The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About42 - PH-3 - Public Comments - 6/15/20211 AZAD, ARZO From:SANDRA GENIS Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 12:22 PM To:CITY CLERK Subject:PH #3, One MEtro West Attachments:omw council hearing memo, june 15.docx Attached and below are my comments on Public hearing 3, One Metro West. There is considerable confusion among members of the public on this, as the public notice for the hearing specified a 12 noon deadline for comments whereas the agenda specifies 1 pm. The project notice also leaves the impressions that opportunities for comment end at noon, with no opportunity for zoom, teleconference, or attendance at a meeting. I am relying on the clear wording of the agenda in submitting these comments for Public Hearing No. 3. SANDRA GENIS 1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA, CA. 92626 June 15, 2021 Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA Subject: One Metro West, Public Hearing No. 3 The One Metro West project represents significant change from any previous development Costa Mesa industrial area and has the potential to set a precedent for other, similar projects in that area and elsewhere in Costa Mesa. Decisions made on this project have the potential to set the tone for future projects. In that regard, I have the following concerns. Open Space The proposed project will include only about 31 % open space, including the proposed “park” area. This is well below the open space ratio required and provided elsewhere in the City. Projects in residential zones are typically required to provide at least 40 percent open space. Projects in the PDR-HD are required to provide 42 % open space. Thus, the proposed project is deficient. Parking The project proposes to provide only 1.75 parking spaces per dwelling unit. By contrast, the Municipal Code requires 2 spaces for a bachelor, increasing with unit size to four spaces for a 3 bedroom unit. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan specifies only 1.3 parking spaces per unit. It is likely that on-site parking will not be adequate, as evidenced by the applicant’s proposal to provide additional parking for the project on the public street. 2 Sustainability The applicant proposes to provide only those energy saving measures required by code. The EIR states that the project will not meet any level of LEED standard as specified by the Green Building Council. They are not even providing solar panels on the roof, just making it “solar ready”. Is this the precedent the City wishes to set? Is the Council prepared to abandon its commitment to sustainability? (Incidentally was use of solar panels included in EIR analyses of energy use and air emissions?) Meeting Room The project will include a 1,500 square foot meeting room, equating to about 100 occupants for dining and over twice that for meetings without fixed seating. How will parking be provided for events not limited to project residents? It is stated that the room would be available for 3 community events. Would this include functions like weddings and quinceaneras? Was this included in the parking analyses? General Plan Conflicts The City is reminded that the purpose of a Specific Plan is to provide for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan (Government Code Sec. 65450). The proposed project is in conflict with numerous General Plan policies including those related to noise and change in scale. Where these were pointed out in comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project, the consultant replied that it would be consistent with the Specific Plan, which apparently is intended to supplant or override the general plan. However, as stated by Government Code Section 65454, no specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general plan. Affordable Housing The project proposes to include ten percent low and very low income dwelling units. But contrast, the City’s RHNA includes forty percent low and very low income units. It is likely the remaining units will be luxury apartments for the highly affluent. Thus, rather than help provide for housing need to the poor, the project is likely to exacerbate the need for lower income housing as affluent residents demand goods and services provided by lower income individuals. Other local communities are contemplating inclusionary ordinances with significantly higher proportions of affordable units that the level proposed in this precedent setting project. The EIR Under Measure Y, the City must fulfill all normally required provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The City cannot just push the project along in the process. In the case of One Metro West, the first step in the process remains incomplete as the EIR as currently presented fails to fulfill the purposes of CEQA. The City has released a Final Environmental Impact Report for the project. While the document includes some valuable information, it fails to address some key issues. The Response to Comments is largely non-responsive. Failings include: • Justifying lack of analysis rather than providing actual analyses • Conclusory statements • Placing the burden of investigation on the commenters • Responses nonresponsive to the question Lack of Analysis Where preparers were asked to provide additional analyses of such issues as views, comparison of building scale to the surrounding area, noise, and other issues, the preparers simply justified the lack of analysis instead of preparing additional materials. This was even applied to important aspects of the project description. The Master Plan and Specific Plan were not even incorporated by reference. The documents were