Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
00 - - Agenda - 8/4/2015
AGENDA 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." THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED CLOSED SESSION AT 5:00 P.M. IS CANCELLED TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2015 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 77 FAIR DRIVE REGULAR MEETING - 5:45 P.M. 41 STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor t JAMES M. RIGHEIMER Mayor Pro Tern x SANDRA GEP Council Memb City Attorney Thomas Duarte GARY MONAHAN Council Member ATRINA FOLEY Duncil Member Chief Executive Officer 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 cityclerk .costamesaca.gov AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — August 4, 2015 — PAGE 1 v.1, 07/29/15 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 — August 4, 2015 — PAGE 2 v.1, 07/29/15 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY — 5:45 P.M. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Mensinger 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.] Pastor Josh Harrison, ROCKHARBOR Church, Costa Mesa ROLL CALL 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 — Reiner Communities/Tower on 19tn 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. AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — August 4, 2015 — PAGE 3 v.1, 07/29/15 COUNCIL MEMBERS' REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS 1. Mayor Mensinger 2. Council Member Foley 3. Council Member Genis 4. Council Member Monahan 5. Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer REPORT — CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) 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: Carmen Contreras, and Ramon Martin RECOMMENDATION: City Council receive and file. AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — August 4, 2015 — PAGE 4 v.1, 07/29/15 3. WARRANT RESOLUTION NO. 2540 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, INCLUDING PAYROLL REGISTER NOS. 15-14 "A" FOR $2.74 AND 15-15 FOR $2,119,338.88; AND CITY OPERATING EXPENSES FOR $1,932,207.19; AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID — Finance Department RECOMMENDATION: Approve Warrant Resolution No. 2540, to be read by the title only, and waive further reading. 4. AWARD CONTRACT FOR DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN MONITORING SERVICES — Finance Department RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council award a contract for Deferred Compensation Plan monitoring services for one year to Benefit Funding Service Group ("BFSG"), in the total amount of $25,000, with an option to extend the contract in four one-year periods; and 2. City Council authorize the City Chief Executive Officer to sign and execute a professional services agreement with the selected firm, as approved by City Attorney's Office. 5. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING JULY 21, 2015 — Chief Executive Officer's Department/ City Clerk's Office RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the minutes. 6. CONVERSION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER POSITION TO PARK RANGER — Chief Executive Office RECOMMENDATION: City Council convert the newly created Code Enforcement Officer position approved in the FY 2015-16 adopted budget to an additional Park Ranger position within the Police Department. ----------------------------------- END OF CONSENT CALENDAR ----------------------------------- AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — August 4, 2015 — PAGE 5 v.1, 07/29/15 PUBLIC HEARINGS — 7:00 p.m. (Resolution No. 05-55): 1. PROPOSED 2015 UPDATE TO THE PARK IN -LIEU FEES (PARK FEES) —Planning Division/Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council give first reading to Ordinance No. 15-XX, to be read by title only, and waive further reading, to institute new park fees for apartment projects (multi -family residences, renter); and 2. City Council adopt Resolution 15-XX, to be read by title only, and waive further reading, to update the City's parkland impact fees for residential subdivisions and apartments, including the corresponding formula. 3. City Council provide direction to Staff regarding the park fee update and continue the meeting to a future specified date. 2. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CASE NO. PA-08- 27A1 TO AMEND AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A JEWELRY STORE WITH ANCILLARY PAWN SERVICES AT 1872 NEWPORT BOULEVARD — Planning Division/Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION: City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit PA-08-27A1 relating to certain conditions of approval for an existing jewelry store with ancillary pawn brokerage services at 1872 Newport Boulevard. 3. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-41: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF AN OUTDOOR FARMERS MARKET AT 183 E. BAY STREET (ST. JOHN THE DIVINE EPISCOPAL CHURCH) — Planning Division/Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION: City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve Planning Application PA-14-41 — A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the operation of a Farmers Market at an existing church (St. John the Divine Episcopal Church) from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays. AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — August 4, 2015 — PAGE 6 v.1, 07/29/15 4. FIRST READING OF THE CAPITAL ASSET NEEDS ORDINANCE — Finance Department RECOMMENDATION: City Council introduce for first reading, Ordinance No. 15-XX, to be read by title only, and waive further reading, regarding the Capital Asset Needs Ordinance. OLD BUSINESS: 1. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-08: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, 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 (R1) — Planning Division/ Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION: City Council give second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 15-08, to be read by title only, and waive further reading, to Rezone R-14-05 to rezone a 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family Residential District), for property located at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East. NEW BUSINESS: 1. URBAN MASTER PLAN SCREENING REQUEST (UMP-15-01) FOR A 10-UNIT DETACHED SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MESA WEST RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP URBAN PLAN LOCATED AT 527 AND 531 BERNARD STREET — Planning Division/Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION: City Council provide feedback on a proposed Urban Master Plan for a 2- and 3- story, 10-unit, detached, small lot residential development project within the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. 2. COUNCIL DIRECTION FOR ALLOCATION OF FIELD USE FEES — Chief Executive Office RECOMMENDATION: City Council provide direction to staff on allocation of field use fees paid by the Matt Leinart Flag Football Program. AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — August 4, 2015 — PAGE 7 v.1, 07/29/15 3. REQUEST FOR REFUND OF APPEAL FEE FOR ZA-15-01 — Chief Executive Officer's Office RECOMMENDATION: City Council provide direction responsive to the request for a refund of the appeal fee in the amount of $690.00 to Ms. Ann Parker. 4. DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE AND VOTING DELEGATE ALTERNATE FOR 2015 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE — CEO's Office/Administration RECOMMENDATION: City Council designate a member of the City Council as Costa Mesa's voting delegate and a voting delegate alternate for the 2015 League of California Cities Annual Conference. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR REPORT — CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES, EVENTS AND MEETINGS • Friday, August 7, 2015 from 5:30 p.m. — 7:30 p.m. — First Friday Road Show, Costa Mesa City Hall Parking Lot • Saturday, August 8, 2015, 10:30 a.m. — Cattle Drive, for more information, please visit www.ocfair.com • Sunday, August 9, 2015, 8:00 a.m. — 7t" Annual OC Fair 5K, for more information, please visit www.ocfair.com • Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. — Meet the Mayor — City Hall, Mayor's Office, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa • 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 • Friday, August 14, 2015, from 4:30 p.m. — 6:30 p.m. — Senior Center Summer Luau for more information, please visit www.costamesaca.gov • Saturday, August 15, 2015 from 11:00 a.m. — 1:30 p.m. — Girls Inc. Youth and Family Center — 1815 Anaheim Avenue, Costa Mesa. Enjoy free lunch and snacks, a bounce house, family fun activities, raffles, face painting, a dunk tank, and more! Learn about school year programming and meet your Girls Inc. staff. For more information please call (714) 597-8600. • Tuesday, August 18, 2015 — City Council Meeting Cancelled • Friday, August 21, 2015 from 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. — Walk with the Mayor — Residents can participate in the Walk and Talk with the Mayor for an approximately 90-minute walk. The group will meet at the Estancia High School parking lot adjacent to the tennis courts. For more information, please call (714) 754-5107. AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — August 4, 2015 — PAGE 8 v.1, 07/29/15 CITY OF COSTA MESA MAYOR'S AWARD DATE: AUGUST 4, 2015 PRESENTED TO: REINER COMMUNITIES/TOWER ON 19T" Scripf: Mayor: "Tonight, we have Sean Burrowes, Investment Director from Reiner Communities here to receive the Mayor's Award." "As you will see from the video, Reiner Communities has not only transformed and revitalized the former Bethel Towers senior housing hi -rise into the beautifully modernized "Tower on 19th"; but they have made it safer and kept it affordable. It's inspiring to see their vision come to life and its an honor to present Reiner Communities and the Tower on 19th with the Mayor's Award. Let's watch the video." Please play Video. After the video is complete, Mayor asks Sean to join him at the podium. Mayor presents certificate, and goodie bags and asks Sean if he would like to say a few words. After presentation is complete, asks Sean to join you at the front of the Chambers for the photo opp. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Tonight's City Council Meeting From: Janet Krochman Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 8:RM To: Mayor <Mayor@costamesaca.gov> Cc: RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIG HFIMFR@costamesaca.gov>; MONAHAN, GARY <GARY.MONAHAN@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Tonight's City Council Meeting Good Morning Gentlemen: will be speaking tonight on the City's Homeless Population and its impact on Harbor Blvd businesses (as that is my only direct area of knowledge). In the last week, I have had three visits to the office building at Baker & Harbor, one in the middle of the day. Two calls to CMPD-one resulted in arrests (I believe but have yet to confirm). The impact to my business alone has been substantial and it has been an issue since I moved in one year ago. I have worked with CMPD, the landlord and neighboring businesses but the issue only seems to be alleviated for a short time before it returns. have employee safety issues and client concerns on top of my own safety issues. I am hoping to work with the City in a more proactive way (as does my landlord) in addressing these issues. Thank You Janet Lee Krochman, CPA )h Special Olympics 1 W�A+qRLD GAMES LOS ANGELES 2015 Major sponsors Odd Fellows Calvary Chapel High school Mediterranean Village Apartments BLVD Hotel Torelli Realty Plums Cafe" and Catering D N� I Committee Members Special Thanks Jennipher Christ Tricia Wilkinson, Nicole Photoglou Dan Baker Mary and Tommy Abbott Kell Vucinic y Debbie Khronfeldt, Clare Werner Darah Martinez, Itzia Carvajal Fred Seguin Barbi Rouse, Megan Blatt Brenda Emrick LDS Church Group Diane Pritchett Sylvia Chalmers, Justin Martin David Vazquez Calvary High School Football and ASB Debra Wanbau h g OCC PTK, Jasmine Ezell Harbor Area Boys and Girls Club Karen Barloon Nilda, Nate, and Bella Manning Arlene Schafer Ashley Ocasio, Christian Hernandez, Stuart Shevchenko CMHS Cheer and Water Polo Kelly Shelton Estancia Cheer and Football Monica McDade Lea and Bill Lowe, Sam Swanson Muriell Ullman, Ian Bronswick Brad Long, Dane Bora Medal Count Team Aruba Gold = 12 Silver = 16 Bronze = 20 Team Bahamas Gold = 20 Silver = 25 Bronze = 12 �1 )h Special Olympics 1 W�A+qRLD GAMES LOS ANGELES 2015 CC-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Payment Date Remittance to: Remittance Payment Explanation of payment Ref. ID: Amount 0190111 7/17/15 CDW Government 5402 $3,008.94 What was this for and where? The monitor is for the Network Operations to display all network activity from one monitor for the entire room. Operations will be able to monitor network traffic, threats to the network and troubleshoot network flow issues for the City, the display will also be used for remote IT training within the department. 0190127 7/17/15 Enterprise FM Trust 23151 $4,274.03 What is this? Do we pay to a trust for this lease? Police Dept. Police vehicles - Enterprise FM Trust is the name/owner of the vehicles. 0190129 7/17/15 Express Pipe & Supply 10920 $11,877.93 What is an Acorn Silk? Where is it located? Co. Stainless steel toilets and sinks for Lion's Park restrooms. 0190239 7/24/15 Animal Pest Mgmt. 1049 $3,648.00 Do we have a problem or is this routine? Are their methods safe? Services We manage the populations of damaging rodents and a quarterly basis in parks or as needed if populations cause damage. It is routine maintenance. The materials used and the application methods are performed by State Licensed applicators in strict compliance with State and Federal regulations with oversight by the County Agricultural Commissioner's Office and direct supervision by City staff with similar licenses. The entire program and methods are reviewed by the Division Manager, who is also licensed Pest Control Advisor and Certified Applicator. It is safe for the applicators and the public. There is no risk to non -target pests, such as dogs, coyotes, raptors or other birds. 0190259 7/24/15 Brown & Bigelow 23552 $271.14 What were these t-shirts for? Recreation Neighborhood Homeless Solutions Task Force work shirts. 0190391 7/24/15 National Data & 21249 $225.00 What was this for? What is it? Surveying Services Public Services Transportation Traffic Data (Counts) Collection intersection of Labrador Dr., Samoa Place, and Monte Vista Ave. This is for traffic data collection conducted in order to respond to resident complaints on the above streets. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: August 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-3 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION DATE: July 28, 2015 FROM: Department of Finance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Dunivent at 714-754-5243 RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt Warrant Resolution No. 2540 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.15-14 "A" for $2.74, Payroll No. 15-15 for $2,119,338.88 and City operating expenses for $1,932,207.19. �Z��iGt WC- 'ObL1MAl P.tt�� STEPHEN DUNIVENT Interim Finance Director 1 Report ID: CCM2001 _ City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: COM1 Run Time 2:25:55 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date 000940 07/17/15 Status Remit To P Ariel Supply Inc Line Description: Toner Cartridge Toner Cartridge Toner Cartridge Toner Cartridge Toner Cartridge v.. 1:112,0.56+ 2,332.61+ 0�+ Remit ID 0000006035 Payment Amt 1,163.40 TOTAL $1,163.40 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: DDP1 Run Time 12:30:15 PM cle: ADIRDP Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 004002 07/17/15 P Costa Mesa Employees Association Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1515 004003 07/17/15 P Costa Mesa Executive Club Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1515 004004 07/17/15 P Costa Mesa Firefighters Association Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1515 004005 07/17/15 P Costa Mesa Police Association Line Description.: Payroll Deduction Check 1515 004006 07/17/15 P Costa Mesa Police Management Assn Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1515 Remit ID 0000006284 0000006286 0000001812 0000001819 Payment Amt 4,085.54 215.00 5,635.20 5,940.00 0000005082 200.00 TOTAL $16,075.74 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:32 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190095 07/17/15 P Arthur J Gallagher & Co 0000022226 428,620.02 Line Description: City Insurance Premium 15-16 0190096 07/17/15 P Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau 0000010346 207,031.35 Line Description: BIA Receipts for May 2015 0190097 07/17/15 P Keolis Transit Services LLC 0000023165 16,799.64 Line Description: Senior Medical Prog-Jun 2015 Senior Mobility ProgJun 15 0190098 07/17/15 P League of California Cities 0000002928 20,500.14 Line Description: 15116 Mbrshp Dues 0190099 07/17/15 P Southern California Edison Company 0000004088 101,239.15 Line Description: Street Lights -June 15 Medians 619-7/9/15 3192 Redhill 6/10-7110/15 19th/Npt 611-711/15 SD Fwy On/Off 6/1-711/15 1990 Placentia 6/8-718115 Park Maint 6/9-7/9115 BCC 619-7/9115 567 W 18th 6/9-719115 350 Bristol 6/11-7/13115 3191 Redhill 6/11-7/13/15 782 Shalimar 6110-7110115 Joann Bike Trail 6/1-7/1115 Baker/Royal Palm 611-711/15 Nprt Fwy/Baker 6/1-711/15 Sunflower/Plaza 6/1-7/1115 1587 Sunflower 6/10-7110115 2293 Canyon 619-719115 Signals 6/9-7/9/15 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 2 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:32 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190100 07/17/15 P Wigmore Insurance Agency Inc 0000021427 120,923.00 Line Description: Excess Wrkrs Comp Ins Rnwl 0190101 07/17/15 P AT & T 0000001107 2,589.69 Line Description: RMATS Fire Sta#2 6/4-7/3115 Estancia Park 6/3-7/2/15 IT Network Firewall 6/3-7/2/15 Broadband Modem 613-7/2/15 Outgoing Trunk Line 6/4-7/3/15 PD Emergency Line 6/4-7/3/15 Cable TV DSL Line 6/4-713/15 DRC Alarm 6/4-7/3115 City Internet Router 6/2015 Firewall Fire Sta#3 6/4-7/3115 Firewall Fire Sta#2 6/4-7/3/15 DID Trunk Line 614-7/3115 Outgoing Trunk Line 6/4-7/3/15 0190102 07/17/15 P AT & T Mobility 0000001107 170,65 Line Description: IT Cell Phone Usage 5/12-6111 0190103 07/17/15 P Accountemps 0000006816 4,869.69 Line Description: Temp Svs-Treasury wle 6/26115 Temp Svs-Budget w/e 7/3115 Temp Svs-Treasury w/e 7/3115 Temp Svs-Budget w/e 6126/15 0190104 07/17/15 P Allied Electronics Inc 0000000982 767.94 Line Description: Repair PA Amplifier/Microphone 0190105 07/17/15 P American Public Works Association 0000007215 550.00 Line Description: MicroPaver Maint Fee Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 3 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:32 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190106 07/17/15 P Arrowhead 0000015023 60.85 Line Description: Bottled Water 4 CC Mtng 0190107 07/17/15 P Arthur Cervantez 0000023651 8.00 Line Description: Refund Citation #K134461 0190108 07/17/15 P BC Traffic Specialist 0000022225 734.40 Line Description: Flexible Ground Mounted Signs 0190109 07/17/15 P Bruce Radomski 0000003742 404.80 Line Description: Criminal Subpoena Reimb 0190110 07/17/15 P CBE 0000015149 685A7 Line Description: Copier Overage Fee5/20-6119/15 Copier Overage Fee5/20-6119/15 0190111 07/17/15 P CDW Government Inc 0000005402 3,008,94 Line Description: Monitor Stand Sony Ultra TV Sales Tax (8.00%) Electronic Waste Fee Sales Tax (8.00%) Mount 0190112 07/17/15 P CSAC Excess Insurance Authority 0000010822 4,612.00 Line Description: 15/16 Pollution Liability Ins 0190113 07/17/15 P California Police Chiefs Association 0000001510 1,890.00 Line Description: 2016 Mbrshp-R Sharpnack Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 4 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:32 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190114 07/17/15 P Carl Warren & Company 0000001578 3,250.00 Line Description: Liability Claims Adm Fee-Jun15 0190115 07/17/15 P Central United Life Insurance Cc 0000010626 148.10 Line Description: Cancer Insurance Premium-Ju115 0190116 07/17/15 P Commercial Aquatic Services Inc 0000003018 348.71 Line Description: DRC Pool Chemicals DRC Pool Chemicals 0190117 07/17/15 P Complete Landscape Care Inc 0000022976 1,67498 Line Description: Install New Plants @Vista Pk Irrigation Repair@Estancia Pk 0190118 07/17/15 P Connell Chevrolet 0000001763 24.72 Line Description: Senspr-#777 0190119 07/17/15 P Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce 0000004963 5,000.00 Line Description: Sponsorship 2015 Golf Tournmt 0190120 07/17/15 P Costa Mesa Community Foundation 0000018443 10,000.00 Line Description: Sponsorship-2015 Concert In Pk 0190121 07/17/15 P - County of Orange District Attys Office 0000003485 720.34 Line Description: Money Seized-Narc Investigain 0190122 07/17/15 P Crop Production Services Inc 0000020562 1,504.96 Line Description: Organic Fertilizers Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 5 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:32 PM Cycle: MAWY Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190123 07/17/15 P DF Polygraph 0000021328 1,250.00 Line Description: Polygraph Exam 6/17-6122/15 0190124 07/17/15 P Discovery Benefits 0000021353 450.80 Line Description: Flexbl Spndg Admin Fee -Jun 15 0190125 07/17/15 P Dustin Cambell 0000023621 2,000.00 Line Description: Refund Permit #PS15-00249 0190126 07/17/15 P Entenmann Rovin Company 0000002130 27.12 Line Description: Name Bar 0190127 07/17/15 P Enterprise FM Trust 0000023151 4,274.03 Line Description: PD Monthly Lease -Jul 15 0190128 07/17/15 P Ewing Irrigation Products 0000005063 201.48 Line Description: Irrigation Supplies 0190129 07/17/15 P Express Pipe & Supply Co Inc 0000010920 11,877.93 Line Description: Acorn Sink Sales Tax (8.00 % ) 0190130 07/17/15 P Fed Ex Corp 0000002190 40.63 Line Description: Ground Delivery Ground Delivery Ground Delivery 0190131 07/17/15 P Ganahl Lumber Co 0000005246 146.86 Line Description: Sealent $ Training Tower Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 6 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:32 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190132 07/17/15 P Government Staffing Services Inc Line Description: Proi Mgt Temp Svs6/15-6/28/15 0190133 07/17/15 P Grainger Line Description: Ceiling Tiles Faucet Repair Kit Compressor Parts 0190134 07/17/15 P Graphic Decisions Line Description: 2015 Concert In Park Banners 0190135 07/17/15 P Haaker Equipment Company Line Description: Vactor Suction Pipe 0190136 07/17/15 P Idit Tadmor Line Description: Refund Permit #BC15-00568 0190137 07/17/15 P Irvine Ranch Water District Line Description: 258 Brentwood 618-7/1115 220 23rd St 6/6-7/1/15 261 Monte Vista 618-7/1/15 2603 Elden 6/8-711/15 170 Del Mar 6/8-7/1/15 0190138 07/17/15 P JD Lack & Key Line Description: Keys -#788 Keys-#788 0190139 07/17/15 P Jade Tran Line Description: Overpayment Inv#CITY68867 Remit ID 0000022422 0000002393 0000017773 0000002433 0000023650 0000005112 0000005930 0000023251 Payment Amt 3,960.00 EDUKI-➢1 4Y.itlDP1 1,002.66 tK(4bb1 525.87 73.58 786.39 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 7 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:5932 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190140 07/17/15 P Kellys Pool Service Line Description: DRC Pool Cleaning -Jun 15 0190141 07/17M5 P Kenny Dewan Line Description: Refund Permit #PA-15-21 0190142 07/17/15 P Knorr Systems Inc Line Description: CO2 Refill 4 DRC Pool 0190143 07/17/15 P Los Angeles Times Line Description: Ad 4 RFP 15-025 Parking Study Legal Notices for City Clerk 0190144 07/17/15 P Marin Consulting Associates Line Description: Post Trng-M Manson 8/5-8/7/15 0190145 07/17/15 P Matrix Imaging Products Inc Line Description: Microfilm Readers Lease 6/2015 0190146 07/17/15 P Matrix Imaging Products Inc Line Description: Microfilm Readers Lease 512015 0190147 07/17/15 P Mayflower Transit LLC Line Description: ICSC Booth DeliveryFreightChrg 0190148 07/17/15 P McMaster Carr Supply Company Line Description: Tire Inflator 4 Fleet Services Socket Clips Remit ID 0000013443 ;tPLIQ�Y7t%�7 0000005036 0000003000 0000014584 0000018324 DUI4llell- YZI 0000023632 0000003118 Payment Amt 270.00 1,550.00 327.04 1.882.84 .m 370.00 370.00 EIP111 R1 112.26 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. JPM SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,Bank: CITY Run Time 3:593 Cycle: MAW Y Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190149 07/17/15 P Melad & Associates 0000005068 467.39 Line Description: Building Plan Checking & Inspe 0190150 07/17/15 P Merchants Building Maintenance LLC 0000022950 239.00 Line Description: Canyon Park LockUp Svcs 6/2015 0190151 07/17/15 P Mesa Consolidated Water District 0000003144 7,888.70 Line Description: 1250 Gisler 5/11-7/8/15 2800 Fairview 5/6-7/6/15 2800 Fairview 5/6-7/6/15 3028 1/2 Coolidge 5/7-W7/15 3020 Fairview 5/7-717/15 3040 Fairview 5/7-7/7/15 333 112 Merrimac 516-716/15 425 112 Merrimac 5/6-7/6/15 1370 1/2 Adams 5/6-7/6/15 3116 Fairview 5/7-7/7/15 FS #2 5/12-7/9115 3030 1/2 Bristol 5112-7/9/15 3104 Fairivew 517-717/15 3098 Fairview 5/7-7/7/15 3064 Fairview 5/7-7f7/15 900 Arlington 5/6-7/6/15 890 Arlington 5/6-7/6/15 970 Arlington 516-716/15 880 Junipero 516-7/6115 2750 Fairview 516-716115 1480 1/2 Adams 5/6-716115 1250 1/2 Adams 5/6-7/6/15 1040 Paulanno 517-717115 2080 Manistee 5/12-719115 1066 BAker 517-7l7115 0190153 07/17/15 P Mesa Hose & Supply 0000003146 98.40 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 9 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:32 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Pressure Wash Gun Hose for Unit #517 0190154 07/17/15 P Mesa Smog Line Description: Smog Inspection for Unit #724 Smog Inspection for Unit #140 Smog Inspection for Unit #173 0190155 07/17/15 P Metro Car Wash Line Description: Car Washes & Special Svcs-PD Car Washes for City 0190156 07/17/15 P Meyers Nave Line Description: Legal -Fairview Park Legal -Fairview Park 0190157 07/17/15 P Michael Balliet Line Description: Annual Waste Hauler Audit 0190158 07/17/15 P Minion Gardens Inc Line Description: Repaired Raised Planter-Fairvw Landscaping Services June 2015 0190159 07/17/15 P Neopost USA Inc Line Description: Postage Ink Tapes & Pad 0190160 07/17/15 P Newport Harbor Locksmith Line Description: Misc Keys for Parks Staff 0190161 07/17/15 P North County Shootist Assn Line Description: Range Fees for SWAT Remit ID 0000020735 0000003155 0000022455 0000008858 0000017059 0000019859 0000003337 0000021999 Payment Amt 125.25 1,245.75 2,077.00 2,125.00 2,355.00 185.13 147.59 240.