consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Though the project would include deviation, the deviations are permitted under an approved Master Plan. In addition, the project would not result in significant effects on the environment or habitat and adequate utilities exist to serve the proposed project. D. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that the development project’s traffic impacts would be mitigated at all affected intersections by the payment of traffic impact fees. EXHIBIT B Plng. 1. The expiration of Planning Application 20-10 shall coincide with the expiration of the approval of the Tentative Tract Map 19120 (T-21-01) which is valid for two years (February 22, 2023). Approval will expire at the end of that period unless applicant establishes the use by one of the following actions: 1) a building permit has been issued and construction has commenced, and has continued to maintain a valid building permit by making satisfactory progress as determined by the Building Official or 2) a certificate of occupancy has been issued. A time extension can be requested no less than 30 days or more than 60 days before the expiration date of the permit and submitted with the appropriate fee for review to the Planning Division. The Director of Development Services may extend the time for an approved permit or approval to be exercised up to 180 days subject to specific findings listed in Title 13, Section 13-29(k)(6). Only one request for an extension of 180 days may be approved by the Director. Any subsequent extension requests shall be considered by the original approval authority. 2. The conditions of approval for PA-20-10 and Tentative Tract Map 19120 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 3. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, change of architectural type, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Elevations shall not be modified unless otherwise approved by Development Services Director as consistent with the architectural design and features of the proposed development. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 4. The subject property’s ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 30 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional dirt is needed to provide acceptable on-site storm water flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City’s Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may include subsurface tie- in to public storm water facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical pump discharge in-lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. Applicant is advised that recordation of a drainage easement across the private street may be required to fulfill this requirement. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan shall feature methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring residential uses to the fullest extent that is reasonable and practicable. The plan shall include construction parking and vehicle access and specifying staging areas and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan shall minimize disruption to residents during construction. The truck route plan shall preclude truck routes through residential areas and major truck traffic during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200 trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or Transportation Services Manager. 6. The applicant shall defend with attorneys of City’s choosing, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of City's approval of the project, including but not limited to any proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Planning Division for review by the Development Services Director and City Attorney’s Office. The CC&Rs must be in a form and substance acceptable to, and shall be approved by the Development Services Director and City Attorney’s Office. a. The homeowners’ association shall be established prior to the sale of any unit(s). b. Membership shall be mandatory for each owner and any successive owner. c. The CC&Rs shall contain restrictions requiring residents to park vehicles in garage spaces provided for each unit. Storage of other items may occur only to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the required garage at the number of which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. d. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions requiring that the maintenance or homeowner’s association effectively manage parking and contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations. e. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions on the common driveway approach and ground rules related to: architectural control over future building modifications or additions, architectural design and guidelines for the property, and engagement in alternative dispute resolution before filing a lawsuit to resolve conflicts. f. Any subsequent revisions to the CC&Rs related to these provisions must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney’s Office and the Development Services Director before they become effective. The Development Services Director has the discretion to request any other provisions in the CC&Rs to promote self-governance. 8. A minimum of 18-foot wide garage door shall be required for each two-car garage in order to allow the reduced 23-foot back out distance. 9. Parking of vehicles within the private drive shall not be permitted and shall only be permitted in the designated parking spaces approved for the development. 10. The proposed second and third-story windows, second-story balconies, and roof decks shall be frosted, offset, elevated or incorporate other appropriate screening methods as determined by the Planning Division to ensure reasonable privacy is maintained for the project site and existing surrounding residential properties. 11. The common driveway shall be enhanced with decorative concrete pavers and colored concrete. The final landscape plan shall indicate the design/material of paved areas and shall be submitted at the time of plan check and approved by the Development Services Director or designee prior to issuance of building permits. 