not posted on-line until nearly the end of the public review period for the DEIR, nor did any widely available notice indicate where the documents could be viewed. In any case, incorporation by 4 reference is normally applied to general background materials, not items at the core of the project itself. As stated in Guidelines Section 15150(f): Incorporation by reference is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background but do not contribute directly to the analysis of the problem at hand. [emphasis added] Conclusory Statements When asked about how conclusions were reached or how assumptions were made, the preparers essentially replied that “we did it his way because we did it this way”. This applies to questions regarding traffic, noise, an other issues. Placing the burden on the commenters While in several places in the document, the commenters were referred to other documents, this is most glaring in the cavalier response directing commenters to City Hall to see important project documents like the Specific Plan and Master Plan. Nonresponsive responses In many cases, extensive verbiage was provided in response to a question, but the question was not answered. This applies to comments on noise, aesthetics, land use comparisons, construction impacts, public access, and the bike trail. Conclusion I urge the City Council not to approve the proposed project as currently proposed and to refrain from certifying the EIR until it fully responds to the requirements of CEQA. Sandra Genis Page 1 of 3 SANDRA GENIS 1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA, CA. 92626 June 15, 2021 Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA Subject: One Metro West, Public Hearing No. 3 The One Metro West project represents significant change from any previous development Costa Mesa industrial area and has the potential to set a precedent for other, similar projects in that area and elsewhere in Costa Mesa. Decisions made on this project have the potential to set the tone for future projects. In that regard, I have the following concerns. Open Space The proposed project will include only about 31 % open space, including the proposed “park” area. This is well below the open space ratio required and provided elsewhere in the City. Projects in residential zones are typically required to provide at least 40 percent open space. Projects in the PDR-HD are required to provide 42 % open space. Thus, the proposed project is deficient. Parking The project proposes to provide only 1.75 parking spaces per dwelling unit. By contrast, the Municipal Code requires 2 spaces for a bachelor, increasing with unit size to four spaces for a 3 bedroom unit. In addition, the proposed Specific Plan specifies only 1.3 parking spaces per unit. It is likely that on-site parking will not be adequate, as evidenced by the applicant’s proposal to provide additional parking for the project on the public street. Sustainability The applicant proposes to provide only those energy saving measures required by code. The EIR states that the project will not meet any level of LEED standard as specified by the Green Building Council. They are not even providing solar panels on the roof, just making it “solar ready”. Is this the precedent the City wishes to set? Is the Council prepared to abandon its commitment to sustainability? (Incidentally was use of solar panels included in EIR analyses of energy use and air emissions?) Meeting Room The project will include a 1,500 square foot meeting room, equating to about 100 occupants for dining and over twice that for meetings without fixed seating. How will parking be provided for events not limited to project residents? It is stated that the room would be available for Page 2 of 3 community events. Would this include functions like weddings and quinceaneras? Was this included in the parking analyses? General Plan Conflicts The City is reminded that the purpose of a Specific Plan is to provide for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area covered by the general plan (Government Code Sec. 65450). The proposed project is in conflict with numerous General Plan policies including those related to noise and change in scale. Where these were pointed out in comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project, the consultant replied that it would be consistent with the Specific Plan, which apparently is intended to supplant or override the general plan. However, as stated by Government Code Section 65454, no specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general plan. Affordable Housing The project proposes to include ten percent low and very low income dwelling units. But contrast, the City’s RHNA includes forty percent low and very low income units. It is likely the remaining units will be luxury apartments for the highly affluent. Thus, rather than help provide for housing need to the poor, the project is likely to exacerbate the need for lower income housing as affluent residents demand goods and services provided by lower income individuals. Other local communities are contemplating inclusionary ordinances with significantly higher proportions of affordable units that the level proposed in this precedent setting project. The EIR Under Measure Y, the City must fulfill all normally required provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The City cannot just push the project along in the process. In the case of One Metro West, the first step in the process remains incomplete as the EIR as currently presented fails to fulfill the purposes of CEQA. The City has released a Final Environmental Impact Report for the project. While the document includes some valuable