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 10 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:32 PM Cycle, Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190162 07/17/15 P O Neil Storage Line Description: HR Record Storage -June 2015 0190163 07/17/15 P O Reilly Automotive Inc Line Description: Oil Filters 4 Ambulances Stock Coils for Unit #768 0190164 07/17/15 P Occu Mad Line Description: Pre -Employment Exam Evaluation 0190165 07/17/15 P Orange Coast Chrysler Jeep Dodge Line Description: Oil Plug for Unit #501 0190166 07/17/15 P Orange County City Managers Assn Line Description: FY15-16 OCCMA Mtgs Dues 0190167 07/17/15 P Orange County Humane Society Line Description: Kennel Fees for June 2015 0190168 07/17/15 P Orange County Treasurer Tax Collector Line Description: Radio Repairs CM4 0190169 07/17/15 P Orange County Treasurer Tax Collector Line Description: Traffic Signal Maint Chrgs 0190170 07/17/15 P Praxair Line Description: Industrial Acetylene 4 Fleet Remit ID 0000018395 0000002978 0000003388 0000003457 [HQ1DDLMIAW". 0000003442 0000003489 0000003489 0000003672 Payment Amt 73.43 352.79 2,695.00 6.56 1,080.00 6,250.00 OIDY.➢ KfV61e 18.94 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 11 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 1s,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:32 PM Cycle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190171 07/17/15 P Pro Forma Advisors LLC 0000022224 3,500.00 Line Description: Lease Monitoring and Complianc 0190172 07/17/15 P Pro Growers Inc 0000023485 843.48 Line Description: Plants 4 Coolidge Ave Medians 0190173 07/17/15 P ProCare Work Injury Center 0000022662 629.68 Line Description: Industrial Medical Clinic Sew Industrial Medical Clinic Sew Industrial Medical Clinic Sew Industrial Medical Clinic Sew Industrial Medical Clinic Sew Industrial Medical Clinic Sew Industrial Medical Clinic Sew 0190174 07/17/15 P Pyxis Water Systems Inc 0000015837 1,700.00 Line Description: TeWinkle Lakes Aeration Tubing TeWinkle Lakes Aeration Tubing 0190175 07/17/15 P Quickstart Intelligence 0000017501 12,726.50 Line Description: In House Program Training In House Program Training In House Program Training In House Program Training In House Program Training Professional Development Train In House Program Training 0190176 07/17/15 P R & S Overhead Door of So Cal Inc 0000022092 4,772.53 Line Description: EMERGENCY REPAIR- FS#3 0190177 07/17/15 P Randstad Technologies LP 0000022571 12,70Z50 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 12 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:32 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Temp I T. Support Staff 0190178 07/17/15 P Red Wing Shoes Line Description: Safety Boots 4 Gant Corum Safety Boots 4 Parks Staff 0190179 07/17/15 P Siemens Industry Inc Line Description: Actuator Diaphragm Repairs 0190180 07/17/15 P Snap On Industrial Line Description: Shop Tools Finger Ratchet Ex Knife Black Allum 4 Fleet 0190181 07/17/15 P Southern California Association of Line Description: Dues for FY2015-16 0190182 07/17/15 P Sparkletts Line Description: Water Service for Finance Water Service for Fire 0190183 07/17/15 P Specialty Risk Insurance LLC Line Description: Summer Camp Liability Insuranc 0190184 07/17/15 P State of California Dept of Justice Line Description: Fingerprint Apps for June 2015 Fingerprint Apps for June 2015 Fingerprint Apps for May 2015 0190185 07/17/15 P T-Mobile USA Line Description: Cell Phone Location 4 PD Remit ID Payment Amt 0000003772 718.80 0000002904 984.16 0000012101 749,45 0000003937 10,462.00 0000015725 75.12 0000022743 3,628.50 0000001534 14,024.00 0000021384 100.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 13 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:32 PM Cycle, Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190186 07/17/15 P The Dumbell Man Fitness Equipment Line Description: Preventative Maint-FS#3 Preventative Maint-FS#1 0190187 07/17/15 P The Garland Company Inc Line Description: Roofing Materials for FS#3 Sales Tax (8.00%) Historical Society Roofing Mat Shipping Fee 0190188 07/17/15 P The Home Depot Credit Services Line Description: Misc Purchases for June 2015 0190189 07/17/15 P The Rules Guys LTC Line Description: Annual Maint. for "My Fire Rut 0190190 07/17/15 P Theodore Robins Ford Line Description: Mirror Assembly for Unit#140 0190191 07/17/15 P Time Warner Cable Line Description: Internet Services 7/17-8116115 Internet Services 7117-8116115 0190192 07/17/15 P Traveltech Enterprises Line Description: Deposit 4 Lake Arrowhead Trip 0190193 07/17/15 P Turf Time West Inc Line Description: Aerification-Jack Hammett SC Remit ID 0000023166 0000023333 0000002560 0000002952 0000004245 0000011202 0000022894 0000021403 Payment Amt 190.00 3,470.32 6,310.45 1,290.00 212.85 2,390.00 100.00 10,890.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 14 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:32 PM Cycle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190194 07/17/15 P US Postmaster 0000004377 10,000.00 Line Description: Standard Mail Fee 0190195 07/17/15 P Verizon Wireless 0000008717 3,372.14 Line Description: Broadband Swes thru June 2015 0190196 07/17/15 P Vulcan Materials Company 0000007403 437.41 Line Description: Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes 0190197 07/17/15 P Ware Disposal Inc 0000000255 349.68 Line Description: Hauling Fees-PromoCleanupEvent 0190198 07/17/15 P West Coast Artwear 0000023055 2,533.28 Line Description: Jerzee Brand Polo Shirts Sales Tax (8.00%) Shipping Fee/ 2 Boxes 0190199 07/17/15 P West Coast Fence Co 0000021495 2,935.00 Line Description: TW Sports Complex Fence Repair Welding Repairs-NCC & SrCntr Joann Bike Trail Fence Repairs Davis Fld Booster Pump Repairs TW Sports Complex Gate Repair Suburbua II Park Gate Repair Security Screening 4 Gate @ CY Wakeham Park Restrooms Repairs 0190200 07/17/15 P Williams Data Management 0000018803 362.50 Line Description: IT Data Storage for June 2015 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 15 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:32 PM Cycle' ainnn y Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190201 07/17/15 P Women in Leisure SNcs Inc -Gamma Chapter Line Description: 2015-16 Mbrshp Rnwl-A Ocasio Remit ID 0000010171 Payment Amt tlxxua TOTAL $1,112,590.66 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:15:33 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190202 07/17/15 P CalPERS Long -Term Care Program Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1515 0190203 07/17/15 P Carrie Beatteay Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1515 0190204 07/17/15 P Community Health Charities Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1515 0190205 07/17/15 P State of California Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1515 0190206 07/17/15 P State of California Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1515 0190207 07/17/15 P Tamra Williams Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1515 0190208 07/17/15 P United States Treasury Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1515 Remit ID Payment Amt 0000006287 228.07 0000023012 369.24 0000008015 10.00 0000001546 85.00 0000001546 254.00 0000002941 1,350.92 0000015556 85,38 TOTAL $2,382.61 End of Report Report ID: CCM20010 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 CCM OVERFLOW CHECK LISTING Run Date Jul 16,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:59:44 PM Cycle, mnrui v Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190152 07/17/15 O Mesa Consolidated Water District Line Description: Overflow Remit ID 0000003144 Payment Amt 1M TOTAL D_DO End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: COM1 Run Time 2:30:43 PM Cycle: ACOMMI Payment Ref Date 000941 07/24/15 000942 07/24/15 000943 07/24/15 000944 07/24/15 Status Remit To P Apple One Employment Services Line Description: Temp Svs-Eng 6/15-6119/15 Temp Svs-Cntrl Svs6/22-6/26/16 Temp Svs-Eng 6115-6119/15 Temp Svs-Eng 6/22-6/25115 Temp Svs-Cntrl Svs 6/15-6/19 Temp Svs-Eng 6/22-6126115 P Ariel Supply Inc Line Description: Toner Cartridges Toner Cartridges Toner Cartridges P Hub Auto Supply Line Description: Auto Parts -June 2015 P Ware Disposal Inc Line Description: Refuse & Recycling Svcs-Jun15 p• �+ �SQ•uCil- 17 ,» Q'7r pv7 Remit ID Payment Amt 0000001055 5.586.52 0000006035 904.86 0000002584 2,380.33 0000000255 918.00 TOTAL $9,789.71 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 21,2015 Bank: CITY Cvcle� 01 i rvn Run Time 9:52:53 AM Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190209 07/21/15 P Rene Macias Line Description: 2015 CEO Leadership Award Remit ID 0000000536 Payment Amt 250.00 TOTAL $250.00 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190210 07/24/15 P AssetWorks Inc Line Description: Fleet Focus Software Upgrade 0190211 07/24/15 P Athletic Field Specialists Line Description: Furnish & Apply Topdressing Herbicide Application-Apr15 Herbicide Application-May15 0190212 07/24/15 P Clean Street Line Description: Street Sweeping Svs-May 15 Pressure Wash Sidewalk-Jun15 0190213 07/24/15 P Emergency Vehicle Group Inc Line Description: Sales Tax (8.00 %) Vehicle Outfitting Vehicle Outfitting Sales Tax (8.00%) 0190214 07/24/15 P G4S Secure Solutions Inc Line Description: Jail Svs 6/1-6/29/15 0190215 07/24/15 P LINA Line Description: Premium for July 2015 Administrative Fee June 2015 0190216 07/24/15 P Moore lacofano Goltsman Inc Line Description: GP Update & Environmental Repo 0190217 07/24/15 P Siemens Industry Inc Line Description: Traffic Signal CallOuts 4/2015 Fair/Vanguard Signal KnockDown Remit ID 0000020210 0000023215 0000001098 DlbPUYic3[�b7 0000022480 0000015623 000.0016407 0000002904 Payment Amt 17,988.00 19,780.80 58,524.98 42,330 36 61,038.51 20,041,07 69,506.15 44,548.25 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 2 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY _ Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: Traffic Signal Call Outs612015 Traffic Signal Maint June 2015 0190218 07/24/15 P Southern California Edison Company 0000004088 49,264.97 Line Description: Fac & Equip 5/28-6/26/15 360 Ogle 6/12-7/14/15 401 Broadway 6117-7117115 199 Broadway 6/17-7/17/15 0190219 07/24/15 P Target Specialty Products Inc 0000004218 15,175.90 Line Description. Soil Tests 4 Sportsfields Chemicals 4 TW Lakes & Parks Chemicals for Sportsfields Soil Amendments 4 Sportfields Chemicals 4 TW Lakes & Parks Fertilizers for Sportfields 0190220 07/24/15 P A & A Fluid Power LLC 0000021300 870.14 Line Description: Hydraulic Repair 0190221 07/24/15 P ARCO Business Solutions 0000018562 234.81 Line Description: Fuel 711-7115115 0190222 07/24/15 P AT & T 0000001107 214.79 Line Description: Smallwood Park 6/6-7/5/15 IT Computer Room 617-716/15 TeWnkle Park 617-716115 Cool Line for PD 6/7-7/6115 RMATS Fire Sta#1 617-7/6115 Firewall FireSta#1 6/10-719/15 Wakeham Park 6/10-7/9/15 0190223 07/24/15 P AT & T 0000001107 481.59 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 3 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Cool Line for PD 717-8/6/15 911 Cama Trunks 7/14-8/13115 Cool Line for PD 7/7-8/6/15 0190224 07/24/15 P Academic Academies Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190225 07/24/15 P Adriana Rodriguez Line Description: Refund Permit 2001961.002 0190226 07/24/15 P Agromin OC LLC Line Description: Mulch 4 City Sites Mulch 4 City Sites 0190227 07/24/15 P Aikido Federation of California Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190228 07/24/15 P Albert Grover & Associates Inc Line Description: Baker/Placentia TSSP-Jun 15 0190229 07/24/15 P Alexandre Schafnitz Line Description: Refund Citation K130680 0190230 07/24/15 P All City Management Services Inc Line Description: Schl Crsng Gurad 6/7-6/20115 0190231 07/24/15 P Alliance Member Services Line Description: Yrly Insurance Premium Remit ID 0000022733 0000023691 0000021587 0000000937 0000014065 PI4oPD➢R71AGI 0000009480 0000021478 Payment Amt 1,222.65 6111191 1,328.40 204.40 11,590.00 111.50 7,836.01 1,940.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 4 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190232 07/24/15 P Allied Nationwide Security Inc 0000022698 2,466.86 Line Description: Sr Cntr Security 6/1-6/15115 Sr Cntr Security 6116-6/30/15 0190233 07/24/15 P American Alarm Systems Inc 0000008900 510.00 Line Description: BCC Security Monitoring NCC Security Monitoring DRC Fire&Security Monitoring 0190234 07/24/15 P Americas Instant Signs 0000021240 5,324.47 Line Description: ADA Door Signs Elevator Door Signs Graphic Design Svs No Smoking Signs Sales Tax (8.00 % ) Installation Svs ADA Restroom Door Signs ADA Restroom Wall Signs 0190235 07/24/15 P Anaheim Regional Medical Center 0000021276 750.00 Line Description: Victim Physical -Case #15-7594 0190236 07/24/15 P AndersonPenna Partners Inc 0000021535 4,343.00 Line Description: Bristol Median Proj 5/30-6125 0190237 07/24/15 P Angel Rodas 0000023717 30.00 Line Description: Rfnd Purged Letter Request 0190238 07/24/15 P Angelica Kroesch 0000023712 190.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2002031.002 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 5 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190239 07/24/15 P Animal Pest Management Services Inc 0000001049 3,64&00 Line Description: Rodent Control Insptn@TW-Junl5 Rodent Ctrl @ TW Pk -June 15 Rodent Cntrl@TW Pk -Jun 15 0190240 07/24/15 P Ann C Perry 0000023548 100.00 Line Description: Sr Commission Mtng-Jul 15 0190241 07/24/15 P Ann Williams 0000023700 19.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001994.002 0190242 07/24/15 P Anne Lynaugh 0000023692 158.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 20019644.002 0190243 07/24/15 P Antonia Cruz 0000023686 250.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001945.002 0190244 07/24/15 P Audrey Riordan 0000023688 68.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001948.002 0190245 07/24/15 P Bank of America -Account Analysis 0000001173 3,059.65 Line Description: Acct Analysis Fee Apr -Jun 15 0190246 07/24/15 P Barbara Anderson 0000012650 79.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001952.002 0190247 07/24/15 P Barbara Burks 0000001280 806.00 Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 6 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190248 07/24/15 P Barbara Hoffman Line Description: Refund Permit 2002039.002 0190249 07/24/15 P Barbara Hogan Line Description_ Refund Permit 2001955.002 0190250 07/24/15 P Barry Knapp Line Description: Refund Permit 2002016.002 0190251 07/24/15 P Bee Busters Inc Line Description: Bee Removal Bee Removal Bee Removal 0190252 07/24/15 P Bermi Bijanjan Line Description: Refund Permit 2002036.002 0190253 07/24/15 P Berta Apolonio Delgado Line Description: Rfnd Purged Letter Request 0190254 07/24/15 P Bestway Laundry Solutions Line Description: Dryer Repair @ Jail 0190255 07/24/15 P Betty McDaniels Line Description: Refund Permit 2001990.002 0190256 07/24/15 P Bound Tree Medical LLC Line Description: Paramedic Supplies Paramedic Supplies Paramedic Supplies Remit ID 0000023721 0000023132 0000023709 0000007572 0000023719 0000023718 0000001257 0000023698 0000011695 Payment Amt 15.00 79.00 I&WAi 330.00 IiImA➢1 30.00 144.00 19.00 11,470.29 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 7 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: Paramedic Supplies Paramedic Supplies Paramedic Supplies 0190257 07/24/15 P Branch Knox 0000020652 441.03 Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190258 07/24/15 P Brianne Harber 0000023609 100.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001944.002 0190259 07/24/15 P Brown & Bigelow Inc 0000023552 271.14 Line Description: Sales Tax (8.00) T-Shirts for Neighborhood Solo T-Shirt Shipping Fee SetUpCharge 0190260 07/24/15 P C2 Imaging 0000023024 135.14 Line Description: Bear/Bristol Proj Plan Copies FS #2 Remodling Plan Copies 0190261 07/24/15 P CNC Engineering Inc 0000008798 5,380.00 Line Description: Redhill Median Proj-Jun 15 0190262 07/24/15 P CS Dance Factory 0000021618 666.25 Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190263 07/24/15 P California Forensic Phlebotomy Inc 0000001500 6,072.00 Line Description: Blood Test Svs-Jun 2015 0190264 07/24/15 P Candy Davis 0000023408 143.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 8 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190265 07/24/15 P Carlyn Cirillo Line Description: Refund Permit 2002029.002 0190266 07/24/15 P Carol Keller Richards Line Description: Refund Permit 2001980.002 0190267 07/24/15 P Carol Ranney Line Description: Refund Permit 2001991.002 0190268 07/24/15 P Carole Mangels Line Description: Refund Permit 2002041.002 0190269 07/24/15 P Carolyn Howard Line Description: Refund Permit 2001988.002 0190270 07/24/15 P Celia Ochoa Line Description: Refund Permit 2001958.002 0190271 07/24/15 P Chad Harden Line Description: Refund Permit 2002018.002 0190272 07/24/15 P Charla Kahane Line Description: Refund Permit 2002002.002 0190273 07/24/15 P Cherie Thiers Line Description: Instructor PymntSummer 15 Remit ID Payment Amt 0000023711 32.00 0000022510 100.00 0000023699 19.00 0000023722 60.00 0000023697 19.00 0000011239 75.00 0000023710 306.00 0000023704 87.00 0000003185 87.75 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 9 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: MAW Y Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190274 07/24/15 P Cheron Weimholt 0000023705 97.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2002008.002 0190275 07/24/15 P Cheryl Skidmore 0000012479 287.35 Line Description: Instructor Pymm-Summer 15 0190276 07/24/15 P Christine Flanagan 0000023695 100.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001982.002 0190277 07/24/15 P Claire Owen 0000023706 80.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2002012.002 0190278 07/24/15 P Clyde McCoy 0000023714 100.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2002033.002 0190279 07/24/15 P Coast Transmission 0000001704 - 2,269.76 Line Description: Transmission Rebuilt-#763 0190280 07/24/15 P Coastline Community College 0000000396 1,820.00 Line Description: Bilingual Cert Test-7/11/15 0190281 07/24/15 P Colettes Childrens Home 0000011850 2,317.70 Line Description: CDBG 4th Qtr 2014-15 Grant 0190282 07/24/15 P Commercial Aquatic Services Inc 0000003018 178.20 Line Description: DRC Pool Chemical 0190283 07/24/15 P Community SeniorSery 0000018540 10,000.00 Line Description- CDBG 4th Qtr 2014-15 Grant Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 10 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM C cle: Payment Rat Date Status Remit To Line Description: CDBG 4th Qtr 2014-15 Grant 0190284 07/24/15 P Complete Landscape Care Inc Line Description: Irrigation Repair-Yukon/Bear 0190285 07/24/15 P Costa Mesa Lock & Key Line Description: Duplicate Keys 4 Code Enfrcmnt 0190286 07/24/15 P Crime Point Inc Line Description: Sales Tax (8.00%) Surveillance System Hermitcam Shipping Fee 0190287 07/24/15 P Crop Production Services Inc Line Description: Seed & Soil 4 Sports Fields 0190288 07/24/15 P Crystal Glass Inc Line Description: Anti Graffitti Film on Mirroar 0190289 07/24/15 P Culver Newlin Inc Line Description. Deliver & Install Deskmaker Personal File Sales Tax (8.00%) 0190290 07/24/15 P Cynthia Hill Line Description: Refund Permit 2002037.002 0190291 07/24/15 P Daniels Tire Service Line Description: Tiers-#311 Remit ID 0000022976 0000001817 0000018424 0000020562 0000001885 0000021554 0000018891 0000001922 Payment Amt 7,004.02 11611" 10,619.00 1,386.72 505.00 529.20 61.00 661.31 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 11 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190292 07/24/15 P Data Ticket Inc 0000010929 7,664.52 Line Description: Parking Citation Presng-Jun 15 0190293 07/24/15 P Dave's Body & Frame 0000021567 3,254.82 Line Description: Body Repair-#717 0190294 07/24/15 P David Muhonen 0000023716 225.00 Line Description: Refund AL22384 0190295 07/24/15 P Dawna Banse 0000001185 1,27628 Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190296 07/24/15 P Debra Haynes 0000023693 83.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001966.002 0190297 07/24/15 P Department of Conservation 0000001530 6,242.76 Line Description: SMIP Fees Collected Apr-Jun15 0190298 07/24/15 P Diana Meyer 0000002309 60.