Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - - Agenda - 7/21/2015AGENDA CITY OF COSTA MESA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL, AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY* MEETING *NOTE: ALL AGENCY AND AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIPS ARE REFLECTED IN THE TITLE "COUNCIL MEMBER." TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2015 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 77 FAIR DRIVE CLOSED SESSION - 5:30 P.M. (SPECIAL TIME) W� I REGULAR MEETING - 5:45 P.M. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER `+ Mayor JAMES M. RIGHEIMER GARY MONAHAN Mayor Pro Tern Council Member SANDRA GENISKATRINA FOLEY Council Member ► Council Member City Attorney Chief Executive Officer Thomas Duarte Ak A Thomas R. Hatch Note regarding agenda -related writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council agenda packet (GC §54957.5): Anv related writinas or documents Drovided to a maioritv of the Citv Council after distribution of the City Council Agenda Packets will be made available for public inspection. Binders containing these agenda -related documents are located in the Council Chambers lobby. In addition, such writings and documents may be Dosted—whenever Dossible or as Dart of the aaenda — on the city's website at www.costamesaca.gov Your attendance at this public meeting is valued and appreciated. If you have questions regarding the agenda, public comments or wish to obtain copies of documents please contact the City Clerk office at (714) 754-5225 or e-mail cityclerkC@,costarnesaca.gov AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING - July 21, 2015 - PAGE 1 v.2 07/16/15 WELCOME TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC COMMENTS — MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: If you wish to address the City Council on a matter not on the agenda, please complete and submit a yellow speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards may be submitted to the City Clerk during the Public Comment period for non -agenda items, up to 6:40 p.m. or prior to the last speaker, whichever is earlier. Any speakers on non -agenda items not heard prior to 6:40 p.m. will be allowed to speak at the end of the meeting. Members of the public shall only address the City Council one time at any given meeting for non -agenda items. Speakers may only complete one card per person. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. PUBLIC COMMENTS — MATTER LISTED ON THE AGENDA: If you wish to address the City Council on a matter listed on the agenda, please complete and submit a green speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards must be submitted prior to the start of Public Comments on the item. Please identify which item on the agenda you would like to address. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. The speaker cards are located on the table at the entrance to the City Council Chamber. Please take notice that the order of scheduled agenda items may be modified by the Mayor or the City Council during the course of the meeting, so please stay alert. 1. Any written communications, photos, or other material for copying and distribution to the City Council that is 10 pages or less, must be submitted to the City Clerk NO LATER THAN 3:00 P.M. If the public wishes to submit written communication, photos, or other material for distribution to the City Council at the meeting AFTER 3:00 p.m., 10 copies will need to be provided for distribution. Please note that NO copies of written communication will be made AFTER 3:00 p.m. Any materials to be displayed on the overhead projector at the Council Meeting must be submitted to the City Clerk NO LATER THAN 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. 2. In accordance with Costa Mesa Municipal Code, Sec. 2-64 (1): No person in the audience shall engage in disorderly, disruptive, disturbing, delaying or boisterous conduct. 3. All cell phones and other electronic devices are to be turned off or set to vibrate. Members of the audience are requested to step outside the Council Chambers to conduct a phone conversation. 4. In accordance with City Council Policy 000-11, and among other requirements, any video submitted for display at a public meeting must have been previously reviewed by staff to verify appropriateness for general audiences. A copy of this policy is available at City Hall during normal office hours. 5. Free Wi-Fi is available in the Council Chamber during the meetings. Two networks are available: council1 and council2. The password for either network is: cmcouncil. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (714) 754-5225. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]. AGENDA- REGULAR MEETING - July 21, 2015 - PAGE 2 v.2 07/16/15 CLOSED SESSION — 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS Members of the public are welcome to address the City Council only on those items on the Closed Session agenda. Each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak. 1. Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation: Solid Landings Behavioral Health, Inc.; and Sure Haven, Inc. in its own name and dba Rock Solid Recovery; FPS, LLC: Stephen Fennelly; and Elizabeth Perry v. City of Costa Mesa, District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:14-cv-01838-JVS- JCG, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2). 2. Conference with Thomas R. Hatch, Chief Executive Officer, regarding Unrepresented Executive employees, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6. 3. Conference with Thomas R. Hatch, Chief Executive Officer, and Labor Negotiator, Agency Negotiator regarding Costa Mesa Division Managers Association (CMDMA), pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6. The City Council and Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency will recess to Conference Room 5A for Closed Session at the conclusion of public comments. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY — 5:45 P.M. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION [Per Council Policy 000-12, these presentations are made by community volunteers stating their own views. The City Council disclaims any intent to endorse or sponsor the views of any speaker.] Jonathon Murillo, Mika Community Development Corporation, Costa Mesa ROLL CALL AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING - July 21, 2015 - PAGE 3 v.2 07/16/15 CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT • COIN: Ex Parte Communications pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-238 (b) ANNOUNCEMENTS: There's always something happening in Costa Mesa! The Mayor will play a video clip of the "Costa Mesa Minute," featuring upcoming events and activities in the community. PRESENTATIONS: 1. Mayor's Award — Frank Gavel 2. Orange County Transportation Authority — 1 405 Project PUBLIC COMMENTS — MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: If you wish to address the City Council on a matter not on the agenda, please complete and submit a yellow speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards must be submitted to the City Clerk during the Public Comment period for non -agenda items, up to 6:40 p.m. or prior to the last speaker, whichever is earlier. Any speakers on non -agenda items not heard prior to 6:40 p.m. will be allowed to speak at the end of the meeting. Members of the public shall only address the City Council one time at any given meeting for non -agenda items. Speakers may only complete one card per person. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. The three minute per speaker time limit may be extended for good cause by the Mayor or by a majority vote of City Council. Questions and comments made by public speakers may be addressed by the City Council during Council Comments or by the Chief Executive Officer during the CEO's Report. COUNCIL MEMBERS' REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS 1. Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer 2. Mayor Mensinger 3. Council Member Foley 4. Council Member Genis 5. Council Member Monahan REPORT — CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING - July 21, 2015 - PAGE 4 v.2 07/16/15 CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be acted upon in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council, staff, or the public request specific items to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. 1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: MOTION TO APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE ONLY OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SAID ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR ON THE PUBLIC AGENDA SHALL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND FURTHER READING WAIVED RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt and approve Ordinances and Resolutions by reading title only, and further reading waived. 2. READING FOLDER a. Claims received by the City Clerk: Patricia Calavetta, and Robert Olson RECOMMENDATION: City Council receive and file. 3. WARRANT RESOLUTION NO. 2539 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, INCLUDING PAYROLL REGISTER NOS. 15-13 "A" FOR $810.00 AND 15-14 $2,058,112.32; AND CITY OPERATING EXPENSES FOR $790,514.81; AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID — Finance Department RECOMMENDATION: Approve Warrant Resolution No. 2539, to be read by the title only, and waive further reading. AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING - July 21, 2015 - PAGE 5 v.2 07/16/15 4. POMONA AVENUE ALLEY (ALLEY NO. 5). MENDOZA DRIVE ALLEYS (ALLEY NO. 51 AND ALLEY NO. 119), BEACH STREET ALLEY (ALLEY NO. 124), AND VELASCO LANE ALLEY (ALLEY NO. 125) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT — CITY PROJECT NO. 14-06 — Public Services Department/ Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council accept the work performed by Black Rock Construction Company and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion; and 2. City Council authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after the filing date; and release the retention monies 35 days after the Notice of Completion filing date. 5. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING AND SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH THE COSTA MESA HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JULY 7, 2015; AND MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF JULY 13, 2015 — Chief Executive Officer's Department/ City Clerk's Office RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the minutes. 6. FINAL MAP FOR TRACT NO. 17709 LOCATED AT 573-591 VICTORIA STREET, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA — Public Services Department/ Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the Final Map for Tract No. 17709 and authorize the signing of the Map by the City Clerk and City Engineer. 7. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF FIRE STATION NO. 1 — Public Services Department/Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: City Council award a contract to WLC Architects, Inc., 8163 Rochester Avenue, Suite 100, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, in an amount not to exceed $499,000.00 for design services, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING - July 21, 2015 - PAGE 6 v.2 07/16/15 8. A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT AWARDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR THE "SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM" — Police Department/Field Operations Division/Special Services Bureau (Traffic Safety) RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council adopt Resolution 15-38, to be read by title only, and waive further reading, which authorizes the CEO or his designee to accept the grant awards from the California Office of Traffic Safety for: the "Selective Traffic Enforcement Program" (STEP); and 2. City Council approve Budget Adjustment #16-002 for the total amount of $150,000 to increase revenue and appropriation for overtime and professional development associated with the 2016 OTS STEP grant. 9. APPARATUS ROOM EXTENSION AND RESCUE VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING — FIRE STATION NO. 4 — CITY PROJECT NO. 15-10 — Public Services Department/Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council adopt plans, specifications, and working details for Apparatus Room Extension and Rescue Vehicle Storage Building at Fire Station No. 4, City Project No. 15-10; and 2. City Council accept the withdrawal of the bid submitted by Marjani Builders, Inc. at 26091 Ravenna Road, Mission Viejo, CA 92692; and 3. City Council award the construction contract to St. George Construction, Inc. at 7839 Adwen St., Downey, CA 90241, in the amount of $690,000.00 (base bid plus additive item AD1); and 4. City Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. 10. NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE VACATION OF A FLOWAGE EASEMENT AT 970 WEST 16!-H STREET — Public Services Department/Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council set a public hearing on September 1, 2015 for the vacation of a flowage easement at 970 West 16t" Street; and 2. City Council adopt Resolution 15-40, to be read by title only, and waive further reading, of Intent to Vacate Flowage Easement at 970 West 16tn Street. AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING - July 21, 2015 - PAGE 7 v.2 07/16/15 11. NOTICE OF INTENT TO VACATE EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 970 WEST 16t—h STREET — Public Services Department/Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council set a public hearing on September 1, 2015 for the vacation of excess Right -Of -Way (ROW) at 970 West 16t' Street; and 2. City Council adopt Resolution 15-39, to be read by title only, and waive further reading, of Intent to vacate excess Right -Of -Way (ROW) at 970 West 16th Street. 12. WEST 19LH- STREET BICYCLE TRAIL PROJECT — Public Services Department/Transportation Services Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council award Professional Services Agreement for the design of the West 19th Street Bicycle Trail project to KOA Corporation, 2141 W. Orangewood Avenue, Suite A, Orange, CA 92868, in the amount of $180,000; and 2. City Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. 13. CREATION OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR — COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DIVISION JOB CLASSIFICATION AND CORRESPONDING SALARY RANGE — Development Services Department/Community Improvement Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council approve the job classification and corresponding salary range for the budgeted Assistant Director of Community Improvement; and 2. City Council adopt Resolution No. 15-41, to be read by title only, and waive further reading, which amends Resolution No. 08-59 by establishing the new Assistant Director of Community Improvement classification with a top salary range of $153,192 ($9,526 to $12,766 per month) under the Executive Salary Resolution. AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING - July 21, 2015 - PAGE 8 v.2 07/16/15 14. RENEWAL OF THE MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT — Information Technology Department RECOMMENDATION: City Council Approve and authorize the City CEO to execute the renewal of the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement for Microsoft Enterprise products through the County of Riverside Cooperative Agreement No. RIVCO-20800-002 with CompuCom Systems, Inc., effective August 2, 2015 through August 1, 2018, in an amount not to exceed $214,460.28 or $71,486.76 per year. 15. AWARD AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PRINTING AND DELIVERY SERVICES OF THE RECREATION GUIDE — Parks and Community Services Department/Recreation Division RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve an annual price agreement contract with San Dieguito Printers for the printing and delivery services of the City's quarterly Recreation Guide, for a three (3) year term with the option of two (2) additional one (1) year renewal periods. The contract amount is estimated at $51,030.32 annually for the company's services with a contract term not to exceed $153,090.96 for three (3) years. 16. AMENDMENT TO EXTEND TERM OF CARE AMBULANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT — Fire Department RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve Amendment Number Four extending the term of the Ambulance Services Agreement with Care Ambulance Service, Inc., for the continuation of emergency ambulance and patient billing services until June 30, 2016. 17. APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER SANDRA GENIS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT — CEO's Office/Administration RECOMMENDATION: City Council appoint Council Member Sandra Genis as the City of Costa Mesa's representative to the Orange County Vector Control District (OCVCD). ----------------------------------- END OF CONSENT CALENDAR ----------------------------------- AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING - July 21, 2015 - PAGE 9 v.2 07/16/15 PUBLIC HEARINGS — 7:00 p.m. (Resolution No. 05-55): 1. REVIEW OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION'S ACTION ON MESA VERDE DRIVE AND CALIFORNIA STREET MEDIAN LANDSCAPE PLANT PALETTE — Public Services Department/Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council provide direction to Staff relative to the Parks and Recreation Commission's action on Mesa Verde Drive and California Street Median Landscape Plant Palette; and 2. City Council provide direction to Staff relative to the noticing process for Capital Improvement Projects. 2. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 FOR A DEVIATION FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 W. 19LH STREET — Planning Division/Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION: City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny Minor Conditional Use Permit ZA-15-01 to deviate from parking requirements for a group counseling use (Solid Landings) in a 6,710 square foot building (67 parking spaces is required for the use, 24 on -site parking spaces will be provided (29 existing spaces minus 5 spaces that will be lost when the West 19t" Street gate is reopened per the conditions of approval) based on unique operating characteristics. 3. APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT-178-70 FOR A 6-UNIT, DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE — Planning Division/Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION: City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve the proposed project, Planning Application PA-15-10; and Tentative Tract Map TT- 178-70. AGENDA -REGULAR MEETING -July 21, 2015 - PAGE 10 v.2 07/16/15 4. REZONE R-14-05, PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-48, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP T-17824 FOR A 10-UNIT DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST — Planning Division/Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council approve Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND); and 2. City Council give first reading to Ordinance No. 15-XX, to be read by title only, and waive further reading, approving Rezone R-14-05; and 3. City Council approve Planning Application PA-14-48 and Tentative Tract Map T-17824 by adoption of Resolution No. 15-XX, to be read by title only, and waive further reading. OLD BUSINESS: NONE NEW BUSINESS: 1. COUNCIL DIRECTION FOR ALLOCATION OF FIELD USE FEES — Chief Executive Office RECOMMENDATION: City Council provide direction to staff where to allocate field use fees by the Matt Leinart Flag Football Program. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR REPORT — CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING - July 21, 2015 - PAGE 11 v.2 07/16/15 • UPCOMING COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES, EVENTS AND MEETINGS • Concerts in the Park, Tuesday evenings in July, Fairview Park, for more information, please visit www.costamesafoundation.org • Tuesday, July 21, 2015 — Friday, July 24, 2015 — Special Olympics Delegates arrive from Aruba and Bahamas — Vanguard University — 55 Fair Dr., Costa Mesa • Thursday, July 23, 2015 — Costa Mesa Day at the Orange County Fair • Monday, July 20, 2015, Monday, August 3, 2015, and Monday, August 10, 2015 — Free Movie Mondays at Segerstrom Center for the Arts, 600 Town Center Drive. For more information, please visit www.scfta.org • Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. — 17th Annual Orange County Track Club (OCTC) Pancake Breakfast and 5K Cross Country RaceMalk. For more information, please visit, www.octrackclub.com • Tuesday, August 4, 2015 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. — National Night Out. Target Parking Lot — 3030 Harbor Blvd. • Friday, August 7, 2015 from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. — First Friday Road Show — City Hall Parking Lot — 77 Fair Drive. AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING - July 21, 2015 - PAGE 12 v.2 07/16/15 NOTICE AND CALL OF A SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING OF THE COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL July 21, 2015, 5:30 p.m. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Closed Session Meeting of the Costa Mesa City Council will be held on Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. The purpose of the Special Meeting is to discuss the following item in Closed Session: 1. Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation: Solid Landings Behavioral Health, Inc.; and Sure Haven, Inc. in its own name and dba Rock Solid Recovery; FPS, LLC: Stephen Fennelly; and Elizabeth Perry v. City of Costa Mesa, District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:14-cv-01838-JVS- JCG, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2). 2. Conference with Thomas R. Hatch, Chief Executive Officer, regarding Unrepresented Executive employees, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6. 3. Conference with Thomas R. Hatch, Chief Executive Officer, and Labor Negotiator, Agency Negotiator regarding Costa Mesa Division Managers Association (CMDMA), pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6. DATED this 15th day of July, 2015. /s/ Stephen M. Mensinger Stephen M. Mensinger, Mayor ATTEST: /s/ Brenda Green Brenda Green, City Clerk CITY OF COSTA MESA MAYOR'S A WARD DATE: JULY 21, 2015 PRESENTED TO: FRANK GAVEL, Community Volunteer Script: Mayor: "Tonight, we have Frank Gavel, long time Costa Mesa resident and community volunteer, here to receive the Mayor's Award." Mayor: "As you will see from the video, Frank is an amazing man, whose selfless actions have affected many in this community. Let's watch the video". After the video is complete, Mayor moves to podium. Welcomes Frank and introduces his family: (Wife Diane, daughters Beth & Tammy, Grandsons Mackenzie and Cameron) Mayor: "Frank, for your tireless dedication in serving others, it is my honor and privilege to present you with the Mayor's Award." Mayor presents certificate, and goodie bags and asks Frank if he would like to say a few words. After presentation is complete, ask Frank & his family to join you at the front of the Chambers for the photo opp. :ivo,q OF TRAAIS.o qe fWi Z � la(bww 4CTA S �° w� TATES OF P IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Project Locatia 2 IMPROVEMENT ' PROJECT 61110111219 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recommends Alternative 3 as the project preferred alternative Caltrans identifies $82 million in state funding Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) re-engages with Caltrans: • Local control • Minimize construction impacts OCTA Board approves terms and conditions with Caltrans related to roles/responsibilities and directs staff to implement the project preferred alternative July 2014 January 2015 February 2015 April 2015 IMPROVEMENT ' PROJECT Project 11 • • r lab 45 lob .6 4C R The project adds 1 general purpose and 1 express lane. The express lane, when combined with the existing carpool lane, creates the 1-405 Express Lanes, a two-lane each direction express lane facility. 'I IMPRUWEMBT ' yr;' PROJECT we ❖ OCTA will operate express lanes ❖ OCTA will set toll policy ❖ HOV 2+ free for no less than three years* ❖ Continuous access should not be precluded in the future ❖ Congestion management pricing used: Ca Triggers put in place to adjust tolls 0.� Speed optimized for mobility, reliability ❖ Net excess revenues will be used within the corridor ❖ OCTA and Caltrans will develop an Expenditure Plan for net excess revenues and that Plan will be reviewed and adopted by the OCTA :•. • * Subject to results of the Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study and further additional funding considerations. 'I IMPRDWEMBT .� PROJECT ❖ Fairview Bridge Replacement ❖ Traffic Management Plan (TMP) ❖ Cooperative Agreements •:� Right of Way Requirements and Process ❖ Landscaping/Aesthetics ❖ Utility Relocations ❖ Emergency Services Coordination ❖ Coordination with stakeholders �'�7PmROJECT OVEMENT 71 Description Current Schedule Signed Final Environmental Document March 2015 Issued Federal Record of Decision (NEPA) May 15, 2015 Issued State Notice of Determination (CEQA) June 17, 2015 Develop Toll Policy Shortlist DB Teams and Issue DB Draft RFP Issue DB RFP DB Award DB Notice to Proceed Design and Construction Late 2015/Early 2016 November 2015 April 2016 December 2016 February 2017 2017 to 2022 7 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 111mverl 11"owe Christina Byrne OCTA Community Outreach Manager 105pi Ult:�Gt@0CAdJ iUL 714-560-5717 Project Website www.octa.net/405improvement Facebook https://www.facebook.com/405improvement Thank you! COSTA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Sharpnack, Chief of Police Mark Manley, Captain Bryan Glass, Acting Captain Ed Everett, Lieutenant Vic Bakkila, Lieutenant FROM: Jerry Souza, Sergeant SUBJECT: 0 of July After -Action Report for 2015 DATE: July 6, 2015 The following is the After -Action Report for the deployment of Public Safety and city resources for the five-day period of July 151 through July 5th 2015. The stated goals of the Police Department's operational plan were to maximize the Police Department's ability to effectively handle prioritized emergency calls for service and routine calls for service (CFS) leading up to and through the 4th of July holiday. In addition, the operational plan was also intended to provide for a highly visible and proactive approach to illegal fireworks enforcement and an enhanced customer service response in regard to the anticipated increase in holiday related calls for service. The Fire Department partnered with the Police Department on all fronts, including community outreach, public education, social media, and operational enhancements. Specifically, the Fire Department increased staffing on July 3rd and 41h and utilized a task force of arson investigators teamed up with police officers on July 2-4. The Finance and Public Services Departments also played important supportive roles in preparing for the holiday weekend as noted below. Finally, the City CEO's Office and the City Council provided the necessary financial resources for the substantial outreach efforts that served to clearly state the city's position on safety in the community. Public Education / Community Outreach / Social Media Considerable efforts were made to inform and educate the general public of the city's fireworks policy leading up to the 4th of July. Police Explorers and CERT Volunteers canvassed "hot spot" neighborhoods, distributing informational door hangers on 6/29/15, 7/2/15 and 7/3/15. Approximately 2,500 door hangers were ordered for distribution. The door hangers were printed in both English and Spanish. They included wording advising of a Zero Tolerance policy, the identification of illegal fireworks, hours to discharge "safe and sane" fireworks, a 24-hour Police Department contact phone number to report illegal firework use or suspicious activity, and the declaration of possession and/or use of illegal fireworks being a crime - including being punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and imprisonment. This message was also placed on 16 x 20 posters which were placed at every firework stand. In addition, Zero Tolerance flyers were also handed out at the fire firework stands and posted on the Newport -Mesa Unified School District website. Moreover, this year, City Council authorized a mass distribution of letters citywide to approximately 43,000 residential households emphasizing a Zero Tolerance approach to illegal fireworks and being a good neighbor on July 411. The letter was printed in both English and Spanish and was authored by Police Chief Sharpnack and Fire Chief Stefano, on behalf of the City. Social Media, including Nixie, the City Webpage, and the respective CMPD and CMFD Facebook pages, were utilized extensively to inform the public of the Police Department's stance of Zero Tolerance for illegal firework usage and enforcement, thereof. Additionally, electronic LED sign boards were placed strategically throughout the city advising the same, to include a new partnership with the Orange County Fairgrounds and Costa Mesa and Estancia High Schools to broadcast our firework safety message on their LED signage. The City's LED signs were placed at the following locations: • Southbound Newport Blvd north of Mesa Drive • Southbound Fairview Road north of Adams Avenue • Northbound Newport Blvd north of 19th Street • Northbound Harbor Blvd south of Victoria Street • Eastbound Adams Avenue west of Placentia/Mesa Verde Drive East • Eastbound Victoria Street west of Canyon Drive Additionally, two Public Service Announcements (PSAs) were completed by CMTV; one featuring Police Chief Sharpnack and Fire Chief Stefano, and a second featuring Fire Education Specialist Brenda Emrick and Police Crime Prevention Specialist Kelly Vucinic. These PSAs were posted on the Police Department's Facebook page, as well as the City of Costa Mesa website. The web links are below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn 6pR75PIQ&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmTvnGNMCUc Finally, officers assigned to Directed Enforcement (DE) on Thursday, July 2n6, worked 1200-2200 hours. These officers were tasked with walking "hot spot" neighborhoods for several hours in the early afternoon and did a considerable amount of community. Officer's contacted approximately 120 persons throughout these neighborhoods, most of which were very receptive toward the officers. Photographs of these efforts were taken and posted to the Police Department's Facebook page as part of the continuing outreach. Police Department Staffing & Deployment Department patrol staffing remained at normal levels June 301h, July 1st and July 51h. In order to manage the anticipated increase in calls -for -service leading up to and through July 4th, normal patrol staffing was augmented with additional Directed Enforcement firework enforcement teams. The enhanced staffing was achieved through utilization of the 3/12 buyback day on Thursday, July 2nd, and a mandatory department -wide seniority based draft of officers on Friday, July 3d, and Saturday, July 4th. Throughout this time period, officers assigned to the directed enforcement teams addressed specific firework related calls -for -service and proactive "hot spot" enforcement. As mentioned above, this year marked the first year CMPD Management enacted mandatory staffing for the 4th of July holiday utilizing a seniority -based model in order to help manage anticipated the Friday night and Saturday night staffing needs. This allowed for Directed Enforcement teams to work completely independent of our normal patrol field operations, yet be available to assist patrol officers if a major incident occurred. Directed Enforcement teams were assigned to each of our two geographic patrol areas. A mix of teams were comprised of two - person police officers paired and CMFD Arson Investigators units, a plainclothes officer assigned as a "spotter", and other officers specifically dedicated to July 4th alcohol and traffic functions — accident investigation and DUI enforcement. Plainclothes personnel and plain cars were utilized to act as spotters to try to assist in catching violations in the act. The fireworks suppression teams worked the following schedules: • Thursday, July 2nd 1200 - 2200 hours • Friday, July 3rd 1600 - 0200 hours • Saturday, July 4th 1600 — 0200 hours Supplemental Resources by day/date: • Thursday, July 2nd — Two units comprised of a police officer and Arson Investigator, two units comprised of two police officers, two plain clothes units with one police officer each, and two Traffic units, for a total of 8 units consisting of 10 PD, 2 FD and 3 Park Rangers. • Friday, July 3rd — Two units comprised of a police officer and Arson Investigator, two plain clothes units with one plainclothes police officer each, two plain car with a uniformed officer, and two Traffic units, for a total of 8 units consisting of 10 PD, 2 FD and 3 Park Rangers. • Saturday, July 4th — Six units comprised of a police officer and Arson Investigator, one unit comprised of two police officers, one plain car with two uniformed police officers, two plain car one plainclothes police officers each, and one Traffic unit, for a total of 11 units consisting of 13 PD, 6 FD and 3 Park Rangers. Enforcement Strategies The civil citation and criminal citation process were utilized for the enforcement of firework - related violations of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and Health & Safety Code. Officers were afforded the discretion whether to issue a civil citation, criminal citation or physical arrest, depending on the severity and nature of the offense. Violations of the CMMC resulting in issuance of a civil citation and an incremental sliding fine schedule starting at $150.00 and going up to $1,000. Administrative hearings were set for September 1, 2015. On July 4th, officers patrolled and issued 28% of the total citations in the "hot spot" areas. As a result, we experienced a 62% reduction in calls for service in those areas combined. Police Deoartment Calls -For -Service (CFS For the evaluation period (July 1st — July 5th), Communications received 540 firework -related CFS that were handled via general broadcast (GB) to area police units, compared to 428 in 2014. Officers were dispatched and responded to an additional 131 firework -related CFS where the officer either generated the call or the reporting party requested personal contact with an officer, compared to 89 in 2014. There were a total of 671 firework -related CFS over the five-day period. i Throughout the days leading up to July 4t", CFS volume was semi -moderate with a dramatic increase on July 41". CFS on July 4t" generally peaked between the hours of 1930 to 0100. CFS increased in all categories from 2014 to 2015. Additionally, the available statistics for both 2013 and 2014 are derived from a six -day evaluation period, whereas the statistics for 2015 are derived from a 5 day evaluation period. In spite of this, for 2015 there was a significant increase over previous years. The following table reflects CFS and citations for the 4t" of July deployment periods over the last four years. CFS 2012 2013 2014 2015 % Change 2014 to 2015 Firework GBs 329 430 428 540 +26% Officer Response 29 127 89 131 +47% Total Calls 358 504 517 671 +30% Citations/ Arrests 7/0 32 / 3 3-5/0 25 / 2* -29% / +200% Evaluation Period 5 days 6 days 6 days 5 days N/A * These numbers are only indicative of fireworks related arrests. They do not account for any other patrol, traffic, or any other non -firework related arrests. Fire Department Calls for Service Battalion Chief Kevin Diamond was the liaison and Branch Director for the Fire Department. BC Diamond and Arson Investigator Keating rode with PD personnel all days of this deployment. All 6 CMFD Arson Investigators partnered with PD personnel on July 4t", providing technical expertise and a force multiplier. DE teams made up of PD/FD conducted one Arson investigation and investigated an accidental fire of a trash can. In addition, over 100 pounds of illegal fireworks were confiscated. Calls for Service (All Calls) CFS 2013 2014 2015 % Change 2014 to 2015 July 3rd 24 39 35 -11% July 4t" 37 42 56 +33% July 51" 27 41 41 0% Total Calls 88 122 132 +8% Fire Department total calls for service during the period of July 3 through July 5, 2015 were 132, which included a total of 5 trash/dumpster fires, 1 tree fire and 1 call to investigate possible dynamite; later determined to be a modified road flare. Noteworthy Events / Enforcement by Day These events were handled by Directed Enforcement (DE) officers assigned to firework enforcement. 4 Thursday, July 2"d • Officers conducted "foot patrol" community outreach in various "hot spot" neighborhoods, contacting approximately 120 people. • While on foot patrol, officers contacted warrant suspect and arrested a tagger after interrupting a tagging incident in progress and suspect fled. • Officers responded to a suspected stick of dynamite that required an OCSD Bomb Squad response; later deemed an altered flare. • Due to volume of calls for service, officers handled two traffic collisions as our Traffic officers were delayed due to other collision investigations. • Officers wrote 4 citations for CMMC related issues. Most fireworks complaints did not start coming in until after 2100 hrs. Friday, July 3rd • Due to volume of calls for service, officers investigated an injury traffic accident and made a DUI arrest • Officers arrested a warrant suspect, issued 3 Vehicle Code citations and 3 firework CMMC civil citations. Saturday, July 4tn • Officers wrote 22 firework CMMC civil citations for discharging dangerous fireworks. • One felony arrest for making a destructive device and possession of a destructive device, requiring an OCSD Bomb Squad response to render two bottle dry ice bombs safe (18720 / 18715a1 PC). • One arrest made for misdemeanor possession of dangerous fireworks. • 4 citations were issued for Vehicle Code and Business Code alcohol violations. • Approximately three 55 gallon drums at the FD were filled with confiscated illegal fireworks. • Officers and Fire personnel investigated a vehicle arson. Investigation ongoing. Citv Parks / Permitted Block Parties: In contrast to previous years, there were no noteworthy issues regarding fireworks violations within our city parks or with the six permitted block parties. They had no adverse impact on department resources. Communications / Logistics / Equipment DE personnel originally worked off of the Green 1 police frequency due to challenges with Communications staffing monitoring multiple frequencies. However, due to activity levels and the need to communicate frequently car -to -car, DE personnel worked off of the Green 3 frequency for tactical communications and simultaneously monitored Green 1 for crime broadcasts, requests for assistance, or monitoring fireworks CFS. This was also challenging for personnel due to the need for additional pac-set radios for some teams, like the plainclothes officers who did not have a dedicated car police radio. For future deployments, an off -channel clearance and dedicated dispatcher would be ideal. During the first day of the DE deployment, we realized there was a shortage of available, charged pac-set batteries due to the overlapping patrol shifts and the unprecedented number of DE personnel. We borrowed batteries from the SWAT arsenal and were also able to obtain more from 5 OCSD Control 1 through the remainder of the operation. In the future, it would be best to obtain loaner batteries from Control 1 ahead of time and assign them each day so as not to draw from Patrol needs. No vehicle issues were noted, as most DE personnel were doubled up in a single vehicle. Finance Department Every year, the Finance Department issues firework stand permits to qualified applicants in accordance with City Ordinance and City Council Policy 400-2. For the week of July 4th holiday, the Finance Department issued 36 permits to eligible applicants, down from the 37 permits issued for the 2014 holiday. The permit fees were waived pursuant to Council Policy 400-2. Permits were only issued to groups that were approved for the July 41h 2012 firework stands and continued to apply in 2015. No permits were issued to new groups. To gain a better understanding of the benefits that the various youth groups receive from annual firework sales, the Finance Department will send a letter requesting information from each stand operator and the representatives from firework distributors. Disclosure of this information is strictly voluntary. Public Services Public Services staff placed firework prohibition signs at all entrances to City facilities and at all public parks. This contributed to the absence of any noteworthy firework issues on any City property or in any of our public parks. Animal Control The following information is for animal impounds for the 4th of July holiday period: July 2nd, 2015 — (2) dogs, (0) cats impounded July P, 2015 — (0) dogs, (0) cats impounded July 4th, 2015 — (2) dogs, (3) cats impounded It was requested if the Humane Society would be willing to waive fees for future 4th of July holiday dates. NOTE — Dr. Botros, owner of the Humane Society, was contacted and advised that he would be willing to waive impound fees for dogs and cats, as well as the daily care fees. Fees for rabies vaccination, veterinary care rendered costs and state -mandated fines for unsterilized animal impounds would still be the responsibility of the animal owner. This should be confirmed with Dr. Botros next year. Recommendations The following were the recommendations from the previous 2014 July 4th After -Action Report: • Utilize the City and PD websites, and other social media resources to mass -distribute information regarding a "safe and sane" 4th of July (completed) • Coordinate with the Mesa Water District (MWD) to disseminate mailers on local and state firework laws with the monthly residential billing leading up to 4tn of July (was not completed) • Coordinate with City Hall to create and disseminate a series of press releases focused on a "safe and sane" holiday, local and state laws, and strict enforcement by the Police Department (completed) • Distribute additional civil citation books to increase accessibility and enforcement capabilities (completed) Based upon personnel debriefs this year and the contents of this After -Action Report, in addition to the previous recommendations above, the following are recommendations for future deployments: • Continue with all of the previously outlined public outreach efforts, to include mailers, possibly partnering with MCWD for distribution. • Consider the use of banners in key locations (e.g., fire stations, police station(s), and other city sites). • PSA to be completed and broadcast during City Council meeting prior to July 41n • Later DE personnel start and finish times for July 2nd • Continue and increase usage of plain clothed officers and/or plain cars with uniformed officers to allow for greater enforcement opportunities. • Improved anticipation of equipment needs. • Radio frequency clearance and dedicated dispatcher with fireworks GB's periodically done over that frequency for plain car personnel. • Continued partnership with all City departments. • Consider having traffic supervisory personnel schedule traffic related coverage over the holiday so as to leave DE personnel assigned and focused strictly on DE objectives. • Consider increased supervisory oversight dedicated solely to the Directed Enforcement each day. • Continue to be flexible and modify strategic deployment approach as necessary (large show of personnel for unruly crowds) • Consider training update regarding crowd control, unruly crowds and include Fire Department Arson Investigator personnel. • Begin messaging fireworks use earlier and address year-round concerns. Conclusion This was the first time a mandatory draft was instituted within the Police Department to provide the community coverage over the July 4tn holiday weekend and days leading up to it. With the significant increase in fireworks CFS over a shorter duration this year, this deployment was able to provide enhanced coverage not only for the Directed Enforcement objectives, but also for the overall Police Department mission during the prescribed time frames. The Fire Department added substantial resources with a team of Arson Investigators who partnered with CMPD officers in patrol and enforcement capacities. Contributions from the City Council, City CEO, Public Services and Finance Departments collectively added to the overall success of the operation as well. ��°- � � �, _ . - -�.w�, .,�.�, �'.__ -., _4.4 COSTA MESA FIRST word-zwwg for a uvotae cLt� http://costamesalst.com/ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: July 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-3 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION DATE: July 13, 2015 FROM: Department of Finance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Dunlvent at 714-754-5243 RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt Warrant Resolution No. 2539 to be read by title only and further reading waived. BACKGROUND: In accordance with Section 37202 of the California Government Code, the Director of Finance or their designated representative hereby certify to the accuracy of the following demands and to the availability of funds for payment thereof. FISCAL REVIEW: Funding Payroll No.15-13 "A" for $810.00; Payroll No. 15-14 for $2,058,112.32; and City operating expenses for $790,514.81. a-- -k" 4 STEPHEN DUNIVENT Interim Finance Director 1 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: COM1 Run Time 10:34:01 AM Cycle: ACGRANAi Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 000938 07/02/15 P Apple One Employment Services Line Description: Temp Svs-Cntrl Svs6/8-6/12/15 Temp Svs-Cntrl Svs6/1-6/5/15 Temp Svs-Eng 618-6112/15 Temp Svs-Eng 6/1-6/5115 Temp Svs-Eng 6/1-615/15 Temp Svs-Eng 6/8-6112/15 a777.91+ �5+ ?9't9 Jo9'OT+ 2, 't3.94+ �13� 1 �H•91:;< Remit ID Payment Amt 0000001055 5,777.91 TOTAL $5,777.91 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: DDP1 Run Time 2:19:21 PM Cycle: tpIRpp Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 003996 07/02/15 P Costa Mesa Employees Association 0000006284 4,070.54 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1514 003997 07/02/15 P Costa Mesa Executive Club 0000006286 215.00 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1514 003998 07/02/15 P Costa Mesa Firefighters Association 0000001812 5,635.20 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1514 003999 07/02/15 P Costa Mesa Police Association 0000001819 5,520.00 Line Description Payroll Deduction Check 1514 004000 07/02/15 P Costa Mesa Police Management Assn 0000005082 200.00 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1514 004001 07/06/15 P Judith G Covey 0000009690 357.31 Line Description: City Retiree Med Ins Payment TOTAL $15,998.05 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0189863 07/02/15 P City of Huntington Beach 0000002599 23,660.00 Line Description: Helicopter SWVs-May 2015 0189864 07/02/15 P Diamond Oil Service 0000023401 21,655.79 Line Description: Diesel Fuel -Corp Yard Fuel -Corp Yard 0189865 07/02/15 P Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 0000002960 17,828.63 Line Description: Legal -General Legal -Advice Legal-2014 Fire Negotiations Legal-2014 POA Negotiations Legal-2014 PMA Negotiations Legal-CMCFA Legal-2014 PMA Negotiations Legal-2014 POA Negotiations Legal-2014 FMA Negotiations 0189866 07/02/15 P Orange County Treasurer Tax Collector 0000003489 24,485.00 Line Description: ParkingCitatnProcessing 5/2015 0189867 07/02/15 P US Bank 0000002228 44, 155.62 Line Description: Misc ProcurementCard Purchases 0189868 07/02/15 P West Coast Arbonsts Inc 0000004498 27,074.00 Line Description: Tree Maint Svcs 4114115/15 Tree Maint Svcs 5/16-5/31/15 - Tree Maint Svcs 6/1-6115115 Tree Maint Svcs 4/16-4/30/15 0189869 07/02/15 P 49er Communications Inc 0000023630 93T29 Line Description.: Fire Apparatus Radio Mics Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 2 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date 0189870 07/02/15 0189871 07/02/15 <:�SCYSlf���)/LtYlfF7 0189874 07/02/15 Status Remit To P ARC Line Description: Posters 4 Firework Stands P AT&T Line Description: Red Phone Fire Sta#6 5120-6/19 Red Phone Fire Sta#1 5120-6/19 800 Mhz Radiol-ink 5120-6119115 Red Phone Fire Sta#4 5/20-6/19 Red Phone Fire Sta#2 5/20-6119 Red Phone Fire Sta#5 5/20-6/19 RMATS Fire Sta#4 5/20-6119/15 UPC Fire Alarm 5/20-6/19/15 J ackHam mettS prtsCm plx5/20-6/19 RMATS Civic Center 5120-6/19 Fire Emergency Line 5/20-6/19 RMATS SCPL Substation5/17-6/16 Local Usage 5115-6114115 Metro Net 5/20-6/19115 PRI Circuit Inbound Trunk. 5/20 NCC Alarm 5/19-6/18/15 Lions Park 5/19-6/18/15 Red Phone Fire Sta#3 5120-6/19 P AT&T Line Description: NCC DSL Line 6/20-7/19/15 P Accessorie Air Compressor Systems Line Description: Air Compressor Maint P Agromin OC LLC Line Description: Mulch Mulch Remit ID 0000022726 0000001107 0000001107 0000015332 0000021587 Payment Aunt 311.04 2,649.19 111.I410Y7 1,520.84 1,328.40 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 3 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0189875 07/02/15 P Aramark Services Inc Line Description: Jail Food Service 5/6-5127/15 0189876 07/02/15 P Anel Supply Inc Line Description: Toner Cartridges 0189877 07/02/15 P Arrowhead Forensics Line Description: CSI Supplies 0189878 07/02/15 P AutoZone Line Description: Power Steering Pump Credit 4 Core Rtrn Auto Parts Supplies 0189879 07/02/15 P Ax Graphics Line Description: CERT T-Shirts 0189880 07/02/15 P Baker Equipment Rental Line Descrption: Equip Rental -Propane Proj Equip Rental -Pipe Threader 0189881 07/02/15 P Baker Equipment Rental Line Description: Concert In Pk Generator 717 0189882 07/02/15 P Baker Equipment Rental Line Description: Concert In Pk Generator 7/14 Remit ID 0000013108 0000006035 0000018661 0000019364 0000021358 0000001164 0000001164 0000001164 Payment Amt 525.19 860A9 41.04 129.47 163.73 315.00 rzt1x1la rzt1x1la Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 4 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0189883 07/02/15 P Baker Equipment Rental 0000001164 240.00 Line Description: Concert In Pk Generator 7121 0189884 07/02/15 P Baker Equipment Rental 0000001164 240.00 Line Description: Concert In Pk Generator 7/28 0189885 07/02/15 P Bee Busters Inc 0000007572 50.00 Line Description: Bee Removal 0189886 07/02/15 P Boombox Mobile Stage & Sound LLC 0000022623 950.00 Line Description: Concert In Pk Stage Production 0189887 07/02/15 P Boombox Mobile Stage & Sound LLC 0000022623 950.00 Line Description: Concert In Pk Stage Production 0189888 07/02/15 P Boombox Mobile Stage & Sound LLC 0000022623 950.00 Line Description: Concert In Pk Stage Production 0189889 07/02/15 P Boombox Mobile Stage & Sound LLC 0000022623 950.00 Line Description: Concert In Pk Stage Production 0189890 07/02/15 P Brenda Green 0000021417 111.50 Line Description: Public Records Act Litigation 0189891 07/02/15 P Bruce Lindemann 0000007396 201.50 Line Description: College Tuition ReimbSpring15 0189892 07/02/15 P Bubblemania & Company 0000021548 280.00 Line Description: Party Program 7129115 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 5 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0189893 07/02/15 P CMTA Line Description: FY 15-16 Mbrsp-CD, JK 0189894 07/02/15 P California Park & Recreation Society Line Description: 15-16 Mbrshp Rnwl-B Hartley 0189895 07/02/15 P Chandlers Air Conditioning & Line Description: Ice Machine Repair@Sr Cntr Refgr Repair @ Sr Cntr 0189896 07/02/15 P Chem Mark Inc Line Description: Laundry Chemicals -Jail 0189897 07/02/15 P Cherie M Pittington Line Description: Sungard Conf-CP 0189898 07/02/15 P Christopher Brunt Line Description: College Tuition Reimb-Spr 15 0189899 07/02/15 P Commercial Electric Systems Inc Line Description: Sales Tax (8.00 % ) Shipping Fee Vehicle Gate Guide Rollers Vehicle Gate Wheels 0189900 07/02/15 P CompuCom Systems Line Description: Adobe Acrobat Pro DC Remit ID 0000006633 0000005095 0000001640 0000006262 0000003641 0000016297 0000023150 0000004859 Payment Amt 155.00 150.00 521.64 111.87 75.54 200.00 1,795.00 01=11 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 6 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0189901 07/02/15 P Connell Chevrolet 0000001763 151.98 Line Description.: Switch-#067 0189902 07/02/15 P Construction Equipment 4 Less 0000023547 2 478.60 Line Description: Dust Collection Vacuum Sales Tax (8.00%) 0189903 07/02/15 P Costa Mesa Lock & Key 0000001817 234.79 Line Description: Door Handles-FS #1 0189904 07/02/15 P County of Orange District Attorney 0000003484 263.00 Line Description: DA Prosecution Jan -Mar 15 0189905 07/02/15 P Culver Newlin Inc 0000021554 3,964.19 Line Description: Cumputer Corner P-Top Desk Workrite Banana Board/Mouse Tr Officer Furniture Repair Sales Tax (8-00%) Delivery & Installation Deskmaker Table Desk Guest Chairs 0189906 07/02/15 P Dawns Banse 0000001185 2,15670 Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Spring 15 0189907 07/02/15 P De Lage Landen Financial Svs 0000019172 1,118.58 Line Description: Copier Lease -July 15 0189908 07/02/15 P Derek Hembree 0000021319 46.08 Line Description: Sungard Conf-DH Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 7 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM Cycle' Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0189909 07/02/15 P Diversified Waterscapes Inc 0000021248 943.00 Line Description: Vaults Cleaning @ TW Lakes 0189910 07/02/15 P Dream Shapers 0000013903 280.00 Line Description: Animal Tales-7/28/15 0189911 07/02/15 P EcoFert Inc 0000023113 295.00 Line Description: TW Bark PK Fertigation-Jun15 0189912 07/02/15 P Enterprise Counsel Group 0000022017 8,776.25 Line Description: Successor Agency DOF-May 15 0189913 07/02/15 P Evan Stone 0000023636 1,600.00 Line Description: Concert In Pk Band-7/14/15 0189914 07/02/15 P Fantasy Fountains Inc 0000003715 12,974.00 Line Description: Floating Fountain Shipping Fee Sales Tax (8.00%) Installation 0189915 07/02/15 P Ferguson Enterprises Inc 0000007785 274.58 Line Description: Pipe Repair @ PD Faucet @ Corp Yard 0189916 07/02/15 P GE Capital 0000021378 604.68 Line Description: Copier Lease 7110r8/15115 Copier Lease 6123-7/22/15 0189917 07/02/15 P Government Staffing Services Inc 0000022422 4,042.50 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 8 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Temp Svs-Mgnt Anlyst 611-6112 0189918 07/02/15 P Grainger Line Description: A/C Air Handler Belts 0189919 07/02/15 P Graybar Electric Company Inc Line Description: CY Propane Project CY Propane Project CY Propane Project CY Propane Project CY Propane Project 0189920 07/02/15 P Hemphill's Rugs & Carpet Line Description: Fire Permit 0189921 07/02/15 P Irvine Pipe & Supply Inc Line Description: Plumbing Supplies Plumbing Supplies Plumbing Supplies 0189922 07/02/15 P JD Lock & Key Line Description: Keys 0189923 07/02/15 P Janet Fowler Line Description: Guest Speaker@ Sr Cntr 7128/15 0189924 07/02/15 P Jason Pyle Line Description: Dinner -Raters Trng Academy 0189925 07/02/15 P Joel Lander Line Description: Essential Computer Skills 6/19 Remit ID IDI111141 00Z2-R3 0000002397 14QIZILYWI-W-3 CQ41PDPYlffl 0000005930 IQIZIIITI)OW 1 0000013001 0000023597 Payment Amt 67.82 1,882.01 185.00 123.57 167.40 200.00 87.00 56.95 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 9 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM Cycle: AUK] v Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0189926 07/02/15 P Jonathan Tripp Line Description: Adv Roadside Impaired Driving 0189927 07/02/15 P Jose Morales Line Description: Reimb Clothing Allowance 14-15 0189928 07/02/15 P KME Fire Apparatus Line Description: Lamp Bracket-#525 0189929 07/02/15 P Katrina Foley Line Description: ICSC RECon Conf-KF 0189930 07/02/15 P Keystone Uniforms OC .. Line Description: Uniform-McCart Uniform -Moss 0189931 07/02/15 P Khanh Nguyen , Line Description: Lunch 4 CSLB Sting Taskforce Mileage-ICC Mtngs,Oral Board 0189932 07/02/15 P L3 Communications Mobile -Vision Inc Line Description: Car Camera System Replacement Car Camera System Replacement Car Camera System Replacement 0189933 07/02/15 P LexisNexis Line Description: Online Legal Updates May 2015 Remit ID 0000023628 0000012449 0000002849 0000006830 0000022280 0000015037 0000018683 [�I�UDP➢[�1:Y.)/ Payment Amt 61,64 500,00 25.92 314.52 520.53 1,917-06 153.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 10 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0189934 07/02/15 P Liberty Manufacturing Inc Line Description: Range Cleanup Service 0189935 07/02/15 P Lidian Estecoc Line Description: Sungard Conf-LE 0189936 07/02/15 P Los Angeles Times Line Description: FS#4 Apparatus City Proj#15-10 0189937 07/02/15 P MJK Construction Inc Line Description: Removal of Underground Fuel Ta Retention on Project Retentions Payable 0189938 07/02/15 P Mark M Manley Line Description: Role of Police Chief 0189939 07/02/15 P Merchants Building Maintenance LLC Line Description: Canyon Park Lock Up Services Dayporter Coverage-SoccerEvent 0189940 07/02/15 P Mesa Consolidated Water District Line Description: 861 112 Victoria 4/22-6120115 970 Arbor 4/22-6/22/15 985 112 Victoria 4/22-6122/15 970 Arbor 4/23-6/22/15 2115 Canyon 4123-6/22/15 2150 Maple 4127-6124115 2150 Maple 4/27-6124/15 500 Victoria 4127-6/24/15 640 Victoria 4127-6/24/15 900 Victoria 4128-6/25/15 Remit ID 0000002502 0000020283 0000003000 0000022968 0000003047 0000022950 BIIIIPIIIIRIIG_! Payment Amt 1,674.35 6Y:IQ9 PAIM15:1 11,115.65 613.60 8,094.60 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 11 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: 2229 Fariview 4123-6/24/15 1000 Victoria 4128-6125/15 2161 1/2 RAleigh 4/27-6/25/15 1065 Sea Bluff 4/23-6/22/15 2109 Canyon 4/23-6/22115 0189941 07/02/15 P Michael T Donohoe Line Description: Entertainment for Car Show 0189942 07/02/15 P Mike Linares Inc Line Description: CDBG/HOME Prog Svcs 611-6112 CDBG/HOME Prog Svcs 6115-6130 0189943 07/02/15 P Mike Linares Inc Line Description: The Consolidated Plan 2015-202 0189944 07/02/15 P Mike Raahauges Shooting Enterprises Line Description: Range Fees 4 Patrol School 0189945 07/02/15 P National Safety Compliance Inc Line Description: Random Drug & Alcohol Testing 0189946 07/02/15 P North County Shcotist Assn Line Description: Range Fees for SWAT 0189947 07/02/15 P Office Max Incorporated Line Description: Office Supplies -Senior Center Office Supplies-Rec NCC Office Supplies-Rec Day Camp Office Supplies-Rec DRC Office Supplies-Rec Admin Office Supplies-PD Records Remit ID 0000023629 0000002969 0000002969 0000006853 0000020714 0000021999 0000020710 Payment Amt WORK, 5,890.50 2,850.00 455.11 W 2,028.99 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 12 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Arm Line Description: Office Supplies-PD Investigtns Office Supplies-PD Field Ops Office Supplies -CEO Comms&Mark Office Supplies -City Clerk Office Supplies -Finance Admin Office Supplies-HR Office Supplies -Fire Admin 0189948 07/02/15 P Orange County Treasurer Tax Collector 0000003489 1,252.00 Line Description: Teletype Service -June 2015 0189949 07/02/15 P Parkhouse Tire Inc 0000003556 3,768.19 Line Description: Tires -Warehouse Auto Stock 0189950 07/02/15 P Petty Cash Fund No. 1 0000001834 585.10 Line Description: Reimbursements to Petty Cash PD Offsite Recruitment -CD TriCounty Spring WrkshpExps-RL Adv 4 Accessibility Seminar -MA Adv 4 Taser Instructor-JB PD Offsite Recruitment-JH 0189951 07/02/15 P Red Wing Shoes 0000003772 259.20 Line Description: Work Boots 4 R Ryan & J Ortiz 0189952 07/02/15 P Reena Bolle 0000021326 50.00 Line Description: Sungard Conf-RB 0189953 07/02/15 P Rincon Truck Center Inc 0000013236 105.62 Line Description: Exhaust Hose for Unit 4524 0189954 07/02/15 P Rosales Nelson 0000023634 8.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 13 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Refund Citation K133917 0189955 07/02/15 P Ryan Novikoff Line Description: Adv Roadside Impaired Driving 0189956 07/02/15 P Sandra M Lozano Line Description: Sungard Conf-SL 0189957 07/02/15 P Sharon Hartwig Line Description: Refund Citation K131628 0189958 07/02/15 P Simplot Partners Line Description: Aquatain for TW Lakes Sales Tax (8.00%) 0189959 07/02/15 P Smith Pipe & Supply Inc Line Description: Irrigation Supplies for Parks 0189960 07/02/15 P Southern California Edison Company Line Description: 2704 Harbor 5/22-6/23115 3120 Mnistree 5/26-6/24/15 867 Prospect 5/26-6/24/15 555 1/2 Paularino 5126-6124/15 3349 Sakioka 5/28-6/26/15 348 E 17th 5/58-6/26115 3351 Sakioka 5/28-6/26/15 2301 Harbor 5/27-6/25/15 0189961 07/02/15 P Southern California Gas Company Line Description: NCC 5122-6/23/15 PD 5126-6/24/15 567 W 18th 5122-6123115 Remit ID IQ11P➢1OW1.5% UHIiDISIiLt LI 0000023635 0000003061 0000004049 0000004088 ;�PPPDUEi�k,YJ Payment Amt 69.58 12&00 7.50 1,787.31 832.39 NIPAV1 1,817.78 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 14 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Sr Cntr 5/22-6/23/15 FS #5 5126-6/24/15 79 Fair 5/26-6124/15 DRC Pool 5122-6/23/15 DRC 5122-6/23/15 2310 Placentia 5/26-6/24/15 2300 Placentia 5/26-6/24/15 FS #4 5/26-6/24/15 FS #3 5/22-6123/15 0189962 07/02/15 P Sparkletts Line Description: Water Service for Civic Center 0189963 07/02/15 P Stacy Bowler Line Description: Exps 4 Neighborhood Task Force 0189964 07/02/15 P Stage One Promotions Line Description: Concert In Pk Band Bal-7/7/15 0189965 07/02/15 P State Controllers Office Line Description: Collection Services 0189966 07/02/15 P Steven Folkes Line Description: College Tuition Reimb Spring15 0189967 07/02/15 P The Fenians Music Line Description: Concert In Pk Band Bal-7/28/15 0189968 07/02/15 P The Pin Center Line Description: Giveaways for ICSC Conference Remit ID 0000015725 0000022524 0000023591 0000021803 0000023153 0000008610 0000019267 Payment Amt fi[1L1G1 K-111Ky l: 1000l 169A6 1,600.00 650.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 15 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Arm 0189969 07/02/15 P Time Warner Cable 0000011202 221.99 Line Description: Equipment Fees 6/16-7/15114 0189970 07/02/15 P Townsend Public Affairs Inc 0000021510 5,000.00 Line Description: LegislativeAdvocacySvcs,lan-Oct 0189971 07/02/15 P Twist & Shout 0000023633 450.00 Line Descnption: Concert In Park Balloon Artist 0189972 07/02/15 P Twist & Shout 0000023633 450.00 Line Description: Concert In Park Balloon Artist 0189973 07/02/15 P Twist & Shout 0000023633 450.00 Line Description: Concert In Park Balloon Artist 0189974 07/02/15 P Twist & Shout 0000023633 450.00 Line Description: Concert In Park Balloon Artist 0189975 07/02/15 P Undecided Future 0000023637 600.00 Line Description: Concert In Pk Band 7/21115 0189976 07/02/15 P Victor Bakkila 0000005803 60.00 Line Description: Exps 4 Management Course C 0189977 07/02/15 P Vulcan Materials Company 0000007403 231.71 Line Description: Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 16 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:21:15 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date 0189978 07/02/15 0189979 07/02/15 Status Remit To P Zee Medical Service Company Line Description: First Aid Supplies P Zoll Medical Corporation Line Description: AutoPulse System Li -ion Battery Sales Tax (8.00%) Shipping Fee Estimate Soft Carry Case Remit ID 0000004615 0000021290 Payment Amt 678.37 13,719.96 TOTAL $294,069.01 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 02,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 12:37:01 PM C cle: APAV Payment Ref Date 0189980 07/02/15 0189981 07/02/15 0189983 07/02/15 0139984 07/02/15 0189985 07/02/15 0189986 07/02/15 Status Remit To Remit ID P CaIPERS Long -Term Care Program 0000006287 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1514 P Carrie Beatteay 0000023012 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1514 P Community Health Charities 0000008015 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1514 P State of California 0000001546 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1514 P State of California 0000001546 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1514 P Tamra Williams 0000002941 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1514 P United States Treasury 0000015556 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1514 Payment And 189.40 369.24 10.00 I1.xm] 254.00 1,350.92 85.38 TOTAL $2,343.94 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: COM1 Run Time 12:45:20 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date 000939 07/10/15 Status Remit To P FM Thomas Air Conditioning Inc Line Description: HVAC Maint-June 2015 v., `r 4, 5 , 002 47233'-5a33 Remit ID 0000017151 Payment Amt 5,071.50 TOTAL $5,071.50 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0189987 07/10/15 P Admin Sure Inc Line Description: Wkr Comp Admin Fee 7/1-9/30115 0189988 07/10/15 P CJ Concrete Construction Inc Line Description: 2014-2015 City Project 14-12 Retentions Payable Proj #14-12 0189989 07/10/15 P CNC Engineering Inc Line Description: Redhill Med Design Proj-Feb 15 0189990 07/10/15 P Heroes Hall Veteran's Foundation Line Description_ Grant 4 Veteran's Museum 0189991 07/10/15 P Mesa Consolidated Water District Line Description: 2124 Fairview 5/5 711115 77 Fair Dr 5/5-711/15 79 Fair 5/5-711 /15 Sewer 970 Arlington 5128-6129/15 2501 Placentia 5128-6129115 111 Fair 5/28-6129115 2401 Fairview, 5/5-7/1/15 324 Fair 5/4-7/2/15 325 Fair 515-7/1115 360 W Wilson 5/5-7/1115 79 Fair 5/5-711 /15 2301 Fairview 5/5-7/1/15 2229 Newport 5128-6129115 2600 Fairview 5/28-6129/15 2400 Fairview 5128-6/29115 2750 Fairview 5/28-6/29115 2621 1/2 Harbor 5128-6129115 3202 Hrbor 5128-6/29/15 3581 Harbor 5128-6129/15 Remit ID 0000021568 0000004857 0000008798 0000023642 0000003144 Payment Amt 41,387 10 146,232.55 19,926.08 25,000.00 28,748.32 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 2 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: 1400 Sunflower 5128-6/29/15 2800 Bear 5128-6/29115 3333 1/2 Bear 5/28-6/29115 3333 1/2 Bear 5/28-6/29/15 970 Arlington 5128-6/29/15 77 Fair 5/5-711/15 77 Fair 5/5-7/1115 2345 Fairview 5/5-711/15 0189993 07/10/15 P Preferred Benefit Insurance Line Description: VSP Premium for July 2015 Delta Dental Premium July 2015 0189994 07/10/15 P Siemens Industry Inc Line Description: Card Reader Installation Card Reader Installation 0189995 07/10/15 P Southern California Edison Company Line Description: NCC 6/1-6/30/15 970 Arlington 6/4-7/6/15 980 Arlington 6/4-716/15 1035 Park Crest 6/4-716115 3129 Harbor 6/3-712/15 880 Junipero 6/4-7/6/15 2750 Fairview 6/4-716/15 Sr Cntr 611-6130115 Davis Field 611-6/30115 DRC 6/2-7/1/15 1624 Gisler 6/3-7/2115 885 Junipero 6/4-7/6/15 Volcom 6/4-7/6/15 3460 Smalley 6/3-712/15 702 Victoria 6/2-711/15 702 112 Victoria 612-7/1115 [�UI�DLSIBSY] 0000002904 0000004088 Payment Amt 18,360.00 24,934.00 18,871.28 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 3 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0189996 07/10/15 P AFLAC Line Description: Cancer Premium -June 2015 STD Premium -June 2015 0189997 07/10/15 P ARCO Business Solutions Line Description: Fuel 6116-6/30/15 0189998 07/10/15 P AT & T Line Description: RMATS Fire Sta#6 5/22-6/21/15 SrCntr DSL 4 BldgMaint Use5/24 Firewall Fire Sta#4 5/27-6/26 WSS Alarm 5/27-6126115 PD DSL 4 IT Staff 5/28-6127/15 Contract Srvcs 5128-6/27/15 PD Payphone 5/28-6/27115 Firewall Fire Sta#6 5127-6/26 PD DSL Line 5/27-6/26/15 RMATS NCC Complex 5/246/23 SrCntr DSL 4 BldgMaint Use5/24 LionsPk Baseball Fld 5/24-6/23 0189999 07/10/15 P AT & T Line Description: PD Homicide Record Retrieval 0190000 07/10/15 P AT & T Mobility Line Description: PD Cell Phone Usage 4/12-5/11 PD Cell Phone Usage 5112-6/11 0190001 07/10/15 P Accountemps Line Description: Temp Svs Treasury 6/6-6/12/15 Temp Sys Treasury 6/13-6119 Budget 6/13-6/19/15 Budget Spc 616-6112/15 Remit ID 0000012253 0000018562 0000001107 0000001107 0000001107 0000006816 Payment Arm 9,142.18 173.31 622.33 375.00 344.26 4,578.40 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 4 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190002 07/10/15 P Advantec Consulting Engineers Inc 0000021528 1,015.70 Line Description: TSSP/Fairview-May 2015 0190003 07/10/15 P Agromin OC LLC 0000021587 664.20 Line Description: Mulch 4 City Sites 0190004 07/10/15 P Albert Grover & Associates Inc 0000014065 1,312.00 Line Description: TSSP Baker/Placentia-May 15 0190005 07/10/15 P All State Police Equipment Cc Inc 0000006456 6,415.20 Line Description: 40mm Reloadable Steel Insert Sales Tax (8.00%) 0190006 07/10/15 P Alonzo H Parker III 0000016232 276.00 Line Description: Basketball Referee 6/1-6/15/15 Basketball Referee 6/22/15 0190007 07/10/15 P Anaheim Regional Medical Center 0000021276 1,500.00 Line Description: Victim Physical -Case #15-7307 Victim Physical -Case #15-7214 0190008 07/10/15 P AndersonPenna Partners Inc 0000021535 4,20875 Line Description: Bristol Med Proj 1/31-5/29/15 0190009 07/10/15 P Anel Supply Inc 0000006035 212.55 Line Description: Tone Cartridges 0190010 07/10/15 P AutoZone 0000019364 156.59 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 5 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM Cycle, MAW Y Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: Gloves 0190011 07/10/15 P Beverly White 0000023647 686.00 Line Description: Air Fare Exp Reimb-B White 0190012 07/10/15 P Bing Wang 0000023648 26.00 Line Description: Refund Business License #47456 0190013 07/10/15 P Blanca Palomo 0000023646 686.00 Line Description: Air Fare Exp Reimb-A Palomo 0190014 07/10/15 P Bound Tree Medical LLC 0000011695 2,258.09 Line Description: Paramedic Supplies Paramedic Supplies Paramedic Supplies 0190015 07/10/15 P Brett Eckles 0000023276 100.00 Line Description: Park&Rec Comm Mtng-Jun15 0190016 07/10/15 P Byron de Arakal 0000012401 100.00 Line Description: Park&Rec Comm Mtng-Jun 15 0190017 07/10/15 P CAHN Membership 0000021345 400.00 Line Description: 2015-16 10 Mbrshps 0190018 07/10/15 P CAPF 0000004755 1,443.00 Line Description: Firefighters LTDJuly2015 0190019 07/10/15 P CDW Government Inc 0000005402 145.42 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 6 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Monitor Arms 0190020 07/10/15 P CLEA Line Description: Police Officers LTD -July 2015 0190021 07/10/15 P Carisa Douglass Line Description: Air Fare Exp Reimb-T Douglass 0190022 07/10/15 P Chevron & Texaco Business Card Services Line Description: Fuel 6/6-715/15 0190023 07/10/15 P City Clerks Association of California Line Description: Workshop Reg-M Dunn 10/8-9 0190024 07/10/15 P Complete Landscape Care Inc Line Description: Shrub & Turf Removal FS#3 0190025 07/10/15 P CoreLogic Information Solutions Inc Line Description: RealQuest Subscription -May 15 RealQuest Subscription -Apr 15 0190026 07/10/15 P Cost Recovery Systems Inc Line Description: State Mandate Claim Prep Svs 0190027 07/10/15 P Daniels Tire Service Line Description: Tractor Tires-#344 0190028 07/10/15 P David Taussig & Associates Inc Line Description: Park Inpact Fees Study Remit ID 0000004754 0000001795 0000014258 0000012001 0000022976 0000004774 0000007287 0000001922 0000022865 Payment Amt 2,376.50 406.01 175.00 700.00 742.50 1,495.91 3,095.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 7 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM Cycle' Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190029 07/10/15 P De Lage Landen Financial Svs Line Description: Copier Lease 6/15-7/14/15 Overage Fee 3115-6/15/15 0190030 07/10/15 P Delta Dental Insurance Cc Line Description: Dental HMO Premium -Jul 15 0190031 07/10/15 P Division of the State Architect Line Description: SB 1186 Fee 4/1-6/30115 0190032 07/10/16 P Donald Harper Line Description: Park&Rec Comm MtngJun 15 0190033 07/10/15 P Eliasar Maldonado Line Description.: Training Instructor IC 5/6-14 0190034 07/10/15 P Eric Seale Line Description: Softball Umpire Softball Umpire 6124/15 0190035 07/10/15 P Ewing Irrigation Products Line Description: Irrigation Supplies Credit 4 Inv #9892627 Irrigation Supplies 0190036 07/10/15 P FTOG Inc Line Description: Special Proj Cnsltng 6/22-712 Remit ID Payment Arm 0000019172 414.13 0000001966 3,029.44 0000021296 961.50 0000021694 100.00 0000016255 225.00 0000023604 208.00 0000005063 926.93 0000021401 2,784.38 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 8 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190037 07/10/15 P Florinda Gonzalez 0000023645 686.00 Line Description: Air Fare Exp Reimb-A Navarro 0190038 07/10/15 P Galls LLC 0000002297 313.20 Line Description: Uniform-Cajarez 0190039 07/10/15 P Government Staffing Services Inc 0000022422 9,581.25 Line Description: Temp Svs-HR w/e 513/15 Temp Svs-HR w/e 6114115 Temp Svs-HR w/e 6128/15 Eng/Const Mgnt w/e 5117115 Mgnt Analyst Svs 6/15-6/28/15 0190040 07/10/15 P HdL Software LLC 0000021617 8,323.20 Line Description: Business License Use Fee 0190041 07/10/15 P Iteris Inc 0000008920 949.16 Line Description: TSSP/Victoria St -May 15 TSSP/17th St -May 2015 0190042 07/10/15 P Karen Keith 0000023649 &00 Line Description: Refund Citation #K134815 0190043 07/10/15 P Kevin M Ruhl II 0000020438 200.00 Line Description: Paramedic License Renewal 0190044 07/10/15 P Kevin Reddy 0000020597 200.00 Line Description: Paramedic License Renewal 0190045 07/10/15 P Kevin Vail 0000023400 184.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 9 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM C Cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Basketball Referee 6122115 Basketball Referee 6/29115 0190046 07/10/15 P Kim Pederson Line Description: Park&Rec Comm Mtng-Jun 15 0190G47 07/10/15 P LN Curtis & Sons Line Description: Supplies 4 FS#4 Training Cntr 0190048 07/10/15 P Lawrence P Shield Line Description: Softball Umpire 6/23-6/25/15 Softball Umpire 6/30-7/2/15 0190049 07/10/15 P Leah Covey Line Description: Air Fare Exp Reimb-M Covey 0190050 07/10/15 P Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Line Description: Legal Defense for Grievance Legal Defense -Personnel Matter Legal Defense for Grievance 0190051 07/10/15 P Los Angeles Times Line Description: Legal Notices for Planning Div 0190052 07/10/15 P Los Angeles Times Line Description: Ads for Concerts in the Park 0190053 07/10/15 P Mayflower Transit LLC Line Description: ICSC Booth DeliveryFreightChrg Remit ID 0000010099 0000002983 0000017089 0000011503 4I111111011100 .'A] L�PUI�I�PSi�UD] 0000003000 PUI@PYRI:RI`a Payment Amt 100.00 296.16 390.00 3,014.00 If14YA E:IQQQ1I 481.60 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 10 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190054 07/10/15 P McCain Inc 0000005846 450.36 Line Description: Sales Tax (8.00 % ) Traffic Pole, Mast Arm, Lumina 0190055 07/10/15 P McMaster Carr Supply Company 0000003118 81.91 Line Description: Outlet Strip 4 Fleet Services 0190056 07/10/15 P Mella Hume 0000018269 686.00 Line Descrption: Air Fare Exp Reimb-L Hume 0190057 07/10/15 P Merchants Building Maintenance LLC 0000022950 6,958.00 Line Description: Janitorial Services June 2015 0190058 07/10/15 P Michael Balliet 0000008858 11,071.25 Line Description: SRRE Administrative Svs 0190059 07/10/15 P Michael Brandman Associates 0000003162 6,977.55 Line Description: Environmental Ayalysis for Har 0190060 07/10/15 P National Data & Surveying Services 0000021249 135.00 Line Description: Data Collection Svs 0190061 07/10/15 P Newport Mesa Unified School District 0000003339 223.50 Line Description: Bus Fee 4 OC Zoo Field Trip 0190062 07/10/15 P Norman A Traub Associates Inc 0000013815 921.85 Line Description: FIR Investigative Svcs May 2015 0190063 07/10/15 P Office Max Incorporated 0000020710 2,355.04 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 11 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Office Supplies -CEO Office Supplies-MaintSvcsAdmin Office Supplies-PD CS] Office Supplies-PD Field Ops Office Supplies-Rec NCC Office Supplies-Rec Admin Office Supplies-PublicSvcsAdmn Office Supplies-PD Records Office Supplies-PD Comm Office Supplies-PD Admin Office Supplies -Fire Admin Office Supplies -Engineering 0190064 07/10/15 P Orange County Chiefs of Police & Line Description: Mbrshp Dues for 2015-2016 0190065 07/10/15 P Philip C Price Line Description: Softball Umpire 6126115 0190066 07/10/15 P ProCare Work Injury Center Line Description: DOT Risk TB Testing DOT Risk TB Testing 0190067 07/10/15 P R4 Electrical Construction Line Description: Davis Fld Booster Pump Repair 0190068 07/10/15 P Republic Engines Line Descrption: Starter,Air Filter -Fleet Srvcs Filter Housing -Fleet Srvcs 0190069 07/10/15 P Ricky Loya Line Description: Softball Umpire 6/28/15 Remit ID 0000003427 0000021846 0000022662 0000021585 0000003792 0000022490 Payment Amt 125.00 52.00 40.00 440.00 294.35 78.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 12 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190070 07/10/15 P Ricoh USA Inc 0000007311 112.92 Line Description: CEO Copier Lease July 2015 0190071 07/10/15 P Robert E Graham 0000014777 100.00 Line Description: Parks & Rec Comm Mtg-June 2015 0190072 07/10/15 P Robert Newman 0000018053 184.00 Line Description: Basketball Referee 6115/15 Basketball Referee 6129/15 0190073 07/10/15 P Samantha Van Zuiden 0000023640 75.65 Line Description: Exps-Crime & Intelligence Tmg 0190074 07/10/15 P Sitescapes Inc 0000022935 500.00 Line Description: BldgModDesign-Harbor/Victoria 0190075 07/10/15 P South Coast Emergency Vehicle Services 0000003643 182.03 Line Description: Hub Cap for Unit #517 0190076 07/10/15 P Southern California Gas Company 0000004092 437.71 Line Description: FS #1 5128-6126115 FS #2 5/27-6/25/15 FS #6 6/1-6/30/15 BCC 5/28-6126115 0190077 07/10/15 P Special Services Group LLC 0000004117 1,80allo Line Description: Annual CTS Renwl 712/15-7/1116 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 13 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul O9,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM Cycle' Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190078 07/10/15 P Spectrum Gas Products 0000012653 280.80 Line Description: Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#1 Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#5 Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#4 Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#2 Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#3 0190079 07/10/15 P Sprint 0000015635 228.99 Line Description: PD Cell Phone Usage 0190080 07/10/15 P Steadfast Contracting Inc 0000021534 2,910.00 Line Description: Installation of Electrical Cir Sales Tax (8.00 % ) 0190081 07/10/15 P Steve Clever 0000010800 78.00 Line Description: Softball Umpire 6124/15 0190082 07/10/15 P Steve Savage 0000010532 115.00 Line Description: Noise Prevention Plugs 0190083 07/10/15 P Taylor McClanahan 0000023643 686.00 Line Description: Air Fare Exp Reimb-T McClanaha 0190084 07/10/15 P Tight Quarters Inc 0000013681 1,041.88 Line Description: Rfnd 2014 WasteHaulerFranchise 0190085 07/10/15 P Time Warner Cable 0000011202 32.42 Line Description: Equipment Fees 6/29-7/28/15 0190086 07/10/15 P US Bank 0000002228 3,591.12 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 14 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1513 0190087 07/10/15 P Verizon Wireless Line Description: PD Cell Phone Usage 5/16-6/15 0190088 07/10/15 P Verizon Wireless Line Description: Broadband SNcs thru May 2015 0190089 07/10/15 P Vic Duong Line Description: Softball Umpire 6123/15 Softball Umpire 6/30/15 0190090 07/10/15 P Vulcan Materials Company Line Description: Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes 0190091 07/10/15 P Waxie Sanitary Supply Line Description: Emerg Cleanup Powder -SC Janitorial Supplies for DRC 0190092 07/10/15 P Wayne Ritchie Line Description: Softball Umpire 6123/15 Softball Umpire 6/2-4, 6125-30 Softball Umpire 6/24/15 0190093 07/10/15 P Woodstream HOA Line Description: 1124/15 Property Damage Claim 0190094 07/10/15 P Yesenia Cardenas Line Description: Air Fare Exp ReimbOJ Andrade Remit ID 0000008717 0000008717 0000011215 0000007403 0000004480 0000022963 0000023641 0000023644 End of Report Payment Amt 2,446.06 4,191.97 iKfOUn: 294.90 I(.Y.Yc&-7 494.00 1,412.00 1,372.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 15 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:26 PM Cycle: AWKI Y Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt TOTAL $467,254.40 End of Report Report ID: CCM20010 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 CCM OVERFLOW CHECK LISTING Run Date Jul 09,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 2:25:38 PM Cycle: AWKI v Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0189992 07/10/15 O Mesa Consolidated Water District Line Description: Overflow Remit ID 0000003144 Payment Amt sxfifl TOTAL D_DD End of Report WARRANT RESOLUTION NO. 2539 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, INCLUDING PAYROLL REGISTER NOS. 15-13 "A" FOR $810.00, AND 15-14 FOR $2,058,112.32; AND CITY OPERATING EXPENSES FOR $790,514.81, AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the attached claims and demands have been audited as required by law and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts, and the payments made are hereby ratified. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this warrant resolution and shall deliver a copy thereof to the City Treasurer/City Director of Finance, and shall retain a certified copy thereof in the City records in the Office of the City Clerk. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21" day of July, 2015. ATTEST: BRENDA GREEN CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) AZZI-1 STEPH NSINGER MAYOR I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Warrant Resolution No. 2539 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 21s` day of July, 2015, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: GENIS, MONAHAN, RIGHEIMER, MENSINGER NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: FOLEY IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 22"d day of July, 2015. BRENDA GREEN, OTY CLERK CC-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Date Remittance to: Payment Amount Explanation of payment 7/10/15 All State Police $6,415.20 What was this for? Equipment Co Police Dept. - Ammunition for training. 40mm reloadable steel insert. 7/10/15 Anderson Penna $4,208.75 What was this for? Partners Inc. Public Services Dept. - Transportation Services Anderson Penna is for design services for Bristol Street Median Project that is currently underway. Anderson Penna is a Civil Engineering Design company who was warded the contract by the City Council to provide design services for the Bristol Street project. 7/10/15 Beverly White $686.00 What was this for? How many people attended? Sister City Travel Airfare reimbursement. Traditionally the City has covered half the airline ticket price for all students and teacher chaperone(s). There were seven students and one chaperone. 7/10/15 FTOG Inc. $2,784.38 What was this for? Who is FTOG? Finance Dept. - FTOG "Forget the Other Guy" is a contract buyer -special projects for the Purchasing Dept. 7/10/15 Woodstream HOA $1,412.00 What was this for? What vehicle was involved? City tree fell and damaged a condominium. No vehicle was involved. 7/2/15 Bubblemania & Co $280.00 What was this for? Parks and Recreation Early Childhood Program Balearic Community Center party program for 40 children on Wednesday, July 29"' 7/2/15 Fantasy Fountains $12,974.00 What was this for? Inc Public Services -Maintenance Services The purchase and installation of the sixth and final aerating fountain at TeWinkle Lake completes the emoval and replacement of the ozone water treatment system that was not providing adequate results in the lakes, resulting in extreme algae blooms and a rapid deterioration of the water quality, especially in the warm summer months. With the east water falls non -operational due to leaks, the mixing of the upper lake has been problematic. The cost effective aerators insure mixing and oxygenating of the lakes with minimal down time, resulting in healthier water and a focal point for the public to enjoy. 7/2/15 Janet Fowler $200.00 What was this for? Senior Center guest speaker July 28, 2015. 7/2/15 Liberty Manufacturing $1,674.35 What was this for? What was the total cost? Police Dept. - Range Cleanup Service. Lead mining is necessary as officers' experience ricochets from the led density within the bullet trap, which is a safety hazard. This is the total cost. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-4 SUBJECT: POMONA AVENUE ALLEY (ALLEY NO. 5), MENDOZA DRIVE ALLEYS (ALLEY NO. 51 AND ALLEY NO. 119), BEACH STREET ALLEY (ALLEY NO. 124), AND VELASCO LANE ALLEY (ALLEY NO. 125) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT- CITY PROJECT NO. 14-06 DATE: JULY 9, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT / ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR BY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER, (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Accept the work performed by Black Rock Construction Company and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion. 2. Release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after the filing date; and release the retention monies 35 days after the Notice of Completion filing date. BACKGROUND: On June 17, 2014, a construction contract in the amount of $537,683.00 was awarded to Black Rock Construction Company, 615 N. Berry Street, Unit G, Brea, CA 92821. The project scope consisted of the following: Demolition and removal of existing damaged asphalt concrete alley sections, construction of new Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement sections, and other incidental work needed to complete the project in accordance with the contract documents. Alley rehabilitation was performed at the following locations (Attachment No. 1): • Pomona Avenue Alley (Alley No. 5) located between Pomona Avenue and Placentia Avenue from Ohms Way to 16th Street. • Mendoza Drive Alley (Alley No. 51) located between Mendoza Drive and Grace Lane from Baker Street to Mendoza Drive. • Mendoza Drive Alley (Alley No. 119) located between Mendoza Drive and Ballow Lane from Mission Drive to El Camino Drive. • Beach Street Alley (Alley No. 124) located between Beach Street and 19th Street from Meyer Place to Pomona Avenue. • Velasco Lane Alley (Alley No. 125) located between Velasco Lane and La Salle Avenue from Sonora Road to City Alley No. 120. The above mentioned alleys were completed on time and under budget leaving a balance of $87,968 of the awarded contract amount unused. Since the contractor was willing to honor the competitive bid unit prices for additional work, a contract change order was negotiated to supplement available funds and include rehabilitation of the following two alleys on the priority list (Attachment No. 2): 19th Street Alley (Alley No. 71) located between Flower Street and 19th Street from Santa Ana Avenue to Westminster Avenue. Magnolia Street Alley (Alley No. 92) located between 1811 Street and Magnolia Street from Westminster Avenue to Orange Avenue. Before Improvements After Improvements ANALYSIS: The work required by the contract documents, as well as the additional two alleys, were completed on May 26, 2015, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The final contract cost amounted to $587,154.00. A report of the final costs is included herein as Attachment 3. A summary of the costs is as follows: Original Contract Cost: $ 537,683.00 Change Orders: $ 50,000.00 Final Quantity Adjustments: ($ 529.00) Final Contract Cost: $ 587,154.00 Change Order No. 1 and Change Order No. 2, for a total amount of $50,000.00, were issued for the re -construction of the 19th Street Alley (Alley No. 71) located between Flower Street and 19th Street, and the Magnolia Street Alley (Alley No. 92) located between 18t" Street and Magnolia Street. These change orders provided the City the opportunity to rehabilitate deteriorating City Alley numbers 71 and 92 by utilizing the competitive contract unit prices established at the time of bid and eliminating additional costs associated with mobilization and other incidental work. The final contract price reflects a nine percent (9%) increase to the original contract as a result of the change orders and final quantity adjustments. As of this date, there are no Stop Notices filed against the monies due to Black Rock Construction Company. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: There were no alternatives considered for this item. 0 FISCAL REVIEW: Funding for this work was appropriated with Fiscal Year 2013-2014 from Gas Tax revenues and Capital Improvements Funds. LEGAL REVIEW: There is no legal review required on this item. CONCLUSION: The rehabilitation of Pomona Avenue Alley (No. 5), Mendoza Drive Alleys (No. 51 and 119), 19t" Street Alley (No. 71), Magnolia Street Alley (No. 92), Beach Street Alley (No. 124), and Velasco Lane Alley (No. 125), City Project 14-06, has been completed. It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to file the Notice of Completion; release the remaining retention monies 35 days after the Notice of Completion filing date; and release the bonds accordingly. ERNESTO MUNOZ Public Services Director FARIBA FAZELI City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1 - Location Map (Alleys 5, 51, 119, 124, and 125) 2 - Location Map (Alleys 71 and 92) 3 - Cost Summary DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer City Attorney City Clerk Staff File 3 ATTACHMENT #1 ATTACHMENT 1 North CITY OF COSTA MESA N.T.S. Public Services/Engineering BAKER ST. Z O p p Q � m m Q U J Z J J � m ALLEY 122 3 � p I VALENCIA ST. m J ALLEY 123 / 7 Q /V y ? Q J� t� � v SURF ST. p J J d � z W = a ¢ BEACH ST. z 0 0 ALLEY #124 a 19TH ST. PLUMER ST. REHABILITATION OF ALLEY NOS. 5, 5.1, 119, 124, AND 125 CITY PROJECT NO. 14-06 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT #2 ATTACHMENT 2 tCITY OF COSTA MESA N.T.S. Public Services/Engineering z 0 AILrY /�1,07 �x� z "' WALNUT ST. ALLEY - #106 ALVA LN. ESTHER ST ESTHER ST. ESTHER ST. AIIIY C9 zo COSTA MESA ST. f- J ALLEYAPE-- 1 ........-..ALL:EY.....Il �.. �.,3............. � 9TH ST. 19TH ST. g FLOWER ST. ...............ALLEY jV10...._..... ALLEY 1ST. a ®WORK AREA I ALLEY � ALLEY #'77 ALLf.Y j/78 ALLEY tr79 _ oz ALLEY �{F50_ z L........_ —. .._.... .. BROADWAY -----�---------- ALLEY #84 ALLEY #85 ALLEY �jBG AIIfY �j87 AI,.L.fY tl3fl ==000E MAGNOLIA ST. ALLEY 91 ALLEY #92 Lit #93 18TH ST. /mwwi1 ROCHESTER REHABILIATIONS OF ALLEY NO'S 71 AND 92 CITY PROJECT NO. 14-06 I Of I ATTACHMENT 3 Fg ARi 000 i& i S O r-O ti: .T. n 0 .q�q.qqq� ?am iN z 12. i� 21 ,3 0 :: � z w iL w Ti'; i 2 o > Z Z z ><<fflz zo < 2 in a ww .�o.l DD z Ka u J �Ixmww 0 E� E E E 0 Xm z I Sim CC-5 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH THE COSTA MESA HOUSING AUTHORITY July 7, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 5:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, Council Member Genis, and Mayor Mensinger Council Members Absent: Council Member Foley and Council Member Monahan PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS — NONE CLOSED SESSION The City Council recessed into Closed Session at 5:33 p.m. to consider the following items: 1. Conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation: Timothy Dadey, an individual; Richard Pessler, Jr., an individual; Raleigh Christopher, an individual; and Costa Mesa Motel Resident Association, an unincorporated association v. City of Costa Mesa, Superior Court for the County of Orange, Case No. 30- 2014-00757962-CU-CR-CJC, consolidated with Case No. 30-2014-00758104, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2). The City Council reconvened at 5:45 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 5:47 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. CALL TO ORDER (00:00:08) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (00:00:51) — Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 1 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED ROLL CALL (00:00:51) Present: Council Member Foley (arrived at 6:27 p.m.), Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan (arrived at 6:02 p.m.), Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, Mayor Mensinger Absent: None Officials Present: Chief Executive Officer Thomas R. Hatch, City Attorney Thomas Duarte, Assistant Chief Executive Officer Rick Francis, Economic and Assistant Development Services Director Claire Flynn, Public Services Director Ernesto Munoz, and City Clerk Brenda Green. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT (00:01:05) — NONE • COIN: Ex Parte Communications pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-238 (b) — None ANNOUNCEMENTS (00:01:26) "Costa Mesa Minute" was played featuring upcoming events and activities in the community. PRESENTATIONS (00:04:13) 1. Mayor's Award — Project Independence Debra Marsteller, Executive Director, and Dan Pittman, Executive Board Chair, accepted the Mayor's Award on behalf of Project Independence. PUBLIC COMMENTS (00:12:02) Cindy Black, Costa Mesa, spoke on the attendance at Global Compassion Summit; saving Banning Ranch; and spoke on the Cognify Agreement. (00:12:40) Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke on celebrating July 4th; supports safe and sane fireworks; and suggested a fire and police report. (00:15:25) Wendy Leece, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to fireworks; and spoke on the Poseidon Desalination Project. (00:18:44) Robin Leffler, Costa Mesa, spoke on fiscal conservatives; and the budget. (00:21:33) Kate Haubert, Orange, announced the opening of a trampoline park, Rockin Jump. (00:24:48) Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 2 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke on a poll regarding fireworks; and requested modifications for days of discharge. (00:26:08) Flo Martin, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition of fireworks. (00:28:24) Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke on development in Tustin and density. (00:31:21) Chuck Perry, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of fireworks; supports new development in the City; and requested a bench on 17th Street. (00:33:28) Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke on the CAD RMS system being offline; and Part 2 crimes. (00:36:16) Beth Rafakes, Costa Mesa, spoke on the Military Affairs Team; the collection of evening dresses; and spoke on fireworks and requested a report. (00:39:21) Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke on an assault in the City; and high crime in various cities. (00:42:22) Cindy Brenneman, Costa Mesa, spoke on the First Friday Road Show; thanked Dan Baker and Kelly Shelton, Parks and Recreation, police explorers; and Police Chief Sharpnack for the bicycle rodeo; and thanked volunteers and sponsors. (00:45:00) Tamar Goldmann, Costa Mesa, spoke on new Police Chief Sharpnack; the police force; and priorities. (00:48:19) COUNCIL MEMBER' REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS (00:51:21) Council Member Monahan requested to contact Orange County Transit Authority regarding a bench on 17th St; spoke on the Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce Golf Tournament on July 20th; and spoke on Police Officer Association negotiations. (00:51:25) Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer thanked the community for supporting the fireworks laws on July 4th; spoke on the budget; crime issues; spoke on CAD RMS system; spoke on problems associated with prison realignment; and zoning overlays pertaining to motels. (00:53:30) Mayor Mensinger announced Costa Mesa Little League World Series on Sunday July 12 and meet the Mayor on Sunday July 12, walk with the Mayor July 10; Neighbors helping Neighbors on July 18; and thanked the Police and Fire Chief's for their efforts on the 4th of July. (01:01:35) Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 3 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Council Member Foley spoke on Police Officer Association negotiations; requested a fireworks report on the proceeds from groups and businesses including fees, a report on counterfeit money loss; requested the status of the Westside Overlay Zone; requested a Joint Study Session with Planning Commission; requested for the Cultural Arts Committee meeting a map on North end areas on availability of utility boxes available for utility art; spoke on the upgrading and promoting of motels on Newport Blvd; and spoke on Costa Mesa High School parking lot fundraiser and the OC Fair. (01-05:09) Council Member Genis spoke on fireworks and lost animals; requested consideration of waiving pound fees for the next July 4t"; thanked Colin at Gatehouse properties for the Movie in the Park; announced July 23rd is Costa Mesa Day at the OC Fair; spoke on Vans business coming into the City; and spoke on the Vector Control appointment. (01:12:07) REPORT — CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) (01:17:25) CEO Tom Hatch spoke on Golden Hub Awards; and spoke on the 4tn of July fireworks and follow-up. CONSENT CALENDAR (01:21:33) MOTION: Approve recommended actions for Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 12 except for Items 6, 8, and 12. MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motions carried: 5-0 1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: MOTION TO APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE ONLY OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SAID ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR ON THE PUBLIC AGENDA SHALL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND FURTHER READING WAIVED ACTION: City Council adopted and approved Ordinances and Resolutions by reading title only, and further reading waived. Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 4 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 2. READING FOLDER a. Claims received by the City Clerk: Shaun and Annemarie Stellman and Yong Qiang Zhong ACTION: City Council received and filed. 3. WARRANT RESOLUTION NO. 2538 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, INCLUDING PAYROLL REGISTER NO. 15-13 FOR $2,012,245.18; AND CITY OPERATING EXPENSES FOR $3,292,375.77; AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID ACTION: Approved Warrant Resolution No. 2538, to be read by the title only, and waived further reading. 4. COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION FOR FURNITURE PROCUREMENT FOR THE REPURPOSING OF THE WESTSIDE SUBSTATION INTO A COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER ACTION: City Council authorized the City CEO to enter into a contract with Culver - Newland for the purchase of office workstations and furniture in the amount of $77,463 to complete the repurposing of the existing Westside Police substation into a Community Resource Center. 5. MINUTES ACTION: City Council approved the minutes of the Regular City Council and Successor Agency Meeting and Special Joint Meeting with the Costa Mesa Housing Authority of July 16, 2015; minutes of the Special City Council Closed Session Meeting of June 23, 2015; and minutes of the Special Meeting and Special Joint Meeting with the Costa Mesa Housing Authority of June 23, 2015. Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 5 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 7 0 2014 — 2015 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 15-06 ACTION: 1. City Council adopted plans, specifications, and working details for the 2014- 2015 Slurry Seal Project, City Project No. 15-06; and 2. City Council awarded a construction contract to American Asphalt South, Inc., 14436 Santa Ana Avenue, Fontana, California 92337, in the amount of $309,809.70; and 3. City Council authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STREET CLOSURES FOR THE 2015 ORANGE COUNTY FAIR CATTLE DRIVE ACTION: City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-36, to be read by title only, and waived further reading, designating event routes for the 2015 Orange County Fair Cattle Drive and approve the temporary street closures for August 8, 2015, as requested for the 2015 Orange County Cattle Drive. 10. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 15-37 TO REPEAL COUNCIL POLICY 300-4 (GENERAL LEAVE) TO BE REPLACED BY ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION 2.xx (GENERAL LEAVE) PURSUANT TO REQUIREMENTS OF "HEALTHY WORKPLACE, HEALTHY FAMILIES ACT OF 2014." ACTION: City Council adopt by Resolution 15-37, to be read by title only, and further reading waived, which repeals Council Policy 300-4 regarding Part -Time Employee General Leave and authorize the City CEO to implement Administrative Regulation 2.xx in compliance with "Healthy Workplace, Healthy Families Act." 11. PUBLIC SAFETY SOFTWARE LICENSE AND SERVICES AGREEMENT — ACTION: City Council authorized the City CEO to sign the Purchase Requisition in the amount of $112,077 for the renewal of the Software License and Services Agreement with SunGard Public Sector Inc. Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 6 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED PUBLIC HEARINGS — 7:00 p.m. (Resolution No. 05-55): (01:22:22) 1. CIVIC OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS (COIN) ORDINANCE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT TO THE 2013-2016 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND THE COSTA MESA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (CMCEA), THE ADOPTION OF THE ACCOMPANYING SALARY RESOLUTION AND ADOPTION OF THE CONFIDENTIAL SALARY RESOLUTION (01:22:22) Staff Report presented by Laura Kalty, Special Counsel, and Lance Nakamoto, Human Resources Manager. (01:23:19) Council Member Foley requested clarification on the State Labor Board ruling on the County COIN Ordinance. (01:25:05) Laura Kalty stated an update will be provided to Council. (01:25:25) Public Comments: Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, requested that the public be provided the update on the State Labor Board ruling on the County COIN Ordinance. (01:25:52) Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer spoke on the County COIN Ordinance ruling and the process. (01:26:47) Council Member Genis and Council Member Foley spoke on the ruling and the County COIN Ordinance. (01:28:54) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Foley/Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: Council Member Monahan Absent: None Motion carried: 4-1 ACTION: 1. City Council held the second Public Hearing as required by COIN; and 2. City Council approved the Side Letter Agreement to the 2013-2016 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Costa Mesa and CMCEA effective June 28t", 2015; and 3. City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-34, to be read by title only, and waived further reading, which implements a four percent (4%) cost of living adjustment for all CMCEA represented classifications; and Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 7 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 4. City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-35, to be read by title only, and waived further reading, which implements a four percent (4%) cost of living adjustment for all unrepresented Confidential classifications. OLD BUSINESS: (01:29:35) 1. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-05: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COSTA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER X OF TITLE 5 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PERMITTING PROCEDURES SMALL RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR SYSTEMS, PER AB 2188 (01:29:37) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Council Member Foley The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, and Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer Nays: None Absent: Mayor Mensinger Motion carried: 4-0-1 ACTION: City Council gave the second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 15-05, to be read by title only, and waived further reading, to codify the streamlined permitting procedures for small residential rooftop solar systems to be in compliance with AB 2188. 2. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-06: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TABLE 13-30 (LAND USE MATRIX) OF CHAPTER IV (CITYWIDE LAND USE MATRIX) TITLE 13 (ZONING CODE OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE) TO REFLECT CHANGES MADE BY CODE AMENDMENT CO-14-03, AS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 14-13 (GROUP HOMES) ON OCTOBER 21, 2014 (01:30:50) Public Comments: Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke on the Group Home Ordinance. (01:31:48) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Council Member Genis The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 8 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED ACTION: City Council gave the second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 15-06, to be read by title only, and waived further reading. NEW BUSINESS: (01:34:08) 1. RESOLUTION FOR EXCEPTION TO THE 180-DAY WAIT PERIOD PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7522.56 AND 21224, FOR THE REHIRE OF RETIRED SENIOR PROGRAMMER ANALYST WILLIAM VERDERBER (01:34:12) Staff Report presented by Ryan Thomas, Principal Human Resources Analyst. (01:34:34) Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer requested report on the I.T. Departments. (01:35:34) Council Member Monahan spoke on the Department plan; update; and status of the computer system. (01:36:05) Mr. Thomas spoke on the current recruitments. (01:36:21) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Council Member Foley The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: City Council adopted Resolution 15-24, to be read by title only, and further reading waived, the exception to the 180-Day Wait Period pursuant to Government Code Sections 7522.56 and 21224 to retain the services of retired Senior Programmer Analyst William Verderber. 2. REQUEST TO CLOSE OFF WALL OPENINGS ALONG VICTORIA STREET TO PREVENT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE SIDE STREETS (01:37:23) Staff Report presented by Ernesto Munoz, Director of Public Services. (01:37.48) Council Member Monahan inquired how the walls will be closed off. (01:41:55) Mr. Munoz suggested a block wall and also eliminating the cubbies. (01:42:07) Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 9 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Council Member Foley suggested removing the double wall to prevent cubbies; expressed concern as trying to improve pedestrian accessibility; and spoke on solving problems with law enforcement. (01:43:02) Council Member Genis expressed concern on accessibility for children and direct routes to school; and suggested the use of a gate. (01:45:20) Mayor Mensinger spoke on problems with the openings. (01:47:27) Public Comments: Barrie Fisher, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of closing off the wall openings; explained the alternate routes for school children; and spoke on problems associated with the openings. (01:48:58) Wendy Leece, Costa Mesa, requested more Police patrols to alleviate the problems in high crime areas. (01:52:08) Michael Robby, Costa Mesa, spoke on problems on Sterling Ave; spoke on 131 police calls on Sterling Ave within the last year; and supports closing off the openings. (01:54:36) Council Member Foley spoke on the need to have a Police plan as it relates to Public Safety on Victoria St. (01:57:29) Robert Sharpnack, Police Chief, spoke on the Police Department since January 1, 2015 operating at full Staff within field operations patrol division; spoke on the backfilling specialty assignments; department promotions; spoke on establishing bike patrol teams; and Community Oriented Policy. (01:58:57) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Mensinger The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: City Council provided direction regarding residents' request to close off the wall openings to pedestrian access along Victoria Street at the following locations: 1. Puente Avenue (north side of Victoria Street) 2. Raleigh Avenue (north side of Victoria Street) 3. Sterling Avenue (south side of Victoria Street) Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 10 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 3. PROPOSAL FOR NEW FIELD USE AND ALLOCATION POLICY (FUAP) AND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL STATUS OF SPECIFIC YOUTH SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS (02:05:48) CEO Hatch summarized the issue and Staff suggestions. (02:06:05) Staff Report presented by Travis Karlen, Parks and Recreation Manager and Christian Hernandez, Recreation Specialist. (02:10:56) Discussion ensued regarding commercial groups, fees, rates; and field splitting. (02:21:07) Discussion ensued on User Group 6; non-resident limitations; definition of zones; and determining residency requirements. (02:28:43) Discussion ensued on a User Group 3 and on the Matt Leinart Flag Football Organization exception; Jack Hammet's Sports Complex; meeting residency threshold; and opportunities to play sports on other fields within the City. (02:32:50) Discussion ensued on other sport leagues other than football or soccer such as Lacrosse to use sports fields; travel teams and adult groups; field allocations; and flag football. (02:41:21) Public Comments: Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke on the Matt Leinart Flag Football Organization exception; and does not support their extension of Group 3 status. (02:54:44) Marc Triplett, Costa Mesa, representative of the Adult Softball League, spoke on their User Group 6 status at Tewinkle; spoke on non-profit status; and spoke in support of keeping User Group 6. (02:57:57) Janet Lozada, Costa Mesa, spoke on behalf of User Group 6; and concern with lack of space on the fields. (03:20:28) Wendy Leece, Costa Mesa, spoke on ethical issues; process to deal with residency; charging for profit users the full rate; and spoke on hoarding of fields. (03:03:56) Kelly Waterman, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the Matt Leinart Flag Football Organization extension as Group 3 User. (03:07:08) Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 11 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Jack Morales, Costa Mesa, president of Pony Baseball, spoke in support of the FUAP; spoke on behalf of User Group 1, and supports Newport -Mesa boundary. (03:09:27) Robin Leffler, Costa Mesa, spoke against maintaining Matt Lienart as a User Group 3 status. (03:12:13) Frank Albers, Costa Mesa, works with the Matt Leinart Flag Football Organization; spoke on the allocation process; and on confusion from all involved on what should have been paid. (03:14:58) Sean Pence, Costa Mesa, President for Newport Harbor Baseball Association, spoke in support of permanent User Group 1 status. (03:23:33) Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer spoke on the limited amount of fields, spoke on lighting and turf; and defining local residents as living or attending a public or private school in Newport Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) or live within NMUSD boundaries; and verifying residency of users. (03:24:10) Council Member Foley spoke in support of Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer's recommendations; and spoke on the Matt Leinart Flag Football Organization money owed to be divided between Costa Mesa High School and Estancia High School. (03:34:24) Discussion ensued on each User Group; proposed wording and percentage changes; and field usage. (03:39:10) MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer/Council Member Genis The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 1. City Council approved that the following youth sports groups: AYSO 97, Newport Harbor Baseball Association and Newport Mesa Girls Softball be granted permanent Group 1 status. MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer/Council Member Monahan The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 12 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 2. City Council approved that local residents be defined as players that live within the Newport Mesa School District boundaries or attend a public or private school within the Newport Mesa School District boundaries. MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer/Council Member Foley The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 3. City Council approved the removal of the term Costa Mesa resident to be replaced with local resident. MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer/Mayor Mensinger The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 4. City Council approved the amendment for Group 3 Users to change the percentage from 50% or greater Costa Mesa residents to 90% or greater local residents in both subsections 1 and 2. MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Foley/Council Member Monahan The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 5. City Council approved the amendment for Group 3 Users to remove the wording in subset 3, "Shall be classified as "for pay" group status." MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer/Council Member Foley The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 13 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 6. City Council approved the amendment for Group 6 Users to read, "Adult Programs, organizations or events with a minimum of 25% local residents or are employed in Costa Mesa." MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Foley/Council Member Monahan The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 7. City Council approved the amendment for Group 4 Users to read, "Adult Programs, organizations or events with at least of 75% local residents or are employed in Costa Mesa." MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Foley/Council Member Monahan The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 8. City Council approved the deletion of the first sentence in the section "Field Allocations at Jack Hammett Sports Complex." MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer/Mayor Mensinger The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 9. City Council approved that all leagues keep on file proof of residency or proof of school for justification as a local resident. MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Foley/Mayor Mensinger The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 14 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 10. City Council requested the allocation of the Matt Leinart Flag Football Organization payment of $25,000 for a future meeting. MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Foley/Council Member Monahan The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 11. City Council approved the balance of the recommended changes and approved the new Field Use and Allocation Policy (FUAP). ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (04:20:41) 6. FINAL MAP FOR TRACT NO. 17747 LOCATED AT 1620 THROUGH 1644 WHITTIER AVENUE, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA (04:21:02) Public Comments: Robin Leffler, Costa Mesa, requested a moratorium on projects until impacts are analyzed. (04:21:31) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Council Member Genis The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: Council Member Genis Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: City Council approved the Final Map for Tract No. 17747 and authorized the signing of the Map by the City Clerk and City Engineer. 8. APPROVE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT — FAIRVIEW PARK (04:23:59) Council Member Genis requested clarification on a drainage concern where erosion issues could exist. (04:24:12) Mr. Munoz spoke on the draining of the lot to Fairveiw Park; and spoke on approval for formalization of an existing drainage condition. (04:25:16) Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 15 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Mensinger The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: Council Member Genis Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: City Council approved the Drainage Easement Agreement within Fairview Park. 12. MATCH FUNDING FOR MERCY HOUSE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT (04:28:09) Public Comments: Flo Martin, Costa Mesa, Member of Churches Consortium, spoke on the need for a Costa Mesa transitional shelter for the homeless. (04:28:31) MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer/Council Member Genis The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: Council Member Genis Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: City Council and Housing Authority approved the allocation of $40,000 for the match requirement for Mercy House's 2014 Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) of federal funds administered by the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) for Rapid Rehousing Services for Costa Mesa homeless residents. REPORT — CITY ATTORNEY — (04:31:54) — NONE Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 16 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED ADJOURNMENT — To the Regular Meeting, July 21, 2015, 5:00 p.m. Mayor Mensinger adjourned the meeting at 10:22 p.m. Minutes adopted on this 21st day of July, 2015. Stephen M. Mensinger, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Green, City Clerk Minutes — Regular Meeting/Special Joint Meeting — July 7, 2015 - Page 17 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA July 13, 2015 The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California met in a Special Closed Session, on Monday, July 13, 2015 at 4:35 p.m. in Council Chambers, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. Council Member Foley called the meeting to order. ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Council Member Sandra Genis Council Member Katrina Foley Council Member Gary Monahan Mayor Stephen M. Mensinger (Arrived at 5.30 p.m.) Council Members Absent: Mayor Pro Tern James M. Righeimer CEO Tom Hatch noted for the record that Mayor Mensinger and Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer will be recusing themselves from Closed Session Item #1 but will join Closed Session at 5:30 p.m. for Closed Session Items # 2 — 5. CLOSED SESSION 1. Conference with Thomas R. Hatch, Chief Executive Officer, and Labor Negotiator, Agency Negotiator regarding Costa Mesa Police Association (CMPA), pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6. 2. Conference with Thomas R. Hatch, Chief Executive Officer, regarding Unrepresented Executive employees, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6. 3. Conference with Thomas R. Hatch, Chief Executive Officer, and Labor Negotiator, Agency Negotiator regarding Costa Mesa Division Managers Association (CMDMA), pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6. 4. Conference with Thomas R. Hatch, Chief Executive Officer, and Labor Negotiator, Agency Negotiator regarding Costa Mesa Firefighters Association (CMFA), pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6. 5. Conference with Thomas R. Hatch, Chief Executive Officer, and Labor Negotiator, Agency Negotiator regarding Costa Mesa Firefighters Management Association (CMFMA), pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.6. Special Closed Session Meeting — July 13, 2015 — Page 1 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED PUBLIC COMMENTS: The meeting was recessed to Conference Room 5A for the closed session at 4:39 p.m. The City Attorney stated there was no reportable action. ADJOURNMENT The special meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Minutes adopted on this 21St day of July, 2015. Stephen M. Mensinger, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Green, City Clerk Special Closed Session Meeting — July 13, 2015 — Page 2 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-6 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP FOR TRACT NO. 17709 LOCATED AT 573-591 VICTORIA STREET, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA DATE: JULY 9, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR BY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER, 714-754-5335 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Final Map for Tract No. 17709 and authorize signing of the Map by the City Clerk and the City Engineer. BACKGROUND: The Tentative Map for Tract No. 17709 and Conditions of Approval were approved by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2014. The Map consists of a subdivision to construct a 37-unit, three-story, detached, small lot, single-family residential development on a 2.28- acre lot. ANAI YSIR- All Conditions of Approval imposed by the Planning Commission have been complied with and the Final Map is in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map approved by the Planning Commission. The Tract Map has been checked and found to be technically correct, and includes the release and relinquishment of access rights to Victoria Street and an easement for emergency and public security vehicle purposes to be accepted by the City. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: No alternatives were considered. FISCAL REVIEW: All Tract Map filing fees have been paid. 1 LEGAL REVIEW: There is no legal review required relative to this item. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that City Council approve the Final Map and authorize the City Clerk and the City Engineer to sign the Map. ERNESTO MUNOZ Public Services Director ATTACHMENTS: 1 — Final Tract Map 2 — Letter of Conditions DISTRIBUTION: CEO Assistant CEO City Attorney City Clerk Staff FARIBA FAZELI City Engineer 2 SHEET 1 OF 4 SHEETS 1 NUMBERED LOT NET AREA 2277 ACRES GROSS AREA: 2.411 ACRES (ALL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17709) OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE: TRACT NO. 17709 IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 34 OF FAIRVIEW FARMS, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 8, PAGE 71 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. ROBERT L WHEELER IV, L.S. 8639 DATE OF SURVEY: AUGUST, 2014 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING ALL PARTIES HAVING ANY RECORD TITLE INTEREST IN THE LAND COVERED BY THIS MAP, DO HEREBY CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND RECORDATION OF SAID MAP AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE. WE HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA: 1. THE INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENTS FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS AND PUBLIC SECURITY VEHICLE PURPOSES, AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. WE HEREBY RELEASE AND RELINQUISH TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, ALL VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RIGHTS ALONG VICTORIA STREET, EXCEPT AT APPROVED ACCESS LOCATIONS AND STREET INTERSECTIONS. RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF MARYLAND, INC., A MARYLAND CORPORATION BY: BY: NAME: NAME: TI TLE: TITLE: NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT: A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT. STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS COUNTY OF ON BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, PERSONALLY APPEARED PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT. WITNESS MY HAND: SIGNATURE NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE (NAME PRINTED) MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN COUNTY. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: MY COMMISSION NO: SEE SIGNATURE OMISSIONS ON SHEET 2. SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: ACCEPTED AND FILED AT THE REQUEST OF FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY DATE: TIME: FEE: $ INSTRUMENT NO, BOOK PAGE HUGH NGUYEN COUNTY CLERK — RECORDER BY DEPUTY THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF HARMONY WAY INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, IN AUGUST, 2014. 1 HEREBY STATE THAT ALL MONUMENTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED, OR THAT THEY WILL BE SET IN SUCH POSITIONS WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS; AND THAT SAID MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS FINAL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP. ROBERT L. WHEELER IV, L.S. 8639 DATE No. 8639 N9TF �F GO, L\F�Q��e COUNTY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: I HEREBY STATE THAT HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP AND HAVE FOUND THAT ALL MAPPING PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND I AM SATISFIED SAID MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT. DATED THIS DAY OF KEVIN R. HILLS, COUNTY SURVEYOR L.S. 6617, EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/15 BY: CRAIG S. WEHRMAN, CHIEF DEPUTY SURVEYOR CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT: 2015 HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP AND HAVE FOUND IT TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY WHO I N CONFORMANCE WITH THE TENTATIVE MAP AS FILED WITH, AMENDED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND CITY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. DATED THIS DAY OF 2015. FARIBA FAZELI, R.C.E. 51480 CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF COSTA MESA REGISTRATION EXPIRES 06/30/2016 CITY CLERICS CERTIFICATE: STATE OF CALIFORNIAI COUNTY OF ORANGE J} ss. CITY OF COSTA MESA I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP WAS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE DAY OF 2015 AND THAT THEREUPON SAID COUNCIL DID BY AN ORDER DULY PASSED AND ENTERED, APPROVE SAID MAP AND DID ALSO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA: 1. THE INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT FOR EMERGENCY AND PUBLIC SECURITY VEHICLES PURPOSES, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP. 2. THE VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RIGHTS ALONG VICTORIA STREET, AS RELEASED AND RELINQUISHED. AND DID ALSO APPROVE SUBJECT MAP PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 66436(a)(3)(A) OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND AFFIXED THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA. DATED THIS DAY OF . 2015. BRENDA GREEN CITY CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA COUNTY TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR'S CERTIFICATE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA1 J} ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS OF MY OFFICE THERE ARE NO LIENS AGAINST THE LAND COVERED BY THIS MAP OR ANY PART THEREOF FOR UNPAID STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES, EXCEPT TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES NOT YET PAYABLE. AND DO CERTIFY TO THE RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH REGARDING DEPOSITS TO SECURE PAYMENT OF TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES ON THE LAND COVERED BY THIS MAP. DATED THIS DAY OF . 2015. SHARI L. FREIDENRICH BY: COUNTY TREASURER —TAX COLLECTOR TREASURER —TAX COLLECTOR SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS 1 NUMBERED LOT NET AREA 2277 ACRES GROSS AREA 2A11 ACRES (ALL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17709) SIGNATURE OMISSIONS: TRACT NO. 17709 IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. ROBERT L WHEELER IV, L.S. 8639 DATE OF SURVEY: AUGUST, 2014 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 66436 (a)(3)(A) OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES HAVE BEEN OMITTED: COUNTY OF ORANGE, HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED JULY 30, 1958 IN BOOK 4367, PAGE 287, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. CITY OF COSTA MESA, HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED NOVEMBER 6, 1958 IN BOOK 4474, PAGE 358, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION, HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR EITHER OR BOTH POLE LINES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED MAY 27, 1959 IN BOOK 4731, PAGE 526, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION, HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR EITHER OR BOTH POLE LINES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED NOVEMBER 16, 1960 IN BOOK 5513, PAGE 140, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. THE PACIFIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A CORPORATION, HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE AND COMMUNICATION STRUCTURES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED AUGUST 28, 1963 IN BOOK 6694, PAGE 875, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. CITY OF COSTA MESA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HOLDER OF A PERPETUAL EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND HIGHWAY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED AUGUST 18, 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 89-439606 AND RECORDED AUGUST 31, 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 89-467354, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. CITY OF COSTA MESA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, HOLDER OF A PERPETUAL EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR STREET, HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED JANUARY 11, 1990 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 90-019192, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION, HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1990 AS INST. NO. 90-413985, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. PACIFIC BELL, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED NOVEMBER 27, 1990 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 90-624248, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. W.F. BONNER, JR, AND MARGARET BONNER, HIS WIFE, AND W.F. BONNER AND WELLINGTON F. BONNER TRUSTEE FOR MARTHA S. BONNER, HOLDERS OF OIL, GAS, MINERAL RIGHTS, WATER AND WATER RIGHTS AS RESERVED IN GRANT DEED RECORDED APRIL 6, 1973 IN BOOK 10631, PAGE 930, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SHOWN HEREON AS ❑� EASEMENT NOTES: OINDICATES AN EASEMENT FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, RECORDED JULY 30. 1958 IN BOOK 4367, PAGE 287, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ©INDICATES AN EASEMENT FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, RECORDED NOVEMBER 6, 1958 IN BOOK 4474, PAGE 358, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. OINDICATES AN EASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE AND C COMMUNICATION STRUCTURES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF THE PACIFIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED AUGUST 28, 1963 IN BOOK 6694, PAGE 875, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. OINDICATES A PERPETUAL EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND HIGHWAY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RECORDED AUGUST 18, 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 89-439606, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. OINDICATES A PERPETUAL EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND HIGHWAY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RECORDED AUGUST 31, 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 89-467354 AND RE -RECORDED AUGUST 31, 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 89-685235. BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. INDICATES A PERPETUAL EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR STREET, F HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RECORDED JANUARY 11, 1990 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 90-019192. OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ©INDICATES AN EASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SUPPLY SYSTEMS AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED AUGUST 6, 1990 AS INST. NO. 90-413985, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. OINDICATES AN EASEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF PACIFIC BELL, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, RECORDED NOVEMBER 27, 1990 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 90-624248, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. OINDICATES AN INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS AND PUBLIC SECURITY VEHICLE PURPOSES DEDICATED HEREON TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA. OINDICATES AN EASEMENT FOR EITHER OR BOTH POLE LINES, CONDUITS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED MAY 27, 1959 IN BOOK 4731, PAGE 526, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. OINDICATES AN EASEMENT FOR EITHER OR BOTH POLE LINES, CONDUITS AND K INCIDENTAL PURPOSES IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED NOVEMBER 16, 1960 IN BOOK 5513, PAGE 140, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS SCALE T = 100' 1 NUMBERED LOT NET AREA 2.2T7 ACRES GROSS AREA 2.411 ACRES GALL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17709) BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE BEARING BETWEEN O.C.S. HORIZONTAL CONTROL STATION GPS NO. 6203R2 AND STATION GPS NO. 6204R1 BEING N89°38'44'W PER RECORDS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR. DATUM STATEMENT. COORDINATES SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS83), ZONE VI, 1983 NAD, (2007.0 EPOCH OCS GPS ADJUSTMENT). ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GROUND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. TO OBTAIN GRID DISTANCE, MULTIPLY GROUND DISTANCE BY 0.99997000. THIS COMBINATION FACTOR IS PROJECT SPECIFIC. MONUMENT NOTES: 2" I.P TAGGED 'LS. 8639' OR LEAD, TACK & TAG 'L.S. 8639" OR 8" SPIKE AND WASHER STAMPED "L.S. 8639" TO BE SET AT ALL TRACT BOUNDARY CORNERS WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. INDICATES FOUND ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR GPS CONTROL MONUMENT AS NOTED. • INDICATES FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED. TRACT NO. 17709 IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DETAIL "B" HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. N.T.S. ROBERT L WHEELER IV, L.S. 8639 DATE OF SURVEY: MAY, 2014 Lu BOUNDARY ESTABLISHMENT GPS CONTROL SCHEME AND MONUMENT NOTES Z Q 9 1�! DETAIL "A" C.S /6197R2 N.T.S. FOUND SPIKE AND WASHER STAMPED 'LS. 6970' PER RII, HELD FOR SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING, SHOWN CENTERLINE OF WILSON STREET CENTERUNE INTERSECTION OF WILSON STREET AND PLACENTIA AVENUE RECORD PER RIO ; . -- N89°38'52"W (396228') R1 (3961.66') R7 .(2.22')•. ; ; ; ---- 3959.95' (3960.03') R2 -�- `•- 1318.43' -" '-' (1320.76') R1, SEE DETAIL "A" (1320.55') R7, (1320.80') R13 -- (1320.76') (1320.55') R7, FOUND P.K. NAIL, FLUSH, FITS RECORD DISTANCE ;!7 Q (1320.8R1, 0') R13 FROM THE CENTERU E INTERSECTION OF HARBOR OG \W\ FOUND SPIKE $ W / & WASHER 't.S. 7707". I- Q d $ FLUSH , ACCEPTED V) Ik Q AS REPLACEMENT 31 MoNfUMENTS PER R12 (65.61'] _ -- [264.36'] R8 : --R12-- - 1320.54' (1320.57') Rl----' f- N89°38'44"W 3961 36' 3961 ' hf A� 1 � Lti y^� 1�O 2 N89°38'44W 2610.82 (2610.00') R5 (1320.00')R5 - R _4D.8 T (262') R1 ( .39 ) " - - SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING FOUND 1 1/4 BRASS CAP STAMPED 'LS 5284', DOWN 1.5% IN 'O.C.S --" . N89°38'52"W (3962.28') RI (3961.661 R7 _ -WILSON STREET WELL MONUMENT PER R2 3959.95' (3960.03') R2 _ �� [2641.52'] RI (2641.49') R4, R6 'G (264L11') R7 - - ' BOULEVARD PER RI, F175 LIE BETWEEN FOUND F- W ' z i MONUMENTS AT WILSON AND PLACENDA AND W Z wlLsoN AND HARBOR ACCEPTED AS THE W ao CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF WILSON STREET AND .� U Z POMONA AVENUE, NO REFERENCE. i 0 M Q INDICATES 8" SPIKE AND WASHER STAMPED "LS. 8639" TO BE SET W Q SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING. O.C.S. GPS 6203R2 FD LARGE PK NAIL WITH BRASS WASHER STAMPED "LS 5183" FITS � Q HELD RECORD DISTANCE FROM THE INTERSECTION OF WILSON STREET AND POMONA AVENUE PER RI. J ' POSITION OF LEAD AND TACK WITH OCS BRASS WASHER STAMPED "6203R1 m 3-01" FLUSH, ORIGINAL MONUMENT BEING CONC. NAIL. MONUMENT WAS RESET PER CORNER RECORD # 2001-0837. MONUMENT IS LOCATED NEAR SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING. _ ESTABLISHED BY INTERSECTION. cv PRA�Hm. FOUND NOTHING. ESTABLISHED BY VICTORIA STREET PRORAiK1N PER �' E)OSTING CENTERUNE PER Rl THE INTERSECTION OF POMONA AVE. AND HAMILTON ST. NORTH 2184488.71. EAST 6051112.44. O.C.S. GPS 6204R1 FD SPIKE AND WASHER STAMPED -LS 5411 FLUSH FITS POSITION OF ROUND HEAD SPIKE AND WASHER, STAMPED "LS 5284", FLUSH PER CORNER RECORD 2008-2174B. STATION IS LOCATED AT APPARENT CENTERUNE INTERSECTION OF HARBOR BLVD. AND HAMILTON ST. NORTH 218447237, EAST 6053753.97. O.C.S. GPS 6197R2 FD GEAR SPIKE AND WASHER STAMPED "LS 6970" PER CORNER RECORD # 2005-0205 AND R2. STATION IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF WILSON ST. AND PLACEN11A AVE. NORTH 2186477.69, EAST 6049807.00. MEASURED AND RECORD DATA NOTES: [ ]INDICATES RECORD AND MEASURED DATA AS NOTED. ( ) INDICATES RECORD DATA AS NOTED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING. [1510A ESTABLISHED BY INTERSECTION WITH 1375.53' A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 25.00 25.00' FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE CENTERUNE OF VICTORIA STREET 1320.53' (11320.53' PER R5. N89°3909 W [2641.07'1 Rl, R3 (2641.06') R4, R6 R1 _ + - [113OAVI RI CALC 924.27' - - 341.2T - " 264.00' LLJ63P I o���Pt Fa V F�N"5' o Z Lu- . c9•.�' QED ey�l Im �Om' I ••��i7 Oga z R1 RECORD OF SURVEY 90-1029, R.S.B. 132/8-13. LL,I " R2 RECORD OF SURVEY 2005-1196, R.S.B. 211/14-15. _ o R3 TRACT NO. 10927, M.M. 472/44-45. R4 TRACT NO. 12001, M.M. 515/9-10. W R5 FAIRVIEW FARMS, MM 8/71. WILY LINE OF > R6 TRACT NO. 11690, M.M. 515/15-17. LOT 42 PER R5 R7 TRACT NO. 2387, M.M. 70/33. Q R8 TRACT NO. 2348, M.M. 82/25. R9 CORNER RECORD 2008-2173B. Z R70 CORNER RECORD 2004-1951A R11 CORNER RECORD 2005-0205B. Q R12 CORNER RECORD 2006-437A W SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING. W R13 TRACT NO. 3065, M.M. 95/10. Z",ACCEPTED Z ESTABLISHED BY INTERSECTION W P$ nor, AND OFFSET FROM THE I-' CENTERLINE OF HAMILTON W. EPTED Ln STREET PER R5 MENT oj O,QS H6203R2 S J FOUND IKE AED WASHERSTAMPED 'LS 5183" PER CORNER RECORD 2008-1496 165.6f: --R12-- - (24.36'] R8 --' 321.97'1320.54' (1320.57') R7 ---WAVER�LS. 697V PARER SEE DETAIL "B" CORNER RECORD 2005-02M h'P M o FOUND NAP. AND SHINER, FISH, FITS TIES - PER R9. ACCEPTED AS THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND (2640.96') R7 VICTORIA STREET. - - 630.26' (660.27').27') R 660.27' (660.00') R5 ---- - N89°39'09'W 2611.06' (2610.00') R5 ' - SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING, .�.,•� I SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING, I NORTHEAST DER LOT 34, M.M. 8/71. ESTABLISHED BY PRORATION PER R5. SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING. - 55 ;. ... .... JSHED DY INTERSECTION. ESTABLISHED BY OFFSETS FRgAL THE CENTERUNES OF VICTORIA 30' ' " ABLISHED PARALLEL YI STREET AND HARBOR BOULEVARD PER R5. AND 264.00 FEET WESTERLY WESTERLY ESTABLISHED PARALLEL WITH OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF AND 55.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 34 OF FAIRVIEW FARMS al PER INSTRUMENT NO. �I LOT 34 OF FAIRVIEW FARMS o 20080003511445. O.R. Q PER INSTRUMENT NO. N 2008000143546. O.R. 2,\ z ,� J ,� /W S p -• J I -J - SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING. 264' v O ESTABLISHED BY INTERSECTION. , I o m - 341.211' ---. -- 264.00)_ - - - N89°38'55"W 660.24' SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING. ESTABLISHED BY PRORATION PER R5. wi SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING, -t N \ Im O ESTABLISHED BY INTERSECTION. ° o o m g z z SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING. Q ESTABLISHED BY PRORATION PER R5. �' \N'0 071, u• •SEARCHED, .•• "F "' of 8. 9 FOUND NOTHING. ':£ nl BOS2• ESTABLISHED AT RECORD OFFSETS FROM THE CENTEIiLiffS OF •• HAMILTON SWEET AND HARBOR SEARCHED. FOUND NOTHING, ::_ I BOULEVARD PER R5. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 34, M.M. 8/71,'•.;•:•'•' ESTABLISHED BY PRORATION PER R5. SEARCHED. FOUND NOTHING. I SOIITIEAST CORNER LOT 34, M.M. 8/71. 30' ESTABLISHED BY PRORATION PER R5. o 660.21' 660.00' RS N89°38'44-W 2610.82' (2610.00') R5 630.20' (630.00') R5 SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING, ESTABLISHED CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF POMONA AVENUE AND HAMILTON STREET AT RECORD DISTANCE FROM FOUND MONUMENTS WESTERLY AND EASTERLY PER R1 AND R8, 589'88'44E 0.84' FROM FOUND SPIKE $ WASHER 'L.S 5183' PER CORNER RECORD 2008-1496 O.C.S. /6203112 660.21' (660.08') R3 [2640.82'] R1 (2640.32') R3 [•i - - - - - --- N89°38'44'W 3961.36' (3961.39') R7 _ (BASIS OF BEARINGS) HAMILTON STREET O.Q& +62M FOUND SPIKE AND WASHER STAMPED 'L5. 5411', PER CORNER RECORD 2008-2174B. SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS SCALE T = 30' 1 NUMBERED LOT NET AREA 2277 ACRES GROSS AREA 2.411 ACRES (ALL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17709) _— 1375.53' N W TRACT NO. 17709 Lu Cie IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Lu � HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. Q ROBERT L WHEELER IV, L.S. 8639 DATE OF SURVEY: JULY, 2013 L SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING. ESTABLISHED BY PRORATION PER RI. �0.65'1 R1 _ _ VICTORIA STREET - - - 341.27' - % a e VICTORIA STREET N89'39'09'W 2611.06' H EASTING CENTERLNE PER RI. [1130.42'] RI CALC �_ N59°39.09"W [2641.07'] R3 (2641.06') R4 (2641.07') R7 A B 100 NLY LIKE LOT 3—� 341,27' - LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L7 N00'22'Oa'E 45.00' L2 N89'39'09"W 4.00' L3 NOO°22'08'E 45.00' L4 N89'3WOVW 4.00' L5 N00'2208'E 55.00' L6 N89'39'09'W 4.00' L7 NOO'22'OB'E 55.00' L8 I N89'39'09'W 4.00' L9 N00°22'08"E 60.00' L10 N89°39'09'W 3.06 L11 N00'22'08'E 60.00• N SEARCHED — — — _ - _ - — -'r — — — — — -- — — — — — T -' i :noo• E �-- •I II' p ,I: ,,',, --F-----�--izoo'.<;_':• 264.00 -" FOUND NOTHING. ESTABLISHED BY N89°39'09"W 341.27' 'I SEARCHED FOUND SEARHED FOUND NOIHN360INIERSECTN6.16' .0' 189it' J ESTABLISHED BY INTERSECTION. NORTHEAST COMER LOT 34, M.AL z g mr I Ci H I -I.— 4' I ( IIJI m _ 5/71, ESTABLISHED BY PRORATION g15 55PER R5. I— 3, '1 11 NI I f"o g I 14~-I ui NS9°39'09"W ,Oa.15� — — -" 132' �--- — — — — + — — N89°39'09"W 181.00— — — — — — — — — loo N-89°30°-00'00"— —'"— — '\Qd oo. 30.50' 909— 84.16' N89°3909W 78.00PBm0 N89°39'09"W , N30.50' R=4.00L=6.28 oNwol N89°39'09"W - t9= o I I I I I I1 J m I I I 24, §3� I I I la of I I I 24' I I! I yI - LOT 1 i= =i NET: 2.277 ACry . I I I I� ��35 of w I I GROSS: 2.411 AC. -I 2T to w I I �T2.6F vl NI I I N89°39'09"W I of =3 z 0 I I I I I I IIJe; Ip zs I I I X�! s' I w 24• I I I I I A=90°00'00" ro l R=5.00'- [--- ss'I WNz Q9OJDD�p�Oe,—S•�°—L=zas' ---�'39'09-W212.16' N8939'09W 199.16' ----- T Y--------�+ — —— _ — ,.3 •..i -- —' 1 ES'TABLISH-•== 'J °�m ,i,-f„ I I O II III 264' R=5.00'L=7.85' N89°39'09"W 3.00' N00°20moo. N00'2N89°39'09"W 3.00' ` a 1. 132' '"_"_-N00°20S'"E SEARCHFOUND NOTHING, N89°39'09"WESTABLISHED BY INTERSECTION. SEARCHED DBYD NOTHING. ED INTERSECTION. 55.00347.24' 640 N89°38'55'W 20' _-- SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING. NA + ESTABLISHED BY PROPORTION PER R5. SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING. ' SEE SHEET 2 FOR EASEMENT NOTES. `f ESTABLISHED BY NTERSECTGN PER Ra IM SEE SHEET 3 FOR BOUNDARY ESTABLISHMENT, GPS CONTROL SCHEME AND MONUMENT NOTES, BASIS OF BEARINGS, DATUM STATEMENT, MEASURED AND RECORD DATA NOTES. ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING DIVISION April 23, 2014 Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: Tract No. 17709 LOCATION: 573-591 Victoria Street Dear Commissioners: Tentative Tract Map No. 17709, as furnished by the Planning Division for review by the Public Services Department consists of a subdivision to construct a 37-unit, three-story, detached, small lot, single-family residential development. Tentative Tract Map No. 17709 meets with the approval of the Public Services Department, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Tract shall be developed in full compliance with the State Map Act and the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (C.C.M.M.C.), except as authorized by the Costa Mesa City Council and/or Planning Commission. The attention of the Subdivider and his engineer is directed to Sections 13-208 through 13-261 inclusive, of the Municipal Code. 2. The Subdivider shall conduct soil investigations and provide the results to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering and Building Divisions pursuant to Ordinance 97-11. 3. Two copies of the Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for checking. The map check fee shall be paid per C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-231. 4. A current copy of the title search shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of the final Tract Map. 5. Dedicate an ingress/egress easement to the City for emergency and public security vehicles purposes only. Maintenance of the easement- shall be the sole responsibility of a Homeowners Association formed to conform to Section 13-41 (e) of the C.C.M.M.C. 6. Vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Victoria Street shall be released and relinquished to the City of Costa Mesa except at approved access locations. 7. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk. PHONE: (714) 754-5335 FAX: (714) 754-5028 TDD: (714) 754-5244 www.costamesaca.gov Planning Commission 2014 8. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then reconstruct driveway approach per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan to comply with American Disability Act. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. 9. The Subdivider shall submit a cash deposit of $980 for street sweeping at the time of issuance of a Construction Access permit. The full amount of the deposit shall be maintained on a monthly basis prior to and during construction until completion of the project. 10. Fulfill the drainage fee ordinance requirements prior to the approval of the Tract Map. 11. The Subdivider's engineers shall furnish the Engineering Division a storm runoff study 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 is to be furnished with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. Cross lot drainage shall not occur. 12. Ownership and maintenance of the private on -site drainage facilities and parkway culverts and other common areas shall be transferred by the owner to the Homeowner Association to be formed pursuant to C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-41 (e) and said association shall indemnify and hold harmless the City for any liability arising out of or in any way associated with the connection of the private drainage system with the City's drainage system and shall execute and deliver to the City the standard (indemnity) Hold Harmless Agreement required for such conditions prior to issuance of permits. 13: Sewer improvements shall meet the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; call (949) 631-1731 for information. 14. Water system improvements shall meet the approval of Mesa Consolidated Water District; call (949) 631-1200 for information. .15. Dedicate easements as needed for public utilities. 16. Prior to recordation of a 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. 17. Prior to recordation of a 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. 18. Survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and replaced after construction, pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Profession Code. 19. The elevations shown on all plans shall be on Orange County benchmark datum. 20. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee monumentation. The deposit amount is to be determined by the City Engineer. 0 Planning Commission 2014 21. Prior to occupancy on the Tract, the surveyor/engineer shall submit to the City Engineer a digital -graphics file, a reproducible mylar of the recorded Tract Map, an approved off -site plan and nine copies of the recorded Tract Map. erely, Faraba Fazeli, P. Interim City Engineer (Engr. 2014/Planning Commission Tract 17709). 3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-7 SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF FIRE STATION No. 1 DATE: JULY 9, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT / ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR BY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER - (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award a contract to WLC Architects, Inc., 8163 Rochester Avenue, Suite 100, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, in an amount not to exceed $499,000.00 for design services, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND: Fire Station No. 1, located at 2803 Royal Palm Drive, was built in the early 1960's. The existing building consists of a 2,750 Square Foot Engine room (Apparatus Bay/Garage) and a 6,725 Square Foot Living facilities (livable space). The existing Fire Station has exceeded its useful life, and is no longer compliant with current standards and modern building codes. The present facility is exhibiting significant foundation settlement resulting in accelerated deterioration to its various components including floor slabs, walls, and the building structural frame. At this time, it is more cost effective to construct a new state -of -the art Fire Station than to repair or remodel the existing facility. The City Council allocated funding towards the design and construction of a new Fire Station at this location in Fiscal Year 2015-2016. ANALYSIS: The scope of work for this project consists of the preparation of complete construction documents, including conceptual and final design, soil testing, architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and grading design, as well as all necessary calculations and technical support needed during construction. The required professional services for the project are extensive and beyond staff's resources at this time. Staff advertised the project for the design phase and received eleven proposals on April 24, 2015. All proposals were reviewed for compliance with the City's Request For Proposals (RFP's), and the consultants were evaluated based on project understanding, depth of experience, technical expertise, ability to meet the schedule, and associated factors. After careful review of all proposals, and interviewing the top five candidates, staff has selected WLC Architects, Inc. as well qualified to perform the work. The firm's Project Manager exhibited a thorough understanding of the project scope, and has demonstrated to have the technical ability and expertise with similar projects their firm has completed in the Southern California area. Staff has determined the proposed cost for consultant services to be reasonable for meeting the City's requirements as listed in the Scope of Services. The cost for services is competitive and within industry standards for these specialized architectural services. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The alternative to this Council action would be to not award a design services contract for the stated project, and perform the engineering work with City staff. Due to the volume of work and the large number of projects currently being handled by the Engineering Division, a significant delay in implementing this project would be experienced if staff were to perform the engineering in-house. Delays are estimated to be from twelve to fifteen months. FISCAL REVIEW: In Fiscal Year 2015-2016, City Council allocated $1,676,201.00 of Capital Facility Funds towards the design and construction of Fire Station No. 1. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached Professional Services Agreement as to content and form. CONCLUSION: Staff completed the evaluation of the RFP's submitted for the design services for the Fire Station No. 1 improvements. It is recommended that the City Council award the design services contract to WLC Architects, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $499,000.00 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. ERNESTO MUNOZ Public Services Director Attachment: 1- Distribution: FARIBA FAZELI City Engineer Professional Services Agreement Chief Executive Officer Fire Chief Battalion Chief City Attorney Director of Finance City Clerk Staff File V ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF COSTA MESA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WLC ARCHITECTS, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 22nd day of July, 2015 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and WLC Architects, Inc., a California Corporation ("Consultant"). WITNESSETH: A. WHEREAS, City proposes to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to perform professional engineering services for the design of fire station #1, as more fully described herein; and B. WHEREAS, Consultant represents that it has that degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code Section 37103, and holds all necessary licenses to practice and perform the services herein contemplated; and C. WHEREAS, City and Consultant desire to contract for the specific services described in Exhibit "A" (the "Project") and desire to set forth their rights, duties and liabilities in connection with the services to be performed; and D. WHEREAS, no official or employee of City has a financial interest, within the provisions of Sections 1090-1092 of the California Government Code, in the subject matter of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1.0. SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT 1.1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall provide the professional services described in the City's Request for Proposal ("RFP"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and Consultant's Response to City's RFP (the "Response") attached hereto as Exhibit "B," both incorporated herein by this reference. 1.2. Professional Practices. All professional services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants in similar fields and circumstances in accordance with sound professional practices. Consultant also warrants that it is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and shall advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Consultant's performance of this Agreement. 1.3. Performance to Satisfaction of City. Consultant agrees to perform all the work to the complete satisfaction of the City and within the hereinafter specified. Evaluations of the work will be done by the City's Chief Executive Officer ("City CEO") or his or her designee. If the quality of work is not satisfactory, City in its discretion has the right to: (a) Meet with Consultant to review the quality of the work and resolve the matters of concern; (b) Require Consultant to repeat the work at no additional fee until it is satisfactory; and/or (c) Terminate the Agreement as hereinafter set forth. 1.4. Warranty. Consultant warrants that it shall perform the services required by this Agreement in compliance with all applicable Federal and California employment laws, including, but not limited to, those laws related to minimum hours and wages; occupational health and safety; fair employment and employment practices; workers' compensation insurance and safety in employment; and all other Federal, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings, and judgments of every nature and description including attorneys' fees and costs, presented, brought, or recovered against City for, or on account of any liability under any of the above -mentioned laws, which may be incurred by reason of Consultant's performance under this Agreement. 1.5. Non-discrimination. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sexual gender or sexual orientation, except as permitted pursuant to Section 12940 of the Government Code. 1.6. Non -Exclusive Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that City may enter into agreements with other consultants for services similar to the services that are subject to this Agreement or may have its own employees perform services similar to those services contemplated by this Agreement. 1.7. Delegation and Assignment. This is a personal service contract, and the duties set forth herein shall not be delegated or assigned to any person or entity without the prior written consent of City. Consultant may engage a subcontractor(s) as permitted by law and may employ other personnel to perform services contemplated by this Agreement at Consultant's sole cost and expense. 1.8. Confidentiality. Employees of Consultant in the course of their duties may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of private individuals and employees of City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 2.0. COMPENSATION AND BILLING 2.1. Compensation. Consultant shall be paid in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement (the "Fee Schedule"). Consultant's total compensation shall not exceed Four Hundred Ninety Nine Thousand Dollars ($499,000.00). 2.2. Additional Services. Consultant shall not receive compensation for any services provided outside the scope of services specified in the Consultant's Proposal unless the City or the Project Manager for this Project, prior to Consultant performing the additional services, approves such additional services in writing. It is specifically understood that oral requests 2 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 and/or approvals of such additional services or additional compensation shall be barred and are unenforceable. 2.3. Method of Billing. Consultant may submit invoices to the City for approval on a progress basis, but no more often than two times a month. Said invoice shall be based on the total of all Consultant's services which have been completed to City's sole satisfaction. City shall pay Consultant's invoice within forty-five (45) days from the date City receives said invoice. Each invoice shall describe in detail, the services performed, the date of performance, and the associated time for completion. Any additional services approved and performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be designated as "Additional Services" and shall identify the number of the authorized change order, where applicable, on all invoices. 2.4. Records and Audits. Records of Consultant's services relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting principles and shall be made available to City or its Project Manager for inspection and/or audit at mutually convenient times for a period of three (3) years from the Effective Date. 3.0. TIME OF PERFORMANCE 3.1. Commencement and Completion of Work. The professional services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall commence within five (5) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Said services shall be performed in strict compliance with the Project Schedule approved by City as set forth in Exhibit "D," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Project Schedule may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Failure to commence work in a timely manner and/or diligently pursue work to completion may be grounds for termination of this Agreement. 3.2. Excusable Delays. Neither party shall be responsible for delays or lack of performance resulting from acts beyond the reasonable control of the party or parties. Such acts shall include, but not be limited to, acts of God, fire, strikes, material shortages, compliance with laws or regulations, riots, acts of war, or any other conditions beyond the reasonable control of a party. _.Kl� 1114VJiF-<►1elki4 Vi1iWIrri161Z 4.1. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue for a period of Four (4) years, ending on July 31, 2019, unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. 4.2. Notice of Termination. The City reserves and has the right and privilege of canceling, suspending or abandoning the execution of all or any part of the work contemplated by this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time, by providing written notice to Consultant. The termination of this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon receipt of the notice of termination. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall immediately stop rendering services under this Agreement unless directed otherwise by the City. 4.3. Compensation. In the event of termination, City shall pay Consultant for reasonable costs incurred and professional services satisfactorily performed up to and including the date of City's written notice of termination. Compensation for work in progress shall be prorated based on the percentage of work completed as of the effective date of termination in accordance with the fees set forth herein. In ascertaining the professional services actually rendered hereunder up to the effective date of termination of this Agreement, consideration shall be given to both completed work and work in progress, to complete and incomplete drawings, 3 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 and to other documents pertaining to the services contemplated herein whether delivered to the City or in the possession of the Consultant. 4.4. Documents. In the event of termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared by Consultant in its performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, finished or unfinished design, development and construction documents, data studies, drawings, maps and reports, shall be delivered to the City within ten (10) days of delivery of termination notice to Consultant, at no cost to City. Any use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization from Consultant shall be at City's sole risk and without liability or legal expense to Consultant. 5.0. INSURANCE 5.1. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall obtain, .maintain, and keep in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement all of the following minimum scope of insurance coverages with an insurance company admitted to do business in California, rated "A," Class X, or better in the most recent Best's Key Insurance Rating Guide, and approved by City: (a) Commercial general liability, including premises -operations, products/completed operations, broad form property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, personal injury or bodily injury with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (b) Business automobile liability for owned vehicles, hired, and non -owned vehicles, with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. (c) Workers' compensation insurance as required by the State of California. Consultant agrees to waive, and to obtain endorsements from its workers' compensation insurer waiving subrogation rights under its workers' compensation insurance policy against the City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers arising from work performed by Consultant for the City and to require each of its subcontractors, if any, to do likewise under their workers' compensation insurance policies. (d) Professional errors and omissions ("E&O") liability insurance with policy limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate. Architects' and engineers' coverage shall be endorsed to include contractual liability. If the policy is written as a "claims made" policy, the retro date shall be prior to the start of the contract work. Consultant shall obtain and maintain, said E&O liability insurance during the life of this Agreement and for three years after completion of the work hereunder. 5.2. Endorsements. The commercial general liability insurance policy and business automobile liability policy shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: 4 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 (a) Additional insureds: "The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds with respect to: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant pursuant to its contract with the City; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant." (b) Notice: "Said policy shall not terminate, be suspended, or voided, nor shall it be cancelled, nor the coverage or limits reduced, until thirty (30) days after written notice is given to City. (c) Other insurance: "The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any other insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa shall be excess and not contributing with the insurance provided by this policy." (d) Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. (e) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5.3. Deductible or Self Insured Retention. If any of such policies provide for a deductible or self -insured retention to provide such coverage, the amount of such deductible or self -insured retention shall be approved in advance by City. No policy of insurance issued as to which the City is an additional insured shall contain a provision which requires that no insured except the named insured can satisfy any such deductible or self -insured retention. 5.4. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide to City certificates of insurance showing the insurance coverages and required endorsements described above, in a form and content approved by City, prior to performing any services under this Agreement. The certificates of insurance shall be attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein by this reference. 5.5. Non -limiting. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property. 6.0. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to any matter referenced herein and supersedes any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations. This Agreement may be modified only in writing, and signed by the parties in interest at the time of such modification. The terms of this Agreement shall prevail over any inconsistent provision in any other contract document appurtenant hereto, including exhibits to this Agreement. 6.2. Representatives. The City CEO or his or her designee shall be the representative of City for purposes of this Agreement and may issue all consents, approvals, directives and 5 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 16 agreements on behalf of the City, called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a representative for purposes of this Agreement who shall be authorized to issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of Consultant called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. 6.3. Proiect Managers. City shall designate a Project Manager to work directly with Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a Project Manager who shall represent it and be its agent in all consultations with City during the term of this Agreement. Consultant or its Project Manager shall attend and assist in all coordination meetings called by City. 6.4. Notices. Any notices, documents, correspondence or other communications concerning this Agreement or the work hereunder may be provided by personal delivery, facsimile or mail and shall be addressed as set forth below. Such communication shall be deemed served or delivered: a) at the time of delivery if such communication is sent by personal delivery; b) at the time of transmission if such communication is sent by facsimile; and c) 48 hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail as reflected by the official U.S. postmark if such communication is sent through regular United States mail. IF TO CONSULTANT: WLC Architects, Inc. 8163 Rochester Ave., Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Tel: (909) 987-0909 Fax: (909) 980-9980 Attn: Kelly Needham, AIA IF TO CITY: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (714) 754-5096 Fax: (714) 754-5028 Attn: Arash Rahimian 6.5. Drug -free Workplace Policy. Consultant shall provide a drug -free workplace by complying with all provisions set forth in City's Council Policy 100-5, attached hereto as Exhibit "F" and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's failure to conform to the requirements set forth in Council Policy 100-5 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall be cause for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. 6.6. Attorneys' Fees. In the event that litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof. 6.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Orange County, California. 6.8. Assignment. Consultant shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet or encumber all or any part of Consultant's interest in this Agreement without City's prior written consent. Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance 6 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 shall be void and shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and cause for termination of this Agreement. Regardless of City's consent, no subletting or assignment shall release Consultant of Consultant's obligation to perform all other obligations to be performed by Consultant hereunder for the term of this Agreement. 6.9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, hold free and harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees, at Consultant's sole expense, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits or other legal proceedings brought against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees arising out of the performance of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, of the work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. The defense obligation provided for hereunder shall apply without any advance showing of negligence or wrongdoing by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, but shall be required whenever any claim, action, complaint, or suit asserts as its basis the negligence, errors, omissions or misconduct of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, and/or whenever any claim, action, complaint or suit asserts liability against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees based upon the work performed by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors under this Agreement, whether or not the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors are specifically named or otherwise asserted to be liable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Consultant shall not be liable for the defense or indemnification of the City for claims, actions, complaints or suits arising out of the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This provision shall supersede and replace all other indemnity provisions contained either in the City's specifications or Consultant's Proposal, which shall be of no force and effect. 6.10. Independent Contractor. Consultant is and shall be acting at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of City. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. Consultant shall secure, at its sole expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of Income Tax, Social Security, State Disability Insurance Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, and other payroll deductions for Consultant and its officers, agents, and employees, and all business licenses, if any are required, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with the applicable worker's compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this paragraph. 6.11. PERS Eligibility Indemnification. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of the City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City. 7 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contribution and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 6.12. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant's performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation which City might require. 6.13. Ownership of Documents. All findings, reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes or discs, files and tapes furnished.or prepared by Consultant or any of its subcontractors in the course of performance of this Agreement, shall be and remain the sole property of City. Consultant agrees that any such documents or information shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior consent of City. Any use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement, and any use of incomplete documents, shall be at the sole risk of City and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. City shall indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from City's use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement or use of incomplete documents furnished by Consultant. Consultant shall deliver to City any findings, reports, documents, information, data, in any form, including but not limited to, computer tapes, discs, files audio tapes or any other Project related items as requested by City or its authorized representative, at no additional cost to the City. 6.14. Public Records Act Disclosure. Consultant has been advised and is aware that this Agreement and all reports, documents, information and data, including, but not limited to, computer tapes, discs or files furnished or prepared by Consultant, or any of its subcontractors, pursuant to this Agreement and provided to City may be subject to public disclosure as required by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). Exceptions to public disclosure may be those documents or information that qualify as trade secrets, as that term is defined in the California Government Code Section 6254.7, and of which Consultant informs City of such trade secret. The City will endeavor to maintain as confidential all information obtained by it that is designated as a trade secret. The City shall not, in any way, be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any trade secret including, without limitation, those records so marked if disclosure is deemed to be required by law or by order of the Court. 6.15. Conflict of Interest. Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants, if any, will comply with all conflict of interest statutes of the State of California applicable to Consultant's services under this agreement, including, but not limited to, the Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000, et seq.) and Government Code Section 1090. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants shall not, without the prior written approval of the City Representative, perform work for another person or entity for whom Consultant is not currently performing work that would require Consultant or one of its officers, employees, associates or subconsultants to abstain from a decision under this Agreement pursuant to a conflict of interest statute. 6.16. Responsibility for Errors. Consultant shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. Consultant, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the City's representative, regarding any services rendered under this 8 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to Consultant occurs, then Consultant shall, at no cost to City, provide all necessary design drawings, estimates and other Consultant professional services necessary to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction. 6.17. Prohibited Employment. Consultant will not employ any regular employee of City while this Agreement is in effect. 6.18. Order of Precedence. In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibits, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. If, and to the extent this Agreement incorporates by reference any provision of any document, such provision shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. Nevertheless, if there is any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those of any such provision or- provisions so incorporated by reference, this Agreement shall govern over the document referenced. 6.19. Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein. 6.20. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights. This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of City and Consultant and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under or to this Agreement. 6.21. Headings. Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 6.22. Construction. The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement. 6.23. Amendments. Only a writing executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assigns may amend this Agreement. 6.24. Waiver. The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or compliance by the other of any of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any occurrence or event shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any other occurrence or event, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. 6.25. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable in any circumstance, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any other circumstance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the value of this 9 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 Agreement, based upon the substantial benefit of the bargain for any party, is materially impaired, which determination made by the presiding court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction shall be binding, then both parties agree to substitute such provision(s) through good faith negotiations. 6.26. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement. 6.27. Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their respective authorized officers, as of the date first above written. CITY OF COSTA MESA, A municipal corporation Date: Mayor Social Security or Taxpayer ID Number City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa APPR O FORM: ADate: 2 .) City r e 10 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE: Date: Risk Manage ent APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Project Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL Ernesto Munoz, Public Services Director Date: 617-y l is Date: 11 WI-C Architects, Inc. PSA 15 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING DIVISION March 20, 2015 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP's) TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF FIRE STATION NO. 1 Dear Consultant: The City of Costa Mesa is requesting a proposal from your firm to provide professional services for the design of a new Fire Station No. 1. The schedule is as follows: ENGINEERING SCHEDULE DATE 1. Proposal Received by the City 4/24/15 2. Award of Professional Services Agreement 7/07/15 3. Project Kick-off Meeting 7/08/15 4. Conceptual Design Submittal 8/24/15 5. Planning Commission Approval 9/14/15 6. City Council Approval 10/20/15 7. First Plan Check Submittal 2/29/16 8. Second Plan Check Submittal 4/25/16 9. Third Plan Check Submittal 6/13/16 10. Obtain Building Permit 7/05/16 Enclosed is a Request for Proposals to provide professional services for the subject project. The proposal requirements and the necessary professional services required by the City are stated within the RFP's. The consultant shall provide all services as requested in the RFP's and stated in the submitted proposal. CITY OF COSTA MESA CONTACT PERSON The City of Costa Mesa contact person for this project is Fariba Fazeli, at (714) 754-5378. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Please submit three (3) copies of the proposal and two (2) copies of the fee proposal no later than 3:00 p.m., on Friday, April 24, 2015. All proposals shall be delivered or mail to: Fariba Fazeli, P. E. City of Costa Mesa Public Services/Engineering 77 Fair Drive, 4t' Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1200, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-4193 i erely, Farib Fazeli, P. E. City Engineer PHONE: (714) 754-5335 FAX: (714) 754-5028 TDD: (714) 754-5244 www.costamesaca.gov REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF FIRE STATION NO. 1 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Costa Mesa, California (City) is soliciting Request for Proposals (RFP's) for selection of an Architectural/Engineering firm for the design of Fire Station No. 1 (the project). The project will replace the existing Fire Station with a new 12,000 Square Feet structure located on the site owned by the City at 2803 Royal Palm Drive, on a 1.10 Ac. Lot. The construction cost is estimated at $4.5 million dollars. The City's goal is to have a proposal for the professional services needed to complete this project. If you feel that any items should be added to the scope of work to accomplish this goal please include a separate description and cost item in your proposal. 2. CONTENT OF PROPOSAL To maintain uniformity, your proposal must be limited to a maximum of 25 Pages (excluding front and back covers, section dividers, resumes, and photographs) and include the following: Statement of project understanding containing any suggestions to expedite the project or additional concerns that the City should be made aware of, and a project approach containing any scope of work tasks you feel are necessary for the successful completion of the project. A project team organization chart identifying those who will perform work, and a brief resume of each team member, including similar type projects in which they have been directly involved. Identify the Project Manager and the Project Engineer proposed for this project. The Project Manager will be the primary contact person to represent your firm and to conduct the presentation, if invited for an interview. Sub -consultants, if any, shall be identified in the proposal with the same requirements as for the main consultant. A list of similar projects that your firm has completed within the last five years. Information of the completed projects should include project name and description, agency or client name along with the person to contact and telephone number, year completed, engineering fee, and project construction cost. A proposed schedule indicating stages of work, time frames, and ability to perform the required services in a timely manner. A fee proposal provided in a separate sealed envelope. 3. CONSULTANT SELECTION COMMITTEE The Public Services Department of the City of Costa Mesa has established a Consultant Selection Committee consisting of at least four (4) members from this department who have acted in the capacity of Project Manager or Project Engineer for the City on previous similar projects. The evaluation of each proposal will be based on the technical information and qualifications presented in the proposal, reference checks, and other information, which will be gathered independently. 2 4. 6. FEE PROPOSAL A. Two separate fee schedules for the project shall be submitted in a separate sealed envelope plainly labeled "Fee Proposal" with your company's name and the project title. B. A cover letter stating the not -to -exceed total lump sum fee. C. The fee schedule shall depict individual project tasks, man-hours, and basic hourly rates for specific personnel to be used for each alley. Personnel hourly rates will reflect all costs for office overhead, including direct and indirect costs. The fee proposal shall reflect all anticipated fee increased during the contract duration. D. Payment shall not be processed for any submitted invoices if the consultant is behind the design schedule for any of the outlined tasks. ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES The fee proposal will not be opened until the Consultant Selection Committee has evaluated the consultants' submitted proposals. In conformance with the Mini -Brooks Act, the City will select the Consultant based on qualifications, and then negotiate a contract price based on available funding and a further breakdown of the "not -to -exceed" fee submitted in the fee proposal. 6. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT City of Costa Mesa has a sample of the Professional Services Agreement, which is available at the City for your review. The RFP's and the consultant's proposal will be attached to and become part of the executed agreement as exhibits. The City will not permit reduction in the City's "Scope of Consultant Services" without written approval. 7. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS General Liability: $1,000,000 Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 Workers Compensation and Employers' Liability: $1,000,000 Professional Liability: $1,000,000 Additional and primary Insurance endorsements shall include the City of Costa Mesa. 8. SCOPE OF CONSULTANT SERVICES Fire Station No. 1 will be a large fully equipped and operational turn -key permanent station of approximately 12,000 square feet on approximately 1.1 acres of flat buildable land. The station will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Fire Station Development Standards. rKI 1. GENERAL SERVICES The architect shall provide general services designated necessary to assist in the administration of the project. The architect will serve as the lead consultant in managing the design of the facility. The civil engineering, landscape architecture, dry utility consulting, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and all other sub consultants should be included in the various scope items below. This item of work shall include, but not be limited to, all the activities required to coordinate between project disciplines, agencies, Sub consultants, utility companies, adjacent developers and City. 2. PROGRAM CONFIRMATION The architect shall work closely with City of Costa Mesa Fire Department (CMFD) to confirm the space requirements for the proposed fire station. This shall include, but not be limited to: • Confirming apparatus capacity and administrative variations • Confirming station headcount • Confirming operational requirements • Confirming furniture and fixture requirements and other key elements 3. ENTITLEMENT Architect shall provide all services necessary to submit documents to the governing agency for review and architect shall obtain all approvals necessary to construct the fire station. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) will be required for this fire station. Work shall include all documents and processing to obtain CUP. 4. SITE DESIGN This item of work shall include visually surveying site to establish constraints and opportunities including landmarks, adjacent uses, site edges, views and orientation, site topography, circulation systems and streetscape. Architect shall coordinate and confirm with his sub consultants the engineering design constraints including but not limited to: • Existing and future infrastructure • Soil conditions • Topography • Zoning requirements Drainage systems • Future adjacent uses • On -site and off -site uses • Utilities 4 Architect shall coordinate and develop a site plan to confirm the following: • Apparatus circulation • Visitor and shift parking • Secured ingress/egress • Outdoor dining space • Station image • Relationships to adjacent uses • Service/deliveries • Future fuel storage and dispensing • Temporary housing during construction • Temporary Emergency Equipment Enclosures for the duration of construction 5. SCHEMATIC DESIGN This item of work shall include preparing schematic design documents. Documents shall consist of drawings and other documents to fix and describe the size and character of the entire project, including architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical systems, materials and such other elements as may be appropriate and as described in general as follows: A. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION The architectural design and documentation shall include a demolition plan, site plan, building plan, building sections and elevations, building systems/materials selection, dimensions/areas, site wall elevations, and a sketch model. B. STRUCTURAL DESIGN The structural design shall be per essential facilities requirements. C. ELECTRICAL DESIGN The electrical design shall include, but not be limited, to power service and distribution, lighting, fire detection and alarm coordination and emergency power requirements. D. MECHANICAL DESIGN The mechanical design shall include, but not be limited, to heating, ventilating, plumbing and fire protection. E. PLUMBING The plumbing design shall include but no be limited to, the complete water, sewer, gas, fire sprinkler and all other plumbing systems for the project. F. FIRE PROTECTION/SPRINKLER SYSTEM The fire sprinkler system design and installation for the fire station shall comply with the 5 CMFD regulations and NFPA standards. automatic -monitored fire sprinkler system Emergency Communications Center. G. INTERIOR DESIGN The entire station shall be protected by an . Central monitoring will be provided by Architect shall provide interior design for the project including an itemized Furniture Furnishings & Equipment (FF&E) list with responsibilities for contracting and installing and any sole sourcing itemized in the FF&E list. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES The architect shall prepare from the approved schematic design documents, the design development documents consisting of site and floor plans, furniture plans, exterior elevations and building sections with the necessary structural, mechanical and related systems and outline specifications necessary to fix and define the character of the project and indicate the materials to be used. The design development documents, when approved in writing, may form the basis for the construction documents. A. 10 C. C ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION • Demolition Plan • Site plan • Building Plan • Section elevations • Site Wall elevations • Building Systems/materials selection • Dimensions/Areas STRUCTURAL DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION Structural design/documentation services during design development phase consisting of recommendations regarding basic structural materials and systems, analyses and development of conceptual design solutions for gravity and lateral design loads. Structural system consists of conventional wood framing, steel brace frames, and conventional concrete. CIVIL DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION Civil design/documentation services during design development phase consisting of topographic survey of the entire property and adjoining streets, grading, utilities, storm drain ADA path of travel, and striping. LANDSCAPE DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION Landscape design/documentation services during design development phase consisting of plant palettes, landscaping limits, irrigation and smart controller. 6 E. G. MECHANICAL PLUMBING DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION Mechanical plumbing design/documentation service during the design development phase consisting of consideration of alternate materials, split system HVAC, and plumbing. • Energy conservation • Heating and Ventilating • Air Conditioning • Plumbing • Fire Protection/Fire Sprinkler Drawings • Special Maintenance Systems • General Space Requirements ELECTRICAL DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION Electrical design/documentation during the design development phases consisting of materials, systems, and equipment. • Power Service and distribution • Lighting design • Telephones/data distribution • Fire detection and alarms • General space requirements MATERIALS RESEARCH/SPECIFICATIONS • Identification of potential architectural and interior finish materials, systems and equipment and their criteria and quality standards consistent with the conceptual design • Coordination of similar activities of other disciplines INTERIOR DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION Interior Design/Documentation services during the design development phases consisting of solutions for architectural, mechanical, electrical and equipment requirements in order to establish: • Building interior design elements • Preliminary building equipment areas • Space allocation and utilization plans to review functional relationships • Placement of major FF&E items TELECOMMUNICATIONS Refer to CMFD for telecommunications requirements for each room of the fire station. 7 7. CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENT SERVICES Based on the approved design development documents, the architect shall prepare the working drawings and specifications which shall set forth and prescribe in detail the work to be done and materials, workmanship, finishes, and equipment required for the architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical work, as well as the site work and landscaping. A. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION • Review design development • Demolition Plans • Site plan and details • Building plans • Enlarged plans • Sections, elevations • Building systems/material selection • Details • Dimensions/permit related areas • Building restrooms/cores • Cost estimate formatted to ICDC standards B. TRAFFIC PRE-EMPTION DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION • Coordinate with the CMFD to determine the desired phasing of the pre- . emption system • Prepare traffic signal pre-emption plan in coordination with Civil Engineer C. STRUCTURAL DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION • Prepare structural system documents D. CIVIL DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION • Grading plan • Utility plan • Striping plan LANDSCAPE DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION • Landscape plan • Irrigation plan E. MECHANICAL DESIGN/DOCUMENTATION • Prepare Title 24 Energy calculations • Documentation for HVAC, including units, drops and mechanical system distribution 8 • Prepare building plumbing documents • Prepare fire protection system documents (fire sprinkler drawings) F. ELECTRICAL DESIGN • Prepare electrical system documents • Prepare Title 24 lighting calculations G. MATERIALS RESEARCH/SPECIFICATIONS • Preparation of specifications • Compilation of project manual H. INTERIOR DESIGN • Interior Plans • Reflected Ceiling Plans • Interior Elevations • Details and Sections • Millwork SIGNAGE/GRAPHIC DESIGN • Design of site identity and building signage • Construction Document Signage • Interior Signage 8. BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT Attend one bid coordination meeting and prepare technical specifications, project appendices, bid form and architects Estimate. Attend one pre -bid meeting and provide full size exhibits for use in the pre -bid meeting presentation. During bid process, the architect shall be responsible for preparing addenda, clarifying the construction documents, answering bidder's questions, issuing revised bid form, plans, exhibits, technical specifications as required. During the construction phase, the architect and his sub consultant shall review/approve submittals and respond to contractor's Request for Information (RFI's). 9. COST ESTIMATE The architect shall provide a detailed, final construction cost estimate based on a material take -off from the construction documents. 10. MEETINGS The architect will be required to attend meetings with the City, Fire Department, and attend public hearing during the project duration. The architect shall include 60 hours of meetings in the proposal. 9 11. PROCESSING OF PLANS AND PERMITS The architect shall process the construction documents with the City of Costa Mesa Building Division, answer plan check comments and if necessary revise construction documents and obtain all the required permits. 12. LEED Certification (Optional Item, may or may not be included in final scope of work The architect shall prepare process all documents required to obtain a LEED Silver Certification. 9. EXAMINATION OF SITE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING PROPOSAL Each consultant must fully know all project conditions and the effort required to successfully complete the project. Failure to do so will not relieve the selected consultant of the obligations to carry out the contract. 10. RIGHT TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS A. The City of Costa Mesa reserves the right to reject any or all proposals submitted, and no representation is made hereby that any contract will be awarded pursuant to this RFP's or otherwise. B. The City also reserves the right to award a portion of work or combination, thereof. C. All costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal, the submission of additional information and/or any aspect of a proposal prior to award of a written contract will be borne by the consultant. The City will provide only the staff assistance and documentation specifically referred to herein and will not be responsible for any other cost or obligation of any kind that may be incurred by the consultant. All proposals submitted to the City of Costa Mesa become the property of the City. 11.. SUMMARY The City appreciates participation, and the intent of this RFP's is to establish the minimum consultant services required. Prior to awarding a contract, all insurance documents must be submitted and approved. 10 EXHIBIT B CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL 13 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 �������.y�.�,.. �.w�..< «.� ��. «��� <»» . . � < . : y�� ,��� » � \: y-©��\����y� a� � � m. : . »: � % ©�� \« . w< � � � : .: ©� .. . -� � >� � .� �.. � � � «d? 2»» a»� .:� � �� «??«-; ORGANIZATION Introduction to WLC Firm Profile EXPERIENCE Public Safety Experience Sustainable Design Recently Completed Projects KEY PERSONNEL WLC Resumes CONSULTANT TEAM Consulting Team Organizational Chart Consulting Team Resumes PROJECT APPROACH Design Team Methodology Project Committee Key Objectives SCOPE OF SERVICES Basic Scope of Services Site Specific Services REFERENCES 3 M M In W4, RE E, 0 April 24, 2015 Re: Proposal for Architectural Design Services Fire Station One City of Costa Mesa Dear Ms. Fazeli, Ms. Fariba Fazeli, P.E. City of Costa Mesa Public Services/Engineering 77 Fair Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92628 nn behalf of WLC Architects and our entire consulting team, thank you for the opportunity to submit our proposal for the City of Costa Mesa's new Fire Station project. As you may be aware, our firm specializes in the design of public safety and essential service facilities. We have designed over 100 fire stations, each of which is specifically tailored to the unique requirements of the Fire Department and the communities they serve. It is our understanding that your new station is to be uesIy1 led aI [u i V- f IwIUL icu III uuuuruur r`c wiii r ii re ueveiuprnuni siunuurds or me orange County sire AUTnonry. our experience with OCFA includes stations in Lake Forest, Dana Point, Stanton, Cypress, and Tustin. We are currently under construction on their latest facility located in Sendero Ranch. As you can imagine, we believe our experience makes us uniquely qualified for this project. Ms. Fazeli, thank you again for this opportunity. If you should have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, Architect, AIA Principal 2 ESTABLISHED IN 1974 1 BASED IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA WLC Architects, Inc. is a 78 person architectural firm located in Rancho Cucamonga, California. The firm was started in 1974 and was originally known as Wolff/ Lang/Christopher Architects. Over time, the firm came to be known simply as WLC. There are currently nine principals in the firm and we now have additional offices in Folsom, Berkeley, and Carlsbad, California. Our work is divided for the most part into educational and public works projects. Since we completed our first public safety facility over 30 years ago, we have strived to become experts in the areas of fire, police, and essential service facilities. We have designed over 100 public safety facilities, each of which is specifically tailored to the unique requirements of the Fire Department and the communities they serve. As department needs have changed, so has WLC. We have expanded our expertise to include drill towers and training facilities, vehicle maintenance, dispatch centers, and emergency operations centers. WLC is proud to be considered one of the leaders in the design of essential service facilities. x Our staff consists of nine Principal Architects and 18 registered staff Architects along with related project managers, resource coordinators, and support staff. Currently, the annual workload of the firm represents an annual gross of over $37.0 million in fees which represents over $500 million of construction. The following summary provides a brief overview of our resources. 3 CALIFORNIA REGISTRATION NUMBERS OF SENIOR PRINCIPALS PRINCIPAL LLCENSE EXPIRATION George Wiens C14546 08.31.2015 Robert Hensley C17256 04.30.2015 James P. DiCamillo C15937 11.30.2015 Max Medina C24882 06.30.2015 Kelley Needham C19064 03.31.2015 Kevin MacQuarrie C25998 01.31.2015 TYPE OF CURRENT PROJECTS (COMBINED) CIVIC/PUBLIC 30% COMMERCIAL 4% 4ERCtAl )ENTIAL PUSUC EDUCATIONAL 65% RESIDENTIAL 1% El PRESENT FIRM SIZE 1 78 PERSONNEL CATEGORY MALE FEMALE Project Architect 10 0 Registered Staff Architect 13 5 Architectural Project Manager 18 4 Educational Resources 0 1 Technician/Designer 5 1 Technical Support/Accounting 5 14 DSA Coordinator 0 1 Quality Assurance/SpecCoordinator 1 0 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PRIMARY DISCIPLINE, RESOURCE AND SERVICES 8163 Rochester Avenue, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 WLC Architects provides complete architectural services, urban and regional planning, and 909.987.0909 interior design. Structural, civil, electrical, mechanical, acoustical engineering, and landscape architecture are all provided by retention of appropriate consultants highly experienced within BERKELEY the desired disciplines. 2600 Tenth Street. Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94710 510.450.1999 CURRENT WORKLOAD FOLSOM The current workload of the staff listed in this Proposal is such that we are in an excellent position 1 110 Iron Point Road. Suite 200 to begin your project immediately. The entire project team will remain with your project through Folsom, CA 95630 completion. Work will be performed in our main office in Rancho Cucamonga. 916.355.9922 CARLSBAD FINANCIAL REFERENCES 1917 Palomar Oaks Way, Suite 110 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mr. Keith Matthews, Citizens Business Bank. 909.483.4303 760.607.3400 Mr. Scott Maxwell, Swenson Corporation. 909.989.5867 Joan S. Calnon, Dealey, Renton & Associates. 626.844.3070 LEGAL NAME OF FIRM WLC Architects, Inc. TYPE OF OWNERSHIP INSURANCE California Corporation YEAR ESTABLISHED A general liability insurance policy with a minimum coverage limit of $2.0 million is carried by 1974 the firm as standard coverage. A professional liability insurance and errors and omissions with CAD TYPE minimum coverage limits of $2.0 million is carried by the firm as standard coverage. WLC shall AufoCAD provide verification of all required insurances. 5 With over 40 years of experience, WLC Architects, Inc. is a leader in the field of essential service facilities. Our work has been recognized at state and national levels by the American Institute of Architects, International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Association of Police Chiefs, California Energy Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the California Parks and Recreation Society. We are currently designing or have completed the following projects: � k ! y /• FIRE STATIONS n �/�)Irr Newport Beach Fire Station 5/ Fremont Fire Station 11 Norco Fire Station 22 Eastvale Fire Station 2 Escondido Fire & Police HQ Gilroy Fire Station 3 Sendero Ranch Fire Station 56 Hesperia Fire Station 305 La Quinto Fire Station 93 Fontana Fire Station 73 Fremont Fire Station 2 Avalon Fire Station 1 Los Angeles Fire Station 15 Culver City Fire Station 3 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Station 176 Malibu Fire Station 71 Indio Fire Station 5 Temescal Public Safety Facility San Diego Fire Station 45 Fremont Fire Station 6 Clovis Police and Fire Facility Ontario Fire Station 9 Escondido Fire Station 7 Santa Monica Fire Station 2 Vernon Fire Station 4 Escondido Fire Station 6 Anchorage Headquarters Fire Station 1 Tustin Fire Station 37 Yucaipa Fire Station 3 Fontana Fire Station 78 Los Angeles Fire Station 39 Cabazon Fire Station 24 San Marcos Fire Station 1 Los Angeles Fire Station 7 Escondido Fire Station 3 Chino Hills Fire Station 62 Carlsbad Fire Station 3 Carlsbad Fire Station 6 Burbank Fire and Police Facility Bonsall Fire Station 5 Houston Fire Station 8 Temecula Fire Station 84 Hesperia Fire Station 301 San Marcos Fire Station 4 Riverside Fire Station 12 Mecca Fire Station 40 Anaheim Fire Station 11 Arcadia Fire Station 2 Simi Valley Fire Station 47 Lake forest Fire Station 19 Fontana Fire Station 77 Fontana Fire Station 71 American Canyon Fire & Police Culver City Headquarters Fire Station 1 Rialto Fire Station 202 Atwater Fire Station 2/Police Fontana Fire Station 74 Cypress Fire Station 17 Fremont Fire Station 8 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Station 175 Chino Fire Station 7 Chino Fire Station 63 Glendale Fire Station 25 Scottsdale Fire Station 8 . Dana Point Fire Station 29 Brea Fire Station 3 San Mateo Fire Station 23 Fairbanks Headquarters Fire Station Grand Terrace Fire Station 23 Stanton fire Station 46 San Marcos Fire Station 2 0 Rialto Headquarters Fire Station 1 Scottsdale Fire Station 1 Merced Fire Station 55 LAX - ARFF Station 80 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Station 173 San Jose Fire Station 2 San Bernardino Fire Station 232 * OCFA FIRE STATION i u ARFF STATIONS • Los Angeles International Airport, ARFF Station 80 John Wayne Airport, ARFF Station 33 • Portland International Airport, ARFF Station 89 TRAINING FACILITIES ® Dinuba Public Safety Training Facility • Fremont Tactical Training Center • Chino Training Facility/Fire Station 1 • Thousand Palms Training Center/Fire Station 35 • Valley Recruit Training Center/Fire Station 81 • Poway Fire Training Facility • San Marcos Emergency Services Training Facility • Rancho Cucamonga Training/Maintenance Center/ Fire Station 174 REMODELS/REHABILITATION • Pasadena fire Station 39 • Pasadena Fire Station 32 • North Net Fire Training Center • Anaheim Fire Station 8 • ti Cajon Fire Station 7 • Norco Fire Station 21 • Ontario Fire Station 3 • Ontario Fire Station 4 • Ontario Fire Station 5 • Hesperia Fire Station 304 • Los Angeles Fire Station 89 • Rancho Cucamonga Fire Stations 1, 2, 4, and 5 • Rancho Cucamonga Maintenance Facility LAW ENFORCEMENT • Clovis Police and Fire Facility • Burbank Police and Fire Facility • Manhattan Beach Police and Fire Facility • San Marcos Sheriff Facility • Oceanside Police and Records Facility • Ontario Fire and Police Administrative Facilities • Ontario Precom and Emergency Operations Center • County of San Bernardino Trona Sheriff's Substation • Upland Police Facility • Monrovia Police Facility 7 L45194M We believe that sustainable design opportunities abound within the design of your projects. Sustainable architecture and environmental design applications can achieve greater energy efficiency, create rewarding support environments, achieve optimum indoor air quality, and result in premium experiences that respond to the expectations and preferences of today's fire departments. The impact of past, present, and future developments on the environment, and how they will dramatically affect our future quality of life is a major concern and offers many challenges and opportunities. WLC has completed a variety of demonstration, educational, and interpretive projects that involve the preservation of natural habitats, have become models for energy efficiency, and pioneer recycled building concepts through modernization and adaptive reuse. Along with this experience, WLC brings a stellar team of qualified sustainable design professionals. Greening the development of public and commercial facilities is not a solution by itself, but it represents tremendous potential. Meaningful accomplishments in energy efficiency, environmental design, and sustainable architecture reward client organizations who see valuable, healthy, and high performing environments. It is our responsibility to identify possible strategies, develop facility concepts, and propose the best alternatives. WLC is a member of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), and has participated with the USGBC's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program on a variety of projects. Twenty-two members of the firm are LEED Certified Green Building Professionals. In addition to the LEED program, WLC has extensive experience in incorporating the requirements of the California CALGreen Building Code. The following pages provide some additional information on specific projects recently completed by our firm. Tustin, CA Fire Station No. 37 is a new facility built by the City of Tustin for the Orange County Fire Authority. The corner site is located in the northeast portion of the city in a predominantly residential area. The station is designed to accommodate eightfire fighters in an individual, dormitory setting. Other station features include a two -bay. dauble-deep apparatus bay, administrative offices, kitchen, dining room, day room, physical training room, and the various support spaces requiredfor a facility of this type. The design of the facility utilizes the administrative areas of the station as a buffer between the areas of the station more typically accessible to the public and those areas dedicated to the day-to-day living activities of the fire fighters. Site features include drive- thru access, secured fire fighter parking, hose tower, sand pit, and an above ground fuel station. The station was designed using a combination of plaster and stone veneer in keeping with the architectural style of the area. Sloped roof forms are used in conjunction with parapet areas designed to screen mechanical equipment. The station achieved a Silver LEED rating in keeping with the sustainable goals of the City of Tustin. Scope of Work 9,667 SF Constructon Cost $4,192,000 Completed March 2014 WLC Team Kelley Needham, AIA, Principal4n-Charge Shih-Jing Yen, Project Architect Bernhard Wassink, Sustainability coordinator Contact Mr. Chris Decoursey, Construction Manager Orange County Fire Authority (714) 573-6473 ch6sdecoursey@ocfa.org Mr. Steve Chambers, Property Manager Orange County Fire Authority (714) 573-6471 stevechambers@ocfa.org Al Fontana, Fire Station No. 71 is the newest facility built by the City of Fontana for the San Bernardino County Fire Department. One of the unique aspects of the project was that the new station had to be built around and incorporate the original station, which was built in 1921 and had suffered through-6 number of additions. The site is located adjacent to City Hall and is part of a number of improvements to the overall Civic Center. The new station is designed to accommodate twelve fire fighters in an individual dormitory setting. Other station features include a four -bay, double -deep apparatus room, administrative offices, kitchen, dining room, day room, physical training room, locker room, and the various support spaces required for a facility of this type. The existing station was brought up to current code requirements and was scaled back to the original station layout. The existing station has been redesigned to be operated as a small museum for the City and the Fire Department. Site features for the project include secure fire fighter parking, above ground fuel station, and a covered patio area. The station was designed using a number of details from the original station as well as the overall design objectives of the new Civic Center. The station achieved a Silver LEED rating in keeping with the sustainable goals of the City of Fontana. Scope of Work Fire Station- 15,838 SF Museum- 2304 SF Storage Building- 160 SF Construction Cost $6,186,272 Completed January 2012 WLC Team Kelley Needham, AIA, Principal -in -Charge Simon Chang, Project Architect Shih-Ding Yen, Project Manager Bernhard Wassink, Sustainability coordinator Contact Ms. Noel Castillo, Senior Engineer City of Fontana (909)350-7632 ncastillo@fontano.org Mr. Terry Welsh, Division Chief (Retired) San Bernardino County Fire Department (760)954-7779 tnkwelsh@veNzon.net -FIRE STATION :66 Fire Station No. 46 is a new fire station built by the City of Stanton for the Orange County Fire Authority. The comer site is located in an area of mixed residential and commercial use. The station is designed to accommodate nine firefighters, in an individual dormitory setting. Otherstotion features include a two -pay, d9 bPed' eep apparott*,room, actrill ►isko ive offices, kitchen dining roam, day room,'pysj rk;ttgitng room, shop, and the varidvs support spaces required for a facility of this type. Due to the limited size and unusual configuration of the site, circulation within the station is designed around core work and living spaces in order to maximize daylight opportunities for more traditionally occupied areas. Considerable effort was made to minimize the wasted space which typically occurs in an angular floor plan arrangement. While visitor parking is provided on -site, fire fighter parking is achieved by means of a separate secured area adjacent to the new station. The station was designed using u curnbinalion of 3irnulated wood siding and stone veneer in keeping with the architectural style of the adjacent homes. Sloped roof forms are used in conjunction with parapet areas designed to screen mechanical equipment. Scope of Work 8,658 SF Construction Cost $ 3,750,000 Completed September 2011 WLC Team Kelley Needham, Principal -in -Charge Simon Chang, Project Architect Jeremy Chou, Project Manager Contact Mr. Chris Decoursey, Construction Manager Orange County Fire Authority (714) 573-6473 chdsdecoursey@ocfa.org Mr. Steve Chambers, Property Manager Orange County Fire Authority (714) 573-6471 stevechambers@ocfa.org 11 Chino, CA A new fire station and training center for the City of Chino and the Chino Valley Independent Fire District. The project is located on 4 acres in an industrial portion of the City. In addition to a 5-bay, 13,230 SF Fine Station, the project includes a 6,630 SF Classroom/Administration Building and a 3,953 SF, 5-story, pre -manufactured training tower. The Classroom/ Administration Building includes administrative offices, shower and locker facilities, break room, and multiple classrooms. The classrooms include both fiered and flat floor layouts for maximum flexibility. State of the art audio/visual systems are Integrated throughout the project. The training tower features a brick veneer exterior, multiple roof configurations, gas -fired simulators, Class A bum areas, and integrated confined space rescue. Site features include a drafting pit, trench rescue, residential and commercial vent props, vehicle extraction, gas -fired vehicle prop, debris pile, utility pole prop, covered training area, and connections for driving simulators. The site also includes an extensive subterranean confined space prop which is internally lit and terminates in the main room of the training tower. Scope of Work Fire Station - 13,230 SF Classroom/Administration Building - 6,630 SF Training Tower - 3,953 SF Construction Cost $ 7,905,727 Completed October 2011 WLC Team Kelley Needham, AIA, Principal -in -Charge Shih-Jing Yen, Project Architect Bernhard Wassink, Sustainability coordinator Contact Mr. Michael A. Kolling, Project Manager City of Chino (909) 334-3412 mkolling@cityofchino.org Mr. Tim Stewart, Battalion Chief Chino Valley Independent Fire District (949)533-3849 tstewart@chofire.org 19 ....