Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-10 - Planning App PA-12-24 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17508 for 1259 Victoria StreetRESOLUTION NO. 13-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA -12-24 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT -17508 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A 17 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT AT 1259 VICTORIA STREET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Peter Zehnder, authorized agent for Victoria Residential Partners, L.P., owner of real property located at 1259 Victoria Street, for a Design Review, Minor Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Tract Map for the following: • Design Review to construct a 17 -unit, two -and -three-story detached (6 -inch separation between units) residential common interest development clustered within 4 main buildings throughout the property. • Variance from number of stories and overall building height for Building Complex 1 and 3 (two stories/27 feet allowed; three stories/35 to 37 feet proposed). • Variance from street landscape setback (20 feet required; 10 feet proposed). • Variance from minimum and average lot sizes for small lot common interest developments (3,000 square feet minimum, 3,500 square feet average required; 1,500 square feet minimum, 2,038 square feet average proposed). Variance from parkway landscaping requirements (5 feet minimum required, 2.5 feet minimum proposed). Variance for height and location of crib wall along the street frontage (maximum 6 - foot height allowed, 10 -foot front setback required; 30 -foot maximum height, 6 -foot setback proposed). • Administrative adjustment from rear yard setback for the second story of one of the units in Building Complex 4 (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed). • Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines for building massing of upper story to first story percentage for all units (80% recommended; 100% proposed). • Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines for building height structures with flat roofs in Building Complex 2 and 4 (22 feet recommended; 25 feet proposed). Resolution No. 13-10 — April 2, 2013 — Page 1 • Minor conditional use permit to allow encroachments of the crib wall, parking areas, and residential buildings to be constructed closer than 10 feet to a bluff crest (0 feet to bluff crest proposed). • Tentative tract map to allow the units to be sold independent of one another. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on February 25, 2013 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal; WHEREAS, on March 1, 2013, the Planning Commission's approval was called up for City Council review by a council member; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 2, 2013. BE IT RESOLVED that, the environmental review for the proposed project was processed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the proposed project has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15332, Class 32 -In -Fill Development. BE IT FURTHER 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, and the facts and findings with regard to the CEQA exemption contained in Exhibit C, the Costa Mesa City Council hereby approves Planning Application PA -12-24 and Tentative Tract Map TT -17508. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council 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 PA -12-24 and Tentative Tract Map TT -17508 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 project, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. Resolution No. 13-10— April 2, 2013— Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of A—H ATTEST: � . , 1l" 1 •. I ! DIM aI APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1h ho as bda4, City Attorney Resolution No. 13-10 — April 2, 2013 — Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, Interim City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 13-10 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of April, 2013, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Righeimer, Mensinger, Monahan NOES: Genis, Leece ABSENT: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 3`d day of April, 2013 Brenda Gr n, City Clerk Resolution No. 13-10 — April 2, 2013 — Page 4 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(e) because: 1. The proposed use is compatible and harmonious with uses on surrounding properties. 2. Safety and compatibility of the design of the parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. 3. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan. 4. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. B. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) because: a. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. b. The deviation granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the deviation authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. C. The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. Additional facts and findings are as follows: • Variance from number of stories and overall building height for Buildings l and 3 (two stories/27 feet allowed• three stories/35 to 37 feet proposed). The distinct topography and shape of the property provide justification for the approval of the requested variance. Because of the property's unique topography, shape, and location, the strict application of the City's height requirements would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by surrounding developments. As proposed, the variance would enable the applicant to utilize the property in a manner that is substantially comparable to other similarly zoned, multiple -family residential lots with no unique lot shape or topographical features. Moreover, the granting of the deviation will not allow Resolution No. 13-10— April 2, 2013— Page 5 a development intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property because the scale and character of the proposed development will be compatible with surrounding properties. Specifically, the applicant has designed the three-story units to minimize any adverse massing impacts to adjacent properties. With regard to Building 1, which abuts a property containing a two-story industrial building to the east, and Building 3, which abuts properties containing single-family residences to the south, the first story (garage level) of the buildings have been placed approximately 9 feet below the adjacent grade of the abutting properties, resulting in an overall building height of 25 feet relative to the abutting property to the east and a 20 -foot building height relative to the abutting residential properties to the south. Additionally, both buildings will provide a 20 -foot minimum setback from property lines, which exceeds the 5 -foot side yard setback required by Code for Building 1 and complies with the 20 -font rear yard setback required by Code for Building 3. Since the resulting development, with the proposed design features to minimize massing impacts, would be compatible with the adjacent single-family residential developments, the granting of the variance does not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. • Variance from street landscape setback (20 feet required; 10 feet proposed). Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. The distinct topography, shape, and location of the property provide justification for the approval of the requested variance. As proposed, the variance would enable the applicant to utilize the property in a manner that is substantially comparable to other similarly zoned, multiple -family residential lots with no unique lot shape or topographical features. Specifically, the grade difference between the subject site and Victoria Street (approximately 2.5 -foot grade difference at the easterly end of the property to an approximately 30 -foot grade difference at the westerly end of the property) will offset any reductions in landscape setback along the street frontage due to the landscape slope that is currently visible from the street. Additionally, as part of the proposed project, the applicant is proposing to re -grade the westerly portion of the site with in -fill soil to support the proposed development, which will necessitate the construction of a retaining "crib wall' that will be prominently visible along the street frontage. The following conditions of approval have been incorporated to address these issues: o The landscape setback area along Victoria Street shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits and shall contain additional 24 -inch box trees above the minimum Code requirements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller sized trees to 24 -inch box trees or providing Resolution No. 13-10 — April 2, 2013 — Page 6 additional 24 -inch box trees. o The proposed retaining "crib wall" to be constructed along the Victoria Street frontage shall be planted with sufficient landscape material to completely screen the wall. • Variance for height and location of crib wall along the street frontage (maximum 6 -foot height allowed, 10 -foot front setback reauired• 30 -foot maximum height 6 -foot setback proposed). The distinct topography, shape, and location of the property provide justification for the approval of the requested variance. Because of the property's unique topography, shape, and location, the strict application of the City's height requirements would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by surrounding developments. Specifically, the topography of the site necessitates the construction of the crib wall in excess of the wall height allowed under code because the strict application of the City's wall height requirements would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by surrounding developments. As proposed, the variance would enable the applicant to utilize the property in a manner that is substantially comparable to other similarly zoned, multiple -family residential lots with no unique lot shape or topographical features. Additionally, the wall is required to be landscaped with sufficient landscape material to completely screen the wall (as described above) to offset the height of the wall and the setback from the street. • Variance from minimum and average lot sizes for small lot common interest developments (3,000 sp ft min 3,500 sq ft avq required• 1,500 sg ft min., 2,038 sq. ft. avq. proposed). Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. Specifically, the irregular topography, shape, and location of the lot restricts the ability to provide the minimum and average lot sizes for a detached common interest development of this size. Additionally, the scale and scope of the project is comparable to several similarly zoned and developed multiple family residential developments north of the subject property along Pacific Avenue. The granting of the deviation will not allow a development intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property because, as noted earlier, the maximum density allowed in the R2 -MD zone is 17 units; 17 units are proposed. • Variance from parkway landscaping requirements (5 feet min req 2.5 feet min proposed). The distinct topography and location of the property provide justification for the approval of the requested variance. The project as proposed would enable the applicant to utilize the property in a manner that is substantially comparable to the similarly zoned and developed multiple family residential developments north of the subject property. However, the unique shape, topography and location of this site are such that the same project could not be built and still meet the full parkway landscape requirement. Because Resolution No. 13-10 —April 2, 2013 —Page 7 minimum driveway widths are required adjacent to the main buildings to provide vehicle back out and turning movements, the code required 5 -foot parkway landscape width adjacent to the buildings cannot be met (2.5 feet adjacent to the buildings is proposed). This will be offset by enhanced landscape materials (i.e., additional trees and hedges) in order to provide the appearance of dense landscaping from within the project. The variance request would have minimal effect on the overall landscaped area. • Administrative adiustment from rear yard setback for the second story of one of the units in Buildinq 4 (20 feet required; 15 feet proposed). As with the 3 -story units, the applicant has designed the two-story units to minimize any adverse massing impacts to the adjacent residential properties. The unique shape, topography, and location of the property provide justification for the approval of the requested administrative adjustment. Specifically, with regard to Building 4, which abuts single-family residential properties to the south, the first story (garage level) has also been placed approximately 9 feet below the adjacent grade of the abutting residential properties, resulting in an overall building height of 17 feet relative to the adjacent residential properties. As proposed, the administrative adjustment would enable the applicant to utilize the property in a manner that is substantially comparable to other similarly zoned, multiple -family residential lots with no unique lot shape or topographical features. The granting of the deviation will not allow a development intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property because the scale and character of the proposed development will be compatible with surrounding properties. C. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) because: a. The proposed development or use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. b. Granting the minor conditional use permit will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood. C. Granting the minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. Additional facts and findings are as follows: • The proiect will be required to comply with all applicable Uniform Building Code requirements so as not to endanger the stability of the slope The project has been reviewed by the Building Safety Division and is recommending, as a Resolution No. 13-10 — April 2, 2013 — Page 8 condition of approval, that a soils report be prepared for the project containing recommendations on how to protect the existing slope from failure. • The project will not interfere with access for fire protection. The project has been reviewed by the Fire Prevention Division and has confirmed that the project will not interfere with access for fire protection. • The vroiect will not detract from the visual identity and integrity of the bluffs because the crib wall will be required to be landscaped. As noted earlier in this report, a condition of approval requiring the crib wall to be landscaped with sufficient landscape material to completely screen the wall will ensure that the development will not detract from the visual identity and integrity of the bluffs. D. The project complies with the purpose and intent of the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code and meets the purpose and intent of the residential design guidelines, which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to compatibility with the established residential community. This design review includes site planning, preservation of overall open space, landscaping, appearance, mass and scale of structures, location of windows, varied roof forms and roof plane breaks, and any other applicable design features. Additional facts and findings are as follows: • Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines for building massing of upper story to first story percentage (80% recommended,• 100% proposed). The project complies with the purpose and intent of the City of the Costa Mesa Zoning Code and meets the purpose and intent of the residential design guidelines, which are intended to promote design excellence in new residential construction, with consideration being given to compatibility with the established residential community. The deviation is warranted in that the proposed project features quality construction and building materials, incorporate variation in depth of floor plans, rooflines, multiple building planes, and offsets to provide architectural interest and visual relief from off-site. • Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines for building height for Buildings 2 and 4 (22 feet recommended, 25 feet proposed). The project complies with the purpose and intent of the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code and meets the purpose and intent of the residential design guidelines. Specifically, as with the 3 -story units, the applicant has designed the two-story units to minimize any adverse massing impacts to the adjacent residential properties. With regard to Building 4, which abuts single-family residential properties to the south, the first story (garage level) has also been placed approximately 9 feet below the adjacent grade of the abutting residential properties, resulting in an overall building height of 17 feet relative to the adjacent residential properties. Resolution No. 13-10 —April 2, 2013— Page 9 The proposed building height would not negatively impact the surrounding properties or aesthetics of the neighborhood. D. The subdivision of the property for residential ownership is consistent with the purpose and intent of the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. E. The proposed use of the subdivision is for residential ownership purposes which is compatible with the objectives, policies, general plan land use designation, and programs specified in the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan. F. The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate Tentative Tract Map TT -17508 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 purpose and intent of the City's Zoning Code and General Plan. G. 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 Government Code Section 66473.1. H. The subdivision 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 subdivision. 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). J. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines; and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15332 for In -Fill Development. K. 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 will be mitigated by the payment of traffic impact fees. L. The proposed buildings are an excessive distance from the street necessitating fire apparatus access and provisions of an on-site fire hydrant. Resolution No. 13-10 — April 2, 2013 — Page 10 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA -12-24 and TT -17508 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 2. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of individual units, suites, buildings, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 3. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process such as a minor design review or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 4. Upper level windows on the southerly elevation of Building 4 shall be smaller view -obscuring windows and shall be offset to avoid direct lines of sight into abutting second -story windows abutting the project. 5. The developer shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy. This inspection is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall contact the U.S. Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 7. The developer shall contact the current cable service provider prior to issuance of building permits to arrange for pre -wiring for future cable communication service. 8. Turn -around area(s) shall be striped and marked for no parking. 9. To avoid an alley -like appearance, driveways shall be developed without a center swale. Design shall be approved by the Planning Division. 10. It is recommended that the project incorporate green building design and construction techniques where feasible. The applicant may contact the Building Safety Division at (714) 754-5273 for additional information. 