information, it fails to address some key issues. The Response to Comments is largely non-responsive. Failings include: • Justifying lack of analysis rather than providing actual analyses • Conclusory statements • Placing the burden of investigation on the commenters • Responses nonresponsive to the question Lack of Analysis Where preparers were asked to provide additional analyses of such issues as views, comparison Page 3 of 3 of building scale to the surrounding area, noise, and other issues, the preparers simply justified the lack of analysis instead of preparing additional materials. This was even applied to important aspects of the project description. The Master Plan and Specific Plan were not even incorporated by reference. The documents were not posted on-line until nearly the end of the public review period for the DEIR, nor did any widely available notice indicate where the documents could be viewed. In any case, incorporation by reference is normally applied to general background materials, not items at the core of the project itself. As stated in Guidelines Section 15150(f): Incorporation by reference is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or technical materials that provide general background but do not contribute directly to the analysis of the problem at hand. [emphasis added] Conclusory Statements When asked about how conclusions were reached or how assumptions were made, the preparers essentially replied that “we did it his way because we did it this way”. This applies to questions regarding traffic, noise, an other issues. Placing the burden on the commenters While in several places in the document, the commenters were referred to other documents, this is most glaring in the cavalier response directing commenters to City Hall to see important project documents like the Specific Plan and Master Plan. Nonresponsive responses In many cases, extensive verbiage was provided in response to a question, but the question was not answered. This applies to comments on noise, aesthetics, land use comparisons, construction impacts, public access, and the bike trail. Conclusion I urge the City Council not to approve the proposed project as currently proposed and to refrain from certifying the EIR until it fully responds to the requirements of CEQA. Sandra Genis 1 AZAD, ARZO From:Mary Spadoni <maryatsis@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 12:17 PM To:CITY CLERK Subject:Regarding: One Metro West This project has caused the community to become polarized against an inappropriate project but more than the project is the council attempting to side with the developer over the VOTE of the people, per Measure Y. One Metro West has options LET THE PEOPLE VOTE or include 40% of affordable housing. The residents have been silenced, their initiative has been demeaned, criticized by city elected members of council, and even nonelected (mayor) members of council. Leonard Glickman, Rose Equities principle, announced Y was illegal and he and the council agree. He indicated he would sue. Welcome to Costa Mesa, where developers are given more consideration than the VOTING PUBLIC. Let the city vote, don’t buckle under threats from Rose Equities, don’t implode if AB1322 passes, you are responsible to the residents, not the developer frothing at the mouth, for profits. In researching recall procedures, 15% of some districts would be as little as 732 signatures. “Y” obtained over 7,000 signatures and the vote of almost 70% of the voters. Put that together with the signatures from “AA” and voter support, that is a substantial force in our city. Mary Spadoni Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS 1 AZAD, ARZO From:Jody Pedri <jodyp9010@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 14, 2021 5:29 PM To:CITY CLERK; diana Kuykendall Subject:One Metro West project I can't believe that our city council wants more people crowding Harbor Blvd. It's like a parking lot now at rush hour. At 80 units /acre for 15 acres that is 1200 units which would most likely be 1800 more cars. I can't imagine any environmental engineer would say this would not have a huge effect on traffic in our area. Approving the In N Out was bad enough, with the cars backing up onto Gisler and Harbor. At least the In N Out could move. It would be hard to demolish these homes once they are built, and it is discovered that they are a mistake like the In N Out was. You are supposed to represent the CM citizens. Did you take a vote to see if anyone in the nearby area is in favor of this? It seems like you care more about the developers than the citizens. Also what about water? We are in a drought, and the last thing we need is more people using more water & sewer. I'm sure if this project is built, we will see a big raise in our water bill. I am adamantly opposed to this project. Jody Pedri 3332 Nevada Ave 714-5464685 1 AZAD, ARZO From:Matt Grimm <matt@anduril.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 12:00 PM To:CITY COUNCIL; CITY CLERK; STEPHENS, JOHN Subject:Letter of support for One Metro West development Attachments:Letter of Anduril support of One Metro West.pdf Hello – Please find the attached letter expressing Anduril Industries’ support for the One Metro West development. Please reach out if we can provide any further information or details. -matt grimm- Co-Founder and COO Anduril Industries matt@anduril.com The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments from Anduril Industries Inc may contain confidential and/or proprietary information, and is intended only for the named recipient to whom it was originally addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments. 