• a < e 1 `�+ � 9 '� 8 &— H IL The Emergency Operations Center for the City of Commerce is a 2,100 sf stand -atone facility located directly adjacent to the City Hall. The facility has been designed to remain fully operational in the event of on earthquake, natural disaster, or zombie apocalypse. The 32' x 64' structure is constructed of concrete masonry at the building's perimeter. Masonry was used in order to withstand lateral forces while also providing a durable and secure building enclosure. A moment frame was incorporated to allow for larger glazed areas of the north, east, and west exposures of the building. A steel security fence protects the enclosed outdoor patio area. Scope of Work 2,100 SF Construction Cost $1,330,000 Completed October 2013 WLC Team Kelley Needham, AIA, Principal -in -Charge Frank Cuomo, Project Manager Bernhard Wassink, Sustainability Coordinator Contact Mr. Paul Banuelos, Project Manager City of Commerce (213)814-8635 pbanuelos@swinerton.com 13 Key Personne,' The staff which we propose for the Project Team is highly experienced and well qualified in the planning and design of public safety facilities. Our team members are skilled professionals having extensive experience in the assessment of space needs, site and building analysis, programming, interior design, and organizational management. KELLEY NEEDHAM, Principal -In -Charge DON RICE, Quality/Cost Assurance Mr. Needham is a Principal of the firm and will serve as the Mr. Rice has been with the firm since 1988 and serves as Project Architect for all phases of the project. Mr. Needham will be the main project contact and shall provide the special expertise related to Fire Station design. Mr. Needham will be working closely with the City and Fire Department staff, as well as coordinating the efforts required of our consulting team. SHIH-JING YEN, Project Manager Mr. Yen will serve as Project Manager and will be primarily responsible for the layout and design of the station. Mr. Yen will also be responsible to ensure all programmatic and code requirements are met. During the design phase, Mr. Yen will be responsible for producing design presentations and other visual communication materials. Mr. Yen will coordinate the preparation of the final construction documents and provide administrative support throughout the entire construction process. BERNHA+RD WASSINK, Sustainability Coordinator Mr. Wassink will serve as our Sustainability Coordinator for the project. Mr. Wassink has extensive experience with a number of sustainability tracking programs including LEED, CHPS, and the new CALGreen code requirements. During the initial phases of the project, Mr. Wassink will evaluate the project's sustainable potential, establish sustainable goals, and develop a path toward the desired point level. Mr. Wassink will also ensure that the sustainability requirements are incorporated into the construction documents during all design phases. our Quality Assurance Coordinator. Mr. Rice oversees the entire office's work in the areas of specifications, cost and quality control. He stays abreast of all recent governmental changes and product updates. Most importantly he updates WLC's Contract Document Checklist. This comprehensive document is used by the design team and our consultants to ensure a thorough review of your project prior to the start of construction. 14 k Needham,k Kelley AlA Architect, Principal wi FIRE STATIONS Mr. Needham joined WLC Architects, Inc. in April 1986. He has brought to the firm a wide variety of experience and expertise in project design and construction document preparation. His architectural education was taught with a strong emphasis on human needs and how to integrate them into the built environment. This emphasis was combined with a methodical and logical design process geared toward the achievement of appropriate design solutions. He has experience in a wide variety of project types but has specialized in the design of both public and essential service facilities. EDUCATION California Polytechnic University, Pomona Bachelor of Architecture, 1985 REGISTRATION Architect, California - 19064 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Los Angeles Chapter American Institute of Architects • Newport Beach Fire Station 5 Houston Fire Station 8 • Eastvale Fire Station 2 0 San Marcos Fire Station 4 • Sendero Ranch Fire Station 56 Lake Forest Fire Station 19 • Fontana Fire Station 73 Fremont Fire Station 8 • Los Angeles Fire Station 15 Chino Fire Station 63 • Malibu Fire Station 71 Dana Point Fire Station 29 • Carlsbad Fire Station 3 Fairbanks Headquarters Fire Station • Los Angeles Fire Station 7 San Marcos Fire Station 2 • Los Angeles Fire Station 39 Rancho Cucamonga FS 173 • San Diego Fire Station 45 San Bernardino Fire Station 232 • Bonsall Fire Station 5 Norco Fire Station 22 • Ontario Fire Station 9 lemescal Public Safety Facility • Vernon Fire Station 4 Santa Monica Fire Station 2 • Fontana Fire Station 71 La Quinto Fire Station 93 • Rialto Fire Station 2 6 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Station 176 • Scottsdale Fire Station 1 Anchorage Headquarters Fire Station 1 • Scottsdale Fire Station 8 Fontana Fire Station 78 • Stanton Fire Station 46 San Marcos Fire Station I • Mecca Fire Station 40 Chino Hills Fire Station 62 • Fremont Fire Station 11 o Burbank Fire and Police Facility • Simi Valley Fire Station 47 o Temecula Fire Station 84 • Cypress Fire Station 17 Riverside Fire Station 12 • Chino Fire Station 7 Fontana Fire Station 77 • Hesperia Fire Station 301 Fontana Fire Station 74 • Hesperia Fire Station 305 • Fremont Fire Station 2 ARFF STATIONS • Escondido Fire and Police • Indio Fire Station 5 LAX - ARFF Station 80 • Culver City Fire Station 3 John Wayne Airport - ARFF Station 33 • Fremont Fire Station 6 Portland International Airport - ARFF 89 • Escondido Fire Station 7 • Escondido Fire Station 6 TRAINING FACILITIES • Yucaipa Fire Station 3 • Cabazon Fire Station 24 Fremont Tactical Training Center • Escondido Fire Station 3 Chino Training Facility/Fire Station 1 • Carlsbad Fire Station 6 Los Angeles Valley Recruit Training Center Architect, Project Manager Shih-Jing Yen joined WLC in 2005. In his FIRE STATIONS role as a Project Architect, Mr. Yen is responsible for the complete delivery Eastvale Fire Station 2 of the project from Concept through Fontana Fire Station 73 Occupancy. WLC's Project Architects Bonsall Fire Station 5 are intimately involved in all stages of Ontario Fire Station 9 project delivery and actively participate Sendero Ranch Fire Station 56 with both the WLC Project Team and Tustin Fire Station 37 the consulting engineers. The Project Hesperia Fire Station 301 Architect reports directly to the Principal- Hesperia Fire Station 305 in -Charge and works in close coordination Chino Fire Station 1 and Training Center with the Project Manager and Design Chino Fire Station 7 Team members on a daily basis. Mr. Yen Fontana Fire Station 71 is also responsible for overseeing and Rialto Fire Station 202 updating the Project Budget, Schedule, Mecca Fire Station 40 and Scope. Our Project Architects can Hesperia Fire Station 304 often be the first line of communication Malibu Fire Station 71 between our Client and the firm. Carlsbad Fire Station 3 EDUCATION National Taiwan University. Taipei. Taiwan Master of Science University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Master of Architecture REGISTRATION LEEDT " AP BD+C REFERENCES Mr. Noel Castillo City of Fontana (909)350-7632 ncastillo@fontana.org Mr. Chris DeCoursey, Construction Manager Orange County Fire Authority (714)573-6473 chrisdecoursey@ocfa.org Mr. Michael A. Kolling, Project Manager City of Chino (909) 334-3412 mkolling@cityofchino.org Mr. Wassink joined WLC Architects in 2000 as our Sustainable Design Coordinator. He has been involved in a variety of projects focusing on project design, design development and construction documents. Mr. Wassink has managed a number of LEED projects and is responsible for LEED training within the firm. His knowledge of LEED is grounded in practical experience that has given him the ability to accurately evaluate a project's potential, establish sustainability goals, fulfill and document program requirements, manage other members of the design team, and guide a LEED application through the process until final certification. EDUCATION Taylor University Upland, IN Bachelor of Science, Business Systems, Concentrations in Finance & Art. 1998 California Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA Master of Architecture Concentration Historic Preservation 2004 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS LEED AP Bernhard , n LEED AP, Sustainability Coordinator FIRE STATIONS TRAINING FACILITIES • Eastvale Fire Station 2 Dinuba Public Safety Training Facility • Fontana Fire Station 73 Fremont Tactical Training Center • Tustin Fire Station 37 o Chino Training Facility • Sendero Ranch Fire Station 56 Roy Wilson Training Center • Los Angeles Fire Station 81 Los Angeles Valley Recruit Training Center • Los Angeles Fire Station 89 Poway Fire Training Facility • Ontario Fire Station 9 South Central Recruit Training Center • Cabazon Fire Station 24 • Yucaipa Fire Station 9 REFERENCES • Escondido Fire Station 3 • Escondido Fire Station 6 Mr. Greg Woolf, Division Chief (Refired) • Escondido Fire Station 7 San Marcos Fire Department • Houston Fire Station 1 (760) 594-4705 • Anaheim Fire Station 11 gwoolf1950@cox.net • San Diego Fire Station 45 • San Marcos Fire Station 4 Ms. Kathryn Ferrell, CEQA Coordinator • Culver City Fire Station 3 San Diego Unified School District • Fremont Fire Station 6 (760) 622-6193 • Carlsbad Fire Station 6 kferrell@sandi.net • Lake Forest Fire Station 19 • Dana Point Fire Station 29 Mr. Terry Welsh, Division Chief (Retired) • Fairbanks Headquarters FS San Bernardino County Fire Department • San Marcos Fire Station 2 (760) 954-7779 • Norco Fire Station 22 tnkwelsh@ve6zon.net • La Quinta Fire Station 93 ARFF STATIONS • LAX ARFF Station No. 80 We have selected our proposed consulting team based upon their combined technical expertise and capabilities for performing necessary consulting services on facilities of similar size and scope. Our consultants are not specialty consultants brought in to make up for our own lack of specific project experience. In most cases, we have a long history and close working relationship with each firm. All of our consultants utilize computer -aided design and management systems to interface with our own CAD systems. Specifically, our consulting team will be able to provide services in the following areas: CIVIL ENGINEERING MSL Engineering, Inc. 402 West Arrow Highway, Suite 4 San Dimas, CA 91773 (909)305-2395 MSL Engineering is a nine employee firm specializing in civil engineering, environmental planning, and land surveying. Established in 1996, MSL Engineering has been responsible for most of the civil engineering design on fire facilities completed by WLC. Mark Lamoureux, President of MSL Engineering, has been working with our firm since 1985. MECHANICAL ENGINEERING Glumac 18200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92612 (949)833-8190 Glumac is an MEP consulting firm with offices world wide. The firm specializes in mechanical, electrical, telecommunications, energy and acoustical engineering, as well as building commissioning. In business since 1971, Glumac is the largest mechanical and electrical engineering firm headquartered on the west coast. They have been working with our firm since 1999. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING R.M. Byrd and Associates, Inc. 1047 West Sixth Street, Suite A Ontario, CA 91762 (909) 983-5599 R.M. Byrd and Associates, Inc. is a 14 employee firm specializing in structural engineering and analysis. Established in 1992, R.M. Byrd and Associates has substantial experience in essential service facilities and a long history with WLC. Rick Byrd, President of R.M. Byrd and Associates, Inc. has been working with our firm since 1986. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING A&F Engineering Group, Inc. 9320 Baseline Road, Suite C Alta Loma, CA 91701 (909) 941-3008 A&F Engineering Group is an electrical engineering firm specializing in power distribution, lighting, fire alarm systems, security, communications systems, controls and emergency power systems. Their experience includes public safety facilities, dispatch centers, emergency operations centers, and educational facilities. A&F Engineering Group has been working with our firm since 2001. 15 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE RJM Design Group, Inc. 31591 Camino Capistrano San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 (949) 493-2600 RJM Design Group is a twenty employee firm specializing in landscape architecture and urban planning. Established in 1987, RJM Design Group has been responsible for the landscape design on most of the fire facilities completed by WLC. RJM Design Group has been working with our firm since 1987. GEOTECHNICAL Leighton Consulting, Inc. 17781 Cowan Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 681-4255 Leighton Consulting, Inc. has provided innovative design solutions and field support for construction projects for more than four decades. Their several hundred employees are strategically located throughout Southern California. Leighton Consulting has been working with our firm since 1989. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING KOA Corporation 2141 West Orangewood Avenue, Suite A Orange, CA 92868 (714)573-0317 Founded in 1987, KOA is one of the leading traffic engineering and transportation planning and design firms in California. KOA provides consulting services to both public and private sectors with six offices in Southern California. KOA has been working with our firm since 2000. ENVIRONMENTAL Masek Consulting 23478 Sandstone Street Mission Viejo, CA 92692 (949)581-8503 Masek consulting is an environmental consulting company which specializes in toxic material assessment, testing, and remediation. Founded in 1992, they have both the equipment and staff necessary for a wide variety of environmental conditions. Masek consulting has been working with our firm since 2003. FURNITURE G/M Business Interiors 1099 West La Cadena Drive Riverside, CA 92501 (800)686-6583 G/M Business Interiors has been serving the California furniture market since 1944. G/M is a vertically integrated, full service dealership, specializing in office furniture planning, specification, procurement, project management, delivery, installation, reconfiguration services and complete asset management. All services are performed by G/M trained personnel. 16 w %. . Sustainable Design Coordinator Don Rice Quality Assurance Coordinator MSL Engineering Civil Engineer GLUMAC Mechanical Engineer A&F Engineering Group Electrical Engineer RJM Design Group Landscape Architecture Leighton Consulting Geotechnical KOA Corporation Traffic Engineer Mosek Consulting Environmental G/M Business Interiors Furniture 17 Mark S. Lamoureux President, MSL Engineering Mr. Lamoureux is the President and Principal Engineer for MSL Engineering since its establishment in January 1996. MSL Engineering is a civil engineering and land surveying firm specializing in site development for essential service facilities. Mr. Lamoureux has played an active role in the majority of projects designed by WLC Architects acting as the principal engineer, principal surveyor and project manager. Mr. Lamoureux has extensive experience in the areas of site engineering including grading, drainage, utility design, and CEQA documentation. FIRE STATIONS TRAINING FACILITIES • Hesperia Fire Station 305 Dinuba Public Safety Training Facility • Bonsall Fire Station 5 Fremont Tactical Training Center • Ontario Fire Station 9 Chino Training Facility • Vernon Fire Station 4 Roy Wilson Training Center • Fontana Fire Station 71 o Los Angeles Valley Recruit Training Center • Simi Valley Fire Station 47 Poway Fire Training Facility • Hesperia Fire Station 301 San Marcos Emergency Training Facility • Mecca Fire Station 40 South Central Recruit Training Center • Anaheim Fire Station 11 • Culver City Fire Station 3 REFERENCES • San Marcos Fire Station 4 • Fremont Fire Station 2 Mr. David R. Burkett, Project Manager • Carlsbad Fire Station 6 City of Hesperia • Fremont Fire Station 6 (760) 947-1202 EDUCATION Fremont Fire Station 8 dburkettQcityofhespeda.us California Polytechnic University, Pomona San Diego Fire Station 45 Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, 1981 Chino Fire Station 63 Mr. Terry Smith, Senior Engineer Graduated Magna Cum Laude Dana Point Fire Station 29 City of Carlsbad REGISTRATIONS Lake Forest Fire Station 19 (760) 602-2765 State of California Registered Civil Engineer San Marcos Fire Station 2 terrysmithQcarlsbadca.gov No. 38382 1984 JWA - ARFF 33 State of California Professional Land Surveyor Norco Fire Station 22 Mr. John Puente, Project Manager No. 5794, 1987 La Quinta Fire Station 93 In-N-Out Burger, Inc. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Corona Public Safety Facility (626) 813-8289 Life Member, Tau Beta Pi, National Santa Monica Fire Station 2 jpuenteQinnout.com Engineering Honor Society Fontana Fire Station 78 Member, The American Society of Chino Hills Fire Station 62 Civil Engineers Burbank Fire and Police Facility Corporate Member. The California Land Chino Fire Station 1 Surveyor's Association Chino Fire Station 7 Member, American Congress on Fontana Fire Station 73 Surveying and Mapping, NSPS Malibu Fire Station 71 Richard M o Byrd President, R.M. Rvrrl —1 A—,i-+— R.M. Byrd and Associates, Inc. was founded in 1992 on fundamental principles designed to provide quality consulting engineering services. The Principals, Associates, and employees of R.M. Byrd and Associates, Inc. recognize that in a service oriented industry, commitment to specific principles provides clear distinction between mediocrity and excellence. The primary dedication of their firm begins with the understanding that they are to protect the interests, property, and safety of the general public. R.M Byrd and Associates maintains the highest level of professional integrity. It is the goal of their firm to obtain creative solutions to difficult problems and strive to implement creativity without sacrificing project economy. FIRE STATIONS ARFF STATIONS • Carlsbad Fire Station 6 LAX - ARFF Station 80 EDUCATION Escondido Police and Fire Facility ^olifonio Polvtechnic 3tate Universin/ San Marcos Fire Station 4 TRAINING FACILITIES Srsn 1, is C?hv;rn College Park. Fire Station BGCneior of Science, Architectural Rancho Santa Fe Fire Station Dinuba Public Safety Training Facility Engineering. 1984 Rancho Cielo Fire Station o Fremont Tactical Training Center REGISTRATIONS Indio Fire Station 5 o Chino Training Facility 3,., _ G +v - �Nlunu me Jrunui I - Ruy rvuaun mrn rruy �.enier Colifornic Structural Engineer No.. SE3350 Hesperia Fire Station 301 Los Angeles Valley Recruit Training Center Alaska Professional Engineer Flo. 1 1952 ,Hesperia Fire Station 305 Poway Fire Training Facility Arizona Professional Engineer No. 29251 San Marcos Fire Station 2 San Marcos Emergency Training Facility Colorado Proiessior jai Engineer No. 34824 Chino Fire Station 63 South Central Recruit Training Center rlorido Professional Engineer No. 53077 Santa Monica Fire Station 2 Georgia Professional Engineer No. 26484 San Marcos Fire Station 1 REFERENCES Illinois Professional Engineer No. 062-052532 Towngate Fire Station Indiana Professional Engineer No, 10000055 Menifee Fire Station Mr. Dave Atchley Minnesota Professional Engineer No. 40451 Winchester Fire Station Environmental Systems Research Institute North Carolina Professional Engineer North Bermuda Dunes Fire Station (951) 538-9921 No. 024) 94 o Lakeland Village Fire Station datchley@esri.com Texas Professional Engineer No. 84360 Elsinore Fire Station Virginia Professional Engineer lo. 0402 035429 • Moreno Valley Fire Station Mr. Dale Etter Washington Professional Engineer No. 33441 Mesa Fire Station Victor Elementary School District PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Redlands Fire Station (760) 245-1691 Structural Engineers Association of California Cathedral City Fire Station 411 deter@vesd.net Consulting Engineers Association of California Fontana Fire Station 71 International Conference of Buildina Officials Rialto Fire Station 202 Mr. Jim Christl American Institute of Steel Construction. Rubidoux Fire Station Azusa Pacific University Office of Emergency Services - Disaster Temecula Roripaugh Fire Station (626) 815-4591 Prebareaness Program I jchristl@apu.edu EDUCATION B.S., Environmental Engineering, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California REGISTRATIONS Registered Mechanical Engineer, California. Hawaii, Nevada Arizona, Texas PROFESSIONAL AFFLIATION American Society of Heating Refrigeration Air -Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE) National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) Richard z Managing Principal, LEED, GLUMAC Richard Holzer is the Managing Principal and head of the Mechanical Engineering Department for the Glumac office in Irvine, California. His responsibilities include the design of mechanical services for a wide variety of facilities of varied size, scope, type, and complexity. For years, his day-to-day design practices have included sustainable design concepts. Mr. Holzer has over 30 years of experience as a mechanical engineer, the past 20 years serving as principal -in -charge on various projects involving HVAC, plumbing, and fire protection systems. After opening the Glumac Irvine office in 1990, Mr. Holzer has focused on managing projects and has been largely responsible for the overall growth of the firm. RELATED PROJECTS • LAX - ARFF Station 80 • Dana Point Fire Station 29 • Irvine Fire Station 47 • Irvine Fire Station 55 • La Quinta Fire Station 93 • Laguna Niguel Fire Station 39 • Lake Forest Fire Station 19 • Lake Forest Fire Station 38 • Newport Beach Fire Station • Norco Fire Station 22 • OCFA Fire Station 27 • OCFA Fire Station 28 • OCFA Fire Station 47 • Rancho Cucamonga Fire District HQ • Temescal Public Safety Facility • Cathedral City Fire Station 411 • Irvine Police Station • Tustin Fire Station 37 DATA/EOC • Irvine City Hall 911 Center • Kaiser Permanente Data Center • Moreno Valley Public Safety Facility • Ontario City Hall EOC • SCE Data Center • Walnut City Hall • Mentor Graphics Data Center • Earthlink Data Center • GSA/SSA Call Center • Orange County DOC Data Center REFERENCES Kim Davis, Project Manager California Court of Appeals (559) 445-5369 kim.davis@jud.ca.gov David Simpson, Development Manager City of Ontario (909) 395-2185 dsimpson@ci.ontado.ca.us Ron Tucci, Director of Facilities Extron Electronics (714) 491-1500 ron@extron.com Ron J..Talaska, Facility Manager Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (626) 381-3954 Ron.J.Talaska@kp.org EDUCATION B.S , Electrical Engineering, California State University, Long Beach REGISTRATIONS California License E17229 Arizona License E48795 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Caiifornia Society of Professional Engineers (CSPE) Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineer (IEEE; Rolando E Sotelo Principal A F Engineering Group As a principal of the firm, Mr. Sotelo serves as the Chief Engineer for A&F Engineering Group, Inc. ventures. Mr. Sotelo has over twenty years of experience and has completed projects throughout Southern California. His expertise has been an integral part of large and small projects that include civic centers, educational facilities, medical centers, office buildings, commercial centers and industrial plants. Institutional projects form a major part of Mr. Sotelo's experience. These projects include new construction and remodel of fire and police stations, new construction and modernization of high schools, middle schools and elementary schools, building additions and remodel of university and college campuses, and medical facility remodels. FIRE STATIONS Ontario Fire Station 4 Yucaipa Fire Station 3 Culver City Fire Station 3 San Jose Fire Station 2 Avalon City Hall and Fire Station Terra Lago Fire Station 5 Simi Valley Fire Station 47 r rv,.rrrvrr, r rr c. .rrv,rvr, c Pomona Fire Station 183 El Cajon Fire Station 7 Hesperia Fire Station 304 Anaheim Fire Station 8 Hesperia Fire Station 305 Hesperia Fire Station 301 Chino Fire Station 7 Chino Training Facility Mecca Fire Station 40 LIBRARIES • Pocket Greenhaven Library • Grand Terrace High School Library • Oak Hills High School Library • Tiefort View Library • Del E. Webb Memorial Library • Thomas Rivera Library REFERENCES Steve Stanton, Project Manager City of Montclair (909) 625-9444 sstanton@ci.montclair.ca.us Eric DeMott, AIA Haynes + Oakley Architects �VLV) VJV-JUGV ericd@haynesandoakley.com Aaron Mayoral, Owner Fulmin Electrical Corporation (909)218-4528 fulminelectricalcorp@gmaii.com EDUCATION B.S. in Landscape Architecture, California Polytechnic State University, Pomona 1981 REGISTRATION Landscape Architect License No. 2502 State of California, 1983 Landscape Architect License No. 25241 State of Arizona, 1991 ?ROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Society of Landscape Architects Larry ® Ryan Principal, RJM Design Group Larry Ryan is a founding principal of RJM Design Group, Inc. During his 20 years of experience Mr. Ryan has been involved with a wide variety of planning and landscape architectural projects that range from master planned communities to neighborhood parks. His project involvement encompasses all phases of site development, including concept formulation, agency processing, design development, and construction implementation. Mr. Ryan is RJM Design Group's designated expert on Americans with Disabilities Act compliance and is responsible for in house training. He has worked with numerous communities in the evaluation of accessibility issues and design of appropriate cost effective solutions. Mr. Ryan's approach to project management is based upon the firm's commitment to provide all clients with the highest quality of service possible. FIRE STATIONS TRAINING FACILITIES • Sendero Ranch FS 56 Dinuba Public Safety Training Facility • Carlsbad Fire Stations Chino Training Facility • Anaheim Fire Station 11 Poway Fire Training Facility • Culver City Fire Station 3 San Marcos Emergency Training Facility • San Marcos Fire Station 4 South Central Recruit Training Center • Carlsbad Fire Station 6 • Chino Fire Station 63 ARFF STATIONS • Dana Point Fire Station 29 • Lake Forest Fire Station 19 JWA ARFF Station 33 • San Marcos Fire Station 2 • San Bernardino Fire Station 232 REFERENCES • Rancho Cucamonga FS 173 • La Quinta Fire Station 93 Mr. Keith Rattay, Assistant City Manager • Rancho Cucamonga FS 176 City of Mission Viejo • Corona Public Safety Facility (949) 470-3018 • Santa Monica Fire Station 2 krattay@cityofmissionviejo.org • Fontana Fire Station 78 • San Marcos Fire Station 1 Gary Magill, Dir. of community Services • Chino Hills Fire Station 62 City of Lake Forest • Temecula Fire Station 84 (949) 461-3413 • Riverside Fire Station 12 gmagill@lakeforestca.gov • Arcadia Fire Station 2 • Fontana Fire Station 77 Brent Arnold, Director of Community Dev. • Fontana Fire Station 74 City of Chino • Rancho Cucamonga FS 175 (909) 591-9812 x208 • Rancho Cucamonga FS 174 bamold@cityofchino.org • Tustin Fire Station 37 Project Approach A. DESIGN TEAM METHODOLOGY B. PROJECT COMMITTEE Our firm consistently utilizes a Design Team approach for establishing project delivery and control during all phases of planning and design. The primary contact will be our Principal -in -Charge, Kelley Needham, AIA. The Principal - In -Charge will be responsible for coordinating our in-house architectural team and our consultant team. The Team remains with the project from concept thrcrlgh completion. Therefore, continuity of the project participants and of the process is achieved. The Design Team shall produce all necessary reports, studies, drawings, models, renderings, and ....,... y management, and coordination services throughout the entire course of the project. Our organization reflects a commitment towards planning and design in a team approach rather than on an individual basis. We feel that the final product can be substantially improved by a process which reflects many more design alternatives and ideas available for consideration and input. We believe that the success of the project depends upon involving all appropriate parties early on and throughout the planning and design process. It is important that the Fire Department and City Staff provide review and input early on in the conceptual Design Phase of the project. With our Fire Station design experience, it is our job to explore options and alternatives that meet the needs of the program, and to provide design schemes that can be depended upon to be the best possible solutions. Our approach to your project depends upon a participatory process with key City and Fire Department staff who are involved within a given consideration of each of the project areas. We recommend that a Project Committee be established with a specific review process to enhance project communications. The exchange of information is critical to the proces of planning, design, and construction. Periodic progress and review meetings will be established with milestone presentations and periods for comprehensive review Uvi If Il�j, ii IC GI IIUC PIVJGL l PfU4CJJ. DU11UT1UUI Ur1U IrHOW101 design workshops are also envisioned to explore options and alternatives likely to be discovered in the planning and design process. IN Because of the factors that will influence the overall design of the facility, it is necessary that the Project Team have appropriate resources, expertise, and knowledge to provide the correct methodology to resolve project requirements. More importantly, we perceive that many opportunities and challenges exist in the design of this project. Our approach to the design of your project establishes a well crafted set of work tasks, responsibilities, and products to provide thoughtful solutions that innovate the best possible responses to the Fire Department needs, opportunities, and available resources. We will seek to explore the following objectives in your project: 1. Creation of an efficient, functional, and interactive facility responsive to the service objectives of the Fire Department. 2. Consolidation of building and site elements to minimize development impacts and to maximize continuity of structural, mechanical, electrical, telecommunications, and site infrastructure components. 3. Achievement of a compact plan to establish clear, public, staff, and departmental areas in order to maximize functional efficiency, privacy, and security. 4. Explore opportunities to use combined passive and active technologies for energy conservation. 5. Consider and select appropriate environmental systems, materials, and finishes that achieve work and living environments while producing a durable, low maintenance facility. 6. Prepare alternative design concepts and recognize that value, performance, and image characteristics make significant contributions to team building, retention, and recruitment of valuable personnel. 7. Create forward thinking environments that are flexible to ever changing technologies and that anticipate future change and expansion. 8. A community oriented, inviting, and friendly design that initiates public confidence and support while reinforcing the caliber of professionalism and camaraderie within the Fire Department. 9. A personalized setting to promote gender privacy is essential to eliminating stress and to respond to the individual housing needs of both male and female fire fighters. fji wlc unifying principle No. 4 19 A. BASIC SCOPE OF SERVICES In addition to the services indicated in the RFQ, the following is a list of the basic activities and services anticipated for each of your new projects. The scope has been divided into the five phases typically associated with architectural services: The first and perhaps most important task during the Schematic Design Phase will be to establish and determine the best approach to the design of the primary systems in the project. The architectural program shall be developed. A ltorr.,-rt!vc ., r.Ar.. ....i:...+.. ,.4...11 L... .� .I.L... .-.1_�..J :_ _.J... to evaluate the best opportunities. A design concept shall be formulated in order to provide a sound basis for subsequent planning and design decisions to occur. The design concept shall be utilized to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of each potential alternative. Site and programmatic factors, aesthetic quality, cost, and other key factors related to the project shall be utilized in order to form the basis of an evaluation. Through a variety of informal meetings with the project committee, a schematic design concept shall be established. During the,Schematic Design Phase for your project, the following tasks and deliverables been identified: a. Master Site Plan A master site plan shall be prepared in order to describe all major site components and to illustrate the overall site planning concept for the project. All structures, parking areas, and circulation components shall be identified. Areas of future expansion and/or future phasing shall also be defined. b. Preliminary Landscape Plan A preliminary landscape plan shall be prepared in order to illustrate proposed planting, landscaping techniques, and design concepts. Drought resistant, low maintenance, and xeriscape techniques shall be defined. A preliminary plant palette, identifying major tree and shrub species, shall be included. c. Preliminary Floor Plans A preliminary floor plan of each level for every structure proposed shall be prepared. d. Exterior Elevations Exterior elevations shall be prepared to illustrate all major views of the project. Elevations shall be drawn to depict scale, character, architectural vocabulary, and shall be delineated to communicate the aesthetic qualities of the project. e. Schematic Design Opinion of Cost A preliminary opinion of construction costs shall be prepared and included with the summary report. f. Project Schedule A comprehensive project schedule shall be prepared. The project schedule shall include anticipated time frames for each phase of the project as well as any other milestones required by the City. 20 After completion of the Schematic Design Phase, the design of the project shall be advanced into more detailed refinement by initiating the Design Development Phase. Our Design Team shall prepare design development documents consisting of drawings, outline specifications, design calculations, material/equipment submittals, fixture cuts, and a design development opinion of estimated construction cost. Architectural, structural, electrical, and mechanical systems shall be further detailed and analyzed. Preliminary drawings shall be prepared for each of these systems and options which may exist shall be evaluated. During the Design Development Phase, requirements for cabinets, casework, hardware, and related specialties shall be determined. A preliminary furniture plan shall be prepared indicating usage and furniture layout of every work station, office, and support space. Final selection of materials, textures, and colors shall occur. The Design Development Phase is essentially the time when preliminary design proposals are refined to a level of detail and developed to a state such that final construction documents can be initiated. The Design Development Phase is the time when all final decisions pertaining to the proposed project are evaluated and finalized. During the Design Development Phase, the following tasks and deliverables have been identified: a. Design Development Plans Design development drawings shall be prepared in order to fix and describe the size and character of the entire project including architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical design features. b. Outline Specifications Outline specifications shall be prepared in order to identify and define the materials and system components selected for the project. Outline specifications shall be prepared in summary outline form based on CSI format. c. Basis of Design A technical manual shall be assembled to organize product literature and data for all materials, equipment, and fixtures selected for the project. d. Building Code Analysis Drawings, diagrams, and calculations shall be prepared based upon all applicable building codes having jurisdiction over the project. A preliminary occupancy and exiting plan shall be prepared to identify the type of construction, type of occupancy, required fire rating/separation, and location/ number of exits required. e. Design Development Opinion of Cost An opinion of construction cost shall be prepared to reflect the scope and anticipated construction costs as reflected by the design development documents. f. Project Schedule An updated project schedule shall be prepared and submitted. 21 The final Construction Document Phase of the project generally consists of the preparation of the construction documents to include final drawings, specifications, calculations, and final cost estimates. Our proposal includes complete and comprehensive architectural and engineering services required to execute the entire project. Specifically, we have included the following disciplines: 1) Architectural 2) Civil/Traffic Engineering 3) Structural Engineering 4) Mechanical Engineering 5) Electrical Engineering 6) Landscape Architecture During this phase, the Contract Documents are prepared setting forth in detail the requirements for the construction of the project. General conditions, instructions to bidders, and all special requirements are defined, and when combined with the various trade specifications, a complete project manual is produced. During the Construction Document Phase final cost studies shall be prepared. A detailed opinion of construction cost shall be prepared at the point where final plans and specifications are approximately 50% complete. Once construction documents have almost been completed, a revised opinion of cost shall be prepared at the level of approximately 9017. completion. Allowable construction costs will be consistently monitored during the entire process in order to minimize the possibility of requiring major refinement or modification due to budgetary limits. The following tasks are specifically proposed for the project: a. Construction Drawings Final construction drawings shall be prepared in order to describe and identify the spaces, sizes, volume, and location in detail for the construction of the project. b. Project Manual A project manual shall be prepared to include all instructions to bidders, bidding forms, general conditions, supplementary special conditions, and the construction trade sections for the project. The project manual provides detailed technical information pertaining to the administration of the contract for construction, materials and equipment to be furnished, acceptable manufacturers, and the requirements for executing the work. c. final Design Calculations Final design calculations shall be prepared and submitted with the final plans and specifications for review and approval by governing agencies having jurisdiction over the project. Structural calculations, hydrology/drainage calculations, and mechanical/electrical (Title 24 Energy Compliance) shall be completed during this phase. d. Opinion of Cost A detailed opinion of construction costs shall be prepared at n ,C, pvinfnn rn ,c;G Pivnu llll4 DrlGl.lOI.IJIIVI-IS l.liG IJF.Jf.Ji VJVI1IU ICly 507o complete. A second cost opinion shall be prepared at the 90% completion point in order to address any refinement or modification occurring during the preparation of the construction documents. the cost opinion shall be prepared utilizing specific area and quantity take -offs applied to labor and material cost, and shall include allowance for general conditions, Contractor's profit and overhead, and contingencies. e. Final Plan Check All final plans, specifications, and supporting calculations shall be submitted to appropriate agencies having jurisdiction over the project. The final construction documents shall be revised and amended in order to reflect any plan check requirements, and at this time, construction documents will be ready for competitive bidding. 22 During the Bidding Phase, the Architect shall provide administrative support services to assist the City in obtaining competitive bids for the proposed project. Notices Inviting Bids shall be distributed to local construction plan rooms. The Architect shall respond to any questions, clarifications, or conflicts which may arise in the form of written addenda to the contract documents. At this time, requests for substitutions may be considered if allowed by the contract documents. The Architect shall assist the City with an evaluation of the bids received and make a recommendation for award of the contract for construction. The following services for the Bidding Phase of the project are proposed: a. Bidding Procedures and Administration The Architect shall assist the City with the Bidding Phase of the project. Questions, clarifications, or conflicts arising out of the bidding process will be resolved by addenda prepared by the Architect. Addenda to the contract for construction shall be prepared in writing to document any clarification or modification made to the contract documents. b. Evaluation of Bid Proposals Upon receipt of all bid proposals, a review and evaluation shall be conducted by the Architect. The completeness of each bid proposal shall be evaluated whenever consideration exists to award to the proposing contracting entity. The completeness of the bid proposal, proposed subcontractors, affidavit of signature and other special bid proposal requirements shall be reviewed by both the City and the Architect. c. Notice to Award Construction Contract Upon the completed review of appropriate bid proposals, the Architect shall provide a recommendation for consideration regarding the potential award of the contract for construction. The Architect shall conduct bi-weekly job site meetings in order to generally review and evaluate the construction schedule, monitor weekly performance, review quality control standards, and provide assistance for any clarification or revision to the contract for construction. Shop drawings and related submittals shall be reviewed and returned to the Architect for appropriate action. The Contractor's requests for information, proposal requests, and related communications shall be attended to on a regular basis. Contractor's pay requests shall be reviewed by the Architect on a monthly basis in accordance with the amount of work completed and in accordance with the contract documents. At every job site meeting, minutes shall be prepared, published and distributed by the Architect to all parties concerned, specifically noting current action items and related responsibilities. Upon completion of the Construction Phase the Architect shall organize and conduct a final walk-through and review. A final punch list for all required corrections and remaining work shall be prepared. During the Construction Phase of the project, the following services shall be furnished: a. Preconstruction Conference A preconstruction conference shall be organized and conducted by the Architect to brief all parties concerned with general and special requirements of the contract for construction. Procedural matters, routing of information, and project representatives shall be defined. Attendees shall include representatives from the Fire Department, the Architect, the Contractor, and all major subcontractors. b. Job Site Meetings Job site meetings at two week intervals shall be scheduled and conducted by the Architect for the same day and time through the duration of the project. Scheduling, coordination, requests for information, and changes to the contract for construction are routinely monitored. The Architect shall publish and distribute a field report for each job site meeting, `193 documenting the progress of construction and specifically noting current and delinquent action items. The following number of meetings are anticipated to be required for each project: Civil 2 Mechanical 4 Architectural 24 Electrical 4 Structural 4 Landscaping 4 c. Submittal and Shop Drawing Review The Architect shall review all required shop drawings and related submittals as required by the contract documents. d. Project Closeout At the completion of the Construction Phase a final job site meeting and review of the entire facility shall be conducted. A final punch list will be published and distributed by the Architect to all parties concerned, specifically noting required corrections, non -conforming work, and work remaining to be completed. A second walk-through shall be conducted when all punch list items have been corrected, at which time a Final Notice of Completion shall be filed by the e. Record Documents A set of final record documents will be created from the Contractor's as -built drawings. x The following items are not typically found in the basic scope of architectural services. Based on the specifics of your site and our experience with projects of this type, we believe the following additional services will also be required: a. Topographical Survey A complete Topographical and Boundary Survey shall be furnished by the Design Team. The size, area, and overall configuration of the site area shall be accurately defined noting.all existing conditions, improvements, utilities, and adjacent relationships. b. Geotechnical investigation A Geotechnical Investigation shall be furnished by the design team. The soils report shall be reviewed in order to determine existing soils conditions, soils characteristics, water table relationship to known seismic faults, and overall soils suitability for the proposed project. Specific recommendations shall be made for soils preparation related to the construction of footings, foundations, slabs, and various pavement sections. c. Water Quality Management Plan Prepare Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) report and plans addressing how to treat the post -construction stormwater runoff per City and County standard requirements. An onsite Filterra unit or bioretention system is expected to be required for this project since the soil is not anticipated to infiltrate at an acceptable rate. d. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and electronically file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB SMARTS website in order to obtain a WDID number. e. Traffic Engineering Prepare a signal pre-emption system on Royal Palm Drive and a signal modification for the Adams/Royal Palm Intersection. f. Environmental Assessment Prepare a pre -demolition asbestos, lead, and miscellaneous toxic material survey of the existing structure. Prepare a final report to include photographs, conclusions, and remediation recommendations. %0 m 04A4019 wum" FIRE STATION 19 LAKE FOREST, CA Mr. Steve Chambers, Property Manager Orange County Fire Authority Phone: (714) 573-6471 Email: stevechombers@ocfa.org Mr. Chris DeCoursey, Construction Mgr. Orange County Fire Authority Phone: (714)573-6473 Email: chrisdecoursey@ocfa.org Mr. Paul Malone, City Manager (R) City of San Marcos Phone: (760) 802-2487 Email: paulmalone@gmail.com Mr. Todd Newman, Fire Chief (R) San Marcos Fire Department Phone: (760) 594-4704 Email: newman62@aol.com Mr. Brett Vanwey, Fire Chief San Marcos Fire Department Phone: (760) 594-4700 Email: bvanwey@san-marcos.net Mr. Greg Woolf, Division Chief (R) San Marcos Fire Department Phone: (760) 594-4705 Email: gwooUl950@cox.net Mr. Tim Stewart, Battalion Chief Chino Valley Independent Fire District Phone: (949) SM-3849 Email: tstewort@choRre.org Mr. Luke Nurre, Fire Fighter (R) Chino Valley Independent Fire District Phone: (909) 907-0166 Email: inuire@charter.net Mr. Mike Lowry, Fire Chief Escondido Fire Department Phone: (760) 839-5402 Email: mlowry@escondido.org Ms. Joyce Masterson, Project Manager City of Escondido Phone: (760) 839-4621 Email: jmasterson@escondido.org Mr. Bruce Clark, Fire Chief (R) Santa Cruz Fire Protection District Phone: (831) 685-2557 Email: brucec@comcast.net Mr. Andy O'Connell, Senior Civil Engineer City of Culver City Phone: (310)253-5606 Email: andy.o'conneli@culvercity.org Mr. Richard Gallagher, Fire Chief Mr. Dale Torstenbo, Project Manager Warner Bros. Studios City of Pasadena Phone. (818) 954-5640 Phone: (626) 744-3971 Email: dchard.gallagher@wamerbros.com Email: dtorstenbo@cityofpasadena.net Mr. Mike Avila, Fire Captain Fremont Fire Department Phone. (925) 683-1802 Email: mavila1727@yahoo.com Mr. Jon Canavan, Division Chief Poway Fire Department Phone. (858) 668-4485 Email: jcanavan@ci.poway.ca.us Mr. Terry Welsh, Division Chief (R) San Bernardino Courtly Fire Department Phone. (760) 954-7777 Email: tnkwelsh@vedzon.net Mr. Rick McClintock, Battalion Chief (R) San Bernardino County Fire Department Phone: (919) 518-7914 Email: rmcctintock§sbcfire.org Mr. Willie McDonald, Fire Chief Las Vegas Fire & Rescue Phone: (408) M-3631 Email: wmcdonakl@lasvegasnevado.gov Mr. Terry L Smith, Senior Civil Engineer City of Carlsbad Phone. (760) 602-2720 Email: teny.sm"cadsbadca.gov Mr. David R. Burkett, Project Manager City of Hesperia Phone: (760)947-1202 Email: dburketi@cttyofhesperia.us Ms. Anna E Rodriguez, Project Manager County of Riverside, EDA Phone: (760)863-2537 Email: aarodriguez@rivocedo.org Ms. Kathryn Ferrell, CEQA Coordinator San Diego Unified School District Phone- (760) 622-6193 Email: kferreiRsandLnet Mr. Michael A. Koiling, Project Manager City of Chino Phone: (909) 334-3412 Email: mkolfing@cityofchino.org Ms. Nancy Palm, Deputy City Manager City of El Cajon Phone: (619) 441-1716 Email: npalm@ci.el-cajon.ca.us Mr. Steve Marovich, Battalion Commander North County Fire Protection District Phone: (760) 497-2215 Email: smarovich@ncfire.org Ms. Leah Rodriguez, Project Manager County of Riverside Phone: (760) 863-2534 Email: Imrodriguez@rivcoeda.org Mr. Robert Falcon. Civil Engineer Los Angeles World Airports Phone: (424) 646-5700 Email: rfalcon@lawa.org Mr. Jim Hone, Fire Chief (R) Santa Monica Fire Department Phone: (310) 749-3523 Email: jnhone@me.com Mr. Gene Hiaainbotham. Civil Enaineer City of Santa Monica Phone: (310) 458-8729 Email: gene.higginbotham@smgov.net Mr. Noel Castillo, Senior Engineer City of Fontana Phone: (909) 350-7632 Email: ncastillo@fontano.org Mr. Mike Lopez, Battalion Chief Carlsbad Fire Department Phone: (760) 212-2569 Email: mike.lopez@carisbadca.gov Mr. Chris Lawrence, Captain Carlsbad Fire Department Phone: (760) 415-4679 Email: christopher.lawrence@cadsbadca.gov Mr. Jim Schiller, Battalion Chief Ontario Fire Department Phone: (760) 954-8635 Email: jschille@ci.ontario.ca.us Mr. Nathan Complin, Project Manager Erickson -Hall Construction Co. Phone: (760) 801-4284 Email: ncomplin@edcksonhaff.com Mr. Scott Priester, Director of Dev. Services City of Hesperia Phone: (760) 947-1901 Email: spriester@cityofhesperia.us 25 EXHIBIT C FEE SCHEDULE 14 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 CLIENT FOCUSED. PASSION DRIVEN. June 12, 2015 Ms. Fariba Fazeli City Engineer City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Re: Revised Fee Proposal Fire Station 1 City of Costa Mesa Dear Ms. Fazeli: Thank you for considering W LC for your new fire station project. Attached please find our revised fee proposal. Per our conversation this morning we have fine tuned our fees and verified the type of services required. We believe that we have included all the services necessary to complete your project. In the event that any of the services indicated are not required, you will not be invoiced. Ms. Fazeli, thank you again for this opportunity. If you should have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. Very truly yours, K Vdv T '� KELLEY AEEDHAM Architect, AIA Principal KN: br\ 15029R-mkt Attachment: Fee Proposal 8163 ROCHESTER AVENUE, SUITE 100 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA • 91730 • T: (909) 987-0909 F: (909) 980-9980 www.wicarchitects.com B. Site Specific Fees The following items are unique to each site and not typically found in the basic scope of architectural services. Based on our experience and interpretation of the information provided, we believe the following services will also be required: Task Fee 1. Topographical and Boundary Survey $ 10,000.00 2. Geotechnical Report 12,000.00 3. Water Quality Management Plan and Report 7,000.00 4. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 3,000.00 5. Traffic Engineering 15,000.00 TOTAL SITE SPECIFIC FEES $ 47,000.00 C. Optional Services The following items are listed as optional services. The City and Fire Department may not require these services depending on the overall budget constraints of the project: Task 1. LEED Certification 23,000.00 2. Commissioning 14,000.00 3. Hazardous Material Assessment (Building Only) 2,500.00 TOTAL OPTIONAL FEES $ 39,500.00 D. Total Fee The following is the total of all fees: Service Fee Basic Architectural Services $ 405,000.00 Site Specific Services 47,000.00 Optional Services 39,500.00 SUBTOTAL TOTAL FEE $ 491,500.00 REIMBURSABLE ALLOWANCE 7,500.00 TOTAL FEE $ 499,000.00 29. Offsite or onsite separate water, fire line, sanitary sewer, or storm drain improvement plan and profile drawing, or revisions to a separate City or utility company approved drawing, not already shown on our standard composite onsite utility and storm drain plan. 30. Tract map, Amended Map, Final Plat, Parcel Map, Lot Merger, Certificate of Compliance, or a Lot Line Adjustment Map, Application, Deed, Legal Description, Sketch, and Traverse Closure Calculations, 31. Design plans or reports to remediate the contaminated soil as this site is listed by the City as a known hazardous waste and substance site as of March 2009 with leaking underground storage tanks. 32. No calculations or reports related to satisfying hydromodification requirements based on the assumption that there will be no increase in impervious surface area for the project, even if pavers need to be installed in lieu of concrete to achieve this value. 33. Foundation System: Our fee assumes typical spread footings in average soil conditions. Any other type of foundation system required as a result of poor soil conditions would not be considered within our scope of work. 34. Separate street improvement plans or profile drawings. 35. Separate street lighting improvement plan. EXHIBIT D PROJECT SCHEDULE 15 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF FIRE STATION NO. 1 — Project Schedule ENGINEERING SCHEDULE DATE 1. Proposal Received by the City 2. Award of Professional Services Agreement 3. Project Kick-off Meeting 4. Conceptual Design Submittal 5. Planning Commission Approval 6. City Council Approval 7. First Plan Check Submittal 8. Second Plan Check Submittal 9. Third Plan Check Submittal 10. Obtain Building Permit 11. Provide Construction Support 4/24/15 7/21 /15 7/22/15 9/07/15 9/28/15 11/03115 3/14/16 5/09/16 6/27/16 7/19/16 1 /09/17 — 1 /15/18* *Subject to postponement pending detailed Engineer's cost estimate and available construction funds 1 EXHIBIT E CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE 16 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 ACORD® �,, CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) 6/29/2015 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terns and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsements . PRODUCER Dealey, Renton & Associates 199 S Los Robles Ave Ste 540 Pasadena, CA 91101 CONTACT Marie Swaney PHONE Fax E-MAIL mswaney@dealeyrenton.com Y@ renton.com Y INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # Llc #0020739 INSURERA:Travelers Property Casualty Co of A 25674 INSURED WLCARCHIT INSURER 8:Lexington Ins. Co. 19437 WLC Architects, Inc. 8163 Rochester Ave., Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 INSURERC: INSURER D : 909 987-0909 INSURERE: INSURER F CnVFROGFS CFRTIFICOTF NI IMRFR• 41321600 RFVLSInN NI IMRFR- THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE INSD WVD POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MWDD/YYYY POLICY EXP MM/DD/YYYY LIMITS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Y Y 68092SIL18A 4/1/2015 4/1/2016 EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 CLAIMS MADE X� OCCUR DAMAGE TO REN PREMISES Ea occurrence)$1,000,000 X MED EXP (Any one person) $10,000 Contractual Liab X XCU Included PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $1,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $2,000,000 POLICY F�] JER& M LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $2,000,000 $ OTHER: A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Y Y BA92511_707 4/1/2015 4/1/2016 Eaaccident $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ ANY AUTO AUTOS�EO SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ HIRED AUTOS X NON -OWNED AUTOS X PROPERTY DAMAGE Per accident $ X $ NoOwnedAutos UMBRELLA LIAB OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ AGGREGATE $ EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS -MADE DED F7 RETENTION $ $ A WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE UB36881785 4/1/2015 4/1/2016 X PER OTH- STATUTE ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $1,000,000 OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ N / A E.L. DISEASE -EA EMPLOYEE $1,000.000 (Mandatory in NH) If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT $1,000,000 B Professional Liability 013001634 4/1/2015 4/1/2016 $2,000,000 Per Claim Claims Made Form $4,000,000 Annual Aggregate DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached If more space Is required) i General Liability excludes claims arising out of the performance of professional services. Insured owns no company vehicles; therefore, hired/non-owned auto is the maximum coverage that applies.** RE: Fire Station #1 -- City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees are named as an additional insured as respects general liability for claims arising from the operations of the named insured as required per written contract or agreement. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION ou Uay NL)L•/l u L)ay Tor Noway oT t" rem City of Costa Mesa Attn: Fariba Fazeli 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa CA 92628-1200 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE @ 1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 26 (2014/01) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD POLICY NUMBER: 6809251L18A COMMERICAL GENERAL LIABILITY ISSUE DATE: 6/29/2015 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED (ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ORGANIZATION(S): City of Costa Mesa Attn: Fariba Fazeli 77 Fair Drive, P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa CA 92628-1200 PROJECT/LOCATION OF COVERED OPERATIONS: RE: Fire Station #1 -for- City of Costa agents, employees PROVISIONS A The following is added to WHO IS AN INSURED (Section ll): The person or organization shown in the Sched- ule above is an additional insured on this Cover- age Part, but only with respect to liability for bod- ily injury", 'property damage" or 'personal injury caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omis- sions or the acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf: a. In the performance of your ongoing oper- ations; In connection with premises owned by or rented to you; or C. In connection with your work and included within the "products -completed operations hazard." Such person or organization does not qualify as an additional insured for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal injury' for which that person or organization has assumed liability in a contract or agreement. CG D3 82 09 07 Mesa, its officers, officials, The insurance provided to such additional insured is limited as follows: d. This insurance does not apply to the render- ing of or failure to render any "professional services". The limits of insurance afforded to the addi- tional insured shall be the limits which you agreed in that `contract or agreement requir- ing insurance" to provide for that additional insured, or the limits shown in the Declarations for this Coverage Part, whichever are less. This endorsement does not increase the limits of insurance stated in the LIMITS OF INSURANCE (Section III) for this Coverage Part. B. The following is added to Paragraph a. of 4. Other Insurance in COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS (Section Iv): However, if you specifically agree in a contract or agreement requiring insurance that, for the addi- tional insured shown in the Schedule, the insur- ance provided to that additional insured under this © 2007 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office Inc., with its permission Page 1 COMMERICAL GENERAL LIABILITY Coverage Part must apply on a primary basis, or a primary and non-contributory basis, this insurance is primary to other insurance that is available to such additional insured which covers such additional insured as a named insured, and we will not share with the other insurance, provided that: (1) The "bodily injury" or "property damage" for which coverage is sought occurs; and (2) The "personal injury" for which coverage is sought arises out of an offense committed; after you have entered into that "contract or agreement requiring insurance" for such additional insured. But this insurance still is excess over valid and collectible other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the additional insured when the additional insured is also an additional insured under any other insurance. C. The following is added to Paragraph 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us in COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS (Section IV): We waive any rights of recovery we may have against the additional insured shown in the Schedule above because of payments we make for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal injury" arising out of "your work" on or for the project, or at the location, shown in the Schedule above, performed by you, or on your behalf, under a "contract or agreement requiring insurance" with that additional insured. We waive these rights only where you have agreed to do so as part of the "contract or agreement requiring insurance" with that additional insured entered into by you before, and in effect when, the "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs, or the "personal injury" offense is committed. D. The following definition is added to DEFINITIONS (Section V): "Contract or agreement requiring insurance" means that part of any contract or agreement under which you are required to include the person or organization shown in the Schedule as an additional insured on this Coverage Part, provided that the "bodily injury" and "property damage" occurs, and the "personal injury" is caused by an offense committed: a. After you have entered into that contract or agreement; b. While that part of the contract or agreement is in effect; and c. Before the end of the policy period. CG D3 82 09 07 Page 2 © 2007 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office Inc., with its permission POLICY #: gA9251L707 COMMERCIAL AUTO CA 20 48 02 99 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. DESIGNATED INSURED This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM GARAGE COVERAGE FORM MOTOR CARRIER COVERAGE FORM TRUCKERS COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions ofthe Coverage Form apply unless modi- fied by this endorsement. This endorsement identifies person(s) or organization(s) who are "insureds" under the Who Is An Insured Provi- sion of the Coverage Form. This endorsement does not alter coverage provided in the Coverage Form. This endorsement changes the policy effective on the inception date of the policy unless another date is indicated below. Endorsement Effective: 6/29/2015 Countersigned By: LU Named Insured: WLC Architects, Inc. ���� Authorized Representative) SCHEDULE Name of Person(s) or Organization(s): RE: Fire station #1 -for- City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to the endorsement.) Each person or organization shown in the Schedule is an "insured" for Liability Coverage, but only to the extent that person or organization qualifies as an "insured" under the Who Is An Insured Provision contained in Section II of the Coverage Form. CA 20 48 02 99 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1998 Insured: WLC Architects, Inc. Policy #BA92511-707 COMMERCIAL AUTO THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY, PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BLANKET WAIVER OF SUBROGATION This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM GARAGE COVERAGE FORM MOTOR CARRIER COVERAGE FORM TRUCKERS COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, :he provisions of the Coverage Form apply unless mocified by the endorsement. Paragraph 5. Transfer of Right Of Recovery Against Others To Us of the CONDITIONS section is replaced by the following: S. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us We waive any right of recovery we may have against any person or organization to the extent required *of you by a written contract executed prior to ary "accident" or "loss", provided that the "accident" or "loss" arises out of the operations contemplated by such contract. The waiver applies only to the person or organization designated in such contract. CA T3 40 08 08 ©2008 The Travelers Companies; Inc. References Mr. Steve Chambers, Property Manager Orange County Fire Authority Phone. (714) 573-6471 Email: sfevechambers@ocfo.org Mr. Chris DeCoursey, Construction Mgr. Orange County Fire Authority Phone: (714) 573-6473 Email: chrisdecoursey@ocfa.org Mr. Paul Malone, City Manager (R) City of San Marcos Phone., (760) 802-2487 Email: poulmolone@gmail.com Mr. Todd Newman, Fire Chief (R) San Marcos Fire Department Phone: (760) 594-4704 Email: newman62@aol.com Mr. Brett Vanwey, Fire Chief San Marcos Fire Department Phone: (760) 594-4700 Email: bvanwey@san-marcos.net Mr. Greg Woolf, Division Chief (R) San Marcos Fire Department Phone: (760) 594-4705 Email: gwoolf1950@coxnet Mr. Tim Stewart, Battalion Chief Chino Valley Independent Fire District Phone: (949) M-3849 Email: tstewart@chofire.org Mr. Luke Nurre, Fire Fighter (R) Chino Valley Independent Fire District Phone: (909) 907-0166 Email: Inurre@charter.net Mr. Mike Lowry, Fire Chief Escondido Fire Department Phone: (760) 839-5402 Email: mlowry@escondido.org Ms. Joyce Masterson, Project Manager City of Escondido Phone: (760) 8394621 Email: jmasterson@escondido.org Mr. Bruce Clark, Fire Chief (R) Santa Cruz Fire Protection District Phone. (831) 685.2557 Email: brucec@comcast.net Mr. Andy O'Connell, Senior Civil Engineer City of Culver City Phone: (310) 253-5606 Email: andy.o'connell@culvercity.org Mr. Richard Gallagher, Fire Chief Warner Bros. Studios Phone., (818) 954-5640 Email: richard.gallogher@warnerbros.com Mr. Mike Avila, Fire Captain Fremont Fire Department Phone: (925) 683-1802 Email: mavilal727@yahoo.com Mr. Jon Canavan, Division Chief Poway Fire Department Phone. (858) 668-4485 Email: jcanavan@ci.poway.ca.us Mr. Terry Welsh, Division Chief (R) San Bernardino County Fire Department Phone. (760) 954-7779 Email: tnkweish@verizon.net Mr. Rick McClintock, Battalion Chief (R) San Bernardino County Fire Department Phone: (919) 518-7914 Email: rmcclintock@sbcflre.org Mr. Willie McDonald, Fire Chief Las Vegas Fire & Rescue Phone: (408) 828-3631 Email: wmcdonald@lasvegasnevada.gov Mr. Terry L Smith, Senior Civil Engineer City of Carlsbad Phone: (760) 602-2720 Email: terry.smlfh@codsbadca.gov Mr. David R. Burkett, Project Manager City of Hesperia Phone. (760) 947-1202 Email: dburketi@cityofhesperia.us Ms. Anna E. Rodriguez, Project Manager County of Riverside, EDA Phone- (760) 863-2537 Email: aaroddguez@rivoceda.org Ms. Kathryn Ferrell, CEQA Coordinator San Diego Unified School District Phone: (760) 622-6193 Email: kferrell@sandi.net Mr. Michael A. Kol►ing, Project Manager City of Chino Phone: (909) 334-3412 Email: mkolling@clfyofchino.org Ms. Nancy Palm, Deputy City Manager City of El Cajon Phone: (619) 441-1716Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department Email: npalm@ci.el-cajon.ca.us Mr. Dale Torstenbo, Project Manager City of Pasadena Phone:(626) 744-3971 Email: dtorstenbo@cityofpasadeno.net Mr. Steve Marovich, Battalion Commander North County Fire Protection District Phone: (760) 497-2215 Email: smarovich@ncfire.org Mr. Ed. Sprague, Deputy Fire Chief North County Fire Protection District Phone: (760) 723-2005 Email: Esprogue@ncfre.org Ms. Leah Rodriguez, Project Manager County of Riverside Phone: (760) 863-2534 Email: Imrodriguez@rivcoeda.org Mr. Robert Falcon, Civil Engineer Los Angeles World Airports Phone.(424) 646-5700 Email: rfalcon@lawa.org Mr. Jim Hone, Fire Chief (R) Santa Monica Fire Department Phone:(310) 749-3523 Email: jnhone@me.com Mr. Gene Higginbotham, Civil Engineer City of Santa Monica Phone: (310) 458-8729 Email: gene.higginbotham@smgov.net Mr. Noel Castillo, Senior Engineer City of Fontana Phone: (909) 350-7632 Email: ncastillo@fontano.org Mr. Mike Lopez, Battalion Chief Carlsbad Fire Department Phone: (760) 212-2569 Email: mike.lopez@carisbadca.gov Mr. Chris Lawrence, Captain Carlsbad Fire Department Phone: (760) 415-4679 Email: christopher.lawrence@codsbadca.gov Mr. Jim Schiller, Battalion Chief Ontario Fire Department Phone: (760) 954-8635 Email: jschiile@ci.ontarlo.ca.us Mr. Nathan Complin, Project Manager Erickson -Hall Construction Co. Phone: (760) 801-4284 Email: ncompiin@edcksonholl.com Mr. Scott Priester, Director of Dev. Services City of Hesperia Phone. (760) 947-1901 Email• spriester@cityofhespeda.us Mr. Mark IC Vukojevic, Deputy Public Works Director/Cify Engineer City of Newport Beach Phone, (949) 644-3319 Email: mvukojevic@newporibeachca.gov Mr. Fong TSE, Principal Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach Phone: (949) 644-M21 Email: ftse@newporibeachco.gov Mr. Jim Boland, Fire Captain Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department Phone: (949) 644-3103 jboland@nbfd.net Mr. Joe McIntyre, Executive Director Capital Construction Development University of Southern California Phone- (213) 821-6314 Email: ejmcinty@usc.edu Mr. Joe indrawan, Deputy City Engineer City of Eastvale Phone: (951) 703-4473 Email: Jindrawan@eastvaleco.gov EXHIBIT F CITY COUNCIL POLICY 100-5 17 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 1 of 3 BACKGROUND Under the Federal Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988, passed as part of omnibus drug legislation enacted November 18, 1988, contractors and grantees of Federal funds must certify that they will provide drug -free workplaces. At the present time, the City of Costa Mesa, as a sub -grantee of Federal funds under a variety of programs, is required to abide by this Act. The City Council has expressed its support of the national effort to eradicate drug abuse through the creation of a Substance Abuse Committee, institution of a City-wide D.A.R.E. program in all local schools and other activities in support of a drug -free community. This policy is intended to extend that effort to contractors and grantees of the City of Costa Mesa in the elimination of dangerous drugs in the workplace. PURPOSE It is the purpose of this Policy to: 1. Clearly state the City of Costa Mesa's commitment to a drug -free society. 2. Set forth guidelines to ensure that public, private, and nonprofit organizations receiving funds from the City of Costa Mesa share the commitment to a drug -free workplace. POLICY The City Manager, under direction by the City Council, shall take the necessary steps to see that the following provisions are included in all contracts and agreements entered into by the City of Costa Mesa involving the disbursement of funds. 1. Contractor or Sub -grantee hereby certifies that it will provide a drug -free workplace by: a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's workplace, specifically the job site or location included in this contract, and specifying the actions that will be taken against the employees for violation of such prohibition; 18 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 2 of 3 b. Lstabusning a urug-t-ree Awareness Program to inform employees about: 1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; 2. Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace; 3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and 4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; c. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the contract be given a copy of the statement required by subparagraph A; d. Notifying the employee in the statement required by subparagraph 1 A that, as a condition of employment under the contract, the employee will: 1. Abide by the terms of the statement; and 2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction; e. Notifying the City of Costa Mesa within ten (10) days after receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 from an employee or otherwise receiving the actual notice of such conviction; f. Taking one of the following actions within thirty (30) days of receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 with respect to an employee who is so convicted: 1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or 2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health agency, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; 19 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 3 of 3 g. Making a good faith effort to maintain a drug -free workplace through implementation of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 F, inclusive. 2. Contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be deemed to be in violation of this Policy if the City of Costa Mesa determines that: a. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has made a false certification under paragraph 1 above; b. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 G above; c. Such number of employees of Contractor and/or sub -grantee have been convicted of violations of criminal drug statutes for violations occurring in the workplace as to indicate that the contractor and/or sub -grantee has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug -free workplace. 3. Should any contractor and/or sub -grantee be deemed to be in violation of this Policy pursuant to the provisions of 2 A, B, and C, a suspension, termination or debarment proceeding subject to applicable Federal, State, and local laws shall be conducted. Upon issuance of any final decision under this section requiring debarment of a contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be ineligible for award of any contract, agreement or grant from the City of Costa Mesa for a period specified in the decision, not to exceed five (5) years. Upon issuance of any final decision recommending against debarment of the contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be eligible for compensation as provided by law. 20 WLC Architects, Inc. PSA 15 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: July 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-8 SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT AWARDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR THE "SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM". DATE: JUNE 25, 2015 FROM: POLICE DEPARTMENT- FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION SPECIAL SERVICES BUREAU (TRAFFIC SAFETY) PRESENTATION BY: Sergeant Bryan Wadkins, Special Police Services FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sergeant Bryan Wadkins (714) 754-5125 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Adopt Resolution which authorizes the CEO or his designee to accept the grant awards from the California Office of Traffic Safety for: the "Selective Traffic Enforcement Program" (STEP). 2. Approve Budget Adjustment #16-002 for the total amount of $150,000 to increase revenue and appropriation for overtime and professional development associated with the 2016 OTS STEP grant. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration distributes federal funding to California through the Office of Traffic Safety. Grants are used to mitigate traffic safety program deficiencies, expand on -going programs, or to develop a new program. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation, or construction. The Police Department has been awarded several of these grants in the past and these funds have significantly assisted the objectives of the Traffic Safety Bureau and improved traffic safety for residents and visitors in the City of Costa Mesa. ANALYSIS: Since 2005, the Office of Traffic Safety has awarded the Costa Mesa Police Department nine (9) traffic safety related grants. The funds associated with these grants have been used to purchase specialized equipment and to pay the cost of personnel working targeted traffic operations. The Office of Traffic Safety assembles collision data rankings based on city population numbers. Costa Mesa is ranked with 56 other cities with a population of 100,001- 250,000. In relation to other cities in our group, Costa Mesa has the 5t" worst fatal/injury collisions, 6t" worst DUI collisions, 2nd worst bicycle collisions and the 5th worst motorcycle collisions. Based upon these 2012 statistical rankings, OTS ranked Costa Mesa as the 3rd worst City for over-all traffic safety based upon collision data, when compared to other cities in our population group. 2012 is the most recent year of these compiled stats. Along with injury collisions, impaired driving enforcement has always been a top priority for the Police Department. Since 1986, the Department has staffed a full-time impaired driving enforcement team consisting of two full-time officers. However, based upon recent Police Department staffing issues the full-time DUI Team was discontinued in year (2014). The previous STEP Grant has been used to supplement the loss of the DUI Team by funding a two -officer team on Friday and Saturday nights. If not for this grant, our ability to address DUI drivers would have been severely compromised. Aside from the DUI enforcement team, the STEP Grant funds DUI checkpoints. These checkpoints are educational, highly visible, and provide a deterrent against impaired driving. Our department's commitment to DUI enforcement is evident in the OTS data rankings. In that study, Costa Mesa had the best ranking for DUI arrests (847) in 2012 out of 53 other cities in our population group (that years data had a full-time DUI team). Police Department staff submitted applications for and has received tentative approval for this 2016 grant offered through the California Office of Traffic Safety. The grant will allow the Police Department to implement the Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP). This program will provide a comprehensive approach to reducing violations which commonly lead to collisions, while maintaining a focus on impaired and suspended/unlicensed drivers. Grant funds will be used to staff Sobriety/Driver License Checkpoints and to staff targeted enforcement operations. In addition, funds will be used to support additional law enforcement training related to DUI investigations and enforcement activities. The implementation of this training, along with the STEP enforcement operations, will help achieve the overall goal of reducing injury collisions, saving lives and reducing liability. The Police Department's current grant expires on September 30, 2015. This year's grant will enable the Police Department to build upon successes achieved to date, while providing new objectives for increasing traffic safety throughout the City. The funding will allow the Police Department additional resources to combat impaired driving, and enforce traffic laws aimed at saving lives. Objectives of the OTS grant include DUI saturation patrols; traffic enforcement operations targeting red light, excessive speed, and distracted driving violations; enforcement at high collision intersections; and Sobriety/Driver License checkpoints. Some specific project objectives from the grant agreement include: ■ To conduct five (5) DUI/DL checkpoints. ■ To conduct forty-four (44) DUI saturation patrols. ■ To conduct five (5) special traffic enforcement operations targeting red light, excessive speed and other violations at or near intersections with a disproportionate number of traffic collisions.. ■ To conduct three (3) special enforcement operations targeting distracted driving violations. RIA ■ To conduct two (2) bicycle and pedestrian safety enforcement operations. ■ Provide advanced officer training in DUI enforcement to ten (10) officers. To receive the grant funds, the Office of Traffic Safety requires the City Council adopt a Resolution agreeing to support the grant goals in their entirety. Office of Traffic Safety grant funding is based on the federal fiscal year, which begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. The grant agreement provides total funds in the amount of $150,000 which will be utilized over a 12-month period of time, from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: None FISCAL REVIEW: The attached budget adjustment #16-002 increases revenue and appropriates the total expected grant funds of $150,000 to the Police Department's budget for overtime, professional development and other direct costs. The grant period is from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the Grant Agreement and associated documents and has approved it as to form and content. CONCLUSION: Based upon an analysis of the Grant Agreement and the available benefits to the City offered by the award of the grant, Department staff supports the approval of the above listed recommendation. BRYAN WADKINS Traffic Sergeant Police Special Services Bureau STEVE DUNIVENT Finance Director DISTRIBUTION City Manager City Attorney Finance Director City Clerk ROBERT SHARPNACK Chief of Police THOMAS DUARTE City Attorney 3 Grant Administrator ATTACHMENTS: 1 Resolution of the City Council 2 Budget Adjustment #15-007 3 Office of Traffic Safety Grant Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 15- xxxx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR, AND ACCEPTANCE OF, A GRANT AWARD FROM THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR THE "SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM." THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Office of Traffic Safety has made funds available for the "Selective Traffic Enforcement Program"; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa supports the grant goals and wishes to participate in the "Selective Traffic Enforcement Program" and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has been awarded $150,000 in California Office of Traffic Safety funds for the period of October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, the City Council of Costa Mesa hereby approves the application for and acceptance of a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety and the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to implement this authorization. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st of July, 2015. ATTEST: Stephen Mensinger, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brenda Green, City Clerk Thomas Duarte, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA } CD a CD n n c y ° e CD ® ®o v CD CD 0 CD v c (a❑ =6> m m m Q m m CD v, "t Z -p Of rt U A D O O O (D � tw C n 0 v v M o CD o Fi 0 3 3 3' m o. wCD y 0 o'CD o w 7 0 X. (D fD c Q C =r m 3 �% != 7CD Q 0 0m O j (D (n m , • , e O 0 ' y co N w (D - = (D a' -1 Q to (D co CD CD m c m g 3 T m Q(D -. -�' e_CD n CD a 'ZD- m c 0 -0 C 7 /, J m3 rt Q UpV CD 0 FT d a)O r. N 0) 7 rt 0 _ M O a 3 3 N 0-0 �m (D 0 EF m CD m c .0Q ca) CD CDU0 ❑®❑❑❑� _o D CD Q CD :3 v a �. CD a CD CD IJ N C v 0 0 i C CL CD CD U --I'a 0 _0. o 3 3 o . m (D o M o CD <. 0 N w w w Q 0 m _u p e e 0 O ,�., 2) co (D (D y ti C) �7 CD 7CD N 0 N 0 w v 0 3 0 3 o o T 5 m _ Q D m <D Q D O Q � � 0 M ai ❑ „n 00) m < �< C1 fI'll=f � � 0 7 � CD O ® r ID Cl)CD O �. N N' K o N a CDX O (D d i N Oe O O 3 fD y e0 Q N Q n�i N 01 0 CD — e e e c�i C 7 ❑ ® ❑ z z O 7 aCL Q- cn 0) CD 0 0 n d ci y� D �^� 3 C (D C fD O N 7 S ((D a Q (� e o o m L n CD o 0 o o m m C CD K CD �. � Q. N = CD n N 0 NBC D) O C 'O -h C'If 7 O CD 7 CD co co N d 0 :: o O m M C> 01 �D Vl C> 0. State of California — Office of Traffic Safety ( >,,ANT AGREEMENT -Page 1 OTS-38 (Rev.4/15) GRANT NUMBER PT16125 1. GRANT TITLE SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (STEP) 2. NAME OF AGENCY CITY OF COSTA MESA 4. GRANT PERIOD From: 1011115 3. AGENCY UNIT TO ADMINISTER GRANT COSTA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT To: 9/30/16 5. GRANT DESCRIPTION To reduce the number of persons killed and injured in traffic crashes involving alcohol and other primary collision factors, "best practice" strategies will be conducted. The funded strategies may include: DUI checkpoints, DUI saturation patrols, warrant service operations, stakeout operations, a "HOT Sheet" program, educational presentations, and court stings. The program may also concentrate on speed, distracted driving, seat belt enforcement, operations at intersections with disproportionate numbers of traffic crashes, and special enforcement operations encouraging motorcycle safety. These strategies are designed to earn media attention thus enhancing the overall deterrent effect. 6. FEDERAL FUNDS ALLOCATED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED: $ 150,000.00 7. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following which are by this reference made a part of the Agreement: • Schedule A (OTS-38b) — Problem Statement, Goals and • Exhibit A —Certifications and Assurances Objectives and Method of Procedure • Exhibit B* - OTS Grant Program Manual • Schedule B (OTS-38d) — Detailed Budget Estimate and Sub -Budget Estimate (if applicable) • Schedule B-1 (OTS-38f) — Budget Narrative and Sub - Budget Narrative (if applicable) *Items shown with an asterisk (*), are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement as if attached hereto. These documents can be viewed at the OTS home web page under Grants: wvvw.ots.ca.gov. We, the officials named below, hereby swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that we are duly authorized to legally bind the Grant recipient to the above described Grant terms and conditions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto. 8. APPROVAL SIGNATURES A. GRANT DIRECTOR B. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL OF AGENCY NAME: Bryan Wadkins PHONE: 714-754-5125 NAME: Robert Sharpnack PHONE: 714-754-5117 TITLE: Sergeant FAX: 714-754-5124 TITLE: Police Chief FAX: 714-754-5002 Special Police Services ADDRESS: Costa Mesa Police Department, Traffic Division ADDRESS: Costa Mesa Police Depart., Office of the Chief 99 Fair Drive 99 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92 26 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 E-MAi I[Ikilis@,c Stan SaCa.gOV E-MAIL: rsharpnack@costamesaca.gov IL raa ur (Date) (Signature) (Date) C. FISCAL OR ACCOUNTING OFFICIAL D. OFFICE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS NAME: Collen O'Donoghue PHONE: 714-754-5219 NANIE: Costa Mesa City Hall, Finance Dept. TITLE: Assistant Finance Director FAX: 714-754-5040 ADDRESS: 77 Fair Drive ADDRESS: Costa Mesa City Hall, Finance Dept. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 9. DUNS NUMBER E-MAIL: Cg'donogliue@costamesaca.gov DUNS #: 066148016 f / 7/ �I�J RCGISTERE-D 77 Fair Drive ADDRESS & ZIP: Costa Mesa, CA 92626-6520 (Signature) (Date) GRANTS MADE EASY- STEP SCHEDULE A GRANT DESCRIPTION GRANT NO. PT16125 1. PROBLEM STATEMENT Fatal Traffic Collisions: 1'AGE 1 In 2012, California's traffic fatalities increased 1.5 percent (2,816 vs. 2,857) — although this is one of the lowest years on record, it is far too many. Much work needs"to be done in California and nationally to reach NHTSA's goal of "Zero Deaths." In Costa Mesa, our recent success of ZERO fatalities in 2012 was followed by one of the highest fatality rates in the past 5 years, with 8 fatal traffic collision in 2013 and continued into 2014 with 5 fatalities. These fatalities involved a mix of factors including: DUI, unsafe speed, motorcycles, pedestrians and bicyclists. The largest factors being DUI (5) and Motorcycle (5). DUI Traffic. Collisions'. Statewide, alcohol -impaired driving fatalities increased from 774 in 2011 to 802 in 2012. As a percent of total fatalities, alcohol -impaired fatalities increased from 27 percent in 2011 to 28 percent in 2012. This number has remained virtually unchanged in the past three years. A large portion of motorists still do not heed the message that drinking and driving do not mix. In Costa Mesa, DUI continues to be a major problem. In 2013, there were 3 alcohol involved fatal traffic collisions, marking the first DUI fatal collisions since 2010. In 2014, there were 2 confirmed alcohol involved fatal traffic collisions, with 2 additional suspected and awaiting toxicology testing from the Coroner. Costa Mesa has always had a serious DUI problem due to numerous ABC establishments, a highly traveled freeway terminating in our city and our city roadways being used for freeway access to two large beach cities. In 2013, 798 motorists were arrested in Costa Mesa for DUI violations. Despite our major emphasis on DUI enforcement, the city experienced 167 DUI related traffic collisions resulting in 2 deaths and 57 injuries. Distracted Drivers: In 2012 Nationwide, 3,328 people were killed and an estimated additional 421,000 were injured in motor vehicle collisions involving a distracted driver. An OTS Statewide Intercept Opinion Survey revealed that 36.3 percent of Californians stated that texting and talking are the biggest safety concerns on California roadways, Although we are unable to quantify the number of traffic collisions in Costa Mesa related to distracted driving, we believe that it is responsible for a major portion of our unsafe speed rear -end traffic collisions. OTS-38b (Rev. 4/15) GRANTS MADE EASY - STEP SCHEDULE A GRANT DESCRIPTION GRANT No. PT16125 DUID Driving,: PAGr, 2 The problem of drugged driving continues to rise. A study found that 13 percent of fatally injured drivers tested positive for at least one drug type. Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) arrests have increased statewide by 43 percent from 2012 to 2013. With the 2014 addition of the DUID law subsections (CVC 23152(e) and CVC 23152(f)) we are now be able to accurately track the DUID problem in Costa Mesa, In 2014, 37 arrests were made for DUID or combinations of drugs/alcohol. Motorcyclists: Motorcycle fatalities in California have been on the increase for the past 10-years, peaking in 2008. In 2012, 435 riders were killed representing a 22 percent decrease from 2008. In Costa Mesa, we experienced 2 motorcycle fatalities in 2013 and 2 more in 2014. These two deaths were involving auto right of way violations and two were found to be the motorcyclists fault for speed and red light. Pedestrian & Bicyclists: Since 2012, Costa Mesa also experienced one pedestrian and one bicycle involved fatal traffic collision. These groups are the most vulnerable to injury and death in motor vehicle traffic collision and additional enforcement of pedestrian laws and bicycle safety laws needs to be completed to ensure compliance. Traffic Enforcement Staffing: Police Department budgets and staffing levels have continued to reduce the number of officers on the street enforcing traffic laws. Costa Mesa has been extremely impacted by these issues and over the past five years we have seen a decrease in sworn and civilian personnel year -after -year. As of 2015, our actual working numbers are below 100 sworn officers, down fi•om a high of 160, 10 years ago. With that the Traffic Enforcement Bureau has had to shrink as well. As of 2015, the Traffic Bureau consist of three officers, a traffic investigator and one Sergeant. This is down from 16 traffic officers 5 years ago. The reduced staffing has made duties more responsive to collision, then proactive enforcement to prevent collisions. For over 20 years, the Costa Mesa Police Department has staffed a full-time DUI Enforcement Team. The team, consists of two traffic enforcement officers, working Wednesday to Saturday nights and tasked with finding DUI drivers and assisting patrol officers with suspected DUI drivers that they had stopped. In 2013, 798 DUI arrests were made in the city, with over 80% of those being made by our DUI enforcement team. As of January 2014, the Costa Mesa Police Department was unable to staff the DUI Enforcement Team due to emergency personnel shortages. The loss of the DUI enforcement team has resulted in a significant drop in DUI arrests. In 2014, 399 DUI related arrests were made, down 50% from 2013. OTS-38b (Rev. 4/1.5) GRANTS MADE EASY - STEP SCHEDULE A GRANT DESCRIPTION GRANT NO. PT16125 PAGE 3 A. Traffic Data Summary: Collision 2012 2013 2014 Type Collisions Victims Collisions Victims Collisions Victims Fatal 0 0 8 8 5 5 Injur 578 793 1 570 779 1 561 817 Fatal Injury Killed Injured Fatal ln'ur Killed Injured Fatal Injury Killed Injured Alcohol - 0 63 0 84 3 57 3 76 2 54 2 81 Involved Hit & Run 0 38 0 44 0 35 0 43 0 59 0 85 Nighttime 0 61 0 77 4 68 4 91 3 68 3 107 (2100-0259 hours) Top 3 Primary Collision Factors Fatal Injury Killed Injured #1 - Unsafe Speed 1 128 1 197 #2 - DUI 2 55 2 74 43 - Right -of -Way Violations 3 114 3 165 2. PERFORMANCE MEASURES A. Goals: 1) To reduce the number of persons killed in traffic collisions. 2) To reduce the number of persons injured in traffic collisions. 3) To reduce the number of persons killed in alcohol -involved collisions. 4) To reduce the number of persons injured in alcohol -involved collisions. 5) To reduce the number of persons killed in drug -involved collisions. 6) To reduce the number of persons injured in drug -involved collisions. 7) To reduce the number of persons killed in alcohol/drug combo -involved collisions. 8) To reduce the number of persons injured in alcohol/drug combo -involved collisions. 9) To reduce the number of motorcyclists killed in traffic collisions. 10) To reduce the number of motorcyclists injured in traffic collisions. OTS-38b (Rev. 4/15) GRANTS MADE EASY - STEP SCHEDULE A GRANT DESCRIPTION GRANT NO. PT16125 PAGE 4 11) To reduce the number of motorcyclists killed in alcohol -involved collisions. 12) To reduce the number of motorcyclists injured in alcohol -involved collisions. 13) To reduce hit & run fatal collisions. 14) To reduce hit & run injury collisions. 15) To reduce nighttime (2100 - 0259 hours) fatal collisions. 16) To reduce nighttime (2100 - 0259 hours) injury collisions. 17) To reduce the number of bicyclists killed in traffic collisions. 18) To reduce the number of bicyclists injured in traffic collisions. 19) To reduce the number of pedestrians killed in traffic collisions. 20) To reduce the number of pedestrians injured in traffic collisions. B. Objectives: 1) To develop (by December 31) and/or maintain a "HOT Sheet" program to notify patrol and traffic officers to be on the lookout for identified repeat DUI offenders with a suspended or revoked license as a result of DUI convictions. Updated HOT sheets should be distributed to patrol and traffic officers monthly. 2) To send 6 law enforcement personnel to the NHTSA Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) (minimum 16 hour) POST -certified training. 3) To send 3 law enforcement personnel to the NHTSA Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) 16 hour POST -certified training. 4) To send 1 law enforcement personnel to the IACP Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training. 5) To conduct 5 DUI/DL Checkpoints. Note: A minimum of 1 checkpoint should be conducted during the NHTSA Winter Mobilization and I during the NHTSA Summer Mobilization. 7) To conduct 44 DUI Saturation Patrol operation(s). 8) To conduct 5 Traffic Enforcement operation(s), including but not limited to, primary collision factor violations. OTS-38b (Rev. 4/15) GRANTS MADE EASY - STEP SCHEDULE A GRANT DESCRIPTION GRANT NO. PT16125 PAGE 5 9) To conduct 3 Distracted Driving enforcement operation(s) targeting drivers using hand held cell phones and texting. 10) To conduct 2 highly publicized enforcement operation(s) in areas of or during events with a high number of bicycle and/or pedestrian collisions resulting from violations made by bicyclists, pedestrians, and drivers. 11) To participate in and collect and report DUI enforcement data for the NHTSA Winter and Summer Mobilizations. 12) To participate in and collect and report data for the National Distracted Driving Awareness Month in April. 13) To participate in and collect and report data for the NHTSA Click It or Ticket mobilization period in May. 14) To participate in the National Bicycle Safety Month in May. 15) To collaborate with the county's Avoid Lead Agency by: participating in all planning/scheduling meetings and MADD/Avoid DUI Seminars; providing your agency's schedule of operations that occur during any Avoid campaign; and reporting your agency's DUI arrests & DUI fatality information during any Avoid campaign. NOTE: Nothing in this "agreement" shall be interpreted as a requirement, formal or infbrnial, that a particular police of issue a specified or predetermined number of citations in pursuance of'the goals and objectives hereunder. NOTE: To enhance the overall deterrent effect and promote high visibility, it is recommended the grantee issue an advance press release for each checkpoint operation. For combination DU11DL checkpoints, departments should issue press releases that mention DL's ,011 be checked at the DUI'DL checkpoint. Signs for DUJIDL checkpoint operations should read "DUIiDriver's License Checkpoint Ahead. OTS does not.fund or support independent DL checkpoints. Only on an exception basis and with OTSpre-approval will OTSfund checkpoint operations that begin prior to 1800 hours. 3. METHOD OF PROCEDURE A. Phase 1 - Program Preparation, Training and Implementation (Is' Quarter of Grant Year) • The police department will develop operational plans to implement the "best practice" strategies outlined in the objectives section. • All training needed to implement the program should be conducted this quarter. OTS-38b (Rev. 4/15) GRANTS MADE EASY -STEP SCHEDULE A GRANT DESCRIPTION GRANT NO. PT16125 PAGE 6 • All grant related purchases needed to implement the program should be made this quarter. • In order to develop/maintain the "Hot Sheets," research will be conducted to identify the "worst of the worst" repeat DUI offenders with a suspended or revoked license as a result of DUI convictions. The Hot Sheets may include the driver's name, last known address, DOB, description, current license status, and the number of times suspended or revoked for DUI. Hot Sheets should be updated and distributed to traffic and patrol officers at least monthly. • Implementation of the STEP grant activities will be accomplished by deploying personnel at high collision locations. Media Requirements • Issue a press release amlouncing the kick-off of the grant by November 15. The kick-off press releases and media advisories, alerts, and materials must be emailed to the OTS Public Information Officer at pio0i ots.ca.gov, and copied to your OTS Coordinator, for approval 14 days prior to the issuance date of the release. B. Phase 2 - Program Operations (Throughout Grant Year) • The police department will work to create media opportunities throughout the grant period to call attention to the innovative program strategies and outcomes. Media Requirements • Send all grant -related activity press releases, media advisories, alerts and general public materials to the OTS Public Information Officer (PIO) at pio(a,ots.ca.gov, with a copy to your OTS Coordinator. a) if an OTS template -based press release is used, the OTS PIO and Coordinator should be copied when the release is distributed to the press, If an OTS template is not used, or is substantially changed, a draft press release shall be sent to the OTS PIO for approval. Optimum lead time would be 10-20 days prior to the release date to ensure adequate turn -around time. b) Press releases reporting the results of grant activities such as enforcement operations are exempt from the recommended advance approval process, but still should be copied to the OTS PIO and Coordinator when the release is distributed to the press. c) Activities such as warrant service operations and court stings that could be compromised by advanced publicity are exempt from pre -publicity, but are encouraged to offer embargoed media coverage and to report the results. OTS-38b (Rev. 4/15) GRANTS MADE EASY - STEP SCHEDULE A GRANT DESCRIPTION GRANT No. PT16125 PAGE 7 • Use the following standard language in all press, media, and printed materials: Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. • Email the OTS PIO at pio a,ots.ca.gov and copy your OTS Coordinator at least 30 days in advance, a short description of any significant grant -related traffic safety event or program so OTS has sufficient notice to arrange for attendance and/or participation in the event. • Submit a draft or rough -cut of all printed or recorded material (brochures, posters, scripts, artwork, trailer graphics, etc.) to the OTS PIO at pio a,ots.ca.gov and copy your OTS Coordinator for approval 14 days prior to the production or duplication. • Include the OTS logo, space permitting, on grant -funded print materials; consult your OTS Coordinator for specifics. C. Phase 3 — Data Collection & Reporting (Throughout Grant Year) • Agencies are required to collect and report quarterly, appropriate data that supports the progress of goals and objectives. • Statistical data relating to the grant goals and objectives will be collected, analyzed, and incorporated in Quarterly Performance Reports (QPRs). QPRs for the quarter ending September 30 will include year-to-date comparisons of goals and objectives. If required, a separate quarterly data reporting form will be completed each quarter and submitted as part of the QPR. • Reports will compare actual grant accomplishments with the planned accomplishments. They will include information concerning changes made by the Grant Director in planning and guiding the grant efforts. • Reports shall be completed and submitted in accordance with OTS requirements as specified in the Grant Program Manual. 4. METHOD OF EVALUATION Using the data compiled during the grant, the Grant Director will complete the "Final Evaluation" section in the fourth/final Quarterly Performance Report (QPR). The Final Evaluation should provide a brief summary of the grant's accomplishments, challenges and significant activities. This narrative should also include whether goals and objectives were met, exceeded, or an explanation of why objectives were not completed. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT This program has full support of the City of Costa Mesa. Every effort will be made to continue the activities after the grant conclusion. OTS-38b (Rev. 4/15) SCHEDULE B DETAILED BUDGET ESTIMATE GRANT NO. PT16125 FUND NUMBER CATALOG NUMBER (CFDA) FUND DESCRIPTION "TOTAL AMOUNT Minimum Penalties for Repeat 0116ndcrs t6r 164AL 20.608 Driving While Intoxicated 123,293.00 402PT 20.600 Stale and Community Highway Safety 26,707.00 COST CATEGORY FISCAL YEAR ESTIMATES 1011115 thru 9/30/16 TOTAL COST TO GRANT A. PERSONNEL COSTS CFDA FY-I Positions and Salaries Overtime DUI / Driver's License Checkpoints DUI Saturation Patrols Traffic Enforcement Operations Distracted Driving Operations Bike / Pedestrian Safety Operations 20.608 20.608 20.600 20.600 20.600 $ 44,885.00 $ 78,408.00 $ 11,625.00 $ 6,975.00 $ 4,650.00 $ 44,885.00 $ 78,408.00 $ 11,625.00 $ 6,975.00 $ 4,650.00 Category Sub -Total $ 146,543.00 $ 146,541,00 B. TRAVEL EXPENSE In -State Out -of -State 20.600 $ 3,457.00 $ 3,457.00 $ - Cate ory Sub -Total $ 3,457.00 $ 3,457.00 C. CONTRACTUAL_ SERVICES None $ - Category Sub -Total $ - $ D. EQUIPMENT Category Sub-TotalE. OTHER DIRECT COSTS Category Sub -Total $ - $ F. INDIRECT COSTS None $ _ Category Sub -Total GRANT TOTALI 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 OTS-38d (Rev. 4/15) Page 1 of 1 SCHEDULE B-1 GRANT No. PT16125 BUDGET NARRATIVE Page 1 PERSONNEL COSTS Overtime Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations may be conducted by personnel such as a Lieutenant, Sergeant, Corporal, Deputy, Officer, Reserve Officer, Community Services Officer, Dispatcher, etc., depending on the titles used by the agency and the grantees overtime policy. Personnel will be deployed as needed to accomplish the grant goals and objectives. Costs are estimated based on an overtime hourly rate range of $44.60/hour to $90.51/hour. Overtime reimbursement will reflect actual costs of the personnel conducting the appropriate operation up to the maximum range specified. No benefits will be paid in this grant. TRAVEL EXPENSE In State Costs are included for appropriate staff to attend conferences and training events supporting the grant goals and objectives and/or traffic safety. Local mileage for grant activities and meetings is included. Anticipated travel may include the Lifesavers Conference in Long Beach. All conferences, seminars or training not specifically identified in the Schedule B-1 (Budget Narrative) must be approved by OTS. All travel claimed must be at the agency approved vale. Per Diem may not be claimed for meals provided at conferences when registration fees are paid with OTS grant funds. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES None EQUIPMENT None OTHER DIRECT COSTS None INDIRECT COSTS None PROGRAM INCOME There will be no program income generated from this grant. OTS-38f (Rev. 4/15) EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES Page 1 Failure to comply with applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and directives may subject Grantee Agency officials to civil or criminal penalties and/or place the State in a high risk grantee status in accordance with 49 CFR §18.12. The officials named on the grant agreement, certify by way of signature on the grant agreement signature page, that the Grantee Agency complies with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and directives and State rules, guidelines, policies and laws in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant finding. Applicable provisions include, but are not limited to, the following: • 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4—Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended 49 CFR Part 18—Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments • 23 CFR Part 1200 Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs NONDISCRIMINATION The Grantee Agency will comply with all Federal statutes and implementing regulations relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88- 352), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin (and 49 CFR Part 21); (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683 and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-336), as amended (42 U.S.C, 12101, et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disabilities (and 49 CPR Part 27), (d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; (e) the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-259), which requires Federal -aid recipients and all sub -recipients to prevent discrimination and ensure nondiscrimination in all of their programs and activities; (f) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (g) the comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (h) Sections 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912, as amended (42 U.S.C. 290dd-3 and 290ee-3), relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (i) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.), relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing; 0) any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for Federal assistance is being made; and (k) the requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to the application. Certifications and Assurances (Rev. 6/15) EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES Page 2 BUY AMERiCA ACT The Grantee Agency will comply with the provisions of the Buy America Act (49 U.S.C. 53230)), which contains the following requirements: Only steel, iron and manufactured products produced in the United States may be purchased with Federal funds unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that such domestic purchases would be inconsistent with the public interest, that such materials are not reasonably available and of a satisfactory quality, or that inclusion of domestic materials will increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent. Clear justification for the purchase of non -domestic items must be in the form of a waiver request submitted to and approved by the Secretary of Transportation. POLITICAL ACTIVITY (HATCH ACT) The Grantee Agency will comply with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508) which limits the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds. CERTIFICATION REGARDING FEDERAL LOBBYING Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of'Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of'Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form- LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub -award at all tiers (including subcontracts, sub -grants, and contracts under grant, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all sub -recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Cellitications and ASSLI-ances (Rev. 6i15) ExxiBIT A CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES Page 3 CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION Instructions for Primary Certification l . By signing and submitting this grant agreement, the Grantee- Agency Official is providing the certification set out below. 2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result in denial of participation in this covered transaction, The prospective participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the Grantee Agency Official to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this transaction. 3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the Grantee Agency Official knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default. 4. The Grant Agency Official shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to which this grant agreement is submitted if at any time the Grantee Agency Official learns its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 5. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, grant agreement, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meaning set out in the Definitions and coverage sections of 49 CFR Part 29. You may contact the department or agency to which this grant agreement is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 6. The Grantee .Agency Official agrees by submitting this grant agreement that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded fi-om participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this transaction, 7. The Grantee Agency Official further agrees by submitting this grant agreement that it will include the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion -Lower Tier Covered Transaction," provided by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, without modification. in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. 8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the Certilicakns and Assuninces (Rev. 6 15) EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATIONS ICATIONS AND ASSURANCES Page 4 eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the list of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non -procurement Programs. 9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. 10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters -Primary Covered Transactions (1) The Grantee Agency Official certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that its principals: (a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded by any Federal department or agency; (b) Have not within a three-year period preceding this grant agreement been convicted of or had a civil Judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of record, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; (c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or Local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and (d) Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/grant agreement had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default. (2) Where the Grantee Agency Official is unable to certify to any of the Statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this grant agreement. Instructions for Lower Tier Certification 1. By signing and submitting this grant agreement, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below. 2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. if it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the Certifications and Assurances (Rev. 6"] 5) EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES Page 5 department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. 3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this grant agreement is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 4. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, grant agreement, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definition and Coverage sections of 49 CFR Part 29. You may contact the person to whom this grant agreement is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this grant agreement that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9A, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated. 6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this grant agreement that it will include the clause titled "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion — Lower Tier Covered "Transaction," without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. (See below) 7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility orits principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non -procurement Programs. 8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. Certifications and ASSUrances (Rev. 6/15) EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES Page 6 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion —Lower Tier Covered Transactions: 1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this grant agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. 2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this grant agreement. Certifications and Assurances (Rev. 6/15) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-9 SUBJECT: APPARATUS ROOM EXTENSION AND RESCUE VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING - FIRE STATION NO. 4-CITY PROJECT NO. 15-10 DATE: JUNE 26, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT / ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT RECOMMENDATION: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER, (714) 754-5335 Adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the Apparatus Room Extension and Rescue Vehicle Storage Building at Fire Station No. 4, City Project No. 15-10. 2. Accept the withdrawal of the bid submitted by Marjani Builders, Inc. at 26091 Ravenna Road, Mission Viejo, CA 92692. 3. Award the construction contract to St. George Construction, Inc. at 7839 Adwen St., Downey, CA 90241, in the amount of $690,000.00 (base bid plus additive item AD1). 4. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. BACKGROUND: The existing condition of Fire Station No. 4, as well as the needs of the Fire Department, requires the City to expand this facility and construct needed upgrades in order to maintain it in working order and to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements. This project will extend the existing Apparatus Room at Fire Station No. 4 and will add a detached vehicle storage building to the site. The existing bathroom will be upgraded to comply with ADA requirements. New accessible parking stalls and an accessible path of travel will also be part of the scope of this work. In addition, a new emergency generator will be installed in order to maintain critical services to Costa Mesa residents during times of power outages. ANALYSIS: The scope of the Apparatus Room Extension and the new Rescue Vehicle Storage Building includes adding 800 square feet to the existing building; constructing a 1,024 square foot detached rescue vehicle storage building; upgrading the existing restroom to meet ADA accessibility requirements; creating new accessible parking stalls with an accessible path -of - travel to the building; and installing a new emergency generator. The City Clerk received and opened seven (7) bids for this project on April 28, 2015. However, Marjani Builders, Inc., the apparent low bidder, has since requested to withdraw its bid from consideration on this project due to a clerical error made in the bidding documents, as allowed under California Public Contract Code Section 5101(b). Therefore, it is recommended to accept the withdrawal of their bid. The second apparent low bidder, St. George Construction, Inc., submitted a base bid proposal in the amount of $670,000, and is recommended for award. The Engineer's estimate for this work was $290,000; and the average of the remaining six (6) base bids received amounted to $862,148.33. An analysis of the bids indicates that the recommended apparent low bidder, St. George Construction, Inc. submitted a base bid proposal that is approximately two hundred thirty-one (231 %) percent higher than the Engineer's Estimate. The Bid Abstract is included as Attachment 1. Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted by the contractors and have determined that the bids reflect the scope of work to be performed. The Engineer's estimate omitted the inclusion of all of the costs to complete the work on the plans and when corrected was in line with the bid proposal submitted by the lowest apparent bidder. In addition to the base bid, the bid solicitation included one additive bid (Item AD1) to address painting the entire exterior of the building in order to avoid noticeable paint transitions between areas of new work and the existing building. The bids for this item of work are in line with the revised Engineer's estimate. The license and references of St. George Construction, Inc. were checked and staff has found them to be in good standing. In 2012, St. George Construction, Inc. successfully completed the Corporation Yard Fire Damage Restoration Project (2310 Placentia Avenue, Costa Mesa). ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The first alternative is to award a contract for the base bid only. The removal of the additive item to paint the entire exterior of the building from the contract is not recommended since it is more feasible to paint the entire building at one time instead of sections where there will be a noticeable paint transition between areas of new work and the paint on the existing building. Adequate funds are currently appropriated to accomplish this alternative. The second alternative to this Council action would be to reject all of the bids and rebid the project. Staff believes that re -advertising and rebidding the project will not result in lower bids. Canceling the project is not recommended because Fire Station No. 4 needs to remain operational and is in immediate need of the proposed work. FISCAL REVIEW: In Fiscal Year 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, City Council allocated a total of $1,090,000 towards the design and construction of this project. The design phase has been completed and the construction documents have been prepared. There is sufficient funding to complete the construction phase. LEGAL REVIEW: St. George Construction, Inc. has furnished the necessary bonds and insurance, which were approved as to form by the City Attorney. After the award and subsequent execution of the contract, a "Notice to Proceed" will be issued. 2 CONCLUSION: The City has received bids for the Apparatus Room Extension and new Rescue Vehicle Storage Building - Fire Station No. 4 Project, City Project No. 15-10. Staff has evaluated all of the bids and recommends that the City Council adopt the plans, specifications, and working details for said project; accept the withdrawal of the bid submitted by Marjani Builder, Inc.; award a contract to the apparent low bidder, St. George Construction, Inc. in the amount of $690,000.00 (base bid plus additive bid item AD1); and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. ERNESTO MUNOZ Public Services Director ATTACHMENTS: DISTRIBUTION Bid Abstract Chief Executive Officer Fire Chief Battalion Chief City Attorney City Clerk Staff File FARIBA FAZELI City Engineer 3 Attachment 1 CITY OF COSTA MESA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES APPARATUS ROOM EXTENSION AND RESCUE VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING- FIRE STATION NO.4 (2300 PLACENTIA AVE, COSTA MESA) CITY PROJECT NO. 15-10 BID OPENING RESULTS: APRIL 28, 2015 r Bidder City Total Base Bid Total Base Bid + Additional 1. ST. GEORGE CONSTRUCTION, INC. Downey $670,000.00 $690,000.00 2. OPTIMA RPM, INC. Irvine $769,000.00 $819,000.00 3. IBN CONSTRUCTION, INC. Orange $807,500.00 $850,000.00 4. FARIS CONSTRUCTION Oceanside $829,000.00 $849,000.00 5. KEMCORP CONSTRUCTION, INC. Ontario $964,500.00 $989,500.00 6. DALKE & SONS CONSTRUCTION, INC. Riverside $1,132,890.00 $1,148,090.00 Average $862,148.33 $890,931.67 MARJANI BUILDERS, INC. WITHDREW THEIR BID CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-1 O SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE VACATION OF A FLOWAGE EASEMENT AT 970 WEST 16T" STREET DATE: JULY 9, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDATION Set a public hearing on September 1, 2015 for the vacation of a flowage easement at 970 West 161" Street. 2. Adopt Resolution of Intent to Vacate Flowage Easement at 970 West 161" Street (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND At the request of Taylor Morrison (property owner), the Engineering Division is processing the vacation of a City of Costa Mesa (City) flowage easement within the property at 970 West 161n Street. This request is in conjunction with the approved Tentative Tract Map No. 17747. The Flowage easement is within the northeasterly portion of the property and adjacent to the westerly end of Newhall Street (Attachment 2). The easement was originally dedicated to the City by Easement Deed No. 6102 in Book 6102, Page 658 of records and recorded on May 9, 1962 in the County of the Orange Recorder's Office. On June 22, 2015, a report was presented to the Planning Commission outlining the proposed vacation as required by Government Code Section 65402. Subsequently, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-15-39 (Attachment 3) finding that the proposed vacation of the flowage easement is consistent with the City's General Plan. ANALYSIS The original intent for the flowage easement was to allow surface runoff from Newhall Street onto the subject property. With the proposed Tentative Tract 17747 the developer will install a new catch basin at the end of Newhall Street, and a Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) underground storm drain system. The proposed storm drain system will direct the runoff from Newhall to an existing drainage system located within West 16t" Street (Attachment 4). The final Tract Map 17747 will dedicate a drainage easement to the City encompassing the new underground storm drain system within the development. Therefore, the existing flowage easement will no longer be necessary. Currently, there are no utilities or public improvements within the flowage easement and therefore, a reservation for any type of utility easement is not required. The flowage easement has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and it has been determined that it is not necessary for storm drain runoff purposes due to the future drainage improvements to be constructed. The vacation of the flowage easement is in conformance with the objectives of the General Plan Circulation Element and also conforms to the California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 4, Section 8334(a) which allows a local agency to vacate a Public easement or an excess right-of-way of a street or highway not required for street or highway purposes. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed vacation continue to be processed for approval. After the proposed vacation is approved and recorded, the subject vacated easement property will revert back to the property at 970 West 16th Street. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The alternative to the proposed City Council action is to not vacate the flowage easement within the property at 970 West 16th Street and to continue to be responsible for the easement. This is not recommended as this easement is no longer necessary for drainage as originally intended, and new underground facilities will be constructed to better accommodate the drainage needs. FISCAL REVIEW There are cost savings to the City as this easement will be replaced by a permanent underground drainage system which will be fully funded and constructed by the developer. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney's Office has approved the attached Resolution of Intent as to form. CONCLUSION Staff reviewed a request for the City to abandon a flowage easement, and recommends that the City Council set a public hearing for September 1, 2015 and adopt the attached Resolution of Intent to vacate a flowage easement at 970 West 16th Street. ERNESTO MUNOZ Public Services Director FARIBA FAZELI City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1 — Resolution of Intent to Vacate Flowage Easement 2 — Flowage easement location map 3 — Plannina Commission Resolution No. PC-15-39 4 — New Storm Drain Improvements DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer Assistant CEO Economic & Dev. Director/Deputy CEO City Attorney City Clerk 2 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE VACATION OF FLOWAGE EASEMENT AT 970 WEST 16TH STREET. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa does hereby declare its intention to vacate a portion of its interest in Flowage easement at 970 West 16th Street, being more particularly described in Exhibit A and B attached hereto. The original 1962 dedication was to facilitate overflow storm drain runoff. The purpose of this vacation is to vacate the flowage easement area not required based on the future storm drain improvements and to vacate the easement land to the underlying fee owner. The vacation will benefit the neighborhood with the new drainage improvements. SECTION 2. On Tuesday, the 1st day of September, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California, is hereby fixed as the time and place for hearing all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation. SECTION 3. These proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Section 8300 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and any other applicable laws. SECTION 4. The City Chief Executive Officer of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby directed to cause notices of the said proposed vacation to be conspicuously posted along said strip of land for at least two (2) weeks before the date of said hearing. Said notices shall be posted not more than three hundred (300) feet apart, but in no event shall fewer than three (3) notices be posted. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall be published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July, 2015. Jim Righeimer 3 Mayor ATTEST: BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: THOMAS DUARTE, 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. 15- and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of July, 2015, 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 22nd day of July, 2015. (SEAL) BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK 4 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PORTION OF FLOWAGE EASEMENT VACATION BEING THE EASTERLY 250 FEET OF LOT 1111 IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PER THE NEWPORT MESA TRACT, FILED IN BOOK 5 PAGE 1 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTHERLY 60.00 FEET OF SAID LOT 1111. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN PARCEL 2 PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 101, PAGES 26 & 27, OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. CONTAINING 12,437 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. MORE PARTICULARLY SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B", ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. SUBJECT TO COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESERVATIONS, RIGHT—OF—WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, IF ANY. PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: EDWARD L. REYNOLDS LS 7725 LICENSE EXPIRES 12/31 /15 DATE 57 z 115- (-ITY n>= nt1S'Te KAP(Ze PROJECT ME C&v CONWLTM, INC. REFERENCE BATE SHEET NO. aviL "240 aA AM sammm 5/2/ 15 27156 BURWAi+iK PHONE ") 916-3WO J.N SCALE FOGrHRL � M FAX) � TWHX-030 NONE s EXHIBIT B SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION PORTION OF FLOWAGE EASEMENT VACATION F— — — — — — — — — b N. LINE LOT 1111, NW38'39"W MM 5/1. 250.00' NEWHALL c, STREET LOT III 1.160 AC. id POR. BOOK 6102 PAGE 658 O.R. N89'39'03'W o to 132,00' C-4 ..... ..... z 250'- M.M. 5 /1 I N89*36'24"W al co to S. LINE LOT 1111, mm 5/1. LOT 1112 E. LINE LOT 1111 mm 5/1. Clly OF COSTA kit:-QA PROJECT TITLE C&V CONSULTING, INC, am maaamum AM SUMMa REFERENCE DATE 5/2/15 SHEET NO. 1 or 271% BUPAAM ]PRONE 00 916-3n FOORANCH, M L RANCH, 9%lo FAX (W 916-M J.N. TWHX-030 SCALE 1 "=60' IF 22 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. PC-15-39 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FINDING THAT THE CITY OF COSTA MESAS VACATION OF A FLOWAGE EASEMENT WITHIN THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 970 W. 16TH STREET IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN, WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa City Council adopted the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan on January 22, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the Government Code of the State of California, Section 65402, provides in part that a local agency shall not acquire or lease real property nor abandon or dispose of any real property, nor construct a public building or structure in any county or city, until the location, purpose, and extent of such activity has been reported upon as to conformity with the adopted General Plan applicable thereto; and, WHEREAS, the southeasterly portion of the property at 970 W. 16th Street was originally dedicated to the City of Costa Mesa as a flowage easement by Easement Deed No. 6570 in Book 6102, Page 658 of records, and recorded on May 9, 1962 in the County of Orange Recorders Office; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa proposes to vacate the flowage easement within the property limits of 970 W. 16th Street, as shown in Exhibit B; and, WHEREAS, the flowage easement being vacated has been found by the Engineering Division to not be necessary for drainage purposes, and as such, the vacation serves the public interest and is a public benefit as it eliminates any maintenance costs and liabilities imposed on the City associated with the easement; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the vacation is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15312 (Class 12), Surplus Government Property Sales, because the portion of the right-of-way to be vacated is not located on a parcel of land in an area of statewide, regional, or area wide concern; and, I WHEREAS, on June 22, 2015, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission reviewed the proposed vacated easement and findings; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission does hereby find the proposed vacation of a flowage easement within the property located at 970 W. 16th Street to be in conformance with the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan, will serve the public interest, and is a public benefit. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June,2015. Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15-39 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on June 22, 2015, by the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler NOES: None ABSENT: Andranian ABSTAIN: None Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission it EXHIBIT B SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIP77ON POR77ON OF FLOWAGE EASEMENT VACATION N. LINE LOT 1111. MM 5/1.. LOT 1 1111 F— — — — — — — — — b N89*38'39"W 250.00' b NEWHALL STREET 1.160 AC. POR. BOOK 6102, PA(-,P rc;R n P cm N89*39'03"W 0 to 132.00' C'4 c:) z 250' :- co C) CD E. LINE LOT 1111, N89'36'24"W MM 5/1. 118.00' co �MM S. LINE LOT 1111, 5/1, LOT 1112 .w z CITY r)97 POIZTA LAC -CA JECT TITLE C&V TING', INC. REFERENCE DATE CML ENMNMIKM SHEEP NO. Um mAmm Am saumm 5/2/15 M BURBANK PHONE 00 916-MO . SCALE FOOML RMM CAIXFORNM M10 FAX M 916--w J.NTWHX-030 1 "=60' j OF EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVE) A. The information presented substantially complies with the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan Section 2.6 (Obj.) LU-1 D in that: Finding: The project complies with the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan and meets the purpose and intent to insure consideration of utility system capacities in land use planning and development processes. Facts in Support of Findings: The Engineering Division reviewed the storm drain improvements, in conjunction with approved Tentative Tract Map No. 17747, to ensure the new mixed -use development will include a drainage system in compliance with current engineering and water quality standards. Given that the proposed action will not result in any adverse impacts to public utilities or the transportation network, the proposed vacation is in conformance with the General Plan. Furthermore, the Engineering Division determined there are no utilities within the flowage easement, and therefore a reservation for utility easement is not required. B. The information presented substantially complies with the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan Section 2.6 LU-2 in that: Finding: As described in the Land Use Element, it is the City's goal to create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical resources. Facts in Support of Findings: The Engineering Division determined that with the installation of the anticipated storm drain system at 970 W. 16"' Street and the future dedication of a drainage easement to the City, the existing flowage easement will no longer be needed. The City may be subject to additional maintenance costs and liabilities associated with having an ownership interest in the subject easement. Consequently, vacating the unnecessary street and highway easement serves the public interest and is a public benefit. C. The flowage easement vacation is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15312 (Class 12), Surplus Government Property Sales, because the portion of the utility easement to be vacated is not located on a parcel of land in an area of statewide, regional, or area wide concern. 0 I Z. ATTACHMENT 4 7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-1 1 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO VACATE EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 970 WEST 16T" STREET DATE: JULY 9, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDATION 1. Set a public hearing on September 1, 2015 for the vacation of excess Right -Of -Way (ROW) at 970 West 16th Street. 2. Adopt Resolution of intent to vacate excess Right -Of -Way (ROW) at 970 West 161h Street (Attachment 1). BACKGROUND At the request of Taylor Morrison (property owner), the Engineering Division is preparing to proceed with the vacation of excess right-of-way within the property located at 970 W.16th Street (Attachment 2). This request is in conjunction with the approved Tentative Tract Map No. 17747. The excess right-of-way is within the southeasterly portion of the property and was originally dedicated to the City of Costa Mesa (City) as a street and highway easement, Easement Deed No. 19903 in Book 5086, Page 412 recorded in February 4, 1960 in the County of Orange Recorder's Office. On June 22, 2015, a report was presented to the Planning Commission outlining the proposed vacation as required by Government Code Section 65402. Subsequently, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-15-38 (Attachment 3) finding that the proposed vacation of excess right-of-way at 970 West 161h Street is consistent with the City's General Plan. ANALYSIS It appears that the intent of the 1960 dedication of right-of-way was to at some point connect West 16th Street to Newhall Street which is located adjacent to the northeast portion of the development. However, the right-of-way has remained unusable for the past 55 years, and the Master Plan of Highways does not recognize it as a designated public right-of-way. Currently, there are no utilities within this portion of the easement and therefore, a reservation for a utility easement is not required. The vacation of this portion of excess right-of-way is in conformance with the objectives of the General Plan Circulation Element and it is also in conformity with the California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 4, Section 8334(a) which allows a local agency to summarily vacate excess right-of-way of a street or highway not required for street or highway purposes. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed vacation continue to be processed for approval. After the proposed vacation is approved and recorded, the subject vacated property will revert back to the property at 970 West 16th Street (the underlying fee owners, Taylor Morrison). ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City could retain the excess right-of-way and continue to be responsible for the liability of the easement area which does not encompass public street structures nor does it serve any public use. FISCAL REVIEW Once the area is vacated it becomes taxable square footage, resulting in additional property taxes to the adjacent property owner to which the land will revert. This will result in additional revenue to the City. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney's Office has approved the attached Resolution of Intent as to form. CONCLUSION Staff reviewed a request for the City to abandon excess right-of-way, and recommends that the City Council set a public hearing for September 1, 2015, and adopt the attached Resolution of Intent to vacate excess right-of-way at 970 West 16th Street. ERNESTO MUNOZ FARIBA FAZELI Public Services Director City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1 — Resolution of Intent to vacate excess right-of-way at 970 West 16tthh Street 2 — Site Plan 3 — Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-15-38 DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer Assistant CEO Economic & Dev. Director/Deputy CEO City Attorney City Clerk F, ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 970 WEST 16T" STREET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa does hereby declare its intention to vacate excess right-of-way at 970 West 16th Street, being more particularly described in Exhibit A and B attached hereto. The original 1960 dedication is in excess of right-of-way for a street that was never constructed and has remained unusable. The purpose of this vacation is based on a review of the current and future needs of the City and to vacate the excess land to the underlying fee owner. The vacation will benefit the neighborhood with the new improvements. SECTION 2. On Tuesday, the 1st day of September, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chart'ibers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California, is hereby fixed as the time and place for hearing all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation. SECTION 3. These proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Section 8300 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and any other applicable laws. SECTION 4. The City Chief Executive Officer of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby directed to cause notices of the said proposed vacation to be conspicuously posted along said strip of land for at least two (2) weeks before the date of said hearing. Said notices shall be posted not more than three hundred (300) feet apart, but in no event shall fewer than three (3) notices be posted. SECTION 5. This Resolution shall be published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21stday of July, 2015. Steve Mensinger Mayor ATTEST: BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: THOMAS DUARTE, 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. 15-XX and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of July, 2015, 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 22"d day of July, 2015. (SEAL) BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK 2 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1111 AND 1112 IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PER THE NEWPORT MESA TRACT, FILED IN BOOK 5 PAGE 1 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, INCLUDED WITH A STRIP OF LAND 50.00 FEET IN WIDTH, THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 16TH STREET, (60.00 FEET WIDE), DISTANT WESTERLY THEREON 137.00 FEET FROM THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1112: THENCE NORTHERLY, PARALLEL WITH SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 00-19'17" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 206.38 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 77.68 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14'50'07" TO THE BEGINNING OF A A TANGENT REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID REVERSE CURVE A DISTANCE OF 77.87 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14'52'16" TO A POINT IN A LINE 60.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1111_ THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY AND WESTERLY LINES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 50.00-FOOT STRIP OF LAND WITH THE SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF 16TH STREET SHALL BE ROUNDED WITH A TANGENT CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN PARCEL 2 PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 101, PAGES 26 & 27, OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. CONTAINING 12,437 SQUARE FEET; MORE OR LESS. MORE PARTICULARLY SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B", ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF, SUBJECT TO COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESERVATIONS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD, IF ANY. PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE DIRECTION OF: c L P/- EDWARD L. REYNOLDS LS 7725 LICENSE EXPIRES 12/31 /15 j r DATE Z #} I CITY OF COSTA MESA PROJECT 777LE ( &V CONWLTING, INC. REFERENCE DATE SHEET NO. 5/2f 15 LM� � 27i56 BURBAW PHONE ") 916-3800 J.N. SCALE . POOTI RANM C�RNfA 93'�! FAX ") 916-M TWHX -030 NONE j OF 1 EXHIBIT B SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION N89-38'34-W(R) N89'31�31:W(R) - Im. 7b LOT 1111 8� 25- C-4 ----------- S. LINE LOT 1111, MM 5/1. N7929'10'E(R) PRC M.M. 5 /1 I 12,437 SQ. FT. POR. BOOK 5086, PAGE 412 O.R. m LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH Ll N89*3627"W 50.00, L2 N89'38'52"W 45.01' L3 NOOl 9'1 7"E 206.38' CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH Cl 14*50'07" 300.00 77.68 C2 14*52'1 6r 300.00 77.87 C3 lV52'26' 325.00 84.37 C4 14`50'07" 275-00 71.20 1112 - - - - - - N75-29'10-E(R) - - - - - - - PRC E. LINE LOT 1112, MM 5/1. 25' 0 D=90*01'51" R=15.00' L=23.57'j�l 25 N89*38'52"W - N00*21'08"E(91 - - - - - - - - - - - - 16TH STREET CITY OF COSTA MFqA PROJECT I' " 77TLE C&V CONSULTING, INC. REFERENCE WE SHEET NO, crtlL mgmamm 5/2/15 UM WANNM AM SUVMZM ZM BURRAW MMM ") 916-3800 J.N. SCALE FOOTHHL RANIM CAIWORM 9M PAX ") 9*-3WS TWHX-030 1 "= 60' ATTACHMENT 2 continue s Fb 1.57 0. Ls gn In Z. _fiT-1 13ZW N89iWll'E 4- 0- ------ 'PW 2-7' C'F LY POIR. LOY 1112 NPORT MESA TRACT C3 NEWHALL ST S89-40'57'W 6611' (PUBLIC STREET) rk tN'TU PER TIE M-201 EXISTING STREET EASEMENT S WES-- M Elw4TS 550 167H, ST. RLL04-� 0"ANER, LLC APJN.: 424-391-12(' 970 15TH ST L-Ev Cr %89'4T4B'E 193.W- WVTK. OOUNDARY CITY OE_QMA VESA NORTH BOUNaARY OTY OF NEWPQRT BEACH C3 - 16 74 177,4 5' 16TH ST. 132-00' (PUBLC STREU) N89 FD GEAR SPK&W 11 AMD;Tr-D AS SPKI . . ............ TR 11547, MM511 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. PC-15-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FINDING THAT THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S VACATION OF A STREET AND HIGHWAY EASEMENT WITHIN THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 970 W. 16T" STREET IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN, WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa City Council adopted the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan on January 22, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the Government Code of the State of California, Section 65402, provides in part that a local agency shall not acquire or lease real property nor abandon or dispose of any real property, nor construct a public building or structure in any county or city, until the location, purpose, and extent of such activity has been reported upon as to conformity with the adopted General Plan applicable thereto; and, WHEREAS, the southeasterly portion of the property at 970 W. 16t" Street was originally dedicated to the City of Costa Mesa as a street and highway easement by Easement Deed No. 19903 in Book 5086, Page 412 recorded on February 4, 1960 in the County of Orange Recorders Office; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa proposes to vacate the street and highway easement within the property limits of 970 W. 16t" Street, as shown in Exhibit B; and, WHEREAS, the street and highway easement being vacated has been found by the Engineering and Transportation Divisions to not be necessary for any motorist or non - motorist usage, and as such, the vacation serves the public interest and is a public benefit as it eliminates any maintenance costs and liabilities imposed on the City associated with the easement; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the vacation is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15312 (Class 12), Surplus Government Property Sales, because the portion of the right-of-way to be vacated is not located on a parcel of land in an area of statewide, regional, or area wide concern; and, WHEREAS, on June 22, 2015, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission reviewed the proposed vacated easement and findings; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission does hereby find the proposed vacation of a street and highway easement within the property located at 970 W. 16th Street to be in conformance with the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan, will serve the public interest, and is a public benefit. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June,?015. Robert L. Dickson, 'Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15-38 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on June 22, 2015, by the following votes: AYES: Dickson. Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler NOES: None ABSENT: Andranian ABSTAIN: None Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission EXHIBIT B SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION PORT70N OF RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION N89-38'34"W(R) Ll LOV ml p 25' 25 S. LINE LOT 1111, N75'29'1 0-E(R) T- N75 29'10"E(R) mm 5/1, PRC TRC E. LINE LOT 1112. MM 5/1, 1 2, 437 SQ. Fl POR. BOOK 5086 PAGE 412 O.R. 'D t � I LOIT 1112 z LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LEINGTH D=gu-u 1 0 I R=15,00 25' L=23.57 N89'38'52"W Ll N89*36'27W 501V L2 N89'38'52W 45.01' L3 ' NOO'l 9'11 7"E 206,38' 16TH STREET CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH 1,V50.'07" 300.00 77.68 14*52'16" 300-00 77.87 1,V52'26" 325.00 84-37 14'50'07" 275.00 71.20 CITY OF COSTA MESA 'PROJECT TITLE C&V CONSUTWG, INC- REFERENCE DATE SHEET NO. MIL Wmeamm UM PLQQ*D 5/2/15 AM WWAMD n56 BURBANK PHONE ") 916-3WO J.N. SCALE FOOTHaL RANCALUk)Ma YbW FAX (99) 9* 01=60, OF a EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVE) A. The information presented substantially complies with the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan Section 2.6 (Obj.) LU-1 D in that: Finding: The project complies with the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan and meets the purpose and intent to insure consideration of utility system capacities in land use planning and development processes. Facts in Support of Findings: In the Land Use Element, it is the City's goal to ensure consideration of utility system capacities in land use planning and development processes. The Engineering Division determined there are no utilities within the proposed vacated street easement and, therefore, a reservation for utility easement is not required. Additionally, the Engineering and Transportation Divisions determined the proposed vacated street easement is not necessary for any motorist and/or non -motorist usage, and accordingly, the proposed action will not result in any adverse impacts to the City's transportation network. B. The information presented substantially complies with the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan Section 2.6 LU-2 in that: Finding: As described in the Land Use Element, it is the City's goal to create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical resources. Facts in Support of Findings: The Engineering and Transportation Divisions determined the street and highway easement is unnecessary for present or future public use. The City may be subject to additional maintenance costs and liabilities associated with having an ownership interest in the subject easement. Consequently, vacating the unnecessary street and highway easement serves the public interest and is a public benefit. C. The street and highway easement vacation is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15312 (Class 12), Surplus Government Property Sales, because the portion of the utility easement to be vacated is not located on a parcel of land in an area of statewide, regional, or area wide concern. I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-12 SUBJECT: WEST 191" STREET BICYCLE TRAIL PROJECT DATE: JULY 9, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RAJA SETHURAMAN, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER, (714) 754-5343 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Award a Professional Services Agreement (Attachment 1) for the design of the West 191h Street Bicycle Trail project to KOA Corporation, 2141 W. Orangewood Avenue, Suite A, Orange, CA 92868, in the amount of $180,000. 2. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. BACKGROUND: The City of Costa Mesa has identified the need to improve bicycle connectivity within the City and to add Class I and II bicycle facilities that link local and regional bicycle infrastructure. The new bicycle lanes on W. 191h Street and a new multipurpose trail within Talbert Regional Park will improve bicycle connectivity between the existing bicycle lanes along Placentia Avenue and the Greenville - Banning Channel Bikeway along the Santa Ana River. In October 2014, the City was awarded federal Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant funds to implement bicycle facilities and associated improvements along W. 19th Street between Placentia Avenue and the Greenville - Banning Channel Bikeway. The project scope includes the preparation of conceptual alternatives for the initial review and development of the final design plans for the installation of a bicycle facility along W. 19th Street and within Talbert Regional Park. The City plans to construct a paved trail generally along the alignment of an existing Southern California Edison (SCE) utility easement and natural trails with a total length of approximately 2,760 feet within Talbert Regional Park. This trail alignment also follows the recently approved Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) sewer pipeline alignment. The project will continue as a Class I bike trail for 860 feet along W. 19th Street between the Talbert Regional Park and Whittier Avenue. East of Whittier Avenue, the proposed trail will transition to a striped and signed on -road Class II bike lane to Placentia Avenue for a length of 2,600 feet. The total proposed length of the project is 6,220 feet with 3,620 feet of Class I/Multipurpose trail and 2,600 feet of Class II bike lanes. ANALYSIS: In March 2015, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on the City's website. A total of four (4) firms responded to the RFP. Proposals were reviewed for compliance with the City's RFP, and consultants were evaluated based on project understanding, depth of experience, technical expertise, and associated factors. Based on the proposals, the staff selected two (2) consultants for oral interviews. After a careful review of the proposals and responses provided by the consultants during the interview process, staff finds KOA Corporation well qualified to perform the final engineering design services. The proposal submitted by KOA Corporation and the responses provided during the interview process represent a thorough understanding of the project, complies with the project specifications, and documents their technical ability and experience with similar projects. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: One alternative would be not to approve the Professional Services Agreement and conduct the project using in-house resources. However, this alternative may result in significant delays as the expertise and amount of services required for the project exceed the available resources. This may also result in the loss of approximately $1,700,000 in grant funding for construction of this new bicycle facility. FISCAL REVIEW: The City has allocated a total of $240,000 in Capital Improvement funds for the design and environmental clearance phase of the project. In addition, ATP grant funding in the amount of $1,700,000 was captured for the construction phase of this project. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney's office has reviewed the attached Professional Services Agreement and has approved it as to form. CONCLUSION: Staff received four (4) proposals in response to the City's RFP process to retain professional design services for the West 19th Street Bicycle Trail project. After careful evaluation of the proposals, staff recommends that the City Council award the attached Professional Services Agreement to KOA Corporation for the design of the West 19th Street Bicycle Trail in the amount of $180,000 and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. ERNESTO MUNOZ RAJA SETHURAMAN Public Services Director Transportation Services Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1 - Professional Services Agreement DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer City Attorney City Clerk Division Staff ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF COSTA MESA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KOA CORPORATION THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 21 st day of July, 2015 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and KOA CORPORATION, a California corporation ("Consultant"). WITNESSETH: A. WHEREAS, City proposes to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor for engineering design services, as more fully described herein; and B. WHEREAS, Consultant represents that it has that degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code Section 37103, and holds all necessary licenses to practice and perform the services herein contemplated; and C. WHEREAS, City and Consultant desire to contract for the specific services described in Exhibit "A" (the "Project") and desire to set forth their rights, duties and liabilities in connection with the services to be performed; and D. WHEREAS, no official or employee of City has a financial interest, within the provisions of Sections 1090-1092 of the California Government Code, in the subject matter of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1.0. SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT 1.1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall provide the professional services described in the City's Request for Proposal ("RFP"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and Consultant's Response to City's RFP (the "Response") attached hereto as Exhibit "B," both incorporated herein by this reference. 1.2. Professional Practices. All professional services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants in similar fields and circumstances in accordance with sound professional practices. Consultant also warrants that it is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and shall advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Consultant's performance of this Agreement. 1.3. Performance to Satisfaction of City. Consultant agrees to perform all the work to the complete satisfaction of the City and within the hereinafter specified. Evaluations of the work will be done by the City's Chief Executive Officer ("City CEO") or his or her designee. If the quality of work is not satisfactory, City in its discretion has the right to: (a) Meet with Consultant to review the quality of the work and resolve the matters of concern; 1 ;� KOA Corporation (b) Require Consultant to repeat the work at no additional fee until it is satisfactory; and/or (c) Terminate the Agreement as hereinafter set forth. 1.4. Warranty. Consultant warrants that it shall perform the services required by this Agreement in compliance with all applicable Federal and California employment laws, including, but not limited to, those laws related to minimum hours and wages; occupational health and safety; fair employment and employment practices; workers' compensation insurance and safety in employment; and all other Federal, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings, and judgments of every nature and description including attorneys' fees and costs, presented, brought, or recovered against City for, or on account of any liability under any of the above -mentioned laws, which may be incurred by reason of Consultant's performance under this Agreement. 1.5. Non-discrimination. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sexual gender or sexual orientation, except as permitted pursuant to Section 12940 of the Government Code. 1.6. Non -Exclusive Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that City may enter into agreements with other consultants for services similar to the services that are subject to this Agreement or may have its own employees perform services similar to those services contemplated by this Agreement. 1.7. Delegation and Assignment. This is a personal service contract, and the duties set forth herein shall not be delegated or assigned to any person or entity without the prior written consent of City, Consultant may engage a subcontractor(s) as permitted by law and may employ other personnel to perform services contemplated by this Agreement at Consultant's sole cost and expense. 1.8. Confidentiality. Employees of Consultant in the course of their duties may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of private individuals and employees of City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 2.0. COMPENSATION AND BILLING 2.1. Compensation. Consultant shall be paid in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement (the "Fee Schedule"). Consultant's total compensation shall not exceed One Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($180,000.00) 2.2. Additional Services. Consultant shall not receive compensation for any services provided outside the scope of services specified in the Consultant's Proposal unless the City or 2 Q the Project Manager for this Project, prior to Consultant performing the additional services, approves such additional services in writing. It is specifically understood that oral requests and/or approvals of such additional services or additional compensation shall be barred and are unenforceable. 2.3. Method of Billing. Consultant may submit invoices to the City for approval on a progress basis, but no more often than two times a month. Said invoice shall be based on the total of all Consultant's services which have been completed to City's sole satisfaction. City shall pay Consultant's invoice within forty-five (45) days from the date City receives said invoice. Each invoice shall describe in detail, the services performed, the date of performance, and the associated time for completion. Any additional services approved and performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be designated as "Additional Services" and shall identify the number of the authorized change order, where applicable, on all invoices. 2.4. Records and Audits. Records of Consultant's services relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting principles and shall be made available to City or its Project Manager for inspection and/or audit at mutually convenient times for a period of three (3) years from the Effective Date. 3.0. TIME OF PERFORMANCE 3.1. Commencement and Completion of Work. The professional services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall commence within five (5) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Said services shall be performed in strict compliance with the Project Schedule approved by City as set forth in Exhibit "D," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Project Schedule may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Failure to commence work in a timely manner and/or diligently pursue work to completion may be grounds for termination of this Agreement. 3.2. Excusable Delays. Neither party shall be responsible for delays or lack of performance resulting from acts beyond the reasonable control of the party or parties. Such acts shall include, but not be limited to, acts of God, fire, strikes, material shortages, compliance with laws or regulations, riots, acts of war, or any other conditions beyond the reasonable control of a party. 4.0. TERM AND TERMINATION 4.1. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue for a period of three years, ending on July 20, 2018, unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. 4.2. Notice of Termination. The City reserves and has the right and privilege of canceling, suspending or abandoning the execution of all or any part of the work contemplated by this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time, by providing written notice to Consultant. The termination of this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon receipt of the notice of termination. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall immediately stop rendering services under this Agreement unless directed otherwise by the City. 4.3. Compensation. In the event of termination, City shall pay Consultant for reasonable costs incurred and professional services satisfactorily performed up to and including the date of City's written notice of termination. Compensation for work in progress shall be prorated based on the percentage of work completed as of the effective date of termination in 3 accordance with the fees set forth herein. In ascertaining the professional services actually rendered hereunder up to the effective date of termination of this Agreement, consideration shall be given to both completed work and work in progress, to complete and incomplete drawings, and to other documents pertaining to the services contemplated herein whether delivered to the City or in the possession of the Consultant. 4.4. Documents. In the event of termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared by Consultant in its performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, finished or unfinished design, development and construction documents, data studies, drawings, maps and reports, shall be delivered to the City within ten (10) days of delivery of termination notice to Consultant, at no cost to City. Any use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization from Consultant shall be at City's sole risk and without liability or legal expense to Consultant. 5.0. INSURANCE 5.1. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall obtain, maintain, and keep in full force and effect during the life of this Agreement all of the following minimum scope of insurance coverages with an insurance company admitted to do business in California, rated "A," Class X, or better in the most recent Best's Key Insurance Rating Guide, and approved by City: (a) Commercial qeneral liabilitv. includina nrP.miGPc-nnarntinnc products/completed operations, broad form property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, personal injury or bodily injury with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined sinqle limits, per occurrence. If such insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it shall apply separately to this Agreement or shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (b) Business automobile liability for owned vehicles, hired, and non -owned vehicles, with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. (c) Workers' compensation insurance as required by the State of California. Consultant agrees to waive, and to obtain endorsements from its workers' compensation insurer waiving subrogation rights under its workers' compensation insurance policy against the City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers arising from work performed by Consultant for the City and to require each of its subcontractors, if any, to do likewise under their workers' compensation insurance policies. (d) Professional errors and omissions ("E&O") liability insurance with policy limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate. Architects' and engineers' coverage shall be endorsed to include contractual liability. If the policy is written as a "claims made" policy, the retro date shall be prior to the start of the contract work. Consultant shall obtain and maintain, said E&O liability insurance during the life of this Agreement and for three years after completion of the work hereunder. 4 utp 5.2. Endorsements. The commercial general liability insurance policy and business automobile liability policy shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: (a) Additional insureds: "The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds with respect to: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant pursuant to its contract with the City; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant." (b) Notice: "Said policy shall not terminate, be suspended, or voided, nor shall it be cancelled, nor the coverage or limits reduced, until thirty (30) days after written notice is given to City. (c) Other insurance: "The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any other insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa shall be excess and not contributing with the insurance provided by this policy." (d) Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. (e) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5.3. Deductible or Self Insured Retention. If any of such policies provide for a deductible or self -insured retention to provide such coverage, the amount of such deductible or self -insured retention shall be approved in advance by City. No policy of insurance issued as to which the City is an additional insured shall contain a provision which requires that no insured except the named insured can satisfy any such deductible or self -insured retention. 5.4. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide to City certificates of insurance showing the insurance coverages and required endorsements described above, in a form and content approved by City, prior to performing any services under this Agreement. The certificates of insurance shall be attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein by this reference. 5.5. Non -limiting. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property. 6.0. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to any matter referenced herein and supersedes any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations. This Agreement may be modified only in writing, and signed by the parties in interest at the time of such modification. The terms of this Agreement shall prevail (q) over any inconsistent provision in any other contract document appurtenant hereto, including exhibits to this Agreement. 6.2. Representatives. The City CEO or his or her designee shall be the representative of City for purposes of this Agreement and may issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of the City, called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a representative for purposes of this Agreement who shall be authorized to issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of Consultant called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. 6.3. Project Managers. City shall designate a Project Manager to work directly with Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a Project Manager who shall represent it and be its agent in all consultations with City during the term of this Agreement. Consultant or its Project Manager shall attend and assist in all coordination meetings called by City. 6.4. Notices. Any notices, documents, correspondence or other communications concerning this Agreement or the work hereunder may be provided by personal delivery, facsimile or mail and shall be addressed as set forth below. Such communication shall be deemed served or delivered: a) at the time of delivery if such communication is sent by personal delivery; b) at the time of transmission if such communication is sent by facsimile; and c) 48 hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail as reflected by the official U.S. postmark if such communication is sent through regular United States mail. IF TO CONSULTANT: KOA Corporation 2141 W. Orangewood Ave, Suite A Orange, CA 92868 Tel: (714) 573-0317 Fax: (714) 573 9534 Attn: Min Zhou IF TO CITY: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (714) 754-5183 Fax: (714) 754-5330 Attn: Pritam Deshmukh 6.5. Drug -free Workplace Policy. Consultant shall provide a drug -free workplace by complying with all provisions set forth in City's Council Policy 100-5, attached hereto as Exhibit "F" and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's failure to conform to the requirements set forth in Council Policy 100-5 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall be cause for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. 6.6. Attorneys' Fees. In the event that litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof. 6.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the parties hereto. 6 agree that the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Orange County, California. 6.8. Assignment. Consultant shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet or encumber all or any part of Consultant's interest in this Agreement without City's prior written consent. Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance shall be void and shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and cause for termination of this Agreement. Regardless of City's consent, no subletting or assignment shall release Consultant of Consultant's obligation to perform all other obligations to be performed by Consultant hereunder for the term of this Agreement. 6.9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, hold free and harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees, at Consultant's sole expense, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits or other legal proceedings brought against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees arising out of the performance of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, of the work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. The defense obligation provided for hereunder shall apply without any advance showing of negligence or wrongdoing by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, but shall be required whenever any claim, action, complaint, or suit asserts as its basis the negligence, errors, omissions or misconduct of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, and/or whenever any claim, action, complaint or suit asserts liability against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees based upon the work performed by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors under this Agreement, whether or not the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors are specifically named or otherwise asserted to be liable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Consultant shall not be liable for the defense or indemnification of the City for claims, actions, complaints or suits arising out of the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This provision shall supersede and replace all other indemnity provisions contained either in the City's specifications or Consultant's Proposal, which shall be of no force and effect. 6.10. Independent Contractor. Consultant is and shall be acting at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of City. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. Consultant shall secure, at its sole expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of Income Tax, Social Security, State Disability Insurance Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, and other payroll deductions for Consultant and its officers, agents, and employees, and all business licenses, if any are required, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with the applicable worker's compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this paragraph. 6.11. PERS Eligibility Indemnification. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is 7 0) determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of the City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City. Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contribution and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 6.12. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant's performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation which City might require. 6.13. Ownership of Documents. All findings, reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes or discs, files and tapes furnished or prepared by Consultant or any of its subcontractors in the course of performance of this Agreement, shall be and remain the sole property of City. Consultant agrees that any such documents or information shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior consent of City. Any use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement, and any use of incomplete documents, shall be at the sole risk of City and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. City shall indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from City's use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement or use of incomplete documents furnished by Consultant. Consultant shall deliver to City any findings, reports, documents, information, data, in any form, including but not limited to, computer tapes, discs, files audio tapes or any other Project related items as requested by City or its authorized representative, at no additional cost to the City. 6.14. Public Records Act Disclosure. Consultant has been advised and is aware that this Agreement and all reports, documents, information and data, including, but not limited to, computer tapes, discs or files furnished or prepared by Consultant, or any of its subcontractors, pursuant to this Agreement and provided to City may be subject to public disclosure as required by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). Exceptions to public disclosure may be those documents or information that qualify as trade secrets, as that term is defined in the California Government Code Section 6254.7, and of which Consultant informs City of such trade secret. The City will endeavor to maintain as confidential all information obtained by it that is designated as a trade secret. The City shall not, in any way, be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any trade secret including, without limitation, those records so marked if disclosure is deemed to be required by law or by order of the Court. 6.15. Conflict of Interest. Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants, if any, will comply with all conflict of interest statutes of the State of California applicable to Consultant's services under this agreement, including, but not limited to, the Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000, et seq.) and Government Code Section 1090. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants shall not, without the prior written approval of the Ct 8 ID Representative, perform work for another person or entity for whom Consultant is not currently performing work that would require Consultant or one of its officers, employees, associates or subconsultants to abstain from a decision under this Agreement pursuant to a conflict of interest statute. 6.16. Responsibility for Errors. Consultant shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. Consultant, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the City's representative, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to Consultant occurs, then Consultant shall, at no cost to City, provide all necessary design drawings, estimates and other Consultant professional services necessary to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction. 6.17. Prohibited Employment. Consultant will not employ any regular employee of City while this Agreement is in effect. 6.18. Order of Precedence. In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibits, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. If, and to the extent this Agreement incorporates by reference any provision of any document, such provision shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. Nevertheless, if there is any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those of any such provision or provisions so incorporated by reference, this Agreement shall govern over the document referenced. 6.19. Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein. 6.20. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights. This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of City and Consultant and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under or to this Agreement. 6.21. Headings. Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 6.22. Construction. The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement. 6.23. Amendments. Only a writing executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assigns may amend this Agreement. 6.24. Waiver. The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or compliance by the other of any of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized 9 �f representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any occurrence or event shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any other occurrence or event, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. 6.25. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable in any circumstance, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any other circumstance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the value of this Agreement, based upon the substantial benefit of the bargain for any party, is materially impaired, which determination made by the presiding court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction shall be binding, then both parties agree to substitute such provision(s) through good faith negotiations. 6.26. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement. 6.27. Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their respective authorized officers, as of the date first above written. CITY OF COSTA MESA, A municipal corporation Date: Mayor CONSULTANT Date Signature . ll�' _zKo r Name and Title C Social Security or Taxpayer ID Number 10 d ; Date: 7��� Name and ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE: Date: Risk Management APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: d _` Date: 71115 itam Deshmukh, Project Manager DEPARTMENTALAPPROVAL (F7 . - _V Date: Ernesto Munoz blic Services Director i ',1b. 1 f-, 11 C13 EXHIBIT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 P.O. Box 1200 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MANAGER March 18, 2015 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) — DESIGN SERVICES FOR A PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITY ALONG WEST 19TH STREET BETWEEN PLACENTIA AVENUE AND THE GREENVILLE - BANNING CHANNEL BIKEWAY Dear Consultant: The City of Costa Mesa is requesting proposals for professional engineering services to design a bicycle facility along West 19m Street between Placentia Avenue and the Greenville - Banning Channel Bikeway. The scope of services generally consists of preparation of civil engineering design plans including the following improvements: • Installation of on -street and off-street bicycle facility • Installation of bridge structure • Installation of retaining structures This project is structured in the following three (3) phases: Phase 1. Existing Plan Review, Survey, and Preliminary Design Phase 2: Final Civil Engineering Design Phase 3: Federal Approval for Construction and Construction Support The City will engage the services of a consulting firm for the Environmental Analysis and approval of this project separately and is not included as part of this RFP. Community outreach should be incorporated during the first two (2) phases of the project. BACKGROUND The City of Costa Mesa has identified the need to improve bicycle connectivity within the City and add Class I and II bicycle facilities that link local and regional bicycle infrastructure. The new bicycle lanes on West 19th Street and a new multipurpose trail within Talbert Regional Park will improve bicycle connectivity between the existing bicycle lanes along Placentia Avenue and the Greenville - Banning Channel Bikeway. In October 2014, the City was awarded Federal Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant funds to install bicycle facilities and associated improvements along W. 191 Street between Placentia Avenue and the Greenville - Banning Channel Bikeway. SCOPE OF SERVICES The project scope includes the preparation of plans and processing of documents to allow the installation of a bicycle facility along W. 19th Street and within Talbert Regional Park, The City plans to construct a 10-foot wide concrete paved trail generally along the alignment of an existing} 77 FAIR DRIVE Y� PHONE: (714) 754-5343 - TDD: (714) 754-5244 - www.costamesaca.gov utility easement and natural trails with a total length of approximately 2,760 feet within Talbert Regional Park. The project will continue the separated trail as a Class I bike trail for 860 feet along W. 19th Street between the Park and Whittier Avenue. At Whittier Avenue, the proposed trail will transition to a striped and signed on -road Class II bike lane on both sides of W. 19t" Street to Placentia Avenue, a length of 2,600 feet. The total proposed length of the project is 6,220 feet with 3,620 feet of Class I/Multipurpose trail and 2,600 feet of Class II bike trail. The subject scope of services is intended as a "Turnkey" project to maintain a responsible and comprehensive base for all project development. Tasks shall be coordinated to effectively develop interrelated project elements; the project shall not be advanced until preliminary requirements are addressed and clear direction established. The Consultant shall have total responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of all work and services. The following description of work defines the general project requirements for the bicycle infrastructure project. Associated tasks and provisions not specifically defined herein are requested to be addressed in the proposal and undertaken within the proposed "Not to Exceed" contract fee. PHASE I — Fopo_graphic Survey Field Condition Assessment, Altema6ves Analysis, Preliminary Design, & Resident Meetings This phase consists of defining the physical conditions and utilities within the project area, preparation of preliminary design plans and establishing the design features proposed, and meeting with affected stakeholders. The Consultant shall review utilization of the existing two-way turn lane (median lane) and on -street parking along W. 191 Street between Placentia Avenue and Whittier Avenue. Based on this, the Consultant shall develop conceptual alternatives for implementing bike lanes within the existing right-of-way. This phase shall include the following: 1. Meet with City staff to define and clarify the work plan and project elements. The City will provide data collected to date and conceptual plans for consultant use. It is the Consultant's responsibility to verify the accuracy of all information provided by the City. 2. Review all City -supplied information, including conceptual plans and neighborhood concerns. 3. Perform additional topographic surveying extending through the project area to establish horizontal and vertical controls at 25' intervals. Establish existing and proposed controls including centerline, street geometrics, and right-of-way throughout the project limits. Reference elevations to the closest and latest Orange County Benchmark (OCBM). 4. Research and establish the precise location of all utilities and utility easements. Coordinate with all utility companies to determine underground, surface, and overhead facilities. Comply with the City -adopted "Utility Coordination Procedures." Determine where interfaces with existing facilities will occur as a result of the future construction of this project. Consult with affected utility companies and resolve any conflicts, keeping City staff informed in writing. Maintain a Utility File on all utility documentation. 5. Plot the detailed survey notes and electronic mapping files at 40 scale using CAD on 24" X 36" sheets identifying all existing conditions. Physical features shall include BCR, ECR, flow - lines, centerlines, angle points, top of curb, spandrels, pavement striping, utilities, structures, walls, trees and landscape, underground and surface utilities, poles, hydrants, catch basins, signs, valves, manholes, and all other physical features. 6. Perform an analysis of driveway accessibility along W. 19t" Street between Whittier Avenue and Placentia Avenue; and develop conceptual design alternatives for bicycle facilities and meet with City and affected stakeholders to reach a consensus on the design. The Consultant will collect turning movement and daily counts at all driveway locations along W. 191h Street between Whittier Avenue and Placentia Avenue. This data will be used to perform traffic analysis to assess the utilization of the existing two-way median turn lane along W. 19"' Street between Whittier Avenue and Placentia Avenue. The Consultant will also collect on -street parking utilization data along W. 191 Street between Whittier Avenue and Placentia Avenue. Based on the data, the Consultant will identify opportunities and constraints for accommodating new bicycle facilities within the existing right-of-way by replacing the two-way turn lane or on -street parking along W. 1911' Street. The findings of this analysis will be assimilated and presented in graphic format in the community outreach meetings. 7. Identify constraints and develop alternatives for constructing the Class I section of the bicycle trail between Whittier Avenue and the Greenville - Banning Channel Bikeway. 8. Prepare a preliminary trail alignment plan for the portion along Talbert Regional Park including the bridge portion_ 9. Preliminary design work includes plans for construction of bicycle infrastructure improvements. The preparation of cost estimates shall be included. 10. The Consultant shall prepare preliminary landscaping and irrigation plans with color renderings (hard copy and PDF) of planting plan and palette for applicable portions of the multi -use trail (bike path). 11. The Consultant shall prepare a minimum of three (3) street view renderings of the proposed design for different sections of the bicycle infrastructure along W. 191h Street which will be used in presentations and reports. Community Outreach: Installing new bicycle facilities along W. 1911 Street may have impacts to residential and commercial property frontages. The City intends to hold community outreach meetings to identify and finalize the project concept. The Consultant is required to assist the City in their outreach effort during the design ,process. For the purpose of this proposal, assume up to three (3) community outreach meetings and a City Council presentation. The Consultant will plan, prepare, and conduct these meetings based on discussions with the City. The City will assist in providing notification to affected stakeholders including businesses and residents. PHASE H - Plans Specfcations & Esfrmates This phase includes the preparation of final plans and specifications necessary to construct the proposed project. The Consultant is expected to coordinate twice a month and meet once a month with City staff to discuss the various design elements. This task includes, but is not limited to the following: A. Construction Documents - Prepare separate design plans and profiles at 1" = 20' scale on standard 24" x 36" mylar for the Project. Electronic CAD files compatible with AutoCAD 2007 and other document files shall be delivered to the City. Complete plans on mylar per City standards. Plan and profile will be required for the existing and proposed elevations. Plans are to be fully detailed to advertise and construct the project. Design plans shall include bicycle lane design, multi -use trail design, structural design for the bridge and retaining structures, landscaping and irrigation, signing and striping, and traffic control and detour, etc. Work for the project shall include: 1. Utilities - Perform all necessary research to establish the precise location of all utilities and utility easements. Coordinate with all utility companies to determine the nature and location of all possible relocations and associated costs. Determine where interfaces with existing facilities will occur as a result of the construction of this project. Consult with affected utility companies requiring relocations, and resolve any conflicts, keeping City staff informed in writing, including the possibility of undergrounding utilities presently on poles along the project area. Comply with Caltrans' "Manual on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities within Highway Rights -of -Way." 2. Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report —Analyze hydrologic/hydraulic conditions, develop details for standard longitudinal and cross fall drainage, and document findings and design 3 0 calculations. 3. Prepare a Water Pollution Control Plan meeting recent City and State standards. 4. Prepare final cross sections at 50' intervals, indicating vertical and horizontal cross falls, elevations, analysis of super elevations/highway design speed calculations, effect to private property, etc., conforming to City standards. Detailed and complete cross sections shall be submitted with the first plan check. 5. Traffic control plans are required and must provide continuous driveway and pedestrian access at all times during the construction phase of the project. Traffic control plans shall identify each construction stage and sequence, provide adequate details on alternate detour routes, developed to minimize impacts to residents. It is intended that all travel lanes remain open during construction in daytime. 6. The Consultant shall prepare final landscaping and irrigation plans with detailed specifications for applicable portions of the multi -use trail (bike path). 7. For budgeting purposes, submit to the City 70% and 90% preliminary design plans and construction estimates and a monthly update of the estimates as design work progresses. Prepare the final detailed construction quantity and cost estimate. 8. Obtain final design approval from the City and County and comply with all applicable requirements. 9. Complete project contract documents and special provisions in a format consistent with current City projects and in conformance with State and Federal guidelines. A copy of the construction contract agreement will be furnished by the City. 10. Prepare and submit two (2) Resident Engineer files, containing at a minimum, final construction quantities and cost estimates with background calculation work sheets; soil aeend h.rrlrnlnnv rnnewfa- miiniav Antm- raltram rprmif material; and relative information. r_... .._ 11. The Consultant will be requested to review and approve addenda and provide clarification to plans and specifications. The Consultant shall attend the pre -construction meeting, and shall be available for consultation and assistance during the construction of the project to clarify or explain items relating to the design. The Consultant will also be responsible for preparation of final as -built plans. 12. The selected Consultant shall include all additional items necessary to achieve completion and approval of the final design plans and specifications. PHASE /ll — Caltrans Construction Authorization forms The Consultant will be responsible for preparing all Federal forms including the Request for Authorization to Proceed with Construction, PS&E Certification, and the subject PS&E package to Caltrans Local Programs. The Consultant shall efficiently address all project components as required to obtain State and Federal E-76 Certification. Quality Assurance/Quality Control - Quality Control shall be consistently and thoroughly applied throughout project development. Assigned QA/QC staff shall be technically well qualified to conduct the appropriate level of oversight, and demonstrate a concerted and sustained commitment to provide a high quality product. Concise written records shall be maintained by the Consultant on all activities. Firms considering proposal submittals are requested to have an in- house technical level of expertise to professionally address all aspects of the project. A Project Design meeting shall be held once a month. Additional meetings may be required during the initial phase of the project. The Consultant shall be responsible for preparing meeting agendas, minutes, and presentation materials. A Critical Path Method (CPM) network, based on activities to support all project milestones and subtasks, shall be prepared. The information will be in the form of a bar chart and show a deliverables schedule and other relevant data needed for the control of work, for City review of the work status, and accomplishments occurring each month. 4 - 10 Content of Proposal it is requested that the following be submitted with your proposal: i . Project Understanding - provide a brief review of the project and any suggestions you might have to expedite the project or special concerns of which the City should be advised. 2. Work Plan — define the project approach, team assignments, and products. 3. Schedule — provide a detailed schedule indicating the stages of work and time frames. 4, An organization chart and staffing plan identifying personnel on this project, a brief resume on each individual (two pages max per person), and recent projects on which they have worked of similar type. Identify the project manager with a detailed resume, and the individual authorized to negotiate the contract on behalf of the consulting firm. 5. A listing of similar improvement projects that your firm has completed within the last five (5) years. Information should include a description of work, year completed, cost, and agency/client name along with the agency contact person. C,. Comply with Professional Services Agreement requirements (see attached PSA). 7. Submittal of three (3) duplicate proposals. Fee Schedule The professional services contract will not be awarded based upon competitive bidding, and it is desired that fees be submitted separately. The fee schedule should show the hourly cost of personnel per task under each phase, with a total not -to -exceed amount for the project. The Consultant's cost proposal for the prime and subcontractors should contain a breakdown of all cost components including labor base rate, other direct casts, overhead, and fees. It is requested that the fee, including all meetings, reproduction, materials, mailings, and associated project expenses be itemized under the following phases: Phase 1: Existing Plan Review, Survey, and Preliminary Design Phase 2: Final Civil Engineering Design Phase 3: E-76 Authorization to Initiate Construction and Construction Support Total Not To Exceed Price - NOTE: All originals of plans, field notes, data and calculations, correspondence, reports, electronic files, etc., will be turned over to the City upon completion of design. Ten percent (10%) of the total contract fee will be withheld until the final PS&E, Resident Engineers File, and all project documents are submitted in acceptable form to the City. Contract Changes Any change in the scope of work resulting in a contract increase or decrease in fee shall be approved by the City in writing prior to commencement of the actual change in work. No fee adjustment will be allowed unless said prior approval is authorized exclusively in writing by the City, without exception. Ri ht to Re"ect all Pro orals The City of Costa Mesa reserves the right to reject any or all proposals submitted, and no representation is made hereby that any contract will be awarded pursuant to this request for proposal, or otherwise. All costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal, in the submission of additional information, and/or in any other aspect of a proposal prior to the award of a written contract will be borne by the respondent. The City will provide only the staff assistance and documentation specifically referred to herein and will not be responsible for any other cost or 5 obligation of any kind that may be incurred by a respondent. All proposals submitted to the City of Costa Mesa in response to this request for proposals shall become the property of the City. Enclosed is the City of Costa Mesa professional services standard agreement and sample certificate of insurance for reference in preparing the proposal. The minimum insurance and endorsement requirements are stated within the enclosed documents. Should your firm be interested in submitting a proposal for this project, please forward to the City of Costa Mesa, Transportation Services Division, 411 Floor - City Hall, on or before 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 17, 2015. If additional information is required, please contact Pritam Deshmukh, Associate Engineer, at (714) 754-5183, or via email at pritam.deshmukh@costamesaca.gov. Sincerely, RAJJETHURAMAN Manager Transportation Services Attachments: 1 - Location Map 2 - Concept Plans 3 - Typical Sections 4 - Sample Professional Services Agreement c Ernesto MUn07 P, ihlir ,;P_rvirPS Dirprtor Pritam Deshmukh, Associate Engineer 6 CITY OF COSTA MESA LOCATION MAP 19t" Street Trail ;,Ri Senav Sl e Y ;� � L'onyress 51 C ess SI o"'Y c P m S' Qrc crr .r Govrrrw• 51 Go .mm SI 3 Victoria 51 Victoria St Victoria St n orictrxra Fadr .4lcloria St Westward Lr, S 0 ro JViab Cmwrung Glory n 3 z� c� Wedding Studio Go o Glen Vrctona St Sea Blutl Dr ._ Oak St Oak St Harrnllcvr. 1 a terrace 4. anrm.FlbtWj� a A h 1•+vinr+ty. l s 8 t, s Gnwt Pi $ m a g ' Der -evil( h a - s 3 w2mhs, n CMI'�rr r rah Y EVW WRW M � rnDe.l rrrg�nl Pxk ,Ly` Dogwood St �. !L CcaN~fty Cedar PI E. Ilafk Arbor St ' " • 2230 ft.imo ft.260 0 ft. � VW& Dr1pa ., ern. viareRmk x . IM9r b'"'a Canter s< a Park1u71 Or C'm.1 n&a Holm Pad cenief Sl P.mu lowrrW Sl W 181h SI ' W 181h Sl W Ili �� Multipurpose Trail � Class I Bike Trail I Class II Bike Lane D] AWA _ Imo_. J - A- / ° z a Ljj W L .% WYz F 0 XX u�ima / f//. J W OU Q �l Q W xyz r �m5 n Y r ` Q m U = U Ld W W Q d d / w < U U o D o m a U \ QLd > Q N _ Q It Z O ' N 'r �r N 6 r Q U This Agreement template is for informational purposes only and is intended for use as an example to vendors showing the City's requirements. When making a request, please submit only the Rer nestfiorni, above and sypporting doeuments. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 2007 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and , a California corporation ("Consultant"). WITNESSETII: A. WHEREAS, City proposes to have Consultant perform below; and as described herein B. WHEREAS, Consultant represents that it has that degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code, Section 37103, and holds all necessary licenses to practice and perform the services herein contemplated; and C. WHEREAS, City and Consultant desire to contract for specific services in connection with the project described below (the "Project") and desire to set forth their rights, duties and liabilities in connection with the services to he performed; and D. WHEREAS, no official or employee of City has a financial interest, within the provisions of California Government Code, Sections 1090-1092, in the subject matter of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1.0. SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT 1.1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall provide the professional services described in the City's Request for Proposal ("RFP") attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference and Consultant's Response to City's RFP (the "Response"). A copy of said Response is attached hereto as Exhibit `B" and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.2. Professional Practices. All professional services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants in similar fields and circumstances in accordance with sound professional practices. Consultant also warrants that it is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and shall advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Consultant's performance of this Agreement. 1.3. Warranty. Consultant warrants that it shall perform the services required by this O Agreement in compliance with all applicable Federal and California employment laws including, but not limited to, those laws related to minimum hours and wages; occupational health and safety; fair employment and employment practices; workers' compensation insurance and safety in employment; and all other Federal, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings, and judgments of every nature and description including attorneys' fees and costs, presented, brought, or recovered against City for, or on account of any liability under any of the above -mentioned laws, which may be incurred by reason of Consultant's performance under this Agreement. 1.4. Non-discrimination. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sexual gender or sexual orientation, except as permitted pursuant to Section 12940 of the Government Code. Violation of this provision may result in the imposition of penalties referred to in Labor Code, Section 1735. 1.5 Non -Exclusive Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that City may enter into agreements with other consultants for services similar to the services that are subject to this Agreement or may have its own employees perform services similar to those services contemplated by this Agreement. 1.6. Delegation and Assignment. This is a personal service contract, and the duties set forth herein shall not be delegated or assigned to any person or entity without the prior written consent of City. Consultant may engage a subcontractor(s) as permitted by law and may employ other personnel to perform services contemplated by this Agreement at Consultant's sole cost and expense. 2.0. COMPENSATION AND BILLING 2.1. Compensation. Consultant shall be paid in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement (the "Fee Schedule"). Consultant's compensation shall in no case exceed Dollars ($ .00). 2.2. Additional Services. Consultant shall not receive compensation for any services provided outside the scope of services specified in the Response unless the City or the Project Manager for this Project, prior to Consultant performing the additional services, approves such additional services in writing. It is specifically understood that oral requests and/or approvals of such additional services or additional compensation shall be barred and are unenforceable. 2.3. Method of Billing. Consultant may submit invoices to City's Project Manager for approval on a progress basis, but no more often than monthly. Said invoice shall be based on the total of all Consultant's services which have been completed to City's sole satisfaction. City shall pay Consultant's invoice within forty-five (45) days from the date City receives said invoice. Each invoice shall describe in detail, the services performed and the associated time for completion. Any additional services approved and performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be designated as "Additional Services" and shall identify the number of the authorized change order, where applicable, on all invoices. ME 2.4. Records and Audits. Records of Consultant's services relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting principles and shall be made available to City or its Project Manager for inspection and/or audit at mutually convenient times for a period of three (3) years from the Effective Date. 3.0. TIME OF PERFORMANCE 3.1. Commencement and Completion of Work. The professional services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall commence within five (5) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Said services shall be performed in strict compliance with the Project Schedule approved by City as set forth in Exhibit "D," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Project Schedule may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Failure to commence work in a timely manner and/or diligently pursue work to completion may be grounds for termination of this Agreement. 3.2. Excusable Delays. Neither party shall be responsible for delays or lack of performance resulting from acts beyond the reasonable control of the party or parties. Such acts shall include, but not be limited to, acts of Clod, fire, strikes, material shortages, compliance with laws or regulations, riots, acts of war, or any other conditions beyond the reasonable control of a party. 4.0. TERM AND TERMINATION 4.1. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue for a period of (X) year, ending on , unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. 4.2. Notice of Termination. The City reserves and has the right and privilege of canceling, suspending or abandoning the execution of all or any part of the work contemplated by this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time, by providing written notice to Consultant. The termination of this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon receipt of the notice of termination. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall immediately stop rendering services under this Agreement unless directed otherwise by the City. 4.3. Compensation. In the event of termination, City shall pay Consultant for reasonable costs incurred and professional services satisfactorily performed up to and including the date of City's written notice of termination. Compensation for work in progress shall be prorated as to the percentage of work completed as of the effective date of termination in accordance with the fees set forth herein. In ascertaining the professional services actually rendered hereunder up to the effective date of termination of this Agreement, consideration shall be given to both completed work and work in progress, to complete and incomplete drawings, and to other documents pertaining to the services contemplated herein whether delivered to the City or in the possession of the Consultant. 4.4 Documents. In the event of termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared by Consultant in its performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, finished or unfinished design, development and construction documents, data studies, drawings, maps and reports, shall be delivered to the City within ten (10) days of delivery of termination notice to Consultant, at no cost to City. Any use of uncompleted documents without specific written authorization from Consultant shall be at City's sole risk and without liability or legal expense to Consultant. 5.0. INSURANCE 5.1. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall obtain and maintain during the life of this Agreement all of the following insurance coverages: (a) Comprehensive general liability, including premises -operations, products/completed operations, broad form property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, personal injury with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate. (b) Automobile liability for owned vehicles, hired, and non -owned vehicles, with a policy limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate. (c) Workers' compensation insurance as required by the State of California. (d) Professional errors and omissions ("E&O") liability insurance with policy limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), combined single limits, per occurrence and aggregate. Consultant shall obtain and maintain, said E&O liability insurance during the life of this Agreement and for three years after completion of the work hereunder. 5.2. Endorsements. The comprehensive general liability insurance policy shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: (a) Additional insureds: "The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, and employees are additional insureds with respect to this subject project and contract with City." (b) Notice: "Said policy shall not terminate, nor shall it be cancelled, nor the coverage reduced, until thirty (30) days after written notice is given to City." (c) Other insurance: "Any other insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa shall be excess and not contributing with the insurance provided by this policy." 5.3. Certificates of Insurance: Consultant shall provide to City certificates of insurance showing the insurance coverages and required endorsements described above, in a form and content approved by City, prior to performing any services under this Agreement. 5.4. Non -limiting: Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property. 6.0. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.1. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to any matter referenced herein and supersedes any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations. This Agreement may be modified only in writing, and signed by the parties in interest at the time of such modification. The terms of this Agreement shall prevail over any inconsistent provision in any other contract document appurtenant hereto, including exhibits to this Agreement. 6.2. Representatives. The City Manager or his designee shall be the representative of City for purposes of this Agreement and may issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of the City, called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a representative for purposes of this Agreement who shall be authorized to issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of Consultant called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. 6.3. Proiect Managers. City shall designate a Project Manager to work directly with Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a Project Manager who shall represent it and be its agent in all consultations with City during the term of this Agreement. Consultant or its Project Manager shall attend and assist in all coordination meetings called by City. 6.4. Notices: Any notices, documents, correspondence or other communications concerning this Agreement or the work hereunder may be provided by personal delivery, facsimile or mail and shall be addressed as set forth below. Such communication shall be deemed served or delivered: a) at the time of delivery if such communication is sent by personal delivery; b) at the time of transmission if such communication is sent by facsimile; and c) 48 hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail as reflected by the official U.S. postmark if such communication is sent through regular United States mail. IF TO CONSULTANT: IF TO CITY: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: Tel: 714-754- Fax: Fax: 714-754- Attn: Attn: 6.5. Drug -free Worlklace Policy. Consultant shall provide a drug -free workplace by complying with all provisions set forth in City's Council Policy 100-5, attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's failure to conform to the requirements set forth in Council Policy 100-5 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall be cause for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. 6.6. Attorneys' Fees: In the event that litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof. 6.7. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Orange County, California. 6.8. Assignment: Consultant shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet or encumber all or any part of Consultant's interest in this Agreement without City's prior written consent. Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance shall be void and shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and cause for termination of this Agreement. Regardless of City's consent, no subletting or assignment shall release Consultant of Consultant's obligation to perform all other obligations to be performed by Consultant hereunder for the term of this Agreement. 6.9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless: Consultant shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, and employees from any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, including attorney fees, damage to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons or damages of any nature including, but not by way of limitation, all civil claims or workers' compensation claims arising out of or in any way connected with the intentional or negligent acts, error or omissions of Consultant, its employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement. 6.10. Independent Contractor: Consultant is and shall be acting at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of City. Consultant shall secure, at his expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of Income Tax, Social Security, State Disability Insurance Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, and other payroll deductions for Consultant and its officers, agents, and employees, and all business licenses, if any are required, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. 6.11. Ownership of Documents: All findings, reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes or discs, files and tapes furnished or prepared by Consultant or any of its subcontractors in the course of performance of this Agreement, shall be and remain the sole property of City. Consultant agrees that any such documents or information shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior consent of City. Any use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement, and any use of incomplete documents, shall be at the sole risk of City and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. City shall indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from City's use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement or use of incomplete documents furnished by Consultant. Consultant shall deliver to City any findings, reports, documents, information, data, in any form, including but not limited to, computer tapes, discs, files audio tapes or any other Project related items as requested by City or its authorized representative, at no additional cost to the City. 6.12. Public Records Act Disclosure: Consultant has been advised and is aware that all reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes, discs or files furnished or prepared by Consultant, or any of its subcontractors, and provided to City may be subject to public disclosure as required by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et. seq.). Exceptions to public disclosure may be those documents or information that qualify as trade secrets, as that term is defined in the California Government Code Section 6254.7, and of which Consultant informs City of such trade secret. The City will endeavor to maintain as confidential all information obtained by it that is designated as a trade secret. The City shall not, in any way, be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any trade secret including, without limitation, those records so marked if disclosure is deemed to be required by law or by order of the Court. 6.13. Responsibility for Errors. Consultant shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. Consultant, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the City's representative, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to Consultant occurs, then Consultant shall, at no cost to City, provide all necessary design drawings, estimates and other Consultant professional services necessary to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction. 6.14. Prohibited Employment: Consultant will not employ any regular employee of Ciry while this Agreement is in effect. 6.15. Order of Precedence: In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibits, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail.. If, and to the extent this Agreement incorporates by reference any provision of the RFP or the Response, such provision shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. Nevertheless, if there is any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those of any such provision or provisions so incorporated by reference, this Agreement shall govern over both the Response and the RFP and the Response shall govern over the RFP. 6.16. Costs: Each party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein. 6.17. No Third Party BeneficiarRights: This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of City and Consultant and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under or to this Agreement. 6.18. Headings: Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 6.19. Construction: The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to to this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement. 