12. The parkway landscaping strip along the common drive shall be enhanced through the use of vines with planter pockets along a decorative block wall. The final landscape plan shall indicate the landscape palette and design for the decorative block wall and parkway landscaping. The plan shall be submitted at the time of plan check and approved by the Development Services Director or designee prior to issuance of building permits. 13. For proposed development adjacent to residentially-zoned properties that exceeds two stories, developer shall submit a shade/shadow analysis prepared by a professional aesthetic consultant. The conclusions of the aesthetic analysis shall specifically demonstrate that adequate daylight plane requirements for the abutting residential uses are provided. 14. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy/utilities. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 15. Prior to final inspections, the applicant shall provide a scaled and dimensioned digital site plan(s) for the project site, on either a CD or thumb drive, to the Planning Division. All site plans shall include an accurate and precise drawing of all building footprints and property line locations for the entire project site. All buildings shall be annotated with its corresponding address and suites if applicable. CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant’s reference. Any reference to “City” pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Plng. 1. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 2. All noise-generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise-generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contact the US Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 4. Street addresses shall be displayed on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or front door in a manner visible from the private street. Numerals shall be a minimum 6 inches in height with not less than ½-inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 5. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of individual units, suits, building, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 6. All on-site utility services shall be installed underground. 7. Installation of all new utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure the installation from view from any place on or off the property. The installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the public utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box under the direction of the Planning Division. 8. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 9. Transformers, backflow preventers, and any other approved above- ground utility improvement shall be located outside of the required street setback area and shall be screened from view, under direction of Planning staff. Any deviation from this requirement shall be subject to review and approval of the Development Services Director. 10. Two sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108 and the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Final landscape plans shall generally be consistent with the preliminary landscape plans. The final landscape plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. 11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 12. The landscaping of this project shall comply with the City’s landscaping requirements and any applicable guidelines (i.e. Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines). 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay a park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. The park impact fee shall be calculated based on the single-family residence fee rate applicable at the time of building permit issuance. 14. The applicant shall provide proof of final recordation of Tentative Parcel Map 19120. The final subdivision map shall be recorded with the County prior to issuance of precise grading permits or building permits for the proposed development. 15. Prior to final map recordation, the applicant shall file and record the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) on the property. A copy of the recorded CC&R’s shall be provided to the Planning Division. 16. The applicant shall install a six-foot high decorative block wall around the perimeter of the proposed development lot. Where walls on adjacent properties already exist, the applicant shall work with the adjacent property owner(s) to prevent side-by-side walls with gaps in between them and/or provide adequate privacy screen by trees and landscaping. 17. Trash receptacles shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. All units shall be provided with a small alcove or other designated area inside or outside the unit to allow storage of at least three trash receptacles without encroaching into the interior garage space. The final location of the designated trash receptacle area shall be indicated on the plans submitted for plan check. Bldg. 18. Comply with the requirements of the adopted, 2019 California Residential Code or the 2019 California Building Code, 2019 California Electrical code, 2019 California Mechanical code, 2019 California Plumbing code, 2019 California Green Building Standards Code and 2019 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted, California Residential Code, California Building code California Electrical code, California Mechanical code California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Two separate plans for each address shall be submitted to the Building Division for review. 19. Prior to the Building Division (AQMD) issuing a demolition permit, contact South Coast Air Quality Management District located at: 21865 Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Tel: 909-396-2000 OR Visit their web site: http://www.costamesaca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid =23381 The Building Division will not issue a demolition permit until an identification number is provided by AQMD. 20. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants (RIFA) exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Call CDFA at (714) 708- 1910 for information. 21. Submit precise grading plans, an erosion control plan and a hydrology study. If it is determined that a grading plan is not required, a drainage plan shall be provided. Each parcel and address shall have a separate precise grading plan. A precise grading and a hydrology report plan shall not be required if any of the following are met: 1. An excavation which does not exceed 50 CY on any one site and which is less than 2 ft in vertical depth, or which does not create a cut slope greater than 1 ½:1 (excluding foundation area). 