11. Demolition permits for existing structures shall be obtained and all work and inspections completed prior to final building inspections. Applicant is notified that written notice to the Air Quality Management District may be required ten (10) days prior to demolition. 12. The expiration of Planning Application PA -12-24 shall coincide with the expiration of Tentative Tract Map TT -17508; therefore, both applications shall be valid for 24 months from the date of the resolution. It should be noted that a request for a 12 -month time extension must be made prior to the expiration date and must reference both applications. Resolution No. 13-10 —April 2, 2013 —Page 11 13. Permanent masonry wall(s) shall be maintained or constructed along the perimeter side and rear property lines of the development lot at a minimum height of eight feet as measured from the highest adjacent grade. The perimeter walls shall have a finished quality on both sides. 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. The Development Services Director may approve other alternative design and opaque materials for the perimeter walls. 14. Fences or walls interior to the project shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height. Perimeter walls shall be decorative masonry walls. The design of the new block walls shall incorporate materials, color, and texture that will be compatible with the architectural style of the proposed homes. 15. The developer shall provide decorative hardscape and landscape treatments as shown on the conceptual plans to provide visual relief for the project from the street. Final materials shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 16. The retaining `crib wall' along the Victoria Street frontage shall be planted with sufficient landscape material to completely screen the wall. Landscape materials shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. 17. The landscape setback area along Victoria Street shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits and shall contain additional 24 -inch box trees above the minimum Code requirements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller sized trees to 24 -inch box trees or providing additional 24 -inch box trees. 18. If the project is constructed in phases, the perimeter wall, landscaping along the street frontage and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of utilities for the first phase. 19. The number of on-site parking spaces required for this project (63) shall be shown on the final construction drawings. 20. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall identify to the Development Services Director a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site activity, including resolution of issues related to dust generation from grading/paving activities. 21. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan features methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring 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 should mitigate disruption to residents and also businesses during construction. The truck route plan shall preclude truck routes through residential areas and major truck traffic during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200 trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or Transportation Services Manager. The project construction traffic shall not use the streets that are within the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the building plans shall demonstrate that Resolution No. 13-10 — April 2, 2013 — Page 12 all units are equipped with a mechanical ventilation system that will properly filter the indoor air. The ventilation system can be a component of the air conditioning system with the distinction being that clean, ventilated air flow does not necessarily need coolant. 23. Applicant shall provide proof of establishment of a homeowners association prior to release of any utilities prior to selling any of the units as condominiums. 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) to the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office for review. The CC&Rs must be in a form and substance acceptable to, and shall be approved by the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office. A. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions requiring that the HOA homeowner's association (HOA) effectively manage parking and contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations. B. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to night-time lighting and active use of the common areas. These provisions shall prohibit amplified noise, loud parties/gatherings, night-time lighting other than for security purposes, or any other activities that may be disruptive to the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties after sunset. C. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to preservation and maintenance of the common lot and common open space areas in perpetuity by the homeowner's association. 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. D. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to informing future residents of the project that two-story construction of the abutting single family residents on Gleneagles Terrace may be allowed subject to the applicable provisions of the City's Zoning Code. 25. Open parking spaces be designated as unreserved, available, open guest parking for all visitors to the site. Signage will be posted to indicate that these spaces are available to all visitors. The CC&Rs shall contain restrictions prohibiting parking in front of garage doors where no driveways are provided. 26. All units are required to maintain a two -car garage. Residents shall park vehicles in garage spaces. Storage of other items may occur only to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the require garage spaces. 27. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading as well as the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Building official prior to issuance of grading permits. 28. Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of (1) City's approval of the project, including but not limited to any proceeding under Resolution No. 13-10 — April 2, 2013 — Page 13 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. Eng. 29. Maintain the public right-of-way in a "wet -down" condition to prevent excessive dust and promptly remove any spillage from the public right-of-way by sweeping or sprinkling. 30. Comply with the requirements contained in the letter prepared by the City Engineer dated December 20, 2012 (attached). Bldg. 31. The applicant shall submit a soils report for this project. Soils report recommendation shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. Soils report shall contain recommendations on how to protect the existing slope from failure. Provide borings a minimum of 30 feet at slope area. Existing top of slope shall be surveyed and shown on the grading plans. Resolution No. 13-10 — April 2, 2013 — Page 14 CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping. 1 . All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 2. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day, 3. Development shall comply with all requirements of Section 13-32, Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relating to development standards for residential projects. 4. Proof of recordation of the tract map shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Pay Park fee prior to building permit issuance. Applicable fee shall be that fee in effect at the time the subdivision application is filed with the City. 6. Included in the required CC&Rs shall be a provision that will permit the installation of solar heating systems, subject to applicable zoning district requirements, the California Building Standards Code, and associated ordinances, and reasonable architectural review by the project's architectural review committee. 7. The CC&Rs shall include a provision as to use and maintenance of all guest parking spaces, driveways and common open space. 8. CC&Rs and articles of incorporation and bylaws for the homeowners' association shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to recordation. CC&Rs shall include provisions as required in Costa Mesa Municipal Code section 13-41, as well as applicable conditions of approval and code requirements. A copy of the recorded CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the release of utilities for the units. 9. A minimum 20 -foot by 20 -foot clear interior dimension shall be provided for all garages. 10. Minimum garage door width shall be 16 feet. 1 1 . All garages shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 12. All new on-site utility services shall be installed underground. 13. 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 Resolution No. 13-10 — April 2, 2013 — Page 15 Resolution No. 13-10 —April 2, 2013 —Page 16 box under the direction of the Planning Division. 14. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 15. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. 16. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 17. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. Bldg. 18. Comply with the requirements of the 2010 California Building Code, 2010 California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards Code and 2010 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. 19. Submit grading plans, an erosion control plan, and a hydrology study for this project. 20. Provide a plan to the County of Orange Health Dept. for review and approval. 21. 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 2 percent. 2010 California Residential Code Section R403.1.7.3. 2010 California Building Code CBC 1808.7.4 22. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall be a minimum of 6 inches within the first 10 feet -2010 California Residential Code Section R401.3. 23. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of plans for plan check, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation for compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS000002 for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit); the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Santa Ana Region Order No. 138-2002-0010 and NPDES Permit No. CAS61803O; and, the City of Costa Mesa Ordinance No. 97-20 for compliance with Resolution No. 13-10 —April 2, 2013 —Page 16 SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani 1. It is recommended that the developer contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to obtain Sanitary District requirements. Resolution No. 13-10 —April 2, 2013 —Page 17 NPDES Permit for the City of Costa Mesa. Such documentation shall include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying and detailing the implementation of the applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs). Eng. 24. For demolition, grading, or building permits involving projects with a valuation of $10,000 or more, the contractor shall use a City - permitted hauler(s) to haul any debris or solid waste from the job site (refer to Section 8-83(h), Regulations, of Title 8 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code). Use of a City -permitted hauler for such projects is the responsibility of the designated contractor. Non-compliance is subject to an administrative penalty as follows: $1,000 or 3% of the total project value, whichever is greater. Trans. 25. Fulfill mitigation of off-site traffic impacts at the time of issuance of occupancy by submitting to the Planning Division the required traffic impact fee pursuant to the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council. The traffic impact fee is calculated including credits for all existing uses. At the current rate per trip end, the traffic impact fee is estimated at $11,620.00. NOTE: The Traffic Impact Fee will be recalculated at the time of issuance of building permit/certificate of occupancy based upon any changes in the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council and in effect at that time. 26. Revise the site plan to correctly identify public parkway and street width from centerline to property line. 27. Construct residential driveway approach at location specified on submitted site plan. 28. Provide drive approach dimensions on Victoria Street as W=30' and X=4'. 29. Close unused drive approaches with full height curb and gutter per City Standards. 30. Provide 25' minimum drive aisles for all parking spaces to provide adequate space for turning movements. 31. Parking spaces shall comply with City Standards. Fire 32. Provide one (1) Class A fire hydrant to be located per the Fire Department. The hydrant shall be installed and operable prior to the initiation of combustible construction. 33. Provide residential fire sprinkler systems for all structures. Parks/ 34. Plant 24 -inch box Pistacia Chinensis in tree wells at back of sidewalk/toe Pkwys of slope. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani 1. It is recommended that the developer contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to obtain Sanitary District requirements. Resolution No. 13-10 —April 2, 2013 —Page 17 AQMD 2. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (800) 288- 7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by the district. School 3. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 4. 