6.20. Amendments: Only a writing executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assigns may amend this Agreement. 6.21. Waiver: The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or compliance by the other of any of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any occurrence or event shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any other occurrence or event, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. 6.22. Severability: If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable in any circumstance, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any other circumstance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the value of this Agreement, based upon the substantial benefit of the bargain for any party is materially impaired, which determination as made by the presiding court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction shall be binding, then both parties agree to substitute such provision(s) through good faith negotiations. 6.23. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement. 6.24. Corporate Authority: The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so, the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their respective authorized officers, as of the date first above written. CITY OF COSTA MESA, A municipal corporation Date: Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa CONSULTANT Date: Signature Name and Title Social Security or Taxpayer ID Number ATTEST: City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE: Date: Risk Management APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Date: Project Manager G;L SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 1 of 3 BACKGROUND Under the Federal Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988, passed as part of omnibus drug legislation enacted November 18, 1988, contractors and grantees of Federal funds must certify that they will provide drug -free workplaces. At the present time, the City of Costa Mesa, as a sub -grantee of Federal funds under a variety of programs, is required to abide by this Act. The City Council has expressed its support of the national effort to eradicate drug abuse through the creation of a Substance Abuse Committee, institution of a City-wide D.A.R.E. program in all local schools and other activities in support of a drug -free community. This policy is intended to extend that effort to contractors and grantees of the City of Costa Mesa in the elimination of dangerous drugs in the workplace. PURPOSE It is the purpose of this Policy to: 1. Clearly state the City of Costa Mesa's commitment to a drug -free society. 2. Set forth guidelines to ensure that public, private, and nonprofit organizations receiving funds from the City of Costa Mesa share the commitment to a drug -free workplace. POLICY The City Manager, under direction by the City Council, shall take the necessary steps to see that the following provisions are included in all contracts and agreements entered into by the City of Costa Mesa involving the disbursement of funds. 1. Contractor or Sub -grantee hereby certifies that it will provide a drug -free workplace by: a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in Contractor's and/or sub - grantee's workplace, specifically the job site or location included in this contract, and specifying the actions that will be taken against the employees for violation of such prohibition; 03;3 SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 2 of 3 b. Establishing a Drug -Free Awareness Program to inform employees about: 1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; 2. Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace; 3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and 4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; c. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the contract be given a copy of the statement required by subparagraph A; d. Notifying the employee in the statement required by subparagraph 1 A that, as a condition of employment under the contract, the employee will: 1. Abide by the terms of the statement; and 2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction; e. Notifying the City of Costa Mesa within ten (10) days after receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 from an employee or otherwise receiving the actual notice of such conviction; f. Taking one of the following actions within thirty (30) days of receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 with respect to an employee who is so convicted: Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or 2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health agency, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 3 of 3 g. Making a good faith effort to maintain a drug -free workplace through implementation of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 F, inclusive. 2. Contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be deemed to be in violation of this Policy if the City of Costa Mesa determines that: a. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has made a false certification under paragraph I above; b. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has violated the certification by failing to cant' out the requirements of subparagraphs I A through i G above; C. Such number of employees of Contractor and/or sub -grantee have been convicted of violations of criminal drug statutes for violations occurring in the workplace as to indicate that the contractor and/or sub -grantee has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug - free workplace. Should any contractor and/or sub -grantee be deemed to be in violation of this Policy pursuant to the provisions of 2 A, B, and C, a suspension, termination or debarment proceeding subject to applicable Federal, State, and local laws shall be conducted. Upon issuance of any final decision under this section requiring debarment of a contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be ineligible for award of any contract, agreement or grant from the City of Costa Mesa for a period specified in the decision, not to exceed five (5) years. Upon issuance of any final decision recommending against debarment of the contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be eligible for compensation as provided by law. ACQW. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE PRODUCER INWRED �,��, THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER pF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO MONTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE -DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURERAaTravelers In i_t o. of C Ilnecticut .INSURERS: TrayelerS Prg�perty Casualty Co of Ameri INSURERC:Ll ins - ante_ Lr . writer6 Inc- INSuMmTravelers Caeualt ins. Co of America INSURER E: y.v.cn..�a�cs POLICIES OF INSURANCB LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. O7WITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS RTIFICATB MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE RMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. I TYPE OF HISDRANCE POLICY NUMBER Z lPFECTNE POL IZEM L OM A GENERALLIABILmr 8/15/2009 8/15/2GIO EACH OCCURRENCE i 00 000 COMMERCIAL GEWRAL LU MUTY FIRE DAMAGE om 11e ; CLAIMS MADE OCCUR MED E P fft cna ra, n'h _— PERSONAL A ADV INJURY i GENERALAGGREGATE L CaENiAGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER PRODUCT$-COWOPAGG 12 0 POL)CY & P D• LOC AUTOMOBILE LIABILRY ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS K NON -OWNED AUT08 GARASE LIABILITY ANY AUTO EXCESS LIABILITY IOCCUR 0 CLAIMS MADE DEDUCTIBLE WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPL.OYER$' L#ABRdTY 8/15/2009 8/15/2010 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Eaeaddsm) $1, 000, 000 BODILY INJURY (ae.Pa I) t BODILY INJURY $ (Peracddant) PROPERTY DAMAGE i (Par accident) AUTO ONLY -EA ACCIDENT S OTHER THAN EA hCC s AUTO ONLY: .... I . II EACH AOGREGATE OCCURRENCE !I S 9/l/2009 19/1/2010 E.L. EACH ACCIDENT E.L. DISEASE - EA E.M E.L. DISEASE - FOLK' OTHER IrOfaaaiODal Liability 3/25/2010 3/25/2011 $1, 000, 000 $2,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILCCAT1ON81VEHICLESIEXCLUSIONS ADDEb BY ENDORSEMENT/SPECIAL PROVISIONS City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa CA 92626 ACORD 25.9 (7197) 11000.000 per claim annual aggr MAR 2 4 2010 RISK MGMTa 7ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED ,H THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER TO THE LEFT. AUTHORIZED POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LL%BIUTY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CG 20 10 1185 CopydghL houramm Sew OWwP- Ina. 1954 Page 1 of 1 O POLICY NUMBER: _ COYYERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY ECG 24 514 05 00 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE REAL] IT CAREFULLY. PRIMARY AND NONCONTRIBUTORY PROVISION - YOUR OPERATIONS This endorsement numWes insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART Paragraph 4., Other Insurance of CondRims (Section IV) Is amended by the addition of the following: If Insurance sinrdar to this insurance Is held by a person or organization that Is: a. An owner of real or personal property on which you are performing operations; or b. A c onhacforon whoso behaif you are performing apsrat£ons, this insurance is primary to that other insurance, and that other insurance shall not contrib uie, to amounts payable under this Insuranos, for NabiNty, arising out of your ongoing operations perfomred for that person or organI F Non under a written contract. However, this does not apply to any person or organization: a. From whom you did not receive a specific written request that this Insurance be primary Insurance, or if you did not receive that request prior to the date that your operations for that person or organization commenced; or b. For whom a certificate of insurance evidenclnp that request Is not on file with, or received by, us prior to sbrty days after the end of the poley perfod for this insurenar. ECG 24 514 05 00 Copyright, Everest Reinsurance Company 2000 Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office. Inc: used with Its permission Copyright, Insurance Services Offlos, Inc.,1997 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT B CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL 09 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Introduction The City of Costa Mesa plans to improve the City's bicycle connectivity by providing new bicycle facilities along 19th Street, from Placentia Avenue to Balboa Boulevard, continuing through Talbert Regional Park to the Santa Ana River Banning Channel Bikeway. The new facilities will transit existing fully developed streets, partially developed streets, and natural habitat areas, within the jurisdiction of the cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and the County of Orange. The City of Costa Mesa is taking the lead role in implementing this project. A conceptual plan and preliminary alignment was developed for the proposed bike facility for the Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle I grant application. The segment on 19th Street from Placentia Avenue to Whittier Avenue is proposed as a Class II bike lane; from Whittier Avenue to Balboa Boulevard as a Class I Bike Trail; and the remainder across Talbert Regional Park as a multipurpose trail. Construction funding will be provided through Federal Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant funds administered through the State of California. The construction budget obtained from the ATP Cycle I grant is $1.7 million. The City plans to procure the services of a professional engineering firm to provide "turn -key" project design services. This work will include preliminary engineering and analysis; the preparation of construction -ready bid documents consisting of complete plans, specifications, and a construction cost estimate. (NOTE: environmental analysis and approval is not a part of this scope of work). KOA Corporation (KOA) is a leading engineering firm in the design and implementation of innovative bicycle facilities in southern California. We are currently engaged in developing similar projects For the County of Los Angeles along the Los Angeles River (--6 miles), the City of Moreno Valley Aqueduct Bike Trail (-9.5 miles), the City of Long Beach Daisy Avenue bike lane (— 10 miles), and the City of Wildomar (-4 miles), among others. The 19th Street bikeway will provide an important east -west connection within Costa Mesa, as well as access to the regional bike system along the Santa Ana River. We believe this project provides an exciting opportunity to enhance the City and the local area through the development of new trailheads and educational resources adjacent to Talbert Park. KOA's Design Approach The project can be broken down into two segments. Each segment has its own design characteristics. Segment I— Talbert Regional Park (2,760 feet) The trail will commence at an access point from the Santa Ana River Banning Channel Bikeway, run easterly alongside natural trails and the utility easement, and connect to the westerly end of 19th Street. The starting point is at the Banning Channel. Access from the channel to Talbert Park should not exceed a 5% grade and should accommodate bicycles as well as joggers and pedestrians. An 1 approximately 300 feet retaining wall is needed in order for the trail to go up to meet the river embankment. A paved pathway and adjacent "soft" dirt path would work well. KOA will work with the City to consider the new utility alignment or other alternatives before selecting a final design (NOTE: Although the RFP states that a 10-foot-wide PCC bike path will be developed, we would recommend considering a 12-foot to 14-foot path more in alignment with current State guidelines). The trail system transitioning across Talbert Park could be a combination of paved bike path and soft jogging/walking path. The exact configuration and position will be determined during design development with the City, with the consideration of feedback from public outreach efforts. Trail access from Talbert Park up to 19th Street again presents an opportunity to enhance the project significantly. A bridge structure is recommended in the RFP. From our field review, we have identified two possible practical bridge alignments; however, based on our discussion with the City staff on June 15, the alignment without a bridge is the preferred alternative which has lower environmental impact and project cost. With the preferred alternative, a 500 feet retaining wall is needed where the trail goes down the side of the street. KOA will work closely with the City to develop an optimal trail alignment and configuration. Segment 2— 19th Street Terminus to Placentia Avenue The remainder of the project will incorporate primarily Class II bike lanes along this area. A short segment of Class I bike is to be evaluated at the 19th Street terminus. Our preliminary review indicates that existing parking, center left turn lanes, medians, and travel lanes may not be wide enough to include an additional bike path. KOA will conduct studies for parking utilization, center/left turn medians, and driveway usage to develop suitable recommendations for modifying the street configuration. The potential conditions would include removing center left turn lane or removing parking on the south side of the street to accommodate Class II bike lanes. The final condition would be determined by public input from residents along 19th Street. The proposed bike facility on 19th Street ends at the signalized intersection of 19th Street and Placentia Avenue. Transition treatments should be provided at the intersection. KOA recommends that the eastbound bike lane along 19th Street starts east of Placentia. The design will be able to improve bicyclist safety and avoid right hook accidents. PHASE I ToPoGRRPHic SURVEY, FIELD CONDITION ASSESSMENT, ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS, PRELIMINARY DESIGN, RESIDENT MEETINGS TASK I — SCOPING MEETING and PROJECT MANAGEMENT Upon receiving the notice to proceed, KOA will conduct a scoping meeting with City staff. The agenda items will include: 2 • Discussion of City and consultant objectives and expectations • Project work plan, schedule, and deliverables • Information management • Communications protocol • Other stakeholder coordination • Obtain existing plans/data/utility information from the City We plan to provide an opportunity to walk/bike the site with City staff, conduct an overview of the project, and identify critical issues in the field. In addition, KOA plans to conduct monthly progress meetings or other means of communications with the City staff. We will take meeting minutes and identify action items. [deliverables: Meeting agenda Meeting minutes TASK 2 — CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING The KOA Team will conduct design development work and prepare preliminary engineering plans and cross sections for the development of the proposed bike facility improvements. Specific work will include the research of existing record data; utility research; field and topographic surveys; alternatives studies; preliminary alignment; and public outreach. The team will prepare unit -based cost estimates for each of the options identified during the conceptual engineering stage. The pros and cons for each option will be studied and tabulated. We will prepare a plan layout with typical sections for each option. We will submit the conceptual engineering alternatives and our recommendation on the optimum trail configuration. The analyses will focus on benefits to the public and on cost effectiveness. Deliverables: Conceptual engineering exhibits (plans and sections for alternatives) Conceptual -level construction cost estimate Minutes of review meeting TASK3-SURVEY KOA's subconsultant, KDM, has previous survey and mapping experience within the Talbert Park area. KDM worked as the survey subconsultant to the prime consultant in 2012 for the Orange County Sanitation District's Southwest Costa Mesa Trunk Sewer Project 6-19. The majority of this project was within Talbert Park. The work to produce a base map included aerial mapping and field -augmented 3 ground surveys within the park and adjacent to the Banning Ranch property abutting the southerly boundary of the park property. For this project, KDM has obtained a preliminary title report to determine the park boundary and to acquire record documents to indicate the locations of existing Southern California Edison and Orange County Flood Control District easements along this southerly boundary abutting the Banning Ranch property. The extensive work to locate record monuments and establish a control network within and adjacent to the perimeter of this site provided us with an excellent working knowledge of existing conditions, available accessibility, and on -the -ground experience, enabling the team to have a head -start in obtaining and collecting the information to provide a superior mapping product at a cost-effective budget for the design goals of this project. Base map in AutoCAD format TASK 4 — UTILITY RESEARCH KOA will contact the utility companies to obtain any as -built plans for the identification of utility locations within the project limits. We will compile a utilities contact matrix to track when utilities are contacted, who is contacted, and when and how they respond, in accordance with the City's "Utility Coordination Procedures". Plans will be sent to the utility companies at each plan submittal milestone for the resolution of utility conflicts with the proposed construction. This will be tracked on the utilities matrix. KOA will consult and resolve any apparent conflict difficulties. Deliverables: ➢ Utility contact letters ➢ Plan submittals to utilities ➢ Utilities contact matrix TASK 5 — GEOTECHNICAL REPORT KOA engaged Geo-envi ron mental, Inc. to provide a scope of services as below: GEI proposes to perform a soils investigation at the project site to determine the conditions of the existing pavement, base course, and subgrade soils, and provide recommendations for design of retaining walls and pavement. The geotechnical investigation will include collection of bulk and undisturbed soil samples from the site, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and the preparation of a report presenting recommendations for the improvements planned at the project site. The scope of our investigation will consist of five (5) tasks: (1) data M (9 review/coordination, (2) field investigation, (3) laboratory testing, (4) engineering analyses, and (5) report preparation. These tasks are briefly described below. Task I — Data Review/Coordination — Available geotechnical and geological data regarding the project site and surrounding areas will be reviewed to assess the expected soil conditions at the site. The data review will include the review of published geologic maps and grading reports for the site and other geotechnical data contained in our in-house files, and in City/County files. City records to be reviewed will include any existing improvement plans, topographic data, maps, as -constructed drawings, utility plans, reports, aerial photographs, and other pertinent information necessary for the project. At least two (2) working days before the fieldwork, GEI will obtain all necessary state, federal, local, and other permits and licenses as necessary. Task 2 — Field Investigation — The field investigation will consist of two (2) parts: a site reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration. The site reconnaissance will include examination of the project site to evaluate existing improvements, and gain familiarity with the site and specific pavement conditions, especially potential construction areas. The proposed boring locations will be marked in white and Underground Service Alert (USA) will be notified for coordinating with utility companies to locate and field -mark existing substructures. The markings provided by USA will be used to ensure the protection of any identified existing utilities. Following the notification to USA, the field investigation will be performed. The field investigation will include exploration of the site by drilling four (4) soils borings along the proposed trails' alignment to secure undisturbed and bulk soil samples for laboratory analysis of the subgrade soils supporting the pavement sections. The borings will be drilled by utilizing either a 6-inch or an 8-inch diameter truck -mounted hollow -stem auger drill rig. The soils borings will be drilled to approximate depths ranging between 5 and 50 feet below the existing ground surface or to the depth of refusal. The deep boring is intended to collect information about the groundwater table at the site and to obtain the required parameters for the soil liquefaction analysis. The depths of the proposed borings may change depending on the materials encountered during the field investigation. Boreholes will be backfilled with soil cuttings generated from the same boring and compacted immediately after the final samples are retrieved. Task 3 — Laboratory Testing — Disturbed bulk and relatively undisturbed drive soil samples collected during the proposed field investigation will be examined in the laboratory to confirm field classifications. Selected samples from the borings will be tested to help evaluate engineering properties of the subsurface soils, including in -situ moisture content and dry density, classification testing including grain -size distribution, sand equivalence, and plasticity/expansive characteristics, shear strength, compaction characteristics (maximum dry density and optimum water content) by modified proctor testing, compressibility characteristics, and corrosive properties (resistivity, pH, soluble sulfates, and chloride). The numbers and types of tests will depend upon the soils encountered and the planned improvements at the sample location. Results of all laboratory testing performed on bulk and drive samples of the subsurface soils will be included in the appendix of the engineering report prepared for the project. The proposed laboratory -testing program is outlined in Table I.. SIN E Task 4 — Engineering Analysis — Engineering analyses will be performed upon completion of the laboratory testing. Results from the field and laboratory testing, site reconnaissance, and GEI's experience will be the basis for the engineering analyses. Task 5 — Report Preparation — An engineering report will be prepared at the conclusion of the investigation to aid in the preparation of the earthwork grading -plan. The report will be prepared in accordance with standard drawings and specifications of the City or other applicable agencies. It will describe GEI's purpose, methods and procedures used to conduct the field exploration (including sampling collection methods), investigation findings (soil characteristics), geotechnical engineering conclusions/recommendations regarding appropriate construction methods, and supporting laboratory test procedures and results. The report will provide foundation design parameters, bearing capacity, anticipated settlements, backfill requirements, trenching recommendations, compaction requirements, subgrade preparation, and treatment recommendations for wet, unsuitable, and/or saturated conditions. It will also provide the depths and estimated quantity of needed over -excavation, and any necessary bedding and shoring design recommendations. Deliverables: ➢ Geotechnical report — 3 bound sets and I electronic copy TASK 6 — PRELIMINARY PLAN SHEETS Preliminary plan sheets will be developed in AutoCAD, showing the entire project area in City Plan Sheet format at 40' scale on D-size (24"x36") sheets. All relevant existing data will be shown, including topographic survey, ECR, BCR, flowlines, centerlines, angle points, top of curb, spandrels, pavement, striping, utilities, structures, walls, trees and landscape, underground and surface utilities, poles, hydrants, catch basins, signs, valves, manholes, and other physical features. Deliverables: Preliminary plans Preliminary cost estimates TASK 7 — GRAPHIC PRESENTATION Utilizing AutoCAD files prepared by KOA will prepare SketchUp cross sections and exhibits showing the proposed bikeway improvements. At least three final renderings will be prepared. We anticipate preparing several additional preliminary renderings during the preliminary design process. R Deliverables. ➢ Sketch -Up cross sections ➢ Exhibits for public presentations TASK 8 — COMMUNITY OUTREACH KOA will assist the City of Costa Mesa in preparing and conducting community outreach meetings to discuss the project, obtain comments, and identify and finalize the project concept. We anticipate up to three such meetings and a City Council presentation to be conducted. KOA will plan, prepare, and conduct these meetings based on discussions with the City. The City will assist in providing notification to affected stakeholders, including businesses and residents. We plan one or two community meetings to receive input from the public. Our Spanish-speaking staff will provide real-time translation. We also have experience with preparing fliers in both English and Spanish. Other tasks could include providing deliverables and services to educate the public on the project; evaluating its effectiveness; and creating bike/pedestrian and trail route map worksheets to raise route awareness and to tout the benefits of bicycling/walking. Deliverables: Conceptual engineering exhibits (plans and sections for the alternatives) Open house meeting written comments TASK 9 — Preliminary Structure Moffatt & Nichol, an internationally well-known structural and harbor engineering firm will develop two retaining wall alternatives. PHASE II — PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES Upon the selection of a final design configuration, KOA will proceed with developing the construction bid package, including plans, specifications, and the construction cost estimate. KOA will coordinate with the City twice per month and conduct monthly progress meetings with City staff. The KOA Team will prepare plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) and reviews at 70%, 90%, and 100% levels of completion for submittal to the City. The plans will include: Title sheet Typical sections I&M 7 ➢ Details ➢ Plan and profiles (1 "=20' scale) ➢ Signing and striping layout ➢ Intersection and access spot treatment detail layout ➢ Traffic control plans ➢ Landscape and Irrigation plans ➢ Structural Plans ➢ Summary of quantities ➢ Technical specifications ➢ Supplemental cross section sheets at 50-foot stations We anticipate utilizing the City's front-end contract documents and modifying them to be project - specific. We anticipate referencing the Caltrans and APWA standard specifications and adding technical special provisions, if required. The engineer's estimate will be quantity -based, using recent bid prices as a basis for developing the estimate. Following each milestone submittal, we will meet with City staff to review comments. We will send milestone plan submittals to the utility companies for the identification and implementation of utility adjustments. Upon the City's approval, we will submit three sealed hard copies of the PS&E for bidding purposes. Electronic files will be submitted in PDF, AutoCAD, Word, and Excel formats. Deliverables: ➢ 70% draft plans ➢ 70% draft specification outline ➢ 70% draft engineer's estimate ➢ Minutes of 70% review meeting ➢ 90% draft plans ➢ 90% draft specifications ➢ 90% draft engineer's estimate ➢ Minutes of 90% review meeting ➢ 100% draft plans ➢ 100% draft specifications ➢ 100% draft engineer's estimate ➢ Final PS&E electronic files; final plans (24"x36" Mylar); final specifications (8.5"xI I" Bond); final estimate (8.5"x I I" bond) The plans will include utility information and depict existing utilities and easements. Any necessary utility relocation or adjustment work will be included. 40T 8 EXHIBIT C FEE SCHEDULE FEE SCHEDULE Firm: K®A Corporation Project Title: City of Costa Mesa Design Services for a proposed Bicycle Facility Along West 19th Street Between Placentia Avenue and the Greenville -Banning Channel Bikeway +a+ +m (C) (a) (e) l0 (9) (h) (rv) V) - - - - - -: 411111ow a. ' a ;` l7' 1501f ng Plan E c1 Ruviaw, Survey, Prelim Dmign pCp s�j". g � r _ + E7 ,[�k � 6 c Phase I a G - 6- .Z .it .- Phase I' Amount c _ �-- Phase Fimtl 001 Er,g+ilmwriri8 it � .� S a ;, j w y a. `� v W _ 2 Deklgn a rt' r � "J- � ` - :, ` Phase ) Houng Phase 2 Ainago Grand E'-7"G A. tatlf. ca lraiti�te Total CD/1Avoct-pon & Cord zrucvmo3 $1,)7loorr (All tasks) ei Cam. � .�'. R Rhwc 3 Phase 3 TOW Tntctl i u Haves 6(potint F.iows AorrPkq u Labor Classificati Ls). Project Manager Principal in Charge 'Senior Engineer I Associate Planner Associate Designer .Assistant Engineer 11 Administrative Assistant - Other Direct Costs ODCs) - Directly Chargeable Only -Printing KOA�4� r GRAN© TOTAL $8,992 $5,767 $28,783 $1,888 $16,040 $3,0 It $3,784 $6,360 $0 $2,0S5 $4,587 $9,533 $91,165 $5,720 $15,006 $ I S,00i6 $12.0 8 $9,573 $0 $0 : ;$25,531 $83,779 $0 $180,000 Dq, ...:.._,�.�........,.��,..�..,...�.�,..»w,..�._.,., ........ ........ ............... ............. .,..,•�.,.W,n..� ' ......... ........ .................. ....�.�..�.,..,<-w...�.m..•.�.•;�.�....�..,..»a��..,,,.p,.W�....,��,�...w..�.,w,.,�.,...,v,.,�.,<..�a�,.. ......... ....................... .......... .................................................................................................................................. �.,. ., ...„.�,,.»_�.�.,..>n...�....�;�,.�.,.., .......�,.;••..w,..�„ • .... ...... . .......... ....... ......... ........... ............ ......... .................. .. ',u., :: :. ': 'x4'b.].w 'ixU ': 'xS1 Luwtiwttz l .N iif2lsve.•n d.•u' �... Ytixi mraivaYd" .�imvnrai:- �...Yl.. a :Anv. ab'r. &i..l••.b1:•e nt�•uxa•.w lvu vw4tu+ti&'ek.4a"Yrc•.. 'riSSixiibf'.•A�..: ink.]'.••exi ��M:�l>' . ....a'ti. .•Mtill'i.:ivewa • wil...w. .. .a.Yka riit:MY�Y.•tifxlnY . .'.•�.kof'•wk..vro a.Ykx .•1>'.• nt:MY�YM :i4k'aixiw. :wk.Ybwa nritx'.•Si.. .Y. tii1l�L.>v..w. w. n� ...<• ei EXHIBIT D PROJECT SCHEDULE + + + ; % ] \ \a)m \ 7 E \ \ . g k g \ � J \ \ k } � \ HIN I ED EXHIBIT E CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE 050-1 A4CC) L)i CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(MMIDDnrnrY) 16/29/2015 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER Dealey, Renton & Associates 199 S Los Robles Ave Ste 540 Pasadena, CA 91101 Lic #0020739 INSURED KOACORPOR KOA Corporation 1100 Corporate Center Dr#201 Monterey Park, CA 91754 323-260-4703 E NA`mP! : Marie Swaney PHONE FAX (C. No): E-MAIL mswane deals renton-COm ADDRESS: YC Y INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURERA-..Travelers Property Casualty Co of A :25674 INSURERB:Travelers Indemnity Co. ofConnecti :25682 INSURERc:American Automobile Ins. Co. 21849 INSURER American Insurance Company 22667 INSURER E : -- INSURER F !`d]11C17A!_�4 r'=DT1G19"ATF MI 1RA1a=F- 1'i97QA5711 F?FVICIr1M MI IFARCR• THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. 1NSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE O INSD M WVD POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF M/DONYYY POLICY EXP MM/DD/YYYY LIMITS B X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Y Y 68020751_840 3/13/2015 3/13/2016 EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 CLAIMS -MADE , OCCUR E PAMAI ao $1,000,000 X MED EXP (Any oneperson) $10,000 Contractual Liab. X XCU Included PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $1.000.000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $2.000,000 POLICYMX JEC LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $2,000.000 $ OTHER: A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Y Y BA2A439568 3/13/2015 3/13/2016 Ea aOINE ll"V $ 1,000,000 BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ X ANY AUTO AUTOWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ _ X HIRED AUTOS X NON -OWNED AUTOS - Peracddeln $ B X UMBRELLA LIAB X OCCUR Y Y 6802075L840 3/13/2015 3/13/2016 EACH OCCURRENCE $4,000,000 AGGREGATE $4,000,000 EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS -MADE DED I X I RETENTION$0 $ C WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY YIN ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNERIEXECUTIVE y WZP81021313 9/19/2014 9/19/2015 X STATUTE ETH EL. EACH ACCIDENT $1.000,000 OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ (Mandatory in NH) N / A E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $1.000,000 If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $1.000,000 D Professional Liability G23631684010 3/13/2015 3/13/2016 $2,000,000 Per Claim $2,000,000 Annual Aggr Claims Made Form DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS I VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) General Liability excludes claims arising out of the performance of professional services. Umbrella Policy is follow -form to underlying ,GL/AUTO/Employers Liability policies RE: RFP, Banning Channel Bikeway -- The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, and employees are named as an additional insured as respects general & auto liability for claims arising from the operations of the named insured as required per written contract or agreement. Primary & non-contributory wording and waivers of subrogation apply per policy endorsement forms See Attached... f.:IzKIII-IL;AIEHVLULK L:ANUk=LLAIIUN Ouudy luuay lul llulWily V1PFUIrI City of Costa Mesa - Trans Svcs Div Attn: David Cho PO BOX 1200 Costa Mesa CA 92628-1200 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AA4_U ©1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights resprvqd. ACORD 25 (2014101) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD y AGENCY CUSTOMER ID: KOACORPOR _ LOC #: ADDITIONAL REMARKS SCHEDULE Pagel of 1 AGENCY NAMED INSURED Dealey, Renton & Associates - KOA Corporation 1100 Corporate Center Dr #201 POLICY NUMBER .Monterey Park, CA 91754 323-260-4703 CARRIER NAIC CODE EFFECTIVE DATE: ADDITIONAL REMARKS THIS ADDITIONAL REMARKS FORM IS A SCHEDULE TO ACORD FORM, FORM NUMBER: 25 FORM TITLE: CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE attached Blanket SEVERABILITY OF INTERESTS applies to GL: Separation of Insureds - Except with respect to the Limits of Insurance, and any rights or duties specifically assigned in this Coverage Part to the first Named Insured, this insurance applies: a. As if each Named Insured were the only named Insured; and b. Separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. ACORD 101 (2008101) (V ZUUtf AGUKU GUKF'UKA I IUN. An rignwzimouvea. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD POLICY NUMBER: 6802075L840 COMMERICAL GENERAL LIABILITY ISSUE DATE:6/29/2015 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED (ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ORGAN IZATION(S): City of Costa Mesa - Trans Svcs Div Attn: David Cho PO BOX 1200 Costa Mesa CA 92628-1200 PROJECT/LOCATION OF COVERED OPERATIONS: *Completed to read: The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, and employees -- RE: RFP, Banning Channel Bikeway PROVISIONS A The following is added to WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II): The person or organization shown in the Sched- ule above is an additional insured on this Cover- age Part, but only with respect to liability for bod- ily injury", 'property damage" or 'personal injury caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omis- sions or the acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf: a. In the performance of your ongoing oper- ations; b. In connection with premises owned by or rented to you; or C. In connection with your work and included within the "products -completed operations hazard." Such person or organization does not qualify as an additional insured for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal injury' for which that person or organization has assumed liability in a contract or agreement. The insurance provided to such additional insured is limited as follows: d. This insurance does not apply to the render- ing of or failure to render any "professional services". e. The limits of insurance afforded to the addi- tional insured shall be the limits which you agreed in that 'contract or agreement requir- ing insurance" to provide for that additional insured, or the limits shown in the Declarations for this Coverage Part, whichever are less. This endorsement does not increase the limits of insurance stated in the LIMITS OF INSURANCE (Section III) for this Coverage Part. B. The following is added to Paragraph a. of 4. Other Insurance in COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS (Section IV): However, if you specifically agree in a contract or agreement requiring insurance that, for the addi- tional insured shown in the Schedule, the insur- ance provided to that additional insured under this CG D3 82 09 07 © 2007 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office Inc., with its permission Page 1 COMMERICAL GENERAL LIABILITY Coverage Part must apply on a primary basis, or a primary and non-contributory basis, this insurance is primary to other insurance that is available to such additional insured which covers such additional insured as a named insured, and we will not share with the other insurance, provided that: (1) The "bodily injury" or "property damage" for which coverage is sought occurs; and (2) The "personal injury" for which coverage is sought arises out of an offense committed; after you have entered into that "contract or agreement requiring insurance" for such additional insured. But this insurance still is excess over valid and collectible other insurance, whathor primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the additional insured when the additional insured is also an additional insured under any other insurance. C. The following is added to Paragraph 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us in COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS (Section IV): We waive any rights of recovery we may have against the additional insured shown in the Schedule above because of payments we make for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal injury" arising out of "your work" on or for the project, or at the location, shown in the Schedule above, performed by you, or on your behalf, under a "contract or agreement requiring insurance" with that additional insured. We waive these rights only where you have agreed to do so as part of the "contract or agreement requiring insurance" with that additional insured entered into by you before, and in effect when, the "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs, or the "personal injury" offense is committed. D. The following definition is added to DEFINITIONS (Section V): "Contract or agreement requiring insurance" means that part of any contract or agreement under which you are required to include the person or organization shown in the Schedule as an additional insured on this Coverage Part, provided that the "bodily injury" and "property damage" occurs, and the "personal injury" is caused by an offense committed: a. After you have entered into that contract or agreement; b. While that part of the contract or agreement is in effect; and c. Before the end of the policy period. CG D3 82 09 07 Page 2 © 2007 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office Inc., with its permission 0 POLICY #: BA2A439568 COMMERCIAL AUTO CA 20 48 02 99 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. DESIGNATED INSURED This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM GARAGE COVERAGE FORM MOTOR CARRIER COVERAGE FORM TRUCKERS COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions ofthe Coverage Form apply unless modi- fied by this endorsement. This endorsement identifies person(s) or organization(s) who are "insureds" under the Who Is An Insured Provi- sion of the Coverage Form. This endorsement does not alter coverage provided in the Coverage Form. This endorsement changes the policy effective on the inception date of the policy unless another date is indicated below. Endorsement Effective: 6/29/2015 Countersigned By: Named Insured: !� KOA Corporation (Authorized Representative) SCHEDULE Name of Person(s) or Organization(s): *Completed to read: The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, and employees -- RE: RFP, Banning Channel Bikeway (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to the endorsement.) Each person or organization shown in the Schedule is an "insured" for Liability Coverage, but only to the extent that person or organization qualifies as an "insured" under the Who Is An Insured Provision contained in Section II of the Coverage Form. CA 20 48 02 99 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1998 Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance Policy Waiver of Our Right to Recover From Others Endorsement - California WC 04 03 06 If the following information is not complete, refer to the appropriate Schedule attached to the policy. Insured:KOA Corporation Producer: Dealey, Renton & Associates Schedule Person or Organization City of Costa Mesa - Trans Svcs Div Attn: David Cho PO BOX 1200 Costa Mesa CA 92628-1200 Additional Premium % We have the right to recover our payments from any- one liable for an injury- covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.) Authorized Representative Policy Number WZP81021313 Effective Date 6 / 2 9 / 2 015 Job Description *Completed to read: The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, and employees -- RE: RFP, Banning Channel Bikeway You must maintain payroll records accurately segre- gating the remuneration of your employees while en- gaged in the work described in the Schedule. The additional premium for this endorsement shall be the percentage, as shown in the Schedule applicable to this endorsement, of the California workers' compensation premium otherwise due on such remuneration. WC040306 9 COMMERCIAL AUTO Policy #BA2A439568 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BLANKET WAIVER OF SUBROGATION This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM GARAGE COVERAGE FORM MOTOR CARRIER COVERAGE FORM TRUCKERS COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage provided by this endorse- required of you by a written contract executed ment, the provisions of the Coverage Form apply prior to any "accident" or 'loss", provided that the unless modified by the endorsement. "accident" or 'loss" arises out of the operations Paragraph 5. Transfer of Rights Of Recovery contemplated by such contract. The waiver ap- Against Others To Us of the CONDITIONS section plies only to the person or organization desig- is replaced by the following: nated in such contract. 5. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Oth- ers To Us We waive any right of recovery we may have against any person or organization to the extent CA T3 40 08 08 © 2008 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Page 1 of OS) Policy #BA2A439568 Auto insurance always follows the car, not the owner. Thus the vehicle owner's insurance is always primary. Below are the excerpted paragraphs from the ISO Business Auto Coverage form which explains the coverage. Section II Liability Coverage, A. Coverage, 1. Who Is An Insured, c. anyone liable for the conduct of an "insured" described above but only to the extent of that liability Section IV Business Auto Conditions, B. General Conditions, 5.Other Insurance c. Regardless of the provisions of Paragraph a. above, this Coverage Form's Liability Coverage is primary for any liability assumed under an "insured contract". Section V Definitions, H. "Insured contract" means:, 5. "That part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business (including an indemnification of a municipality in connection with work performed for a municipality) under which you assume the tort liability of another to pay for "bodily injury" or "property damage" to a third party or organization. Tort liability means a liability that would be unposed by law in the absence of any contract or agreement. By California state law the Insured's Auto insurance will always be primary with respect to the Insured's owned autos. M Policy #BA2A439568 b. Return the stolen property, at our ex- pense. We will pay for any damage that results to the "auto" from the theft; or c. Take all or any part of the damaged or stolen property at an agreed or appraised value_ If we pay for the `loss", our payment will in- clude the applicable sales tax for the dam- aged or stolen property_ 5. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us If any person or organization to or for whom we make payment under this coverage form has rights to recover damages from another, those rights are transferred to us. That person or organization must do everything necessary to secure our rights and must do nothing after "accident" or "loss' to impair them. B. General Conditions 1. Bankruptcy Bankruptcy or insolvency of the "insured" or the "insured's" estate will not relieve us of any obligations under this coverage fnrm. 2. Concealment, Misrepresentation Or Fraud This coverage form is void in any case of fraud by you at any time as it relates to this coverage form. It is also void if you or any other "insured", at any time, intentionally con- ceal or misrepresent a material fact concern- ing: a. This coverage form: b. The covered "auto"; c. Your interest in the covered "auto": or d. A claim under this coverage form. 3. Liberalization If we revise this coverage form to provide more coverage without additional premium charge, your policy will automatically provide the additional coverage as of the day the re- vision is effective in your state. 4. No Benefit To Bailee — Physical Damage Coverages We will not recognize any assignment or grant any coverage for the benefit of any per- son or organization holding, storing or trans- porting property for a fee regardless of any other provision of this coverage form. COMMERCIAL AUTO S. Other Insurance a. For any covered "auto" you own. this coverage form provides primary insur- ance. For any covered "auto" you don't own. the insurance provided by this cov- erage form is excess over any other col- lectible insurance However, while a cov- ered "auto" which is a "trailer" is con- nected to another vehicle, the Liability Coverage this coverage form provides for the "trailer" is: (1) Excess while it is connected to a mo- tor vehicle you do not own- (2) Primary while it is connected to a covered "auto" you own. b. For Hired Auto Physical Damage Cover- age, any covered "auto' you lease, hire, rent or borrow is deemed to toe a covered "auto" you own. However. any "auto" that is leased, hired, rented or borrowed with a driver is not a covered "auto". c. Regardless of the provisions of Para- graph a. above, this coverage form's Li- ability Coverage is primary for any liability assumed under an "insured contract". d. When this coverage form and any other coverage form or policy covers on the same basis, either excess or primary, we will pay only our share. Our share is the proportion that the Limit of Insurance of our coverage form bears to the total of the limits of all the coverage forms and policies covering on the same basis. G. Premium Audit a. The estimated premium for this coverage form is based on the exposures you told us you would have when this policy be- gan. We will compute the final premium due when we determine your actual ex- posures, The estimated total premium will be credited against the final premium due and the first Named Insured will be billed for the balance, if any. The due date for the final premium or retrospective pre- mium is the date shown as the due date on the bill, If the estimated total premium exceeds the final premium due, the first Named Insured will get a refund. b. If this policy is issued for more than one year, the premium for this coverage form will be computed annually based on our rates or premiums in effect at the begin- ning of each year of the policy. CA 00 0103 10 (Rev. o2-1' ) (9) Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2009 Page 9 of 12 61 EXHIBIT F CITY COUNCIL POLICY 100-5 Ra SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 1 of 3 BACKGROUND Under the Federal Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988, passed as part of omnibus drug legislation enacted November 18, 1988, contractors and grantees of Federal funds must certify that they will provide drug -free workplaces. At the present time, the City of Costa Mesa, as a sub -grantee of Federal funds under a variety of programs, is required to abide by this Act. The City Council has expressed its support of the national effort to eradicate drug abuse through the creation of a Substance Abuse Committee, institution of a City-wide D.A.R.E. program in all local schools and other activities in support of a drug -free community. This policy is intended to extend that effort to contractors and grantees of the City of Costa Mesa in the elimination of dangerous drugs in the workplace. PURPOSE It is the purpose of this Policy to: 1. Clearly state the City of Costa Mesa's commitment to a drug -free society. 2. Set forth guidelines to ensure that public, private, and nonprofit organizations receiving funds from the City of Costa Mesa share the commitment to a drug -free workplace. POLICY The City Manager, under direction by the City Council, shall take the necessary steps to see that the following provisions are included in all contracts and agreements entered into by the City of Costa Mesa involving the disbursement of funds. 1. Contractor or Sub -grantee hereby certifies that it will provide a drug -free workplace by: a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's workplace, specifically the job site or location included in this contract, and specifying the actions that will be taken against the employees for violation of such prohibition; 63 SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 2 of 3 U. [Zsiaullsnmg a urug-rree Awareness Program to intorm employees about: 1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; 2. Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace; 3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and 4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; c. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the contract be given a copy of the statement required by subparagraph A; d. Notifying the employee in the statement required by subparagraph 1 A that, as a condition of employment under the contract, the employee will: 1. Abide by the terms of the statement; and 2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction; e. Notifying the City of Costa Mesa within ten (10) days after receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 from an employee or otherwise receiving the actual notice of such conviction; f. Taking one of the following actions within thirty (30) days of receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 with respect to an employee who is so convicted: 1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or 2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health agency, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; �4) SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 3 of 3 g. Making a good faith effort to maintain a drug -free workplace through implementation of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 F, inclusive. 2. Contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be deemed to be in violation of this Policy if the City of Costa Mesa determines that: a. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has made a false certification under paragraph 1 above; b. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 G above; c. Such number of employees of Contractor and/or sub -grantee have been convicted of violations of criminal drug statutes for violations occurring in the workplace as to indicate that the contractor and/or sub -grantee has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug -free workplace. 3. Should any contractor and/or sub -grantee be deemed to be in violation of this Policy pursuant to the provisions of 2 A, B, and C, a suspension, termination or debarment proceeding subject to applicable Federal, State, and local laws shall be conducted. Upon issuance of any final decision under this section requiring debarment of a contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be ineligible for award of any contract, agreement or grant from the City of Costa Mesa for a period specified in the decision, not to exceed five (5) years. Upon issuance of any final decision recommending against debarment of the contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be eligible for compensation as provided by law. WEST I 9TH STREET BICYCLE TRAIL PROJECT CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 21, 2015 WEST I 9TH STREET BICYCLE TRAIL PROJECT ► Connects Placentia Avenue to the Santa River Trail System ► Bicycle Lane along West I 9th Street Transitioning to Bicycle Trail Through Talbert Preserve 1► Follows Alignment of Southern California Edison and Future Orange County Sanitary District's Sewer Pipeline ► $1,700,000 Grant for Implementation PROPOSED BICYCLE ALIGNMENT ALONG WEST I 9TH STREET AND TALBERT NATURE PRESERVE F , r h., r AH air 3 a.lells, r OZeIM.yDla.lf Fix r.,v.-- inFormulion chnk t1he kik above to learn more aboul. the praigm iurfoLetr1% thd NUT turidA, sftANKri COWWNA E0146 io 3A 1.117lkFPTE*t'tLlmrrbin7�motit3ii4kE Nair Pmpmim L,=kwk EF-16Ir4i fiNsi Bbz Tiad nqMW CMe" Chy Me Tra4 h13LT FfOpW.p urtV k r4 d cciv ria I L Lm its ICP qmd " vF Nowpvrt kq4 godide tmrlr.g Pump Stalin- In bf AhAwored P-%o,m ntd -14 0 4 .) r. tau hi in F Smarr I L7 ir CECYs Office p state& Bari Hari: pp iP— TI reeema City Attorney City Clerk Community Impressment Boom Meda Contacts .......... ..................................... c.� ......................................................... Sign Up Ur E Notfications Communications Staff Directory Development Sensors Economic development Finance Fire Human Resources .................. u......... .... Parks and Community grocery ................................................. Cry aamcea directory City staffdrectory Cry transparency COIN process (labor negrotations) CMI Commissions and committees City receives $1 million grant for Westside bike trail Hith aimed Trial 18TH STREET BIKE TRAIL tstn street to the Santa Ana Rayer trail system moimo granmeeaigo aoecooatronanmvcie trap c000ecnog we:� a trail will run along West 1 No Street beginning at Placentia Avenue and run through Talbert Regional Park race onnAting to the bike path that runs along the Santa Ana Rever a is or ion �.ama remaining nio nd w a: we na soug om capip men no At Quality Management District funds is project will proarde a convenient lomese and pedestrian trail connection to the beach and Per Coast Highway onvernalent connection to employment areas in north Costs Mesa va the Santa Ana Rever Trail a grant came room Metal Congestion Management & Air Quality p man og mny or q v p eon not y ea awarded through Bicycle coroaor Municipal code CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-13 SUBJECT: CREATION OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR — COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DIVISION JOB CLASSIFICATION AND CORRESPONDING SALARY RANGE FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: GARY ARMSTRONG, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATE: JULY 6, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: GARY ARMSTRONG 714.754.5270 gary.armstrong@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATIONS Pursuant to the City's Municipal Code Section 2-12 and in order to complete the personnel - related documentation required for this newly budgeted position, Council is required to formally adopt the job description and amended salary resolution. As a result, Staff recommends that the City Council: Approve the new job classification of Assistant Director of Community Improvement (Attachment 1). 2. Adopt Resolution No. 15- (Attachment 11), which amends Resolution No.08-59 by establishing the new Assistant Director of Community Improvement classification with a salary range of $9,526 to $12,766 per month under the Executive Salary Resolution. BACKGROUND With the adoption of the FY 2015-2016 Budget, the City Council approved the creation of the newjob classification of "Assistant Director of Community Improvement." This executive management position will have specific responsibilities related to management and oversight of the Community Improvement Division (CID) within the Development Services Department. CID was transferred from the CEO's Office to Development Services during a re -organization of the departments in 2014. ANALYSIS The attached job classification of the Assistant Director of Community Improvement clearly delineates the essential functions and qualification guidelines. The attached salary range is consistent with the salary schedule for the existing Division Manager classifications in the Development Services Department. This management class is distinguished from the Building Official and Assistant Development Services Director due to the fact that the job responsibilities relate solely to the Community Improvement Division. The Assistant Director of Community Improvement will oversee four Code Enforcement Officers whose responsibilities include the implementation and monitoring of the Group Home Enforcement, Hotel/Motel Enforcement, Neighborhood Stabilization Programs, and other related community improvement activities as required. Work is assigned and evaluated by the Deputy CEO/Director of Economic Development and Development Services. The Development Services Director would remain as the direct supervisor to this position. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The recommended action is required pursuant to the City's Municipal Code Section 2- 212 for maintaining and administering a position classification plan. No other alternatives are identified. FISCAL IMPACT The funding for the position was approved by Council on June 23, 2015 as a part of the FY2015/2016 budget process. Consequently, there is no additional fiscal impact. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney's Office has prepared and approved documents as to form. Also, the Costa Mesa Division Managers Association (CMDMA) has been notified of this new job classification. CONCLUSION The new classification was approved by City Council on June 23, 2015 as part of the Fiscal Year 2015/2016 budget. Pursuant to personnel regulations, it is necessary to complete the personnel -related documentation required for this newly budgeted position. The Assistant Director of Community Improvement will oversee four Code Enforcement Officers whose responsibilities include the implementation and monitoring of the Group Home Enforcement, Hotel/Motel Enforcement, Neighborhood Stabilization Programs, and other related community improvement activities as required. GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO STEPHEN DUNIVENT Interim Finance Director SILVIA KENNERSON KASAMA LEE Management Analyst Principal Human Resources Analyst Attachments: I. Proposed Job Description II. Resolution 15- cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr. City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) ATTACHMENT I CITY OF COSTA MESA Assistant Director of Class Code: Established Date: July 12, 2015 0157 Revision Date: Community improvement DESCRIPTION: Under administrative direction, to plan, organize, direct, review and coordinate the work of the Community Improvement Division within the Development Services Department; to present and justify recommendations to management, governing bodies and community groups regarding community improvement programs including the Group Home Enforcement, Hotel/Motel Enforcement and Neighborhood Stabilization Programs; and to do other work related to community improvement programs as required. CLASS CHARACTERISTICS: An incumbent in the position is permit to work within guidelines established by law, regulations, codes, City policy and City management. Formal supervision is exercised over professional and technical staff and formal or functional supervision over clerical staff. An incumbent represents the Community Improvement Division of the Development Services Department before the City Council, Planning Commission, Chief Executive Officer, community groups, other City staff and the public. This management class is distinguished from the class of Assistant Development Services Director due to the fact that the job responsibilities relate solely to the Community Improvement Division. Work is assigned and evaluated by the Economic and Development Services Director through conference and reports. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: These functions may not be present in all positions in this class. When a position is to be filled, the essential functions will be noted in the announcement of position availability. Management reserves the right to add, modify, change or rescind work assignments as needed. Assists with the overall planning, organizing, and directing of the Community Improvement Division; evaluates existing programs and activities and initiates actions for community improvement; determines methods and procedures to be utilized in accomplishing community improvement activities. Participates in the selection of professional, technical and clerical personnel and their orientation, training and performance evaluation; establishes work standards as related to community improvement. Assists the Director in planning activities of the Community Improvement Division and in developing departmental policies; provides for policy implementation. Analyzes work load needs and makes recommendations on staff and other expenditures requirements to accomplish community improvement programs. Supervises and participates in the preparation of a variety of comprehensive plans, complex research studies, statistics, and reports for written and verbal presentation to the Planning Commission, and City Council on community improvement programs and initiatives. Analyzes and evaluates the effectiveness of Community Improvement Programs. Coordinates activities with other departments and agencies and normally attends meetings related to other Code Enforcement and Network for Homeless Solutions activities. Meets with developers, citizens' organizations, and public officials to coordinate and implement various community improvement projects and programs. Interprets and explains Community Improvement programs, proposals and decisions to employees, other departments, groups, applicants and the public. Coordinates with other Development Services Divisions and City Departments on community improvement activities as necessary. Performs a variety of community improvement management duties including budgeting, staffing, cost control, priority setting and scheduling. Represents the Development Services Director in matters relating to the Community Improvement Division in his/her absence. Performs other related work as required. QUALIFICATIONS GUIDELINES: A typical way to obtain the requisite knowledge and abilities to perform the duties and responsibilities of this classification is as follows: EDUCATION, TRAINING AND/OR EXPERIENCE: Graduation from an accredited four-year college or university with major course work in urban planning, public administration, or a related field. Progressively responsible professional experience in urban planning preferably encompassing community improvement activities. Previous supervisory experience is preferred. LICENSE AND/OR CERTIFICATE: Certification by the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) is preferred REQUISITE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL LEVELS: Knowledge of principles and practices of urban planning, community improvement, and code enforcement. Knowledge of laws and ordinances applicable to community improvement, urban planning, community development, and zoning processes. Knowledge of principles of supervision, work organization, and personnel management. Knowledge of management and budgetary principles and practices. Knowledge of relevant Federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to and affecting California community improvement and development, including property acquisition, funding and financial methods, disposal, rehabilitation and relocation. REQUISITE ABILITIES: Ability to Supervise and perform complex technical research on economic, engineering, transportation, zoning, redevelopment, environmental impact, urban design and sociological problems as part of the community improvement process. Ability to present technical information succinctly in an interesting manner, orally and in writing, to both large and small groups. Ability to analyze and supervise the systematic compilation of technical and statistical data and to prepare complex reports. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with staff, city officials, representatives of other government agencies, community leaders, business owners and the general public. Ability to plan, organize and supervise the work of professional, technical and clerical personnel. Ability to coordinate community improvement activities with other City sections, divisions, departments, land 6 developers and other outside individuals. Ability to comprehend and apply laws, regulations and policies related to community improvement or municipal planning. Ability to analyze a variety of administrative problems in the Community Improvement Division and make sound policy and procedural decisions as to their solution. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: PHYSICAL TASKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS: Please contact Human Resources for a summary of the essential tasks and environmental factors for this classification. Employee accommodations for physical or mental disabilities will be considered on a case -by -case basis. - G - ATTACHMENT II RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 08-59 BY ESTABLISHING A NEW JOB CLASSIFICATION IN THE EXECUTIVE SALARY RESOLUTION. WHEREAS, the City Council of the Costa Mesa adopted Resolution 08-59 on August 19, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved the creation of the new job classification of Assistant Director of Community Improvement through the adoption of the FY 2015- 2016 Budget on June 23, 2015; and WHEREAS, this executive management position will have specific responsibilities related to management and oversight of the Community Improvement Division ("CID") within the Development Services Department; and WHEREAS, the CID was transferred from the Chief Executive Office ("CEO's") to Development Services during a re -organization of the departments in 2014. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa does hereby resolve, determine and order as follows: SECTION 1. The Costa Mesa City Council hereby Adopts Resolution 08-59 thereby approving the amendment to establish the new job classification of Assistant Director of Community Improvement. SECTION 2. The following job classification is hereby placed under the Executive Salary Schedule at the salary range and monthly rate of pay specified effective July 12, 2015. The monthly rate of pay for individual executives may be anywhere within the monthly minimum and maximum salary step. Class Class Code Title Salary Plan Grade 1 2 3 Step 4 5 6 7 DIVISION MANAGERS IN THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE 0158 Assistant Director of EXE 853 $9,526 $10,003 $10,503 $11,028 $11,579 $12,158 $12,766 Monthly Community Improvement $114,312 $120,036 $126,036 $132,336 $138,948 $145,896 $153,192 Annual $54.96 $57.71 $60.59 $63.62 $66.80 $70.14 $73.65 Hourly SECTION 3. All resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby rescinded. 17 SECTION 4. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON ATTEST: Brenda Green, City Clerk 2015. Stephen M. Mensinger, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Thomas Duarte, 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. 15- and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 215t day of July, 2015, 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 22"d day of July, 2015. BRENDA GREEN, CITY CLERK (SEAL) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-14 SUBJECT: RENEWAL OF THE MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT DATE: JULY 9, 2015 FROM: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION STEVE ELY, I.T. DIRECTOR BY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: STEVE ELY, I.T. DIRECTOR, 714-754-4891 RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the City CEO to execute the renewal of the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement for Microsoft Enterprise products through the County of Riverside Cooperative Agreement No. RIVCO-20800-002 with CompuCom Systems, Inc., effective August 2, 2015 through August 1, 2018, in an amount not to exceed $214,460.28 or $71,486.76 per year. BACKGROUND: Microsoft's Enterprise Agreement is a volume perpetual licensing program that enables organizations with 250 or more users the flexibility to purchase software licenses and updates under one agreement. This program includes Software Assurance, Microsoft's enhanced software maintenance package. The department currently has an EA agreement through CompuCom for the following products: • Core CAL • Office Professional Plus • Exchange Enterprise Server • Microsoft Project • SQL Server • Visio Professional • Visual Studio Professional with MSDN, and • Windows Server Datacenter 2-Processor As part of its information technology practices, the City typically upgrades and deploys core City software in a timeframe that keeps City software versions at, or near, current commercial release versions. This practice helps to make sure that critical City software are current with security -related improvements and product enhancements. During the three year life of the City's Microsoft EA, the City has saved money through volume purchasing and greatly simplified licensing for the City. 1 The City Council has approved participation in other public agencies' purchasing bids and contracts with the adoption of Resolution 94-11 on March 7, 1994. The Software Licensing Program (SLP) was established in January 1994 and is being administered by the Department of General Services (DGS). This program enables California State agencies and local governments to purchase software licenses (such as Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2013) at a discount through authorized participating resellers. SLP was also established to streamline purchases by removing repetitive, costly, and time- consuming bid processes on proprietary software licenses. Software pricing is obtained through the Riverside County EA (CCISDA/MISAC) agreement. ANALYSIS: On August 2, 2012, the City has made the investment of purchasing Microsoft perpetual licensing with Software Assurance over the past three years. By renewing this EA, the City will continue to simply pay for maintenance -only pricing on that licensing investment for another 3-year Microsoft EA term at an equal annual installment of $71,486.76. This maintenance coverage will give the City many benefits, including the following: • Upgrade rights to future versions of our licensed software • Enhanced licensing rights (SQL active -passive failover rights) • SQL virtual machine mobility rights • The Microsoft Office Home Use Program (Office available to City employees for $9.95 each, versus them purchasing for $399.99 retail) • eLearning (free web -based training for all employees on Microsoft products) • Twenty (20) SA Training Vouchers (about $10,000 in vouchers that the City can use to send our I.T. staff to on -site classroom training at various learning centers for Microsoft technologies) • A paid deployment planning workshop (on particular Microsoft server products, such as Exchange or SQL server deployments) • Three-year price protection against price increases • Free web-based/e-mail technical support on the Microsoft server products covered on our EA • Help Desk services ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: If the City does not renew the EA, we will lose all of the above benefits. If the City does not renew our EA on time and later on decide the rejoin the program, Microsoft will make the City start from the beginning and buy new licenses all over again. The new 3-Year contract term will be for a total of $439,418.70, or $146,472.90 per year. By renewing the EA, the City will avoid the costs of re -buying into the program at a later date. FISCAL REVIEW: Funding for this agreement is included in the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2015-16. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney has approved the documents as to form and content. 2 CONCLUSION: Authorizing the CEO to renew the Microsoft EA agreement through the Riverside cooperative agreement with CompuCom will allow the City to continue to simply pay for maintenance -only pricing on the licensing investment with CompuCom for another 3-year Microsoft EA term, and enjoy all the associated benefits. STEVEN A. ELY I.T. Director STEPHEN DUNIVENT Interim Finance Director TOM DUARTE City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. Microsoft EA Renewal Quote 2. Microsoft EA Proaram Sianature Form 3. Microsoft Enterprise Enrollment Signature Form 4. Enterprise Enrollment Product Selection Form 5. Riverside Cooperative Agreement with Microsoft through CompuCom 3 ATTACHMENT 1 CompuCom -software quote Quoted by Sam Andrews, CompuCom 7171 Forest Lane Dallas, TX 75230 Phone 323-378-6740 sam.and rews com ucom.com Please ax your s o our ten ssis ance en era or email to: statestore@compucom.com - Call 800-400-985Z option 2, to check status on orders. Quoted to: City of Costa Mesa Victoria Banner victoria.barner costamesaca. ov Date 71212015 Final August 2015 Renewal Quote important: Please provide the email address of the recipient designated to receive a Com uCom "order confirmation" Quantity Part # Description Unit Price Ext. Price "EA enterprise products" 450 W06-00446 Core CAL SA User CAL $ 36.19 $ 16,285.50 448 269-05704 Office Pro Plus SA $ 83.58 $ 37,443.84 "EA additional products" $ - 1 395-02504 Exchan e Enterprise Server SA $ 600.00 $ 600.00 5 076-01912 Project SA $ 96.10 $ 480.50 13 7NQ-00292 SQL Server Standard Edition 2-Core License SA $ 535.58 $ 6,962.54 4 D87-01159 Visio Pro SA $ 83.47 $ 333.88 1 77D-00111 Visual Studio Pro with MSDN SA $ 280.50 $ 280.50 10 P71-07282 Windows Server Datacenter 2-Processor SA $ 910.00 $ 9,100.00 Please type "electronic software delivery" on your PO Product -total $ 71,486.76 Sub -Total $ 71,486.76 0 Tax ESD - nontaxable $ Shipping No Charge Total ANNUAL EA RENEWAL Estimate (starting August 2015) $ 71,4116.76 Prices good to 8/15/2015 August 2015, 2016 and 2017 Payments Pass -Through Warranty and Other Rights. As a reseller, end -user warranties and liabilities (with respect to any third party hardware and software products provided by CompuCom) shall be provided as a pass -through from the manufacturer of such products. All software products are subject to the license agreement of the applicable software supplier, as provided with the software packaging or in the software at time of shipment. ATTACHMENT 2 Microsoft Program Signature Form MBA/MBSA number Agreement number 01 E73134 Volume Licensing Note: Enter the applicable active numbers associated with the documents below. Microsoft requires the associated active number be indicated here, or listed below as new. For the purposes of this form, "Customer" can mean the signing entity, Enrolled Affiliate, Government Partner, Institution, or other party entering into a volume licensing program agreement. This signature form and all contract documents identified in the table below are entered into between the Customer and the Microsoft Affiliate signing, as of the effective date identified below. Contract Document <Choose A reement> Number.. - <Choose A reement> <Choose A reement> <Choose A reement> <Choose A reement> Enterprise Enrollment X20-10632 <Choose Enrollment/Re istration> <Choose Enrollment/Re istration> <Choose Enrollment/Re istration> <Choose Enrollment/Re istration> EA Product Selection Form 0355549.001 PSF By signing below, Customer and the Microsoft Affiliate agree that both parties (1) have received, read and understand the above contract documents, including any websites or documents incorporated by reference and any amendments and (2) agree to be bound by the terms of all such documents. Name of Entity (must be legal entity name)* City of Costa Mesa Signature* Printed First and Last Name* Tom Hatch Printed Title CEO Signature Date* Tax ID indicates required ProgramSignForm(MSSign)(NA,LatAm)ExBRA,MLI(ENG)(Aug2074) Page 1 of Microsoft Corporation Signature Printed First and Last Name Printed Title Signature Date (date Microsoft Affiliate countersigns) Agreement Effective Date (may be different than Microsoft's signature date) Optional 2nd Customer signature or Outsourcer signature (if applicable) Name of Entity (must be legal entity name)* Signature* Printed First and Last Name* Printed Title Signature Date* indicates required field, • Name of Entity (must be legal entity name)* Signature* Printed First and Last Name* Printed Title Signature Date* indicates required field If Customer requires physical media, additional contacts, or is reporting multiple previous Enrollments, include the appropriate form(s) with this signature form. After this signature form is signed by the Customer, send it and the Contract Documents to Customer's channel partner or Microsoft account manager, who must submit them to the following address. When the signature form is fully executed by Microsoft, Customer will receive a confirmation copy. Microsoft Corporation Dept. 551, Volume Licensing 6100 Neil Road, Suite 210 Reno, Nevada 89511-1137 USA Programs ignForm (MSSign)(NA, LatAm)ExBRA, MLI(ENG)(Aug2014) Page 2 of ATTACHMENT 3 �® Microsoft Enterprise Enrollment Enterprise Enrollment number (Microsoft to complete) Previous Enrollment number (Reseller to complete) 5121406 Volume Licensing State and Local Proposal ID/Framework ID Earliest expiring previous g/30/2015 Enrollment end date' This Enrollment must be attached to a signature form to be valid. This Microsoft Enterprise Enrollment is entered into between the entities as identified in the signature form as of the effective date. Enrolled Affiliate represents and warrants it is the same Customer, or an Affiliate of the Customer, that entered into the Enterprise Agreement identified on the program signature form. This Enrollment consists of: (1) these terms and conditions, (2) the terms of the Enterprise Agreement identified on the signature form, (3) the Product Selection Form, (4) any supplemental contact information form or Previous Agreement/Enrollment form that may be required, (5) any order submitted under this Enrollment. This Enrollment may only be entered into under a 2011 or later Enterprise Agreement. By entering into this Enrollment, Enrolled Affiliate agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Enterprise Agreement. All terms used but not defined are located at http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/contracts. In the event of any conflict the terms of this Agreement control. Effective date. If Enrolled Affiliate is renewing Software Assurance or Subscription Licenses from one or more previous Enrollments or agreements, then the effective date will be the day after the first prior Enrollment or agreement expires or terminates. Otherwise, the effective date will be the date this Enrollment is accepted by Microsoft. Any reference to "anniversary date" refers to the anniversary of the effective date each year this Enrollment is in effect. Term. The initial term of this Enrollment will expire on the last day of the month, 36 full calendar months from the effective date of the initial term. If the Enrollment is renewed, the renewal term will expire 36 full calendar months after the effective date of the renewal term. Any reference in this Enrollment to "day" will be a calendar day. Product order. The Reseller will provide Enrolled Affiliate with Enrolled Affiliate's Product pricing and order. Prices and billing terms for all Products ordered will be determined by agreement between Enrolled Affiliate and the Reseller. The Reseller will provide Microsoft with the order separately from this Enrollment. Terms and Conditions 1. Definitions. Terms used but not defined in this Enrollment will have the definition in the Enterprise Agreement. The following definitions are used in this Enrollment: "Additional Product" means any Product identified as such in the Product List and chosen by Enrolled Affiliate under this Enrollment. "Enterprise Online Service" means any Online Service designated as an Enterprise Online Service in the Product List and chosen by Enrolled Affiliate under this Enrollment. Enterprise Online Services are treated as Online Services, except as noted. EA2014EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Dec2014) Page 1 of 10 Document X20-10632 "Enterprise Product" means any Desktop Platform Product that Microsoft designates as an Enterprise Product in the Product List and chosen by Enrolled Affiliate under this Enrollment. Enterprise Products must be licensed for all Qualified Devices and Qualified Users on an Enterprise -wide basis under this program. "Expiration Date" means the date upon which the Enrollment expires. "Industry Device" (also known as line of business device) means any device that: (1) is not useable in its deployed configuration as a general purpose personal computing device (such as a personal computer), a multi -function server, or a commercially viable substitute for one of these systems; and (2) only employs an industry or task -specific software program (e.g. a computer -aided design program used by an architect or a point of sale program) ("Industry Program"). The device may include features and functions derived from Microsoft software or third -party software. If the device performs desktop functions (such as email, word processing, spreadsheets, database, network or Internet browsing, or scheduling, or personal finance), then the desktop functions: (1) may only be used for the purpose of supporting the Industry Program functionality; and (2) must be technically integrated with the Industry Program or employ technically enforced policies or architecture to operate only when used with the Industry Program functionality. "L&SA" means a License with Software Assurance for any Product ordered. "Qualified Device" means any device that is used by or for the benefit of Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise and is: (1) a personal desktop computer, portable computer, workstation, or similar device capable of running Windows Professional locally (in a physical or virtual operating system environment), OR (2) a device used to access a virtual desktop infrastructure ("VDI").. Qualified Devices do not includeany device that is: (1) designated as a server and not used as a personal computer, OR (2) an Industry Device, OR (3) not managed (as defined in the Product List at the start of the applicable initial or renewal term of the Enrollment) as part of Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise. At its option, the Enrolled Affiliate may designate any device excluded above (e.g., Industry Device) that is used by or for the benefit of the Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise as a Qualified Device for all or a subset of Enterprise Products or Online Services the Enrolled Affiliate has selected. "Qualified User" means a person (e.g., employee, consultant, contingent staff) who. (1) is a user of a Qualified Device, or (2) accesses any server software requiring an Enterprise Product Client Access License or any Enterprise Online Service. It does not include a person who accesses server software or an Online Service solely under a License identified in the Qualified User exemptions in the Product List. "Reserved License" means for an Online Service identified as eligible for true -ups in the Product List, the License reserved by Enrolled Affiliate prior to use and for which Microsoft will make the Online Service available for activation. "Transition" means the conversion of one or more License to or from another License(s). Products eligible for Transition and permitted Transitions are identified in the Product List. "Transition Period" means the time between the Transition and the next Enrollment anniversary date for which the Transition is reported. "Use Rights" means, with respect to any licensing program, the use rights or terms of service for each Product and version published for that licensing program at the Volume Licensing Site. The Use Rights supersede the terms of any end user license agreement (on -screen or otherwise) that accompanies a Product. The Use Rights for Software are published by Microsoft in the Product Use Rights. The Use Rights for Online Services are published in the Online Services Terms. 2. Order requirements. a. Minimum Order requirements. Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise must have a minimum of 250 Qualified Users or Qualified Devices. The initial order must include at least 250 Licenses for Enterprise Products or Enterprise Online Services. (i) Enterprise Commitment. If ordering any Enterprise Products, Enrolled Affiliate's order must include coverage for all Qualified Users and/or all Qualified Devices in any Product EA2014En rGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Dec2014) Page 2 of 10 Document X20-10632 pool an Enterprise Product is ordered in. Enrolled Affiliate may elect to mix Enterprise Products and the corresponding Enterprise Online Services within a Product pool as long as all devices not covered by an Enterprise Product are only used by users covered with a per user license. (ii) Enterprise Online Services. If ordering Enterprise Online Services only, then Enrolled Affiliate must maintain at least 250 Subscription Licenses. b. Additional Products. Upon satisfying the minimum order requirements above, Enrolled Affiliate may order Additional Products and Services. c. Use Rights for Enterprise Products. For Enterprise Products, if a new Product version has more restrictive use rights than the version that is current at the start of the applicable initial or renewal term of the Enrollment, those more restrictive use rights will not apply to Enrolled Affiliate's use of that Product during that term. d. Country of usage. Enrolled Affiliate must specify the countries where Licenses will be used on its initial order and on any additional orders. e. Adding Products. (i) Adding new Products not previously ordered. New Enterprise Products or Enterprise Online Services may be added at any time by contacting a Microsoft Account Manager or Reseller. New Additional Products, other than Online Services, may be used if an order is placed in the month the Product is first used. For Additional Products that are Online Services, an initial order for the Online Service is required prior to use. (i i) Adding Licenses for previously ordered Products. Additional Licenses for previously ordered Products other than Online Services may be added at any time but must be included in the next true -up order. Additional Licenses for Online Services must be ordered prior to use, unless the Online Services are (1) identified as eligible for true -up in the Product List or (2) included as part of other Licenses. f. True -up requirements. Enrolled Affiliate must submit an annual true -up order that accounts for any changes since the initial order or last order. If there are no changes, then an update statement must be submitted instead of a true -up order. (i) Enterprise Products. For Enterprise Products, Enrolled Affiliate must determine the number of Qualified Devices and Qualified Users (if ordering user -based Licenses) at the time the true -up order is placed and must order additional Licenses for all Qualified Devices and Qualified Users that are not already covered by existing Licenses, including any Enterprise Online Services. (II) Additional Products. For Additional Products that have been previously ordered under this Enrollment, Enrolled Affiliate must determine the maximum number of Additional Products used since the latter of the initial order, the last true -up order, or the prior anniversary date and submit a true -up order that accounts for any increase. (ill) Online Services. For Online Services identified as eligible for true -up in the Product List, Enrolled Affiliate may reserve the additional Licenses prior to use. Microsoft will provide a report of Reserved Licenses in excess of existing orders to Enrolled Affiliate and its Reseller. Reserved Licenses will be invoiced retroactively to the month in which they were reserved. (iv) Transitions. Enrolled Affiliate must report all Transitions. Transitions may result in an increase in certain Licenses to be included on the true -up order and a reduction of other Licenses for prior orders. Reductions in Licenses will be effective at end of the Transition Period, For Licenses paid up front, Microsoft will issue a credit for the remaining months of Software Assurance or Subscription Licenses that were reduced as part of the Transition. EA2014EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Dec2014) Page 3 of 10 Document X20-10632 (v) Subscription License reductions. Enrolled Affiliate may reduce the quantity of Subscription Licenses at the Enrollment anniversary date on a prospective basis if permitted in the Product List, as follows: a) For Subscription Licenses that are part of an Enterprise -wide purchase, Licenses may be reduced if the total quantity of Licenses and Software Assurance for an applicable group meets or exceeds the quantity of Qualified Devices and Qualified Users (if ordering user -based Licenses) identified on the Product Selection Form, and includes any additional Qualified Devices and Qualified Users added in any prior true -up orders. Step-up Licenses do not count towards this total count. b) For Enterprise Online Services that are not a part of an Enterprise -wide purchase, Licenses can be reduced as long as the initial order minimum requirements are maintained. c) For Additional Products available as Subscription Licenses, Enrolled Affiliate may reduce the Licenses. If the License count is reduced to zero, then Enrolled Affiliate's use of the applicable Subscription License will be cancelled. Invoices will be adjusted to reflect any reductions in Subscription Licenses at the true -up order Enrollment anniversary date and effective as of such date. (vi) Update statement. An update statement must be submitted instead of a true -up order if, as of the initial order or last true -up order, Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise: (1) has not changed the number of Qualified Devices and Qualified Users licensed with Enterprise Products or Enterprise Online Services; and (2) has not increased its usage of Additional Products. This update statement must be signed by Enrolled Affiliate's authorized representative. (vii)True-up order period. The true -up order or update statement must be received by Microsoft between 60 and 30 days prior to each Enrollment anniversary date. The third - year true -up order or update statement is due within 30 days prior to the Expiration Date, and any license reservations within this 30 day period will not be accepted. Enrolled Affiliate may submit true -up orders more often to account for increases in Product usage, but an annual true -up order or update statement must still be submitted during the annual order period. (viii) Late true -up order. If the true -up order or update statement is not received when due: 1) Microsoft will invoice Reseller for all Reserved Licenses not previously ordered. 2) Transitions and Subscription License reductions cannot be reported until the following Enrollment anniversary date (or at Enrollment renewal, as applicable). g. Step-up Licenses. For Licenses eligible for a step-up under this Enrollment, Enrolled Affiliate may step-up to a higher edition or suite as follows: (1) For step-up Licenses included on an initial order, Enrolled Affiliate may order according to the true -up process. (ii) If step-up Licenses are not included on an initial order, Enrolled Affiliate may step-up initially by following the process described in the Section titled "Adding new Products not previously ordered," then for additional step-up Licenses, by following the true -up order process. (ill) If Enrolled Affiliate has previously ordered an Online Service as an Additional Product and wants to step-up to an Enterprise Online Service eligible for a Transition, the step-up may be reported as a Transition. (iv) If Enrolled Affiliate Transitions a License, it may be able to further step-up the Transitioned License. If Enrolled Affiliate chooses to step-up and the step-up License is separately EA2014EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Dec2014) Page 4 of 10 Document X20-10632 eligible to be Transitioned, such step-up Licenses may result in a License reduction at the Enrollment anniversary date following the step-up. h. Clerical errors. Microsoft may correct clerical errors in this Enrollment, and any documents submitted with or under this Enrollment, by providing notice by email and a reasonable opportunity for Enrolled Affiliate to object to the correction. Clerical errors include minor mistakes, unintentional additions and omissions. This provision does not apply to material terms, such as the identity, quantity or price of a Product ordered. L Verifying compliance. Microsoft may, in its discretion and at its expense, verify compliance with this Enrollment as set forth in the Enterprise Agreement. 3. Pricing. a. Price Levels. For both the initial and any renewal term Enrolled Affiliate's Price Level for all Products ordered under this Enrollment will be Level "D" throughout the term of the Enrollment. b. Setting Prices. Enrolled Affiliate's prices for each Product or Service will be established by its Reseller. As long as Enrolled Affiliate continues to qualify for the same price level, Microsoft's prices for Resellers for each Product or Service will be fixed throughout the applicable initial or renewal Enrollment term. Price levels and Microsoft's prices for Resellers are reestablished at the beginning of the renewal term. However, if Enrolled Affiliate qualifies for a different price level during the applicable initial or renewal term, Microsoft may at its discretion establish a new price level for future new orders either upon Enrolled Affiliate's request or on its own initiative. Any changes will be based upon price level rules in the Product Selection Form. 4. Payment terms. For the initial or renewal order, Enrolled Affiliate may pay upfront or elect to spread its payments over the applicable Enrollment term. If spread payments are elected, unless indicated otherwise, Microsoft will invoice Enrolled Affiliate's Reseller in three equal annual installments. The first installment will be invoiced upon Microsoft's acceptance of this Enrollment and on each Enrollment anniversary date. Subsequent orders are invoiced upon acceptance of the order and Enrolled Affiliate may elect to pay annually or upfront for Online Services and upfront for all other Licenses. 5. Transitions. a. Transition requirements. (i) Licenses with active Software Assurance or Subscription Licenses may be Transitioned at any time if permitted in the Product List. Enrolled Affiliate may not, however, reduce the quantity of Licenses or associated Software Assurance prior to the end of the Transition Period. (ii) Enrolled Affiliate must order the Licenses to which it is transition ing for the year(s) following the Transition Period. (iii) If a Transition is made back to a License that had active Software Assurance as of the date of Transition, then Software Assurance must be re -ordered for all such Licenses on a prospective basis following the Transition Period. Software Assurance coverage may not exceed the quantity of perpetual Licenses for which Software Assurance was current at the time of any prior Transition. Software Assurance may not be applied to Licenses transferred by Enrolled Affiliate. (iv) If a device -based License is Transitioned to a user -based License, all users of the device must be licensed as part of the Transition. (v) If a user -based License is Transitioned to a device -based License, all devices accessed by the user must be licensed as part of the Transition. EA2014EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Dec2014) Page 5 of 10 Document X20-10632 b. Effect of Transition on Licenses. (i) Transition will not affect Enrolled Affiliate's rights in perpetual Licenses paid in full. (II) New version rights will be granted for perpetual Licenses covered by Software Assurance up to the end of the Transition Period. (III) For L&SA not paid in full at the end of the Transition Period, Enrolled Affiliate will have perpetual Licenses for a proportional amount equal to the amounts paid for the Transitioned Product as of the end of the 'Transition Period. (iv) For L&SA not paid in full or granted a perpetual License in accordance with the above or Subscription Licenses, all rights to Transitioned Licenses cease at the end of the Transition Period. 6. End of Enrollment term and termination. a. General. At the Expiration Date, Enrolled Affiliate must immediately order and pay for Licenses for Products it has used but has not previously submitted an order, except as otherwise provided in this Enrollment. b. Renewal Option. At the Expiration Date of the initial term, Enrolled Affiliate can renew Products by renewing the Enrollment for one additional 36 full calendar month term or signing a new Enrollment. Microsoft must receive a Renewal Form, Product Selection Form, and renewal order prior to or at the Expiration Date. The renewal term will start on the day following the Expiration Date. Microsoft will not unreasonably reject any renewal. Microsoft may make changes to this program that will make it necessary for Customer and its Enrolled Affiliates to enter into new agreements and Enrollments at renewal. c. If Enrolled Affiliate elects not to renew. (1) Software Assurance. If Enrolled Affiliate elects not to renew Software Assurance for any Product under its Enrollment, then Enrolled Affiliate will not be permitted to order Software Assurance later without first acquiring L&SA. (ii) Online Services eligible for an Extended Term. For Online Services identified as eligible for an Extended Term in the Product List, the following options are available at the end of the Enrollment initial or renewal term. 1) Extended Term. Licenses for Online Services will automatically expire in accordance with the terms of the Enrollment. An extended term feature that allows Online Services to continue month -to -month ("Extended Term") is available. During the Extended Term, Online Services will be invoiced monthly at the then -current published price for Enrolled Affiliate's price level as of the Expiration Date plus a 3% administrative fee for up to one year. If Enrolled Affiliate does want an Extended Term, Reseller must submit a request to Microsoft. Microsoft must receive the request not less than 30 days prior to the Expiration Date. 2) Cancellation during Extended Term. If Enrolled Affiliate has opted for the Extended Term and later determines not to continue with the Extended Term, Reseller must submit a notice of cancellation for each Online Service. Cancellation will be effective at the end of the month following 30 days after Microsoft has received the notice. (III) Subscription Licenses and Online Services not eligible for an Extended Term. If Enrolled Affiliate elects not to renew, the Licenses will be cancelled and will terminate as of the Expiration Date. Any associated media must be uninstalled and destroyed and Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise must discontinue use. Microsoft may request written certification to verify compliance. (iv) Customer Data. Upon expiration or termination of a License for Online Services, Microsoft will keep Customer's Data in a limited function account for 90 days so that Customer may EA2014EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Dec2014) Page 6 of 10 Document X20-10632 extract it. Enrolled Affiliate will reimburse Microsoft if there are any associated costs. After 90 days Microsoft will disable Enrolled Affiliate's account and will delete its Customer Data. Enrolled Affiliate agrees that, other than as described above, Microsoft has no obligation to continue to hold, export or return Enrolled Affiliate's Customer Data and that Microsoft has no liability whatsoever for deletion of Enrolled Affiliate's Customer Data pursuant to these terms. d. Termination for cause. Any termination for cause of this Enrollment will be subject to the "Termination for cause" section of the Agreement. e. Early termination. Any Early termination of this Enrollment will be subject to the "Early Termination" Section of the Enterprise Agreement. For Subscription Licenses, in the event of a breach by Microsoft, Microsoft will issue Reseller a credit for any amount paid in advance that would apply after the date of termination. EA2014EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Dec2014) Page 7 of 10 Document X20-10632 Enrollment Details 1. Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise. a. Identify which Agency Affiliates are included in the Enterprise. (Required) Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise must consist of entire offices, bureaus, agencies, departments or other entities of Enrolled Affiliate, not partial offices, bureaus, agencies, or departments, or other partial entities. Check only one box in this section. If no boxes are checked. Microsoft will deem the Enterprise to include the Enrolled Affiliate only. If more than one box is checked, Microsoft will deem the Enterprise to include the largest number of Affiliates: ® Enrolled Affiliate only ❑ Enrolled Affiliate and all Affiliates ❑ Enrolled Affiliate and the following Affiliate(s) (Only identify specific affiliates to be included if fewer than all Affiliates are to be included in the Enterprise): ❑ Enrolled Affiliate and all Affiliates, with following Affiliate(s) excluded: b. Please indicate whether the Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise will include all new Affiliates acquired after the start of this Enrollment: Exclude future Affiliates 2. Contact information. Each party will notify the other in writing if any of the information in the following contact information page(s) changes. The asterisks (*) indicate required fields. By providing contact information, Enrolled Affiliate consents to its use for purposes of administering this Enrollment by Microsoft, its Affiliates, and other parties that help administer this Enrollment. The personal information provided in connection with this Enrollment will be used and protected in accordance with the privacy statement available at hftps://www.microsoft.com/licensing/servicecenter. a. Primary contact. This contact is the primary contact for the Enrollment from within Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise. This contact is also an Online Administrator for the Volume Licensing Service Center and may grant online access to others. The primary contact will be the default contact for all purposes unless separate contacts are identified for specific purposes Name of entity (must be legal entity name)* City of Costa Mesa Contact name* First Steve Last Ely Contact email address* steve.ely@costamesaca.gov Street address* 77 Fair Drive, 181 Floor City* Costa Mesa EA2014EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Dec2014) Page 8 of 10 Document X20-10632 State/Province* CA Postal code* 92626- (For U.S. addresses, please provide the zip + 4, e.g. xxxxx-xxxx) Country* USA Phone* 714-754-4891 Tax ID * indicates required fields b. Notices contact and Online Administrator. This contact (1) receives the contractual notices, (2) is the Online Administrator for the Volume Licensing Service Center and may grant online access to others, and (3) is authorized for applicable Online Services to add or reassign Licenses, step-up, and initiate Transitions prior to a true -up order. ® Same as primary contact (default if no information is provided below, even if the box is not checked). Contact name* First Last Contact email address* Street address* City* State/Province* Postal code* (For U.S. addresses, please provide the zip + 4, e.g. xxxxx-xxxx) Country* Phone* Language preference. Choose the language for notices. English ❑ This contact is a third party (not the Enrolled Affiliate). Warning: This contact receives personally identifiable information of the Customer and its Affiliates. * indicates required fields c. Online Services Manager. This contact is authorized to manage the Online Services ordered under the Enrollment and (for applicable Online Services) to add or reassign Licenses, step- up, and initiate Transitions prior to a true -up order. ® Same as notices contact and Online Administrator (default if no information is provided below, even if box is not checked) Contact name*: First Last Contact email address* Phone* ❑ This contact is from a third party organization (not the entity). Warning: This contact receives personally identifiable information of the entity. * indicates required fields d. Reseller information. Reseller contact for this Enrollment is: Reseller company name* CompuCom Systems, Inc. Street address (PO boxes will not be accepted)* 7171 Forest Lane City* Dallas State/Province* TX Postal code* 75230 Country* USA Contact name* Greg Landry Phone* 972-856-3534 Contact email address* msadmin@compucom.com * indicates required fields EA2014EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Dec2014) Page 9 of 10 Document X20-10632 By signing below, the Reseller identified above confirms that all information provided in this Enrollment is correct. Signature* Printed name* Greg Landry Printed title* Manager -Microsoft Ops Date* indicates required fields Changing a Reseller. If Microsoft or the Reseller chooses to discontinue doing business with each other, Enrolled Affiliate must choose a replacement Reseller. If Enrolled Affiliate or the Reseller intends to terminate their relationship, the initiating party must notify Microsoft and the other party using a form provided by Microsoft at least 90 days prior to the date on which the change is to take effect. e. If Enrolled Affiliate requires a separate contact for any of the following, attach the Supplemental Contact Information form. Otherwise, the notices contact and Online Administrator remains the default. i) Additional notices contact ii) Software Assurance manager iii) Subscriptions manager iv) Customer Support Manager (CSM) contact 3. Financing elections. Is a purchase under this Enrollment being financed through MS Financing? ❑ Yes, E No. If a purchase under this Enrollment is financed through MS Financing, and Enrolled Affiliate chooses not to finance any associated taxes, it must pay these taxes directly to Microsoft. EA2014EnrGov(US)SLG(ENG)(Dec2014) Page 10 of 10 Document X20-10632 ATTACHMENT 4 Enterprise Enrollment Product Selection Form Proposal ID 0355549.001 Language: English (United States) Microsoft I Volume Licensing Enrollment Number Enrolled Affiliate's Enterprise Products and Enterprise Online Services summary for the initial order: Qualified Device / User CAL Licensing Profile Qualified Users Enterprise Product Platform Devices Ratio Model Enterprise 448 450 1.0 No User Licenses Products Enterprise Quantity Office Professional Plus Office Professional Plus 448 Client Access. License (CAL) Core CAL, including Bridge CAL's (if applicable) Core CAL 450 Enrolled Affiliate's Product Quantities: Price Group 1 2 ., 4 Enterprise Products Office Professional Plus+ Client Access License + Client Access Wn Desktop Office Professional Plus for Office 365 (Plans E1, E3, License + Windows Upgrade + Win VDA Office 365+Office Standard+ E4)+ Enterprise Cloud Intune+EMS USL+ +Win SA Per User Office 365 (Plans E3 or E4) + Suite USL Enterprise Cloud USL + Win VDA Per Enterprise Cloud Suite USL Suite USL User USL + Enterprise Cloud USL Quantity, 448 450 450 0 Enrolled Affiliate's Price Level: Product Offering / Pool Price Level Enterprise Products and Enterprise Online Services USLs: Unless otherwise indicated in associated contract documents, Price level set using the highest quantity from Groups 1 through 4. D Additional Product Application Pool: Unless otherwise indicated in associated contract documents, Price level set using quantity from Group 1. D Additional Product Server Pool: Unless otherwise indicated in associated contract documents, Price level set using the highest quantity from Group 2 or 3. D Additional Product Systems Pool: Unless otherwise indicated in associated contract documents, Price level set using quantity from Group 4. D NOTES Page 1 of 2 EA-EASProdSelForm(WVV)(ENG) MS Quote Auto Enterprise Enrollment Product Selection Form Microsoft I Volume Licensing Unless otherwise indicated in the associated contract documents, the price level for each Product offering / pool is set as described above, based upon the quantity to price level mapping below: Quantity of Licenses and Software Assurance Price Level 2,399 and below A 2,400 to 5,999 B 6,000 to 14,999 C 15,000 and above D Note 1: Enterprise Online Services may not be available in all locations. Please see the Product List for a list of locations where these may be purchased. Note 2: Unless otherwise indicated in associated Agreement documents, the CAL selection must be the same across the Enterprise for each Profile. Note 3: If Enrolled Affiliate does not order an Enterprise Product or Enterprise Online Service associated with an applicable Product pool, the price level for Additional Products in the same pool will be price level "A" throughout the term of the Enrollment. Refer to the Qualifying Government Entity Addendum pricing provision for more details on price leveling. EA-EAS P rodSelForm (WW)(E NG) Page 2 of 2 MS Quote Auto CONTRACT ATTACHMENT 5 County of Riverside VendorlD 0000000033 Compucom Systems Inc 7171 Forest Lane Dallas TX 75230 USA Tax Exempt? N Tax Exempt ID: Disbatrh via Print Contract ID Page RIVCC-20800.002-12/15 1 of 2 Contract Dates Currency Rate Type Rate Date 01/01/2015 to 12/31 2015 USD CRRNT PO Date Description: Contract Maximum Microsoft Enterprise Agreement 0.00 Allow Multicurrency PO 0.00 0.00 0.00 Microsoft Enterprise Agreement software licenses for Riverside County ad surrounding Government Agencies within California Pricing Agreement: Pricing Date: PO Date Pricing Quantity: PO Date Quantity Type: Current Order Quantity R FQ#PUARC-1200F11-11 /8/11 3.27 Reference Microsoft Master Agreement Number 01 E73134. PER AMENDMENT #1 Pricing for EA enrollments are based on a Cost plus markup percentage, which will be effective as of the Amendment Effective Date of May 12, 2014. See attached amendment. PRICING OPTION#1 (EXISTING ENROLLMENTS PRIOR TO MAY 12, 2014) County Entitles, CCISDA/MISAC members, and other State agencies already enrolled in a Microsoft EA as of the Effective Date of 11/08/2011. Applications: Added at Signing -1.50% Applications: True -Ups -0.50% Systems: Added at Signing -1.50% Systems: True -Ups .0.50% Servers: Added at Signing -1.50% Servers: True -Ups -0.50% New Additional Products (Non -Specific): Added at Signing-1.50% New Additional Products (Non -Specific): True -Ups -0.50% PRICING OPTION#2 (NEW ENROLLMENTS AFTER MAY 12, 2014) County Entities, CCISDA/MISAC members, and other State agencies that enroll in a Microsoft EA after the Amendment Effective Date of May 12, 2014. Applications: Added at Signing 2.00% Applications: True -Ups 2.00% Systems: Added at Signing 2.00% Systems: True -Ups 2.00% Servers: Added at Signing 2.00% Servers: True -Ups 2.00% New Additional Products (Non -Specific): Added at Signing 2.00% New Additional Products (Non -Specific): True -Ups 2.00% All terms, conditions, and specification of RFQ#PUARC-1200 are hereby included with full force and like effect as If set forth herein. PAYMENT TERMS - For calculating due dates for payment terms, the County will use either the date that the invoice is received by the County or the date the goods/services are received, which ever is later. In the event of contradiction, between the County's and the Seller's conditions, the County's conditions shall prevail. Final = The price is final after adjustments Hard = Apply adjustments regardless of other adjustments Skip = Skip adjustments if any other adjustments have been applied 1017►hta-113.ir County of Riverside USA VendorlD 0000000033 Compucom Systems Inc 7171 Forest Lane Dallas TX 75230 USA Tax Exempt-? N Tax. Exempt ED: Disnatch via Print Contract ID --------------' Page RIVCO.2080P002-12/15 2of 2 Contract Dates Currency Rate Type Rate Date 01/01/2015 to 12/31/2015 USD CRRNT PO Date Description: Contract Maximum Microsoft Enterprise A reement 0.00 Allow Multicurrency PO The County reserves the right to cancel the unexpended balance of this order at any time. License Period of Performance: From January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. Year: 4 of 5, final year end date of December 31, 2016. Board app o, al date: November 8, 2011 Ines Mark I Procurement Contract Specialist County of Riverside- Purchasing and Fleet Services Voice: (951) 955-4944 Fax: (951) 956.4946 E-mail: !mark® co.riverside.ca.us Hard = Apply adjustments regardless of other adjustments Skip = Skip adjustments if any other adjustments have been applied CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-15 SUBJECT: AWARD AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PRINTING AND DELIVERY SERVICES OF THE RECREATION GUIDE. DATE: JULY 7, 2015 FROM: PARKS & COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT/RECREATION DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: TRAVIS KARLEN, RECREATION MANAGER, (714) 754-5052 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JUSTIN MARTIN, RECREATION SUPERVISOR (714) 754-5065 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve an annual price agreement contract with San Dieguito Printers for the printing and delivery services of the City's quarterly Recreation Guide, for a three (3) year term with the option of two (2) additional one (1) year renewal periods. The contract amount is estimated at $51,030.32 annually for the company's services with a contract term not to exceed $153,090.96 for three (3) years (See Attachment 1). BACKGROUND: The Parks & Community Services Department staff, along with staff from Central Services, produce four (4) City Recreation Guides annually. Each edition (Fall, Winter, Spring and Summer) is printed in a quantity batch of 48,000. The Recreation Guide is the largest advertising tool for the department's programs, classes, special events and facilities. The Recreation Guide is also the number one avenue to communicate recreational offerings to the general public. Each guide reaches every household within the city's limits and is a major asset in regard to community outreach that offers high level, competitively priced recreational opportunities to the citizens of Costa Mesa. The contract with the current Recreation Guide printer, Westminster Press, has now expired and to continue quality printing and delivery and to also comply with City policy, the department is required to solicit Request for Quotes (RFQ) (See Attachment 2). ANAI YRIR- On June 22, 2015 staff released a Request for Quotes (RFQ # 062215P&R) and received four (4) proposals with competitive quotes from reputable printing companies located in the Southern California area. Staff analyzed all four proposals, which also included samples of similar work for other municipalities, company professional references, equipment specifications and business qualifications and experience. 1 After careful review of all submissions, staff is recommending San Dieguito Printers to be the most qualified selection based on their competitive and reasonable pricing, exceptional quality of work, positive feedback from references provided, and on the ability to meet tight deadlines (See Attachment 3). ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Other alternatives for City Council consideration are as follows: 1. City Council may choose to not award the printing and delivery services contract to San Dieguito Printers and select a vendor from any of the other three (3) proposals. 2. City Council could review other proposals or reject all proposals and direct staff to re -advertise these services. FISCAL REVIEW: For the current fiscal year, FY 15-16, staff appropriated $35,264 in the adopted budget for these services. The budgeted amount was based on the costs of printing and delivery services from the current vendor, Westminster Press. The estimated annual contract amount is $51,030.32 for the services of San Dieguito Printing, with a three (3) year contract term not to exceed $153,090.96. With the approval of CEO Hatch, staff will prepare and complete a budget transfer in the amount of $16,000.00 to transfer appropriations from other programs within the Parks and Community Services Department budget for this purpose. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved the documents as to form. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve an annual price agreement contract with San Dieguito Printers for a three (3) year term with the two (2) additional one (1) year renewal periods, for the printing and delivery of the City's quarterly Recreation Guide. The contract amount is estimated at $51,030.32 annually for the company's services. TRAVIS M. KARLEN Recreation Manager STEPHEN DUNIVENT TOM HATCH Chief Executive Officer TOM DUARTE Interim Finance Director City Attorney 2 DISTRIBUTION: ATTACHMENTS: 1 PO with San Dieguito Printing 2 Request for Quote 3 Proposal from San Dieguito Printing Attachment 1 Manual Purchase Order City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 754-5227 VENDOR: 0000023639 SAN DIEGUITO PRINTERS ATTN: CHRIS BARKER 1880 DIAMOND STREET SAN MARCOS, CA 92078 FAX: (760) 744-5811 Purchase Order Date Revision Page CITY 1699-1317 07/22/15 1 Payment Terms Freight Terms Ship Via N30 DEST VDR Buyer: Jennifer McCoy (714) 754-5310 Ship To: City of Costa Mesa Parks & Recreation 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Bill To: City of Costa Mesa Attn: Accounts Payable P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND SAN DIEGUITO PRINTERS FOR THE QUARTERLY PRINTING OF THE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY BROCURE FOR THREE (3) YEARS WITH TWO (2) ONE YEAR RENEWAL PERIODS. PRICING PER RFQ NO. 062215P&R. Effective Dates: July 22, 2015 through July 21, 2018 *w/two (2) one year renewal periods until July 21, 2020 NOT -TO -EXCEED: $51,030.32 annually (Contract term = $153,090.96) PRICING: Printing per quarter for 48,000 brochures - $11.916.00 = 47,664.00 Mail prep per quarter - $582.00 = $2,328.00 Shipping fee - $800.00 Sales tax - $238.32 Department contact person: Justin Martin (714) 754-5065 Vendor contact person: Chris Barker— (760) 744-0910; Email: chrisb@sd-print.com Internal Notes: Insurance Expires: GUAL/WC/PUBPP — 03101116 510207-101-14300-40243 = $51,030.32 Accounts Payable: (714) 754-5216 or 5073. Purchase Order Number and Department Organization Number must appear on all invoices and shipping paper. Invoice must state complete or partial delivery. Include your Taxpayer ID Number. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Attachment 2 NUO Interested Bidder CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA REQUEST FOR QUOTATION This is not an order BID NUMBER 062215P&R INSTRUCTIONS. 7. Read terns and conditions on reverse side. 2. Quotation must be on this form. 3. Complete and sign all pages of the quotation. 4. Return this form plus all Attachments. 5. Quote on each item separately, all or none bids may not be accepted unless otherwise specified. 6. Price alone may not be the final determining factor. 7. Declination - in the event you elect not to quote, please inform us on this form and return by the bid due date indicated. 8. Out of state vendors must include California sales tax permit number. Date: June 22, 2015 BIDS WILL BE RECEIVED UNTIL 10:00 A.M. June 26.2015 AT THE PURCHASING DIVISION 77 FAIR DRIVE P.O. BOX 1200 COSTA MESA, CA 92628-1200 (714)764-5310 VENDOR MAY FAX BID TO (714) 764-5040 VENDOR MAY EMAIL BID TO jennifer.mccoy@costamesaca.gov QUOTATIONS ARE REQUESTED FOR FURNISHING THE ITEMS DESCRIBED HEREIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATED TERMS AND CONDITIONS. ALL QUOTATIONS MUST BE F.O.B. DESTINATION AND INCLUDE COST OF BOXING AND CARTAGE TO DELIVERY POINT STATED BELOW. BID PRICES ARE TO INCLUDE ANY FREIGHT AND DELIVERY CHARGES. QUOTE YOUR MOST COMPETITIVE PRICES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR: RECREATION GUIDE PRINTING SERVICES CONTACT PERSON: Jennifer McCoy (714) 754-5310 VENDQR IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A COMPLETED MSDS (MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET) FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AS REQUIRED BY LABOR CODE SECTION 6390, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ORDER, SECTION 5194 AND CALIF. ADMINIS. CODE TITLE 8. MSDS SHEET FOR EACH SPECIFIED ITEM SHALL BE SENT TO PLACE OF SHIPMENT, AND A COPY SENT TO THE PURCHASING DIVISION. THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY AND ALL BIDS. LOWEST QUALIFIED BID MAY BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS. THE CITY OF COSTA MESA WILL ACCEPT CASH The undersigned, as bidder, declares that all documents regarding this DISCOUNTS FOR PROMPT PAYMENT OF INVOICES bid have been examined and accepted and that, if awarded, will enter IF THE LONGER TERM OFFERED IS FOR TWENTY into a price agreement with the city of Costa Mesa. (20) WORKING DAYS OR LONGER. TERMS 2% Discount Net 10 DAYS PLEASE QUOTE YOUR BEST DELIVERY IN CALENDAR DAYS: 5 —10 days San Dieguito Printers Company name as it appears on your invoices 1880 Diamond Street 760-744-0910 Address Telephone San Marcos CA 92078 City State Zip Signature Title 95-2311221 6/24/2015 Federal I.D. Number Date RETAIN ONE COPY FOR YOUR FILES ALL QUOTATIONS MUST BE SIGNED CONDITIONS. The following standard conditions are always applicable, and the following work order conditions are also applicable when this order provides for performance of any work. STANDARD CONDITIONS I. Law: This contract is governed by the laws of the State of California. The Provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code shall apply except as otherwise set forth in this contract. 2. Contract: This order, when accepted by SELLER either in writing or by the shipment of any article or other commencement of performance hereunder, constitutes the entire contract between SELLER and the CiTY, no exceptions, alternates, substitutes or revisions are valid or binding on the CITY unless authorized by the CITY in writing. The SELLER acknowledges that he has read and agrees to all terns and conditions of this contract/purchase order. The only terms and conditions that will be applicable to the interpretation of this contract are those issued by the City of Costa Mesa. 3. Taxes: Unless otherwise provided herein or by law, price quoted does not include California State sales or use tax The City is exempt from Federal excise tax 4. Delivery: Time of delivery is the essence of this contract. The CITY reserves the right to refuse any goods and to cancel all or any part of the goods not delivered by the due date and/or not conforming to applicable specifications, drawings, samples or descriptions. Acceptance of any part of the order shall not bind CITY to accept future shipments, nor deprive it the right to return goods already accepted, at SELLER'S expense. Over -shipments and under -shipments shall be only as agreed to by CITY. S. Risk of Loss: Delivery shall not be deemed to be complete until goods have been actually received and accepted by CITY. Payment shall be made after satisfactory acceptance of shipments by the CiTY. 6. Warranty: SELLER expressly warrants that the goods covered by this order are of merchantable quality, satisfactory and safe for consumer use, and are fit for the particular purpose as set forth In the CITY'S specification. Acceptance of this order shall constitute an agreement upon SELLER'S part to indemnity and hold harmless from liability, loss, damage and expense, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred or sustained by CITY, its officers, employees and agents, by reason of the failure of the goods to conform to such warranties, faulty work performance, negligent or unlawful acts, and noncompliance with any applicable local, State or Federal codes, ordinances, orders, or statutes, including the Occupational Safety and health Act (OSHA) and the California Industrial Safety Act Such remedies shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by law. Inspection by the City of Costa Mesa or Its agents or employees and acceptance of the articles, materials and work covered by this contract shall not constitute release or waiver of the City of Costa Mesa's rights by reason of failure of Contractor to comply with any of the warranties contained herein. Warranties herein expressed or implied shall be construed as consistent with each other and as cumulative and, where in conflict, the specifications of the City of Costa Mesa shall be paramount 7. Infringement: SELLER shall Indemnify and defend CITY, at SELLER'S expense, against all claims, demands, suits, liability and expense on account of alleged infringement of any patent, copyright or trademark, resulting from or arising in connection with the manufacture, sale, normal use or other normal disposition of any article or material fumished hereunder. 8. Assignment: Neither this order nor any claim against CITY arising directly or Indirectly out of or in connection with this order shall be assignable by SELLER or by operation or law, nor shall SELLER subcontract any obligations hereunder, without CITY S prior written consent Default: if SELLER or any subcontractor breaches any provision hereof, or becomes insolvent, enters bankruptcy, receivership or other like proceeding (voluntarily or involuntarily) or makes assignment for the benefit or creditors, CITY shall have the right, in addition to any other rights it may have hereunder or by law, to terminate this order by giving SELLER written notice whereupon (a) CITY shall be relieved of all further obligation hereunder, except to pay the reasonable value of SELLER'S prior performance, but not more than the contracted price, and (b) CITY may procure the articles or services from other sources and may deduct from unpaid balance due the vendor or may collect against the bond or surety, or may invoice the vendor for excess cost so paid. The price paid by CiTY shall be considered prevailing market price at the time such purchase is made. 10. Labor Disputes: Whenever any actual or potential labor dispute delays or threatens to delay the timely performance of this order, SELLER shall Immediately give written notice thereof to CITY. 11. Nondiscrimination: In the performance of the terms of any contract resulting from this order, SELLER agrees that they will not engage nor permit such subcontractors, where applicable as he may employ, from engaging in discrimination in employment of persons because of the race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, disability or religion of such person. 12. Termination: The CITY reserves the right to terminate this contract without penalty and without cause after 30 days' written notice unless otherwise specified. 13. Labor Code Section 1771.1 (A): A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage In the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Sermon 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded. WORK ORDER CONDITIONS 14. Performance: SELLER shall perform all work diligently, carefully, and in a good and workmanlike manner, shall furnish all labor, supervision, machinery, equipment, materials and supplies necessary therefor, shall obtain and maintain all building and other permits and licenses required by public authorities in connection with performance of the work; and, if permitted to subcontract, shall be fully responsible for all work performed by subcontractors. SELLER shall conduct all operations in SELLER'S own name and as independent contractor, and not in the name of, or as an agent for CITY. 15. Indemnification: The Contractor hereby agrees to defend at his own cost and to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all liability, damages, costs, losses, claims and expenses, howsoever caused, resulting directly or indirectly from or connected With the performance of the contract (including but not limited to such liability, costs, damage, loss, claim, or expense arising from the death or injury to an agent or employee of the Contractor, subcontractor, or the City of Costa Mesa or loss of, damage to, or destruction of the property of Contractor, subcontractor, or of the City of Costa Mesa, or of any agent or employee of the Contractor, subcontractor, or of the City of Costa Mesa), except where such liability, damages, costs, losses, claims or expenses are caused solely by the negligent or wrongful acts of the City of Costa Mesa or any of its agents or employees other than negligent omission or commissions of the City of Costa Mesa, its agents or employees, in connection with the general supervision or direction of the work to be performed hereunder. The Contractor, in addition to the foregoing, specifically shall Indemnify and save harmless the City of Costa Mesa, any and all of the City of Costa Mesa's officers, agents, and employees, from any liability by reason of California safe place statutes or similar provisions pertaining to the workplace or safety of materials or equipment supplied by the City of Costa Mesa or others at the direction of the City of Costa Mesa and used in the performance of the work hereunder. 16. Insurance: SELLER shall maintain in full force during the term of this contract the following insurances, in a form and with companies as approved by the CITY, with limits not less than those specified: (a) Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability complying with any statutory requirements; (b) Commercial General Liability insurance including broad form property damage, products/oompleted operations and contractual liability coverage, with a $1,000,000 combined single limit each occurrence; Endorsements to the Commercial General Liability insurance shall be obtained by contractor, adding the following three provisions; (1) Additional insureds: 'The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, and employees are additional insureds with respect to the subject project and agreement' (2) Notice: 'Said policy shall not terminate, nor shall it be cancelled nor the coverage reduced, until thirty (30) days after written notice is given to City.' (3) Other insurance: 'Any other insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa shall be excess and not contributing with the insurance provided by this policy.' (c) Comprehensive Auto Liability (including the owned, non -owned and hired automobile hazards) with $1,000,000 combined single limit each occurrence. If the CITY so desires, these Omits may be increased or decreased. 17. Bills and Liens: SELLER shall pay promptly all indebtedness for labor, materials and equipment used in performance of the work. SELLER shall not permit any lien or charge to attach to the work or the premises, but if any does so attach, SELLER shall promptly procure its release and indemnify CITY against all damages and expense incident thereto. 18. Bonds: if the CiTY so desires, SELLER shall provide payment and performance bonds as required. 19. Changes: SELLER shall make no change in the work or perform any additional work without the CITY'S specific written approval. MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS 20. All plants and materials must be free of pests and disease. if any are found, the material will be rejected and refused. Vendor will pick up at no cost to the CITY. 21. Vendor is required to provide a completed MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for hazardous substances as required by Labor Code Sections 6390; General Industrial Safety Order, Section 5194; and Title 8, California Admins. Code. MSDS sheet for each specified item shall be sent to place of shipment, and a copy sent to the Purchasing Division. DEFINITION Whenever used herein, "CITY" shall mean, City of Costa Mesa, a political subdivision of the State of California. (5146-22) Costa Mesa Recreation Guide RFQ IBACKGROUND The City of Costa Mesa is soliciting proposal for the publishing of its quarterly recreational activity brochure. Approximate months of publication are September, January, April and July. Publishing services shall include the following: • Printing • Pre-sorting and delivery to all Post Offices within Costa Mesa The City of Costa Mesa has provided a recreational brochure to its residents for many years. The brochure is mailed quarterly to all 45,000 residential addresses within the City. Approximately 3,000 copies are retained by the City's Parks and Community Services Department for direct distribution. The City recognizes that regular distribution of a complete listing of City sponsored recreational activities benefits the residents of the community. In order to reduce and/or eliminate the City's Cost of producing this brochure, solicitation of advertisements by an organization with experience in such activities is necessary and desirable. To further this goal, the City wishes to increase the amount of advertising contained in future brochures. Thus, the City of Costa Mesa has authorized this request for proposal. The intent of this proposal is to establish a single printer and total price for the City of Costa Mesa Recreation Guide; that are printed and produced as informative documents for the City of Costa Mesa residents and businesses. 2 SCOPE OF WORK The City shall provide digital files to the printer. The printer shall furnish all equipment, labor and materials necessary to print and deliver the City of Costa Mesa Recreation Guide of Classes and Activities within ten (10) working days from the receipt of artwork. The total price should include all reasonable and ordinary changes and corrections up to and including the pagination, printing proofs and courier wait/return services. Distribution includes acquiring a cast list from the U.S. Postal Service with carrier presort and delivery to City Hall and two (2) Post Offices in Costa Mesa. NOTE: The enclosed sample, Costa Mesa Recreation Guide is a sample only and is representative of the minimum quality of the City of Costa Mesa expects of the finished brochure. ' SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF AWARD Selection shall be based on price, quality, references, ability to meet specified deadlines, equipment used, and capability to produce publications that meet or exceed the quality of the provided sample of Costa Mesa Recreation Guide. Travel time and distance will also be considered in the award of this proposal. The selected contractor will be the one judged best able to provide the specified services within the stated lead time requirements at the most reasonable total cost to the City. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION A close working relationship must be maintained between the printer and the City's Parks & Community Services Department staff. TURNAROUND TIlvIE/DELIVERY Time is of the essence to meet the promised delivery date. Delivery of finished product is critical and must be accomplished within ten (10) business days from the time artwork is picked up by the printer (Artwork delivered after 2:00 p.m. will be considered turned in the next business day). 3 VENDOR'S QUALIFICATIONS In order to obtain the most qualified Vendor, the bidder shall submit the following: • Company's experience in publishing business • Number of employees with your company • Three (3) current references for similar type of job per our RFQ • Two (2) samples of previously completed materials similar to the type and style of the brochure specified in this request for quotation 4 TERMS AND CONDITIONS Term of Agreement This will begin with the Fall 2015 edition, and will be in effect for a period of 3 years with an optional reserve rights to renew or extend this agreement for 2 additional years with the same terns and conditions of the original period. Termination The agreement may be terminated by either party with at least ninety (90) days prior written notice. Modifications Any changes to the Costa Mesa Recreation Guide must be mutually agreed upon by the City and the Vendor with 90 day written notice. 5 CONTRACTOR SELECTION Please be advised that there are minimum qualifications associated with this RFQ. Failure to meet these requirements shall give cause for proposal to be disqualified. • Ability to meet quality and lead time requirements. • Ownership of redundant equipment as set forth in the RFQ document. • Ability to travel from the production site to the City of Costa Mesa within one (1) hour time frame. Samples Required You are required to submit at least two (2) samples of similar publications for the City's evaluation with your proposal, as well as a list of current and past clients for a reference examination. Photos must be reproduced at least as clear as in the included sample Costa Mesa Recreation Guide. Proposal Instructions: Submittal of one (1) original and two (2) unbound copies with the RFQ document. 6 SPECIFICATIONS Frequency: Quarterly: Summer, Spring, Fall, Winter Brochure finished size: Approximately 8 %4 x 10 % (1 lx 17 w/book trim) 44 page document including cover. Quantity: 48,000 Printed copies 45,000 Bulk Mail City Wide Saturation mailing 3,000 Delivered back to City Hall Pages: 9 x 1 lx 17 sheets = 40 inside pages 8 Sheets I lx 17 prints 2/2 Black + One Spot color 1 Inside center page calendar prints 4/4 full color glossy Inside pages print on 50# Book stock 2/2 (or Comparable) Cover: Cover prints 4/1 on 60#coated book gloss (Comparable) Cover prints full color on the outside black ink inside 4/1 Bindery: Fold in half, Saddle Stitched and Book trim — landscape layout 4 Packaging: Tie in bundles of 50, turned at 25 (or current bulk mail saturation mail specifications) Delivery: 45,000 Copies presorted and delivered to USPS, Sunflower Street, Santa Ana, Bulk Mail entry unit post office. Additional 3000 delivered to City Hall. Submit a copy of the postage statement form the bulk mail office. Description Unit Price Extended Price Printing price per quarter for 48,000 brochures $ • q 8 3 $ f 1 �, • 0 O Mail Prep $ • 01201 $ c5t2 .00 Delivery — ShippinWTreight $ . o $ ;zoo , DO Sales Tax $ 0 wq86 $ 9 , 5 8 Total for 4 quarters $ $ 51 0 3 0. 32 Bidder acknowledges by signing below that bidder has read, understands, and agrees to the conditions contained herein and on all of the attachments and addenda. TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA: The Undersigned hereby offers and shall fumish the material or service in compliance with all terms, scope of work, conditions, specifications, and amendments in the Request for Bids which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. San Diepwito Printers Company Name 1880 Diamond Street Address San Marcos CA 92078 City State Zip Signature of Person Authorized to Sign Chris Baker Printed Name Sales Manager Title For clarification of this offer, contact: Name: Chris Baker Title: Sales Manager Phone: 760-803-0151 Fax: 760-510-1553 E-mail: chrisb@sd-print.com Attachment 3 SLlce 1936 San Dieguito Printers 1880 Diamond Street, San Marcos, California 92078 Phone (800) 321-5794 (760) 744-0910 Fax (760) 744-5811 City of Costa Mesa Purchasing Division Attn: Jennifer McCoy 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 922626 June 24, 2015 Dear Jennifer, Attached is San Dieguito Printer's bid submission for Costa Mesa Recreation Guide RFQ #062215P&R. San Dieguito Printers is a customer focused printing company which has been in business since 4936. Our high quality printing and excellent customer service have rewarded us printing projects with City governments, such as the cities of Dana Point, Escondido, El Cajon, Laguna Beach, La Habra, Menifee, Murrieta, San Marcos, Temecula among others either directly or through print brokers, mailing houses and marketing companies. Included in this package are all of the documents per the request of the RFQ along with various samples of landscape (per your RFQ) and portrait formatted projects. I do not have an exact sample per your specifications that uses the same paper for the landscaped formatted publication as this tends to fall outside of the normal city recreation guide specifications sent to us. I have also included a paper sample of the 50# Bookstock (Offset) and the 60# Gloss Book #3 for your review. We look forward to an opportunity to work with the City of Costa Mesa to help with the success of the recreation brochures. Please let me know if you have any questions and I will be happy to assist in any way possible. Sincerely, Chris Baker San Dieguito Printers Marketing Manager/New Business Development 1880 Diamond Street, San Marcos, CA 92078 Direct: 760-593-5139, Work: 760.744.0910 ext. 233, Cell: 760.803.0151, Fax: 760.744.5811 chrisb@sd-print.com htM://www.sd-12rint.com/home.html QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE SDP has been established since 1936 which has provided world class printing for over 76 years! We are located at 1880 Diamond Street, San Marcos, CA 92078. SDP is a family owned, service oriented company. We have both Heat set and cold set printing equipment. Having both of these printing capabilities, we are able to offer our clients many choices for their printing needs. We specialize in the printing of calendars, schedules, guides, magazines, catalogs, brochures, flyers, manuals, directories and newspapers. Our continued success over the years is directly related to our lasting relationships with our customers. We have many cliental from various public and private businesses and have supplied contact information for your review in the reference section listed below. SDP Currently employs approximately 48 people, all integral in completing any given printing project. Each printing project is assigned to one of our experienced Customer Service Representatives/Project Facilitators. Their top priority is to ensure all job requirements are followed through from the initial order through delivery to the assigned destination. At San Dieguito Printers, we pride ourselves in providing World Class Customer Service! Through experience we have found that file preparation can often be the key to a successful publication. Our pre -press specialists are available to assist your graphics staff to ensure files are compatible with our press profiles in order to attain the maximum quality product possible. A second quality assurance check will be made at the pre-flight stage when files are downloaded for proof processing. Proofs (Blue lines) are submitted for approval as required by our customers. Proofing time is based on customer needs, page count and quality of electronic files submitted to San Dieguito Printers. In order to meet our client's needs and to be able to provide world class customer service, our recommended method of proofing is to have an SDP Representative deliver and review the proofs with the appropriate member of your staff for this project. After proof approval, the printing, bindery and mailing process takes place. During this process, book checks are completed between the press and bindery operators, pre -press staff and floor supervisors to make sure industry standards are met throughout the completion process of the project. All employees are trained to perform their duties to the highest standards and most are cross trained in additional areas for maximum efficiency and quality control. M Y ;�a/�Ti 1►11 Y fu l San Dieguito Printers agrees to provide turnaround time for this project within 5-10 days of proof approval for this project with schedule provided by the City of Costa Mesa. PRIMARY CONTACT FOR THE CITY OF COSTA MESA: Chris Baker, Sales & Marketing Manager/New Business Development, would be the primary contact for The City of Costa Mesa. He will work together with The San Dieguito Printers Project Facilitator and production team in order to make sure the needs are met for The City of Costa Mesa Recreation Brochure. COMPANY REFERENCES: City of Temecula Tracy Masters Senior Recreation Coordinator 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Phone: 951-693-3996 Tiracy. masters�a�cit�oftemecula. org City of San Marcos Sarah Divan Communications Officer I Civic Center Dr., San Marcos, CA 92069 Phone: 760-744-1050 ext. 3174 Fax: 760-744-7543 sdivanesan-marcos. net City of Dana Point Kolleen Wallace Recreation Coordinator 34052 Del Obispo Street, Dana Point, CA 92629 Phone: 949.248.3538 Fax: 949-496-3497 kwallace@,danapoint.org City of Beverly Hills Evelyn Ruiz Community Services Supervisor 455 N. Rexford Drive, #260, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: 310.285.6851 Fax. 310.274.9571 eruiz o,beverl hiy lls.org * Additional references available upon request EQUIPMENT: Prepress: (2) Agfa fully automated Galileo CTP system (1) Agfa fully automated Polaris CTP system (1) Agfa Apogee X Rip, Apogee Print Drive, Apogee News Drive (1) Sherpamatic two sided digital proofer (1) Epson Stylus PW 10600 high quality proofer (1) Scitex Scanner (1) HP 5000 Laser Printer (7) Mac prepress work stations (3) Dell PC prepress work stations (1) Dedicated T-1 high speed data line Bindery: (1) Mueller Bravo Plus saddle stitcher with six pockets and cover feeder with stacker (])Mueller Bravo-T saddle stitcher with six pockets and cover feeder with stacker (2) Mueller 227 inserters, five into one with stackers (1) Cutter (1) Folder Press: (24) units open web (2) Combination folders with 112, 114 and double parallel folds, 22 314 cutoff, maximum 36" web width (14) Automatic Martin splicers (2) RS-25 automatic Heidelberg stackers (1) RS-30 automatic Heidelberg stacker (1) Five unit Komori heat -set press with combination folder and sheeter (23 cut-qf,9 (1) Five unit Heidelberg heat -set press (23.125 cut-offX 38 " web width) with combination folder (112, 114 double parallel fold) and an Oxy Dry sheeter * Diesel generator back-up for tight timeline needs C CD N fD co w II p X ' m RE O � CD A -n fD a m Oci � o m a 0 0 s c m N 69 bq 69 69 _ o � co rn N cNo PQ w N 69 69 69 69 69 � cn pW O N C71 Npp •.� co N = k P4 ,OpOp O p .Opyp1 O 69 69 69 69 c 0 N 0 O 0 O 0 CN1� V cD � W t04 W 000 Ja. 69 69 E9 69 69 A v N K = CA N V cm N � N O O V 69 69 69 m O O ': O O O 69 6q 69 69 69 w X to N Of IV O O UW1 O N W N G _ obi A O O O 69 69 c go N 0 Caj p chi O p O O. C. v '6'4 69 69 69 69 m O O p n -�C �m 0 D O 4 ca Z � C N oa m 22 ;a Z CO O n n M m D y y O z CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-16 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO EXTEND TERM OF CARE AMBULANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT DATE: JULY 21, 2015 FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: DANIEL A. STEFANO, FIRE CHIEF FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DANIEL A. STEFANO, (714) 754-5106 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the attached Amendment Number Four extending the term of the Ambulance Services Agreement with Care Ambulance Service, Inc., for the continuation of emergency ambulance and patient billing services until June 30, 2016. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 1797.201, because the City of Costa Mesa has provided and/or contracted for emergency ambulance services continuously at least since June 1, 1980, the City has retained all rights, remedies, and privileges regarding the provision, administration, and operational control of all prehospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) within its jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, emergency ambulance response and patient transport services. In accordance with its Section 1797.201 powers, on November 20, 2007, the City initiated a competitive process by issuing a "Request for Proposals," coordinated by the Fire Department, in which qualified ambulance companies were reviewed, analyzed, and compared. The Fire Department chose to use the competitive process format outlined in California Emergency Medical Services Authority Publication #141 due to its efficiency, rather than developing a new format. On July 1, 2008, the City Council accepted the proposal submitted by Care Ambulance Service, Inc., and authorized the Fire Department to negotiate an agreement for the provision of emergency ambulance and patient billing services. The City and Care Ambulance Services entered into an agreement effective on September 1, 2008, at 7:30 a.m., for a period of two years. The City and Care Ambulance Services subsequently entered into Ambulance Services Agreement to extend the services for a term of three years, to September 1, 2013. The Ambulance Services Agreement allows for extensions of the term providing that the total length of time, including the initial two-year term beginning in 2008, is no more than ten years. The City Council previously approved Amendment Numbers One through Three to the agreement, extending the agreement to 1 September 1, 2015, at 7:30 a.m. Amendment Number Four would extend the agreement until June 30, 2016, at 7:30 a.m. ANALYSIS - From the commencement of the current agreement until the present time, Care Ambulance Service has met and fulfilled all contractual obligations and requirements. In fact, it is the opinion of the Fire Department that Care Ambulance Service has exceeded all expectations and has helped foster a partnership that has been instrumental in maintaining Costa Mesa's high -quality EMS system. Based on its performance over the past six years, Care Ambulance Service has maintained a well -managed organization staffed by dedicated personnel who care about their mission and the patients they serve. Extending the agreement to June 30, 2016 will allow for emergency ambulance and patient billing services to continue through the completion of the consultant group's report containing an objective analysis on the City's future ground transportation options, and City Council's consideration of such options. Section 5.3 of the agreement allows the City to terminate the agreement at any time with written notice to Care Ambulance Service if it is later determined that services will not be needed for the entire time period of the extension. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Because Care Ambulance Service has satisfied and exceeded the obligations, requirements, and expectations of the original Agreement, no other alternatives were considered. FISCAL REVIEW: No fiscal review is necessary for this item. The City provides citizens emergency ambulance services via a private ambulance company business, which also handles all EMS billing services for the City. There is no direct cost to the City for selecting or using a private ambulance company to provide emergency ambulance and patient billing services. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney's Office reviewed the Ambulance Services Agreement and its amendments, and drafted Amendment Number Four with the assistance of Fire Department. CONCLUSION: Based on the aforementioned reasons, the Fire Department respectfully recommends that the City Council approve the attached Amendment Number Four so that Care Ambulance Service may continue emergency ambulance and patient billing services until June 30, 2016, at 07:30 a.m. DANIEL A. STEFANO Fire Chief THOMAS R. HATCH Chief Executive Officer 2 THOMAS P. DUARTE City Attorney Attachments: 1) Original Ambulance Services Agreement 2) Amendment Numbers One through Three 3) Amendment Number Four Attachment 1 CITY OF COSTA MESA. AMBULANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 19th day of August 2008 ("Effective ,Date"), by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation ("City") and CARE,AMBULANCE+ SERVICE, INC., a California corporation ("Contractor"). WITNESSETH: A. WHEREAS, COSTA MESA issued "City of Costa Mesa Request for Proposals for Emergency Ambulance and Patient Billing Services #1117" on November 20, 2007. A copy of said Request for Proposals is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A," and is hereinafter referred to as "RFP"; and B. WHEREAS, COSTA MESA issued two subsequent addendums to the RFP on January 24, 2008, and on February 11, 2008. Copies of the addendums are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "B, and are hereinafter referred to as the "Addendutns." The original RFP and the addendums shall be collectively referred to as the "RFP." C. WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR submitted a proposal dated March 17, 2Q08, in response to the RFP. A copy of the proposal is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit "C," mid is hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal"; and D. WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR is an ambulance provider that is fully licensed and qualified to perform the work required by this Agreement and was selected by COSTA MESA following the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to said RFP; and E. WHEREAS, COSTA MESA desires to utilize the services of CONTRACTOR to provide Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) emergency ambulance and patient' billing services in accordance with all applicable laws, COSTA. MFSA's RFP and Addendums, and selected options Roan CONTRACTOR's Proposal; and F. WHEREAS, at its meeting of July 1, 2008, the Costa Mesa City Council accepted CONTRACTOR's Pxoposal and authorized city staff to negotiate an Agreement for the provision of BLS and ALS emergency ambulance and patient billing services by CONTRACTOR. The details of the Scope of emergency ambulance services to be performed by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement are described in greater detail in section 2,1 of this Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, fox and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows; �, C (a py Ambulance 1'SA 1.0. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1. Order of Precedence. The entire Agreement between City and Contractor shall be comprised of the following doovraents, listed in order of precedence: 1) This Agreement (the Costa Mesa Ambulance Services Agreement); 2) The Proposal; and 3) The RFP (including the two Addendums), which are all incorporated by this reference. In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibits, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail, These documents together constitute the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to any matter referenced herein and supersede any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations. If there is any conflict between the terms and conditions of the above mentioned documents, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail over those in the Proposal or RFP, the terms and conditions of the Proposal shall govern over those in the RFP, and the Addendums .shall prevail over the RFP. Only a writing executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assigns may modify this Agreement 1.2. 'Representatives. The City Manager or his designee shall be the representative of City for purposes of this Agreement and may issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of the City, called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. Contractor shall designate a representative for purposes of this Agreement who shall be, authorized to issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of Contractor called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. 1.3. Project Managers. The Costa Mesa Fire Department (CMFD) EMS Coordinator shall be the Project Manager designated by the City to work directly with Contractor in the performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall designate a Project Manager who shall represent it and be its agent in all consultations with City during the terra of tl-is Agreement. Contractor or its Project Manager shall attend and assist in all coordination meetings called by City. 1.4, Notices. Any notices, documents, correspondence or other communications concerning this Agreement or the work hereunder shall be made in writing and may be provided by personal delivery, facsimile or mail and sh.a11 be addressed as set forth below. Such communication shall be deemed served or delivered: a) at 'the time of delivery if such communication is sent by personal delivery; b) at the time of transmission if such communication is sent by facsimile; and c) 48 hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail as reflected by the official U.S. postmark if such communication is sent through regtiilar United States mail. IF TO CONTRACTOR: Care Ambulance Service, Inc. 1517 W. Brandon Court Orange, CA 92868 . Tel: 714-288-3800 Fax: 714-288-3802 Attn: Rick Richardson IF TO CITY: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 TeI: 714-754-5155 Fax:714-754-4944 Attn: EMS Coordinator 2 Ambulance P9A 1.5. Drug -free Workplace Polite. Contractor shall provide a drug -free workplace by complying with all provisions set forth in City's Council Policy 100-5, attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference. Contractor's failure to conform to the requirements set forth in Council Policy 100-5 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall be cause for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. 1.6. Attorneys' Fees. In the event that litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from. the opposing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof. 1.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Orange County, California. 1.8. Assignment, Contractor shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, transfer, sublet or encumber all or any part of Contractor's interest in this Agreement without City's prior written consent. Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance shall be void and shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and cause for termination of this Agreement, Regardless of City's consent, no subletting or assignment shall release Contractor of Contractor's obligation to perform all other obligations to be performed by Contractor hereunder for the term of this Agreement. 1.9. Indenmification and Hold harmless. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, and employees, from any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, including attorney fees, damage to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons or damages of any nature including, but not by way of limitation, all civil claims or workers' compensation claims arising out of or in any way coralected with the intentional or negligent acts, error or omissions of Contractor, its employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of this Agreenient. 1,10. lndependent Contractor. Contractor is and shall be acting at all times as an independent: contractor and not as an employee of City. Contractor shall secure, at its expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of Income Tax, Social Security, State Disability Insurance Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, and other payroll deductions for Contractor and its officers, agents, and employees, and all business licenses, if any are required, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. 1.11. PERS Eligibility Indeunnification, In the event that Contractor or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Contractor providing services under this Agreement claims or is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the Califorrua Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be, eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer Arnbttlance PSA contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Contractor or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the, responsibility of City. Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Contractor and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and 'hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of City and/or entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contribution and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 1,12. ins ections. The EMS Coordinator, or any other person designated by the Fire Chief or City Manager, shall have the authority to inspect all facilities, properties, vehicles, documents, and records of any type of data storage means famished or prepared by Contractor or any of its subcontractors in the course of performance of this Agreement. City shall also be entitled to receive copies of any documents or records it may request upon reasonable notice to Contractor. 1.13. Public Records Act Disclosure, Contractor has been advised and is aware that all reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes, discs or files furnished or prepared by Contractor, or any of its subcontractors, and provided to City may be subject to public disclosure as required by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et. seq,). Exceptions to public disclosure may be those documents or information that qualify as trade secrets, as that term is defined in the California Government Code Section 6254:7, and of which Contractor informs City of such trade secret. The City 'will endeavor to maintain as confidential all information obtained by it that is designated as a 'trade secret. The City shall not, in any way, be liable at responsible for the disclosure of any trade secret including, without limitation, those records so marked if disclosure is deemed to be required by law or by order of the. Court. 1.14. Responsibility for Errors. Contractor shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. Contractor, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the EMS Coordinator or other City -designated representative, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to Contractor occurs, then Contractor shall, at no cost to City, provide all necessary paperwork regarding Contractor professional services necessary to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction. 1,15. Prohibited Employment, Contractor will not employ any regular employee of City while this Agreement is in effect without prior approval by the Fire Chief, 1.16. Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the pmpaxation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein. 4 Arxrbulance PSA 1.17. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights. This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of City and Contractor and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement, and no third party shall have any right in, under, or to this Agreement. 1.18. Headings. Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain, or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 1.19, Construction. The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement, 1.20. Amendments. Only a writing executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assigns may amend this Agreement, 1.21. Waiver. The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or compliance by the other of any of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance, No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any occurrence or event shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect to any other occurrence or event, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. 1.22. Severability. 1f any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable in any circumstance, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any other circumstance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the value of this Agreement, based upon the substantial benefit of the bargain for any party is materially impaired, which determination as made by the presiding court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction shall be binding, then both. parties agree to substitute such provision(s) through good faith negotiations. 1,23. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement. 1.24. Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on. behalf of said parties and that by doing so, the parties hereto are formally botuid to the provisions of this Agreement. Ambulance PSA 1.25, Records and Audits. Records of Contractor's services relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting principles and shall be made available to City for inspection and/or audit at mutually convenient times throughout the term of this Agreement (including any extensions), and for a period of three (3) years after tare Agreement is terminated for any reason. Contractor shall also follow and is subject to the record and audit requirements set forth in the RFP. 2.0. EMERGENCY AIVMULANCE SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR 2.1. Scone of Emergency Ambulance Services. During the terms of this Agreement and any extension, Contractor shall provide the BLS and ALS emergency ambulance services in ,the City of Costa Mesa (the "Services"), The Services provided by Contractor under this Agreement shall be performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the terms of the City's UP (Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B") and in Contractor's Proposal (Exhibit "C"). 2.2. Inter- Agency Communications (RFP Page 18 Item V A 5 c), The on -duty field supervisor• shall be equipped with both a mobile and a portable 800 MHz radio that enables him/her to communicate directly with CMFD field personnel at all times, 23. Data Collection and Reporting (RFP Page 19 Item V A 9 a). Contractor shall not be required to provide "Transfer of Care Time" or "At Patient Time" as part of the data reporting requirements listed in the original UP. 2.4, Additional Vehicle Equipment (RFP Pme 20 Item V B 5 a ). Contractor shall equip all four CMFD ambulances (3 primary, 1 reserve) with both an on -board 800 MHz radio, and at least one portable 800 MHz radio for the crew to carry. 2.5. Required Medical Inventory (RFP Page 21 ,Item V B 6 a). CMFD has replaced all FernoTrac Adult Hare Traction Splints with the Sager Model 5304 Form III Bilateral splints. Therefore, all CMFD ambulances shall be equipped with Sager Model 5304 Form III Bilateral splints. 2.6. Facility Furnishings and Inventory (RPP_Page 22 Item V.C.1c . Each ambulance station shall be furnished with a television that has both DVD and VHS playback capability, which may be used for both education and entertainment purposes. 2.7. Furnishings and UxventoryRFF Page ?2, Iter�n V C 2 d), Each ambulance station shall maintain a library that includes the following: (a) Manufacturer instruction manuals for EMS equipment on ambulance. (b) Current Orange Cotuaty EMS Agency Treatment Guidelines manual. (c) Primary paramedic textbook currently used by Saddleback College. (d) Primary EMT textbook currently used by Saddleback College. (e) 2005 American Heart Association ECC Guidelines. (f) Current Orange County Thomas Guide map book. (g) Journal of Emergency Medical Services (JEMS) magazine subscription. 6 Ambul<mce PSA 2.6, urnish'a�nd I ventorv.(RFP Page 23 Item V C 2 e). Each ambulance station shall be equipped. with a computer system, including a printer, with high-speed internet access, Adobe Acrobat Reader software, and Microsoft Word software. Each Costa Mesa Ambulance Operator will have an e-mail address that s/he can access at his/her assigned ambulance station, and to/from which the EMS Coordinator may send/receive a -mails directly. Each Costa Mesa Ambulance Operator shall check his her e-mail in -box at least once per 24- hour shift. E-mails from the EMS Coordinator shall be read immediately or as soon as practical, and responded to promptly when requested. 2.9. Persomiel Qualifications (RFP Page 23 Item V D 1 b�. Contractor may staff any CMFD ambulance with an employee who is not an authorized emergency ambulance driver, with the caveat that all four CMFD ambulances shall be staffed by at least one qualified and authorized emergency ambulance driver at all tunes, 2.10. Roster (RFP Page 1II Item V.A,7). In addition to the roster information already specified in the RFP, Contractor shall indicate whether each Costa Mesa Ambulance Operator is an authorized emergency ambulance driver or not. 2.11. Personnel Credentials (RFP Page 23 Item V.D.2.g)• Contractor shall have the option of keeping emergency driver safety course completion documentation for Costa Mesa Ambulance Operators at its headquarters or other designated facility, so long as the documentation is available for inspection by the EMS Coordinator, the oa-duty CMFD Battalion Chief, any CMFD member designated by the Fire Chief, or any person designated by the City Manager. 2.12. Medical Examination (RFP Page 24 Item V D 7). Contractor shall not be required to perform a resting 12-lead electrocardiogram on pre -hire EMT candidates. 2A3. Time Stan IRFP Page 28 Item V.E3). Contractor shall meet all ground ambulance time standards at a compliance rate of at least 93 % (fractile), rather than the 90% rate specified in the original RFP. 2.14 Realth Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) The parties agree that each is a Covered Entity as that term is defined in HIPPA, 45 CFR Part 160.103. Each has an independent obligation to maintain the confidentiality of protected health information of persons who are provided medical services by City, Contractor or both. `Ilaerefoxe, the parties have act and need not enter into a Business Association Agreement, and each will endeavor to maintain the confidentiality of any protected health information that is obtained from any patient treated by City and/or Contractor. 2.15, Piofessional Practices. All .Services to be provided by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence, and skill ordinarily exercised by professional contractors in similar fields and circumstances in accordance with sound professional practices and as explained in the UP, Contractor also warrants that it is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and shall advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Contractor's performance of this Agreement. 7 Ambulance PSA 2.16. Warranty. Contractor warrants that it shall perform Services required by this Agreement in compliance with all applicable ,Federal and California employment laws including, but not limited to: laws related to minimum hours and wages; occupational health and safety; fair employment and employment practices; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA); workers' compensation insurance and safety in employment; and all other Federal, State, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the services required under this Agreement. Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless City $om and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings, aid judgments of every nature and description including attorneys' fees and costs, presented, brought, or recovered against City for, or on account of any liability 'under any of the above -mentioned laws, which may be incurred by reason of Contractor's performance tinder this Agreement, 2.17. Ngn-discrimination. In performing this Agreement, Contractor shall not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sexual gender or sexual orientation, except as permitted pursuant to Section 12940 of the Government Code, Violation of this provision may result in the imposition of penalties referred to in Labor Code, Section 1735. 2.1 S. Delegation and Assignment. This is a personal service contract, and the duties set forth herein shall not be delegated or assigned to any person or entity without the prior written consent of City, Contractor may engage a subcontractors) as permitted by law and may employ other personnel to perform services contemplated by this Agreement at Contractor's sole cost and expense. 3.0. PATIENT FULLING SERVICES PROVIDEDBY THE CONTRACTOR 3.1. Scope of Patient Billing Services, Contractor shall provide the patient billing services described in the RFP (RF'P pages 32, 33) and Addendums attached hereto as Exhibit `B,".and incorporated herein by reference and Contractor's Proposal. 3,2, No Compensation to Contractor from City. (a) Contractor will act be compensated by the City, for its Services under this Agreement. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Contractor will be compensated solely by billing patients, both residents and non-residents, for ambulance -related services provided by Contractor in the City according to the Ground Emergency Ambulance Service Rates established by the Orange County Board of Supervisors (Orange County EMS Agency Policy *720.00, Section 312). (b) City assumes no financial liability for the cost of services to be provided to patients pursuant to this Agreement, including financial liability for the costs of dry rums (non -transports). Ambular'tce PSA (c) Pursuant to Title 42 'United States Code Sections ,1,320-a-7b(b), as consideration for Contractor's agreement to provide billing services for City, City shall provide Contractor with the use and support of dispatching services necessary to fulfill the obligations of this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that the total value of the services rendered by Contractor to City for billing services and the value of services rendered by City to Contractor under this Agreement for dispatching services are impractical to determine with any reasonable degree of specificity, but are believed to be equivalent, Consequently, the .parties agree that the value of the services each party renders to the other under,this section shall be deemed equivalent and neither party shall owe the other party any further monetary consideration. 3.3. Fire Department Fees, Contractor shall bill, collect, and reimburse to City the following Fire Department fees identified in this section 3.3 ("Fire Department Fees"), The Fire Department fees shall only be billed to persons who are not residents of Costa Mesa, as determined by the patient's residential address, Fire Department fees are subject to future modification as determined by the City, and written notice of any such fee changes shall be given to Contractor by City. The Fire Department fees to be billed by Contractor areas follows: (a) First Responder Fee. A fee of $260.00 will be charged to all non.resident Patients who are transported by ambulance. This fee is intended to help offset some of the response -related costs borne by City, including the dispatch and response of fire apparatus and professional EMS responders, in addition to all prehospital emergency medical assessment and treatment performed an scene by CMFD personnel. 1. Contractor shall identify, code, bill and collect all response fees on behalf of City for EMS response services rendered by the Costa Mesa Fire Department. Such billing shall be conducted on a separate bill from Company's ambulance transport bill and shall include the, City of Costa Mesa logo and taxpayer identification number, I Contractor shall ensure that all amounts billed and collected on behalf of City are separately identified within the accounting records in sufficient detail to allow for verification and audits by City, and that such records will be retained for the current year of operation and for the preceding six (6) years. 3. Contractor shall establish a separate joint billing agency trust or checking account for the deposit of all response fees collected on behalf of City. Contractor shall, on or before the close of business on the last day of every calendar month, remit all funds collected on behalf of the City during the immediately preceding calendar month. Arribulance PSA (b) ALS (Advanced Life Simport) Fee. A fee of $160.00 will be charged to all non-resident patients who are transported by ambulance with .paramedic escort because their medical condition warrants ALS-level assessment and/or treatment. This fee is intended to help offset some of the costs borne by City for providing Contractor paramedics so that Contractor has the ability to transport patients requiring ALS-level care. Contractor shall, on or before the close of business on the last day of every calendar month, remit --with a separate check-- all ALS fee funds collected during the immediately preceding calendar month. 3.4. Supply ReimUursement, Contractor shall reimburse City $18.15 for each patient transported by ambulance, regardless of what Contractor actually collects from the patient. This reimbursement is intended to help offset some of the costs borne by City for expendable medical supplies used during patient care. Contractor shall, on or before the close of business on the last day of every third calendar month, remit, with a separate check, all supply reimbursement funds collected during the immediately preceding three (3) calendar months. 3.5. Billing Exemptions (PFp Page 33 Item VI ]3 4 b). Contractor may bill any patient in law enforcement custody or otherwise legally detained by power of government who is transported by ambulance. 3.6. Additional Services. Contractor shall not receive compensation for any services provided outside the scope of Services described in this Agreement (including the attached Exhibits) unless City, prior to Contractor performing the additional services, approves such additional services in writing. It is specifically understood that oral requests and/or approvals- of such additional services or additional compensation shall be barred and are unenforceable, 4.0. TrMEE OF PEUORMANCE 4.1. Commencement and Completion of Work. The professional Services .to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall commence on September 1, 2008, at 7:30 a.m. Failure to commence work in a timely manner and/or diligently pursue work to completion during the tern of this Agreement may be grounds for termination of this Agreement. 4.2, Excusable Delays. Neither party shall be responsible for delays or lack of performance resulting from acts beyond the reasonable control of the party or parties, Exemptions to ambulance response time standards may be granted at the sole discretion of the EMS Coordinator upon request by Contractor in the following situations: (a) Any condition, such as weather, so severe as to impair the ability of the ambulance crew to meet the time standards without driving at a speed that is greater than is reasonable or prudent under the conditions, and/or in a manner that does not afford due regard for the safety of others, (b) In times of natural or man-made disasters, which have been declared by the appropriate governmental agency, ambulance response time standards 10 Ambulance PSA may be presumed waived unless told otherwise by the EMS Coordinator or other CMFD Chief Officer, and until such time as the disaster is mitigated and normal operations are restored. 5.0, TERM AND TERMINATION 5.1. Terns. The term of this Agreement shall commence on September 1, 2008, at 7:30 a.m., and continue for a period of two (2) years, ending on September 1, 2010, at 7:30 a.m., unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties (the ".Initial Term"). 5.2. Extension of Term. At the expiration of the Initial Term, and at the expiration of any subsequent term (if any), Contractor may request City to extend the Agreement for an additional 2-year term. In no event shall this Agreement last more than a total of ten (10) years, including the Initial Terre and any extensions thereto. 5.3. Notice of Termination. The City reserves and has the right and privilege of canceling, suspending, or abandoning the execution of all or any part of the work contemplated by this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time, by providing written notice to Contractor. The termination of this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon receipt of the notice of termination. In the event of such termination, Contractor shall immediately stop rendering services under this Agreement runless directed otherwise by the City. 5.4. Doouments. In the event of termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared by Contractor in its performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, finished or unfurnished design, development and construction documents, data studies, drawings, maps and reports, shall be delivered to the City within ten (10) days of delivery of termination notice to Contractor, at no cost to City. Any use of uncompleted documents without ,specific written authorization from Contractor shall be at City's sole risk and without liability or legal expense to Contractor. 6.0. INSURANCE 6.1. Controlling Insurance Provisions. The insurance provisions delineated in this Agreement supersede any insurance -related provisions of the original R.FP (including RFP Pages 14-16), addendums, and/or Proposal. 6.2. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall obtain and maintain during the life of this Agreement all of the following insurance coverages: (a) Comprehensive general liability, including premises -operations, products/completed operations, broad form property damage, blanket contractual liability, independent contractors, personal injury with a policy limit of not less than Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) per occurrence. If the policy canies an annual aggregate, it shall be in an 11 Ambulance FSA amount not less than Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000.00). (b) Automobile liability for owned vehicles, hired, and non -owned vehicles, with a policy limit of not less than Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) per occurrence. If policy carries an annual aggregate, it shall be in amount not less than Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000.00). (c) Workers' compensation insurance as required by the State of California. (d) Ambulance Medical Malpractice Insurance ("E&0") liability insurance with policy limits of not less than Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) per policy term. If policy carries an annual aggregate, it shall be in an amount not less than Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000.00) per occurrence. Such insurance coverage may be combined with either the general or automobile liability coverage required above. .However, if the insurance coverage is so structured, the combined coverage shall be in an amount not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) per occurrence, with an annual aggregate of not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00). Contractor shall obtain and maintain, said E&O liability insurance during the life of this Agreement and for three years after completion of the work hereunder. 6.3. Endorsements. The comprehensive general liability insurance policy shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: (a) Additional insureds: "The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, and employees are additional insureds with respect to this subject prof ect and contract with City." (b) Notice: "Said policy shall not terminate, nor shall it be cancelled, nor the eoveragoreduced, Until thirty (30) days after written notice is given to City." (c) Other insurance: "Any ether insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa shall be excess and not contributing with the insurance provided by this policy." 6.4. 'erti$cates of Tn,surance. Contractor shall provide to City certificates of insurance showing the insurance coverages and required endorsements described above, in a. form and content approved by City, prior, to performing any services under this Agreement. 6.5. Non -Limiting, Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which Contractor may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property, 12 Ambulance PSA IN WITNESS WIII RE' OF, the panties hereto have caused this Agreeinent to be executed by and through their"espective.authorized officers, as of the date first above written. CITY OF COSTA'MESA, A municipal corporation -le -- Mayor of the City Of Costa Mesa CITY CARE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. Signature R .L.a.L._ �. 1L �LL�p�a a, CLI Name and Title SOeiai Security or Taxpayer ID Number Date: .bate: - g APFR VED AS TO FORM: VcZ Date: Ci Attorney APPROVED A.S. TO SURANCE: Date: S� l J 4skagei'nei-, �`" APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: :Date: `d 13103 EMS Coordinator ATTEST: 13 IULI F01_tv.lK, CITY .Cl.ERK Ambulance PSA EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A: RFP (attached) EXHIBIT B: ADDENDUMS (attached) EXHIBIT C: PROPOSAL (attached) EXHIBIT D: CITY COUNCIL POLICY :100-5 (see below) EXHIBIT E: CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE (attached) 14 Ambulame PSA NUM DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE I 00-5 18-8 89 1 l of3 BACKGROUND Under the Federal Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988, passed as part of omnibus drug legislation enacted November 18, 1988, contractors and grantees of Federal funds must certify that they will provide drug -nice workplaces. At the present time, the City of Costa Mesa, as a sub -grantee of Federal finds under a variety of programs, is required to abide by this Act. The City Council has expressed its support of the national effort to eradicate drug abuse through the creation of a Substance Abuse Committee, institution of a City-wide D.A.R.E, program in all local schools andother activities in support of a drug -free community. This policy is intended to extend that effort to contractors and grantees of the City of Costa Mesa in the elimination of dangerous drugs in the workplace. PURPOSE It is the purpose of this Policy to: 1, Clearly state the City of Costa Mesa's commitment to a drug -free society, 1 Set forth guidelines to ensure that public, private, and nonprofit organizations receiving funds from the City of Costa Mesa share the conirnitment to a drug -free workplace. POLICY The City Manager, under direction by the City Council, shall take the necessary steps to see that the following provisions are included in all contracts and agreements entered into by the City of Costa Mesa involving the disbursement of funds. 1. Contractor or Sub -grantee hereby certifies that it will provide a drug -free workplace by: a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's workplace, specifically the job site or location included in this contract, and specifying the actions that will be taken against 'the employees for violation of such prohibition; 15 Ainbulariee P5A NUMB ATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 1 00 ER I D &9 12 of 3 141 to intbrm employees 1, The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; 2. Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace; 3. .Any available drag counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs, and 4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; c, Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the contract be given a copy of the statement required by subparagraph A; d. Notifying the employee in the statement required by subparagraph. i A that, as a condition of employment under the contract, the employee will; 1. Abide by the terms of the statement; and 2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction; e. No-tifying the City of Costa Mesa within ten (10) days after receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 from an employee or otherwise receiving the actual notice of such conviction; f. Taking one of the following actions within thirty (30) days of receiving notice under subpara.grapb l D 2 with respect to an employee who is so convicted; I. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or 2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health agency, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; 16 Ambulance PSA DATE DRUG -FREE WORKPLACE 1100MBER 18-& 89 I3 of g, Making a good faith effort to maintain a drug -free workplace through implementation of subparagraphs I A through 1 F, inclusive, 2. Contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be deemed to be in violation of this Policy if the City of Costa Mesa determines that: a. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has made a false certification tinder paragraph 1 above; b. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements of subparagraphs I A through 10 above; c. Such number of employees of Contractor and/or sub -grantee have been convicted of violations of criminal drug statutes for violations occurring in the workplace as to indicate that the contractor and/or sub -grantee has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug -free workplace, 3. Should any contractor and/or sub -grantee be deemed to be in violation of tivs Policy pursuant to the provisions of 2 A, B, and C, a suspension, termination or debanment proceeding subject to applicable Federal, State, and local laws shall be conducted. Upon issuance of any final decision udder this section requiring debarment of a contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be ineligible for award of any contract, agreement or grant from the City of Costa Mesa for a period specified in the decision, not to exceed five (5) years. Upon issuance of any final decision recommending against debarment of the contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be eligible for compensation as provided by law. 17 Ainbulance PSA Attachment 2 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO AMBULANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT This Amendment is made and entered into this 1st day of September, 2013, ("Effective Date") by and between the City of Costa Mesa, a municipal corporation ("City") and Care Ambulance Service, Inc,, a California Corporation ("Contractor") WHEREAS, Contractor and City entered into an agreement on September 1, 2010, for Basic Life Support (BLS), Advanced Life Support (ALS) and patient billing services (the "2010 Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the term of Contractor and City's 2010 Agreement is scheduled to expire on September 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, Contractor and City now wish to amend the Agreement to extend the tern of the Agreement as permitted by Section 5.2 of the 2010 Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: Paragraph 5,1 shall be amended to read, "This Agreement is extended and the extension shall commence on September 1, 2013 at 7:30 a.m. and continue for a period of one (1) year, ending on September 1; 2014 at 7:30 a.m. unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties." 2. All terms not herein defined shall have the same meaning and use as set forth in the Agreement. All other terms, conditions, and provisions of the 2010 Agreement not in conflict with this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have set their hand by their duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written, SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE CITY OF COSTA MESA, A municipal corporation / Date; i 0 2. P� �(,3. Mayor CARE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. Date: Signattr 4� ao`i 1A Name and Title Social Security or Taxpayer ID Number SAP E. V=3 Z) 4 \ AS TO CONTENT; APPROVED S TO FORM: e ) � : -- City At orney Date; c)g 12 D j zo 13 Date: 6 CCho r `? AMENOMENT NUMBER TWO TO AMBULANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT This Amendment is made and entered into this I" day of September, 2014 {"Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation ("City") and CARE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., a California corporation ("Contractor"), WHEREAS, City and Contractor entered into an agreement on September 1, 2010, for Contractor to provide Basic Life. Support (BLS), Advanced cafe Support (ALS) emergency ambulance services, and patient billing services in the City; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 2013, the parties entered into Amendment Number One to the Agreement to extend the Agreement term as permitted by Section 5.2 of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this Amendment to further extend the Agreement term as permitted by Section 5.2 of the Agreement, which allows for extensions providing that the total Agreement lasts no more than ten years. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: I. The tertn of the Agreement set forth in Section 5.1, as amended by Amendment. Number One, is extended, and the extension shall commence on September 1`, 2014, at 7:30 a.m. andend on September 17, 2014, at 7:30 a.m. 2, All other terms, conditions, and provisions of the Agreement not in conflict with this Amendment shall remain in flail force and effect. IN WCI'NES'S. WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand by their duly authorized representatives as ofthe day and year first above written. CITY OF COSTA MESA, A municipal corporation 4F,,�te Off1'oer CARE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. Signature ' Marne and itle —` APPROVzy AST OR City Att n DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL CIO A, StefanoF, Fire Chief __..w._. _..._. AMBULANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENOWNT TWO AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO AMBULANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT This Amendment is made and entered into this 17" day of September, 2014 ("Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation ("City") and CARE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., a California corporation ("Contractor"). WHEREAS, City and Contractor entered into an agreement on September 1, 2010, for Contractor to provide Basic Life Support (BLS), Advanced Life Support (ALS) emergency ambulance services, and patient billing services in the City; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 2013, the parties entered into Amendment Number One to the Agreement to extend the Agreement term as permitted by Section 5.2 of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 2014, the parties entered into Amendment Number Two to the Agreement to extend the Agreement term as permitted by Section 5.2 of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this Amendment to further extend the Agreement term as permitted by Section 5.2 of the Agreement, which allows for extensions providing that the total Agreement lasts no more than ten years. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The tenn of the Agreement set forth in Section 5.1, as amendedjs extended, and the extension shall commence on September 17, 2014, at 7:30 a.m, and end on September 1, 2015, at 7:30 a.m, 2. All other terms, conditions, and provisions of the Agreement not in conflict with this Amendment shall rernain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand by their duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF COSTA A municipal corpo CARE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. Sigr e r I �p r/'-% . Name and Title APP7W7 City Attorne DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL el A. Ste io, Fire Chief 2 AMBULANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENCMENTTHREE Attachment 3 AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR TO AMBULANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT This Amendment is made and entered into this 21" day of July, 2015 ("Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation ("City") and CARE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., a California corporation ("Contractor"). WHEREAS, City and Contractor entered into an agreement on September 1, 2010, for Contractor to provide Basic Life Support (BLS), Advanced Life Support (ALS) emergency ambulance services, and patient billing services in the City (the "Agreement") for an initial three-year term; and WHEREAS, the parties subsequently entered into amendments extending the term pursuant to Section 5.2 of the Agreement, which allows for extensions providing that the total Agreement lasts no more than ten years; and WHEREAS, the parties now desire to enter into this Amendment to further extend the Agreement term as permitted by Section 5.2 of the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The term of the Agreement set forth in Section 5.1 is hereby extended, and such extension shall commence on September 17, 2015, at 7:30 a.m. and end on June 30, 2016, at 7:30 a.m. 2. All other terms, conditions, and provisions of the Agreement not in conflict with this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hand by their duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF COSTA MESA, A municipal corporation Mayor CARE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. Signature Name and Title APPROVED T O: City Attorney DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL A. Stefano, Fire Chief AMBULANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENTFOUR CC-16 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS EMERGENCY TRANSPORT PROGRAM HB CM Number of Calls (All Emergencies) 16,400 71% 11,599 CONFORMING HUNTINGTON BEACH COSTA MESA ADOPTED BUDGET - FY 2014/15 PROJECTION REVENUE Fire Med Billing Service $ 5,812,108 Fire Med Memberships $ 1,146,000 TOTAL FEES $ 6,958,108 71% $ 4,940,257 EMERGENCY TRANSPORT EXPENSES Salaries (30 ambulance operators/EMTs) $ 585,854 Overtime $ 312,000 Benefits CAL PERS $ 130,959 Retirement Supplement $ 31,349 Workers Comp $ 62,686 Health Insurance $ 118,662 Disability $ 17,846 Dental Insurance $ 7,542 Retiree Medical $ 69,862 Life Insurance $ 2,145 FICA Medicare $ 12,611 Total Benefits $ 453,662 Total Personnel Services $ 1,351,516 Operating Expenses $ 145,230 TOTAL TRANSPORT EXPENSES $ 1,496,746 80% $ FIRE MED ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES 1,197,397 Personnel Expenses $ 435,832 Operating Expenses $ 348,235 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES $ 784,067 80% $ 627,254 NET TRANSPORT REVENUE $ 4,677,295 $ 3,115,606 Costa Mesa Revenue & Financing Sources FY 15-16 EMS- First Responder Fee $ 226,600 Paramedic Fee - Advanced $ 285,400 Medical Supply Reimbursement $ 124,800 $ 636,800 Note: These fees may be additional or may offset revenue (assume all offset) PROJECTED COSTA MESA NET TRANSPORT REVENUE $ 2,478,806 ADDITION SAVINGS: METRO STATION (12 POSITIONS NOT BUDGETED) 12 FIREFIGHTERS @ $95,000 X 150% overtime (in current budget as overtime) $ 1,710,000 Redeploy currently budgeted 24 man shift (4 man crews @ all six stations) TOTAL ANNUAL POSITIVE IMPACT ON COSTA MESA BUDGET $ 4,188,806 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-17 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER SANDRA GENIS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT DATE: JULY 14, 2015 FROM: CEO'S OFFICE/ADMINISTRATION PRESENTATION BY: KELLY R. SHELTON, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CEO FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KELLY R. SHELTON @ 714-754-5328 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appoint Council Member Sandra Genis as the City of Costa Mesa's representative to the Orange County Vector Control District (OCVCD). BACKGROUND: The City Council is represented on a number of committees, boards and agencies throughout the County. In most cases, the Mayor has the authority to appoint the Council representative. However, the by-laws of the Orange County Vector Control District requires formal Council approval of the City's representative that is appointed by the Mayor. This appointment does require additional time and effort to commute for these meetings. On January 20, 2015, Council Member Monahan was appointed as the City's representative. Council Member Monahan is no longer able to meet the meeting obligations and has requested to be replaced. ANALYSIS: The Mayor has put forth the appointment of Council Member Sandra Genis for City Council approval to serve as the City's representative to the OCVCD. FISCAL REVIEW: No fiscal review is necessary for this item. LEGAL REVIEW: No legal review is necessary for this item. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Do not approve Mayor's appointment and select another representative. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the City Council formally approve the appointment of Council Member Sandra Genis as the City's representative to the OCVD. KELLY R. SHELTON Executive Assistant to the CEO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH-1 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION'S ACTION ON MESA VERDE DRIVE AND CALIFORNIA STREET MEDIAN LANDSCAPE PLANT PALETTE DATE: JULY 9, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT I ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER - (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff relative to the Parks and Recreation Commission action on Mesa Verde Drive and California Street Median Landscape Plant Palette. Provide direction to staff relative to the noticing process for capital improvement projects. BACKGROUND: The existing medians on Mesa Verde Drive, a 1.4-mile half -circle north of Adams Avenue, and the median on California Street between Iowa Street and New Hampshire Drive over the Greenville -Banning Channel (Attachment 1) were originally planted with grass. Grass is a high water use/high maintenance ground cover, and, in response to water conservation measures, it is being replaced with various types of drought -tolerant and xeriscape landscape designs. In line with Governor Brown's Executive Order, water to these medians has been turned off. At the June 25, 2015, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, staff presented three conceptual plant palettes for these medians (Attachment 1). After review, the Commission approved concept number 1, to replace grass with colorful drought -tolerant planting. Council Member Genis has requested a review of the courtesy notices delivered to residents for the Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting held on June 25, 2015 as well as the Neighborhood Meeting held on May 6, 2015. ANALYSIS: A neighborhood meeting was held on Wednesday, May 6, 2015, in the Council Chambers, regarding the proposed landscape plant palette for the existing medians on Mesa Verde Drive and California Street. 2,569 letters, dated April 21, 2015 and postmarked on April 22, 2015 (Attachment 2) were mailed to the affected residents with a copy posted on the City's website, inviting the residents to attend the meeting and to provide input on the proposed landscape improvements. These letters were distributed to all residents north of Adams Avenue to Gisler Avenue, and west of Harbor Boulevard to the Santa Ana River (for the Mesa Verde Medians) and 500' north, south, east, and west of Iowa Street and California Street intersection (for the median on California Street). Approximately 20 residents attended the meeting and provided input. The City's consultant and staff presented the scope of the project and reviewed the alternate plant palettes appropriate for these medians. Based on the comments gathered, the three primary concepts for the Medians that received the most comments were (listed in order of popularity): 1. Replace grass with colorful drought -tolerant plants 2. Replace grass with drought -tolerant, no -mow grass 3. Replace grass with synthetic turf Other alternatives included a combination of 1 and 2 above, add more color and variety to concept 1, and others preferred a more simplistic plant palette with only a few plant species. Other comments received included a 50/50 split to add accent boulders in combination with drought tolerant planting, and one comment to provide walkable surfaces — It is not recommended to provide walkable surfaces along the medians as it will introduce the possibility of vehicle -pedestrian conflict in the mid -block areas while accessing the medians. Given that Mesa Verde Drive is a four -lane divided primary road, the uncontrolled mid -block pedestrian crossings between the sidewalks and the medians pose a significant safety concern for pedestrians. All the proposed concepts will provide a significant reduction in water use and reduced maintenance once the plants are established. All three concepts meet the requirements for the turf removal rebate program offered by the Water District and an application will be submitted once the new call for projects is open. The Parks and Recreation Commission held a public meeting on June 25, 2015, to receive feedback from the May 6, 2015 neighborhood meeting and to approve a plant palette for the landscaped medians on Mesa Verde Drive and California Street. The agenda for this meeting was posted on June 19, 2015 (more than 72 hours prior to the meeting). The posting of the agenda meets the notification requirements for public meetings; however, in an effort to reach out to as many of the Mesa Verde residents as possible and alert them of the meeting, 2,569 courtesy notices were mailed and postmarked on June 19, 2015 (Attachment 3) to residents north of Adams Avenue to Gisler Avenue, and west of Harbor Boulevard to the Santa Ana River (for the Mesa Verde Medians) and 500' north, south, east, and west of Iowa Street and California Street intersection (for the median on California Street). The agenda for the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting was also posted on the bulletin boards and the City's website on June 19, 2015. Approximately 30 people attended the meeting and two residents spoke on the subject medians. The Parks and Recreation Commission voted to approve concept number 1 for implementation to meet the current water conservation measures along these medians. A courtesy notification for this meeting was posted in the Daily Pilot on July 10, 2015 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: No additional alternatives were considered for this item. FISCAL REVIEW: Funding for this project was allocated by City Council in the adopted FY 2014-2015 budget from Capital Improvement Funds. LEGAL REVIEW: There is no legal review required for this item. F CONCLUSION: In Fiscal Year 2014-2015, the City Council allocated funding to replace the existing turf on the medians on the Mesa Verde Drive loop, north of Adams Avenue and the median on California Street, north of Iowa Street with drought tolerant landscaping. 2,569 notification letters for a neighborhood meeting held on May 6, 2015 were mailed to the affected neighborhoods on April 22, 2015 soliciting their input on the proposed landscape palette. Approximately 20 residents attended the meeting and voiced their opinions and comments regarding the proposed plant palette. Consequently, three alternatives were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commissions at their regular meeting of June 25, 2015. The same amount of courtesy notification cards were mailed on June 19, 2015, again to the same affected residents, advising them of the meeting. Council Member Genis requested the item be placed on the agenda for review, indicating the notification process for both meetings was not conducted properly. Therefore, staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to how to proceed with the Parks and Recreation Commission action regarding the Mesa Verde Drive and California Street Median Landscape Plant Palette, and the noticing process for capital improvement projects. ERNESTO MUNOZ FARIBA FAZELI Public Services Director City Engineer Attachments: 1 - Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda Report dated 6/25/15 2 - Courtesy Notice to Residents — Neighborhood Meeting 3 - Courtesy Notice to Residents — Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Distribution: Chief Executive Officer City Attorney Director of Finance City Clerk Staff File 3 ATTACHMENT 1 PARKS AND RECREA T/ON COMM/SS/ON AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 25, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: 8a SUBJECT: PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PALETTE FOR THE EXISTING MEDIANS ON MESA VERDE DRIVE AND CALIFORNIA STREET DATE: JUNE 15, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: BALTAZAR MEJIA, PARKS PROJECT MANAGER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BALTAZAR MEJIA AT (714) 754-5291 RECOMMENDATION: Approve a plant palette for the existing medians on Mesa Verde Drive and California Street. BACKGROUND: The existing medians on Mesa Verde Drive, a 1.4-mile half circle north of Adams Avenue, and the median on California Street between Iowa Street and New Hampshire Drive over the Greenville -Banning Channel (Attachment 1) were originally planted with grass. Grass is a high water use/high maintenance ground cover that in response to the current water conservation measures is being replaced with various types of drought -tolerant and xeriscape landscape designs. In line with Governor Brown's Executive Order, water to these medians has been turned off. At the March 26, 2015, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, staff presented two conceptual plant palettes for these medians. After review, the Commission requested that a public meeting be conducted prior to approving a plant palette. ANALYSIS: A public meeting was held on Wednesday, May 6, 2015. Over 3,000 notices were mailed to the neighboring residents and a copy was posted on the City's website. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting and provided input. The City's consultant and staff presented the scope of the project and went over alternate plant palettes appropriate for these medians. Based on the comments gathered, the three primary concepts for the Mesa Verde Medians that received the most comments were (listed in order of popularity): 1. Replace grass with colorful drought -tolerant plants (Attachment 2a) 2. Replace grass with drought -tolerant, no -mow grass (Attachment 2b) 3. Replace grass with synthetic turf (Attachment 2c) Other alternatives included a combination of 1 and 2 above, add more color and variety to Concept 1, and others preferred a more simplistic plant palette with only a few plant species. Other comments received included a 50/50 split to add accent boulders in combination with drought tolerant planting, and one comment to provide walkable surfaces — It is not recommended to provide walkable surfaces along the medians as it will introduce the possibility of vehicle- pedestrian conflict in the mid -block areas while accessing the medians. Given that Mesa Verde Drive is a four -lane divided primary road, the uncontrolled mid -block pedestrian crossings between the sidewalks and the medians pose a significant safety concern for pedestrians. All the proposed concepts will provide a significant reduction in water use and reduced maintenance once the plants are established. The proposed irrigation system for Concept 1 or 2 is a new state -of the art drip irrigation system designed to deliver the required amount of water to the specific plant species. The irrigation system for Option 3 will be limited to watering the existing trees through a new drip irrigation system. All three concepts meet the requirements for the turf removal rebate program offered by the Water District and an application will be submitted once the new call for projects is open. The California Street Median has a more limited choice of plant materials due to underlying structures; however, the two alternatives (Attachment 3) that were presented at the Commission meeting of March 26, 2015, were also presented at the public meeting. There were no comments received at this meeting for this particular median. These concepts also meet the requirements for the turf removal rebate program offered by the Water District and an application will be submitted once the new call for projects is open. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: No additional alternatives were considered for this item. FISCAL REVIEW: Funding for this project is budgeted in the FY 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Fund. LEGAL REVIEW: There is no legal review required for this item. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the Commission approve a plant palette for the existing medians on Mesa Verde Drive and California Street. Z__A__%_ ERNESTOWNOZ FARIBA FAZELI Public "ces Director City Engineer e BALTAZAFt,MEJIA Parks Project Manager Attachments: 1 -- Location Map 2 - Plant Palettes for Mesa Verde Drive 3- Plant Palette for California Street r. c: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Staff File CITY OF COSTA MESA PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING • MESA VERDE DR FROM ADAMS AVE TO ADAMS AVE z KA AqN D o + D F o G w in o ` 1 v) IOWA ST NEW HAMPSHIRE DR.. � .GRE£NVILL� BANh7IPIG CFiAtvNEI ' MfSSO z CiCY �� Rl S7 a� 0 Q 9 a z J z 0 < T 0 = r z U U_ • CALIFORNIA ST FROM IOWA ST TO NEW HAMPSHIRE DR. PROPOSED WORK AREA ATTACHMENT 1 N PAGE 1 OF 1 ATTACHMENT 2a MEDIAN TIPS: BANDING: PLANTING MASS Replace bomanite with Dymondia 24" Bands of Decomposed Granite Drought tolerant low grasses, alternating beds PPP"111 low. k. '-ij IN 0 EVERGREEN HEDGE BED: Teucrium evergreen low hedge Knockout roses Each end of the median Underground Service Alert Call: TOLL FREE 1-800 422-4133 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG REVISIONS NO. I DATE I DESCRIPTION AFP, Now,mm �w o CONTRACTOR DATE OF CONSTRUCTION BEG. END DATE ACCEPTE® BY CITY COUNCIL 0 0 ACCENT PLANTS: Yucca, Pink Cordyline, and Agave f UC- N BENCHMARK DESIGNED BY: %X BENCH MA11N NO,: X"X DRAWN BY: xx E'LCVAT04- xxxx CHECKED BY: XX 4ESCMPigh: %%71X RECOMMENDED BY: %X APPROVED BY: R,C.E, #51480 1 P.E. SEAL R 01 r.: A O BOULDER OPTION: Alternating pattern with Accent plants CITY OF COSTA MESA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES / ENGINEERING DIVISION SHEET NO. OF X PLAN NUMBER XX—XX ATTACHMENT 2a U) c— Cz _0 COE 2 Do O c 0 Qf ATTACHMENT 2b ATTACHMENT 2c California Meadow Sedge /unmowed California Meadow Sedge /Planted from Plugs Labor intensive West Coast Turf— Kurapia -Comes in Rolls Kurapia is a drought tolerant and low maintenance turf alternative ground cover. Once estab- lished, it requires little maintenance and needs less water than cool and warm season turfgrasses. Establishment takes apprpximately 21-30 days and requires regular irrigation. Once estab- lished, Kurapia's water requirement can be maintained aesthetically at 50% of the evapotran- spiration versus 80% for cool season fescue. It has thick, dense growth, and is a flowering plant It can be mowed or left natural. Kurapia maintains green year around in most locations in California except high elevation areas Kurapia's sturdy structure makes it ideal for many uses such as covering highway and freeway shoulders, rooftops, public utility areas, commercial properties, and landscape areas. It can tol- erate light foot traffic, but is not recommended for heavy traffic areas like playgrounds or sports fields Karupia grows close to the ground and rarely exceeds one inch high. Most of the year the plant is covered in small while flowers that are sterile. California Meadow Sedge /mowed Carex Pansa/California Meadow Sedge W' Pots or 2" plugs This Grass is proposed for the California Median over the Chanel and can also be used to replace the Turf on Mesa Verde Blvd. Option — A combination of 2B with 2A Medians Length Meadow Grass with accents of Boul- ders with Agave Tips accented with Roses Lawn Replacement with Drought tolerant Meadow Grass or Groundcover EXHIBIT 2b Mesa verde Blvd. median lawn replacement LKA UltimateGrass I* EW -i I- -- ,.i" uttimatematural UGCSLOW-Of -P It. Ft. Width 6dpg L211cs6, Lamt idpft tkly mewlDrtdl ata uaralaatFa+s , aw.aaa�.a•a.a,. , . aMr•tw• PlYram 1ppa -- _W-7bYN711tPa/�.altgrr■ hWl 11arnst..a m Flaw a— Manslmnwl WA yan0amv "M Dantr DI11177 `ianstrad:urm Mahna awa arson 7110turtrad Mpa6Alimat W `am0anlar H01 Dear my" ton FdaANlgnt '!t _ D1RD Frrmaiy e.:rtnpWagat •7 QfYD2 DWI-7[+:^'�'a+an FkAjprtp/Yaa GEK9 t P:cml,rf 3a:tJngttWtiplq II Q%MDI Dws Trfal'XDlg1.4 GT terror D1Da1 -�•v �- Tuft Hind .t LWFama DIDaB • I to 7 Par sguam NO LDS •ai�r�IJ.mwfe ua`• �•+wanr•iw.