2. A fill less than 1 foot in depth placed on natural grade with a slope flatter than 5:1, which does not exceed 50 CY on any one lot and does not obstruct a drainage course. 3. A fill less than 3 ft. in depth, not intended to support structures, which does not exceed 50 CY on any one lot and does not obstruct a drainage course. 22. On graded sites, the top of exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved discharge devise a minimum of 12 inches plus two percent (2%). 2016 California Residential Code CRC 403.1.7.3 23. The lot shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of 6 inches within the first 10 feet. CRC R401.3. 24. Submit a soil’s report for the project. Soil’s Report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and the precise grading plans. Fire 25. Comply with the requirements of the 2019 California Fire Code and referenced standards as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Eng. 26. The Tract Map shall be developed in full compliance with the State Map Act and the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC), except as authorized by the Costa Mesa City Council and/or Planning Commission. The attention of the Subdivider and his engineer is directed to Section 13- 208 through 13-261 inclusive, of the Municipal Code. 27. The Subdivider shall conduct soil investigations and provide the results to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering and Building Division pursuant to Ordinance 97-11. 28. Two copies of the Final Map shall be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering Division for checking. Map check fee shall be paid per CMMC Section 13-231. 29. A current copy of the title search shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. 30. Dedicate an ingress/egress easement to the City for emergency and public security vehicles purposes only. Maintenance of easement shall be the sole responsibility of a Homeowners Association formed to conform to Section 13-41(e) of the CMMC. 31. Vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Meyer Place and Anaheim Avenue shall be released and relinquished to the City of Costa Mesa except at approved access locations. 32. At the time of development, submit for approval an Offsite Plan to the Engineering Division and Grading Plan to the Building Division that shows Sewer, Water, Existing Parkway Improvements and the limits of work down on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or Architect. Cross lot drainage shall not occur. Constriction Access approval must be obtained prior to Building or Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. Pay Offsite Plan Check fee per Section 13-29(2)(b) of the CMMC and an approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. 33. Maintain the public Right-of-Way in a “wet down” condition to prevent excessive dust and remove any spillage from the public Right-of-Way by sweeping or sprinkling. 34. Submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee construction of off-site street improvements at time of permit per Section 15-32, CMMC and as approved by City Engineer. Cash deposit or surety bond amount to be determined by City Engineer. 35. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of the development and then construct P.C.C. sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. 36. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct drive approaches as shown on the Offsite Plan. 37. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, Street Improvement that show Sewer and Water Improvements, prepared by a Civil Engineer. 38. Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Draining Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of Final Tract Map. 39. The Subdivider’s engineers shall furnish the Engineering Division a storm runoff study to the City of Costa Mesa showing existing and proposed facilities and the method of draining this area and tributary areas without exceeding the capacity of any street or drainage facility on-site or off-site. This study to be furnished with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. Cross lot drainage shall not occur. 40. In order to comply with the latest DAMP, the proposed Project shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Model WQMP, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering Division for review and approval.  A WQMP (Priority or Non-Priority) shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to.  Location of BMPs shall not be within the public Right-of-Way. 41. Ownership and maintenance of the private on-site drainage facilities, BMPs, parkway culverts and other common areas shall be transferred by the Owner to the Homeowner Association to hold harmless the City of Costa Mesa for any liability arising out of or in any way associate with the connection of the private draining system with the City’s drainage system and shall execute and deliver to the City of Costa Mesa the standard (indemnity) Hold Harmless Agreement required for such conditions prior to issuance of permits. 42. Sewer Improvements shall meet the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; call (949) 631-1731 for information. 43. Water system improvements shall meet the approval of Mesa Water District; call (949) 631-1200 for information. 44. Dedicate easements as needed for public utilities. 45. Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 46. Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital-graphics file of said map in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 47. Survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and replaced after construction, pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Profession Code. 48. The elevations shown on all plans shall be on the Orange County benchmark datum. 49. Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee monumentation. Deposit amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 50. Prior to occupancy on the Tract, the surveyor/engineer shall submit to the City Engineer Digital Graphic File, reproducible mylar of the recorded Tract Map, and approved off-site plan and nine copies of the recorded Tract Map. Trans. 51. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay a Traffic Impact Fee to the Transportation Division. The fee is required in an amount determined by the Transportation Division pursuant to the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council. The fee will be calculated at the time of issuance of building permits with consideration of standardized trip generation ratios for proposed uses and includes credits for existing uses. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani. 1. Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 654-8400 for any additional district requirements. Water 2. Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District – Engineering Desk and submit an application and plans for project review. Customer must obtain a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water District. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay the applicable connection fees charged to new development by the Mesa Consolidated Water District. School 4. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. SCE 5. The applicant shall comply with guidelines provided by Southern California Edison Company with respect to easement restrictions, construction guidelines, and potential amendments to right-of-way in the areas of any existing Southern California Edison Company easements. From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Costa Mesa City Council, Thomas Price <tprice 160@yahoo.com> Friday, April 2, 2021 8:03 PM CITY CLERK Comments For Building Application PA-20-10 Costa Mesa City Council - Building Applicaiton PA-20-10.pdf Attached is my argument against allowing the construction of 44 foot tall four-story condos at 1978 Meyer Place and 1979 Anaheim Ave, building application no PA-20-10/Tract Map 19120. Please only permit this area in Costa Mesa for one and two story units, so it doesn't negatively impact the current residents for the reason listed in the attached PDF. Regards, Thomas Price Anaheim Avenue Home Owner To: Costa Mesa City Council Regarding: Application No. PA-20-10/Tentative Tract Map 19120 Site Address: 1978 Meyer Place and 1979 Anaheim Ave. Please do not approve application No. PA-20-10 from Equimex Holdings, LLC. We do not want 4 story buildings in our neighborhood of primarily 1-2 story buildings on Anaheim Avenue. Figure 1 below, taken from 1975 Anaheim Ave looking towards 1979 Anaheim Ave, shows the proposed condos would tower over the adjacent 2 story houses. Allowing the development of buildings over 2 stories would have several negative impacts on the community: 1. Blocking sunlight to other houses will: a. Significantly reduce the effectiveness of solar panels on units that have or are planning to install them. b. Kill plants and gardens. c. Degrade the lives of people who enjoy the current sunlight they receive, especially people like myself with seasonal affective disorder. 2. Obstruct views the current residents enjoy. 3. Reduce the privacy for the surrounding houses, because the 4 story condos will have unobstructed views into their neighbor's houses and yards. 4. If the condos don't have adequate guest parking, it will exacerbate the already difficult to find parking on Anaheim Ave. I haven't been able to find a layout of the plan, but most of the new HOA's are not adding enough guest parking spots. The few guest parking spots that are added are usually used by the tenants who have more than two cars or store stuff in their garage. 5. These types of properties will not help the low inventory of entry levels homes in Costa Mesa, because they typically sell for over $750,000, which most first-time home buyers can't afford. The issues above may reduce home prices of surrounding properties. Natural light was one of the biggest selling points for my house, and I would not have bought it if I knew another building could be built next to it that would block the sun. Why is the developer allowed to profit at the expense of current residents the developer has no relations to? The equitable solution is to permit the property for one to two story units, similar the rest of Anaheim Ave. This would help improve the neighborhood instead of harming the existing residents. I also called into the Planning Commission hearing and the builder misrepresented the units that would be built. One issue was showing their previous work of one and two level houses as a representation of what the new units could look like. Sure their previous work looked nice, but the proposed condos are four stories tall, so they would not fit as well as the one and two story unit shown. They also quoted the condos as selling in the high $600k to $700k. As someone who purchased a similar, but smaller condo in the area a year ago, I can guarantee the houses will sell for much more than they quoted. It's hard to trust the builders on other aspects of their plan, like whether the new condos would block the light of adjacent units or create privacy issues, when I could see how they were stretching the truth on other subjects. �rt Figure 1. View from 1975 Anaheim Ave Looking Towards 1979 Anaheim Ave. Regards, Thomas Price Anaheim Ave. Resident April 2"d, 2021 From: CJ Hunter <mapleknowellhouse@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:33 AM To: CITY CLERK Subject: PLANNING APPLICATION 20-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP T-21-01 Hello Council Members, I am writing in support of the project to construct a new residential development at 1978 Meyer Place AND 1979 Anaheim Avenue. I walk by the affected properties daily and have witnessed the neglect and rubbish over the years throughout the neighborhood. Renters do not care about the neighborhood and throw their trash in the streets, park their cars in the lawns and landlords have no motivation to keep the properties kept up because there is no pressure for the tenants. It is becoming a slum. I believe the City should continue to encourage redevelopment of these sites in order to bring ownership and pride to the neighborhood. I have seen the posts on nextdoor about people being displaced and this ultimately comes back to unhealthy policies which restrict development and should not be linked to a meritable development like this one. The housing crisis has been caused by governments