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001960.002 0190299 07/24/15 P Dog Dealers Inc 0000002018 794.30 Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190300 07/24/15 P Donna Wright 0000023701 19.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001996.002 0190301 07/24/15 P Dorothy Burgard 0000023696 19.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001987.002 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 12 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190302 07/24/15 P Dunn Edwards Corp Line Description: Graffiti Supplies 0190303 07/24/15 P ECE Construction Services Line Description: HarborNictoria Sidewalk Instl 0190304 07/24/15 P Edith Arciga Line Description: Refund Permit 2001946.002 0190305 07/24/15 P Elizabeth A Markley Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190306 07/24/15 P Elizabeth Sachs Line Description: Refund Permit 2002035,002 0190307 07/24/15 P Entenmann Rovin Company Line Description: Name Bars 0190308 07/24/15 P Enterprise Rent A Car Line Description: Undercover Cars Undercover Cars Undercover Cars Undercover Cars Undercover Cars 0190309 07/24/15 P FTOG Inc Line Description: Special Proj Cnsltng 716-7116 Remit ID Payment Amt 0000002058 10.61 0000021705 1,600.00 0000023687 500.00 0000023213 169.00 0000019779 85.00 0000002130 qq 78 0000002131 5,950.80 0000021401 3,296.88 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 13 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 2-3 2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190310 07/24/15 P Fair Housing Foundation 0000019956 5,28T38 Line Description: CDBG 4th Qtr 2014-15 Grant 0190311 07/24/15 P Felice Ilkcagla 0000005927 478.40 Line Description: Instructor PymntSummer 15 0190312 07/24/15 P File Keepers LLC 0000022380 95.00 Line Description: Records Destruction -Jun 2015 0190313 07/24/15 P GIT Satellite LLC 0000019742 58.09 Line Description: Satellite Phone 5120-6/19/15 0190314 07/24/15 P Geneva Lind 0000023703 67.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2002001.002 0190315 07/24/15 P Golden West College 0000002367 800.00 Line Description: 2015-16 Legal Update Sbscrtn 0190316 07/24/15 P Government Staffing Services Inc 0000022422 5,195.00 Line Description: Temp Svs-Proj Mgnt 6129-7110 Temp Svs-HR 6/29-719/15 0190317 07/24/15 P Grainger 0000002393 1,736.32 Line Description: Air Compressor Air Compressor Shelves 4 Chemical Room 0190318 07/24/15 P Graphic Solutions Ltd 0000023423 4,402.64 Line Description: Design Consulting SvsJun 15 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 14 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190319 07/24/15 P Graybar Electric Company Inc Line Description: CY Propane Proj CY Propane Project CY Propane Project CY Propane Project CY Propane Project CY Propane Project 0190320 07/24/15 P HD Supply Waterworks Line Description: Fire Hydrant Water Mtr 0190321 07/24/15 P Harold & Justine Richards Foundation Line Description: Refund Permit 2001959.002 0190322 07/24/15 P Healthy U Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190323 07/24115 P Hillary Coleman Line Description: Refund Permit 2002027.002 0190324 07/24/15 P Hirenght Inc Line Description: Background Check AppJun 15 0190325 07/24/15 P Hughes Encon Line Description: Sliding Door Replacement 0190326 07/24/15 P Hyatt Legal Plans Inc Line Description: Legal Premium -July 15 Remit ID ulanlmn 1ARYA 0000021480 0000022805 0000012092 0000021627 0000021348 0000022431 0000022383 Payment Amt 1,112.33 702.00 500.00 231.40 M [ kIrA1 3,640.00 1,852.50 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 15 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: AWKI Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190327 07/24/15 P Ikuyo Geiman 0000002211 75.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001956.002 0190328 07/24/15 P Industrial Shoe Company 0000008272 165.00 Line Description: Safety Boots-E Gomez 0190329 07/24/15 P International Business Machines Carp 0000002617 6,600.00 Line Description: Remote Integration Sys 0190330 07/24/15 P Interstate Batteries of California Coast 0000002700 435.13 Line Description: Batteries Batteries -#793 0190331 07/24/15 P Janet Lee Krochman 0000015813 100.00 Line Description: Sr Commission Mtng-Jul 15 0190332 07/24/15 P Janet Millian 0000007795 2,262.00 Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190333 07/24/15 P Janis King 0000020323 45.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001999.002 0190334 07/24/15 P Jean Anderson 0000023694 19.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001968.002 0190335 07/24/15 P Jeff Rasmussen 0000022a30 135.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001984.002 0190336 07/24/15 P Jennifer Knox - 0000023720 328.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 16 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: MAW Y Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Refund Permit 2002033.002 0190337 07/24/15 _ P Jennifer Pulford Line Description: Refund Permit 2002013.002 0190338 07/24/15 P Jerry Hildeman Line Description: Crisis Intervention Trng-JH 0190339 07/24/15 P Jessica Conder Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190340 07/24/15 P Joel Lander Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190341 07/24/15 P John S McGinn Line Description: Sr Commission Ming -Jul 15 0190342 07/24/15 P Josefina Alvarado Line Description: Refund Permit 2001954.002 0190343 07/24/15 P Joyce Patrick Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190344 07/24/15 P Julie Guzman Line Description: Refund Permit 2002015.002 0190345 07/24/15 P KME Fire Apparatus Line Description: Bulb-#525 Remit ID 0000023707 0000008276 0000011010 0000023597 0000023386 0000023690 0000021362 0000023708 0000002949 Payment Amt 80.00 96.76 462.15 6ES-31 inU7/D1 350.00 343.00 149.00 137.38 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 17 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190346 07/24/15 P Kabbara Engineering 0000002795 7,383.00 Line Description: On -Call Eng Svs-May 15 0190347 07/24/15 P Kaitlyn Betts 0000022784 104.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2002011.002 0190348 07/24/15 P Karen S Goettsch 0000013935 40.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001998.002 0190349 07/24/15 P Kathleen Castagnoli 0000023689 135.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2001949.002 0190350 07/24/15 P Kathy Crogan 0000023702 40.00 Line Description: Refund Pennit 2001997,002 0190351 07/24/15 P Kathy Haney 0000013233 109.20 Line Description: Instructor Pymnt-Summer 15 0190352 07/24/15 P Kelley Stokes 0000023713 67.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2002032.002 0190353 07/24/15 P Kelly Paper 0000014703 163.99 Line Description: Paper for Printing 0190354 07/24/15 P Kern Mits 0000022885 108.00 Line Description: Refund Permit 2002006.002 0190355 07/24/15 P Keystone Uniforms OC 0000022280 8,370.35 Line Description: Patch Retrofit teport ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 17 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Sank: CITY _ycle: gINKi v Run Time 4:16:55 PN Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: Uniform -Naranjo Uniform-Jiminez Uniform-Korte Uniform -McCarthy Uniform-Colunga Uniform-Chawla Uniform-Richie Uniform -Kim - Uniform-Richie Uniform-Korte Uniform -Kim Uniform -Gardner Unifonn-Ranck Uniform-Poldruhi Uniform -Potts Uniform -Molina Credit 4 Patches Patches Uniform-Sharpnack Uniform-Novikoff Uniform-Poldmhi Uniform-Richie Uniform -Holt Uniform -Guenther Uniform-Bao 0190357 07/24/15 P Kirk D Bauermeister 0000021906 100.00 Line Description: Sr Commission Mtng-Jul 15 0190358 07/24/15 P Knorr Systems Inc 0000005036 654.08 Line Description: DRC Pool Chemicals DRC Pool Chemicals 0190359 07/24/15 P Kristin P Thompson 0000023267 1,332.50 Line Description: Paramedic Skills Review 5/2-16 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 19 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle' Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190360 07/24/15 P Kyocera Line Description: Copier Maint 71115-6/30/16 0190361 07/24/15 P Larry Kaban Line Description: Instructor Payment Summer 2015 0190362 07/24/15 P Larrys Building Materials Line Description: Sand 4 Resident Emerg SandBags 0190363 07/24/15 P Leo Arnold Line Description: Background Investigation Srvcs Background Investigation Srvcs Background Investigation Srvcs Background Investigation Snics 0190364 07/24/15 P LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc Line Description: OnlineComputerSubscriptn6/2015 0190365 07/24/15 P Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Line Description: Legal-2014 POA Negotiations Legal-2014 Fire Negotiations Legal-CMCEA Legal-2014 FMA Negotiations 0190366 07/24/15 P Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Line Description: Webinar Registration-L Chon 0190367 07/24/15 P Linda Leone Line Description: Refund Permit#53363 Refund Rec Trac Dep Ref #748 Remit ID OUPPP➢I�Ylic? 0000002794 0000002912 0000022194 0000019179 0000002960 0000002960 0000023683 Payment Amt 863.52 116TO& 59.40 4,000.00 288.00 2,437.50 55.00 250.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 20 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle, Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190368 07/24/15 P Lisa Bohan Johnston Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002047,002 0190369 07/24/15 P Loomis Line Description: Armored Car Services June 2015 0190370 07/24/15 P Lorene Bruneau Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001986.002 0190371 07/24/15 P Los Angeles Times Line Description: Ad 4 Planning Division 0190372 07/24/15 P Luz Esquivel Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001979.002 0190373 07/24/15 P Mabel Caldwell Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002000.002 0190374 07/24/15 P Margaret Sandmeyer Dodge Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002002.002 0190375 07/24/15 P Margarito Garcia Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001943.002 0190376 07/24/15 P Margie White Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002045.002 Remit ID 0000023656 0000019082 0000023657 0000003000 0000023658 0000023659 0000023660 0000023661 0000023106 Payment Amt 270.00 710.81 IM1111 112.63 104.00 96.00 100.00 250.00 56.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 21 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle' Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190377 07/24/15 P Maria L D'Angelo 0000020378 94.25 Line Description: Instructor Payment Summer 2015 0190378 07/24/15 P Marianna Pena 0000023662 108.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002007.002 0190379 07/24/15 P Matt Sheridan 0000020379 75.08 Line Description: Instructor Payment Summer 2015 0190380 07/24/15 P McMaster Carr Supply Company 0000003118 89.67 Line Description: Supplies -Aluminum U-Channel 0190381 07/24/15 P Mercy House 0000003138 2.852.00 Line Description: CDBG Subrecipient Agreement 0190382 07/24/15 P Mesa Hose & Supply 0000003146 3480 Line Description: Hose for Unit #344 0190383 07/24/15 P Mesa Smog 0000020735 83.50 Line Description: Smog Inspection for Unit #511 Smog Inspection for Unit #068 0190384 07/24/15 P Mike Linares Inc 0000002969 2,117.50 Line Description: CDBG/HOME Prog Swcs 3/17-4/26 0190385 07/24/15 P Mike Raahauges Shooting Enterprises 0000006853 60.00 Line Description: Range Fees for June 2015 0190386 07/24/15 P Motorola 0000003246 74974 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 22 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: Remote Speaker Mic 0190387 07/24/15 P Municipal Code Corporation 0000003257 249.51 Line Description: Muni Code Updates Update and Hosting of Municipa 0190388 07/24/15 P Municipal Emergency Services Inc 0000021524 9.277.21 Line Description: Air Pack 75 Sales Tax (8.00 % ) 0190389 07/24/15 P Nancy Coar 0000023663 103.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001957.002 0190390 07/24/15 P Nancy Worthington 0000023664 19.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001995,002 0190391 07/24/15 P National Data & Surveying Services 0000021249 225.00 Line Description: Data Collection Svs June 2015 0190392 07/24/15 P National Safety Compliance Inc 0000020714 73.95 Line Description: Random Drug & Alcohol Testing 0190393 07/24/15 P Neria Novelo 0000023665 60.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002003.002 0190394 07/24/15 P Newegg Inc 0000021503 68.75 Line Description: Computer Cables 0190395 07/24/15 P Newport Mesa Unified School District 0000003339 4,638.94 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 23 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Developer Fees for June 2015 0190396 07/24/15 P Nexus IS Inc Line Description: Meraki Enterprise Subscription 0190397 07/24/15 P Niki Parker Line Description: Instructor Payment Summer 2015 0190398 07/24/15 P Nonko Zaitsu Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001942,002 0190399 07/24/15 P Norman A Traub Associates Inc Line Description: HR Investigative Svcs June2015 0190400 07/24/15 P Norman Snow Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001992.002 0190401 07/24/15 P Nxtec USA LLC Line Description: Shop Tools for Fleet Services 0190402 07/24/15 P OC Playball Line Description: Instructor Payment Summer 2015 0190403 07/24/15 _ P Office Max Incorporated Line Description: Office Supplies -Bldg Safety Office Supplies -CEO Comm&Marke Office Supplies -Finance Admin Office Supplies -Fleet Services Office Supplies-PublicSvcsAdmn Office Supplies-Rec NCC Office Supplies -Transportation Remit ID Payment Amt 0000023553 5,301.00 0000002913 8.13 0000023666 318.00 0000013815 3,037.60 0000023667 19.00 0000020180 201.02 0000020534 185.25 0000020710 2,728A5 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 24 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Office Supplies-Rec DRC Office Supplies-PD Records Office Supplies -Fire Admin Office Supplies -CEO 0190404 07/24/15 P Onward Engineering Line Description: Placentia Ave. Median Design S 0190405 07/24/15 P Orange Coast Trailer Supply Inc Line Description. Propane Fuel for Unit #311 Propane Fuel for Unit #311 Propane Fuel for Unit #311 Propane Fuel for Unit #189 Propane Fuel for Unit #311 Propane Fuel for Unit #189 Propane Fuel for Unit #340 0190406 07/24/15 P Orange County Fire Authority Line Description: FY15/16 GIS/AVL Coop Agreement 0190407 07/24/15 P Orange County Probation Department Line Description: Juvenile Court Work Prog6/2015 0190408 07/24/15 P Orange County Treasurer Tax Collector Line Description: Radio Repairs CM1 June 2015 0190409 07/24/15 P Orange County Treasurer Tax Collector Line Description: Radio Repairs CM2 June 2015 0190410 07/24/15 P Orange County Vector Control District Line Description: Fairview Park Vector Control Remit ID 0000003212 DnnDnilp.IM 0000003487 0000003491 0000003489 0000003489 0000021750 Payment Amt 8,928.00 782.46 2,080.23 2,103,16 22.00 1,891.68 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 25 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM C cle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190411 07/24/15 P Pacific Municipal Consultants Line Description: Consulting Svs for Group Home 0190412 07/24/15 P Pacific Sod Line Description: Extra Sod 4 Jack Hammett SC 0190413 07/24/15 P Par West Turf Services Inc Line Description: Turf Colorant for City Sites Spools of Yellow Rope 0190414 07/24/15 P Pat Hill Line Description: Instructor Payment Summer 2015 0190415 07/24/15 P Performance Awards Marketing Inc Line Description: 25 Yr Gift for G Clark 0190416 07/24/15 P Peter Sinajon Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002014.002 0190417 07/24/15 P Pringles Line Description: FS#4 Blinds Repair FS#1 Blinds Repair 0190418 07/24/15 P Pro Growers Inc Line Description: Plants 4 Coolidge Ave Medians 0190419 07/24/15 P Pyxis Water Systems Inc Line Description: Tewinkle Park Lakes Prev Maint Remit ID 0000023085 0000023684 0000012220 0000002532 0000017977 0000023668 0000003683 0000023485 0000015837 Payment Amt 5,400.00 199.26 855,88 40Z55 WI&AM 87.00 614.10 CXi.Z:f17 2,275.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 26 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190420 07/24/15 P Quickstart Intelligence Line Description: In House Program Training 0190421 07/24/15 P R & S Overhead Door of So Cal Inc Line Description: Emergency Repair- Police Yard 0190422 07/24/15 P RJM Design Group Inc Line Description: Open Space Master Plan Update 0190423 07/24/15 P Randee Loya Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001953.002 0190424 07/24/15 P Red Wing Shoes Line Description: Safety Boots 4 Valente Martine 0190425 07/24/15 P Rescue Pros LLC Line Description: ParamedicSkills ACLS/PALS Crse 0190426 07/24/15 P Rick Francis Line Description: College Tuition Reimb-Springl5 0190427 07/24/15 P Ricoh USA Inc Line Description: CEO Copier Addtl Usage Jun2015 0190428 07/24/15 P Robert G Patterson Line Description: Instructor Payment Summer 2015 Remit ID Payment Amt 0000017501 1,416.00 0000022092 2,380.68 0000010813 7,191.30 0000023669 80.00 0000003772 165.00 0000023572 1,200.00 0000002341 1,061.00 0000007311 24.66 0000014499 214.50 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 27 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190429 07/24/15 P Rock Star Music Studios 0000015839 577.50 Line Description: Instructor Payment Summer 2015 0190430 07/24/15 P Rodrigo Martinez Garcia 0000023398 100.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002034.002 0190431 07/24/15 P Roy Center 0000002158 975.66 Line Description: Instructor Payment Summer 2015 0190432 07/24/15 P Ryan Lee 0000022993 146.25 Line Description: Instructor Payment Summer 2015 0190433 07/24/15 P SCEL Properties 0000002320 3,095.00 Line Description: Refund Permit #PA-14-38 Refund Permit #PM-14-08 0190434 07/24/15 P Sameer S Gavankar 0000023670 5.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002010.002 0190435 07/24/15 P Sandra M Lozano 0000017494 146.90 Line Description: Crisis Intervention Trng-SL 0190436 07/24/15 P Sandy Waite 0000023110 30.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002043.002 0190437 07/24/15 P Santa Ana College 0000003752 1,398.10 Line Description: Post Tmg-Pre Academy 0190438 07/24/15 P Santa Margarita Ford 0000022708 236.93 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 28 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Engine Repairs Unit#092 0190439 07/24/15 P Scientia Consulting Group Inc Line Description: On -Site Tecnical Support 0190440 07/24/15 P Setsuko Masuda Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001989.002 0190441 07/24/15 P Shadi McMillan Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002004.002 0190442 07/24/15 P Shana Contreras Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001962.002 0190443 07/24/15 P Sharon Silcock Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002042.002 0190444 07/24/15 P Sharon Spearing Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001993.002 0190445 07/24/15 P Shawn Mead Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001981.002 0190446 07/24/15 P Shirley Brisacher Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001985.002 0190447 07/24/15 P Shred -It USA LLC Line Description: Document Destruction 4 Finance Remit ID 0000021410 0000023671 0000004419 0000023672 tmn 611YA1rs1 0000023673 0000023682 0000023674 0000023556 Payment Amt 6,880.00 19.00 145.00 76.00 30.00 19.00 100.00 19.00 426.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 29 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190448 07/24/15 P SimplexGrinnell LP 0000011336 509.19 Line Description: NCC Sprinkler Repair 0190449 07/24/15 P Smith Emery Laboratories 0000015809 1,831.00 Line Description: Geotechnical Svcs-19th/Meyers Geotechnical Svcs-18th/Anaheim Geotechnical Svcs-17th/Tustin Geotechnical Svcs-17thlrustin Geotechnical Svcs -Victoria Geotechnical Svcs-17th/Tustin Geotechnical Svcs-19th/Meyers Geotechnical Svcs-19th/Meyers 0190450 07/24/15 P Smith Manufacturing Co Inc 0000004048 1,479.29 Line Description: Bearings & Drum Assembly 0190451 07/24/15 P Smith Pipe & Supply Inc 0000004049 513.17 Line Description: Irrigation Supplies 4 TW Lakes 0190452 07/24/15 P Snap On Industrial 0000012101 1,472.16 Line Description: Grease Gun, Amp Clamps Impact Tool Set Shop Tools Shop Tools for Fleet Services Grease Packer, Extensions 0190453 07/24/15 P Southern California Gas Company 0000004092 134.49 Line Description: CNG Fuel -June 15 CNG Fule-Jun 15 0190454 07/24/15 P Sparkletts 0000015725 16.23 Line Description: Water Service for Finance Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 30 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190455 07/24/15 P State Board of Equalization Line Description: FY14-15 Sales&UseTax Collected 0190456 07/24/15 P State of California Dept of Line Description: FDC Water Usage 0190457 07/24/15 P Stella S Adkins Line Description: Senior Commission Mtg 7/14/15 0190458 07/24/15 P Stephanie Selinske Line Description: Crisis Intervention TmgSS 0190459 07/24/15 P Stotz Equipment Line Description: Mower Blades 0190460 07/24/15 P Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth Line Description: Legal -General Legal Oversight Board Legal -Civic Center Barrio Legal -Habitat for Humanity Legal -CM Family Village 0190461 07/24/15 P Sunny Starbuck Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002044.002 0190462 07/24/15 P Superior Pavement Markings Inc Line Description: Street Stripping and Pavement Remit ID 0000001527 0000023232 0000023387 0000011795 0000023211 0000004168 0000023675 0000003955 Payment Amt 9,240.60 5,590.72 100.00 49.50 256.56 6,208-00 30.00 8,799.58 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 31 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:1655 PM Cycle' payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0190463 07/24/15 P Susan M Healey 0000023681 100.00 Line Description: Senior Commission Mtg Jul 2015 0190464 07/24/15 P Susan Szanto 0000016609 191.75 Line Description: Instructor Payment Summer 2015 0190465 07/24/15 P T-Mobile USA 0000021384 200.00 Line Description: Data Retrieval 4 PD 0190466 07/24/15 P Tali Hawkins 0000023676 29&00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001950.002 0190467 07124/15 P Tania Bounader 0000023313 226.72 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001965.002 0190468 07/24/15 P The Dumbell Man Fitness Equipment 0000023166 285.00 Line Description: Preventative Maint-FS#6 Preventative Maint-FS#4 Preventative Maint-#5 0190469 07/24/15 P Theodore Robins Ford 0000004245 413.82 Line Description: Valve & Gasket for Unit#092 Housing for Unit#309 Tire for Unit#132 0190470 07/24/15 P Theodore Robins Ford 0000004245 1,377.37 Line Description: Body Repair for Unit#217 0190471 07/24/15 P Thomson Reuters 0000022223 246.44 Line Description: Clear Svcs Subscriptn Jun 2015 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 32 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190472 07/24/15 P Time Warner Cable Line Description: Internet Services 7118-8117115 Internet Services 7118-8/17/15 Equipment Fees 7/16-8115/15 Internet Swcs 4 Senior Center 0190473 07/24/15 P Trauma Intervention Program Line Description: 2015-16 Annual TIP Service Fee 0190474 07/24/15 P Turnout Maintenance Company LLC Line Description: Turnout Clean & Repairs-4 Empl Turnout Clean & Repairs-6 Empl 0190475 07/24/15 P US Bank Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1514 0190476 07/24/15 P United States Treasury Line Description: Biological Monitoring -Jun 15 FP Avian Nest Survey -June 15 FP Survey -Fish Fry/Tree Remov 0190477 07/24/15 P Valeria Stewart Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002040.002 0190478 07/24/15 P ValueOptions of California Inc Line Description: EAP Services for July 2015 0190479 07/24/15 P Veronica Park Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001983.002 Remit ID Payment Amt 0000011202 1,613.15 0000005670 14,061.00 0000020182 1,086.84 0000002228 3,595.64 0000007179 7.775.00 0000023680 31.00 0000020327 695.97 0000023677 1,312A0 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 33 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM Cycle: AiAfKIY ?ayment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190480 07/24/15 P Village Nurseries Line Description: Building Modification Project Shipping Sales Tax (8.00%) 0190481 07/24/15 P Viola Elkes Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001963.002 0190482 07/24/15 P Vulcan Materials Company Line Description: Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes 0190483 07/24/15 P Waste Management Curbside Line Description: Battery Collection Recycle 0190484 07/24/15 P West Coast Dance Arts Line Description: Instructor Payment Summer 2015 0190485 07/24/15 P West Coast Fence Co Line Description: Gate Repair at Fire Sta#3 Civic Center Roller Replacemnt 0190486 07/24/15 P Westminster Press Inc Line Description: City Wide Fireworks Council Ma Sales Tax (8.00%) 0190487 07/24/15 P William Dennis St Clair Line Description: Refund Citation CM3140731035 Remit ID 0000004425 0000022794 0000007403 0000008223 0000021602 0000021495 0000008619 0000023190 Payment Amt 4,812.80 OX1191 224.70 irNxDra 1,983.45 765.00 4,435.16 109.50 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 34 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:16:55 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190488 07/24/15 P Wilma E Feeney Line Description. Senior Commission Mtg 7114/15 0190489 07/24/15 P Wintech Solutions Inc Line Description: Window Tint-HR Reception Area 0190490 07/24/15 P Xpedx Line Description_ Paper 4 Budget Printing/Copyin 0190491 07/24/15 P Yellow Cab Co Line Description: N I FTTransporationSvcs5/1-5/30 N I FTTransportationSvcs6/3-6/30 0190492 07/24/15 P Young Rembrandts Line Description: Instructor Payment Summer 2015 0190493 07/24/15 P Youth Employment Services Line Description: CDBG Grant Subrecipient Agreem 0190494 07/24/15 P Zach Rogen Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2001941.002 0190495 07/24/15 P Zuleima Arriaga Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002048.002 Remit ID 11I1AbIl0*1-f:: 0000012563 0000006067 0000021749 0000018685 0000004607 0000023678 Payment Amt 100.00 NSEER 1,454.00 165.75 4,750.00 185.00 0000023679 20.00 TOTAL $789,955.07 End of Report Report ID: CCM20010 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 CCM OVERFLOW CHECK LISTING Run Date Jul 23,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:17:25 PM Cycle AWKI Y Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0190356 07/24/15 O Keystone Uniforms OC Line Description: Overflow Remit ID 0000022280 Payment Amt M TOTAL DOD End of Report WARRANT RESOLUTION NO. 2540 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, INCLUDING PAYROLL REGISTER NOS. 15-14 "A" FOR $2.74, AND 15-15 FOR $2,119,338.88; AND CITY OPERATING EXPENSES FOR $1,932,207.19, 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 4`h day of August, 2015. ATTEST: 6.wco- C emL BRENDA GREEN CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) J* STEPH M. MENSINGER 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. 