�M+a , ui"rlallrwlralllaalaa uenra a�awartoo v A' mat�mtu�u aaotaaeer ewtta �•..,•� ryn.r,�rrrm dace. - J rrsn � reaaw ar.a..r.:. M.•aMr..aa..nw aarrawewe ,•.r c..owtlrfw arch rrmartrow.roa .wm.crM..an. rrrs�aar.:.M..ars Dadtmwnbrum r'Mnrwx pauut+, . . a Ia�1 nrrrMr 1a ramow am-�7aNr mil�aC ItLSntn 4 a u'•`l't a. Fawi•�n noacem si rarrr.+a naarar calo<tx nawtar, >, taaltvaswrn ttx r_waauct Ur gorwre! upkaap Llia 1 5tln'attu+al MWJ 4+'rAvm ta'aNf nqn 1rJtt a :ai. Wz .t.lha Rwpr arma actol a/?7rA • A anepaa[nefEtMuwd eragi ls. Dawn m how the fucten arm Gina lma up on Itr �rboa to aaatl rmeragag BrlMuralxtat oYeJwMthe .rkY. . rywdtamrfw wry Rah aminn/er m pm arPaammargamtarolNatgmvh . r! Ina mM1a la dtliartotl aRor a naary fin, W ttfe area ery, ram'ra nM 1ur4ta tlaad i and Dulr III area with lv y 7rta'MD rsmisirtlitrr rti -XNf* 4n011 ` skilp apuaanoula oa enead tmmegnyto maiddrt mom m itnii. f matai t mtrawclldelneamdarnWoa IMW;hUMNWtMs mrlmaexwadhadrr Eo �Ve tlharedad Veaugn tha urf and awy arm pW rd emy rnwnhrrs • Rnt wxta sna.W. Doranwom pmin;W In drain Mamn)PrUm • Paint nay as ranramdWrh prtalnerrerardrmraueee Pitt rarrealnl PMdLLtL as srrmaa Mina aeevnN. • ua b b mnreFa gsm men ernai Fwchagt .PA-W. saa wadi""Jul Fia a imp wasu on tv waordd d it awn i nay.n ardor UpVwod dlrot tq Me ifim mo not Um mo imam d" at tho Wt. • to caws a W wrata end ellmmaaa Mort Jv"any wathar, mampan DM ama nalyaar pot' UN wlh Walar k^r a can-vaagon orwamr aral ermyma bm" µGas Ike EawTurr1 Ail rrem ti"trIL&*4 — — — — For mom ImfortnDtlen vlait'MWW.11ltlma*Grm.ti t)w Recommended Synthetic Turf to Replace all the Grass on Mesa Verde Median. EXHIBIT 2c CITY OF COSTA MESA d�G� KU �1 June-8-15 rob Non ATTACHMENT 3 4 gE J4 a V0 c F) 0 V) LU LO 0 u LL 0 Q, ATTACHMENT 2 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING INVITATION MEDIAN LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS April 21, 2015 Dear Resident: The City is starting a program, as funding becomes available, to replace ornamental turf with drought tolerant landscape throughout the City, in an effort to reduce the use of potable water due to the severe drought conditions in the State of California. In Fiscal Year 2014-2015 the City Council allocated funding to replace the turf in the existing medians on Mesa Verde Drive from east to west of Adams Avenue, and California Street at New Hampshire Avenue with drought tolerant plants. The City of Costa Mesa Department of Public Services/Engineering Division will host a neighborhood meeting to discuss and receive input on this proposed landscape improvements. The proposed landscape plant palette is posted on the City's website under Public Notices and Latest News. If you are unable to attend the meeting, you may submit written correspondence to the attention of Fariba Fazeli, City Engineer, City of Costa Mesa, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626 or email at: fariba.fazeli@costamesaca.gov. For further information you may also contact the Engineering Division at (714) 754-5323. The neighborhood meeting will be held as follows: DATE: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 TIME: 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City of Costa Mesa, Council Chambers 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 'Aeaa'h.d. O.n. t.hbi g Median Tr.y.-;ru 9gmain y liauhlnl./OZ Tree ' d.... Caasla Leptophyla WSP f' F 4NT PALETTE- Jan.16-15 City of COSTA MESA MEDIANS u{MToleramlow m.lnb: ,... ..�.wm ort.n wan rm�m •vbcem.m loanelH {pMm mukra SPMm Spw1a. FmdwSpe.lm ntM1 neap G�undwer/SM1rvb Rmea ' r-obin�an r CALIF0I2NIA S 112EE 1 MEDIAN �o .' .r ! ,p41., 1 MESA VERDE MEDIANS Cl I V OF CUS IA MESA CITY OF COSTA MESA M-12-15 Existing Median Trees — Sycamores to remain - Replace one robi neon IN dJ dK rd ro0c,on 16R 00 (n rl IN vi -4 pq 04 4: z Q� WtAcl < 0 ul 0 LLI 0, -j Ch Lu r-4 O LLI r-4 H ,.6 x rIq H laLo rIq z C) m u m 4- U, 0 U. ON ATTACHMENT 3 _J pt N ' Y ! (,0. iT (14 00 n Ory I� T LL rm rm ua MON y Ln r` C) � tD " Go N w cn co m, M U 0 © N V co Q N co N co U 02 co o omo u � c) 0 TA Y'1 coc �w PIA . ' ry CI= ►n � -JIM u� LLI >.. Z LA Ale, LL U a L6 Ce . = A r� LU u A Ei h�l U O cd ZE// v7 i FBI O U J W U .� v W C) oxw az�U� o a N O - c' 40 U Jgn Qn 0 cn cd 0 U O N O as O =- �•�4� bAw i.y �0 O o 0 as ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF COSTA MESA PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING man a IL Q y 4 JJ I m MESA VERDE DR FROM ADAMS AVE TO ADAMS AVE P KA IOVd4 9T NEW HPMP5HIRE OR. ^ . CREE NUILLE BANNING CHANNEL Y� o CALIFORNIA ST FROM IOWA ST TO NEW HAMPSHIRE DR. ® PROPOSED WORK AREA PAGE 1 OF 1 REvisioN5 BENCHMARK n. e CITY OF COSTA MESA NSiNE&R ❑r PI. nI is Sm.A rq 1 r INXMING DU Agave sp Mesa Verde Medians Costa Mesa Medians Costa Mesa, CA May 04, 2015 HEDGE Rasa sp. + Teucrrum sp. Plant Renderings d'�) rob rd nlqon a sak— robm,- company — q\ Y { 1 R 'da irN LgAU IR oil k fir• N 4M1 r♦ h `, r f r - „past -. �� Y rns j., a •-L --: �. 'Texture C.1-Cnnt—t-Di anella Little Rev !F—t— ro n�,to n � - rjtKtq! v New Improved Arctutis Daisy fd✓6P- Existing Median Trees — Sycamores to remain - Replace one Achillea Mill&dium/Ya— CALIFORNIA STREET MEDIAN CITY OF COSTA MESA Mat.12_15 djdKUrd robiNon CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH-2 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA- 15-01 FOR A DEVIATION FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 W. 19T" STREET FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 9, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to the Planning Commission's action: • Uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Minor Conditional Use Permit ZA- 15-01 to deviate from parking requirements for a group counseling use (Solid Landings) in a 6,710 square foot building (67 parking spaces is required for the use, 24 on -site parking spaces will be provided (29 existing spaces minus 5 spaces that will be lost when the West 19th Street gate is reopened per the conditions of approval) based on unique operating characteristics. The minor conditional use permit was originally approved by the Zoning Administrator on April 23, 2015, and was appealed to the Planning Commission by a Costa Mesa resident. OPPI IrANT The applicant and appellant Kristen Ford, authorized agent for John Morehart, the property owner. BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The project site is located on the south side of West 19th Street, mid -block between Pomona Avenue and Anaheim Avenue. The site is .36 acres (15,681 square feet) in size. The property is zoned C1 (Local Business District) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial. The site contains a two-story, 6,710 square foot commercial building originally constructed in 1961, a surface parking lot, and site fencing. The site is bounded by commercial uses to the west and north (across West 19th Street), a commercial use (restaurant) and a residential use to the east, and residential uses (across Plumer Street) to the south. The site currently provides 29 on -site parking spaces, which are accessed via a gated driveway Plumer Street. There is also an existing driveway approach on the West 19th Street frontage of the property, but it is not used because the paved driveway leading from the approach has been removed and is gated and blocked by 5 parallel van parking spaces provided adjacent to the building. Prior land use actions on the property include a conditional use permit for a fraternal lodge on the second floor, approved in 1965 under Conditional Use Permit C-49-65, and a proposed conditional use permit for a manufacturing use under PA-87-07, which was denied by the Planning Commission on January 26, 1987. The building is currently occupied by Solid Landings, DBA Rock Solid Recovery, which provides outpatient treatment programs and other services, including group counseling, for men with drug and alcohol addiction. The use began operating at the site without an approved business license or minor conditional use permit for the use. Additionally, construction activity occurred at the site without the required building and fire safety permits and inspections. Project Description The applicant utilizes the building for the following services: • State certified outpatient treatment programs for Rock Solid Recovery clients (men) residing in sober living group homes or state certified outpatient residential programs. The programs for women are a separate operation not conducted from this site. • Individual and group counseling sessions, as well as educational sessions. • Administrative offices. According to the applicant's description of the use, the various programs and services offered at the site run from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Weekend operation is limited to one-on-one therapy appointments on an as -needed basis between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. The maximum number of staff on site at any one time during the weekday is 17 and the maximum number of clients on the site at any one time during the weekday is 30. The clients come to the site by vans at various times of the day. The applicant states that the building will only be partially utilized for group counseling; the building will also house administrative offices and one-on-one therapy rooms. The applicant claims that at no time will the required on -site parking for the use exceed 20 spaces; 3 spaces for the vans and 17 spaces for the staff that drive their cars to the site. Minor Conditional Use Permit for Reduction in Required On -Site Parking for Group Counseling Use The City's Zoning Code does not specify a parking requirement for group counseling uses. Zoning Code Section 13-90 (Parking For Uses Not Specified) allows the number of required parking spaces for uses not specified in the Zoning Code to be determined by the Zoning Administrator based upon the parking required for similar types of uses. Zoning Administrator Determination No. 08-5, dated May 19, 2008, determined that the parking requirement for group counseling uses was to be classified the same as for trade and vocational schools, which is 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. In the case of the subject property, this equates to a requirement of 67 on - site parking spaces based on the existing 6,710 square foot building area. The 10 spaces per 1,000 square foot parking requirement for group counseling uses is needed for the entire building because the other uses (i.e., administrative offices and therapy rooms) support the primary group counseling use. Because the subject property currently provides 29 on -site parking spaces, a shortfall of 38 spaces required for the use, the applicant is requesting approval of a minor conditional use permit to allow for the reduction in the required parking amount based on their specific operation as discussed in the prior section of this letter and per Zoning Code Section 13-89.5 (Reduction in Parking Requirements). Zoning Administrator Action On April 23, 2015, ZA-15-01 was approved by the Zoning Administrator, subject to compliance with conditions of approval, including, but not limited to, obtaining the necessary building and fire safety permits, as well as restoring vehicular access to the site from West 19t" Street to eliminate vehicle access and stacking on Plumer Street (Plumer would be used for vehicle exit only). A link to the Zoning Administrator's decision letter and attachments can be found on the City's website at the below link: httD://www.costamesaca.aov/Modules/ShowDocument.asDx?documentid=18005 Planning Commission Action On April 30, 2015, an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision was filed by a City resident. The basis for the appeal was that the use was being operated in violation of City codes, including building and fire safety codes, and the conditions of approval for ZA-15-01. On June 8, 2015, the appeal was considered by the Planning Commission. Based on the evidence presented by the appellant and testimony presented at the hearing, the Planning Commission reversed the Zoning Administrator's approval and denied ZA-15- 01 on a 5-0 vote. A link to the Planning Commission staff report can be found on the City's website here: http://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/planningcommission/agenda/2015/2015-06-08/PH-1.pdf The excerpt of the Planning Commission meeting minutes for the item (unofficial until approved) are attached to this report (Attachment 7). Appeal of Planning Commission Action On June 12, 2015, the Planning Commission's denial of ZA-15-01 was appealed by the original applicant to the City Council. The basis for the appeal includes the following: 1. The findings of the Planning Commission supporting the decision cannot be justified in fact or in law. 2. The decision of the Planning Commission was based on unsubstantiated testimony and evidence introduced by the appellant without opportunity for the applicant to review or respond resulting in the denial of due process of the law. 3. The Planning Commission's decision resulted in a denial of the applicant's right's as a protected class under the American's with Disabilities Act and other state and Federal anti -discrimination laws. De Novo Hearing The City Council hearing is a de novo hearing in which the City Council may consider the project in its entirety. Council may consider all aspects of the proposed use and is not required to limit the discussion to the appellant's issues in the appeal. ONAI YSIS The following analysis provides information intended to address the issues raised by the appellant in the appeal application. More detailed information is provided in the evidence presented at the June 8, 2015 Planning Commission meeting (Attachment 5): • Per the appellant, the findings of the Planning Commission supporting the decision cannot be iustified in fact or in law. The Planning Commission findings, detailed in Attachment 9, were reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and were based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, including, but not limited to, the following: • As observed by Costa Mesa resident(s), the residential neighborhoods on Center Street and Plumer Street were being disrupted by the following activities related to the use: o Clients and employees were observed parking on Center Street and Plumer Street instead of in the parking lot and walking to the facility; additionally, clients were walking to the faculty rather than being dropped off as indicated in the applicants' business plan. o Employees were observed parking in the nearby Costa Mesa Senior Center parking lot and walking to the facility. o The client vans were observed blocking traffic on Plumer Street and parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot. • The above activities were inconsistent with the operations plan submitted by the applicants, which indicated that all employees park inside the property, all clients are to be dropped off by vans inside the property so as to ensure minimal impact on the neighboring properties and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. • In light of the above, the Planning Commission considered the photographic evidence and public testimony related to the parking and traffic impacts of the current operations. The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed operating measures were inadequate to address the parking shortfall. Evidence was provided that the use was not being operated in compliance of the following conditions of approval and code requirements for ZA-15-01: • Conditions of Approval Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 17. • Code Requirement Numbers 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10. The use as being operated constituted a public nuisance per the following sections of Title 20, Chapter III, Article 1 Section 20-12 (Conditions or Uses Qualifying as a Public Nuisance): • Sections a, x, z, ff, gg, hh, J, and II. • The facility has been operated for nine months without the necessary approvals as noted above. • The findings upon which the ZA approval was granted are no longer applicable. The property owner and applicant did not follow the correct procedures for obtaining the necessary building and fire safety permits and inspections for the use, including, but not limited to, the following: • Permits for interior and exterior alterations to the building, fire safety inspections, certificates of occupancy, and business licenses. • The addition of the security gate on Plumer Street. • The removal of the driveway and the addition of a vehicle gate on West 19t" Street. • The addition of glass storefront windows along the building's West 19t" Street frontage. • Kitchen and kitchenette facilities were installed without the required OC Health Department permits and inspections. • Electrical conduits and piping were installed on the exterior of the building without the required electrical permits and inspections. • Rusted/damaged exterior stairs were installed without the required building permits and inspections. • Per the appellant, the decision of the Planning Commission was based on unsubstantiated testimony and evidence introduced by the appellant without opportunity for the applicant to review or respond resulting in the denial of due process of the law. The evidence presented at the hearing, as described above, was also presented to the appellant during the hearing and the appellant was given an opportunity to rebut the evidence and testimony that was submitted into the record. New Information Status of Building and Fire Code violations subsequent to the Plannin Commission hearing With regard to the Building and Fire Code violations, staff has attached memos from the Building Division and Fire Department regarding the status and progress of all pending work activities, including the legalization of certain construction work. This information was not provided to the Planning Commission at the hearing. As of the date of the memo, the applicant has submitted plans into the City for Building Plan Check to obtain the necessary permits and inspections (see Attachment 10). With regard to Fire Department requirements, the applicant is in the process of obtaining the "Knox Box" fire access for the vehicle gate and has not yet scheduled a Fire safety inspection (Attachment 11). Status of Code Enforcement violations subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing With regard to the violations observed by the resident(s) regarding the parking and queuing of vehicles on the surrounding streets, staff has attached a memo from the Code Enforcement Division. This information was not provided to the Planning Commission at the hearing. According to the memo, on the two days that were observed by Code Enforcement (June 19, 2015 and June 25, 2015), several staff members were observed parking on Plumer Street instead of on -site and vehicles blocking the sidewalk and/or traffic on Plumer Street while the vehicle gate on Plumer Street was opening and closing (see Attachment 12). • Per the appellant, the Planning Commission's decision resulted in a denial of the applicant's right's as a protected class under the American's with Disabilities Act and other state and Federal anti -discrimination laws. The Deputy City Attorney, who was present at the Commission meeting, determined that the findings made by the Commission were lawful and did not result in a denial of the applicant's rights under anti -discrimination laws. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the draft resolutions and they have been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may take the following actions: • Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny ZA-15-01; or • Reverse the Planning Commission's denial and approve ZA-15-01. Any modifications to the conditions of approval, such as additions or deletions, can be made by the Council as part of this action. CONCLUSION De novo literally translates to "anew," "afresh" or "a second time." A de novo hearing is essentially a new proceeding where the proposal is presented to the City Council for final consideration. In its decision making, City Council is not restricted to the evidence that was previously presented to the Planning Commission. MEL LEE, AICP Senior Planner GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Economic Development & Development Services Director / Deputy CEO Attachments: 1. Location Mao. Zonina Mao. and 500' Radius Ma 2. Site Photos 3. Appeal 4. Draft Resolutions and Exhibits 5. Correspondence From Public 6. Plans 7. Planning Commission Meeting Minute Excerpts 8. June 8, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments 9. Planning Commission Resolution 10. Building Safety Memo 11. Fire Safety Memo 12. Code Enforcement Memo 13. Additional Correspondence cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Economic Development & Development Services Director / Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr. City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Solid Landings Behavioral Health Attn: Kristen Ford 2900 Bristol Street, Suite B-300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Rock Solid Recovery 657 West 19th Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 John Morehart 126 East 16th Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dennis O'Neil c/o O'Neil, LLP 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92612 Stacy W. Thomsen c/o Peterson Law Group PC 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 290 Irvine, California 92612 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND DENYING ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN ON -SITE PARKING SPACES FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 WEST 19TH STREET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed Kristen Ford, representing John Morehart, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: Zoning Application ZA-15-01 is a Minor Conditional Use Permit to deviate from parking requirements for a group counseling use (Solid Landings) in a 6,710 square foot building (67 parking spaces is required for the use, 24 on -site parking spaces will be provided (29 existing minus 5 that will be lost when the West 19th Street gate is reopened per the conditions of approval) based on unique operating characteristics. and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2015, the Zoning Administrator approved the request; WHEREAS, on April 30, 2015, the Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed by a City resident; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, voted to deny the project by a 5-0 vote; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2015, an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's denial of the project was filed; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's decision and DENIES Zoning Application ZA-15-01 with respect to the property described above. 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 21st day of July, 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 15_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of July, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21 st day of July, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2015 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that: Finding: The proposed use is not compatible with developments in the same general area and would be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Findings: The applicant's request cannot be supported based on the following: • The residential neighborhoods on Center Street and Plumer Street are being disrupted by the following activities related to the use. • Clients and employees have been observed parking on Center Street and Plumer Street instead of in the parking lot and walking to the facility; additionally, clients are walking to the faculty rather than being dropped off as indicated in the applicants' business plan. • Employees have been observed parking in the nearby Costa Mesa Senior Center parking lot and walking to the facility. • The client vans have been observed blocking traffic on Plumer Street and parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot. • The above activities are inconsistent with the plan submitted by the applicants, which indicated that all employees park inside the property, all clients are dropped off by vans inside the property so as to ensure minimal impact on the neighboring properties and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. • In light of the above the Planning Commission found that, according to the applicant's submittals, the current operation should have little or no impact on parking and traffic. However, the current operation is spilling over into the neighborhood demonstrating that the proposed operating measures are inadequate to address the parking shortfall. The approval of ZA-09-34 for a group counseling center at 1901 Newport Boulevard, Suite 149, as cited by the applicant as basis for approval for the subject use, does not establish a precedent for the approval of this application based on the following: • The 1901 Newport property is zoned PDC, versus the C1 zoning for the subject property. • The 1901 Newport property is surrounded by commercial properties and a parking structure, versus the subject property, which is abutting residential uses. • The 1901 Newport property had a shortfall of 2 spaces, based on the shortfall of 38-43 spaces for the subject use. • The 1901 Newport property has available overflow parking on -site, versus the subject property. • The 1901 Newport property has no vehicle gates, versus the subject property. • The 1901 Newport property has all required building and fire safety permits and inspections, versus the subject property. The use is not being operated in compliance of the following conditions of approval and code requirements for ZA-15-01: • Conditions of Approval Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 17. • Code Requirement Numbers 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10. The use as being operated constitutes a public nuisance per the following sections of Title 20, Chapter III, Article 1 Section 20-12 (Conditions or Uses Qualifying as a Public Nuisance): • Sections a, x, z, ff, gg, hh, jj, and II. • The facility has been operated for nine months without the necessary approvals as noted above. • The findings upon which the ZA approval was granted are no longer applicable. Finding: Granting the minor conditional use permit will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood. Facts in Support of Findings: The applicant's request cannot be supported based on the following: The property owner and applicant did not follow the correct procedures for obtaining the necessary building and fire safety permits and inspections for the use, including, but not limited to, the following: • Permits for interior and exterior alterations to the building, fire safety inspections, certificates of occupancy, and business licenses. • The addition of the security gate on Plumer Street. • The removal of the driveway and the addition of a vehicle gate on West 19th Street. • The addition of glass storefront windows along the building's West 19th Street frontage. • Kitchen and kitchenette facilities were installed without the required OC Health Department permits and inspections. • Electrical conduits and piping were installed on the exterior of the building without the required electrical permits and inspections. • Rusted/damaged exterior stairs were installed without the required building permits and inspections. Finding: Granting the minor conditional use permit will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General plan designation. Facts in Support of Findings: The request is not consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan: • Objective LU-1 F.1: Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. • Objective CIR-1A.14: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of commuter through traffic on local streets in residential neighborhoods. As noted earlier, the applicant's request cannot be supported based on the following: • The residential neighborhoods on Center Street and Plumer Street are being disrupted by the following activities related to the use: • Clients and employees have been observed parking on Center Street and Plumer Street instead of in the parking lot and walking to the facility. • Employees have been observed parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot and walking to the facility. • The client vans have been observed blocking traffic on Plumer Street and parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot. B. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN ON -SITE PARKING SPACES FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 WEST 19TH STREET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed Kristen Ford, representing John Morehart, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: Zoning Application ZA-15-01 is a Minor Conditional Use Permit to deviate from parking requirements for a group counseling use (Solid Landings) in a 6,710 square foot building (67 parking spaces is required for the use, 24 on -site parking spaces will be provided (29 existing minus 5 that will be lost when the West 19th Street gate is reopened per the conditions of approval) based on unique operating characteristics. and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2015, the Zoning Administrator approved the request; WHEREAS, on April 30, 2015, the Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed by a City resident; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, voted to deny the project by a 5-0 vote; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2015, an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's denial of the project was filed; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and WHEREAS, 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 15301 for Existing Facilities. WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgment 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 contained within Exhibit B, the City Council hereby APPROVES Zoning Application ZA-15-01. 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 Zoning Application ZA-15-01 and upon the 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 and/or mitigation measures. 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 21st day of July, 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 15_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of July, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21 st day of July, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2015 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A. The information presented complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(2) in that: Finding: The proposed use is compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Findings: Based on the applicant's description of the use, an adequate number of on -site parking spaces is provided. 67 parking spaces is required for the use, 24 on - site parking spaces are provided (29 existing minus 5 that will be lost when the West 19th Street gate is reopened), leaving a shortfall of 43 spaces required for the use. However, based on the information provided by the applicant, only 20 parking spaces will be needed (17 employee vehicles and 3 vans), thus an adequate number of on -site parking spaces can be provided for the use. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Findings: The current configuration of the parkinq area limits vehicle ingress and egress to the site from Plumer Street, creating additional commercial traffic on a local street adiacent to a residential neighborhood; therefore, vehicular access from West 19t" Street will be required to be provided. Unlike other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provide vehicular access from West 19th Street as well as Plumer Street, the subject property's sole vehicular ingress and egress is from Plumer Street. The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined that to reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to access the site, the driveway on West 19th Street should be restored, the gate and five van parking spaces blocking the access from West 19th Street should be removed, and West 19th Street used as the main access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. Finding: Granting the minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General plan designation. Facts in Support of Findings: The request is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan: Objective LU-1 F.1: Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. Consistency. The measures described in the applicant's letter may address parking shortages. However, staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that if parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. Therefore, the request is consistent with this General Plan goal. • Objective CIR-1A.14: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of commuter through traffic on local streets in residential neighborhoods. Consistency. Unlike the other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provide vehicular access from West 19th Street as well as Plumer Street, the subject property's sole vehicular ingress and egress is from Plumer Street. The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined that to reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to access the site, the driveway on West 19th Street should be restored, the gate and van parking spaces blocking the access from West 19th Street should be removed, and West 19th Street used as the main access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. Therefore, the use is consistent with this General Plan goal. B. 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 under Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of ZA-15-01 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package (if plan check is required). 2. The onsite activities shall be as follows: SUMMARYOF • • 6:00 AM The first Rock Solid employee arrives in a company vehicle and parks in the gated lot. 7:30-9:30 AM 16 additional Rock Solid employees and/or therapists arrive in personal or company vehicles. 8:45-9:15 AM Clients from 4 different sober living homes arrive via 3 12-seat passenger vans. The vans drop clients off within the gated parking lot and do not remain onsite. The total number of clients that arrive via the 3 passenger vans range from 21-30. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. 9:15 AM-3:00 PM Clients rotate through one-on-one therapy, group counseling, computer lab/library time, lunch, and free time. 3:00-3:30 PM Three passenger vans arrive to transport clients to the gym. Clients not wishing to go to the gym are transported home. Clients do not return until the following day. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. 3:00-5:00 PM Staff remains until 5:00 PM 5:00-6:00 PM A cleaning crew of 3-6 people arrive in 1 or 2 cars and stays for 1 hour. 6:00 PM-6:30 PM Evening staff arrives to run group sessions attended by Rock Solid Clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles. Clients arrive via 3 vans at 15-minute intervals. The approximate number of clients is 30. The total vehicles on site is 13. 6:30-8:30 PM Group sessions held during this time period. 8:30-9:00 PM Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to their homes at 15-minute intervals. The employees leave at 9:00 PM once the last passenger van leaves the site. SUMMARY OF ON -SITE 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Therapist may schedule an appointment with a client on an as needed basis. If an appointment occurs the number of vehicles is 2 —one for the therapist and one for the client who is transported to the premises via a Rock Solid vehicle. 3. No employees, clients or visitors to the property shall park on City streets. All parking for the use shall take place on the property in designated parking spaces. 4. All clients shall be dropped off and picked up in the parking area. No pick-up or drop-off will occur in the driveways or public right-of-ways. 5. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described herein. Any change in the operational characteristics shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the minor conditional use permit, subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that the Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(o)]. 6. The zoning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked. The Development Services Director or his designee may refer the zoning application to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if, in his or her opinion, any of the following circumstances exist: 1) the use is being operated in violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 7. If any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this approval is 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. 8. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. 9. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or operator shall institute whatever security and operational measures may be necessary to comply with this requirement. 10. A copy of the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit must be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. 11. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site. This inspection is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 12. No later than 90 days from the date of approval, the landscape setback areas along the West 19t" Street frontage shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall contain 24-inch box trees to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 13. Applicant 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 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. City shall have the right to select the attorney defending it, if it elects to do so. 14. Applicant shall obtain Planning approval for the construction of the commercial driveway on West 19th Street, pursuant to condition 15, below. Trans. 15. No later than 45 days from the date of approval, revise the parking area and access gates as follows: a) Construct commercial driveway at the existing approach on West 19th Street leading to the parking area at the rear of the site, which shall be used for vehicle ingress, unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. b) Eliminate any parking spaces which interfere with the driveway access to the parking area at the rear of the site to comply with the standard drive aisle dimensions per the City's Parking Design Standards. c) Onsite vehicular circulation shall comply with the City's Parking Design Standards. d) Existing Plumer Street access shall only be used as vehicle egress, unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. 16. No later than 30 days from the date of approval, existing and/or proposed vehicle gate locations shall be submitted to the Transportation Services Division for review and approval. If the existing/proposed gate locations cannot be approved, the applicant shall relocate and/or remove the vehicle gates as necessary. Fire 17. All vehicular access gates shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506.1 and 506.2 of the 2013 California Fire Code (or any successor provisions), so as to provide access to emergency crews. A Knox system for gate access must be obtained through the Costa Mesa Fire Department within 30 days from the date of approval for the existing gate on Plumer Street, and concurrently with the approval of the gate on West 19th Street. 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. This use, as well as all contractors and subcontractors doing construction -related activity on the site, shall 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. Approval of the zoning application is valid for one (1) year from the effective date of this approval and will expire at the end of that period unless applicant establishes the use by one of the following actions: 1) obtains building permit(s) for the authorized construction and initiates construction; and/or 2) obtains a business license and/or legally establishes the business. If the applicant is unable to establish the use/obtain building permits within the one-year time period, the applicant may request an extension of time. The Planning Division must receive a written request for the time extension prior to the expiration of the zoning application. 3. The project is subject to compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws. A copy of the applicable Costa Mesa Municipal Code requirements has been forwarded to the Applicant and, where applicable, the Authorized Agent, for reference. 4. Street address shall be visible from the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or on another prominent location. Numerals shall be a minimum twelve (12) inches in height with not less than three -fourth - inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Identification of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with not less than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 5. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 6. 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. 7. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 8. 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. 9. Comply with the requirements of the following adopted codes: 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, and 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. 10. Requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings and elements by individuals with disabilities shall comply with chapter 11 B of the 2013 California Building Code. CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA- 15-01 FOR A DEVIATION FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 W. 19TH STREET FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 17, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER (714) 754-5611 mel.lee(ftostamesaca.aov The staff report dated July 9, 2015 referred to several conditions of approval related to ZA-15-01. Excerpts of the Zoning Administrator's Decision and related conditions of approval are attached for reference. MEL LEE, AICP V GARY A STR NG, AICP Senior Planner Economio6 Development & )Development Services Director / Deputy CEO Attachment: ZA-15-01, Conditions of Approval cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr. City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Solid Landings Behavioral Health Attn: Kristen Ford 2900 Bristol Street, Suite B-300 Costa Mesa. CA 92626 Rock Solid Recovery 657 West 191h Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 John Morehart 126 East 161h Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dennis O'Neil c/o O'Neil, LLP 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92612 Stacy W. Thomsen c/o Peterson Law Group PC 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 290 Irvine, California 92612 ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 9 of 13 C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of ZA-15-01 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package (if plan check is required). 2. The onsite activities shall be as follows: SUMMARY OF • • 6:00 AM The first Rock Solid employee arrives in a company vehicle and parks in the gated lot. 7:30-9:30 AM 16 additional Rock Solid employees and/or therapists arrive in personal or company vehicles. 8:45-9:15 AM Clients from 4 different sober living homes arrive via 3 12-seat passenger vans. The vans drop clients off within the gated parking lot and do not remain onsite. The total number of clients that arrive via the 3 passenger vans range from 21-30. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. 9:15 AM-3:00 PM Clients rotate through one-on-one therapy, group counseling, computer lab/library time, lunch, and free time. 3:00-3:30 PM Three passenger vans arrive to transport clients to the gym. Clients not wishing to go to the gym are transported home. Clients do not return until the following day. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. 3:00-5:00 PM Staff remains until 5:00 PM 5:00-6:00 PM A cleaning crew of 3-6 people arrive in 1 or 2 cars and stays for 1 hour. 6:00 PM-6:30 PM Evening staff arrives to run group sessions attended by Rock Solid Clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles. Clients arrive via 3 vans at 15-minute intervals. The approximate number of clients is 30. The total vehicles on site is 13, 6:30-8:30 PM Group sessions held during this time period. 8:30-9:00 PM Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to their homes at 15-minute intervals. The employees leave at 9:00 PM once the last passenger van leaves the site. SUMMARY OF ON -SITE ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 10 of 13 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Therapist may schedule an appointment with a client on an as needed basis. If an appointment occurs the number of vehicles is 2 —one for the therapist and one for the client who is transported to the premises via a Rock Solid vehicle. g� 3. No employees, clients or visitors to the property shall park on City streets. All parking for the use shall take place on the property in designated parking spaces. B� 4. All clients shall be dropped off and picked up in the parking area. No pick-up or drop-off will occur in the driveways or public right-of-ways. 5. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described herein. Any change in the operational characteristics shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the conditional use permit, subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that the Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(o)]. 8. The zoning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked. The Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO or his designee may refer the zoning application to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if, in his opinion, any of the following circumstances exist: 1) the use is being operated in violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 7. If any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this approval is 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. 8. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. 9. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or operator shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 10. A copy of the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit must be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 11 of 13 Trans business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. 11. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site. This inspection is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 12, No later than 90 days from the date of approval, the landscape setback areas along the W. 19t" Street frontage shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall contain 24-inch box trees to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 13. Applicant 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 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. City shall have the right to select the attorney defending it, if it elects to do so. 14. Applicant shall obtain Planning approval for the construction of the commercial driveway on W. 9th Street, pursuant to condition 15, below. 15. No later than 45 days from the date of approval, revise the parking area and access gates as follows: a) Construct commercial driveway at the existing approach on W. 19th Street leading to the parking area at the rear of the site, which shall be used for vehicle ingress, unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. b) Eliminate any parking spaces which interfere with the driveway access to the parking area at the rear of the site to comply with the standard drive aisle dimensions per the City's Parking Design Standards. c) Onsite vehicular circulation shall comply with the City's Parking Design Standards. d) Existing Plumer Street access shall only be used as vehicle egress, ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 12 of 13 unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. 16. No later than 30 days from the date of approval, existing vehicle gate locations shall be submitted to the Transportation Services Division for review and approval. If the existing gate locations cannot be approved, the applicant shall relocate and/or remove the vehicle gates as necessary. Fire y 17. All vehicular access gates shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506.1 and 506.2 of the 2013 California Fire Code (or any successor provisions), so as to provide access to emergency crews. A Knox system for gate access must be obtained through the Costa Mesa Fire Department within 30 days from the date of approval for the existing gate on Plumer Street, and concurrently with the approval of the gate on W. 19th Street. 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. This use, as well as all contractors and subcontractors doing construction -related activity on the site, shall 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. Approval of the zoning application is valid for one (1) year from the effective date of this approval and will expire at the end of that period unless applicant establishes the use by one of the following actions: 1) obtains building permit(s) for the authorized construction and initiates construction; and/or 2) obtains a business license and/or legally establishes the business. If the applicant is unable to establish the use/obtain building permits within the one-year time period, the applicant may request an extension of time. The Planning Division must receive a written request for the time extension prior to the expiration of the zoning application. 3. The project is subject to compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws. A copy of the applicable Costa Mesa Municipal Code requirements has been forwarded to the Applicant and, where applicable, the Authorized Agent, for reference. -9 4. Street address shall be visible from the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or on another prominent location. Numerals shall be a minimum twelve (12) inches in height with not less than three -fourth - inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Identification ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 13 of 13 of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with not less than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 6, 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. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 8. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 9. Comply with the requirements of the following adopted codes: 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, and 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. 10. Requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings and elements by individuals with disabilities shall comply with chapter 11B of the 2013 California Building Code. PH-2 Supplemental #2 CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA- 15-01 FOR A DEVIATION FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 W. 19T" STREET FROM: PLANNING DIVISIOWDEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 21, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER (714) 754-5611 mel.1ee(&_gostamesaca.gov Attached to this memo are the additional observations of the site by Code Enforcement staff conducted on July 16, 2015, and July 17, 2015. The highlighted text and photos indicates where employees or customers of Solid Landings were observed to not be parking within the on -site parking lot. / '�' V MEL LEE, AICP GARY ARNISTRONG, MOP P Senior Planner Econorrfic Development' & Development Services Director 1 Deputy CEO Attachment: Interoffice memos and photos cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development 1 Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr. City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Solid Landings Behavioral Health Attn: Kristen Ford 2900 Bristol Street, Suite B-300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Rock Solid Recovery 657 West 19th Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 John Morehart 126 East 16th Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dennis O'Neil c/o O'Neil, LLP 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92612 Stacy W. Thomsen c/o Peterson Law Group PC 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 290 Irvine, California 92612 2- City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum To: Mel Lee , From: Mike Tucker, Code Enforcement Officerpr Date: July 20, 2015 Subject: 657 W. 191h St. — Solid Landings — Activity Update 7/16/15 Thursday, 7/16115: 1 went out to property to observe activity: • 12:45: 1 arrived at site from east bound 1911 St. As I drove by, I observed that the room upstairs was filled with people (pictures 1 & 2). 1 pulled into the Senior Center parking lot and observed the Security Guard speaking with a male in the south, east corner of the lot. The security guard's name, at the senior Center, is Darius Pyles and he works Monday thru Friday, 7:30 am to 3:30 pm. He said that people from the recovery center park in the Senior Center parking lot regularly. • 12:59: A large white passenger van approaches from eastbound Plumer St, pulls up to security gate, parks across sidewalk and the passenger gets out, enters gate code, gets back into van and proceeds into parking lot (picture 3). • 13:00: White Prius backs out, parks on eastbound Plumer St, exits vehicle and walks onto property. (pics 5, 6 & 8) • 13:02: Parking lot appears full, lots of activity in back, appears they are preparing for some type of camping trip. • 13:03: 8 staff members walk out. One of the staff members got into a vehicle parked at the Senior Center. • 13:05: 2 more female staff members walk out through the pedestrian gate. • 13:06: 3 staff members leave. One gets in a car parked on Plumer St (picture 12). • 13:09: A male staff member exits Plumer gate and walks eastbound down Plumer St. 13:10: Female staff member who had been outside walks westbound down Plumer and gets in a gold Buick parked on eastbound Plumer St. • 13:16: A large passenger van was backing out of lot through security gate as a black car tried to pull in resulting in blocking westbound Plumer St. (pictures 13 thru 22) • 13:17: Staff member approaches property from eastbound Plumer St, on foot, and enters property through security gate. • 13:19: Approximately 25 people hanging out in parking lot near smoking area. • 13:20: Blue Toyota Corolla backing out of parking lot, through security gate and onto Plumer St (pictures23 thru 27) • 13:20: Male staff member exits on foot and walks down eastbound Plumer St. • 13:28: White Prius pulls up, to security gate and blocks sidewalk. Security Guard manually enters gate code and then the vehicle enters property (pictures 28 thru 31). • 13:30: White van backs out (pictures 61 thru 66). • 13:37: Silver Honda approaches security and blocks sidewalk (pictures 32 thru 37). • 13:40: Five staff members, 3 male and 2 female, exit on foot through Plumer St. pedestrian gate, and walk down westbound Plumer St. One gets in a white Toyota Prius parked on westbound Plumer St. (picture 38). The other 4 staff members get in a Gray Honda CRV (6WFM463) parked on westbound Plumer. lip it I v I b I � 15— n s ~/ T • d� k L :4 u k k rt� • s c k 9 AM °. I'll 47. b M= 2 n CD O M , J El i City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum To: Mel Lee i From: Mike Tucker, Code Enforcement Officer Date: July 21, 2015 Subject: 657 W. 19t" St. — Solid Landings — Activity Update 7/17115 Thursday, 7117115: 1 went out to property to observe activity: • 13:57: 1 arrived at site. Parking lot had at least 3 open spaces. (pics 1 & 2) • 13:58: There is a security officer set up in the south east corner of the lot. The security guard area has taken up the parking space with a canopy, desk, chair and a bicycles. (Pic 3) • 14:00: After my arrival, the security guard came outside of the gate and posted himself outside on the sidewalk. (Pic 4) • 14:12: A silver, suv type vehicle, approached gate, security guard opens gate and has a conversation with driver while the vehicle is blocking sidewalk. Another vehicle approached from westbound Plumer St. and was parked in the street waiting for the silver suv to enter. (Pic 5) • 14:16: 2 staff members walk out, walk down eastbound Plumer St and get into a maroon car, parked on westbound Plumer St. (Pic 6) • 14:17: White car approaches gate and blocks sidewalk as security guard operates electric gate. (Pic 7) • 14:38: White Kia approaches gate and blocks sidewalk as security guard operates electric gate. (Pic 8) 14:54: Gold/bronze colored car backing out onto eastbound Plumer St. (Pic 9) 1 c) - d � AdMMMW ►�a e 7 � I 111 M � n arm e ru n aaas wONNOMMa momM WWI, is ■ m■ MIA w r ® 1 9 I I oxi rr; f� f� -... I.1 ff. f N I #t 'I��1 0 i -12- la 1 1 r iAMR _ fir■ AS nl M . al Islow a klW I Nm Lo LP 00 LO 0 N ti LO (6 Q) U Q y w Q OO LL U U OO U U a 0 a m 2 C LA s Emm OZ (AU � a� .. ❑ 1 c N � b y Y i o D C C m � Li m LL o u s L 2 a ci +fr a 2 GI U Ln — q. ATTA o%n ■mm--._ u aF a c� U N C c0 J X 00 N O c0 a LO ui �o U Q O ti LP co V) O N r- ti co U a w L ) 0 LL 0 0 i� 11 i i 1w �ii-i - lii�i*�►i1F�,� Id H 3 A 3W "fie "°4i►" r rn oc #110 *, # •: A♦#iii LL i� N i OWN a to 3 d O G W2 find 93 0 of g�� i J �O&Vx V V U -)0 1- If F f �: Advanced Listing Services Inc Ownership Listings & Radius Maps -1 P.O. Box 2593 • Dana Point, CA • 92624 Office: (949) 361-3921 -Cell: (949) 310-6869 wvvw.Advancedlisting.com denise@advancedlisting com Subject APN: 424-211-03 Address: 657 W 19TH ST 500' Radius COSTA MESA CA 92627 t a' 1 ee' 1 I I I 1 1 b' I wr :•J ►) QD v $ J Y{ c, BEACH sTRT c. ,WA, 4fib. lei O C rtr {{r.�r n •a: W y�•� 4 Y yyO 6 yq� �• + + 8. ALLfY tb 44 rV ~ Z C] V ® H• 4 p Z m r 0 IN ti p o w e a! 35 �L::1�.c w c A W ; O •_ s�•• �. V i V thru MEW y or NINETEENTH € .— a. STRE mw — y w4 •v st Ir •�r r a a . A 7 e Ile' N Of7T MESA 1 i L ' r f x x sa` LOT 301 2 • Q 2. sale wr •of • $ 17 !S � � 15 a !4 e 13. a 12 0r a•' 1 re' 1 cs' 4 1 s�` an' 1 vM4-R PLUMER ST TAR, � (ii) 0 0 @1 r� 01 0 1 _ II Ie f P J 4 so 7 B 9 A p f7 4 PN&A •rAN.® * � 13 • 14 •. 15 • 16 V7 r.18'' 19 2..2� 1+ 23 tar ( 2 ALLEY �' W F.Ati JO-1JO-H rrr ��• ;r 2J V J0 it /d it fs Y5 JI f'�' ��� O a' r� r . • r r 1 � nI 3fl Z0 47 ~CENTER TRACT �e 'iMVIrR Apo ST STREET r �.,• gym. QCr cr TRACT 537-Ja- ris-tT0 �A.4R. Q$ r ^ +•./ '•-� V' - PROJECP 9dr-J6 + . L.7i6AC. OJ!-/09 359-19 LOT f 45 NEWPORT WSA Lso AC. p a3 LOT aoJ 4.7V AIC � a2 1 al A N 241 -" 1 r l ..., �r �`- �'. { .A , ,k �Y 4 k r a I� ' r4, v` ` ti Jill . uft Jill a � a ti 77.�' � �� 1 • pp 4 I 4 Also )r ^�1iop r1 `w��'. Ltic► _ r � � 4 4�. i a l -, i �.� � F _. �� � - � I' f � - � _. I. Il�� li P ��+ y�. � ���ul;l� ,�li MI �� �w��_ •_ _. �- _ .�� I ' � i . ����� 1� � �� I y �.I �� I 1 _, _ . � y _ 4 � � I 1� I� �- - Z .. � . I � 4 � :� � �• � �• �� �t� � ,� �� � � ' I ' ,a ' ' _ .:� ?r. �� -1.. � . i� ,` _ �� .� :• y�� f r, Iry w r 0000 000% ab 00 so ka W4 ft 000000 leWA logo ftleftwe go 4 t%%m%ft 01 Ow loop *%a *awe km 10 NA Ift an I% WS MA va ago 0 a we m WA M* am VA IN ILI a.mim.w Oftil I W sm 4, m s lit nw - .. •`K' ..%' ' 4" ;_��'r � his-.-' � � sv+' a, FT. • , Ab- kk Ti s w_ _ddkr, 00 �g�-". solo W4 \s\;;00 go 114;% At I.i�. .r_.• .r � �Idrrrr�e;"rrttr�� i .• ;• � yI ``N++++' i pp y e'� .�, •�r��llIII lll ii; Nlll � I IIIIIVI CC �� � I li •. f .-,..w `III/ dW%�-' �1beWLIV Iu..ru► ism • Y � Zt 4 y r r m 0 a boa 40! iissft; .r.•s.�a�rr..i.r�� ##seem • wr - -- i: Im 11 4 Ll f., 'F M �f� ,_1. t, _ � ��1 • � ? f'Iyy�,,��' :� �j. . ' i _ �2�' T J ram" i /. N � k " ��. � _��w cii.l .-a Al ATTACHMENT 3 roIes,l City of Costa Mesa CITY CLERK I5 ,UV 12 PH 1: 18 E) Appeal of ❑ Appeal of ZorUng ii� rr f�BY WJjs `i;00,00 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW` Applicant Name` Kristen Ford Address 2900 Bristol St., Suite B-300, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone 949-467-9213 Representing Solid Landings Behavioral Health REQUEST FOR: ❑✓ APPEAL ❑ REVIEW — Decision, of which appeal or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, if known.) Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial on June 8, 2015 of Zoning Administrator's approval of a minor conditional use permit allowing a deviation from parking requirements for the building at 657 W. 19th Street (Application ZA-15-01). Decision by: Planning Commission Reasons for requesting appeal or review: The decision of the Planning Commission overruling the Zoning Administrator of approval of a minor conditional use permit to deviate from parking requirements for the applicant's group counseling facilities at 657 W. 19th Street denied the applicant a fair hearing on the following grounds: 1. The findings of Planning Commission supporting the decision cannot be justified in fact g g PP g � t or in law. 2. The decision of the Planning Commission was based on unsubstantiated testimony and evidence introduced by the appellant without opportunity for the applicant to review or respond resulting in a denial of due process of law. 3. The Planning Commission's decision resulted in a denial of the applicant's rights as a protected class under the American's With Disabilities Act and other state and federal anti -discrimination laws. Due to scheduling conflicts, I am respectfully requesting this appeal to be set for hearing at the July 21, 2015 meeting of the City Council. Date: June 12, 2015 Signature: `If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization, "Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member For office use only — do not write below this line SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL./PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF: If appeal or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of appeal or review: -13z- RESOLUTION NO. 15- ATTACHMENT 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND DENYING ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN ON -SITE PARKING SPACES FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 WEST 19T" STREET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed Kristen Ford, representing John Morehart, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: Zoning Application ZA-15-01 is a Minor Conditional Use Permit to deviate from parking requirements for a group counseling use (Solid Landings) in a 6,710 square foot building (67 parking spaces is required for the use, 24 on -site parking spaces will be provided (29 existing minus 5 that will be lost when the West 19th Street gate is reopened per the conditions of approval) based on unique operating characteristics. and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2015, the Zoning Administrator approved the request; WHEREAS, on April 30, 2015, the Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed by a City resident; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, voted to deny the project by a 5-0 vote; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2015, an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's denial of the project was filed; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's decision and DENIES Zoning Application ZA-15-01 with respect to the property described above. 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 21st day of July, 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA - 3A- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 15_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21 st day of July, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21 st day of July, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of '2015 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that: Finding: The proposed use is not compatible with developments in the same general area and would be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Findings: The applicant's request cannot be supported based on the following: • The residential neighborhoods on Center Street and Plumer Street are being disrupted by the following activities related to the use. • Clients and employees have been observed parking on Center Street and Plumer Street instead of in the parking lot and walking to the facility; additionally, clients are walking to the faculty rather than being dropped off as indicated in the applicants' business plan. • Employees have been observed parking in the nearby Costa Mesa Senior Center parking lot and walking to the facility. • The client vans have been observed blocking traffic on Plumer Street and parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot. • The above activities are inconsistent with the plan submitted by the applicants, which indicated that all employees park inside the property, all clients are dropped off by vans inside the property so as to ensure minimal impact on the neighboring properties and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. • In light of the above the Planning Commission found that, according to the applicant's submittals, the current operation should have little or no impact on parking and traffic. However, the current operation is spilling over into the neighborhood demonstrating that the proposed operating measures are inadequate to address the parking shortfall. The approval of ZA-09-34 for a group counseling center at 1901 Newport Boulevard, Suite 149, as cited by the applicant as basis for approval for the subject use, does not establish a precedent for the approval of this application based on the following: • The 1901 Newport property is zoned PDC, versus the C1 zoning for the subject property. • The 1901 Newport property is surrounded by commercial properties and a parking structure, versus the subject property, which is abutting residential uses. • The 1901 Newport property had a shortfall of 2 spaces, based on the shortfall of 38-43 spaces for the subject use. • The 1901 Newport property has available overflow parking on -site, versus the subject property. • The 1901 Newport property has no vehicle gates, versus the subject property. • The 1901 Newport property has all required building and fire safety permits and inspections, versus the subject property. The use is not being operated in compliance of the following conditions of approval and code requirements for ZA-15-01: • Conditions of Approval Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 17. • Code Requirement Numbers 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10. The use as being operated constitutes a public nuisance per the following sections of Title 20, Chapter III, Article 1 Section 20-12 (Conditions or Uses Qualifying as a Public Nuisance): • Sections a, x, z, ff, gg, hh, jj, and II. • The facility has been operated for nine months without the necessary approvals as noted above. • The findings upon which the ZA approval was granted are no longer applicable. Finding: Granting the minor conditional use permit will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood. Facts in Support of Findings: The applicant's request cannot be supported based on the following: The property owner and applicant did not follow the correct procedures for obtaining the necessary building and fire safety permits and inspections for the use, including, but not limited to, the following: • Permits for interior and exterior alterations to the building, fire safety inspections, certificates of occupancy, and business licenses. • The addition of the security gate on Plumer Street. • The removal of the driveway and the addition of a vehicle gate on West 19th Street. • The addition of glass storefront windows along the building's West 19t" Street frontage. • Kitchen and kitchenette facilities were installed without the required OC Health Department permits and inspections. • Electrical conduits and piping were installed on the exterior of the building without the required electrical permits and inspections. • Rusted/damaged exterior stairs were installed without the required building permits and inspections. 1- -5n Finding: Granting the minor conditional use permit will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General plan designation. Facts in Support of Findings: The request is not consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan: • Objective LU-1 F.1: Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses andlor activities. • Objective CIR-1A.14: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of commuter through traffic on local streets in residential neighborhoods. As noted earlier, the applicant's request cannot be supported based on the following: • The residential neighborhoods on Center Street and Plumer Street are being disrupted by the following activities related to the use: • Clients and employees have been observed parking on Center Street and Plumer Street instead of in the parking lot and walking to the facility. • Employees have been observed parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot and walking to the facility. • The client vans have been observed blocking traffic on Plumer Street and parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot. B. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN ON -SITE PARKING SPACES FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 WEST 19T" STREET THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed Kristen Ford, representing John Morehart, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: Zoning Application ZA-15-01 is a Minor Conditional Use Permit to deviate from parking requirements for a group counseling use (Solid Landings) in a 6,710 square foot building (67 parking spaces is required for the use, 24 on -site parking spaces will be provided (29 existing minus 5 that will be lost when the West 19th Street gate is reopened per the conditions of approval) based on unique operating characteristics. and WHEREAS, on April 23, 2015, the Zoning Administrator approved the request; WHEREAS, on April 30, 2015, the Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed by a City resident; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, voted to deny the project by a 5-0 vote; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2015, an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's denial of the project was filed; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and WHEREAS, 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 15301 for Existing Facilities. 3q-- WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgment 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 contained within Exhibit B, the City Council hereby APPROVES Zoning Application ZA-15-01. 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 Zoning Application ZA-15-01 and upon the 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 and/or mitigation measures. 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 21st day of July, 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA -`1 0- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 15_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21 st day of July, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of July, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2015 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A. The information presented complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(2) in that: Finding: The proposed use is compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Findings: Based on the applicant's description of the use, an adequate number of on -site Parking spaces is provided. 67 parking spaces is required for the use, 24 on - site parking spaces are provided (29 existing minus 5 that will be lost when the West 19th Street gate is reopened), leaving a shortfall of 43 spaces required for the use. However, based on the information provided by the applicant, only 20 parking spaces will be needed (17 employee vehicles and 3 vans), thus an adequate number of on -site parking spaces can be provided for the use. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Findings: The current configuration of the parking area limits vehicle ingress and egress to the site from Plumer Street, creating additional commercial traffic on a local street adfacent to a residential neighborhood; therefore, vehicular access from West 19th Street will be required to be provided. Unlike other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provide vehicular access from West 19th Street as well as Plumer Street, the subject property's sole vehicular ingress and egress is from Plumer Street. The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined that to reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to access the site, the driveway on West 19th Street should be restored, the gate and five van parking spaces blocking the access from West 19th Street should be removed, and West 19th Street used as the main access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. Finding: Granting the minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General plan designation. Facts in Support of Findings: The request is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan: • Objective LU-1 F.1: Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods _.la_ from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. Consistency: The measures described in the applicant's letter may address parking shortages. However, staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that if parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. Therefore, the request is consistent with this General Plan goal. • Objective CIR-1A.14: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of commuter through traffic on local streets in residential neighborhoods. Consistency: Unlike the other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provide vehicular access from West 19th Street as well as Plumer Street, the subject property's sole vehicular ingress and egress is from Plumer Street. The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined that to reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to access the site, the driveway on West 19th Street should be restored, the gate and van parking spaces blocking the access from West 19th Street should be removed, and West 19th Street used as the main access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. Therefore, the use is consistent with this General Plan goal. B. 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 under Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of ZA-15-01 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package (if plan check is required). 2. The onsite activities shall be as follows: SUMMARYOF • • 6:00 AM The first Rock Solid employee arrives in a company vehicle and parks in the gated lot. 7:30-9:30 AM 16 additional Rock Solid employees and/or therapists arrive in personal or company vehicles. 8:45-9:15 AM Clients from 4 different sober living homes arrive via 3 12-seat passenger vans. The vans drop clients off within the gated parking lot and do not remain onsite. The total number of clients that arrive via the 3 passenger vans range from 21-30. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. 9:15 AM-3:00 PM Clients rotate through one-on-one therapy, group counseling, computer lab/library time, lunch, and free time. 3:00-3:30 PM Three passenger vans arrive to transport clients to the gym. Clients not wishing to go to the gym are transported home. Clients do not return until the following day. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. 3:00-5:00 PM Staff remains until 5:00 PM A cleaning crew of 3-6 people arrive in 1 or 2 cars and stays for 1 hour. 5:00-6:00 PM 6:00 PM-6:30 PM Evening staff arrives to run group sessions attended by Rock Solid Clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles. Clients arrive via 3 vans at 15-minute intervals. The approximate number of clients is 30. The total vehicles on site is 13. 6:30-8:30 PM Group sessions held during this time period. Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to their homes at 15-minute 8:30-9:00 PM intervals. The employees leave at 9:00 PM once the last passenger van leaves the site. SUMMARYOF ON -SITE 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Therapist may schedule an appointment with a client on an as needed basis. If an appointment occurs the number of vehicles is 2 —one for the therapist and one for the client who is transported to the premises via a Rock Solid vehicle. _44- 3. No employees, clients or visitors to the property shall park on City streets. All parking for the use shall take place on the property in designated parking spaces. 4. All clients shall be dropped off and picked up in the parking area. No pick-up or drop-off will occur in the driveways or public right-of-ways. 5. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described herein. Any change in the operational characteristics shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the minor conditional use permit, subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that the Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(o)]. 6. The zoning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked. The Development Services Director or his designee may refer the zoning application to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if, in his or her opinion, any of the following circumstances exist: 1) the use is being operated in violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 7. If any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this approval is 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. 8. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. 9. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or operator shall institute whatever security and operational measures may be necessary to comply with this requirement. 10. A copy of the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit must be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. 11. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site. This inspection is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 12. No later than 90 days from the date of approval, the landscape setback areas along the West 19t" Street frontage shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall contain 24-inch box trees to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 13. Applicant 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 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. City shall have the right to select the attorney defending it, if it elects to do so. 14. Applicant shall obtain Planning approval for the construction of the commercial driveway on West 19th Street, pursuant to condition 15, below. Trans. 15. No later than 45 days from the date of approval, revise the parking area and access gates as follows: a) Construct commercial driveway at the existing approach on West 19th Street leading to the parking area at the rear of the site, which shall be used for vehicle ingress, unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. b) Eliminate any parking spaces which interfere with the driveway access to the parking area at the rear of the site to comply with the standard drive aisle dimensions per the City's Parking Design Standards. c) Onsite vehicular circulation shall comply with the City's Parking Design Standards. d) Existing Plumer Street access shall only be used as vehicle egress, unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. 16. No later than 30 days from the date of approval, existing and/or proposed vehicle gate locations shall be submitted to the Transportation Services Division for review and approval. If the existing/proposed gate locations cannot be approved, the applicant shall relocate and/or remove the vehicle gates as necessary. Fire 17. All vehicular access gates shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506.1 and 506.2 of the 2013 California Fire Code (or any successor provisions), so as to provide access to emergency crews. A Knox system for gate access must be obtained through the Costa Mesa Fire Department within 30 days from the date of approval for the existing gate on Plumer Street, and concurrently with the approval of the gate on West 19th Street. 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. -114LQf Ping. 1. This use, as well as all contractors and subcontractors doing construction -related activity on the site, shall 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. Approval of the zoning application is valid for one (1) year from the effective date of this approval and will expire at the end of that period unless applicant establishes the use by one of the following actions: 1) obtains building permit(s) for the authorized construction and initiates construction; and/or 2) obtains a business license and/or legally establishes the business. If the applicant is unable to establish the use/obtain building permits within the one-year time period, the applicant may request an extension of time. The Planning Division must receive a written request for the time extension prior to the expiration of the zoning application. 3. The project is subject to compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws. A copy of the applicable Costa Mesa Municipal Code requirements has been forwarded to the Applicant and, where applicable, the Authorized Agent, for reference. 4. Street address shall be visible from the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or on another prominent location. Numerals shall be a minimum twelve (12) inches in height with not less than three -fourth - inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Identification of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with not less than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 5. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 6. 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. 7. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 8. 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. 9. Comply with the requirements of the following adopted codes: 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Electrical -.119- Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, and 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. 10. Requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings and elements by individuals with disabilities shall comply with chapter 11 B of the 2013 California Building Code. 6 ATTACHMENT 5 _e Received •���,, City of Costa Mesa City of Costa Mesa Inter Office M e m o ra n d u m Development Services Department JUN 0 8 2015 TO: CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION CC: TOM HATCH, GARY ARMSTRONG, AND CLAIRE FLYNN FROM: WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE: APRIL'23, 2016 SUBJECT: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION(S) This is to advise you of the following decision(s) made by the Zoning Administrator within the last week. The..decisionrsy, will became final unless a member of thq Planning;: Commission or City Counr�il requests a review of, decision(6) or an interested party files an appeal by 5:00 p.m. on April 30, 2015. Project descriptions have been kept brief for this notice. As a result, there may be details to the project or conditions of approval that would be of interest to you in deciding whether to request a review of a decision. Please feel free to contact me by e-mail at willa.bouwens- killeen(cD-costamesaca.gov if you have any questions or would like further details. ZA'-15=0'f w 657 WEST 19TH STREET Minor conditional use permit to deviate from parking requirements for a group counseling use (Solid Landings) in a 6,710 square foot building (67 on -site spaces required; 29 on -site spaces provided) based on unique operating characteristics. Approved, subject to conditions of approval. Comments received: Two against. ZA-15-04 1630 AND 1640 SUPERIOR AVENUE Planned Signing Program for a freestanding sign across a private street (Commercial Way) with the support structures on two private properties on either side of the street. The sign is proposed at a height of 29 feet (7 feet maximum height allowed) and area of approximately 48 square feet Withdrawn. Comments received: Ten in support. Seven against. City of Costa Mesa (714)754-5182 From: Susan James-Iwarnoto [mailto Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 11:54 AM To: ARMSTRONG, GARY Subject: Re: Mesa Arts District - Planning Commission \ Hi Gary, ` The issue we would like to discuss with the Planning Commission is much bigger than #ZA-15-04..Wl did ___ A Righeimer suggest we not burden staff with this and take it directly to the PlanninRConin1issiorL? ,Wq are �gta''act upon is aid-veisand need your guidance on the best w� o-do-tlits __ t is about the "Mesa Arts" District and about the City wanting '"Service Based" industries in the Industrial Zoned Westside, as per John M Bart.:�17idyvuget-�-cvpy�ffil�ri�tlrl�tte�-ta-�w �cil wrth John Morehart's Craigslist Ads?) C arl he has some insight with the City that we don't -and we are €txse since onsrs#et�cvrih the general plan or the vision statement prepared beteveeia the council and planning commission. There has been no zoning or code enforcement actions against any of the uses he has implemented or intends to implement based upon his Ads, leaving us to believe that his current and proposed uses are approved by the }'`'City, just as he claims in his Ads. }� The impact on Parking in the Westside Triangle is the greatest concern and increased pedestrian activity Jwithout any crosswalks is also concerning. Maybe if you could come out and meet with us, and walk the area with us so that your staff will have some insight about what is happening in the Westside Triangle - is that possible? Thank you, Susan Iwamoto From: "ARMSTRONG, GARY" <GARY.ARMSTRONG n,costamesaca.gov> To: Susan James -Iwamoto Cc: "FLYNN, CLAIRE" <CLAIRE.FLYNN(2costamesaca.Qov>; "BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA" <WILLA.BOUWENS- KILLEEN(2costamesaca. oovv> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 10:06 AM Subject: RE: Mesa Arts District - Planning Commission Ms. Iwomoto, As I indicated the pathway to get this on the Planning Commission Agenda is to appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision following April 23. You have one week to file an appeal with the City Clerk's Office following the Zoning Administrator's review. This issue was not on the City Council's Agenda and thus there was no formal discussion or action by the City Council. Although a Council Member may have given his opinion on the issue, that does not automatically elevate the issue to the Planning Commission Agenda. Gary Gary Armstrong, AICP Economic and Development Services Director / Deputy CEO City of Costa Mesa (714)754-5182 From: Susan James -Iwamoto [mailto Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:52 AM To: ARMSTRONG, GARY Cc: FLYNN, CLAIRE; BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Subject: Re: Mesa Arts District - Planning Commission How does our group get on the Planning Commission Agenda? Last council meeting Jim recommended we take this "controversial" matter to the Planning Commission rather than deal with this through staff. Please advise. -50� Thank you, Susan Iwamoto From: "ARMSTRONG, GARY"<GARY.ARMSTRONG (2ccostamesaca.gov> To: Susan James -Iwamoto Cc: "FLYNN, CLAIRE" <CLAIRE.FLYNN@costamesaca.gov>; "BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA" <WILLA.BOUWENS- KILLEENgcostam esaca. aov> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:16 AM Subject: RE: Mesa Arts District - Planning Commission Ms. Iwamoto, The Zoning Administrator's review was continued until April 23. Following that there is a one week appeal period, wherein the Zoning Administrator's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Gary Gary Armstrong, AICP Economic and Development Services Director / Deputy CEO City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5182 From: Susan James -Iwamoto maiIto ] Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 7:35 PM To: ARMSTRONG, GARY Subject: Mesa Arts District - Planning Commission Dear Mr. Armstrong, Last week on the 9th the Zoning Administrator was to make a decision on the "Mesa Arts" District Sign to cross Commercial Way. Many of the neighbors did not_receive publ1c:_natices_otL matter. w ue d from City Council that this matter is deemed "controversia " and-`&Oiild be taken up with the Planning Commission. Would you please advise me on how to get on the Planning Commission Agenda, and what the current status is for Application #ZA-15-04? Thank you, Susan Iwamoto ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: City of Costa Mesa Administrator <webmasteracostamesaca.sov> To: Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 12:41 PM Subject: City of Costa Mesa: April 13 Planning Commission meeting agenda now available Visit the link below to read this on our website. http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=40&recordid=l 990 April 13 Planning Commission meeting agenda now available Posted Date: 4/8/2015 The agenda and staff reports for April 13 Planning Commission meeting are now available here. To change your eSubscriptions preferences, click the following link: http://3 8.106.5.76/index.aspx?page=27&subscriberguid=l 90bc2f6-c2b8-4f9f-a257-aa54cedecfl0 To unsubscribe from all City of Costa Mesa eSubscriptions, please click the following link: http://3 8.106.5.76/index.aspx?page=27&subscriberizuid=190bc2f6-c2b8-4f9f--a257- aa54cedecfl0&unsubscribe=l -51- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Costa Mesa PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST l=Eu CITY CLERIC 15 APR 29 P1412: 19 LIiY CF CJJ!/-tt fvES 1 The City of Costa Mesa is committed to open and transparent government. The Urk's Office is responsible for the care and custody of all official records for the City of Costa Mesa, and strives to —'— provide prompt and efficient access to public records to the citizens it serves. In accordance with the California Public Records Act (California Government Code § 6250 et.seq.), the City has ten (10) calendar days to respond, once your request is received. Some records may not be subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, however you will be notified either way. If the City determines that the documents you have requested are subject to disclosure, you will be notified of any cost associated with production and a date they will be ready for viewing. PLEASE NOTE: Generally, costs for black and white 8'/2" x 11" are ten (10) cents per page, as well as electronic documents if the record must be scanned. Fees vary for Police and Fire Incident reports, as well as other types of documents. PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Name: G` Daytime Phone Number.,{4 ! YF �P Mailing Address: city: Email Address: PLEASE E-MAIL State:— Zip Code: 0 WILL PICKUP F1 PLEASE MAIL PLEASE DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENTS YOU ARE REQUESTING AND PLEASE BE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE: el , Signature w ate City Clerk 3/2015 ,51?—` From: LEE, MEL Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:24 AM To: GUARRACINO, JERRY Subject: FW: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings at 657 West 19th Jerry — -Rene opened the case in late September 2014 (see below). I visited the site and confirmed they were operating'there on 10/30/14, the day Claire and I met with them to discuss their CUP application. Mel From: LEE, MEL Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 3:41 PM To: FLYNN, CLAIRE Subject: RE: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings at 657 West 19th FYI — Willa already opened a CE case on this. Mel From: GUARRACINO, JERRY Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:19 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO; LEE, MEL; GARDEA, ANTONIO; CRAGER, CHELSEA; MONTEMAYOR, JOSHUA Cc: ARMSTRONG, GARY; FLYNN, CLAIRE; BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Subject: FW: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings at 657 West 19th Planners: Please be aware that there is a Drug and Alcohol Counseling Center trying_to get permits and h i�in s license to operate at 657 est 191h Street, see email train below. They are grossly under -parked for this use and would need a inor CUP to operate in this location. Just want to remind staff to be aware of this situation in case they go planner shopping at the Count . If you have any questions please feel free to contact me for more information. t Thanks, Jerry Guarracino, AICP Assistant Director Community Improvement Division 77 Fair Drive City of Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Office (714) 754-5631 1 Cell (951) 544-5379 ferry.guarracino@costamesaca.ov From: MACIAS, RENE Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:45 PM To: BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Cc: GUARRACINO, JERRY Subject: RE: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings I spoke with Solid Landings accounting who said they submitted a business license Friday. I told her that they needed to see planning. See case CD-14-0466 on permits plus. Nov was issued. Rene Macias Code Enforcement Officer 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa CA, 92626 Ph (714)754-5168 Fox (714)-754-4856 From: BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:28 AM To: MACIAS, RENE Cc: GUARRACINO, JERRY Subject: FW: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings Rene, Please see below and open a case 5`I Thanks!! Willa From: GUARRACINO, JERRY Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:11 AM To: MONTEMAYOR, JOSHUA; BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Cc: FLYNN, CLAIRE; ARMSTRONG, GARY Subject: FW: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings Willa — Please open a Code Enforcement case for this counseling center, it opened without adequate parking (see attached letter). They need to relocate or apply for a Minor CUP. Before they decide to file the Minor CUP Application they may want to meet wrt panning to Iscuss w y h-e"hink a Minor CUP should be supported. On the surface I don't see the application being supported, as we have told two other recent applicants for similar uses. I would be happy to participate in that meeting. Thanks, Jerry Guarracino, AICP Assistant Director Community Improvement Division 77 Fair Drive City of Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Office (714) 754-5631 I Cell (951) 544-5379 ferry.guarracino@costamesaca.gov From: MONTEMAYOR, JOSHUA Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:06 PM To: GUARRACINO, JERRY Subject: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings Hi Jerry, We spoke last week about 657 West 191' and the possibility of Group Counseling already being held on the premises. Solid Landings requested a Zoning Verification Letter for the property and I wanted to forward it to you to take a look at it before I sent it out. Some background that I have gathered about the site: Building is 6,792 square feet, zone R-1, currently 13 total parking spaces —a minor CUP will be needed. Solid Landings claim they already have a business license to operate, but I double checked with Finance and there is none. The hold group sessions with 6-8 members who are either taken to the site via carpool, or walk from the neighborhood where their rehab house is located. Please let me know if you have any questions! Thanks!! —Josh Joshua Montemayor Planning Technician City of Costa Mesa T:714-754-5608 Joshua Montemayor costamesaca.gov -5(0— From: LEE, MEL Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:24AM To: GUARRACINO, JERRY Subject: FW: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings at 657 West 19th Jerry — Rene opened the case in late September 2014 (see below). I visited the site and confirmed they were operating there on 10/30/14, the day Claire and I met with them to discuss their CUP application. Mel From: LEE, MEL Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 3:41 PM To: FLYNN, CLAIRE Subject: RE: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings at 657 West 19th FYI — Willa already opened a CE case on this. Mel From: GUARRACINO, JERRY Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:19 PM To: ASHABI, MINOO; LEE, MEL; GARDEA, ANTONIO; CRAGER, CHELSEA; MONTEMAYOR, JOSHUA Cc: ARMSTRONG, GARY; FLYNN, CLAIRE; BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Subject: FW: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings at 657 West 19th Planners: Please be aware that there is a Drug and Alcohol Counseling Center trying to get permits and business license to operate at 657 West 191' Street, see email train below. They are grossly under -parked for this use and would need a - 6-7- Minor CUP to operate in this location. Just Avant to remind staff to be aware of this situation in case they go planner shopping at the Counter. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me for more information. Thanks, Jerry Guarracino, AICP Assistant Director Community Improvement Division 77 Fair Drive City of Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Office (714) 754-5631 1 Cell (951) 544-5379 jerry.guarracino@costamesaca.gov From: MACIAS, RENE Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:45 PM To: BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Cc: GUARRACINO, JERRY Subject: RE: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings I spoke with Solid Landings accounting who said they submitted a business license Friday. I told her that they needed to see planning. See case CD-14-0466 on permits plus. Nov was issued. Rene Macias Code Enforcement Officer 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa CA, 92526 Ph (714)754-5168 Fax (714)-754-4856 From: BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:28 AM To: MACIAS, RENE Cc: GUARRACINO, JERRY Subject: FW: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings Rene, Please see below and open a case. Thanks!! Willa From: GUARRACINO, JERRY Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:11 AM To: MONTEMAYOR, JOSHUA; BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Cc: FLYNN, CLAIRE; ARMSTRONG, GARY Subject: FW: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings Willa — Please open a Code Enforcement case for this counseling center, it opened without adequate parking (see attached letter). They need to relocate or apply for a Minor CUP. Before they decide to file the Minor CUP Application they may want to meet with planning to discuss why they think a Minor CUP should be supported. On the surface I _58-1 don't see the application being supported, as we have told two other recent applicants for similar uses. I would be happy to participate in that meeting. Thanks, Jerry Guarracino, AICP Assistant Director Community Improvement Division 77 Fair Drive City of Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Office (714) 754-5631 1 Cell (951) 544-5379 jerry.guarracino@costa mesaca.gov From: MONTEMAYOR, JOSHUA Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:06 PM To: GUARRACINO, JERRY Subject: Zoning Verification Letter to Solid Landings Hi Jerry, We spoke last week about 657 West 191h and the possibility of Group Counseling already being held on the premises. Solid Landings requested a Zoning Verification Letter for the property and I wanted to forward it to you to take a look at it before I sent it out. Some background that I have gathered about the site: Building is 6,792 square feet, zone R-1, currently 13 total parking spaces —a minor CUP will be needed. Solid Landings claim they already have a business license to operate, but I double checked with Finance and there is none. They hold group sessions with 6-8 members who are either taken to the site via carpool, or walk from the neighborhood where their rehab house is located. Please let me know if you have any questions! Thanks!! —Josh Joshua Montemayor 5ct— Planning Technician City of Costa Mesa T: 714-754-5608 Joshua Montemay or costamesaca.po_v From: GUARRACINO, JERRY Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: LEE, MEL; Elena Q. Gerli [mailto:EQG@jones-mayer.com] Cc: FLYNN, CLAIRE; BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA; ARMSTRONG, GARY; TUCKER, MIKE; NEAL, JON Subject: RE: LETTER INCOMPLETE SOLID LANDINGS.doc Thanks Mel, but what they are looking for is materials thatjustify the City's establishment of the 10 spaces per 1,000 Sq. j/ Ft. standard. I included you because I though you may have pulled some of that together, since Solid Landings has been 4 objecting to the standard from the start. Jerry Guarracino, AICP Assistant Director Community Improvement Division 77 Fair Drive City of Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Office (714) 754-5631 I Cell (951) 544-5379 (erry.guarracino@costamesaca.gov From: LEE, MEL Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:06 AM To: GUARRACINO, JERRY; Elena Q. Gerli [mailto:EQG(@iones-mayer.comj Cc: FLYNN, CLAIRE; BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA; ARMSTRONG, GARY; TUCKER, MIKE; NEAL, JON Subject: RE: LETTER INCOMPLETE SOLID LANDINGS.doc I have the materials they submitted in October if you need to copy them for the PRR. Thanks, Mel (et— From: GUARRACINO R Sent: Thursda , ecember 04, 2014 :44 AM To: LEE, MEL; BOUWE WILLA; FLYNN, CLAIRE; MACIAS, RENE Cc: ARMSTRONG, GARY; COOKE, ED; TUCKER, MIKE; NEAL, JON; GUARRACINO, JERRY Subject: RE: LETTER INCOMPLETE SOLID LANDINGS.doc HI Mel, Thanks for the letter. I wanted to make you aware of a conversation I had recently with Ed Cook regarding this site. Although Ed did not have the re ith him at that time his recollection was that the site may have open �,. permits for Tenant Improvements. Withou a final ins ec i hese Permits it € t Solid Landings should not be operating even the administrative portion oft of this location. Please ghee ac with E t� ,'' on errn t e status ot their s, i 'it turns out that Ed's recollections are correct the letter should be modified accordingly, Please let me know what you determine. was out at the site last week and noticed what looks to be recently installed electrical conduit sleeves running the full length of the east side of the building. It's hard to tell exactly how long they have been there but it was very shiny and clearly installed more re th+her �nn� �rr_��ns a1an� that side of the building. I'm not familiar with the histary,_nf th2t"5uildIng,,b ttwd fe'atu'es-ca.ugbt my attention and we should determine if these modifications wer�done _ ' the benefit of permits or planning approval.,; The first is a PVC fence/gate the has closed off the driveway from 19` Street to the back parking lot. T e parkFng (ot striping is done in a manner that suggests the drive way to 19`h should still be in use. Also, the maintenance of an existing curb cut on 191h St. (at the west end of the property), suggest this driveway was never officially abandoned. The other question I had, when I looked at the site was weather the metal fence and gate which close off the rear parking area from Plumer St. was approved The gate is right behind the sidewalk which looks strange particularly now `off �e access to is no onger apen., t some point we should determine if either of these modification have been approved:' I could see them potentially getting approval for the gate (without any stacking) if their main access point 62 was from 191' Street. But as the only access point I'm surprised they were not required to ha p some stacking before the gate on Plumer St. Hope these comments are helpful. Let me know if you have any questions. Jerry Guarracino, AICP Assistant Director Community Improvement Division 77 Fair Drive City of Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Office (714) 754-5631 1 Cell (951) 544-5379 Jerry guarracino@costamesaca.gov From: LEE, MEL Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 8:53 AM To: BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA; FLYNN, CLAIRE; MACIAS, RENE; GUARRACINO, JERRY Subject: LETTER INCOMPLETE SOLID LANDINGS.doc Please review and provide any comments/corrections. Thanks, Mel — (p3-- Elena Q. Gerli From: LEE, MEL <MEL.LEE@costamesaca.gov> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 12:27 PM To: GUARRACINO, JERRY; TUCKER, MIKE Subject: FW: LETTER INCOMPLETE SOLID LANDINGS.doc Attachments: MX-3116N_20150302_122350.pdf Just an FYI for you and Mike. Thanks, Mel Lee, AICP Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, 92628 Ph. (714) 754-5611 Fax. (714) 754-4856 mel IeeCa-ocostamesaca.aov e:o2s �ta 11 iesa - / /A- Thank you for your help on this request. --Jerry Jerry Guarracino, AICP Contract Assistant Director Community Improvement Division 77 Fair Drive City of Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Office (714) 754-5631 1 Cell (951) 544-5379 jerry.guarracino CED costamesaca.goy To ensure the most efficient customer service, when visiting the Community Improvement Staff at City Hall, please check -in at the Development Services Counter on the 2^1 floor. From: CHAMOUN, CHARLES Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 11:44 AM To: LEE, MEL; BUCK, RANDALL; COOKE, ED Cc: Elena Q. Gerli; JOSEPH, JOHN; METZ, ALLAN; GUARRACINO, JERRY Subject: RE: LETTER INCOMPLETE SOLID LANDINGS.doc The persons to talk to are Randy Buck and Allan Metz. I will forward copies to jerry for all the permits that were issued and that are still in plan review. From: LEE, MEL Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 8:24 AM To: BUCK, RANDALL; COOKE, ED Cc: Elena Q. Gerli; CHAMOUN, CHARLES; JOSEPH, JOHN Subject: RE: LETTER INCOMPLETE SOLID LANDINGS.doc Sorry, forgot to add the address (657 W. 191h Street). Thanks, Mel Lee, AICP Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, 92628 Ph. (714) 754-5611 Fax (714)754-4856 mel lee(cDcostamesaca.00v — lP From: GUARRACINO, JERRY Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 10:44 AM To: LEE, MEL; BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA; FLYNN, CLAIRE; MACIAS, RENE Cc: ARMSTRONG, GARY; COOKE, ED; TUCKER, MIKE; NEAL, JON; GUARRACINO, JERRY Subject: RE: LETTER INCOMPLETE SOLID LANDINGS.doc HI Mel, Thanks for the letter. I wanted to make you aware of a conversation I had recently with Ed Cook regarding this site. Although Ed did not have the records with him at that time his recollection was that the site may have open final inspection on these Permits is possible that Solid Landings should permits for Tenant Improvements. Without a not be operating even the administrative portion of their operation out of this location. Please check back with Edto confirm the status of their TI's, if it [urns out that Ed's recollections are correct the letter should be modified accordingly. Please let me know what you determine. ' I was out at the site last week and noticed what looks to be recently installed electrical conduit sleeves running the full length of the east side of the building. It's hard to tell exactly how long they have been there but it was very shiny and clearly installed more recently than other conduit runs along that side of the building. 1'rn not familiar with the history of that building, but two features caught my attention and we should determine if these modifications were done with the benefit of permits or planning approval. The first is a PVC fence/gate the has closed off the driveway from 19"' Street to the back parking lot. The parking lot striping is done in a manner that suggests the drive way to 191h should still be in use. Also, the maintenance of an existing curb cut on 191h St. (at the west end of the property), suggest this driveway was never officially abandoned. The other question I had, when I looked at the site was weather the metal fence and gate which close off the rear parking area from Plumer St. was approved. The gate is right behind the sidewalk which looks strange particularly now that the access to 19`'^ is no longer open. At some point we should determine if either of these modification have been approved. I could see them potentially getting approval for the gate (without any stacking) if their main access point was from 19`h Street. But as the only access point I'm surprised they were not required to have some stacking before the gate on Plumer St. Hope these comments are helpful. Let me know if you have any questions. Jerry Guarracino, AICP Assistant Director Community Improvement Division 77 Fair Drive City of Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Office (714) 754-5631 1 Cell (951) 544-5379 ierry guarracinogcostamesaca.gov —1.11 Costa 1\4esa ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION No. 08-5 SUBJECT: COUNSELING (INCLUDING GROUP COUNSELING) CMMC SEC: TABLES 13AND 13-89 DATE: MAY 19, 2008 .! BACKGROUND --- Thi "determination.,supercedes the Zoning Administrator Determination issued on October 8, 2004. ,l There is a need to clarify the treatment of counseling offices under the Land Use Matrix (Table 13-30) and parking "requirements (Table 13-89) of the zoning code. Uses in question include career and vocational counseling; marriage, family, and child counseling (MFCC); psychologists; psychiatrists; substance abuse counseling; and similar services. Counseling may be provided on an individual, family, or group basis. DETERMINATION *'Individual and family counselinc�serv_ices will be classified as "general office" uses, and not as "medical offices." This_ih a L-- ,:!�Xmost, counseling services ar ro ' e I professional without medical crntials - thus, technically not edical" seand because of differences rn opecharacteristics (number of clients/pate being served simultaneously, number of clients/patients in waiting ms, number of exam or treatment rooms, number of support personnel, etc.). Thus, individual and family counseling will be a permitted use where general offices re permitted and a conditional use where general offices are conditional uses. Parking requirements for individual and family counseling services will be the same as for "general office" uses - currently 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Group counseling services will (except in I&R and I&R-S zones) be classified in the same way as "trade and vocational schools which is a listed use (currently #37) in Table 13-30. This determination is in accordance with Section 13-30(d) which allows ( .I a use that is not listed (group counseling) to ee treatea in the same way as a -' substantially similar use. Operational characteristics common to both group -10g, counseling and trade/vocational schools include groups of people arriving and departing at the same times, assembling for approximately hour-long sessions, and having similar staffing levels. Thus, group counseling would be a permitted use in most commercial zones, and a minor conditional use in industrial zones. However, unlike trade an vocational schools, group counseling, would not be permitter in IM and I&E S- zaa unless it� s part of the approved institutiona` use e.�a., hos aT school, church)._ Parking requirements for group counseling services will be the same as for "trade / schools, business colleges, dancing and music academies" — currently 10 spaces per sq. ft. of gross floor area. Where hours of operation or other unique operating '11aracteristics indicate that a lower parking requirement would be sufficient, a minor conditional use permit may be processed, in�ith 5b ire 3-P9.5. Planners should use their discretio cases where an office which primarily pr�avides individual or family counseling may hold occasional group sessions. KIMBERLY BRA DT, AICP Zoning Administrator 'JS rN GREEN, BRENDA From: Sent: To: Subject: FYI Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: Robert Dickson Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:59 AM BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA; GREEN, BRENDA Fwd: Question re parking variance 657 W 19th From: Barrie Fisher Date: April 30, 2015 at 6:15:46 AM PDT To: Robert Dickson Subject: Re: Question re parking variance 657 W 19th •. Thanks for the information, you answered all my questions. I'll let my neighbors on Senate St know. They're aware the facility has applied for a state license at this location and were very concerned about the reduction in required parking spaces considering how many visits per day this type of business could generate. They dealt with the parking issues when the Serenity Shores house was operating on their street and know first hand about parking problems. I doubt they'll have a problem once they know the parking restrictions the city has in place for the location. Thanks again for your help, Barrie _go- GREEN, BRENDA From: Robert Dickson Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 12:00 PM To: BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA; GREEN, BRENDA; FLYNN, CLAIRE Subject: Fwd: Question re parking variance 657 W 19th Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Robert Dickson Date: April 29, 2015 at 8:54:59 PM PDT To: Barrie Fisher Subject: Re: Question re parking variance 657 W 19th Barrie, I am familiar with this issue, it is a zoning administrator approval based on the specific and unique characteristics of the business. The applicant, or a member of the public, or a planning commissioner may appeal the zoning administrator decision. My understanding is that this type of use, group counseling where the individuals being counseled are brought to the facility via bus or van, has been approved in the past. I also understand that this approval has been heavily conditioned to ensure that only employees park at the facility, and that the only "clients" that are brought there are brought via bus or van. I am not sure about the handicap parking issue, can only imagine that those requirements must be met if a certain amount of spaces are provided. Please let me know if you have any questions, or would like to discuss this further. My phone number is 714-878-2610. Thank you. Rob Sent from my iPhone On Apr 29, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Barrie Fisher wrote: Good afternoon, _9I- Are you familiar with the parking variance that was approved for 657 W 19th St? It's the building between Taco Mesa and Mouse Graphics on 19th. I was told the parking for the location should be at 67 spaces but a variance was approved for only 29 actual spaces. And none of them are handicapped spots. I'm not absolutely positive this info is accurate but I've heard it from two different people today who said they saw it posted at City Hall which is why I'm asking. If this is accurate, shouldn't something with such a large reduction in parking spaces have come before either the Planning Commission or City Council for 1 discussion first?�� Thanks for any information you can provide, Barrie Fisher Costa Mesa, CA _ -1Z, GREEN, BRENDA From: LEE, M <MEUEE@costam�se Sent: Tuesd , October 21, 2014 4:44 P To: PLAN ING f Subject: FW: [B K] _--� Attachments: ZV - 657 Importance: Low .gov> FYI if you are at the counter when this application comes in — i We have already rejected and refunded the filing fees for two similar group counseling/rehab MCUP's with similar parking deficiencies (this one would be 55 spaces short) — if they insist on filing the MCUP, take the application in but do not process the fee until we review further. Thanks, Mel From: MONTEMAYOR, JOSHUA Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:40 PM To: LEE, MEL Subject: FW: [BULK] Importance: Low Hi Mel, Solid Landings will be coming in sometime this week to apply for a MCUP to deviate from parking requirements. Because this is for group counseling, I was wondering if there is anything I should be concerned of before I process the application payment? I talked to Kirsten Ford (Solid Landing's Attorney) and she was adamant about getting an MCUP. Thank you!! —Josh -1,3- Joshua Montemayor Planning Technician City of Costa Mesa T: 714-754-5608 Joshua. Montemayor@costamesaca.gov<mailto:Joshua.Montemayor@costamesaca.gov> From: Kristen Ford [mailto:kristen.ford@solidlandings.com] Sent: October 21, 2014 3:23 PM To: MONTEMAYOR, JOSHUA Cc: MACIAS, RENE Subject: [BULK] Importance: Low Dear Josh, Hope you are having a nice day. I understand you are handling the 657 19th Street matter. I would like to schedule a time to come down with our paperwork on Thursday. Please let me know what time works best for you. Regards, Kristen B. Ford, Esq. Vice President and Corporate Counsel Solid Landings Behavioral Health The Waters at Creekside 2900 Bristol Street Suite B-300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Office: 949.467.9213 x182 Direct: 949.877.6718 kristen.ford@ solid Ian dings.com<maiIto: kristen.ford@ solid Iand ings.com> Admissions: 800.852.4465 Solid Landings Behavioral Health<http://www.solidlandings.com/> I Sure Haven<http://www.surehavensober.com/> I Rock Solid Recovery<http://www.rocksolidtreatment.com/> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. This communication may contain material protected by HIPAA legislation (45 CFR, Parts 160 & 164). If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete the email from your computer, —7s- September 22, 2014 Solid Landings Behavioral Health Michael Warden 2900 Bristol St. Suite B-300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: ZONING VERIFICATION LETTER 657 W. 19"' STREET COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA92627 Dear Mr. Warden: In response to your request concerning the zoning of the property, please be advised as follows: sinss 1 _ The current zoning l Commercial.pG Group counseling cuseBsuareepermDistrict) of the subject permitted v inth s zone subject ith a General Planto designation of Genera parking per Zoning Administrator Determination 08-5. 2. The properties to the north andwest o the resouzoned zoned he properties to the east are bounded by C1 and R2-HD zones. The properties 3. The property is located in the 19 West Urban Plan, adopted April 4, 2006. 4. According to Zoning Administrator Determination 08-5, group counseling requires off-street parking at a rate of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet ofagross sloor area, The aces for a group subject counsepng useerty is �Wi#ho1ped 3 parking th a 6,792 square foot building and requires 68 parking p of a Minor spaces on site, the property has insufficient parking for this use and will. require approval Conditional Use Permit for a deviation from parking requirements. A Minor Conditional Use Permit application is attached. t property riot to a royal of a Minor 5, In the event that a group counseling is operating at the subjectp PP Conditional Use Permit and issuance of a business license at this address, code enforcement action will be taken. Cs 6, Please contact the Building and Safety Division at (714) 754-5245 if you wish to obtain copies of any building plans. Should you have further questions regarding the foregoing, please contact me at (714) 754-5608 or joshua.montemayorC costamesaca. ov. Sincerely, JOSHUA MONTEMAYOR Planning Technician Attachment: Minor Conditional Use Permit --7(p-- PERMIT NUMBER: BX14-00231 ^ STATUS: PC PERMIT TYPE B_MISC DATE ISSUED'• APN: 42421103 Zoning: I Suite/Unit: JOB ADDRESS: 657 W 19TH ST CM Primary Occ. Const Type: ?? Vicinity: STAIRS Valuation: $18,000.00 SQ. FT: 0 SCOPE OF WORK: LEGAL IZE THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF RUSTED STAIR GUARDRAIL, SECOND STORY GUARDRAIL ASSEMBLIES. AND DAMAGED STEEL POSTS SUPPORTING STAIRS AND BALCONY, ArC wrret HMENT WJINSpECTiQN CARP r,ce�ne�r cHALt NG17 BE TIQN GRANTF Y3NTtL ACCESS TO DWELLING UNITS IS PRQVI'OE[7 l:Qa VERIFkCA OWNER: COSTA MESA,OHN CA M AND pl Code:92627 SA C't !State ,y Phone: APPLICANT: PARRY WALKER 11 Fi58Umt: NEWPORT BEACH, CA City/State: Phone: CONTRACTOR: Address: Unit: Zip Code: City/State: Phone ARC�T: Phone ENGINEER: Phone Zip Code:92658 Cell: Address:: Address: P 0. BOX Licer License I License I FEE SUMMARY $190.61 Building Plan Check: $293.25 Building Permit: $0.00 Electrical Permit: $0.00 SMIP Residential $3.78 SMIP Commercial $1.00 Bldg Std Admin Fund TOTAL FEES $488.64 _ HOURS FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: EFFECTIVE 311812010 Monday ihru Friday - 7:00 am thru 7:00 pm. Saturdays -9:00 am ihru 6:00 pm Prohibited all hours - Sundays and the following Federal Hvlida s: New Years Da ,Memorial Da , Inch andante Day ,Labor Da ,Thanks iwin Da and Christmas Da. From: LOOMIS, RYAN Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:03 PM To: LEE, MEL Subject: Solid Landing- 657 W 19th Street Parking Survey Hi Mel, Please see attached parking survey photos for Solid Landings. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me. Thank you, Ryan Loomis I Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa ._'i8 - GREEN, BRENDA From: sandranian <sandranian@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 4:45 PM To: ROSALES, MARTHA; ARMSTRONG, GARY; FLYNN, CLAIRE; GUARRACINO, JERRY; LEE, MEL; GREEN, BRENDA Cc: COLGAN, JULIE; rdickson.cmpc@gmail.com Subject: ZA-15-01 (Appeal/Review For Solid Landings - 657 W. 19th St) U3 am withdrawing my appeal of the above -referenced Zoning Administrator Decision ZA-15-01. My withdrawal is based upon the increase in staffing for code enforcement as proposed in the 2015- �. 2016 budget and assurances by City Staff that the conditions of approval will be enforced. I am concerned about the pfecedent that has already been set for commercial uses in the city, and would `6 urge staff to begin development on a parg-standard that may better apply to the type of use contemplated by this applicant, instead of attempting to apply other types of uses to it. My appeal was intended to provide me time to investigate the parking issues raised in the application and by the decision. I found upon investigation that the applicant was, during the pendency of this application, in violation of its stated uses and parking requirements. For example, I found that Solid Landings' staff were indeed parking on Plumer Street, instead of in the parking lot assigned, and that vans associated with the business were blocking traffic on Plumer Street and using the Senior Center parking located on the street. I have been assured that once the permit is in place, these unpermitted uses and practices will cease, or Solid Landings will be cited. am confident that our city's staff will be able to properly enforce the conditions of approval, and feel that this will be necessary in order to minimize the impact on the city residents on Plumer Street. Stephan Andranian Planning Commissioner This E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This information is confidential information and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. ( September 22, 2014 Solid Landings Behavioral Health Michael Warden 2900 Bristol St. Suite B-300 Costa Mesa; CA 92626 RE: ZONING VERIFICATION LETTER 657 W. 19" STREET, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92627 Dear Mr. Warden: In response to your request concerning the zoning of the property, please be advised as follows: The current zoning of the subject property is C1 (Local Business District) with a General Plan designation of General Commercial. Group counseling uses are permitted in this zone subject to parking per Zoning Administrator Determination 08-5. 2 The properties to the north and west are zoned C1. The properties to the east are bounded by C1 and R2-HD zones. The properties to the south are zoned R2-HD. 3 The property is located in the 19 West Urban Plan, adopted April 4, 2006. 4. According to Zoning Administrator Determination 08-5, group counseling requires off-street parking at a rate of 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The subject property is developed with a 6,792 square foot building and requires 68 parking spaces for a group counseling use. With 13 parking spaces on site, the property has insufficient parking for this use and will require approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit for a deviation from parking requirements. A Minor Conditional Use Permit , q,pptication is attached. , 5 In the event that a„ group counseling is operating at the subject property prior to approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and issuance of a business license at this address, code enforcement action will be taken. �- FanwWF .•�_ }�° /�6. Please contact the Building and Safety Division at (714) 754-5245 if you wish to obtain copies of any building plans. Should you have further questions regarding the foregoing, please contact me at (714) 754-5608 or josh ua.montemayorCo)costamesaca.gov. Sincerely, JOSHUA MONTEMAYOR Planning Technician Attachment: Minor Conditional Use Permit So- r--_--r=- T I O N N bT I C E Y � CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION P.O. BOX 1200, 77 FAIR DRIVE (2ND FLOOR) y Costa --- ! CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 sx1Cr % r-mVrohrfL yL4e-Cti' Date: / To: i:1-) 1 19 S7' y 2 Case r: Location: ►•� grh -�% �'_,�' As part of our continuing program to preserve and improve our residential and business community, I observed the following violation(s) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CW/1C): ❑ Conducting business not consistent with terms of Planning approval or C.U.P. (CNIMC 20-12(ii)) Conducting business without a city license and Zoning approval (CPANIC 20-12(hh)) ❑ Illegal storage in public view (CNIMC 20-12(e)) ❑ Storage of inoperative vehicle or parts thereof (CMMC 20.8(a)) ❑ Living in garages or commercial/industrial unit (CMMC 20-12(n)) ❑ outdoor work, storage or display without a permit (CMMC 13-44) ❑ outdoor work/industrial (CNIMC 13-53) ❑ violation of home occupation standards (CMMC 13-168) ❑ Use of residential yard areas for parking/storage of vehicles (CMMC 20-8(c)(6)) I❑ Portable signs on private or public property (CMNIC 13-112(g)) ❑ Flags, banners and pennants not in compliance with code (CMNIC 13-112(d)) ❑ Living in trailer or RV (CMMC 20-12(m)) ❑ Deteriorated or peeling paint (CM,1,10 20-6(d)) ❑ Use of tarps or temporary canopies in public view (CMNIC 20-61(c)) ❑ Deteriorated building exterior or roof (CNIMC 20-6(b)) ❑ Broken windows and glass doors (CMMC 20-6(g)) ❑ Deteriorated walls, fences, trash enclosures (CMMC 20-6Q)) ❑ Deteriorated parking areas and sidewalks (CNIMC 20-6(k)) ❑ Dead or dying landscape, weeds, overgrown vegetation In R1 zone (CPANIC 20-6(n)) ❑ Dead or dying landscape, weeds, overgrown vegetation in parkway (CPAMC 20-6(o)) ❑ Dead or dying landscape, weeds, overgrown vegetation (all zones except R1) (CMMC 13-108[a]) Street numerals displayed in prominent location (CNIMC 20-6(t)) ❑ CBC 105.1 Building permits required Pushcart/sidewalk vendors (CMNIC 9-191(a)) ❑ Garage sale permit (CMMC 13-30(9)) ❑ Other: CMMC § Description of violation(s): /PIr3 Pr nr�wiv� AP�'Rdv�� d C r ,, "0,f -70 You are hereby requested to: may, r'-L � /91"4-AlICiW Z( Failure to correct the above violation(s) 11 rn result in the next progressive step in enforcement, in whioh you may be issued an Administrative Cit eve any questions regarding this notice, please feel free to contact i ,� GOSTAP�lESACA.GOV. The City appreciates your cooperation me at (714) 754-5" a or R�hE !�±" �e A — and staff looks forward to working with you to resolve this matter. X Violator's Signature Code Enforcement Officer -� LD. M — O,— Print First and Last Name Building Division (714) 754-5273 . Code Enfor_yment (114) 754-5623 • Planning Division (714) 754-5245 FAX (714) 754-4356 • TDD (714) 754-5244 • www ccstamesaca.gov %1 PERMIT NUMBER: BX14-00231 STATUS: PC PERMIT TYPE 8_-MISC ' ( DATE ISSUED: APN: 42421103 EI7 BY. Zoning: Suite/Unit: JOB ADDRESS: 657 W 19TH ST CM Primary Occ: Const Type: ?? Vicinity: STAIRS Valuation: $18,000.00 SQ. FT SCOPE OF WORK: OF RUSTED STAIR GUARDRAIL LE GALIZE THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, SECOND STORY GUARDRAIL ASSEMBLIES, AND cD STEFt POSE SUPPORTING STAIRS AND BALCONY. IS PROVIDED fAMP�- NOTE: F ritAL APPROVAL OF PERlNtT SHALL gQS BTIi�ERCtTY INSEC71 TDR SFE ATTACHME 7IN WI NISPECTIC3N GARQ Fc31� VERtFICn O� 13F SMOKE ANa t;ARgON PA0 NDX10E ALRh Address: OWNER: MOREHART, JOHN M AND LISA zipCode:92627 City/State- COSTA MESA, CA Phone: Address: P O. BOX APPLCAT: BARRY WALKER 11658Unit- Zi Code:92658 City/Slate- NEWPORT BEACH, CA P l phone: Licer 0 r CONTRACTOR: —- Unit: � � Address: City/State: Zip Code: Cell Phone License I ARCHITECT: Phone License I ENGINEER-- P honr: FEE SUMMARY $190 61 Building Plan Check: $293.25 Building Permit: $0.00 Electrical Permit: $0.00 SMIP Residential $3 78 SMIP Commercial $1 00 Bldg Std Admin Fund $488.64 _ TOTAL FEES HOURS FOR CONSTRUCTIOSaturda s 9 00FamClhru 6:00 p'nOP ohib�-�ted all hours -Sundays and the following Monday thru Friday - 7:00 am thru 7:00 Pm Y Federal thru F �te`�� Years [)a ,Memorial as , Inde end Da ,Labor Da ,Thanks ivin Da and Christmas -rye_ Holi 2_�_ CDBG HOUSING COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION City of Costa Mesa, Development Services Department COMPLAINT LOCATIIC?N .. :. r Complaint m12 R�:i:�T j iii�i►7�+iq�►73t�1�IGi'/3�►��7A Property Owner: Address: 126 E 16TH ST COMPLAINANT Name Assigned to: 2ff— Case No.: CD- N-0466 Phone Phone: Address: Complaint Received By: ❑ Hotline Date: 0911912014 Time Describe Complaint: SOBER LIvI­NG FACILITY ORE P A TrN(-. C'Qr I= Dzrl MaT201,IT 1. Building Exterior Inspection: Violation Observed Yes ❑ No ❑ If Yes, Detail Action Below 2. Building Interior Inspection: Yes ❑ No ❑ If Yes, Detail Action Below 3. Referred to HCD: Yes ❑ No ❑ If Yes, Date: Numbers 1 and 2 must be completed — no exceptions! Action: Item: 00592 CODE INVESTIGATION 09/19/2014 B : RM Action: CON17 CQrnme tsLOPEN CASE PER JERRY FOR UNLICENSED SOBER LIVNG CONCELNG P W1TH KATY JOKES. SHE PLANNNG DEPT. 09i23/2014 By: rm Action: CO Comments: send con act p annmor dept. - Emailed uynh Ho from solid landings that there has been no reply from the notice that was sent out e' - aplication was set back to Mel Lee 3 weeks ago. l 1/21/2014 By: rm Action: CONT Comments: communuca ion om Kristen tord that the applciation was not complete due to the parking variance. FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 2917•30ONLIN2✓ U23/2015 By: RNLI Action: CONT Comments: MCUP LEE, MEL From: Ryder, Kenneth A. <kryder@gdsrlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:50 PM To: LEE, MEL Subject: Application No. ZA-15-01 (657 W. 19th St.) Dear Mr. Lee --The number of on -site parking spaces for this proposed use is greatly below the required number of spaces for this use at this site. Can you please advise where vehicles will be parking when the on -site spaces are full? If this overflow is to be accommodated by street parking, please advise how you will mitigate this impact (potentially approx. 40 vehicles) on street parking use by existing residents and businesses in this area. I am available by telephone if you would like to discuss. Thank you. Regards, Ken Kenneth A. Ryder I Partner Garrett DeFrenza Stiepel Ryder LLP 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 850, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1808 Tel: 714.384.4300 1 Direct:714.384.4311 1 Fax:714,384.4320 Email: kryder@l;dsrlaw.com I Web: www.sdsrlaw,com GDSR. Sophisticated. Practical. Creative. Efficient. =A 70-M - w C?A7- ,YjP%J,j. i6-NAO OA -a W-qt_W 4e L -%S- A L� ►Q R a .�•��4 1 i ' I "It • b ft. - 6zq M Z qb. A ZRR w -am ji Wk. It A t +A % f * - * ,�- -i, T14- ARMSTRONG,GARY From: Gonzalez, Daniel <Daniel.Gonzalez3@firstdata.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 4:02 PM To: rdickson.cmpc@gmail.com; sandranian@yahoo.com; colinmccarthy@yahoo.com; aventrue@ca.rr.com; twsesler@gmail.com; ARMSTRONG, GARY Subject: ZA-15-01 Hello, Objections to ZA-15-01 Regarding a request for a parking variance for Solid Landings I am a current resident at 647 Plumer St, Costa Mesa CA 92627. My family and I have lived at this residence for the past year and it is unfortunate that our stay here has not been which some issues. I have noticed since Solid Landings (detox sober living business) opened up for business there has been additional traffic in the area. The additional traffic (White Passenger Vans) that come and go throughout the day and evening to Solid Landing has caused a none stop operation on a residential street. These passenger vans on many occasions have used the back alley (between Center & Plumer St) to drive through (used as a short cut) and to cut across and go straight onto the gates of Solid Landing. Other issues that pertain to Solid Landing, are the staff members/visitors who park on Plumer Street throughout the day/evening hours. With the addition of Solid Landing detox facility, parking has become scarce on Plumer St and quite annoying to see faculty/visitors park their vehicles with no regards to the community. It is important that the City of Costa Mesa recognize that we are currently dealing with rampant homelessness in our area in particular on Plumer Street. With the Lighthouse Outreach Ministry on Plumer Street, this has cause homelessness spilling over onto the residential area and drug use in the area is continued affair. I believe Solid Landings is entitled to conduct business however Solid Landing has a social responsibility to be a good neighbor and be transparent with it's business. I recommend that the City of Costa Mesa deny the request for parking variance to Solid Landing and I recommend that they cover up the gates so that both Solid Landing and Residents have privacy as well. Thank you, Daniel Gonzalez Business Consultant Citi Merchant Services provided by First Data M (949) 514-1435 F (402) 916-7185 a ti . First iJata. htt citi.merchantservicesb firstdata,com Receive a $100 Visa® gift card when you refer a friend. Ask me for details. The information in this message may be proprietary and/or confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this ARMSTRONG, GARY I From: Mr. Moreh <talentassociate@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:41 PM To: rdickson.cmpc@gmail.com; sand ranian@yahoo.com; colinkmccarthy@yahoo.com; aventrue@gmail.ca.rr.com; twsesler@gmail.com; ARMSTRONG, GARY Subject: plumer concerned about za-15-01 pls stop catering to the money. you work for US. I AM BRYANT GILMORE 653 plumer st apt a costa mesa 3102793593 we the residents of plumer street do not want gentrification.we dont want commercialization of plumer. 20 years ago we did not even have sweeper signs, no tickets. we actually need speed bumps on this street to SLOW DOWN cars that are avoiding 19th steet. WE DO NOT WANT sober living homes at all.. and especially no treatment centers with many white vans or cars. you work for US. not for the money. do not give parking variance to ANY SOBER LIVING busines , on plumer or ANY STREET.. that way the sober living will go to different city. solid landing does NOT HAVE operating permit-- is nt that ILLEGAL?? pls enforce the law and evict this company solid landings. there is not enough parking but more serious is... the crime is increasing police are too busy to come more often.. but this area still gets more calls than most in CM. the light house church and soup kitchen and SOS and lion's park already provide enough homeless drugged out people in the area... i support their ministry actually... but i live on the homeless highway trifecta quadfecta... WE DONT NEED MORE PEOPLE WALKING TO SOBER LIVING AND OR BEING DRIVEN IN WHITE VANS.. the white vans alone cause too much traffic. we need speed bumps on this street.. we do not want sober treatment center or even the sober living houses. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In re: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 FOR A DEVIATION FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 W.19TH STREET III Kai C:. 1, 1 ! I, YESENIA UMANA, declare as follows: 1. I am the Community Relations and Real Estate Liaison for Solid Landings Behavioral Health ("Solid Landings"), which is located in Costa Mesa, California. I submit this Declaration in connection with the scheduled June 8, 2015 meeting concerning the above -referenced matter. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and can testify truthfully and competently to the following: 2. On April 23, 2015, the Zoning Administrator approved Solid Landings' application for a minor conditional use permit to deviate from parking requirements for the building located at 657 West 191h Street in Costa Mesa, which Solid Landings uses for group counseling services. 3. The approval was subject to various conditions, some of which were given deadlines for completion. I am responsible for overseeing the implementation of the conditions according to the proscribed schedule. Condition #16 —Approval of Existing Gate Locations 4. Condition #16 requires Solid Landings to submit the existing vehicle gate locations to the Transportation Services Division for review and approval no later than May 29, 2015. DECLARATION OFYESENIA UMANA 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. On May 26, 2015, I spoke with Elizabeth Palacio, an Engineering Technician with the City of Costa Mesa, and submitted site plans to her for approval. The site plans showed the existing vehicle gate locations. 6. Between May 26, 2015 and June 3, 2015 I followed up with Ms. Palacio via e- mail and phone on multiple occasions but did not receive a response. I also visited the Transportation Services Division in person to follow up. I also requested updates from Pritam Deshmukh, an Associate Engineer with the City. 7. On June 4, 2015, Ms. Palacio returned the submitted site plans to me with handwritten comments and requests for additional information. 8. I am presently in the process of obtaining the requested information and will submit the supplemented plans to the Transportation Services Division for further review promptly. 9. Condition #17 requires Solid Landings to obtain a Knox system for emergency gate access from the Costa Mesa Fire Department within 30 days from the date of approval for the existing gate on Plumer Street and concurrently with the approval of the gate on West 191' Street. 10. I have obtained the Authorization from the Costa Mesa Fire Department for the purchasing and installation of the required Knox systems. 11. Conditions #14 and #15 require Solid Landings to obtain Planning approval for the construction of a commercial driveway on West 19th Street and to revise the parking DECLARATION OF YESENIA UMANA 2 -(9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 area and access gates pursuant to certain conditions, including the elimination of parking spaces that interfere with the West 191h Street driveway access to the parking area. 12. To date, the five parking spaces along the West 19'h Street driveway access to the parking area have been eliminated, and I am working with Planning towards plans for the construction of a commercial driveway, as required. 13. Per the Conditions for Approval, we have until June 12, 2015 to obtain such approval. 14. I am continuing to diligently work towards fulfilling the various other Conditions for Approval, including a landscape plan for the setback areas along the West 191h Street frontage (Condition #12, to be completed before July 29, 2015), posting of a visible street address (Code Requirement #4), screening of mechanical equipment (Code Requirement #5), and the submission of various other plans to the Planning Commission for final approval. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 5- day of June, 2015 at Costa Mesa, California. By: YESENIA UMA A DECLARATION OF YESENIA UMANA 3 f -'� iv vA G os-� ov -r '70 t-5 OYLI L C.(t>VVx \O L1 S ev\S G AT w`l l - JAB -�-o -"-e- '?rbfi le" A4\zk we.2JVezdo�Xavv-- ` - 6 rn �,1c`v � �I t?Y�i• tu2� Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department JUN 02 2015 �_qQ- �H KATHLEEN A. DONAHUE DEAN DUNN-RANKM SANDRA A. GALLS WILLIAM E. HALLE ANDREW K. HARTZELL LAWRENCE J. HILTON O'NEIL LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19900 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 1050 IRVM, CALIFORNIA 92612 (949) 798-0500 • (949) 798-0511 (FAX) WEBSITE: www.oneil-Ilp.com WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (949) 798-0734 EMAIL: doneil@oneil-llp com May 29, 2015 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Robert Dickson Chairman Costa Mesa Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive PO Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Re: Zoning_ Application ZA-15-01 JOHN D. HUDSON DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F. PALCHIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLIAM L. TWOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department MAY 2 9 203 Dear Chairman Dickson and Members of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission: By letter dated April 23, 2015, notice of approval and the decision of Zoning of Application ZA-15-01 Minor Conditional Use Permit for Parking Reduction for Group Counseling Use (Solid Landings Behavioral Health, dba Rock Solid Recovery) 657 West 19`" Street, Costa Mesa ("MCUP Building") was sent by Willa Bouwens-Killeen, Zoning Administrator to the applicant. The decision of the Zoning Administrator became final at 5:00 p.m. on April 30, 2015. A copy of the Zoning Administrator's decision in Zoning Application ZA-15-01 is attached under TAB A. Application for Anneal or Review On April 30, 2015, Stephan H. Andranian, in his capacity as a Member of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission, filed an Application for Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision in Zoning Application ZA-15-01. No fee was charged to Planning Commissioner Andranian for filing this Application for Review. Planning Commissioner Andranian withdrew his Application for Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision in this case on May 26, 2015. But for his position as a member of the Planning Commission scheduled to conduct a hearing on ZA-15-01, Planning Commissioner Andranian is now no longer a party initiating the review of ZA-15-01, but this situation could, however, create a conflict of interest or pre -hearing bias requiring Planning Commissioner Andranian to recuse himself from the hearing. The conflict would be based on the principles of a need for providing due process and a fair hearing discussed in the recent decision of the California Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of Woody's Group v. City of Newport Beach which held that a council member could not sit as a judge on a case called up from a lower decision -making body. do— #153395 vl 10217.2 Robert Dickson May 29, 2015 Page 2 On April 30, 2015, Ann H. Parker representing herself, Residents and TBON filed an Application for Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision in Zoning Application ZA-15- 01. Ann Parker paid an Application for Review fee of $690.00 ("Parker Request for Review"). The Residents, I assume, are all the residents of Costa Mesa which are obviously a group not certified as a class qualified to join in this Application. I have learned that TBON stands for "Take Back Our Neighborhood" although I do not know if this is a legally formed entity or if Ann Parker is authorized to represent TBON. The Application for Appeal or Review requires an applicant to mark the box for "Appeal" or the box for "Review." The application expressly states on its face the "Review" may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council or City Council Member. Nevertheless, Ann Parker marked the wrong box requesting a "Review" of the Zoning Administrator's decision in case ZA-15-01. The form of the Application for Appeal or Review filed by Ann Parker is attached under TAB B. The Parker Request for Review has been calendared for consideration at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on Monday, June 8, 2015. This law firm has been retained by Solid Landings Behavioral Health, dba Rock Solid Recovery to represent their position and present their arguments for support of upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator in case ZA-15-01 and requesting dismissal of this case. Procedure for Appeal The procedures relating to the method of appeal and review of decisions of the staff, committees, commissions and City Council are set forth in Ordinance No. 13-08 amending Chapter IX of Title 2 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Sections 2-300 through 2-314). Ordinance No. 13-08 was adopted by the Costa Mesa City Council on December 3, 2013 (copy attached under TAB Q. Section 2-311 of Ordinance No. 13-08 states that the procedures set forth in this chapter are the exclusive methods by which appeals and reviews may be pursued and none of the steps set forth herein may be waived or omitted. Ann Parker failed to follow these procedures by marking the wrong box requesting a "Review" which cannot be waived and interpreted to mean she meant to check the "Appeal" box. Section 2-303 of Ordinance No. 13-08 states that any affected person may, within the time limit set forth in Section 2-305, file an application for appeal with the City Clerk. Said application shall contain sufficient information to identify the party, its interest in the matter, and the reasons for requesting an appeal. Section 2-301 of Ordinance No. 13-08 defines "Affected Person" to mean "any person, including the applicant, any city staff member, committee, or commission who has an interest in the matter at issue or whose health, safety, or welfare may be affected by the decision." Section 2-301 defines "Review" to mean reconsideration of the decision of any city employee, committee, or commission requested by the City Council, on its own motion, or upon request of any City Council member, in order to consider the decision and any broad legislative and policy factors involved. This could mean the only body having jurisdiction to review a decision of the Zoning Administrator is the City Council. If this is the # 153395 v l 102172 l o l Robert Dickson May 29, 2015 Page 3 case, the Planning Commission would be preempted from reviewing a decision of the Zoning Administrator in case ZA-15-01 according to Section 2-301. The Parker Request for Review fails to provide any justification or sufficient information to identify herself, the Residents or TBON as having such an interest in the matter at issue to be qualified as an "affected person" or "affected persons" or having any interest affecting their health, safety or welfare. The reasons set forth in the Parker Request for Review states that the conditions imposed by the Zoning Administrator's decision have been ignored. This allegation is just not true, has no merit and would not give rise to Ann Parker being an "Affected Person." In any event the conditions are in the process of being implemented during the period time as authorized by the MCUP. Regardless, Ann Parker, the Residents and TBON lack standing to request review which can only be made by the Planning Commission, a Planning Commission member, the City Council or a City Council Member. A search of the City's records disclose that Ann Parker on a number of occasions has appeared before the Costa Mesa Planning Commission and City Council to voice her objection to the City's ordinances and regulations allowing group homes to exist in the City. Ann Parker has expressed strong feelings against providing these services for recovering addicts in Costa Mesa. The City, however, as a public entity must conduct itself in compliance with federal and state law. The City is bound by the provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act and other state and federal constitutional guarantees to prevent discrimination against persons disabled by addiction. Nevertheless, Ann Parker has shown in her prior testimony before the Planning Commission and City Council her ill -will against these facilities and this ill - will is likely to be the true motivation behind the Parker Request for Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision in case ZA-15-01. Ann Parker is not an "Affected Person" in this case but is attempting to use this process to promote her established position in opposition to group homes in Costa Mesa. This is not relevant to case ZA-15-01 and constitutes an abuse of process. Zoning Administrator's Decision The Zoning Administrator's decision contains a comprehensive report in granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit ("MCUP") to allow a parking reduction for the group counseling use conducted by my client in the MCUP Building, a two-story, 6,710 square foot commercial building located at 657 West 19`h Street. The Zoning Administrator considered in detail: the land uses surrounding the MCUP Building; a description of the MCUP Building uses; the justifications for approving the MCUP; and the consistency with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and permitted uses in the C-1 zoning district. The Zoning Administrator not only had the evidence to consider submitted by my client but had input and could rely on the professional recommendations from the City Transportation Services, Economic and Development Services, and the Fire and Police Departments to assist in reaching this decision granting the MCUP. The Zoning Administrator in support of her decision adopted findings stating: (i) the proposed use of the MCUP Building is compatible with other developments in the same general area and that an adequate number of on -site parking spaces can be provided for the use; (ii) granting the MCUP will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or neighborhood; (iii) granting the MCUP is consistent with the goals and -142- # 153395 v l 10217.2 Robert Dickson May 29, 2015 Page 4 objectives of the General Plan; and (iv) the existing neighborhoods will be protected from incompatible land uses and by reducing or eliminating intrusion of commuters through traffic on local streets. Most importantly, the Zoning Administrator attached 27 conditions of approval to the MCUP for ZA-15-01. The most significant conditions are: (i) limitation on the hours of operation of the MCUP Building; (ii) no employees, clients or visitors shall be allowed to park on City streets; (iii) the Planning Commission retains the power to modify or revoke the MCUP for noncompliance with the conditions of approval; (iv) if parking -related problems arise, the applicant shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to eliminate the problem; and (v) provide that the main access to the parking for the MCUP Building be taken off of 19`h Street and Plumer Street access shall only be used for vehicle egress. My client has agreed to abide by all conditions imposed by the Zoning Administrator and is in the process of implementing those conditions requiring any follow-up action. The outpatient counseling services conducted at the MCUP Building are provided for disabled men recovering from alcoholism and substance abuse. This is a permitted use in the City's General Plan and the MCUP Building zoning district. The American's with Disabilities Act prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against individuals with disabilities in virtually all governance activities and decision -making, including planning and land use. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence presented to the Zoning Administrator clearly establishes the basis for issuance of Zoning Application ZA-15-01. Further, the findings and conditions of approval address the adequacy of onsite parking for the MCUP Building and serve to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the City and its residents and businesses. Any attempt to overrule the decision of the Zoning Administrator in Zoning Application ZA-15-01 would be without justification and considered arbitrary and capricious. Overruling the decision of the Zoning Administrator would further cause significant harm to members of a protected class under state and federal anti -discrimination laws. On behalf of Solid Landings Behavioral Health, dba Rock Solid Recovery, for the reasons set forth in this letter, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to summarily dismiss the Parker Request for Review of Zoning Application ZA-15-01 and declare it to be void and of no force and effect. Very truly yours, Dennis D. O'Neil DDO/clt copy: Colin McCarthy (colinkmccarthy a yahoo.com) Tim Sesler (twseslerggmail.com) Jeff Mathews (aventrue ,ca.rr.com) Stephan Andranian (sandraniannyahoo.com) Claire L. Flynn (claire.flynn a,costamesaca.gov) Mel Lee (mel.leeCivcostamesa.gov) Yolanda M. Summerhill (�(ctiones -mayer.com) Kristen Ford (kristen.ford a,solidlandin landings. com) 9 153395 v 1 10217 2 A s' CITY OF COSTA MESA P.C. BOX 1200 • T7 FAIR DRIVE CAWFDRNIA, 62629-1200 DEVELOPMENT SMC58 DEPAmmENT April 23, 2015 Solid Landings Behavioral Health Attn: Kristen 13. Ford, Esq. 2900 Bristol Street, Suite E3-3oo Costa Mesa, CA 02626 RE: ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PARKING REDUCTION FOR GROUP COUNSELING USE (SOUD LANDINGS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, DEA ROCK SOLID RECOVERY) 0l 7 4 /EST 191" STREFj._CQZT_A MESA Dear Ms. Ford: City staffs review of your zoning application for the above -referenced project has been completed. The application, as described in the attached project description, has been W_9L0_v_eJ.. based on the findings attached and subject to the conditions listed. The decision will become final at 5:00 p.m, on A ril 201 , unless appealed by an affected party, including filing of the necessary application and payment of the appropriate fee, or called up for review by a member of the planning Commission or City Council. If you have any questions regarding this letter, pl®ase feel free to contact the project planner, Mel Lee, at (714) 754-5611, or at Mel.leepcostam� sacs. v, Sincerely, WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP Zoning Administrator Attachments: Project Description Findings Applicant's Project Description and Plans 0c: Engineering Fire. Protection Analyst Building Safety Division Transportation Services Division eldldnq D"alon (7141 T54.5213 • Code Erlfw�artnr4 (714) 754,6W • Plennbw DF.1gon (714) TU.5245 FAX (114) T54-4&M • TOD ( 1,17S4-6244 • Nxw.wMw wwg g0v _hJos- ZA 16-01 Apra! 23, 2015 Page 2 of 13 Rack Solid Recovery 657 West 1 g'" Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Jahn Morehsrt 126 East IV Street Caste Mesa, CA 62627 ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 3 of 13 <3AMBOUND Project 5itexhVirors The project site Is located on the south side of West 191' Street, mid -block between Pomona Avenue and Anaheim Avenue. The site is .36 acres (15,681 square feet) in size. The property is zoned Gi (Local Business District) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial. The site contains a two-story, 6,710 square foot commercial building odginaily constructed in 1961, a surface parking let, and site fencing. The site is bounded by commercial uses to the West and north (across West 191' Street), a commercial use (restaurant) and a residential use to the east, and residential uses (across Plumer Street) to the south. The site currently provides 29 on -site parking spaces, which are accessed via a gated driveway an Piumer Street, There Is also an existing driveway approach on the West 190 Street frontage of the property, but it is not used because the paved driveway leading from the approach has been removed and is gated and blocked by 5 parallel van parking spaces provided adjacent to the building. Prior land use actions on the property Include a conditional use permit for a fraternal lodge on the second floor, approved in 1965 approved under Conditional Use Permit C- 49-65, and a proposed conditional use permit for a manufacturing use under PA-87.07, which was denied by the Planning Commisslon on January 20, 1987, The building is currently occupied by Solid Landings, DBA Rock Solid Recovery, which Provides outpatient treatment programs and other services, including group counseling, for men with drug and alcohol addiction. The use is currently operating without an approved business license or minor conditional use permit to allow a reduction In the required o"Re parking spaces required to support the group counseling use, which Is described in the next section. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant utilizes the building for the following services: State certified outpatient treatment programs for Rock Solid Recovery clients (men) residing In sober living group homes or state certified outpatient residential programs. The programs for women are a separate operation not conducted from this site. Individual and group counseling sessions, as well as educational sessions. Administrative offices, According to the applicant's description of the use, a copy of which is attached to this fetter, the various programs and services offered at the site run from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm, Monday through Friday, Weekend operation is limited to one-on-one therapy appointments on an as -needed basis between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, The maximum number of staff on site at any one time during the weekday is 17 and the maximum Iarl — ZA-15-01 April 23.2016 Page 4 of 13 number of clients on the site at any one time during the weekday is 30. The clients come to the site by vans at various times of the day. The applicant claims that at no time will the required on -site parking for the use exceed 20 spaces; 3 spaces for the vans and 17 spaces for the staff that drive their cars to the site. Minor Conditional Use Permit for Reduction In Required On -Site Parking for Group Counseling Use The City's Zoning Code does not specify a parking requirement for group counseling uses. Zoning Code Section 13.90 (Parking For Uses Not Specified) allows the number of required parking spaces for uses not specified in the Zoning Code to be determined by the Zoning Administrator based upon the parking required for similar types of uses. Zoning Administrator Determination No. 08-5, dated May 19, 2008, determined that the parking requirement for group counseling uses was to be classified the same as for trade and vocational schools, which is 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. In the case of the subject property, this equates to a requirement of 67 on - site parking spaces based on the existing 6,710 square foot building area. The 10 spaces per 1,000 square foot parking requirement for group counseling uses is needed for the entire building because the other uses (i.e., administrative offices and therapy rooms) support the primary group counseling use. Because the subject property currently provides 29 on -site parking spaces, a shortfall of 38 spaces required for the use, the applicant is requesting approval of a minor conditional use permit to allow for the reduction in the required parking amount based on their specific operation as discussed in the prior section of this letter and per Zoning Code Section 13-89.5 (Reduction In Parking Requirements), ANALYSIS Jusdfleations lbrApproval Staff has reviewed the applicant's request and supports the request based on the following: Based Qn LhQ agg.,c r is description of the use an ede uate n miner of n- i narking spaces is provided As noted earlier, applicant states that currently 29 on - site parking spaces are provided of the 67 spaces required for the use, a shortfall of 38 spaces. However. based on the information provided by the applicant, an adequate number of on -site parking spaces can be provided for the use. The building square footages and summary of on -site activities are provided in the tables below. ZA-16-01 April 23, 2015 Page 5 of 13 PROPOSED USE OF ROOMS AND SQUARE FEET (SF) Thara PY Offices 8 1434 SF Meetin Rooms 4 1 218 SF Client Loung1pining Area 624 SF Reception/Sign In 99 SF SECONDFLOOR Cyfltces 4 683 SF Conference Room/Kitdan/Store Room 6132 5F Meetigg Roomy 1 1,218 SF Computer LablLibre 1) 682 SF SUMMARYOF • e 6:00 AM first Rode Solid employee arrives In a company vehicle and parka ated lot. i:30-9:30 AM Flnft dditional Flock Solid employees andfor therapists arrive in personal om n vehicles. 8:4":15 AM nts from 4 different sober living homes arrive via 3 12-seat passenger vane, The vans drop clients off within the gated parking lot and do not remain onsite. The total number of clients that arrive via the 3 passenger vans range from 21-30, The vans arrive at 15 minute _ intervals so as not to overlap. 9.15 AM-3:O0 PM Clients rotate through one-on-one therapy, group counseling, computer IabAibra time, lunch and free time. 3:00-3-3 5 PM Three passenger vans arrive to transport clients to the gym. Clients not wishing to go to the gym are transported home. Clients do not return until the following day. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to dap,_ 3:00.5:00 PM Staff remains unfit 5:00 PM 5:00.8:00 PM A cleaning crew of 3.6 peopfe arrive in 1 or 2 cars and stayl for 1 hour. 6:00 PM-6:30 PM Evening staff arrives to nun group sessions attended by Roar Solid Clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles. Clients arrive via 3 vans at 15-minute Intervals, The approximate number of clients is 30. The total vehicles on site is 13. 6:30-6:30 PM Group sessions held duri this time riod. 8:30-9:00 PM Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to their homes at 15-minute intervals. The employees leave at 9:00 PM once the last passenger van leaves the site. 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Therapist may schedule an appointment with a client on an as needed basis. If an appointment occurs the number of vehicles Is 2 —one for the therapist and one for the client who is transported to the premises via a Rock Solid vehicle. Source° Applicant Letter Ili December 11, 2014 ZA 15-01 April 23, 2015 Page g of 13 The opoLlional measures pL-paased by Me applicant to mittga(v the Parkin,cl Action _ 1s sufficient 10 mite 2_ ,IQLir . r is ar in n7pgct1; Staff acknowledges that the measures described In the applicant's letter may address parking shortages. However, staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that if perking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall Institute appropriate operational measures necessary to eliminate the problem. Additionally, based on the large parking shortfall, staff Is recommending a number of conditions to ensure that the use is conducted entirely on the property so as to avoid parking shortfalls in the surrounding neighborhood as a result of the applicant's use. • Elie n fi urallon of the p arkin area limits vohicla in ress and e ress to (lrca site (roan Mm@r Sor t _cre_at_incZacldifional corrmercial_(raffic can a local straor ad Lacnt to a residanffai rxelgiab rha d rsfra hi i! r a es. 6TM W Street wFll be ruinsd (Q,b e gr2gW_Unlike the other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provides vehicular access from West 191h Street as well as Plumer Street, the subject property's sole vehicular Ingress and egress is from Plumer Street. The current gate design lacks an adequate throat for vehicles accessing the parking lot, no kiosk for drivers to access the key pad, and no turnaround area for vehicles that do not gam access into the facility. As a result approaching vehicles are routinely blocking the public sidewalk and extending Into through -lanes of traffic while the drivers exits the vehicle to access the key pad placed at the sidewalk adjacent to the gate. The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined that to reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to access the site, the driveway on West 190 Street should be restored, the gate and van parking spaces blocking the access from West 191" Street should be removed, and West 19t' Street used as the main access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been Incorporated as a condition of approval. The reopening of the 19th Street gate will result in the loss of 5 additional parking spaces, putting the applicant at a scant 24 available spaces, with a 43-space shortfall. The applicant has stated it will only need 20 spaces, 17 for employees and 3 for client vans. Future development of all land within the City of Costa Mesa Is guided by the General Plan adopted in 2002. The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies, and objectives that guide new development and uses. Based on the issues discussed in the previous sections, the request, as conditioned, is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan. 1 ((3._ ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 7 of 13 Objective t-U-1FA: Protect existing stabilized residential neighbodwds from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses andlor activities. Objective CIR-11A.14: Reduce or eliminate Intrusion of commuter through traffic on local streets In residential nelghborhaods. " • Y _ 1fA 4t_ -_, In 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 under Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. NCI, DINGS A. The Information presented complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(2) in that: Finding: The proposed use is compatible with developments in the same general area end would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Findings: ,eased on the i l'on o aso e de uate number of on -sire aed-dng spaces Is Grovided. As noted earlier, 67 parking spaces is required for the use, 24 on -site panting spaces, is provided, a shortfall of 43 spaces required for the use. However, based on the information provided by the applicant, an adequate number of on -site parking spaces can be provided for the use, Finding: 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. Facts In Support of Findings: The current co_nArgVrativn of the parking area !r"rrrirs vehicle ingress and egress to tl jig frpm P1ramer Street, crsatincr additional commercial traffic on a local street agLgcent to a residential netphborhood. therefore, vehkular 99CM from W 992 Street wRI be reauired to be provided. Unlike the other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provides vehicular access from West 1991 Street as well as Plumer Street, the subject property's sale vehicular ingress and egress is from Plumer Street, The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined that to reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to access the site, the driveway on West 1V Street should be restored, the ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 8 of 13 gate and five van parking spaces blocking the access from West 191h Street should be removed, and West 191" Street used as the main access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. Finding: Granting the minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density, or Intensity which is not in accordance with the General plan designation. Facts in Support of Findings: The request Is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan: • Objective LU-1 F.1; Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. Consistency. The measures described in the applicant's letter may address parking shortages. However, staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. Therefore, the request is consistent with this General Plan goal, Objective CIR-1A.14: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of commuter through traffic on local streets in residential neighborhoods. Consistency. Unlike the other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provides vehicular access from West 19th Street as well as Plumer Street, the subject property's sole vehicular Ingress and egress Is from Plumer Street. The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined that to reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to access the site, the driveway on West 19th Street should be restored, the gate and van parking spares blocking the access from West 19th Street should be removed, and West 19th Street used as the main access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. Therefore, the use Is consistent with this General Plan goal. B. 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 under Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines -112- ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 9of13 G. The project is exempt from Chapter X11, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of tho Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Ping. 1. The conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of ZA-15-01 .shag be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package (if plan check is required). 2. The onske activities shall be as follows: SUMMARYOF • : • 6:00 AM The first Rock Solid employee arrives In a company vehicle and parks In the gated lot. 7:30.9:30 AM 16 additional Rock Solid employees and/or therapists arrive in personal or company vehicles. 8:45-9:15 AM Clients from 4 different sober living homes arrive vLa 3 12-seat passenger vans. The vans drop clients off within the gated parking lot and do not remain onsite. The total number of clients that arrive via the 3 passenger vans range from 21.30. The vans arrive at 15 minute Intervals so as not to overlap. 9:15 AM-3:00 PM Clients rotate through on"n-one therapy, gawp counseling, computer lab/library time, lunch, and free time. 3:00.3:30 PM Three passenger vans arrive to transport clients to the g'fm. Clients not wishing to go to the gym are transported home. Clients do not return until the following day. The vans arrive at 15 minute Intervals so as not to overlap. 3:00.5:00 PM Staff remains until 5:00 IAA 5:00-6:00 PM A cleaning crew of 3.6 people arrive in i or 2 cars and stays for 1 hour. 6:00 P":30 PM Evening staff arrives to run group sessions attended by Rock Solid Clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles, Clients arrive via 3 vans at 15-minute intervals. The approArnate number of clients Is 30, The total vehicles on site is 13. 6:30-8:30 PM Group sessions held during this time period. 8:30-9:00 PM Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to Uvir homes at 15-minute intervals. The employees leave at 9:00 PM once the last passenger van leaves the site. SUMMARY --113- ZA-1841 April 23, 2015 Page 10 of 13 8.00 AM-5:00 PM Therapist may schedule an appointment with a client on an as needed basis, if an appointment occurs the number of vehicles Is 2 —one for the therapist and one for the client who Is transported to the premises via a Rock Solid vehicle. 3. No employees, clients or visitors to the property shall park on City streets. All parking for the use shall takes place on the property in designated parking spaces. 4. Atl clients shall be dropped off and picked up in the parking area. No pick-up or drop-off will occur in the driveways or public right-of-ways. 5. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described herein. Any change In the operational characteristics shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the conditional use permit, subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that the Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval (Title 13, Section 13-29(o)). 6. The zoning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked, The Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO or his designee may refer the zoning application to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if, In his opinion, any of the following circumstances exit 1) the use is being operated in violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use Is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 7. If any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this approval is 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. 8. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. 9. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or operator shall Institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 10. A copy of the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit must be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request New ZA-16-01 April 23. 2015 Pap 11of13 business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. 11. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site. This inspection Is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 12. No later than 90 days from the date of approval, the landscape setback areas along the W. 190 Street frontage shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall contain 244nch box trees to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 13. Applicant 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 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 coats, 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 applicants obligation to Indemnify the City for all the City's casts, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. City shall have the right to select the attorney defending it, 9 it elects to do so. 14. Applicant shall obtain Planning approval for the construction of the commercial driveway on W. Sth Street, pursuant to condition 15. below. Trans. 15, No later than 45 days from the date of approval, revise the parking area and access gates as follows: a) Construct commercial driveway at the existing approach on W. 19th Street leading to the parking area at the rear of the site, which shall be used for vehicle ingress, unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. b) Eliminate any parking spaces which interfere with the driveway access to the parking area at the rear of the site to comply with the standard drive aisle dimensions per the City's Parking Design Standards. c) Onsite vehicular circulation shall comply with the CiVs Parking Design Standards. d) Existing Plumer Street access shall only be used as vehlcJe egress, -- 115- ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 12 of 13 unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. 1B. No later than 30 days from the date of approval, existing vehicle gate locations shall be submitted to the Transportation Services Division for review and approval. If the existing gate locations cannot be approved, the applicant shall relocate and/or remove the vehicle gates as necessary. Fire 17. All vehicular access gates shall comply with the requirements of Sections SDU and 506.2 of the 2013 Caufomia Fire Code (or any successor provisions), so as to provide access to emergency crews. A Knox system for gate access must be obtained through the Costa Mesa Fire Department within 30 days from the date of approval for the existing gate on Plumer Street, and concurrently with the approval of the gate on W.19th Street. COME REQUI,RgMEM The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicants reference. Any reference to `City° pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping, 1. This use, as well as all contractors and subcontractors doing construction -related activity on the site, shall 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. Approval of the zoning application is valid for one (1) year from the effective date of this approval and will expire at the and of that period unless applicant establishes the use by one of the following actions: 1) obtains building permit(s) for the authorized construction and initiates construction; and/or 2) obtains a business license and/or legally establishes the business. If the applicant Is unable to establish the use/obtain building permits within the one-year time period, the applicant may request an extension of time. The Planning Division must receive a written request for the time extenslon prior to the expiration of the zoning application. 3. The project is subject to compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws. A copy of the applicable Costa Mesa Municipal Code requirements has been forwarded to the Applicant and, where applicable, the Authorized Agent, for reference. 4. Street address shall be visible from the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or on another prominent location. Numerals shall be a minimum twelve (12) inches in height with not less than three -fourth - inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Identification 1 H'6_ 2A-15-C1 April 23, 2015 Page 13 of 13 of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with not leas than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 5. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 6. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa. MunWpal 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. 7. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final Inspetttion or occupancy clearance. 8. 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. 9. Comply with the requirements of the following adopted codes: 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, and 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. 10, Requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings and elements by Individuals with disabilities shall comply with chapter 11 B of the 2013 California Building Code. 119- SoltdLand�ngs Page I of Behavioral Health Recourry... IndiAdualized. December 11, 2014 VIA HAND DELIVERY TO: CITY 4P COSTA MESA City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628-1200 Re: Amended Application for Minor Conditional Use Permit for Parking Deviation for 657 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa, California -- Project Description & Justification City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department: A. introduction Sure Haven, Inc. d/b/a Rock Solid Recovery (hereinafter °Rock Solid") submits the following detailed project description and Justification for a parking deviation for the 657 West 19+h Street property as a location for a state certified outpatient treatment program attended by Rack Solid clients residing In a sober living home or state certified outpatient residential program. This parking deviation request Includes this justification followed by a list of (proposed) conditions on the minor conditional use permit (MCUP.) Use Is permitted: 657 West 19t" Street Is located In a C1 local business district. A C1 business district Includes, but is not limited to, facilitles such as city halls, courthouses, police/fire stations, schools, art studios, antique malls, banks, beauty shops, hardware stores, department stores, grocery stores, movie theaters, automobile sale and repair, administrative offices, medical and dental offices, and dance studios. Therefore, use of the premises as a outpatient treatment facility, which Is most similar to a medical office (as explained ante), administrative offices, and medical (therapy) offices is permitted under the CIVs Code. No use authorization for the use is required. Parking deviation: The 19t" street property is 6710 square feet. The entrance Is on Plumer Street and Includes 29 on site parking spaces that are accessed via a confidential gate code known to Rock Solid employees. Members of the general public cannot freely enter and parlc. Rock Solid seeks a parking deviation that permits this facility to function with the allocated 29 gated spaces instead of the 54 required per the Code. This request is based upon Rock Solid's detailed use of the facility as described herein. Solid Landings Behavioral Health RValid IWX) [Will St. SUIIP 8-300 1 Costa MM. CA 916A sure oe 9�9-467-921] i•M�tir AAA-SAS-a79a F1.Notece have` 3 Sol IdLan d s-n gs Page 2 of 7 Behavioral Health Rrco1 ery.. , Individualized. B. Retailed Project Description Solid Landings Behavioral Health, Inc. Is the parent company of Rock Solid Recovery, It provides effective residential and outpatient treatment services for those suffering from the disease of drug and alcohol addiction. We have operated our homes and treatment facilities within the City of Costa Mesa since approximately 2010. In doing so, we have contributed to the fiscal health of the City in many ways, including but not limited to, employing individuals In various capacities, including staff in our corporate offices, the warehouse, landscaping and maintenance, alumni services, family programming, therapy, and community outreach. We are good neighbors In the community. We operate and maintain our properties In a manner that Is compatible with each neighborhood, we upgrade our homes to increase their value, and respect the surrounding communities. Solid Landings Behavioral Health operates gender specific programs. Rock Solid Is the program for men and Sure Haven Is the program for women. This MCUP only concerns the Rock Solid program which proposes to locate its administrative offices, state certified outpatient treatment program, and Individual counseling services at 657 West 19th Street: Rock Solid's outpatient treatment program is under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Heath Care Services which certifies nonresidential alcohol and drug treatment programs through a procedural framework that requires a detailed provider application followed by a thorough review process to confirm regulatory compliance., In order to obtain this certification, Rock Solid provided the State with a plan of operations detailing a continuous quality management program, its structured recovery program for clients, and a description of education and vocational classes with professional staffing, Following certification, the State provides ongoing oversight and evaluation through quality assurance standards for continuing regulatory compliance. C. Detailed Program Description Clients of the Rock Solid program Include: • Adults who voluntarily agree to attend group sessions, Individual counseling, and educational sessions to address their substance abuse problems; • Adults that are currently living In a sober living home or state licensed residential program; Private paying individuals either through Insurance or out-of-pocket; and Voluntary admits, not referred from the criminal justice system. Ctllfornla Realth & Safety Code 4411330, rl" ; California Code of Reguiatious, roic 9. sceiim loiot, y srq. Solid Undings Behavioral Hralth Rock Solid 2900 Otistol St. Suite B-30 � Voila %im. CA 9262G Sure Recovery 9d9.467,920 n.�t . 8513-588_4"8 rm haven SoltdLand�ings Page 3of7 Behavioral Health I.eioverv, Individuuliud. The following Is a detailed outline of the activities related to 65719a, Street (hereinafter "191h Street'), This program runs Monday through Friday followed by limited weekend use. The weekday schedule Is as follows: • 6:00 a.m. The first Rock Solid employee arrives at 190, Street in a company vehicle and parks In the gated lot. • 7:30-9:30 a.m. 16 additional Rock Solid employees and/or therapists arrive in personal or company vehicles. These staff members include 0 therapists to hold 1:1 counseling sessions, 4 therapists who run group sessions; S additional staff members who perform administrative tasks and manage the computer lab/library. The maximum number of vehicles on -site throughout the remainder of the day, not including transportation vans (discussed ante), is 17 - one for each employee. • 0:45 - 9:15 a.m. Clients from four different sober living homes arrive at 19�b Street via three 12-seat passenger vans. The vans drop clients off within the gated parking lot and do not remain on - site. The total number of clients that arrive via the three passenger vans will range from approximately 21-30, The vans will arrive at 8:45, 9:00 and 9:15 so as not to overlap. • 9:15 - 3:00 p.m. Clients will generally rotate through 1:1 therapy, group counseling, computer lab/library time, lunch, and self reflection/liomework, and free time, • 3:00 - 3:30 p.m. Three passenger vans arrive in the gated parking area and transport clients to the gym. Clients not wishing to go to the gym are transported home, Clients do not return to the campus until the following weekday, The vans will stagger their pickups at 3:00, 3:15 and 3:30. • 3:00 - 5:00 p.m, Staff may remain on campus until 5:00 when they leave for the day. • 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. A cleaning crew of 3 to 6 individuals arrives in one or two cars, park in the gated lot and stays for approximately 60 minutes, • 6:00 p.m, Evening staff arrives to run group sessions attended by Rock Solid clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles. The clients arrive via three passenger vans with staggered arrivals at 6:00, 6:15 and 6:30 p.m. The approximate number of clients onsite will be 30. The total vehicles, including vans, is 13. Sinlid Landings Behavioral Health -Q Rock Solid 2WO Mial 51. Suite 8-3W • Costa Alesa, CA 91616 Sure Recovery 449.467A21ihaven —12d SoRdLandings Page 4of7 Behavioral Health Rfrovery— /n. vVuahzcd- b:30 - 8:30 p.m. Group sessions are held during this time period. 8:30 -- 9.00 p.m. Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to their respective homes at 8:30, 8,45 and 9:00 p.m. The employees leave at 9:00 p.m. once the final client departs via passenger van. During the weekend, a therapist may schedule an appointment with a client at 191, Street. These appointments are rare; however, they occur between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. when the need arises. If an appointment occurs, then the maximum number of vehicles would be two, one for the therapist and one for the client who is transported to the premises In a Rock Solid vehicle. D. Parking Justification Rock Solid Intends to use the 191h street building as part of its outpatient treatment program. Specifically, the building has three uses: administrative, medical (therapist) office space and group counseling. As mentioned above, these are all approved uses within the C1 zone. The only issue relates to suf>'icient parking. Rock Solid requests a parking variance from 48 to 29 parking spaces. This request is nearly identical to the variance requested and granted for the Group Counseling Center at 1901 Newport Boulevard, Suite 149, Costa Mesa (ZA-09.34). (This document is attached hereto as Exhibit 'A.') The parking lot attached to 1911, Street contains 29 gated parking spaces. The maximum number of vehicles onslte at any given time of the day is 17, plus at most, 3 passenger vans. The total number of spaces necessary for Rock Solid's use is 20, which leaves nearly a third of the lot empty. (See parking map attached as Exhibit "B.") The required parking for 19th Street far exceeds the demand of the actual use, permitting the City to reduce the requirement. (Costa Mesa Municipal Code § 13.89.5.) The City generally requires group counseling to have 10 parking spaces for every 1000 square feet of floor space (10:1), however, due to Rock Solid's actual use as described above, this Is an excessive parking requirement and an improper classification for Its use. Other establishments that require 10:1 parking are open to the general public and Include large restaurants, gyms, trade schools, business colleges, dancing and music academies, and skating rinks. (Costa Mesa Zoning Code, Chapter IV Off Street Parking.) These are extremely different from Rock Solid's use, which is private In nature and both the parking and building entrance are only accessed via a locked gate on a side street. The other 10:1 establishments are not only public, but they encourage large members of the public to attend, they require parking of vehicles owned by unknown members of the public, and the owners of the establishment have very limited control over who parks in the lots. Rock Solid has absolute control of all vehicles that enter and park in the lot, Only employees have the gate access code and Rock Solid has complete control over the number Solid Landings Behavioral lieallh f Rock Solid 2900 Bristol St. Suite B-700 • Cosh bless. CA 9262G Sure Recovery 9d9-447-9211 n�rvi • FlBe-SFlFl d97Fl rtx haven 121 SolodLand4ngs Behavioral Health Rrra vry...Indi ,Nu4hzrd. Page s of 7 of employees present at 191h Street at any given moment Further, only part of the first floor will be used as a group counseling center. The remainder of the building will be split between administrative and therapist offices. The below chart describes the breakdown of our uses; Use Squarc Feet Parking Required Group Counseling____3840 39 Medical Office 143h 9 Administrative 1435 6 TOTAL 6710 54 Due to Rock Solid's use, the total number of parking spaces per the code is 54. However, should the City consider the entire building group counseling (which it is not) then, the total parking would be 67 spaces. Either way, the parking requirement under the Code does not coincide with Rock Solid's actual use and therefore this MCUP is respectfully requested. F. American's with Disabilities Act The American's with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title 11, prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against Individuals with disabilities In virtually all governance activities and decision -making, including planning and land use. (ADA Title Il: State and Local Government Activities; 28 C.F.R. §§35.130, et seq.) Public entities must make reasonable modifications in rules, policies and practices that are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of a disability "unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program or activity.' (213 C.F.R. §§35.130(b)(7),the ADA term "reasonable modification' has the same meaning as "reasonable accommodation" under the federal and state fair housing laws; Costa Mesa Municipal Code §13.200.60, erseq,, reasonable accommodations.) The ADA's reasonable modification mandate provides an additional basis for Rock Solid's request for a parking deviation. The City of Costa Mesa's classification of Group counseling as a trade or vocation school leads to the very high parking requirement of 10:1. The requirement Is based on the questionable assertion that the demand for parking at group counseling sessions is the same as that of vocational or trade schools. The more appropriate classification of an outpatient treatment program, such as Rock Solid's, Is as a medical office space. This suggested approach is in line with the State's efforts to create parity between physical and mental health treatment access. Classification of Rock Solid's treatment program as one which requires 10.1 parking places an enormous barrier to treating disabled individuals suffering from drug and alcohol addiction. Rock Solid Recovery Solid Landings 9chaviml Health 2900 Orist(A St. Suite 8-300 • Coita Mesa, CA 92626 949-46M211 Fl,rm • 883-588-49"]® NAx i 1611,l .i ni,''. ''ri sure haven Sol tdLan d iiin gs Page 6of7 Behavioral Health Reeoveq , I►I&Nduaiizeti. E Decisions must not be Arbitrary or Capricious Decisions of a zoning board are ultimately appealable to the court; When a court reviews decisions of a zoning board and/or Its officers, the court may inquire Into the conduct of the board or officers which relates to the decision making process in order to determine whether the decision was arbitrary or capricious. (Ruppert v. Washington (1973) 366 F. Supp 686J These decisions are reviewable, not only for the purpose of determining whether there has been an erroneous Interpretation of the law, but also to determine whether they impair personal or property rights by reason of an arbitrary or unlawful exercise of discretion. (Ruppert v. Washington (1973) 366 F. Supp 686.) Sober Living By the Sea previously requested a similar parking variance for 1901 Newport Boulevard In Costa Mesa, CA wherein the City agreed that a total of 6 parking spaces were required for a 3800 square foot group counseling center because all clients arrived by passenger vans and only 4 employees would be present at the sessions. (ZA-09- 34 attached as "A.") Rock Solid requests that the City come to the some, reasonable conclusion. and grant the requested parking deviation. A decision otherwise would essentially prohibit the use of the property by the disabled and be arbitrary. G. Proposed Conditions on the MCUP Rock Solid has prepared and agrees to abide by the following list of proposed conditions that could be placed upon the Minor Conditional Use Permit requested herein. Conditions of Approzal 1.Operation of the business shall be limited as described in the project description and the applicant's December 8, 2014 submittal. Any expansion or modification of the use or hours of operation may require approval of an amendment to the minor conditional use permit 2. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the applicant shall Institute whatever operational measures are necessary to eliminate the problem in a timely fashion. 3. Hours of operation shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Weekend operation is limited to one-on-one therapy appointments that, if necessary, would occur between 8:00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. Rock Solid Recovery Solid Landings Behavioral Hralth 2900 HrlstM it. Suite B-JOo costa Mcsi, CA 926a6 9.19•467.9211 Now 0 888-568-4948 rax --123-- 1� sure haven Soltdt,aind�ngs Page7of7 BchavIoraI health Recor cry... l►Idividwl iecd. 4. A copy of the conditions of approval for the minor conditional use permit shall be kept on the premises and presented to any authorized City Official upon request, New business/property owners shall be notified of the conditions of approval upon transfer of the business or ownership of land, H. Conclusion Rock Solid respectfully requests the City grant its request for a minor conditional use permit to allow a reduction In the parking requirement for the outpatient treatment center, therapy offices and administrative offices located at 19th Street. This reduction will not be detrimental to the health. safety or general welfare of the public or other properties or Improvements within the immediately vicinity, Specifically, the required parking exceeds the actual anticipated demand for the use since the attendees are transported to and from the site via passenger vans. Granting the minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity, which is not In accordance with the general plan. Therefore, the parking deviation should be granted as requested. Slncerely, Kristen B. Ford Vice President and Corporate Counsel Rock Solid Recovery, Inc Rock Solid Recgygy Solid Landings Behavioral Health 2'M Bristol 5L Suite B-)00 1, Cusla 61m, CA 92626 949-467-911 l na4f, • 808-SM-4998 FA% Y. n , W.F'1 ; -n• 1) sure haven — 124.— Exhibit A � 125- . i ti CITY OF COSTA MESA P.A. BOX INN - 77 PAIR DAWK • CALIFORNIA 020204200 N ` DEVELCP16*147 sd: wcEs OSPAMMEM7 November 5, 2009 Brian Burke 2611 Villa Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: ZONING APPLICATION ZA-09.34 REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR GROUP COUNSELING CENTER 1901 NEWPORT BOULEyARDX fit[" 149,,C4STA MESA Dear Mr. Burke: Review of the minor conditional use permit for the above -referenced project has been completed. The applicat€on, as described In the attached project description, has been approved, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval (attached). The decision will become final at 5 p.m. on November 12, 2009, unless appealed by an affected party (Including filing of the necessary application and payment of the appropriate fee) or by a member of the Planning Commission or City Council. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact the project planner, Wendy Shlh, at 714-754-5136 between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. or via email at nhitAcf.costa -mesa.ca js Sincerely, a WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP Zoning Administrator Attachments: Project description Findings Conditions of approval Approved conceptual plans cc: Engineering 1901 Newport LLC Fire Protection Analyst 3424 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1200 Building Division Los Angeles, CA 00010 f311lA4p Oh4W 1714j M4-5477 - C4U En1010 1WA (714j 754-44n • PlArwv) 1Mv xkm (714y 754-fi245 FAX 17 141754-4060 - 1C41114; 15". 244 • www momimmon.ca as A-09-34 P.ROJ1=CT VESCRIPTION Background. , � � . • Sober Living by the Sea provides group counseling and education for drug and , alcohol abuse at 1040 West 17" Street, In an approximately 8,273 squarefoot suite. • The applicant proposes to relocate the business to a smaller suite (approximately 3,800 square feet) at the subject location. • The property Is waned PDO (Planned Development Commercial) and has a General Plan designatiori of Commercial Center. The property contains a three• story commercial building and a single -story office building, totaling 127,512 square feet. • According to the City's Land Use Matrix, group -counseling and education center (categorized under trade and vocational schools) Is a use permMed within the PDC zone. However, a minor conditional use permit is required to allow a reduction In shared panting requirements due to unique operating characteristics. Analysis: ■ The applicant states that the hours of operation will be from 6 a.m, to 9 p.m., Monday through Friday, with a maximum of four employeesladministrabon staff on -site during those hours. Lectures and educational groups will occur between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and between 6:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. The facility will provide individual and group counseling for up to 12 people. All attendees will be transported to and from the facility by two passenger vans. • The Code requires 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 38 parking spaces for the counselingleducation center, 11 parking spaces are allocated to this suite based on general office parking requirement (3 spaces per 1,000 square feet for office buildings exceeding two stories in height and 100,000 square feet in area). r Based on the applicants description of the proposed use, the actual panting demand is six spaces (four spaces for the employees plus two passenger vans). • Since all counseling attendees will arrive and leave by passenger vans only and the total actual parking demand is comparable to a general office use, parking Impacts are not anticipated. FINDINGS 1. The information presented substantially complies with Section 13-29(e) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that: a. The proposed use Is compatible and harmonious with uses on -site as well as those on the surrounding properties. _.I29- b. Safety and compatibility of the design of landscaping, luminaries, and other site aspects of the- site development such a circulation have been considered. •UB s the buildings, parking areas, features includln� functional automobile and - pedestrian c. The prOposed use is conslatent with the General Plan because it Is" a pen-nittad use In the PDC zone and. rio parking impacts are anticipated due to the uniqu6 operating characteristics. d. The planning application Is for a project-speclf)c case and does not establish a precedent for future development. 2. The minor conditional use permit to allow a reduction In shared parking requirements for a counseling/education center substantially complies with C<*ta Mesa, Municipal Code Section 13.29(gX2) In that the proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting tho minor conditional use permit will not be detrirmontal to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the immediate vicinity. Specifically, the required parking exceeds the actual anticipated demand for the use since the attendees are transported to and frorn the site via passenger vans. Granting the minor conditional use permits will not allow a use, density or intensity, which Is not in accordance with the general plan designatlon for the property. 3. 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 15301 for Existing Facilities. 4. The project Is exempt from Chapter X11, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. CO, DRIONS OF APPROVAL_ Ping. 1. Operation of the business shall be limited as described In the project description and in the applicant's letter dated September 21. 2009. Any expansion or modification of the use or hours of operation may require approval of an amendment to the minor conditional use permit. 2. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the applicant shall Institute whatever operational measures are necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. 3. Hours of operation shall be from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Friday. 4. All attendees shall wait for transportation service inside the building only. 5. A copy of the conditions of approval for the minor conditional use permits must be kept on promises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of federal, state and 'local laws applicable to .the ,project has been compiled by staff for the applic:a6t's reference. .any refererrQ6 to "Ctty"•pertalns to the "City of Costa Mesa. 4 4 Ping. 1. Approval of the zoning application Is valid for one (1) year from the effective date of this approval and will expire at the end of that porlod unless applicant establishes the use by one of the following actions: 1) obtains buliding permits for the aulhortzed construction and initiates construction; and/or 2) obtains a business license and/or legally establishes the buslness. - if the applicant is unable to establish the ussfobtain building permits or business license within the one-year time period, the applicant may request an extension of time. The Planning Division must receive a written request for the time extension prior to the expiration of the zoning application. 2. Once the use Is legally established, the zoning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked. The Development Services Director or his designee may refer the zoning application to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if, in his opinion, any of the following circumstances exist 1) the use is being operated In violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use Is being operated In violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was Lased are no longer applicable. Bus. 2. A business license shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the Lic. business approved under this application. Bldg. 3. Comply with the requirements or the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also known as the 2007 California Building Standards Code, as amended by the Cib/ of Costa Mesa. -120-- Exhibit B -130- TWO IW I'T P H auamk - 13I- 1 � j e t I rEl + �I �7n tI` fTu1' ---------- TWO STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ROCK $OLID RECOVERY, INC, i1 I 967 W. MH sT M SAIML ST SWE 6wI !f rnaacT 00SUMACAIM7 —� COSTAYESACAl20vs3 -1B2- IECOVERY, INC. ML IT. lUZ R-M I*W-IQt7 --I3B, 13A- Applicant Name" Address Phone(yE q)/,,/ REQUEST FOR: Costa �-e- City of Costa Mesa APPLICATION RC(;EIVI:r(:� CITY C t 15 APR 30 PH P 12 ❑ Appeal of Planning Commission Dedslon - $1,220.00 ❑ Appeal of Zoning Admini r t rIS Ir De I I n .690.0 1E5A FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW presenting ❑ APPEAL REVIEW*" Decision of which appeal or review Is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, If known,) /S = v De Jllon by:(�G Reasons for requests g appeal or review: 2-0 I - ra .Y 19 Date. ,rgC� ,�{` . G�; L(,) / _ / Sigriatu `If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization. "Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member For office use only — do not write below this line ,_0 Iry " y SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF: ` i� If appeal or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of appeal or review: ►3S-- 10 I3�)- ORDINANCE NO. 13-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, AMENDING CHAPTER IX OF TITLE 2 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO APPEAL, REHEARING, AND REVIEW PROCEDURE WHEREAS, Chapter IX of Title 2 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code provides forthe review, appeal; and rehearing of decisions; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Chapter IX to preserve the appeal and review procedures and remove the rehearing procedure. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter IX of Title 2 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER IX. APPEAL AND REVIEW PROCEDURE Sec. 2-300. Purpose. Sec. 2-301. Definitions. Sec. 2-302. City council review requests. Sec. 2-303. Procedure for appeal. Sec. 2-304, Reserved. Sec. 2-305. Time limitations for appeals and reviews. Sec. 2-306. Time limitation for issuance of permits. Sec. 2-307. Fees. Sec. 2-308. Notice of appeal or review. Sec. 2-309. Person or body to hear an appeal or review a decision, Sec. 2-310. Exhaustion of administrative remedies. Sec. 2-311. Exclusive procedures. Sec. 2-312. Accrual of certain claims. Sec. 2-313. Limitations on judicial review. Sec. 2-314. Severability. Secs. 2-315-2-400, Reserved, Sec. 2-300, Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an orderly and fair method of appeal and review of decisions of the staff, committees, commissions and council of the city. -13q- Ordinance No. 13-08 Page 1 of 7 Sec. 2-301. Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth herein below: (1) Affected person means any person, including the applicant, any city staff member, committee, or commission who has an Interest in the matter at issue or whose health, safety, or welfare may be affected by the decision. (2) Appeal means reconsideration, by a higher authority, of the specific facts and circumstances of any final decision made by the city, any of its employees, committees or commissions or by the redevelopment agency. (3) Applicant means the person who applied for or requested the decision or action which is the subject of the appeal or review. (4) Council means the Costa Mesa City Council. (5) Decision means any final decision, finding, ruling, order or action. (6) Permit, as used in section 2-306, means anything referred to elsewhere in this Code as being a "permit" or "license." (7) Person shall have the meaning attributed in section 1-21 of this Code. (8) Review means reconsideration of the decision of any city employee, committee, or commission requested by the city council, on its own motion, or upon request of any council member, in order to consider the decision and any broad legislative and policy factors involved. Sec. 2-302. City council review requests. Within the time limits set forth in section 2-305, the city council or any council member may request that a decision of any city employee, committee, or commission be reviewed by filing an application with the city clerk stating the reasons for the requested review. Said review will be conducted according to the procedures specified in section 2- 303 and 2-309. The person or bodyto hearthe review will be designated in the application by the person or body seeking such review and shall be as specified in section 2-309, unless the council as a whole specifies a higher level of review in the first instance. Sec. 2-303. Procedure for appeal. (1) Any affected person may, within the time limits set forth in section 2-305, file an application for appeal with the city clerk. Said application shall contain sufficient information to identify the party, its interest in the matter, and the reasons for requesting an appeal. Ordinance No, 13-08 Page 2 of 7 (2) If the appeal is to be heard by a person or body which conducts regularly scheduled meetings, the appeal shall be considered at the first regular meeting which follows receipt of the application by ten (10) or more days, and which allows sufficient time forthe giving of notice as required by section 2-308 (3) If the appeal is to be heard by an individual or body which does not conduct regularly scheduled meetings, the appeal shall be considered not more than ten (10) days following receipt of the application; provided that the time period maybe extended if necessaryto allow the giving of notice as required by section 2-308 (4) An appeal hearing shall consist of a new (i.e., de novo) hearing on the matter by the person or body specified in section 2-309. The appeal hearing shall be based on the following evidence: (a) Any relevant evidence, including staff reports, etc., submitted at the time of the prior decision and at the appeal hearing, and (b) Findings, if any, and decision of the person or body whose decision is being appealed. (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, there shall be no right of appeal to the city council from a decision by a public officer designated by City Council Policy No. 100-7 on an application for a waiver of fees for use of a city owned public facility or show wagon. A decision pursuant to City Council Policy No. 100-7 shall be subject to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. (6) If the original decision being appealed involved issuance of any permit, license, or other entitlement or approval or requested some action by the city, the applicant for the original decision shall have the burden of proof to support the granting of the requested issuance, approval, or action at the appeal. Sec. 2-304. Reserved. Sec. 2-305. Time limitations for appeals and reviews. All applications for appeals and reviews must be filed, in writing, during regular business hours of 8:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, and within the time limits hereinafter set forth- (1) For all matters relating to the approval, disapproval or extension of tentative and parcel maps, within ten (10) days from -the date of the final decision subject to appeal or review, �7 Ordinance No. 13-08 Page 3 of 7 (2) For all other items, within seven (7) days from the date of the final decision subject to appeal or review. (3) For all matters requiring approval by the city, its employees, committees, or commissions, and by the redevelopment agency, the time limits for all applications shall begin on the date of the later of the following: (a) Final decision by the city, its employees, committees, or commissions; or (b) Final decision by the redevelopment agency. If the final day for filing an application for appeal or review falls on a holiday or weekend day when city hall is closed, the application shall be filed no later than the next business day. Sec. 2-306. Time limitation for issuance of permits. Where a permit is sought and its issuance is contingent upon obtaining a prerequisite permit, the permit sought shall not be issued until the expiration of the time limit for seeking an appeal or review specified in section 2-305 applied to the prerequisite permit. Provided, however, that if an application for appeal or review of the prerequisite permit is filed within the specified time limits, the permit sought shall not be issued until seven (7) days following the final decision on the appeal or review. Any permit issued in violation of the provisions of this section shall be void. Sec. 2-307. Fees. Each application for appeal shall be accompanied by a processing fee in an amount determined by resolution of the city council. Sec. 2-308. Notice of appeal or review. Notice of the hearing for the appeal or review shall be given in the same manner as any required notice for the hearing at which the decision subject to the appeal or review was made. In all cases for the hearing for an appeal or review, written notice of the date, time, and place shall be given to the original applicant, if any, any prior applicant for appeal regarding the same matter, and for appeals the person requesting the current appeal, Sec. 2-309. Person or body to hear an appeal or review a decision. The person or body to hear an appeal or review a decision shall be the following: (1) From a decision of the city staff to the department head; except that an appeal from a decision of the transportation services engineer regarding traffic matters pursuant to Title 10 of this Code, shall be made to the planning commission; — I,/ja Ordinance No. 13-08 Page 4 of 7 (2) From a decision of the department head to the city manager; except that (a) an appeal from a decision of the development services director on planning matters pursuant to Title 13 of this Code shall be made to the planning commission, and (b) an appeal from a decision of the building official on building matters pursuant to Title 5 of this Code shall be to the access, building, fire and housing board of appeals as required by section 5-3 of this Code; (3) From a decision of the city manager to the city council; (4) From a decision of any city committee or commission to the city council, Sec, 2-310. Exhaustion of administrative remedies. Unless appealed or reviewed as provided herein, any decision becomes final for all purposes when made. Sec. 2-311. Exclusive procedures. The procedures set forth in this chapter are the exclusive methods by which appeals and reviews may be pursued and none of the steps set forth herein may be waived or omitted. Sec. 2-312, Accrual of certain claims. No claim for violation of constitutional rights for deprivation of economic use of property shall arise until and unless a claimant has secured a final decision on a permit application fora plan of development and on a request fora variance or similar relief from the zone or other development standard for a plan of development as specified in Title 13 of this Code. Sec. 2-313. Limitations on judicial review. Notwithstanding any provision in this Code to the contrary, no court action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul any decision or procedure of the City of Costa Mesa, its council, commissions, boards or officers, which has become administratively final shall be maintained byanyaggrieved person unless dulycommenced in a court of competent jurisdiction within ninety (90) days, as provided in California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094,6, incorporated herein by reference, and/or as provided in California Government Code section 65009, or any shorter statute of limitations provided by law. Sec. 2-314. Severability, If any provision of this chapter is found to be invalid or unconstitutional by interpretation or application to any person or circumstances, such invalidity or Ordinance No. 13-08 Page 5 of 7 ^ 1-41 - unconstitutionality shall not affect the other provisions or applications thereof which can be given valid effect. Secs. 2-315-2-400. Reserved. Section 2. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law in that regard and this Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its final passage. PASSED AND JAWES M,;RlGHEIMER ayor ATTEST: BRENDA vREE City Clerk s 3`d day of December, 2013. APPROVED AS TO FORM: THO AS DU,ARTE City Attorney ._ 112_ Ordinance No. 13-08 Page 6 of 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 13-08 was introduced at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5fh day of November, 2013, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 3'd day of December, 2013, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mensinger, Monahan, Righeimer Genis, Leece None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 4�h day of December, 2013. && qqyu _ '. BRENDA GR EN City Clerk 1 q 3- Ordinance No. 13-08 Page 7 of 7 TACO} MESA rntarsxrt llryk l i'4E1'•0sLy-4 657 W 19TH ST ' •? 3 4 - 5 6 ) Fi R IQ 11 � 17 1S COSTA. MESA, CA PARKM f 3 3 4 E 7 B 7 'iD 11 VAN PARING JjI^ 1_ I 13 I 14 i 15 � 115 MOUSE GRAPHICS PROPERTY LINE FENCE _14-.ol SITE PLAN a" .l.-V ATTACHMENT 6 O Z _J D ui Uy U�� 0 U 0 O W IWM BT —• WGHML~DEN 12P m4 o AS Koko u� ._ (411 Emu I mpw�l �Kvlmmllwll KITCHENETT MEETING ROOM HALL MEETING ROOM --`i BATHROOM BATHROOM ol COMPUTER LAB & LIBRARY BUILDING "A" 2ND FLOOR SPACE 1900 SQ FT BATH OFFICE r f pEl C� WAITING WAITING OFFICE � ROOM ROOM Li I I BATHROOM OFFICE STORAGE O o KITCHEN CONFERENCE ROOM OFFICE BUILDING "B" 2ND FLOOR SPACE 1435 SO FT 2ND FL FLOOR PLAN U Zo co UJ }UJg > co O ;a U�w LURMO) c mp JoU 08 U) Y NU Ii W J U U H F 0 W W W O Op a IL 1BTN 9T MICNAEL WARDEN r 1OZmom AS NOTED A-2 � lAs— 0 a MEETING ROOM MEETING ROOM MEETING ROOM MEETING ROOM RECEPTION CLIENT LOUNGE & DINING AREA L_ ! BUILDING "A" 1 ST FLOOR SPACE 1941 SO FT THERAPY OFFICE THERAPY OFFICE THERAPY OFFICE THERAPY OFFICE WAITING WAITING THERAPY OFFICE ROOM ROOM ff THERAPY OFFICE THERAPY OFFICE (ITHERAPY OFFICE l ENTRY BUILDING A 3841 30 FT BUILDING B M6 SO FT OVERALL OCC SO FT 6710 BUILDING "B" 1ST FLOOR SPACE 1434 SO FT 1ST FL FLOOR PLAN sme _,-w U Zo —M �.chN W N WSQN > co) Urn 0 ~-: U-jw WO;zrn coo Jo0U O N Y O LU U U UN W W W a aQ 1 BTN ST r MICNAELWARDEN 10ISL3014 A0 NOTED A-1 ATTACHMENT 7 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MINUTE EXCERPTS FROM THE JUNE 8, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING APPEAL OF 957 W. 19TH STREET (SOLID LANDINGS) (Public Hearing No. 1 — ZA-15-01) 1. Application No. Applicant: Site Address: Zone: Project Planner: Environmental ZA-15-01 Kristen Ford 657 W. 19th Street C1 Mel Lee Determination: If approved, the project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines — Class 1 (existing facilities). If denied, project is statutorily exempt under Section 15270 (projects which are disapproved). Description: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a minor conditional use permit to deviate from parking requirements for a group counseling use (Solid Landings) in a 6,710 square foot building. A total of 67 parking spaces are required for the use, 24 on -site parking spaces are proposed (29 existing minus 5 that will be lost when the West 19th Street gate is reopened per the conditions of approval) based on unique operating characteristics. Mel Lee, Senior Planner, gave a brief overview of the proposal and what was approved by the Zoning Administrator. Vice Chair Mathews asked if the staff members for the facility were using their parking lot or if they are parking on the street. Mr. Lee responded that a Code Enforcement Officer confirmed earlier this week that the parking was not being entirely conducted on site. Commissioner Andranian asked about if the application is not approved what would happen to their operation at that site. Mr. Lee responded that the applicant could not provide group counseling services; they could only provide administrative or support offices only with the four per thousand parking rate. Commissioner Sesler asked about the parking requirements and if we have received any complaints from surrounding neighborhoods about the parking and other nuisance aspects in regard to the operation. Mr. Lee responded that we received four letters in opposition and none in support of the parking reduction. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ann Parker, the appellant, gave her presentation on why she appealed the item. -1Li9- Wendy Leece, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with granting the parking deviations, the traffic impact and safety. Ms. Parker continued her presentation. Teresa Drain, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with the parking, conditions of approval not being met and code requirements not being followed. Dennis O'Neil, representative for Solid Landings, gave presentation in support of the Zoning Administrator's decision and stated that Solid Landings had not received any notice of being in violation from the City of any code requirement. Commissioner McCarthy asked for clarification about the violations the appellant stated and why the applicant was unaware. Mr. Lee and Ms. Gerli responded to the process of the Zoning Administrator decision and when the violations of the minor conditional use permit would take place. Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with the parking process and Conditions of Approval No. 3, 4, and 9. Barrie Fisher, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with the detrimental impact Solid Landings is having on the residents across the street. A Costa Mesa resident stated concerns with traffic, capacity, approved evacuation plan, and the noise of the gate. Steven Chan, Costa Mesa resident, addressed concerns with setting a precedence of this application. A Costa Mesa resident stated concerns with how long the business had been operating without permits. Jennifer Webster, Costa Mesa residents, stated she wanted to see equal treatment when violations are happening and had concerns with the parking. Ms. Parker addressed Mr. O'Neil statement about not knowing about the violation notices. Ms. Leece responded to public comments about the process of getting a permit and stated concerns of there being no record of a fire inspection. Teresa Drain asked for an explanation of how the minor conditional use permit process works. Mr. O'Neil responded to the public concerns. Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner McCarthy and Dickson asked for clarification with the code violations and if not complying with the conditions would play into the decision of approving the minor conditional use permit. Ms. Gerli responded yes. Commissioner Andranian stated concerns with setting a precedence with the approving the parking and if the applicant is capable of complying with the conditions of approval. He also asked what would happen if they did not approve the application. Ms. Gerli responded that they could not operate a group counseling facility at this operation and that it is not an issue of precedence instead it would be an issue of it fitting within the City's policy with granting a minor conditional use permit. The Commissioners discussed the evidence, the code violations, the parking issue, the business plan, and if they should uphold or reverse the Zoning Administrator's approval. MOTION: Based on the evidence in the record and the findings set forth in Exhibit A denial that the Planning Commission hereby grant the appeal and reverse the Zoning Administrators decision for approval of ZA-15-01 from the deviation from parking requirements for a group counseling use at 657 West 19t" Street with further findings: • First finding - The information presented does not provide and does not comply in that the proposed use is not compatible with developments in the same general area and is materially detrimental to other properties in the area. We have seen evidence in the record that the parking operations that are happening now result in parking on the street and result in queuing and stacking commercial vehicles on the street. From the parking aspect, these are findings and we have evidence in the record showing that the parking is materially detrimental to other properties in the area. • Second finding - Granting the minor conditional use permit is materially detrimental to the health and safety to general welfare of the public and otherwise injurious to properties or improvements to the immediate neighborhood. We have had testimony from adjacent property owners describing the impact from the parking on the street and the commercial vans that are not being utilized in the manner depicted in the project descriptions. • Third finding - Granting the minor conditional use permit would allow use density or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation and that we have evidence in the record that the General Plan portions that were described in the staff report are not supportive of objective LU-1 F.1 - protect existing stabilize residential neighborhoods from the encroachment compatible potential disruptive land use or activities. We have evidence in the record that T I-,Aq -- shows that the existing operations regardless of an existence of a minor conditional use permit or conditions of approval that there are parking impacts from parking and commercial van traffic that do not conform with the General Plan land use designation. Moved by Commissioner McCarthy, second by Vice Chair Mathews. RESOLUTION 15-34: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA REVERSING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION AND DENYING ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN ON -SITE PARKING SPACES FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 WEST 19T" STREET The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None The Chair explained the appeal process. - (5(0 ATTACHMENT 8 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 8, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: Pf�H��jj - I SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 FOR A DEVIATION FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 W. 19TH STREET DATE: MAY 28, 2015 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov DESCRIPTION An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a minor conditional use permit to deviate from parking requirements for a group counseling use (Solid Landings) in a 6,710 square foot building (67 parking spaces is required for the use, 24 on -site parking spaces will be provided (29 existing minus 5 that will be lost when the West 19th Street gate is reopened per the conditions of approval) based on unique operating characteristics. APPLICANT/APPELLANT The applicant is Kristen Ford, representing John Morehart, the property owner. The appellant is Ann Parker, a City resident. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of ZA-15-01 by adoption of a Planning Commission resolution. BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The project site is located on the south side of West 19tt' Street, mid -block between Pomona Avenue and Anaheim Avenue. The site is .36 acres (15,681 square feet) in size. The property is zoned C1 (Local Business District) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial. The site contains a two-story, 6,710 square foot commercial building originally constructed in 1961, a surface parking lot, and site fencing. The site is bounded by commercial uses to the west and north (across West 19th Street), a commercial use (restaurant) and a residential use to the east, and residential uses (across Plumer Street) to the south. The site currently provides 29 on -site parking spaces, which are accessed via a gated driveway Plumer Street. There is also an existing driveway approach on the West 19th Street frontage of the property, but it is not used because the paved driveway leading from the approach has been removed and is gated and blocked by 5 parallel van parking spaces provided adjacent to the building. Prior land use actions on the property include a conditional use permit for a fraternal lodge on the second floor, approved in 1965 under Conditional Use Permit C-49-65, and a proposed conditional use permit for a manufacturing use under PA-87-07, which was denied by the Planning Commission on January 26, 1987. The building is currently occupied by Solid Landings, DBA Rock Solid Recovery, which provides outpatient treatment programs and other services, including group counseling, for men with drug and alcohol addiction. The use began operating at the site without an approved business license or minor conditional use permit. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant utilizes the building for the following services: • State certified outpatient treatment programs for Rock Solid Recovery clients (men) residing in sober living group homes or state certified outpatient residential programs. The programs for women are a separate operation not conducted from this site. • Individual and group counseling sessions, as well as educational sessions. • Administrative offices. According to the applicant's description of the use, a copy of which is attached to this letter, the various programs and services offered at the site run from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Weekend operation is limited to one-on-one therapy appointments on an as -needed basis between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. The maximum number of staff on site at any one time during the weekday is 17 and the maximum number of clients on the site at any one time during the weekday is 30. The clients come to the site by vans at various times of the day. The applicant states that the building will only be partially utilized for group counseling; the building will also house --152- administrative offices and one-on-one therapy rooms. The applicant claims that at no time will the required on -site parking for the use exceed 20 spaces; 3 spaces for the vans and 17 spaces for the staff that drive their cars to the site. Minor Conditional Use Permit for Reduction in Required On -Site Parking for Group Counseling Use The City's Zoning Code does not specify a parking requirement for group counseling uses. Zoning Code Section 13-90 (Parking For Uses Not Specified) allows the number of required parking spaces for uses not specified in the Zoning Code to be determined by the Zoning Administrator based upon the parking required for similar types of uses. Zoning Administrator Determination No. 08-5, dated May 19, 2008, determined that the parking requirement for group counseling uses was to be classified the same as for trade and vocational schools, which is 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. In the case of the subject property, this equates to a requirement of 67 on - site parking spaces based on the existing 6,710 square foot building area. The 10 spaces per 1,000 square foot parking requirement for group counseling uses is needed for the entire building because the other uses (i.e., administrative offices and therapy rooms) support the primary group counseling use. Because the subject property currently provides 29 on -site parking spaces, a shortfall of 38 spaces required for the use, the applicant is requesting approval of a minor conditional use permit to allow for the reduction in the required parking amount based on their specific operation as discussed in the prior section of this letter and per Zoning Code Section 13-89.5 (Reduction in Parking Requirements). ANALYSIS Justifications for Zoning Administrator's Approval The Zoning Administrator approved the request based on the following reasons and with the following suggested conditions: • Based on the applicant's description of the use an_adeguate number of on -site Parking spaces is provided. The applicant states that currently 29 on -site parking spaces are provided of the 67 spaces required for the use, a shortfall of 38 spaces. However, 24 on -site parking spaces will actually be provided (29 existing minus 5 that will be lost when the West 19th Street gate is reopened as recommended in the conditions of approval). Based on the information provided by the applicant, an adequate number of on -site parking spaces can be provided for the use. The building square footages and summary of on -site activities are provided in the tables on the following page: PROPOSED USE OF ROOMS AND SQUARE FEET (SF) Therapy Offices 8 1,434 SF Meeting Rooms 4 1,218 SF Client Lounge/DiningLounge/Dining Area 624 SF Reception/Sign In 99 SF SECONDFLOOR Offices 4 693 SF Conference Room/Kitchen/Storage Room 682 SF Meeting Rooms 1 1,218 SF Computer Lab/Libra 1) 682 SF SUMMARYOF • • 6:00 AM The first Rock Solid employee arrives in a company vehicle and parks in the gated lot. 7:30-9:30 AM _ 16 additional Rock Solid employees and/or therapists arrive in personal or company vehicles. 8:45-9:15 AM Clients from 4 different sober living homes arrive via 3 12-seat passenger vans. The vans drop clients off within the gated parking lot and do not remain onsite. The total number of clients that arrive via the 3 passenger vans range from 21-30. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. 9:15 AM-3:00 PM Clients rotate through one-on-one therapy, group counseling, computer lab/library time, lunch, and free time. _ Three passenger vans arrive to transport clients to the gym. Clients not 3:00-3:30 PM wishing to go to the gym are transported home. Clients do not return until the following day. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. 3:00-5:00 PM Staff remains until 5:00 PM A cleaning crew of 3-6 people arrive in 1 or 2 cars and stays for 1 hour. 5:00-6:00 PM 6:00 PM-6:30 PM Evening staff arrives to run group sessions attended by Rock Solid Clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles. Clients arrive via 3 vans at 15-minute intervals. The approximate number of clients is 30. The total vehicles on site is 13. 6:30-8:30 PM Group sessions held during this time period. 8:30-9:00 PM Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to their homes at 15-minute intervals. The employees leave at 9:00 PM once the last passenger van leaves the site. 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Therapist may schedule an appointment with a client on an as needed basis. If an appointment occurs the number of vehicles is 2 —one for the therapist and one for the client who is transported to the premises via a Rock Solid vehicle. Source: Applicant Letter Dated December 11, 2014 • The operational measures proposed by the applicant to mitigate the parking reduction is sufficient to miti ate long-term potential garking im acts. Staff acknowledges that the measures described in the applicant's letter may address parking shortages. However, staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that if parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to eliminate the problem. Additionally, based on the large parking shortfall, staff is recommending a number of conditions to ensure that the use is conducted entirely on the property so as to avoid parking shortfalls in the surrounding neighborhood as a result of the applicant's use. • The current configuration of the parking area limits vehicle ingress and egress to the site from Plumer Street creating additional commercial traffic on a local street ad to a residential nei hb_ orhood: therefore, vehicular access from W. 19rn Street will be required to be provided. Unlike the other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provide vehicular access from West 19th Street as well as Plumer Street, the subject property's sole vehicular ingress and egress is from Plumer Street. The current gate design lacks an adequate throat for vehicles accessing the parking lot, no kiosk for drivers to access the key pad, and no turnaround area for vehicles that do not gain access into the facility. As a result approaching vehicles are routinely blocking the public sidewalk and extending into through -lanes of traffic while the driver exits the vehicle to access the key pad placed at the sidewalk adjacent to the gate. The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined that to reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to access the site, the driveway on West 19th Street should be restored, the gate and van parking spaces blocking the access from West 19th Street should be removed, and West 19th Street used as the main access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. The reopening of the West 19th Street gate will result in the loss of 5 additional parking spaces, putting the applicant at a scant 24 available spaces, with a 43-space shortfall. However, because the applicant has stated they only need 20 spaces, 17 for employees and 3 for client vans, this condition will not affect their ability to operate as planned. • Conditions of approval to ensure timelZ compliance with applicable City requirements have been incorporated. The applicant will be required to comply with the below conditions in the timeframes specified below. Failure to do so could result in the issuance of citations and/or the potential revocation of the minor conditional use permit. o No later than 90 days from the date of approval, the landscape setback areas along the West 19th Street frontage shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall contain 24-inch box trees to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. J55- o No later than 45 days from the date of approval, the applicant is required to revise the parking area and access gates as follows: • Construct a commercial driveway at the existing approach on West 19th Street leading to the parking area at the rear of the site, which shall be used for vehicle ingress, unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. ■ Eliminate any parking spaces which interfere with the driveway access to the parking area at the rear of the site to comply with the standard drive aisle dimensions per the City's Parking Design Standards. ■ Onsite vehicular circulation shall comply with the City's Parking Design Standards. No later than 30 days from the date of approval, existing vehicle gate locations are required to be submitted to the Transportation Services Division for review and approval. If the existing gate locations cannot be approved, the applicant shall relocate and/or remove the vehicle gates as necessary. G All vehicular access gates are required to comply with the requirements of Sections 506.1 and 506.2 of the 2013 California Fire Code (or any successor provisions), so as to provide access to emergency crews. A Knox system for gate access must be obtained through the Costa Mesa Fire Department within 30 days from the date of approval for the existing gate on Plumer Street, and concurrently with the approval of the gate on West 19th Street. Additional Analysis in Response to Appeal The following additional analysis is provided in response to the issues raised in the appeal as it pertains to the on -site parking provided for the use. • Staff has not observed, to date. any parking shortages or other off -site issues related to the current operation of the use. Staff conducted a parking survey of the site at various times of the day on March 9 and 10, 2015, corresponding to the pick-up and drop-off times indicated in the applicant's project description, a copy of which is attached to this report (Attachment 7). No overflow parking or loading or unloading of passenger vans in the street were observed. In addition, the applicant confirmed via email that all activities were occurring on site. (Attachment 8). GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Future development of all land within the City of Costa Mesa is guided by the General Plan adopted in 2002. The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies, and objectives that guide new development and uses. Based on the issues discussed in the previous sections, the request, as conditioned, is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan. Objective LU-1 F.1: Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. o Objective CIR-1 A.14: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of commuter through traffic on local streets in residential neighborhoods. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION If the Zoning Administrator's approval of the request is upheld, it is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 for Existing Facilities. This project site contains an existing building with no increase in total floor area for the building proposed, beyond a negligible expansion for an outside patio area. 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. If the Planning Commission denies the request, the denial is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15270(a) for projects which are disapproved. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the draft resolutions and they have been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following alternative: Deny the project. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, Planning Commission must deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in a resolution. If the project were denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. -- ISM CONCLUSION The Zoning Administrator approved the request based on the applicant's compliance with the recommended conditions of approval, several of which have specific deadlines for compliance, and based on the determination that the proposed use does not create any offsite parking conflicts with adjacent properties or public streets. As such, the project is consistent with the City's Zoning Code and General Plan. M L LEE, AICP Senior Planner WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP Zoning Administrator Attachments: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolutions and Exhibits 2. Location and Zoning Map 3. Conceptual Plans 4. Appeal 5. Zoning Administrator Approval Letter and Attachments 6. Correspondence From Public 7. Parking Survey 8. Correspondence from Applicant 9. Site Photos Distribution: Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO Assistant Development Services Director Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst Staff (6) File (2) Solid Landings Behavioral Health Attn: Kristen Ford 2900 Bristol Street, Suite B-300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Rock Solid Recovery 657 West 19t" Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 John Morehart 126 East 16t" Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ATTACHMENT 4 APPEAL -I�- Costa Mesa � � �` �" CITY CLERK City of Costa Mesa 15 APR 30 PH 1= 12 ❑ Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - 5 1.220 00 � Fr Appeal of Zoning Admini r�t g lgri5 a De isian - So90 00 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OR REVIEWB' Applicant Name' = r�r2.f �, 14-1- c_', 1�-- Address Phones gwpresenting REQUEST FOR: © APPEAL EVIEW** Decision of which appeal or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, if known.) Oe"ilionby: Reasons for requues�tiirig appeal or review: r - f� ;,!y.'_.�'f �_.-:cam �� ��G>`�- ✓s-�-- _.� � _ -- - ' - ;� `�'� ;ram..{�• � ��}-:(.� Lr✓� � �a Date: -5( 2-0/ 5— _ Signature: 'If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization. ""Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member For office use only — do not write below this line / r. SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF: If appeal or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of appeal or review: ATTACHMENT 5 ZA APPROVAL LETTER AND ATTACHMENTS CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT April 23, 2015 Solid Landings Behavioral Health Attn: Kristen B. Ford, Esq. 2900 Bristol Street, Suite B-300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PARKING REDUCTION FOR GROUP COUNSELING USE (SOLID LANDINGS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, DBA ROCK SOLID RECOVERY) 657 WEST 19TH STREET. COSTA MESA Dear Ms. Ford: City staff's review of your zoning application for the above -referenced project has been completed. The application, as described in the attached project description, has been approved, based on the findings attached and subject to the conditions listed. The decision will become final at 5:00 p.m. on April 30, 2015, unless appealed by an affected party, including filing of the necessary application and payment of the appropriate fee, or called up for review by a member of the Planning Commission or City Council. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact the project planner, Mel Lee, at (714) 754-5611, or at mel.lee .costamesaca.gov. Sincerely, WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP Zoning Administrator Attachments: Project Description Findings Applicant's Project Description and Plans cc: Engineering Fire Protection Analyst Building Safety Division Transportation Services Division Building Division (714) 754-5273 - Code Enforcement (714) 754-5623 - Planning Division (714) 754-5245 FAX (714) 754-4856 • TDD (714) 754-5244 • www,costamesaca.gov ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 2 of 13 Rock Solid Recovery 657 West 191h Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 John Morehart 126 East 16th Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 3 of 13 BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The project site is located on the south side of West 19th Street, mid -block between Pomona Avenue and Anaheim Avenue. The site is .36 acres (15,681 square feet) in size. The property is zoned C1 (Local Business District) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial. The site contains a two-story, 6,710 square foot commercial building originally constructed in 1961, a surface parking lot, and site fencing. The site is bounded by commercial uses to the West and north (across West 19th Street), a commercial use (restaurant) and a residential use to the east, and residential uses (across Plumer Street) to the south. The site currently provides 29 on -site parking spaces, which are accessed via a gated driveway on Plumer Street. There is also an existing driveway approach on the West 19th Street frontage of the property, but it is not used because the paved driveway leading from the approach has been removed and is gated and blocked by 5 parallel van parking spaces provided adjacent to the building. Prior land use actions on the property include a conditional use permit for a fraternal lodge on the second floor, approved in 1965 approved under Conditional Use Permit C- 49-65, and a proposed conditional use permit for a manufacturing use under PA-87-07, which was denied by the Planning Commission on January 26, 1987. The building is currently occupied by Solid Landings, DBA Rock Solid Recovery, which provides outpatient treatment programs and other services, including group counseling, for men with drug and alcohol addiction. The use is currently operating without an approved business license or minor conditional use permit to allow a reduction in the required on -site parking spaces required to support the group counseling use, which is described in the next section. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant utilizes the building for the following services: • State certified outpatient treatment programs for Rock Solid Recovery clients (men) residing in sober living group homes or state certified outpatient residential programs. The programs for women are a separate operation not conducted from this site. • Individual and group counseling sessions, as well as educational sessions. • Administrative offices. According to the applicant's description of the use, a copy of which is attached to this letter, the various programs and services offered at the site run from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Weekend operation is limited to one-on-one therapy appointments on an as -needed b^sis between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. The maximum number of staff on site at any one time during the weekday is 17 and the maximum 10 ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 4 of 13 number of clients on the site at any one time during the weekday is 30. The clients come to the site by vans at various times of the day. The applicant claims that at no time will the required on -site parking for the use exceed 20 spaces; 3 spaces for the vans and 17 spaces for the staff that drive their cars to the site. Minor Conditional Use Permit for Reduction in Required On -Site Parking for Group Counseling Use The City's Zoning Code does not specify a parking requirement for group counseling uses. Zoning Code Section 13-90 (Parking For Uses Not Specified) allows the number of required parking spaces for uses not specified in the Zoning Code to be determined by the Zoning Administrator based upon the parking required for similar types of uses. Zoning Administrator Determination No. 08-5, dated May 19, 2008, determined that the parking requirement for group counseling uses was to be classified the same as for trade and vocational schools, which is 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. In the case of the subject property, this equates to a requirement of 67 on - site parking spaces based on the existing 6,710 square foot building area. The 10 spaces per 1,000 square foot parking requirement for group counseling uses is needed for the entire building because the other uses (i.e., administrative offices and therapy rooms) support the primary group counseling use. Because the subject property currently provides 29 on -site parking spaces, a shortfall of 38 spaces required for the use, the applicant is requesting approval of a minor conditional use permit to allow for the reduction in the required parking amount based on their specific operation as discussed in the prior section of this letter and per Zoning Code Section 13-89.5 (Reduction in Parking Requirements). ANALYSIS Justifications for Approval Staff has reviewed the applicant's request and supports the request based on the following: Based on the applicant's description of the uses an adequate number of on -site parking spaces is provided. As noted earlier, applicant states that currently 29 on - site parking spaces are provided of the 67 spaces required for the use, a shortfall of 38 spaces. However, based on the information provided by the applicant, an adequate number of on -site parking spaces can be provided for the use. The building square footages and summary of on -site activities are provided in the tables below: ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 5 of 13 PROPOSED USE OF ROOMS AND SQUARE FEET (SF) FIRST Therapy Offices 8 _ Meeting Rooms (4) FLOOR 1,434 SF 1,218 SF _ Client Lounge/DiningLounge/Dining Area 624 SF Reception/Sign In 99 SF SECONDFLOOR Offices 4 693 SF Conference Roo m/Kitchen/Stora a Room 682 SF Meeting Rooms 1 1,218 SF Computer Lab/Libra 1 682 SF 6:00 AM The first Rock Solid employee arrives in a company vehicle and parks in the gated lot. 7:30-9:30 AM 16 additional Rock Solid employees and/or therapists arrive in personal or company vehicles. 8:45-9:15 AM Clients from 4 different sober living homes arrive via 3 12-seat passenger vans. The vans drop clients off within the gated parking lot and do not remain onsite. The total number of clients that arrive via the 3 passenger vans range from 21-30. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. Clients rotate through one-on-one therapy, group counseling, computer 9:15 AM-3:00 PM lab/library time, lunch, and free time. Three passenger vans arrive to transport clients to the gym. Clients not 3:00-3:30 PM wishing to go to the gym are transported home. Clients do not return until the following day. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. Staff remains until 5:00 PM 3:00-5:00 PM 5:00-6:00 PM A cleaning crew of 3-6 people arrive in 1 or 2 cars and stays for 1 hour. 6:00 PM-6:30 PM Evening staff arrives to run group sessions attended by Rock Solid Clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles. Clients arrive via 3 vans at 15-minute intervals. The approximate number of clients is 30. The total vehicles on site is 13. Group sessions held during this time period. 6:30-8:30 PM 8:30-9:00 PM Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to their homes at 15-minute intervals. The employees leave at 9:00 PM once the last passenger van leaves the site. 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Therapist may schedule an appointment with a client on an as needed basis. If an appointment occurs the number of vehicles is 2 —one for the therapist and one for the client who is transported to the premises via a Rock Solid vehicle. Source: Applicant Letter Dated December 11, 2014 ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 6 of 13 • The operational measures proposed by the apl2licant to mitigate the Parkin reduction is sufficient to mitigate Jong -term potential_ parking impacts. Staff acknowledges that the measures described in the applicant's letter may address parking shortages. However, staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that if parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to eliminate the problem. Additionally, based on the large parking shortfall, staff is recommending a number of conditions to ensure that the use is conducted entirely on the property so as to avoid parking shortfalls in the surrounding neighborhood as a result of the applicant's use. • The current configuration of the parking area limits vehicle ingress and egress to the site from Plumer Street creating additional commercial traffic on a local street adjacent to a residential neighborhood- therefore vehicular access from W. 19th Street will be required to be provided. Unlike the other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provides vehicular access from West 19th Street as well as Plumer Street, the subject property's sole vehicular ingress and egress is from Plumer Street. The current gate design lacks an adequate throat for vehicles accessing the parking lot, no kiosk for drivers to access the key pad, and no turnaround area for vehicles that do not gain access into the facility. As a result approaching vehicles are routinely blocking the public sidewalk and extending into through -lanes of traffic while the drivers exits the vehicle to access the key pad placed at the sidewalk adjacent to the gate. The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined that to reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to access the site, the driveway on West 19th Street should be restored, the gate and van parking spaces blocking the access from West 19th Street should be removed, and West 19th Street used as the main access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. The reopening of the 19th Street gate will result in the loss of 5 additional parking spaces, putting the applicant at a scant 24 available spaces, with a 43-space shortfall. The applicant has stated it will only need 20 spaces, 17 for employees and 3 for client vans. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Future development of all land within the City of Costa Mesa is guided by the General Plan adopted in 2002. The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies, and objectives that guide new development and uses. Based on the issues discussed in the previous sections, the request, as conditioned, is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan. ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 7 of 13 • Objective LU-1 F.1: Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. Objective CIR-1A.14: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of commuter through traffic on local streets in residential neighborhoods. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 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 under Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. FINDINGS A. The information presented complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(2) in that: Finding: The proposed use is compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Findings: Based on the applicant's description of the use, an adequate number of on -site parking spaces is provided. As noted earlier, 67 parking spaces is required for the use, 24 on -site parking spaces is provided, a shortfall of 43 spaces required for the use. However, based on the information provided by the applicant, an adequate number of on -site parking spaces can be provided for the use. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Findings: The current _configuration of the parking area limits vehicle ingress and egress to the site from Plumer Street, creating additional commercial traffic on a local street ad Jacent to a residential neighborhood; therefore, vehicular access from W. 19th Street will be required to be provided. Unlike the other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provides vehicular access from West 19th Street as well as Plumer Street, the subject property's sole vehicular ingress and egress is from Plumer Street. The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined that tf reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to access the site, the driveway on West 19th Street should be restored, the I- I (,?9- ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 8 of 13 gate and five van parking spaces blocking the access from West 19th Street should be removed, and West 191" Street used as the main access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. Finding: Granting the minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General plan designation. Facts in Support of Findings: The request is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan: • Objective LU-1 F.1: Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. Consistency. The measures described in the applicant's letter may address parking shortages. However, staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that if parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. Therefore, the request is consistent with this General Plan goal. • Objective CIR-1A.14: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of commuter through traffic on local streets in residential neighborhoods. Consistency. Unlike the other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provides vehicular access from West 19th Street as well as Plumer Street, the subject property's sole vehicular ingress and egress is from Plumer Street. The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined that to reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to access the site, the driveway on West 19th Street should be restored, the gate and van parking spaces blocking the access from West 19th Street should be removed, and West 19th Street used as the main access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. Therefore, the use is consistent with this General Plan goal. B. 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 under Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines -I(A- ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 9 of 13 C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of ZA-15-01 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package (if plan check is required). 2. The onsite activities shall be as follows: 6:00 AM The first Rock Solid employee arrives in a company vehicle and parks j in the gated lot. i 7:30-9:30 AM 16 additional Rock Solid employees and/or therapists arrive in personal or company vehicles. 8:45-9:15 AM Clients from 4 different sober living homes arrive via 3 12-seat passenger vans. The vans drop clients off within the gated parking lot and do not remain onsite. The total number of clients that arrive via the 3 passenger vans range from 21-30. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. 9:15 AM-3:00 PM Clients rotate through one-on-one therapy, group counseling, computer lab/library time, lunch, and free time. 3:00-3:30 PM Three passenger vans arrive to transport clients to the gym. Clients not wishing to go to the gym are transported home. Clients do not return until the following day. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. 3:00-5:00 PM Staff remains until 5:00 PM 5:00-6:00 PM I A cleaning crew of 3-6 people arrive in 1 or 2 cars and stays for 1 hour. 6:00 PM-6:30 PM 1 Evening staff arrives to run group sessions attended by Rock Solid Clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles. Clients arrive via 3 vans at 15-minute intervals. The approximate number of clients is 30. The total vehicles on site is 13. 6:30-8:30 PM Group sessions held during this time period. 8:30-9:00 PM Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to their homes at 15-minute intervals. The employees leave at 9:00 PM once the last passenger van leaves the site. ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 10 of 13 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Therapist may schedule an appointment with a client on an as needed basis. If an appointment occurs the number of vehicles is 2 —one for the therapist and one for the client who is transported to the premises via a Rock Solid vehicle. 3. No employees, clients or visitors to the property shall park on City streets. All parking for the use shall take place on the property in designated parking spaces. 4. All clients shall be dropped off and picked up in the parking area. No pick-up or drop-off will occur in the driveways or public right-of-ways. 5. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described herein. Any change in the operational characteristics shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the conditional use permit, subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that the Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(o)]. 6. The zoning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked. The Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO or his designee may refer the zoning application to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if, in his opinion, any of the following circumstances exist: 1) the use is being operated in violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 7. If any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this approval is 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. 8. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. 9. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or operator shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 10. A copy of the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit must be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 11 of 13 business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. 11. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site. This inspection is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 12. No later than 90 days from the date of approval, the landscape setback areas along the W. 19th Street frontage shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall contain 24-inch box trees to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 13. Applicant 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 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. City shall have the right to select the attorney defending it, if it elects to do so. 14. Applicant shall obtain Planning approval for the construction of the commercial driveway on W. 9th Street, pursuant to condition 15, below. Trans. 15. No later than 45 days from the date of approval, revise the parking area and access gates as follows: a) Construct commercial driveway at the existing approach on W. 19th Street leading to the parking area at the rear of the site, which shall be used for vehicle ingress, unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. b) Eliminate any parking spaces which interfere with the driveway access to the parking area at the rear of the site to comply with the standard drive aisle dimensions per the City's Parking Design Standards. c) Onsite vehicular circulation shall comply with the City's Parking Design Standards. d) Existing Plumer Street access shall only be used as vehicle egress, 1 9 )-_ ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 12 of 13 unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division, 16. No later than 30 days from the date of approval, existing vehicle gate locations shall be submitted to the Transportation Services Division for review and approval. If the existing gate locations cannot be approved, the applicant shall relocate and/or remove the vehicle gates as necessary. Fire 17. All vehicular access gates shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506.1 and 506.2 of the 2013 California Fire Code (or any successor provisions), so as to provide access to emergency crews. A Knox system for gate access must be obtained through the Costa Mesa Fire Department within 30 days from the date of approval for the existing gate on Plumer Street, and concurrently with the approval of the gate on W. 19th Street. 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, This use, as well as all contractors and subcontractors doing construction -related activity on the site, shall 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. Z Approval of the zoning application is valid for one (1) year from the effective date of this approval and will expire at the end of that period unless applicant establishes the use by one of the following actions: 1) obtains building permit(s) for the authorized construction and initiates construction; and/or 2) obtains a business license and/or legally establishes the business. If the applicant is unable to establish the use/obtain building permits within the one-year time period, the applicant may request an extension of time. The Planning Division must receive a written request for the time extension prior to the expiration of the zoning application. 3. The project is subject to compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws. A copy of the applicable Costa Mesa Municipal Code requirements has been forwarded to the Applicant and, where applicable, the Authorized Agent, for reference. 4. Street address shall be visible from the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or on another prominent location. Numerals shall be a minimum twelve 112) inches in height with not less than three -fourth - inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Identification .r- 1 73- ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 13 of 13 of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with not less than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 5. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 6. 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. 7. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 8. 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. 9. Comply with the requirements of the following adopted codes: 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, and 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. 10. Requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings and elements by individuals with disabilities shall comply with chapter 11 B of the 2013 California Building Code. - I rIA.- SO'OdLand�ng's Page 1 of 7 Behavioral Health Recovery... Individualized. December 11, 2014 VIA HAND DELIVERY TO: CITY OF COSTA MESA City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628-1200 Re: Amended Application for Minor Conditional Use Permit for Parking Deviation for 657 West 191h Street, Costa Mesa, California - Project Description & Justification City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department: A. Introduction Sure Haven, Inc. d/b/a Rock Solid Recovery (hereinafter "Rock Solid") submits the following detailed project description and justification for a parking deviation for the 657 West 191h Street property as a location for a state certified outpatient treatment program attended by Rock Solid clients residing in a sober living home or state certified outpatient residential program. This parking deviation request includes this justification followed by a list of [proposed] conditions on the minor conditional use permit (MCUP.) Use is permitted: 657 West 191h Street is located in a C1 local business district. A C1 business district includes, but is not limited to, facilities such as city halls, courthouses, police/fire stations, schools, art studios, antique malls, banks, beauty shops, hardware stores, department stores, grocery stores, movie theaters, automobile sale and repair, administrative offices, medical and dental offices, and dance studios. Therefore, use of the premises as a outpatient treatment facility, which is most similar to a medical office (as explained ante), administrative offices, and medical (therapy) offices is permitted under the City's Code. No use authorization for the use is required. Parking deviation: The 1911a street property is 6710 square feet. The entrance is on Plumer Street and includes 29 on site parking spaces that are accessed via a confidential gate code known to Rock Solid employees. Members of the general public cannot freely enter and park. Rock Solid seeks a parking deviation that permits this facility to function with the allocated 29 gated spaces instead of the 54 required per the Code. This request is based upon Rock Solid's detailed use of the facility as described herein. Rock Solid Recovery Solid Landings Behavioral Health 2900 Bristol St. Suite B-300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 949-467-9213 PHONE 888-588-4998 FAX www.solidlin(lings.com 4 R ]Land�ings Page 2 of 7 Behavioral Health Recovery... Individualized. B. Detailed Project Description Solid Landings Behavioral Health, Inc. is the parent company of Rock Solid Recovery. It provides effective residential and outpatient treatment services for those suffering from the disease of drug and alcohol addiction. We have operated our homes and treatment facilities within the City of Costa Mesa since approximately 2010. In doing so, we have contributed to the fiscal health of the City in many ways, including but not limited to, employing individuals in various capacities, including staff in our corporate offices, the warehouse, landscaping and maintenance, alumni services, family programming, therapy, and community outreach. We are good neighbors in the community. We operate and maintain our properties in a manner that is compatible with each neighborhood, we upgrade our homes to increase their value, and respect the surrounding communities. Solid Landings Behavioral Health operates gender specific programs. Rock Solid is the program for men and Sure Haven is the program for women. This MCUP only concerns the Rock Solid program which proposes to locate its administrative offices, state certified outpatient treatment program, and individual counseling services at 657 West 19th Street. Rock Solid's outpatient treatment program is under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Heath Care Services which certifies nonresidential alcohol and drug treatment programs through a procedural framework that requires a detailed provider application followed by a thorough review process to confirm regulatory compliance.' In order to obtain this certification, Rock Solid provided the State with a plan of operations detailing a continuous quality management program, its structured recovery program for clients, and a description of education and vocational classes with professional staffing. Following certification, the State provides ongoing oversight and evaluation through quality assurance standards for continuing regulatory compliance. C. Detailed Program Description Clients of the Rock Solid program include: • Adults who voluntarily agree to attend group sessions, individual counseling, and educational sessions to address their substance abuse problems; • Adults that are currently living in a sober living home or state licensed residential program; • Private paying individuals either through insurance or out-of-pocket; and • Voluntary admits, not referred from the criminal justice system. ' California Health & Safety Code §§ 1 1830, et seq ; California Code of Regulations, Title 9, Section I0501, el seq. —I10— Solid Landings Behavioral Health Rock Solid 2900 Bristol St. Suite B-300 q Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Recovery 949-467-9213 PHONE 4 888-588-4998 FAX ��• -.�» m www.solidlandings.com tdLand�ngs Page 3 of 7 Behavioral Health Recovery... Individualized. The following is a detailed outline of the activities related to 657 19th Street (hereinafter "19th Street"). This program runs Monday through Friday followed by limited weekend use. The weekday schedule is as follows: • 6:00 a.m. The first Rock Solid employee arrives at 1911, Street in a company vehicle and parks in the gated lot. • 7:30-9:30 a.m. 16 additional Rock Solid employees and/or therapists arrive in personal or company vehicles. These staff members include 8 therapists to hold 1:1 counseling sessions, 4 therapists who run group sessions; 5 additional staff members who perform administrative tasks and manage the computer lab/library. The maximum number of vehicles on -site throughout the remainder of the day, not including transportation vans (discussed ante), is 17 - one for each employee. b 8:45 - 9JS a.m. Clients from four different sober living homes arrive at 191h Street via three 12-seat passenger vans. The vans drop clients off within the gated parking lot and do not remain on - site. The total number of clients that arrive via the three passenger vans will range from approximately 21-30. The vans will arrive at 8:45, 9:00 and 9:15 so as not to overlap. • 9:15 - 3:00 p.m. Clients will generally rotate through 1:1 therapy, group counseling, computer lab/library time, lunch, and self- reflection/homework, and free time. • 3:00 - 3:30 p.m. Three passenger vans arrive in the gated parking area and transport clients to the gym. Clients not wishing to go to the gym are transported home. Clients do not return to the campus until the following weekday. The vans will stagger their pickups at 3:00, 3:15 and 3:30. • 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. Staff may remain on campus until 5:00 when they leave for the day. • 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. A cleaning crew of 3 to 6 individuals arrives in one or two cars, park in the gated lot and stays for approximately 60 minutes. • 6:00 p.m. Evening staff arrives to run group sessions attended by Rock Solid clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles. The clients arrive via three passenger vans with staggered arrivals at 6:00, 6:15 and 6:30 p.m. The approximate number of clients onsite will be 30. The total vehicles, including vans, is 13. - Rock Solid Solid Landings Behavioral Health 1_1610` 2900 Bristol St. Suite B-300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 U rfS) _ Rcc®��� 949-467-9213 PHONE 888-588-4998 FAX / www.solicllandings.corn -haver, ,) R ( . , Lan lngs Page 4 of 7 Behavioral Health Recovery... Individualized. • 6:30 — 8:30 p.m. Group sessions are held during this time period. • 8:30 — 9:00 p.m. Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to their respective homes at 8:30, 8:45 and 9:00 p.m. The employees leave at 9:00 p.m. once the final client departs via passenger van. During the weekend, a therapist may schedule an appointment with a client at 191h Street. These appointments are rare; however, they occur between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. when the need arises. If an appointment occurs, then the maximum number of vehicles would be two, one for the therapist and one for the client who is transported to the premises in a Rock Solid vehicle. D. Parking Justification Rock Solid intends to use the 191h street building as part of its outpatient treatment program. Specifically, the building has three uses: administrative, medical (therapist) office space and group counseling. As mentioned above, these are all approved uses within the C1 zone. The only issue relates to sufficient parking. Rock Solid requests a parking variance from 48 to 29 parking spaces. This request is nearly identical to the variance requested and granted for the Group Counseling Center at 1901 Newport Boulevard, Suite 149, Costa Mesa (ZA-09-34). (This document is attached hereto as Exhibit "A.") The parking lot attached to 19th Street contains 29 gated parking spaces. The maximum number of vehicles onsite at any given time of the day is 17, plus at most, 3 passenger vans. The total number of spaces necessary for Rock Solid's use is 20, which leaves nearly a third of the lot empty. (See parking map attached as Exhibit "B.") The required parking for 19th Street far exceeds the demand of the actual use, permitting the City to reduce the requirement. (Costa Mesa Municipal Code § 13-89.5.) The City generally requires group counseling to have 10 parking spaces for every 1000 square feet of floor space (10:1); however, due to Rock Solid's actual use as described above, this is an excessive parking requirement and an improper classification for its use. Other establishments that require 10:1 parking are open to the general public and include large restaurants, gyms, trade schools, business colleges, dancing and music academies, and skating rinks. (Costa Mesa Zoning Code, Chapter IV Off Street Parking.) These are extremely different from Rock Solid's use, which is private in nature and both the parking and building entrance are only accessed via a locked gate on a side street. The other 10:1 establishments are not only public, but they encourage large members of the public to attend, they require parking of vehicles owned by unknown members of the public, and the owners of the establishment have very limited control over who parks in the lots. Rock Solid has absolute control of all vehicles that enter and park in the lot. Only employees have the gate access code and Rock Solid has complete control over the number 1 19 Solid Landings Behavioral Health Rock Solid 2900 Bristol St. Suite B-300 w Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Recovery 949-467-9213 PHONE a 888-588-4998 FAX .— w�., www solidlandings.com S-0 I WLand�ngs Behavioral Health Recovery... Individualized. Page 5 of 7 of employees present at 191h Street at any given moment. Further, only part of the first floor will be used as a group counseling center. The remainder of the building will be split between administrative and therapist offices. The below chart describes the breakdown of our uses: Use Square ]'Parking Feet Required Group Counseling 3840 139 Medical Office 1434 19 Administrative 1435 _1 6 1. TOTAL 6710 154 Due to Rock Solid's use, the total number of parking spaces per the code is 54. However, should the City consider the entire building group counseling (which it is not) then, the total parking would be 67 spaces. Either way, the parking requirement under the Code does not coincide with Rock Solid's actual use and therefore this MCUP is respectfully requested. E. American's with Disabilities Act The American's with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title 11, prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against individuals with disabilities in virtually all governance activities and decision -making, including planning and land use. (ADA Title II: State and Local Government Activities; 28 C.F.R. §§35.130, et seq.) Public entities must make reasonable modifications in rules, policies and practices that are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of a disability "unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program or activity." (28 C.F.R. §§35.130(b)(7),the ADA term "reasonable modification" has the same meaning as "reasonable accommodation" under the federal and state fair housing laws; Costa Mesa Municipal Code §13-200.60, etseq., reasonable accommodations.) The ADA's reasonable modification mandate provides an additional basis for Rock Solid's request for a parking deviation. The City of Costa Mesa's classification of Group Counseling as a trade or vocation school leads to the very high parking requirement of 10:1. The requirement is based on the questionable assertion that the demand for parking at group counseling sessions is the same as that of vocational or trade schools. The more appropriate classification of an outpatient treatment program, such as Rock Solid's, is as a medical office space. This suggested approach is in line with the State's efforts to create parity between physical and mental health treatment access. Classification of Rock Solid's treatment program as one which requires 10:1 parking places an enormous barrier to treating disabled individuals suffering from drug and alcohol addiction. -Iqq- Solid Landings Behavioral Health Rock Solid 2900 Bristol St. Suite B-300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Recovery 949-467-9213 PHONE 888-588-4998 FAX - 4- www.solidlandiHgs.com So`odLan&ngs Page 6 of 7 Behavioral Health Recovery... Individualized. F. Decisions must not be Arbitrary or Capricious Decisions of a zoning board are ultimately appealable to the court. When a court reviews decisions of a zoning board and/or its officers, the court may inquire into the conduct of the board or officers which relates to the decision making process in order to determine whether the decision was arbitrary or capricious. (Ruppert v. Washington (1973) 366 F. Supp 686.) These decisions are reviewable, not only for the purpose of determining whether there has been an erroneous interpretation of the law, but also to determine whether they impair personal or property rights by reason of an arbitrary or unlawful exercise of discretion. (Ruppert v. Washington (1973) 366 F. Supp 686.) Sober Living By the Sea previously requested a similar parking variance for 1901 Newport Boulevard in Costa Mesa, CA wherein the City agreed that a total of 6 parking spaces were required for a 3800 square foot group counseling center because all clients arrived by passenger vans and only 4 employees would be present at the sessions. (ZA-09- 34 attached as "A.") Rock Solid requests that the City come to the same, reasonable conclusion, and grant the requested parking deviation. A decision otherwise would essentially prohibit the use of the property by the disabled and be arbitrary. G. Proposed Conditions on the MCUP Rock Solid has prepared and agrees to abide by the following list of proposed conditions that could be placed upon the Minor Conditional Use Permit requested herein. Conditions of Approval 1. Operation of the business shall be limited as described in the project description and the applicant's December 8, 2014 submittal. Any expansion or modification of the use or hours of operation may require approval of an amendment to the minor conditional use permit. 2. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the applicant shall institute whatever operational measures are necessary to eliminate the problem in a timely fashion. 3. Hours of operation shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Weekend operation is limited to one-on-one therapy appointments that, if necessary, would occur between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Solid Landings Behavioral Health Rock Solid 2900 Bristol St. Suite B-300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 — Recovery 949-467-9213 PHONE 888-588-4998 FAX u b� www.solidlandings.com S6'1RdLand�ng's Page 7 of 7 Behavioral Health Recovery... Individualized. 4. A copy of the conditions of approval for the minor conditional use permit shall be kept on the premises and presented to any authorized City Official upon request. New business/property owners shall be notified of the conditions of approval upon transfer of the business or ownership of land. H. Conclusion Rock Solid respectfully requests the City grant its request for a minor conditional use permit to allow a reduction in the parking requirement for the outpatient treatment center, therapy offices and administrative offices located at 19th Street. This reduction will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the immediately vicinity. Specifically, the required parking exceeds the actual anticipated demand for the use since the attendees are transported to and from the site via passenger vans. Granting the minor conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity, which is not in accordance with the general plan. Therefore, the parking deviation should be granted as requested. Sincerely, t Kristen B. Ford Vice President and Corporate Counsel Rock Solid Recovery, Inc. _ 0, Solid Landings Behavioral Health Rock Solid 2900 Bristol St. Suite B-300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re,�� covery 949-467-9213 PHONE 888-588-4998 FAX M 11.1.—www.solidlandings.com rA Exhibit A _,�2-_ CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 - 77 FAIR DRIVE - CALIFORNIA 82826-1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT November 5, 2009 Brian Burke 2811 Villa Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: ZONING APPLICATION ZA-09-34 REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR GROUP COUNSELING CENTER 1901 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, SUITE 149, COSTA MESA Dear Mr. Burke: Review of the minor conditional use permit for the above -referenced project has been completed. The application, as described in the attached project description, has been approved, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval (attached). The decision will become final at 5 p.m. on November 12, 2009, unless appealed by an affected party (including filing of the necessary application and payment of the appropriate fee) or by a member of the Planning Commission or City Council. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact the project planner, Wendy Shih, at 714-754-5136 between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. or via email at wshih_@c%costa-mesa.ca.us Sincerely, WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP Zoning Administrator Attachments: Project description Findings Conditions of approval Approved conceptual plans cc: Engineering 1901 Newport LLC Fire Protection Analyst 3424 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1200 Building Division Los Angeles, CA 90010 I S3 Building Division (714) 754-5273 • Code Enlorcemenl (714) 754-5623 • Planning Division (714) 754-5245 FAX (714) 7544856 - TDD (714) 754-5244 • weYw ci.cosla-mesa.ca.us r ZA-09-34 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background: • Sober Living by the Sea provides group counseling and education for drug and alcohol abuse at 1040 West 17th Street, in an approximately 8,273 square -foot suite. • The applicant proposes to relocate the business to a smaller suite (approximately 3,800 square feet) at the subject location. • The property is zoned PDC (Planned Development Commercial) and has a General Plan designation of Commercial Center. The property contains a three- story commercial building and a single -story office building, totaling 127,512 square feet. • According to the City's Land Use Matrix, group -counseling and education center (categorized under trade and vocational schools) is a use permitted within the PDC zone. However, a minor conditional use permit is required to allow a reduction in shared parking requirements due to unique operating characteristics. Analysis: • The applicant states that the hours of operation will be from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Friday, with a maximum of four employees/administration staff on -site during those hours. Lectures and educational groups will occur between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and between 6:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. • The facility will provide individual and group counseling for up to 12 people. All attendees will be transported to and from the facility by two passenger vans. • The Code requires 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 38 parking spaces for the counseling/education center; 11 parking spaces are allocated to this suite based on general office parking requirement (3 spaces per 1,000 square feet for office buildings exceeding two stories in height and 100,000 square feet in area). • Based on the applicant's description of the proposed use, the actual parking demand is six spaces (four spaces for the employees plus two passenger vans). • Since all counseling attendees will arrive and leave by passenger vans only and the total actual parking demand is comparable to a general office use, parking impacts are not anticipated. FINDINGS 1. The information presented substantially complies with Section 13-29(e) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that: a. The proposed use is compatible and harmonious with uses on -site as well as those on the surrounding properties. zA-09.34 b. Safety and compatibility of the design of the buildings, parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and -pedestrian circulation have been considered. c. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan because.. it is' -a permitted use in the PDC zone and. no parking impacts are anticipated due to the unique operating characteristics. d. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. 2. The minor conditional use permit to allow a reduction in shared parking requirements for a counseling/education center substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that the proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the minor conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the immediate vicinity. Specifically, the required parking exceeds the actual anticipated demand for the use since the attendees are transported to and from the site via passenger vans. Granting the minor conditional use permits will not allow a use, density or intensity, which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. 3. 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 15301 for Existing Facilities. 4. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. Operation of the business shall be limited as described in the project description and in the applicant's letter dated September 21, 2009. Any expansion or modification of the use or hours of operation may require approval of an amendment to the minor conditional use permit. 2. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the applicant shall institute whatever operational measures are. necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. 3. Hours of operation shall be from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Friday. 4. All attendees shall wait for transportation service inside the building only. 5. A copy of the conditic is of approval for the minor conditional use permits must be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. ZA-09-34 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 referen e" to "Cityy" pertains to the 'City of Costa Mesa. Ping 2. Bus. 2 Lic. Bldg. 3 Approval of the zoning application is valid for one (1) year from the effective date of this approval and will expire at the end of that period unless applicant establishes the use by one of the following actions: 1) obtains building permits for the authorized construction and initiates construction; and/or 2) obtains a business license and/or legally establishes the business. , If the applicant is unable to establish the use/obtain building permits or business license within the one-year time period, the applicant may request an extension of time. The Planning Division must receive a written request for the time extension prior to the expiration of the zoning application. Once the use is legally established, the zoning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked. The Development Services Director or his designee may refer the zoning application to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if, in his opinion, any of the following circumstances exist: 1) the use is being operated in violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. A business license shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the business approved under this application. Comply with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also known as the 2007 California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Exhibit B Fm m a� Z W 19TH ST MWEN1YlINEi E K O N m Dm n rn o N US m D rn D �KaN PROPER UNEH �Tf PLUMER ST cn m I I PROJECT TWO STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING CLIENT. ROCK SOLID RECOVERY, IN( n 657 W. 19TH ST 2900 BRISTOL ST. SUITE B-300 PROJECT COSTA MESA, CA92627 COSTA MESA, CA92626 ADDRESS: (949)467-9213 Y •r _ Of PROJECT PROJECT ADDRESS: Mon TWO STORY COV AERCIAL BUILDING CLIENT. ROCK SOLID RECOVERY, INC. 657 W. 19TH ST 2900 BRISTOL ST. SUITE B-300 COSTA MESA, CA92627 COSTA MESA, CA92626 (949)-467-9213 .' Sqv — 2 r�I I PROJECT TWO STORY COM"ERCIAL BUILDING ' 657 W. 19TH ST $ PROJECT COSTAMESA, CA92627 N ADDRESS: CLIENT. ROCK SOLID RECOVERY, INC. 2900 BRISTOL ST. SUITE B-300 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 (949)-467-9213 o -� ATTACHMENT 6 CORRESPONDENCE FROM PUBLIC Ri -IQ2- LEE, MEL From: Ryder, Kenneth A. <kryder@gdsrlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 1:50 PM To: LEE, MEL Subject: Application No. ZA-15-01 (657 W. 19th St.) Dear Mr. Lee --The number of on -site parking spaces for this proposed use is greatly below the required number of spaces for this use at this site. Can you please advise where vehicles will be parking when the on -site spaces are full? If this overflow is to be accommodated by street parking, please advise how you will mitigate this impact (potentially approx. 40 vehicles) on street parking use by existing residents and businesses in this area. I am available by telephone if you would like to discuss. Thank you. Regards, Ken Kenneth A. Ryder I Partner Garrett DeFrenza Stiepel Ryder LLP 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 850, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1808 Tel: 714.384.4300 1 Direct: 714.384.4311 1 Fax: 714.384.4320 Email: kryder@gdsrlaw.com I Web: www.,gdsrlaw.com GDSR. Sophisticated. Practical. Creative. Efficient. _Iq3- ATTACHMENT 7 PARKING SURVEY - jq4- 2 I -I(qlo- E a Ln rri 19�- E 4.�. Al � N w y`t i 4 f NY K� *•{, y.r fie' t 10 1 y4 T:�.'::. ���e W7�c1• � E �' Mi11�Y�a:w • \I all �1» ����y ZIA e' I f AN / !� t lli!/!■ ;; -- Z(02— w 2c)3._ ATTACHMENT 8 CORRESPONDENCE FROM APPLICANT LEE, MEL Subject: FW: Appeal of Zoning Application ZA-15-01 (657 W. 19th Street) From: Kristen Ford[mailto:kristen.ford@solidlandings.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 3:36 PM To: LEE, MEL Subject: Re: Appeal of Zoning Application ZA-15-01 (657 W. 19th Street) Dear Mel, I was able to confirm that all pickup and drop offs are happening inside the gates. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Hope you are having a good week. Kristen ATTACHMENT 9 RESOLUTION NO. PC-15-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA REVERSING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION AND DENYING ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN ON -SITE PARKING SPACES FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 WEST 19T" STREET THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed Kristen Ford, representing John Morehart, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: Zoning Application ZA-15-01 is a Minor Conditional Use Permit to deviate from parking requirements for a group counseling use (Solid Landings) in a 6,710 square foot` building (67 parking spaces is required for the use, 24 on -site parking spaces will be provided (29 existing minus 5 that will be lost when the West 19th Street gate is reopened per the conditions of approval) based on unique operating characteristics. WHEREAS, on April 23, 2015, the Zoning Administrator approved the request; and WHEREAS, on April 30, 2015, the Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed by a City resident; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and WHEREAS, the project was reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; and it was determined that CEQA does not apply to the project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), because the project was denied; and BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission hereby reverses the Zoning X(0 Administrator's decision and DENIES Planning Application ZA-15-01 with respect to the property described above. 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 8th day of J e, 2015. Robert L. Dickson Jr], Choir, Costa Mesa Planning Commission -20- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15-34 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on June 8, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission 20S EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that: Finding: The proposed use is not compatible with developments in the same general area and would be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Findings: The applicant's request cannot be supported based on the following: • The residential neighborhoods on Center Street and Plumer Street are being disrupted by the following activities related to the use; • Clients and employees have been observed parking on Center Street and Plumer Street instead of in the parking lot and walking to the facility; additionally, clients are walking to the faculty rather than being dropped off as indicated in the applicants' business plan. • Employees have been observed parking in the nearby Costa Mesa Senior Center parking lot and walking to the facility. • The client vans have been observed blocking traffic on Plumer Street and parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot. ■ The above activities are inconsistent with the plan submitted by the applicants, which indicated that all employees park inside the property, all clients are dropped off by vans inside the property so as to ensure minimal impact on the neighboring properties and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. • In light of the above the Planning Commission finds that, according to the applicant's submittals, the current operation should have little or no impact on parking and traffic. However, the current operation is spilling over into the neighborhood demonstrating that the proposed operating measures are inadequate to address the parking shortfall. The approval of ZA-09-34 for a group counseling center at 1901 Newport Boulevard, Suite 149, as cited by the applicant as basis for approval for the subject use, does not establish a precedent for the approval of this application based on the following: • The 1901 Newport property is zoned PDC, versus the C1 zoning for the subject property; • The 1901 Newport property is surrounded by commercial properties and a parking structure, versus the subject property, which is abutting residential uses; ZN -- • The 1901 Newport property had a shortfall of 2 spaces, based on the shortfall of 38-43 spaces for the subject use; • The 1901 Newport property has available overflow parking on -site, versus the subject property; • The 1901 Newport property has no vehicle gates, versus the subject property; • The 1901 Newport property has all required building and fire safety permits and inspections, versus the subject property. The use is not being operated in compliance of the following conditions of approval and code requirements for ZA-15-01: • Conditions of Approval Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 17; • Code Requirement Numbers 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10. The use as being operated constitutes a public nuisance per the following sections of Title 20, Chapter III, Article 1 Section 20-12 (Conditions or Uses Qualifying as a Public Nuisance): • Sections a, x, z, ff, gg, hh, jj, and II; • The facility has been operated for nine months without the necessary approvals as noted above; • The findings upon which the ZA approval was granted are no longer applicable. Finding: Granting the minor conditional use permit will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood. Facts in Support of Findings: The applicant's request cannot be supported based on the following: The property owner and applicant did not follow the correct procedures for obtaining the necessary building and fire safety permits and inspections for the use, including, but not limited to, the following: • Permits for interior and exterior alterations to the building, fire safety inspections, certificates of occupancy, and business licenses; • The addition of the security gate on Plumer Street; • The removal of the driveway and the addition of a vehicle gate on West 19th Street; • The addition of glass storefront windows along the building's West 19th Street frontage; • Kitchen and kitchenette facilities were installed without the required OC Health Department permits and inspections; --2 l Q -- • Electrical conduits and piping were installed on the exterior of the building without the required electrical permits and inspections; • Rusted/damaged exterior stairs were installed without the required building permits and inspections. Finding: Granting the minor conditional use permit will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General plan designation. Facts in Support of Findings: The request is not consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan: • Objective LU-1 F.1: Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. • Objective CIR-1 A.14: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of commuter through traffic on local streets in residential neighborhoods. As noted earlier, the applicant's request cannot be supported based on the following: • The residential neighborhoods on Center Street and Plumer Street are being disrupted by the following activities related to the use: • Clients and employees have been observed parking on Center Street and Plumer Street instead of in the parking lot and walking to the facility; • Employees have been observed parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot and walking to the facility; • The client vans have been observed blocking traffic on Plumer Street and parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot. B. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. '211- ATTACHMENT 10 CITY OF COSTA MESA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: CLAIWFLYNN FROM: RANDY BUCK SUBJECT: 657 W. 19TH ST. DATE: 07-06-2015 1. The building improvements were observed and the building department informed the contractor permits were required. 2. The property owner obtained permits for the electrical and plumbing work being done. 3. The mechanical contractor obtained permits for the new HVAC work. 4. The architect submitted plans for the stairs (presently in plan check) 5. Several job site consultations and partial inspections were performed over a period of time for all permits and work being done. 6. The mechanical system had been completed and covered prior to inspections; the rough mechanical inspection was performed via "HERS" testing of the concealed ducts. The remainder of the inspections were performed and the mechanical permit was finalized on 06-17-2015 7. The electrical work was finalized on 06-19-2015 after several partial inspections and consultations. 8. The plumbing permit was inspected on 06-07-2015 and will have to be revised to reflect the new gas piping and required inspections. 9. The property owner has submitted an application to the fire department for a "knox Box" on the gate (allows the fire department access), but has not been approved as of this date. 10. No one has submitted plans for the approval of the gate itself. 11. The stairs are completed, but we are unable to inspect them without an approved set of plans 12.The original building was permitted as offices and a residence on the second floor; since the present tenant is not using the building differently than the original "Certification of Occupancy" they were not required to vacant the premises while making the present building modifications. 13.Although, there are plans in plan check and inspections yet to be performed, progress continues and lacking any evidence of a "life Safety" issue, the building department will continue to make inspections to facilitate the completion of all permits and this project. Randy By k, Chief of Inspections, -212- ATTACHMENT 11 COSTA MESA FIRE DEPARTMENT INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: JULY 10, 2015 TO: DAN STEFANO, FIRE CHIEF FROM: CHERYL WILLS, FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALIST SUBJECT: 657 W. 19TH STREET UNIT K—SOLID LANDINGS On June 5, 2014, Mr. John Morehart contacted me and asked about gates and Knox Boxes for gated properties. I told him that the gate would need to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department before any Knox Equipment could be ordered through the Fire Prevention Division. I have not heard from him since that time. Earlier this year, Dave Hollister was contacted by Mr. Morehart and the same requirements were reviewed with him. Mr. Morehart recently filled out a Knox Order Form dated June 23, 2015, but was unable to complete the form. This was due to the electric gate installed at the rear of the building, has no approval from the Planning Department. There is a lock box installed at the rear gate, but it is not an approved Knox Box. It appears to be a lock box that was most likely purchased off the internet, the Costa Mesa Fire Department has no access to this box. Additionally, I have not received any requests for an 850 Fire Clearance/Inspection for the above mentioned address. I am currently working with the Building Department and Inspector Ed Cooke to move forward in rectifying the issues outlined in Randy Buck's memo dated 7-6-15. ATTACHMENT 12 City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum To: Mel Lee From: Mike Tucker, Code Enforcement Officer Date: July 8, 2015 Subject: 657 W. 19t" St. — Solid Landings — Activity Update Friday, 6/19115, 13:45: 1 went out to property to observe activity: • 13:45: security gate on Plumer St. is remaining in open position. An employee walked out, entered gate code and shut Plumer St. security gate. I observed 2 cars (bronze Cadillac & White Kia) parked side by side in the small driveway, facing 19t" St, blocking driveway. Parking lot appeared to be approximately 2/3 full with, at least, 5 open spaces. I observed 2 staff members (with ID badges) hanging out in smoking area. • 13:48: 7 people out front. 6 males and 1 female • 13:50: now approximately 15 people out by smoking area. It appears as though some type of activity has ended or is taking a break. • 13:51: White Nissan van pulled up to gate, blocks sidewalk, a male gets out and manually enters gate code, gets back in vehicle and pulls into property (pics 1-3). • 13:54: a car tried to pull in, from northbound Plumer St. and is blocked by vehicles trying to exit property. The car trying to pull in temporarily blocks westbound Plumer St. A white car pulled out with clients inside. An adult male and a younger male walk in through Plumer St. gate (pics 4 & 5). • 13:58: A staff member (black, female, approx. 38 yoa), exits and gets in a car (gray Hyundai Elantra) parked on Plumer St. • 14:00: It appears break is over and everyone went back into building • 14:03: A female staff member parks on Plumer St, exits vehicle and enters through security gate and goes upstairs to 2nd floor of building. • 14:06: Everyone is inside and all is quiet. Thursday, 6/25/15, 12:45: 1 went out to property to observe activity: • 12:45: 1 arrived at property and found a car accessing the property from Plumer St, blocking the sidewalk as the male driver exited the vehicle, manually entered access code, got back into vehicle and proceeded onto property. I observed approximately 4 open parking spots on property and 2 males (1 staff member wearing ID badge) outside near smoking area. -214- cc: • 12:53: 2 more males joined the group near smoking areal staffer, with ID badge and 1 client. Another male staff member, wearing blue scrubs, has joined the group. There is now a total of 5 males out by smoking area. • 12:56: 1 male staff member gets into car, which is parked in parking lot, and exits by way of Plumer St. • 12:59: A white Mercedes, parks on Plumer St, male exits vehicle and enters through gate on Plumer St. (pics 6 & 7). • 13:02: Female approaches on foot, eastbound Plumer St, and enters through Plumer St. pedestrian gate. • 13:03: Male staff member exits Plumer St. pedestrian gate, stands out front while talking on cell phone. A silver Dodge pickup (Ram 2500, NV T960) approaches on westbound Plumer St. The truck stops in the middle of the street, the staff member approaches the driver's window and speaks with driver. I can tell by his hand movements that he is directing them to park in the Senior Center's parking lot. The truck parks in the south/east corner of the Senior Center's parking lot and 3 individuals (2 females and 1 young male) exit the vehicle, walk to the property, are greeted by the male staff member and proceed onto property (pics 8-17). • 13:04: Black Jeep (7EKL071) approaches Plumer St. security gate, blocks sidewalk, male driver exits vehicle, manually enters gate code, gets back in vehicle and enters property. (pics 18 & 19) • 13:05: Male staff member exits on foot through Plumer St. pedestrian gate, walks eastbound down Plumer St, gets into a charcoal colored Chevrolet Cruz (pics 20 & 21). • 13:10: Female staff member gets into car parked on Plumer St. and drives off (pics 22-24). -215.-- s' 1 \",L jmops tx*pvqp w 40dm.y oppr tom, T 4 ry I Ap Pi I 7411� AL rum= Nit, -22D- eI r, jL -it • 0� I k�� lob - -qp- q4w .i� Ic. %P I ■ "4460- �" M wl� 0 IF -I I "IMP LP LO ■ dO' m 2i 0— r9o, LO N U'l CD 1 - =�- Iv IL P w qLF •�I �n �r 00 t I r- /�j F' p 1\/l o AN v Z i I I pir- 19 A- m - 21,3� - )PI -"-,) �l - n-A, p i\N/ r' iP qw -- *mob i f!11 _or 0 imp -ter n !nC 14 r 4 .nT runt A W 1 kJ L 4 P a 2 0- 0) e, LO (N u v f F Correspondence received pertaining to Public Hearing Item #2 — Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of Zoning Application ZA-15-01 for a deviation from parking requirements for a group counseling use at 657 W. 19t" Street. PETERSON LAW GROUP PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SUITE 290 19800 YIAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 TELEPHONE (949) 955-0127 FACSIMILE (949) 955-9007 July 14, 2015 Mayor Stephen Mensinger Costa Mesa City Council c/o Jessica Meija — Deputy City Clerk 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Jessic.Mejia@costamesaca.gov Via Email and Personal Delivery Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution PC-15-34 657 W. 19th Street, Costa Mesa, CA Dear Mr. Mayor and Honorable Members of the City Counsel: This letter is submitted by on behalf of our client, Solid Landings Behavioral Health ("Solid Landings"), as a tenant at the above referenced property. This letter sets forth the grounds upon which Solid Landings is appealing Planning Commission Resolution PC-15-34, which denied the Zoning Administrator's approval of a minor conditional use permit ("MCUP") to deviate from parking requirements for Solid Landings' community center. Solid Landings requests that the City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission, and reinstate the MCUP granted under Planning Application ZA-15-01 ("ZA-15-01"). We request that this letter be made part of the record of these proceedings and we intend to appear and by this letter request to be heard. Factual Backgroun Solid Landings is a tenant of 657 W. 19th Street, Costa Mesa, CA ("MCUP Building"). In September 2014, Solid Landings applied for a Business License to operate at the MCUP Building. An administrative business license was issued in September 2014. Solid Landings was informed that it would need to request an MCUP for a parking deviation in order to have a business license issued for counseling services. On December 11, 2014, Solid Landings submitted an "Amended Application for Minor Conditional Use Permit for Parking Deviation for 657 West 19`h Street, Costa Mesa, California — Project Description & Justification." A copy of the MCUP Application is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Included in this application is a typical Costa Mesa City Council July 14, 2015 Page 2 of 9 schedule for the daily operation of Solid Landings, illustrating that Solid Landings was eligible for a parking deviation based on the nature of its use at the property. By letter dated April23, 2015, notice of approval and the decision of Zoning of Application ZA-15-01 Minor Conditional Use Permit for Parking Reduction for Group Counseling Use (Solid Landings Behavioral Health, dba Rock Solid Recovery) 657 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa was sent by Willa Bouwens-Killeen, Zoning Administrator to Solid Landings. The decision of the Zoning Administrator became final at 5:00 p.m. on April 30, 2015. A copy of the Zoning Administrator's decision in Zoning Application ZA-15-01 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. ZA-15-01 contained 17 conditions of approval, and allowed 45 days from the date of approval to revise the parking area and access gates at the MCUP Building. The conditions that are relevant here include: • #3 — No employees, clients, or visitors to the property shall park on City streets. All parking for the use shall take place on the property in designated parking spaces. • #4 — All clients shall be dropped off and picked up in the parking area. No pick- up or drop-off will occur in the driveways or in the public right-of-ways. • #5 — The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described herein. Any changes in the operational characteristics shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the condition use permit, subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that the Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(o)]. • #6 — The zoning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked. The Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO or his designee may refer the zoning application to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if, in his opinion, any of the following circumstances exist: 1) the use is being operated in violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. • #8 — If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. • #9 — The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or operator shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. Costa Mesa City Council July 14, 2015 Page 3 of 9 • #11 — The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site. This inspection is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. • #16 — No later than 30 days from the date of approval, existing vehicle gate locations shall be submitted to the Transportation Services Division for review and approval. If the existing gate locations cannot be approved, the applicant shall relocate and/or remove the vehicle gates as necessary. • 917 — All vehicular access gates shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506.1 and 506.2 of the 2013 California Fire Code (or any successor provisions), so as to provide access to emergency crews. A Knox system for gate access must be obtained through the Costa Mesa Fire Department within 30 days from the date of approval for the existing gate on Plumer Street, and concurrently with the approval of the gate on W. 19th Street. On April 30, 2015, Ann H. Parker, representing herself, Residents, and TBON, filed an Application for Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision in Zoning Application ZA-15-01. The form of the Application for Appeal or Review filed by Ann Parker is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The "Residents" are not identified. This unidentified group obviously is not qualified to join in this Application. We have learned that TBON stands for "Take Back Our Neighborhood." However, we do not know if this is a legally formed entity or if Ann Parker is authorized to represent TBON, or who TBON members are. Dennis O'Neil submitted a letter outlining the flaws in Ms. Parker's appeal on behalf of Solid Landings on May 29, 2015. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D Yesenia Umana, Solid Landings' Community Relations and Real Estate Liaison, submitted a declaration under the penalty of perjury on June 2, 2015 to the Planning Commission, outlining the steps she has taken to comply with the conditions in ZA-15-01. A copy of this Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Ms. Umana submitted plans to the Transportation Services Division for review and approval on May 26, 2015 (Condition #16). Ms. Umana obtained the authorization from the Costa Mesa Fire Department for the purchase and installation of the required Knox systems (Condition #17). Ms. Umana caused the five parking spaces along the West 19th driveway access to the parking area to be eliminated and was in the process of working with Planning towards plans for the construction of a commercial driveway. (Conditions #14 and #15). The Parker Request for Review was considered at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, June 8, 2015. The Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution PC-15-34 on June 9, 2015, reversing and denying the Zoning Administrator's approval of a MCUP to deviate from parking requirements for Solid Landings' community center. A copy of the Planning Commission Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit F. Costa Mesa City Council July 14, 2015 Page 4 of 9 Kristen Ford, on behalf of Solid Landings, filed an Application for Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on June 12, 2015, and requested hearing by the City Council on July 21, 2015. A copy of the Application for Appeal is attached hereto as Exhibit G. The June 8, 2015 Hearing The Parker Request for Review was considered at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on Monday, June 8, 2015 (the "Public Hearing"). At the Public Hearing, Parker and several other Costa Mesa residents spent more than an hour testifying about alleged code violations and lack of permits for construction that was already completed. These allegations are irrelevant to the determination of a MCUP for a parking deviation. Several times throughout her testimony, Parker refers to the MCUP Building as a "John Morehart Property." John Morehart is Solid Landings' landlord. Most of Parker's allegations against Solid Landings were related to the construction and state of the MCUP Building; issues that are the responsibility of Mr. Morehart. If Parker has personal issues or gripes with Mr. Morehart, this is not the appropriate venue in which they should be addressed. Additionally, photographic evidence was presented by Parker at the Public Hearing, purporting to show employees parking on Plumer Street and vans pulling into the MCUP Building driveway. All of these photographs were taken on the same day. Dennis O'Neil appeared on behalf of Solid Landings at the Public Hearing. He informed the Planning Commission that Solid Landings had no notice from the City of Costa Mesa of any code violations. He also explained, as Ms. Umana stated in her declaration, that Solid Landings was working towards complying with the conditions listed in ZA-15-01. Mr. O'Neil also emphasized that Solid Landings still had time to comply with the conditions required under ZA- 15-01. The Planning Commission Decision Parker prematurely and illegally called for a review of ZA-15-01, citing her reasons for review being that the conditions imposed by the Zoning Administrator's decision had been ignored. The conditions imposed by the MCUP were in the process of being implemented during the 45 day time period authorized by the Zoning Administrator. Moreover, the MCUP was not yet even in effect. Despite evidence presented under the penalty of perjury (See Exhibit E) illustrating that Solid Landings was working with the City to comply with the conditions, and still had time to come into full compliance with said conditions, the Planning Commission chose to give weight to unauthenticated evidence presented by disgruntled citizens with an agenda, and to overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision. The Planning Commission based its decision to overturn ZA-15-01 for several reasons, including: Costa Mesa City Council July 14, 2015 Page 5 of 9 • The residential neighborhoods of Center Street and Plumer Street are being disrupted by the following activities related to the use: o Clients and employees have been observed parking on Center Street and Plumer Street instead of in the parking lot and walking to the facility; additionally, clients are walking to the faculty [sic] rather than being dropped off as indicated in the applicants' business plan. o Employees have been observed parking in the nearby Costa Mesa Senior Center parking lot and walking to the facility. o The client vans have been observed blocking traffic on Plumer Street and parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot. o The above activities are inconsistent with the plan submitted by the applicants, which indicated that all employees park inside the property, all clients are dropped off by vans inside the property so as to ensure minimal impact on the neighboring properties and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. o In light of the above the Planning Commission finds that, according to the applicant's submittals, the current operation should have little or no impact on parking and traffic. However, the current operation is spilling over into the neighborhood demonstrating that the proposed operating measures are inadequate to address the parking shortfall. Additionally, the Planning Commission held that "the use is not being operated in compliance with the following conditions of approval and code requirements for ZA-15-01: • Conditions of Approval Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 17; • Code Requirement Numbers 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10. Finally, the Planning Commission held that "the property owner and applicant did not follow the correct procedures for obtaining the necessary building and fire safety permits and inspections for the use, including, but not limited to: • Permits for interior and exterior alterations to the building, fire safety inspections, certificates of occupancy, and business licenses; • The addition of the Security Gate on Plumer Street; • The removal of the driveway and the additional of a vehicle gate on West 19tn Street; Costa Mesa City Council July 14, 2015 Page 6 of 9 • The addition of glass storefront windows along the building's West 191h Street frontage; • Kitchen and kitchenette facilities were installed without the required OC Health Department permits and inspections; Electrical conduits and piping were installed on the exterior of the building without the required permits and inspections; • Rusted/damaged exterior stairs were installed without the required building permits and inspections. Procedural Issues The Application for Appeal or Review requires an applicant to mark the box for "Appeal" or the box for "Review." The application expressly states on its face the "Review" may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council or City Council Member. Nevertheless, Ann Parker marked the box requesting a "Review" of the Zoning Administrator's decision in case ZA-15-01. The procedures relating to the method of appeal and review of decisions of the staff, committees, commissions and City Council are set forth in Ordinance No. 13-08 amending Chapter IX of Title 2 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Sections 2-300 through 2-314). Ordinance No. 13-08 was adopted by the Costa Mesa City Council on December 3, 2013. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit H. Section 2-311 of Ordinance No. 13-08 states that the procedures set forth in this chapter are the exclusive methods by which appeals and reviews may be pursued and none of the steps set forth herein may be waived or omitted. Ann Parker failed to follow these procedures by marking the wrong box requesting a "Review" which cannot be waived and interpreted to mean she meant to check the "Appeal" box. Additionally, Section 2-303 of Ordinance No. 13-08 states that any affected person may, within the time limit set forth in Section 2-305, file an application for appeal with the City Clerk. Said application shall contain sufficient information to identify the party, its interest in the matter, and the reasons for requesting an appeal. Section 2-301 of Ordinance No. 13-08 defines "Affected Person" to mean "any person, including the applicant, any city staff member, committee, or commission who has an interest in the matter at issue or whose health, safety, or welfare may be affected by the decision." Section 2-301 defines "Review" to mean reconsideration of the decision of any city employee, committee, or commission requested by the City Council, on its own motion, or upon request of any City Council member, in order to consider the decision and any broad legislative and policy factors involved. This could mean the only body having jurisdiction to review a decision of the Zoning Administrator is the City Council. If this is the case, the Planning Commission should have been preempted from reviewing a decision of the Zoning Administrator in case ZA-15-01. Costa Mesa City Council July 14, 2015 Page 7 of 9 The Parker Request for Review fails to provide any justification or sufficient information to identify herself, the Residents or TBON as having such an interest in the matter at issue to be qualified as an "affected person" or "affected persons" or having any interest affecting their health, safety or welfare. The reasons set forth in the Parker Request for Review state that the conditions imposed by the Zoning Administrator's decision have been ignored. This allegation is patently false, has no merit, and does not give rise to Ann Parker being an "Affected Person." Moreover, Ann Parker does not reside in the vicinity of the MCUP Building. In fact, she lives more than 1.5 miles away from the MCUP Building. Regardless, Ann Parker, the Residents and TBON lack standing to request review which can only be made by the Planning Commission, a Planning Commission member, the City Council, or a City Council Member. A search of the City's records disclose that Ann Parker on a number of occasions has appeared before the Costa Mesa Planning Commission and City Council to voice her objection to the City's ordinances and regulations allowing group homes to exist in the City. Ann Parker has expressed strong feelings against providing these services for recovering addicts in Costa Mesa. The City, however, as a public entity, must conduct itself in compliance with federal and state law. The City is bound by the provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act and other state and federal constitutional guarantees to prevent discrimination against persons disabled by addiction.' Nevertheless, Ann Parker has shown in her prior testimony before the Planning Commission and City Council her ill -will against these facilities and this ill -will is likely to be the true motivation behind the Parker Request for Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision in case ZA-15-01. The MCUP Building is not a group home. Ann Parker is not an "Affected Person" in this case but is attempting to use this process to promote her established position in opposition to group homes in Costa Mesa. Ann Parker's assertions are not relevant to a request for a MCUP for parking deviation. If the Council were to embrace her position it would necessarily be a City action predicated on illegal grounds and constitute an abuse of discretion and an abuse of process. The June 8, 2015 Hearing was Premature The Planning Commission came to the determination that Solid Landings was not complying with its "business plan" and therefore reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision 1 Individuals in recovery for alcohol and/or drug abuse are considered disabled under federal law and are protected both by the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The activities taking place and intended to take place at the MCUP Building involve disabled persons recovering from alcoholism and substance abuse. This is a permitted use in the City's General Plan and the MCUP Building zoning district. The ADA prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against individuals with disabilities in virtually all governance activities and decision -making, including planning and land use. Planning Commission Resolution PC-15-34 is arbitrary and capricious and is causing significant harm to members of a protected class under state and federal anti -discrimination laws. Costa Mesa City Council July 14, 2015 Page 8 of 9 and denied Planning Application ZA-15-01. However, the "business plan" was an outline of daily activities at Solid Landings, explaining why a parking deviation should be granted. Upon review of the application, the Zoning Administrator determined that several conditions would be required in order to ensure that the parking deviation did not interfere with the neighborhood. Said conditions were incorporated into ZA-15-01, and Solid Landings had 45 days to construct a commercial driveway at W.19th Street for vehicle ingress and eliminate parking spaces interfering with the driveway access to the parking area. Once this was completed, existing access to Plumer was to be used for vehicle egress only. These construction requirements were designed to prevent vans from stacking on Plumer Street by accessing the property from 19th street, and also to prevent vans from blocking the street when entering the property. As Ms. Umana testified in her declaration, Solid Landings was working towards completing these requirements. (See Exhibit E). Before Solid Landings could begin construction to meet these conditions, Ann Parker filed her appeal. Despite this, Solid Landings continued to work towards completing the requirements imposed by ZA-15-01. (See Exhibit E). At the public hearing, Parker and others accused Solid Landings of violating its business plan as part of the MCUP. However, as Deputy City Attorney Elena Gerli stated at the Public Hearing, Solid Landings was not "in violation" of the MCUP because the MCUP had not yet matured. Additionally, Ms. Gerli explained that Solid Landings would have to comply with all code requirements before the MCUP would be issued. Ms. Gerli also explained that when a code violation occurs on a property, the first step is to bring the property into compliance, not shut down the business. Despite this, the Planning Commission found that the neighborhood was being disrupted by Solid Landings, and Solid Landings was in violation of MCUP Conditions of Approval Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 17; and Code Requirement Numbers 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10. The business cannot violate a condition has not yet matured. Solid Landings was given 45 days to reconstruct portions of its property in order to address traffic concerns in the neighborhood. As Ms. Umana testified in her declaration, Solid Landings was working with the City to complete the imposed conditions. Yet, before Solid Landings had a chance to fully implement those changes, it was punished for the very traffic concerns the conditions and changes were intended to address. This is circular reasoning and unlawfully penalizes Solid Landings before it has had a chance to even comply with the conditions in the time frame given. Solid Landings cannot obtain a business license for counseling services without an approved MCUP. The Planning Commission's decision effectually puts Solid Landings out of business, without giving it a chance to comply with the conditions that the City itself prescribed. The decision by the Planning Commission was premature and should be reversed. Code Violations and Permit Issues are Irrelevant Solid Landings is a tenant at 657 W. 19th Street. As such, any allegations of code violations or permit issues with respect to the property are improperly addressed to Solid Costa Mesa City Council July 14, 2015 Page 9 of 9 Landings. Code violations and permit issues should be addressed with Solid Landings' landlord. Additionally, Solid Landings applied for a MCUP for a parking deviation. Code violations and permit issues are irrelevant with respect to a MCUP for a parking deviation. At the Public Hearing, Commissioner McCarthy raised his concern about the premature nature of the hearing and the fact that the parking deviation and code violations were distinct issues. Commissioner's Andranian and Dickson convinced him that there was enough evidence to revoke ZA-15-01 based on the parking issues only. Yet, the Planning Commission issued a parking deviation decision for reasons that included "the property owner and applicant did not follow the correct procedures for obtaining the necessary building and fire safety permits and inspections for the use." There was no evidence in the record of Solid Landings violations or notice of such violations to Solid Landings. In any event, these are issues beween the City and the landlord. This is an improper basis on which to make a decision and therefore we respectfully request the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's decision. C"nnrincinn In sum, Solid Landings requests that Planning Commission Resolution PC-15-34 be set aside and the approval of Planning Application ZA-05-01 be reinstated. First, Ann Parker did not have standing to bring a review of ZA-15-01 to the Planning Commission. Second, Ann Parker is not an affected person. Third, Ann Parker has a discriminatory and illegal agenda outside of the parking deviation and is abusing the MCUP process in order to make her discriminatory agenda known. Fourth, the Planning Commission review was premature as Solid Landings was not given the allotted 45 days to make the required changes to the MCUP Building. Fifth, irrelevant information regarding alleged code violations and permitting issues should not have been considered by the Planning Commission. Sixth, the alleged code violations and permitting issues would be the responsibility of Solid Landing's landlord —not Solid Landings. Seventh, Solid Landings is making every effort to accommodate the requests of its neighbors and ensure that its business does not interfere with the neighborhood. For the foregoing reasons, Solid Landings respectfully requests the City Council set aside Planning Commission Resolution PC-15-34 and the approval of Planning Application ZA-05-01 be reinstated. Ve truly yo _- - John S. Peterson JSP:swt Encl. Exhibit "A" SoRdLandlings page I of 7 Bebaviorai Health Recovery.— heditridualized. December 11, 2014 ViA HAND DELIVERY TO: CITY OF COSTA. MESA City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628-1200 Re: Amended Application for Minor Conditional Use Permit for Parking Deviation for 657 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa, California — Project Description & Justification City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department: A. introduction Sure Maven, Inc d/b/a Rock Solid Recovery (hereinafter 'Rock Solid") submits the following detailed project description and justification for a parking deviation for the 657 West 19+11 Street property asa, location for a state certified outpatient treatment program attended by hock Solid clients residing In a sober living home or state certified outpatient residential program. This parking deviation request includes this justification followed by a list of [proposed] conditions on the minor conditional use permit (MCUP.) Use Is permitted: 657 West 191h Street Is located in a C1 local business district A C1 business district includes, but Is not limited to, facilities such as city halls, courthouses, police/fire stations, schools, art studios, antique malls, banks, beauty shops, hardware stores, department stores, grDceiy stores, movie theaters, automobile sale and repair, administrative offices, medical and dental offices, and dance studios. Therefore, use of the premises as a outpatient treatment facility, which Is most similar to a medical office (as explained ante), administrative offices, and medical (therapy) offices is permitted under the Clq, s Code. No use authorization for the use Is required. Pay -king deviation: The 19ei street property Is 6710 square feet. The entrance Is on Plumer Street and Includes 29 an site parking spaces that are accessed via a confidential gate code known to Rock Solid employees. Members of the general public cannot freely enter and park. Rack Solid seeks a parking deviation that permits this facility to runction with the allocated 29 gated spaces instead of the 54 required per the Code. This request is based upon Rock Solid's detailed use of the facility as described herein. Rock Solid Recovery ISolid Landings Behavioral Health ACO Bristol SI. 50W I1•3Co • Costs ki m. CA 92676 sy re 949-467.921 ] 1•arr DOBAN-499Q fti, haven SOLID LANDINGS 117 SoRdLandsngs Page2of7 Behavioral Health Rcrol�e►1, . , lnd�s(dlralllyd. 9. metalled Project Description Solid Landings Behavioral Health, Inc. Is the parent company of Rock Solid Recovery, It provides effective residential and outpatient treatment services for those suffering from the disease of drug and alcohol addiction. We have operated our homes and treatment facilities within the City of Costa Mesa since approximately 2010. In doing so, we have contributed to the fiscal health of the City in many ways, including but not limited to, employing individuals in various capacities, including staff In our corporate offices, the warehouse, landscaping and maintenance, alumni services, family programming, therapy, and community outreach. We are good neighbors in the community. We operate and maintain our properties In a manner that is compatible with each neighborhood, we upgrade our homes to increase their value, and respect the surrounding communities. Solid Landings Behavioral Health operates gender specific programs. Rock Solid Is the program for men and Sure Haven Is the program for women. This MCUP only concerns the Rock Solid program which proposes to locate its administrative offices, state certified outpatient treatment program, and Individual counseling services at 657'West 19th Street: Rock Solid's outpatient treatment program Is under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Beath Care Services which certifies nonresidential alcohol .and drug treatment programs through a procedural framework that requires a detailed provider application followed by a thorough review process to confirm regulatory compliance., in order to obtain this certification, Rock Solid provided the State with a plan of operations detailing a Continuous quality management program, its structured recovery program for clients, and a description of education and vocational classes with professional staffing, Following certification, the State provides ongoing oversight and evaluation through quality assurance standards forcontinuingregulatoryr compliance. C. Detailed Program Description) Clients of the Rock Solid program Include: • Adults who voluntarily agree to attend group sessions, Individual counseling, and educational sessions to address their substance abuse problems; • Adults that are currently living in a sober living home or state licensed residential program; Private paying individuals either through insurance or out-of-pocket; and Voluntary admits, not referred from the criminal justice system. 1 Galifarnla health A Safely Code 4 Regulations, title 4_ Seniuu I100i, Ia seq. Solid Ulmlings t1rhaviaral Hrulth Rock Solid 2900 UdSIOI St. Sulle B-3110 o Colta kirsa. CA 9162G Recovery 949-467,911 j mavo.. • 853-588-4998 r,u 2L sure haven SOLID LANDINGS 118 SoltdLand Page 3of7 Behavioral Health Rrcov /y...individualized. The following Is a detalled outline of the activities related to 657190, Street (hereinafter "19th Street"). This program runs Plonday through Friday followed by limited weekend use, The weekday schedule Is as follows.- 0 6.00 a.m. The first Rock Solid employee arrives at'19a, Street in a company vehicle and parks In the gated lot. • 7:30.9;30 a.m. 16 additional Rock Solid employees and/or therapists arrive In personal or company vehicles. "these stab members include 8 therapists to hold 1:1 counseling sessions, 4 therapists who run group sessions; 5 additional staff members who perform administrative tasks and manage the computer lab/library. The maximum number of vehicles on -site throughout the remainder of the day, not Including transportadon vans (discussed ante), Is 17 - one for each employee. • 0:45 - 9:15 a.m. Clients from four different sober living homes arrive at 191h Street via three 12-seat passenger vans. The vans drop clients off within the gated parking lot and do not remain on - site. The total number of clients that arrive via the three passenger vans will range from approximately 21-30. The vans will arrive at 8:45, 9:00 and 9:15 so as not to overlap. • 9:15 - 3:00 p.m. Clients will generally rotate through 1:1 therapy, group counseling, computer lab/library time, lunch, and self- reflection/homework, and free time. • 3.00 - 3.30 p.m. Three passenger vans arrive In thegated parking area and transport clients to the gym. Clients not wishing to go to the gym are transported home, Clients do not return to the campus until the following weekday, The vans will stagger their pickups at 3:00, 3:15 and 3:30. • 3:00 - 5:00 p.m, Staff may remain on campus until 5:00 when they leave for the day. • 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. A cleaning crew of 3 to 6 individuals arrives in one or two cars, park In the gated lot and stays for approximately 60 minutes, • 6:00 p.m, Evening staff arrives to run group sessions attended by Rock Solid clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles. The clients arrive via three passenger vans with staggered arrivals at 6:00, 6,15 and 6:30 p.m. The approximate number of clients onsite will be 30, The total vehicles, including vans, is 13. Rock Solid Solid Landings Behavioral Health ZWO IWAOI St. 54lile 11-1Cn Costa Mesa, CA 92636 sure Recovery ,1. hen SOLID LANDINGS 119 SolldLand$ngs Page 4 of 7 Behavioral Health Recovcry— hidividuahzed- 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. Group sessions are hold during this time period. 8:30 - 9:00 p.m. Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to their respective homes at 13:30, 8:45 and 9,00 p.m. The employees leave at 9:00 pare, once the final client departs via passenger van. During the weekend, a therapist may schedule an appointment with a client at 19d, Street. 'These appointments are rare; however, they occur between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. when the need arises. If an appointment occurs, then the maximum number of vehicles would be two, one for the therapist and one for the client who is transported to the premises in a Rock Solid vehicle. D, lurking Justification Rock Solid Intends to use the 1911, street building as part of its outpatient treatment prognm. Specifically, the building has three uses: administrative, medical (therapist) office space and group counseling. As mentioned above, these are all approved uses within the C1 zone. The only issue relates to sufficient parking. Rack Solid requests a parking variance from 48 to 29 parking spaces. This request is ntuarly Identical to the variance requested and granted for the Group Counseling Center at 1901 Newport Boulevard, Suite 149, Costa Mesa (7A-09.34). (`Phis, document is attached hereto as Exhibit "A ") The parking lot attached to 19p! Street contains 29 gated parking spaces. The maximum number of veh[cles onsite at any given time of the day Is 17, plus at most, 3 passenger vans. The total number of spaces necessary for Rock Solid's use is 20, which leaves nearly a third of the lot empty. (See parking map attached as Exhibit "B.") The required parking for 191h Street far exceeds the demand of the actual use, permitting the City to reduce the requirement. (Costa Mesa Municipal Cade § 13.89.5.) The City generally requires group counseling to have 10 parking spaces for every 1000 square feet of floor space (10.1). however, due to Rock Solid's actual use as described above, this Is an excessive parking requirement and an improper classification for its use. Other establishments that require 10:1 parking are open to the general public and include large restaurants, gyms, trade schools, business colleges, dancing and music academies, and skating rinks. (Costa Mesa Zoning Code, Chapter IV Off Street Parking.) These are extremely different from Rock Solid's use, which is private In nature and bath the parking and building entrance are only accessed via a locked gate on a side street. The other 10:1 establishments are not only public, but they encourage large members of the public to attend, they require parking of vehicles owned by unknown members of the public, and the owners of the establishment have very limited control over who parks in the lots. Rock Solid has absolute control of all vehicles that enter and park in the lot. Only employees have the gate access code and Rock Solid has complete control over the number Solid landings Behavioral Health Rock Solid 2900 Bristol SL Sultc U-300 • Cos13 bless. CA 92626 sure recovery 949-467-9211 riiAi • f198-�itltl-49M1 Pu haven ....,..�........ SOLID LANDINGS 120 SoltdLandl-ngs Behavioral Health Rrrur. cry... Pidi ttiffuallvd. Page Sof7 of employees present at 1911, Street at any given moment: Further, only part of the first flaor will be used as a group counseling center, The remainder of the building will be split between administrative and therapist offices. The below chart describes the breakdown of ouruses: Use Square Feet Parking Required Group Counseling.-3840 39 Medical Office 1434 9 Admintstrative 1435 6 TOTAL 16710 154 Due to Rock Solid's use, the total number of parking spaces per the code is 54. However, should the City consider the entire building group counseling (which it is not) then, the total parking would be 67 spaces. Either way, the parking requirement under the Code does not coincide with Rock Solid's actual use and therefore this MiCUP Is respectfully requested. G. Ame0can's with Disabilities Act The American's with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title 11, prohibits srate and local governments from discrlminadng against Individuals with disabilities in virtually all governance activities and decision -making, including planning and land use. (ADA Title II: State and Local Government Activities; 28 C.F.R. §§35.130, ec seq, ) Public entities must make reasonable modifications in rules, policies and practices that are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of a disability "unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program or activity." (20 C.F,R §§35.130(b)(7),the ADA term "reasonable modification" has the same meaning as "reasonable accommodation" under the federal and state fair housing laws; Costa M m Municipal Code 913.200.60, etseq., reasonable accommodations) The ADA's reasonable modification mandate provides an additional basis for hock Solid's request for a parking deviation. The City of Costa Miesa's classification of Croup Counseling as a trade or vocation school leads to the very high parking requirement of 10A. The requirement Is based on the questionable assertion that the demand for parking at group counseling sessions Is the same as that of vocational or trade schools. The more appropriate classification of an outpatient treatment program, such as Rock Solid's, is as a medical office space. This suggested approach is in line with the State's efforts to create parity between physical and mental health treatment access. Classification of Rock Solid's treatment program as one which requires 10:1 parking places an enormous barrier to treating disabled individuals suffering from drug and alcohol addiction. Solid Landings Hchavipral Ncalth Rock Solid 2900 8610 Sr. Sulte a.-300 • CM1a Mm, CA 92626 s u re Regoy i 949-461-11211 nuo • 888-568-49W Ina haven ..r SOLID LANDINGS 121 Sol kdLan d �-n Page 6of7 Dehaviora1 1•1cal tb Rvmveq... TwIf uiduallzed. F. Decisions must not be Arbitrary or Capricious Decisions of a zoning board are ultimately appealable to the court. When a court reviews decisions of a zoning board and/or its officers, the court may inquire into the conduct of the board or officers which relates to the decision making process in order to determine whether the decision was arbitrary or capricious. (Ruppert v. Washington (1973) 366 F. Supp 686J These decisions are reviewable, not only for the purpose of detemining whather there has been an erroneous interpretation of the law, but also to determine whether they impair personal or property rights by reason of an arbitrary or unlawful exercise of discretion. (Ruppart v. Washington (1973) 366 F. Supp 686) Sober Living By the Sea previously requested a similar parking variance for 1901 Newport Boulevard In Costa Mesa, CA wherein the City agreed that a tore! of 6 parking spaces were required for a 3800 square foot group counseling center because all clients arrived by passenger vans and only 4 employees would be present at the sessions. (ZA•09- 34 attached as "A.*) Rock Solid requests that the City come to the same, reasonable conclusion, and grant the requested parking deviation. A decision otherwise would essentially prohibit the use of the property by the disabled and be arbitrary. G. Proposed Conditions on the MCUP Rock Solid has prepared and agrees to abide by the following list of proposed conditions that could be placed upon the Minor Conditional Use Permit requested herein. Conditions of Approval 1.Operadon of the business shall be limited as described in the project description and the applicant's December B, 2014 submittal. Any expansion or modification of the use or hours of operation may require approval of an amendment to the minor conditional use permit 2. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the applicant shall Institute whatever operational measures are necessary to eliminate the problem in o timely fashion. 3. Flours of operation shall be from 6.00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Weekend operation is limited to one-on-one therapy appointments that, if necessary, would occur between 8.00 a.m. and 5.00 p,m. Solid Landhigi Bchnforul Wealth Rock Solid 2900 llrlstrA it. Suite B-IN • Costa lMna. CA 92625 sure ReLoygry 9d9-A57.921'a;+.F 1888-588-444A rrx haven w..�...�..• rsvhill SOLID LANDINGS 122 SoPdLan lragca 7 of 7 behavioral flealtli Recoe'rry... bidiWdwiiecd. 4. It copy of the conditions of approval for die minor conditional use permit shall be kept on die premises and presented to any authorized City Official upon request. New business/property owners shall be notified of the conditions of approval upon transfer of the business or ownership of land. H. Conclusion 112dc Solid respectfully requests the City grant its i,equest for a minor conditional use Permit to allow a reduct(an In the parking requirement for the outpatient treatment Center, therapy off[ces and administrative offices located at 1.95h Street, This rcductlon will not be detrimental to the Health, safety or gent}l-1 IvelfaGre of the public or other properties or improvements within the fnnmediateiy viclriity, Specifically, the required panting exceeds the actual antic-lpated demand for the use since the attendees are transported to and from die site via passenger vans. Gran ftg the rrtinor conditional use permit wili not allow a use, density or intensity, which is not in accordance with the general plan. Therefore, the paricing deviation should be granted as requested. Sincerely, Kristen 8. Ford Vice President and Corporate counsel Rack Solid. Recovery, Inc � Solid l.andfnQs 6el�aviot;al Health Rock Solid 2%) i3d5tol 51- Sulie 3-300 Cusia lk5v. CA 92626 Rexo)Sry 9.49-467-921 ) uKRF • 888-588-4998 Fsr sure haven SOLID LANDINGS 123 Exhibit A SOLID LANDINGS 124 ` sCITY OF COSTA MESA P.4i BOX 1200 - 77 PAIR DRIVE . CALIFORNIA 82620-ING WAIN ig 'id��' .' pI:VB=.L{�Mlt�t�"d`f��"+I.10EGdt£PAFi:'M�FE7 November 5, 2009 Brian Burke 2811 Villa Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: ZONING APPLICATION ZA-00-34 REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR GROUP COUNSELING CENTER 1 NEWFOR 4U 14 COSTA MEN Dear Mr. Burke, - Review of the minor conditional use permit for the above-reforenced project has been completed. The application, as described In the attached project description, has been approved, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval (attached). The declslon will become final at 6 p,m. can November 12, 2009, unless appealed by an affected party (Including filing of the necessary application and payment of the appropriate fee) or by a member of the Planning Commission or City Council. If you have any questions regarding this letter, plsese Biel free to contact the project planner, Wendy Shih, at 714-764.5136 between t p.m. and 5 p.m. or via ernall at � i ci. Data-mesa.ca. s Sincerely, WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP Zoning Administrator Attachments: Project description Findings Conditions of approval Approved conceptual plans cc: Englneedng 1901 Newport LLC Fire Protection Analyst 3424 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1200 Building Division Los An gates, CA 90010 9uh1bV(XNi4on(714)Mt-6773 - Cce4Bnimmiw4(714)164-6623 - Plnnut)rNinksm(114)75t-62d5 FAX {7141 75«6b8 11W (r1 sE 15A1 5N4 - www.o.CM10-masm.amts SOLID LANDINGS 125 ZA-09-34 209 JRGT.l0,E 8 0 R ETXQ0 N Background., , Sober Living by the Sea provides group counseling and educaWn for drug and alcohol abuse at 1040 Mat 117� Street, in an approximately 8,273 square -foot' quite. The applicant proposes to relocate the business to a smaller suite (approximately 3,800 square feet) at the Subject location. The property Is zoned PDC (Planned Development Commercial) and has a General Plan deslgnatio6 of Commercial Center. The property contains a three- story cornmorclal building and a single -story office building, totaling 127,512 square feet ■ According to the City's Land Use Matrix, group -counseling and education center (categorized under trade and vocational schools) Is a usa parmffled within the PDO :one. However, a minor conditional use permit Is reclulmd to allow a reduction In shared parking requiremerds due to unique operating characteristics. Analysls.* • The applicant states that the hours of operation will be from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Friday, with a maximum of four employeastadministration staff on -site during those hours. Lectures and educational groups will occur between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and between 6:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. • The facility will proAde individual( and group counseling for up to 12 people. All attendees will be transported to and from the facility by tNo passenger vans. • The Code requires 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 33 parlding spaces for the counselingleducation center, 11 parking spaces are allooated to this suite based on general office parking requirement (3 spaces per i,000 square feet for office buildings exceeding two stories in height and 100,000 square feet in area). • used on the applicants description of the proposed use, the actual paridng demand Is six spaces (four spaces for the employees plus two passenger vans). Since all counseling attendees will arrive and leave by passenger vans only and the total actual parking dembnd is comparable to a general office use, parking Impacts are not anticipated. FINDINGS i. The information presented substantially complies with Section 13-29(e) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that: a. The proposed use Is compatible and harmonious with uses on -site as well as thosa on the surrounding properties. SOLID LANDINGS 126 b. Safety and compatibility of the design of landscaping, luminaries, and other site aspects of the- site dovelopment such a circulation have been considered, A aL s than buildings, parking areas, features lncludln functional. automobile and -pedestrian e. The proposed use is consistent with the Cenoral Plan be aura-lt is pormittad use In the PDC zone and. ria parking Impacts are anticipated due for the unique operating characteristics. d. The planning application Is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development, 2. The minor conditional use permit to alloy a reduction In shared parking requirements for a counselingfeduaation center substantially complies with Coasts Mesa Municipal Code Section 13.29(gX2) In that the proposed use is subsbntiaily compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the mirror conditional use permit will not tee detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or Improvements within the immediate VICInity. Speclficaily, the required parking exceeds the actual anticipated demand for the use since the attendees are transported to and from the site via passenger vans. Granting the minor conditional use permits will not allow a use, density or intensity, which is not in accordance vAh the general plan designation for the property. 3. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the Galifomia Envlronrrantal Ouallty Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15301 for Existing PaoiGties. 4. The project Is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. CONDII[QNS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. Operation of the business shall be limited as described In the project description and In the applicant's letter dated September 21, 2009. Any expansion or mDdllicatlon of the use or hours of operation may require approval of an amendment to the minor conditional use permit, 2. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the applicant shall Institute whatever operational measures are necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. 3. Hours of operation shall be from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday thro' ugh Friday, 4. All attendees shall wait for transportation service Inside the building only. 5. It copy of the conditions of approval for the minor conditional use permits must be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. Now businesslproperty owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. SOLID LANDINGS 127 C0QE,LRggUIREMENT8 The following list of federal, state end 'local laws applicable to.the .project has been compiled by staff for the appligabt's reference. Any referemd to "Clty*-pertalrvs to the "City of Costa Mesa. Ping. 1, Approval of the zoning application Is valid for ono (I) year from the effective date of this approval and will expire at the end of that parlod unless applicant establishes the use by one of the follaNing araflons: 1) obtains building permits for the authorized construction and initiates construction; and/or 2) obtains e business license andlor legally establishes the buslnm. - If the applicant is unable to establish the uselobtain building permits or businwa license vvithin the one-year tima period, the applicant may request an extension of tirne. 'Clio Planning Division must receive a wriften request for the time extension prior to the expiration of ' the zoning application. 2. Once the use Is legally established, the zoning application herein approved shall be valid until ravoked. The Development SerAces Director or his deal nee may refer the zoning application to the Planning Commission for modification or rev=tIon at any time If, In W opinion, any of the following circumstance exist 1) the use is being operated In violation of the conditions of approval', 2) the use Is being operated In violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon Which the approval was based are no longer applicable. Bus. 2. A business license shall be obtained prior to the Initiation of tho Lic, business approved under this application. Bldg. 3. Comply with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations, Tide 24, also known as the 2007 California Building Standards Code, as amended by the 011 of Costs Mesa. SOLID LANDINGS 128 Exhibit B SOLID LANDINGS 129 Est; •;-.., 5p _ a C _; ,�•ay r x w ; . .�" lyf 7 0 F2• -- 4 : M . w t yak lam. kk - - 9 $4 w`+ tr.�rvrvu+t�l • PtUh1ER.3T 'MHO STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING cccnx ROCK SOLID RECOVERY, INC. cl) 057 W. trrH Sr mm DAIStq. st Burm 54M WSM ME" CA UM CO3TAM&CARAZO SOLID LANDINGS 130 : bl _ ! �. l , �.''..^_.-_'.........ice--.........._'�� 1r_.�_.. TWO STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ROCK SOLID RECOVERY, INC. ..1 F 867 W. NTH ST 2QW 9AWML IT. QUNE d-W* { rnoncr C tAuCBa.CAAid7T COSTA WUSACA926'ib ■ �+a��ert.s��a SOLID LANDINGS 131 caaxcr TWO STORY COMMERCIAL SUILDINO rw— ROCK SOLID RECOVERY, INC. a mrvc Imiarc ?aweFAyo sr.surms-M anw.tAr CMTAua*&GaB1G27 CaSTi1WESA CACl8k4 wrnrak roaoMer•aata SOLID LANDINGS 132 Exhibit "B" CITE" OF COST, MESA P.©, 9OX 1204 • 77 FAIR DRIVL • CAUPDRJ41 , 02020-IQDD DEAWP&MATSERVICES C&ARIhirtIT April 23, 201 a Solid Landings Behavioral Health Alin_ Kristen S. Ford, Esq. 2000 Bristol Street, ,Suits B-300 Costa Mesa, GA 92629 RE: ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PARKING REDUCTION FOR GROUP COUNSELING USE (SOUR LANDINGS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, DOA ROCK SOLID RECOVERY) .7 AgaT I 9Trt T'REi= ()ST ESA Dear Ms. Ford: City staffs review Of your Zoning application for the above -referenced projeCt has been completed. The application, fas described In the attached project rdescriptiort, has been a ova . based on the findings attached and subject to the Conditions listed. The decision will become final at 5:Oti p.m. on April„ 30, 2015, unless appea!edd by an affected party, including fling of the necessary application and payment of t17e appropriate fee, or called up for review by a member of the Planning Commission or City Council. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact the project planner. Mel Lee, at (714) 7544611, or at mglee castam Baca. v, Sincerely, WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP Zoning Administrator Attachments: Project Description Findings Applicant's Project Descdptlon and plans cc: Engineering Fire Protection Analyst Building Safety Division Transportation Services Division 8Ai1'9 Nmlon m4, rw.s277 • Code Eflft0W r41714) 764•U23 . Ndnnbv Dwaim (714) r6t.I144s FAIT(7t4) TS4.4&% . TOD (714) M-6244 • wmw.cam m 4*: pay . SOLID LANDINGS 104 ZA-16--01 April 23, 2015 Page 20f13 Rock Satin! Recovery 657 Nest 1 P Street Costa Mesa, CA 02627 John Morehart 126 East I61h Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 SOLID LANDINGS 105 ZA-16-01 April 23, 2018 Pago 3 of 13 RAM+Ot1Nl. Projacr Sitelanvlr°ons The project site Is located on the south side of West 191' Street, mid -block between Pomona Avonue and Anaheim Avenuo. The site Is .38 acres (15.681 square feet) in size. Tho property is zonad C1 (Lcc&l Busfness District) and has a General Plan Land Use Designabon of General Commercial. The site contains a two-story, 8,710 square foot commercial building orlginaily constructed in 1961, a surface parking lot, and site fencing, The site Is mounded by commercial uses to the West and north (across West 191' Street), a cornmercU use (restaurant) and a residential use to the east. and residential uses (aesoss PlUrner Street) to thG south. The site currently provides 29 on -site parking spaces, which are accessed vla a gated driveway on Plumer Street. There is also an existing driveway approach on the West 19t' Street frontage of the property, but It Is not used because the paved driveway leading from the approach has been removed and Is gated and blocked by 6 parallel van paving spaces provided adjacent to the building. Prior land use actions on the property Include a conditional use permit for a fraternal lodge on tl^* second floor, approvers ire 1965 approved under Conditional Use Permit C- 49-65, and a proposed conditional use permit for a manufaCturfng use under PA-87.07, which was denied by the Planning Commission on ,January 20, 1987, The building Is currently occupied by Solid Landings, DBA Rock Solid Recovery, winch provides outpatient treatment programs and other services., Including group counseling, for men with drug and alcohol addiction. The use is currently opamtiog wttfiout an approved business license or minor conditlonal use permit to allow a reduction In the required on -site parking spaces required to support the group counseling use, which is described in the next section. EMJE911R9SCRl0gN The applicant utilizes the building for the following services: State certified outpatient treatment programs for Rock Solid Recovery clients (men) residing In sober living group homes or state certified outpatient residential programs. The programs for women are a separate operation not conducted from this site. Individual and group counseling sessions, as well as educational sessions. Administrative offices. According to the applicant's description of the use, a copy of which is attached to this letter, the various programs and services offered at the site run from 6:00 am to 9;00 pm, Monday through Friday, Weekend operation Is limited to one-on-one therapy appointments on an as -needed basis bebAreen 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. The maximum number of staff an aite at any one time during the weekday Is 17 And the maximum SOLID LANDINGS 106 ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 4 of 13 number of clients on the site at any one time during the weekday is 30. The dients carve to the site by vans at various times of the day. The applicant claims that at no time vnll the required on -site parking for the use exceed 20 spaces; 3 spaces for the vans and 17 spaces for die staff that drive their cars to the site. Mlrror Conditional Use Pernrlt for Reduction 1n Required On -Site Parking for Group Counseling Use The City's Zoning Code does not specify a parking requirement for group counseling uses, Zoning Code Section '13-90 (Perking For Uses Not Specified) allows the number of required parking spaces for uses not specified in the Zoning Code to be determined by the Zoning Administrator based upon the parking required for similar types of users, Zoning Administrator Determination No. 08-5, dated May 19, 2008, determined that the parking requirement for group counseling uses was to be classified the same as for trade and vocational schools, which is 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. In the cane of the subject property, this equates to a requirement of 67 on - site parking spaces based on the existing 6,710 square foot building area. The 10 spaces per 1,000 square foot parking requirement for group counseling uses is needed for the entire building because the other uses (i.e., administrative offices and therapy rooms) support the primary group counseling use. Because the subject property currently provides 29 on -site parking spaces, a shortfall of 38 opuses required for than use, the applicant is requesting approval of a minor conditional use permit to allow for the reduction in the required parking amount teased on their specific operation as discussed in the prior section of this letter and per Zoning Code Section 13.80.5 (Reduction in Parking Requtrements), AiNAMI Juadfleatlone for,Approval Staff has reviewed the applicant's request and supports the request based on the following: Based QQ 70 yse, an ed r adze numb of - t Pg krng g�sces !s pmyicled. As noted earlier, applicant states that currently 29 on - site parking spaces are provided of the 67 spaces required for the use, a shortfall of 38 spaces. However, based on the information provided by the applicant, an adequate number of on -sate parking spaces can be provided for the use. The building square footages and summary of on -site activities are provided in the tables below. SOLID LANDINGS 107 ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 5 of 13 PROPOSED USE OF Rt7M AND SQUARE FEET (SP) Therapy Office* (6)_1 s�F34 SP Meeting Reams 4 _ _ - _Y. 12188 Cllent Loung: fining Area 024 3F Reception/Sign In 99 SF Offices 4 693 8F Conftarence RocagKltchenJStora a Room 682 SF MeetlnQ Rooms (1) - 1,218 SF is pouter I.a>art-ilsrary 1 Qaa SF SUMMARYOF R:00 AM The first Rock Solid employee arrives in a company vehicle and parks In the gated lot. 7:30.9:30 AM 16 additional Rock Solid employees and/or therapists arrive in personal 51.sampan vehides. _ 8:45.0:15 AM Clients from 4 different sober living horses arrive via 3 12-seat passenger vans. The vans drop clients off within the gated parking lot and do not remain onslte. The total number of clients that arrive We the 3 passenger vans range from 21-30. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. 9:15APA-3:00 PM Clients rotate through one-on-one therapy, group counseling, computer IabAibra time lunch and free time. 3:00-3:30 PM Three passenger vans arrive to transport clients to the gym. Clients not wishing to go to the gym are transported home. Clients do not return until IN following day. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overdo , 3.0-6: o0 Pivi Staff remains until 5:00 PM 5:40-6:00 PkI A cleaning crew of 3-6 peopld arrive in 1 or 2 ears and 9!gn for i hour. 6:00 PM-6:30 PM Evening staff arrives to run group sessions attended by ROCA Solid Clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles. Clients arrive via 3 vans at 15-minute Intervals. The approximate riumber of clients is W The total vehicles on site is 13. 6:30.8:30 PM _ Group sessions held during this t1ma period. 8:30-9:00 PM Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to their homes at 15-minute intervals. The employees leave at 9:00 PM once the lost passenger van leaves the site. 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Therapist may schedule an appointment with a client on anti as needed basis. If an appointment occurs the number of vehicles Is 2 -one for the therapist and one for the client who Is transported to the premises Applicant Letter Dated SOLID LANDINGS 108 ZA-16-01 April 23, 2015 Page 6 of 13 to P_ tr"vrr rnoosrras uugs fade�trtt to mifrate it�kEn L-P. 11pt, n t cif ior? e lc�rrc�-tr rrra , tor�tJ L i25L r.! t t f(s, Staff acknowledges that the measures described In the applicants letter may address parking shortages. However, staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that if parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall Institute appropriate operational measures necessary to eliminate the problem. Additionally, based on the large parking shortfall, staff is recommending a number of conditions to ensure that the use is conducted entirely on the property so as to avoid parking shortfalls in the surrounding neighborhood as a result of the applicant's use. T e 1 n o ti ral,i rr of thQ parki_riqarea fimfts veh c v Ingress and egress t a iA km 2AiME.Strai9f.c at' o addifiarxa! cammercrol fraX on a local sfreo t cfjacerrt to a resicfentiat nabjhQr_ oil(tl)mfor ,ve h r jar scr, s lra Street will be =uired to h! papy[ded. fanlike the other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provides vehicular access from West 191h Street as well as Plumer Street, the subject property's sole vehicular Ingress and egress is from Plumer Street. The current gate design lacks an adequate throat far vehicles accessing the parking lot, no kiosk for drivers to access the key pad, and no turnaround area for vehicles that do not gain access into the facility. A9 a result approaching vehicles are routinely blocking the public sidewalk and extending Into through -lanes of traffic while the drivers exits the vehicle to access the key pad placed at the sidewalk adjacent to the gate. The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined that to reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to acmes the site, the driveway on West Wh Street should be restored, the gate and van parking spaces blocking the access from West 1911 Street should be removed, and West 1910 Street used as the main access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. The reopening of the 19th Street gate will result in the loss of 5 additional parking spaces, putting the applicant at a scant 24 available spaces, with a 43-space shortfall. The applicant has stated it will only need 20 spaces, 17 for employees and 3 for client vans. Future development of all land within the City of Costa Mesa Is guided by the General Plan adopted in 2002. The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies, and objectives that guide now development and uses. Based on the issues discussed in the previous sections, the request, as conditioned, is consistent with the following goats and objectives of the General Flan, SOLID LANDINGS 109 Z,-15-fit April 23, 2016 Page 7 of 13 « abjectivo LU»1F.1: Protect existing stabilized res!dentlat nalghbodicods from the ancr oachment of incompatible or potentially disniptive land uses andlor activities. • Objective CiR-11A.14: Reducs tar eliminate intrusion of commuter through (mffic on local streets In residential neighborhoods. They 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 under Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guldellnes. DING A. The Information presented complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(2) In that: Finding: The proposed use is compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to ether properties within the area. Facts In Support of Findings: Based an the 8011, Von of the tismcS u tm urnher 1 rrn-site rklt7c Spaces 13 pmvide!t As noted earner. 67 parking span Is required for tho use, 24 on -site parking spaces is provided, a shortfall of 43 spaces required for the use. However, used on the information provided by the applicant, an adequate number of on -site parking spaces can be provided for the use, Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Findings: ThQ cu rt tr r t'ora of t eparking trrta limits v hicle in ro �Ms sr3rl egfgM to the site m Plumar Streetc;roa ire addlfivrral commercial franc on a local street adiacent to a re rderrtiat rre1 hborhood: llrerr�fora vslriCular rr<c^oss irrarrr�N� ,ra Street 4v_ roa�rired tca be pmviclaicl. Unlike the other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provides vehicular access from West 191h Street as well as Rumor Street, the subject property's sole vehicular ingress and egress is from Plumer Street. The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined that to reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to access the site, the driveway on West 18t' Street should be restored, the SOLID LANDINGS 110 ZA-15-€l1 Apr1123, 2015 Page B of 13 gate and five van parking spaces blocking the aooes$ from West 1 g1h Street should: be removed, and West IF Street used as the maid access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been incorporated as a corylltlon of approval. Finding: Granting the minor canditional usa permit wilt not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not In accordance with the General plan designation. Facts In Support of Findings; The request Is consistent with the folkswing goals and objectives of the General Plan: 10 Objective LU-1F.1: Pmtact existing stabilized residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible orpotentialiy dimpdve land uses an&br acctiwltios. tronsistency. The measures described in the applicant's letter may address parking shortages. However, staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that if parking shortages or other parking -related problems anise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. Therefore, the request is consistent with this General Plan goal. Objectives CIR-1A.14: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of commuter through traffic on local streets in residential neighborhoods. tdonsisfency. Unlike the other commercially -zoned properties on this block, which provides vehicular access from West 19th Street as well as Mumer Street, the subject properties sale vehicular Ingress and egress is from Plumer Street, The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the applicant's proposal and has detarmined that to reduce the number of vehicles using Plumer Street to access the site, the driveway on West 19th Street should be restored, the gate and van parking spaces blocking the access from West 19th Street should be removed, and West 19th Strut used as the main access to the site, with Plumer Street being designated for egress of vehicles only. This has been incorporated as a condition of approval. Therefore, the use is consistent with this General Plan goal. B. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQ,A Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt under Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines SOLID LANDINGS 111 ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 9 of 13 C. The project is exempt from Chapter ?ail, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Ping. 1. The conditions of approval, crude requirements, and special district requirements of ZAA5-01 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plea as part of the plan check submittal package (if plan check is required). Z. The onsite activities shall be as follows: . SUMMARY 6:00 AM Tho first Rock Sclid employee arrives in a company vehicle and parks In the gated lot. 7:30.9:30 AM 18 additional Rock Solid employees andfor therapists arrive in personal or company vehicles. 8:4"AS AM Clients from 4 different solar living homes arrive vfa 3 12-seat passenger vans, The vans drop clients off within the gated pa tiring lot and do not remain onsite, The total number of clients that arrive via the 3 passenger vans range from 21.30, The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals. so as not to overlap. 9:15 AM-3:00 PM Clients rotate through one-on-one therapy, group counseling, computer labAibrary time, lunch, and fma time. 3:00.3:30 PM Three passenger vans arrive to transport clients to the gyrn, Clients not wishing to go to the gym are transported home. Clients do not return until the fallowing Clay. The vans arrive at 15 minute Intervals so as not to overlap. 3'.GM U PM Staff remains until 5:00 PM 6:O":00 PM A cleaning crew of 3-6 people anwe in 1 or 2 cars and stays for 1 hour, 6:00 P":30 PM Evening staff arrives to run group sessions attended by Rock Solid Clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles, Clients arrive via 3 vans at 15-minute intervals. The appmAmats number of clients Is 30. The total vehicles on site is 13. 8:3M:30 PM Group sessions held during this time period. 8:30-9:00 PM Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to their homes at 16-minute intervals. The employees leave at 9:04 PM once the lest passenger van leaves the Bite. SUMMARY, ACTIVITIES SOLID LANDINGS 112 ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 10 of 13 8:00 AM•5:00 PM Therapist may schedule an appointment Milli a client on an as needed basis, iF an appointment occurs the number of vehicles is 2 —one for tho therapist and one for the client who Is transported to the premises via a RocR Solid vehicle. 3. No employees, clients or vlsitors to the property shall park on City streets. All parking for the use shall take place on the property in designated parking spaces. 4. All clients shall be dropped off and picked up In the parking area. No pick-up or drop-off will occur in the driveways or public right-of-ways. 5. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described herein. Any change in the operational charactedst➢cs shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the conditional use permit, subject to either Zoning Administrator or Manning Commission approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that the Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nulsanca and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval (Title 13, Section 13-29(o)]. 0_ The zoning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked, The Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO or his designee may refer the zoning application to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if, in his opinion, any of the following circumstances exit 1) the use is being operated In violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use Is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. T. if any section, dMalon, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this approval is 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. 8. If parking shortages or other perking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. 9. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or operator shall Institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 10. A copy of the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit must be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New SOLID LANDINGS 113 ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 11 of 13 businesslproperty owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. 11. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site. This inspection Is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and coda requirements have been satisfied. 12. iVo later than 90 days from the date of approval, the landscape setback areas along the W.190 Street frontage shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall contain 24•inch box trees to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 13. Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless ft 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 cut 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 casts awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and rather casts, liabilftles 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"e obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that they City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisiona set forth In this section. City shall have the right to select the attorney defending It, if It elects to do so. 14. Applicant shall obtain Planning approval for the construction of the commercial driveway on W. $th Street, pursuant to condition 15, below. Trans. 15. No later than 45 days from the date of approval. revise the parking area and access gates as follows; a) Construct commercial driveway at the exlsting approach on W. 19th Street leading to the parking area at the rear of the site, which shall be user/ for vehicle ingress, unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. b) Eliminate any parking spaces which interfere with the driveway access to the parking area at the rear of the site to comply with the standard drive aisle dimensions per the City's Parking Design Standards. 0 Onsite vehicular circulation shall comply with the City's Parking Design Standards. d) Existing Plumer Street access shall only be used as vehicle egress, SOLID LANDINGS 114 ZA-15-g1 April 23, 2015 Page 12 of 13 unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. IS. Na later than 30 days from Me date of approval, existing vehtc:6 gate locations shall be submitted to the Transportation Services Division for reAew and approval. If they existing gate locations cannot be approved, the applicant shall relocate and/or remove the vehicle gates as necessary. Fire 17. All vehicular acres gates shall wnply with the requirements of Section& SDS.1 and 506.2 of the 2013 California Fire Code (or any suomsor provisions), so as to provide access to emergancy crews. A Knox system for gate acmes must be obtained through the Costa Mesa Fire Department within 30 days from the date of approval for the existing gate on Plumer Stroet, and cxmcurrentty with the approval of the gate on W. 19th Street- 0012E.REQUIRgMEM 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 Mass. Ping, 1. This use, as well as all contractors and subcontractors doing construction -related activity on the site, shall 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. Approval of the zoning application is valid for one (1) year from the effective date of this approval and will expire at the end of that period unless applicant establishes the use by one of the following actions: 1) obtains building permit(s) for the authorized construction and initlates construction; and/or 2) obtains a business license and/or legally establishes the business. If the applicant Is unable to establish the use/obtain building permits within the one-year time period, the applicant may request an extension of time. The Planning Division must recelve a written request for the time extension prior to the expiration of the zoning application. 3. The project Is subject to compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws. A copy of the applicable Costa Mesa Municipal Code requirements has been forwarded to the Applicant and, where applicable, the Authorized Agent, for reference. 4. Street address shall be visible from the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or on another prominent location. Numerals shall be a minimum twelve (12) inches in height with not less than three -fourth - inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. identification SOLID LANDINGS 115 -18-01 April 23, 201 a Page 13 of 13 of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with not loss than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. S. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Divialon. 6. Two (2) Ws of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa WnIcipal Cade Sections 1:3--101 through 13-108, shall be required as part of the project plan check rovlaw and approval process. Plans skull be forNarded to the Planning Givislorx fay' final approval prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Landscaping and irrigation shall be Installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final Inspection or occupancy clearance. S. 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. S. Comply with the requirements of the following adopted codes: 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Cade, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code. 2013 California Green Building Standards Cade, And 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Suilding Carle, California Electrkal Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, and California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Cade of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Cade, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. 10. Requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings and elements by Individuals with disabilities shall comply with chapter 115 of the 2013 California Building Code. SOLID LANDINGS 116 Exhibit "C" R E 0 E I V E b Cosh Mesa CITY C L� I' K City of Costa Mesa 1.5 APR 30 PN 1= 12 0 Appeal of Planning Commisslon Dedslon - $1,220.00 [] Appeal of Zoning Adminitr,1065 aP DY i is n- $690c000 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL' OR REVIEWS r +. `I!Y MESA Applicant Name" Address REQUEST FOR: ❑ APPEAL REVIEW'"" Decision of which appeal or review Is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, If known.) -?) 6-6), Reasons for requestirig appeal or review: Date: rr a.r �� ..�'�, Z-0 .' < / Signature: o-L `If you are serving as the agent for another person, please Identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization. "Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, Clty Council, or City Council Member For office use only - do not write below this line 11-0 � SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF: If appeal or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of append orq ;1 review: (%Lei+-�✓ SOLID LANDINGS 134 Exhibit "D" O'NEIL LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW KATHLEEN A. DONAHUE DEAN DUNN-RANKIN 19900 MACARTIfUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 1050 SANDRA A. GALLE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 WILLIAM E, HALLE (949) 798-0500 • (949) 798-0511 (FAX) ANDREw K. HARTZELL WEBSITE: www.oneil-lip.com LAWRENCE J. HILTON WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: (949) 798-0134 EMAIL: donei1@onei1-I1p.com May 29, 2015 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Robert Dickson Chairman Costa Mesa Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive PO Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Re: Zoning Application ZA-15-01 Th I Jom D, HUDSON DENNIS D. O'NEIL JAY F. PALCHIKOFF PAUL A. ROWE WILLIAM L. WOMEY JOHN P. YEAGER Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department MAY 2 9 2015 Dear Chairman Dickson and Members of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission: By letter dated April 23, 2015, notice of approval and the decision of Zoning of Application ZA-15-01 Minor Conditional Use Permit for Parking Reduction for Group Counseling Use (Solid Landings Behavioral Health, dba Rock Solid Recovery) 657 West 19tr' Street, Costa Mesa ("MCUP Building") was sent by Willa Bouwens-Killeen, Zoning Administrator to the applicant. The decision 5:00 p.m. on April 30, 2015. A copy of th Application ZA-15-01 is attached under TAB A. Application for Appeal or Review e of the Zoning Administrator became final at Zoning Administrator's decision in Zoning On April 30, 2015, Stephan H. Andranian, in his capacity as a Member of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission, filed an Application for Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision in Zoning Application ZA-15-01, No fee was charged to Planning Commissioner Andranian for filing this Application for Review. Planning Commissioner Andranian withdrew his Application for Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision in this case on May 26, 2015. But for his position as a member of the Planning Commission scheduled to conduct a hearing on ZA-15-01, Planning Commissioner Andranian is now no longer a party initiating the review of ZA-15-01, but this situation could, however, create a conflict of interest or pre -hearing bias requiring Planning Commissioner Andranian to recuse himself from the hearing. The conflict would be based on the principles of a need for providing due process and a fair hearing discussed in the recent decision of the California Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of Woody :s Group v. City of Newport Beach which held that a council member could not sit as a judge on a case called up from a lower decision -making body. a153395v1 10217.2 SOLID LANDINGS 99 Robert Dickson May 29, 2015 Page 2 On April 30, 2015, Ann H. Parker representing herself, Residents and TBON filed an Application for Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision in Zoning Application ZA-15- 01. Ann Parker paid an Application for Review fee of $690.00 ("Parker Request for Review"). The Residents, I assume, are all the residents of Costa Mesa which are obviously a group not certified as a class qualified to join in this Application. I have learned that TBON stands for "Take Back Our Neighborhood" although I do not Imow if this is a legally formed entity or if Ann Parker is authorized to represent TBON. The Application for Appeal or Review requires an applicant to marls the box for "Appeal" or the box for "Review." The application expressly states on its face the "Review" may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council or City Council Member. Nevertheless, Ann Parker marked the wrong box requesting a "Review" of the Zoning Administrator's decision in case ZA-15-01. The form of the Application for Appeal or Review filed by Ann Parker is attached under TAB B. The Parker Request for Review has been calendared for consideration at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on Monday, June 8, 2015. This law firm has been retained by Solid Landings Behavioral Health, dba Rock Solid Recovery to represent their position and present their arguments for support of upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator in case ZA-15-01 and requesting dismissal of this case. Procedure for Appeal The procedures relating to the method of appeal and review of decisions of the staff, committees, commissions and City Council are set forth in Ordinance No. 13-08 amending Chapter IX of Title 2 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code (Sections 2-300 through 2-314). Ordinance No. 13-08 was adopted by the Costa Mesa City Council on December 3, 2013 (copy attached under TAB Q. Section 2-311 of Ordinance No. 13-08 states that the procedures set forth in this chapter are the exclusive methods by which appeals and reviews may be pursued and none of the steps set forth herein may be waived or omitted. Ann Parker failed to follow these procedures by marking the wrong box requesting a "Review" which cannot be waived and interpreted to mean she meant to check the "Appeal" box. Section 2-303 of Ordinance No. 13-08 states that any affected person may, within the time limit set forth in Section 2-305, file an application for appeal with the City Cleric. Said application shall contain sufficient information to identify the party, its interest in the matter, and the reasons for requesting an appeal. Section 2-301 of Ordinance No. 13-08 defines "Affected Person" to mean "any person, including the applicant, any city staff member, committee, or commission who has an interest in the matter at issue or whose health, safety, or welfare may be affected by the decision." Section 2-301 defines "Review" to mean reconsideration of the decision of any city employee, committee, or commission requested by the City Council, on its own motion, or upon request of any City Council member, in order to consider the decision and any broad legislative and policy factors involved. This could mean the only body having jurisdiction to review a decision of the Zoning Administrator is the City Council. If this is the s 153395 vl 10217.2 SOLID LANDINGS 100 Robert Dickson May 29, 2015 Page 3 case, the Planning Commission would be preempted from reviewing a decision of the Zoning Administrator in case ZA-15-01 according to Section 2-301. The Parker Request for Review fails to provide any justification or suflicient information to identify herself, the Residents or TBON as having such an interest in the matter at issue to be qualified as an "affected person" or "affected persons" or having any interest affecting their health, safety or welfare. The reasons set forth in the Parker Request for Review states that the conditions imposed by the Zoning Administrator's decision have been ignored. This allegation is just not true, has no merit and would not give rise to Ann Parker being an "Affected Person." In any event the conditions are in the process of being implemented during the period time as authorized by the MCUP. Regardless, Ann Parker, the Residents and TBON lack standing to request review which can only be made by the Planning Commission, a Planning Commission member, the City Council or a City Council Member. A search of the City's records disclose that Ann Parker on a number of occasions has appeared before the Costa Mesa Planning Commission and City Council to voice her objection to the City's ordinances and regulations allowing group homes to exist in the City. Ann Parker has expressed strong feelings against providing these services for recovering addicts in Costa Mesa. The City, however, as a public entity must conduct itself in compliance with federal and state law. The City is bound by the provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act and other state and federal constitutional guarantees to prevent discrimination against persons disabled by addiction. Nevertheless, Ann Parker has shown in her prior testimony before the Planning Commission and City Council her ill -will against these facilities and this ill - will is likely to be the true motivation behind the Parker Request for Review of the Zoning Administrator's decision in case ZA-15-01. Ann Parker is not an "Affected Person" in this case but is attempting to use this process to promote her established position in opposition to group homes in Costa Mesa. This is not relevant to case ZA-15-01 and constitutes an abuse of process. Zoning Administrator's Decision The Zoning Administrator's decision contains a comprehensive report in granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit ("MCUP") to allow a parking reduction for the group counseling use conducted by my client in the MCUP Building, a two-story, 6,710 square foot commercial building located at 657 West 19`h Street. The Zoning Administrator considered in detail: the land uses surrounding the MCUP Building; a description of the MCUP Building uses; the justifications for approving the MCUP; and the consistency with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and permitted uses in the C-1 zoning district. The Zoning Administrator not only had the evidence to consider submitted by my client but had input and could rely on the professional recommendations from the City Transportation Services, Economic and Development Services, and the Fire and Police Departments to assist in reaching this decision granting the MCUP. The Zoning Administrator in support of her decision adopted findings stating: (i) the proposed use of the MCUP Building is compatible with other developments in the same general area and that an adequate number of on -site parking spaces can be provided for the use; (ii) granting the MCUP will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or neighborhood; (iii) granting the MCUP is consistent with the goals and 9153395v1 10217,2 SOLID LANDINGS 101 Robert Dickson May 29, 2015 Page 4 objectives of the General Plan; and (iv) the existing neighborhoods will be protected from incompatible land uses and by reducing or eliminating intrusion of commuters through traffic on local streets. Most importantly, the Zoning Administrator attached 27 conditions of approval to the MCUP for ZA-15-01. The most significant conditions are: (i) limitation on the hours of operation of the MCUP Building; (ii) no employees, clients or visitors shall be allowed to park on City streets; (iii) the Planning Commission retains the power to modify or revoke the MCUP for noncompliance with the conditions of approval; (iv) if parking -related problems arise, the applicant shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to eliminate the problem; and (v) provide that the main access to the parking for the MCUP Building be taken off of 19`h Street and Plumer Street access shall only be used for vehicle egress. My client has agreed to abide by all conditions imposed by the Zoning Administrator and is in the process of implementing those conditions requiring any follow-up action. The outpatient counseling services conducted at the MCUP Building are provided for disabled men recovering from alcoholism and substance abuse. This is a permitted use in the City's General Plan and the MCUP Building zoning district. The American's with Disabilities Act prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against individuals with disabilities in virtually all governance activities and decision -making, including planning and land use. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence presented to the Zoning Administrator clearly establishes the basis for issuance of Zoning Application ZA-15-01. Further, the findings and conditions of approval address the adequacy of onsite parking for the MCUP Building and serve to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the City and its residents and businesses. Any attempt to overrule the decision of the Zoning Administrator in Zoning Application ZA-15-01 would be without justification and considered arbitrary and capricious. Overruling the decision of the Zoning Administrator would further cause significant harm to members of a protected class under state and federal anti -discrimination laws. On behalf of Solid Landings Behavioral Health, dba Rock Solid Recovery, for the reasons set forth in this letter, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to summarily dismiss the Parker Request for Review of Zoning Application ZA-15-01 and declare it to be void and of no force and effect. Very truly yours, ,A e'Oel Dennis D. O'Neil DDO/clt copy: Colin McCarthy (coli Tim Sesler twsesler Jeff Mathews (aventr Stephan Andranian (s Claire L. Flynn (clair Mel Lee (mel.lee cc Yolanda M. Summerl Kristen Ford (kristen, 9153395v1 10217.2 SOLID LANDINGS 102 Exhibit "E" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In re: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 FOR A DEVIATION FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 W. 19TIi STREET DECLARATION OF YESENIA UMANA I, YESENIA UMANA, declare as follows: 1. I am the Community Relations and Real Estate Liaison for Solid Landings Behavioral Health ("Solid Landings"), which is located in Costa Mesa, California. I submit this Declaration in connection with the scheduled June 8, 2015 meeting concerning the above -referenced matter. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and can testify truthfully and competently to the following: 2. On April 23, 2015, the Zoning Administrator approved Solid Landings' application for a minor conditional use permit to deviate from parking requirements for the building located at 657 West 191h Street in Costa Mesa, which Solid Landings uses for group counseling services. 3. The approval was subject to various conditions, some of which were given deadlines for completion. I am responsible for overseeing the implementation of the conditions according to the proscribed schedule. Condition 416 — Approval of Existing Gate Locations 4. Condition #16 requires Solid Landings to submit the existing vehicle gate locations to the Transportation Services Division for review and approval no later than May 29, 2015. DECLARATION OF YESENIA UMANA 1 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. On May 26, 2015, I spoke with Elizabeth Palacio, an Engineering Technician with the City of Costa Mesa, and submitted site plans to her for approval, The site plans showed the existing vehicle gate locations. 6. Between May 26, 2015 and June 3, 2015 I followed up with Ms. Palacio via e- mail and phone on multiple occasions but did not receive a response. I also visited the Transportation Services Division in person to follow up. I also requested updates from Pritam Deshmukh, an Associate Engineer with the City. 7. On June 4, 2015, Ms. Palacio returned the submitted site plans to me with handwritten comments and requests for additional information. 8. 1 am presently in the process of obtaining the requested information and will submit the supplemented plans to the Transportation Services Division for further review promptly. Condition #17 — Obtain Knox Systems for Gate Access 9. Condition #17 requires Solid Landings to obtain a Knox system for emergency gate access from the Costa Mesa Fire Department within 30 days from the date of approval for the existing gate on Plumer Street and concurrently with the approval of the gate on West 191h Street. 10. I have obtained the Authorization from the Costa Mesa Fire Department for the purchasing and installation of the required Knox systems. Condition #14 and 915 — Obtain Approval for Commercial Driveway 11. Conditions 914 and #15 require Solid Landings to obtain Planning approval for the construction of a commercial driveway on West 1911, Street and to revise the parking DECLARATION OF VESENIA UNIANA 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 area and access gates pursuant to certain conditions, including the elimination of parking spaces that interfere with the West 191h Street driveway access to the parking area. 12. To date, the five parking spaces along the West 191h Street driveway access to the parking area have been eliminated, and i am working with Planning towards plans for the construction of a commercial driveway, as required. 13. Per the Conditions for Approval, we have until June 12, 2015 to obtain such approval. Various Other Conditions and Code Reguirements 14. I am continuing to diligently work towards fulfilling the various other Conditions for Approval, including a landscape plan for the setback areas along the West 191h Street frontage (Condition #12, to be completed before July 29, 2015), posting of a visible street address (Code Requirement #4), screening of mechanical equipment (Code Requirement #5), and the submission of various other plans to the Planning Fe=ri� for final approval. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 5 day of June, 2015 at Costa Mesa, California. YESENIA UMA A DECLARATION OF YESENIA UNIANA 3 Exhibit "F" CITY OF COSTA MESA -.� P.0 BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92828.1200 r DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE: June 9, 2015 PROJECT NO: ZA-15-01 SITE ADDRESS: 657 West 191h Street FINAL ACTION: At a noticed public hearing an June 8, 2015, Planning Commission reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision and denied Planning Application ZA-15-01, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution PC-15-34. The final resolution is attached. APPEAL PERIOD: This decision will become final unless appealed by 5 p.m., Monday June 15, 2015 by the filing of the necessary form and fees with the City Clerk's office, located at 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. PLANNING CONTACT: Mel Lee, Senior Planner, (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov If you have any questions or comments regarding this notice of decision, please contact the project planner (above) or me at 714-754-5278. Sincerely, A Claire L. Flynn, AICP Assistant Development Services Director DISTRIBUTION: Solid Landings Behavioral Health Attn: Kristen Ford 2900 Bristol Street, Suite B-300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Building Division (714) 754-5273 - Code Enforcement (714) 754-5613 • Planning Division (714) 754.5245 FAX (714) 754.4856 - TOO (714) 754-5244 , www costamesec:a.gov Rock Solid Recovery 657 West 191h Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 John Morehart 126 East 16th Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 RESOLUTION NO. PC-15-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA REVERSING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION AND DENYING ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN ON -SITE PARKING SPACES FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 WEST 19TH STREET THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed Kristen Ford, representing John Morehart, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: Zoning Application ZA-15-01 is a Minor Conditional Use Permit to deviate from parking requirements for a group counseling use (Solid Landings) in a 6,710 square foot building (67 parking spaces is required for the use, 24 on -site parking spaces will be provided (29 existing minus 5 that will be lost when the West 19th Street gate is reopened per the conditions of approval) based on unique operating characteristics, WHEREAS, on April 23, 2015, the Zoning Administrator approved the request; and WHEREAS, on April 30, 2015, the Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed by a City resident; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and WHEREAS, the project was reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; and it was determined that CEQA does not apply to the project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), because the project was denied; and BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission hereby reverses the Zoning Administrator's decision and DENIES Planning Application ZA-15-01 with respect to the property described above. 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 8th day of J e, 2015. G / Roberl L. ickson Jr], ChAir, Costa Mesa Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15-34 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on June 8, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Claire . Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that: Finding: The proposed use is not compatible with developments in the same general area and would be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Findings: The applicant's request cannot be supported based on the following: • The residential neighborhoods on Center Street and Plumer Street are being disrupted by the following activities related to the use; • Clients and employees have been observed parking on Center Street and Plumer Street instead of in the parking lot and walking to the facility; additionally, clients are walking to the faculty rather than being dropped off as indicated in the applicants' business plan. • Employees have been observed parking in the nearby Costa Mesa Senior Center parking lot and walking to the facility. • The client vans have been observed blocking traffic on Plumer Street and parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot. • The above activities are inconsistent with the plan submitted by the applicants, which indicated that all employees park inside the property, all clients are dropped off by vans inside the property so as to ensure minimal impact on the neighboring properties and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. In light of the above the Planning Commission finds that, according to the applicant's submittals, the current operation should have little or no impact on parking and traffic. However, the current operation is spilling over into the neighborhood demonstrating that the proposed operating measures are inadequate to address the parking shortfall. The approval of ZA-09-34 for a group counseling center at 1901 Newport Boulevard, Suite 149, as cited by the applicant as basis for approval for the subject use, does not establish a precedent for the approval of this application based on the following: • The 1901 Newport property is zoned PDC, versus the C1 zoning for the subject property; • The 1901 Newport property is surrounded by commercial properties and a parking structure, versus the subject property, which is abutting residential uses; • The 1901 Newport property had a shortfall of 2 spaces, based on the shortfall of 38-43 spaces for the subject use; • The 1901 Newport property has available overflow parking on -site, versus the subject property; • The 1901 Newport property has no vehicle gates, versus the subject property; • The 1901 Newport property has all required building and fire safety permits and inspections, versus the subject property. The use is not being operated in compliance of the following conditions of approval and code requirements for ZA-15-01: • Conditions of Approval Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 17; • Code Requirement Numbers 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10. The use as being operated constitutes a public nuisance per the following sections of Title 20, Chapter III, Article 1 Section 20-12 (Conditions or Uses Qualifying as a Public Nuisance): • Sections a, x, z, ff, gg, hh, jj, and II; • The facility has been operated for nine months without the necessary approvals as noted above; The findings upon which the ZA approval was granted are no longer applicable. Finding: Granting the minor conditional use permit will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public or otherwise injurious to property or improvements within the immediate neighborhood. Facts in Support of Findings: The applicant's request cannot be supported based on the following: The property owner and applicant did not follow the correct procedures for obtaining the necessary building and fire safety permits and inspections for the use, including, but not limited to, the following: • Permits for interior and exterior alterations to the building, fire safety inspections, certificates of occupancy, and business licenses; • The addition of the security gate on Plumer Street; • The removal of the driveway and the addition of a vehicle gate on West 19t' Street; • The addition of glass storefront windows along the building's West 1911 Street frontage; • Kitchen and kitchenette facilities were installed without the required OC Health Department permits and inspections; • Electrical conduits and piping were installed on the exterior of the building without the required electrical permits and inspections; • Rusted/damaged exterior stairs were installed without the required building permits and inspections. Finding: Granting the minor conditional use permit will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General plan designation. Facts in Support of Findings: The request is not consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan: • Objective LU-1 F.1: Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. • Objective CIR-1A.14: Reduce or eliminate intrusion of commuter through traffic on local streets in residential neighborhoods. As noted earlier, the applicant's request cannot be supported based on the following; • The residential neighborhoods on Center Street and Plumer Street are being disrupted by the following activities related to the use: • Clients and employees have been observed parking on Center Street and Plumer Street instead of in the parking lot and walking to the facility; • Employees have been observed parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot and walking to the facility; • The client vans have been observed blocking traffic on Plumer Street and parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot. B. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Exhibit "G" Costa Mesa City of Costa Mesa CITY CLERK I5AW12PH1:!8 El Appeal of ❑ 220.00 Appeal of Zonrtng D V sk r! -3Aao ©p OT APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW Applicant Name` Kristen Ford Address 2900 Bristol St., Suite B-300, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone 949-467-9213 Representing Solid Landings Behavioral Health REQUEST FOR: 2 APPEAL REVIEW' Decision of which appeal or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, if known.) Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial on June 8, 2015 of Zoning Administrator's approval of a minor conditional use permit allowing a deviation from parking requirements for the building at 657 W. 19th Street (Application ZA-15-01). Decision by: Planning Commission Reasons fox requesting appeal or review: The decision of the Planning Commission overruling the Zoning Administrator of approval of a minor conditional use permit to deviate from parking requirements for the applicant's group counseling facilities at 657 W. 19th Street denied the applicant a fair hearing on the following grounds: 1. The findings of the Planning Commission supporting the decision cannot be justified in fact or in law. 2. The decision of the Planning Commission was based on unsubstantiated testimony and evidence introduced by the appellant without opportunity for the applicant to review or respond resulting in a denial of due process of law. 3. The Planning Commission's decision resulted in a denial of the applicant's rights as a protected class under the American's With Disabilities Act and other state and federal anti -discrimination laws. Due to scheduling conflicts, I am respectfully requesting this appeal to be set for hearing at the July 21, 2015 meeting of the City Council. Date: June 12, 2015 Signature: "If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization. "Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member For office use only — do not write below this line SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF: If appeal or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of appeal or review: Exhibit "H" ORDINANCE NO. 13.08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, AMENDING CHAPTER IX OF TITLE,2 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO APPEAL, REHEARING, AND REVIEW PROCEDURE WHEREAS, Chapter IX of Title 2 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code provides for the review, appeal, and rehearing of decisions; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Chapter IX to preserve the appeal and review procedures and remove the rehearing procedure. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS; Section 1. Chapter IX of Title 2 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: CHAPTER IX. APPEAL AND REVIEW PROCEDURE Sec. 2-300. Purpose, Sec. 2-301. Definitions. Sec. 2-302. City council review requests. Sec. 2-303. Procedure for appeal. Sec. 2-304, Reserved. Sec. 2-305. Time limitations for appeals and reviews. Sec. 2-306, Time limitation for issuance of permits. Sec. 2-307. Fees. Sec. 2-308. Notice of appeal or review. Sec, 2-309. Person or body to hear an appeal or review a decision. Sec, 2-310. Exhaustion of administrative remedies. Sec. 2-311. Exclusive procedures. Sec. 2-312, Accrual of certain claims, Sec. 2-313. Limitations on judicial review. Sec. 2-314. Severability. Secs. 2-315-2-400. Reserved. Sec, 2-300. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an orderly and fair method of appeal and review of decisions of the staff, committees, commissions and council of the city, Ordinance No. 13-08 Page 1 of 7 SOLID LANDINGS 136 Sec. 2-301. Definitions, As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth herein below: (1) Affected person means any person, including the applicant, any city staff member, committee, or commission who has an Interest in the matter at issue or whose health, safety, or welfare may be affected by the decision. (2) Appeal means reconsideration, bya higher authority, of the specific facts and circumstances of any final decision made by the city, any of its employees, committees or commissions or by the redevelopment agency. (3) Applicant means the person who applied for or requested the decision or action which is the subject of the appeal or review. (4) Council means the Costa Mesa City Council. (5) Decision means any final decision, finding, ruling, order or action. (6) Permit, as used in section 2-306, means anything referred to elsewhere in this Code as being a "permit' or "license." (7) Person shall have the meaning attributed in section 1-21 of this Code. (8) Review means reconsideration of the decision of any city employee, committee, or commission requested by the city council, on Its own motion, or upon request of any council member, in orderto considerthe decision and any broad legislative and policy factors involved. Sec. 2-302. City council review requests. Within the time limits set forth in section 2-305, the city council or any council member may request that a decision of any city employee, committee, or commission be reviewed by filing an application with the city clerk staffing the reasons for the requested review. Said review will be conducted according to the procedures specified in section 2- 303 and 2-309. The person or bodyto hear the review will be designated in the application by the person or body seeking such review and shall be as specified in section 2-309, unless the council as a whole specifies a higher level of review in the first instance. Sec. 2-303. Procedure For appeal. (1) Any affected person may, within the time limits set forth in section 2-305, file an application for appeal with the city clerk. Said application shall contain sufficient information to identify the party, its interest in the matter, and the reasons for requesting an appeal. Ordinance No, 13-08 Page 2 of 7 SOLID LANDINGS 137 (2) If the appeal Is to be heard by a person or body which conducts regularly scheduled meetings, the appeal shall be considered at the first regular meeting which follows receipt of the application by ten (10) or more days, and which allows sufficient time for the giving of notice as required by section 2-308 (3) If the appeal is to be heard by an Individual or body which does not conduct regularly scheduled meetings, the appeal shall be considered not more than ten (10) days following receipt of the application; provided that the time period may be extended if necessary to allow the giving of notice as required by section 2-308 (4) An appeal hearing shall consist of a new(I.e., de novo) hearing on the matter by the person or body specified in section 2-309. The appeal hearing shall be based on the following evidence: (a) Any relevant evidence, including staff reports, etc., submitted at the time of the prior decision and at the appeal hearing, and (b) Findings, if any, and decision of the person or body whose decision is being appealed. (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, there shall be no right of appeal to the city council from a decision by a public officer designated by City Council Policy No.100-7 on an application fora walverof fees for use of a city owned public facility or show wagon. A decision pursuant to City Council Policy No. 100-7 shall be subject to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. (6) If the original decision being appealed involved issuance of any permit, license, or other entitlement or approval or requested some action by the city, the applicant for the original decision shall have the burden of proof to support the granting of the requested issuance, approval, or action at the appeal. Sec. 2-304. Reserved, Sec. 2-305. Time limitations for appeals and reviews. All applications for appeals and reviews must be filed, in writing, during regular business hours of 8:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, and within the time limits hereinafter set forth: (1) For all matters relating to the approval, disapproval or extension of tentative and parcel maps, within ten (10) days from -the date of the final decision subject to appeal or review, Ordinance No. 13-08 Page 3 of 7 SOLID LANDINGS 138 (2) For all other items, within seven (7) days from the date of the final decision subject to appeal or review. (3) For all matters requiring approval by the city, its employees, committees, or commissions, and by the redevelopment agency, the time limits for all applications shall begin on the date of the later of the following: (a) Final decision bythe city, its employees, committees, orcommissions; or (b) Final decision by the redevelopment agency. If the final day for filing an application for appeal or review falls on a holiday or weekend day when city hall is closed, the application shall be filed no later than the next business day. Sec. 2-306. Time limitation for issuance of permits. Where a permit is sought and its issuance is contingent upon obtaining a prerequisite permit, the permit sought shall not be issued until the expiration of the time limit for seeking an appeal or review specified in section 2-305 applied to the prerequisite permit. Provided, however, that if an application for appeal or review of the prerequisite permit is filed within the specified time limits, the permit sought shall not be issued until seven (7) days following the final decision on the appeal or review. Any permit issued in violation of the provisions of this section shall be void. Sec. 2-307. Fees. Each application for appeal shall be accompanied by a processing fee in an amount determined by resolution of the city council. Sec. 2-308. Notice of appeal or review. Notice of the hearing for the appeal or review shall be given in the same manner as any required notice for the hearing at which the decision subject to the appeal or review was made. in all cases for the hearing for an appeal or review, written notice of the date, time, and place shall be given to the original applicant, if any, any prior applicant for appeal regarding the same matter, and for appeals the person requesting the current appeal, Sec, 2-309. Person or body to hear an appeal or review a decision, The person or body to hear an appeal or review a decision shall be the following: (1) From a decision of the city staff to the department head; except that an appeal from a decision of the transportation services engineer regarding traffic matters pursuant to Title 10 of this Code, shall be made to the planning commission; Ordinance No. 13-08 Page 4 of 7 SOLID LANDINGS 139 (2) From a decision of the department head to the city manager; except that (a) an appeal from a declsion of the development services director on planning matters pursuant to Title 13 of this Code shall be made to the planning commission, and (b) an appeal from a decision of the building official on building matters pursuant to Title 5 of this Code shall be to the access, building, fire and housing board of appeals as required by section 5-3 of this Code; (3) From a decision of the city manager to the city council; (4) From a decision of any city committee or commission to the city council, Sec. 2-310. Exhaustion of administrative remedies. Unless appealed or reviewed as provided herein, any decision becomes final for all purposes when made. Sec. 2-311. Exclusive procedures. The procedures set forth in this chapter are the exclusive methods bywhich appeals and reviews may be pursued and none of the steps set forth herein may be waived or omitted. Sec. 2-312. Accrual of certain claims. No claim for violation of constitutional rights for deprivation of economic use of property shall arise until and unless a claimant has secured a final decision on a permit application fora plan of development and on a request fora variance or similar relief from the zone or other development standard for a plan of development as specified in Title 13 of this Code. Sec, 2-313. Limitations on judicial review. Notwithstanding any provision in this Code to the contrary, no court action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul any decision or procedure of the City of Costa Mesa, its council, commissions, boards or officers, which has become administratively final shall be maintained byanyaggrieved person unless dulycommenced in a court of competent jurisdiction within ninety (90) days, as provided In California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094,6, incorporated herein byreference, and/oras provided in California Government Code section 65009, or any shorter statute of limitations provided by law. Sec. 2-314. Severability. If any provision of this chapter is found to be invalid or unconstitutional by interpretation or application to any person or circumstances, such Invalidity or Ordinance No, 13-08 Page 5 of 7 SOLID LANDINGS 140 unconstitutionality shall not affect the other provisions or applications thereof which can be given valid effect. Secs. 2-315-2-400, Reserved. Section 2. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessaryto effect the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competentjurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law in that regard and this Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its final passage. PASSED AND �C 9yPrE p W"s 3`d day of December, 2013. EIMER yor ATTEST: BRENDA GREE City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: T HO AS DU ` T City Attorney Ordinance No. 13-08 Page 6 of 7 SOLID LANDINGS 141 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) i, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certifythat the above and foregoing Ordinance No, 13-08 was introduced at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5fh day of November, 2013, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 3rd day of December, 2013, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mensinger, Monahan, Righeimer NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Genis, Leece ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 4�h day of December, 2013, &0& gLIL& BRENDA GR EN City Clerk Ordinance No. 13-08 Page 7 of 7 SOLID LANDINGS 142 CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA- 15-01 FOR A DEVIATION FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 W. 19TH STREET FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 17, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER (714) 754-5611 mel.lee(ftostamesaca.aov The staff report dated July 9, 2015 referred to several conditions of approval related to ZA-15-01. Excerpts of the Zoning Administrator's Decision and related conditions of approval are attached for reference. MEL LEE, AICP V GARY A STR NG, AICP Senior Planner Economio6 Development & )Development Services Director / Deputy CEO Attachment: ZA-15-01, Conditions of Approval cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr. City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Solid Landings Behavioral Health Attn: Kristen Ford 2900 Bristol Street, Suite B-300 Costa Mesa. CA 92626 Rock Solid Recovery 657 West 191h Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 John Morehart 126 East 161h Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dennis O'Neil c/o O'Neil, LLP 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92612 Stacy W. Thomsen c/o Peterson Law Group PC 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 290 Irvine, California 92612 ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 9 of 13 C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of ZA-15-01 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package (if plan check is required). 2. The onsite activities shall be as follows: SUMMARY OF • • 6:00 AM The first Rock Solid employee arrives in a company vehicle and parks in the gated lot. 7:30-9:30 AM 16 additional Rock Solid employees and/or therapists arrive in personal or company vehicles. 8:45-9:15 AM Clients from 4 different sober living homes arrive via 3 12-seat passenger vans. The vans drop clients off within the gated parking lot and do not remain onsite. The total number of clients that arrive via the 3 passenger vans range from 21-30. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. 9:15 AM-3:00 PM Clients rotate through one-on-one therapy, group counseling, computer lab/library time, lunch, and free time. 3:00-3:30 PM Three passenger vans arrive to transport clients to the gym. Clients not wishing to go to the gym are transported home. Clients do not return until the following day. The vans arrive at 15 minute intervals so as not to overlap. 3:00-5:00 PM Staff remains until 5:00 PM 5:00-6:00 PM A cleaning crew of 3-6 people arrive in 1 or 2 cars and stays for 1 hour. 6:00 PM-6:30 PM Evening staff arrives to run group sessions attended by Rock Solid Clients. 10 employees are present representing 10 vehicles. Clients arrive via 3 vans at 15-minute intervals. The approximate number of clients is 30. The total vehicles on site is 13, 6:30-8:30 PM Group sessions held during this time period. 8:30-9:00 PM Passenger vans arrive to transport clients to their homes at 15-minute intervals. The employees leave at 9:00 PM once the last passenger van leaves the site. SUMMARY OF ON -SITE ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 10 of 13 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Therapist may schedule an appointment with a client on an as needed basis. If an appointment occurs the number of vehicles is 2 —one for the therapist and one for the client who is transported to the premises via a Rock Solid vehicle. g� 3. No employees, clients or visitors to the property shall park on City streets. All parking for the use shall take place on the property in designated parking spaces. B� 4. All clients shall be dropped off and picked up in the parking area. No pick-up or drop-off will occur in the driveways or public right-of-ways. 5. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described herein. Any change in the operational characteristics shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the conditional use permit, subject to either Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission approval, depending on the nature of the proposed change. The applicant is reminded that the Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to modify or revoke any planning application based on findings related to public nuisance and/or noncompliance with conditions of approval [Title 13, Section 13-29(o)]. 8. The zoning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked. The Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO or his designee may refer the zoning application to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if, in his opinion, any of the following circumstances exist: 1) the use is being operated in violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 7. If any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this approval is 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. 8. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise, the business operator shall institute appropriate operational measures necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem. 9. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or operator shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 10. A copy of the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit must be kept on premises and presented to any authorized City official upon request. New ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 11 of 13 Trans business/property owners shall be notified of conditions of approval upon transfer of business or ownership of land. 11. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site. This inspection is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 12, No later than 90 days from the date of approval, the landscape setback areas along the W. 19t" Street frontage shall be landscaped with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall contain 24-inch box trees to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 13. Applicant 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 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. City shall have the right to select the attorney defending it, if it elects to do so. 14. Applicant shall obtain Planning approval for the construction of the commercial driveway on W. 9th Street, pursuant to condition 15, below. 15. No later than 45 days from the date of approval, revise the parking area and access gates as follows: a) Construct commercial driveway at the existing approach on W. 19th Street leading to the parking area at the rear of the site, which shall be used for vehicle ingress, unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. b) Eliminate any parking spaces which interfere with the driveway access to the parking area at the rear of the site to comply with the standard drive aisle dimensions per the City's Parking Design Standards. c) Onsite vehicular circulation shall comply with the City's Parking Design Standards. d) Existing Plumer Street access shall only be used as vehicle egress, ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 12 of 13 unless otherwise directed by the Transportation Services Division. 16. No later than 30 days from the date of approval, existing vehicle gate locations shall be submitted to the Transportation Services Division for review and approval. If the existing gate locations cannot be approved, the applicant shall relocate and/or remove the vehicle gates as necessary. Fire y 17. All vehicular access gates shall comply with the requirements of Sections 506.1 and 506.2 of the 2013 California Fire Code (or any successor provisions), so as to provide access to emergency crews. A Knox system for gate access must be obtained through the Costa Mesa Fire Department within 30 days from the date of approval for the existing gate on Plumer Street, and concurrently with the approval of the gate on W. 19th Street. 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. This use, as well as all contractors and subcontractors doing construction -related activity on the site, shall 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. Approval of the zoning application is valid for one (1) year from the effective date of this approval and will expire at the end of that period unless applicant establishes the use by one of the following actions: 1) obtains building permit(s) for the authorized construction and initiates construction; and/or 2) obtains a business license and/or legally establishes the business. If the applicant is unable to establish the use/obtain building permits within the one-year time period, the applicant may request an extension of time. The Planning Division must receive a written request for the time extension prior to the expiration of the zoning application. 3. The project is subject to compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws. A copy of the applicable Costa Mesa Municipal Code requirements has been forwarded to the Applicant and, where applicable, the Authorized Agent, for reference. -9 4. Street address shall be visible from the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or on another prominent location. Numerals shall be a minimum twelve (12) inches in height with not less than three -fourth - inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Identification ZA-15-01 April 23, 2015 Page 13 of 13 of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with not less than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 6, 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. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 8. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 9. Comply with the requirements of the following adopted codes: 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, and 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. 10. Requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings and elements by individuals with disabilities shall comply with chapter 11B of the 2013 California Building Code. PH-2 Supplemental #2 CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA- 15-01 FOR A DEVIATION FROM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A GROUP COUNSELING USE AT 657 W. 19T" STREET FROM: PLANNING DIVISIOWDEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 21, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER (714) 754-5611 mel.1ee(&_gostamesaca.gov Attached to this memo are the additional observations of the site by Code Enforcement staff conducted on July 16, 2015, and July 17, 2015. The highlighted text and photos indicates where employees or customers of Solid Landings were observed to not be parking within the on -site parking lot. / '�' V MEL LEE, AICP GARY ARNISTRONG, MOP P Senior Planner Econorrfic Development' & Development Services Director 1 Deputy CEO Attachment: Interoffice memos and photos cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development 1 Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr. City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Solid Landings Behavioral Health Attn: Kristen Ford 2900 Bristol Street, Suite B-300 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Rock Solid Recovery 657 West 19th Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 John Morehart 126 East 16th Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dennis O'Neil c/o O'Neil, LLP 19900 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92612 Stacy W. Thomsen c/o Peterson Law Group PC 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 290 Irvine, California 92612 2- City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum To: Mel Lee , From: Mike Tucker, Code Enforcement Officerpr Date: July 20, 2015 Subject: 657 W. 191h St. — Solid Landings — Activity Update 7/16/15 Thursday, 7/16115: 1 went out to property to observe activity: • 12:45: 1 arrived at site from east bound 1911 St. As I drove by, I observed that the room upstairs was filled with people (pictures 1 & 2). 1 pulled into the Senior Center parking lot and observed the Security Guard speaking with a male in the south, east corner of the lot. The security guard's name, at the senior Center, is Darius Pyles and he works Monday thru Friday, 7:30 am to 3:30 pm. He said that people from the recovery center park in the Senior Center parking lot regularly. • 12:59: A large white passenger van approaches from eastbound Plumer St, pulls up to security gate, parks across sidewalk and the passenger gets out, enters gate code, gets back into van and proceeds into parking lot (picture 3). • 13:00: White Prius backs out, parks on eastbound Plumer St, exits vehicle and walks onto property. (pics 5, 6 & 8) • 13:02: Parking lot appears full, lots of activity in back, appears they are preparing for some type of camping trip. • 13:03: 8 staff members walk out. One of the staff members got into a vehicle parked at the Senior Center. • 13:05: 2 more female staff members walk out through the pedestrian gate. • 13:06: 3 staff members leave. One gets in a car parked on Plumer St (picture 12). • 13:09: A male staff member exits Plumer gate and walks eastbound down Plumer St. 13:10: Female staff member who had been outside walks westbound down Plumer and gets in a gold Buick parked on eastbound Plumer St. • 13:16: A large passenger van was backing out of lot through security gate as a black car tried to pull in resulting in blocking westbound Plumer St. (pictures 13 thru 22) • 13:17: Staff member approaches property from eastbound Plumer St, on foot, and enters property through security gate. • 13:19: Approximately 25 people hanging out in parking lot near smoking area. • 13:20: Blue Toyota Corolla backing out of parking lot, through security gate and onto Plumer St (pictures23 thru 27) • 13:20: Male staff member exits on foot and walks down eastbound Plumer St. • 13:28: White Prius pulls up, to security gate and blocks sidewalk. Security Guard manually enters gate code and then the vehicle enters property (pictures 28 thru 31). • 13:30: White van backs out (pictures 61 thru 66). • 13:37: Silver Honda approaches security and blocks sidewalk (pictures 32 thru 37). • 13:40: Five staff members, 3 male and 2 female, exit on foot through Plumer St. pedestrian gate, and walk down westbound Plumer St. One gets in a white Toyota Prius parked on westbound Plumer St. (picture 38). The other 4 staff members get in a Gray Honda CRV (6WFM463) parked on westbound Plumer. lip it I v I b I � 15— n s ~/ T • d� k L :4 u k k rt� • s c k 9 AM °. I'll 47. b M= 2 n CD O M , J El i City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum To: Mel Lee i From: Mike Tucker, Code Enforcement Officer Date: July 21, 2015 Subject: 657 W. 19t" St. — Solid Landings — Activity Update 7/17115 Thursday, 7117115: 1 went out to property to observe activity: • 13:57: 1 arrived at site. Parking lot had at least 3 open spaces. (pics 1 & 2) • 13:58: There is a security officer set up in the south east corner of the lot. The security guard area has taken up the parking space with a canopy, desk, chair and a bicycles. (Pic 3) • 14:00: After my arrival, the security guard came outside of the gate and posted himself outside on the sidewalk. (Pic 4) • 14:12: A silver, suv type vehicle, approached gate, security guard opens gate and has a conversation with driver while the vehicle is blocking sidewalk. Another vehicle approached from westbound Plumer St. and was parked in the street waiting for the silver suv to enter. (Pic 5) • 14:16: 2 staff members walk out, walk down eastbound Plumer St and get into a maroon car, parked on westbound Plumer St. (Pic 6) • 14:17: White car approaches gate and blocks sidewalk as security guard operates electric gate. (Pic 7) • 14:38: White Kia approaches gate and blocks sidewalk as security guard operates electric gate. (Pic 8) 14:54: Gold/bronze colored car backing out onto eastbound Plumer St. (Pic 9) 1 c) - d � AdMMMW ►�a e 7 � I 111 M � n arm e ru n aaas wONNOMMa momM WWI, is ■ m■ MIA w r ® 1 9 I I oxi rr; f� f� -... I.1 ff. f N I #t 'I��1 0 i -12- la 1 1 r iAMR _ fir■ AS nl M . al Islow a klW I Nm APPEAL OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA-15-01 FOR SOLID LANDINGS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH 657 W. 19TH STREET JULY21, 2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLUMER 5T /t ♦ it t`" ii !� Ei i i d ►♦ ice. i� #♦ i� .� ♦'< -1 1 www.ck, Pres-N CT ^�*♦» tip► �+b i �`♦ ♦" . # : ♦♦ ♦i -:. 5,Jp i i�♦ ♦ice,. r !f i#i ii #♦� TACO MESA 657 W 1,9TH ST COSTA MESA, CA VAN PAR KI Nd * I I ' M' � ' ' e MOUSE. GRAPHICS Y a• I FIEFA � RESIDENCE PENCE PARKING V Iy If, I I G7Fr�Ci -AOPERTY 1 RIF FENCE ter_— oTT MEETING ROOM W' KITCHENETTE Lu COMPUTER LAB & LIBRARY of � Ll ICE CONFERENCE ROOM W KITCHEN l • Zoning Administrator Determination No. 08-5, dated May 19, 2008, determined that the parking requirement for group counseling uses was to be classified the same as for trade and vocational schools, which is 10 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. In the case of the subject property, this equates to a requirement of 67 on -site parking spaces based on the existing 6,710 square foot building area. The 10 spaces per 1,000 square foot parking requirement for group counseling uses is needed for the entire building because the other uses (i.e., administrative offices and therapy rooms) support the primary group counseling use. • Because the subject property currently provides 29 on -site parking spaces, a shortfall of 38 spaces required for the use, the applicant is requesting approval of a minor conditional use permit to allow for the reduction in the required parking amount based on their specific operation as discussed in their project description and per Zoning Code Section 13-89.5 (Reduction in Parking Requirements). Justifications for Planning Commission's Denial The Planning Commission overturned the Zoning Administrator's approval and denied the request based on the following evidence entered into the public record: • As observed by Costa Mesa resident(s), the residential neighborhoods on Center Street and Plumer Street were being disrupted by the following activities related to the use: • Clients and employees were observed parking on Center Street and Plumer Street instead of in the parking lot and walking to the facility; additionally, clients were walking to the faculty rather than being dropped off as indicated in the applicants' business plan. • Employees were observed parking in the nearby Costa Mesa Senior Center parking lot and walking to the facility. • The client vans were observed blocking traffic on Plumer Street and parking in the nearby Senior Center parking lot. Justifications for Planning Commission's Denial • The activities were inconsistent with the operations plan submitted by the applicants, which indicated that all employees park inside the property, all clients are to be dropped off by vans inside the property so as to ensure minimal impact on the neighboring properties and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. • The Planning Commission considered the photographic evidence and public testimony related to the parking and traffic impacts of the current operations. The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed operating measures were inadequate to address the parking shortfall. Justifications for Planning Commission's Denial • Evidence was provided that the use was not being operated in compliance with the conditions of approval and code requirements for ZA-15-01. • The use as being operated constituted a public nuisance per the Title 20, Chapter III, Article 1 Section 20-12 (Conditions or Uses Qualifying as a Public Nuisance). PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-17 MAISON (FORMER LIONS DEN) 719WEST 19T"STREET JUNE 8, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING w u .J (C 12=,5 VM MAQ�N L T CENTER ST 19TH ST PLUMER ST CENTER ST m SITE PLAN REVISED FLOOR PLAN On March 20, 2015, after further inspection by the Building Safety and Fire Prevention inspectors, the building was determined to be unsafe to occupy and issued a "Red Tag". As part of the stop work and red tag notices, the applicant is required to do the following: • Submit plans to the Building Safety Division for plan check and obtain the necessary Building Safety and Fire Prevention permits; • Once permits have been issued, obtain any required inspections and approvals; • Obtain approval of a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Division tor live entertainment. The establishment cannot reopen to the public as a venue with live entertainment until all of the above items have been approved. However, the business may resume as a cocktail bar with a DJ and dancing once the building/fire safety issues are rectified and the Public Entertainment Permit is renewed. Policy Decision by the Planning Commission Consideration of this request for live entertainment would largely be based on compatibility with the abutting residential area. Staff believes that this application represents a policy decision by the Planning Commission to weigh: • Whether (or not) the live entertainment would be an over intensification of the nonconforming use. • Whether the live bands would cause increasing noise disturbances compared to the historic allowance for DJ music and dancing. • Whether compliance with the conditions of approval would ensure the quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood (R2-HD zoned properties along Center St.) • Whether the live entertainment would support the viability of the business while being compatible with the multi -family residential neighbors. NOTE: If the application were to be denied, the applicant could still continue to operate the establishment with recorded music and dancing under the current City approvals once the required building permits and inspections have been obtained. The applicant would be required to remove the storage container. Any property maintenance issues would be followed up with the property owner separately by Code Enforcement. S'1 • yr Jot - OWL TITLE 20 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUE - MISSING LANDSCAPING G1 � r iimp- ft Fez TITLE 20 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUE - PARKING LOT NEEDS RESURFACING AND TRASH ENCLOSURES NEEDED R 11 x. in ems. TITLE 20 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUE - SIGN POLE AND PAY PHONE BOOTH NEED TO BE REMOVED AJW 44 r rr % IF 3 4 Mi P• 4 low L11 I., 'M.' rb iy ,r 4 _Ilk'• �m � ".. N. YI rib elk la 4 r Y . a Y Sr # ' '�Y• r v r" fto! MENEM !OPINION . -04 lug 410 u 0 a 9 Ul IF Jk 1 a' .4u. ./ • s r�. 2.6 I l f l t i l l. ti 60 i ' Y P d 4A -V?4 ft 11 7 A. ��. pUjlic Hea�(+(i # z From: TBON TBON Costa Mesa <tboncostamesa@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 4:04 PM Subject: [BULK] ZA-15-01 Importance: Low Please take the time to watch the Planning Commission meeting of June 8 regarding ZA-15-01. This will give you an opportunity to thoroughly understand the the decision by the Planning Commission before the next city council meeting on July 21. Thank you. Ann Parker Publi�- NPavinl. # Z. From: Michael a� Sent: Monday, July 20, 2 15 4:01 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA Subject: Solid Landings Sober Living Office parking Dear City Council Members, I am not in favor of reducing the parking requirements for the Solid Landings office. Please follow the Planning Commission's denial. Mike Stewart Costa Mesa 'A111oppl- _77=10 On ° am r jr • 4 - r , Y e , _ 1f11 1 a _ an _ ,. w. ._ _ -may °„-rr --•-__ - - � -.rya:: - •FT I t,lowt - __ .� L.'----- _--�— • �r --,�, =-Y-�.- -,; � , I . ;��Urrl�r lumer mil• w R #!!.'. all .�- i _ FYI _�� � ���'' v 'x . � :Y' c r r '. Ali _ '� 4i i��l�r _ .. _ r..w�w► ,� f � �- _ e � k `r*� v . r . '' r -• �o[►rNil 74 � y • f ..-rSJw•.- � -� Ili ., '! ;I- ## JJ 'P'r � 51' .ram yy � � } ;- �, as �T�••�^ �t �i. I I -A. C1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH-3 SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT-17870 FOR A 6-UNIT, DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 14, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION: UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision to approve the proposed project, described below: 1. Planning Application PA-15-10: Design Review to construct a six -unit, two-story, small lot subdivision on a 23,159 sq. ft. lot in an R2-MD zone. The project will include an automatic gate off the Orange Avenue entrance. In addition, the project requests the following deviations from the R2-MD development standards: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 1/ Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). The property is a through lot with access from Orange Avenue and Norse. The property two-story detached homes consist of 3 to 4 bedrooms and two -car garage with a minimum interior dimension of 20' x 20'. 2. Tentative Tract Map TT-17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. APPLICANT: The applicant is Eric Trabert of E.T.A. Residential Design, representing Kings Road Partners LLC, the property owner. APPELLANT: The appellant is Douglas F. Gorrie. PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 2366 Orange Ave Application Number: PA-15-10 & TT-17870 APN: 119-092-43 Request: Design Review of a six unit two-story residential development and a tentative tract map. SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2-MD Multi -Family Residential, North: R2-MD Multi -Family Residential, Med. Medium Density Density General Plan: MDR South: R-1 Single -Family Residential Lot 82.5 FT x 300 FT East: R2-MD Multi -Family Residential, Med. Dimensions: Density Lot Area: 23,159 square feet Existing Development: West: R-1 Single -Family Residential R2-MD Multi -Family Residential, Med. Density One parcel with 6-unit one-story residential development nl=VFl nPMFAIT CTAKInAPn rnRAPAPIRM] Development Standard Required/Allowed Proposed/Provided Small Lot SubdivisionOrdinance Lot Area No minimum per Small Lot Lot 1- 4,744 SF (Orange Ave) Subdivision Standards Lot 2- 3,603 SF Lot 3- 3,603 SF Lot 4- 3,603 SF Lot 5- 3,603 SF Lot 6- 4,005 SF Norse Ave Open space (development lot) 30% (6,947 SF) of total lot 7,528 SF— 33% area per Small Lot Subdivision Standards Open space (individual unit) 200 SF with no dimension Lot 1- 371 SF (10 ft. min. dim.) less than 10 feet per Small Lot 2- 202 SF (13 ft. min. dim.) Lot Subdivision Standards Lot 3- 202 SF (13 ft. min. dim.) Lot 4- 202 SF (13 ft. min. dim.) Lot 5- 202 SF (13 ft. min. dim.) Lot 6- 228 SF 10 ft. min. dim. Density: General Plan — MDR (Med. Density Max. 12 du/ac 11 du/ac Residential Land Use Zone — R2-MD (Multi -Family 1 du/3,630 SF 1 du/3,860 SF (11.3 du/ac) Residential, Med. Density Max. 6 dwelling units 6 dwellingunits Building Height Two -stories / 27 ft. Two -stories / 27 ft. all units Distance between main buildings No Minimum /SLO 6'-4" (Lot 2 & 3 and Lot 4 & 5) 6'-8" (Lot 5 & 6) 7'-0" Lot 1 & 2 and Lot 3 &4 Chimney Height 2 FT Above Max. Bldg. Ht. for Lot 1- N/A (Orange Ave) total of 29 feet. Lot 2- 2'-0" Lot 3- 2'-0" Lot 4- 2'-0" Lot 5- 2'-0" Lot 6- N/A Norse Ave Building Setbacks: Front (Orange Ave 20 ft. 16 ft.' Side 5 ft. 5 ft. Side 5 ft. 22 ft. Front Norse Ave 20 ft. 12 ft.2 • ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor (Plan A) 100% Plan A- 89% • ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor (Plan B1-A) Plan B1-A - 95% % ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor (Plan 132-A) Plan 132-A - 95% % ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor (Plan 131-13) Plan 131-13 - 95% % ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor (Plan 132-13) Plan B2-B - 93% % ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor (Plan C) Plan C - 95% Parking Covered 2 garage spaces (3 or more 12 spaces bedrooms) each unit Open 2 open spaces (3 or more 13 spaces bedrooms) each unit + one additional on -site guest parking for developments with 5 to 10 units TOTAL 25 spaces 25 spaces Interior garage dimension 10' x 20'— One Car Garage 20' x 20' 20' x 20'— Two Car Garage Driveway Length 19 ft. 20 ft. (Lot 1) 18 ft. 3 (Lot 2) 18 ft.3 (Lot 3) 18 ft. 3 (Lot 4) 18 ft. 3 (Lot 5) 18 ft. 3 Lot 6 Final Action Planning Commission CEQA Review Exempt, Class 32 for In -Fill Development Projects. 1. Minor Modification required. 2. Administrative Adjustment required. 3. 18-foot driveway length minimum per Transportation Services. BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The project site is located on the east side of Orange Avenue, between Orange Avenue and Norse Ave. Norse Avenue is a cul-de-sac street abutting a portion of the easterly property line, and will provide secondary access for the proposed development site. The site is 0.53 acres (23,159 square feet) in size. The property zoned R2-MD (Multiple Family Residential, Medium Density) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential. The site is bounded by two 2-story and one single -story residences to the north, as well as one 2-story and three single -story residences to the south. Across Orange Ave (west of project) is a two-story residence, and one-story residences are abutting the easterly property line. The existing single -story residences on the site will be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. A detailed discussion of the various components of the proposed project is contained the Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 22, 2015, a copy of which is attached to this report (see Attachment 2). A link to the original June 22, 2015, staff report is provided at following link: http://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/planningcommission/agenda/20l 5/2Ol 5-06-22/PH-3.pdf Also, Attachment 5 provides a copy of the (Unofficial) Planning Commission Minute Excerpts from the June 22, 2015, Planning Commission. Summary of Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 22, 2015, which included presentation of the project by staff and the applicant. In addition, public comments were received by the Planning Commission. Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project by a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Stephan Andranian absent. An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed on June 29, 2015. Appeal/De Novo Hearing It should be noted that the City Council hearing for this appeal is a de novo hearing in which the City Council may consider the project in its entirety. The purpose of this report is to provide responses to the issues raised by the appellant, and to highlight and/or clarify the evidence in the administrative record that was presented to the Planning Commission prior to its action. Issues Raised by Appellant in Appeal Application The following is a listing of the concerns described in the appeal application: 1. The Planning Commission did not hear all the pertinent information; 2. A no thru-access driveway to Norse Avenue is better for neighborhood; 3. To many unresolved design issues, including the following: grading alternatives; landscape screening; fenestration mitigation measures; no traffic study performed regarding proposed gate on Orange Avenue; through driveway at Norse Avenue will increase traffic on Norse Avenue due to increased density; privacy and quality of life issues were not mitigated; diminished use for house at Wilson Street; loft spaces not intended to be bedrooms and shall have clerestory windows only and no closets; flip subject houses to align with adjacent apartment structures along north property line; block wall 8 feet high along south property line (10 foot wall preferred). ANAI YSIS The following analysis provides responses to the concerns raised by the appellant. More detailed information is provided in the Planning Commission staff report. • Concerns about incomplete pertinent information regarding the proposed project. The Planning Commission received a completed staff report and all public correspondence prior to and at the Planning Commission meeting. Specifically: o Public Hearing on June 22, 2015. Staff presented information to Planning Commission regarding the proposed 6-unit, two-story residential development to be built per the Residential Small Lot Subdivisions Ordinance. Staff provided a staff report addressing the justification for approval, along with public notice records from neighboring property owners, including the appellant. o Policy and Code Compliance. The Planning Commission also considered the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and the effect of the proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties with specific regard to the abutting single-family residential properties along E. Wilson Street in the R1 zone (southerly property line) and the adjacent multi -family and single-family structures in the R2-MD zone at Orange and Norse Avenue (northerly property line). o Additional Conditions of Approval. The Planning Commission provided additional conditions of approval to address public concerns, including requiring transom windows along 5-foot side setback along the southerly elevations of Units 1 through 6, landscaping or screening alternatives along the southerly elevations of Units 1 through 6, and restrictions on constructing a full height wall or converted the Bonus Room to a bedroom for Unit A. • Opposition to the proposed thru-access driveway between Orange Avenue and Norse Avenue. o Proposed driveway complies with City requirements. The Transportation Division determined that the proposed access, including a proposed gate at Orange Avenue, would be compliant with City requirements. o Planning Commission concurred with the proposed driveway and through access to Norse Avenue. The proposed thru-access driveway was considered by Planning Commission as quality design compared to a limited, single -access driveway because it would reduce the need for automobiles to backup when entering and leaving the project site. They also believed that it would be a safer design by allowing emergency vehicles adequate access on to the site. A conditional of approval requires an automatic gate along the Orange Avenue entrance. The proposed gate would eliminate thru-access traffic for non-resident vehicular traffic, and therefore would likely not cause increased traffic along Norse Avenue. • Issues related to grading alternatives and drainage. o Grading and Drainage shall comply with Code requirements. Per the conditions of approval, 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 fill 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. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. The applicant is advised that recordation of a drainage easement across the private street may be required to fulfill this requirement. • Concerns with the proposed landscape screening and window locations. o Landscape Screening required by condition of approval. The proposed project site will be required to abide by all conditions of approval related to landscape screening along the southerly property line. As a condition of approval required by Planning Commission, a final landscape plan shall include a minimum of one 24-inch box tree along the southerly property line of each individual dwelling unit for screening purposes to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. The applicant may propose other landscaping or screening alternatives for the review/approval of the Development Services Director to satisfy this requirement. o Window size and placement modification (transom windows) required by the Planning Commission. The proposed project site will be required to abide by all conditions of approval related to fenestration along the southerly property line. As a condition of approval required by Planning Commission, the applicant will be required to modify the southerly elevations of Lots 1 through 6 with transom windows on the second story elevations along the 5-foot side setback, provided that building code and fire code requirements are met. 0 Concerns about the traffic analysis, circulation, and safety. o Traffic analysis related to transportation and circulation issues related to the proposed pate along Orange Avenue were considered by the Planning Commission, including discussion of any impacts to traffic. The proposed site plan for the 6-unit small lot subdivision includes a private gate for the thru-access driveway along the Orange Avenue entrance. As part of the preliminary review, the proposed gate was reviewed by Transportation Service Division for conformance to the Transportation Service requirements. Transportation Services requires a minimum of 20 feet setback behind the property line along Orange Avenue to prevent queuing along Orange Avenue. Per the conditions of approval, the automatic gate at Orange Avenue placed along the private driveway shall be subject final review/approval by the Transportation Manager, and shall also meet requirements per Costa Mesa Sanitary District regarding entry. Gates shall be of high quality design and feature a low noise type of gate to the extent feasible. In addition, private property signs shall be displayed on gates • Increased density was a concern expressed in the appeal application. o The proposed proiect conforms with the General Plan (six units allowed, six units proposed). The proposed project site is currently developed with six multi -family units. The project site is 0.53 acres, and therefore would allow for a maximum of six units. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. In addition, the R2-MD zone density standards allow for one dwelling unit per 3,630 square feet of lot area. The proposed project is 23,159 square feet, which would allow for six dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with both the General Plan land use designation and zoning, and does not propose increased density. Existing Development Development Sta.. . 1 du/3,860 SF (11.3 du/ac) Units 6 dwelling units MDR Land Use 12 du/ac 6 dwelling units R2-MD Zone 1 du/3,630 SF 6 dwelling units Proposed Development 1 du/3,860 SF (11.3 du/ac) 6 dwelling units • Concerns related to the proposed side yard setback along the southerly property line. The proposed project complies with Code (5 feet required, 5 to 13 feet proposed). o The proposed project conforms with the development lot interior side setbacks per Article 2.5, Residential Small Lot Subdivision, and provides for an average interior side setback of 6 to 7 feet. The Planning Commission determined that the minimum 5-foot setback (and up to 13-foot setback) along the southerly property line of the development lot complied with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines. The Zoning Code does not provide setback relief from R1 properties. The proposed residential unit's southerly facing fagades do not run entirely along the 5-foot setback line, but provide for increased interior side setbacks, as portions of the buildings are setback at 10-13 feet to meet the private open space requirements. Therefore, the average interior side setback for each unit is 6 to 7 feet from the southerly property line. • Concerns about privacy and quality of life issues related to the proposed 5-foot side yard setback along the southerly property line are raised, in addition to mitigation to improve privacy, quality of life, and full use of property for the homes along Wilson Street. The Planning Commission considered the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and the effect of the proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties with specific regard to the abutting single-family residential properties along E. Wilson Street in the R1 zone (southerly property line) and the adjacent multi -family and single-family structures in the R2- MD zone at Orange and Norse Avenue (northerly property line). The Planning Commission determined that the minimum 5-foot setback (and up to 13-foot setback) along the southerly property line of the development lot complied with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and found that this side yard setback would provide adequate light, air, and privacy to the abutting single-family residential properties along E. Wilson Street. The Planning Commission also found that the proposed project was exempt from the Residential Design Guideline as it relates to the average side yard setback requirement of 10 feet on the second story. This requirement would not apply to two-story new construction with less than 2,700 square feet of living area (not including garage). In this case, the proposed single-family residential unit sizes range between 2,265 square feet and 2,678 square feet, and are therefore exempt from the requirement. The Planning Commission provided additional conditions of approval to address privacy and quality of life issues, including requiring transom windows along the 5-foot side setback along the southerly elevations of Lots 1 through 6, and landscaping or screening alternatives along the southerly elevations of Lots 1 through 6. • Concern about the proposed loft spaces and bonus rooms being used as bedrooms. The proposed project includes two units with four bedrooms plus a bonus room, and four units with three bedrooms plus a loft. During the public comment period at Planning Commission, there was a specific concern regarding the bonus room for Unit A. The concern was regarding the potential to "wall off" the bonus room and turning it into a bedroom. To remedy the concern, the Planning Commission required a condition of approval stating that the CC&Rs shall include a restriction that expressly prohibits the following: (1) the construction of a full height wall for the Bonus Room on the second floor of Unit 1 (Plan A) and/or (2) conversion of the Bonus Room into a bedroom. • An alternative site plan, which includes aligning the residential units for Lot 1 through Lot 5 along the northerly property line, as well as providing no thru-access driveway, was submitted by the appellant. An alternative site plan, which included aligning the residential units for Lot 1 through Lot 5 along the northerly property line, as well as providing no thru-access driveway, was addressed by Planning Commission and determined to be the less favorable alternative. The proposed site plan, which provides a thru-access driveway between Orange Avenue and Norse Avenue, was considered by Planning Commission as a benefit for the project site. • A new ten foot wall is being requested. o The proposed project requires a 6-foot high decorative wall or stained/tread fence as approved bV the Development Services Director, however there is no requirement for a higher wall. During the meeting, the Commission discussed the possibility to condition an 8-foot fence along the southerly property line to help address privacy issues. The Planning Commission eventually did not find it necessary to require an 8-foot or taller fence. The Planning Commission determined that additional conditions of approval, including requiring transom windows along the 5-foot side setback of Lots 1 through 6, and landscaping or screening alternatives along the southerly elevations of Lots 1 through 6, to be most effective for addressing privacy issues. The conditions of approval will require a decorative 6-foot high perimeter block wall, or stained/treated fence, as approved by the Development Services Director. LEGAL REVIEW The draft resolution has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may take the following actions: • Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve PA-15-10. Any modifications to the conditions of approval, such as additions or deletions, can be made by the Council as part of this action; or • Reverse the Planning Commission's approval and deny PA-15-10. If the project were to be denied, appropriate findings would need to be made and the project applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. CONCLUSION De novo literally translates to "anew," "afresh" or "a second time." A de novo hearing is essentially a new proceeding where the proposal is presented to the City Council for final consideration. In its decision making, City Council is not restricted to the evidence that was previously presented to the Planning Commission. MEL LEE, AICP GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Senior Planner Economic Development & Development Services Director /Deputy CEO Attachments: 1. Vicinity, Zoning, and 500 ft. Radius Maps 2. Planning Commission Staff Report, Supplemental Memo and Related Exhibits 3. Appeal Application 4. City Council Draft Resolutions and Related Exhibits 5. (Unofficial) Planning Commission Minute Excerpts 6. Notice of Decision Planning Commission Action and Planning Commission Resolution cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr. City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Owner: Kings Road Partners LLC 12 Strawberry Farms Rd Irvine, CA 92612 Authorized Agent: Eric Trabert 9251 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Appellant: Douglas F. Gorrie 222 E. Wilson Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 RESOLUTION NO. PC-15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT-17870 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Eric Trabert of E.T.A. Residential Design, representing Kings Road Partners LLC, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: 1. Planning Application PA-15-10: Design Review to construct a 6-unit, two-story, detached residential development on a 23,159 square foot lot (.53 acres) with the following: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off of Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 1/ Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). 2. Tentative Tract Map TT-17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. WHEREAS, on June 22, 2015, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission, which included presentation of the project by staff and the applicant; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing, the Planning Commission received public comments and elicited responses from staff regarding the objections raised; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, voted to approve the project by a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Stephan Andranian absent; and WHEREAS, on June 29, 2015, an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's approval of the project was filed; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines, and has been found to be categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15332 for In -Fill Development Projects. WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FINDS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 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 decision and APPROVES Planning Application PA-15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17870. 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-15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17870 and upon the 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 and/or mitigation measures. 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. The City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this resolution and shall forward a copy to the applicant, and any person requesting the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July, 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 15_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of July, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21 st day of July, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of 12015 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(14) in that: Finding: The project complies with 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. Facts in Support of Findings: The architectural design of the development meets the intent of the City's Residential Development Standards and Design Guidelines and promotes design excellence with consideration given to site planning and building orientation, overall open space, landscaping and architectural design. Second floor windows will be required to be offset to minimize direct views onto adjacent second floor residential windows, and the elevations will have exterior elevation treatments as recommended in the City's Residential Design Guidelines. The Planning Commission also considered the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and the effect of the proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties with specific regard to the abutting single-family residential properties along E. Wilson Street in the R1 zone (southerly property line) and the adjacent multi -family and single-family structures in the R2-MD zone at Orange and Norse Avenue (northerly property line). The Planning Commission determined that the minimum 5-foot setback (and up to 13-foot setback) along the southerly property line of the development lot complied with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and found that this sideyard setback would provide adequate light, air, and privacy to the abutting single- family residential properties along E. Wilson Street. The Planning Commission also found that the proposed project was exempt from the Residential Design Guideline as it relates to the average side yard setback requirement of 10 feet on the second story. This requirement would not apply to two-story new construction with less than 2,700 square feet of living area (not including garage). In this case, the proposed single-family residential unit sizes range between 2,265 square feet and 2,678 square feet, and are therefore exempt from the requirement. Finding: The visual prominence associated with the construction of two-story homes in a predominately one-story neighborhood has been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors and the provision of second floor offsets to avoid long unarticulated two-story walls. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed two-story structures are in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood which has a variety of two-story buildings. The elevations of the proposed residences include a variety of materials, articulating roof lines, and use of window treatments to highlight the vertical offsets and horizontal floor to floor transitions. Finding: The proposed development plan and subdivision meets the broader goals of the General 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 Findings: The proposed project provides ownership opportunities for detached units in place of the existing residential structures. The project exhibits site planning excellence by providing private open spaces for all units and adequate separation between the homes and the abutting structures. In addition, in order to provide adequate light, air, and privacy to the abutting single-family residential properties along E. Wilson Street, the Planning Commission has required, through a condition of approval, the applicant to modify the southerly elevations of Units 1 through 6 with transom windows on the second story elevations along the 5- foot side setback, provided that building code and fire code requirements are met. The Planning Commission has also required, through a condition of approval, that the final landscape plan include a minimum of one 24-inch box tree along the southerly property line of each individual dwelling unit for screening purposes to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. The applicant may also propose other landscaping or screening alternatives for the review/approval of the Development Services Director to satisfy this requirement B. The proposed 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 Findings: The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner -occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities, the project provides sufficient amenities as a small lot subdivision development, and encourages increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The density for the residential component is 11.3 units per acre (6 units maximum), which complies with allowable density of 12 units per acre (6 units maximum) per 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 Findings: The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The project site is already developed with multi -family residences, and does not have any sensitive environmental resources. The proposed project will provide for high -quality housing and not impede upon the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. The Planning Commission also considered the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and the effect of the proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties with specific regard to the abutting single-family residential properties along E. Wilson Street in the R1 zone (southerly property line) and the adjacent multi -family and single-family structures in the R2-MD zone at Orange and Norse Avenue (northerly property line). The Planning Commission determined that the minimum 5-foot setback (and up to 13-foot setback) along the southerly property line of the development lot complied with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and found that this sideyard setback would provide adequate light, air, and privacy to the abutting single- family residential properties along E. Wilson Street. 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 Findings: The proposed buildings include openings in a north -south direction to take advantage of passive solar heating as well as passive ventilation from ocean breezes. The southern facing rooflines also have the potential to provide for active solar heating and energy generation through the use of solar panels. Finding: The subdivision 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 Findings: As conditioned, the proposed project does not interfere with the public right-of-way. The recommended improvements along Orange and Norse Avenues will significantly improve the public right- of-ways for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In addition, a 5-foot side setback provides for adequate access space for the existing utility easement along the southern property line. A letter of approval [pending at the date of this report] from Southern California Edison will allow the project to encroach into the 6-foot utility easement. 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 Findings: The applicant will be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District. C. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) in that: Findings: a. 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. b. The deviation shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. c. The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed project, specifically Lot 6/Plan C, proposes to encroach into the required 20-foot front setback along Norse Avenue, as a portion of the residential unit is proposed at a 12-foot front setback. The development lot has an unusual circumstance, in that there are two front setbacks as a result of abutting two public right-of-ways, including Orange Avenue on the western portion of the property, and Norse Avenue on the east. Under normal circumstances, a property normally has a front, side and rear setback, and the small lot subdivision standards would allow for a 10-foot rear setback. The primary access for the development lot is Orange Avenue, and therefore is considered the dominant front portion of the development lot. Without Norse Avenue, Lot 6/Plan C would be considered the rear portion of the development lot, and therefore be allowed to utilize a 10-foot rear setback. The structure is setback 12 feet from the closest point from the front property line, thus being setback further than what would be allowed if considered the rear setback. Therefore, approval of an administrative adjustment from front yard setback along Norse Ave would help remediate the project from the strict application of development standards, and allow the property the same privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. The proposed project does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. The proposed project is located within the Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation, which allows a density up to 12 units per acre. The project site is 0.53 acres, and therefore would allow for a maximum of 6 units. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. As such, granting the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. D. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(6) in that: Findings: a. The improvement will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. b. The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. Facts in Support of Findings: The project is requesting a Minor Modification to allow for an encroachment into the required front yard setback. The project, specifically Lot 1/Plan A, is requesting a reduction from 20 feet to 16 feet for the front setback along the front (westerly) property line to allow for the supporting posts of a projecting patio cover to project 4 feet into required 20-foot front setback. The garage for Plan A is proposed to maintain a 20-foot setback from the front property line. The setbacks of existing neighboring structures were considered with regard to the project's proposed modification to the front setback. The 20% reduction in front yard depth is located away from properties adjacent to the project site, and does not affect pedestrian travel along Orange Avenue. In addition, the proposed 16-foot setback for the covered porch will not impact the visual line of site safety issues related to vehicular travel. The driveways for neighboring properties are located away from the proposed project site. The driveway for the neighboring property to north is located on the opposite side of the proposed project site. The neighboring property to the south is a corner lot, and the corresponding driveway is not located along Orange Avenue. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. In addition, the project will be required to comply with all applicable provision of the Uniform Building Code with regard to safety. In regards to design, Plan A is designed to be consistent with the materials, massing, scale and articulation of the multi -family residential area for maximum compatibility. The design of Plan A is well articulated with overhangs, porches, roof dormers, and stepped floor plans. The projecting covered porch provides an attractive entrance into the project site. In addition, the proposed project provides for adequate landscaping with drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and groundcover to enhance the project site. Therefore, the proposed project is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. E. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15332 for In -Fill Development Projects. This exemption allows for the construction of up to six multi -family residential structures in urbanized areas, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment. F. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The expiration of Planning Application PA-15-10 shall coincide with the expiration of the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map TT-17870 which is valid for two years. An extension request is needed to extend the expiration for each additional year after the initial two-year period. 2. The conditions of approval of PA-15-10 and TT-17870 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 3. The Tentative Tract Map shall be processed as a tentative map consistent with Chapter XI. Subdivisions, Article 1. Tentative Maps, of the Zoning Code. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of recordation of Tentative Tract Map TT-17870. 5. A decorative 6-foot high perimeter block wall, or stained/treated fence, as approved by the Development Services Director, shall be constructed along the side boundaries of the site prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director. 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 screening by trees and landscaping. 6. The interior fences or walls between the units shall be a minimum of six feet in height. 7. All future walls and fences within front yard setback along Orange Avenue and Norse Avenue Place shall conform to the standards per the Walls, Fences, and Landscaping Standards and Specifications. 8. The automatic gate at Orange Avenue placed along the private driveway shall be subject final review/approval by the Transportation Manager, and shall also meet requirements per Costa Mesa Sanitary District regarding entry. Gates shall be of high quality design and feature a low noise type of gate to the extent feasible. In addition, private property signs shall be displayed on gates. 9. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the driveway shall not be developed with a center concrete swale. The driveway shall be complemented by stamped concrete in order to reduce damage caused by sanitary trucks entering site for trash pickup. 10. The open, unassigned parking space located between Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall be clearly marked as guest parking space only. Signage shall be posted to indicate that this space is available only to guests and visitors and not used for resident parking. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final landscape plan indicating the landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 13. The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Division and contain additional 24-inch box size trees above the minimum code requirements. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller size trees to 24-inch box size trees or providing additional 24-inch box trees. 14. 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. This includes any modification not consistent with the proposed asphalt composition and standing metal seam roofs, horizontal lap and vertical wood siding, smooth stucco, 24-inch and 12- inch board and batten siding, decorative metal roll -up garage doors, and columns along front entry porches. Any modification should be consistent to originally proposed colors, including light and charcoal grays and earthen tones. 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 a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 15. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter system which is painted to match the building would comply with the condition. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 16. The front porch overhang for Plan C shall not contain supporting posts that encroach beyond the proposed 12-foot front setback. Awnings and eaves that are not supported by supporting posts can project 5-feet into front setback. 17. 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 fill 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. 18. 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 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. 19. 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. 20. The project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the energy conservation standards. The project Applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans: a. Double paned glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be used in all exterior windows. b. Building shall be oriented north/south where feasible. 21. Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. 22. 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&R's 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 for which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. b. 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. 23. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall file and record a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) on the property. The establishment of a homeowner's association shall be optional. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a draft of the CC&Rs shall be remitted to the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office for review and approval. Because there are no common areas for circulation, parking, or landscape purposes, the CC&Rs shall be limited to the 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. The Development Services Director has the discretion to request any other provisions in the CC&Rs to promote self -governance between the two property owners. 24. The CC&Rs shall contain a notice that the open parking space (not leading to a garage) shall be unassigned and available for visitors. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to use, preservation and maintenance of the common drive aisle and open space areas in perpetuity by the maintenance or homeowner's association 25. 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. 26. Prior to final recordation of the map, applicant shall provide written documentation from Southern California Edison to specifically allow the encroachment into the utility easement by the proposed structures. This document may indicate that the easement will be quitclaimed or modified to allow the proposed structures. This documentation shall be approved by the Development Services Director and the City Engineer prior to final map recordation unless an extension is granted by the Development Services Director. The City Attorney's office shall require legal documentation (i.e. hold harmless agreement, etc.) be submitted by the applicant if construction is allowed to proceed while the quitclaim process (other procedure as specified by SCE) is pending. 27. The Homeowner's Association or Maintenance Association shall submit a signed affidavit to the City of Costa Mesa on an annual basis to certify the following: a. The two -car garages in the residential community are being used for vehicle parking by the resident(s). b. The vehicle parking areas within the garage are not obstructed by storage items, including but not limited to, toys, clothing, tools, boxes, equipment, etc. c. The resident(s) have consented to voluntary inspections of the garage to verify the parking availability, as needed. The form and content of the affidavit shall be provided by the City Attorney's office. Failure to file the annual affidavit is considered a violation of this condition. 28. 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. 29. The applicant 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 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. 30. Concrete wheel stops shall be installed 2' from the front edge of open parking spaces, or where applicable, landscape planters shall be increased 2' in depth to allow curbing to serve as a wheel stop. PC 31. To address privacy concerns, the applicant shall modify the southerly elevations of Units 1 through 6 with transom windows on the second story elevations along the 5-foot side setback, provided that building code and fire code requirements are met. PC 32. The final landscape plan shall include a minimum of one 24-inch box tree along the southerly property line of each individual dwelling unit for screening purposes to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Applicant may propose other landscaping or screening alternatives for the review/approval of the Development Services Director to satisfy this requirement. PC 33. The CC&Rs shall include a restriction that expressly prohibits the following: (1) the construction of a full height wall for the Bonus Room on the second floor of Unit 1 (Plan A) and/or (2) conversion of the Bonus Room into a bedroom. Eng 34. Comply with the requirements contained in the letter prepared by the City Engineer (Exhibit B1). Eng. 35. Provide a three-foot public sidewalk easement behind existing right of way line on Norse Avenue for ADA compliance. Eng. 36. 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. Pkwys 37. Plant one (1) 24" Box Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' along the Orange Avenue parkway. 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. Applicant shall provide the City with proof of general liability insurance including endorsements concerning "additional named insured", "advance notice", and "primary coverage" as approved by the City attorney's office. 3. 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. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, 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. 5. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer shall pay a park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. 6. A minimum 20-foot by 20-foot clear interior dimension shall be provided for all garages. 7. Minimum garage door width shall be 16 feet. 8. All garages shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 9. Hours of construction shall comply with Section 13-279, Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 10. 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 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, 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. 11. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 12. All on -site utility services shall be installed underground. 13. Installation of all 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. 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. Prior to approval of plans, the project shall fulfill the City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements. 16. If present and/or projected exterior noise exceeds 60 CNEL, California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL for residential structures. If required interior noise levels are achieved by requiring that windows be inoperable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation, and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. 17. 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. 18. Planning Commission action on PA-15-10 shall not become final until seven (7) days following final action. Bldg. 19. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 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 or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Areas of alteration and additions shall comply with 2013 California Green Building Standards Code section 5.303.2 and 5.303.2. 20. Submit precise grading plans, an erosion control plan, and a hydrology study. 21. Submit a soils report for this project. Soil's report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. For existing slopes or when new slopes are proposed, the soils report shall address how existing or new slopes will be maintained to avoid erosion or future failure. 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 2 percent. 2013 California Building Code CRC 403.1.7.3. 23. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of six inches within the first 10 feet. CRC R401.3. 24. Projections, including eaves, shall be one -hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or noncombustible material if they project into the 5-foot setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3-foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1 (1) and R302.1 (2). 25. Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the project Applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of onsite soils to cause unstable conditions. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety. 26. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 27. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 28. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the site, the contractor would implement each of the following: a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. b. Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface. c. Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. d. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. e. Wash mud -covered tired and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction sites. f. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. g. Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. h. Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Trans. 29. Construct all proposed driveway approaches to comply with city standards. 30. 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. 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. 31. Close unused drive approaches, or portion of, with full height curb and gutter that comply with City Standards. Fire 32. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 33. The project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13D. 34. Street addresses shall be visible from the public street and may be displayed either on the front door, on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance, or on another prominent location. When the property has alley access, address numerals shall be displayed in a prominent location visible from the alley. Numerals shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height with not less than one -half -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Eng 35. 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 on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or Architect. Construction 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- 231 of the C.C.M.M.C. and an approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. 36. 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. 37. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division for any work in the City public right-of-way. Pay required permit fee & cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee construction of off -site street improvements at time of permit per section 15-31 & 15-32, C.C.M.M.C. as approved by City Engineer. Cash deposit or surety bond amount to be determined by City Engineer. 38. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. ADA compliance required for new driveway approaches. 39. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. Residential sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Off -site Plan, including four (4) feet clear around obstructions in the sidewalk. 40. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk at applicant's expense. 41. Fulfill Drainage Fee requirements per City of Costa Mesa Ordinance No. 06-19 prior to approval of Final Map/Approval of Plans. 42. In order to comply with the 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (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, using latest version of template dated August 2011, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. a) 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. b) Location of BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani. 1. Applicant will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, inspection fees, and sewer permit are required prior to installation of sewer. 3. Applicant shall submit a plan showing sewer improvements that meets the District Engineer's approval to the Building Division as part of the plans submitted for plan check. 4. The applicant is required to contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to arrange final sign -off prior to certificate of occupancy being released. 5. Unless an off -site trash hauler is being used, applicant shall contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to pay trash collection program fees and arrange for service for all new residences. Residences using bin or dumpster services are exempt from this requirement. 6. Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 654-8400 for any additional district requirements. AQMD 7. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD. Water 8. 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. School 9. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 10. 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. Cable 11. The applicant shall contact the current cable company prior to issuance of building permits to arrange for pre -wiring for future cable communication service. RESOLUTION NO. PC-15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT-17870 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Eric Trabert of E.T.A. Residential Design, representing Kings Road Partners LLC, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: 1. Planning Application PA-15-10: Design Review to construct a 6-unit, two-story, detached residential development on a 23,159 square foot lot (.53 acres) with the following: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off of Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 1/ Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). 2. Tentative Tract Map TT-17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. WHEREAS, on June 22, 2015, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission, which included presentation of the project by staff and the applicant. In addition, public comments were received by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, voted to approve the project by a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Stephan Andranian absent; and WHEREAS, on June 29, 2015, an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's approval was filed; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FINDS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: BE IT RESOLVED, therefore, that based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this resolution, the City Council hereby reverses the approval of the Planning Commission and DENIES PA-15-10 with respect to the property described above. The City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this resolution and shall forward a copy to the applicant, and any person requesting the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 21ST day of July, 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 15_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of July, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21 st day of July, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of 12015 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(14) in that: Finding: The project does not comply with the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code or 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. Finding: The visual prominence associated with the construction of two-story homes in a predominately one-story neighborhood has not been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors and the provision of second floor offsets to avoid long unarticulated two-story walls. Finding: The proposed development plan and subdivision does not meet the broader goals of the General 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. B. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) in that: Findings: • Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. • The deviations constitutes a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. • The granting of the deviations will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. C. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(6) in that: Findings: • The improvement will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. • The improvement is not compatible and does not enhance the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. D. The subdivision of the property for a residential common interest development is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. E. The Costa Mesa Planning Commission has denied Planning Application PA-15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17870. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) (5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. F. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. SUBJECT: DATE: FROM: CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT-17870 FOR A 6-UNIT, DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE JULY 17, 2015 RYAN LOOMIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RYAN LOOMIS (714)754-5608 ryan. loom is@costamesaca.gov The objectives of this memo are to: • Provide latest version of architectural plans/elevations showing revised floor plan for Unit C. The interior wall and door for the "Activity Room" on second floor was removed (Please refer to handwritten page 10 for floor plan changes to Unit C for "Activity Room"). Provide latest version of architectural plans/elevations showing southerly elevation changes to windows and landscape screening (Please refer to handwritten pages 2,6,7,9 and 11 for window and elevation changes). Attachments: Revised Plans/Elevations Distribution: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development/ Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Owner: Kings Road Partners LLC 12 Strawberry Farms Rd Irvine, CA 92612 Authorized Agent: Appellant: Eric Trabert 9251 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Douglas F. Gorrie 222 E. Wilson Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ATTACHMENT I IIJ 11 1 _N__50052Y/______T______ _ I ------- -----------'--------- ,L�O$T�,q _ L'EI L t _ a SITE NOTES NEED TO ALL N . L D fN FON ) PMa RFD ADR UT HYNRTALAav MAN OR LR of WAY 1.111 AA EALANDAME1 REAMNFPo1 NTPE FINPW-55.ED AT ME-IIN, Al ADAI O'HONY PROFNT+ FRMN5 P VI51DN NOIEEAL1mEN THE DE IN6 ANI_ IO_WA.KSCJRB BEM AND BUFFER AND NOYEAFlSIST'V P'LIAL FIRE " HILL A LOOM YEN DARN AND FA%AID BYSMENONNEF.B AND DETERMI PANON ANN ME EALEY IF INE REAA NNJIDEL HE E-ON EY.RK A"A_ B_ NADE AT ME DISLRETItM of THE MILE WiI5 PEABIFEER LNALT BE ME MErvcu_5 JR ENIAVAT FE_T OR FARE IN BEF-i MO 15 AM =NLROAM ENT ASREEY_Nr IS - (PAIN A NETEEEARMEFERYIT ARq• S� OF RI UIzfD FOR ALL nON-SrA10PRJ AN VA PNVENII NRHW rn=_ =I,B_IC LAPPARNIA DI: FLAN OF NDIVIDUU RA-Ett FRIOR NOTH AAM oMH INALI Orw.n A FINLrn6RAmNn r-NRNIr. _ NORf;vwr DOW ON _ LLHALL5i OATS, R AllDINC FALLANT BULn NS EY '. AREPEOP ELLSME, ARAIe PLAIN SOON L R AM A DOLE BOXmsOF of pPNRPL L!e F `EA RD) r0 ALLEN ALCF5E TO WAT[R METERS, ETL, T FOR SRWLNRE� FER LFL EPA Ill - 'DATERmA L READY TO AMADSTURAI RNFORMAS OLA ALL 5NE RFAINING NWLL NFCRMATIOX irvcica s+s mTs ITRBnIou ssa'Af euc. - - .DR - -xb HIM ME ICA`r n'.OioR Hill I Ill ON PA11To NS AEAICI ARRAANfrcAL AEOTEAHNY.AL ELICIAnL LACTRIVAL OFAe EVA BA`RA I 1-1IW LONTRAOrIll oR AT ME I PRIOR TO TIP s xr OPsxADINs. c rvEry DARTRLMON OR ADDITII IF 'HE APIATAR ARRANT MIA, PAI M p IN DHAVE EFOUNNAPAT PRIOR TO ,1DAR111 PFAAEANINT ED ALL PARK IBLA AN 0E IN EEALIR AfOI EMERY DEP EMERY PER ANA ALE DIALED 65 LA FAA uETR{W REAPPEAL x FAR A' - 'AID PDen. aEp sDEYNLKJ N C-WAPEOURED IN.. IAIDA JrL PRE N aRBJ IN aR.' vid aJ y .. ___________________ ________._____ R+ �1 I=' O _.— ...—..._...—.. .. ..._...- -------------- I ' �1 1 1 1 \ Ell _LL -\ L H �f f - FjI U ❑❑ 7 °o t color ---T ° ° Eli -- - - - NEI 7�© it UL7 I '� I�p�� �® Wi LOT 2 r l LOT 5 LOT 4 L L LOT 5 PLAN 51-A PLAN B2 A PLAN 51 B R M PLAN B2 B e c .. ':AN D� aA. 'AAVH . I I 51 „Nr eR:c rRASeRr a Assou,ares e / D91 EEE LNEEHNA EOWVf IN 41(C9]610 H ➢49BdLll44 FAM 99B61L33 I gmn A.OD OOL6 D_OINLES zWScRAO, AM WE. ti%AAN D .SA, YL 8 A °A os IT 0 A O7-1 a�;_- FLOT' ON PLAN G - i U_ UI N REVISIONS QPLE. - A IT — 'LEE cr:E✓A`12' SITE FOOTAGE NOTES I2V NER °PDXLAIAREA ROVI. 'Di DEGINGES FooraBI NorES AB ^RAN I'llPHILIPPI APAJ05 ADDRESS ?�T A OLD E_"A", cA'A-' m-RIFTION �^ LEGAN ANY I- ANAT a an3 SITE AREA GALGULATION5 DESCRIPTION OF WORK =�_ErEv DO, Al 6uxl3 P, -ADAARY FINs� FAMIL- FJ "ILF. - FF ® -'--A --NA FT P ROOJECT DATA oaLwwer. PARcro Porn tta¢IADENAN, ter. 3 l.h nawF RXs� THE NO N — ANLDNvca NA la APANN 1 —11 "' Maoott ( GLE �{ T+=µ+.A.. M11 SRR G p! LI ELI OVER-ALL REAR ELEVATION5 ViFMa. T r III III II II. III, IIII 1 III " I i ILL=_�� II II �����, li III ICI o oli I I qI� II III ll p �i i �u� ail I LII II II I II I L JC. �IJ I PARTIAL REAR ELEVA7ION5 loon munrmrn.w. ' •i�r�i �i'.aj i I I I PARTIAL REAR ELEVATIONS C � Ik+ OGE j FY — L9< RI�6E - - - - �I ERIC T 1197 4 A550GIFTES 959 'MINE VXrN DRIVE IANNE, fAIIWANIA92RN IRi➢19dE14W E�949ESISID uvvz��@slgn.io ODRUG FAEaNces DRAWN BY JI iopw � m sua b SnEfly � vw oA¢.A samswzn i REAR ELEVATION (PLAN A) LEFT ELEVATION (PLAN A) RIGHT ELEVATION (PLAN A) FRONT ELEVATION (PLAN A) ERIG TRA ERT a ASS [ATE 9511 WY C'N"@DRIVE 111.1144 FdX.9399fi13131 rvvxa[asg¢[om DOW 6_CINLES :yAW By. loe uo � NZU SMLS _- I PORCH I ------------ I � � 7 o $ i I i A=SNDUM PORCH rrtRMRYROOM i ENTRY P^— I \ III KITCHEN I ERIG TRA3ERT B A530GIATPS 93111AV14f[EAI;R DWvf IxvmuAli0NNIA 92619 ,AS A I1111233 111w aw¢IaEe�igr ton 0 OCONOEEE DATE 11 1-5 ervNovm NNAwa NY. A, F V ON No SCALE 14 1 o„ AS I•L � r� iol onm 111C11V I CIA 111. ELSE :! LEFT ELEVATION (PLAN El -A) REAR ELEVATION (PLAN E1-A) FRONT ELEVATION (PLAN E1-A) ERIG T 5AB a ASSOCIATES RVILL CAT [UNA52W IRVIIILGIIfWNP9llp AL"1Ul4111 ,A, 1199fi1M nw¢lap¢sgmm� OCLG 3E0'NLES TE 11-5 APPROVER AF45pH5 DRAWL, n EAT 'LATE A, 13 ;pEE g 'LTEIEE LEFT ELEVATION (PLAN 51) -- ---- - —� 3 U E n RIGHT ELEVATION (PLAN 51-5) REAR ELEVATION (PLAN 81—ES) FRONT ELEVATION (PLAN 51—E4) ERIC TR SMKT d A SOCATEE 951uIN M aNTiD NNE Bevy[. M FORNIie sua IE'.'. III Ell E141 PIC111961llll um.,Wn" JOUO 3EOrNOE5 zm m O wl au IL oenwe BY U U3ry sue IN 4 ,« 0 vml mlt nisrzms 6.ioe MIC rnnazlxT a e Z=IFI Ml IVllBC W—ER DRIVE IAVINE UIIM@IA 92618 'FL'. 949.11 ll11 FAX 94996U211 V,N 'I.I a. ,OU6 OEGIVGES vEue oeawu sn �+ JOB V SIAI O, IDEFT 199 vwl oerz .nsnms REAR ELEVATION (PLAN 82) N! a RIGHT ELEVATION (PLAN B2) LEFT ELEVATION (PLAN 52) El ERIG TRABERT 8 AESOGIATES 9521IRVIINE CINTEN MEE RVINE AWi NMg92H TEL 9499542240 FlM 10IIIID1 xevxhEesiyuxm 'JOL(e JEGIVGES N ON dz W IU Q gIBY 4 V ME No so SHEET 9mroeie a ENTRY \ I PORCH �� ^ KITCHEN it II �� DINING CLJY R60M ERIG TRAEERT a AEEOCIATEE 10111,111,wopmE IAN_, IALIFCMA 9262 W 11M.E l L7GUG L7EGINGES C11.lY'. n V N YPtE s MET 25 LL S (� �✓ nol pert 7 REAR ELEVATION (PLAN r-) - L---- - - - - - - LEFT ELEVATION (PLAN C) RIGHT ELEVATION (PLAN G) FRONT ELEVATION (PLAN C) ERIC TKA5EKET I A5ECCA77E5 EE21 IRV14E ENTER ELYE IINIIIC IKNI IEL 11I.Eln', Fi%101.11DE 7CC, PEGEETSE5 ,,,L 0-215 eemus RETAWN BY NE 1E 217 SHEET 'LIT RATE 11 1 City of Costa Mesa ZONING/GPA MAP- 2366 ORANGE - [Created. 6/5/2015 10:20:12 AM] [Scale: 349 62] [Page: 8.5 x 11 / Portrait] Overview Map Map Display Legend Address N(ro.- rt OILVD r/ Parcel Lines Ci-s Points Ayr Primart 13 City C2 Freeway r=" SLCONDARY Boundary CL III Hydrology Roads Channels Water Way 5 01F4S /V CaIloclar Zoning ,/ y F r9ati Street Names AP Ai P P Ma)o-r (cont) Street a C 1 Poe Centerlines (cont� (cant) (C) 2002-6 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec, Inc.) - (8661422-2505 V) --r~ A VENUE 9 — = ELAEN r A T rRACT ' I r +r,r . cs' rRAC TRAC. L•� � �4 27 � 5 � 0 P.M. '�a �I�C t+ ��rif� 444 q9 Prto �cr C aC t.r f P, M. �vf"?F !1{ (L}M 1 I Jo- ca + e 7 sswsa • r �� 1 23 27 :8 t' 25 !'!�9d9.O2f _ ' 1 x 2J62,tG' 7 •� 2i1— l� 1 i9 _ NO No. 1 ,� O 1 6 9 k 3 NC7.10]t i> 11,375 119 +A ft. 13042 ", No.=�59$, n, ,,,r � raw iJ :r 0 a � � � � g C26 W CT40 u. a n 4s oaR • . , .• _ � 9 am toll :,� a~ y 0 A 38 for 0 C.)lr rar. e d 6 34 n' ti d 7 � NO.J00 • ,r ..0 �y. -. w• r f AY f $!laii+'v. 'Lae,ic I — ■ y .q • 4 s A.A. unn,,,. AVENUE a k k e TRAC „„ TRACT P. M. T. ACT rl 34' �` .•. s a a'.1 a W ACr J 77 '. .�h. J. PAR. 1 PAR. 2 PAR. J' + ZS Lar 9? ■� $ O �• 3'` 45 47 4B "� �• •• rye " ,. 4 If. 3s0 Ac. ' iA. T � 3. OPOR. PAP. i PAR. 3 PAR. 4 r or ;oe i i3 500 23 y r x •J'�Y LOT Ica s " (D }9,NG. 30+i .NGRSE '; •e Cj YORSE _ AVENUE ,�— a O 7RAC7 OIS. 092 ?r �+ n• I it ! - O 31 R' MA 45CT O i � 13 � O � (D ND. 14431 �7c 3 ter. arrrr ai0 AC � ! ff PORGY taT'• IOs 1 �+ n Q y �'�' z� ■w 10 y 12 53 35 35 Z99-11 w ra , Ip NO,t O •3J 3 N0. 300 , N0. 300 1� r ' • !WRyT.41NirF,f rL.rCd,+ ' s .F d -APLACE it — 40 41 sz' u ay a' rA.01 TpN +Aa�rr,J•r5'': +4+t'+ •�, PLACE .RJON 43 Q �3 . A' (D w • I rip" - 2 �b_ w 7 "Ar 4 1 0 3 Z. D 101 s 1 r TRAC r NO. .300 r _(D TRACr D „ . sr! � LOr !l2 „ PAR, 2 t PAR. f � paCrr (43 A iu' •'�L • 0. 149 AC • PAA. J pAP. J AC. � 9•+71 A. 341,-12 3 ! WESTUPCTEH 11331 Rolf AVEJVL4r S �'� for rr2 `J NO. 300 So Ii 17 77 25 3 1• r.. rr7A'CT rR cr P.� , FRACT ,w I e J i 1 T:�ACT as s .ti.—f� LJ y LJ y ♦ 1��3.i�� Ito - L , ,- i `. �■ � . o� <35 s 7^ ': a .r ��k t� J� a1 Attachment 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 22, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: _P" _ 5 SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT-17870 FOR A 6-UNIT, DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE DATE: JUNE 2, 2015 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: RYAN LOOMIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RYAN LOOMIS (714) 754-5608 ryan.loomis@costamesaca.gov DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the following: 1. Planning Application PA-15-10: Design Review to construct a six -unit, two-story, small lot subdivision on a 23,159 sq. ft. lot in an R2-MD zone. The project will include an automatic gate off the Orange Avenue entrance. In addition, the project requests the following deviations from the R2-MD development standards: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 1/ Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). The property is a through lot with access from Orange Avenue and Norse. The property two-story detached homes consist of 3 to 4 bedrooms and two -car garage with a minimum interior dimension of 20' x 20'. 2. Tentative Tract Map TT-17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. APPLICANT The applicant is Eric Trabert of E.T.A. Residential Design, representing Kings Road Partners LLC, the property owner. RECOMMENDATION Approve by adoption of the Planning Commission resolution, subject to conditions. 1,1 PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 2366 Orange Ave Application Number: PA-15-10 & TT-17870 APN: 119-092-43 Request: Demon Review of a six unit two-story residential development and a tentative tract map SUBJECT PROPERTY: Zone: R2-MD Multi -Family Residential, Medium Densitv General Plan: Lot Dimensions: Lot Area: MDR 82.5 FT x 300 FT 23,159 square feet Existing Development: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: North: R2-MD Multi -Family Residential, Med. Density South: R-1 Single -Family Residential East: R2-MD Multi -Family Residential, Med. Density West: R-1 Single -Family Residential R2-MD Multi -Family Residential, Med. Density One parcel with multi -unit one-story residential development DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON Development Stan(lard Required/Al lowedProposed/ Ordin�ince Lot Area Small Lot Subdivision No minimum per Small Lot Lot 1- 4,744 Sr (Orange Ave) Subdivision Standards Lot 2- 3,603 SF Lot 3- 3,603 SF Lot 4- 3,603 SF Lot 5- 3,603 SF Lot 6- 4,005 SF Norse Ave Open space (development lot) 30% (6,947 SF) of total lot 7,528 SF— 33% area per Small Lot Subdivision Standards Open space (individual unit) 200 SF with no dimension Lot 1- 371 SF less than 10 feet per Small Lot 2- 202 SF Lot Subdivision Standards Lot 3- 202 SF Lot 4- 202 SF Lot 5- 202 SF Lot 6- 228 SF Density: General Plan — MDR (Med. Density Max. 12 du/ac 11 du/ac Residential Land Use) Zone — R2-MD (Multi -Family 1 du/3,630 SF 1 du/3,860 SF (11.3 du/ac) Residential, Med. Density Max. 6 dwelling units 6 dwelling units Two -stories / 27 ft. all unitsl Building Height Two -stories / 27 ft. Distance between main buildings No Minimum /SLO 6'-4" (Lot 2 & 3 and Lot 4 & 5) 6'-8" (Lot 5 & 6) T-0" (Lot 1 & 2 and Lot 3 &4) Chimney Height 2 FT Above Max. Bldg. Ht. for Lot 1- N/A (Orange Ave) total of 29 feet. Lot 2- 2'-0" Lot 3- 2'-0" Lot 4- 2'-0" Lot 5- 2'-0" Lot 6- N/A (Norse Ave) Building Setbacks: Front (Orange Ave _ 20 ft. j 16 ft.' -15- Side 5 ft. 5 ft. Side 5 ft. 22 ft. Front (Norse Ave) 20 ft. 12 ft.2 • ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor (Plan A) 100% Plan A- 89% • ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor (Plan B1-A) Plan 131-A - 95% % ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor (Plan B2-A) Plan 62-A - 95% % ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor (Plan B1-B) Plan B1-B - 95% % ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor (Plan B2-B) Plan B2-B - 93% % ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor (Plan C) Plan C - 95% Parking 12 spaces Covered 2 garage spaces (3 or more i bedrooms) each unit Open 2 open spaces (3 or more 13 spaces bedrooms) each unit + one additional on -site guest parking for developments with 5 to 10 units _ TOTAL 25 spaces 25 spaces l Interior garage dimension 10' x 20' — One Car Garage 20' x 20' 20' x 20'— Two Car Garage_ Driveway Length 19 ft. 20 ft. (Lot 1) 18 ft. 3 (Lot 2) 18 ft.3 (Lot 3) 18 ft.3 (Lot 4) 18 ft.3 (Lot 5) 18 ft. 3 Lot 6) Final Action Plannin2 Commission CEQA Review Exempt, Class 3 for New Construction. Mirror ModiFicafion required. 2. Administrative Adjustment required. 1 8-foot driveway length minimum per Transportation Services. KPIM0 BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The project site is located on the east side of Orange Avenue, between Orange Avenue and Norse Ave. Norse Avenue is a cul-de-sac street abutting a portion of the easterly property line, and will provide secondary access for the proposed development site. The site is 0.53 acres (23,159 square feet) in size. The property zoned R2-MD (Multiple Family Residential, Medium Density) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential. The site is bounded by two 2-story and one single -story residences to the north, as well as one 2-story and three single -story residences to the south. Across Orange Ave (west of project) is a two-story residence, and one-story residences are abutting the easterly property line. The existing single -story residences on the site will be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. ANALYSIS Project Description The project involves the construction of a 6-unit, two-story residential development based on the Residential Small Lot Subdivisions Ordinance. The unit types are summarized in the following table: Unit Tvoe Surnma Unit Size Not Includina Garage Garage size 2,617 Sq. Ft. 2,265 Sq. Ft. 427 Sq. Ft 2.692 Sq. Ft. 2,269 Sq. Ft. 427 Sq Ft 2.696 So. Ft. 2,269 Sq. Ft. 427 Sc. Ft _ 2,696 Sq, Ft. 2.269 Sq. Ft. 427 Sq. Ft 2.696 . Ft. 2,687 Sq. Ft. 427 Sq. Ft 441 Sq. Ft. 3,058 Sq. Ft. Total Unit Size w/garage No. of Bedrooms and Baths 3,114 S . Ft. 48eds/3 Bath + Bonus 3Beds/3 Bath + Loft 3Beds/3 Bath + Loft 3Beds/3 Bath + Loft 3Beds/3 Bath + Loft 4Beds/3 Bath + Bonus No. of Stories 2 Stories/27 ft. 2 Stories/27 ft. 1 2 Stories/27 ft. 2 Stories/27 ft. 1 2 Storiesl27 ft. 2 Stones/27 ft. No. of Garage Spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces 1 2 spaces 2 spaces 1 2 spaces 2 s aces No. of Ooen Soaces 2 soaces 1 2 soaces 1 2 soaces 1 2 soaces 1 2 soaces 2 soaces On -Site On -Site Parking and Vehicular Circulation The proposed development is a Small Lot Subdivision, The parking requirements for a six -lot small lot subdivision is based on the number of bedrooms. The parking requirements are specified in Chapter VI, Article 2.5, Section 13-42.3, Table 13-42, Small Lot Subdivision Standards, of the Zoning Code, As noted in the table above, the proposed development proposes two enclosed garage spaces for each unit (12 total); additionally, 12 open parking spaces are provided within each individual 18-foot driveway, for a total of 25 on -site parking spaces. The proposed parking complies with the number of parking spaces required per code. Vehicle access to the site will be provided from Orange Avenue and Norse Avenue through a private street. In addition, an automatic ingress/egress gate is proposed along the Orange Avenue entrance. The total backup distance will be 25 feet for each 18-foot long open parking space (total distance from garage to rear of backup distance is 43 feet). The on -site - 1'7e vehicular parking and circulation has been reviewed and approved by the Transportation Services Division. Perimeter Walls/Fences A condition of approval requires the construction of a decorative perimeter block wall at a minimum 6 feet in height along the side property lines. No perimeter fencing is proposed along Orange Avenue or Norse Avenue, however an automatic ingress/egress gate is proposed along the Orange Avenue entrance. Building Architecture The proposed architecture for the 6-unit project is considered two-story modern - craftsman style, and includes a combination of asphalt composition and standing metal seam roofs, horizontal lap and vertical wood siding, smooth stucco, 24-inch and 12-inch board and batten siding, decorative metal roll -up garage doors, and columns along front entry porches. The proposed colors are light and charcoal grays, and earthen tones. Architectural projections are included to maximize floor space on upper floors and provide building articulation, texture and color variation throughout the project's design. Trash Collection The project incorporates on -site areas for the storage of trash barrels for each unit. This property will be served by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Access along the private driveway through the proposed project site will be permitted for Costa Mesa Sanitary District. In addition, any gate proposed on the project site will be required as a photocell type gate, which allows easy access for trash trucks onto the property. Tentative Parcel Map The proposed tentative tract map is for a six lot subdivision for a residential. common interest development. All common areas including the driveway and open parking spaces will be commonly used and 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 will also include provisions requiring that all open parking spaces be unassigned and available for visitors and requiring residents to park vehicles in the garage spaces provided for each unit. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE CONFORMANCE The findings for approval of the proposed project require that be in conformance with the following planning documents: • General Plan • Zoning Code Conformance with the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Future development of all land within the City of Costa Mesa is guided by the General Plan adopted in 2002. The Land Use Element of the General Plan directs long-range development in the City by indicating the location and extent of development to be allowed. The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies, and objectives that guide new development. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Medium Density Residential. Per the General Plan, Medium Density Residential is intended for residential development with a density up to 12 units to the acre (maximum 6 units). Because the density of the proposed project is 12 units to the acre (proposed 6 units), it is therefore consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The following analysis evaluates the proposed project's consistency with specific goals, and objectives of the General Plan, Land Use Element. 1. Objective LU-1 A: 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 medium -density development. Therefore, adequate infrastructure would be available to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. 2. Objective LU-1A.4: Strongly encourage the development of ... owner -occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Consistency: Because the proposed project is for ownership units, the project is consistent with this General Plan goal. 3. Goal LU-2: Development: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to establish development policies that will create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical and social resources. Consistency: The project would allow for the redevelopment of property containing a marginal residential dwelling as indicated in the site photos attached to this report. The proposed project would add a high -quality architectural design to the project area. As required by a standard condition of approval on the project, perimeter wall treatments will be reviewed to ensure that they are made of decorative materials, and ornamental site landscaping will be provided throughout the project. As a result, the proposed project is supportive of this General Plan goal. 4. Objective LU-2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: Because the project is an infill development, it 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 will replace older housing units and redevelop the property with brand new housing stock. The project is consistent with this objective. Conformance with the Zoning Code The City Council enacted a zoning ordinance (Title 13) in June 1997 that applies zoning code requirements for new development in the R2-MD zone. In addition, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 14-04 on April 1, 2014, amending Title 13 by creating Article 2.5 for Residential Small Lot Subdivisions. Article 2.5, Residential Small Lot Subdivisions, is intended to provide flexible development standards and to promote a wider range of homeownership of individual lots in multiple -family residential and overlay zoning districts. On April 21, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 15-03, amending Article 2.5 for Residential Small Lot Subdivisions, to amend rear and interior side setback requirements. Although the applicant is requesting deviations from the zoning code requirements, staff believes the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning Code as discussed below. Justifications for Approval Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g), Findings, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Planning Commission shall find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets specified findings. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project, based on an assessment of facts and findings which are also reflected in the draft resolution. The appropriate findings can be made for the requested code deviations. Code Section 13-29(g)(1) requires the following findings for the administrative adjustment, as described at the beginning of this report: 1. 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 under identical zoning classifications. 2. The deviation shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. 3. The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback along Norse Ave would be Justified bathe unique orientation of the lot (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed. The property is a through lot with frontage on Orange Avenue and Norse. Lot 6/Plan C proposes to encroach into the required 20-foot front setback along Norse Avenue, as a portion of Plan C is proposed at a 12-foot front setback. Through approval of an administrative adjustment, the property can reduce front yard depth by no more than 40%, which would allow for a minimum 12-foot front setback. The development lot has an unusual circumstance, in that there are two front setbacks and no rear setback, as a result of two public right-of-ways abutting the property, including Orange Avenue on the 2fY western portion of the property, and Norse Avenue on the east side of the property. Under normal circumstances, a property has a front, side and rear setback. The Small Lot Subdivision Standards allow for a 10-foot rear setback. The structure is set back 12 feet from the closest point from the front property line, thus being set back further than permitted if considered the rear setback. Therefore, approval of an administrative adjustment from front yard setback along Norse Ave would help remediate the project from the strict application of development standards, and allow the property the same privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. The existing structure along Norse Avenue features a comparable setback; and the administrative adjustment will not constitute a g rag nt ofrspecial privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. The request to encroach into the front setback by eight feet does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. The existing development on the project site, and neighboring properties along Norse Avenue, currently encroach into the existing front setback, as shown in the picture. The existing garage on the project site is approximately 12 feet to front property line. Other properties along Norse Avenue cul- de-sac, as shown by red arrow, are as close as 10-11 feet from front property line. _12I Granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the gcner_aiplan_r esi_ation for theproperty (6 units allowed, 6 units proposed). The proposed project is located within the Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation, which allows a density up to 12 units per acre. The project site is 0.53 acres, and therefore would allow for a maximum of 6 units. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. In addition, Lot 6/Plan C would provide for an enhanced landscaped area along Norse Avenue, by reducing the amount of concrete and driveway currently on the project site along Norse Avenue. This reduction in concrete will provide visual enhancement for surrounding neighbors. As such, granting the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. The appropriate findings can be made for the requested code deviations. Code Section 13-29(g)(6) requires the following findings for the minor modification, as described at the beginning of this report: : 1. The improvement will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. 2. The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. Minor modification for front yard setback for Lot I/ Plan A_C20 feet requiredd 16 feet proposed to the support posts of the front patio.) could be supported. The project is requesting a reduction from 20 feet to 16 feet for the front setback along the front (westerly) property line to allow for the supporting posts of a projecting patio cover in the front entryway to project 4 feet into required 20-foot front setback. The garage for Plan A is proposed to maintain a 20-foot setback from the front property line. The setbacks of existing neighboring structures were considered with regard to the project's proposed modification to the front setback. The 20% reduction in front yard depth is located away from properties adjacent to the project site, and does not affect pedestrian travel along Orange Avenue. In addition, the proposed 16-foot setback for the covered porch will not impact the visual line of site safety issues related to vehicular travel. The driveways for neighboring properties are located away from the proposed project site. The driveway for the neighboring property to north is located on the opposite side of the proposed project site. The projecting covered porch provides an attractive entrance into the project site. In addition, the proposed project provides for adequate landscaping with drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and groundcover to enhance the project site, as shown in the picture to the left. Therefore Plan A, as well as the entire development project, is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. -22.- • The protect exhibits excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protect the integrity of neighboring development. The proposed architecture and site design will enhance the street view and potentially evoke new development in the area. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. Per the City's Residential Design Guidelines, the variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance consistent with the guidelines. The two-story modern -craftsman style architecture includes a combination of asphalt composition and standing metal seam roofs, horizontal lap and vertical wood siding, smooth stucco, 24-inch and 12-inch board and batten siding, decorative metal roll -up garage doors, and columns along front entry porches. The proposed colors are light and charcoal grays, and earthen tones. Second floor windows for Plan B2-A and Plan B1-B will be offset to avoid visual impacts to the second story windows to neighboring properties, as shown in the picture below. In addition, Lot 6/Plan C would provide for an enhanced landscaped area along Norse Avenue, by reducing the amount of concrete and driveway currently on the project site along Norse Avenue. This reduction in concrete will provide visual enhancement for surrounding neighbors, as shown in below picture. a r - W_ n OF I ^wicrw rx o�awwim I I I I I I I I I I The Decteration of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) is required to be filed on the property. The Small Lot Ordinance requires that all small lot subdivisions establish some form of self -governance through CC&Rs, maintenance associations, and/or homeowner's associations. In the City of Costa Mesa, the most common type of association is an incorporated homeowner's association. This is a corporation in which the members of the corporation vote for a board of directors which runs the affairs of the corporation. The Small Lot Ordinance requires, at a minimum, that CC&Rs be recorded on the property. Because there are no common areas for circulation, parking, or landscape purposes, a condition of approval requires that the CC&Rs shall contain the ground rules related to: architectural control over future building modifications or additions, architectural design and guidelines for the _z3_ property, and engagement in alternative dispute resolution before filing a lawsuit to resolve conflicts. The landscape concept plan is consistent with the Ci"ty's standards for multi -family development. Specifically, the plan includes landscaping in the setback abutting the public right-of-way, within the private open space areas, and along the driveway and parking areas for each unit. The concept plan shows approximately 8 large trees along the perimeter of the development lot, shrubs along the fences and perimeter of each unit to encourage privacy, and drought tolerant ground cover throughout the project. Also, enhanced landscaping will provide visual relief along Norse Avenue. As stated in the conditions of approval, 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 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, 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. In addition, the project will be required to plant one (1) 24" Box Pyrus calleryana `Chanticleer' along the Orange Avenue parkway. The project will provide on -site parking spaces that meets current is{ rk nq standards (25 spaces required; 25 spaces proposed). As noted earlier, the parking requirements for a small lot subdivision are based on the number of bedrooms. The project would provide 12 garage/covered parking spaces, 12 open parking spaces, and 1 guest parking spot, for a total of 25 spaces. The open parking spaces are distributed throughout the project to provide convenient parking for future guests within the development. In addition, an automatic ingress/egress gate is proposed along the Orange Avenue entrance. The gate, as approved by Transportation services, shall be a minimum of 20 feet from Orange Avenue property line in order to reduce queuing along Orange Avenue. The automatic gate is conditioned to be a lower noise type to the extent feasible. The protect features quality construction and materials. As noted earlier, the building exteriors consist of alternating smooth stucco, horizontal wood siding, and vertical wood siding, along with composition asphalt shingles, standing seam metal roofs for covered porches, and decorative window treatments. In addition, a decorative 6-foot high perimeter block wall, or stained/treated fence, will be located along northerly and southerly property lines. As stated in the conditions of approval, 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. Any modification should be consistent to originally proposed materials and colors as originally proposed. In addition, a decorative 6-foot high perimeter block wall, or stained/treated fence, as approved by the Development Services Director, shall be constructed along the side boundaries of the site prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director. -4 - ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15303 for New Construction. This exemption allows for the construction of up to six multi -family residential structures in urbanized areas, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment. LEGAL REVIEW The draft resolutions have been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. 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 within a 500- foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. (See attached Notification Radius Map.) 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 June 10, application PA-15-10 has not received a communication from any property owner located within a 500-foot radius of the project site. 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, should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. Deny the proiect. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, Planning Commission must deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in the attached draft resolution for denial. If the project were denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. -Q'5_ CONCLUSION The project is deemed to be a high -quality development, therefore it is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Code. Legal findings could be made to justify approval of the specified deviations from code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the project. Resolutions for approval and denial of the project are attached for consideration by the Planning Commission. RYAN OO IS CL E FLYNN, AICP Associate Planner Asst. Development Services Director Attachments: 1. Vicinity, Zoning, and 500 ft Radius Maps 2. Site Photos 3. Applicants Project Description 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolutions and Exhibits 5. Project Plans/Elevations/Perspectives Distribution: Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst File (2) Owner: Kings Road Partners LLC 12 Strawberry Farms Rd Irvine, CA 92612 Authorized Agent: Eric Trabert 9251 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 ,2(r- City of Costa Mesa ZONING/GPA MAP- 2366 ORANGE - [Created: 6/5/2015 10:20:12 AM] [Scale: 349.62] [Page: 8.5 x 11 / Portrait] Overview Map Legend Address Nmv"rt aLVD Al Parcel Lines Ci-s Points Prirtwrg ❑ City C2 Freeway SLCONDARY Boundary CL A R Hydrology Roads Channels Water Ways i♦ MR'S Colloda r Zoning MIG 1.40 F rsve�� Street Names AP ® MP P Major (contp Street 10 C 1 Poe Centerlines [cunt} (cant) A a k •rra AVENUE : = awN T .Acr MACT ' rRAc r,?Zr w. a; ,.,, .,. rnacr , , , I� d 2,` p p p P. �c�ra•��r r (r`�� (W� Pr1oa6CT 5 U 12 PAv.,[Cr L`I a.n . m-do r e 7 9JP-68 " C I 466-491 �+ rJa-a�3 } Is0. aD 5 22 i 19 SLOT r IZ w f ze z7 26 ,V , PADr£cr �y P23A + Q , 9]F-6 -fl2DYflJ1 n "' Y "''e p k O,J]AD. u:.. . �D.�e� 3T Pfa.r aaeJA¢ 7 : �q t3 211— t� (% �•L NO. orna NOnN0io 11375119�10 u94. . . .,, Flo I.- o r4 zd 16 00N• . sue .. =' L� .r r 9 �'• far :a� ` ZS " XrRRAC7' � ' � 1 2� ! � " tI derw. � O a°„ � • S2 v s ti � �r MAC u f.51NO.J00dm ..,UrtnY,v. — L ti 1AVENGE -,TRAc It,TRACT P. M. "a FRAr�r34 nOi PAR. I PAR. 2 PAR. J J 2i1 La POP's £ 5B 5 1 1 c p O O O -' Yn •y a 2 �• + 14 r. J n. • c �" ! 46 47 4B s , � r,ra• � 4.350 AC. A-t r HPAR. ( PAR.. S PAR. 4,Y�Lot !oeLar !0s ► 39NO. 3000 NO 5E y ' �. AVENUE RTRAC7 It O T p p 41 TRACT W V z • r��' NO. 14431 *pa 3 Pux corer iSD AG r 8 !a PaR." LOT IDs I. �� fY Q Si Saar rJ " P. M. y 10 z y t.J 1z 53 a 36 35 q 289-11 ,. l{ T+l raa 10 NO, NO. 300 y, " . , 7 (W£STM/NSTcR AGdCCI Jl ao rr a2, y a a - $• �•-� _ CARLTON PLACE s CAD' TON r>rsnrr�sTrR rfaf£r i PLACE 4] Hr « � TR t AVD" 17 12 o T 2J Is t fi��r, �•�. 4 /^� f; ry V PX4,LOT r07 s a ] r TRACT NO. 300 F3 1� 12 ! rr ,� ,I'y V'J V1@ j #[(- • 'IT AC r p >, I t 0 " car nz P. M." PAR.2 2 j s PAR. r 0 M 49C. p 50 +i PAR. 4 0.rae 4c. w, r # 5Z PAA. J 0.raa si 'x AC. o. r7l AC. 341,-12 s,1 # *VSTAMSTER cor rrz Q NO.300 I J7 29 25 27 zs t! _ Y_, tiw A Vf�YC.� nTRA'CT TRACT PAL J PAR. ] TRACT r� t4 ,r �• MACr J 41 37. 75 2• tt i� i tr f'a1 i f1 a �1 7 A3 45 { A, O 45 P,[ rpr-a7 17 f J , N+O. sJ w 2 I / �f r 40 a X 35 s 27 - tp rr m n ra„• u - n n 46 a=- 4 4 .VtA ?j LAW 4 �II `ii� r)V '1 •� 4 i S �t �,� /may"• .;� - - , i '7y w `y,-- _ ire ■ ��e.�,�� - 1_�►Rim r i.i ' Y M r' 1%a ' Y M r' 1%a - •' S Ij+� ANA 1 R , 1 r1 cY I 4 fir'" .�^.+Y-�til.. f+r„�4=�-� r�w,�� .•xr � - - r�,..�,�.�e•. mot.'_ n• ., � w ' � �.. �°r/✓ �1,+ -_ __.... __ _.� _ i�l � - ,craw J Attachment 3: Applicants Project Description 81r . A3 .. March 24, 2015 City of Costa Mesa P.O. Box 1200 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, Ca. 92628-1200 Subject: Design Review Application— Letter of Description of Work RE: 2366 Orange Avenue Costa Mesa, Ca. To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written in accordance with the city's requirement for information about the project we are submitting for design review. The property is located between Orange Avenue & Norse Avenue in the City of Costa Mesa. We are proposing six (6) two-story single family dwellings; three (3) floor plan types and four (4) elevations. The square footage of these dwellings ranges from 2250 square feet to 2600 square feet. Each unit is designed with a two car garage, and two additional guest parking spaces per unit; plus one per zoning requirement. The architectural design of these is in keeping with the City of Costa Mesa's design standards for small lot sub- divisions. r'f ��l y. - Eric rabert Eric Trabert & Associates —3(P-- Attachment 4- Resolution and Exhibits RESOLUTION NO. PC-15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT-17870 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Eric Trabert of E.T.A. Residential Design, representing Kings Road Partners LLC, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: 1. Planning Application PA-15-10: Design Review to construct a 6-unit, two-story, detached residential development on a 23,159 square foot lot (.53 acres) with the following: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off of Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 1/ Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). 2. Tentative Tract Map TT-17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines, and has been found to be categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 for New Construction. WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal. 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 PA-15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17870. 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 PA-15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17870 and upon the 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 and/or mitigation measures. 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 22nd day of June, 2015. Robert L. Dickson Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission go• STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on June 22nd, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission _3q� EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(14) in that: Finding: The project complies with 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. Facts in Support of Findings: The architectural design of the development meets the intent of the City's Residential Development Standards and Design Guidelines and promotes design excellence with consideration given to site planning and building orientation, overall open space, landscaping and architectural design. Second floor windows will be required to be offset to minimize direct views onto adjacent second floor residential windows, and the elevations will have exterior elevation treatments as recommended in the City's Residential Design Guidelines. Finding: The visual prominence associated with the construction of two-story homes in a predominately one-story neighborhood has been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors and the provision of second floor offsets to avoid long unarticulated two-story walls. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed two-story structures are in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood which has a variety of two-story buildings. The elevations of the proposed residences include a variety of materials, articulating roof lines, and use of window treatments to highlight the vertical offsets and horizontal floor to floor transitions. Finding: The proposed development plan and subdivision meets the broader goals of the General 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 Findings: The proposed project provides ownership opportunities for detached units in place of the existing residential structures. The project exhibits site planning excellence by providing private open spaces for all units and adequate separation between the homes and the abutting structures. B. The proposed parcel map complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(g)(13) because: VIM Finding: The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Findings: The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1 A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner -occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities, the project provides sufficient amenities as a small lot subdivision development, and encourages increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The density for the residential component is 11.3 units per acre (6 units maximum), which complies with allowable density of 12 units per acre (6 units maximum) per 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 Findings: The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The project site is already developed with multi -family residences, and does not have any sensitive environmental resources. The proposed project will provide for high -quality housing and not impede upon the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. 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 Findings: The proposed buildings include openings in a north -south direction to take advantage of passive solar heating as well as passive ventilation from ocean breezes. The southern facing rooflines also have the potential to provide for active solar heating and energy generation through the use of solar panels. Finding: The subdivision 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 Findings: As conditioned, the proposed project does not interfere with the public right-of-way. The recommended improvements along Orange and Norse Avenues will significantly improve the public right- of-ways for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In addition, a 5-foot side setback provides for adequate access space for the existing utility easement along the southern property line. A letter of approval [pending at the date of this report] from Southern California Edison will allow the project to encroach into the 6-foot utility easement. 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 Findings: The applicant will be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District. C. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) in that: Findings: a. 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. b. The deviation shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. c. The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed project, specifically Lot 6/Plan C, proposes to encroach into the required 20-foot front setback along Norse Avenue, as a portion of the residential unit is proposed at a 12-foot front setback. The development lot has an unusual circumstance, in that there are two front setbacks as a result of abutting two public right-of-ways, including Orange Avenue on the western portion of the property, and Norse Avenue on the east. Under normal circumstances, a property normally has a front, side and rear setback, and the small lot subdivision standards would allow for a 10-foot rear setback. The primary access for the development lot is Orange Avenue, and therefore is considered the dominant front portion of the development lot. Without Norse Avenue, Lot 6/Plan C would be considered the rear portion of the development lot, and therefore be allowed to utilize a 10-foot rear setback. The structure is setback 12 feet from the closest point from the front property line, thus being setback further than what would be allowed if considered the rear setback. Therefore, approval of an administrative adjustment from front yard setback along Norse Ave would help remediate the project from the strict application of development standards, and allow the property the same privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. The proposed project does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. The proposed project is located within the Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation, which allows a density up to 12 units per acre. The project site is 0.53 acres, and therefore would allow for a maximum of 6 units. 791 The project, as proposed, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. As such, granting the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(6) in that: Findings: a. The improvement will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. b. The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. Facts in Support of Findings: The project is requesting a Minor Modification to allow for an encroachment into the required front yard setback. The project, specifically Lot 1/Plan A, is requesting a reduction from 20 feet to 16 feet for the front setback along the front (westerly) property line to allow for the supporting posts of a projecting patio cover to project 4 feet into required 20-foot front setback. The garage for Plan A is proposed to maintain a 20-foot setback from the front property line. The setbacks of existing neighboring structures were considered with regard to the project's proposed modification to the front setback. The 20% reduction in front yard depth is located away from properties adjacent to the project site, and does not affect pedestrian travel along Orange Avenue. In addition, the proposed 16-foot setback for the covered porch will not impact the visual line of site safety issues related to vehicular travel. The driveways for neighboring properties are located away from the proposed project site. The driveway for the neighboring property to north is located on the opposite side of the proposed project site. The neighboring property to the south is a corner lot, and the corresponding driveway is not located along Orange Avenue. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. In addition, the project will be required to comply with all applicable provision of the Uniform Building Code with regard to safety. In regards to design, Plan A is designed to be consistent with the materials, massing, scale and articulation of the multi -family residential area for maximum compatibility. The design of Plan A is well articulated with overhangs, porches, roof dormers, and stepped floor plans. The projecting covered porch provides an attractive entrance into the project site. In addition, the proposed project provides for adequate landscaping with drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and groundcover to enhance the project site. Therefore, Plan A and the entire development project is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of _ 4, the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. E. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15303 for New Construction. This exemption allows for the construction of up to six multi -family residential structures in urbanized areas, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment. F. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. IM>N EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1 The expiration of Planning Application PA-15-10 shall coincide with the expiration of the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map T-17870 which is valid for two years. An extension request is needed to extend the expiration for each additional year after the initial two-year period. 2 The conditions of approval of PA-15-10 and T-17870 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 3. The Tentative Tract Map shall be processed as a tentative map consistent with Chapter XI, Subdivisions, Article 1. Tentative Maps, of the Zoning Code. 4 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of recordation of Tentative Tract Map TT-17870. 5 A decorative 6-foot high perimeter block wall, or stained/treated fence, as approved by the Development Services Director, shall be constructed along the side boundaries of the site prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director. 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 screening by trees and landscaping. 6 The interior fences or wails between the units shall be a minimum of six feet in height. 7 All future walls and fences within front yard setback along Orange Avenue and Norse Avenue Place shall conform to the standards per the Walls, Fences, and Landscaping Standards and Specifications. 8. The automatic gate at Orange Avenue placed along the private driveway shall be subject final review/approval by the Transportation Manager, and shall also meet requirements per Costa Mesa Sanitary District regarding entry. Gates shall be of high quality design and feature a low noise type of gate to the extent feasible. In addition, private property signs shall be displayed on gates. 9. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the driveway shall not be developed with a center concrete swale. The driveway shall be complemented by stamped concrete in order to reduce damage caused by sanitary trucks entering site for trash pickup. 10. The open, unassigned parking space located between Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall be clearly marked as guest parking space only. Signage shall be posted to indicate that this space is available only to guests and visitors and not used for resident parking. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final landscape plan indicating the landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas shall be -15- submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 13. The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Division and contain additional 24-inch box size trees above the minimum code requirements. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller size trees to 24-inch box size trees or providing additional 24-inch box trees. 14. 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. This includes any modification not consistent with the proposed asphalt composition and standing metal seam roofs, horizontal lap and vertical wood siding, smooth stucco, 24-inch and 12- inch board and batten siding, decorative metal roll -up garage doors, and columns along front entry porches. Any modification should be consistent to originally proposed colors, including light and charcoal grays and earthen tones. 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 a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 15. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter system which is painted to match the building would comply with the condition. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 16. The front porch overhang for Plan C shall not contain supporting posts that encroach beyond the proposed 12-foot front setback. Awnings and eaves that are not supported by supporting posts can project 5-feet into front setback. 17. 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 fill 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. 18. 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 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. 19. 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. 20. The project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the energy conservation standards. The project Applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans: a. Double paned glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be used in all exterior windows. b. Building shall be oriented north/south where feasible. 21. Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. 22. 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&R's 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 for which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. b. 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. 23. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall file and record a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) on the property. The establishment of a homeowner's association shall be optional. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a draft of the CC&Rs shall be remitted to the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office for review and approval. Because there are no common areas for circulation, parking, or landscape purposes, the CC&Rs shall be limited to the 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, The Development Services Director has the discretion to request any other provisions in the CC&Rs to promote self -governance between the two property owners. 24. The CC&Rs shall contain a notice that the open parking space (not leading to a garage) shall be unassigned and available for visitors. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to use, preservation and maintenance of the common drive aisle and open space areas in perpetuity by the maintenance or homeowner's association 25. 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. 26. Prior to final recordation of the map, applicant shall provide written documentation from Southern California Edison to specifically allow the encroachment into the utility easement by the proposed structures. This document may indicate that the easement will be quitclaimed or modified to allow the proposed structures. This documentation shall be approved by the Development Services Director and the City Engineer prior to final map recordation unless an extension is granted by the Development Services Director. The City Attorney's office shall require legal documentation (i.e. hold harmless agreement, etc.) be submitted by the applicant if construction is allowed to proceed while the quitclaim process (other other procedure as specified by SCE) is pending. 27. The Homeowner's Association or Maintenance Association shall submit a signed affidavit to the City of Costa Mesa on an annual basis to certify the following: a. The two -car garages in the residential community are being used for vehicle parking by the resident(s). b. The vehicle parking areas within the garage are not obstructed by storage items, including but not limited to, toys, clothing, tools, boxes, equipment, etc. c. The resident(s) have consented to voluntary inspections of the garage to verify the parking availability, as needed. The form and content of the affidavit shall be provided by the City Attorney's office. Failure to file the annual affidavit is considered a violation of this condition. _qs 28. 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. 29. The applicant 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 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. 30. Concrete wheel stops shall be installed 2' from the front edge of open parking spaces, or where applicable, landscape planters shall be increased 2' in depth to allow curbing to serve as a wheel stop. Eng 31. Comply with the requirements contained in the letter prepared by the City Engineer (Exhibit B1). Eng. 32. Provide a three-foot public sidewalk easement behind existing right of way line on Norse Avenue for ADA compliance. Eng 33. 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. Pkwys 34. Plant one (1) 24" Box Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' along the Orange Avenue parkway. 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. Applicant shall provide the City with proof of general liability insurance including endorsements concerning "additional named insured", "advance notice", and "primary coverage" as approved by the City attorney's office. �q� 3. 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. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, 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. 5. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer shall pay a park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. 6. A minimum 20-foot by 20-foot clear interior dimension shall be provided for all garages. 7. Minimum garage door width shall be 16 feet. 8. All garages shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 9. Hours of construction shall comply with Section 13-279, Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 10. 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 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, 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. 11. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 12. All on -site utility services shall be installed underground. 13. Installation of all 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. 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. Prior to approval of plans, the project shall fulfill the City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements. 16. If present and/or projected exterior noise exceeds 60 CNEL, California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL for residential structures. If required interior noise levels are achieved by requiring that windows be inoperable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation, and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. 17. 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. 18, Planning Commission action on PA-15-10 shall not become final until seven (7) days following final action. Bldg. 19. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 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 or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Areas of alteration and additions shall comply with 2013 California Green Building Standards Code section 5.303.2 and 5.303.2. 20. Submit precise grading plans, an erosion control plan, and a hydrology study. 21. Submit a soils report for this project. Soil's report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. For existing slopes or when new slopes are proposed, the soils report shall address how existing or new slopes will be maintained to avoid erosion or future failure. 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 2 percent. 2013 California Building Code CRC 403.1.7.3. 23. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of six inches within the first 10 feet. CRC R401.3. 24. Projections, including eaves, shall be one -hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or noncombustible material if they project into the 5-foot setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3-foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1 (1) and R302.1 (2). 25. Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the project Applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of onsite soils to cause unstable conditions. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety. 26. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 27. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 28. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the site, the contractor would implement each of the following: a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. b. Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface. c. Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. d. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. e. Wash mud -covered tired and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction sites. f. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. g. Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. h. Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Trans. 29. Construct all proposed driveway approaches to comply with city standards. 30. 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. 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. 31. Close unused drive approaches, or portion of, with full height curb and gutter that comply with City Standards. Fire 32. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 33. The project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13D. 34. Street addresses shall be visible from the public street and may be displayed either on the front door, on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance, or on another prominent location. When the property has alley access, address numerals shall be displayed in a prominent location visible from the alley. Numerals shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height with not less than one -half -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Eng 35. 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 on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or Architect. Construction 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- 231 of the C.C.M.M.C. and an approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. 36. 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. 37. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division for any work in the City public right-of-way. Pay required permit fee & cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee construction of off -site street improvements at time of permit per section 15-31 & 15-32, C.C.M.M.C. as approved by City Engineer. Cash deposit or surety bond amount to be determined by City Engineer. 38. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the -5:3- Transportation Services Manager. ADA compliance required for new driveway approaches. 39. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. Residential sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Off -site Plan, including four (4) feet clear around obstructions in the sidewalk. 40. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk at applicant's expense. 41. Fulfill Drainage Fee requirements per City of Costa Mesa Ordinance No. 06-19 prior to approval of Final Map/Approval of Plans. 42. In order to comply with the 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (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, using latest version of template dated August 2011, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. a) 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. b) Location of BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani. 1. Applicant will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2 County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, inspection fees, and sewer permit are required prior to installation of sewer. 3 Applicant shall submit a plan showing sewer improvements that meets the District Engineer's approval to the Building Division as part of the plans submitted for plan check. 4 The applicant is required to contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to arrange final sign -off prior to certificate of occupancy being released. 5. Unless an off -site trash hauler is being used, applicant shall contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to pay trash collection program fees and arrange for service for all new residences. Residences using bin or dumpster services are exempt from this requirement. 6. Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 654-8400 for any additional district requirements. AQMD 7 Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at -J4--- (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD. Water 8. 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. School 9. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 10. 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. Cable 11. The applicant shall contact the current cable company prior to issuance of building permits to arrange for pre -wiring for future cable communication service. RESOLUTION NO. PC-15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT- 17870 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Eric Trabert of E.T.A. Residential Design, representing Kings Road Partners LLC, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: 1. Planning Application PA-15-10: Design Review to construct a 6-unit, two-story, detached residential development on a 23,159 square foot lot (.53 acres) with the following: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off of Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 1/ Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). 2. Tentative Tract Map TT-17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015, with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission hereby DENIES Planning Application PA-15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17870. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June, 2015. Robert L. Dickson Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission _560- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on June 22nd, 2015 by the following votes: AYES. COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission -jr-9 i EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(14) in that: Finding: The project does not comply with the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code or 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. Finding: The visual prominence associated with the construction of two-story homes in a predominately one-story neighborhood has not been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors and the provision of second floor offsets to avoid long unarticulated two-story walls. Finding: The proposed development plan and subdivision does not meet the broader goals of the General 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. B. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) in that: Findings: • Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. • The deviations constitutes a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. • The granting of the deviations will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. C. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(6) in that: Findings: • The improvement will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. • The improvement is not compatible and does not enhance the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. D. The subdivision of the property for a residential common interest development is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. E. The Costa Mesa Planning Commission has denied Planning Application PA-15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17870. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) (5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. F. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. KS CALIFORNIA GREEN GORE 2013 9f�DEVO.OPMEN� G668C 4.106.9 L YF rCpr 11:[ tit OdWm>ce 4'wA•ruK frSTDa rgy..•x.rr nU gtV irrw R)e li UriJsa Fla,V[IFC.i wlet�a axs�rca.r•Aepaet_sn hnr+ae+atwrz yr.:x.I.� ..eiwi..61+r aFr .nr .naa sa tee rra.ease4s- �* ANO DlsPosAL Sr,TEMS �M�OOR� TT� nmess HusC66 �4N90 ,fE FIxTLRE FLow RArEz of OUTDOOR YNAITLR USE - G6BSC 4904,E I[ODENT PROOFING M C6BSG 4406.E w LS SNUL eE rvMdLd4.uM,wsTM 1A4'tkA'N6N1%SKI OPAi:vFT:1Nkr CONSTRUCTION WASTE REDUCTION - COBSC, 4.405 aware.tv,N�Hd?1a fL/.i f.wlY IM'.AAV4TTA Tl IN AR Wd>tr rR eVOYk4c..ue�..s- LnAN°ATaNr wNSTwlenoH PN° gk4LUM6 MA.ROINA�WCA A10011il tRI-WBmG AAW b ilelA eRgr 1T.T0 4L kr 6RrTIIISSH 4)Itlena �II.P1�ce r`,r6T�E°G� T4iF'olSrsEc r-vex, sFpLED-Gorpi,snaN #�S7{-5.UTIQN CONTRIX. - CSBrf Ail 1—IoNDNT ­N­ CN'lalR„YM tAbL pA r Palllfl.:Wa w.E ap ea g1W wAi e+fQ 2 aH31 AND o 1 NEwi Nr 1INc �»srANCEs, n, ,EcnoNb aaszzmuvxAND W. of cuIFDNNw c of RErE mGHwlTtru,4 VocNE�H LAeEL PNaaN.u4 PET Pv�slvE s«ALL r£E I f`£E vas DHIrs HANDONrx� INTERIOR MOISTURE CONTROL - C66BC 4.509 DIREcrEcwNr- ATE b_T AtFN1 crAN c�o�rsEIEc�NS�TI EiUrE AG� lu 3 NOI 6R A«°[cUivA�itT�r�A�e nE512u BY M�TLIRI� 60N1'IRiT e]i• BP3N6 MATbI'ALS . C6B�SC 4,908R Ls N- vlsiete s NS OF wnrESED o- THE IL 1.T � No FEET FRonsT,e �Ozno sr�SI Ary o Erin o�F E..cN v E` *o eE vEalFiEor To a ALL e nTION F IDED r•=!!.rpglf I np. eWatdN a! lMLL:+Ff!fA4ACapF — INDOOR AIR QUALITY XH A EAUST - C655C 4.506 r:.a Mnefts.M :cuR,La;ws A hvapan, M.'oiR file nbTKecc »m nantl+lOwnty rtpr nr .n..u€u.NrT FAN writ« _N_,DINea,LT FRon ND Tb AEETI enE o�a e ol;EwliIL. TmATIar N1111A f}NaE v %a 7P .IOeik(JeR. DF ADaISTFENr eETVFEN A ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT - C6n 4901 °AND NANDLLa4Iw 11lov sIG THIass NF_ bi n ISesTAe .Io AccoR To A —A 11 W E TaA-A 63 TdWF •fWl . pNytaLWHTOg YALIri YA1! Eg1aWn M. gtr4 �� iVIlIWrT /wW� NL� n-J, �f.e I®Ntl.f art T_....q, Ey_wIf aTl at1 I �, min lM1ic l.ble>nAei:ef tl.0 fa.•%M.1�[:a•h.ledn eunev rrvud. A.� T.wa C'n.IVaNtlfR faY rvYd �ilard io xcoidmxc.iA iq:ifClFSiAN(71167}fV AwgiiR.ne� vzrd rx aLrm Jemil/ RherW aN I:u u:nu,iinuni IhieAnox of A m:llimc NATIONAL POLLUTANT P15CHARCE ELIMINATION 5Y5TEM (NPDE5) NOTES Notes must be shown as worded On the title sheet OF the Plan I. In [Ile case aF emergency, call ° of Vbrk Phone a or dome Mlorle Ia4v 4n-a 2, Sedmenk From areas dill N canstructlon shall be retained on site using rtructural cantrais to the max imam stem practicable, 3. 5tockplles of z0,1 shall be properly c Wbed to mbimlze sediment tr op,,t from the site to streets drbhage Iac111tles or odl propertles via r.oFF vehicle tacking,D wind. 4. Approprlate BMR, For consvu[tlon related materials ,.aster spills sha11 be Implemented to mb.- trmsport from the slLe to streets d"abage Fac111tles, Dr adjoinlnq propertles by wind or r H,. 5, Ru H from equipment and vehicle rvashwg shall be c olned at -irol—h- sites Imless treated tD reduce or remove sedhnent and other pollutants 6. All construction contractor and subconLrmtor per,omlel s to be made aware or the requI- d best management prmbde, — good novsekeeping mess re, for the project site aM Dry assoclated canslruclbn stagbg cress. 1. At the end of eoch dog of consbuctlm adl,lty all conA—Hob de is aM waste Imterlals shall be collected a d properly disposed In trash a recycle bins. a. i amlre.rNpn alFe9..PaY Im 191,1:aa..d le llio Y r-t -"e IML nv mte�val[erl ttar+ area .Idl f .k+rtn ar pnr4ew.i!! fN .ks" awetr,rges W >•aM><i1 aFr`sr elaelA ttcr yw v MM.»nrcK/99d pM'lunrie .wl crRFryeiiw U a::mhratlt(rt W eilt:as rM I:f,e+s W� :�:>aaa er Wtnr£ Ia Lu a .c MAgn M king fete. ry.d4y aea+s,+nL c,ws. cr a�AK+a aatowdx a rr.nrc�:.r <e:nv»t a " i bare a6etrrtr M a ipunlrg rtprrlaCle W� FWljritl c�nA'Nh+rrk GpR Palle tll QId 302 4, MA.AW Fua4'04. MWt Gi —1-8 W#d Y.w sdLA a k 1lMr4W ailak Mnies rep.}`sails. slap., urtdfYh IM.FnIkitl4R MwM1ar,R#ns„Ko•'111r+arrvMN:Fl ca'IA .aem1la•a%ldrli0i. tfNea,". F11141 :r KY%il o�wtL, }.elR ,Ya, bl:aN.. aA Yyxvlr, rlvaer. ar L as.yy rF.M�aI rerlerds .w.c�' 41n+}pene ii+iroM wYAn natt[a[tMtrale, Aelrsgahl Iknfu,lp .en4t4: nTrlss irml3y my>xM¢Paraa .kfere ilewg a.,,.wd A^`lp'+s 3._. w}wL+:Lvraew p+Nirr water Ilne Flishhg 0.ring <ons[rvctlon, permlktee shall dispose of —1, materlals In a specified and ontrollee temparmy sea on -sde, plyslcally separated Frain F"ntlal stormwa runoff, with ultimate disposal In accordance with local, state and Federal requirements, 10. Dewatering of conta,nlnated groundwater, rn dIs I,o,ging contamN ted rolls via —h—N erosion 6 prohblted. Dewatering of non-con[aminated ground«aler requires a Natlonal PDIll Olscharge EIMInatloo System Perml[ From the respec[Ive State Reglonal Wol— avahty Canvol Board It Graded areas on the permitted area perimeter must drain �.ay from the face of slopes at the conclusion OF each workbq doll Drabage Is to be drected town-d d-ItIng facllltles. 12, The perm Lteo and c I,N,tor shall be r Ibb sble and shall talks necesxry pr=caut sns to pre eat pubic trespass onto areas where mpourded water creates o hh ardou ondlllon 13' The permute, and contrato, shall bspect the erosion control rvO,k and Insure that the work Is 1n accordance with Me approved plops. 14. me perms[tee s111 notify all general c I,trmtors, subcontractors, material suppliers, lessees, and property owners: [hot dumping of chemicals Into the storm drain system or the watershed Is prohlblted 15, Equipment aM rvorkers for emergency work stall be made avaFlable ak all times *,ing INN ,ably s asap. Necessary materlals shall NN ova' le on site and slockp1led ak venlentelocatlons to foc Ill rapid constrvc[lon of temporary devices hen rain Is m benL 16- All removable erosion protect Ne devise, shall be In place at the end OF each workLng day when the 5-12ay Rob Probcbllity Forecast a 1ds 4 . IT. 5edlments From areas -6 bed by ca 1—tlon shall be rota d on site using m N[F tIve combinblibb of or-lon and sediment controls to N,e maxumm extent practicabie, and stb,kpIIe of soil shall be properly c oINed to minlmlze sediment transport from the site to street,, drainage eaOlunez of adjacent properties via runoff, 11Mcie tracklrlg, or wind IB. Approprlate BHP, For coast—tib—bitted materlals, wastes, sp111s ar resldles slwll be implemented OM retalned on site to mbWw t,.pmt from the site to streets, d'0lnage Ill or adjoining property by wind or runoff NOTES EC4��)UL�TANTB I BUILDING DATA I. CONSTRUCTION PLANS 1 CAL6ULATION5 SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE C.B.G" 2013 EDITION, 6,E G, 200 EDITION C,M.G, 2013 EDITION, CPC 2015 EDITION, CA ENERGY 2008 EDITION N GALOREEN CODE 2013 EDITION 2. SEPARATE PERMIT IS REOVIRED FOR EACH BUILDING OR 5TRUCTURE; Eb_ FENCE WALL5, RETAINING WALLS INDOOR/ OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOLS 4 5PA5TBLD6, ORDINANCE) 3- MUST OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM 61H-T S ENGINEERING DEPT PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. 4. ENGINEERING DEFT, APPROVAL OF OFF-51TE ACCESS AND WATER QUALITY BMPP IF APPLICABLE PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. 5. PER SECTION 30111 CAL&REEN AND CIVIL CODE 1101,3(c), ALL NON -COMPLIANT PLUMBING FIXTURES WITHIN TH15 RE51DENCE SHALL BE REPLACED WITH WATER{ON5ERVING PLUMBING FIXTURES, BUILDING FINALED ON OR AFTER 01/01/14 ARE EXEMPT FROM M15 REOUIREMENT, DEFERRED WWITTaL5 A FIRE SPRINKLERS 9 ROOF TRU55 DE516K CALCULATION5 I SHOP DRAWINGS NOTE: THE ENGINEER OF RECORD SHALL REVIEW THE DEFERRED 5UBMITTAL5, VERIFY THEIR CONFORMANCE WITH THE BUILDING DE51GN AND CERTIFY PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR PLAN REVIEW LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT INSTANT LANDSCAPES - - ratordwa 2a HR NTA ONIVE (i4 1 B. GA a2691 GI•JIL EN6INCCRIN6 ROBIN B. NAMBaS sIA A590C.., INC. RaBQ6 F TH IN9 M -a5 1 11A cA 2 6 z, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ROBCRTyy�� si 41ZL ARMANI, INC. 1 A 9f102 CNlR6Y CM6dNEER ABeO B4Br6Y �r ianb � ao A azsro [�_ COPE OF WORK NEW 6 UNITS OF TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELI-NG 0.46a 5OFTJ UNIT A EMU: :.Fiw RASE AREA 1 b]Mi . fah' yTPF u F­ a aF Y•':TM-5 . 1 ROES f ;?e[6MAh ATp.TLTPfNR UNIT BINA T. LIJIN�.+, EA GARAGE -EA 22655aF 42T wFT. sap - ^.ay e aM'i_YYT S LOFT N e iN' Mpd ;yp ya464. 2 IN 6ArzA6E AND 2 ON -SITE 4L!J �2A - .NEAP 2219 6ED 1 �P HATHROOMS cx. ARCINv 5PACES OFT 2hWk.�-':LW ttlIMMf1c UNIT BI-6 N ARA P4EA -IT 421 SOFT OF EEDROOMS • IN• ItAnpaPl C S r LOFT 4 • :fn'�aRCINf RFhrA - . el,:hAN,:,aE +ra• T OIMYTE UN.-1 J4P� "PREA 22; 9 54.FT, OF L-ATHROOMs OF r ARKINS SPACES 50 FT 42 LOFT 2IN GARAGE AND 2 O 11M UIAT ' LIVING hNEA RASE PREA nF 114 —IT 421-11 4Botlls NM 5 6OVERNIN6 AUTHORITY GIN OF COSTA ME5A, GA GOVERNING CODE 2013 CBC, 2013 G.R C 2013 G E G 2015 C.MC, 2015 CRC. 2013 C, ENERGY CODE 2019 CALOREEN AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS BY THE CITY OF C05TA MESA OCCUPANCY CROUP R3N CONSTRUCTION TYPE VB APN No 1114-O92-43 TRACT / LOT 300 / IOB CITY OF G05TA MESA / STATE OF CALIFORNIA ADOPTED AMENDMENT5 LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION IM AREA 23 SOFT. &IILDING LovERA6E (46 R) = IOb6B SOFT, oR N SPACE AREA 1IdAI�IwlileiT. D vEWAY a PEN PAFF f3O %I = 9l6 50F NOTE: &IILDING FOOTPRINT < AREA UNDER THE NOOF EAVES A SOLID Roofs ARE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE WILDING LOVENA6E VICINITY MAP i /�J�h�AVl I � Doug DeCinces tract 300, .Got 108 Costa Mesa, CA L� INDEX OF SHEETS 1 GOVER SHwr -- 2 917E PLAN B UNIT A (FLOOR PLANS AND ROOF PLAN) 4 UNIT A (ELEVATIONS) S UNITS 51-A 0 01-5 (FLOOR PLANS AND ROOM PLAN) 6 UNIT Ill (ELEVATONB) _ 1 UNIT B1-B (ELEVATIONS) S UNIT B3 (FLOOR PLANS AND ROOF PLAN) q UNIT 52 (ELEVATIONS) 10 UNIT C (FLOOR PLANS) 11 UNIT G (ROOF PLAN) 12 UNIT C (ELEVATIONS) 1 TENTATIVE TRACT AND PRELIMINARY 6Iii PLAN T-1 TITLE SHEET L-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN (ORANGE) _ L-2 LANDSCAPE PLAN (NORM L-9 LANDSCAPE PLAN(MIDDLE) FRIG TRA6E111IT ! ASSOCIATES I Rf"A7C7rAL CTb$N 9S711AVWE (ENTER UAIVE IFVINF, (ALFOAINA 9761E TEL 9496612244 FAX: 949 B617i3] uuv ehdeslgn ion POLO DECINGE5 bb _` GAOPVTAiw-aaa-4. 1 Attachment 5- Project Plans/Elevations/Perspectives 41f� O!--vyaela REVISIONS �vL NG rp'r nr. • rr • cr LILY[ P A,.@AI. rt _ A MLA a1zCW,mncm 0 SNtI wxAkc nAtbit! :V1,Aa131R3M1,AMlifAD IND m sroar wroau frn m sram' wNNAU T� a /e._ •b / 11 0 I __....__� r f� ■Ilr� L � � s, e 1 lI `� � � �1' � k .�, Bill ■liliT% I � � r 1 �NAi �yf SITE AREA CALCULATIONS 11GEND OPEN SPADE f33m 0) = 153Em SOFr, <� �� �, oRIVEwnr AND OPEN PARclrri f3om �) = b�Tsm SaEr r ---- WILDI,G GOVErsAGE rev oo mA=Iovee SOFT. ;nur j n- �I1�Jii�ll� LOT 4 PLAN B1—B all 1 SITE NOTES ARAre 7 T Iz — ED E—INNCN EV 1— wrwoa SVIIMnIW' POOLSi SAS I6Lcri.. OROIN .E ]. TEmo Y INGREYrEGREzs AT —PILING MArERI 5,5, wrxlN ggLIG IDN N_ aE v,Ar xEdnREb AN ENLRDAGIaENT A-11 CE NDSE AT T NMBER VISIBLE 1 LEGIElE FPq. IANV— sN,LL EE aF Nax aF�N— x LN111 RD6 " AG �I B��NIw :N AND FYY T— AT — —A'— M5r EE EDARD FCNMEDID REnDVEO FpvaM TER AND SLT SITE,NAA— Ga1CRETE —T BE DIzrLL W oN 5:5 � D R�reNs AND/OR GAG a ED'" cawANr APPRwAL Iz REmIRED FOR Fa:ree LOGATON oR 51 PEOINGFIREFD—AGGEEAro E "EN— .NN A a Ba:1ars A EA CALLY LPERArfnl r0 ALLON AccEzs io rxE s�crRI n� — cFc — I I II —INNATE. ATNI-- —A rWfJICALL- INE boa wGN AND Icaxsn nan r DT arse mu W s o-1 iN NEI— �EG aN �a.;Er -T BE Al ALL THE ^�I �■IL W INFAN' 7%NltlW"N` 1 FRIG MASER" d ASSOGIATFS 9571 IRVINE CENTER PANE AWK,, (ALIFOANIA 91610 IF L 9498611144 FA% 9498611t11 wvera7eslgn [am DOUG DEGIN6E5 I LOT 6 E PLAN GI 1 V■ sad �,� - !♦ �� E-10-i9 NEVISgNS 0 PL - er / IT OWNER u-5,,GA Es. FENCE aPI— —EDE WILDING x o E 171 EXCEED G 4• — E.IsiING xAroRAL GrsAOE DOUG DEGINGES ENALL W ND rrsE IG DR E-AVNT ONS 5 FE£i are IMO w"ILN A PERSON IS rsEPNREO TO D —E —. ViNE G 26 3FARM5 rtD N DEP,N OBTUN A iEC CTiARY PE -IT FROM STATE aF cALI-11 DIVISION A,N FRIDR r0 iNE ISJIANGE Gf A WILDI W oR (94P) 4Ir_42— ETM GRAOING F JOB ADDRESS 13 G�ERAL GaN�AGTaR 5„A,> EGIEWLE A PREVRAaE xEET�G tt INSPEGLOR AR4xIrEGr, R ATGNE AIT EHSINEFy DING cONmAGiOrs Ar nE zlre PrsNM r0 rNE G05rA MESA A a - ziMr GEI GRADING LEGAL DESCRIPTION SITE FOOTAGE NOTES a Iwl�n+o-w strs•.a Grsoss Lor AREA ralrNwr- DESCRIPTION OF WORK FOOTAGE NOTES STYLDXL�rE vws +AA1M1 6r n F Vx PROJECT DATA e�taa.ls+lp Vr, ArW- —Mw.n xae wrb atYtrelWC{a ew zIre AREA IIM. fE1Vpti• AYt r51 ]!NyM1 15 rSPACK EACH UNIT �r - M )CrOSY.,WT 41 a% H^6 ! xGARAGE uro z-11TE, STALE re•• - `� AREA rBBaD �1 ze EaFT,. tFWI D N o ER GE sNFEr _ � r.�..PR.K. ... xatuuE W:wnl,ia„ii PlA A*IFE UNIT A ROOF PLAN UNIT A SEGONO FLOOR PLAN LNING - (149D Barr) —/ — UNIT A FIRST FLOOR PLAN LIVING - (11TI SOrT) GAR AGE - (441 swrr) ERIG TRA®ERT $ ASSOCIATES 9511 IRVI E (ENTER DRIVE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 926I8 RE1 94911611144 FAX 9498612133 DOUG DEGINGES RARE APPROVED STYLE 04Mf x aw W •••-w.eee- uut •, r�r NEVI M4. kV9!N+s moo or ku n•a REAR ELEVATION (UNIT A) Slu�1+ Y I { •Y—MTIIffl14 >:Nwe xwrrnw z 75 i . � � sl Bourn um I � BPnBa �'vlNGs 4 ., `•,.. SIolN65 wo LEFT ELEVATION (UNIT A) ME% zzz 0i 0 . fi- RIGHT ELEVATION (UNIT A) K•ppyy µp pvrngp¢y4s'y� li eoPw Plm BnlrEx sivilaos FRONT ELEVATION (UNIT A) 511 TRABERT 4 ASSOCIATES I U 95?! INVWE (IN ER DRIVE IRVINE. CALGDDMA 9E610 TEL 9443612244 FAX 949 0617E33 .vvelaEmg,— DOU6 DEGINGE5 N Z 0 d� Jz w DATE ~dD STYLE mr,.aD+ n No U SCALE O SHEET NISI M]E M/4Mr4 roJO JS w.[IA] UNIT B1-A ROOF PLAN UNIT B1-B ROOF PLAN UNIT B1-A SECOND FLOOR PLAN ADDENDUM UNIT B1-B SECOND FLOOR PLAN LIVING - (1299 SdFT) UNIT B1-A FIRST FLOOR PLAN UNIT B1-B FIRST FLOOR PLAN rl^l.YS - (l 5a.7) 6ARA69 - (429 90") TRIG TRABMT 4 A890GIAM 9521IAVN: (ENDED DRIVE MINE CALIFORNIA 9161E TEL 949861 Z244 FAN: 949 061723) _0 d,,ig, con DOI3G OEGINGE5 3rn orznxr nvee�, rn r�sn, cn azen PPN, IIG-aizi3 DATE oA 1— ktrim DDAWNNY: n 5NL7, 5 � 9N516L1f tVDNE45 lmt9f MRiM LEFT ELEVATION (PLAN 51-A) .� _ v - - - _ - - - - . r - - - - -ELI 1-10 1�4 EEO 4 RIGHT ELEVATION (PLAN 51-A) -61s- ^ :F.M..I.M. L-'ii� =Fi Aci;�=}`s'af_ irr _j=1� :aie'Sis�tiacr»eri3izicdce_f¢ = ac�::¢:s REAR ELEVATION (PLAN 61-A) FRONT ELEVATION (PLAN 51-A) FINISH FLOOR LEVEL PLAN B1-A FIRST FLOOR (F.F. 19.Il) 5EGONO FLOOR (F.F. 90.42) ERIC TRABERT < ASOCCIATES %711RVYE(ENTER OBNE IRVINE, EATFORNA 99610 FAR1941 R619i44 94MAIM] v hda,p. . DOUG DEOIN6E5 ��w rnuxae wvEr�.e, cosrw resn cw a�v�r nvu� iwoas-a� DATF otos�as APPROVED REVISIONS 9ddb o7•Ili.f:nueu N SHEET `+~_ LEFT ELEVATION (UNIT 151) RIGHT ELEVATION (UNIT 81-S) z— zl' MO L+MH SL`rOS FRONT ELEVATION (UNIT 81-8) sra+our, s6M,rrac� 4 ERIG TRhBERT 00 A-86=1ATI3 n.aar�se►` CI . 9511IRVINE EERIER DRIVE IRVINE EALBORNIA9i616 TEL 9496611244 FAX1949 MUM _'I'k prun DOUG DEGINGE5 DATE APPROVED REVI- SIVLE 0ol$, 9 JOB NO ��,;ft 9lAlt -..— SHEET PLBI DALE 611ROIS MIJI",fN+4.1 UNIT 52 ROOF PLAN UNIT B2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN WIN& - (1499 9QrT) W9— UNIT 52 FIRST FLOOR PLAN WING - (43190rr) GAMS - (42f 90") CRIG TRA6NCT ! ASSOCIATES I 95711NVNE EENFOR DRIVE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 9761d LEL 9498617244 FAA: 949 N617731 Dol1G OEGINGE5 DATE was sr1nE _ All ND as.aeJ�+'•ccs.cri F 0 tqf rcr SHEEP PLOI DATE U4f7g15: LR11:H_Aµ"" vm 1 Affr 1 1 y 1 1 I _ °"_'J �1yI E I — REAR ELEVATION (PLAN 52) RIGHT ELEVATION (PLAN 52) FRONT ELEVATION (PLAN 52) FINISH FLOOR LEVEL PLAN B2-A FIRST FLOOR (F.F. 15.17) SEOONO FLOOR (F F 90.02) PLAN B2-B FIRST FLOOR (F,F. 18.31) SEOONO FLOOR (F F. 89b2) ERIC TRABERT 4 ASSOCIATES 9521IRVN (ENTER DRIVE IRVINE MIFORMA 92610 TEL 9490612244 FAX 949,861223) wv 0469n tan DOL16 OEOINOES �xa oannt>E AVE�ae, A HESA, LA aNr21 AFNi 119-v11-H DATE a1n51015 APPROVER `Tat AAW'IY Jr SU 1/4•• 1`-O' me SHEET LL PLOT DATE 6110120154:01:41 PM, ETA-3 jo—IY' - ------ =__- _= ----- ------ � I TH3Ll , , 1 I _ a - I •`. -- --------T.P 1 to J ---- MASTER i1 MASTER BE'fRf>Owm --------------------- + � Ac1vlrr I ° _-- - - �', 1y I u �• I mL4- UNIT G SEWND FLOOR PLAN LMMS - (10o1 sarr) UNIT c FIRST FLOOR PLAN LWIN6 - (1189 so") &ARASK - (485 80") GRID TRAIMOLT i A590UATIS I«E,I,.;. E7C3LiM 9521 IRVIE (ENTER DRIVE IRVINE, (AL60RNA 92610 TEL 14986I2244 FA%:949 B611t33 vw eladesign can DOM, DEGINGES BATE oLas�ois APPROVED. for" U rtl JOB NO. k}1:_I�'-LI�Ca(WC5 5REET 10 - PLOTOATE a1/.d15 :d3tld A4 ieA-) UNIT G ROOF PLAN 901 � Bloc TRA®ERT A ASS=IATES 95211RVWE CENTER DRIVE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 926I8 TEL 9498611141 FAX 94906IM3 uvx eladesign con DOUG OEGINGE5 RATE A»dViG H17YA1i fitt! me n � a,,oecr� vuE w�.an• 5H[FT 11 LOT RAZE (F�� ltNlS 111 &'M HA. OF010 REAM M-EVATION (UNIT C,) LEFT ELEVATION (UNIT W c RIGHT ELEVATION (1lNrr G) FRONT ELEVATION (UNIT W CRIG TRAENIT 0 A550GIATM 9521IRVINE CENTER DRIVE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618 TEL 949 6612244 FAX V498612213 —Ol Ml9n con DOU& UEONCE5 um o r m I SCALE 1/4 - I -o• 'Al 12 PLO IBETE 6'm'S PRL]7 Alk UA �I TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17870 -_ •� A PORTION OF LOT M Or TRAC F NO'Ok IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE ` STATE OF CALrIflW Me AS gID'A RUOR MAP RECORDED IN BOOK AL PAGES A AND 12 OF .CALIFIM41. A?MAPS. RON A M OF ORANGE COUNTY, 14, PAGES 11 DATE OF PREPARATION: ryeoy 19, 2015 I'AACEL 6 3 3LALE-1'YIO' F pFAAaVFh Jo' PA'lCEl, I y��, lin+l�ar,or 1•Y �x n 11 I esr R!•r ww� nEPI . f11tiZ31]P7Y $ � Zi ���`�•J ,a / / II 3 I jM T 30/21 ,I , , f / —1 F2 alLFsSAUTt}1Hs sEufyj Y - d' t A✓f"+� L'udli� � +rl �I x smwxpa A jl `\ d/�'t'elE� a BI Jsl �.,. xM1ii.�5.'+A a t .ram --;d'� -�+ wu—•—w '�' " d E E94• t A� LCfLttcJ "� $ �' +,tM1" PdSR'tt'Sd1V 3mm, sI 11 a381, - al6T` µIll' -. ISET G 7n ' i tag Elf - 5 I" T6� 3y t'�' ,w+ A.I. ar I.. J in. R ✓ � z A 14 yg PLv .u. 1 # I 5 i N0. 30C 5 x s s r J /ffr w 5 ! •,v X 5 N� ft'hl Jitf A� warsmxrwur Vii 1 L� .1� P � _ � � — ..--- — — — T•\ — � _ � �f/ �g f •1 RMi a+r Y 1R.� `` rR9F FttF,nmu �t� — — I S� a —j I — — — f �{AID f! 0.1.31 yy I it za w aft \9 N l'.I J ` 9j 0 y o> Pt,1.S e` 1 I It r e< R Fi+Si iwa ffi PtY+9 5� I R i 7 I � � �fw Y! —'— - -B R p,, B A � �,\\.\♦ aaer sewtiP 1 Y i+ I Z �((* .. I,.OT 3 9tf°� LOT 4 LOT 5, 8i l L a ! LOT ! +LOT 2 I 3fitl3 SF t> 3603 SF t4 a N , �. 4744 SP T�bea- Q35F IJ.Al6 a Y!a 7t r o � � � � ',r I9 !B 3T FF i Ir i _ y,1,� ]BSTA n]PAD ,�I p,(°jKygiL TRId FF iPntF 1,\ TT9 PAD i ] I I hw T9 BT FF � T8]PAO L xbIPA6 Ll /11 I �L+ ]g2PAD 4\• lifnw0 - y, ?5 17.tl! LVI 1 �• �•ip � 1, Y",1` . FPL i�9fI �Uf ��� �,. lir it � � ?3 � � ���-.°L''F3lL� ��a�l/ • �le� � �° �a 'f�Q> �"' � tar.f•;�y$ � �''` ry?�� ` ei y i i -� I � �— '�. ad ` . ��� .. ! � n ''. � i ux1•rlli 1��i��1L�.1 +� � � +1� ' x �..f+�. +AEw—"_ A4.. `�. ua - - - 6l ez .-�. .. _� a n1'La'. ►Bt �< ,��.. ....� .. �ASaT' - • A'BaT - -UOT' ' —3 -_ -- "w, P4]o'1rs v�dXt04 -- a\N l— �o1'r J gwr4 anus i SanCr3o�anair 1J �.It' p�eey�,e � I f I � i !� LDS\• \\ I L4r�����.� �l�l 3')/_6 G 30, KAU wr wn+ar 1 ti LOT IS LEGEND: NOTES: p l 1 0.62�3 GROSS Gjp l 3 1 EX EXISTINGC CONCRETE 0532 ACRESNET LAND NOT SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OR OVERFLOW. MM RNV FH FIREHYDRANT NO LAND OR PARKS TO BE DEDICATED egpJUT SITE S FS FINISHED SURFACE y77— STLT STREETLIGHT PROPOSED LAND USE: 's s nF •• t0' SQUARE FEET TC S YIIAFiwa CENTERLINE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 39-313-0 jll iyy CURB BGUTTER 1 �t, T't,aCJ' \ ,,` Y �• j — - SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: NI l yI1 S� — DRAINAGE FRONT 20' 4NTME171 — PROPERTY LINE REAR 10' TYPICAL SECTION: ORANGE AVENUE _6� sET6ta 1 *mod NOT TO SCARE TRAC} gj;dyARY E��L DE$LRIFTI: 1 N(t 3001E THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF All RECORDS OF.ASNGECMe Ole.MNFORNIAECORDEDIN BOOK 14,PAGES 1l AND 12 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS A'� PL — R.T— WATER MAIN pECOp050F ORANGE CWNTY, LALIFORNIA. T'23- TYy !� WATER METER BASIS OF EARINGS: 9 F,P'�` r -•- yI T€ THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE REARING ETWEEN TWO FOUND MONUMENTS ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF ORANGE AVENUE BEING NORTH 39° 49' 00"EAST, PER TRACT NO. 3033, M.M. B9/2fi, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY NlILSON = ~ w� -.a.Dn WALL OWNER/SUBDIVIDER: ' CW T.6AACC z L6 12 STRA W ERRV FAM ROAD •y + IRV NE, CA 92612 �I I B L - _ _ - * •� 1 zox MAX'', L IIwsLER ll.aart „' SITE ADDRESS: p J _--F-.� 2366 ORANGE AVENUE SITE PL EMLST'IgT' wASL - 6" CURB �•4':CURB d GUTTER COSTA MESA, [A 92fi26 W ILSON STREET s"��sITE 1 1 AVA&ORPCL FLOOD ZONE: PAVEMENT ZONE X, OUTSIDE THE 500 YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARIES I 1 TYPICAL SECTION: DRIVEWAY VICINITY MAP I NOTE: L sua ESTIMATED GRADING QUANTITIES: e AA�1 NOT TO SCALE ffx133T. 66A9€ MINIMUM VERTICAL FINISHED FLOOR �FAtluTSOTY BETWEEN RAW CUT: ZSSr? II -_ r� SHALL EB MINIMUM�� ED 6RAOE(SOIL) R%PORT: 0CY i IMPORT: 0 CY _ v! I NRB dGUTTER SECTION A II -I-T T NOT TO SCALE '` _ 1 v_nev_namaT SHEET EXIST, ET WALL iA sPER FI6ELlT'/FurTor,Lu. rTILE CC.4PAMrR1RT aaREREu avl�a > »,�P1, s �a'e ',fir , VE I/2T MR00.9/416 tum EA%N,FMP Tp1Fi [$F1TV 9p WNddE W4AMAP "•�F`�RFC-IWP631 Ptrt U.. A13/119. ITEM I- EA5EMENT TO S.C.E. FOR POLES, ETC. REC. 6/21/56 PER OR. 3559/496. ITEM B- EA5EMENT TO CITY OF C05TA MESA FOR STREET A FQ WAY PURPOSES REC. 2/4/fiO ER OR,. 5006/403. ITEM 9- EASEMENT TO CITY OF C05TA MESA FOR STREET d HIGHWAY PURPOSES REC. 4/2U60 PER OR 5206/409- I f -E - I/� - -.. SECTION B / ..i 1 q PATE DESCRIPTION NOT TO SCALE f� —• �yl a RDBIN B. HAA4Ek5 & ASSOC, INC. ry •p. �tNIL ENCrINEERS {A/x.T+ P +NTH STREET, W111 m9 py °',!°. +-! A:5TA NCSL GAC'F(PII>A 726$T 4 a'.9 SA8-t;72. 4 yT " �i 2/147 DATE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17870 QL PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 2966 ORANGE AVENUE COSTA MESA, CA 92626 OF! PLANT LIST ,�.. r---------- Laurus noaiia xC•fdo, x s,v Laads90 nMaMu oamePlal�. xa•e.x x nm.n.aP,v.ama. aa• rv,x a maM. �om.ae eP.laa..laox Nma.. sb.. Quntlry maaocaMa'Inrvraoabea.ly Ip,l capp a.Ped Na.l wum I nn,w,a.wsm�� +e,l z90 IMun Navtlwrn 9)1ryM =�. auntlry I Ppapa. PMecox 59a1 19 UN of Pe Nile M, MaMabra 59,1 21 Leme WM Ire P�lbaporum aa.xldNm wmpadum Seal bB I as Hao GrouMsovw 9k. OurMN lMdLow FNpa replene CYln'. GaM' J'Flak M I I1 i Carpef Bu9b nym.Pak m,rpai.ue an Nm IJ — — — — — — — L �• — I BaEY Tear ku do pa Flad 5• 9�. QuntlN Vbw s9. 6 I Sheet ® T-1 Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" �. Title Sheet ` Of J fob N- 0000 PLANT LIST d �t 'Y,�.� p�ncenlsv J., a amour iTW a za eox a -. NMoes size oue"nry t] comoa�, Na.l vwm wa b..wv ,9e1 eoo y� 9bruba Lry 91xe Qu.ntlN Svel 77 9�r of lbe Nilenwae LGerge iN lns G �' mporvm aziloLum wmpeclum nxea Kem ere SBeI fig 91ee Ouenll Mayew Poea mn,e .ours clam ' � rpel Bugles DYmo R w a"nbs as DArn ,4 e Y I.irdu Baby T�mrs nn F— 5 Vln.e sya Duenb s, 6 El, zr�/an hr.. u. p HARDSCAPE LEGEND i 1. Smooth Sand Finish Davis'Miami Buff Concrete f L Smooth Sand Finish Davis 'Miami Buff Concrete Steppers N 531 Drive i�Aizsion Vle)o, CA 92691 (949) 795 4881 co L— O l� Q U U C: co �``� 0 G (3 U) 0 U Date 03.14.2015 Revisions 06.06.2015 at9--, ® 4 elDrawn By - ® Sheet L-1 scar. 11a• , r o• Landscape Plan - Orange 2 Of 4 Job W 0000 PLANT LIST Tr_a alze OuanKN za Box I 2[za aox t Plalenuz «ntlenla6z -Box N.,Ke[srl/ Ketl9as el[a Quen9ry Cam mcmcema ootl baaulY 19 Sli pecl Nelel Plum 9Kmbs She cne"tIry j�_ ApepenNue O�ee�[ 59e1 � 9�r �iN of me wl. Lel9e ie lne 59a1 39 t7 pwea Kem szilolmm mmp lum 5ge1 b Orounacorx 91ze Ouentll Mtllow ryu9a rephna CeINn% Gienl' GFleh JB c.rpel a Wma N mlee om Flak I oYmg�n. sahml�e[w:a�l om FIa to BebY teem Vlnes 91[a Ou°^tl KeI 9 5 � � '' --�-fir --_�_.•.__ i, .. � ' t' HARDSCAPE LEGEND , II L Smooth Sand Finish Davis'Miami Buff Concrete 1 2. Smooth Sand Finish Davis'Miami Buff Concrete Steppers 24111 Chd,s Ia Drive f1 ik- Y^ry•l. CA 9269, 11441 M9 48B7 O l� U U (V U) n 5W arr-^^r vJ 0 U Date 03.14.2015 Revisions U0. 7m,­1fi If �l. 4'10'�I LJ Drawn By ® V.1 I lY- Sheet L;-2 Sul. Landscape Plan -Norse 3 of 4 Job Nn 0000 PLANT LIST rrw. w:. .• I w.�� :y i a.v r.�rel�lsro xa-so. z m. doxwwe s..m� I s. 2zs © CwnpeH Nele Plum 911rvM 91e. QuentlN 9 21 U �.I1N. Nden.wx Di— eremmore a z2 ®Liu.nlrvml.w.. I.v.num Sfla. 4 Je0.n-e PmM v (] nh.' .IInd- Ind- 2aD Nwn Or.undwvx 91e. au.nmv M_Elo_w_ c.um. al.m aron 2s sw HARDSCAPE LEGEND 1 Smooth Sand Finish Davis'Mlaml Buff' Concrete 2 Smooth Sand Finish Davis 'Miami Buff Concrete Steppers ! t 21111 Chnsanta Dnve 'Am-nx V.,1v C'� 92691 ,' 71 "15 +B41 Datc 02.17.2015 Revisions 06.06.2015 Sheet L-3 J Of J Job N° 0000 V L 0 Al A r% T! rgrrrrrrre Crrrrrurrc rrrrrrrome Maw 92JATIOM NN! W PROW kLNAT9 funk W-el px4nff tlLlM 90. "t 2F 90 r7 •.H9rna9 • mod Visit G r7 r I rrrr s E�r_rreFrrr r9go9gr lldYATIOk bolt e1.0 Iwar+r eLdVAnpl lank e1,.3 r* sr.nro9. .F a AI RNATIC. • ORA.M (unk.n3 amr- TRi6tItT < A660GIATL6 I a IIII�IYW. �lU�1t 9631 RM Q313FF DRK RM LYFOMO 9363 FFi 969F617146 FAXA9419233 vwtlN qu. DOUG 051-ME5 aee oPN�6E nwg.4. �n rr�. cn vaar woas3 all — AWWO Mam S391f. IMP: �9 ,ago 'ao-Ar Vr• . r-W r flay PUT OA3E PLANNING COMMISSION iSUP��EMEN_TAL MEMO MEETING DATE: JUNE 22, 2015 ITEM NUMBER SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT-17870 FOR A 6-UNIT, DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE DATE: JUNE 18, 2015 'al 01 FROM: RYAN LOOMIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RYAN LOOMIS (714)754-5608 ryan.loomis@costamesaca.gov The objectives of this memo are to: • Provide Exhibit 131 from Public Services Department • Provide an update of public comments from correspondence received to date. • Provide copies of all public comments. Exhibit B1 Exhibit 131 is a supplemental exhibit to Exhibit B, showcasing Public Service Department conditions of approval for Tract No. 17870. Exhibit B1 was not included in the original staff report, due to Planning receiving comments and letter from Public Service Department after sending out the staff report. Public Record and Response Letters: Four public correspondences have been received to date as a result of the 10-day public notice for PA-15-10. The four public correspondences have concerns regarding the 6- unit project and request revisions to the project. A response letter from each resident is attached. Attachments: Exhibit 61 Public Record and Correspondence received to date Color Renderings of Proposed Project Distribution: Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO Assistant Development Services Director Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst File (2) Owner: Kings Road Partners LLC 12 Strawberry Farms Rd Irvine, CA 92612 Authorized Agent: Eric Trabert 9251 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 �q � Crff OF COSTA MESA P O BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING DIVISION June 16, 2015 EXHIBI T 81 Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: Tract No. 17870 LOCATION: 2366 Orange Avenue Dear Commissioners. Tentative Tract Map No. 17870 as furnished by the Planning Division for review by the Public Services Department consists of subdividing parcel into six detached residential units. Tentative Tract Map No. 17870 meets with the approval of the Public Services Department, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Tract shall be developed in full compliance with the State Map Act and the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (C.C,M.M.C.), 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. 2. The Subdivider shall conduct soil investigations and provide the results to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering and Building Divisions pursuant to Ordinance 97-11. 3. Two copies of the Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for checking. Map check fee shall be paid per C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-231. 4. A current copy of the title search shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. 5. Vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Orange Avenue and Norse Avenue shall be released and relinquished to the City of Costa Mesa except at approved access locations. 6. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk. 7. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. 8 Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan, including four (4) feet clear around oructions in the sidewalk. PHONE: (714) 754-5335 FAX: ( 4) I54 5026 TDD: (714) 754-5244 www.costamesaca.gov Planning Commission 2015 9. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, Street Improvement Plans that show Sewer and Water Improvements, prepared by a Civil Engineer. 10. The Subdivider shall submit a cash deposit of $730 for street sweeping at time of issuance of a Construction Access permit. Full amount of deposit shall be maintained on a monthly basis prior to and during construction until completion of project. 11. Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of Final Tract Map 12. The Subdivider's engineers shall furnish the Engineering Division a storm runoff study 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 unless a drainage easement is obtained from the adjacent property owner(s), 13. Ownership and maintenance of the private on -site drainage facilities and parkway culverts and other common areas shall be transferred by the owner to the Homeowner Association to be formed pursuant to C.C.M. M.C. Section 13-41 (e) and said association shall indemnify and hold harmless the City for any liability arising out of or in any way associated with the connection of the private drainage system with the City's drainage system and shall execute and deliver to the City the standard (indemnity) Hold Harmless Agreement required for such conditions prior to issuance of permits. 14. Sewer improvements shall meet the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; call (949) 631-1731 for information. 15. Water system improvements shall meet the approval of Mesa Consolidated Water District; call (949) 631-1200 for information. 16. Dedicate easements as needed for public utilities. 17. Prior to recordation of a 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. 18. Prior to recordation of a 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. 19. Survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and replaced after construction, pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Profession Code. 20. The elevations shown on all plans shall be on Orange County benchmark datum. 21. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee monumentation. Deposit amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 22. Prior to occupancy on the Tract, the surveyor/engineer shall submit to the City Engineer a Digital Graphic File, reproducible mylar of the recorded Tract Map, and approved off -site plan and nine copies of the recorded Tract Map. —�1 Planning Commission 2015 23. Dedicate a 3-foot public sidewalk easement behind existing right-of-way line on Norse Avenue. I4ibaaLzeli. qO a R City Engineer (Engr. 2015/Planning Commission Tract 17870) City of Costa Mesa PUBLIC RECORD Date: 6/19/2015 Name: Doug Gorrie, Amanda Frazier, Robert Anderson, Alexas Reddin Address: 214 thru 226 E. Wilson Street Received by: Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner COMMENTS: (Use Back or Attach Additional Sheets as Necessary) I 1. Letter received 6/19/15 from Doug Gorrie (222 E. Wilson Street) with concerns over the PA-15- 10. Doug Gorrie also came to public counter on 6/16/15 to address concerns (letter enclosed). 2. Letter received from Amanda Frazier (218 E. Wilson Street) on 6/17/15 regarding concerns with PA-15-10 (letter enclosed). 3. Email received 6/18/15 from Robert Anderson (214 E. Wilson St.) with concerns over PA-15-10 (email enclosed). 4. Letter received 6/18/15 from Alexa Reddin (226 E. Wilson Street) regarding concerns over PA- 15-10 (letter enclosed). 6-19-15 To: City of Costa Mesa Planning Department Attn: Ryan Loomis Re: Application No. PA-15-10 & TT-17870 Site Address: 2366 Orange Avenue From: Doug Gorrie, Architect Residing at: 222 E. Wilson Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 With regard to the Design Review items a and b as referenced in the Official Public Notice, 1, Douglas Gorrie and my wife, Tuyet Mac fervently oppose approval of the requested Administrative adjustment and Minor modification. As suggested by Ryan Loomis of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Department, I have compiled a brief list of my concerns regarding the proposed project, which are as follows: 1. The proposed 6-unit project, as designed, will cause permanent and incurable economic and functional harm to my property and to the other properties abutting this project. The units are 2-story in height and located with a minimal 5 foot setback from our rear property line. As designed, the units would have full and unobstructed visual access to our property. The project is in conflict with the Costa Mesa Residential Design Guidelines 1. Purpose, CD-7A.1 "Ensure that new and remodeled structures are designed in architectural styles which reflect the City's diversity, yet are compatible in scale and character with existing buildings and natural surroundings within residential neighborhoods." The project as designed is not in scale with the adjacent properties and essentially looms over our entire property. The project is in conflict with the Costa Mesa Residential Design Guidelines 1. Purpose, CD-7A.1 2. "Preserve the character and scale of Costa Mesa's established residential neighborhoods, where residential development is proposed, require as a condition of approval that is consistent with the prevailing character of existing development in the immediate vicinity, and that it does not have a substantial adverse impact on the adjacent areas." The project as designed will in fact have a substantial adverse impact on our home value, enjoyment, and the quality of our lives. 4. The project is in conflict with the Costa Mesa Residential Design Guidelines 3. Second -Story Designs, 1. "Two story structures shall be designed with articulation and off -sets on all elevations to avoid a boxy appearance from the street and neighboring views." The project as designed utilizes a 2-story, unarticulated vertical stucco wall, which directly violates the guidelines. 5. The project is in conflict with the Costa Mesa Residential Design Guidelines 4. Building Mass and Form Considerations, 4. "Consideration shall be given to the effect of proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties." It is self evident that the as designed project effectively destroys the privacy of all properties abutting the south property line, and thus the project is in direct violation of the guidelines. Additionally, the project will block morning light, and create a noisy environment, due to the 5 foot proximity to our home. 6. The project does not provide any provision for screening by means of landscaping. In fact the project as designed is incapable of accommodating landscape screening because inadequate setback dimension to safely plant landscape screening without potentially undermining the foundations of the proposed structures due to tree root growth. The burden of providing and maintaining this screening is placed entirely on us, the affected property owner. The landscape screening would also encroach into our yard space and result in diminished use, thus to our detriment. The tree roots wood very likely continue undermine the foundations of the proposed units, which creates liability for us, the affected property owners. We the affected property owners would also be liable for any damage caused by the trees to the adjacent houses. The project does not provide any provision for screening by means of landscaping. In fact the project as designed is incapable of accommodating landscape screening because inadequate setback dimension to safely plant landscape screening without potentially undermining the foundations of the proposed structures due to tree root growth. The burden of providing and maintaining this screening is placed entirely on us, the affected property owner. The landscape screening would also encroach into our yard space and result in diminished use, thus to our detriment. The tree roots would very likely continue growing and undermine the foundations of the proposed units, which creates liability for us, the affected property owners. We the affected property owners would also be liable for any damage to the adjacent houses caused by the trees. 8. The project is designed in a manner wherein one house fronts Orange Avenue and another house fronts Norse Street. The 4 interior houses are rotated 90 degrees, wherein the front elevations face the common drive aisle and the rear elevations face the south property line, which results in the 5-foot setback becoming an actual rear yard. The resulting condition is a virtual 20-foot vertical wall fronting the rear of our property creating an unbearable eyesore, The affect this project will have on the usability and enjoyment of our home will be profoundly detrimental, Our home, which we remodeled in 2009, is designed wherein the living room, dining room, kitchen, nook, family room AND master bedroom all open onto the back yard. Our home is designed to comply with the 10-foot rear yard setback requirement. Our home is designed with a continuous sliding glass doors and a full height window with a combined length of 35 feet. Virtually the entire east wall of our family room, kitchen, and nook area, totaling 24 feet, is sliding glass doors. Our redesigned master bedroom has a double French door that directly faces the proposed proj ect along our rear property line, We designed our home this way so that we could watch over our young children, and enjoy unobstructed outdoor views in the safety and privacy of our back yard. The residents of the proposed project will be able to view directly into virtually every common living area of our home including our master bedroom. The project will permanently and profoundly diminish the usability of our home. The protection of residents' privacy and access to light and air are why rear yard setback guidelines are established in the first place. 10. The Feasibility study performed by the project designer, Eric Trabert, does not mention or acknowledge the existence of our 4 properties that abut the project site, It is self evident that the affect this project will have on our health, safety and welfare was never considered or even contemplated by the designer or the city, as required by the Costa Mesa Residential Design Guidelines 4. Building Mass and Form Considerations, 4., which states, "Consideration shall be given to the effect of proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties." This fact alone confirms that the City will have fallen short in its duty to protect its residents if it approves this project, without requiring significant modifications to the proposed site design. 11. The planning department, by contemplating approval of the project, is violating the spirit of the City of Costa Mesa Development Guidelines in that the health, safety and welfare of all residents must be valued and protected. By the manner in which the project has been designed and conceived, the only party being protected is the owner of the proposed development. Virtually no consideration of our rights and needs have been addressed until this hearing. Consideration by the City of Costa Mesa to the adjacent property owners rights and needs must be made manifest in the proposed design itself. Otherwise, consideration will not have been made at all. The Residential Development Guidelines, is a document presumably drafted to protect all of the residents and property owners of Costa Mesa, whereby the built environment is the expressed physical embodiment of those principles and values. Solution to the Problem I have met Mr. Ryan Loomis and spoken with him at length regarding all of our concerns. I have prepared and alternate site plan, which locates the proposed 6 houses along the north property line of the proposed project. I will submit this site plan Monday morning as an exhibit. Our proposed solution recognizes the needs of the property owner of the proposed project to develop the property AND preserves the light, air, privacy, quiet, and quality of life for us, the residents whose properties abut this proposed project, Placing the proposed houses zoned R2- MD along the north property line makes sense, because the adjacent property is also zoned R2-MD. Additionally, by placing the proposed houses along the north property line, the value of our homes will be preserved, but most importantly, our quality of life will be preserved. Respectfully, Douglas F. Gorrie Architect LOOMIS, RYAN From: Tuyet Mac <lilratster@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:03 AM To: LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: Application No. PA-15-10 & TT-17870 Dear Mr. Loomis, Thank you for meeting with me yesterday and listening to my concerns I have contacted two other homeowners and they are very alarmed about the proposed project as well. I will follow up with another email that summarizes in more detail my concerns regarding how this proposed project will ruin the privacy in our backyards forever and likely damage the value of our property and our neighbors properties. In the mean time, can you please email me the pdf plans that we reviewed yesterday. Per your suggestion, I will need them to prepare an alternative site plan, wherein the proposed houses are oriented where the rear yards abut the north property line, which is adjacent to another medium density parcel. When we met, you said this appeared to be a reasonable alternative. This solution will protect the needs of all adversely affected homeowners, while allowing for responsible, fair and reasonable development that benefits everybody, not just the developer. Best regards, Doug Gorrie • dp� .-� J -i k lip .......... iIMMMkl im u r --QA— June 17, 2015 To: Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner RE: Application No. PA-15-10 & TT-17870 Mr. Loomis, My husband and I bought our home in January of 2002. We bought it with love and excitement and the hopes of raising our children in the home. Our home has always been where our heart is and although my husband was called by the United States Army for active duty service due to the results of 9/11, we have always known that we will return to continue raising our four children. I write this letter on behalf of my husband and myself as he is currently deployed in Kabul, Afghanistan, The current plans for Application No. PA-15-10 & TT-17870 are extremely disturbing to say the least. The set back from our back fence line is a few feet! The invasion of privacy, curtailment of sunlight and breezes is a travesty. I do not want to be sitting in my back yard next to my 20 year old hibiscus tree being stared at from an upper floor window mere feet away. Nor do I want my children subjected to peering eyes and the violation of their right to play in the privacy of our backyard. Application No. PA-15-10 & TT-17870 is an egregious travesty. It is shocking that a house could arise mere feet from our back fence line. The impact on our privacy and property value is a horrific. We are one of the few houses in the area that has a second floor. Our second floor on the back of the house includes our most favorite room, our sunroom. A beautiful room with windows almost floor to ceiling covering three walls. The room is filled with sunlight and ocean breezes and views of the Disney Land fireworks nightly. The thought of looking out one of those windows to see a neighbor a few feet away at eye level is shocking. Will I be forced to install drapes and have them closed 24/7? Will my privacy be curtailed to such an extent that I can't enjoy the home we have had for 13 years and plan to own another 20? Will we feel like we are living in a tenement and can throw a laundry line to the back neighbors or, in today's age, a zip line as we are mere feet away? The project is supposed to 'exhibit excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protect the integrity of neighboring development'. Application No. PA-15-10 & TT-17870 ignores the integrity of privacy, sunlight, breezes of the homes on Wilson Street. The application as it stands today does not protect the integrity of our homes, its value or our quality of life. Application No. PA-15-10 & TT-17870 states that 'second floor windows for Plan 132-A and Plan 131-13 will be offset to avoid visual impacts to the second story windows to neighboring properties' -- this sentence is talking about our property. Our second floor may be offset from the proposed construction but a portion of our second story will still have direct rear visibility into the master bedroom of one of the proposed units. As previously mentioned, our upstairs sunroom has windows on all three sides, not just straight to the rear. We will have full view of the bedrooms on the second floor of these proposed houses whether it is from the direct rear windows that span the wall or the windows that span each side of our room which inhibits privacy and aesthetics for all parties. -Clow The application states that 'as of June 10, application PA-15-10 has not received a communication from any property owner located within a 500-foot radius of the project site. Please note that we did not receive a notice in the mail until June 131". If we had been advised of this project earlier we would have certainly raised any concerns we had. It is interesting that we received the notice a mere 10 days before the hearing before the Planning Committee. My husband and I are supporters of Costa Mesa and I have volunteered my time and effort on city committees. We are supporters of change and progress and when I was a realtor in Costa Mesa I welcomed new families into the community in to their new homes. We are strong supporters of growth, prosperity, and change in our neighborhood. However, the plans as they stand for application No. PA-15-10 & TT-17870 do not reflect or acknowledge the rights of the current homeowners. We respectfully request a revision of the plans such that the driveway for application No. PA-15-10 & TT- 17870 shift to our back fence line. The plans for the house would basically flip such that the driveway would be on the other side of our fence instead of the bedrooms. The currently proposed back fence setback is certainly not adequate to address the concerns of longtime homeowners and supporters of Costa Mesa. A slight revision of the setback isn't the solution either. The best solution for all concerned is to come to an amenable solution for all parties. We suggest the housing plans be flipped and to place the driveway along our back fence line. We support development but there is a right way and a wrong way to move forward on development. We trust the Planning Committee will choose the right way when taking action on this project. We strongly urge the Costa Mesa Planning Committee to DENY application PA-15-10. The project as it stands today "does not comply with the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code or 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 comm unity....location of windows...." The development plan 'does not meet the broader goals of the General 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.' We appreciate your time. Respectfully, Amanda Frazier 218 E. Wilson Street —q 1— Addendum Pictures from our 2"d floor sun room showing impact of current proposed plans. This sun room is a large room with three walls of windows. Rear facing view. Lots of windows, breezes, sunlight, and privacy Rearand side facing view. 3 1 P a e —q— Rear facing view Rear facing view - qB- Rear facing view 5 1 P a g e LOOMIS, RYAN From: Robert Anderson <havingfunatthebeach@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:12 AM To: LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: Planning application Pa-15-10 and tentative tract map TT-17870 for a 6-unite, detached residential Development at 2366 Orange Avenue Dear Mr. Ryan Loomis, I am the owner of 214 E. Wilson St. Costa Mesa, which is the corner property adjacent to this proposed development. My strong recommendation regarding Items 1 and 2 of this proposed project is that the application be sent back to its planning stages for revaluation and modification. I generally object to Item 1, the Planning Application PA- 15-10. I object to Item 2, Tentative Tract Map TT-17870. Consisting of six Fee Simple Lots. I specifically object to the location of the lots within the subdivision. The property lines of the purposed subdivided lots and the two story PUD single family structures are within 5 feet of my property line. My Lot is zoned R1 and this project does not have significant setback between my property lines and the purposed development. If the purposed PUD structures were located on North East side of the lot at 2366 Orange Ave, Costa Mesa. Then I would have no objection to this development. I will be attending the meeting with my Contracted Architect, to further voice my concerns and objections to this project. Thank you, Robert Anderson 214 E. Wilson St. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (808) 747-3382 . C1Ss June 18, 2015 Cole Reddin & Alexa Reddin 226 E. Wilson Costa Mesa, CA 92627 TO: City of Costa Mesa Building Division 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. 92628-1200 (Second Floor) We are writing this letter to address concerns that we have with a potential housing development behind our home at 226 E. Wilson Costa Mesa, CA 92627. We purchased 226 E. Wilson (our first home together) on May 21, 2015, and on June 16, 2015, a neighbor notified us about the proposed housing project. This was the first and only time that we were notified about the proposed plans. We have several concerns with regard to the proposed housing development: + Notification- As first time home owners it is very alarming that we did not receive any notice from the City of Costa Mesa or from the previous owners. We have invested our life savings into this home, and if we had known about the proposed plans prior, we may not have purchased 226 E. Wilson. • Damaging- We strongly believe that the proposed housing plans will be damaging to our quality of life, offer no privacy to our backyards, and will take away from the spirit of the community. It was our desire to move to Costa Mesa, where we could have a nice big back yard for our dogs and eventually children. If the proposed plans are allowed, and the (6) two-story homes, concrete wall, and private road are built, our home will be forever changed. We will no longer have privacy and enjoy our backyard. We are also very concerned about noise- The private road, guest parking, and garage doors will be an issue all around. • Property Value- It is our concern that if that proposed plans move forward, this could potentially lower the value of our home and the others on Wilson Street that backup to the new development. If the proposed property setbacks are allowed and the concrete wall, road, and two-story homes are built, our property would decrease in value dramatically. The desire to have a private backyard will no longer exist for future buyers. We completely understand that new homes and developments must continue to be developed. The City of Costa Mesa has been making remarkable strides to make the city better, and a destination for young new families, which is why we bought our home here. We would like for the City of Costa Mesa to consider the homes owners on Wilson Street that will be affected by the new development. We ask that you consider our privacy, quality of life, and the value of our homes when making decisions on this matter, Thank you Cole Reddin & Alexa Reddin • f: y -` ,�. _w °;`^ i � .�a � `rt: � •' .. fit: f�lilmm&W � s Is 14 VIEW ' FROM NEB RS E AVE. Aw 44 1 ; qL pow�.- �.e wow a +� + wean ♦,. 5 ram' ; 4 � R I, I n�lp, IDS ow ..b h.: ^' S s s' v, .�• r - . ,ter+-°�ir .'�'r: ".v ys �- % t�'a �'. yr'k. t"' '.. �' � h�� a^".,; -. .. „ s S' ti n VIEW FROM ORANCIE , 41 Y "4 rya PH-3 LOOMIS, RYAN From: Tuyet Mac <lilratster@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 1:58 PM To: LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: PA-15-10 Attachments: Planning Application Summaries.pdf Dear Mr. Loomis, Please find the attached Planning Application Summaries document. I have extracted the Planning Application Summary page from each of the ten document files that you provided me, which represents the most recently approved projects. I have highlighted in yellow the zoning for the adjacent properties on each Planning Application Summary. In all cases, the adjacent zoning for parcels directly adjacent to the subject properties was either medium density, high density, commercial or other like zoning, Based on the examples you provided, in no instance was a medium density project directly adjacent to low density zoned properties approved, All we are asking for is to relocate the proposed houses to the north property line, which abuts another medium density parcel containing an apartment complex. We are simply requesting the proposed medium density project to be placed adjacent to another medium density property, thus abutting like property zoning together. This will give us, the four affected low density properties, some separation and relief. I believe this is fair and reasonable. Please also refer to the Proposed Conceptual Site Plan I sent about 30 minutes ago Best regards, Douglas Gorrie, Architect PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 2294 Pacific Avenue Application Number: PA-13-35, TT-17705 APN 422-051-001 Request: Desi n Review of a 5-unit residential development with small lot subdivision SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2-MD North; Open Space — Fairview 'Park General Plan: MDR South: Multi -Family Residential Lot Dimensions: _ Irregular East: Mufti-Famfly Resldential Lot Area: 20,869 0,75 acre — West; Multi -Farrell Residential Existing Development: One parcel developed wlth 5 apartment units —lN PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 320 E. 18th Street Application Number: PA-14-05, PM-2013-178 APN: 117-251-36 Request: Design Review of a two unit residential development and a parcel map to subdivide the lot In to two, fee -simple parcels- SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2-MD North: I&R - Lighthouse Coastal Community Church Parkin Lot General Plan: MDR South: R2-MD - Multi -Family Residential Lot Dimensions: 63 FT x 153 FT East: AR - Parkinct Lot Lot Area: 9,683 square feet West: I&R - Multi-Farn_iy Rosidenfial Existing Development: Vacant lot Lot Lot Size Mln._f)psn Space Dev�elop_ment LqQ Common Lot Min, Open Space (IndIvidual Unit) Building Setbacks:- — - Front _ Side (Northwest) Side (Southeast) Rear _ Distance Between Buildings % ratio of 2nd floor to 1st % ratio of 2nd floor to 1st Nartnng (I nree Tearooms or morel Total - - — — _—_-- Driveway Width _ [7riveway Length Interior Garage Dimensions —SMALL LOT NA Maximum 2 Units l du/3,630 SF (12 DU/Acre) NA Two -stories / 27'-6" 30-% minimum No common lot required; CC&Rs are required. 200 SF No dimension less than 10 ft, 9,683 SF (grags) - _ 2 Units 1 du/4,842 SF(9 DUlAcre_ 4,279 SF14,842 SF _ 2 stories / 22`-4" 56%.5,465 SF 44% CC&Rs shall be filed 615 SF Unit 1 630 SF Unit 2 No dimension less than 10 ft. 20 ft. - loft 3.4 ft. Complies with Building and Fire Code standards 71% Two garage and two open stalls 8 spaces _ 12 ft. 20 f!. Min. 20 ft, x 20 ft. Final Action Planning Commission CEQA Revlew Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3 Exemption Construction of three or fewer single-family homes in urban areas and Section 15315, Class 155 Minor Land Divisions _ _ 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft._ No minimum distance required subject to compliance with Building and Fire Code standards. 100% Two garage and T two open stalls 8 s aces 19 ft. 10ft,� 20 ft, x 20 ft, 1 and 2 The 10-foot setback can be reduced to five feet subject to certain findings (see staff report). The Residential Design Guideline requiring an average sideyard setback of 10 feet does not apply to structures less than 2,700 square feet in size. 10 2= PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location; 1944 Church Street Application Number, PA-14-07, PM-14-115 APN: 426-263-09 Request: Design Review of a two unit residential development and a subdivision map, SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2-MD North: R2-MD Multi -Family Residential _ General Plan; MDR South: R2-MD Multi -Family Residential Lot Dimensions: 80 FT x 137 FT East: R2-MD Multi-Farnlly Residential Lot Area; 10,975 square feet West: R2-MD _Multi -Family Residential Existing Development: One parcel with a single family residence -3,293 SF - ;fdQ mtnl mu m Medlum DenaM R+�sidentlat Land Use Max.12 units meagre Zone - R240 Max. 3 dwelling units 1 du13,630 SF uildn Height _ Two -stories / 27 ft. Distance between main b_ulldings _ _ No Minimum /SLO Building Setbacks: — Front Ctturch Avenue) - - �- - 20 ft, _ Side (Walnut Street Side Rear ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor 1;Unit 1 % ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor f,Un t 2 Driveway Length Parking — - 10 ft. T T 10 ft, 10 ft, ---- - _ 100%- 100% 19 ft. Two garage and two open per unit Total-`--- ---- 8 spaces, _ T Final Action Planning Commission�_ CEQA Review Exempt, Class 3 for new construction or conversion of smail land divislons 10,975 SF 6,746 SF - 61 % 8 units per acre_ 2 dwelling units 1 du15,488 SF 2 stories (maximum 27 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft, 13 ft. 10 ft. loft 71% 26 ft, Two garage and two open per unit - 8 spaces res PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 389 Rochester Street Application Number: PA-14-12, PM-14-113 APN: 425-021-18 Request: Design Review of a two unit residential development and a subdivision map SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2-MD North: R2-MD Multi -Family Residential General Plan: MDR South 112-MD Multi -Family Residential Lot Dimensions: 87.5 FT x 160 FT East: I&R Haar er School & Park Lot Area 10,101 square feet West: R2-MD Mult[•Family Residential Existing Development: One parcel with two single family dwellings Lot Area MedDeneK Residential Land Use Zone - R2-MD Building Height' _ Distance between ma__in buildin_gs Side Rochester'Street) — Side _ Rear - Rear (2^a Story)_ % ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor Driveway Length 3.030 SF - 30%minimum Max. 12 unit per acre Max. 2 dwelling units 1 du/3,630 $F Two -stories l 27 ft. T NoMinimum PSLO 20 ft. 10 ft. — --� 10 ft. - 10 ft. NIA -- - - 100% 19 ft. Two garage and two open per unit Total 8 spaces Final Action Planning Commission CEQA Review Exempt,- Class 32 for in -fill development - -�61- 8,497 SF - 54% 12 units ® acre 2 dwelling units 1 dul5,050 SF 2 stories / 27 ft. 10 ft �� --- 20 ft, -- - 20 ff. _ 10 rt. 10ft ft - - - 20 � --- - - 74% 19 ft. - __..__-_ Two garage and two open per unit 8 spaces PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 1631 and 1645 Tustin Avenue Application Number: PA-14-18, TT-17647 APN 425-192-10 Request: Design Review of an 11-unit residential development with small lot subdivision. SUBJECT PROPERTY; SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2-MD North: Multi -Family Residential General Plan: MDR South Multi -Family Residential Lot Dimensions: 200' x 200' East: Multt-Family Residential Lot Area: 40,000 5F (0.92-acre) West: , Single:amily Residential Existing Development: One parcel developed with 14 apartment units Lot Area Maximum Density: Lot Cov@rage Open Space 12,000 SF 12 units per acre _ 28,000 0°I4 1Z00�0 t3L%L 40..000 5F (O.92-acre) 12 units per acre 26,078 SF fi5%) 13.922 34% Private 0"A Spaca 310 and 215 SF 200 SF _ Height _ wo Storles 127 FT 26'-U' FT Setbacks: Front„f�Qgle Street) - - - - 20 FT 12'-0" " Side Tustin Avenu-}- e - 10 FT — i 10 FT Rear( 10 FT 101=T Landacape Setback ��_ - _-T --- 5 F7 5 F7 Distance between Buildings NIA- 6 FT 100 TM/o - 94% and 99% % of 20 floor to 1" floor Parking _ Two garage space and two open Two garage space and two open spaces per unit spaces per unit and one One open parking for up to units additional parking _ with no o e±n parkin;_---___ _ _ Total_ 45 spaces 45 Spaces Min. Driveway Width: 25 feet 23 feet allowed with 18-foot wide drives Final Action J Plannln ComFi-s- on _ _ CEQA Review I Exempt, Class 32, lntill Development Projects - 1b5— PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 2661 Orange Avenue, APN 439-221-35 Application Number: PA-14-26, TT-17791 Request: Design Review of a five-unit small lot subdivision, _ SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2-MD North: Multi -Family Residential General Plan: MDR South Multi -Family Residential Lot Dimensions: Rectangular East: Multi -Family Residential _ Lot Area: 19,800 (0.45 acres West: Mullmily Residential Existing Development:. One parcel devetoped with four apailments (five units permitted, one maybe combined DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON - SMALL LOT ORDINANCE t_ot Width - - -- — NA 68 FT — - - Lot Area - NA ^ 19.800 SF J - Maximum Dansit based on rose aoreag 12 units per acre 11 units per acre _ DU J 3.830 SF 1 144,026 SF Dl _ Common Lot Requirement _1 No common lot required; CC&Rs and Association to be CCBRs and Maintenance or created. Homeowner's Association are required L1ln.lA , Lot Sizes NA 3,129 SF Min 13,957 SF Avg,..__ Bultdln C,g ov-erage I�DevaIVLnont Lot) Buildings - NA - - —� Paving - - - NA _— - Minimum O een Space - 5.940 SF { 0%) _ 6121 SF (3N61_ - TotaI NA _ — - Minimum Open Space (Individual Unit) 200 SF 310 SF + 10 FT Min. Dimension 10 FT Min. Dimension Building Haigh( Two Storla_s 1 Max. 27 FT .Two Storles 126 FT Distance between Buildings No minimum distance required, 8 FT subject to compliance with (Complies with Building and Fire Building and Fire Code Code Standards) standards Setbacks (Development Lot): � - Front 20 FT_ 15 FT" Side VI LfVl _ 10 FT / 10 FT 9 FT 2/ 6 FT 2 IN and • S Fi 6 IN,' 10 FT - -- -_-- 5 FT"- - — Bulk/Mass of wo-Story ReslderRce - - _ _ - T % ratto of 2nd floor to 1 st floor (Unit 1A, 18j- �� _ 100% - 97% and'98% % ratio of 2m floor to 1" floor Unit 1 C 100% 100% F'arking for single-family detachedl3 bedrooms- 10 10 �GaraSe -�- 10- _OPAn Guest Total -- - - ---- �- 21 spaces 21 SOFT' _ _- Garage Dimensions 20 FT X 20 FT 22 FT X 1fa.33 FTs Min. Driveway LeLength:_ _ 19 FT 19 FT Min. Drivewa Width: 16 FT _16 FT _ Parkway Landscaping 3 FT min. on one side; _ '2 FTm1n. on one sides; 1.0 FT total _ 10 FT total _ Final Action L Plannin Commisston _ CEC Review - Exempf_, Class 32, Inflll i7evalgpment Projects ' The reduction of the front yard setback Is subject to approval of a minor modificatlon z Side yard setbacks could be reduced to rive feet subject to certain findings — see staff report Side yard setbacks could be reduced to five feet subject to certain findings — see staff report 4 Rear yard setback could be reduced to five feet subject to certain findings — see staff report ° Variance requested to parking design standards requested ° Variance requested to reduce the parkway landscaping to 2 feet on one side. 7 Residential design guideline for second floor average sideyard setback is not applicable for units less than 2,700 sq.ft. PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 119 Cecil Place Application Number: PA-14-28/PM-14-140 Request: Design Review of a two -unit residential development and a subdivision SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2-MD North: R2-HD Multi -Family Residential, Commercial use General Plan: _ MDR South C'I Local Business, Commercial use Lot Dimensions: a 61 FT x 140 FT _ East: R2-Mq Multi -Family Residential, Residential Use Lot Area: 8,476 SF West: R2-MD Multi -Family Residential, Residential Use Existing Development: One parcel with a single family residence to be demolished). DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON - SMALL LOT ORDINANCE Develoornont Standard _ to aired/Allowed Proposed/Provided Lot Size: Lot Width NA 61 FT Lot Area NA 8.476 SF Maximum Densi based on gross acres e : DU's/ Acre (Residential) Common Lot Requirement 1 du/3,630 SF (12 DU's/Acre) Maximum 2 units 1 du/8,476 SF (10 DU's/Acre) Proposed 2 units No common lot required; CC&Rs are required. CC&Rs to be filed. Min./Ayq. Lot Sizes NA 31207 SF Min./4,238 SF Avg. Building Coverage (Development Lot Buildings NA 2.724 SF 32%) Paving_ NA 1,852 SF (22%) Minimum Open Spare 2_,543 SF 30% 3,900 SF 46% TOTAL NA 8,476 SF 100%) Minimum Open Space (Individual Unit) 200 SF Min. 10 FT Min, Dimension 370+ SF 10 FT Min. Dimension 2 Stories/Max.27 FT Bullding Height 2 Stories/Max, 27 FT ChimneyHeight Distance Between Buildings 2 FT Above Max. Bld . Ht. _ _ NA 10 FT (Complies with Building and Fire Code standards) -- 22 FT No minimum distance required, subject to compliance wlth Building and Fire Code standards Setbacks Develo ment Lot Front 20 FT Side (left/right _ 10 FT/10 FT' 5 FT/5 FT Rear 10 FT 16 FT Parking for single-family detached/3 bedrooms Garage 4 4 Open 4 4 TOTAL 8 Spaces 8 Spam Driveway Length Min. 19 FT _ _ Min. 19 FT Interior ara a dimension 20 F17 20 FT (1) This setback can be reduced to a minimum of five feet on a case by case basis per CMMC 13-42, See staff report for more discussion. NA = Not Applicable or No Requirement CEQA Status Guidelines Section 15303/Class 3, New Construction of three or fewer single-family homes in _ urban areas and Section 15315/Class 15, Minor Land Divisions Final Action -Planning Commission —109 — PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 334 East 16th Street Application Number: PA-1 4-45/PM-1 4-144 Request: Design Review of a two -unit residential development and a subdivision map. SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: _ R2-MD _ North: R2-MD Multi -Family Residential, Residential Use General Plan: �! MDR South: R2-NID Multi -Family Residential, Residentla! Use Lot Dimensions: 60 FT x 135,07 FT _ East: R2-MD Multi -Family Residential, Residential Use Lot Area: 8,104 SIF West: R2-MD Multi-FamllyResidential, Residential Use Existing Development: One parcel with a single family residence (to be demolished).. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON - SMALL LOT ORDINANCE DeveloomenStandard ReWdr-O lAllowed ProppsedlProyided Lot Size: Lot Width NA 60 FT Lot Area NA 8,104 SF Maximum Density based on gross acreage): DU's/ Acre (Residential) 1 du/3,630 SF (12 DU's/Acre) Maximum 2 units 1 du14,052 SF (10 DU's/Acre) Proposed 2 units Common Lot Requirement No common lot required; CC&Rs are required, CC&Rs to be fled. Min,/Avg. Lot Sizes NA 1.297 SF Min./1,401 SF Av . Building Coverage Development Lot Buildings NA 2.827 SIF 35% Paving NA 1,542 SF 19% Minimum Open Space 2,431.2 SF _(30%1 3,735 SF 46% TOTAL NA 8,104 SF (100%) Minimum Open Space (Individual Unit) 200 SF Min, 10 FT Min, Dimension 1,000+ SF 10 FT Min, Dimension Building Hei ht 2 Stories/Max. 27 FT 2 Stories/Max,27 FT Chimney Height 2 FT Above Max. Bldg. Ht. NA 27' 6" FT (Complies with Building and Fire Code standards) Distance Between Buildings No minimum distance required, subject to compliance with Building and Fire Code standards Setbacks (Development Lot) Front h Side left/ri t 20 FT 20 FT 10 FT/10 FT' 5 FT/5 FT Rear 10 FT 15 FT _ Parking for single-family detached/3 bedrooms Garage 4 4 Open 4 4 TOTAL 8 Spaces 8 Spaces Driveway Length _ Min. 19 FT Min. 20 FT Interior garage dimension 20 FT 20 FT (1) This setback can be reduced to a minimum of five feet on a case by case basis per CMMC 13-42. See staff report for more discussion, NA = Not A pl#cable or No Requirement _ CEQA Status Guidelines Section 15303/Class 3, New Construction of three or fewer single-family homes in urban areas and Section 15315/Class 15, Minor Land Divisions F1nal Acffon Planning CaTmissIon_.. i — - 109 1- PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 162 E. lath Street Application Number; PA-14-50, PM-15-109 APN; 425-231-03 Request; Design Review of a two unit two-story residential development and a subdivision map. SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: R2-HD North: R2-HD Multi -Family Resldanllal. High Denslt General Plan: HDR South: R2-HD Multi -Family Residential, High Density R-3 Mufti -Family ResidenVal Lot Dimensions: 50 FT x 125.25 FT y East: R2-HO Multi -Family Residential, High Density Lot Area; 6,263 square feet _ West: R2-HD Multi -Family Residential, High Density R-3 Mulct-Famlly Residential Existing Development; One parcel with two unit one-story residential development Lot Area space (development fat) space 1n9 tel ttt __ - - nee between main buildings ba Setbacks: near (Aeutting a iPunuary u� Alley) ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor % ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st flour Driveway Length Parking TT C EOA Status 12,000 5F new lots or No minimum per Small Lot Subdivision Standards 1,878 SF - 30% of total lot area per Small Lot Subdivision Standards 200 SF with no dimension less than 10 feet per Small Lot Subdivision Standards Max, 20 units per acre 1 du/3,000 SF (14.52 dulac ) Max. 2 dwelling units _Two -stories / 27 k No Minimum /SLO _ -- ----20ft. •�._.� �- 10 ft. T f 0 ft. T 100% — — 100% Unit 1- 2,775 SF Unit 2- 3,488 SF 41 %- 2,579 SF Unit 1- 202 SF Unit 2- 206 SF 13.91 units per acre 2 dwelling units Two -stories /maximum 27 ft, T� T 10 ft, — — - - - 20 ft.-7 in. - 5 ft. (Unit 1) 10 R. l;Un(t 2) 5 Ft. 5 ft.. 6 In. 2% 7% 19 ft, gait 7 In. (Unit 2 only) Two garage and Two garage, one covered two open per unit and one open (Unit 1) Two garage and two open (Unit 2) 8 spaces f 8 spaces Guidelines Section 15303/Class 3, New Construction of three or fewer single-family homes in urban areas Pianning Commission - PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Cgcaitnn: -- t#120 Orange Avenue - Y Appltcatlon Numtsef: APN: 425.201.03 tie t: _ _ i]aslgn RBview ofa two unit two-story residendal devolapmenl_ SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY; Zone: North: ^ R-3 Multi -Family Residential - C1 Local Business District R2-HQ PDIC Planned Development Commercial _ General Plan: HUR — 70 FT x90 FT _ 9,750 By at _ South: R-3 R2-HD Multi -Family Residential Multi-FamilResidential. High Denslty Lot Dknenslgns: East: Vtosp R-3 WII-Fame! Residential Lot Area: di Local Business District Exisligg Development: Oneparoat with one unit one-storyresidential development � -- lJtZVlzLUVMt2r4 I [A A"Ll Lot Area U aA Alit ON VUK SMALL LOT 31JOIDIVIMN No minimum per Small Lot Subdivision Standards Unit 1- 3,600 SF Unit 2.3,150 SF Open space (development lot) _ Open space (Individual unit ?055 SF Unit 1 (37%) 1,,553 SF Unit 2 (49%d) Total= 3.616 SF �a4°h} 30% of total lot area per Small Lot Subdivision Standards Y - 200 SF with no dimension less than 10 feet per Small Lot Subdivision Standards 1 du/3,000 SF (14.5 DU's/Acre- 2 Units Total) _ Unit 1- 276 SF- (min dimension oF12 feet.) Unit 2- 306 SF - (min, dimension of 12 feet,10 in.) 1 du/3,375 SF (13 DU's/Acre- 2 Units Total) 26'-11 !" (Unit 1) 2B_ '-_6 W (Unit 2) 9 ft. _ - -- - 16 ft., 15 ft, (Unit 1) - 19 ft. Unit 2 -sit High Density Residential Land Used R2-HO Zone Building Height Two -stories / 27 R. _No MInlmum /SLO -- - -f ---- _ _ - - - 20 ft. 10 ft. ` - - - 5ft, Distance between main buitdlncys -� Build;ltr7 Settlagks: (Osuelttpm8ril Lvt)� Front (pran a Avel_Lnlt t) -Side (3treet-efde) (16" Place) Side Interlor} — _— -- Unit1-First Floor- Unit 1- Second Floor Unit 2- First Floor - 3 ft. 5 R. 4 _ - S ff- 24 . _ - 6 ft. Unit 2- Second Floor 5 ft. Rear ntedor -- _ Unit 1- First Floor NA NA Unit 1 • Second Floor _. Unit 2• First Floor Udf 2- second Furor _ ,.._. NA _ __T. - 1.0 R, - NA $ ft, 10 ft. • redo of 2nd floor to 1 st floor [U n it 1 _ �~ 100% 54% • ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor 100% 19 ft. T - - - , , 48% i9 : (Unit 1) 18�ft. (Unit 2)z DrlvewayLength -- Parking Two garage and two open per unit Unit 1-Two garage and two open Unit 2-Two garage and two open Total _ _ n6 spaces = T 6 spaces Finat Acllon Planning Commisabn CEi3A Review Exempt, Class 3 Of new conetruoan or conversion of small structures Minor Modlficellen regWiml• Puhlle 3ervh:eo mqulrne t-lnul Ad —A oo.ernonl I.N 1611, Plocn 16 foul drfvewny l"Ih mhdmum par T,vW. tullon 3ervleee The — aWhaeh of 10 Tool woo ednplod P. 0,dino,m 16 03 An—AIN Tlllo 13, Chnplor V. Md. 2 5, Peeidonllol Smell W SW Mdon. ul Iho Coele Mme ldmddpM Cede elfndlvo Moy 21, 2015 -PN-3 LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: PA-15-10 From: Tuyet Mac [mailto:dfgorrie@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 2:56 PM To: LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: Re: PA-15-10 Dear Mr. Roomis, The following is the requested summary to go along with the Proposed Conceptual Site Plan To: Planning Commission Re: Application No. PA-15-10 & TT-17870 Site Address: 2366 Orange Avenue From: Douglas Gorrie, Architect Residing at: 222 E. Wilson Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 I, Douglas Gorrie, have created an alternative Proposed Conceptual Site Plan to demonstrate that the proposed project could be designed wherein 6 houses can be placed on the parcel, while protecting the light, air and privacy of the four properties located along the south property line. Other reasons for requesting this change to the site plan are as follows: 1. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan will protect the interests of all property owners, which is fair and reasonable. 2. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan will protect the privacy and quality of life for the families who live in the single family low density homes to the south of the project site. 3. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan maintains the scale of the neighboring adjacent houses which are predominantly single story. 4. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan provides visual relief and actual separation from the medium density project. 5. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan mitigates the incurable functional and economic harm to us, the homeowners, that will be caused by the project. 6. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan complies with the City Guidelines, which state "Consideration shall be given to the effect of proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties. The as designed project will block our morning light increase unwanted noise and severely diminish our quality of life. 7. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan mitigates the need by us, the homeowners, to screen the project from view, because adequate separation will have been achieved. Any reasonable development would provide or contemplate screening to adjacent properties. The as designed project does not provide for any screening from its side, but requires the affected homeowners to screen the project. 8. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan abuts the proposed medium density development with the existing medium density apartments, which are directly adjacent to the north. 9. The Proposed Conceptual Site Plan is designed to embody the "SPIRIT OF THE PLANNING GUIDLINES', which is to protect all the residents and property owners and to promote the health, safety and welfare of all. Respectfully, Douglas Gorrie, Architect R2-SIC ZC1�E r Z14 E �. MI OW ST SIG', E WIL�()N ST Pi ZcNE P 1 70NE _ �,Ft r ZZ2 E WML N ST P 1 Zr>`JE -1I'Z- 1 a J1 r V 1 �LCT5 • ^• � a. V I I i r L2b � rnLScN ST, R_1 ZOHE r �L- DCG� Ef TJAL SiTE rLAN u�N i v txcl(,LAs GCRP�E. AQCNITEG"f A ttachment 3 CITY C L R K City of Costa Mesa 15 M 29 fN 12' 42 0 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision/Rehearing, $1,220.00 JAppeal of Zoning Administrator/ Building Official / Fire Marshal / 1 t Staff Decision: $690.00 BY�..1,4M, �- APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW Applicant Name* Do A6LA5 F! Address � 2. L e WiywH 5'r Cps-j- Phone q47 5 0 17 $l tit-q 70 ®'L 04657- (ZELL REQUEST FOR: .0 APPEAL ❑ REVIEW** Decision of which appeal or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision; if known.) PA-�5 �iv TT - 01870 Decision by: PLAf-4fJj&6 Reasons for requesting appeal or review: l , f LAWWIt-iG C.01­1C-%S'S/0_j DIP NO-F AL,', 'yjja tr'�RTiI�r��T (tJFC�t->�noN , 1-j0 �00.046� 044L/a�"+7 7-0Nor'—s 15 ALry�� t ry � r iA?an 2 ov HAOy uNi s�aw�n si .z tssw 5i,tc�-7 s r nr�� /�'�-��-f�r4=i1 i/1� � � L/4F� L�Sc �q�pF� 5 �� � � rA�6 ►=� l � ��i i�9�.:-� vN-� f-� r T l E�7� � i�suR��, i�1v �-�f�'- �T�i,��y �� �r'��►_=-,r� (z-a,,�-,Or�6 i�f�('c7:};�;� E o oz_ AV5 , ttz�x G � � t �t t�.�..� �� i l�r�n ►-� � r A-1-J0 C.V41+t-1I'r f OF (.►'r'fE f -�;k(41-- 1L ri t U7- HM i-fvc,> rz AT 1_(�•L �C�r��a S ;AFT 519 v 0d f6P,"P'Vb&,) 'y sk4l-"A' /''4110 00 L CJ`'� J � , f--CA P S+ 4 8.] 17c= ' J #'F w •:%ja. S ,rU 41L V 3 6 P-T Pn- .1 7 7 Lr,-,, gLoclk ALOW& S Pii2 --r~` HI cH AT- S0477,4 f'(W44x-r` 7 L/NG- 410 FAT &0)W fWI'IR(Lg") Date: h 10-j5— Signature: *If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization. **Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member For office use only - do not write below this line SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION, MEETING OF: If appeal, rehearing, or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of appeal, rehearing, or review: _ 1 t 3 — Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO. PC-15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT-17870 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Eric Trabert of E.T.A. Residential Design, representing Kings Road Partners LLC, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: 1. Planning Application PA-15-10: Design Review to construct a 6-unit, two-story, detached residential development on a 23,159 square foot lot (.53 acres) with the following: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off of Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 1/ Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). 2. Tentative Tract Map TT-17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. WHEREAS, on June 22, 2015, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission, which included presentation of the project by staff and the applicant; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing, the Planning Commission received public comments and elicited responses from staff regarding the objections raised; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, voted to approve the project by a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Stephan Andranian absent; and WHEREAS, on June 29, 2015, an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's approval of the project was filed; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and -- I H — WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines, and has been found to be categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15332 for In -Fill Development Projects. WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FINDS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 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 decision and APPROVES Planning Application PA-15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17870. 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-15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17870 and upon the 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 and/or mitigation measures. 