restricting housing and any further restriction is going to raise values even higher which will force more people out. In addition, Measure Y has essentially halted all development in the City. I encourage the City Council to approve the project and to use their resources to rid the City of Measure Y so more development can happen. Cities which allow for development have seen larger, newer complexes which take the pressure off existing residents wishing to stay in place while bringing the amenities that wealthier residents would like to live in. Thank you, CJ FONG From: Michael Moses Nolf <michael.moses.nolf@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 10:34 AM To: CITY CLERK Subject: Public Comment For Public Hearing Item # 2 - EIGHT -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE MESA WEST RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP URBAN PLAN AT 1978 MEYER PLACE AND 1979 ANAHEIM AVENUE Attachments: Screen Shot 2021-04-05 at 8.16.55 PM.png Public Comment for: CITY OF COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF PLANNING APPLICATION 20-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP T-21-01 (TTM NO. 19120) FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR AN EIGHT -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE MESA WEST RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP URBAN PLAN AT 1978 MEYER PLACE AND 1979 ANAHEIM AVENUE My name is Michael Moses Nolf and I live at 1985 Anaheim Ave, the property immediately to the north of the proposed project at 1979 Anaheim Ave/1978 Meyer Place. A few things to keep in mind when evaluating this project: • What benefit or value does this add to our city - especially the surrounding neighborhood? • Who does this displace? • Who does this project hurt or affect negatively? As currently proposed, this project does not add benefit to our community for a number of reasons. 1 - This project is going to displace our neighbors who are currently living at affordable rents, and replace them with luxury single family skyscraper homes. I ask that for each affordable rental unit being lost, the equivalent number of the new units be made available to neighbors with low and very low incomes. 2 - This project, at 3-4 stories high with a rooftop deck does not fit in with the existing neighborhood. I support adding density to our neighborhood, as we need more housing for our neighbors, but it needs to be done responsibly and appropriately. Every time one of these style of developments come up, it is opposed by neighbors on all sides. No one wants to live next to these monstrosities. Not one public comment, written or spoken, has been in support of this project as currently proposed. If this project gets built as currently proposed, myself and my other neighbors lose sunlight (especially important during the winter months and for people dealing with SAD), we lose privacy in our own yards, and lose open sky views. Please take a moment to think about if you would like to live next door to these tall buildings and have people looking down on you in your backyard, having the sunlight blocked from your garden, and instead of seeing the sky when you look up, you just see a tall building with someone looking down on you. 3 - The same proposed density can be achieved with 2 story units at the same height as the developments on both the North and South side of the subject development. (Please see attached screenshot) The development I live in has a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom units, which accommodate a variety of family sizes and roommate situations. The developer, Mayor of Garden Grove, Steve Jones, mentioned in the previous planning commission meeting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8Ane3rD9Xc) that he expects the homes to sell in the $600k range, so he shouldn't have any trouble building 2 story units. My home, a 2 story unit that is 30+ year old construction was professionally appraised in March 2020 for over $610k, and according to Redfin and Zillow, the value is still going up. Brand new construction of a similar 2 story unit (attached or detached) would fetch significantly more than the developer said he hopes the new units sell for. 4 - Our city is trying to become more pedestrian and cyclist friendly. Both Anaheim Ave and Meyer Place are incredibly long superblocks, without any cut-throughs for our neighbors, which discourages walking/cycling. Currently, if I want to visit a friend on Meyer place, I consider getting in the car to drive instead of walking or biking, because our street is so long and it would take too long to walk around the entire way. Adding the cut - through would be low/no cost and greatly benefit our surrounding community. During the previously mentioned planning commission meeting, the developer mentioned he was open to creating a pass through for cyclists and pedestrians (not vehicles), which would greatly increase walkability/bikeability for our neighborhood. Please make that a requirement of this project. In summary, density can be added without diminishing the quality of life for current residents. Please don't let this project displace valued members of our community and decrease the quality of life for immediate neighbors without adding any benefit to our community. Thank you, Michael Moses Nolf X ID CJ C Q o 3 E l0 co U 0) o > _ a` � U v ii 9 J, rn O V From: John Carter <jmerriken@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 11:54 AM To: CITY CLERK Subject: Public Comment For Public Hearing Item # 2 - EIGHT -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE MESA WEST RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP URBAN PLAN AT 1978 MEYER PLACE AND 1979 ANAHEIM AVENUE Hello, my name is John Carter, I live at 1985 Anaheim Ave, Costa Mesa, directly next door to the proposed project at 1979 Anaheim Ave with my wife and 2 young children. I am concerned about the height of these new units being built, at 3-4 stories and with a roof deck we will lose a significant amount of sunshine and sunlight in our home and backyard. I am also concerned about the privacy of my home and backyard with tall units looking down on us. Lastly, with a high density housing project like this we are concerned about the available street parking for residents and visitors. I would hope that