2540 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of August, 2015, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: FOLEY, GENTS, MONAHAN, RIGHEIMER, MENSINGER NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 5`h day of August, 2015. Cl T Y COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-4 SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT FOR DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN MONITORING SERVICES DATE: JULY 14, 2015 FROM: FINANCE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: COLLEEN O'DONOGHUE, ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: COLLEEN O'DONOGHUE (714) 754-5219 RECOMMENDATION 1) Award a contract for Deferred Compensation Plan monitoring services for one year to Benefit Funding Service Group ("BFSG"), in the total amount of $25,000, with an option to extend the contract in four one-year periods. 2) Authorize the City Chief Executive Officer to sign and execute a professional services agreement with the selected firm. As approved by City Attorney's office. BACKGROUND The City has maintained Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plans since 1972, when the Executive Plan was adopted. In 1983, the City adopted a separate plan for non - executive staff. In 1991, the two plans were consolidated to streamline plan administrative activities and to obtain greater leverage when negotiating with vendors. In 1998, the plan was amended to comply with provisions of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 ("Act"). This amendment primarily set plan assets aside for the exclusive benefit of participants. Prior to the Act, assets in the plan were considered to be assets of the City and could be utilized to satisfy claims of creditors upon bankruptcy. Part of the Act required employers to set up a trust, custodial account, or annuity contract for plan assets. In 2013, the plan was amended to set up a trust and designate the Administrative Committee ("Committee") as trustee. The amendment also included changes to comply with Federal and State legislation subsequent to the Act and other ministerial and administrative changes. The City engaged a consultant, Christopher Rowey of Benefit Funding Services Group, to assist the City with the amendment of the plan. The resolution approving the amendment can be found in Attachment 1. 1 ANALYSIS As is noted above, a trust was created and the trustee is the Committee. The Committee consists of five members appointed by the City comprised of the following: • Finance Director, Chairman • Assistant Finance Director, Vice Chairman • Human Resources Manager • Two full-time employees participating in the plan who are appointed by the Chairman. Trustees have a fiduciary responsibility which includes the selection of investments offered, monitoring the performance of investments, eliminating underperforming or risky investments, review of the reasonableness of plan costs, etc. Recent court rulings have expanded protections for participants in deferred compensation plans pursuant to lawsuits filed by plan participants. Since ongoing monitoring requires expertise and a sizable investment of time, staff recommends that the City obtain assistance from a firm that specializes in the area of monitoring Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plans. In addition, cost savings could be realized by participants from negotiating costs with the existing deferred compensation providers, Nationwide and California 457 Benefits. Finance Department staff conducted an informal bid process and Requests for Quotation were sent to three firms. The City received annual quotes from two firms: Benefit Funding Services Group $25,000 and SST Benefits Consulting $47,500 (subsequent years $41,000). After review of the proposals and quotes, the Finance Department recommends awarding the contract to Benefit Funding Services Group ("BFSG") based on qualifications and the lower cost. In addition, this firm assisted the City with the 2013 amendment and provided high quality services. On June 30, 2015, the Committee approved the selection of BFSG. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City Council could choose to select SST Benefits Consulting instead of BFSG or to forgo hiring a consultant to monitor the plan. If a consultant is not hired, risk could increase in regard to internal management of the plan's investment options, performance, and plan costs. FISCAL REVIEW There is no net fiscal impact associated with these services, since costs incurred by the City will be reimbursed through anticipated cost savings in the plan. A budget adjustment is not proposed, since payments and receipts will be recorded in an Agency Fund liability account with all other financial activity related to the City's deferred compensation plan. LEGAL REVIEW The attached professional services agreement (Attachment 2) has been reviewed and approved as to form. FA RECOMMENDATION We are recommending that BFSG be awarded the deferred compensation plan monitoring contract based on the Finance Department review and approval by the Committee. The firm has a solid understanding of Section 457 deferred compensation plans and experience with other local governments. STEPHEN DUNIVENT Interim Finance Director THOMAS DUARTE City Attorney Attachments:1. Resolution 13-14 adopting the amended and restated plan 2. Professional Services Aareement 3 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. 13-14 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CITY OF COSTA MESA DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES SECTION 457 GOVERNMENTAL PLAN AND TRUST TO COMPLY WITH FINAL INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES (IRS) REGULATIONS, INCORPORATING APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006 (PPA), THE HEROES EARNINGS ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2008 (HEART), THE WORKER, RETIREE AND THE EMPLOYER RECOVERY ACT OF 2008 (WRERA), AND OTHER PERTINENT IRS RULING AND RELATED LEGISLATION, AND A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A TRUST, WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE SERVING AS TRUSTEE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF HOLDING PLAN ASSETS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFITS OF PLAN PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF -THE Ci FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City maintains a deferred compensation pian available to City employees which qualify under Section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code; and WHEREAS, the IRS has issued amendments to its regulations incorporating the requirements and provisions of PPA, HEART, and WRERA, and other pertinent IRS rulings and related legislation; and WHEREAS, City staff, with consultation with outside consultants, has prepared an amended and restated Plan Document consistent with final 457(b) regulaticns, subsequent IRS guidance, proposed regulations, and other pertinent legislations including the establishment of a Trust, attached hereto as Attachment 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa has adopted and approved the amended and restated City of Costa Mesa Deferred Compensation Plan for Public Employees Section 457 Governmental Plan and Trust, attached hereto as Attachment 1. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution, and it shall be thereupon be in full force and effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amended and restated City of Costa Mesa Deferred Compensation Plan for Public Employees Section 457 Governmental Plan and Trust (Attachment 1) is effective retroactively to January 1, 2011. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the assets of the Plan shall be held in trust, with the City of Costa Mesa, as employer, appointing the Administrative Committee to serve as trustee Resolution No. 13-14 Page 1 of 2 ("Trustee"), for the exclusive benefit of Plan participants and their beneficiaries, and assets shall not be diverted to any other purpose. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Costa, as employer, hereby appoints the Administrative Committee as Trustee under the Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7thdav of May. 2013. Brenda Green,Tity Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) Thomas AM FORM: ity Attorney 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. 13-13 and was duly passed and, adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 7 h day of May, 2013, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Genis, Leece, Mensinger, Monahan, Righeimer NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 8th day of May, 2013. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that this document is a full, true, and correct copy of the original on file ouw in this office, BRENDA GREE CITY CLERK ATTEST: DATED: 5 -Z I -1'3 City Clerk, City of Costa esa, County of Orange, California Resolution No. 13-14 Page 2 of 2 Attachment 2 CITY OF COSTA MESA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BENEFIT FUNDING SERVICES GROUP THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into 5th day of August, 2015 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and BENEFIT FUNDING SERVICE GROUP, a Delaware limited liability corporation ("Consultant"). WITNESSETH: A. WHEREAS, City proposes to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to deferred compensation plan monitoring 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 Quotation ("RFQ"), attached hereto as Exhibit 'A," and Consultant's Response to City's RFQ (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: Benefit Funding Services Group PSA 15 (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 Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($ 25,000.00). 2.2. Additional Services. Consultant shall not receive compensation for any services 2 Benefit Funding Services Group PSA 15 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 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. 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. The initial term of this Agreement shall become effective upon the Effective Date and shall continue for one year, unless otherwise terminated as provided herein. This Agreement may be renewed upon expiration for four (4) additional one (1) year periods, upon mutual agreement of both 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 Benefit Funding Services Group PSA 15 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 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. 4 Benefit Funding Services Group PSA 15 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 "D" 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 Benefit Funding Services Group PSA 15 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: Benefit Funding Services Group 2040 Main Street, Ste. 150 Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (949) 951-2552 Fax: (949) 955-2553 Attn: Christopher Rowey IF TO CITY: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (714) 754-5219 Fax: (714) 754-5040 Attn: Colleen O'Donoghue 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 "E" 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 Benefit Funding Services Group PSA 15 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 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. 7 Benefit Funding Services Group PSA 15 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. 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 Benefit Funding Services Group PSA 15 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 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. 9 Benefit Funding Services Group PSA 15 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 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 Mayor CONSULTANT Signature Name and Title Social Security or Taxpayer ID Number Date: Date: 10 Benefit Funding Services Group PSA 15 ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE: Risk Management APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Project Manager DEPARTMENTALAPPROVAL Stephen Dunivent, Interim Finance Director 11 Date: Date: Date: Date: Benefit Funding Services Group PSA 15 EXHIBIT A REQUEST FOR QUOTATION The City seeking fee quotes for a consultant to evaluate the investment opportunities offered under the City's Deferred Compensation Plan, which operates under Section 457 of the Internal Revenue by April 10, 2015 at 4:OOpm. The plan has 347 plan participants and has been administered by two plan providers. The City's Deferred Compensation Committee wishes to develop an Investment Policy for the plan, an evaluation of investment performance as compared to established benchmarks, an analysis regarding whether the current investment mix is addressing the needs of plan participants, and comparison of the fees charged in relation to similar sized plans. The consultant's analysis/report must be in writing and should include the following; Investment Consultin — Draft an Investment Policy Statement, which incorporates a process and methodology for reviewing investments in the Plan • Comprehensive quarterly investment analysis reporting on all Plan investment options, as well as, additional options and asset classes to consider. Quarterly report to include: • Market overview addressing the major markets, indices, sectors and the economic statistics that are affecting them • In-depth portfolio summary, including fund and benchmark returns, style analysis and overall portfolio return • Plan asset allocation analysis by fund and underlying sector. The fund lineup will also be analyzed to determine the amount of overlap that may be occurring • Detailed quantitative and qualitative examination of each mutual fund investment option within the Plan, including performance numbers versus the category and index, manager style drift, risk/return, standard deviation, Sharpe ratio, expense ratio, upside and downside capture and fund allocation — Annual Investment Policy Statement review to ensure it continues to meet the needs of the City. — On -going monitoring of the Plan's investments to ensure they are meeting the Investment Policy Statement parameters as well as the retirement needs of the participants by offering a broad range of investment alternatives that enables participants to affect the risk and return characteristics of their retirement portfolio. — Recommendations of possible alternatives to funds when, in conjunction with the Investment Committee, it is determined a change in fund line-up is necessary — Quarterly in -person meetings with the Investment Committee, or other people designated by the Client, to present the quarterly reports and findings, make recommendations as to particular investments to be placed in the fund line-up and answer any questions that may arise. — Coordinate the quarterly deferred compensation committee meetings and take/record the meeting minutes. — Act as investment fiduciary by providing investment advice on a regular basis to the City regarding the Plan's assets. Compliance Consulting / Cost Assessment — Provide consulting assistance on fiduciary best -practices, including the following: • Formalize Investment Committee (chartering) • Fiduciary Education • Vendor service agreement review / negotiations — Provide assistance with mandatory and optional legislative changes — Plan document review — Draft agendas and research all agenda items prior to Committee meetings — Draft minutes documenting Committee meeting discussions for the Client's use — Provide annual benchmarking of Plan costs as compared to industry average, including assistance with vendor negotiations to set up a Trust Reimbursement Account — Preparation of Annual City Council Report summarizing actions of the Committee — Report on tax law changes, regulatory issues, and industry trends that effect the operation of the Plan and the responsibilities and conduct of the Committee Please submit me vour fee auote along with the following information: List three Deferred Compensation plans, which are closest to the City's in number of participants. Include the approximate number of participants, annual deferral amounts, total plan assets and the name, telephone number, and e-mail address of a contact person the City may call. Provide the names of professionals who would provide consulting services under a contract with the City. Provide biographical data on the individuals listed. Is your company a subsidiary or affiliate of another company? Give full disclosure of all direct or indirect ownership. EXHIBIT B CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL 4 �� �� �t � �4 � 3 �� ��� �� �� �. ��� �� � � 3 � � -�y- � w �� �-. ���.. �i. .�- �� � ,r .e -x Y���� � �� -� ,� �� _ ��, ... � - ,' .,, �. � �, :: � s. `� � . � ^_ � � ,. ,� � - -�-� ,*,cvt �'c a -o -n v Q � m 0 :3 n Q x' o m � n - -- 0- Q 3 W 3 rn h 0 CD m 3 cn n rn 330 CD Cn "i n 0 Cnid (n !II CD O O C/) T O m o < O a � o (D o (n v O O (D_ U) O Q. CL O < 7 a' C (D (D (n Q 0 o 7 � N N N N O O (D < Q w CD CL N S (D CO O m D I O O O o � o O 3 O o v v (D � m � m a 3 W. CD v cn Z3 < `< t (D (D n 0 O 7 cn (D rt (n O zr w < r_ cn v 3 (D v (Q N• � v n O N O' N 7 O 0 :-r (D cn m p m T . . . . . . / \ ) ' ? \ \\ < a m $ a 0- 3 \'� < k\ \/ I \/ ao § _ _ / \ \ \ / / = = ---- ---- — - m @ w. » 9 @ G_ R R ( \ \ 0 ( \ / 5 \ 2 e D m / E / \ _ 3 a' ]. q _ = o E « \ § / _ \ # ilq- \� o a o 0 v ° o v 0 D o p O N v 3 a- (D m m n m co � cu :3 < c N rt m D n o m cn v D Z) c m O S co O C _D 7 O a. l< c 3 v N' 7 (D n O (D (D (D 0 O v Q. v (D 0 c O cn O w -; cQ p o ® (D m CO - 3 a o 0. s =CL a (D ° o N rt v n 9 Q O Q O ^ 3 r D rN-+• ,N+ (D C : (D rt CD N O Q o- (D m Q 0 (D 0_ O O v 7 O O N O O� /I . ---- ( { ,q --- ---- •- \\��,<� 2- - kcn , 2 -0. E r---- E■ cn $ { ! w D 9; \; m, . E E c O E / \ / / < 7 E m r o e 0 E < x = = m w w ] (D : ) m E _ \ \ $ / \ \ / J \ \ \ J ] / G $ = 2. e = _ \ / \ ƒ \ l< ` 9 / < -- / g g � E O � a : � ■ - \ � _ ■ E E E E e E § E ƒ k ƒ ° 2 CD / m 0 § / C ƒ _ X \ _ ƒ ? / co X 2 ° ƒ < $ 3 / / ] \ \ / � / / / CD ----0-- < ƒ 2 § \ ( m (D ƒ % 7 3 0 \ CD® -� CD / \ 0 ) ..--7 g \ ƒ - o CD Z3 § / / 7 d $ � \ § / / (D 0 g � � E 9 / \ ®!±2 2> CD - &0 \3o \ \LD _-- [2/ _ {( /_ CD k .:z;s,J� 53f»E®� o3 (D(D ,e!{,\[ &) /_®}\/ - \(\)E < ErC- <W _\§® 0°= o 2 ) ><SCLw-0 E n° --—== --.��=-.G. .. _ /[ �ni3w »i §Kgle (\Q ~\\\}((D \� �(\ (ZR:I(D o 7 -7 {\\J*\(D \\ ]}[ = =E&»\\/77 \[\ ( �(CLCD X g`) ^ t(\ % 2a)CD ^� \\D��(D 0 CD >0 fGa0(D-0M 9% \)z . :~\EW- CL §(D }\5))/2\/E e} 3 _ \ ) } ( ( \ ( \ \ } \ 391 \(D -[,$ y } } \(< \ \ 0 (D _R / 7mR -< \ \ i 2`; / - j ( / \ X m co &°®e (\ \\R.a _(D0 \(3 /R© >0 ©� ; (DCD »i®■ /({_ <m 0 3a }\/§ 3 \ ( ; ( k .....:per—---- ¥)03 or>m u°\- yyyf \(\)E \ }\(\( \\&J !\!\) wD(D )/moo �\\\\0 \� \ \(D ,«w0 2 so tƒt- \@ / Onuw\ 3 : } ID ` r\± ee®= (D J\} a) CD o / }D �} \` \ \ S e E o= 0 7 2 §°\»mR ®0»f ±J -^/} _ J:z; _\< (�®f±� §G -- —,0 }{}® 2 CCL D 0 0 0 CD ®° ®1S0 �(cn m � \§ (\} [j(/± ,; \0 \�\\ IN L c c E L J ƒ ? / \ (D / Lb. 7 ® § = / 0) (a ° $ -0 2 7 ) ® ® \ = E / d o \ § § CD/ ) / � \ / ) / 5 \ m m = ° _ \ / / \ 7 < -t— -- & - -- \ 0 \ / J > » $ _ e / } $ a 2' / \ / \ 2 CD (' v0 : _ / & cn * 0 k 7 / ƒ � ƒ / 0 f m s §. ( \ \ J E $ § % \ CD \ a / / / ƒ cn ƒ 3 0 & \ � / \ } § _ } § 2 m ■ m \ } ME: © f 0 5 � / E « ® k ID ID g + / ° [ \ - / / \ W. \ \ _ } < \ \ $ 2 B a \m g -0 0 \ \\ 0 \\.\ \ m 0 e CD \ 3 . ƒ//\ } § 2 ( CD CO \ CD 0 ] \ \ D r o 0 cEY v m m E a _a cQ (n 5' cQ (Q c' m w n. (D m CD m m m a a a� v o_ •a O v O_ -_ O / v CD �' - coO O N n (D -p N� O l< N -v Q O fA 7 U) -0 n O co rt n O n h IQ 1- pip IX J rn a) (1) mmmol" PMNIIW ® u _► O a� D CD 0 0 � m v 0 CD 0 0 0 0 N CD m w U 0 a w m :3 cD N N 0 0 -� 0 m cn m IN cn m 0 v 0 0 ='2. 0 o' 0 cn W N - C2 CD a _rt n N A07 0 fD O n rt N ut UOJ -n N 0 M iTV V 1u� 1 CD y CD ty Z N 3 CD rt ® <24 o 7� to 0 o 0 � c m _ m w 0 m y N A � N ® N y O1 N 3 6 N m 3 � $0 N A o N � V D po d $0 w 1A Efl N N o Z ,'0 Z Z o cn o cn .0 n m 27 K a a N D 000 0 0 3 3 m m v_, n 0 N O 0 N O C N 6 fD N N a= o o K �' m N N o o N 91 o v m y) '$175,8'13 ,sue 3 s J J o v3 I n rn 3 0 y (� y y =$:I93,394 F 0 0 jJ N V o + y y 3 N � $23d,001, .� N W A Ol O) � ffl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O F N y W O O m k M 7 N CD v N C y W 3 CD rt to 4A 4 O N ffl Ut to --Ao 69 tit N cn o cn o a 0 m o cn 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 O 0 0 c m i � d m � N ' A s N $105,608' $0 z MD, 6 c N $0 $116,169 - 3 m 3 4 so $127,785v V O ° d ° - $0 $140,564 69 co O O O O 0 CD -i C C G U (D (D Z A << m m � m 0 a m 0 ID(AD m m 5. 