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. The City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this resolution and shall forward a copy to the applicant, and any person requesting the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July, 2015. -15- STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA _ 1 1 (0-- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 15 as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21 st day of July, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21 st day of July, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of 2015 -119- EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(14) in that: Finding: The project complies with 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. Facts in Support of Findings: The architectural design of the development meets the intent of the City's Residential Development Standards and Design Guidelines and promotes design excellence with consideration given to site planning and building orientation, overall open space, landscaping and architectural design. Second floor windows will be required to be offset to minimize direct views onto adjacent second floor residential windows, and the elevations will have exterior elevation treatments as recommended in the City's Residential Design Guidelines. The Planning Commission also considered the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and the effect of the proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties with specific regard to the abutting single-family residential properties along E. Wilson Street in the R1 zone (southerly property line) and the adjacent multi -family and single-family structures in the R2-MD zone at Orange and Norse Avenue (northerly property line). The Planning Commission determined that the minimum 5-foot setback (and up to 13-foot setback) along the southerly property line of the development lot complied with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design' Guidelines and found that this sideyard setback would provide adequate light, air, and privacy to the abutting single- family residential properties along E. Wilson Street. The Planning Commission also found that the proposed project was exempt from the Residential Design Guideline as it relates to the average side yard setback requirement of 10 feet on the second story. This requirement would not apply to two-story new construction with less than 2,700 square feet of living area (not including garage). In this case, the proposed single-family residential unit sizes range between 2,265 square feet and 2,678 square feet, and are therefore exempt from the requirement. Finding: The visual prominence associated with the construction of two-story homes in a predominately one-story neighborhood has been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors and the provision of second floor offsets to avoid long unarticulated two-story walls. ._IIa, Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed two-story structures are in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood which has a variety of two-story buildings. The elevations of the proposed residences include a variety of materials, articulating roof lines, and use of window treatments to highlight the vertical offsets and horizontal floor to floor transitions. Finding: The proposed development plan and subdivision meets the broader goals of the General 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 Findings: The proposed project provides ownership opportunities for detached units in place of the existing residential structures. The project exhibits site planning excellence by providing private open spaces for all units and adequate separation between the homes and the abutting structures. In addition, in order to provide adequate light, air, and privacy to the abutting single-family residential properties along E. Wilson Street, the Planning Commission has required, through a condition of approval, the applicant to modify the southerly elevations of Units 1 through 6 with transom windows on the second story elevations along the 5- foot side setback, provided that building code and fire code requirements are met. The Planning Commission has also required, through a condition of approval, that the final landscape plan include a minimum of one 24-inch box tree along the southerly property line of each individual dwelling unit for screening purposes to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. The applicant may also propose other landscaping or screening alternatives for the review/approval of the Development Services Director to satisfy this requirement B. The proposed 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 Findings: The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1 A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner -occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities, the project provides sufficient amenities as a small lot subdivision development, and encourages increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The density for the residential component is 11.3 units per acre (6 units maximum), which complies with allowable density of 12 units per acre (6 units maximum) per 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 Findings: The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The project site is already developed with multi -family residences, and does not have any sensitive environmental resources. The proposed project will provide for high -quality housing and not impede upon the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. The Planning Commission also considered the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and the effect of the proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties with specific regard to the abutting single-family residential properties along E. Wilson Street in the R1 zone (southerly property line) and the adjacent multi -family and single-family structures in the R2-MD zone at Orange and Norse Avenue (northerly property line). The Planning Commission determined that the minimum 5-foot setback (and up to 13-foot setback) along the southerly property line of the development lot complied with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and found that this sideyard setback would provide adequate light, air, and privacy to the abutting single- family residential properties along E. Wilson Street. 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 Findings: The proposed buildings include openings in a north -south direction to take advantage of passive solar heating as well as passive ventilation from ocean breezes. The southern facing rooflines also have the potential to provide for active solar heating and energy generation through the use of solar panels. Finding: The subdivision 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 Findings: As conditioned, the proposed project does not interfere with the public right-of-way. The recommended improvements along Orange and Norse Avenues will significantly improve the public right- of-ways for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In addition, a 5-foot side setback provides for adequate access space for the existing utility easement along the southern property line. A letter of approval [pending at the date of this report] from Southern California Edison will allow the project to encroach into the 6-foot utility easement. I20- 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 Findings: The applicant will be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District. C. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) in that: Findings: a. 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. b. The deviation shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. c. The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed project, specifically Lot 6/Plan C, proposes to encroach into the required 20-foot front setback along Norse Avenue, as a portion of the residential unit is proposed at a 12-foot front setback. The development lot has an unusual circumstance, in that there are two front setbacks as a result of abutting two public right-of-ways, including Orange Avenue on the western portion of the property, and Norse Avenue on the east. Under normal circumstances, a property normally has a front, side and rear setback, and the small lot subdivision standards would allow for a 10-foot rear setback. The primary access for the development lot is Orange Avenue, and therefore is considered the dominant front portion of the development lot. Without Norse Avenue, Lot 6/Plan C would be considered the rear portion of the development lot, and therefore be allowed to utilize a 10-foot rear setback. The structure is setback 12 feet from the closest point from the front property line, thus being setback further than what would be allowed if considered the rear setback. Therefore, approval of an administrative adjustment from front yard setback along Norse Ave would help remediate the project from the strict application of development standards, and allow the property the same privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. The proposed project does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. The proposed project is located within the Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation, which allows a density up to 12 units per acre. The project site is 0.53 acres, and therefore would allow for a maximum of 6 units. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. As such, granting the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the W- property. D. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(6) in that: Findings: a. The improvement will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. b. The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. Facts in Support of Findings: The project is requesting a Minor Modification to allow for an encroachment into the required front yard setback. The project, specifically Lot 1/Plan A, is requesting a reduction from 20 feet to 16 feet for the front setback along the front (westerly) property line to allow for the supporting posts of a projecting patio cover to project 4 feet into required 20-foot front setback. The garage for Plan A is proposed to maintain a 20-foot setback from the front property line. The setbacks of existing neighboring structures were considered with regard to the project's proposed modification to the front setback. The 20% reduction in front yard depth is located away from properties adjacent to the project site, and does not affect pedestrian travel along Orange Avenue. In addition, the proposed 16-foot setback for the covered porch will not impact the visual line of site safety issues related to vehicular travel. The driveways for neighboring properties are located away from the proposed project site. The driveway for the neighboring property to north is located on the opposite side of the proposed project site. The neighboring property to the south is a corner lot, and the corresponding driveway is not located along Orange Avenue. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. In addition, the project will be required to comply with all applicable provision of the Uniform Building Code with regard to safety. In regards to design, Plan A is designed to be consistent with the materials, massing, scale and articulation of the multi -family residential area for maximum compatibility. The design of Plan A is well articulated with overhangs, porches, roof dormers, and stepped floor plans. The projecting covered porch provides an attractive entrance into the project site. In addition, the proposed project provides for adequate landscaping with drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and groundcover to enhance the project site. Therefore, the proposed project is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. E. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental -12- - procedures. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15332 for In -Fill Development Projects. This exemption allows for the construction of up to six multi -family residential structures in urbanized areas, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment. F. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. FXHIRIT R CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The expiration of Planning Application PA-15-10 shall coincide with the expiration of the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map TT-17870 which is valid for two years. An extension request is needed to extend the expiration for each additional year after the initial two-year period. 2. The conditions of approval of PA-15-10 and TT-17870 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 3. The Tentative Tract Map shall be processed as a tentative map consistent with Chapter XI. Subdivisions, Article 1. Tentative Maps, of the Zoning Code. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of recordation of Tentative Tract Map TT-17870. 5. A decorative 6-foot high perimeter block wall, or stained/treated fence, as approved by the Development Services Director, shall be constructed along the side boundaries of the site prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director. 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 screening by trees and landscaping. 6. The interior fences or walls between the units shall be a minimum of six feet in height. 7. All future walls and fences within front yard setback along Orange Avenue and Norse Avenue Place shall conform to the standards per the Walls, Fences, and Landscaping Standards and Specifications. 8. The automatic gate at Orange Avenue placed along the private driveway shall be subject final review/approval by the Transportation Manager, and shall also meet requirements per Costa Mesa Sanitary District regarding entry. Gates shall be of high quality design and feature a low noise type of gate to the extent feasible. In addition, private property signs shall be displayed on gates. 9. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the driveway shall not be developed with a center concrete swale. The driveway shall be complemented by stamped concrete in order to reduce damage caused by sanitary trucks entering site for trash pickup. 10. The open, unassigned parking space located between Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall be clearly marked as guest parking space only. Signage shall be posted to indicate that this space is available only to guests and visitors and not used for resident parking. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final landscape plan indicating the landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas shall be .— I21, submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 13. The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Division and contain additional 24-inch box size trees above the minimum code requirements. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller size trees to 24-inch box size trees or providing additional 24-inch box trees. 14. 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. This includes any modification not consistent with the proposed asphalt composition and standing metal seam roofs, horizontal lap and vertical wood siding, smooth stucco, 24-inch and 12- inch board and batten siding, decorative metal roll -up garage doors, and columns along front entry porches. Any modification should be consistent to originally proposed colors, including light and charcoal grays and earthen tones. 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 a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 15. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter system which is painted to match the building would comply with the condition. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 16. The front porch overhang for Plan C shall not contain supporting posts that encroach beyond the proposed 12-foot front setback. Awnings and eaves that are not supported by supporting posts can project 5-feet into front setback. 17. 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 fill 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 I25--- 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. 18. 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 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. 19. 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. 20. The project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the energy conservation standards. The project Applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans: a. Double paned glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be used in all exterior windows. b. Building shall be oriented north/south where feasible. 21. Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. 22. 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&R's 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 for which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. b. 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. 12(o- 23. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall file and record a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) on the property. The establishment of a homeowner's association shall be optional. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a draft of the CC&Rs shall be remitted to the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office for review and approval. Because there are no common areas for circulation, parking, or landscape purposes, the CC&Rs shall be limited to the 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. The Development Services Director has the discretion to request any other provisions in the CC&Rs to promote self -governance between the two property owners. 24. The CC&Rs shall contain a notice that the open parking space (not leading to a garage) shall be unassigned and available for visitors. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to use, preservation and maintenance of the common drive aisle and open space areas in perpetuity by the maintenance or homeowner's association 25. 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. 26. Prior to final recordation of the map, applicant shall provide written documentation from Southern California Edison to specifically allow the encroachment into the utility easement by the proposed structures. This document may indicate that the easement will be quitclaimed or modified to allow the proposed structures. This documentation shall be approved by the Development Services Director and the City Engineer prior to final map recordation unless an extension is granted by the Development Services Director. The City Attorney's office shall require legal documentation (i.e. hold harmless agreement, etc.) be submitted by the applicant if construction is allowed to proceed while the quitclaim process (other procedure as specified by SCE) is pending. 27. The Homeowner's Association or Maintenance Association shall submit a signed affidavit to the City of Costa Mesa on an annual basis to certify the following: a. The two -car garages in the residential community are being used for vehicle parking by the resident(s). b. The vehicle parking areas within the garage are not obstructed by storage items, including but not limited to, toys, clothing, tools, boxes, equipment, etc. c. The resident(s) have consented to voluntary inspections of the garage to verify the parking availability, as needed. The form and content of the affidavit shall be provided by the City Attorney's office. Failure to file the annual affidavit is considered a violation of this condition. — � 271 28. 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. 29. The applicant 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 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. 30. Concrete wheel stops shall be installed 2' from the front edge of open parking spaces, or where applicable, landscape planters shall be increased 2' in depth to allow curbing to serve as a wheel stop. PC 31. To address privacy concerns, the applicant shall modify the southerly elevations of Units 1 through 6 with transom windows on the second story elevations along the 5-foot side setback, provided that building code and fire code requirements are met. PC 32. The final landscape plan shall include a minimum of one 24-inch box tree along the southerly property line of each individual dwelling unit for screening purposes to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Applicant may propose other landscaping or screening alternatives for the review/approval of the Development Services Director to satisfy this requirement. PC 33. The CC&Rs shall include a restriction that expressly prohibits the following: (1) the construction of a full height wall for the Bonus Room on the second floor of Unit 1 (Plan A) and/or (2) conversion of the Bonus Room into a bedroom. Eng 34. Comply with the requirements contained in the letter prepared by the City Engineer (Exhibit B1). Eng. 35. Provide a three-foot public sidewalk easement behind existing right of way line on Norse Avenue for ADA compliance. Eng. 36. 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. Pkwys 37. Plant one (1) 24" Box Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' along the Orange Avenue parkway. -12S 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. Applicant shall provide the City with proof of general liability insurance including endorsements concerning "additional named insured", "advance notice", and "primary coverage" as approved by the City attorney's office. 3. 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. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, 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. 5. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer shall pay a park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. 6. A minimum 20-foot by 20-foot clear interior dimension shall be provided for all garages. 7. Minimum garage door width shall be 16 feet. 8. All garages shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 9. Hours of construction shall comply with Section 13-279, Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 10. 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 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, 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. 11. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 12. All on -site utility services shall be installed underground. 13. Installation of all 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 _�2q- 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. Prior to approval of plans, the project shall fulfill the City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements. 16. If present and/or projected exterior noise exceeds 60 CNEL, California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL for residential structures. If required interior noise levels are achieved by requiring that windows be inoperable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation, and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. 17. 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. 18. Planning Commission action on PA-15-10 shall not become final until seven (7) days following final action. Bldg. 19. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 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 or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Areas of alteration and additions shall comply with 2013 California Green Building Standards Code section 5.303.2 and 5.303.2. 20. Submit precise grading plans, an erosion control plan, and a hydrology study. 21. Submit a soils report for this project. Soil's report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. For existing slopes or when new slopes are proposed, the soils report shall address how existing or new slopes will be maintained to avoid erosion or future failure. 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 2 percent. 2013 California Building Code CRC 403.1.7.3. 23. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of six inches within the first 10 feet. CRC 1W R401.3. 24. Projections, including eaves, shall be one -hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or noncombustible material if they project into the 5-foot setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3-foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1 (1) and R302.1 (2). 25. Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the project Applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of onsite soils to cause unstable conditions. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety. 26. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 27. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 28. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the site, the contractor would implement each of the following: a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. b. Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface. c. Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. 131, d. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. e. Wash mud -covered tired and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction sites. f. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. g. Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. h. Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Trans. 29. Construct all proposed driveway approaches to comply with city standards. 30. 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. 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. 31. Close unused drive approaches, or portion of, with full height curb and gutter that comply with City Standards. Fire 32. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 33. The project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13D. 34. Street addresses shall be visible from the public street and may be displayed either on the front door, on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance, or on another prominent location. When the property has alley access, address numerals shall be displayed in a prominent location visible from the alley. Numerals shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height with not less than one -half -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Eng 35. 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 on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or Architect. Construction 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- 231 of the C.C.M.M.C. and an approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. 36. 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. 37. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division for any work in the City public right-of-way. Pay required permit fee & cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee construction of off -site street improvements at time of permit per section 15-31 & 15-32, C.C.M.M.C. as approved by City Engineer. Cash deposit or surety bond amount to be determined by City Engineer. 38. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. ADA compliance required for new driveway approaches. 39. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. Residential sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Off -site Plan, including four (4) feet clear around obstructions in the sidewalk. 40. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk at applicant's expense. 41. Fulfill Drainage Fee requirements per City of Costa Mesa Ordinance No. 06-19 prior to approval of Final Map/Approval of Plans. 42. In order to comply with the 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (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, using latest version of template dated August 2011, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. a) 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. b) Location of BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani. 1. Applicant will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, inspection fees, and sewer permit are required prior to installation of sewer. 3. Applicant shall submit a plan showing sewer improvements that meets the District Engineer's approval to the Building Division as part of the plans submitted for plan check. 4. The applicant is required to contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to arrange final sign -off prior to certificate of occupancy being released. 5. Unless an off -site trash hauler is being used, applicant shall contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to pay trash collection program fees and arrange for service for all new residences. Residences using bin or dumpster services are exempt from this requirement. 6. Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 654-8400 for any additional district requirements. AQMD 7. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD. Water 8. 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. School 9. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 10. 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. Cable 11. The applicant shall contact the current cable company prior to issuance of building permits to arrange for pre -wiring for future cable communication service. , OA- RESOLUTION NO. PC-15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT-17870 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Eric Trabert of E.T.A. Residential Design, representing Kings Road Partners LLC, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: 1. Planning Application PA-15-10: Design Review to construct a 6-unit, two-story, detached residential development on a 23,159 square foot lot (.53 acres) with the following: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off of Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 1/ Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). 2. Tentative Tract Map TT-17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. WHEREAS, on June 22, 2015, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission, which included presentation of the project by staff and the applicant. In addition, public comments were received by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, voted to approve the project by a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Stephan Andranian absent; and WHEREAS, on June 29, 2015, an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's approval was filed; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal. - 1 35- NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FINDS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: BE IT RESOLVED, therefore, that based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in this resolution, the City Council hereby reverses the approval of the Planning Commission and DENIES PA-15-10 with respect to the property described above. The City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of this resolution and shall forward a copy to the applicant, and any person requesting the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 21ST day of July, 2015. ATTEST: STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA 13() - STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 15 as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21 st day of July, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21 st day of July, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of 12015 _I39- EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(14) in that: Finding: The project does not comply with the City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code or 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. Finding: The visual prominence associated with the construction of two-story homes in a predominately one-story neighborhood has not been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors and the provision of second floor offsets to avoid long unarticulated two-story walls. Finding: The proposed development plan and subdivision does not meet the broader goals of the General 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. B. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) in that: Findings: • Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of development standards does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity. • The deviations constitutes a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. • The granting of the deviations will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. C. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(6) in that: Findings: • The improvement will be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. • The improvement is not compatible and does not enhance the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a -Bss _ compatible and attractive development. D. The subdivision of the property for a residential common interest development is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. E. The Costa Mesa Planning Commission has denied Planning Application PA-15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17870. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) (5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. F. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. _-. 1 3 q Attachment 5 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MINUTE EXCERPTS FROM THE JUNE 22, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING 2366 ORANGE AVENUE (Public Hearing No. 3 — PA-15-10 & TT-17870) PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Application No. Applicant: Site Address: Zone: Project Planner: Environmental PA-15-10 & TT-17870 Eric Trabert 2366 Orange Avenue R2-MD Ryan Loomis Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15303 for New Construction. This exemption allows for the construction of up to six multi -family residential structures in urbanized areas, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment. Description: The proposed project involves: Design Review to construct a six -unit, two-story, small lot subdivision on a 23,159 sq. ft. lot in an R2-MD zone. The project will include an automatic gate off the Orange Avenue entrance. In addition, the project requests the following deviations from the R2-MD development standards: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 1/ Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). The property is a through lot with access from Orange Avenue and Norse Avenue. The two-story detached homes consist of 3 to 4 bedrooms and two -car garage with a minimum interior dimension of 20' x 20'. 2, Tentative Tract Map TT-17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McCarthy asked about the height, setbacks, and the density in an R1 zone properties verses R2-MD zone properties. I-10 Vice Chair Mathews asked if the single -stories in R1 zone and R2-MD zone could build up to a second story if they met code requirements. Mr. Loomis responded yes. PUBLIC COMMENTS Doug DeCinces, representative of Kings Road Partners LLC, gave a presentation on the proposed project, and responded to efforts made to the neighbors on Wilson. Commissioner McCarthy asked Ms. Fazeli for an analysis of Edison saying that they could not underground the utilities. Jerome Blackman, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with reversing the project, the drainage and requested a no outlet sign be posted to help stop some of the traffic. A Costa Mesa resident asked for explanation about the entrance on Orange and the parking on Norse Avenue. Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with the bonus room becoming a bedroom and the under parking it would cause. A Costa Mesa resident stated concerns with the setbacks, privacy issues, air quality and being blocked in. Doug Gorrie, Costa Mesa resident, spoke on behalf of himself and the neighbors and stated reasons why they oppose the project. Mr. DeCinces responded to the public comments and gave Commissioners an email from Edison about undergrounding the electric. Commissioner McCarthy asked the applicant if he would agree to add a condition that the bonus room cannot be made into a bedroom. Mr. DeCinces agreed. Chair Dickson asked the applicant if he has read and is in agreement with the conditions of approval. Mr. DeCinces responded yes. Vice Chair Mathews asked if they could still make enough money building a 5-unit instead of a 6-unit. Mr. Decinces responded no. There is not a market for it. Commissioner Sesler asked the applicant about the parking, providing screening, setbacks and through traffic. Vice Chair Mathews asked about having two gates. Ms. Flynn responded that the applicant did approach them with a plan to have a gated community and transportation did have a concern with a gate off of Norse because it did not have adequate distance for vehicle queuing. He also asked if the option is open for secure gates. Ms. Flynn responded yes. Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioners discussed the right of building up in an R2-MD lot, the setbacks, conditioning of the windows, conditioning the bonus room, conditioning the trees for landscaping, gate issues, a reason to vote against the application, being a good project for the neighborhood, and the wall. MOTION: Based in the evidence in the record and the findings set forth in Exhibit A, subject to conditions set forth in Exhibit B that the Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application PA-15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17870 for a six -unit detached Residential Development located at 2366 Orange Avenue including the Planning Commission supplemental memo dated June 22, 2015 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: • Additional condition requiring transient windows be required to the extent feasible for the southerly elevations for units 1-6. • Additional condition prohibiting the applicant from walling off the bonus room that will become part of the CC&R's for unit A as agreed to by the applicant. • Additional condition that the applicant work with transportation services on the selection and erection of the gates to be agreed to by the parties. • Additional condition the applicants cost the City staff work with the applicant on landscaping or other screening to separate the properties at the southerly elevation. Moved by Commissioner McCarthy, second by Commissioner Sesler. RESOLUTION 15-42 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT-17870 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler Noes: None Absent: Andranian Abstained: None The Chair explained the appeal process. Chair Dickson called a 3-minute break. Attachment 6 DATE: PROJECT NO: SITE ADDRESS: CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION June 23, 2015 PA-15-10 and TT-17870 2366 Orange Avenue FINAL ACTION: At a noticed public hearing on June 22, 2015 the Planning Commission approved this application, subject to conditions, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution PC-15-42. The final resolution is attached. APPEAL PERIOD: This decision will become final unless appealed by 5 p.m., June 29, 2015 by the filing of the necessary form and fees with the City Clerk's office, located at 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. PLANNING CONTACT: Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner, (714) 754-5608 ryan.loomis@costamesaca.gov If you have any questions or comments regarding this notice of decision, please contact the project planner (above) or me at.714-754-5278. Sincerely, Claire L. Flynn, AICP Assistant Development Services Director DISTRIBUTION: Kings Road Partners LLC Eric Trabert 12 Strawberry Farms Rd 9251 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92612 Irvine, CA 92618 Building Division (714) 754-5273 • Code Enforcement (714) 754-5623 • Planning Division (714) 754-5245 FAX (714) 7544856 • TDD (714) 754-5244 • www.costamesaca.gov RESOLUTION NO. PC-15-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT-17870 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Eric Trabert of E.T.A. Residential Design, representing Kings Road Partners LLC, the property owner, requesting approval of the following: 1. Planning Application PA-15-10: Design Review to construct a 6-unit, two-story, detached residential development on a 23,159 square foot lot (.53 acres) with the following: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off of Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 1/ Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). 2. Tentative Tract Map TT-17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines, and has been found to be categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15332 for In -Fill Development Projects. WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal. 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 PA-15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17870. _. (-" 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 PA-15-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17870 and upon the 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 and/or mitigation measures. 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 22nd day of June, 20 5. ,'f i, Robert L. Dicksoh Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15-42 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on June 22nd, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler NOES: None ABSENT: Andranian ABSTAIN: None Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission 146, EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(14) in that: Finding: The project complies with 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. Facts in Support of Findings: The architectural design of the development meets the intent of the City's Residential Development Standards and Design Guidelines and promotes design excellence with consideration given to site planning and building orientation, overall open space, landscaping and architectural design. Second floor windows will be required to be offset to minimize direct views onto adjacent second floor residential windows, and the elevations will have exterior elevation treatments as recommended in the City's Residential Design Guidelines. The Planning Commission also considered the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and the effect of the proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties with specific regard to the abutting single-family residential properties along E. Wilson Street in the R1 zone (southerly property line) and the adjacent multi -family and single-family structures in the R2-MD zone at Orange and Norse Avenue (northerly property line). The Planning Commission determined that the minimum 5-foot setback (and up to 13-foot setback) along the southerly property line of the development lot complied with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and found that this sideyard setback would provide adequate light, air, and privacy to the abutting single- family residential properties along E. Wilson Street. The Planning Commission also found that the proposed project was exempt from the Residential Design Guideline as it relates to the average side yard setback requirement of 10 feet on the second story. This requirement would not apply to two-story new construction with less than 2,700 square feet of living area (not including garage). In this case, the proposed single-family residential unit sizes range between 2,265 square feet and 2,678 square feet, and are therefore exempt from the requirement. Finding: The visual prominence associated with the construction of two-story homes in a predominately one-story neighborhood has been reduced through appropriate transitions between the first and second floors and the provision of second floor offsets to avoid long unarticulated two-story walls. -I.11q- Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed two-story structures are in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood which has a variety of two-story buildings. The elevations of the proposed residences include a variety of materials, articulating roof lines, and use of window treatments to highlight the vertical offsets and horizontal floor to floor transitions. Finding: The proposed development plan and subdivision meets the broader goals of the General 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 Findings: The proposed project provides ownership opportunities for detached units in place of the existing residential structures, which are currently rental units. The project exhibits site planning excellence by providing private open spaces for all units and adequate separation between the homes and the abutting structures. In addition, in order to provide adequate light, air, and privacy to the abutting single-family residential properties along E. Wilson Street, the Planning Commission has required, through a condition of approval, the applicant to modify the southerly elevations of Units 1 through 6 with transom windows on the second story elevations along the 5-foot side setback, provided that building code and fire code requirements are met. The Planning Commission has also required, through a condition of approval, that the final landscape plan include a minimum of one 24-inch box tree along the southerly property line of each individual dwelling unit for screening purposes to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. The applicant may also propose other landscaping or screening alternatives for the review/approval of the Development Services Director to satisfy this requirement B. The proposed 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 Findings: The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1 A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner -occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities, the project provides sufficient amenities as a small lot subdivision development, and encourages increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The density for the residential component is 11.3 units per acre (6 units maximum), which complies with allowable density of 12 units per acre (6 units maximum) per 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 Findings: The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The project site is already developed with multi -family residences, and does not have any sensitive environmental resources. The proposed project will provide for high -quality housing and not impede upon the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. The Planning Commission also considered the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and the effect of the proposed development on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties with specific regard to the abutting single-family residential properties along E. Wilson Street in the R1 zone (southerly property line) and the adjacent multi -family and single-family structures in the R2-MD zone at Orange and Norse Avenue (northerly property line). The Planning Commission determined that the minimum 5-foot setback (and up to 13-foot setback) along the southerly property line of the development lot complied with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines and found that this sideyard setback would provide adequate light, air, and privacy to the abutting single- family residential properties along E. Wilson Street. 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 Findings: The proposed buildings include openings in a north -south direction to take advantage of passive solar heating as well as passive ventilation from ocean breezes. The southern facing rooflines also have the potential to provide for active solar heating and energy generation through the use of solar panels. Finding: The subdivision 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 Findings: As conditioned, the proposed project does not interfere with the public right-of-way. The recommended improvements along Orange and Norse Avenues will significantly improve the public right- of-ways for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In addition, a 5-foot side setback provides for adequate access space for the existing utility easement along the southern property line. A letter of approval [pending at the date of this report] from Southern California Edison will allow the project to encroach into the 6-foot utility easement. _jq - 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 Findings: The applicant will be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District. C. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(1) in that: Findings: a. 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. b. The deviation shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. c. The granting of the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed project, specifically Lot 6/Plan C, proposes to encroach into the required 20-foot front setback along Norse Avenue, as a portion of the residential unit is proposed at a 12-foot front setback. The development lot has an unusual circumstance, in that there are two front setbacks as a result of abutting two public right-of-ways, including Orange Avenue on the western portion of the property, and Norse Avenue on the east. Under normal circumstances, a property normally has a front, side and rear setback, and the small lot subdivision standards would allow for a 10-foot rear setback. The primary access for the development lot is Orange Avenue, and therefore is considered the dominant front portion of the development lot. Without Norse Avenue, Lot 6/Plan C would be considered the rear portion of the development lot, and therefore be allowed to utilize a 10-foot rear setback. The structure is setback 12 feet from the closest point from the front property line, thus being setback further than what would be allowed if considered the rear setback. Therefore, approval of an administrative adjustment from front yard setback along Norse Ave would help remediate the project from the strict application of development standards, and allow the property the same privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classifications. The proposed project does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. The proposed project is located within the Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation, which allows a density up to 12 units per acre. The project site is 0.53 acres, and therefore would allow for a maximum of 6 units. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. As such, granting the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. -150- D. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(6) in that: Findings: a. The improvement will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. b. The improvement is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. This includes the site planning, land coverage, landscaping, appearance, scale of structures, open space, and any other applicable features relative to a compatible and attractive development. Facts in Support of Findings: The project is requesting a Minor Modification to allow for an encroachment into the required front yard setback. The project, specifically Lot 1/Plan A, is requesting a reduction from 20 feet to 16 feet for the front setback along the front (westerly) property line to allow for the supporting posts of a projecting patio cover to project 4 feet into required 20-foot front setback. The garage for Plan A is proposed to maintain a 20-foot setback from the front property line. The setbacks of existing neighboring structures were considered with regard to the project's proposed modification to the front setback. The 20% reduction in front yard depth is located away from properties adjacent to the project site, and does not affect pedestrian travel along Orange Avenue. In addition, the proposed 16-foot setback for the covered porch will not impact the visual line of site safety issues related to vehicular travel. The driveways for neighboring properties are located away from the proposed project site. The driveway for the neighboring property to north is located on the opposite side of the proposed project site. The neighboring property to the south is a corner lot, and the corresponding driveway is not located along Orange Avenue. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working within the immediate vicinity of the project or to property and improvements within the neighborhood. In addition, the project will be required"to comply with all applicable provision of the Uniform Building Code with regard to safety. In regards to design, Plan A is designed to be consistent with the materials, massing, scale and articulation of the multi -family residential area for maximum compatibility. The design of Plan A is well articulated with overhangs, porches, roof dormers, and stepped floor plans. The projecting covered porch provides an attractive entrance into the project site. In addition, the proposed project provides for adequate landscaping with drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and groundcover to enhance the project site. Therefore, Plan A and the entire development project is compatible and enhances the architecture and design of the existing and anticipated development in the vicinity. E. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the '(51- California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15332 for In -Fill Development Projects. This exemption allows for the construction of up to six multi -family residential structures in urbanized areas, which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment. F. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 1 S2 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The expiration of Planning Application PA-15-10 shall coincide with the expiration of the approval of the Tentative Parcel Map T-17870 which is valid for two years. An extension request is needed to extend the expiration for each additional year after the initial two-year period. 2. The conditions of approval of PA-15-10 and T-17870 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 3. The Tentative Tract Map shall be processed as a tentative map consistent with Chapter XI. Subdivisions, Article 1. Tentative Maps, of the Zoning Code. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of recordation of Tentative Tract Map TT-17870. 5. A decorative 6-foot high perimeter block wall, or stained/treated fence, as approved by the Development Services Director, shall be constructed along the side boundaries of the site prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director. 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 screening by trees and landscaping. 6. The interior fences or walls between the units shall be a minimum of six feet in height. 7. All future walls and fences within front yard setback along Orange Avenue and Norse Avenue Place shall conform to the standards per the Walls, Fences, and Landscaping Standards and Specifications. 8. The automatic gate at Orange Avenue placed along the private driveway shall be subject final review/approval by the Transportation Manager, and shall also meet requirements per Costa Mesa Sanitary District regarding entry. Gates shall be of high quality design and feature a low noise type of gate to the extent feasible. In addition, private property signs shall be displayed on gates. 9. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the driveway shall not be developed with a center concrete swale. The driveway shall be complemented by stamped concrete in order to reduce damage caused by sanitary trucks entering site for trash pickup. 10. The open, unassigned parking space located between Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall be clearly marked as guest parking space only. Signage shall be posted to indicate that this space is available only to guests and visitors and not used for resident parking. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final landscape plan indicating the landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas shall be 15:5- submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 13. The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Division and contain additional 24-inch box size trees above the minimum code requirements. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller size trees to 24-inch box size trees or providing additional 24-inch box trees. 14. 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. This includes any modification not consistent with the proposed asphalt composition and standing metal seam roofs, horizontal lap and vertical wood siding, smooth stucco, 24-inch and 12- inch board and batten siding, decorative metal roll -up garage doors, and columns along front entry porches. Any modification should be consistent to originally proposed colors, including light and charcoal grays and earthen tones. 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 a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 15. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter system which is painted to match the building would comply with the condition. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 16. The front porch overhang for Plan C shall not contain supporting posts that encroach beyond the proposed 12-foot front setback. Awnings and eaves that are not supported by supporting posts can project 5-feet into front setback. 17. 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 fill 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. 18. 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 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. 19. 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. 20. The project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the energy conservation standards. The project Applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans: a. Double paned glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be used in all exterior windows. b. Building shall be oriented north/south where feasible. 21. Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. 22. 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&R's 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 for which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. b. 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. 23. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall file and record a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) on the property. The establishment of a homeowner's association shall be optional. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a draft of the CC&Rs shall be remitted to the Development Services Director and City Attorney's office for review and approval. Because there are no common areas for circulation, parking, or landscape purposes, the CC&Rs shall be limited to the 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. The Development Services Director has the discretion to request any other provisions in the CC&Rs to promote self -governance between the two property owners. 24. The CC&Rs shall contain a notice that the open parking space (not leading to a garage) shall be unassigned and available for visitors. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to use, preservation and maintenance of the common drive aisle and open space areas in perpetuity by the maintenance or homeowner's association 25. 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. 26. Prior to final recordation of the map, applicant shall provide written documentation from Southern California Edison to specifically allow the encroachment into the utility easement by the proposed structures. This document may indicate that the easement will be quitclaimed or modified to allow the proposed structures. This documentation shall be approved by the Development Services Director and the City Engineer prior to final map recordation unless an extension is granted by the Development Services Director. The City Attorney's office shall require legal documentation (i.e. hold harmless agreement, etc.) be submitted by the applicant if construction is allowed to proceed while the quitclaim process (other other procedure as specified by SCE) is pending. 27. The Homeowner's Association or Maintenance Association shall submit a signed affidavit to the City of Costa Mesa on an annual basis to certify the following: a. The two -car garages in the residential community are being used for vehicle parking by the resident(s). b. The vehicle parking areas within the garage are not obstructed by storage items, including but not limited to, toys, clothing, tools, boxes, equipment, etc. c. The resident(s) have consented to voluntary inspections of the garage to verify the parking availability, as needed. The form and content of the affidavit shall be provided by the City Attorney's office. Failure to file the annual affidavit is considered a violation of this condition. - 156, 28. 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. 29. The applicant 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 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. 30. Concrete wheel stops shall be installed 2' from the front edge of open parking spaces, or where applicable, landscape planters shall be increased 2' in depth to allow curbing to serve as a wheel stop. PC 31. To address privacy concerns, the applicant shall modify the southerly elevations of Units 1 through 6 with transom windows on the second story elevations along the 5-foot side setback, provided that building code and fire code requirements are met. PC 32. The final landscape plan shall include a minimum of one 24-inch box tree along the southerly property line of each individual dwelling unit for screening purposes to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Applicant may propose other landscaping or screening alternatives for the review/approval of the Development Services Director to satisfy this requirement. PC 33. The CC&Rs shall include a restriction that expressly prohibits the following: (1) the construction of a full height wall for the Bonus Room on the second floor of Unit 1 (Plan A) and/or (2) conversion of the Bonus Room into a bedroom. Eng 34. Comply with the requirements contained in the letter prepared by the City Engineer (Exhibit B1). Eng. 35. Provide a three-foot public sidewalk easement behind existing right of way line on Norse Avenue for ADA compliance. Eng. 36. 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. Pkwys 37. Plant one (1) 24" Box Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' along the Orange Avenue parkway. -159- 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. Applicant shall provide the City with proof of general liability insurance including endorsements concerning "additional named insured", "advance notice", and "primary coverage" as approved by the City attorney's office. 3. 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. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, 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. 5. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer shall pay a park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. 6. A minimum 20-foot by 20-foot clear interior dimension shall be provided for all garages. 7. Minimum garage door width shall be 16 feet. 8. All garages shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 9. Hours of construction shall comply with Section 13-279, Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. 10. 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 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, 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. 11. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 12. All on -site utility services shall be installed underground. 13. Installation of all 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 y�� 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. Prior to approval of plans, the project shall fulfill the City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements. 16. If present and/or projected exterior noise exceeds 60 CNEL, California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL for residential structures. If required interior noise levels are achieved by requiring that windows be inoperable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation, and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. 17. 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. 18. Planning Commission action on PA-15-10 shall not become final until seven (7) days following final action. Bldg. 19. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 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 or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Areas of alteration and additions shall comply with 2013 California Green Building Standards Code section 5.303.2 and 5.303.2. 20. Submit precise grading plans, an erosion control plan, and a hydrology study. 21. Submit a soils report for this project. Soil's report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. For existing slopes or when new slopes are proposed, the soils report shall address how existing or new slopes will be maintained to avoid erosion or future failure. 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 2 percent. 2013 California Building Code CRC 403.1.7.3. 23. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of six inches within the first 10 feet. CRC -- J�sq- R401.3. 24. Projections, including eaves, shall be one -hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or noncombustible material if they project into the 5-foot setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3-foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1 (1) and R302.1 (2). 25. Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the project Applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of onsite soils to cause unstable conditions. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety. 26. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 27. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 28. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the site, the contractor would implement each of the following: a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. b. Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface. c. Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. d. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. e. Wash mud -covered tired and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction sites. f. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. g. Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. h. Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Trans. 29. Construct all proposed driveway approaches to comply with city standards. 30. 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. 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. 31. Close unused drive approaches, or portion of, with full height curb and gutter that comply with City Standards. Fire 32. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 33. The project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13D. 34. Street addresses shall be visible from the public street and may be displayed either on the front door, on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance, or on another prominent location. When the property has alley access, address numerals shall be displayed in a prominent location visible from the alley. Numerals shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height with not less than one -half -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Eng 35. 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 on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or Architect. Construction 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- -I(01 231 of the C.C.M.M.C. and an approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. 36. 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. 37. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division for any work in the City public right-of-way. Pay required permit fee & cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee construction of off -site street improvements at time of permit per section 15-31 & 15-32, C.C.M.M.C. as approved by City Engineer. Cash deposit or surety bond amount to be determined by City Engineer. 38. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. ADA compliance required for new driveway approaches. 39. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. Residential sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Off -site Plan, including four (4) feet clear around obstructions in the sidewalk. 40. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk at applicant's expense. 41. Fulfill Drainage Fee requirements per City of Costa Mesa Ordinance No. 06-19 prior to approval of Final Map/Approval of Plans. 42. In order to comply with the 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (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, using latest version of template dated August 2011, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. a) 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. b) Location of BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani. 1. Applicant will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, inspection fees, and sewer permit are required prior to installation of sewer. - I I.P12_ 3. Applicant shall submit a plan showing sewer improvements that meets the District Engineer's approval to the Building Division as part of the plans submitted for plan check. 4. The applicant is required to contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to arrange final sign -off prior to certificate of occupancy being released. 5. Unless an off -site trash hauler is being used, applicant shall contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to pay trash collection program fees and arrange for service for all new residences. Residences using bin or dumpster services are exempt from this requirement. 6. Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 654-8400 for any additional district requirements. AQMD 7. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD. Water 8. 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. School 9. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 10. 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. Cable 11. The applicant shall contact the current cable company prior to issuance of building permits to arrange for pre -wiring for future cable communication service. -- I V3- SUBJECT: DATE: FROM: CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-10 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TT-17870 FOR A 6-UNIT, DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2366 ORANGE AVENUE JULY 17, 2015 RYAN LOOMIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RYAN LOOMIS (714)754-5608 ryan. loom is@costamesaca.gov The objectives of this memo are to: • Provide latest version of architectural plans/elevations showing revised floor plan for Unit C. The interior wall and door for the "Activity Room" on second floor was removed (Please refer to handwritten page 10 for floor plan changes to Unit C for "Activity Room"). Provide latest version of architectural plans/elevations showing southerly elevation changes to windows and landscape screening (Please refer to handwritten pages 2,6,7,9 and 11 for window and elevation changes). Attachments: Revised Plans/Elevations Distribution: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development/ Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Owner: Kings Road Partners LLC 12 Strawberry Farms Rd Irvine, CA 92612 Authorized Agent: Appellant: Eric Trabert 9251 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Douglas F. Gorrie 222 E. Wilson Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ATTACHMENT I IIJ 11 1 _N__50052Y/______T______ _ I ------- -----------'--------- ,L�O$T�,q _ L'EI L t _ a SITE NOTES NEED TO ALL N . L D fN FON ) PMa RFD ADR UT HYNRTALAav MAN OR LR of WAY 1.111 AA EALANDAME1 REAMNFPo1 NTPE FINPW-55.ED AT ME-IIN, Al ADAI O'HONY PROFNT+ FRMN5 P VI51DN NOIEEAL1mEN THE DE IN6 ANI_ IO_WA.KSCJRB BEM AND BUFFER AND NOYEAFlSIST'V P'LIAL FIRE " HILL A LOOM YEN DARN AND FA%AID BYSMENONNEF.B AND DETERMI PANON ANN ME EALEY IF INE REAA NNJIDEL HE E-ON EY.RK A"A_ B_ NADE AT ME DISLRETItM of THE MILE WiI5 PEABIFEER LNALT BE ME MErvcu_5 JR ENIAVAT FE_T OR FARE IN BEF-i MO 15 AM =NLROAM ENT ASREEY_Nr IS - (PAIN A NETEEEARMEFERYIT ARq• S� OF RI UIzfD FOR ALL nON-SrA10PRJ AN VA PNVENII NRHW rn=_ =I,B_IC LAPPARNIA DI: FLAN OF NDIVIDUU RA-Ett FRIOR NOTH AAM oMH INALI Orw.n A FINLrn6RAmNn r-NRNIr. _ NORf;vwr DOW ON _ LLHALL5i OATS, R AllDINC FALLANT BULn NS EY '. AREPEOP ELLSME, ARAIe PLAIN SOON L R AM A DOLE BOXmsOF of pPNRPL L!e F `EA RD) r0 ALLEN ALCF5E TO WAT[R METERS, ETL, T FOR SRWLNRE� FER LFL EPA Ill - 'DATERmA L READY TO AMADSTURAI RNFORMAS OLA ALL 5NE RFAINING NWLL NFCRMATIOX irvcica s+s mTs ITRBnIou ssa'Af euc. - - .DR - -xb HIM ME ICA`r n'.OioR Hill I Ill ON PA11To NS AEAICI ARRAANfrcAL AEOTEAHNY.AL ELICIAnL LACTRIVAL OFAe EVA BA`RA I 1-1IW LONTRAOrIll oR AT ME I PRIOR TO TIP s xr OPsxADINs. c rvEry DARTRLMON OR ADDITII IF 'HE APIATAR ARRANT MIA, PAI M p IN DHAVE EFOUNNAPAT PRIOR TO ,1DAR111 PFAAEANINT ED ALL PARK IBLA AN 0E IN EEALIR AfOI EMERY DEP EMERY PER ANA ALE DIALED 65 LA FAA uETR{W REAPPEAL x FAR A' - 'AID PDen. aEp sDEYNLKJ N C-WAPEOURED IN.. IAIDA JrL PRE N aRBJ IN aR.' vid aJ y .. ___________________ ________._____ R+ �1 I=' O _.— ...—..._...—.. .. ..._...- -------------- I ' �1 1 1 1 \ Ell _LL -\ L H �f f - FjI U ❑❑ 7 °o t color ---T ° ° Eli -- - - - NEI 7�© it UL7 I '� I�p�� �® Wi LOT 2 r l LOT 5 LOT 4 L L LOT 5 PLAN 51-A PLAN B2 A PLAN 51 B R M PLAN B2 B e c .. ':AN D� aA. 'AAVH . I I 51 „Nr eR:c rRASeRr a Assou,ares e / D91 EEE LNEEHNA EOWVf IN 41(C9]610 H ➢49BdLll44 FAM 99B61L33 I gmn A.OD OOL6 D_OINLES zWScRAO, AM WE. ti%AAN D .SA, YL 8 A °A os IT 0 A O7-1 a�;_- FLOT' ON PLAN G - i U_ UI N REVISIONS QPLE. - A IT — 'LEE cr:E✓A`12' SITE FOOTAGE NOTES I2V NER °PDXLAIAREA ROVI. 'Di DEGINGES FooraBI NorES AB ^RAN I'llPHILIPPI APAJ05 ADDRESS ?�T A OLD E_"A", cA'A-' m-RIFTION �^ LEGAN ANY I- ANAT a an3 SITE AREA GALGULATION5 DESCRIPTION OF WORK =�_ErEv DO, Al 6uxl3 P, -ADAARY FINs� FAMIL- FJ "ILF. - FF ® -'--A --NA FT P ROOJECT DATA oaLwwer. PARcro Porn tta¢IADENAN, ter. 3 l.h nawF RXs� THE NO N — ANLDNvca NA la APANN 1 —11 "' Maoott ( GLE �{ T+=µ+.A.. M11 SRR G p! LI ELI OVER-ALL REAR ELEVATION5 ViFMa. T r III III II II. III, IIII 1 III " I i ILL=_�� II II �����, li III ICI o oli I I qI� II III ll p �i i �u� ail I LII II II I II I L JC. �IJ I PARTIAL REAR ELEVA7ION5 loon munrmrn.w. ' •i�r�i �i'.aj i I I I PARTIAL REAR ELEVATIONS C � Ik+ OGE j FY — L9< RI�6E - - - - �I ERIC T 1197 4 A550GIFTES 959 'MINE VXrN DRIVE IANNE, fAIIWANIA92RN IRi➢19dE14W E�949ESISID uvvz��@slgn.io ODRUG FAEaNces DRAWN BY JI iopw � m sua b SnEfly � vw oA¢.A samswzn i REAR ELEVATION (PLAN A) LEFT ELEVATION (PLAN A) RIGHT ELEVATION (PLAN A) FRONT ELEVATION (PLAN A) ERIG TRA ERT a ASS [ATE 9511 WY C'N"@DRIVE 111.1144 FdX.9399fi13131 rvvxa[asg¢[om DOW 6_CINLES :yAW By. loe uo � NZU SMLS _- I PORCH I ------------ I � � 7 o $ i I i A=SNDUM PORCH rrtRMRYROOM i ENTRY P^— I \ III KITCHEN I ERIG TRA3ERT B A530GIATPS 93111AV14f[EAI;R DWvf IxvmuAli0NNIA 92619 ,AS A I1111233 111w aw¢IaEe�igr ton 0 OCONOEEE DATE 11 1-5 ervNovm NNAwa NY. A, F V ON No SCALE 14 1 o„ AS I•L � r� iol onm 111C11V I CIA 111. ELSE :! LEFT ELEVATION (PLAN El -A) REAR ELEVATION (PLAN E1-A) FRONT ELEVATION (PLAN E1-A) ERIG T 5AB a ASSOCIATES RVILL CAT [UNA52W IRVIIILGIIfWNP9llp AL"1Ul4111 ,A, 1199fi1M nw¢lap¢sgmm� OCLG 3E0'NLES TE 11-5 APPROVER AF45pH5 DRAWL, n EAT 'LATE A, 13 ;pEE g 'LTEIEE LEFT ELEVATION (PLAN 51) -- ---- - —� 3 U E n RIGHT ELEVATION (PLAN 51-5) REAR ELEVATION (PLAN 81—ES) FRONT ELEVATION (PLAN 51—E4) ERIC TR SMKT d A SOCATEE 951uIN M aNTiD NNE Bevy[. M FORNIie sua IE'.'. III Ell E141 PIC111961llll um.,Wn" JOUO 3EOrNOE5 zm m O wl au IL oenwe BY U U3ry sue IN 4 ,« 0 vml mlt nisrzms 6.ioe MIC rnnazlxT a e Z=IFI Ml IVllBC W—ER DRIVE IAVINE UIIM@IA 92618 'FL'. 949.11 ll11 FAX 94996U211 V,N 'I.I a. ,OU6 OEGIVGES vEue oeawu sn �+ JOB V SIAI O, IDEFT 199 vwl oerz .nsnms REAR ELEVATION (PLAN 82) N! a RIGHT ELEVATION (PLAN B2) LEFT ELEVATION (PLAN 52) El ERIG TRABERT 8 AESOGIATES 9521IRVIINE CINTEN MEE RVINE AWi NMg92H TEL 9499542240 FlM 10IIIID1 xevxhEesiyuxm 'JOL(e JEGIVGES N ON dz W IU Q gIBY 4 V ME No so SHEET 9mroeie a ENTRY \ I PORCH �� ^ KITCHEN it II �� DINING CLJY R60M ERIG TRAEERT a AEEOCIATEE 10111,111,wopmE IAN_, IALIFCMA 9262 W 11M.E l L7GUG L7EGINGES C11.lY'. n V N YPtE s MET 25 LL S (� �✓ nol pert 7 REAR ELEVATION (PLAN r-) - L---- - - - - - - LEFT ELEVATION (PLAN C) RIGHT ELEVATION (PLAN G) FRONT ELEVATION (PLAN C) ERIC TKA5EKET I A5ECCA77E5 EE21 IRV14E ENTER ELYE IINIIIC IKNI IEL 11I.Eln', Fi%101.11DE 7CC, PEGEETSE5 ,,,L 0-215 eemus RETAWN BY NE 1E 217 SHEET 'LIT RATE 11 1 PH-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PA-1 5-10 and TT-1 7870 Redesign Options to enhance project and neighboring properties Wilson Street • Street view looking east is single level detached homes. Wilson Street • Street view looking north east at 226 E. Wilson Street. Wilson Street • Street view looking north at 222 E. Wilson Street. Wilson Street • Street view looking north at 218 and 216 E. Wilson Street. Wilson Street Rear Property Line • Rear yard view looking west at 218 E. Wilson Street. 2nd Floor setback is approximately 23 feet, which is over 4 times further than the proposed development setback of 5 feet. Site Plan of Proposed Houses a� Q a� a� c M L Proposed Six 2- Story Houses 26 feet high along south property line � R2-MD Zone 2-Story 2-Story Apartment Apartment Uz- . 2-Stor} mk*Duse 1-Story House 1214 E. Wilson St R2-MD Zone T.2 -OT r_; w r'S1-`% ILI%h L12-A 2-Story 2-Story R House House 01 1-Story House 2- Story Area 21 E. Wilson St 1-Story House R-1 Zone Nor �GT 4 Lam° E� L=•T 6 2-Story 2-Story 2-Story ® House House House 1-Story 1-Story House L —House 222 E. Wilson St 226 E. Wilson St Norse St. cul-de-sac 5 feet setback 10 feet setback R-1 Zone R-1 Zone R-1 Zone R-1 Zone • Proposed - ouse development will a 11 e rear property lines ot 4 houses located a and 226 E. Wilson Street. The setback of the 6 houses will be 5 feet. • Minimal landscape screening is provided along south property line. Wilson Street rl L� Site Plan of Proposed Houses R2t -MD Zon I 2-Story 2-Story Apartment Apartment 1-Story House R-1 Lone Nor Norse St. cul-de-sac -..i tG Lam' E . - i 2-Story 2-Story 2-S'fory House Hou-,e 5 feet setback 10 feet setback 1-Story 1-Story House 1-Story 1-Story House 2_ House House Story 214 E. Wilson St Area 222 E. Wilson St F 226 E. Wilson St 21 1 E. Wilson St i A R-1 Zone R-1 Zone R-1 Zone R-1 Zone Existing houses ave a s ab eleva ion approximately ee e ow ilson ouses Proposed houses will be 27 feet tall and set 2 feet higher ruining our physical, visual and acoustica privacy and blocking morning light. There is only a 6 feet high wood fence proposed. Wilson Street a� Q aD a� c M L Site Plan of Proposed Houses R2-MD Zone 2-Story 2-Story Apartment Apartment �s - _,71- 2-Story2-Story 2-Story use House R. Hc�E_,,, 1-Story 1 -Story r House R-1 Zone X40 _= 4 Lam_ L L=•T 6 y Lx L11-L'+ I"_ Ltia = 5 r-AEI C 2-Story 2-Story 2-Story Mttfiaw�e Ho_use House Norse St. cul-de-sac Clerestory y House 1-Story Clerestory windows ONLY'111214 House 2_ House House windows ONLY at 2nd floor Story at 2nd floor south facingE.Wilson St Area 222 E. Wilson St F226 E. Wilson St south facing walls 21 E. Wilson St walls R-1 Zone R-1 Zone R-1 Zone R-1 Zone • The Planning Commission made part of the recor a he developer must change le esign o e Ouse plans and replace the full height windows with clerestory windows only at the 2nd floor south facing walls with a 5 feet setback. This must be enforced without exception at all south facing windows, not just windows at 5 feet setback walls. Wilson Street rl L� Site Plan of Proposed Houses R2t -MD Zon I 2-Story 2-Story Apartment Apartment 22 - , M*"JSL 1-Story House R-1 Lone .i 4 Lam' E {� av 2-Story 2-Story 2-Story House He uqe House Nor Norse St. cul-de-sac 1-Story House 1-Story qSt Landscape Landscape House screening 2- House screening Story 214 E. Wilson St A ea �222 E. Wilson St P26 1 214E.Wilson St R-1 Zone R-1 Zone R-1 Zone R-1 Zone • The Planning Commission ma e par o e recor a e ]developer must provide some landscaping or other screening where possible. This must be enforced without exception. Wilson Street Site Plan of Proposed Houses R2I-MD Zont 2-Story ^ 2-Story Traffic Apartment Apartment Pattern \ a� a' 1-Story House R-1 Lone _. .i 4 Lam' E• n {� av L2-Stor 2-Story 2-Story feet setback e House H5 cuse 10 feet setback0- 1-Story House Fi�ostory 1—F1 i1-Story House 2_ use 214 E. Wilson St Story Area 222 E. Wilson St 21 E. Wilson St FR-1 Zone R-1 Zone R-1 Zone • The through driveway will increase tra Ica orse btreet cul-de-sac. • An increase in traffic will make the Norse Street cul-de-sac less safe. • No traffic study has been performed. r Noi raffic Pattern Norse St. cul-de-sac j1-Story House 226 E. Wilson St R-1 Zone ] 5 feet setback 10 feet setback Wilson Street Destruction of Visual Privacy, Acoustical Privacy, Liqht and Air View looking toward rear yard fence showing the 20 foot stucco wall height of the proposed houses. Destruction of Visual Privacy, Acoiys#i1!'a- I Privacy, Light ;and Air 20 feet 6 feet • View looking toward rear yard fence showing the 20 feet stucco wall height of the proposed houses. Destruction of Visual Privacy, Acoustical Privacy, Light and Air jV song .MA Existing 2-story apartment building jacent parcel • View looking toward rear yard fence. • The project should be flipped to align with the 2-story apartments which are the same scale and zoning which is R2-MD. Option 1 Apartment Buildings SFR R1 Zone R2-MD Zon —t M 1 1 ; ri r L. 1 1 z > House 1 House 2 House 3 House 4 House 5 a DOI 2366 Orange Ave. R2-MD Zone 222 E. Wilson St 226 E. Wilson St R1 Zone R1 Zone 214 E. Wilson St R1 Zone 218 E. Wilson St R1 Zone Wie_-- —.. Wilson St. Proposed Conceptual Site Plan Scale: N/A Drawn By: Douglas Gorrie, Architect Noah Flip the proposed six houses to abut north property line to provide physical separation and visual separation and acoustical separation from the proposed 2-story houses. Option 1 Apartment Buildings SFR R1 Zone R2-MD Zon I d 4.Fk, Z > House 1 Houlse 2{{ House 3 House{ 4 House 5 rz ! jt.,f. li� �if.� f>. "LuT t : I it b LI V.4T.5 1 ate, r� e I 2366 Orange Ave. y , R2-MD Zone I A � J i 214 E. Wilson St R1 Zone 218 E. Wilson St 222 E. Wilson St R1 Zone R1 Zone Wilson St. r- F-I 226 E. Wilson St R1 Zone Proposed Conceptual Site Plan Scale: N/A Drawn By: Douglas Gorrie, Architect • A dead end driveway creates a safe condition in the subject property. Children likely will be playing in this driveway, since there is no other viable open space available. • A through driveway is not required to comply with City of Costa Mesa Fire Department requirements. This proposed driveway length is less than the 300 feet maximum length. Option 1 Rrai&—d Fire 0.,•— •'nu..ue Aiarl' Residentiol Fire Access Mn * }arf' 23, M15 5:32 M4 Frain: "HOLLISTEft DAV U-DAVIO.ISOLLISTERQ Wnnesaca.g— Ia: I ramx�r@a"obal net' Ai •ewer§—glabal net, Mr. Gom6. The mar=mom d,&Ua 'or aKe:b w,hWta ire apparatuS lurrarwnd i000 feet 4om the curb M paarlio %mV to front door oL(urdrest om d hn iamlPy d of (736] 327.7403 Wfio9 .....-... (714) 327440$ fax • Email from Costa Mesa Fire Department, dated 7-20-15, states • Mr. Gorrie, Fbge I aft • The maximum distance for access without a fire apparatus turnaround is 300 feet from the curb at public street to front door of furthest one or two family dwelling. • David Hollister • Fire Prote ction,Analy r..+.R'irs � •n\f iJ::IRiiJ-In1Mx�.�-datcNrwdcrdnnnRscarlMid-2S&igsrR}�&.raM�1098063293d.nrWlr�x-6�mid'2 � O_I 273.., 74�I12013 • Costa Mesa Fire Department • (714) 327-7403 office 0 (714) 327-7408 fax. Option 1 Apartment Buildings SFR R1 Zones R2-MD Zon z I > J� {I�1, House 1 House 2 House 3 House 4 House 5 . l� 1 f. � � i L4+T ,} k L L,� L1 L4 T.5 LL 16p ` 1�0 DOI TT 2366 Orange Ave. �. . R2-MD Zone F-I 214 E. Wilson St R1 Zone 218 E. Wilson St 222 E. Wilson St 226 E. Wilson St R1 Zone R1 Zone R1 Zone Wilson St. Proposed Conceptual Site Plan Scale: N/A Drawn By: Douglas Gorrie, Architect With house 6 fronting the cul-de-sac, traffic in the cul-de-sac will be reduced and thus the cul-de-sac will be more safe. No traffic study has been performed to address this issue. Option 2 N ISH LIST (for PA-is-1a) 1) 8 Foot high CMQ BLOCK wall (height measured frarn Wilson Street houses existing top of grade) along the side boundaries of the site (specifically along south side of the site). This block wall to be installed on the developer's property. 2) ALL 2' floor w m&ws (including T floor recessed wall windows) abutting south property line to be clerestory. Supplemental memo indicates clerestory windows at 5 foot setback walls only. 3) Provide a landscape plan clearly showing landscape screening on developer's property at south property line. The Supplemental memo rear elevation indicates landscaping trees installed on the developer's property. Install landscape screening per plan DeveloperlHOA shall maintain. 4) Developer to provide a landscape plan for Wilson Street homeowners and provide suggestions for plant species. Developer to provide a monetary allowance for each homeowner for the purchase and installation of landscaping screening for homeowners at 214, 218, 222 and 226 E. Wilson Street. Landscaping to be coordinated by the Wilson Street homeowners individually. 5) Developer shall maintain landscape screening installed on all properties abutting south property line (214, 218, 222 and 226 E. Wilson Street) for a period of 24 months after installation of landscape screening- 6) Proposed slab height on developer's property to be lowered by 12 inches (grading can be done at this level]) Existing slab heights are approximately 18 to 24 inches below the Wilson houses natural grade and there is an existing r gnu wall. 7) Bonus Room at unit A to have clerestory window(s) and NO closets (to prevent beaus rooms from being converted to bedrooms). 0 Project site orientation shall remain as designed. Costa Mesa City Council Meeting July 21, 2015 PA-15-10 and TT-17870 2366 Orange Avenue Request 1. Planning Application PA-15-10: Design Review to construct a six -unit, two-story, small lot subdivision on a 23,159 sq. ft. lot in an R2-MD zone. In addition, the project requests the following deviations from the R2-MD development standards: a. Administrative adjustment from front yard setback for Lot 6/ Plan C (20 feet required; 12 feet proposed off Norse Avenue). b. Minor modification for front yard setback for a front porch on Lot 1 / Plan A (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed). 2. Tentative Tract Map TT-17870: A Residential Small Lot Subdivision consisting of six fee simple lots. The property is a through lot with access from Orange Avenue and Norse. The property two-story detached homes consist of 3 to 4 bedrooms and two -car garage with a minimum interior dimension of 20' x 20'. Vicinity Mar) At ea: u . 56 Acres z� s Zoning: R2-MD vo qr v � e 227 rn d is 19 av�z S ° P- S 231 ,165 2� 'r T P1 ^h LCF:, "Y 2� Are 2 S Subject Property J� ,sae Properties to e 0 Ilk the South ryry ryrys ' Property to h �M � 3 the North h , Property to the West Property to the East LDR Rl MDR R2-MD Development on Prc Develop . 4 ure , mili dw, ,4- E)P.vp,lnn [] � Existing Development on Project Site Ole r T7 = Ole T7 = Development on Prc IL _ g��� R■1 o1S 1111 Y Surrounding Development ..a -Aam ..�. Wilson Street 9 it'd Av Al Aw Wilson Street Pt' SAC`„ .-�� .��k • �' i�E� � y. k � .7 �M, � - � y6 � L _ tyi .`- �. -' -- I. � .I F-,�= � M, * � �s _ `7 „ 1 y� � ysaial.M - �I .a. a ,:�l: �-. �. r.. - �� Proposed Project Site Plan aneamrna� a V, I PbEfER&ERIE MrE DUMMYdl mM:rllu ruuur� M�MM�Mm too ,iucE5 F� _ z LW am_ arrsmvraa[ �l F` I VIEW 'FROM ORAMGE AVE. µye 4 a+ a•s c' *, VIEW FROM NORSE AWE 1 Elevations View frovii private dnvevvay Appellant's Reasons for Appeal 1. The Planning Commission did not hear all the pertinent information; 2. A no thru-access driveway to Norse Avenue is better for neighborhood; 3. To many unresolved design issues, including the following: grading alternatives; landscape screening; fenestration mitigation measures; no traffic study performed regarding proposed gate on Orange Avenue; through driveway at Norse Avenue will increase traffic on Norse Avenue due to increased density; privacy and quality of life issues were not mitigated; diminished use for house at Wilson Street; loft spaces not intended to be bedrooms and shall have clerestory windows only and no closets; flip subject houses to align with adjacent apartment structures along north property line; block wall 8 feet high along south property line (10 foot wall preferred). Pertinent Information Concerns Concerns about incomplete pertinent information regarding the proposed project. Public Hearinq on June 22, 2015. • Staff presented proposed 6-unit, two-story residential development to be built per the Residential Small Lot Subdivisions Ordinance. • Staff Report provided justification for approval, along with public notice records from neighboring property owners. Policy and Code Compliance. • General Plan, Zoning Code, and Residential Design Guidelines considered. • The effect on the light, air, and privacy of adjacent properties with specific regard residences along E. Wilson Street. Additional Conditions of Approval. • Require transom windows along 5-foot southerly side setback. • Require landscaping or screening alternatives. • Restrictions on converting Bonus Room to a bedroom for Unit A. Thru-access Driveway Concerns �rwite Required ■..■ �I-Ji �l- ■�1 ik�l 4�� ■..■ '4�IM l�l :. •� !�� FRNW= �1 1 � L11 y1 7L �, 1 1 \ Planning Commission considerations: • Thru-access considered quality design. • Safer design than no -access. • Condition of approval requiring private access gate to deter access by non-residents. Screening and Privacy Concerns OVER-ALL REAR E.EVATIONS Transom Windows along 5-foot setback P*RTIA+L. I,EAR ELEVAMOKB Landscape screening 11 R'ART A_ REAR ELEVA'1 IONS Density Concerns isDevelopment Standard Units Allowed (Based on 23,159 sq. ft. lot) Existing Development 1 du/3,860 SF (11.3 du/ac) 6 dwelling units MDR Land Use R2-MD Zone Proposed Development 12 du/ac 1 du/3,630 SF 1 du/3,860 SF (11.3 du/ac) • Existing site has 6 units. 6 dwelling units 6 dwelling units 6 dwelling units • Proposed project meets density requirements for R2-MD Zone and MDR General Plan Land Im's Loft Space Concerns CC&Rs shall include a restriction than expressly prohibits the following: (1) the construction of a full height wall for the Bonus Room on the second floor of Unit 1 (Plan A) and/or (2) conversion of the Bonus Room into a bedroom. Walls and door also removed from Unit C "Activity Room" by applicant. I . ........ Public Correspondence Staff has received 4 public comments with concerns regarding PA-15-10 prior to Planning Commission, each provided in the Supplemental Memo. Staff has received 6 additional public comments with concerns regarding PA-1 5-10 prior to City Council. Environmental Determination • The project was found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15332 (Class 32) for In -Fill Development Projects. Recommendation • UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision to approve the proposed project, approving Design Review PA-1 5-10 and Tentative Tract Map TT-1 7870. PH-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IMENA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Comments on Project PA-15-10 & TT-17870 From: Remillard, AshleyJ.[mailto:aremillard@nossaman.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:07 AM To: LOOMIS, RYAN Cc: Tommy W. Remillard; GREEN, BRENDA Subject: Comments on Project PA-15-10 & TT-17870 Dear Mr. Loomis, Thank you for speaking with me this morning regarding the above -referenced project ("Project"). As I mentioned, we are homeowners that live on Norse Avenue. We purchased our home — 2380 Norse Avenue — in December 2013. We are generally supportive of the Project, as we believe new single family homes on our street will increase our property value. That being said, we have a few concerns regarding the Project, as it is currently proposed. We have two small children, ages 10 months and 3 years. Our next door neighbors have a son, age 3. Our neighbors at the end of the street have two small children, ages 3 years and 6 months. Directly across the street, the owners have two small children, ages 3 years and 18 months. At the other end of the street, the neighbors have two children, ages 4 and 11. Our neighbors on the other side also have two small children, ages 2 and 4. In short, the street is filled with small children. We are concerned that the Project, as proposed, will encourage Project residents to use Norse as an access street. Specifically, we understand there will be a gate on Orange street, but currently no gate is planned to be installed on Norse. This is concerning for two reasons. First, as a practical matter, gates are cumbersome and take time to open. It is reasonable to assume that Project residents will access their properties via Norse in order to avoid any delay caused by the gate on Orange, particularly if they are going north on Santa Isabel. This increased traffic risk is a danger to our children and the other children that live and play on Norse. Second, it appears that the gate on Orange is being installed for security purposes. It is peculiar to only install a gate on one side of the Project, when the security benefits of the gates can so easily be bypassed by accessing the Project via Norse. We would assume that the Project residents would — for security reasons — prefer a gate also installed on Norse street in addition to the gate planned on Orange. We therefore urge the City Council to approve the Project, provided that the City Council also include a condition that a gate be installed on Norse Avenue. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Best regards, Ashley Ashley J. Remillard Attorney at Law NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 aremillard@nossaman.com T 949.833.7800 F 949.833.7878 D 949.477.7635 V h. OSS �11AN ILP SUBSCRIBE TO E-ALERTS I -} f , r , nossaman.com PLEASE NOTE: The information in this e-mail message is confidential. It may also be attorney -client privileged and/or protected from disclosure as attorney work product. If you have received this e-mail message in error or are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, nor disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in it. Please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you. PH-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Hello Ryan, I am unable to attend the City Council meeting tomorrow night, I will be out of town. I did want to have an opportunity to express my concerns to the proposed changes. The current location has a total of 10 bedrooms. The proposal has a minimum of 18 bedrooms and a maximum of 24. This will more than double the occupancy. As an owner of a property close by, I am concerned with the amount of vehicles coming in and out with 25 parking spaces. Even though the motorized gate has been proposed to stop through traffic, the larger homes and extra parking will encourage more vehicles on the property. My tenants all comment how they love the area because it is quiet and peaceful. Having the trash collection truck drive through the proposed pass through road from Orange to Norse will be an added noise to the adjoining properties. Property owners who buy on a cul-de-sac do so with an added benefit of no extra vehicles passing through the street, knowing it will be quieter and safer. This proposed change eliminates the dead end cul-de-sac, adds traffic and a concern for safety, and lowers the property values for all home owners on Norse. I know many of the properties in the area are managed by property managers. Many of the owners do not live in the area. This minimizes their understanding of how they will be impacted by this change, as well as the likelihood that they would be available to attend a meeting. Please consider my concerns as a representation of other concerned home owners. The proposal will have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you for considering these concerns in your decision making process. Concerned Owner From: Adrienne Ainbinder [mailt Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 1:27 PM To: Mayor Subject: Resident Concern on Project PA-15-10 and TT-17870 Dear Mr. Mayor, p�-W<c, HeaAl? # 3 My family resides at 229 Santa Isabel Ave., at the corner of Norse Ave. We purchased this home in 2011 and have been fortunate to see our young children play in the cul de sac with our neighbors' children, all of similar ages. As a homeowner who recently completed a significant renovation on our home, I am strongly supportive of the proposed 6-unit detached development at the end of Norse Ave. (PA-15-10 / TT-17870). I do however, feel compelled to express my concern for one of the stipulations in this development's proposal — specifically, that which opens the community onto Orange Avenue with a gate, but does not provide for an equivalent gate on the entrance via Norse Avenue. My family and I believe that this proposal presents significant safety concerns through the increased traffic in our cul de sac, as well as at the already precarious intersection at Santa Isabel / Norse Avenues. The units scheduled for demolition that are accessed through Norse Ave. generate minimal traffic through the cul de sac our children play in. The proposed development allocates six homes, and the developer has seen fit to accommodate parking for a total of 25 vehicles in accordance with city regulations. The proposed single gate configuration will undoubtedly encourage the greatest degree of those drivers to enter from Norse Ave. where their drive will be unimpeded by the delay of an automatic gate. Therefore, in addition to dramatically increasing the number of vehicles that will be accessing this parcel, the developer has created a mechanism to encourage the vast majority of these vehicles to enter the homes from our street, substantially increasing our overall neighborhood traffic. Additionally, I have noted that the development plans allocate only one guest parking space for the entire community. It would stand to reason that guests will similarly be encouraged to enter via Norse Ave. and to park their vehicles in the Norse cul de sac and enter the community by foot where they will be unrestricted by a gate or remembering a code. This cul de sac is already highly crowded with cars from our current residents and will be overburdened with guests taking up curbside parking. More importantly, this is another generator of vehicular traffic which will present a safety concern on our street. While some increase to the traffic here will be unavoidable with the new development, I urge the City Council to deny approval to a proposal which will encourage the greatest degree of this development's traffic through the Norse entrance, and to require the developer to implement a gate equal to that which is proposed at Orange Ave. Finally, as it relates to the increased traffic that should be expected to enter from Santa Isabel -Norse intersection, the City Council should be aware that the intersection of these two streets can be very precarious. This corner does not have a stop sign for the East/West-bound traffic and lies between a wide span of road between the 4-way stop at Orange and the next 4-way stop several blocks down at Santa Ana Ave. My home is positioned on the SE corner and every day I observe the East/West traffic moving significantly faster than is permitted; often dangerously faster. Additionally, this corner is frequently a "blind" turn as a result of the large SUVs that park on the SE and SW corners of this intersection. Per my earlier comment, I anticipate parking in this area would only become more impacted. pg . 2- Given the family nature of our neighborhood, I often fear for the safety of the children playing in our yards and for the neighbors headed up the street toward the Back Bay. Encouraging increased traffic in and out of this intersection without also implementing appropriate safety measures to slow or stop traffic here (or to increase visibility onto Santa Isabel) is asking for serious damage to the persons or property that surround and travel through this area. We urge the City Council and the Planning Commission to consider the safety and interests of the neighbors who reside in the immediately affected homes. I ask that the governing committee require Kings Road Partners LLC to incorporate an equally gated entrance and ask that the City evaluate the intersection(s) that will be affected by this development. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the matter further, I can be reached at � or I have sent this letter to the members of your council and plan to participate in neat week's hearing in order to represent the concerns that my family and my neighbors carry regarding the current proposal. I hope that we have your support in our requests. Regards, Adrienne Ainbinder Costa Mesa Resident Since 2004 LOOMIS, RYAN From: Remillard, Ashley J. <aremillard@nossaman.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:07 AM To: LOOMIS, RYAN Cc: Tommy W. Remillard; GREEN, BRENDA Subject: Comments on Project PA-15-10 & TT-17870 Dear Mr. Loomis, Thank you for speaking with me this morning regarding the above -referenced project ("Project'). As I mentioned, we are homeowners that live on Norse Avenue. We purchased our home -JM Norse Avenue — in December 2013. We are generally supportive of the Project, as we believe new single family homes on our street will increase our property value. That being said, we have a few concerns regarding the Project, as it is currently proposed. We have two small children, ages 10 months and 3 years. Our next door neighbors have a son, age 3. Our neighbors at the end of the street have two small children, ages 3 years and 6 months. Directly across the street, the owners have two small children, ages 3 years and 18 months. At the other end of the street, the neighbors have two children, ages 4 and 11. Our neighbors on the other side also have two small children, ages 2 and 4. In short, the street is filled with small children. We are concerned that the Project, as proposed, will encourage Project residents to use Norse as an access street. Specifically, we understand there will be a gate on Orange street, but currently no gate is planned to be installed on Norse. This is concerning for two reasons. First, as a practical matter, gates are cumbersome and take time to open. It is reasonable to assume that Project residents will access their properties via Norse in order to avoid any delay caused by the gate on Orange, particularly if they are going north on Santa Isabel. This increased traffic risk is a danger to our children and the other children that live and play on Norse. Second, it appears that the gate on Orange is being installed for security purposes. It is peculiar to only install a gate on one side of the Project, when the security benefits of the gates can so easily be bypassed by accessing the Project via Norse. We would assume that the Project residents would —for security reasons — prefer a gate also installed on Norse street in addition to the gate planned on Orange. We therefore urge the City Council to approve the Project, provided that the City Council also include a condition that a gate be installed on Norse Avenue. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Best regards, Ashley Ashley J. Remillard Attorney at Law NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 aremillard@nossaman.com T 949.833.7800 F 949.833.7878 D 949.477.7635 MNQSSAMAN IlP n ssaman. om0 E-ALERTS PUb�'�Aearv� 11- 3 From: RODELIUS, SHARON Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 8:05 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA Subject: FW: Wilson Street development, Item 3 Hi Brenda — FYI - Sharon From: sylvia marson [mailto: ] Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 9:31 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Wilson Street development, Item 3 Honorable City council, Please accept this letter in lieu of attending the council meeting on Tuesday July 21 to express opposition to Public Hearing Item #3: Appeal 6 unit 2 story development abutting single family one story homes on Wilson Street for the following reasons: CONCERNS: * Quality of life issues for existing homeowners * Traffic impact for neighborhood, also citywide * Safety issues for children and pedestrians * Privacy issues for existing homeowners on Wilson • Effect on property values of surrounding homes and throughout city There has been a huge amount of development in Costa Mesa recently and the quality of life and housing values here is negatively impacted by increased traffic and congestion. Please consider denial of high density development; encourage more single family homes and low density, controlled development. Thank you. Respectfully, Sylvia Johnson, Walnut St, Costa Mesa 1 PH-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS M EJIA, J ESSICA Subject: FW: List for PA-15-10 Attachments: Wish list for PA-15-10 7-20-15.pdf Hi Ms. Green, Please find the attached list for today's hearing. Thanks, Doug Gorrie --- On Mon, 7/20/15, Tuyet Mac <lilratster@sbcglobal. net> wrote: • From: Tuyet Mac <lilratster@sbcglobal.net> > Subject: List for PA-15-10 > To: stephen.mensinger@costamesaca.gov > Cc: cole.reddin@gmail.com > Date: Monday, July 20, 2015, 1:15 PM > Dear Mayor Stephen Mensinger, > Thank you again for taking the time to meet with Cole Redd in and me > last Friday. As you suggested, I compiled a short list of items for • your consideration. Items 1 through 6 reflect things we discussed > last Friday. > Regarding item 1, the request for a block wall, that would help us out > a lot. You had discussed the developer providing a 7 feet high block > wall. If it could be 8 feet, it would help us a lot. > Regarding item 2, the request for all 2nd floor windows facing south > to be clerestory windows, the bedroom window is not a clerestory > window. I checked the planning commission conditions, which ask for > only 2nd floor windows at 5 feet setback walls to be clerestory. I am > not sure why the planning commission did not make the 2nd floor > windows at 8 feet setback walls to be clerestory as well. > Regarding item 3, the developer is indicating landscape screening on > the developer's property. We just wanted a landscape plan made for > this and the landscaping installed per plan. > Regarding item 4, we discussed this at the meeting. > Regarding item 5, we discussed this at the meeting as suggested by > staff. > Regarding item 6, we discussed this and if the developer can achieve • this it would be a big help to us. • Regarding item 7, this was not discussed on Friday, but the issue of > the loft being converted into a bedroom was an item of concern which > was brought up during the planning commission hearing and was > addressed by the planning commission via HOA conditions. > > If you need to speak to me, I can be reached at 949-548-8581 home, or > 714-402-0465 cell. > > Very best regards, > Douglas Gorrie WISH LIST (for PA-15-10) 1) 8 Foot high CMU BLOCK wall (height measured from Wilson Street houses existing top of grade) along the side boundaries of the site (specifically along south side of the site). This block wall to be installed on the developer's property. 2) ALL 2" floor windows (including 2"d floor recessed wall windows) abutting south property line to be clerestory. Supplemental memo indicates clerestory windows at 5 foot setback walls only. 3) Provide a landscape plan clearly showing landscape screening on developer's property at south property line. The Supplemental memo rear elevation indicates landscaping trees installed on the developer's property. Install landscape screening per plan. Developer/HOA shall maintain. 4) Developer to provide a landscape plan for Wilson Street homeowners and provide suggestions for plant species. Developer to provide a monetary allowance for each homeowner for the purchase and installation of landscaping screening for homeowners at 214, 218, 222 and 226 E. Wilson Street. Landscaping to be coordinated by the Wilson Street homeowners individually. 5) Developer shall maintain landscape screening installed on all properties abutting south property line (214, 218, 222 and 226 E. Wilson Street) for a period of 24 months after installation of landscape screening. 6) Proposed slab height on developer's property to be lowered by 12 inches (grading can be done at this level!) Existing slab heights are approximately 18 to 24 inches below the Wilson houses natural grade and there is an existing retaining wall. 7) Bonus Room at unit A to have clerestory window(s) and NO closets (to prevent bonus rooms from being converted to bedrooms). CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH-4 SUBJECT: REZONE R-14-05, PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-48, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP T-17824 FOR A 10-UNIT DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 13, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Approve Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND): This document analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. None of the impacts analyzed were determined to be significant. (Resolution attached). 2. Give first reading to the ordinance approving Rezone R-14-05: An ordinance to rezone a 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family Residential). The maximum allowable density is 7.26 dwelling units per acre or a maximum of 14 dwelling units. (Ordinance attached). 3. Approve Planning Application PA-14-48 and Tentative Tract Map T-17824 by adoption of resolution: A Design Review for the development of a 10-unit, two- story, single-family residential development (5 dwelling units per acre proposed). The units would take access from a 40-foot wide private street from Mesa Verde Drive East. The lot sizes range from 8,712 square feet to 6,902 square feet (excluding the private street); the minimum lot size allowed is 6,000 square feet, and subdivision of the property into 10 fee simple lots for homeownership. APPLICANT The applicant is Pinnacle Residential, representing the property owner, First Church of Christ Scientist. PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 2880 Mesa Verde Dr. East Application: R-14-05, PA-14-48, and TT-17824 Request: 10 Detached Single Family Residential Units SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: I&R (Exist.); R1 (Prop.) North: R1, Residences General Plan: Low Density Residential South: C1, Office Buildings Lot Dimensions: Irregular East: (Acr. Andros) R1, Residences Lot Area: 2 Acres (87,120 SF) West: (Acr. MV Dr. E.) R1, Residences Existing Development: Church Buildings and Surface Parking (To Be Demolished) DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON (R1 STANDARDS USED FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES) Development Standard Required/Allowed Proposed/Provided Lot Size: Lot Width 60 FT (Corner Lot) 50 FT (Interior Lot) 60 FT/50 FT Lot Area (Excluding Street) 6,000 SF Min. 6,902 SF-8,712 SF Density/Intensity: DU's/ Acre PDR-LD Zone: Max. 16 units (1 du/5,445 SF) Proposed R1 Zone: 1 du/6,000 SF (7.26 DU's/Acre) Max. 14 units 1 du/8,712 SF (5 DU's/Acre) 10 units Building Coverage (Development Lot) Buildings NA 25,800 SF (30%) Paving (Driveways and Private Street) NA 19,883 SF (23%) Open Space 34,848 SF (40%) 41,437 SF (47%) TOTAL 87,120 SF (100%) Open Space (Individual Lots) 40% Min. 50% Min./55% Average No. of Stories/Building Height 2 Stories/27 FT 2 Stories/26 FT Setbacks (Buildings) Front 20 FT 38 FT (2) Side (left/right) Corner Lot: 10 FT Street Side/ 5 FT Interior Side Interior Lot: 5 FT/5 FT Corner Lot: 10 FT/5 FT Interior Lot: 5 FT/5 FT Rear 10 FT (1 Story) 20 FT (2 Story) 28 FT (Min.) Parking Covered 20 Min. (1) 20 Open (In Driveway) 20 20 Open (In Private Street) NA 10 TOTAL 40 Spaces 50 Spaces Interior garage dimension 20 FT X 20 FT (2 Car) 10 FT X 20 FT (1 Car) 20 FT X 20 FT 10 FT X 20 FT NA = Not Applicable or No Requirement (1) All units have optional 3rd car garage spaces. (2) For zoning purposes, the lot area does not include the private street; however, the building setbacks are measured from the legal lot lines. In this case, the front property line is located at the centerline of the private street. CEQA Status Initial Study/Negative Declaration Final Action City Council BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The project site is approximately 2 acres in size and contains the facilities for First Church of Christ Scientist, including offices, classrooms, and the main sanctuary, in two buildings totaling approximately 8,900 square feet, and approximately 124 surface parking spaces. The site is currently zoned I&R (Institutional and Recreational) and has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR)1. The site is bounded by R-1 (Single -Family Residential) zoned properties to the north, east (across Andros Street), and west (across Mesa Verde Drive East); and an office complex zoned C1 (Local Business District) to the south. Original Project Proposal The original project proposal consisted of a 13 unit, detached single family residential development with a proposed rezone to PDR-LD (Planned Development Residential - Low Density) and deviations from the perimeter open space requirements of the PDR- LD zone. A copy of the original plan is attached to this report for reference. On February 17 and February 19, 2015, the applicant conducted outreach to the Mesa Verde residents by scheduling community meetings with the assistance of the Board of Mesa Verde Community Inc. (MVCI). Approximately 30-40 residents attended each meeting. The applicant also met individually with the four residential property owners abutting the project site to the north. The project was originally scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission on March 9, 2015, but was pulled from the calendar by the applicant to make further revisions to the plan based on input from the community. Planning Commission Action On June 22, 2015, Planning Commission, on a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Andranian absent) recommended approval of the revised proposal for 10 single family units instead of 13 and rezone to R1 instead of PDR-LD. A comparison is contained in the below table: Comparison Table of General Plan and Revised Project No. of Units Existing General Plan Max. 16 units Original Project •. . Zone 13 units Current Project R1 Zone 10 units Zone Change PDR-LD or R1 Rezone Required PDR-LD R1 Density 8 units/Acre 6.5 Units/Acre 5 Units/Acre Code Deviations Perimeter Open Space 20 FT Req.; 3-13 FT Prop. None Lot Size Min. 5,043 SF 6,902 SF Unit Size (Not Including Garage) 2,824 SF/3,120 SF 3,311 SF Parking 59 Spaces 50 Spaces Open Space 45% (Average) 55% (Average) Per the 2000 General Plan Land Use Element, non-residential uses that serve surrounding neighborhoods, including churches, are consistent with the LDR General Plan land use designation. A link to the Planning Commission staff report can be found on the City's website here: http://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/planningcommission/agenda/20l 5/2Ol 5-06-22/PH-2.pdf The excerpt of the Planning Commission meeting minutes for the item (unofficial) will be submitted separately via supplemental memorandum. ANALYSIS Project Description The project involves the demolition of the existing site improvements and the construction of a 10-unit, 2-story, detached, single family residential development. To facilitate the project, the property is proposed to be rezoned to R1 (Single Family Residential) and the residential project is being developed per the R1 standards. Proposed Single -Family Development The proposed single family residential units and a lot -by -lot summary of the development is included in the following tables: Unit Type Summary Unit Size Not Including Garage) 3,311 SF Total No. of Units 10 No. of Stories 2 Stories/26 FT No. of Garage Spaces 2+ 1 Optional Garage/Flex Space No. of Open Spaces In Driveway 2 No. of Open Spaces In Private Street 10 Total Parkin 50 Lot Summary # Setback*Lot Front .. Open Space footnotes- .Setback 1 (Corner Lot) 49 FT (To P.L.) 12 FT/5 FT 29 FT 7,886 SF 4,478 SF (56%) 20 FT From St. 2 40 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/5 FT 33 FT 6,999 SF 3,591 SF (51 %) 20 FT From St. 3 40 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/5 FT 27 FT 6,902 SF 3,494 SF (50%) 19 FT From St. 4 45 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/5 FT 27 FT 7,382 SF 3,974 SF (54%) 16 FT From St. 5 (Corner Lot) 45 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/11 FT 27 FT 8,230 SF 4,822 SF (58%) 23 FT From St. 6 (Corner Lot) 45 FT (To P.L.) 10 FT/5 FT 38 FT 8,218 SF 4,810 SF (58%) 30 FT From St. 7 45 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/5 FT 32 FT 7,503 SF 4,095 SF (54%) 15 FT From St. 8 38 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/5 FT 42 FT 7,135 SF 3,727 SF (52%) 17 FT From St. 9 40 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/5 FT 43 FT 7,606 SF 4,198 SF (55%) 20 FT From St. 10 (Corner Lot) 50 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/13 FT 44 FT 8,712 SF 5,304 SF (61 %) 20 FT From St. Notes: 7. For zoning purposes, the lot area of each R7 lot excludes the square footage contained in the proposed private street which is subject to ingress/egress easements. 2. For zoning purposes, the setbacks are measured from the legal lot lines; in this case, the front property line is located at the centerline of the private street. On -Site Parking As noted above, the proposed development exceeds the Code -required parking by 10 parking spaces, not including the optional 31d garage space available for each unit. No compact parking stalls are proposed. Parking is also provided in the individual driveways leading to each garage and within the private street. The vehicular circulation has been reviewed and approved by the Transportation Services Division. Perimeter Walls/Fences A new perimeter block wall is proposed along the boundaries of the project site. Staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that the Mesa Verde Drive Street frontage. Existing perimeter fences abutting the residential and commercial properties on either side of the development site are required to be replaced with decorative block walls a minimum 6 feet in height. 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. Staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that the perimeter walls along Mesa Verde Drive East and Andros Street incorporate landscape planters between the wall and back of public sidewalk, with landscape materials subject to the approval by the Development Services Director. Building Architecture The proposed architecture consists of a "Santa Barbara" style with composition shingle roofs, stucco with stone siding and veneers. Projections are included to maximize floor space on upper floors and provide building articulation, texture and color variation throughout the project's design. Staff has incorporated, as a condition of approval, that elevations visible from Mesa Verde Drive East and Andros Street have additional exterior elevation treatments as recommended in the City's Residential Design Guidelines. Open Space The open space for each lot exceeds the minimum required for the R1 zone (40% required; 50% minimum provided). Additionally, the rear yard setbacks exceed the 20- foot minimum required for two-story residences in the R1 zone (27 feet minimum provided), resulting in large rear yard areas for each lot. The total open space for the project is 47%, which exceeds the 40% minimum required per code. Zone Change A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 2-acre development site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family Residential) is proposed. The proposed rezone to R1 would be compatible with the existing Low Density Residential General Plan designation for the project site. The Zoning Code requires that a finding be made as to whether or not the rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and General Plan. It is staff's opinion that the proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and General Plan as discussed in the "General Plan and Zoning Code Conformance" section later in this report. Tentative Tract Map The tentative tract map proposed is for a 10-lot subdivision. An easement for private road, utilities and drainage over the private street will be provided as required by the Public Services Division. The private street and perimeter landscaping along the street frontages will be maintained by a maintenance association. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE CONFORMANCE Pursuant to an approved Master Plan, the proposed project would be in conformance with the following planning documents: • General Plan • Zoning Code Conformance with the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Future development of all land within the City of Costa Mesa is guided by the General Plan adopted in 2002. The Land Use Element of the General Plan directs long-range development in the City by indicating the location and extent of development to be allowed. The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies, and objectives that guide new development. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is Low Density Residential (8 dwelling units to the acre maximum) which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R1 (Single Family Residential). The following analysis evaluates the proposed project's consistency with specific goals, and objectives of the General Plan, Land Use Element. • Goal LU-1: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa 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; to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification within reasonable land use intensity limits, and to ensure the long term viability and productivity of the community's natural and man-made environments. Consistency: The project will provide additional ownership housing opportunities. The infill nature of the proposed project protects the viability of the natural environment and decreases the need for significant infrastructure improvements. The project is consistent with this General Plan goal. • Objective LU-1 A: 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 redevelopment project with residential uses. Adequate infrastructure (i.e., roads, emergency, and utility services) is available to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Objective LU-1A.4: Strongly encourage the development of low -density residential uses and owner -occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Consistency: The project is consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan Designation of the property and is designed for owner -occupied housing units. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Objective LU-1 F.5: Provide opportunities for the development of well planned and designed projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential uses within a single project or neighborhood. Consistency: The project has been designed with appropriate building articulation, setbacks and offsets to ensure that it is compatible with surrounding properties and uses. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Goal LU-2: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to establish development policies that will create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical and social resources. Consistency: The project would allow for the redevelopment of property containing church buildings. The proposed project would enhance the visual appearance of the site through implementation of the proposed landscape plan. In addition, the project would provide a high -quality architectural design to the project area. As required by a standard condition of approval on the project, perimeter wall treatments will be reviewed to ensure that landscaping is provided to soften the edges of the development and compatibility with the surrounding area. As a result, the proposed project is supportive of this General Plan goal. • Objective LU-2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: As discussed later in this report, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the IS/ND, the proposed project will not create an adverse impact on the environment. Because the project is an infill development, it would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. Therefore, the project is consistent with this objective. Conformance with the Zoning Code As noted earlier, the proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R1 zone, including lot sizes, building setbacks, open space, and on -site parking. Justifications for Approval Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g), Findings, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Planning Commission shall find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets specified findings. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project, based on an assessment of facts and findings below which are also described in more detail in the draft approval resolution. Rezone • The proposed rezone creates 10 large, custom R1 lots which exceed the minimum lot area requirements in the LDR General Plan designation, and the proposal is therefore consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. The LDR General Plan land use designation allows a maximum of 16 units in the PDR-LD zone and 13 units in the R1 zone. The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R1 zone, including lot sizes, building setbacks, open space, and onsite parking. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is Low Density Residential (8 dwelling units to the acre maximum), which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R1 (Single Family Residential). The project provides a maximum density of 5 dwelling units to the acre. Comparison of Maximum Density Allowed Existing General Plan Original Project Current Project -. . Zone R1 Zone No. of Units Max. 16 units 16 units allowed; 14 units allowed; 13 units proposed 10 units proposed Allowable Zoning PDR-LD or R1 PDR-LD R1 Districts (subject to Rezone Maximum Density 8 units/Acre for PDR-LD zone Proposed: Proposed: 7.25 units/Acre for R1 zone 6.5 Units/Acre 5 Units/Acre Design Review The project exhibits excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protect the integrity of neighboring development. The project will provide a single-family infill development that will be complementary to an urban setting. The proposed architecture and site design will enhance the street view and will be compatible with existing development in the area. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. The variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance consistent with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. A condition of approval requires that enhancements to the rear and side elevations shall include enhanced detailing including articulation, projections and use of varied building materials as required in the City's Residential Design Guidelines, and shall not be modified unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director as consistent with the architectural design and features of the proposed development. The project provides 10 additional standard -sized parking spaces in the private street and exceeds the parking required by Code (40 spaces required; 50 spaces proposed). In addition to the 2-car (with an optional third) garage spaces, parking is provided in the individual driveways leading to each garage and within the private street to provide convenient parking for future guests within the development. The Transportation Division has reviewed and approved the parking design configuration and cul de sac design for the proposed development. A condition of approval requires that the open parking spaces on the private street be open, unassigned, and available for all guests of the development. Proper signage indicating a tow -away zone shall be required. A condition of approval also requires that any future vehicle gate along Mesa Verde Drive be subject to the review and approval by the Transportation Services Manager. A condition of approval requires that the private cul de sac be enhanced with pervious pavers, colored concrete, or other treatment to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. • The project exceeds the minimum requirements for open space in the form of a large private yards for each unit (40% required; 50% to 61 % proposed). Additionally, park fees in the amount of $135,720.00 is required to be paid to the City. The minimum required open space for this project is 40%; the project provides an average of 47% total open space. Additionally, park fees in the amount of $135,720.00 is required to be paid for the project. • The interface of the proposed development with the existing single-family homes on Minorca Drive features enhanced rear setbacks and block walls to ensure neighborhood compatibility and privacy. Code requires a minimum of a 20-foot rear setback for two-story structures. In this case, the proposed rear setbacks of Lots 1 through 5 which abut the homes on Minorca Drive range from 28 feet to 38 feet. Also, new block walls at height of 6 feet minimum are proposed. The applicant is also currently in discussion with the neighbors regarding new landscaping in the rear yards. A condition of approval requires that new perimeter block walls be complementary to the existing neighboring walls. • The proposal does not require any deviations from the code requirements for the R1 zone. The project exceeds the minimum development standards required by Code with regard to parking, open space, and setbacks. Additional conditions of approval ensure compatibility with the existing community over the long-term. A condition requires that CC&Rs be recorded and a Maintenance Association be formed to maintain the private street area and landscape parkways. • New landscaping where none currently exist, including trees along Mesa Verde Drive East and along Andros Street, will beautify the streetscape. The attached landscape plan, which is preliminary at this point, includes new landscaping on the subject site and within the public right-of-way. Staff has included, as a condition of approval, that landscaping within the public right-of-way be subject to final approval by the Public Services Department. Tentative Tract Map • The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code, is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of development, and is consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act. The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner - occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the IS/MND was originally made available for a 30- day public review and comment period from March 27, 2015 to April 25, 2015. The reduction in the project density by three units and change in the zoning request (R1 zone) did not result in any changes to the environmental conclusions of the document. While not required by State law, the public review period was extended through June 29, 2015 to allow the opportunity for the public to comment on the environmental document based on the revised project description. The State Clearinghouse issued a revised Notice of Availability which reflected the extended review period and reiterated that the original environmental conclusions/analysis were still relevant, The IS/ND found that the environmental effects from the project would be less than significant with the incorporation of standard conditions of approval and compliance with the Code requirements. A copy of the IS/ND and comments received to date are included with this report under separate cover. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the draft ordinance and resolutions and they have been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. CONCLUSION Approval of the project will allow development of a 28-unit detached residential ownership development. The project satisfies the required findings for the proposed project and is deemed to be a high -quality development, therefore it is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Code. Therefore, Planning Commission recommends approval of the project. ALTERNATIVES The City Council has the following alternatives: 1. Continue the item to allow additional time for further analysis or revisions to the project. 2. Deny the project. If the City Council denies the project, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. MEL LEE, AICP GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Senior Planner Economic Development & Development Services Director / Deputy CEO Attachments: 1. Location Map, Zoning Map, and 500' Radius Map 2. Site Photos 3. Applicant's Project Description 4. Draft Ordinance, Resolutions and Exhibits 5. Correspondence From Public for the Original (13-Unit) Version of the Project 6. Plans 7. Initial Studv/Neaative Declaration (Under Seaarate Cover) 8. Comments on IS/ND 9. April 13, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments 10. Planning Commission Resolution 11. Supplemental Memorandum cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr. City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Pinnacle Residential 20 Enterprise, Suite 320 Aliso Viejo, CA 9265623 First Church of Christ Scientist 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East Costa Mesa, CA 92626 CD N Cl) N (U U CL LR L2 O N N N U r LLU R Q 0 O U L.L 0 O U c� ATTA/%I1/IrAIT aE 63 U1 0 C Z C c A= 4r 3 FeFd� u L L.L CC I'D 2 Z 0 [6 `j ?- T t 0 x I En Ln Aai W co cq N Cl) N fU U U) a 00 LP V- Cl N N N N U a w �Q 0 0 U 0 0 U CU a 0 El O 1 `1d OD_iV 1rl I I I I zj U 3 � ci ry C c ��$ ko 1 im L = m cep' Z In 41B;x�rm 4 T3B:Pt S-SA 'f3B.Pt7$1:�; J y 9P•Pt i$B Li9 flB-77.1:YB �, 1 i �fl 0.711:YR� gB:47 t.1t r - fl111-271-23 1 ma=2tlsa. mn-Pr s:2a 111B-771.2 e-241.93 13n. •3� 9B_� far. f'f-2t 500' Radius Map Map w 2880 Mesa Verde t 9u•t.aq 1`7JI7 1 • t1B2aa:43 flu.3uaad me:m4as V �, _ o - .. Oahu S19: atla:22 flB-r94:P1 4 +flO=wAa11 '01:2M4:04 mn-1Qi-EO 138.'04;23 11B-a1a917 mq.P3aFIP ` 'mB:311.1 T.Td4a1C - ..3V .:. - mama 7, t,,,,,, flB;2013a t3n.>ea 10 SiB-UA413 107.2 tfl0jai sw-04-00 - 1.2 Ti331L+7.21flG �',;n. .Du-z mB=mun 130 3mcYq 01 Samar P' Samar mB:3.,aa1t ma-md.4G 4iU�7Aa:Rq Siq �3.sr � ma��a.ga ... 1 t mB 7311.3a !t1a_� 7.2a 'flQ•81a.Bq 110: 4.24, 'l{B:Z4 na-814.1a :13a261-2(i� - 9n:sx14.27, � q Y-4A tiP��4:11 e'�d., 3V•15: ga•I0a.73 99; :44fl9`�a-10 � 4H�58 .: ��y.13� .i; zla:ms:y�l J{iCtC3CfT Mi 'n0•'T1P:a2y "-��. 1� 19a-4RT.PPS� y 0ro itttt 91-tl3 r idEt•2o3-C7 i3B.ffi3-n93J-'253-t1.^. q•7Q7-q•t,n`gh3-tl5'nn-lB:l-ap a's:�fr790;= .Q9 i• flB:3t,-Q1 mn.311.47 a'-351•B438:l:1-06mB�31,.Q63a3ii�07 :311:a0 :flB=31 flB•311�OP fla-xca•at>S � �, 4� fla-3°1.aGti /�# 1 8-332-n1 l � if.+`. AP-7id-17a ^�tt l5` {�'j flB.319 }313-ss flB.374•,t 9P•:$:.10i34.322-03 ",t,y. S u17ja>:tparcel fla-32".-13 1 m8-33. '133 1 Q1 :uil. m•07 f[1a-Sl:: ay f301f 2.1k. U..314 B5 �i n:342. .312-2 flg.ITZga,. 1?•2,. P-a,7 3B ..C3B•31P. !_ Ptr) Ave - a333.ne4 fl4-334:atr; ma=32.2. 14 C3 3B-32E t1Q,g21:B, y fl8.313.pB '. 96-313:30 0.333.40 flB-33P=00• 9 322.1b - me.37t.Bt ._ � �• 9B.3f:1.21 B-337-Q7 - fla: ffi7=Bq UB.M!2 199.Y $ 4L µ .ti"l� •, ° ``� � CV .1X 0.3'33.00 13B:332=07 IMR2.17 flB-913-3P flB•�1:aB � Y 90-3fa•11 .313•ti0 139.332.00 ,99-322.10 flB-M 1. 10 139=31340 8.313.04^ 139.332.011 13B.322-19 13B"2.4 1- 9a-S214-313-f2 flB-313.22 �{rylY 530.317..A flB-33i• 12 _ ,flp;,pB me,3 33.a2 flB=Ma•as me.azi.ia ae:aaiVIia 1 mph- 00 feetV. �...._- ..... - - �. r.�_»,..-,..+�-'•�"� _ A:.304=80 4 '4 L.�;,s,�a.s•s'Y r.nnali.t3 Notification Maps Nc►t � cam Wimp" 0wrwmnd 0=patat LJM Malling SeMON _ 966.752.6286tollfree MellingAddrmOW.. 949.613.R341fox NS N Uest Nwy 0401 n1ea&na#rWtionmap xPrn -LegunaBeeoh, CA92i51 © 2012 Digital Map Produces. All rights reserved. wwwnotiflcetio nm eos.00m —A amp n N m Z t Q r LU H w 5 finis vsouaaraoa _ } �i z 0 �SS 22 O N iq �p S jy4 -Gpp� � F i y VV S • 7?��"H6 I II psi ATTACHMrN ► j6 ~� R m � l � Y i:A I .I L \ � b 9 I VICW off s��nr9. 3�� en rnoP. view o4 sWpwP<c+`I �prnenercial bwld�na� �aPerty {p Sk.. A2 on mop. � Imit axed on adjp►unt 11- ' M 4k or IL 57 0 V�n,J ai ^9 ch" ch bui\dins of 1'h5o. v� Svc 6a�. 05 01\ V"* e V�aa c^ Pr°Pe''W �°WCa'"9 SarFMvly. drqOn'r�P• - 2(D-- Vtcu� o'^ pr°r"v'iy �o°1�ing S.F. �r5 on �'^0"p• v�cw or proP°'�'�i (ook� En�F: op to on maP KV t.' M,.�Y �b f'r �ilr' ,+ , ''il, �' �1 Y j�r�17 f x ',' z•'R 1L'� •�Ilk ft c wiltr o:&A,a0aU'ALMIit :i'_ V1CW �f (��'P�r�i 1ooK�h0.norH�. J � pV1 Nt0.P• E J 9 v�cw of (x?P��"1 kooxm 14 or* Vro?c ovo\ iq eh n�°�P -J5 - "� YY A � r• Y�'i F' �i.1 � 41 JAMA 17. '' Jam• K 'Y i ^ii y 5 Z f.• f\Cw Ot xwuvl 6hod% rsS1 � pm s Si � �n an wmp a ` •, iil f rPW 0 ! 1 1 R�sidl�til,al propurFy on m�hwrw oil north waslerly eF ct\vrcvl ?ro" UAL. ap Cy on m°`P -- ag- ATTACHMENT 3 The Homes in Mesa Verde Project Description The proposed subdivision consists of 10 single-family lots located at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East within the community of Mesa Verde. The applicant is Mesa Verde East, LLC of which Pinnacle Residential and Collective Housing Supply Company are principles. The First Church of Christ Scientist currently occupies the site, which is slightly over 2 acres in size. The church has determined that the size of the buildings and property exceed the needs of the current congregation and thus they have decided to sell and move elsewhere. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning designation from I/R to R-1 Low Density Residential. The R-1 designation conforms to the existing General Plan for the site, which is Low Density Residential. The proposed site plan has been designed to be compatible with the Mesa Verde community and consistent with the lot sizes and density in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed lots conform to R-1 standards and exceed the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet by approximately 30 per cent. The lots, exclusive of the street, range in size from 6,902 square feet to 8,712 square feet and average 7,657 square feet. The rear yard setbacks are between 28 and 45 feet and average 36 feet. This exceeds the minimum standard of 10 feet for first floor and 20 feet for second floor by an average of 75 per cent. The development exceeds the open space requirement by 7 per cent. The proposed parking exceeds the required standards with 10 additional open parking spaces and a third covered garage space, which potentially provides an additional 10 more enclosed spaces than required. The entry from Mesa Verde Drive East will include an enhanced driveway element with landscape feature and decorative pavers. The interior cul de sac will also include decorative pavers. The landscape plan will include a drought tolerant design with a blend of water wise and native plant material and a minimum of turf. There will also be a decorative landscape element provided along the perimeter wall adjacent to Mesa Verde Drive East. The architecture as planned is best described as a sophisticated and contemporary version of traditional California architecture. There are some references to what is known as "Santa Barbara" style but we hope to help define what will be known as "Mesa Verde" style with these 10 beautiful homes. � Q The homes are approximately 3,300 square feet with four bedrooms including a downstairs suite with private bath. Each home has a spacious chefs kitchen and great room combination that opens to a covered outdoor living area or "California Room". Each home includes a rear yard large enough to include a swimming pool or spa. There are attached garages for 2 cars and an additional attached garage for a third car, bonus room and/or much needed storage. The elevations are enhanced by the combination of single story elements at the front and rear of the homes. The front elevation features an open courtyard entry allowing additional natural light to enter the ground floor living spaces and providing a desirable transition from single story to two-story architecture. In keeping with the earlier architectural style of a number of Mesa Verde homes, the primary garages are designed as a single story structure with no living area above. There will also be enhanced exterior treatments with decorative siding and extensive use of windows and glass doors. The applicant's current projects (Westreef and Collective), in Costa Mesa are evidence of the attention to detail, style and high quality that are built into each home and community from the Pinnacle Residential team and Collective Housing Supply Co. We are very proud to have the opportunity to provide the first new single-family residential community within Mesa Verde in many years. We believe the project is consistent with the best traditions of the neighborhood but will also contribute to the future of the community in a very important way. - 30-- ATTACHMENT 4 ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING REZONE R-14-05 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST FROM I&R (INSTITUTIONAL AND RECREATIONAL) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (111). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Pinnacle Residential, representing First Church of Christ Scientist, requesting approval of the following: • Initial Study/Negative Declaration. • Rezone R-14-05: An ordinance to rezone a 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family Residential District). The maximum allowable General Plan density is 7.26 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of 14 dwelling units. • Planning Application PA-14-48: A Design Review for the development of a 10-unit, two-story, single-family residential development (5 dwelling units per acre proposed). The units would take access from a 40-foot wide private street from Mesa Verde Drive East. The lot sizes range from 8,712 square feet to 6,902 square feet (excluding the private street); the minimum lot size allowed is 6,000 square feet. • Tentative Tract Map T-17824: Subdivision of the property into 10 fee simple lots for homeownership. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal, and recommended approval of the project and its related entitlements to the City Council. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. BE IT RESOLVED that based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the City Council hereby APPROVES REZONE R-14-05 and gives first reading to the ordinance adopting rezone from I&R (Institutional & Recreational) to R1 (Single Family Residential) zoning district for the property identified as County Assessor Parcel Number 139-313-08 and as shown in attached Exhibit B, situated in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California. -3 t BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to the provisions of Section 13-22 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Official Zoning Map of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby amended by the change of zone described herein and Exhibit B attached hereto. A copy of the Official Zoning Map is on file in the office of the Planning Division. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and or further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the names and member of the City Council voting for and against the same. ATTEST: STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Ordinance Number — as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2015 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL A. Required Finding: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Facts In Support of Findings: The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R1 zone, including lot sizes, building setbacks, open space, and onsite parking. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is Low Density Residential (8 dwelling units to the acre maximum), which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R1 (Single Family Residential District). The project provides a maximum density of 5 dwelling units to the acre. -34-11 EXHIBIT B Amendment to the Zoning Map Change the zoning designation of the 2-acre development site at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East from Institutional and Recreational (I&R) to Single Family Residential District (R1) s °e .III IC 1 2=- 5 www Geaaria" ET 's 35- RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-48, TENTATIVE TRACT T- 17824, & NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 2-STORY, 10-UNIT DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Pinnacle Residential, representing First Church of Christ Scientist, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Negative Declaration. 2. Rezone R-14-05: An ordinance to rezone a 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family Residential District). The maximum allowable General Plan density is 7.26 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of 14 dwelling units. 3. Planning Application PA-14-48: A Design Review for the development of a 10- unit, two-story, single-family residential development (5 dwelling units per acre proposed). The units would take access from a 40-foot wide private street from Mesa Verde Drive East. The lot sizes range from 8,712 square feet to 6,902 square feet (excluding the private street); the minimum lot size allowed is 6,000 square feet. 4. Tentative Tract Map T-17824: Subdivision of the property into 10 fee simple lots for homeownership. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal, and recommended approval of the project and its related entitlements to the City Council. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Initial Study/Negative Declaration considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Initial Study/Negative Declaration is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa. WHEREAS, the ordinance for Rezone R-14-05 was adopted separately by the City Council and given first reading. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions of contained within Exhibits B and B1, respectively, the City Council hereby APPROVES: Planning Application PA-14-48 and Tentative Tract Map 17824 and adopts the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the project. 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 R-14-05, PA-14-48, and Tentative Tract Map 17842 and upon the applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibits B and 131, 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 and/or mitigation measures. 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 21st day of July, 2015. ATTEST: STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA 1-5 l STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Ordinance Number _ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2015 • FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A. The proposed project complies with Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(5), Master Plan, of the Municipal Code due to the following: Finding: The project meets the broader goals of the General 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 Findings: The project is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan, Land Use Element. Goal LU-1: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa 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; to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification within reasonable land use intensity limits; and to ensure the long term viability and productivity of the community's natural and man-made environments. Consistency: The project will provide additional ownership housing opportunities. The infill nature of the proposed project protects the viability of the natural environment and decreases the need for significant infrastructure improvements. The project is consistent with this General Plan goal. • Objective LU-IA: 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 redevelopment project with residential uses. Adequate infrastructure (i.e., roads, emergency, and utility services) is available to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Objective LU-1 A.4: Strongly encourage the development of low -density residential uses and owner -occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Consistency: The project is consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan Designation of the property and is designed for owner -occupied housing units. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Objective LU-1 F.5: Provide opportunities for the development of well planned and designed projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential uses within a single project or neighborhood. ,�r Consistency: The project has been designed with appropriate building articulation, setbacks and offsets to ensure that it is compatible with surrounding properties and uses. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. Goal LU-2: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to establish development policies that will create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical and social resources. Consistency: The project would allow for the redevelopment of property containing church buildings. On -site vegetation is minimal. The proposed project would enhance the visual appearance of the site through implementation of the proposed landscape plan. In addition, the project would provide a high - quality architectural design to the project area. As required by a standard condition of approval on the project, perimeter wall treatments will be reviewed to ensure that landscaping is provided to soften the edges of the development and compatibility with the surrounding area. As a result, the proposed project is supportive of this General Plan goal. • Objective LU-2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: As discussed later in this report, the project is categorically exempt per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which means that the proposed project will not create an adverse impact on the environment. Because the project is an infill development, it would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. Therefore, the project is consistent with this objective. The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R1 zone, including lot sizes, building setbacks, open space, and on -site parking; specifically, as noted below. The pLoject exhibits excellence in deli n site lannin inte ration of uses and structures, and protect the integrity of ne�ghboring development. The project will provide a single-family infill development that will be complementary to an urban setting. The proposed architecture and site design will enhance the street view and will be compatible with existing development in the area. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. The variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance consistent with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. • The project will provide on -site parking spaces that exceeds current parkino standards (40 spaces required; 50 spaces proposed). In addition to the 2-car (with an optional third) garage spaces, parking is provided in the individual driveways leading to each garage and within the private street to provide convenient parking for future guests within the development. -41o✓ • The project exceeds the minimum requirements for open space in the form of a large private yards for each unit. Additionally, park fees in the amount of $135, 720.00 is required to be paid to the City. The minimum required open space for this project is 40%; the project provides 47% total open space. Additionally, park fees in the amount of $135,720.00 is required to be paid for the project. B. The proposed tentative tract 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 Findings: The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner -occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities, the project provides sufficient easements as a common interest development, and encourages increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. The subdivision complies with the State Subdivision Map Act. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The LDR (Low Density Residential) General Plan Land Use designation allows residential development of up to 8 dwelling units/acre on this site; the proposed project is 5 dwelling units/acre and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code for residential developments in the R1 zone. 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 Findings: The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The project is categorically exempt per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which means that the proposed project will not create an adverse impact on the environment. 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 Findings: The proposed buildings include openings in an east -west direction to take advantage of passive solar heating as well as passive ventilation from ocean breezes. The inclusion of trees will also help provide shade to the residential units within the development. Finding: The subdivision 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 Findings: As conditioned, the proposed project does not interfere with the public right-of-way. The recommended improvements along the public streets abutting the project site will improve the public right- of-ways for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 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 Findings: The applicant will 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 has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. An Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If any of these conditions are removed, the decision -making body must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. 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 will be mitigated at all affected intersections and by the payment of traffic impact fees. E. The proposed buildings are an excessive distance from the street necessitating fire apparatus access and provisions of on -site fire hydrants. EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The expiration of Planning Application PA-14-48 shall coincide with the expiration of the approval of the Tentative Tract Map 17824 which is valid for two years. An extension request is needed to extend the expiration for each additional year after the initial two-year period. 2. The conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA-14-48 and T-17824 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 3. A decorative perimeter block wall a minimum of 6 feet in height shall be constructed along the boundaries of the site, prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director. 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. 4. The interior fences or walls between the units shall be a minimum of six feet in height. All private property fencing shall consist of stained and pre- treated lumber materials (i.e. redwood for example) and not unstained pine planks. 5. The perimeter walls along Mesa Verde Drive East shall incorporate landscape planters between the wall and back of public sidewalk, with landscape materials subject to the approval by the Development Services Director. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final landscape plan indicating the landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. The private cul de sac shall also be enhanced with pervious pavers, colored concrete, or other treatment to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 7. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 8. 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. 9. If the project is constructed in phases, the perimeter wall, landscaping along the frontages, and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of utilities for the first phase. 10. 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. Specifically, enhancements to the rear and side elevations shall include enhanced detailing including articulation, projections and use of varied building materials as required in the City's Residential Design Guidelines, and shall not be modified unless otherwise approved by - A3_ the 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 a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 11. 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 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. 12. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 36 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional fill 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. 13. 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. 14. Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. 15. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the private street shall not be developed with a center concrete swale. The private street shall be complemented by stamped concrete or pervious pavers. Any future vehicle gate along Mesa Verde Drive shall be subject to the review and approval by the Transportation Services Manager. 16. 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. 1A a. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions requiring that the maintenance association 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 after 9:00 PM other than for security purposes, or any other activities that may be disruptive to the quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties after 9:00 PM. c. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to preservation and maintenance of the private street and perimeter landscaping in perpetuity by the maintenance association. The CC&Rs shall also contain the buyer's notice as an exhibit. d. The CC&R's 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 for which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. e. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions requiring that the maintenance association submit a signed affidavit to the City of Costa Mesa on an annual basis to certify the following: • The two -car garages in the residential community are being used for vehicle parking by the resident(s). • The vehicle parking areas within the garage are not obstructed by storage items, including but not limited to, toys, clothing, tools, boxes, equipment, etc. • The resident(s) have consented to voluntary inspections of the garage to verify the parking availability, as needed. • The form and content of the affidavit shall be provided by the City Attorney's office. Failure to file the annual affidavit is considered a violation of this condition. f. Open parking spaces on the private street shall be open, unassigned, and available for all guest of the development. Proper signage indicating a tow -away zone shall be required. g. 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. 17. The CC&Rs shall be recorded and a Maintenance Association be established prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of recordation of Tract Map 17824. 19. 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. 20. Prior to release of any utilities, the applicant shall provide proof of establishment of a maintenance association. 21. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for the approval of the City's Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the Project site unless approved by the Development Services Director. b. The intensity and location of lights on buildings shall be subject to the Development Services Director's approval. c. All site lighting fixtures shall be provided with a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency. d. Lighting design and layout shall limit spill light to no more than 0.5 foot candle at the property line of the surrounding neighbors, consistent with the level of lighting that is deemed necessary for safety and security purposes on site. e. Glare shields may be required for select light standards. 22. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the site, the contractor would implement each of the following: a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. b. Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface. c. Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. d. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. e. Wash mud -covered tired and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction sites. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. g. Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. h. Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 23. Permanently installed wood burning devices are not permitted. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet -fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space -heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour. 24. All rubber tired dozers and graders used during the grading phase of construction shall be powered by Tier 3 engines. 25. The project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the energy conservation standards. The project Applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans: • Double paned glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be used in all exterior windows. • Buildings shall be oriented north/south where feasible. 26. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during grading and construction operations, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit a qualified paleontologist to assess the find for significance and, if necessary, develop a paleontological resources impact mitigation plan (PRIMP) for the review and approval by the City prior to resuming excavation activities. 27. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. 28. The applicant 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, or which are in any way related to, the applicant's project, or any approvals granted by City related to the applicant's project. 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. City shall have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City's interests, and applicant shall indemnify City for all such costs incurred by City. Eng. 29. Comply with the requirements contained in the letter prepared by the City Engineer (Exhibit B1). 30. 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. 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. 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. Pay Park fee prior to certificate of occupancy. Applicable fee shall be that fee in effect at the time the subdivision application is filed with the City. 4. A minimum 20-foot by 20-foot clear interior dimension shall be provided for all 2-car garages, and a minimum 10-foot by 20-foot clear interior dimension shall be provided for 1-car garages, if proposed. 5. Minimum garage door width shall be 16 feet (2-car garages). 6. All garages shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 7. Grading materials delivery, equipment operation, and other construction - related activity shall be limited to be-tween the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Exceptions may be made for activities that will not generate noise audible from off -site, such as painting and other quiet interior work. 8. 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 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, 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. 9. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 10. All on -site utility services shall be installed underground. 11. Installation of all 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. 12. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. Bldg. 13. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 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 or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings, and elements by individuals with disability shall comply with Chapter 11 B of the 2013 California Building Code. 14. Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the project Applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of onsite soils to cause unstable conditions. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety. 15. Submit a precise grading plan, 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. A precise grading plan shall not be required if any of the following are met: • An excavation which does not exceed 50 CY on any one site and which is less than 2 feet in vertical depth, or which does not create a cut slope greater than 1 '/2:1 (excluding foundation area). Aq - 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. A fill less than 3 feet in depth, not intended to support structures, which does not exceed 50 CY on any one lot and does not obstruct a drainage course. 16. Submit a soils report for this project. Soils report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. For existing slopes or when new slopes are proposed, the Soils Report shall address how existing slopes or the new slopes will be maintained to avoid erosion or future failure. 17. 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. 2013 California Building Code CRC 403.1.7.3. 18. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of six inches within the first 10 feet. CRC R401.3. 19. Projections, including eaves, shall be one -hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into the 5 feet (setback area from the property line). They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3 foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1(1) and R302.1(2). Trans. 20. Construct all proposed driveway approaches to comply with city standards. 21. Fulfill mitigation of off -site traffic impacts at the time of issuance of occupancy by submitting to the Transportation Services Division the required traffic impact fee pursuant to the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council. 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. 22. Close unused drive approaches, or portion of, with full height curb and gutter that comply with City Standards. Fire 23. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 24. Provide "blue dot" reflective markers for all on -site fire hydrants. 25. The project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13 R. Street 26. Plant eight (8) 24" Box Arbutus 'Marina' (single trunk/standard form) in Trees expanded planter to be 5' (not 3') in width along Mesa Verde Drive East frontage. Proposed Pyrus calleryana `Aristocrat' on Andros Street change to 24" Box Pyrus calleryana `Redspire'. Items to be incorporated into site 5p_- landscape plan. Responsibility for the maintenance of proposed landscape planters along Mesa Verde Drive East should be determined and documented as binding. WQMP 27. In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the proposed project shall prepare a Storm Drain Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 28. The project shall comply with the NPDES requirements, as follows: a. Construction General Permit Notice of Intent (NOI) Design: Prior to the issuance of preliminary or precise grading permits, the project Applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the Storm Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the SWRCB or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. b. Construction Phase Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that complies with the Construction General Permit and will include at a minimum the following: • Discuss in detail the BMPs planned for the project related to control of sediment and erosion, non -sediment pollutants, and potential pollutants in non -storm water discharges; • Describe post -construction BMPs for the project; • Explain the maintenance program for the project's BMPs. c. List the parties responsible for the SWPPP implementation and the BMP maintenance during and after grading. The project Applicant shall implement the SWPPP and modify the SWPPP as directed by the Construction General Permit. 29. A WQMP 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. 30. Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 31. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 5�' 32. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead - contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 33. Prior to demolition activities, removal and/or abatement of asbestos containing building materials, lead based paints, and hazardous materials associated with the existing building materials, an investigation shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with the Costa Mesa Fire Department. An asbestos and hazardous materials abatement plan shall be developed by the qualified environmental professional, in order to clearly define the scope and objective of the abatement activities. The Applicant shall conduct demolition consistent with the abatement plan, applicable state requirements and City standard conditions. 34. As final building plans are submitted to the City of Costa Mesa for review and approval, the Costa Mesa Police Department shall review all plans for the purpose of ensuring that design requirements are incorporated into the building design to increase safety and avoid unsafe conditions. These measures focus on security measures are recommended by the Police Department, including but not limited to, the following: • Lighting shall be provided in open areas and parking lots. • Required building address numbers shall be readily apparent from the street and rooftop building identification shall be readily apparent from police helicopters for emergency response agencies. • Landscaping requirements (e.g. minimize use of hedges, use of low height shrubs for greater visibility). • Emergency vehicle parking areas shall be designated within proximity to buildings. • Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Police Department shall review and approve the developer's project design features to satisfy local requirements. The applicant shall then pay the appropriate fee in effect to mitigate the project's proportionate impact to additional demands on police protection services, if any. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani. 1. Applicant will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, inspection fees, and sewer permit are required prior to installation of sewer. 3. Applicant shall submit a plan showing sewer improvements that meets the District Engineer's approval to the Building Division as part of the plans submitted for plan check. 4. The applicant is required to contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (714) 754-5307 to arrange final sign -off prior to certificate of occupancy being released. 5. Unless an off -site trash hauler is being used, applicant shall contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (714) 754-5043 to pay trash collection program fees and arrange for service for all new residences. Residences using bin or dumpster services are exempt from this requirement. 6. Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 654-8400 for any additional district requirements. AQMD 7. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD. Water 8. 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. School 9. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 10. 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. EXHIBIT 131 CITY OF COSTA MESA P 0 BOX 1200 77 FAIR DRIVE CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING DIVISION June 18, 2015 Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract No. 17822' all LOCATION: 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East Dear Commissioners: Tentative Tract Map No. 17824 as furnished by the Planning Division for review by the Public Services Department consists of subdividing one parcel into ten numbered lots and one lettered lot. Tentative Tract Map No. 17824 meets with the approval of the Public Services Department, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Tract shall be developed in full compliance with the State Map Act and the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (C.C.M.M.C.), 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. 2. The Subdivider shall conduct soil investigations and provide the results to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering and Building Divisions pursuant to Ordinance 97-11. 3. Two copies of the Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for checking. Map check fee shall be paid per C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-231. 4. A current copy of the title search shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. 5. 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 C.C.M.M.C. 6. Vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Mesa Verde Drive East and Andros Street shall be released and relinquished to the City of Costa Mesa except at approved access locations. 7. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk. 8. Applicant/Developer is hereby advised that no removal of trees from the public right-of-way will be permitted without specific approval from the Parks and Recreation Commission and compliance with mitigation measures as determined by the Commission to relocate the trees and/or to compensate the City for the loss -of trees from the public right-of-way. Conditions of PHONE: (714) 754-5335 FAX: (714r754-5028 TDD: (714) 754-5244 www costamesaca gov �/` Planning Commission 2015 the Commission must be incorporated onto the plans prior to plan approval. The approval process may take up to three months, therefore, the applicant/developer is advised to identify all trees affected by the proposed project and make timely application to the Parks and Recreation Commission to avoid possible delays. 9. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, Street Improvement Plans that show Sewer and Water Improvements, prepared by a Civil Engineer. 10. The Subdivider shall submit a cash deposit of $730 for street sweeping at time of issuance of a Construction Access permit. Full amount of deposit shall be maintained on a monthly basis prior to and during construction until completion of project. 11, Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of Final Tract Map r P 12. The Subdivider's engineers shall furnish the Engineering Division a storm runoff study 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. 13. Ownership and maintenance of the private on -site drainage facilities and parkway culverts and other common areas shall be transferred by the owner to the Homeowner Association to be formed pursuant to C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-41 (e) and said association shall indemnify and hold harmless the City for any liability arising out of or in any way associated with the connection of the private drainage system with the City's drainage system and shall execute and deliver to the City the standard (indemnity) Hold Harmless Agreement required for such conditions prior to issuance of permits. 14. Sewer improvements shall meet the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; call (949) 631-1731 for information. 15. Water system improvements shall meet the approval of Mesa Consolidated Water District; call (949) 631-1200 for information. 16. Dedicate easements as needed for public utilities. 17. Prior to recordation of a 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, 18. Prior to recordation of a 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. 19. Survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and replaced after construction, pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Profession Code. 20. The elevations shown on all plans shall be on Orange County benchmark datum. 21. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee monumentation. Deposit amount to be determined by the City Engineer. -55- Planning Commission 2015 22. Prior to occupancy on the Tract, the surveyor/engineer shall submit to the City Engineer a Digital Graphic File, reproducible mylar of the recorded Tract Map, and approved off -site plan and nine copies of the recorded Tract Map. erely, ariba Fazeli, P. E. City Engineer (Engr. 2015/Planning Commission Tract 17824) 0 - &- RESOLUTION NO. PC-15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DENYING REZONE R-14-05 FOR A REZONE (OR CHANGE) OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 2-ACRE DEVELOPMENT SITE FROM I&R (INSTITUTIONAL AND RECREATIONAL) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R1), PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-48, AND TENTATIVE TRACT T-17824, FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 2-STORY, 10-UNIT DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Pinnacle Residential, representing First Church of Christ Scientist, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Negative Declaration. 2. Rezone R-14-05: An ordinance to rezone a 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family Residential District). The maximum allowable General Plan density is 7.26 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of 14 dwelling units. 3. Planning Application PA-14-48: A Design Review for the development of a 10- unit, two-story, single-family residential development (5 dwelling units per acre proposed). The units would take access from a 40-foot wide private street from Mesa Verde Drive East. The lot sizes range from 8,712 square feet to 6,902 square feet (excluding the private street); the minimum lot size allowed is 6,000 square feet. 4. Tentative Tract Map T-17824: Subdivision of the property into 10 fee simple lots for homeownership. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal, and recommended approval of the project and its related entitlements to the City Council. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. — 5-1)—. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the City Council hereby DENIES Rezone R-14-05, Planning Application PA-14-018 and Tentative Tract Map TT-17824. ATTEST: PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July, 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Ordinance Number — as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of , 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2015 59 140� EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The proposed rezone is not consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. B. The proposed project does not comply with Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(5), Master Plan, of the Municipal Code due to the following: The project does not meet the broader goals of the General 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. C. The subdivision of the property for a single family residential development is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. D. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied Rezone R-14-05, Planning Application PA-14-48, and Tentative Tract Map TT-17824. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) (5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. E. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. ATTACHMENT 5 LEE, MEL From: Robert Petrina <captainrobpetrina@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 1:41 PM To: LEE, MEL Subject: 2880 Mesa Verde Mr Lee I would like to formally oppose the project at 2880 Mesa Verde. My wife and I have attended the meeting regarding this matter and voiced our concerns for our neighborhood. I do not think the proposal goes far enough to insure minimum impact for the existing neighbors. My wife and I are the "Neighborhood Watch Liaisons" for the Serang Place which is directly across the street from the proposed building site.We have lived on Serang Place for over a decade and have seen the problems that I will draw to your attention. 1.On Serang Place we have a huge problem with our street being an overflow parking area for surrounding neighborhoods. We are constantly towing cars from our block from the apartments across Adams Ave. They only allow 1 car per unit and there is a constant flow of people dropping off cars from the complex. I feel that another 13 homes directly across the street would add to this problem. I have read about the proposal regarding mandatory garage parking and guest parking but we feel our street would still be used as overflow parking which would not be fair for our neighbors most who have lived there since the houses were new. Please remember that we also have the business complex of Mesa Verde, we have the Church and the Craft fair form Piece Makers and all these cars seem to end up on our street. Piece Makers uses the parking lot at 2880 Mesa Verde for their overflow parking now so when that lot becomes houses where do you think all these people will park. 2. We are also concerned about the traffic on Mesa Verde. There has been no talk of a stop sign, cross walk, or left hand turning lane for the people traveling south on Mesa Verde. The proposal has these new buildings as family residences and the local elementary school is in our side of the track. How should these people walk their children to school? Please be fair to the people that already live in this neighborhood. There has not been enough planning to make sure the current residents are minimally impacted and I don't believe anybody has thought enough about the traffic repercussions. It would be unfair for the long term residents on our street to come home and find three times as many cars parked in front of their homes. Thank you for taking the thoughts and concerns of all the residents on Serang Place before making a final decision on this project. We all believe there needs to be more planning before somebody throws up another 13 houses because it seems to financially beneficial. Sincerely Robert, JeeAnn Petrina 2850 Serang Place Dennis & Sandra Bucher 1649 Minorca Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 April 21, 2015 Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa, 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Re: Pinnacle Residential Project 2880 Mesa Verde Drive E We are objecting to the current proposal to build 13 two story homes in the church lot behind our home on Minorca Dr. This project would totally change the personality of the neighborhood. We purchased our home in 1972 largely due to the privacy and decreased noise that having a non-residential neighbor behind us would provide. We also appreciated the feel of the neighborhood of single story homes, tree lined streets and spacious lots. It was what made the Mesa Verde neighborhood so appealing. Our lot is 80'X100'. Our understanding is that the lots behind us would be much smaller and more dense, causing increased noise and activity. We remodeled our home to meet the existing code and feel that changing the code would not be fair and would rob us of our privacy. These homes would be looking right into our yard. Not only would the height of the new homes (25' 11" high) be significant, but the fact that the church lot itself is considerably higher than ours is also a consideration. In addition, the proposed variance would allow the homes to be built too close to the dividing fence. It would truly be invasive and destroy our privacy. Two story structures and small lots would cause the area to be crowded. Already Mesa Verde E has become very busy in the afternoon, as people try to avoid the Harbor/Adams intersection. The crossing of Mesa Verde East from Minorca is already a hazardous one, due to decreased visibility with the street curve and speed of traffic moving toward Baker. Another consideration is the parking plan. With large homes, it should be considered that there could possibly be 4 cars per home. When only 4 parking places are planned, where would there be for guests to park in the event of a party for instance? There is no parking on Adams or Mesa Verde East and therefore they would have to park on Minorca Dr. Currently, all of the homes on Minorca have 3-4 cars each already. This would only make parking more of a problem. We have gone to considerable expense to landscape our back yard to decrease the increasing traffic noise created by the increasing traffic on Adams. The noise would be greatly increased by the 13 two story homes so close to us, to say nothing of all the noise, traffic and dust that would result from the construction. We would appreciate your considering our concerns and opposing this plan. Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department Dennis and Sandra Bucher (714)556-8864 APR 2 2 2015 April 20, 2015 Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Received City of Costa Mesa Developnwa Services Department APR 2 2 2015 We would like to go on record as opposing the 13-unit residential development project by Pinnacle Residential at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East, called Pinnacle Residential Project (Rezone R-14-05, Planning Application No. PA-14-48, and Tentative Tract Map T-17824). Reasons for our opposition include the following: 1. Rezoning from Institutional to Residential includes an understood shift in traffic. Though the company report indicates there would be additionally only 42 extra traffic movements, there would indeed be many more than that. Houses that have four bedrooms and 4 parking spaces each, obviously built for families of four or more, are not going to have only two car trips per unit per day as the developer suggests. 2. The infringement on personal space and privacy of existing residences next door to the place of proposed development would be significant, and in some places such privacy and space would be altogether eliminated. Long-time residents bought their properties because of the privacy the locations afforded. They trusted that such privacy would continue. Rezoning and building 25 foot tall buildings just outside the fences is a violation of that privacy and open space environment to the highest order and destroy a sense of openness that home owners counted on. It would become a stifling environment, bordering on suffocation. And it would make the present homes less attractive to potential buyers rather than more attractive as the developer suggests. 3. Utilities are a growing problem with the residential area as it is. We are asked to cut our water use by 20 - 25 %. Now we are asked to allow 13 more homes to be built next door, all of which will use way more water than those of us who have lived here for years. Most of our homes are inhabited by two people only, while the new residences are built for four or more people, many of them children or young people --all of which use way more water. Why should we cut water so that the new people can use it all up? 4. The construction company is asking for variances on the property of from 3 to 13 feet, rather than the 20 feet required on all sides by the City of Costa Mesa. There is not adequate reasoning for such variances. Those neighbors who live next door need the 20 feet allowed by the City of Costa Mesa to keep any sense of personal space to their homes. We would prefer that the planning commission kept the zoning as is --for institutional and recreational. However, if the City of Costa Mesa deems it necessary to put in residences, we suggest the following: If the construction company must build on this piece of ground, let them build one-story houses (to be consistent with most residences in the neighborhood) and let them adhere to the City of Costa Mesa's currently stipulated 20 foot variances. Winton & Shirley Felt 1645 Minorca Drive, Costa Mesa, 92626 ()4) 957-3399 Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Dr Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Greetings, Gayle and I have lived on the corner at 1653 Minorca for 15 years now and have enjoyed this little neighborhood very much. One of the central reasons we purchased this house was because of the large, tree -dotted lot that backs up to our property, South of Minorca Drive ( the Christian Science property). This property serves as a large buffer (noise) from the day to day noise that goes on in a typical neighborhood. From our living room looking south across the open lot, we are able to see sky and tree tops all the way to Adams Ave, every day. During the Fourth of July, we can see the fireworks show from Fairview Park and even farther, the fireworks over the Huntington Beach Pier. Wildlife typically comes and goes over our fence with weekly sightings such as coyote, raccoon, possum, red -tail hawks, cooper's hawks, owls, etc.. Our home's value and our day to day enjoyment of our property has a lot to with the open space behind our house. Unfortunately, the housing development planned for the Christian Science Center will directly impact our quality of life, and will certainly reduce the value of our property. Instead of open sky, trees, lawn, and a small, single -story building 40 feet behind our fence -line, we will now, every day, see a 25 foot tail house, only ten feet behind our backyard fence. There will be an explosion of street noise associated with automobiles, alarms, slamming doors, engines, horns, etc, only 10 feet behind a fence that for 55 years has only known quiet. There will be large, second story windows looking down into our home and backyard. Our property will never be the same. We understand the property has been sold and that the change in our city almost demands that more housing options be pursued, but we love our house and we don't want it changed if it will change in a negative way. Concessions by the developer are in order if these new homes are going to be built this close to my lot line. Thank you. Ed and Gayle Burke 1653 Minorca Dr Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714)241-0323 Received city of costa Mesa Derefopnent SwAoss Department APR 24 2015 LEE, MEL From: Kown Shabdeen <sabishab1@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 9:38 PM To: LEE, MEL Subject: [BULK] Importance: Low Mel Lee Senior Planner Costa Mesa. Dear Mr. Lee, Being a resident of Mesa Verde Costa Mesa M. Kowm Shabdeen residing at 2855 Serang Place hereby wish to state my concerns of the New Home development that is proposed at 2880 Mesa verde drive East. We the residents have submitted a petition with regards to the parking of vehicles on our street by guests visiting the large apartment complex on 2775 Mesa Verde East Drive, mostly on Friday, Saturday and Sunday for over 72 hours, even on Friday's during street sweeping. The development plans call for 13 homes and 6 communal parking which I feel is going to create more parking issues along with the existing one. If the entrance to the proposed development were to be on Andros rather than Mesa Verde Dr. East,it would provide benefits as well as solutions for further problems. The traffic on Mesa Verde east is already high and a perimeter wall along Mesa Verde Dr. will match with existing wall. Entrance from Andros would provide two quickly accessible routes of entrance or exit- either Royal palm or Mesa Verde dr E. Thought I should address my concerns and I should to be at the City meeting tomorrow. Sincerely, M. Kowm Shabdeen, LEE, MEL From: JT <jon.tyrrell@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 11:59 PM To: LEE, MEL Subject: Proposed housing development at 2880 Mesa Verde Dr E Mel Lee Senior Planner Costa Mesa Dear Mr. Lee, My name is Jonathan Tyrrell and I'm a resident of Costa Mesa who lives in Mesa Verde. I'm currently a full-time caregiver for my mother who is bedridden at this point in her life, so I'll be unable to attend the City Planning Commission hearing for the proposed development at 2880 Mesa Verde Dr. East. wrote to Robert Dickson and received your contact information for follow up. I have some concerns and suggestions for consideration about the proposed development that I'd like to list here to be addressed by the planning commission. 1. The development plans call for 13 homes with 2-car garages and 6 communal guest parking spaces. Does this adequately account for a household with more than 2 vehicles, such as driveway space or area on the complex streets for parking? 2. When those 6 guest parking spaces are filled, where will the overflow parking take place? With a proposed entrance on Mesa Verde Dr E, it's reasonable to think that parking needed in excess of what has been provided will spill over onto Serang Place. We already currently have problems with non-resident parking on Serang from the apartments at 2775 Mesa Verde Dr E since adequate parking has not been planned or alotted for there. 3. If the entrance to the proposed development were to be on Andros rather than Mesa Verde Dr E, it would provide positive benefits as well as solutions to potential problems: a. A perimeter wall along Mesa Verde Dr E would match the other cul-de-sac or loop streets on Mesa Verde. b. An entrance to the development from Andros would provide a buffer for through traffic on Mesa Verde Dr E that intensifies at various hours of the day from Harbor Blvd via Baker. c. This entrance to the development from Andros would provide two quickly accessible routes of entrance or exit -- either Mesa Verde Dr E or Royal Palm. d. As well, said entrance would provide adequate overflow parking for the development when needed along Andros street on the side with no homes. Thank you for the opportunity to express these concerns and recommendations, and please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Jonathan Tyrrell 2845 Serang Place Costa Mesa VI PROPOSED TREES r � '-- ' 7 dF'ACaiena C' WWU(l Revllrulf _ Otagon TfC Y F4Y.01 Silas GTI Tire IZenuli[ffe c L rF r:;.ir�$ry q"!7'"+, hrpr74 Preliminanj Landscape Plan 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE, MESA VERDE DR COSTA MESA CA ATTACHMENT 5 1ROPOSED PLANT SCHEDULE ZEES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ZBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE 24" BOX ERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 24" BOX RACAENA DRACO DRAGON TREE 24' BOX EIJERA PARVIFLORA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW 24' BOX .ATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE 24'48' BOX RUS CALLERYANA REDSPIRE ARISTOCRAT FLOWERING PEAR 24' BOX iRUBS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE 3AVEATTENUATA AGAVE 5 GAL _OEARBORESCENS ALOE 5GAL _OE STRICTA ALOE 5 GAL DUGAINVILLEA X 'ROSENKA' BOUGAINVILLEA 5 GAL ARISSA MACROCARPA PROSTRATA' PROSTRATE NATAL PLUM 1 GAL RASSULAARGENTEA JADE PLANT 5GAL IANELLA SPP DIANELLA 5 GAL JPHORBIATIRUCALLPSTICKS ON FIRE' PENCILTREE 5 GAL JRCRAEA FOETIDA MAURITIUS HEMP 15 GAL ONOTIS LEONURUS LION'S TAIL 5 GAL GUSTRUM TEXANUM TEXAS PRIVET 15 GAL JMANDRA LONGIFOLIA'BREEZE' DWARF MAT RUSH 5GAL fESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL IAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES D H.O A MAINTAINED LANDSCAPE AREA PRIVATE HOMEOWNER MAINTAINED LANDSCAPE FRONT YARDS (DEVELOPER INSTALLED) PRIVATE HOMEOWNER LANDSCAPE MAINTAINED/INSTALLED .EGEND D 4'-0" STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATHWAY D 6-0" CMU PERIMETER WALL'TYPE' T.B.D. D CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS J 6" CONCRETE MOW CURB D MAN GATE FOR MAINTENANCE D; SIDE YARD GATE TYP. J PROJECT I.D. MONUMENT NOTE LANDSCAPE SHALL MEET CURRENT WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATE 0 16 32 48 64 feet 1/16"= 1'-0" DESIGN GROUP Landscape Aichileclum Planning Urban Design PINNACLE RESIDENTIAL 06111?2015 -3' fire access man gate into HOA easement area ANDROS STREET 10' side setback (comer) HOA maintained area easement over private lot 20' rear setback (for 2 story structures; 10' for 1 story structure) 5' side setback (interior) MESA VERDE DR, J (D Lu V) f COSTA MESA, CA. MESA VERDE EAST PINNACLE RESIDENTIAL jJ yy�� 6o J SITE SUMMARY SITE: 2.0 ac. (87,120,q a ) UNITS: 10 du DENSITY- 5.0 dua. UNIT SUMMARY PLAN 1: 4 du (3,311 sgft.) 2-story; 4br+bonus, 3.5 ba, 3 car garage PARKING Required garage 20 spaces (2.0 covered spacesunit) open 20 spaces (20 spaces / aniO total 40 spaces Provided garage 20 spaces open 30 spaces total 50 spaces OPEN SPACE Required 34,848 sq.ft. (40%) Provided 41,437 sq.ft. (47%) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (table 13-32 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code) MINIMUM LOT AREA: 6,000 sq.ft. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: Interior Lot: 50 ft Corner Lot: 60ft NUMBER STORIES/HEIGHT: 2 stories/27 ft MINIMUM OPEN SPACE: 40% total lot DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS: 10 ft. SETBACKS: FRONT: 20 ft REAR: 20 ft. (2 story) 10 ft. (1 story) SIDE: 5 ft. 10 ft. (abutting public street) DRIVEWAY WIDTH: 10 ft. DRIVEWAY LENGTH: 19 ft ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN SCALE 1 "=20' 0 20 40 60 JOB NO. 1216.001 DA I t 512til'1 b p w Teller Avenue O. H I Suite 260 Sulle Irvine, CA 92612 949-250-4680 42' •0" ,.,Nsa F. SECOND FLOOR: 1,709 sq. ft. COSTA MESA, CA. PINNACLE RESIDENTIAL 0 , m t ENTRY P 3f7� �•.r,r 1 I: If F - I I �- ' 1b'.4s�C-0' FIRST FLOOR: 1,602 sq. ft. � I MESA VERDE EAST - —_ 1O 3,311 sq. ft. w/o GARAGE 4 BEDROOM + BONUS 3.5 BATH 3 CAR GARAGE 671 sq. ft. COURTYARD 221 sq. ft. CALIFORNIA RM. 307 sq. ft. PLAN 1 FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR PLANS JOB NO. 1216.001 DAe EllerAvenue 05115 A 1.1 Suite 260 Irvine, CA 92612 949-250A680 LEFT ELEVATION COSTA MESA, CA, PINNACLE RESIDENTIAL FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION MESA VERDE EAST _ q 1 A - COMP SHINGLE ROOF B - STONE C - SIDING D - STUCCO E - CABLE RAILING F - WOOD TRIM G - CONCRETE H - ROLL UP GARAGE DOOR I -COACH LIGHT J -WOOD FASCIA RIGHT ELEVATION PLAN 1A EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS JOB NO. 1216.001 DATE 6105115 A 1.2 Suite 260 Irvine, CA 92612 949-2504680 C Imll os M ■' LEFT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION A - COMP. SHINGLE ROOF B - STONE C - SIDING D - STUCCO E - CABLE RAILING F - WOOD TRIM G - CONCRETE H - ROLL UP GARAGE DOOR I -COACH LIGHT J - WOOD FASCIA 0 E­1 RIGHT ELEVATION PLAN 1 B EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS JOB NO. 1216.001 DATE 6/05/15 COSTA MESA, CA. MESA VERDE EAST Sute 26'0" tvenue A 1.3 Irvine, CA 926 PINNACLE RESIDENTIAL 949-250466012 0 10 2C/ d0 �FM 1�20' LOT AREA TABLE LOT # AREA (SF) LOT 1 9427 LOT 2 1041 LOT 3 7970 WT 4 8967 LOT 8662 LOT6 8610 LOT 8732 LOTS B2N LOr9 8660 LOT ]0 10243 TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17824 PARCEL I OF PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 13, PAGE 36 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE O"M, CAlIFORN4 DATE OF PREPARATION: June 10, 2015 I 11 !. '_� � `'�'� EILSLiP• ~ »~ 3 � - kMTe1) _ kit lu.•ca •uac.W 45 E7i72WiN.Y•AiERl11-`- AOS % N0E71LSFEOATfiL I/��`///��� _ s""i� -OLMIMNAW _, IGJ•._ E% RESIDENCE I / I i I' QO=lrMpSJT➢�.WBGT.�r ln'+�'illl.ilst� 4YF.i1FR, ` iP ah i EX RESIDENCE � ]1 ti FM BLDGti EYl BF. RFMOVF.b .. •-� fl 4 1 I FJI.,AESIOENCE.� r r 7 4 axa<uz�..Toa�aexauar._-,r= ri EYST-LLJ f' ewr wmsassunac r r _EX5I.LT. x i . s EX. SEWER ICMSDI -� -.., 6 I I—mv—q,yry w�emw fron li•_._ .. _ _. - ii.. MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST � 7 3 — r 3 NOTES: 2A0 ACRE56ROS5 AND NR=T LAND NOT wBIECI TO INiJNDATION OR OVERFLOW NO — OR PAA%S TO BE DEDICATED PROPOSED LAND USE: ASSESSOR'5 PARCEL NUMBERS: I39-3L—R SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: FROM 1. SIDES 5' REAR LO' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Al R" SITUATED IN THE a' OF COSTA "SA. COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORMA. DESOORED AS F OWS: PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 0- PAGE 36 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE CO . CALIFORNLL BASIS OF REARIN65: TIft BEAR S SHOWN HEPEON ARE BASED ON THE BEARD46 BET WEEI4 ORAIJGE [(xA4ry SURVEYOR HORIZONTAL CONTROL STATION 6 P5, H% 6135 AWb STATION 6P 5. NO. 6131R1 BEING NORTH IV W' 03• WEST PER RECORDS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COINNY SW VEYOR- OWNER/SUBDIVIDER: PINNACLEA-ISRESIDEIITUL 20 ENTERPRISE. SUUE 320 CA (N9) 7-32TIEJO, (9/9) 207-3270 PRTMROSE 6T 5ITE ADDRESS: — MESA VERDE DRIVE COSTA MESA, CA W626 NN UU'l FLOOD ZONE: LONE %, OUTSIDE THE 500 YEAR FLOOD BOUNDARIES. t ESTIMATED GRADING QUANTITIE5: y.rr MTF9wcA IY.IK RA M: 1260 CY ny RAW FILL: ITBOCYOYFNB /"` IMPORT: 5N1 CY �: Tk pOpp[pOyA STi=T r? ENGINEER::_. s.IM1IC. H1 20T5E 6 17B.R 24S— ET6, SLITS ,�,',i ,PTA COSTAMSAU96] ly9yiBrI')'E (949)SgB-1192 LEGEND: AC Asriut flCCL11C1l IE" IIEAau4 AY¢ IX rK FH FIRE IRE I I-Id1ANT - FS FINQSHLISURFACE A AViT ST LT STREETLIGHT 5F SgUAREFEET TC TOP OF CURB f — CENTERLINE VICINITY MAP CLIW A fTI1"IER NOT TO SCALE f -i- ----tl1ARU6E SWALE - - — PR(gERrvIINE Kw ARV 7RlAISC..T 6jT( ..%. _•41YvW •,y%lilby 1;._ 26' I MAIN W WATER MAITJ WATER • I � 1 WATER METERS PL FlyC1MYLr" � FAl SIX MAGMY15F" ��r M1e(S9�i1I —:0' MU1 TYPICAL SECTION: MESA VERDE DRIVE N10T I SOLE 4K FJITST. WIOPERTv Ii1* FMAX 10'� iILD4 WALL zxM A , �II IYU[KTV LIBIE L'{I';'TlW.Yl *IL :�� WrrBLAxTSTAnln46 _� � �� "i � n 9wurEoo4 `_ �i�RYb7TA1 MAa � I T - _. I DATE. - SWALE �L MUM H.Rts .SEPARATTON BETWEEN HNI511ED FLOOR" FINISI£06RAM(SOIL) ✓ MWL I* MDAWA SECTION A NOT TO SULE A IFS PL =w'imaB� MINt y i kT .10B70) PROPERry UWRETAINIH6 ,� W� �Ij;& WALL I FENLE 2%LM -Ts E%IST. PROPERry RET WALL 1}' AAK �4 _ _ �• � I � �, Fu115[BFOTTKA %IST. WADE _� •� _�^ _ _ �• '4AA .�4W�T .� r awl) A3WM FLOOR AL AVE,FINL HFU BETWEEN FVIISHEO FLOOR F➢JLSHED WAbE(SOIU WAILX r4040 M: SECTION B NOT TO SCALE f RAV RAY PROJECT SITE Bg rB' 27 20 '�}1c+EwALE 1'LN•1 * ( —� q �yY l I TYPICAL SECTION: ANDROS STREET 40' 6iIn—`1 I I E { 6iTtrTRE9(51�7 � {'�.A€AAYFWLRT . TYPICAL SECTION: PRIVATE STREET NOT TO SCALE i i i I I TEICAL SITE PLA 1- MESA VERDE 7,1 ORIGINAL SITE PLAN (FOR REFERENCE) SITE SUMMARY SITE: 2.0 ac. (87,120sq.ft.) UNITS: 13 du DENSITY: 6.5 dua. UNIT SUMMARY PLAN 1: 4 du (2,540 sgft.) 2-story; 4br+3.5 ba PLAN 2: 9 du (2,956 sqft.) 2-story; 4br+3.5 ba 17A!]C�IRe? Requirea garage 26 spaces (2.0 covered spaces / unit) open 26 spaces (2.0 spaces / unit) total 52 spaces Provided garage 26 spaces open 33 spaces total 59 spaces OPEN SPACE Required 39,204 sq.ft. (45%) Provided 46,646 sq.ft. (53io) LOT SUMMARY LOT LOT SIZE 1 5,569 sq.ft. 2 5,387 sq.ft. 3 5,565 sq.ft. 4 6,674 sq.ft. 5 5,549 sq.ft. 6 6,234 sq.ft. J' 7 6,325 sq.ft. not to scale 8 5,992 sq.ft. 9 5,090 sq.ft. 10 5,358 sq.ft. 11 5,532 sq.ft. 12 5,043 sq.ft. 13 5,566 sq.ft. 73,884 sq.ft. DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTURE PLANNING NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: X X From: Office of Planning and Research County Clerk City of Costa Mesa 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 County of Orange Development Services Sacramento, CA 95814 P. O. Box 22013 77 Fair Drive Santa Ana, CA 92702 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Date: June 8, 2015 TO: Interested Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 15072 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Mesa hereby gives notice that a Draft Negative Declaration (ND) for the 10-unit residential developmentroiltgqle Residential at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East is available for review and comment. > 2015 PROJECT TITLE: Pinnacle Residential Project (Rezone R-14-05, Planning Application No. 4 ,and Tenta#Ir� bract Map TT-17824). 0ONGEMUNTVCL K c"'t"t"tiEPARSh DEPUTY PROJECT LOCATION: 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East in the City of Costa Mesa, on t: eas ' r e ❑rive East, approximately 0.2 miles north of the intersection of Adams Avenue and Mesa Verde Drive East, County Assessor's Parcel Number 139-313-08. The proposed project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is an amended project from the original 13-unit project, which was originally assigned SCH# 2015031099. The amended project involves the following: (1) Adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration; (2) Rezone of a 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single -Family Residential District) (7.26 dwelling units per acre maximum allowed); (3) Design Review for the development of a 10-unit, two-story, detached residential development (4.83 dwelling units per acre proposed). The Design Review also includes a Minor Modification to allow two units to project 20% or less into front yard setback, or 16 feet. (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed); and (4) Tentative Tract Map TT- 17824 for subdivision of property for homeownership. The project consists of the development of 10 single-family, detached residences with a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre, instead of original 13 units proposed. The amended project includes a rezone to R1 (Single-family Residential District) rather than PDR-LD zone (Planned Development Residential - Low Density). The project will provide 20 garage/covered parking spaces and 30 open parking spaces, for a total of 50 spaces (4 spaces per residential unit, and 10 additional spaces). Vehicle access to the 10 units will be provided from a private street off of Mesa Verde Drive East. No deviations from the City's Residential Design Guidelines are requested. PROJECT IMPACTS: The Initial Study/ND was completed in accordance with the Lead Agency's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. The Initial Study/ND found that the environmental effects from the project would be less than significant with the incorporation of standard conditions of approval and compliance with the Code requirements. Zs PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: Begins: March 27, 2015 Ends: April X, 2015 (extended to June 29, 2016 per revisions) PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing will be held before the Costa Mesa Planning Commission on June 22, 2015, at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration is being re -extended for public review and comment for a period of 20 days. An initial 30 comment period commenced on March 27, 2015 to April 27, 2015. This 20 day extension is a courtesy for the public. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Division of the City's Development Services Department before the end of the review period. If you challenge the City's action in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Division P oltSeT E� review period. Comments may be sent by mail, or faxed to the following address: ��/ vV 1 Ell Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner Phone: (714) 754-5611 JUN 12 2015 City of Costa Mesa FAX: (714) 754-4856 77 Fair Drive ORANGECOUN�YCLJ1-=111C01R1L11ERDEPARTME�Costa Mesa, CA 92628 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov LOCATION WHERE DOCUMENT CAN BE REVIEWED: The Initial Study, Draft ND an Ys areDEPU` I available for review and comment during normal business hours at the following locations: (a) City of Costa Mesa, Public Counter, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, CA, (b) Mesa Verde Library, 2969 Mesa Verde Drive, East, (c) Costa Mesa/Donald Dungan Library, 1855 Park Avenue. Date: Mel Lee, Senior Planner, City of Costa Mesa NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT AN IS -ND Initial Study/ Negative Declaration 2880 Mesa Verde East 2880 Mesa Verde Drive City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California Prepared by: City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.754.5000 Contact: Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner Date: June 5, 2015 Table of Contents Section1: Introduction.................................................................................................................1 1.1— Incorporation by Reference.............................................................................................. 1 Section 2: Project Description........................................................................................................3 2.1 - Project Location................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 - Environmental Setting....................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1- General Plan and Zoning........................................................................................ 3 2.2.2 - Surrounding Zoning................................................................................................ 4 2.3 - Project Features.................................................................................. 7 Section 3: Initial Study Checklist.................................................................................................11 3.1 - Background.................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.................................................................... 12 3.3 - Lead Agency Determination............................................................................................ 12 Section4: Environmental Analysis..............................................................................................13 4.1 Aesthetics.................................................................................................................. 14 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources........................................................................... 18 4.3 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases................................................................................... 20 4.4 Biological Resources................................................................................................... 32 4.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 35 4.6 Geology and Soils....................................................................................................... 38 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.............................................................................. 43 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................................... 47 4.9 Land Use and Planning................................ .......................................................... .... 50 4.10 Mineral Resources..................................................................................................... 54 4.11 Noise..........................................................................................................................55 4.12 Population and Housing............................................................................................ 58 4.13 Public Services........................................................................................................... 60 4.14 Recreation................................................................................................................. 62 4.15 Transportation/Traffic................................................................................................63 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems .................... .......................................................... 67 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significancej......................................................................... 75 Section5: References.................................................................................................................78 Appendix A: 2880 Mesa Verde Drive Trip Generation Study Appendix B: Revised Mesa Verde East Project Site Plan ( June 2015) Appendix C: Mesa Water District Letter Appendix D: Geotechnical Exploration Report List of Tables Table 1: Project Summary................................................................................... ............................. 7 Table 2: Land Use and Trip Generation Summary................................................................................ 23 Table 3: Residential Noise Standards.................................................................................................... 56 p Table 4: Land Use and Trip Generation Summary ...................................... .... --- .............................. 64 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map...........................................................................................................5 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map, Topographic Base....................................................................................6 Exhibit3: Site Plan..................................................................................................................................8 IM city of costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Initial Study/Negative Declaration Introduction The City of Costa Mesa has determined the proposed Mesa Verde East Residential Project (i.e., proposed project) is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects associated with the project, as proposed. Section 2.0, Project Description, provides a detailed description of the project. The proposed project involves the following: (1) Adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration; (2) Rezone of a 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family District) (7.26 dwelling units per acre maximum allowed); (3) Planning Application PA-14-48 for Design Review for the development of a 10-unit, two-story detached residential development at a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre. The Design Review also includes the following requested variances from Zoning Code requirements: a. Minor Modification to allow two units to project 20% or less into front yard setback, or 16 feet. (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed); (4) Tentative Tract Map T-17824 for subdivision of property for homeownership for 10 single-family dwelling units. The Project consists of the development of 10 single-family, detached residences with a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre. The project will provide 20 garage/covered parking spaces and 30 open parking spaces, for a total of 50 spaces (4 spaces per residential unit, and 10 guest spaces). Vehicle access to 10 of the units will be provided from a private street from Mesa Verde Drive East. No deviations from the City's Residential Design Guidelines are requested. The following environmental analysis examines the environmental effects of a low -density residential land use if the rezone were approved. 1.1- Incorporation by Reference Pertinent documents relating to this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) have been cited and incorporated, in accordance with Sections 15148 and 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, to eliminate the need for inclusion of voluminous engineering and technical reports within the Initial Study. Of particular relevance are those previous environmental documents that present information regarding descriptions of environmental settings, and future development -related growth and cumulative impacts. The references outlined below were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study. The documents are available for review at the City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department located at 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626. 1 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Initial Studv/ Negative Declaration Introduction City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan (Adopted January 22, 2002). The City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan (General Plan) is the primary source of long-range planning and policy direction intended to guide growth and preserve the quality of life within the community. The General Plan contains goals, policies, and plans that are intended to guide land use and development decisions. It consists of a Land Use Plan Map and the following Elements, which together fulfill the state requirements for a General Plan: Land Use; Circulation/Transportation; Housing; Conservation; Noise; Safety; Open Space and Recreation; Growth Management; Community Design; and Historic and Cultural Resources. The General Plan was used throughout this Initial Study as a source of baseline data. According to the current (2013-2021) Housing Element (City of Costa Mesa 2008), as of 2010, there were 39,946 households within 16 square miles in the City. City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. The City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report was certified on January 22, 2002 through City Council Resolution No. 02-07. The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan. General Plan EIR Table 3-6, Growth Increases Over Existing Conditions (2000) Associated with 2000 General Plan Implementation (2020), identifies new development projected between 2000 and 2020. The environmental impact analysis contained in the General Plan EIR assumes 42,469 dwelling units and 46,683,237 square feet (sq ft) of non-residential land uses, which represents a growth of 1,892 additional dwelling units and 12,643,695 additional square feet of non-residential uses by 2020. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts in the following areas would be significant and unavoidable (see General Plan EIR Section 8.0): • Transportation and Circulation (roadway capacity at Gisele Avenue, west of Harbor Boulevard); • Noise (long-term mobile sources); • Air Quality (short- and long-term emissions). The General Plan and General Plan EIR were used in this Initial Study/Negative Declaration as a source of baseline data. City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code. The City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) consists of regulatory, penal, and administrative ordinances of the City of Costa Mesa. It is the method the City uses to implement control of land uses, in accordance with General Plan goals and policies. The City of Costa Mesa Zoning Code is located in CMMC Title 13, Planning, Zoning, and Development. The purpose of CMMC Title 13 is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of the City by providing regulations to ensure that an appropriate mix of land uses occur in an orderly manner. The CMMC and CMMC Title 13 are referenced throughout this Initial Study for descriptions and requirements of the City°s regulatory framework. 2 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration 2.1- Project Location Environmental Analysis The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Costa Mesa, in the County of Orange; refer to Exhibit 1. Specifically, the site is located east of E. Mesa Verde Drive and north of Adams Avenue; refer to Exhibit 2. The site is located approximately 2.0 miles northwest of the Pacific Ocean. Regional access to the site is provided via Interstate 405 (1-405), which is located approximately one mile to the north. Harbor Boulevard, which is located approximately half a mile east of the site, also provides regional access. Local access to the site is provided via Adams Avenue and Mesa Verde East Drive. 