you would consider these thoughts if the project is green lit to move forward. Thank you, John and Heather Carter From: Kathy Esfahani <kathy.esfahani@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 12:07 PM To: CITY CLERK Cc: STEPHENS, JOHN; Cesar Convarubias; Richard Walker Subject: public comment for city council meeting 4/6/21 Attachments: Housing Coalition letter to Council re planning application 20-10.docx Attached is a public comment from the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition regarding public hearing #2, review of planning application 20-10, on tonight's agenda. Thank you, Kathy Esfahani Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition April 6, 2021 Mayor John Stephens and City Council Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Planning Application 20-10; the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan Dear Mayor Stephens and City Council Members, I am writing you on behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition to request that City Council review and reverse the Planning Commission's decision to approve Planning Application 20-10, a master plan for an eight -unit residential development under the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan (Urban Plan). We have two serious concerns related to this Planning Commission decision. One regards the Urban Plan itself. The second concerns the adverse impact of the decision on the particular neighborhood in question. Both concerns merit reversal of the decision. The Problem with the Mesa West Residential_Ownership Urban Plan This plan, adopted in 2006, is completely out of step with the city's housing needs today, especially the need for affordable housing. As you know, pursuant to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers assigned to Costa Mesa for the 2021-2029 planning period, our city must plan for the development of a large number of low- and very low-income units. The Urban Plan, however, works against that very goal in two ways. First, the Urban Plan does nothing to encourage the development of affordable housing — it contains no requirement that new developments include an affordable component. Second, the Urban Plan prioritizes home ownership and actually incentivizes the demolition of existing rental housing to make way for new, market rate homes. While the rental units in the Urban Plan area are not technically affordable housing, their age tends to make them more affordable than housing in other parts of the city. Consequently, the gentrification encouraged by the Urban Plan necessarily works to decrease the amount of affordable housing available in Costa Mesa. The Effect of this Planninc Commission Decision on the Neighborhood Planning Application 20-10 sought approval of a master plan for an eight -unit residential development under the Urban Plan. The plan necessarily involves the demolition of five existing units of rental housing, and the uprooting of several households currently living there. Of course, demolition and uprooting is the ugly underbelly of the Urban Plan. By incentivizing the replacement of rental housing with more expensive home ownership units, the Urban Plan displaces lower income community members who rent. Such gentrification inevitably tears apart the social fabric of an existing, stable neighborhood. Accordingly, the Planning Commission's decision to approve Planning Application 20-10 will disrupt not only the lives of the affected tenants, but also the social connections between neighbors and within the neighborhood itself. Our Request —Reverse the Decision and Set a Moratorium on Developments Lacking Affordable Housing The Coalition urges the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission's decision approving Planning Application 20-10. We believe the decision to approve a master plan for eight units, none of which is affordable to the lower income households who will be displaced, ignores the city's critical need for affordable housing. The decision will also harm the affected tenants and the existing neighborhood. We further urge the City Council to set a moratorium on such developments which do not include affordable units, with the moratorium lasting until the city adopts an effective inclusionary housing ordinance. Clearly, that ordinance must encompass a revision of the city's existing urban plans, specific plans, and overlays. As written, none includes an affordable housing requirement. These plans and overlays were adopted by an earlier City Council which was unconcerned about producing or preserving affordable housing. Today, the need for affordable housing is at a crisis point. Costa Mesa must not waste opportunities to create affordable housing by approving developments -- like the present one -- which lack an affordable component. Sincerely, Ira lly 64,ia/caai Kathy Esfahani For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition cc: Cesar Covarrubias, The Kennedy Commission Richard Walker, Public Law Center Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am glad that this item was pulled to be looked at more closely. I voted to approve it not because I think it is a good project, but because it met the intent of the Mesa West Residential Overlay Urban Plan, and because the relief it needed from certain standards were necessary to make the project - any project on the lot - work. It seemed to me that to deny the project would be to admit that a financially -feasible project is simply not possible under our development standards. That is problematic. Further, the required findings for the approval of a master plan are so vague that I could not come up with any evidence to demonstrate that they could not be made. I also felt compelled to approve the project out of fairness to the applicant - who had already made design changes based on City Council's request over a year prior, and had played by all the rules in designing a project that seems to be in the spirit of the Plan. The applicant had figured out how to make a project work and meet our regulations, which is not easy. For these reasons I believed that it would be unfair to deny his project. But here are some things that I hope that this project can make us think about: Opportunity for Connection A fundamental characteristic of walkable neighborhoods is small