0 � C C N N N (DD N W O O D y 0 0 0 ? ? (�D (�D ((DD a-D CD D 0 0 c (D m o m m rt '0 -0 D D N N U O O N N N o cV° o 0 o fJD (WD A W tl3 V &3' to to 64' N.. W O C1� ON p O O N 1 m \/ CD ° \\ y » \ _ - r \\\ )1 ,(, 0) \° } - \ } e (D \}\ }( (Ea \\/}/ \){}); (\\/(� 0 : 0 f § E0 cl o 7 m 2 @ .+ �&�=j===--ƒ-- - \J-0 -_ -= 9J=K»e -_- -` _ r : _° m _ \ ( - \ \ o - - - - E ƒ - 3\ �\- _ ° -(( ` { _ {a @ - g _ - : - ® ID CO,{\ (D ^[ CD /\�� ,&\)ƒ )\ \\ }\-t / �} ��) O -- 0-- s = ©© j 7 { / & \ E / CD E �)CD \,0m -a CD \q\k0 -: -® @ .<(D [\_ a CD CD 0 - -�}\ 3 ) 2§ Q\\} }\[0 J $ _/{} _\- I I I >2 >\ }} )/ =x /\ \ \ \ { / _ = —= -- — \ -. §[/`u2f s2— m - \ \ \ \ �\ \ \ w n o 0 \ \ \ [ } z : N N. NID O N D U) O N �O 6 O w N• O O N N w ff1 SU N (D O N cr (D N. O N N 0- (D a a O 2 (D N-11 0 O (D < o (D O N W O O — < N (D O O 3 Q O (7 p N O N 7 N < N (D c: 7 ;z Q SU O O v O N 0 (D O N D (D O D Q D � N p O 0-jr3'{a ma omm * O mm ca -I O=a('0N c ONmoO (MND .•AON. OO °°Nav7gayJ'.S. p�an^vN�n's'^ i =°D 5 � �c D -'r (D U)n f- Qi Q o 00m30r mc°mm0 A 5 C N ON� 00 O O .'O XN CD _ � Oo M w (D m O = o a — m m a 0 g mcO A pA 0N c CD N �A a m D (D CC COD, G a .O (D O�. S =Cp :) w� OCD � ND CDG 0 O x o a M. (7ND W(D (D fo N ND WO nN �DmCA O y�ma mpms yam = m2mmp O �N Cn O (D (DD DQ . J o' m -I m D ° a (D r. O a) O a v O._(D__0 N 0-3 _rt I J 0,0CD 0O :*CD � TN (D" rn-•-a (D3o A n rt 3 N -O N O ct N Q .0-r = ,Ny, (D D° o , 3 . o= m N CD 1 0 - 0 O) ° ((DD N a (D 3 N ,p.�. (D a CD 0CD < 0 (D O O 3 N O N N 32) 0 (D O O O (o v (D -C] O 0-3 . , ° 0 O (D N N 0 (� N 3 N a O= * F) p a 0 O (D (D N am(� o �.o (omm ad m(� a C 0= I (p D (D N aN (D 0 a0 p(° 2 a3 a d O N 0 3 "' (D N N cc w CD y 0 0 .0. 2' 0 -w 0 O N O (q n = N `G N S D) O (D 9 (D (D C <� O a s X O m N O O 'Xp a (aD (D a 0a (D m '1 (D W 3 (D m (D 2 N (n N N (D (DD O 0 Q. O ( (D N (D CD v N a ID CD D O a O (Np (Op .0-' v O �' O (D �3 N 0 v O (O T. O0 S (D 3 3 (p' N O (D (D (D = v O n 3 O < . CD (D0 CD 3 S S N N(D �_ N (D a O (O X 0 (D N CD <.< 3 (D (D. fl- (D �• (D (CD (O N p 0 N .0-F O (D a N a N N Q O N N N p- X N 0 :-� 0 (D p D a _ 0 (° O 3 0 (D 0^ ti. - O N 0 * N O (D (%) N O O N O N ° < (D ((DD n 3° 0 0 N (D O 0 O p. (D a pI CD N (D (D m= O' _2, (D O 0 (D 9 O (D 4 z 5` 0 </ 2 !/ / / k ) § , ) _ & - _ \ \ \ \ \\ \ CD \� \ 0 � £ $ ® ° m : ° ® } < 7 s ° $ (D §J m 2 \ a }CD } ( 0 !} 0 0 (0 w \ \ \ ) f $ ) 2 { [ } e \_ _ } / - 0 _ / Cl) - } \ \ - g § }\ _ _ _ \ } \ (\ (\ \ } j \ \ / c ■ _ E 0 } cc3 \ \ } 2 « 90 =e , CD 0 CL \. cr \ \ / \ 0 w CD(\ - e ) (0 CDE .0 - m E _ /) \ \ \ \ \ \ ) (D D § ® CD § « \ CD 2) } CL _\ _ c\. -0 Q co/ - \ \ » - ) \. §\ _ - ®] _ / ( « - e \ \� \ O' \_ 0 0 OL } } e ; ^' § } 9 e) % \ EXHIBIT C FEE SCHEDULE Rachel Fequiere BFSG 2040 Main Street, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92614 Date: March 5, 2015 Plan Information This section summarizes specific information about the plan you are benchmarking. Defined Contribution Plan Size: $50 million Fee Method: 12bl or TA Fee (commission) Services included as • Investment Policy Development • Vendor Fee/Service Reviews part of your annual • Plan Design Consulting • Vendor Management/Issue Resolution retainer fee: • Fund Menu Design • Investment Monitoring/Committee Meetings - • Compliance Oversight • Education Program Strategy • Act as Investment Fiduciary (3(21)) to the Plan • Fund Replacements/Fund Manager Search - -• Vendor Search - - -- ------ -- -- • Asset Allocation Modeling- - - - • Transition Services to Recordkeeper - • Quarterly Investment Reviews Comparison of Advisor/Consultant Annual Retainer Fees* This section provides a summary of your annual retainer fee, compared to the database. For plans of this size the database contains 87 responses. Your annual retainer fee for this plan: 4$25,000 The database average for a plan of this size: Mean (average) $67,333 Median $62,500 Your retainer fee compared to the database: 93% are HIGHER 3% are the SAME AS 3% are LOWER Due to rounding this may not equal 100% Your retainer fee compared to the database broken down by quartiles: `�,�:`�s s„„ �.r< >.�� a.:UT�..V� a��� `in.w�, �la.,,.�_ � .'.i..S ,�ti 3ia• - ".,� h,:'Y. Fee range for this quartile $21,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $62,500 $62,500 - $75,000 $75,000 - $150,000 Quartile Mean $36,571 $53,523 $74,091 $103,750 -..._. .,-.... _-. __.__- _.. ___. ..... __... _._..._.. __._.__. _...__ _.____._ Quartile Median $37,500 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 Your Fee$25,000 KEY DEFINITIONS' Mean: Calculated by adding all the reported fees and then dividing by the number of fees in the database. Median: The fee that is in the middle of all database points; that is, half the fees fall below this number; half are above. Quartile Mean, Median: Reflects average/median just for the quartile. 'PLEASE NOL Fees may range considerably for a particular plan based on the type of fiduciary services and level of participant services provided. It Is important to itemize all the services being delivered to the plan and also to evaluate the quality and value of the services to get an accurate understanding of how they may affect the fees being charged. Copyright © Ann Schleck & Co., LLC 2013. All rights reserved. Rachel Fequiere BFSG 2040 Main Street, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92614 Detailed Fee Comparison Plan Size: Your Annual Retainer Fee for this plan $50 million $25,000 The database average for a plan of this size: Mean (average) $67,333 This section compares annual retainer fees by business models for a $50M Plan. vvunnuuse ur odnrc rrmudieu IndependentFA/RIA Fee -Only RIA/ConsultantO Median $62,500 GY y40,Vw wy I LD,UVV al ro,`JJo 43 $21,000to $125,000 $60,930 20 $45,000to $150,000 $70,775 $60,000 $60,000 Fees _yAeglOfl. This section compares annual retainer fees by region for a $50M Plan. Northeast 32 $21,000 to $150,000 $65,078 $73,750 South 14 $25,000 to $100,000 _._.-------_ $52,893 $47,500 - _...___. ._...__. ...__..._... Midwest 29 $22,000 to $125,000 $74,293 $76,000 WestO 12 $40,000 to $125,000 $73,375 $68,750 - * See Page-4--for list of states assigned to each region By HdvfsorfGnnulf�C ra tice Size: ' :. -,Ak . ...., . , ...WK. -.... .._ This section compares annual retainer fees by size of firm, where size is measured by total DC assets under advisement. Your firm's total DC assets under advisement:'P $8 billion Up to $100 million 1 $75,000 to $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $101 to $500 million 25 $22,000 to $150,000 $81,400 $75,000 $501 million to $1 billion 24 $21,000 to $125,000 $66,250 $68,750 over $1 billion # 37 $25,000 to $115,000 $58,324 $60,000 Copyright © Ann Schlock & Co., LLC 2013. All rights reserved. 2 Rachel Fequiere Plan Size: $50 million BFSG 2040 Main Street, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92614 Your Annual Retainer Fee for this Plan $25,000 The database average fora plan of this size: Mean (average) $67,333 Median $62,500 ces Investment Policy Development 99 % 0 % 1 Fund Menu Design 99 % 0 % 1 % Act as Investment Fiduciary (3(21)) to the Plan 89 % 7.%_ Act as Discretionary Fiduciary (3(38)) to the Plan 15 % 34 % 51 % Act as Fiduciary to Company Stock 0 % 3 % 97 Act as Investment Fiduciary to Participants 20 % 6 % 75 % Investment Monitoring/Committee Meetings 100 % 0 % 0 % Fund Replacements/Fund Manager Search 100 % 0 % o % Asset Allocation Modeling 77 % 2 % 21 % Plan Design Consulting 87 % 1 % 11 % Compliance Oversight 76 % 0 % 24 % Vendor Search 87 % 11 % 1 % Transition Services to Recordkeeper 84 % 6 % 10 % Vendor Fee/Service Reviews 98 % 1 % 1 % Vendor Management/Issue Resolution 99 % 0 % 1 % Education Program Strategy 99 % 0 % 1 % Employee Meetings 77 % 10 % 13 % Annual Investment Reviews _.. 5% ., t, ; ,' Semi Annual Investment Reviews _ 15% r r = _ f Quarterly Investment Reviews 80% Vendor Search $3,000 to $55,000 $15,888 $13,750 Provider Fee and Service Reviews $1,000 to $25,000 $7,464 $5,000 Investment Policy Development $350 to $10,000 - $3,818 $3,250 Employee Meetings $500 to $3,000 per day $1,453/day $1,500/day vyi e'an _, Principal Rate $125 - $475 per hour - $289 per hour $250 per hour Non -Principal Rate $100 - $375 per hour $201 per hour $200 per hour Copyright 0 Ann Schleck & Co., LLC 2013. All rights reserved. 3 Methodology The Monarch Fee BenchmarkerTM database is based on a quantitative study conducted by Ann Schleck & Company, LLC, an independent consulting and market research firm serving the retirement marketplace. Data contained in the database includes fee schedules from over 182 retirement practices representing over $280 billion total retirement assets under advisement. The database is refreshed regularly, with new fee schedules added to the database throughout the year. The data represented in the database represents Advisors' fee schedules and services for 401(k) plans. To ensure the integrity of the data, we restrict the data to include only fees where an advisor has a plan of that asset size. Great care has been taken to ensure the quality of the database. Regional Division of States Northeast South idw West Connecticut Alabama Illinois Alaska Delaware Arkansas Indiana Arizona District of Columbia Florida Iowa California _.-- - - ---Maine.- _-- -- _ - _. .Georgia_.--- ------- ----_..Kansas----- --------- ---Colorado ---- Maryland Kentucky Michigan Hawaii Massachusetts Louisiana Minnesota Idaho New Hampshire Mississippi Missouri Montana New Jersey North Carolina Nebraska Nevada New York Oklahoma North Dakota New Mexico Pennsylvania South Carolina Ohio Oregon Rhode Island Tennessee South Dakota Utah Vermont Texas Wisconsin Washington Virginia Wyoming West Virginia Disclaimers Ann Schleck & CompanyTM provides this report and the materials contained therein "as is" without warranties of any kind including warranties of merchantability, accuracy, fitness for a particular purpose, or non -infringement of intellectual property. Ann Schleck & CompanyTM disclaims all responsibility for any loss injury, claim, liability, or damage of any kind resulting from, arising out of, or any way related to: any errors in or omissions from this report and its content, including but not limited to technical inaccuracies and typographical errors. Permitted Use; Intellectual Property Rights Materials contained in the Monarch Fee Benchmarker are the property of Ann Schleck & CompanyTM and are protected by copyright,. trademark, patent, trade secret, and other intellectual property and proprietary rights("Intellectual Property Rights"). Therefore, any unauthorized use of any Materials may violate these and other laws. The marks listed below are the trademarks of Ann Schleck & CompanyTM: Ann Schleck & CompanyTM MonarchTM Fee BenchmarkerTM For information about the MonarchTM Sales & Client Retention System go to www.annschieck.coma _ann Imo, L_.t 1s,6 Copyright © Ann Schleck & Co., LLC 2013. Allrightsreserved. EXHIBIT D CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER: 31 UUN AX3381 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG20100413 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED - OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS - SCHEDULED PERSON OR ORGANIZATION This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name Of Additional Insured Person(s) Or Organization(s) Location(s) Of Covered Operations The City of Costa Mesa and its elected City of Costa Mesa and appointed boards, officers, agents and employees are additional insureds with respect to the subject project and agreement. Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. A. Section II — Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by: 1. Your acts or omissions; or 2. The acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf; in the performance of your ongoing operations for the additional insured(s) at the location(s) designated above. However: 1. The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and 2. If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured. B. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following additional exclusions apply: This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurring after: 1. All work, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work, on the project (other than service, maintenance or repairs) to be performed by or on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the location of the covered operations has been completed; or 2. That portion of "your work" out of which the injury or damage arises has been put to its intended use by any person or organization other than another contractor or subcontractor engaged in performing operations for a principal as a part of the same project. CG 20 10 04 13 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 1 of 2 C. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to Section III — Limits Of Insurance: If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance: 1. Required by the contract or agreement; or 2. Available under the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations; whichever is less. This endorsement shall not increase the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations. Page 2 of 2 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 CG 20 10 04 13 EXHIBIT E CITY COUNCIL POLICY 100-5 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; 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: 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; 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. CC-5 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL, AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING July 21, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 5:34 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Mayor Mensinger, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, Council Member Genis, and Council Member Monahan Council Members Absent: Council Member Foley PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS — NONE CLOSED SESSION The City Council recessed into Closed Session at 5:36 p.m. to consider the following items: 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). The City Council reconvened at 5:55 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 5:55 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. CALL TO ORDER (00:00:09) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (00:00:26) — Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION (00:00:48) Jonathon Murillo, Mika Community Development Corporation, Costa Mesa Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 1 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED ROLL CALL Present: Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, Mayor Mensinger Absent: Council Member Foley (Due to an important family obligation) Officials Present: Chief Executive Officer Thomas R. Hatch, City Attorney Thomas Duarte, Assistant Chief Executive Officer Rick Francis, Economic and Development Services Director Gary Armstrong, Public Services Director Ernesto Munoz, and City Clerk Brenda Green. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT— NONE • COIN: Ex Parte Communications pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-238 (b) — None ANNOUNCEMENTS (00:02:25) "Costa Mesa Minute" was played featuring upcoming events and activities in the community. Mayor Mensinger stated that New Business Item #1 has been withdrawn from the agenda and will be considered at the next Council Meeting. PRESENTATIONS (00:05:44) 1. Mayor's Award — Frank Gavel (00:05:46) Frank Gavel, Community Volunteer, accepted the Mayor's Award. 2. Orange County Transportation Authority — 1 405 Project (00:16:32) Jeffrey Mills, Program Manager of the Orange County Transportation Authority, provided information on the Interstate 405 Improvement Project. PUBLIC COMMENTS (00:32:50) Cindy Black, Costa Mesa, thanked Frank Gavel for his service; spoke in support of the Costa Mesa First Initiative. (00:33:45) Barrie Fisher, Costa Mesa, spoke on the cul-de-sac on Victoria St. (00:36:02) Joanna Brown, Costa Mesa, requested the cul-de-sac closure on Dorset Lane; and spoke on transient problems. (00:37:31) Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 2 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Cindy Christopher, Costa Mesa, requested the cul-de-sac closure on Dorset Lane; and spoke on transient problems. (00:40:35) Lewis Lee Lewis, Costa Mesa, requested the cul-se-sac closure on Dorset Lane; spoke on transient problems; and the costs associated with closure. (00:42:23) Charles Christopher, Costa Mesa, requested the cul-se-sac closure on Dorset Lane; spoke on transient problems; and requested an expeditious process. (00:45:30) Beth Rafakes, Costa Mesa, spoke on the evening gown collection for the Military Affairs Team; spoke on the design of Fire Station No. 1; spoke on the Cal Trans and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA); and the terminus of the 55 freeway. (00:46:33) Tamara Goldmann, Costa Mesa, spoke on the initiative sponsored by Jay Humphrey. (00:48:34) Chuck Perry, Costa Mesa, spoke on the Mayor's Award; spoke on the success of the Neighbors Helping Neighbors Project; and spoke on the Chamber of Commerce Golf Tournament. (00:51:38) Robin Leffler, Costa Mesa, spoke in opposition to the Cal Trans and the OCTA plans for the 1-405; spoke on public noticing cards; spoke on traffic problems on Placentia; and spoke on setbacks. (00:54:08) COUNCIL MEMBER' REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS (00:56:44) Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer spoke on the cul-de-sac closure on Dorset Lane; spoke on the policy and a streamlining process for cul-de-sac closures; spoke on the Neighbors Helping Neighbors program; and thanked the Mayor and the LDS church for volunteering at the event. (00:56:50) Mayor Mensinger spoke on the closure of cul-de-sacs; spoke on the Neighbors Helping Neighbors event; and thanked volunteers and all who donated. (01:03:25) Council Member Genis spoke on the cul-de-sac closures; public safety; and the bikeabilty and walkability. (01:07:15) REPORT — CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) (01:10:30) CEO Tom Hatch spoke on the Special Olympics and Costa Mesa as a host City; congratulated the Chamber of Commerce on their Golf Tournament; spoke on fireworks report; and new employees. Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 3 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED CONSENT CALENDAR (01:14:34) MOTION: Approve recommended actions for Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 17 except for Items 7, 9, 12, and 16. MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: Council Member Foley Motions carried: 4-0-1 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. 2. READING FOLDER a. Claims received by the City Clerk: Patricia Calavetta, and Robert Olson ACTION: City Council received and filed. 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 ACTION: Approved Warrant Resolution No. 2539, to be read by the title only, and waived further reading. Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 4 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 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 ACTION: 1. City Council accepted the work performed by Black Rock Construction Company and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion; and 2. City Council authorized the release of the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after the filing date; and authorized the release of 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 ACTION: City Council approved the minutes. 6. FINAL MAP FOR TRACT NO. 17709 LOCATED AT 573-591 VICTORIA STREET, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA ACTION: City Council approved the Final Map for Tract No. 17709 and authorized the signing of the Map by the City Clerk and City Engineer. 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" ACTION: 1. City Council adopted Resolution 15-38, to be read by title only, and waived 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 approved 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. Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 5 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 10. NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE VACATION OF A FLOWAGE EASEMENT AT 970 WEST 16T" STREET ACTION: 1. City Council set a public hearing on September 1, 2015 for the vacation of a flowage easement at 970 West 16th Street; and 2. City Council adopted Resolution 15-40, to be read by title only, and waived further reading, of Intent to Vacate Flowage Easement at 970 West 16th Street. 11. NOTICE OF INTENT TO VACATE EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 970 WEST 16th STREET ACTION: 1. City Council set a public hearing on September 1, 2015 for the vacation of excess Right -Of -Way (ROW) at 970 West 16th Street; and 2. City Council adopted Resolution 15-39, to be read by title only, and waived further reading, of Intent to vacate excess Right -Of -Way (ROW) at 970 West 16th Street. 13. CREATION OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR — COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DIVISION JOB CLASSIFICATION AND CORRESPONDING SALARY RANGE ACTION: 1. City Council approved the job classification and corresponding salary range for the budgeted Assistant Director of Community Improvement; and 2. City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-41, to be read by title only, and waived 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. 14. RENEWAL OF THE MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT ACTION: City Council approved and authorized 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. Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 6 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 15. AWARD AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PRINTING AND DELIVERY SERVICES OF THE RECREATION GUIDE ACTION: City Council approved 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. 17. APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER SANDRA GENIS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT ACTION: City Council appointed Council Member Sandra Genis as the City of Costa Mesa's representative to the Orange County Vector Control District (OCVCD). ----------------------------------- END OF CONSENT CALENDAR ----------------------------------- PUBLIC HEARINGS — 7:00 p.m. (Resolution No. 05-55): (01:15:30) 1. REVIEW OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION'S ACTION ON MESA VERDE DRIVE AND CALIFORNIA STREET MEDIAN LANDSCAPE PLANT PALETTE (01:15:32) Council Member Genis spoke on the problems with the Public Noticing cards; and agrees with the Parks and Recreation Commission's decision. (01:15:58) Public Services Director, Ernesto Munoz, spoke on noticing and standard procedures. (01:17:04) Public Comments: Robin Leffler, Costa Mesa, spoke on receiving the public notice the day after the meeting; and spoke on preferences for the palette expressed at the meeting. (01:27:06) Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer spoke on the government process and problems; spoke on drought tolerant landscaping; and abiding by the public noticing policies. (01:30:17) Mayor Mensinger spoke on drought tolerant landscaping; saving water; and not deviating on noticing guidelines. (01:34:32) Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 7 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Council Member Genis spoke on the Parks and Recreation Commission request for the community input meeting; and the problem with timeliness of the notices and noticing boundaries. (01:35:56) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Council Member Genis The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: Council Member Foley Motion carried: 4-0-1 ACTION: 1. City Council ratified the Parks and Recreation Commission's decision and 2. City Council approved no changes in the noticing process. 