1 AZAD, ARZO From:Nancy <nosso5@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 11:54 AM To:CITY CLERK Subject:One Metro West To whom it may concern, Hello, my name is Nancy Osso. I am completely against the current proposal for One Metro West. I live in the Mesa Verde North tract that will front this project. I believe that this project will seriously impact the traffic both on Harbor Blvd, and Gisler. The only schools available to service this project are California Elementary School, and Tewinkle Middle School. First even if....there are only 100 children living at OMW they will overcrowd these schools. Second that is 200 more car trips on Harbor...to Gisler to California Street. Very few I believe will use a bus service. All of these streets are currently a nightmare! People who live in the tracts that surround these schools have only one street to get to Harbor Blvd. That is Gisler. Those that chose to exit to Gisler from Iowa near the Vagabond Inn have a horrible time trying to get on to Gisler during peak school/work hours. Those living closer to the SART and trying to access Harbor via Gisler have school traffic and crossing guards to contend with. If the thinking is that these school children will ride their bikes...or walk to school...that is not realistic. They would either have to use the SART (not safe for children) and walk/ride 1-1/2 miles to school or walk down Harbor Blvd. In addition....where will those living at OMW shop? Target? Vons? Where will they eat? In and Out, Chick-fil-a, Canes? How will they get there? I can assure you they will not walk or ride a bike! More traffic on Harbor Blvd. This is just a bad idea. Please vote NO! Thank you, Nancy Osso 1 AZAD, ARZO From:CJ <mapleknowellhouse@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 11:32 AM To:CITY CLERK Subject:One Metro West Dear Mayor and City Council, Thank you for approving the project and allowing for more housing to be built in our beautiful City. It is about time that we prioritize all residents in the City instead of focusing on the select few that have owned homes here for 30+ years. They sure are lucky to have purchased homes back then when prices were so cheap. And now they feel entitled to shut down any new residents from moving in. So much for love thy neighbor - I do not understand their thinking. By allowing for more housing opportunities, you are opening the door for residents to stay in the City as housing costs continue to skyrocket. It has been proven time and again that high density mixed use development reduces traffic. Any noise or neighbor aesthetics that some are worried about cannot compare to the constant roar of the freeway. It appears that the only real issue some of these people have is that they are afraid of change and afraid of who might be moving in. Thank you for thinking about all the residents in the City and not the vocal, obstructionist few. Sincerely, CJ WONG 1 AZAD, ARZO From:Nancy Levy <nancy@scr.org> Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 10:32 AM To:CITY CLERK Subject:one metro west project As a resident of Mesa Verde I am writing to add my voice to the many who are opposed to the One Metro West project. I have just learned that the Andruil Industries headquarters is projected to employ as many as 2,500. Adding that to the over 1,000 apartments in the One Metro West project is going to overrun our local streets with traffic, and cause numerous other logistical issues. Please do not do this to the residents of our city! Nancy Levy Mesa Verde, State Streets 1 AZAD, ARZO From:Jan Harmon <janharmon2008@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 10:30 AM To:CITY CLERK Subject:One Metro West Project agenda item / June 15 City Council Meeting June 15, 2021 To the Costa Mesa City Council Members It would not be in the best interest of citizens to rezone the 15.23-acre site at 1683 Sunflower Avenue from Industrial to High Density. We must be careful not to open up a Pandora’s Box. This rezoning proposal is purely to benefit one high density project, One Metro West, and we have not seen any proposals for rezoning to low or medium density for this area. The danger in the One Metro West project is the compounding of the already high density traffic flowing along Harbor Blvd including the 405 freeway entrances and exits. Such problems are bound to outrage citizens. The traffic analysis by Rose Equities (the Beverly Hills company proposing One Metro West) is not correct. They say most of the traffic from their project will travel north on Harbor. This is a fairytale. The City Council has been duped on traffic analysis before (example: the In and Out traffic report) and it will be in the best interest of all concerned that we go cautiously when deciding the density of building in Costa Mesa. If the zoning for 1683 Sunflower Avenue is changed from Industrial to High Density it can only further clog the Harbor Blvd area, delaying citizens from getting into or out of Costa Mesa at that location. This would certainly place in your laps an ongoing citizen demand to know why you saw merit in this decision in the first place. One Metro West is simply TOO BIG! Sincerely, Jan Harmon Costa Mesa resident since 1973 1 AZAD, ARZO From:Kathy Esfahani <kathy.esfahani@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 15, 2021 8:59 AM To:CITY CLERK; CITY COUNCIL Subject:Public Comment in support of One Metro West Dear Council Members, I urge you to approve One Metro West at your meeting tonight. Because Costa Mesa does not yet have an inclusionary housing ordinance, Costa Mesa is incredibly fortunate One Metro West is voluntarily including 106 lower income units along with its 950 market rate units. To affordable