2.2 - Environmental Setting The project site (Assessor Parcel Numbers 139-313-08) consists of one parcel totaling approximately 2.07 acres. The site is relatively flat with onsite elevation of approximately 105 feet above mean sea level. The project site contains the facilities for First Church of Christ Scientist, including offices, classrooms, and the main sanctuary, in two buildings totaling approximately 8,900 square feet, and approximately 124 surface parking spaces. Primary site access is provided via Mesa Verde Drive East. The site is currently separated from the residential properties to the north by a block wall. Onsite water and sewer are provided by Mesa Water District and Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2.2.1- General Plan and Zoning General Plan The General Plan land use designation for the project area is Low Density Residential (8 dwelling units to the acre maximum). Low -Density Residential areas generally are intended to accommodate single-family residences on their own parcels. Other housing types include attached housing that provide a greater portion of recreation or open space than typically found in multi -family developments, and clustered housing which affords the retention of significant open space. Low - Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate family groups and outdoor living activities in open space adjacent to dwellings. In order to avoid land use conflicts, these areas should be located away from or protected from the more intense non-residential areas and major travel corridors. Pursuant to the Costa Mesa General Plan, the density for this land use designation shall be up to eight units to the acre. Zoning According to the Official Zoning Map, the project site is zoned I&R (Institutional and Recreational). A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 2-acre development site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family District) is proposed. The proposed rezone to R1 (Single Family 3 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis District) would be compatible with the existing Low Density Residential General Plan designation for the project site. 2.2.2 - Surrounding Zoning Surrounding land uses generally consist of commercial and residential uses. Land uses immediately adjacent to the project site consist of the following: • North: Single Family residential uses are located to the north. These residential uses are zoned R1 (Single- Family Residential). • East: Single Family residential uses are located to the east. These residential uses are zoned R1 (Single- Family Residential). • South: Commercial uses are located to the south. These properties are zoned C1 (Local Business). • West: Single Family residential uses are located to the west (across Mesa Verde Drive East). These residential uses are zoned R1 (Single- Family Residential). 4 City of Costa Mesa EXHIBIT 1: MESA VERDE EAST REGIONAL MAP - [Created 3/25/2015 9:59 39 AM] [Scale 3852 341 [Page: 8 5 x 11 / Portrait] Legend Roads Maw■ SCICQNUARY E3 City CnftCi4sr ✓ Newoon BLVD Kydrology Bourrdary Fromry .41 Primary Channels (c ont) (canto Map Display FCC N TAIN VALLgy FOUNTAIN VA CO I e� HUNTINGTON B I I l 1 I^ I i y t ;C 1 2002- 5 .Nww.GcoPnse_N E t J (C) 2002-5 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec, Inc.) - (866)422-2505 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration 2.3 - Project Features Environmental Analysis The City of Costa Mesa is processing a planning application from Mesa Verde East, LLC for, two-story, small lot residential development at a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre. Approval of the proposed project involves the following: 1. Adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration. 2. Rezone R-14-05: An ordinance to rezone a 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family District). The maximum allowable General Plan density is 16 dwelling units at a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre. 3. Planning Application PA-14-48: Design Review for the development of a 10-unit, two-story detached residential development at a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre. The Design Review also includes the following requested variances from Zoning Code requirements: a. Minor Modification to allow two units to project 20% or less into front yard setback, or 16 feet. (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed); 4. Tentative Tract Map T-17824: Subdivision of the property into fee simple lots for homeownership. Table 1, Project Summary, summarizes the proposed units and their sizes. The development includes 10 total units. The project would provide 20 garage parking spaces and 30 open parking spaces for a total of SO spaces (4 spaces per residential unit, for a total of 40 spaces are required by code). Table 1, Project Summary, summarizes the proposed units and their sizes. Table 1: Project Summary PA-14-48 Lot Size 6,000 sq. ft. min Total No. of Units 10 No. Bedrooms and Baths 4 Bed, 3.5 Bath No. of Stories 2 No. Of Garage Spaces 20 No. Of Open Spaces 30 Total Parking 40 Spaces required by Code 50 Spaces (Proposed) The proposed project includes demolition and removal of the existing church building. Prior to demolition of the existing structure(s), removal and/or abatement of asbestos containing building materials, lead containing paints, and any hazardous materials associated with the existing building materials shall be conducted by a qualified environment professional in consultation with the Costa Mesa Fire Department. Once demolition and removals are completed, the project site would be graded and constructed in single-phase. If contaminated soils are encountered during grading activities, excavation and removal of contaminated soils would be required to comply with Federal, State, and local regulations. 7 @ � F6NZi Z3 w 0 0 w b d J Y �v w W N II �0 0 v= ry o N _ o s s6 - a V)'u a Z H U w H w 2 Z H w w 0 H O H O oCL G WWW w w w z z D z U P o .. z 4 0 w 1 w LU d Q LU W I OIQIm ��I V) a w w ce W Q V) LU R '-ld JNVd DS I I I ffI II �. r a U � i Q co w a 0 0 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Leave Blank L",O IC,.,L 1,10 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration 3.1- Background 1. Project Title Mesa Verde East Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 3. Contact Persons and Phone Number: Melvin E. Lee, AICP Senior Planner 714-754-5611 email: mel.lee@costamesaca.gov 4. Project Location: 2880 E. Mesa Verde Drive Costa Mesa Orange County, CA S. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Pinnacle Residential 20 Enterprise, Suite 320 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: 1&R (Insititutional and Recreational District) 8. Description of the Project: See Section 2, Project Description 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See Section 2, Project Description 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits): • South Coast Air Basin • Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board - Region 8 Environmental Analysis 11 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 3.2 - Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Air Quality Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ ❑ Population/Housing ❑ ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Mineral Resources ❑ Noise Public Services ❑ Recreation Utilities/Services Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.3 - Lead Agency Determination Lead Agency Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section 4, Environmental Analysis, have been added. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signed City of Costa Mesa Agency Signer's Name, Ti le Date 12 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Sections 4.1 through 4.17 analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project. The environmental issue areas that are evaluated are: • Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology/Soils • Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Hydrology/Water Quality • Land Use/Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population/Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities/Services Systems • Mandatory Findings of Significance The environmental analysis in the following sections is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, and used by the City of Costa Mesa in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development's impacts and to identify mitigation. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses: • No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. • Less than significant impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant. • Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts, which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development's physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. • Potentially significant impact. The development could have impacts, which may be considered significant, and therefore additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study/ Environmental Checklist. Explanations are provided for each item. 13 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4.1 Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ El ® ❑ No Impact. There are no General Plan -identified scenic vistas/views located in the project area, as there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City of Costa Mesa. Therefore, project implementation would not have any effect on a designated scenic vista/view. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The project site is not located along a designated State scenic highway, as there are no officially designated scenic highways in the City of Costa Mesa. Aside from ornamental landscaping located within the existing church property, there are no protected tree species on the property. No historic buildings or rock outcroppings are located at the project site. Therefore, project implementation would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than significant impact. The existing visual character of the project site is primarily defined by church buildings, landscaped areas and associated parking lot. The existing visual character of the surrounding area is defined by established residential uses to the north, east and west, and commercial uses located south of the project site. The area does not exhibit distinct architectural 14 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analvsis character and there is no uniformity of architectural styles. No unique or scenic visual resources exist on the project site or in its surroundings. A project is generally considered to have a significant visual/aesthetic impact if it substantially changes the character of the project site, such that it becomes visually incompatible or visually unexpected when viewed in the context of its surroundings. The project site is located in a mature residential area, and would introduce a 10-unit, two-story, residential development at a density of 4.83 dwelling units to the existing mature residential neighborhood. The project would be similar in scale and character to the site's surroundings. The Community Design Element identifies the following Private Property Focus for residential design (page CD-18): Objective CD-7A. Encourage excellence in architectural design. CD-7A.1 Ensure that new and remodeled structures are designed in architectural styles which reflect the City's diversity, yet are compatible in scale and character with existing buildings and natural surroundings within residential neighborhoods. Develop and adopt design guidelines for residential development. CD-7A.2 Preserve the character and scale of Costa Mesa's established residential neighborhoods; where residential development or redevelopment is proposed, require as a condition of approval that it is consistent with the prevailing character of existing development in the immediate vicinity, and that it does not have a substantial adverse impact on adjacent areas. Consistent with the objectives of the Community Design Element, the proposed project includes a traditional architecture with varied building materials, textures and colors, quality landscaped project common areas and project entries, and private open space. In addition, project implementation would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area through quality architectural design. The design of any future residential use is required to conform with the City's design guidelines and residential development standards (e.g. two-story maximum building height, maximum density allowed in R1 zone, etc.), unless a request for any discretionary approvals (i.e. variance, minor modification, etc.) is approved in conjunction with the development proposal. Since the proposed project would require the review/approval of a Design Review to ensure conformance with the Zoning Code and Residential Design Guidelines, no significant impacts related to this environmental topic are anticipated. Standard review, conditions, and requirements completed during the review process will avoid any significant impacts related to aesthetics. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. is City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than significant impact. Light spillage is typically defined as unwanted illumination from light fixtures on adjacent properties. The project site is located within a residential area. Existing lighting conditions in the project area include light emanating from building interiors, security lights and the surrounding residential land uses, as well as nearby street lighting. There are residential uses located north, east, and west of the project site. Commercial uses are located south of the project site. There are no additional sensitive land uses in the project's immediate vicinity. The residential units would include a garage and living areas on the ground floor, and living areas on the second floor. The project would create new sources of light due to light emanating from building interiors and light from exterior sources (e.g., building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting). The existing and proposed residential uses are considered light sensitive and could be exposed to lighting from the existing nearby commercial uses. A seven -foot high block wall would be installed between along the western, eastern and southern project boundary to enhance privacy and separate the project from existing residential land uses. No significant lighting is proposed adjacent to the existing residential uses. As previously noted, the existing and proposed residential uses could be exposed to lighting from the existing surrounding commercial uses to the south. Most of the lighting from the existing uses surrounding the project would be shielded by the proposed seven -foot high screen wall to be located along the southern boundary of the project site. Spillover light impacts on residential uses to less than significant. Existing lighting conditions in the Project area include light emanating from the abutting commercial property and residential property, as well as nearby street lighting. The proposed development would create new sources of light due to light emanating from the new residential building interiors and light from exterior sources (e.g., building illumination, security lighting, entry sign and landscape lighting). Surrounding sensitive receptors (existing residences) will be separated from new block walls and landscaping within required setbacks. No significant new lighting is proposed adjacent to the existing residential uses. Low voltage landscape lighting will be placed within the common open space areas within the project site. Standard Condition SC 4.1-1 requires preparation of a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study, in order to demonstrate that the proposed lighting meets minimum security lighting requirements and minimizes light/glare to residents. Project compliance with CMMC standards and Standard Condition SC 4.1-1 would ensure that potential spillover light impacts on residential uses are less than significant. Standard Conditions 16 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis SC 4.1.1 Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for the approval of the City's Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following: • The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the Project site unless approved by the Development Services Director. • The intensity and location of lights on buildings shall be subject to the Development Services Director's approval. • All site lighting fixtures shall be provided with a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency. • Lighting design and layout shall limit spill light to no more than 0.5 foot candle at the property line of the surrounding neighbors, consistent with the level of lighting that is deemed necessary for safety and security purposes on site. • Glare shields may be required for select light standards. In regards to glare, the project would involve primarily non -reflective fagade treatments and the minimization of unrelieved glass surfaces. Additionally, since the proposed project would require the review/approval of a Master Plan (CMMC Section 13-56) to ensure conformance with the Zoning Code and Residential Design Guidelines, no significant impacts related to this environmental topic are anticipated. Standard review, conditions, and requirements completed during the review process will avoid any significant impacts related to light and glare. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 17 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Issues Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section ❑ ❑ ❑ 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion ❑, ❑ ❑ of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, ❑ ❑ ❑ to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? 18 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Environmental Analysis a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No impact. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance. The project site is developed with existing church buildings and parking lot. Thus, project implementation would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. The project site is currently zoned I&R (Institutional and Recreational), but is proposed to be rezoned to R1 (Single -Family Residential District). The project site and surrounding lands are not zoned for agricultural use or part of a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No impact. The project site is is currently zoned I&R (Institutional and Recreational), but is proposed to be rezoned to R1 (Single -Family Residential District). Project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No impact. The project site is developed with existing church buildings and parking lot. Thus, project implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? No impact. The project site is developed with existing church buildings and parking lot, and the surrounding area is designated for residential and commercial uses. There are no agricultural or forest uses in the vicinity. Therefore, project implementation would not involve changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. 19 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Issues Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4.3 Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ® ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Environmental Evaluation Air Quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact. The project consists of a 10-unit detached residential development, replacing an 8,900 square church. The project site is located in Orange County, which is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin). The regional agency responsible for air quality within the Air Basin is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The area is designated nonattainment for the state 1-hour and 8-hour ozone, 24-hour and annual respirable particulate 20 Environmental Analysis City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration matter (PMlo), and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. The area is also designated nonattainment for federal standards for 8-hour ozone, and 24-hour PM2.5. The area is designated as maintenance for the federal PMlo standard. The applicable Air Quality Plan (AQP) is the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (AQMP 2012). According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the project is consistent with the AQP if the project addresses two main criteria (and associated questions): Criterion 1: Questions 1 and 2. Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations? Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations? Answers 1 and 2: Given the size and current developed conditions of the project site, and the fact that trip generations will be similar to the existing use, the project would result in a less than significant carbon monoxide (CO) impact during operation. In addition, due to the limited grading and the fact that the future proposed residential development would not involve subsurface grading for underground structures, project construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD's LST criteria with below Standard Conditions incorporated. Therefore, the project would not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations in the project's vicinity. The project would be consistent with the first and second questions of Criterion 1. Question 3. Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQP? Answer 3. Given the size and current developed conditions of the project site, and the fact that trip generations will be similar to the existing use, the project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to localized pollutant concentrations and regional pollutant contributions, respectively, with below Standard Conditions incorporated. The project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2012 AQMP emissions reductions. The project is consistent with the third question of Criterion 1. Criterion 2: Question 1. Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP? Answer 1: In order to be consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP, the project must be consistent with the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan (General Plan), the SCAG's Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), and SCAG's 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The General Plan map indicates that the project is located within the City's Low Density Residential (LDR) designation. The designation allows for 8 du/acre, however the project 21 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis consists of only 4.83 du/acre. Therefore, the project is consistent with the City-wide plan for population growth at the project site. The project is also consistent with the RCPG's types, intensity, and patterns of land use designated for the area in and around the project site. The population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City and are used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2012 AQMP, it can be concluded that the project would be consistent with the projections. Therefore, the project is consistent with the first question of Criterion 2. Question 2. Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? Answer 3: The project would result in less than significant impact with all feasible air quality standard conditions incorporated and would therefore be consistent with the second question of Criterion 2. Question 3. Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? Answer 3: The project is located within a developed portion of the City with proximity to transit and a mix of other uses, therefore the project would not conflict with the City's or SCAG's policies. The project is consistent with the third question of Criterion 2. In summary, the project would not result in a significant localized or regional impact on the region's ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. In addition, the project would be consistent with the growth forecasts in the AQMP, and is consistent with the land use strategies set forth in the AQMP. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Given the size and current developed conditions of the project site, the fact that and the fact that future proposed residential development would not involve subsurface grading for underground structures, short-term air quality impacts are expected to be less than significant. The long-term, operational air quality impacts are also expected to be less than significant because proposed residential development would involve similar average daily vehicle trips compared to the existing church use (RK Engineering Group, 2015). Less than significant impacts related to this environmental topic will occur as a result of the zone change and development. In addition, the City of Costa Mesa requires projects meet certain Standard Conditions. They are requirements and, therefore, incorporated into the analysis. Standard Conditions relevant to the project are provided below. In summary, considering that construction and operation of the proposed project will follow these standard conditions, both construction and operational air quality impacts are expected to be less than significant. 22 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial5tudy/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The SCAQMD does not recommend quantified analysis of cumulative construction or operational emissions, nor does it provide separate methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or operational impacts. However, if an individual development project generates operational emissions that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds, project -specific impacts would also cause a cumulative considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Air Basin is in non -attainment. The project would generate up to 124 daily trips, including up to 9 trips in the AM peak hour and up to 13 trips in the PM peak hour. Under existing conditions, the project site generates approximately 78 daily trips, including 5 trips in the AM peak hour and 4 trips in the PM peak hour. Overall, the project would generate up to 46 additional daily trips, including an additional 4 AM peak hour trips and an additional 9 PM peak hour trips, than currently occur under existing conditions. Table 2: Land Use and Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Category Dally 2-Way Total Total Rates Church (TE/TSF) 9.11 0.56 0.55 Single -Family Detached Housing 9.52 0.75 1.00 (TE/DU) Project Single -Family Detached Housing 124 9 13 (13 DU)* Existing Site Church (8.598 TSF) -78 -5 -4 Total "Net" Project Trip 46 4 9 Generation: Project Minus Existing Church TE/DU= trip end per dwelling unit, TE/TSF= trip end per 1,000 square feet Source: RK Engineering 2015. *Amended project is for 10-units only. Given the size and current developed conditions of the project site, the similar daily trips and the fact that future proposed residential development would not involve subsurface grading for underground structures, the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds during construction or operation. Therefore, the project's impacts would be considered less than significant. 23 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Studd Neaative Declaration Environmental Analysis d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. This discussion addresses whether the project would expose sensitive receptors to naturally occurring asbestos, asbestos from building demolition, construction -generated localized criteria pollutant impacts, construction -generated diesel particulate matter (DPM), construction or operational related toxic air contaminants (TACs), or operational CO hotspots. Sensitive Receptors Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. For purposes of CEQA, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24 hours, such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent facilities (SCAQMD 2008a). Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition because employees do not typically remain onsite for 24 hours. However, when assessing the impact of pollutants with 1-hour or 8-hour standards (such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide), commercial and/or industrial facilities would be considered sensitive receptors for those purposes. The closest sensitive receptor is a residential development directly adjacent north to the project. The existing residence is located within 25 meters of the project boundary. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) Asbestos is a fibrous mineral which is both naturally occurring in ultramafic rock (a rock type commonly found in California), and used as a processed component of building materials. Because asbestos has been proven to cause a number of disabling and fatal diseases, such as asbestosis and lung cancer, it is strictly regulated either based on its natural widespread occurrence, or in its use as a building material. In addition, the ARB approved an Air Toxic Control Measure for construction, grading, quarrying and surface mining operations to minimize emissions of naturally occurring asbestos. The regulation requires application of best management practices to control fugitive dust in areas known to have naturally occurring asbestos and requires notification to the local air district prior to commencement of ground -disturbing activities. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) has a published guide for generally identifying areas that are likely to contain NOA (DMG 2011). The DMG map indicates NOA are not known to occur within the project area. Therefore, disturbance of NOA during project construction is not a concern for the project. The project would result in no impact from exposure of sensitive receptors to naturally occurring asbestos. Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) In the initial Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants rule promulgated in 1973, a distinction was made between building materials that would readily release asbestos fibers when damaged or disturbed (friable) and those materials that were unlikely to result in significant fiber release (non -friable). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has since 24 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis determined that, severely damaged, otherwise non -friable materials can release significant amounts of asbestos fibers. Asbestos has been banned from many building materials under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Act. However, most uses of asbestos for building material are not banned. Therefore, the potential source of asbestos exposure for the project is the demolition activity of the existing structures. SCAQMD's Rule 1403 specifies work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, includes the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos - containing materials (ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and land filling requirements for asbestos -containing waste materials (ACWM). The rule further states that the District shall be notified of the intent to conduct any demolition or renovation activity (SCAQMD 2012) Compliance with SCAQMD, federal, and state regulations reduces the potential of asbestos - containing material exposure to a less than significant impact. Construction: Localized Construction Impacts As shown above, the project would not exceed the localized significance thresholds for construction - generated criteria pollutants with implementation of Standard Conditions. Therefore, the project would not expose receptors to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations from construction activities. Impacts would be less than significant. Construction: Diesel Particulate Matter The project would generate diesel exhaust, a source of diesel particulate matter, during project construction. Diesel particulates are typically 2.5 microns (PM2.5). Onsite emissions of both diesel particulate matter occur during construction from the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment and from vendor trucks that operate on project sites. Project activities that would generate diesel particulate matter emissions are short-term in nature. Moreover, the current methodological protocols required by SCAQMD and ARB when studying the health risk posed by diesel particulate matter assume the following: (1) 24-hour constant exposure; (2) 350 days a year; (3) for a continuous period lasting 70 years. Therefore, considering the dispersion of the emissions and the short time frame, exposure to diesel particulate matter is anticipated to be less than significant. Construction: Toxic Air Pollutants - Onsite Workers There are a variety of state and national programs that protect workers from safety hazards, including high air pollutant concentrations (California OSHA and CDC 2012). Onsite workers are not required to be addressed through this health risk assessment process. A document published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA, 2009), Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, indicates that onsite receptors are included in risk assessments if they are persons not employed by the project. Persons not employed by the 25 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis project would not remain onsite for any significant period. Therefore, a health risk assessment for onsite workers is not required or recommended. Impacts are less than significant. Operation: Toxic Air Pollutants The ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook contains recommendations that will "help keep California's children and other vulnerable populations out of harm's way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution" (ARB 2005), including recommendations for distances between sensitive receptors and certain land uses. These recommendations are assessed as follows. • Heavily traveled roads. ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Epidemiological studies indicate that the distance from the roadway and truck traffic densities were key factors in the correlation of health effects, particularly in children. The project is approximately 630 feet west of Placentia Ave, which is currently estimated to have 15,606 vehicles per day (California Environmental Health Tracking Program 2011). Therefore, the project would not expose onsite sensitive receptors to significant health risk from heavily traveled roads. • Distribution centers. ARB also recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center. The closest existing or proposed distribution center to the project is located more than 1,000 feet from the project. Therefore, the project would not expose onsite sensitive receptors to significant health risk from distribution centers. * Fueling stations. ARB recommends avoiding new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large fueling station (a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50- foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. The nearest fueling station is 0.50 miles from the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose onsite sensitive receptors to significant health risk from fueling stations. • Dry cleaning operations. ARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation that uses perch loroethylene. For operations with two or more machines, ARB recommends a buffer of 500 feet. For operations with three or more machines, ARB recommends consultation with the local air district. The nearest dry cleaning operations from the project site are 0.54 miles to the southeast of the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose onsite sensitive receptors to significant health risk from dry cleaning operations. Operation: CO Hotspot The project is proposed residential and would not create a localized CO hotspot. Therefore, the project would not expose receptors to substantial CO concentrations from operational activities. Conclusion The project would not expose receptors to substantial quantities or significant concentrations of asbestos from demolition or soils disturbance, construction -generated localized criteria pollutant 26 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis concentrations, construction -generated diesel particulate matter, operational toxic air contaminants, or CO hotspots. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed project will include construction of 10 units. The residential uses are not proposed to create objectionable odors, outside of normal household activities. In addition, the proposed project will be similar to the surrounding residential uses. Therefore, the project will create less than significant impact related to odors affecting a substantial number of people. Greenhouses Gases a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Project -related GHG emissions would include emissions from direct and indirect sources. The project would results in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4. Direct project -related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. Operational GHG emissions are based on energy emissions from natural gas usage and automobile emissions. The long-term, operational greenhouse gas impacts are also expected to be less than significant because proposed residential development would involve similar average daily vehicle trips compared to the existing church use (RK Engineering Group, 2015). Less than significant impact. The SCAQMD has prepared recommended significance thresholds for greenhouse gases for local lead agency consideration ("SCAQMD draft local agency threshold"). The current draft thresholds consist of the following tiered approach: o Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA. o Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local greenhouse gas reduction plan, it does not have significant greenhouse gas emissions. o Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project's construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to a project's operational emissions. If a project's emissions are under one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant: • All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year • Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year o Tier 4 has the following options: 27 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis • Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently undefined• Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures • Option 3, 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employees: • 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans; • Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans o Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold. The SCAQMD discusses its draft thresholds in the following excerpt (SCAQMD 2008b): The overarching policy objective with regard to establishing a GHG [greenhouse gas] significance threshold for the purposes of analyzing GHG impacts pursuant to CEQA is to establish a performance standard or target GHG reduction objective that will ultimate contribute to reducing GHG emissions to stabilize climate change. Full implementation of the Governor's Executive Order 5-3-05 would reduce GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels or 90 percent below current levels by 2050. It is anticipated that achieving the Executive Order's objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap GHG concentrations at 450 ppm, thus, stabilizing global climate. As described below, staff's recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal uses a tiered approach to determining significance. Tier 3, which is expected to be the primary tier by which the AQMD will determine significance for projects where it is the lead agency, uses the Executive Order 5-3-05 goal as the basis for deriving the screening level. Specifically, the Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90 percent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis, including a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration, or an environmental impact. Therefore, the policy objective of staff's recommended interim GHG significance threshold proposal is to achieve an emission capture rate of 90 percent of all new or modified stationary source projects. A GHG significance threshold based on a 90 percent emission capture rate may be more appropriate to address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change. Further, a 90 percent emission capture rate sets the emission threshold low enough to capture a substantial fraction of future stationary source projects that will be constructed to accommodate future statewide population and economic growth, while setting the emission threshold high enough to exclude small projects that will in aggregate contribute a relatively small fraction of the cumulative statewide GHG emissions. This assertion is based on the fact that staff estimates that these GHG emissions would account for less than one percent of future 2050 statewide GHG emissions target (85 MMTCO2e/yr). In addition, these small projects would be subject to future applicable GHG control regulations that would further reduce their overall future contribution to the statewide GHG inventory. In summary, the SCAQMD's draft threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis for the Tier 3 screening level. Achieving the Executive Order's objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 ppm, thus, stabilizing global climate. 28 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial5tudy/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis For this Project, the 3,000 MTCO2e per year for mixed use screening threshold is used as the significance threshold, in addition to the qualitative thresholds of significance. A 10-unit development would not exceed the SCAQMD's threshold of significance for greenhouse gases. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than significant impact. There are currently no adopted local or regional greenhouse gas reduction plans applicable to the proposed project. However as discussed in Section 4.7a) above, the Air District is in the process of preparing recommended significance thresholds for greenhouse gases for local lead agency consideration which the proposed project does not exceed. The Scoping Plan states, "The 2020 goal was established to be an aggressive, but achievable, mid- term target, and the 2050 GHG emissions reduction goal represents the level scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that would stabilize climate" (ARB 2008). The year 2020 GHG emission reduction goal of AB 32 corresponds with the mid-term target established by Executive Order 5-3-05, which aims to reduce California's fair -share contribution of GHGs in 2050 to levels that would stabilize the climate. Project Construction Construction of the proposed project is estimated to generate GHGs. Construction emissions were quantified for demolition, grading, trenching, building construction, paving, and the application of architectural coatings. GHG emissions produced during the approximately two year construction phase of the project are from construction vehicle exhaust. SCAQMD assessment methodology allocates the GHG emissions generated over the construction period and amortizes them over the life of the project (30 years). The combination of construction and operations phase emissions are then evaluated against the SCAQMD GHG significance threshold. Therefore, construction emissions would not conflict with the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Because the project is limited to the redevelopment of a single-family residence development, it is not a project subject to the Scoping Plan's recommended measures. As such, the Scoping Plan's recommended measures do not directly apply to the project. In other words, there are no specific actions or measures to incorporate into the project in order to comply with the Scoping Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the Scoping Plan's recommended measures and, as such, would not impede implementation of the Scoping Plan. In conclusion, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for reducing the emissions of GHGs because the project would generate low levels of GHGs, and would not impede implementation of the Scoping Plan, or conflict with the policies of the Scoping Plan. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 29 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Standard Conditions Environmental Analysis SC-4.3-1 All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the site, the contractor would implement each of the following: • Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. • Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface. • Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. • Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. • Wash mud -covered tired and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction sites. • Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. • Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. • Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. SC-4.3-2 Prohibits permanently installed wood burning devices into any new development. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet -fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid' fuel for aesthetic or space -heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour. SC-4.3-3 The project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the energy conservation standards. The project Applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans: • Double paned glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be sued in all exterior windows; 30 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis • Buildings shall be oriented north/south where feasible. SC 4.3-4 The Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by the AQMD. SC 4.3-5 Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. SC 4.3-6 All rubber tired dozers and graders used during the grading phase of construction shall be powered by Tier 3 engines. 31 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4.4 Biological Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Environmental Setting Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ The project site is developed with existing church buildings and associated parking lot. The project site is surrounded by urban development consisting of residential and commercial uses. 32 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial5tudy/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. The project site is fully developed/disturbed and contains limited ornamental landscaping throughout the property. No suitable habitat for any special -status plant or wildlife species occurs within the project site. Therefore, project implementation would not impact either directly or through habitat modifications, any plant or wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities located within the project area identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, there would be no impacts to any of these habitat types. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No impact. The project is devoid of wetlands, marshes, and vernal pools. Therefore, there would be no impact to any federally protected wetlands under the Clean Water Act. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? No impact. The project site is fully developed and is located in an urban setting. The site and surrounding areas do not provide habitat for the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Therefore, there is no potential for the site to serve as a migration corridor for wildlife and no impact would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No impact. The project site does not contain any protected biological resources or tree species that are considered sensitive. Project implementation would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances. 33 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analvsis f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No impact. The City of Costa Mesa is not within the jurisdiction of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, project implementation would not conflict with the provisions of an approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 34 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.5 Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ [� [� ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ El❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No impact. The City's historic and cultural resources are illustrated on General Plan EIR Exhibit 4.10- 1, Properties that Meet the Standards for Listing in the National Register, and outlined in General Plan EIR Table 4.10-1, Historic Resources Inventory. The project site is not identified as a historically/culturally significant resource. City records indicate that the church buildings were constructed in 1968. The existing structures were assessed for historic significance and do not appear to meet any of the four criteria (A-D) for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CR) nor do they appear to meet any criteria for local listing. The buildings were built as functional buildings for a church and therefore, are not associated with events (A) that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history. The church is not recognized locally, and would not be considered historically significant and therefore, the structures are not associated with a person(s) (B) significant in the past. The structure is not unusual or exceptional in any respect and therefore, it does not embody a distinctive characteristic of a type, period, or method of construction (C). Finally, the structure is not capable of providing information important in prehistory or history (D). The structures located onsite do not appear to meet any of the criteria for listing on the CR or local listings and further study is not deemed necessary. 35 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Therefore, project implementation would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less than significant impact. Ground disturbing activities, such as grading or excavation could disturb previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources. However, the project site consists of, and is surrounded by, developed land that has been permanently altered due to the construction of below and aboveground improvements (i.e., buildings, driveways, streets, hardscapes, and utilities). Additionally, the project site has already been subject to extensive disruption. Given the highly disturbed condition of the site, the potential for project implementation to impact an unidentified archeological resource is considered low. The project would be subject to compliance with Standard Condition SC 4.5-1, which provides direction in the event archeological resources are unearthed during project subsurface activities. Therefore, project implementation would result in a less than significant impact involving an adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Standard Condition SC 4.5.4 In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during grading and construction, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of archaeological materials as determined by the City, who shall establish, in cooperation with the project Applicant and a certified archaeologist, the appropriate procedures for exploration and/or salvage of the artifacts. c) Directly or indirectly, destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than significant impact. As noted above, the project site has already been subject to extensive disruption. Additionally, there is no evidence of unique geologic features on the project site. Given the highly disturbed condition of the site, the potential for the project to impact unidentified paleontological resource is considered remote. The project would be subject to compliance with Standard Condition SC 4.5-2, which provides direction in the event paleontological resources are unearthed during project subsurface activities. Therefore, project implementation would result in a less than significant impact involving the potential destruction of a paleontological resource. Standard Condition SC 4.5.-2 In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during grading and construction operations, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit a qualified paleontologist to assess the find for significance and, if necessary, develop a paleontological resources impact mitigation plan (PRIMP) for the review and approval by the City prior to resuming excavation activities. 36 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant impact. The probability that construction of the project would impact any human remains is low, given the degree of past disturbance of the site, as it is developed with existing church facility. In the event that human remains are encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that all activities cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately. The Coroner would also be contacted pursuant to Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC would then be required to contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who would then serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98), as required by Standard Condition SC 4.5-3, would reduce potential impacts involving disturbance to human remains would be less than significant. Standard Condition SC 4.5-3 If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. 37 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4.6 Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ El❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ A Geotechnical Exploration Report, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. (L&A), briefly summarizes the geotechnical constraints for the project (L&A 2014). Environmental Evaluation Would the project: 38 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No impact. Seismically induced ground rupture is defined as the physical displacement of surface deposits in response to an earthquake's seismic waves. Ground rupture is most likely along active faults, and typically occurs during earthquakes of magnitude five or higher. Ground rupture only affects the area immediately adjacent to a fault. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as "Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zones," around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet). The nearest potentially active fault is the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust fault and the Newport - Inglewood Fault, which are located approximately 1.4 miles and 3.0, respectively, from the site (L&A 2014). No faults are known to occur on or within the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than significant impact. As with all areas of Southern California, the project would be subject to strong ground shaking associated with seismic activity, especially given that the project site is located near faults that have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes. These levels of shaking can be expected to cause damage particularly to older and poorly constructed buildings. The project would involve all new structures and would be required to conform to the seismic design parameters of the California Building Code (CBC). Compliance with the seismic design parameters as outlined in the most recent CBC would ensure that impacts are less than significant. Standard Condition SC 4.6-1 The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential code, 2013 California Electrical code, 2013 California Mechanical code, 2013 California Plumbing code,2013 California Green Building Standards Code, and the 2013 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, California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance), and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building 39 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Areas of alteration and additions shall comply with 2013 California Green Building Standards Code section 5.303.2 and 5.303.2 iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact. Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength or stiffness due to increased pore -water pressure during severe shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low density), saturated, fine to medium grained, cohesionless soils. As indicated in the City's General Plan Update EIR, Geology & Seismic Hazards, Exhibit 4.7-4, Liquefaction, the project site is located in an area with low liquefaction potential due to the lack of liquefiable soils (GP EIR 2002). The project must comply with Standard Condition SC 4.6-1, which requires compliance with the California Building Code. Standard Condition SC 4.6-2 must also be followed, which requires that prior to the implementation of the project, the project Applicant would prepare a geotechnical report for the proposed buildings, which would fully identify any site - specific risk for liquefaction, and would identify any specific construction design recommendations in accordance with the CBC. The Geotechnical Exploration Report included borings up to 51.3 feet, and associated soil testing (moisture, shear strength, consolidation, corrosivity, etc.) to determine any geotechnical constraints to development (L&A 2014). Excavation for the site would generally be limited to 10 feet below ground surface, and groundwater depth is estimated between 30 and 50 feet below ground surface. The Review did not identify any barriers to development, and provided specific grading and foundation design recommendations. Accordingly, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. Standard Condition SC 4.6-2 Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the project Applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of onsite soils to cause unstable conditions. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety. iv) Landslides? No impact. Due to the level topography, landslides are not anticipated to occur on the project site. Based on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Newport Beach Quadrangle (CGS, 1998), the site is not located within an area that has been identified by the State of California as being potentially susceptible to seismically induced landslides. Therefore, project implementation would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides. 40 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. The project site is currently a developed 2-acre site comprised of church buildings and parking lot. While the project would have a greater amount of pervious areas, these areas would take the form of trees and shrubs in private yards, as well as community gathering spaces, and vegetative groundcover. Thus, the increase of pervious areas does not pose a risk for erosion because they would be either vegetated and/or contained. As all storm water flows would be directed to the existing municipal storm drain system or into vegetated pervious areas, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. In addition, the project would be subject to compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process, since one or more acres of soil would be disturbed; refer also to Standard Condition 4.6-4. Following development of increased pervious landscaping and compliance with NPDES regulatory requirements, project implementation would result in a less than significant impact involving soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Furthermore, the project site is currently developed as a church facility that previously required grading and the removal of topsoil during construction. The project would require minimal grading due to the site's current use as a church. Therefore, impacts related to erosion would be less than significant. Standard Conditions SC 4.6-3 The Applicant shall submit a soils report for this project. Soil's Report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. For existing slopes or when new slopes are proposed, the Soils Report shall address how existing slopes or the new slopes will be maintained to avoid erosion or future failure. SC 4.6-4 The project shall comply with the NPDES requirements, as follows: • Construction General Permit Notice of Intent (NOI) Design: Prior to the issuance of preliminary or precise grading permits, the project Applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the Storm Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the SWRCB or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. • Construction Phase Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that complies with the Construction General Permit and will include at a minimum the following: - Discuss in detail the BMPs planned for the project related to control of sediment and erosion, nonsediment pollutants, and potential pollutants in non - storm water discharges; - Describe post -construction BMPs for the project; • Explain the maintenance program for the project's BMPs 41 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis • List the parties responsible for the SWPPP implementation and the BMP maintenance during and after grading. The project Applicant shall implement the SWPPP and modify the SWPPP as directed by the Construction General Permit. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than significant impact. As the site is relatively level, there is no potential for landslides or slope instabilities. Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non -liquefied soil move downslope on a liquefied soil layer. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefied soil must be laterally continuous and free to move along sloping ground. Due to the low susceptibility for liquefaction, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low. Subsidence or settlement occurs when seismic shaking causes downward shifts of the ground. This settlement generally occurs in loose to moderately dense, unsaturated granular soils. Based on blow counts records, the seismically induced settlement under the proposed buildings is anticipated to be less than one inch. Following compliance with the City's Building Regulations pursuant to Standard Condition 4.6-1, project implementation would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving unstable geologic units or soils. Standard Condition Refer to Standard Condition SC 4.6-1 above. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than significant impact. Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that swell when wetted and shrink when dried. Expansive soils can cause foundations to heave and crack when expansive soils are subject to uplifting forces caused by swelling and shrinking. As discovered in Geotechnical Exploration Report (L&A, 2014), near surface soils consist of predominately clayey sand to sandy clay. These soils are generally considered to have moderate to high potential for expansion. As required for all new residential buildings, an evaluation of onsite soils will be required as part of building permit review in order to determine compliance with the CBC, and measures to reduce the potential impact of expansive soil impacts to less than significant. The final design of the project building would be based on the results of the geotechnical report, thereby ensuring any impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No impact. The project does not propose the use of septic tanks. The project would connect to the existing City sanitary sewer system for wastewater disposal. Therefore, no impacts to soils due to the use of septic systems are anticipated. 42 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ Z use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ ❑ ❑ M interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: 43 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than significant impact. Exposure of the public or the environment to hazardous materials could occur through the following: improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes, particularly by untrained personnel; transportation accidents; environmentally unsound disposal methods; and/or fires, explosions, or other emergencies. The severity of these potential effects varies with the activity conducted, the concentration and type of hazardous material or wastes present, and the proximity of sensitive receptors. The project would include rezone from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 and construct a 10- unit residential development. The secondary activities that would occur at these residential units (e.g., building and landscape maintenance) could potentially involve the use of limited quantities of materials considered hazardous. Cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in the regular maintenance of buildings and landscaping could be utilized onsite. Thus, the project could result in an increase in the use of household cleaning products and other materials routinely used in building maintenance, however will not pose any greater hazards than from household products already used by surrounding existing development. Therefore, project implementation would result in less than significant impacts. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than significant impact. The project site is currently developed, with a church facility and an associated parking lot. The project site is located within a residential area of Costa Mesa. Suspect Asbestos -Containing Materials Based on the age of the structures (1960s), Asbestos -Containing Materials may be present at the site. Lead -Based Paint Based on the age of the structures (1960s), Lead -Based Paint may be present at the site. Compliance with established regulations, and Standard Conditions below would ensure that the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact in this regard. Standard Condition SC 4.7-1 During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris 44 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial5tudy/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. SC 4.7-2 During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. SC 4.7-3 Prior to demolition activities, removal and/or abatement of asbestos containing building materials, lead based paints, and hazardous materials associated with the existing building materials, an investigation shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with the Costa Mesa Fire Department. An asbestos and hazardous materials abatement plan shall be developed by the qualified environmental professional, in order to clearly define the scope and objective of the abatement activities. The Applicant shall conduct demolition consistent with the abatement plan, applicable state requirements and City standard conditions. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than significant impact. Adams Elementary School is located approximately US miles west of the project site. Due to the nature of the proposed residential project, it is not anticipated that the residences would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste in reportable quantities. Therefore, project implementation would result in less than significant impacts involving hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than significant impact. The project site is currently used as a church facility. The site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Compliance with established regulations, and above Standard Conditions would ensure that the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The project would have a less than significant impact. 45 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The project site is approximately 5 miles west of John Wayne Airport and outside of the Airport Safety Zone, the AELUP Height Restriction Zone, and the Runway Protection Zones (Clear Zones). The project site is within the FAR Part 77 Notification Area for John Wayne Airport. Therefore, project implementation would not result in an airport -related safety hazard for people residing or working at the proposed residential development. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, project implementation would not result in an airstrip -related safety hazard for people residing at the proposed residential development. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No impact. The Costa Mesa Disaster Plan serves as the City's Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The EOP provides guidance during emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations. The Plan does not address normal day to -day emergencies or the well -established and routine procedures used in coping with such emergencies. Rather, the EOP analyzes potential large-scale disasters that require a coordinated and immediate response. The EOP considers the City's evacuation routes in its planning. General Plan Safety Element Exhibit SAF-9, Emergency Evacuation Routes, illustrates the City's emergency evacuation routes and indicates that Adams Street, located just south of the project site, is a designated emergency evacuation route. Harbor Boulevard, located approximately 0.25 mile east of the project site, is also a designated emergency evacuation route. The project does not include any characteristics that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency response or evacuation in the project vicinity. These conditions preclude the possibility of the project conflicting with an emergency response or evacuation plan. No impact would occur. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? No impact. The project site is located within an urban area and not adjacent to wild lands. Therefore, project implementation would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wild land fires. 46 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially indrease the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 47 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial 5tudy/Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Environmental Analysis Less than significant impacts. The property located at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East consists of approximately two acres of developed land and includes an existing church building and surface parking lot. The Santa Ana River is about two miles west of the proposed project. There are no water resources in the immediate project vicinity to be affected. The proposed project will not involve the modification or alteration of a water resource. The project site is not within an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated or proposed sole -source aquifer. In addition, the project is not: (a) within 1000 yards from mean high tide, (b) within an area regulated by the State Coastal Zone Management Agency, (c) in a coastal zone. The project site is located outside a 500- year floodplain, identified as Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map Number 0602160266H, December 3, 2009). The City of Costa Mesa does not contain any Wild and Scenic Rivers as designated by the National Park Service. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality are expected as a result of the proposed project. Proposed residential development will result in a similar amount of impervious surface compared to the existing development. Compliance with the City's Local Implementation Plan requiring a stormwater pollution prevent program and water quality management plan, where applicable, will be required. A preliminary Water Quality Management Plan will be required during the processing of any proposed residential development. Less than significant impacts related to this environmental topic will occur as a result of the project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Standard Conditions SC 4.8-1 In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the project shall prepare a Storm Drain Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. • The SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of development. • The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. • A WQMP 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 the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 48 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis SC 4.8-2 Prior to approval of Plans, the project shall fulfill the City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements. SC 4.8-3 The project Applicant shall submit grading plans, an erosion control plan, and a hydrology study. 49 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.9 Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, El El® ❑ policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ H conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local bridge that would impact mobility within an existing community of between a community and outlying area. The project site is located on an existing developed I&R zoned property, surrounded by residential and commercial uses. None of the activities associated with project implementation would physically divide an established community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than significant impact. Any discretionary request for a zone changes involves a policy decision of the City Council as to the highest and best use for the subject property and appropriate zoning classification. The Land Use Element of the General Plan directs long-range development in the City by indicating the location and extent of development to be allowed. The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies and objectives that guide new development. The City of Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Map identifies the land use designation of the project site as Low Density Residential. so City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis General Plan — Existing The General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (8 dwelling units to the acre maximum) is intended to accommodate single-family residences on their own parcels. Other housing types include attached housing that provide a greater portion of recreation or open space than typically found in multi -family developments, and clustered housing which affords the retention of significant open space. Low -Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate family groups and outdoor living activities in open space adjacent to dwellings. In order to avoid land use conflicts, these areas should be located away from or protected from the more intense non-residential areas and major travel corridors. Pursuant to the Costa Mesa General Plan, the density for this land use designation shall be up to eight units to the acre. Zoning — Policy Decision According to the Official Zoning Map, the project site is zoned I&R (Institutional and Recreational). A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 2-acre development site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single -Family Residential District) is proposed. The proposed rezone to R1 (Single -Family Residential District) would be compatible with the existing Low Density Residential General Plan designation for the project site. Minimum lot sizes are 6,000 square feet with minimum lot widths of 50 feet or 60 feet, depending on the location of the individual dwelling unit lot. It is a policy decision of the City Council as to the appropriate residential zoning classification for the site and ultimately the maximum number of dwelling units allowed. The following analysis evaluates the project for consistency with specific goals and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed Rezone involve a policy decision by the final decision - making body. Because of the expansive nature of the General Plan, it cannot be expected that every goal and objective would apply to every project. Therefore, the following analysis focuses on those issues which are salient and relevant in considering the proposed project. The project complies with the following goals/objectives of the General Plan: o Goal LU-1, Land Use: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa 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; to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification within reasonable land use intensity limits; and, to ensure the long term viability and productivity of the community's natural and man-made environments. o 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. o Objective LU-2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. 51 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis The proposed project would replace an existing church use and surface parking lot with a planned residential development. The project reflects a quality design and includes traditional architecture with varied building materials, textures and colors, attractive landscaped project common areas and project entries. Discretionary Review The City of Costa Mesa is processing a planning application from Mesa Verde East, LLC for, two-story, small lot residential development at a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre. Approval of the proposed project involves the following: 1. Adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration. 2. Rezone R-14-05: An ordinance to rezone a 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single g Plan density is 16 dwelling units at a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre. 3. Planning Application PA-14-48: Design Review for the development of a 10-unit, two-story detached residential development at a density of 4.83 dwelling units per acre. The Design Review also includes the following requested variances from Zoning Code requirements: a. Minor Modification to allow two units to project 20% or less into front yard setback, or 16 feet. (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed) 3. Tentative Tract Map T-17824: Subdivision of the property into fee simple lots for 10 single- family dwelling units. Density, Site Coverage, and Open Space. The project proposes approximately 4.83 dwelling units per acre, within the maximum 7.26 dwelling units per acre density allowed in the R1 zone. Setbacks and Distance Between Buildings. Other than the required above -described deviations, the building setbacks and minimum distance between buildings are compliant with Code. Number of Stories and Building Height. The project proposes two-story residential units. Parking. The project proposes 50 total parking spaces. Each residence is provided a two -car garage and individual parking spaces within a private driveway and private street. The project exceeds the Code required parking by ten spaces. 52 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Land use compatibility. Environmental Analysis Land use compatibility issues can arise when sensitive land uses (i.e., residential) are introduced into areas that are predominantly commercial or industrial. In this case, the proposed low -density residential use would be introduced on a site abutting an R1 residential district and a local commercial center. Notwithstanding proposed deviations from open space development standards, the proposed project use is in keeping with the mix of uses in the surrounding area and recently approved densities, and would not be incompatible with surrounding land uses. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities' conservation plan? No impact. 53 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.10 Mineral Resources Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ ❑ ❑ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No impact. The Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan does not identify the project site as a mineral resource zone. The project site is developed with an existing church and does not support mineral extraction operations. This condition precludes the possibility of related impacts. No impact would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. The Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan does not identify the project site as a mineral resource zone. In addition, the project site is developed with a church and does not support mineral extraction operations. This condition precludes the possibility of related impacts. No impacts would occur. 54 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated 4.11 Noise Would the project result in: Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ❑ ❑ z ❑ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ Q ® ❑ excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Environmental Evaluation a-d) Noise Levels Less than Significant Impact. Various noise guidelines and standards have been promulgated at the federal, state, and local levels. The City of Costa Mesa maintains a comprehensive Noise Ordinance, which sets standards for noise levels citywide and provides the means to enforce the reduction of obnoxious or offensive noises. The basic noise standards contained in Table 2, City Noise Ordinance Standards -Residential, below, are for the daytime period (7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.) and apply to both outdoor and indoor residential areas. Between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., the noise standards are 5 dBA more stringent for exterior areas and 10 dBA more stringent for indoor areas. The ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive and annoying sounds generated on one piece of property from impacting an adjacent property, and to protect residential areas from noise sources other than transportation sources. 55 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Table 3 Residential Noise Standards Exterior Noise Standards 55 dba 7:00 a.m. — 11:00 p.m. 50 dba 11:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. Interior Noise Standards 55 dba 7:00 a.m. — 11:00 p.m. 45 dba 11:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. *dba--decibels The Municipal Code specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for various land uses impacted by transportation noise sources. The noise limits specified in the City's Municipal Code are in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The Municipal Code identifies the following noise criteria for transportation noise sources: For residential land uses, the exterior noise exposure level shall not exceed 65 CNEL and the interior noise exposure level shall not exceed 45 CNEL. Short-term Impacts Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Grading and construction activities present the highest potential for noise impacts. For short periods of time, grading equipment noise could impact the residential uses located to the north, west, and east of the project site. These grading activities would generate noise levels in excess of the City's Municipal Code noise limits. However, noise generated by construction activities during daytime hours is exempted from the Noise Ordinance standards. Therefore, if construction is limited to those hours specified by the Noise Ordinance, construction - related noise impacts are considered less than significant. The following standard condition will minimize any short-term construction related noise impacts to below a level of significance: Standard Conditions SC 4.11-1 Grading materials delivery, equipment operation, and other construction -related activity shall be limited to be-tween the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Exceptions may be made for activities that will not generate noise audible from off -site, such as painting and other quiet interior work. Long-term Impacts According to the 2000 General Plan, existing (Year 2000) and expected (Year 2020) noise contours along the project site are located outside the 60 to 75 CNEL noise contours. These noise contours were based on the average daily traffic volume (ADT) noise levels at 100 feet from the roadway centerline without sound attenuation (e.g. block walls, land-scape berms, etc.). This noise data does 56 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis not take into account noise barriers or topography which may affect ambient noise levels. Since the project site is outside the 60 to 70 CNEL noise contours from major roadways, no significant noise impacts are anticipated. The primary source of noise is from motor vehicle noise on Mesa Verde Drive. No additional noise impacts are anticipated from existing commercial land uses located to the south of the property nor from the residential uses to the east, west and north. On -site residential uses would be required to comply with the City's 65 CNEL exterior and 45 CNEL interior noise standards. Typical residential construction achieves an average of 12 decibels of outdoor -to -indoor interior noise reduction with windows open. With windows closed, the outdoor - to -indoor noise reduction increases to an average of 20 decibels. In order to assume that windows can remain closed, adequate ventilation in accordance with the Uniform Building Code must be provided. Typically, this is accomplished through mechanical ventilation or HVAC systems. In addition, a seven -foot high wall is proposed along Mesa Verde Drive. This wall may adequately reduce noise levels further for properties adjacent to Mesa Verde Drive. Due to the City's Noise Ordinance regulating both exterior and interior noise levels, and the fact that short-term construction of the project is limited to those hours specified by the Noise Ordinance, exposure of persons to long-term noise levels and short-term noise levels, including ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels, will be considered less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 4.1 miles southwest of John Wayne Airport (the nearest airport). While aircraft noise is occasionally audible on the project site, due to the distance from area airports and the orientation of runways and flight patterns the project site does not lay within the 55-dBA CNEL noise contours of any airport. Therefore, the impact of noise levels from aviation sources would be less than significant. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose people to excessive noise levels, and no impact would occur. 57 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial 5tudy/Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4.12 Population and Housing Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ El❑ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ F necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than significant impact. A project could induce population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads and/or other infrastructure). The project involves construction of a 10-unit residential development in place of the existing church facility on site. The City's average household size was 2.68 according to the Costa Mesa General Plan. Notwithstanding, in order to provide a conservative analysis, based on average household size of 2.68, project implementation could result in a population increase of approximately 27 persons. The potential population growth would be nominal, representing less than one -tenth of one percent (less than 0.01%) increase over the City's existing 2013 population of 111,358 persons. Therefore, project implementation would not induce substantial population growth within the City. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. The project site currently contains a church facility and parking lot. The project is a 10- unit residential development and has a General Plan designation Low Density Residential. The proposed project will not displace existing housing, but will increase the number of residential units ss City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis in the area. Therefore, the project would have no impact in regards to displacing a substantial numbers of existing housing. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. As discussed, the project implementation would include the demolition of an existing church facility, as well as the construction of a new residential development. Therefore, the project will have no impact in regards to causing the displacement of a substantial number of people. 59 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.13 Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ z 11 c) Schools? ❑ ❑ z d) Parks? ❑ ❑ z ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ z ❑ Environmental Evaluation a-e) Public Services Less than significant impact. Given the developed nature of the project site and surrounding properties, the proposed 10-unit residential development is not expected to significantly increase demand for City services. As discussed in Standard Conditions below, the proposed development project will be subject to the payment of development impact fees (e.g. school fees, parkland fees, traffic impact fees, etc.) to provide for the cost of additional services, as stated in the standard conditions below. Therefore, the proposed residential project will have less than a significant impact to public services. Standard Conditions SC 4.13-1 Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the developer's project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. The Applicant shall then pay the appropriate fee in effect to mitigate the project's proportionate impact to additional demands on fire protection services, if any. SC 4.13-2 Projections, including eaves, shall be one -hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into the 5 ft (setback area from the property line). They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3 ft setback. CRC Tables R3O2.1(1) and R3O2.1(2). SC 4.13-3 As final building plans are submitted to the City of Costa Mesa for review and approval, the Costa Mesa Police Department shall review all plans for the purpose of 60 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial 5tudy/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis ensuring that design requirements are incorporated into the building design to increase safety and avoid unsafe conditions. These measures focus on security measures are recommended by the Police Department, including but not limited to, the following: • Lighting shall be provided in open areas and parking lots. • Required building address numbers shall be readily apparent from the street and rooftop building identification shall be readily apparent from police helicopters for emergency response agencies. • Landscaping requirements (e.g. minimize use of hedges, use of low height shrubs for greater visibility). • Emergency vehicle parking areas shall be designated within proximity to buildings. • Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Police Department shall review and approve the developer's project design features to satisfy local requirements. The applicant shall then pay the appropriate fee in effect to mitigate the project's proportionate impact to additional demands on police protection services, if any. SC 4.13-4 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall pay a school impact fee currently calculated at $1.84 per square foot for residential development and $0.30 per square foot for commercial development. SC 4.13-5 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer shall pay a park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. 61 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.14 Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities ❑ ❑ ❑ or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Environmental Evaluation a-b) Recreation Less than significant impact. Given the developed nature of the project site and surrounding properties, the proposed 10-unit residential development is not expected to significantly increase demand for recreational services. As discussed in Standard Conditions below, new development will be subject to the payment of development impact fees (e.g. parkland fees) to provide for the cost of additional recreational facilities. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to recreational services will occur as a result of the zone change and proposed development. Standard Conditions SC 4.14-1 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Developer shall pay a park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. The current park impact fee is calculated at $13,572 per new single-family dwelling unit. 62 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4.15 Transportation/Traffic Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? This section is based on the Trip Generation Study prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (February 27, 2015), which is included as Appendix A. The study evaluated the trip generation for the originally proposed 13-unit project. The amended project is for 10-units, which would be slightly less impact than a 13-unit project. The Trip Generation Study therefore is a conservative estimate, and determines if it increases traffic load on the existing circulation system. Existing Conditions The project site is currently developed with an 8,598 square foot church and includes an associated parking lot. 63 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial5tudy/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less than significant impact. Table 4, Project Trip Generation, summarizes the trip generation for the existing site and the project. The trip generation potential of the project was estimated using the average rates for ITE Land Use 210: Single -Family Detached Housing and ITE Land Use 560: Church published in the Trip Generation, 91h Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Table 3, below, depicts the trip generation rates used to forecast existing and proposed trips, summarizes the project's daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation potential, and compares these estimates to the existing trip generation "budget." The project would generate up to 124 daily trips, including up to 9 trips in the AM peak hour and up to 13 trips in the PM peak hour. Under existing conditions, the project site generates approximately 78 daily trips, including 5 trips in the AM peak hour and 4 trips in the PM peak hour. Overall, the project would generate up to 46 additional daily trips, including an additional 4 AM peak hour trips and an additional 9 PM peak hour trips, than currently occur under existing conditions. Table 4: Land Use and Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Category Daily 2-Way Total Total Rates Church (TE/TSF) 9.11 0.56 0.55 Single -Family Detached Housing 9.52 0.75 1.00 (TE/DU) Project Single -Family Detached Housing 124 9 13 (13 DU)* Existing Site Church (8.598 TSF) -78 -5 -4 Total "Net" Project Trip 46 4 9 Generation: Project Minus Existing Church TE/DU= trip end per dwelling unit, TE/TSF= trip end per 1,000 square feet Source: RK Engineering 2015. *Amended project is for 10 units. Data based on original 13-units 64 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Even though the proposed development is projected to add 4 trips in the a.m. peak hour, 9 trips in the p.m. peak hour and 46 trips during the day, the projected increase is considered nominal and will not have a significant impact on the adjacent circulation system as the surrounding intersections are currently operating at better than acceptable conditions. The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The project would result in less than significant impacts on traffic/circulation and the surrounding roadway network. The project would be subject to compliance with Standard Condition SC 4.15-1, which requires payment of traffic impact fees. No mitigation is required. Please refer to Response 4.15.f for a discussion of pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit. Standard Condition SC 4.15-1 The project Applicant shall be responsible for the payment of fees in accordance with Costa Mesa's traffic impact fee program to mitigate project -generated traffic impacts. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than significant impact. The purpose of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to develop a coordinated approach to managing and decreasing traffic congestion by linking the various transportation, land use, and air quality planning programs throughout the County, consistent with that of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The CMP requires review of substantial individual projects, which might on their own impact the CMP transportation system. Specifically, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) measures impacts of a project on the CMP Highway System (CMPHS). Development projects that generate more than 2,400 daily trips are subject to a TIA for CMP evaluation. For projects that will directly access or be in close proximity to a CMP Highway System link, a reduced threshold of 1,600 trips per day is used. As discussed above, under Response 4.15.a, the project would generate up to 46 additional daily trips, including an additional 4 AM peak hour trips and an additional 9 PM peak hour trips, than currently occur under existing conditions. The project would generate a total of 124 daily trips, and thus would not meet the criteria for a CMP TIA. Project -related impacts on applicable CMPs and other established standards are considered less than significant. 65 Environmental Analysis City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No impact. The project involves a 10-unit Single -Family Detached residential development. Due to the nature and scope of the proposed developed, project implementation would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact. Access to the project site will be provided via one full access private street along Mesa Verde Drive East. The internal driveways that provide access to the proposed units would vary in width between from 20 feet to 28 feet. Emergency access to the proposed units would be provided via the same entry points on Mesa Verde Drive East. The project does not propose or require improvements to roadways or intersections, thus, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than significant impact. Refer to Responses 4.7.g. and 4.15.a. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less than significant impact. The project site is served by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), a multi -modal transportation agency serving Orange County. OCTA provides countywide bus and paratransit service and Metrolink rail service, among other services. The nearest bus lines to the project site are located along Adams Avenue, near the intersection of Mesa Verde Drive East and Adams Avenue, just south of the project site. Based on CMP guidelines, person transit trips are typically estimated using a 1.4 percent factor to convert total vehicle trips to person trips, and a 3.5 percent factor to convert person trips to total transit trips. As discussed above, under Response 4.15.a, the project would generate up to 124 daily trips. Based on the CMP guidelines and given the proximity of the various land uses in relation to available transit routes in the project vicinity, the project would generate up to 7 transit trips (Orange County CMP, 2013). Since these project -related transit trips can be accommodated by the existing transit services in the project vicinity, project -related CMP transit impacts would be less than significant. Project implementation would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit. 66 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of ❑ ❑ 71 ❑ the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ z ❑ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to ❑ ❑ z El serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ® ❑ treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less than significant impact. The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which includes the City as a Permittee. That NPDES permit implements federal and state law governing point source discharges (a municipal or industrial discharge at a specific location or pipe) and nonpoint source discharges 67 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis (diffuse runoff of water from adjacent land uses) to surface waters of the United States. Implementation of the project would only nominally increase wastewater generation, thus, nominally increasing the demand for wastewater treatment; refer to Response 4.16.b. Therefore, given the nature and scope of the project, project implementation would not cause an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than significant impact. Water The project site is located within the Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa Water) service area and specifically within their Division Area 2. Mesa Water provides water service to an 18-square- mile area that includes the City of Costa Mesa (as well as parts of Newport Beach and parts of unincorporated Orange County). In compliance with legislative requirements, Mesa Water has prepared their 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP provides information on the present and future water resources and demands, and assesses Mesa Water's water resource needs. Water Supplies and Demand According to the UWMP, Mesa Water's main sources of water supply are groundwater pumped from wells within the Orange County Basin and imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California through Municipal Water District of Orange County. The project involves construction of a 10-unit, residential development in place of the existing church facility on the property. Project implementation would result in a net increase of 10 dwelling units, which will result in a population increase of approximately 27 persons. Project implementation would generate a demand for approximately 4,830 gallons per day'. The increase in water demand would place an incremental increase in the demand for water supplies and treatment facilities. The increase is not considered substantial, since the project is consistent with the site's General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. The City General Plan forms the basis for evaluating the service area's future water demands. Mesa Water has concluded they are capable of meeting the water demands of their customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2015 and 2035. Water Treatment According to the UWMP, groundwater is pumped from six wells that pump clear water from the Orange County Basin and two wells that pump colored water. The colored water is treated at the Colored Water Treatment Facility (CWTF) and imported water is treated at the Diemer Filtration 1 Based on water use factors of 178.9 gallons per capita per day for residential uses per Mesa Water UWMP 68 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Plant, then delivered to Mesa Water through the imported water connections. As concluded above, the project would result in a negligible increase in water demand, thus, resulting in a negligible impact on the existing water treatment facilities. Therefore, project implementation would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Water Conveyance As concluded above, the project would result in a negligible increase in water demand, thus, resulting in a negligible impact on the existing water conveyance facilities. The applicant would be responsible for construction of all water conveyance facilities pursuant to current Uniform Codes, City Ordinances, Public Works standards, and Water Division criteria. Therefore, the project would not require the construction of new water conveyance facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Wastewater The project site is located within the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (Sanitary District) service area. The Sanitary District boundaries include all of the City of Costa Mesa and portions of the City of Newport Beach and unincorporated County of Orange. Wastewater Generation The increase in wastewater generation would place an incremental increase in the demand for wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities. The project is consistent with the site's General Plan land use designation and City General Plans form the basis for issuance of the County Sanitation's NPDES wastewater discharge permits; refer also to the Wastewater Treatment Section below. Wastewater Conveyance The Sanitary District's facilities include 216 miles of mainline, 114 miles of private property sewer lateral pipelines, and 20 pumping stations. As concluded above, the project would result in a negligible increase in wastewater generation, thus, resulting in a negligible impact on the existing wastewater conveyance facilities. The applicant would be responsible for construction of all wastewater conveyance facilities pursuant to current Uniform Codes, City Ordinances, and Public Works standards, pursuant to Standard Condition SC 4.16-1. The Sanitary District would issue a Sewer Service Confirmation Letter indicating that they will serve sanitary sewer to the project. Service to the project would be conditioned upon approval of sewer infrastructure construction plans by the Sanitary District's Engineers, processing of easements (if necessary), and payment of all applicable fees, pursuant to Standard Conditions SC 4.16-2 through 4.16-4. Therefore, the project would not require the construction of new wastewater conveyance facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 69 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial study/ Negative Declaration Wastewater Treatment Environmental Analysis Wastewater collected by the Sanitary District is sent to the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (County Sanitation) plants for treatment and disposal. County Sanitation is responsible for collecting, treating, and disposing the wastewater generated within their 479-square mile service area. Wastewater is treated at County Sanitation's treatment plants in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. According to County Sanitation's treatment plant operational data, the combined effluent treated at both plants (2004-2005) totaled approximately 244 million gallons daily (average). County Sanitation operates under an NPDES ocean discharge permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project's increase in wastewater generation is not considered substantial, since the project is consistent with the site's General Plan land use designation and City General Plans form the basis for issuance of the NPDES wastewater discharge permits. Project implementation would not cause the treatment plants' operating capacities to be exceeded. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Standard Conditions SC 4.16-1 Applicant will be required to construct sewers to serve the project, at his/her own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. SC 4.16-2 County Sanitation District fees, fixtures fees, inspection fees, and sewer permit are required prior to installation of sewer. SC 4.16-3 The Applicant shall submit a plan showing sewer improvements that meets the District Engineer's approval to the Building Division as part of the plans submitted for plan check. SC 4.16-4 The Applicant is required to contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District to arrange final sign -off prior to Certificate of Occupancy being released. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than significant impact. The proposed project is located in an already urbanized area where existing water drainage facilities exist. The project would result in a negligible increase in wastewater generation, thus, resulting in a negligible impact on the existing wastewater conveyance facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will have less than significant impacts on the environment in regards to storm water drainage facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less than significant impact. 70 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Senate Bill 610 Environmental Analysis SB 610 requires a detailed report regarding water availability and planning for additional water supplies to be included with the environmental document for specified projects. Under SB 610, water supply assessments are required to be included in environmental documentation for certain projects, as defined in Water Code 10912[a], subject to CEQA. Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires a written verification of sufficient water supply. Thus, no future action is necessary under the provisions of SB 221 and 610. All projects that meet any of the following criteria require the water availability assessment: • A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 sq ft of floor space; • A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 sq ft of floor space; • A proposed hotel and motel having more than 500 rooms; • A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or an industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 sq ft of floor area; • A mixed -use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. Senate Bill 221 While SB 610 primarily affects the Water Code, SB 221 principally applies to the Subdivision Map Act. The primary effect of SB 221 is to condition every tentative map for an applicable subdivision on the applicant by verifying that the public water supplier (PWS) has sufficient water supply available to serve it. Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires a written verification of sufficient water supply. SB 221 applies to any subdivision, defined as: • A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units (if the PWS has more than 5,000 service connections); or • Any proposed development that increases connections by 10 percent or more (if the PWS has fewer than 5,000 connections). The project does not satisfy the criteria outlined above, thus, preparation of a Water Supply Assessment, in order to verify that sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project from existing entitlements/resources, is not warranted and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 71 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less than significant impact. Refer to Response 4.16.b. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than significant impact. The project site would continue to be served by the solid waste facilities and landfills that currently serve the City: • Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill • Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill • Prima Deschecha Sanitary Landfill In total, 110,886.46 tons of solid waste was generated by the City of Costa Mesa in 2012. Project implementation would result in a net increase of 10 dwelling units, with a resultant population increase of approximately 27 persons. Demolition and construction activities associated with the project would generate construction debris. Based on CalRecycle's Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates generation rates of 12.23 pounds per dwelling unit per day, it is estimated that the project would generate approximately 20 tons of solid waste per year. The increased solid waste generation would contribute to incrementally shortening the lifespan of the landfills identified above. However, given project's scale, and since the City would continue to comply with the existing regulatory framework for reducing solid waste disposal volumes, it is anticipated that the specified landfills would have the capacity to accommodate the project's waste disposal needs. Additionally, the project would be subject to compliance with Standard Conditions SC 4.16-5 and SC 4.16-6, which address solid waste disposal and District consultation. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Standard Conditions SC 4.16-5 Unless an offsite trash hauler is being used, the Applicant shall contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District to pay trash collection program fees and arrange for service for all new residences. Residences using bin or dumpster services are exempt from the requirement. SC 4.16-6 The Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District for any additional district requirements. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than significant impact. In 1989, the Legislature adopted the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), in order to "reduce, recycle, and re -use solid waste generated in 72 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis the state to the maximum extent feasible." AB 939 established a waste management hierarchy: Source Reduction; Recycling; Composting; Transformation; and Disposal. The law also required that each county prepare a new Integrated Waste Management Plan and each city prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) by July 1, 1991. The SRRE is required to identify how each jurisdiction will meet the mandatory state waste diversion goal of 50 percent by the year 2000. The Act mandated that California's 450 jurisdictions (i.e., cities, counties, and regional waste management compacts), implement waste management programs aimed at a 25 percent diversion rate by 1995 and a 50 percent diversion rate by 2000. If the 50 percent goal was not met by the end of 2000, the jurisdiction was required to submit a petition for a goal extension to Cal Recycle. The City of Costa Mesa adopted the final SRRE in January 1992. Senate Bill (SB) 2202 made a number of changes to the municipal solid waste diversion requirements under the Integrated Waste Management Act. These changes included a revision to the statutory requirement for 50 percent diversion of solid waste to clarify that local governments shall continue to divert 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000. SB 1016, Wiggins, Chapter 343, Statutes of 2008 introduced a per capita disposal measurement system that measures the 50 percent diversion requirement using a disposal measurement equivalent. The bill repealed the board's two-year process, requiring instead that the board make a finding whether each jurisdiction was in compliance with the act's diversion requirements for calendar year 2006 and to determine compliance for the 2007 calendar year, and after, based on the jurisdiction's change in its per capita disposal rate. The board is required to review a jurisdiction's compliance with those diversion requirements in accordance with a specified schedule, which is conditioned upon the board finding that the jurisdiction is in compliance with those requirements or has implemented its source reduction and recycling element and household hazardous waste element. The bill requires the board to issue an order of compliance if the board finds that the jurisdiction has failed to make a good faith effort to implement its source reduction and recycling element or its household hazardous waste element, pursuant to a specified procedure. The per capita disposal rate is a jurisdiction -specific index, which is used as one of several "factors" in determining a jurisdiction's compliance with the intent of AB 939, and allows CalRecycle and jurisdictions to set their primary focus on successful implementation of diversion programs. Meeting the disposal rate targets is not necessarily an indication of compliance. CalRecycle reports that Costa Mesa's Disposal Rate Targets for Reporting Year 2013 are 8.5 pounds per day (PPD) per Resident and 11.3 PPD per Employee. The Applicant is currently working with the Costa Mesa Sanitary District to establish service for the project and will be required to integrate District requirements into the project design (e.g. established locations for trash carts and bulky pickup, sufficient clearance and appropriate routing for trucks). Participation in the City's recycling programs during project construction and operation would ensure that the project would not conflict with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 73 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis related to solid waste. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Refer also to Response 4.16.f. 74 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Issues 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Environmental Evaluation Would the project: Environmental Analysis Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than significant impact. As concluded in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, the project proposes a rezone from from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single -Family Residential District) and construction of a 10-unit residential development on an already disturbed site. The project site and its surroundings are fully developed, and there are no biological resources present in the area. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. 75 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis As concluded in Response 4.5.a, the project site does not contain a historically/culturally significant structure. Therefore, project implementation would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history. As concluded in Response 4.5.b, the project site has already been subject to extensive disruption. Given the highly disturbed condition of the site, the potential for project implementation to impact a yet unidentified archeological resource is considered remote. Therefore, project implementation would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than significant impact. The project impacts less than significant. Standard conditions will also be imposed upon the project, including the payment of fair -share development impact fees, design standards, etc. Other new development projects within the City would also be subject to these requirements. The design of any future residential use is required to conform with the City's design guidelines and residential development standards (e.g. two-story maximum building height, maximum density allowed in R1 zone, etc.), unless a request for any discretionary approvals (i.e. variance, minor modification, etc.) is approved and appropriate findings are made in conjunction with the development proposal. Proposed standard conditions will minimize the proposed project's impacts related to noise and air quality to below a level of significance. As an existing church site with nonnative vegetation, the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of environment, sensitive biological resources, or cultural/paleontological resources. Due to the projected similarity in average daily trips from the proposed change from church to residential use, the proposed project would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts related to traffic/circulation. No significant adverse environmental effects on human beings will result, either directly or indirectly, from the proposed project. All other impacts of the project were determined either to have no impact, or to be less than significant without the need for mitigation. Cumulatively, the project would not result in any significant impacts that would substantially combine with impacts of other current or probable future impacts. Therefore, the project, in conjunction with other future development projects, would not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. 76 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than significant impact. Previous sections of this Initial Study/Negative Declaration reviewed the project's potential impacts related to air quality, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, and noise, among other environmental issue areas. As concluded in these previous discussions, the project would result in less than significant environmental impacts with implementation of the standard conditions. Therefore, the project would cause less than significant adverse effects on human beings. Standard Conditions Refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.17 above. 77 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel -fueled Engines and Vehicles. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf. Accessed March 23, 2015. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2005. California Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm. Accessed March 23, 2015. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013a. Area Designation Maps / State and National. 2013 State Area Designations. Changes became effective April 1, 2013. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. March 23, 2015. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013b. California Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Updated June 4, 2013. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aags2.pdf. March 23, 2015. City of Costa Mesa. 2002. City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan. Adopted January 2002. City of Costa Mesa. 2004. City of Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Map. Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=369. Accessed June 25, 2014. City of Costa Mesa. 2014. Development Fees Information. Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov /modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=218. March 23, 2015. City of Costa Mesa. 2015. Police Department. Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=302. March 23, 2015. City of Costa Mesa. 2007. City of Costa Mesa Zoning Map. Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov /modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=367. March 23, 2015. City of Costa Mesa General Zoning Map Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=367 Accessed on March 23, 2015. City of Costa Mesa. 2014. Housing Element (2013-2021). Website: http://www.costamesaca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=6602. Accessed on March 23, 2015. City of Costa Mesa. 2014. Municipal Code (codified through Ordinance No. 14-01, enacted January 4, 2014, including Supplement No. 125, Update 1). Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 2013. Costa Mesa Sanitary District Boundary Map. Website: http://www.crosdca.gov/images/sewer/sewer_boundary_map.pdf. March 23, 2015. 78 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial 5tudy/Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis Envirostor. 2015. Website: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=71002151 accessed March 23, 2015. Google Earth Program. 2015. Website: https://www.gpogle.com/earth/. Accessed March 23, 2015. Airport Land Use Commission. 2008, Airport Environs, Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. April 17. Website http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/. Accessed March 20, 2015. Airport Land Use Commission. 2004. AEULUP Height Restriction Zone for John Wayne Airport. Website: Restriction Zone http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/jwanotf.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2015. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2011. Mesa Consolidated Water District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. May. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2003. United States Department of Labor. Safety and Health Topics: Methane. Website: www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_250700.html. Accessed March 20, 2015. Orange County. 2013. Congestion Management Plan. Website: http://www.octa.net/pdf/Final%202013/`20CMRpdf. Accessed March 20, 2015. RBF Consulting. 2002. City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Adopted January 22, 2002. RK Engineering Group, Inc. 2015. 2880 Mesa Verde Drive Trip Generation Study. State of California. 2013. CalRecycle. Estimated Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Rates. Website: http://www.caIrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/. Accessed March 2015. State of California. 2013. CalRecycle. On -Line Disposal Rate Calculator. Website: http://www.caIrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentraI/Reports/0nLineDisposaIRateCaIc.aspx?ReportingEntitylD= 1156&ReportYear=2012&Mode=Edit. Accessed March 2015. State of California. 2014a. Department of Conservation California Geological Survey, Geologic & Hazards Mapping Program. Website: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/pdf/ozn_newb.pdf. Accessed March 23, 2015. State of California. 2014b. Department of Conservation California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic & Hazards Mapping Program - Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Website: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm. Accessed March 23, 2015. State of California. 2014c. Department of Conservation, Orange County Tsunami Inundation Maps. Website: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/tsunami/tsunami_maps.htm. Accessed March 23, 2015. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Handbook. Available at SCAQMD, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 79 City of Costa Mesa Mesa Verde East Project Initial Study/ Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008a. AQMD Rule 1403. Website: http://www.agmd.gov/rules/reg/regl4/rl403.pdf. March 23, 2015.. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008b. June 2003, revised July 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-Ist-methodology- document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. March 23, 2015. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15. September 28. Website: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-main- presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2. March 20, 2015. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2012. 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Website: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2012-air-quality-management-plan/final-2012-aqmp-carb-epa-sip-submittal-(december- 2012)/2012-aqmp-carb-epa-sip-submittal-main-document.pdf. March 20, 2015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants as of December 14, 2012. Website: www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/. Accessed March 20, 2015. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Federal Register. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Website: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01- 15/pdf/2012-30946.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2015. U.S. Geological Survey. 2011. Van Gosen, B.S., and Clinkenbeard, J.P. California Geological Survey Map Sheet 59. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. Open -File Report 2011-1188. Website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/'2011/1188/. Accessed March 20, 2015. 80 APPENDIX B PROPOSED TREES o f i f A r � �c r' PROPOSED SHRUBS (PARTIAL LIST) rvr y..t'�''Lairlv�� Preliminary Landscape Plan MESA VERDE DR 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE, COSTA MESA CA PINNACLE RESIDENTIAL DMOSr2015 PROPOSED PLANT SCHEDULE TRIES BOTANICAL NAME ARBUTUS UNIDO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS DRACAENADRACO i GEIJERAPARVIFLORA PLATANUS RACEMOSA PIRUS CALLERYANA REDSPIRE SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME AGAVE ATTENUATA ALOE ARSORESCENS ALOE STRICTA BOUGAINVILLEA X 'ROSENKA' CARISSA MACROCARPA'PROSTRATA' CRASSULAARGENTEA DIANELLA SPP EUPHORSIATIRUCALLPSTICKS ON FIRE' FURCRAEA FOETIDA LEONOTIS LEONURUS LIGUSTRUM TEXAMIJr.I LOMANORA LONOIFOLIA'BREEZE' WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA COMMONNAME STRAWBERRY TREE WESTERN REDBUD DRAGON TREE AUSTRALIAN WILLOW CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE ARISTOCRAT FLOWERING PEAR COMMONNAMI AGAVE ALOE ALOE BOUGAINVILLEA PROSTRATE NATAL PLUM JADE PLANT DIANELLA PENCIL TREE MAURITIUS HEMP LION'S TAIL TEXAS PRIVET DWARF MAT RUSH COAST ROSEMARY MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES SIZE 24' BOX 24' BOX 24' BOX 24' BOX 24'd8' BOX 24' BOX SIZE 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 1 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 15 GAL 5 GAL 15 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL OA H.O.A MAINTAINED LANDSCAPE AREA O PRIVATE HOMEOWNER MAINTAINED LANDSCAPE FRONT YARDS (DEVELOPER INSTALLED) © PRIVATE HOMEOWNER LANDSCAPE MAINTAINED/INSTALLED LEGEND 1D 4'-0" STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATHWAY 8'-0" CMU PERIMETER WALL -TYPE' T.B.D. Q CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS '��D B" CONCRETE MOW CURB l�J MAN GATE FOR MAINTENANCE L�=J SIDE YARD GATE TYP. (D PROJECT I.D. MONUMENT NOTE: LANDSCAPE SHALL MEET CURRENT WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY STATE 0 18 32 48 84 foal 1,1E'. 1'-0' I DESIGN GROUP Lantlecepe Archlleclure Planning UrbanDesign „.o� ,� � � .�� A TTACHMENT 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research �a,®F State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor April 28, 2015 Mel Lee City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: Mesa Verde East Project SCH#: 2015031099 -v y� Dear Mel Lee: 4�ti OF pLlrNyP r� � 4 A' aF ,O $ 1 Ken Alex Director The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on April 27, 2015, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the enviromnental review process. If you have a question about the above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely,_ �2 Sc organ Director, State Clearinghouse Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department MAY 0 4 2015 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov —7(c-,— Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2015031099 Project Title Mesa Verde East Project Lead Agency Costa Mesa, City of Type Neg Negative Declaration Description The project involves the demolition of the existing site improvements and the construction of a 13-unit, 2-story, detached, small lot residential common interest development. To facilitate the project, the property is proposed to be rezoned to PDR-LD and the residential project developed as a master plan per the Planned Development Standards for small lot development as outlined in Zoning Code Section 13-58 (Planned Development Standards). Lead Agency Contact Name Mel Lee Agency City of Costa Mesa Phone 714 754 5611 email Address 77 Fair Drive City Costa Mesa Project Location County Orange City Costa Mesa Region Lat / Long 33' 40' 29" N / 117' 55' 35" W Cross Streets Adams Avenue & Mesa Verde Drive East Parcel No. 139-313-08 Township 6S Range 10W Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use Santa Ana River Adams ES PLU: Church, Z: I&R GP: Low Density Residential Fax State CA Zip 92626 Section 4 Base Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption; Economics/Jobs; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 5; Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources; Resources, Recycling and Recovery; Caltrans, District 12; Department of Housing and Community Development; Air Resources Board; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 03/27/2015 Startof Review 03/27/2015 End of Review 04/27/2015 -`T7 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. /1" AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ORANGE I COUNTY FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 April 20, 2015 Mr. Mel Lee, AICP Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: Pinnacle Residential Project Dear Mr. Lee: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Negative Declaration (ND) for the proposed Pinnacle Residential Project in the context of the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AEL UP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). The proposed project includes construction of a 13-unit, two-story residential development on a 2-acre site located at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East. The proposed project is located within the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. The initial study states that the proposed maximum height for the project is 2-stories. We recommend that the project proponent utilize the Notice Criteria Tool on the FAA website https:Hoeaaa:faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp to ensure that the proposed project does not penetrate the notification surface. The results from the Notice Criteria Tool should be included in the ND. With respect to building height and noise restrictions, the proposed project is located outside the Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces and also outside of the 60 dBA and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours for JWA. The proposed project would not be subject to any special noise reduction requirements or interfere with airspace reserved for air navigation. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the initial study. Please contact Lea Choum at (949) 252-5123 or via email at lchoum@ocair.com should you have any questions related to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. Sincerely, Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services nemartment Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer APR 2 2 2015 AXU McSaW,ater DISTRICT' Dedicated to March 26, 2015 Satisfying our Community's Water Needs Michael R. Murphy Pinnacle Residential 20 Enterprise, Suite 320 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Subject: 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East (13 Homes) Shawn Dewane Dear Michael President Division V Please be advised that proper applications and financial arrangements will be completed with the Mesa Water District (Mesa WaterG) for the Vice President Ethan Teid entt ninstallation of domestic water services, water mains, fire hydrants and fire services in the Cityof Costa Mesa. Division III Jim Atkinson The subject projects are within the boundaries of Mesa Water®. The Director aforementioned water systems are to be installed by the developer as Division Iv per Mesa Water's standard specifications and, upon completion of construction, will be delivered to Mesa Water® to become part of Mesa Fred R. Bockmiller, Jr., P.E. Water's distribution facilities. Director Division I Engineering Plan Check deposit, Inspection deposit and Construction Performance Bond shall be paid and an Application Permit (A.P.) James R. Fisler completed by the applicant prior to the approval of the plans and Director issuance of the A.P. Division II Additionally, Capacity Charges shall be collected by Mesa Water® prior to approval of plans or execution of a service agreement. The developer shall contact Mesa Water® immediately so the Paul E. Shoenberger, P.E. proposed project development can be evaluated and the appropriate General Manager project requirements and deposits can be determined. Colleen L. Monteleone There is sufficient water supply and adequate pressure to serve this District Secretary project, including fire protection. However, the developer will also be required to provide necessary improvements to existing impacted Andrew N. Hamilton infrastructure and be responsible for all associated costs resulting from District Treasurer development activities as identified through the plan check review and approval process. Bowie, Arneson, Wiles & Giannone Legal Counsel Very truly yours. 1965 Placentia Avenue Phil Lauri, P.E. District Engineer Costa Mesa, CA 92627 tel 949.631.1200 fax 949.574.1036 info@MesaWater.org MesaWater.org i� �. ATTACHMENTS PLANNING COMM/SS/ON AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 22, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: "PH_2 SUBJECT: REZONE R-14-05, PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-48, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP T-17824 FOR A 10-UNIT DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST DATE: JUNE 15, 2015 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the following: 1. Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND): This document analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. None of the impacts analyzed were determined to be significant. 2. Rezone R-14-05: An ordinance to rezone a 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family Residential). The maximum allowable density is 7.26 dwelling units per acre or a maximum of 14 dwelling units. 3. Planning Application PA-14-48 — A Design Review for the development of a 10-unit, two- story, single-family residential development (5 dwelling units per acre proposed). The units would take access from a 40-foot wide private street from Mesa Verde Drive East. The lot sizes range from 8,712 square feet to 6,902 square feet (excluding the private street); the minimum lot size allowed is 6,000 square feet. 4. Tentative Tract Map TT-17824 — Subdivision of the property into 10 fee simple lots for homeownership. APPLICANT The applicant is Pinnacle Residential, representing the property owner, First Church of Christ Scientist. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council: 1. Adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the project; 2. Give first reading to an ordinance approving Rezone R-14-05; and 3. Approve Planning Application PA-14-48 and Tentative Tract Map T-17824 by adopting a resolution to approve the project, subject to conditions of approval. -8b- Location: PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY 2880 Mesa Verde Dr. East Application: Request: 10 Detached Single Family Residential Units R-14-05, PA-14-48, and TT-17824 SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: I&R (Exist.); R1 (Prop.) North: R1, Residences General Plan: Low Density Residential South: C1, Office Buildings Lot Dimensions: Irregular East: (Acr. Andros) R1, Residences Lot Area: 2 Acres (87,120 SF) West: (Acr. MV Dr. E.) R1, Residences Existing Development: Church Buildings and Surface Parking (To Be Demolished) DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON (R1 STANDARDS USED FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES) Development Standard Required/Allowed Proposed/Provided Lot Size: Lot Width 60 FT (Corner Lot) 50 FT Interior Lot 60 FT/50 FT Lot Area(Excluding Street 6,000 SF Min. 6,902 SF-8,712 SF Density/intensity: DU's/ Acre PDR-LD Zone: Max. 16 units (1 du/5,445 SF) Proposed R1 Zone: 1 du/6,000 SF (7.26 DU's/Acre) Max. 14 units 1 du/8,712 SF (5 DU's/Acre) 10 units Building Coverage Development Lot) Buildings NA 25,800 SF 30% Paving (Driveways and Private Street NA 19,883 SF (23%) Open Space 34,848 SF 40% 41,437 SF 47% TOTAL 87,120 SF 100% Open Space Individual Lots) 40% Min. 50% Min./55% Average No. of Stories/Building Height 2 Stories/27 FT 2 Stories/26 FT Setbacks (Buildings) Front 20 FT 38 FT 2) Side (left/right) Corner Lot: 10 FT Street Side/ 5 FT Interior Side Interior Lot: 5 FT/5 FT Corner Lot: 10 FT/5 FT Interior Lot: 5 FT/5 FT Rear 10 FT (1 Story) 20 FT 2 Story), 28 FT (Min.) Parkin Covered 20 Min. 1 20 Open In Driveway) 20 20 Open In Private Street NA 10 TOTAL 40 Spaces__ 50 Spaces Interior garage dimension 20 FT X 20 FT (2 Car) 10 FT X 20 FT(I Car 20 FT X 20 FT 10 FT X 20 FT NA = Not Applicable or No Requirement (1) All units have optional 3rd car garage spaces. (2) For zoning purposes, the lot area does not include the private street; however, the building setbacks are measured from the legal lot lines. In this case, the front property line is located at the centerline of the private street. CEQA Status Initial Study/Negative Declaration Final Action City Council 8) BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The project site is approximately 2 acres in size and contains the facilities for First Church of Christ Scientist, including offices, classrooms, and the main sanctuary, in two buildings totaling approximately 8,900 square feet, and approximately 124 surface parking spaces. The site is currently zoned I&R (Institutional and Recreational) and has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR)'. The site is bounded by R-1 (Single -Family Residential) zoned properties to the north, east (across Andros Street), and west (across Mesa Verde Drive East); and an office complex zoned C1 (Local Business District) to the south. Original Project Proposal The original project proposal consisted of a 13 unit, detached single family residential development with a proposed rezone to PDR-LD (Planned Development Residential - Low Density) and deviations from the perimeter open space requirements of the PDR- LD zone. A copy of the original plan is attached to this report for reference. On February 17 and February 19, 2015, the applicant conducted outreach to the Mesa Verde residents by scheduling community meetings with the assistance of the Board of Mesa Verde Community Inc. (MVCI). Approximately 30-40 residents attended each meeting. The applicant also met individually with the four residential property owners abutting the project site to the north. The project was originally scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission on March 9, 2015, but was pulled from the calendar by the applicant to make further revisions to the plan based on input from the community. The below table compares the original project proposed by the applicant to the current proposal: Comparison Table of General Plan and Revised Project Existing General Plan Original Project Current Project PDR-LD Zone R1 Zone No. of Units Max. 16 units 13 units 10 units Zone Change PDR-LD or R1 PDR-LD R1 Rezone Required Density 8 units/Acre 6.5 Units/Acre 5 Units/Acre Code Deviations 3� Perimeter Open Space None y 20 FT Rea.: 3-13 FT Prop, Lot Size Min.) ~' " € ��'' 5.043 SF 6,902 SF 2,824 SF/3,120 SF Unit Size Including �' ( g ,� , 3,311 SF Garage) ' r Parking 59 spaces 50 Spaces Open Space 45% Averaqe) 55% Avera e J Per the 2000 General Plan Land Use Element, non-residential uses that serve surrounding neighborhoods, including churches, are consistent with the LDR General Plan land use designation. 32_ ANALYSIS Project Description The project involves the demolition of the existing site improvements and the construction of a 10-unit, 2-story, detached, single family residential development. To facilitate the project, the property is proposed to be rezoned to R1 (Single Family Residential) and the residential project is being developed per the R1 standards. Proposed Single -Family Development The proposed single family residential units and a lot -by -lot summary of the development is included in the following tables: Unit Type Summary Unit Size Not Including Garage) 3,311 SF 10 2 Stories/26 FT Total No. of Units No. of Stories No. of Garage Spaces 2 + 1 Optional Garage/Flex Space No. of Open Spaces (In Driveway 2 No. of Open Spaces (In Private Street) ___........ _ Total Parking 10 50 Lot Summary # Front Setback*Lot .. Open Space footnotes- .Setback 1 (Corner Lot) I 49 FT (To P.L.) 12 FT/5 FT 29 FT 7,886 SF 4,478 SF (56%) 20 FT From St.) 2 40 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/5 FT 33 FT 6,999 SF 3,591 SF (51%) 20 FT From St.) 3 40 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/5 FT 27 FT 6,902 SF 3,494 SF (50%) 19 FT (From St.) 4 45 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/5 FT 27 FT 7,382 SF 3,974 SF (54%) 16 FT From St.) 5 (Corner Lot) 45 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/11 FT 27 FT 8,230 SF 4,822 SF (58%) 23 FT From St. 6 (Corner Lot) 45 FT (To P.L.) 10 FT/5 FT 38 FT 8,218 SF 4,810 SF (58%) 30 FT From St. 7 45 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/5 FT 32 FT 7,503 SF 4,095 SF (54%) 15 FT From St.) 8 38 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/5 FT 42 FT 7,135 SF 3,727 SF (52%) 17 FT From St.) 9 40 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/5 FT 43 FT 7,606 SF 4,198 SF (55%) 20 FT From St.) 10 (Corner Lot) 50 FT (To P.L.) 5 FT/13 FT 44 FT 8,712 SF 5,304 SF (61%) 20 FT From St.) Notes: 1. For zoning purposes, the lot area of each R1 lot excludes the square footage contained in the proposed private street which is subject to ingress/egress easements. 2. For zoning purposes, the setbacks are measured from the legal lot lines; in this case, the front property line is located at the centerline of the private street. On -Site Parking As noted above, the proposed development exceeds the Code -required parking by 10 parking spaces, not including the optional 3rd garage space available for each unit. No compact parking stalls are proposed. Parking is also provided in the individual driveways leading to each garage and within the private street. The vehicular circulation has been reviewed and approved by the Transportation Services Division. Perimeter Walls/Fences A new perimeter block wall is proposed along the boundaries of the project site. Staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that the Mesa Verde Drive Street frontage. Existing perimeter fences abutting the residential and commercial properties on either side of the development site are required to be replaced with decorative block walls a minimum 6 feet in height. 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. Staff is recommending, as a condition of approval, that the perimeter walls along Mesa Verde Drive East and Andros Street incorporate landscape planters between the wall and back of public sidewalk, with landscape materials subject to the approval by the Development Services Director. Building Architecture The proposed architecture consists of a "Santa Barbara" style with composition shingle roofs, stucco with stone siding and veneers. Projections are included to maximize floor space on upper floors and provide building articulation, texture and color variation throughout the project's design. Staff has incorporated, as a condition of approval, that elevations visible from Mesa Verde Drive East and Andros Street have additional exterior elevation treatments as recommended in the City's Residential Design Guidelines. Open Space The open space for each lot exceeds the minimum required for the R1 zone (40% required; 50% minimum provided). Additionally, the rear yard setbacks exceed the 20- foot minimum required for two-story residences in the R1 zone (27 feet minimum provided), resulting in large rear yard areas for each lot. The total open space for the project is 47%, which exceeds the 40% minimum required per code. Zone Change A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 2-acre development site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family Residential) is proposed. The proposed rezone to R1 would be compatible with the existing Low Density Residential General Plan designation for the project site. The Zoning Code requires that a finding be made as to whether or not the rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and _(RA General Plan. It is staff's opinion that the proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and General Plan as discussed in the "General Plan and Zoning Code Conformance" section later in this report. Tentative Tract Map The tentative tract map proposed is for a 10-lot subdivision. An easement for private road, utilities and drainage over the private street will be provided as required by the Public Services Division. The private street and perimeter landscaping along the street frontages will be maintained by a maintenance association. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE CONFORMANCE Pursuant to an approved Master Plan, the proposed project would be in conformance with the following planning documents: • General Plan • Zoning Code Conformance with the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Future development of all land within the City of Costa Mesa is guided by the General Plan adopted in 2002. The Land Use Element of the General Plan directs long-range development in the City by indicating the location and extent of development to be allowed. The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies, and objectives that guide new development. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is Low Density Residential (8 dwelling units to the acre maximum) which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R1 (Single Family Residential). The following analysis evaluates the proposed project's consistency with specific goals, and objectives of the General Plan, Land Use Element. • Goal LU-1: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa 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; to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification within reasonable land use intensity limits; and to ensure the long term viability and productivity of the community's natural and man-made environments. Consistency: The project will provide additional ownership housing opportunities. The infill nature of the proposed project protects the viability of the natural environment and decreases the need for significant infrastructure improvements. The project is consistent with this General Plan goal. • Objective LU-1 k 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. - 6S _ Consistency: The project is an infill redevelopment project with residential uses. Adequate infrastructure (i.e., roads, emergency, and utility services) is available to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Objective LU-1A.4: Strongly encourage the development of low -density residential uses and owner -occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Consistency: The project is consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan Designation of the property and is designed for owner -occupied housing units. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Objective LU-1 F.5: Provide opportunities for the development of well planned and designed projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential uses within a single project or neighborhood. Consistency: The project has been designed with appropriate building articulation, setbacks and offsets to ensure that it is compatible with surrounding properties and uses. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Goal LU-2: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to establish development policies that will create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical and social resources. Consistency: The project would allow for the redevelopment of property containing church buildings. The proposed project would enhance the visual appearance of the site through implementation of the proposed landscape plan. In addition, the project would provide a high -quality architectural design to the project area. As required by a standard condition of approval on the project, perimeter wall treatments will be reviewed to ensure that landscaping is provided to soften the edges of the development and compatibility with the surrounding area. As a result, the proposed project is supportive of this General Plan goal. • Objective LU-2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: As discussed later in this report, an Initial Study/Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the IS/ND, the proposed project will not create an adverse impact on the environment. Because the project is an infill development, it would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. Therefore, the project is consistent with this objective. Conformance with the Zoning Code As noted earlier, the proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R1 zone, including lot sizes, building setbacks, open space, and on -site parking. Justifications for Approval Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g), Findings, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, the Planning Commission shall find that the evidence presented in the administrative record substantially meets specified findings. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project, based on an assessment of facts and findings below which are also described in more detail in the draft approval resolution. Rezone • The proposed rezone creates 10 large, custom R1 lots which exceed the minimum lot area requirements in the LDR General Plan designation, and the proposal is therefore consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. The LDR General Plan land use designation allows a maximum of 16 units in the PDR-LD zone and 13 units in the R1 zone. The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R1 zone, including lot sizes, building setbacks, open space, and onsite parking. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is Low Density Residential (8 dwelling units to the acre maximum), which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R1 (Single Family Residential). The project provides a maximum density of 5 dwelling units to the acre. Comparison of Maximum Density Allowed No. of Units Max. 16 units 16 units allowed; 13 units proposed Allowable Zoning j PDR-LD or R1 PDR-LD Districts (subject to Rezone) Maximum Density 8 units/Acre for PDR-LD zone Proposed: 7.25 units/Acre For R1 zone 6.5 Units/Acre Minimum Lot Area 5,445 SF for PDR-LD zone 5,043 SF to 6,674 SF I (individual dwellinq lot) 6,000 SF for R1 zone 14 units allowed; 10 units proposed R1 Proposed: 5 Units/Acre 6,902 SF to 8,712 SF Design Review • The project exhibits excellence in design, site planning,integration of uses and structures and orotect the integrity of neighboring development, The project will provide a single-family infill development that will be complementary to an urban setting. The proposed architecture and site design will enhance the street view and will be compatible with existing development in the area. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. The variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance consistent with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. A condition of approval requires that enhancements to the rear and side elevations shall include enhanced detailing including articulation, projections and use of varied building materials as required in the City's Residential Design Guidelines, and shall not be modified unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director as consistent with the architectural design and features of the proposed development. • The 2roject provides 10 additional standard -sized parking spaces in the private street and exceeds the parkinq required by Code 40 spaces required; 50 spaces ro osed . In addition to the 2-car (with an optional third) garage spaces, parking is provided in the individual driveways leading to each garage and within the private street to provide convenient parking for future guests within the development. The Transportation Division has reviewed and approved the parking design configuration and cul de sac design for the proposed development. A condition of approval requires that the open parking spaces on the private street be open, unassigned, and available for all guests of the development. Proper signage indicating a tow -away zone shall be required. A condition of approval also requires that any future vehicle gate along Mesa Verde Drive be subject to the review and approval by the Transportation Services Manager. A condition of approval requires that the private cul de sac be enhanced with pervious pavers, colored concrete, or other treatment to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. • The project exceeds the minimum requirements for open s ace in the form of a large private yards for each unit 40% required- 50% to 61 % proposed . Additionally, -Park fees in the amount of $135, 720.00 is required to be ,Paid to the City. The minimum required open space for this project is 40%; the project provides an average of 47% total open space. Additionally, park fees in the amount of $135,720.00 is required to be paid for the project. • The interface of the proposed development with the existing single -family -homes on Minorca Drive features enhanced rear setbacks and block walls to ensure neighborhood compatibility and privacv. 1 Code requires a minimum of a 20-foot rear setback for two-story structures. In this case, the proposed rear setbacks of Lots 1 through 5 which abut the homes on Minorca Drive range from 28 feet to 38 feet. Also, new block walls at height of 6 feet minimum are proposed. The applicant is also currently in discussion with the neighbors regarding new landscaping in the rear yards. A condition of approval requires that new perimeter block walls be complementary to the existing neighboring walls. • The ro osal does not require any deviations from the code requirements for the R1 zone. The project exceeds the minimum development standards required by Code with regard to parking, open space, and setbacks. Additional conditions of approval ensure compatibility with the existing community over the long-term. A condition requires that CC&Rs be recorded and a Maintenance Association be formed to maintain the private street area and landscape parkways. • New landscaping where none currently exist, including trees along Mesa Verde Drive East and along Andros Street, will beautify the streetscape. The attached landscape plan, which is preliminary at this point, includes new landscaping on the subject site and within the public right-of-way. Staff has included, as a condition of approval, that landscaping within the public right-of-way be subject to final approval by the Public Services Department. Tentative Tract Map • The creation of the subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Code is h sicall suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms oft e desi n, and density of development, and is consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act, The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1 A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner -occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the IS/MND was originally made available for a 30- day public review and comment period from March 27, 2015 to April 25, 2015. The reduction in the project density by three units and change in the zoning request (R1 zone) did not result in any changes to the environmental conclusions of the document. While not required by State law, the public review period was extended through June 29, 2015 to allow the opportunity for the public to comment on the environmental document based on the revised project description. The State Clearinghouse issued a revised Notice of Availability which reflected the extended review period and reiterated that the original environmental conclusions/analysis were still relevant, The IS/ND found that the environmental effects from the project would be less than significant with the incorporation of standard conditions of approval and compliance with the Code requirements. A copy of the IS/ND and comments received to date are included with this report under separate cover. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the draft ordinance and resolutions and they have been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. 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 within a 500- foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. (See attached Notification Radius Map.) 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. ALTERNATIVES 1, Approve the oroiect 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, should the Planning Commission choose to do so, 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, Planning Commission must deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in the attached draft resolution for denial. If the project were denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. CONCLUSION Approval of the project will allow development of a 10-unit single family residential subdivision. The project satisfies the required findings for the proposed rezone and master plan and is deemed to be a high -quality development, therefore it is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Code. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the project. -- qb MEL LEE, AICP Senior Planner CLAIRE FLYNN, AICP Asst. Development Services Director Attachments: 1. Location Map, Zoning Map, and 500' Radius Map 2. Site Photos 3. Applicant's Project Description 4. Draft Ordinance, Resolutions and Exhibits 5. Correspondence From Public for the Original (13-Unit) Version of the Project 6. Plans 7. Initial Study/Negative Declaration (Under Separate Cover) 8. Comments on IS/ND Distribution: Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO Assistant Development Services Director Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst File (2) Pinnacle Residential 20 Enterprise, Suite 320 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 First Church of Christ Scientist 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PLANNING COMMISSION SVPPLEMENTAL MEMO MEETING DATE: JUNE 22, 2015 ITEM NUMBER SUBJECT: REZONE R-14-05, PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-48, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP T-17824 FOR A 10-UNIT DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST DATE: JUNE 19, 2015 FROM: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov Attached to this memo is a revised Engineering letter (Exhibit 131 of the draft Planning Commission resolution) reflecting the proposed 10-unit single family residential development. The letter attached to the staff report was for the original 13-unit version of the project. Attachment: Revised Engineering Conditions Letter Distribution: Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO Assistant Development Services Director Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst File (2) Pinnacle Residential 20 Enterprise, Suite 320 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 First Church of Christ Scientist 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East Costa Mesa, CA 92626 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING DIVISION June 18, 2015 Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract No. 17824 LOCATION: 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East Dear Commissioners: Tentative Tract Map No. 17824 as furnished by the Planning Division for review by the Public Services Department consists of subdividing one parcel into ten numbered lots and one lettered lot. Tentative Tract Map No. 17824 meets with the approval of the Public Services Department, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Tract shall be developed in full compliance with the State Map Act and the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (C.C.M.M.C.), 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. 2. The Subdivider shall conduct soil investigations and provide the results to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering and Building Divisions pursuant to Ordinance 97-11. 3. Two copies of the Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for checking. Map check fee shall be paid per C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-231. 4. A current copy of the title search shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. 5. 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 C.C.M.M.C. 6. Vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Mesa Verde Drive East and Andros Street shall be released and relinquished to the City of Costa Mesa except at approved access locations. 7. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk. 8. Applicant/Developer is hereby advised that no removal of trees from the public right-of-way will be permitted without specific approval from the Parks and Recreation Commission and compliance with mitigation measures as determined by the Commission to relocate the trees and/or to compensate the City for the loss Df trees from the public right-of-way. Conditions of PHONE: (714) 754-5335 FAX: (714j754-5028 TDD: (714) 754-5244 www.costamesaca gov _q•� Planning Commission 2015 the Commission must be incorporated onto the plans prior to plan approval. The approval process may take up to three months, therefore, the applicant/developer is advised to identify all trees affected by the proposed project and make timely application to the Parks and Recreation Commission to avoid possible delays. 9. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, Street Improvement Plans that show Sewer and Water Improvements, prepared by a Civil Engineer. 10. The Subdivider shall submit a cash deposit of $730 for street sweeping at time of issuance of a Construction Access permit. Full amount of deposit shall be maintained on a monthly basis prior to and during construction until completion of project. 11. Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of Final Tract Map 12. The Subdivider's engineers shall furnish the Engineering Division a storm runoff study 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. 13. Ownership and maintenance of the private on -site drainage facilities and parkway culverts and other common areas shall be transferred by the owner to the Homeowner Association to be formed pursuant to C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-41 (e) and said association shall indemnify and hold harmless the City for any liability arising out of or in any way associated with the connection of the private drainage system with the City's drainage system and shall execute and deliver to the City the standard (indemnity) Hold Harmless Agreement required for such conditions prior to issuance of permits. 14. Sewer improvements shall meet the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; call (949) 631-1731 for information. 15. Water system improvements shall meet the approval of Mesa Consolidated Water District; call (949) 631-1200 for information. 16. Dedicate easements as needed for public utilities. 17. Prior to recordation of a 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. 18. Prior to recordation of a 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. 19. Survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and replaced after construction, pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Profession Code. 20. The elevations shown on all plans shall be on Orange County benchmark datum. 21. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee monumentation. Deposit amount to be determined by the City Engineer. -q-1- Planning Commission 2015 22. Prior to occupancy on the Tract, the surveyor/engineer shall submit to the City Engineer a Digital Graphic File, reproducible mylar of the recorded Tract Map, and approved off -site plan and nine copies of the recorded Tract Map. Sime, a iba Fazeli, P. E. City Engineer (Engr. 2015IPlanning Commission Tract 17824) -q5� RESOLUTION NO. PC-15-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVE REZONE R-14-05 FOR A REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 2-ACRE DEVELOPMENT SITE FROM I&R (INSTITUTIONAL AND RECREATIONAL) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R1), AND APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-48, AND TENTATIVE TRACT T-17824, FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 2- STORY, 10-UNIT DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Pinnacle Residential, representing First Church of Christ Scientist, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Negative Declaration. 2. Rezone R-14-05: An ordinance to rezone a 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family Residential District). The maximum allowable General Plan density is 7.26 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of 14 dwelling units. 3. Planning Application PA-14-48: A Design Review for the development of a 10- unit, two-story, single-family residential development (5 dwelling units per acre proposed). The units would take access from a 40-foot wide private street from Mesa Verde Drive East. The lot sizes range from 8,712 square feet to 6,902 square feet (excluding the private street); the minimum lot size allowed is 6,000 square feet. 4. Tentative Tract Map T-17824: Subdivision of the property into 10 fee simple lots for homeownership. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and has found that the Initial Study/Negative Declaration considers all environmental impacts of the proposed — q (0 -- project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Initial Study/Negative Declaration is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for this project reflects the independent judgment 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 contained within Exhibits B and B1, respectively, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: (1) Adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration; (2) Give first reading to Rezone R-14-05; (3) Approve Planning Application FA-14-48 and Tentative Tract Map 17824. 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 R-14-05, PA-14-48, and Tentative Tract Map 17842 and upon the applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibits B and B1, 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 and/or mitigation measures. 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 22nd day of June, 2015. Robert L. Dickson Jr., Chair, Costa Mesa Planning Commission -- q q — STATE OF CALIFORNIA } } ss COUNTY OF ORANGE } I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15-41 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on June 22, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler NOES: ONone ABSENT: Andranian ABSTAIN: None U Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission c($- EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A. Required Finding: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Facts In Support of Findings: The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R1 zone, including lot sizes, building setbacks, open space, and onsite parking. The General Plan land use designation for the project area is Low Density Residential (8 dwelling units to the acre maximum), which is compatible with the proposed zone change to R1 (Single Family Residential District). The project provides a maximum density of 5 dwelling units to the acre. B. The proposed project complies with Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(57, Master Plan, of the Municipal Code due to the following: Finding: The project meets the broader goals of the General 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 Findings: The project is consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan, Land Use Element. • Goal LU-1: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa 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; to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification within reasonable land use intensity limits; and to ensure the long term viability and productivity of the community's natural and man-made environments. Consistency: The project will provide additional ownership housing opportunities. The infill nature of the proposed project protects the viability of the natural environment and decreases the need for significant infrastructure improvements. The project is consistent with this General Plan goal. Objective LU-1 A: 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 redevelopment project with residential uses. Adequate infrastructure (i.e., roads, emergency, and utility services) is available to serve the proposed project. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Objective LU-1 A.4: Strongly encourage the development of low -density residential uses and owner -occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities. Consistency: The project is consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan Designation of the property and is designed for owner -occupied housing units. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Objective LU-1 F.5: Provide opportunities for the development of well planned and designed projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential uses within a single project or neighborhood. : b Consistency: The project has been designed with appropriate building articulation, setbacks and offsets to ensure that it is compatible with surrounding properties and uses. Therefore, the project is consistent with this General Plan objective. • Goal LU-2: It is the goal of the City of Costa Mesa to establish development policies that will create and maintain an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment and minimize impacts on existing physical and social resources. Consistency: The project would allow for the redevelopment of property containing church buildings. On -site vegetation is minimal. The proposed project would enhance the visual appearance of the site through implementation of the proposed landscape plan. In addition, the project would provide a high - quality architectural design to the project area. As required by a standard condition of approval on the project, perimeter wall treatments will be reviewed to ensure that landscaping is provided to soften the edges of the development and compatibility with the surrounding area. As a result, the proposed project is supportive of this General Plan goal. • Objective LU-2A: Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. Consistency: As discussed later in this report, the project is categorically exempt per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which means that the proposed project will not create an adverse impact on the environment. Because the project is an infill development, it would not result in the loss of any habitat, or require extensive infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site. Therefore, the project is consistent with this objective. The proposed project meets or exceeds the intent of the City's Zoning Code with regard to the development standards for the R1 zone, including lot sizes, building setbacks, open space, and on -site parking; specifically, as noted below. The protect exhibits excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protect the integrity of neighboring development. The project will provide a single-family infill development that will be complementary to an urban setting. The proposed architecture and site design will enhance the street view and will be compatible with existing development in the area. The overall architectural design promotes excellence and compatibility. The variety of building elevations, materials and staggered massing diminishes the boxy design appearance consistent with the City's Residential Design Guidelines. The protect will provide_ on -site parking spaces that exceeds current parking standards (40 spaces required 50 spaces proposed). In addition to the 2-car (with an optional third) garage spaces, parking is provided in the individual driveways leading to each garage and within the private street to provide convenient parking for future guests within the development. The protect exceeds the minimum requirements for open space in the form of a large private yards for each unit. Additionally, park fees in the amount of $135, 720.00 is required to be paid to the City. The minimum required open space for this project is 40%; the project provides 47% total open space. Additionally, park fees in the amount of $135,720.00 is required to be paid for the project. C. The proposed tentative tract 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 Findings: The creation of the subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in that the project complies with Objectives 1 A.4, 2A.7, and 2A.8 by developing owner -occupied housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing opportunities, the project provides sufficient easements as a common interest development, and encourages increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. The subdivision complies with the State Subdivision Map Act. Finding: The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The LDR (Low Density Residential) General Plan Land Use designation allows residential development of up to 8 dwelling units/acre on this site; the proposed project is 5 dwelling units/acre and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code for residential developments in the R1 zone. 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 Findings: The overall design reflects a quality project that is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The project is categorically exempt per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which means that the proposed project will not create an adverse impact on the environment. 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. P 01 Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed buildings include openings in an east -west direction to take advantage of passive solar heating as well as passive ventilation from ocean breezes. The inclusion of trees will also help provide shade to the residential units within the development. Finding: The subdivision 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 Findings: As conditioned, the proposed project does not interfere with the public right-of-way. The recommended improvements along the public streets abutting the project site will improve the public right- of-ways for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 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 Findings: The applicant will be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District. E. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. An Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If any of these conditions are removed, the decision -making body must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. F. 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 io2-_ development project's traffic impacts will be mitigated at all affected intersections and by the payment of traffic impact fees. G. The proposed buildings are an excessive distance from the street necessitating fire apparatus access and provisions of on -site fire hydrants. P, -10-3 � EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The expiration of Planning Application PA-14-48 shall coincide with the expiration of the approval of the Tentative Tract Map 17824 which is valid for two years. An extension request is needed to extend the expiration for each additional year after the initial two-year period. 2. The conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA-14-48 and T-17824 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 3. A decorative perimeter block wall a minimum of 6 feet in height shall be constructed along the boundaries of the site, prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Director. 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. 4. The interior fences or walls between the units shall be a minimum of six feet in height. All private property fencing shall consist of stained and pre- treated lumber materials (i.e. redwood for example) and not unstained pine planks. 5. The perimeter walls along Mesa Verde Drive East shall incorporate landscape planters between the wall and back of public sidewalk, with landscape materials subject to the approval by the Development Services Director. 6. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final landscape plan indicating the landscape palette and the design/material of paved areas shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. The private cul de sac shall also be enhanced with pervious pavers, colored concrete, or other treatment to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. 7. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 8. 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. 9. If the project is constructed in phases, the perimeter wall, landscaping along the frontages, and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of utilities for the first phase. 10. 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. Specifically, enhancements to the rear and side elevations shall include enhanced detailing including articulation, projections and use of varied building materials as required in the City's Residential Design Guidelines, and shall not be modified unless otherwise approved by the 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 a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 11. 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 staffing areas and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan should mitigate 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. 12. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 36 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional fill 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. 13. 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. 14. Trash facilities shall be screened from view, and designed and located appropriately to minimize potential noise and odor impacts to residential areas. 15. To avoid an alley -like appearance, the private street shall not be developed with a center concrete swale. The private street shall be complemented by stamped concrete or pervious pavers. Any future vehicle gate along Mesa Verde Drive shall be subject to the review and approval by the Transportation Services Manager. �- v 16. 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 maintenance association 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 after 9:00 PM other than for security purposes, or any other activities that may , be disruptive to the quiet enjoyment of neighbc,�ing properties after 9:00 PM. c. The CC&Rs shall also contain provisions related to preservation and maintenance of the private street and perimeter landscaping in perpetuity by the maintenance association. The CC&Rs shall also contain the buyer's notice as an exhibit. d. The CC&R's 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 for which the garage was originally designed and to allow for inspections by the association to verify compliance with this condition. e. The CC&Rs shall contain provisions requiring that the maintenance association submit a signed affidavit to the City of Costa Mesa on an annual basis to certify the following: • The two -car garages in the residential community are being used for vehicle parking by the resident(s). • The vehicle parking areas within the garage are not obstructed by storage items, including but not limited to, toys, clothing, tools, boxes, equipment, etc. • The resident(s) have consented to voluntary inspections of the garage to verify the parking availability, as needed. • The form and content of the affidavit shall be provided by the City Attorney's office. Failure to file the annual affidavit is considered a violation of this condition. f. Open parking spaces on the private street shall be open, unassigned, and available for all guest of the development. Proper signage indicating a tow -away zone shall be required. g. 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. 17. The CC&Rs shall be recorded and a Maintenance Association be established prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. _ 100- 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of recordation of Tract Map 17824. 19. 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. 20. Prior to release of any utilities, the applicant shall provide proof of establishment of a maintenance association. 21. Priorto the issuance of Building Permits, the Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for the approval of the City's Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following: a. The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the Project site unless approved by the Development Services Director. b. The intensity and location of lights on buildings shall be subject to the Development Services Director's approval. c. All site lighting fixtures shall be provided with a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency. d. Lighting design and layout shall limit spill light to no more than 0.5 foot candle at the property line of the surrounding neighbors, consistent with the level of lighting that is deemed necessary for safety and security purposes on site. e. Glare shields may be required for select light standards. 22. All construction contractors shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. All grading (regardless of acreage) shall apply best available control measures for fugitive dust in accordance with Rule 403. To ensure that the project is in full compliance with applicable SCAQMD dust regulations and that there is no nuisance impact off the site, the contractor would implement each of the following: a. Moisten soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving soil or conduct whatever watering is necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in any direction. b. Apply chemical stabilizers to disturbed surface areas (completed grading areas) within five days of completing grading or apply dust suppressants or vegetation sufficient to maintain a stabilized surface. c. Water excavated soil piles hourly or covered with temporary coverings. - 10f1 d. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions. Water as often as needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per day or during very dry weather in order to maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible emissions from the construction site. e. Wash mud -covered tired and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction sites. f. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud, which would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing project sites. g. Securely cover loads with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the construction sites to dispose of debris. h. Cease grading during period when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 23. Permanently installed wood burning devices are not permitted. A wood burning device means any fireplace, wood burning heater, or pellet -fueled wood heater, or any similarly enclosed, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor device burning any solid fuel for aesthetic or space -heating purposes, which has a heat input of less than one million British thermal units per hour. 24. All rubber tired dozers and graders used during the grading phase of construction shall be powered by Tier 3 engines. 25. The project shall comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the energy conservation standards. The project Applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans: • Double paned glass or window treatment for energy conservation shall be used in all exterior windows. • Buildings shall be oriented north/south where feasible. 26. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during grading and construction operations, all construction activities shall be temporarily halted or redirected to permit a qualified paleontologist to assess the find for significance and, if necessary, develop a paleontological resources impact mitigation plan (PRIMP) for the review and approval by the City prior to resuming excavation activities. 27. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. 28, The applicant 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, or which are in any way related to, the applicant's project, or any approvals granted by City related to the applicant's project. 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. City shall have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City's interests, and applicant shall indemnify City for all such costs incurred by City. Eng. 29. Comply with the requirements contained in the letter prepared by the City Engineer (Exhibit 131). 30. 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. 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. 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. Pay Park fee prior to certificate of occupancy. Applicable fee shall be that fee in effect at the time the subdivision application is filed with the City. 4. A minimum 20-foot by 20-foot clear interior dimension shall be provided for all 2-car garages, and a minimum 10-foot by 20-foot clear interior dimension shall be provided for 1-car garages, if proposed. M :.. 5. Minimum garage door width shall be 16 feet (2-car garages). 6. All garages shall be provided with automatic garage door openers. 7. Grading materials delivery, equipment operation, and other construction - related activity shall be limited to be-tween the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Exceptions may be made for activities that will not generate noise audible from off -site, such as painting and other quiet interior work. 8. 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 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Aanning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. 9. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 10. All on -site utility services shall be installed underground. 11. Installation of all 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. 12. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 13. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Plumbing Code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 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 or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings, and elements by individuals with disability shall comply with Chapter 11 B of the 2013 California Building Code. 14. Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the project Applicant shall provide the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety with a geotechnical investigation of the project site detailing recommendations for remedial grading in order to reduce the potential of onsite soils to cause unstable conditions. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Department of Building Safety. 15. Submit a precise grading plan, 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. A precise grading plan shall not be required if any of the following are met: • An excavation which does not exceed 50 CY on any one site and which is less than 2 feet in vertical depth, or which does not create a cut slope greater than 1 '/z:1 (excluding foundation area). • 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. • A fill less than 3 feet in depth, not intended to support structures, which does not exceed 50 CY on any one lot and does not obstruct a drainage course. 16. Submit a soils report for this project. Soils report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. For existing slopes or when new slopes are proposed, the Soils Report shall address how existing slopes or the new slopes will be maintained to avoid erosion or future failure. 17. 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. 2013 California Building Code CRC 403.1.7.3. 18. Lots shall be graded to drain surface water away from foundation walls. The grade shall fall a minimum of six inches within the first 10 feet. CRC R401.3. 19. Projections, including eaves, shall be one -hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into the 5 feet (setback area from the property line). They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3 foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1(1) and R302.1(2). Trans. 20. Construct all proposed driveway approaches to comply with city standards. 21. Fulfill mitigation of off -site traffic impacts at the time of issuance of occupancy by submitting to the Transportation Services Division the required traffic impact fee pursuant to the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council. 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. 22. Close unused drive approaches, or portion of, with full height curb and gutter that comply with City Standards. Fire 23. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Fire Department shall review and approve the project design features to assess compliance with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 24. Provide "blue dot" reflective markers for all on -site fire hydrants. 25. The project shall provide an automatic fire sprinkler system according to NFPA 13 R. Street 206. Plant eight (8) 24" Box Arbutus 'Marina' (single trunk/standard form) in Trees expanded planter to be 5' (not 3') in width along Mesa Verde Drive East frontage. Proposed Pyrus calleryana `Aristocrat' on Andros Street change to 24" Box Pyrus calleryana 'Redspire'. Items to be incorporated into site landscape plan. Responsibility for the maintenance of proposed landscape planters along Mesa Verde Drive East should be determined and documented as binding. WQMP 27. In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the proposed project shall prepare a Storm Drain Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 28. The project shall comply with the NPDES requirements, as follows: a. Construction General Permit Notice of Intent (NOI) Design: Prior to the issuance of preliminary or precise grading permits, the project Applicant shall provide the City Engineer with evidence that an NOI has been filed with the Storm Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Such evidence shall consist of a copy of the NOI stamped by the SWRCB or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a letter from either agency stating that the NOI has been filed. b. Construction Phase Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP): Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall prepare a SWPPP that complies with the Construction General Permit and will include at a minimum the following: • Discuss in detail the BMPs planned for the project related to control of sediment and erosion, non -sediment pollutants, and potential pollutants in non -storm water discharges; • Describe post -construction BMPs for the project; -112- • Explain the maintenance program for the project's BMPs. c. List the parties responsible for the SWPPP implementation and the BMP maintenance during and after grading. The project Applicant shall implement the SWPPP and modify the SWPPP as directed by the Construction General Permit. 29. A WQMP 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. 30. Location of the BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 31, During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of RegulatiMs, Section 1529, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to asbestos. Asbestos -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 32. During demolition, grading, and excavation, workers shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which provides for exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practice by workers exposed to lead. Lead - contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provision of the California Health and Safety Code. 33. Prior to demolition activities, removal and/or abatement of asbestos containing building materials, lead based paints, and hazardous materials associated with the existing building materials, an investigation shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with the Costa Mesa Fire Department. An asbestos and hazardous materials abatement plan shall be developed by the qualified environmental professional, in order to clearly define the scope and objective of the abatement activities. The Applicant shall conduct demolition consistent with the abatement plan, applicable state requirements and City standard conditions. 34. As final building plans are submitted to the City of Costa Mesa for review and approval, the Costa Mesa Police Department shall review all plans for the purpose of ensuring that design requirements are incorporated into the building design to increase safety and avoid unsafe conditions. These measures focus on security measures are recommended by the Police Department, including but not limited to, the following: • Lighting shall be provided in open areas and parking lots. 1 1 3- • Required building address numbers shall be readily apparent from the street and rooftop building identification shall be readily apparent from police helicopters for emergency response agencies. • Landscaping requirements (e.g. minimize use of hedges, use of low height shrubs for greater visibility). • Emergency vehicle parking areas shall be designated within proximity to buildings. • Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the City of Costa Mesa Police Department shall review and approve the developer's project design features to satisfy local requirements. The applicant shall then pay the appropriate fee in effect to mitigate the project's propciirtionate impact to additional demands on police protection services, if any. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani. 1. Applicant will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Z County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, inspection fees, and sewer permit are required prior to installation of sewer. 3. Applicant shall submit a plan showing sewer improvements that meets the District Engineer's approval to the Building Division as part of the plans submitted for plan check. 4. The applicant is required to contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (714) 754-5307 to arrange final sign -off prior to certificate of occupancy being released. 5. Unless an off -site trash hauler is being used, applicant shall contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (714) 754-5043 to pay trash collection program fees and arrange for service for all new residences. Residences using bin or dumpster services are exempt from this requirement. 6. Applicant shall contact Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 654-8400 for any additional district requirements. AQMD 7. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD. Water 8. 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. School 9. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 10. 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. I Is-- EXHIBIT 131 CITY OF COSTA MESA P 0 BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING DIVISION June 18, 2015 Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract No. 17824' LOCATION: 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East Dear Commissioners: Tentative Tract Map No. 17824 as furnished by the Planning Division for review by the Public Services Department consists of subdividing one parcel into ten numbered lots and one lettered lot. Tentative Tract Map No. 17824 meets with the approval of the Public Services Department, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Tract shall be developed in full compliance with the State Map Act and the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (C.C.M.M.C.), 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. 2. The Subdivider shall conduct soil investigations and provide the results to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering and Building Divisions pursuant to Ordinance 97-11. 3. Two copies of the Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for checking. Map check fee shall be paid per C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-231. 4. A current copy of the title search shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. 5. 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 C.C.M.M.C. 6. Vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Mesa Verde Drive East and Andros Street shall be released and relinquished to the City of Costa Mesa except at approved access locations. 7. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk. 8. Applicant/Developer is hereby advised that no removal of trees from the public right-of-way will be permitted without specific approval from the Parks and Recreation Commission and compliance with mitigation measures as determined by the Commission to relocate the trees and/or to compensate the City for the lossLf trees from the public right-of-way. Conditions of N PHONE. (714) 754-5335 FAX: (714T754-5028 TDD: (714) 754-5244 www costamesaca gov ,_„) KIP- Planning Commission 2015 the Commission must be incorporated onto the plans prior to plan approval. The approval process may take up to three months, therefore, the applicant/developer is advised to identify all trees affected by the proposed project and make timely application to the Parks and Recreation Commission to avoid possible delays. 9. Submit for approval to the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, Street Improvement Plans that show Sewer and Water Improvements, prepared by a Civil Engineer. 10. The Subdivider shall submit a cash deposit of $730 for street sweeping at time of issuance of a Construction Access permit. Full amount of deposit shall be maintained on a monthly basis prior to and during construction until completion of project. 11. Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of Final Tract Map m 12. The Subdivider's engineers shall furnish the Engineering Division a storm runoff study 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. 13. Ownership and maintenance of the private on -site drainage facilities and parkway culverts and other common areas shall be transferred by the owner to the Homeowner Association to be formed pursuant to C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-41 (e) and said association shall indemnify and hold harmless the City for any liability arising out of or in any way associated with the connection of the private drainage system with the City's drainage system and shall execute and deliver to the City the standard (indemnity) Hold Harmless Agreement required for such conditions prior to issuance of permits. 14. Sewer improvements shall meet the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; call (949) 631-1731 for information. 15. Water system improvements shall meet the approval of Mesa Consolidated Water District; call (949) 631-1200 for information. 16. Dedicate easements as needed for public utilities. 17. Prior to recordation of a 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. 18. Prior to recordation of a 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. 19. Survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and replaced after construction, pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Profession Code. 20. The elevations shown on all plans shall be on Orange County benchmark datum. 21. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee monumentation. Deposit amount to be determined by the City Engineer. 119- Planning Commission 2015 22. Prior to occupancy on the Tract, the surveyor/engineer shall submit to the City Engineer a Digital Graphic File, reproducible mylar of the recorded Tract Map, and approved off -site plan and nine copies of the recorded Tract Map. erely, Xai a Fazeli, P. E. City Engineer (Engr. 2015/Planning Commission Tract 17824) CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 SUBJECT: REZONE R-14-05, PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-48, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP T-17824 FOR A 10-UNIT DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 15, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER (714) 754-5611 mel.lee(ftostamesaca.aov The June 22, 2015 Planning Commission minute excerpts for the above project (unofficial) are attached to this memo for your information. a t MEL L E, AICP GARY ARMSTR NG, AIC Senior Planner Economic Development Development Services Director / Deouty CEO Attachment: June 22, 2015 Planning Commission Minute Excerpts cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr. City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Pinnacle Residential 20 Enterprise, Suite 320 Aliso Viejo, CA 9265623 First Church of Christ Scientist 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East Costa Mesa, CA 92626 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MINUTE EXCERPTS FROM THE JUNE 22, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST (Public Hearing No. 2 — R-14-05, PA-14-48, TT-17824) 2. Application No.: Applicant: Site Address: Zone: Project Planner: Environmental R-14-05, PA-14-48, TT-17824 Pinnacle Residential 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East I&R (Existing); R1 (Proposed) Mel Lee Determination: The City of Costa Mesa proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for the Project. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration was available for review and comment from March 27, 2015 to April 25, 2015. It was extended for public review and comment for a period of 20 days from June 11, 2015, to July 1, 2015 due to the amended project description which did not change the mitigation measures (none) or the environmental conclusions. The Negative Declaration is based on the finding that, through compliance with the Standard Conditions of Approval and Code Requirements, the environmental effects from the project would be less than significant. The reasons to support such a finding are documented by an Initial Study prepared by the City of Costa Mesa. Description: The proposed project at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East involves the following: 1) Adoption of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND); 2) Rezone R-14-05 - A Rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of 2- acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family Residential District) (8 dwelling units per acre maximum allowed); 3) Planning Application PA-14-48 — A Design Review for the development of a 10-unit, two-story, single-family residential development (5 dwelling units per acre proposed). The units would take access from a 40-foot wide private street from Mesa Verde Drive East. R1 lot sizes range from 8,712 sq. ft. to 6,902 sq. ft., excluding the private street (minimum 6,000 sq. ft. required); 4) Tentative Tract Map TT-17824 — Subdivision of the property into 10 fee simple lots for homeownership. Mel Lee, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McCarthy asked if its standard operating procedure now to do a negative declaration for all zone changes. Mr. Lee responded yes. The Commissioners asked for clarification about the project not having any deviations or variations. PUBLIC COMMENTS Peter Zehnder, applicant, is in agreement with the conditions of approval except for No. 5. Mr. Zehnder stated he did not want to duplicate the extra planters along Andros. He also clarified there will be a fire access gate off of Andros required by the Fire Department. Vice Chair Mathews asked Mr. Zehnder to clarify what he wants to strike from Condition of Approval No. 5. Mr. Zehnder responded that he wants to strike the extra planter adjacent to the wall in between the sidewalk on Andros due to the accessibility and the maintenance. Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa resident, asked if in the CC&R's there could be language to include that the units cannot be subleased by renters based on concerns of them becoming group homes. Chair closed the public hearing. Chair Dickson asked if they could include Mr. Humphrey's suggested provision. Ivy M. Tsai, Planning Commission Counsel, responded that they will take it as direction. He also suggested amending Condition of Approval No. 5 and 16A. Commissioners thanked Mr. Zehnder for his efforts with the project, for listening to their feedback and for producing a great project. MOTION: Based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, subject to conditions contained in Exhibit B and Exhibit B1 that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that they City Council: 1. Adopt the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND), 2. Give first reading to Rezone R-14-05, and 3. Approve the Planning Application PA-14-48/TT-17824 with the following modifications: Condition of Approval No. 5: eliminate the phrase "and Andros Street" Condition of Approval No. 16A: strike the phrase "all parking" Moved by Vice Chair Mathews, seconded by Commissioner McCarthy. RESOLUTION 15-41 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION, APPROVE REZONE R-14-05 FOR A REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 2-ACRE DEVELOPMENT SITE FROM I&R (INSTITUTIONAL AND RECREATIONAL) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R1), AND APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-48, AND TENTATIVE TRACT T-17824, FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 2- REZONE R-14-05, PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-48, AND TENTATIVE TRACT TT-17824 2880 MESA VERDE DRIVE EAST JULY 21, 2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AIR PHOTO I QRbOW 111GiE14 I-3. u L1 LJ 111 pIN ROOM jjj1 � I I Lill, a: 111 COURrtR�b I — 0 c� i I I I I I I I I I I ELEVATIONS ORIGINAL PLAN (13-UNITS) CURRENT PLAN (10-UNITS) PLANNING APPLICATION PA-15-13 AND TENTATIVE TRACT TT-17869 32-UNIT LIVE/WORK DEVELOPMENT 1672 PLACENTIA AVENUE JUNE 221F 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AIR PHOTO ZONING MAP (URBAN PLAN OVERLAY) SITE PHOTOS PLAN 1: 3 BED, 2.5 BATH, 1,920 SF PLAN 2: 2-3 BED, 2.5 BATH, 1,994 SF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JULY 21, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: NB-1 SUBJECT: COUNCIL DIRECTION FOR ALLOCATION OF FIELD USE FEES DATE: JULY 8, 2015 FROM: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE PRESENTATION BY: DANIEL BAKER, ASSISTANT TO THE CEO FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Baker (714) 754-5156 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council provide direction to staff where to allocate field use fees paid by the Matt Leinart Flag Football Program. BACKGROUND: The Matt Leinart Flag Football Program began utilizing Costa Mesa athletic fields in the fall of 2013. Due to a miscommunication between the group organizers and City staff, it has been determined that prior use fees need to be paid at a total cost of $24,862. The group has paid their first installment of $4,862 (Attachment 1). At the July 7, 2015 City Council Meeting, Council Member Katrina Foley requested that staff bring back a council report that would allow the City Council to determine an appropriate use of the funds. ANALYSIS: Traditionally, fees that are paid by individuals or organizations that utilize City facilities are deposited in general fund revenue accounts. The fees paid by Leinart league organizers will follow the same guidelines unless specified by City Council direction. Council Member Foley expressed interest in allocating the $24,862 in fees equally to assist both Costa Mesa and Estancia high schools in the purchase of athletic equipment. If this is Council's direction, the fees collected may be reallocated towards the City of Costa Mesa Athletic Grant Program. 1 Because the fees involve the use of public funds, the City has a fiduciary responsibility to the public in how the funds are spent. The terms and conditions on the use of the funds will continue to be documented in a form of an agreement between Costa Mesa United and executed by the City CEO before any disbursement of public funds. In addition, project specific agreements will continue to be utilized to appropriately document the public purpose of the grant award(s) with final approval by the Newport Mesa Unified Board of Trustees. Attachment 2 is the approved expenditures over the last three years for this program. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: An alternative would be to allocate the funds towards athletic field improvements at City facilities and or parks which would include Jake Hammett, Lion's Park, etc. Another alternative would be to allow the fees to be disbursed back into the general fund revenue accounts to be utilized by the finance department in relationship to annual budgeting purposes. FISCAL REVIEW: Currently, for Fiscal Year 2015-2016, Estancia High School is eligible for $52,295.24 in athletic grant funding due to carryover from prior years. Conversely, Costa Mesa High School is eligible for $99,400 due to prior year carryovers. If Council were to reallocate funds toward the grant program, both schools would receive a one-time equal split of $12,431 of the reimbursed fees. These fees would then be eligible to be spent on authorized athletic facility improvements at both schools. If approved, budgeted contingency funds would be used to front the total expenditures now, with additional payments coming into the City as outlined in attachment 1. LEGAL REVIEW: Legal has reviewed the report and agrees that the funding will need to be disbursed consistently with state law to ensure public benefit. CONCLUSION: Staff is requesting that the City Council provide direction regarding the allocation of field use fees paid by the Matt Leinart Flag Football League. DANIEL K. BAKER Assistant to the CEO Attachment 1 Matt Leinart Letter Attachment 2 Grant Program Summary 2 Attachment 1 CITY OF COSTA MESA R O, BOX 1200 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 02628.1200 PARKS AND COIMMUNITYSERVIRI;8 DIVISION July 2, 2015 Mr. Ryan Leinart Matt Leinart Flag Football Organization Costa Mesa, CA Dear Mr. Leinart, Thank you for taking time out of your schedule to discuss Matt Leinart Flag Football Organization's Group Status and Payment Plan for the field allocations that took place March 2014 - June 2015. As we discussed, Matt Leinart Flag Football Organlaation:was charged a Non Profit, Non Resident rate of $35.00 per hour from March 2014 --June 2014. The appropriate rate for your organization at a Private Non -Resident rate is $135.00 per hour, Additionally, on July 1, 2014 the Costa Mesa City Council granted Special Group 3 Status to the Matt Leinart Flag Football Organization for a period of one year. The organization was charged a Non Profit, Resident rate of $25,00 per hour from July 2014 --June 2015. The appropriate rate for your organization at a private Resident rate Is $77.00 per hour. To date, the City of Costa Mesa has received a total of $12,500.00 in permit fees from the Matt Leinart Flag Football Organization, After careful review It was identified that the fees charged to your organization were miscalculated. The revised fees total $37,362.00; a difference of $24,862.00. The City Is respectfully requesting the full payrnerit of $24,862.00 which Is the balance due for field use from March 2014— June 2015, The City has authorized the following payment plan to ensure the back payment of these fees: Payment 1: $4,862.00 Payment 2: $5,000.00 Payment 3: $5,000.00 Payment 4: $5,000.00 Payment 5: $5,060,00 Due Date: July 6, 2015 Due Date: December 1, 2015 Due Date: May 1, 2016 Due Date: December 1, 2016 Due Date: May 1, 2017 Please make checks payable to the City of Costa Mesa, Payments may be malled to PO Box 1200, Costa Mesa, CA 92628- 12QQ or In person, Parrs and Community Services, 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, CA. If you have any further questlons, please contact me at 714-754,5052. 2 77 FAIR DRIVE ni rnhl" r�l Al tiro rH.... _ rn". ram. nN ". P�" - ......... _. Attachment 2 City of Costa Mesa/Costa Mesa United Athletic Facility Grant Improvement Program Below is a list of all School District approved projects for both Costa Mesa and Estancia High School for Fiscal Years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 via the City of Costa Mesa/Costa Mesa United Athletic Facility Grant Improvement Program. For the past three years, the City has partnered with Costa Mesa United to provide $100,000 annually (50K for Estancia and 50K for Costa Mesa) for capital improvements and or asset purchases. Each July, the principals from each school meet with representatives of Costa Mesa United to discuss concepts and costs of the proposed purchases/projects and the connection to public benefit. After all projects are vetted via Costa Mesa United, the proposed projects are submitted to the City of Costa Mesa. After City review, formal grant applications are prepared by City staff and reviewed and signed by the City CEO. The applications are then forwarded to the District for Board approval. It is important to note that each project will be reviewed for site modification by district staff and could be delayed or denied based upon district determination. Estancia Hiah School Improvements 2012-2013 1. Provide and install a new plate and mound bullpen area on the Estancia varsity baseball field on the home side and install concrete for hitting stations along the visitor's side beyond the batting cage. Amount Granted: $5,000 2. Provide and install motorized roll up style divider curtain for the gymnasium at Estancia High School. Amount Granted: $15,000 3. Provide and install all applicable materials to construct a 36'x 48' softball batting cage at Estancia High School. Amount Granted: $30,000 2013-2014 1. Install New Aquatic timing and scoring equipment system at the Estancia Aquatic Center. Equipment includes new LED four line LED scoreboard, new state-of-the-art swimming and diving timing system complete with individual lane timing and six digit pace clock. Amount Granted $11,800 2. Provide and install (2) new Bulldog elite softball pitching machines and (3) home plate batting cage floor mats in existing batting cages. Amount Granted $4,700 3. Purchase on (2) pair of aluminum soccer goals to be used on school soccer field. Amount Granted $6,300 4. Provide and install bleacher seating (2 sets) at the tennis area (2 rows with 10 seats) and install bleachers (I set) at baseball field (4 row 40 seat). Amount Granted $4,100 2014-2105 1. Provide funding for a 6 man Blocking Sled, 24ft. Trap Chute, pop-up tackling sled. Amount Granted $13,621 2. Provide funding for a new windscreen around perimeter fencing at Jim Scott Stadium. Amount Granted $4,100 3. Provide funding for an in -ground pro base set, 4-way permanent pitching rubber, in -ground home plate, and windscreen along outfield softball field fence. Amount Granted $1,600 4. Provide funding to Repair existing stenciling and restriping for pedestrian/vehicle lane path of travel on blacktop area near athletic facilities. Amount Granted $2,000 5. Provide funding for baseball equipment including batting cage, fencing, backstop padding. Amount Granted $6,965.11 6. Provide funding for the purchase and installation of a Swim ergometer system with power meter at the main pool. Amount Granted $9,335.52 7. Provide funding for basketball storage carts. Amount Granted $572.50 8. Provide funding for football equipment that includes: Player hydration system, stadium utility cart, yard markers, and heavy core tackling bags. Amount Granted $7,860.44 9. Provide funding for the purchase of volleyball equipment that includes: three (3) power carbon volleyball standard packages, ball carts, and volleyballs. Amount Granted $14,779.19 10. Provide funding for the purchase and installation of chain link fencing and gates to provide additional safety at the varsity baseball field. Amount Granted $9,971 Costa Mesa High School Improvements 2012-2013 1. Purchase two (2) sets of aluminum soccer goals to be used on both soccer fields adjacent to tennis courts at Costa Mesa High. Amount Granted $3,000 2. Remove and replace the existing varsity baseball field infield turf due to age and over -use. The work will consist of soil prep and an upgrade of irrigation system. Sod will be placed over the infield area and field apron. Amount Granted $32,000 3. Purchase of eight (8) 15 foot portable player benches to be used at soccer fields and basketball games. When not in use, the benches will be stored in the soccer storage container. Amount Granted $4,000 4. Remove and replace the existing 6 foot wide windscreen from the perimeter outfield fencing of the varsity baseball field. Amount Granted $7,000 1. Install bleacher seating (2 sets) (5 rows by 27' with handicap seating) at varsity and JV softball fields. Amount Granted $18,000 2. Remove, reupholster, and reinstall gym pads. Add logo and lettering to pads in both gyms. Amount Granted $4,000 2014-2105 1. Removal of existing backboard systems. Installation of 2 cable systems and backboards with rims. Amount Granted $13,600 2. Install three (3) 20' wide three (3) row retractable bleachers. Amount Granted $19,000