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 (01:37:48) Senior Planner, Mel Lee, presented the Staff Report. (01:39:19) Mr. Lee spoke on the modifications made without permits; the elevator not required due to the age of the building; stated the fire inspection approvals were not obtained and a Knox Box was not installed on the gate; and spoke on the parking requirements based on square footage of building. (01:49.39) John Peterson, Attorney for Solid Landings, on behalf of appellant Kristen Ford, stated in the agreement with the Zoning Administrator decision; spoke on parking spaces, use of location; administrative facility for group counseling; stated the individuals are brought in vans to the site; spoke on Zoning Administrator findings and addressed conditions in staff report; spoke on the gate and security guard; spoke on location as an administrative office for group counseling; and stated traffic problems are all not due to Solid Landings. (01:53:41) Discussion ensued on parking; the installation of a gate off of 1911 Street; modifications made without permits; security guard enforcement; and a parking study and traffic study. (02:16:31) Public Comments: Teresa Drain, Costa Mesa, spoke on the abundance of parking at the Senior Center; spoke on the General Plan and Zoning Code; spoke on the intrusion of traffic on small streets; and supports the Planning Commission's decision. (02:19:47) Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 8 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, echoed Ms. Drain's statements; spoke in support of upholding the Planning Commission's denial; and spoke on the number of issues still not resolved at the Sober Living facility. (02:21:48) Wendy Leece, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of upholding the Planning Commission's denial; and spoke on the need for businesses to obtain proper permits and inspections. (02:23:47) Steve Chan, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of upholding the Planning Commission's denial; spoke on the impacts with other similar facilities within the City; parking impacts to surrounding neighborhood; and spoke on the residential neighborhood treated as a commercial corridor. (02:25:05) Barrie Fisher, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of upholding the Planning Commission's denial; and expressed concern with being approached by a group at a local grocery store. (02:28:13) Steven Warr, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of upholding the Planning Commission's denial; and spoke on commercial businesses in residential neighborhoods. (02:31:17) Robin Leffler, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of upholding the Planning Commission's denial; and spoke on the need for businesses to obtain proper permits to meet code. (02:32:40) Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of upholding the Planning Commission's denial; and recommended the facility relocate to another location that has adequate parking. (02:33:38) Tricia Desmariais, representing Solid Landings, spoke on improvements done at the location prior to moving in. (02:36:28) Mayor Mensinger spoke on Mr. Morehart, the property owner, not obtaining permits. (02:37:31) Mr. Peterson discussed ingress and egress; traffic analysis; code issues; and permits. (02:37:51) Discussion ensued on the lack of parking at the location; the issues that are the responsibility of the landlord and not the tenant; and concerns with employees parking off -site. (02:45:09) Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 9 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: Council Member Foley Motion carried: 4-0-1 ACTION: City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision and adopted Resolution No. 15-42, to be read by title only, and waived further reading, and denied the 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. City Council recessed for a break at 8:51 p.m. City Council reconvened the meeting at 8:58 p.m. 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 (03:03:26) Ex Parte Communications — Mayor Mensinger met with the applicant and a neighbor. Ex Parte Communications — Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer met with the applicant. Ex Parte Communications — Council Member Genis spoke with Mr. Douglas Gorrie. Senior Planner, Mel Lee, presented the Staff Report. (03:04.49) Douglas Gorrie, appellant, presented a PowerPoint presentation; stated he is not opposed to the project but requests certain measures to mitigate the negative affects to the neighborhood. (03:10.30) Discussion ensued on 24" inch box plants; and screening walls. Tim DeCince, on behalf of Eric Talbert and Doug DeCince, applicants, spoke on the suggestion of reversing the project and why that is not feasible; spoke on Mr. Gorrie's suggested wish list on conditions of approval; four trees on the lots; and spoke on the 2nd story setback. (03:38:12) Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 10 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Mayor Mensinger spoke on the 2nd story clerestory windows setback; green screening; and a 7ft. block wall. (03:48:55) Discussion ensued on the Conditions of Approval. (03:49:44) Council Member Genis spoke the access gate; and concern with through traffic. (03:50:12) Public Comments: Adrienne Ainbinder, Costa Mesa, spoke on the need for two gates; the safety on the street; blind intersection; and requested traffic study due to an increase in traffic. (03:58:58) Jerome Blackman, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of not reversing the project; requested a gate at both sides; and spoke on grading. (04:01:58) Isaac Horne, Costa Mesa, spoke on the need to include a gate at Norris; spoke on the dynamics of the street; and concern of safety of the children. (04:06:59) Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke on dangers of drivers cutting through the cul-de- sac. (04:10:30) Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke on the interface between R2 and R1; and spoke on setback issues. (04:12:30) Robin Leffler, Costa Mesa, spoke on increased setbacks; agreed with reversing the project; and spoke on safety issues. (04:15:06) Speaker, Costa Mesa, stated that green screening is not the solution and will destroy hardscape. (04:17:20) Discussion ensued on compromises between the applicant and appellant on certain conditions; and discussion on the gates. (04:19:16) Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer spoke on the cul de sac; the need for a gate on Orange; neighbors working together; and supports the compromises. (04:19:53) Mr. Lee noted the updates to the Conditions of Approval: 5. A decorative 7-foot high perimeter block wall shall be constructed along the southerly property line, and a 6-foot decorative block wall along the northerly property line prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. 6. The interior fences or walls within the development lot, or between the proposed units, shall be a minimum of six feet in height. 7. Condition removed. Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 11 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 32. The final landscape plan shall include a minimum of one (1) 24-inch box tree and three (3) 15-gallon trees along the southerly property line of each individual dwelling unit for screening purposes to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. In addition, the applicant shall be responsible for the purchase and installation of landscape screening (green screen) along the proposed 7-foot wall for homeowners at 214, 218, 222 and 226 E. Wilson Street. Landscaping shall be coordinated by the Wilson Street homeowners individually. Final landscape materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and indicated on landscape plans. (04:24:41) Council Member Genis spoke on the need for the gate. (04:25:28) MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Mensinger/Council Member Monahan The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: Council Member Foley Motion carried: 4-0-1 ACTION: City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision, adopted Resolution No. 15-44, to be read by title only, with changes to the Conditions of Approval; and further reading waived, and approved the proposed project, Planning Application PA-15-10; and Tentative Tract Map TT-178-70. 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 (04:30:08) Senior Planner, Mel Lee, presented the Staff Report. (04:30:40) Public Comments: Steve Frauley, Costa Mesa, spoke on the height of the wall near the Post Office; and stressed using funds by developer for community improvements. (04:33:59) Dennis Bucher, Costa Mesa, spoke on the 2nd story addition will look over their property; and developer should work with the neighbors regarding privacy. (04:36:14) Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke on a compatible project; and requested Mr. Gorrie fees be refunded from previous project. (04:38:15) Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 12 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Robin Leffler, Costa Mesa, complimented the project design; and thanked the developer for listening to the neighbors. (04:39:26) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Council Member Genis The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: Council Member Foley Motion carried: 4-0-1 ACTION: 1. City Council approved the Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND); and 2. City Council gave the first reading to Ordinance No. 15-08, to be read by title only, and waived further reading, approving Rezone R-14-05; and 3. City Council approved Planning Application PA-14-48 and Tentative Tract Map T-17824 by adoption of Resolution No. 15-43, to be read by title only, and waived further reading. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 1. COUNCIL DIRECTION FOR ALLOCATION OF FIELD USE FEES — THIS ITEM WAS WITHDRAWN FOR THE AGENDA AND NOT CONSIDERED. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (04:46:08) 7. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF FIRE STATION NO. 1 (04:46:13) Public Comments: Wendy Leece, Costa Mesa, supports and encourages a community study session on the fire restructuring plan as there is new data and community changes. Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 13 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Council Member Genis The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: Council Member Foley Abstain: None Motion carried: 4-0-1 ACTION: City Council awarded 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 authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. 9. APPARATUS ROOM EXTENSION AND RESCUE VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING — FIRE STATION NO. 4 — CITY PROJECT NO. 15-10 (04:48:07) Public Comments: Wendy Leece, Costa Mesa, spoke on the reconsideration of closing Fire Station No. 6. MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: Council Member Foley Abstain: None Motion carried: 4-0-1 ACTION: 1. City Council adopted 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 accepted the withdrawal of the bid submitted by Marjani Builders, Inc. at 26091 Ravenna Road, Mission Viejo, CA 92692; and 3. City Council awarded 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 authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 14 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 12 16. WEST 19TH STREET BICYCLE TRAIL PROJECT (04:49:23) Public Comments: Cindy Black, Costa Mesa, presented slides; supports no improvements on Talbert Park, spoke on endangered birds; and spoke in opposition of the project. (04:50.01) Speaker, Costa Mesa, spoke on behalf of Flo Martin who is on the Bikeability and Walkability Committee, spoke in opposition of the project, as there is sufficient access to the Santa Ana River Trail. (04:52:28) Council Member Genis requested the option of a full environmental review and alternatives. (04:54:12) Mr. Munoz noted that Staff will look at alternatives and an environmental review. (04:55.26) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: Council Member Foley Abstain: None Motion carried: 4-0-1 ACTION: 1. City Council awarded the Professional Services Agreement for the design of the West 19t" 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 authorized the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. AMENDMENT TO EXTEND TERM OF CARE AMBULANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT (04:55:36) Public Comments: Ron Wortman, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of extending the contract and provided statistics on saving $4 million dollars; and spoke on transport. (04:56.26) Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 15 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke on buying the new vehicles that can transport and following the approved plan. (04:59:27) Wendy Leece, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of Mr. Wortman's proposal and instituting a City Plan. (05:00:12) Robin Leffler, Costa Mesa, spoke on paramedic transport and response times; and spoke in support of fully utilizing City transport vehicles. (05:01:22) Joanne Perler, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of utilizing City transport vehicles. (05:03:10) Beth Rafakes, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of utilizing City transport vehicles; and supports moving forward with a study session to compare the City of Costa Mesa's model to Huntington Beach. (05:04:12) Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer spoke on purchasing new ambulance and efficiency; requested 18 more paramedics to operate ambulances; and requested forming a committee. (05:06.21) Council Member Genis requested a report on restructuring to study transport. (05:10:19) Dan Stefano noted that a report on services will be completed in the Fall. (05:10:26) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tern Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: Council Member Foley Abstain: None Motion carried: 4-0-1 ACTION: City Council approved 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. REPORT — CITY ATTORNEY — None (05:11:34) ADJOURNMENT — To the Regular Meeting Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 16 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 11.07 p.m. Minutes adopted on this 4t" day of August, 2015. Stephen M. Mensinger, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Green, City Clerk Minutes — Regular Meeting — July 21, 2015 - Page 17 Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC-6 SUBJECT: CONVERSION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER POSITION TO PARK RANGER DATE: JULY 27, 2015 FROM: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE PRESENTATION BY: RICHARD L. FRANCIS, ASSISTANT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MARK MANLEY, POLICE CAPTAIN FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RICHARD L. FRANCIS (714) 754-5099 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Officer position approved in the Ranger position within the Police BACKGROUND: Council convert the newly created Code Enforcement FY 2015-16 adopted budget to an additional Park Department. For the FY 2015-2016 budget, the City Council approved the addition of one Code Enforcement Officer position within the Police Department for the purpose of addressing abandoned property on the public right -of way. The public right-of-way includes parks, streets, sidewalks, alleys and any other public area where no private property interest exists. The issue of homelessness and the associated impacts on the Costa Mesa community has been a continuing challenge for the city and one that city staff has taken tremendous steps over the past several years to address. The issue is multifaceted and is being addressed from a citywide, holistic perspective that includes health and housing services, public safety and crime concerns, and blight and community quality -of -life impacts. One tangible consequence of homelessness in the community is abandoned personal property from homeless persons often left in the public right-of-way. The homeless community accounts for a substantial amount of the abandoned property left in the city. This can be for several reasons, such as the individuals walking away from the property, either temporarily or permanently, or perhaps they were hospitalized or arrested and public safety personnel were unaware that the property existed or located elsewhere. In any event, whether the property was permanently abandoned or temporarily unattended on public property, the result can have a negative impact on residents and businesses in the community, as well as leave a distasteful impression upon those visiting Costa Mesa. The Code Enforcement Officer position was designed to work with Police and other City departments to be proactive with locating abandoned property, and responding to assist the Police and Fire Departments, as well as the Network for Homeless Solutions for example, when homeless personal property needed to be collected and booked for safekeeping. This collection effort would also necessitate adhering to accountability procedures established by the Police Department's Property & Evidence Bureau and proper police report documentation in the department's Records Management System (RMS). Police Department personnel are trained and are legally obligated to take possession of any personal property associated with a person who is in their care and custody. This includes arrestees and those with whom the Police Department has created a special relationship by nature of official duties being performed with that person. Regardless, collection and booking of personal property under these circumstances still does not adequately address the volume of abandoned property often connected with Costa Mesa's homeless population. ONAI YSIS• Upon further review, we have concluded that there are limitations to assigning a Code Enforcement Officer primarily to abandoned property and associated homeless issues. First, this position would be limited to a conventional 5-day/8-hour a day work week, which constrains availability in the community. Additionally, the training and background clearance required to interface with the Police Department's CAD/RMS and property and evidence procedures can be challenging and time consuming if there is a turnover of personnel in this position; moreover, these requirements are not necessary for other traditional Code Enforcement job functions this position may be asked to perform. When dealing with personal property left in the public right-of-way, it is not uncommon for Police Department personnel to be confronted or approached by persons, homeless or otherwise, who take issue with the collection or inventory of these items. Code Enforcement Officers do not receive the training, nor are authorized to carry the safety equipment Police Department personnel are issued. Police officers and Park Rangers receive specific and ongoing training to deal with tenuous and sometimes unsafe circumstances. Based on our analysis, we have concluded that converting the approved Code Enforcement Officer position to an additional Park Ranger position within the Police Department will be the best long-term strategy to effectively address the ongoing issues related to our homeless population. There are several reasons that suggest this may be a more efficient and effective manner to address abandoned property. Park Ranger personnel are often requested by police officers to assist with the collection and booking of abandoned personal property on public property. Additionally, all Park Rangers will proactively look for abandoned property and book it for safekeeping if it can be determined the property was permanently left unattended. This approach will apply to the entire Park Ranger program, as opposed to one specified position. All Park Rangers will be encouraged to perform this function outside the park environment as an associated expectation within the job classification. 2 Currently, Park Rangers receive specific training in property booking procedures and have privileged access to the Police Department's police reporting system. Park Rangers also receive mental health and self-defense training and are equipped to deal with situations and persons who may be dangerous. Currently, there are five budgeted Park Ranger positions with one being vacant and a recruitment process pending. The four current Park Rangers work a 5/8 schedule with overlapping days across a seven-day week. Their work hours are staggered with coverage from 7:OOam to 9:30pm. Generally, there are no more than two Park Rangers working throughout the city at any time, with the exception of slight midday overlap in shifts. Because parks see heavier usage in the afternoons, evenings and on the weekends, there is more Park Ranger coverage during those times. Given our current staffing structure, only one Park Ranger is scheduled between 7:OOam and 1:OOpm several mornings during the week. With the service demands of all of the parks, especially Lions Park and Wilson Park, and the driving distance between parks citywide, our Park Rangers spend a considerable amount of their time addressing the most prioritized needs and projects. Additionally, the time a Park Ranger spends assessing unattended property, and subsequently, inventorying and properly booking that property can be quite time consuming and take that Park Ranger out of the field for several hours. We believe that augmenting the Park Ranger ranks will mitigate these constraints and allow the Police Department to better serve the community. Converting the Code Enforcement Officer position to a Park Ranger position will create a six Park Ranger staffing model, and increases opportunities to expand the scope and daily coverage of the Park Ranger program. Taking a programmatic approach to address abandoned property concerns and the enforcement of city regulations and ordinances in the community, should prove to be an effective and efficient model. With added staffing, added expectations can be placed on Park Rangers to spend more time each shift proactively canvassing for abandoned property and mitigating blight and public safety concerns. Simultaneously, increased collaboration can occur with the city's homeless outreach team, Code Enforcement, and other city and county resources to address homeless issues and improve the quality of life for our community. FISCAL IMPACT: Converting the Code Enforcement Officer position to a Park Ranger position will yield an annual savings of $3,936. These savings will contribute to the city-wide salary savings. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney's Office has reviewed this report and approved it as to form. 3 CONCLUSION: The Police Department has determined that shifting the approved Code Enforcement Officer position to a Park Ranger position is a more viable solution to addressing the complex issues concerning the city's homeless. This staffing augmentation will help the Police Department to more efficiently use the Park Ranger program to tackle abandoned property and other quality of life issues collectively. RICHARD L. FRANCIS MARK MANLEY Assistant Chief Executive Officer Police Captain TOM DUARTE City Attorney M PH-1 WMA :4 N 9: a PH - 1 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS . . California Apartment Association 25255 Cabot Road, Suite 103 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 949.955.3695 . caanet.org Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Park in -lieu Impact Fee Dear Mayor Mensinger, On behalf of the Orange County Division of the California Apartment Association (CAA), I am writing regarding a newly proposed park -in -lieu fee for apartment communities. It is my understanding that this proposed fee will be considered at your August 4"' Council meeting. The California Apartment Association is a non-profit association whose membership owns and manages more than ioo,000 residential rental units in Orange County, many of which are located in the City of Costa Mesa. We are the definitive voice of the multifamily housing industry in Orange County. As the voice for the rental housing industry in Costa Mesa we feel that the proposed park fee of $10,B98 per unit is excessive, considering the numerous amenities which come with newly constructed apartment communities in Costa Mesa. We fully understand the desire of the City to have new apartment communities help mitigate their impacts on city facilities. However, future apartment communities will be amenity rich which will help satisfy the demand for recreational parks by future apartment residents. Additionally, with housing affordability nearing unattainable levels, we are concerned of adding any new cost or regulation to residential development. Adding additional costs would be extremely problematic to future residents as apartment owners would inevitably pass on this cost to residents, further exacerbating the affordability crisis. We encourage you to find ways to encourage development of new housing in your city without increasing the cost of doing business. For the reasons listed above, I respectfully request that you recognize the minor impact future apartment residents will have on the park system. If you have any questions related to this request, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tommy Thompson Executive Director Cc: City Council PH-1-ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS env III HIM 1110 June 6, 2015 LEGACY PARTNERS Ms. Claire Flynn City of Costa Mesa Rental Real Estate 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 Property Management RE: Proposed 2015 update to the Park In -Lieu Impact Fees (Park Fees) Acquisitions Dear Claire, Development construction As a follow up to our conversation last week, I am writing to seek clarification regarding the Management proposed update to the Park Fees which will be in front of the City Council in late June or early July. Financial Services While the new park fees would appear to apply to 580 Anton since it is a residential development Marketing project (which is currently in plan check where building permits are still pending), it is not clear service, about the intent to apply the new park fee to projects approved under previously approved vesting Design Services tentative tract maps. Renovations As you know, the 580 Anton project actually has a vested tract map, however, will be developed, held and operated as luxury rental (apartment) project. Under the conditions of approval for the project the Park Fees were established at $7,829 per unit. Similar to other recently approved apartment projects in the City of Costa Mesa (Symphony Towers & Baker Street/Red Oak), 580 Anton is providing a high level of amenity, recreation and open space within the project. In the case of 580 Anton, we anticipate investing over $4,250,000 in these areas including improving a portion of the common area adjacent to the lake which is also accessible to the public. In the event, the City Council does approve the Alternate 2 proposal, i would ask that they consider the applicability of the reduced apartment fee to the 580 Anton project. Based upon the level of amenity and recreation space in the project, I believe it is justified. While the new Park Fee would be higher than both Symphony Towers and Baker Street/Red Oak rental projects, it would be more in line than the current Park Fee and help reduce the current competitive advantage these projects have over 580 Anton. Similar to Symphony Towers, we would be prepared to enter into a covenant agreement prohibiting us from filing a condo regime without the payment of the higher fee structure associated with Condominium developments. I appreciate yours and the City Council's consideration and clarification on this matter. Please contact me if you would like to discuss or have any questions. Sincerely, Timo y rien Senior anaging Director 5141 California Avenue, Suite I DO, Irvine, CA 92617 Legacy Partners • T: 949.930.66D0 F: 949.833.3062 www.legacypartnerLcom PH-1 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Building !Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. It ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER BIA August 4, 2015 Mayor Stephen Mensinger and Honorable Councilmembers City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair View Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PARKLAND IMPACT FEES Dear Mayor Mensinger and Honorable Councilmembers, On behalf of our membership, we would like to offer comments on the proposed update to the City's Parkland In -Lieu Fees Program (Parkland Impact Fees). We would like to thank City staff for their outreach and for the opportunity to review the proposed fee adjustment. The Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter (BIA / OC) is a non-profit trade association of over 1,000 member companies employing over 100,000 people affiliated with the home building industry. The Orange County Chapter represents the largest member base within BIA Southern California. Our mission is to champion housing as the foundation of vibrant and sustainable communities. After review of the City staff's report related to the proposed Parkland Impact Fees, we would like to offer our support for the reduction from the current fee program for Single Family and Multi -Family Owner dwelling units (condominiums) as enumerated in Alternative 1 within the staff report. Additionally, with the numerous recreational amenities offered in newly constructed apartments, we would like to urge the council to consider a lower apartment fee due to the already high cost of housing as it stands today. Housing costs in our region are affected greatly by development fees. Statewide, Orange County is second only to the Bay area in terms of housing costs. We encourage the City to maintain its in -lieu park fees at the lowest rate possible in accordance with the requirements of State law. As always, we remain a resource to the City on important issues that are related to the well-being of our local communities. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Respectfully, Michael Balsamo Chief Executive Officer PRESIDENT JOAN MARCUS-COLVIN THE NEW HOME COMPANY VICE PRESIDENT JIM YATES RANCHO MISSION VIEJO TREASURER PHIL BODEM TAYLOR MORRISON SECRETARY MIKE GARTLAN KB HOME IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT DONNA KELLY LENNAR TRADE CONTRACTOR V.P. ALAN BOUDREAU BOUDREAU PIPELINE CORPORATIO ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT MARK HIMMELSTEIN NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP MEMBER -AT -LARGE MIKE MCMILLEN TRI POINTE HOMES MEMBER -AT -LARGE SCOTT STARKEY STARKEY COMMUNICATIONS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MICHAEL BALSAMO PARK IMPACT FEE CITY OF COSTA MESA F.} In -Lieu Park Impact Fee ►Quimby Act -(Land or Fee) State Gov. Code 66477 ►AB 1600 - Mitigation Fee Act - (Fee) State Gov. Code 66000 Existing Park Fee { y ANK i�•eiR1 ��,5-�+}, r �:.1 � �I �'� -1i G: y.41S. 14 ?� .�^ a a _ - �T— �� ri i"1 `•� y ��.00 - �� y��-• w�l��.�-^ � .' tea+_ _ Alt wow + ._ Why Update? ► To Add Development Impact Fees for Apartments loo, To update the data used for developing the fees ool. To update the methodology to calculate the fees we Average Units Developed Per Year Based on Actual Units Developed over the last 15 years_ 9 un its units 47 /� units 6 Single Family Housing Condominium Aparmems 20M a 2W1 # 22 • • 2)3 • 2004 # a 2005 & s 2006 r s 0 2007 6 2COS a 0 2W9 a i ! 2010 2011 s 2012 r s 2013 & 2014 & a � Total 712 94 1187 35 5 l Source: CDR and DOF data fram 241OGlip 2915. Park Fee Update ► To Add Development Impact Fees for Apartments Residential Projects subject To Residential Projects Exempt from Park Impact Fees park Impact Fees • New common -interest condominium • New single-family subdivisions • New condominiums in mixed - use developments • New condo conversions increasing units • New Apartments* Park Fee Update ► To update the data used for developing the fees 1. Kept Park land -to -population ratio established in 2000 General Plan - 4.26 Acres per 1,.000 People 2. Updated People Per Household by Dwelling Type to 2013 3. Updated Park Land Acquisition and Construction Costs to 2014. Park Fee Update :> To update the methodology to calculate the fees Development Type Single -Family Residence Condominiums - Multi -Family Residence, Owner Apartments Existing Fees Fees with Updated Rates but same Quimby Formula Park Fee Update C To update the methodology to calculate the fees i o Alternative 1: Based on Past Park Expenditures 2, Alternative 2: Based on Historic Trends in Housing Development Park Fee Update PTo update the methodology to calculate the fees Alternative 1: Based on Past Park Expenditures Park Fee Expenditures in the Past 10 City of Costa Mesa Park Expenditures Only 22.38% of potential land acquisition was acquired AMiTAW Cost p e r Acre = 390,000 + . 2238(2, 500, 000) = 949,500 949500 cost 4.26 acre 2.79 people $11,285.19 per unit 1 acre 1000 people 1 unit • - .- M-WM 949500 cost 4.26 acre 2.17 people $8,777.37 p e r u n i t 1 acre 1000 people 1 unit 949500 cost 4.26 acre 2.62 people $10,597.56 per unit 1 acre 1000 people 1 unit Formula Park Fee Alternative Park Expenditure Trends: Park Fee Alternative 2: Costa Mesa Housing Trends: Park Fee Update PTo update the methodology to calculate the fees Alternative 2: Based on Historic Trends in Housing Development Current Park Fees Only Collected from 40% of Residential Development in the City. Apartment Pro*ects Name • - • Blue Sol (Occupied) Symphony Apartments Baker Street Apartments Anton Midrise Residential � Azulon (Occupied)� we Data Used to CaI uIate the 5,056. 1 Park Fee for Apartments AVG PEOPLE PER STUDIO 2.1 AVG PEOPLE PER 2 BEDROOOM UNIT 10 Now, 0 MM Amenities Park} acquisitionbleighted at 50916 Less APPLIED TO APART�.1ENTS W ITH 50 UNITS OR MORE 3 Bedroom 4 o ###I, 3.2 AVG PEOPLE PER 3 BEDROOM UNIT l.a AVG PEOPLE PER 1 BEDROOM UNIT Source: Percent Share calculated from data collected on 64 apartment com plexes with SO un its or more within the City of Costa Mesa: Data from Co Star. Average peopleper unit rgy e gathered from case study of recent a partment d emn-lopment in the City .with less than 1 per -cent vaca ncy and more than 100 units: Blue Sol. AMiTAW Cost per Acre = 390,000 + .45 (2,500,000)=1,515,000 1/515/000 cost 4.26 acre 2.79 people 1 acre 11000 people 1 unit $18,006.38 1,515,000 cost 4.26 acre 2.17 people 1 acre 11000 people 1 unit $14,005.96 Cost per Acre = 390,000 + .11(2,500,000) = 669,750 669,750 cost 1 acre 4.26 acre 11000 people Uses an average people per unit of 1.7723 for large apartments.* $5,056.61 *This average was calculated by finding average people per unit for various apartment sizes and caIcuIatingone rate by using the average proportions for various apartments sizes in a typical developmet with 50 units of more. Alternative Expenditure Park Fee Alternative 2: Costa Mesa Housing Trends: ilaIl"Wlllb'To, Huntington Beach Santa Ana Newport Beach Irvine Fountain Valley Orange 0Z6: $16..278 $7..151 $26..125 Based on Appraisal of land $7..421.49 $10,469.00 omnnnson: ic-1tv's that K City of Irvine (Base on Appraisal of Land) City of Santa Ana ($2,918 based on 2 bedroom) City of Huntington Beach ($4..632 - $12,,520) City of Orange ($9,506 - $10,546.00) City of Anaheim ($5,408.78 for 5 units or more) City of Rancho Santa Margarita (Based on Appraisal of Land) City of Lake Forest (Development Agreement) City of Pasadena ($18,245.02 based on 2 bedroom) Implementation lo-Treatment of Current Projects Future Proj 0001.ects Oo-Maintenance of Fees OOOOOOF . .. � � .- __ _: .-:R • .. �:. _ 1, , w Implementation Oo-Treatment of Current Projects Subject to New Fees: - Projects submitted but not approved for discretionary review - Projects not filed for ministerial review. Implementation Oo-Treatment of Current Projects -Filed projects for Discretionary Review: Implementation ►Treatment of Current Projects -Vested Projects: Requested to Be Charged the New Apartment Fee instead -- of the $7,829 per unit they were vested at when they were condominiums. Implementation ►Treatment of Future Projects - All projects submitted after 90 days of the Approval of the Ordinance shall be subject to new fees. Implementation 0000- Maintenance of Fees Update automatically using Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange Consumer Price Index to adjust for escalation and allow for a comprehensive update to occur every 4 years instead of biennially which is required by code. Development Type Single -Family Residence Condominiums - Multi -Family Residence, Owner Apartments less than 50 units - Multi -Family Residence, Renter Apartments 50 units or more - Multi -Family Residence, Renter Current Fees Fees Based on Existing Formula Park Fee Alternative 1: Park Expenditure Trends: Park Fee Alternative 2: Costa Mesa Housing Trends: Conclusion If a Park Fee is to be adopted: oo, Confirm or not that new fees shall be assessed for Apartments. ��-- Update Park Fee by selecting a Fee Structure > Confirm or not, that Fee will be Automatically Updated by Consumer Price Index > Confirm that projects not subject to new fees are; Filed for ministerial approval and Approved or Filed for Residential Development Planning Applications Compare Different Park Fee Optons Potential Yearly Park Fund Increase 0 Current Park Fee $72%. SingleFamily Horner, $Ga7,R&LM Cor dDriiiniums. SM974M Ave UnftfYear Aparftmnts -M Ave Units, ear Ave Uni-&,'Year Itemativ One -$�42%27S.39 Single Family Homes * 0 4n93 r Gandlorniniums $52,66C22 Apar meats T.2.07_24 Alternative Two S ngle Family Hunes. Apaftments $399,472.1.9 to 2,1.81 47,iiiis + 6,,dt, + { ,,it, Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: August 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH-1 SUBJECT: PROPOSED 2015 UPDATE TO THE PARK IN -LIEU IMPACT FEES (PARK FEES) DATE: JULY 29, 2015 PRESENTATION BY: DANIEL INLOES, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DANIEL INLOES (714) 754-5088 daniel.inioes@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt attached Ordinance and Resolution to: 1) Give first reading to the Ordinance to institute new park fees for apartment projects (multi -family residences, renter); 2) Adopt resolution to update the City's parkland impact fees for residential subdivisions and apartments, including the corresponding formula. •M 1) Provide direction to staff regarding the park fee update and continue the meeting to a future specified date. Development Type Current Fees Based Park Fee Alternative 1: Park Fee Alternative 2: Fees on Existing Formula Park Expenditure Trends: Based on 10-year Costa Mesa Housing Trends: Historic Trends in Park Expenditures Based on 10-year Historic Trends in Housing Development Single -Family MM 11. Residence Condominiums - Residence, • 1 1 11 Owner `•- units - Multi -Family Residence, Renter Apartments 1 units or more Mult'F 7 R 'd I. o mwilmm BACKGROUND: The proposal is an update to the City of Costa Mesa's park in -lieu impact fee, ("park fee"). California Government Code Section 66477, the Quimby Act, and section 66000 authorizes the legislative body of the City to allow the payment of park fees for recreation purposes for these specified residential projects. These new fees will ensure a fair fee assessment per development type while also reflecting the current cost of parkland acquisition and construction for: • Single Family Residences; • Multi -family Residences (Owner); • Apartments 50 units or less; • Apartments 50 units or more. Quimby Act of 1975 The municipal responsibility to set aside parkland and open space for its residents is additionally burdened by future development, and therefore Cities have been authorized since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act to pass ordinances that require developers to set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park acquisition or improvements. AB 1600 of 1987 This bill allowed for development impact fees to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to new development projects. Since apartment developments do not require a subdivision, new fees for apartments are not secured by Quimby; however, apartments do place additional burdens on the City's public open space. The City has a General Plan goal of 4.26 acres of park space per 1,000 people; therefore, apartments may be assessed a fair and proportionate park fee through AB 1600. It is this additional fee and its methodology which requires an ordinance to be established. Current Park Fees The current park fees were adopted in May of 2005 and only apply to residential projects requiring a subdivision and do not apply to apartments. The City Council approved the park fees for new residential subdivisions at $13,572 for single family homes per unit and $13,829 for multi -family homes per unit. The current park fee only applies to new subdivided residential projects and not apartments. Single Family Residence per Unit $13,572 Multi -Family Residence per Unit $13,829 Using the current park fees formula with the updated cost of land, people per household averages, and our general plan goal, the fees would be $29,713.50 for a single-family residence, $23,110.50 for a multi -family owner residence, and no fee for apartments since they are not subdivided. These fees would be thousands of dollars over any other park impact fee in the county and would hamper immediate development within the City. Due to this alternative park fees and their associated methodology was investigated. The Planning Commission provided feedback on Park Fee Alternative #1. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, staff further developed Park Fee Alternative #2 to address some issues that were raised at the meeting. (Attachment 4, PC staff report and minutes). ANALYSIS: Objectives of Updated Park Fee Program Following are the objectives of the park fees update: • To establish apartment categories. The park fees would apply to all major forms of residential development within the City including apartments. • To update the persons per household factor based on current demographic information. • To update the per —unit -cost per development type. • To update the parkland acquisition cost and construction cost based on historic park funding trends, development trends within the City, and future park acquisition goals. Types of Residential Developments Subject to Park Fee The updated fee program is intended to account for all types of new residential development, including apartments. Residential Development Subject to Park Fees • New common -interest condominium • New single-family "detached" subdivisions • New townhouse "attached" subdivisions • New condominiums in mixed -use developments • New condo conversions increasing units • New apartments* • Conversion of apartments to condominiums without changing the unit count.** • Granny units and accessory apartments • Single-family home remodels or additions • Multi -family remodels or additions 'Note: A new category for Apartments is being proposed in the Updated Park Impact Fee Program. `*Note: Additional units will be subject to a fee for new apartment conversions resulting in an increase in units. Eligible Expenditures for the Park Fee All park fees for all types of residential development will meet the same Quimby Act requirement as to the eligible expenditures of park fee funds. The fees will be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community parks or potential school district properties based on a specified formula that meet the State Law requirements. New Methodology to be Adopted State law requires that new parkland impact fees be adopted and that the fee schedule be set pursuant to Council conducting a public hearing and approving an ordinance. A general methodology for calculating park fees is described in the Quimby Act, but AB 1600 also allows Cities to adopt their own methodology granted that; the purpose and use of the fee is identified, there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development on which the fee is to be imposed, there is a reasonable relationship between the need of the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed, the fee is proportionate to the cost of the associated use. Within Article 5 of Chapter XI of Title 13 of the City's Municipal Code the procedures for obtaining park land dedications or assessing and collecting park fees are established. Because this section strictly applies to new residential subdivisions and not apartments, an ordinance is required to be adopted to allow application of park fees to rental projects and a resolution to institute all updated and established fees. PROPOSED PARK FEES ALTERNATIVES David Taussig & Associates, Inc. and Stanley R. Hoffman Associates were contracted by the City to assist in the park fee update process and assist in developing park impact fees that would meet AB 1600 benefit requirements. The following summary table provides park fee alternatives for Council to consider in the adoption of new park fees: Development Type Existing Fees with Park Fee Alternative 1: Park Fee Alternative 2: Fees Updated Rates but Park Expenditure Trends: Based on 10-year Costa Mesa Housing Trends: same Quimby Formula Historic Trends in Park Expenditures Based on 10-year Historic Trends in Housing Development Single-Family11• MM Residence Condominiums - Residence, • 1 1 11 Owner units - Multi -Family Residence, Renter Apartments 50 units or more esidence RRenter / PARK FEE ALTERNATIVE #1: Based on Historic Park Fee Expenditures Park Fee Methodology Based on Park Fee Expenditure Trends Over the past 10 years Cost per Acre=390,000+.2238(2,500,000)=949,500 66. 