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. Resolution No. 13-10— April 2, 2013— Page 18 EXHIBIT C FACTS AND FINDINGS RELATED TO CEQA EXEMPTION 15332 FOR IN -FILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in -fill development meeting the conditions as described below, The proposed project meets the below conditions based on the following: a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. Additional facts are as follows: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan/Zoning Code with regard to use, density and intensity. The proposed development is a multiple -family residential development, which is consistent with the uses allowed in the Medium Density Residential General Plan designation and R2 -MD zoning district. The proposal conforms to General Plan Goal LU -1, "to provide its citizens with a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional uses to satisfy the needs of the social and economic segments of the population and to retain the residential character of the City." The proposal also complies with General Plan Objective LU -1A, to "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." In this case, the General Plan land use and zoning district allows a maximum of 17 units to be developed on the property and 17 units are proposed (maximum 12 dwelling units per acre). A density bonus beyond the maximum allowable density is not requested. Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Zoning Code) is consistent with the City of Costa Mesa's 2000 General Plan. Specifically, the Zoning Code allows the approval of variance requests provided that the required and appropriate variance findings are made by the final decision makers in approving the project. The inclusion of variance(s) in a proposed development project does not negate the applicability of a Class 32 CEQA exemption. Subject to the adoption of legally -required findings for variances, the project is found consistent with the applicable development regulations for multi -family development in the R2 -MD zone. b. The proposed development occurs within City limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. Additional facts are as follows: The project site is within the City limits and is currently developed as a church campus for a Unitarian Church. The site is located on the south side of Victoria Street, and is bounded to the south by single family residences, to the east by a Resolution No. 13-10— April 2, 2013— Page 19 multi -story industrial building, and to the west by an urban park. The northerly slope areas of the property had been modified by the widening of Victoria Street in the late 1980's. The residual slope area had been altered by the widening, creating manufactured or manmade slopes. The property is roughly triangular in shape and approximately 1.4 acres in size. Other than a 93 -foot long interface with Talbert Park along the westerly/northwesterly property line, the development site is substantially surrounded by residential and commercial uses. The existing 300+ foot long street frontage is along a heavily -travelled secondary arterial in the City's Master Plan of Highways. Average daily traffic volumes along Victoria Street range from 19,000 to 25,000 vehicles per day. The proposed development is clearly surrounded by urban uses and is considered infill development. c. The project site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Additional facts are as follows: The project site is not designated in the City's General Plan as an environmentally sensitive area or protected open space area. The property is not located in the Coastal Zone. It is currently developed with a paved parking lot, church building, and accessory buildings that will be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. Landscape materials are primarily comprised of non-native vegetation. There are no known riparian habitat, sensitive biological species, archaeological resources, or paleontological resources on the property. d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Additional facts are as follows: The project was reviewed by the Transportation Services Division to verify that the project would not result in significant traffic impacts. Specifically, a total of 162 average vehicle trips are anticipated from the development with 13 am peak hour trips and 17 pm peak hour trips projected. The proposed ingress/egress (main driveway) is approximately 20 feet east of the existing driveway. Traffic visibility and safety has been considered with regard to the proposed configuration and alignment of the main driveway. The circulation plan, including this ingress/egress point, meets the City's standards for pedestrian and vehicle safety. Traffic impact fees will be required to be paid by the project developer. The project would not result in any significant noise impacts to sensitive uses. Victoria Street is identified in the City's General Plan Noise Element and is located within a 60 to 65 CNEL noise contour. This noise contour is considered consistent and compatible with the outdoor environs of residential development in proximity to a secondary arterial. Furthermore, the proposed project also includes perimeter block walls to reduce noise levels, as well as required, proper sound attenuation measures (i.e. insulation and various construction materials) to mitigate the indoor noise environment. Resolution No. 13-10 — April 2, 2013 — Page 20 Based on the average daily trip generation of 162 trips for the project, air quality impacts are not considered significant. Short-term air quality impacts during construction would be addressed through the Construction Management Plan and Best Management Practices. Additionally, the project was reviewed by the Public Services Division to validate that storm water quality impacts will be less than significant. Specifically, a bioswale is required along the northerly portion of the proposed project to address stormwater retention and runoff. The developer will also be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Additional facts are as follows: The project was reviewed by the Public Services Division to ensure that the project will be adequately served by all utilities (water, sewer, gas, and electricity) and public services including parks, libraries, schools, police protection services, fire protection services, and medical response services. These public utilities and services have been used and/or available to the existing church. As an infill development containing 17 new residences in proximity to existing single-family and multi -family residential neighborhoods, the site would be adequately served by utilities and public services. Parkland impact fees and school impact fees will be required to be paid by the project developer to offset these related impacts. Resolution No. 13-10 — April 2, 2013 — Page 21