housing advocates like me, this is a very big deal. Lacking an inclusionary housing ordinance, we have missed out repeatedly on opportunities to gain "housing balance" -- i.e, some measure of affordable units along with all the market rate units that were built in Costa Mesa over the years. The inclusionary housing model which One Metro West has adopted will help set us on the path to achieving that crucial housing balance. In truth, without One Metro West and inclusionary housing projects like it, Costa Mesa will find it impossible to meet its legal mandate to plan for nearly 5000 lower- income units in the next Housing Element planning period. For that reason, I believe One Metro West, as an inclusionary housing development, is categorically exempt from Measure Y as "affordable housing required by state law." Your approval of One Metro West is crucial for another reason, too. By approving a large housing development which includes 67 very-low- and 39 low-income units, you will demonstrate Costa Mesa is an inclusive community which welcomes essential workers like nurses, plumbers, and food service staff as well as those blessed with higher incomes. Costa Mesa needs this housing. We especially need this affordable housing. Please vote "yes" on One Metro West. Respectfully, Kathy Esfahani (Mesa Verde resident) 1 AZAD, ARZO From:Linda Tang <ltang33@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 14, 2021 11:15 PM To:MARR, ANDREA; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; GAMEROS, LOREN; jeff.harlan@costamesaca.gov; HARPER, DON; REYNOLDS, ARLIS; STEPHENS, JOHN Cc:CITY CLERK Subject:Re: Support for One Metro West Attachments:Ltr_Support One Metro West CC_6.14.21.pdf Dear City Council Members, Please find attached my support letter for tomorrow's Public Hearing Agenda Item #3: Final EIR, General Plan Amendment, Master Plan, Tract Map and Development Agreement of a Mixed Use Project (One Metro West). Thank you. -Linda Page 1 of 1 June 14, 2021 Mayor John Stephens and Members of the City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Support Approval for One Metro West Dear Mayor Stephens and Council Members: I am writing to urge the City to support the development of One Metro West because it puts forth a plan that will create much needed workforce housing at all economic segments of the community. More importantly, One Metro West is displaying commitment and leadership as a builder/owner in addressing the City’s unmet housing needs for lower income households. Last month, an extension for a development agreement came before the City and that applicant maintained they were “not amenable” to including affordable housing in the agreement.1 While the City does not have an inclusionary housing ordinance, One Metro West could have followed the same path of the “not amenable” applicant. Instead, One Metro West has taken the position of a long-term community partner and has voluntarily included an affordability component for lower income households. One Metro West will also help count towards the City’s exceptionally high 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 11,760 units , especially for the lower income RHNA categories. Of the proposed 1,057 units at One Metro West, there will be a set-aside of 67 very low- and 39 low-income units. Currently, the City has very few readily available land for residential development and the C ity has not been very successful in building affordable housing for lower income working households. From 2014-2020, only 30 permitted units were issued at low and very low income.2 Of those, 9 units are deed restricted at very low and 21 units are non-deed restricted ADUs at very low and low income. There is a dire need for more affordable housing and One Metro West voluntarily including lower income units should set the standard for any upcoming residential projects that is being proposed in the City. We encourage the City to please recognize and engage with community-minded builder/owners like One Metro West who share our vision in creating a thriving, inclusive and a more balanced jobs-housing Costa Mesa. Sincerely, Linda Tang 1 City Council Agenda Report- An Ordinance For An Extension To And Amendment Of The Saki oka Farms Development Agreement DA-99-02 (DA-20-03), Sakioka Lot 2, 14850 Sunflower Avenue, City of Costa Mesa, p. 2, April 6, 2021. 2 Planning Commission Agenda Report- 2020 Annual Review of the Costa Mesa 2015-2035 General Plan, City of Costa Mesa, p. 5, April 20, 2021. 1 AZAD, ARZO From:Jody Pedri <jodyp9010@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 14, 2021 5:29 PM To:CITY CLERK; diana Kuykendall Subject:One Metro West project I can't believe that our city council wants more people crowding Harbor Blvd. It's like a parking lot now at rush hour. At 80 units /acre for 15 acres that is 1200 units which would most likely be 1800 more cars. I can't imagine any environmental engineer would say this would not have a huge effect on traffic in our area. Approving the In N Out was bad enough, with the cars backing up onto Gisler and Harbor. At least the In N Out could move. It would be hard to demolish these homes once they are built, and it is discovered that they are a mistake like the In N Out was. You are supposed to represent the CM citizens. Did you take a vote to see if anyone in the nearby area is in favor of this? It seems like you care more about the developers than the citizens. Also what about water? We are in a drought, and the last thing we need is more people using more water & sewer. I'm sure if this project is built, we will see a big raise in our water bill. I am adamantly opposed to this project. Jody Pedri 3332 Nevada Ave 714-5464685