blocks. This project is on a block that is nearly a mile in perimeter - about 4x larger than many adjacent blocks. Being two back-to-back lots, it is effectively a through -lot that happens to cut the block right at its midpoint, so that Ross St. could continue to Anaheim Ave (for the pedestrian or bicyclist at least). This is a key opportunity we have to effectively cut a superblock in half in what is supposed to be a walkable part of town. Unfortunately, there is no policy in the General Plan or elsewhere that says that we should somehow take advantage of opportunities to improve connectivity in this way. The Street Half of the lot width is being designed as car access, which opens up visibility from the street to full depth of the lot. This is why so many of these projects end up looking like tall mini -storage facilities: garage doors on one side and a privacy wall on the other. This sterile environment is unfortunate for those who end up living in the back (kind of like being in the back half of a donkey suit), but at the very least, the street could be properly addressed. There is supposed to be a certain relationship between buildings and the public space they frame, and we continually neglect this to our peril. Nothing in our code requires, or even incentivizes, the orientation of the end unit to the street. To be fair, the current project does more than its neighbor to the south on Meyer Pl. (pictured below). And note that nothing stops the applicant from immediately sealing the project off from public space by erecting a 6-foot fence between the building frontage and the public right of way, as many do, including the neighbor to the south on Anaheim Ave. (pictured below). A 15-foot driveway would allow for 30 feet of (what could be) good building frontage (including a real porch and usable ground -floor space behind it), and a 5-foot side setback. A 12-foot driveway would be even better. The problem is parking. Parking The Walk Scores for this site are 75 (very walkable) and 71 (very bikeable), being only a 10-minute walk to downtown. And we are planning for a significant increase in population density over the next decade - a result of which will be a necessary reduction in automobile dependence. At the same time, this 8-unit project is providing a staggering 26 parking spaces (over 3 per unit!). Please note that this is the minimum required by the city, and there is no way out for the developer. In fact, the Urban Plan specifies that there is no flexibility on parking standards (page 1). 48 percent of the site is surface parking and driveways; 65 percent of the site is devoted to car access and car storage if you count the garages. The logic behind these requirements is that each property ideally provides for its own parking demand, thus minimizing the amount of cars parking on the street. The COAs stipulate that the CC&Rs will ensure that residents keep their garages clear and to park in them. But there is nothing stopping the neighbors from filling their garages with stuff, and taking up all the street parking. And there is there nothing stopping anyone (future residents of this project or neighbors) from owning several cars and taking up all the street parking. The point is that requiring on -site parking is sloppy policy, at best. It wouldn't be such a big deal if parking requirements didn't have such a detrimental effect on project design, on housing affordability, or on the perpetuation of local driving patterns. Building Height The Urban Plan bewilderingly allows 45-foot buildings adjacent to single -story homes. I feel for the neighbors who live in smaller buildings who are about to get towered over, and I don't think that allowing 45-foot buildings right there was a wise move on the part of the City. It is unclear to me why only three stories are allowed with such a high height limit - but from the neighbors' perspective, 45 feet is 45 feet. Note that the additional story is really only necessary because the parking, which takes up nearly the entire ground floor, pushes everything up a level. Conclusion The issues I've cited are not entirely the developer's fault. It is very difficult to develop this lot (to its potential) under the rules that we have provided. These rules are generating stagnant cul-de-sacs, and the local roads are effectively becoming collectors (where the kids can't go). Residents look out the window and don't see the street with people walking and biking by, but a driveway and a privacy wall. People walk down the street and look down a storage facility alley. 45-foot towers are going up in what is really a one-story neighborhood. I would be upset if these went up across the street from me, or next to my house. The depth and narrowness of these lots, and the lack of alleys makes development tricky. I don't have the solution. But I think we need to take a hard look at our standards and compare our actual vision for growth with the kind of development our codes are generating. We have many similar lots in the city, so it would be well worth figuring out some regulatory changes to make them all less of a headache for everyone, and hopefully result in improved streetscapes. If I could affect the design for this project in some way, this is what I would push for: Narrow the driveway entrance and improve the end unit frontages (wider and better quality) Lose the 4th story - Design the driveway to double as a welcoming pedestrian mid -block route At the end of the day, parking is designing the project. So these are easier said than done. Thanks for reading, Russell Toler (see images below) Urban Plan Objective No. 1: Promote economic viability in existing medium -density residential areas by encouraging construction of residential condo projects that will add vitality to the neighborhood. Does this neighbor "add vitality" to the neighborhood? Urban Plan Objective No. 1: Promote economic viability in existing medium -density residential areas by encouraging construction of residential condo projects that will add vitality to the neighborhood. Does this neighbor "add vitality" to the neighborhood? This development on E. 16th St., although obviously not entirely comparable, demonstrates the principle that good buildings address and engage with the street. Importantly, the driveway is only 16 feet wide at the front.