949500 cost 4.26 acre 2.79 people $11,285.19 per unit 1 acre 1000 people 1 unit 949500 cost 4.26 acre 2.17 people $8,777.37 per unit 1 acre 1000 people 1 unit r949500 cost 4.26 acre 2.62 people $10,597.56 per unit 1 acre 1000 people 1 unit Methodology for Per Unit Cost • Park land -to -population ratio established by 2000 General Plan. General Plan Policy 0SR-1A. 1 establishes the park land -to -population ratio of 4.26 acres per 1,000 people. Any adjustment to this rate requires a General Plan amendment. • Population density standard based on the US Census. Since the last update, demographic trends resulted in changes in the average household size of the various types of residential units within the City. This data was gathered by Stanley Hoffman & Associates from the 2013 ACS 5-year estimates from the US Census. People Per Household by Dwelling Type HouseholdType of Dwelling Units People Single Family 19,861 55,491 2.79 Multi -Family Owner 1,138 2,469 2.17 Multi -Family Renter 18,349 48,125 2.62 • Park land acquisition & construction costs based on 2014 study by David Taussig & Associates, Inc. For purposes of determining land costs an analysis of multiple park acquisitions and developments within our region were gathered and assessed to determine the fair market value of park land acquisition and construction. This methodology was utilized because there were few recent comparable land sales to analyze specifically in regards to infill parks which are the most likely park acquisitions the City can make moving forward. David Taussig & Associates, Inc. reviewed land sales price data for eight (8) properties sold within the City since 2003. The weighted average sales price based on such review was $2,500,000.00 per acre, whereas the cost of construction or upgrades on existing park space is estimated at $390,000.00. The total cost of acquiring and constructing park space would be $2,890,000.00 per acre. Park Fee Expenditures in the Past 10 (Years 2005 — 2015) Fairview, stairs and signage 2010 $488,550 2.00 $488,549.73 Fairview, constructed wetlands 2013 $5,589,220 45.00 $5,589,220.33 Joann Street Bicycle Trail 2011 $1,262,934 2.00 $1,262,934.40 Wilson Park, picnic shelter 2014 $45,000 0.05 $45,000.00 Del Mesa Park, new picnic shelter 2014 $45,000 0.05 $45,000.00 Brentwood Park 2011 $3,262,581 1.20 $3,262,580.52 Brentwood Park Upgrades 2011 $315,734 1.20 $315,733.60 Volcom Skate Park Dev 2006 $1,761,429 1.25 $1,761,428.57 Angels Playground 2008 $1,869,232 2.00 $1,869,231.73 Lions Park/Davis Field Baseball 2011 $526,223 2.50 $526,222.66 Bark Park 2008 $208,914 2.00 $208,914.13 Shalimar Park, new playground 2014 $120,000 0.16 $120,000.00 Total $15,494,816 59.41 $12,232,235.15 $3,262,580.52 Due to the lack of land and priority to upgrading existing parks only 1.2 acres of land was acquired over the past ten years. This represents 22.38% of the 5.36 possible acres the City could have acquired. Therefore, having a cost per acre which includes the full cost of construction and only 22.38% of land acquisition is a reasonable approach. This comes out to $949,500.00 per acre. Average Units Developed Per Year Based on Actual Units developed fiver the last 15 years. I umfis units its 47 Single family Housing Condominium Apartments 2000 • 2001 • 2002 • • 2003 • 2004 • • 2005 • • 2006 • • • 2007 • 20M • • 2009 • • • 2010 • 20i1 s 2012 • • 2013 • 2014 • • • Total 712 94 1187 35°% 5% W% Sbu— CDR aed DOF data 1-24IW 1. M5. PARK FEE ALTERNATIVE #2: Based on Historic Costa Mesa Housing Trends Park Fee Methodology Based on Historic Housing Development Trends Over the past 10 years Cost per Acre=390,000+.45 (2,500,000)=1,515,000 Single -Family Residential 1,515,000 cost 4.26 acre 2.79 people 1 acre 1,000 people 1 unit $18,006.38 1,515,000 cost 4.26 acre 2.17 people 1 acre 1,000 people 1 unit $14,005.96 Cost per Acre = 390,000 + .11(2,500,000) = 669,750 669,750 cost 4.26 acre Uses an average people per unit of 1.7723 for 1 acre 1,000 people large apartments.* $5,056.61 *This average was calculated byfindingaverage people per unit for various apartment sizes and calculating one rate by usingthe average proportions for various apartments sizes in a typical developmet with 50 units of more. Previous park expenditures were hampered by only receiving funds from 40% of the overall units developed in the last 15 years and therefore limited the potential projects that could be developed by this fund. This is shown in the infographic above. This graphic also confirms that if apartments are paying park fees in the future the potential fund overall will grow and perhaps will be sufficient for more opportunities for acquisition in the future. This alternative proposes to increase the weighting of the cost of acquisition to 45% for single family residences and multi -family projects. This provides further funding for park upgrades and acquisition but does not raise the fee much higher than the existing fees. Some of the high -end apartment projects (entitled or completed) are listed below. Aoartment Proiects Blue Sol (Occupied) 421 Bernard Street 113 Symphony Apartments 585 and 595 Anton Boulevard 393 Baker Street Apartments 125 Baker Street 240 Anton Midrise Residential 580 Anton Boulevard 250 Azulon (Occupied) 1500 Mesa Verde Drive 230 Data Used to Calculate the $5,056.61 Park Fee for Apartments 1.2 AVG PEOPLE PER SfUD10 tff 2.1 AVG PEOPLE PER 2 BEDROOOM UNIT MMen lLies - Par kAcquisition weighted at 50% Less � APPLIED TO APARTMENTSWUH 50 UNITS OR IMORL 3 Bedroom / 4% 3.2 AVG PEOPLE PER 3 BEDROOM UNIT #4 1.5 AVG PEOPLE PER 1 BEDROOM UNIT Source: Percent Share calculated from data collected on 60 a partmerrt complexes with SO units ormore withinthe City of Costa Mesa: Data from Co Star. Average people per u nittype gathered from case study of recent apartment development in the Citywith lessthan 1 percentvacancy and morethan 100 units: Blue Sol. The threshold of 50 units was taken from the Zoning Code as a starting point for discussion. The Zoning Code already recognizes 50 units as a threshold for large developments. To account for the common space amenities and the complexities of person per household ratios within apartments the information below was used to create an apartment park fee, for developments with a significant number of units, of $5,056.61. COMPARISON OF PARK FEES IN OTHER OC CITIES The following table indicates park impact fees of other Orange County cities. Because cities vary in their approach to calculating park impact fees, and demographic and housing characteristics also differ from city to city, the following table is provided for reference purposes only and is not intended to be a direct comparison. City Park Fee Per Unit City of Laguna Beach $4,580 City of Santa Ana Varies; up to $4,823 City of Seal Beach $5,000 to $10,000 City of Anaheim $5,388 to $6,936 City of Garden Grove $5,500 City of Tustin $5,931 to $6,386 City of San Clemente $6,823 City of Newport Beach Varies; $6,894 to $26,125 City of Brea $6,945 City of Fountain Valley $7,421 City of Laguna Hills $7,700 City of Orange $8,894 City of Seal Beach $10,000 City of Huntington Beach No Subdivision: Detached $11,540 Attached $8,576 Subdivision: Detached $17,857 Attached $13,385 City of San Juan Capistrano $11,600 City of Irvine Fee varies based on acreage value of land to be dedicated. May be as low as $1,150 per acre of land dedication. City of Costa Mesa $13,572 to $13,879 Automatic Adjustment of Park Fee based on Consumer Price Index Every Year The current park fees have not been adjusted for ten years. The consultants propose that the park fee be increased on July 1st of each year, starting July 1, 2016, based on the change to the Los Angeles — Riverside -Orange County Consumer Price Index in comparison to the previous calendar year. This would adjust for escalation and allow for the City to update the park fees in 5 years as opposed to biennially as stated in the code. New Park Fees to be applied for Pending Entitlement Projects State law requires that the new fees shall not go into effect until after 60 days of Council adoption of the resolution. Park fees may be applied to all pending projects, including rental projects. Staff recommends that the new park impact fees shall apply to any live/work or residential development project which meets any of the following criteria: (1) Any discretionary application for a live/work or residential development project which was approved by the final decision making body after the effective date of the resolution; OR (2) Any pending ministerial application for a residential development project which was not subject to discretionary review and which was submitted into plan check after the effective date of the resolution; OR (3) Any previously -approved live/work or residential development project which has expired after the effective date of this resolution. Note: If park fees are reduced, Council would need to direct staff to modify the resolution to reflect whether or not reduced fees will be applied retroactively to previously -approved projects. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney's office has approved the attached resolution as to form. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council may select one of the following actions with the Park Fees; • Existing Fees: Keep current park fees; however, Council may wish to add new park fees for apartments as identified in Alt #1 or Alt #2. • Park Fee Alternative #1: Adopt this alternative based on trends in park fee expenditures. • Park Fee Alternative #2: Adopt this alternative based on Costa Mesa housing trends. • Continue hearing: Provide direction to staff to research and identify other alternatives. The resolution would be modified to include the selected alternative and park fees. Development Type Existing Fees with Park Fee Alternative 1: Park Fee Alternative 2: Fees Current Rates but same Park Expenditure Trends: Based on 10-year Costa Mesa Housing Trends: Quimby Formula Historic Trends in Park Expenditures Based on 10-year Historic Trends in Housing Development Single -Family MM 11• '- sidence • •• Residence, MM 11 Owner Apartments 1 units - Multi -Family Residence, Renter Apartments 1 units or • Multl-Family Residence, 1 Renter CONCLUSION: The City's park fees have not been updated for over ten years. Council may select a methodology for calculating park fees and adopt new park fees. Important note: Staff recommends that the park fees be updated automatically every year based on the consumer price index and that the new park fees be applied to pending/future development projects that have not received zoning entitlements to date. DANIEL INLOES, AICP GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Associate Planner Economic Development & Development Services Director / Deputy CEO Attachments: 1. Draft Council Ordinance 2. Draft Council Resolution 3. Redlined Version of Proposed Ordinance Changes 4. Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting 5. Justification Study by David Taussig & associates, Inc. 6. Letter of Support from BIA Distribution: Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO Assistant Development Services Director Sr. Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst File (2) ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING CODE AMENDMENT CO-15-04, AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER XI, ARTICLE 5 RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF NEW PARK IMPACT FEES FOR MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RENTER DEVELOPMENT (APARTMENTS) IN COSTA MESA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Objective OSR-1A.1 of the Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan establishes the park land -to -population ratio of 4.26 acres for every 1,000 residents. WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66477 authorizes the legislative body of a City to require the payment of fees in -lieu of the dedication of land for park and recreation purposes. WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66000 authorizes the legislative body of a City to require the payment of development impact fees to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to a type of development as long as the benefit requirements are met. WHEREAS, Chapter IX, Subdivisions, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code sets forth provisions relating to the dedication of land and collection of park impact fees for park and recreation purposes on single family and multiple family residential development which are subdivided. WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the methodology related to calculating the park impact fees, including a review of historic parkland expenditures, review of historic housing trends, and consideration of population density standards. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on August 4, 2015 where public testimony was received for and against the fee methodology, amended park impact fees, and ordinance. WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, the City Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is covered by CEQA General Rule Exemption [Section 15061(b)(3)] which exempts activities that can be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment. A significant effect is defined as, "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the physical conditions within the area," and the adoption of this Ordinance is therefore not subject to CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby finds and determines that additional park fees shall be collected from all projects which meet Government Code Section 66477 and for apartment projects in the City which do not require a residential subdivision (i.e. multi -family residences; renter) by applying development impact fees for park development and acquisition purposes based on California Government Code Section 66000. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code is hereby amended as described below. A. Title 13, Chapter XI, Article 5, Section 13-250 is hereby amended to as follows: "Sec.13-250. PURPOSE The purpose of this article is to establish the procedures for requiring park and recreational facilities in conjunction with residential developments ("PARK FEES"). Sections 13-251 through 13-261 relate to residential developments which require a subdivision and which shall be subject to State Government Code Section 66410 et seq. Section 13-261.1 through Section 262.8 refer to multi -family residential developments for renters ("apartments") which shall be subject to State Government Code Section 66000 et seq." I .� B. Title 13, Chapter XI, Article 5, Section 13-250.1 is hereby added as follows: "Sec. 13-250.1 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH SUBDIVISION" C. Title 13, Chapter XI, Article5, Section 13-256 (h) is hereby amended to as follows: "(h) In order that the fees levied pursuant to subsection (a) keep pace with the cost of land, the fee schedule described in subsection (a) shall be periodically adjusted on a biennial basis, or as specified by City Council by resolution. The fee schedule shall be adjusted using the methodology described in subsection (a) for establishing the fee schedule." D. Title 13, Chapter XI, Article 5, is hereby amended to include the following new sections: "Sec. 13-261.1 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR RENTERS (APARTMENTS) Sec. 13-261.2 REQUIREMENT Every residential developer who creates a multi -family residential development for renter households ("apartments") shall be required to remit a park fee as established in this section for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities to serve the future residents of the apartments. Sec. 13-261.3. APPLICATION The provisions of this article shall apply to all residential developments, which are not subdivided and subject to State Government Code Section 66000 et. seq. Sec. 13-261.4 RELATION OF LAND REQUIRED TO POPULATION DENSITY Consistent with the General Plan, it is hereby found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that 4.26 acres of property for each 1,000 persons residing within the City be devoted to public park and recreational purposes. Sec. 13-261.5 POPULATION DENSITY For the purposes of this section, population density shall be established by resolution of the City Council, utilizing the following classifications: (a) Apartments Any building (or portion thereof) or collection of buildings which provide two or more self-contained dwelling units not designated for separate ownership. (b) Small Multiple -Family residential, renter. Apartments and other multiple -family residential developments, with less than 50 units, where the units are for rent and are not legally subdivided for homeownership. 15- (c) Large Multiple -Family residential, renter. Apartments and other multiple -family residential developments, with 50 units or more, where the units are for rent and are not legally subdivided for homeownership. (d) Determination of the number of dwelling units. The total number of dwelling units shall be determined by the number of units proposed for construction. When the actual number of units is unknown, the number of the units shall be based on the maximum number of units which are permitted by the General Plan for the property at the time the tentative or parcel map is filed with the City. Sec. 13-261.6 PARK FEE FORMULA FOR APARTMENTS The amount of park fee required pursuant to this section shall be based on the following formulas: For Apartment projects with less than 50 units: Use the fee assigned to multi -family subdivided developments in Sec. 13-255 For Apartment projects with 50 units or more: FEE = 4.26 (D.F. x D.U. x P.C.) / 1,000 Definition of terms: FEE — The per unit cost to be appraised for fee payment 4.26- Number of acres per 1000 persons. A.D.F. - Apartment density factor obtained from Section 13-261.5 POPULATION DENSITY as applicable to the proposed development. D.U. - Number of dwelling units. P.C. Proportionate cost is the sum of the weighted cost of park land acquisition per acre of land and cost of construction per acre of land. Sec. 13-261.7. AMOUNT OF PARK FEE FOR APARTMENTS (a) The park impact fee for apartments must meet all benefit requirements for State Government Code Section 66000 as follows: (1) Identifies the purpose of the fee; (2) Identifies the use to which the fee is applied; (3) Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; (4) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed; and (5) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the dedication and acceptance of land for park and recreation purposes where the developer proposes the dedication voluntarily and the land is accepted by the City Council at their discretion. When land dedication is provided, it shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and applicable local ordinances. (c) If the developer objects to the amount of the fee pursuant to this section, an appeal may be made to the City Council by filing an application of appeal with the City Clerk and payment of an appeal processing fee as determined by the City Council. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 7 days of payment of the fee. The developer shall have the burden of proof in contesting the amount of the fee. Within 30 days of receipt of the notice of appeal, a public hearing on the appeal shall be held by the City Council, and the decision shall be final and conclusive in determining the amount of the fee. (d) The fee shall be paid to the Development Services Department and shall be deposited and held in appropriate trust accounts and may be expended therefrom only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreation facilities to serve the development on which the fee is charged. Upon receipt of the fee, the Development Services Department shall issue a receipt, and the receipt shall be presented as proof of payment of the fee prior to the issuance of any permit for buildings and structures pursuant to this Zoning Code. (e) In order that the fees levied pursuant to subsection (a) keep pace with the cost of land, the fee schedule described in subsection (a) shall be periodically adjusted on a biennial basis, or as specified by City Council by resolution. The fee schedule shall be adjusted using the methodology described in subsection (a) for establishing the fee schedule. (f) Upon application to the Development Services Department, the payment of the fee may be deferred where the department makes the following findings: (1) The developer has entered into a fee agreement with written evidence of adequate security to assure payment of the fee at a date prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and in a form approved by the City Attorney; and -19- (2) The deferral of the fee shall not adversely impact the development of new or the rehabilitation of existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the development. Sec. 13-261.8 PROCEDURE, CREDIT (a) Procedure. When fees are required, the same shall be deposited with the Development Services Department prior to issuance of building permits. (b) Credit. Credit shall be granted for dwelling units demolished as a part of the development. This credit shall be limited to the number of units existing at the time of the approval of the project and shall not be transferred to other developments. A second dwelling unit legally established in conjunction with and subordinate to a primary dwelling unit in an R1 zone (i.e. accessory apartment, granny unit, granny flat, or in-law apartment) shall not be subject to the park fee." SECTION 2: INCONSISTENCIES. 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. SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY. If any provision of 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. SECTION 4: PUBLICATION. 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 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of August 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor of the 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 foregoing Ordinance No. 15- as introduced and considered section by section 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. City Clerk City Council of the City of Costa Mesa `` — ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 05- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, TO IDENTIFY AND DETERMINE A METHODOLOGY FOR THE CALCULATION OF PARKLAND IMPACT FEES AND TO ADOPT NEW PARK IMPACT FEES FOR NEW SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING APARTMENTS, IN COSTA MESA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66477 authorizes the legislative body of a City to require the payment of fees in -lieu of the dedication of land for park and recreation purposes. WHEREAS, Objective OSR-1A.1 of the Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan establishes the park land -to -population ratio of 4.26 acres for every 1,000 residents. WHEREAS, Chapter IX, Subdivisions, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code sets forth provisions relating to the dedication of land and collection of park impact fees for park and recreation purposes. WHEREAS, Article 5, Section 13-256, Amount of fee in lieu of land dedication, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa establishes the methodology for calculating parkland in -lieu fees. Based on this methodology, parkland in -lieu fees would be in excess of $23,000 per unit for single-family and multi -family residential development for specified residential subdivisions. WHEREAS, State Law allows Council to adopt reduced parkland impact fees. WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the methodology related to calculating the park impact fees, including a review of historic parkland expenditures, review of historic housing trends, and consideration of population density standards. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2015 where public testimony was received for and against the fee methodology and amended park impact fees. WHEREAS, 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. WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, the City Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is covered by CEQA General Rule Exemption [Section 15061(b)(3)] which exempts activities that can be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment. A significant effect is defined as, "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the physical conditions within the area," and the adoption of this Ordinance is therefore not subject to CEQA. WHEREAS, If any provision of 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 the new park impact fees shall apply to: (1) Any live/work or residential development pending ministerial or discretionary application which is filed on or after the effective day of the resolution or (2) any previously -approved live/work or residential project which has an expiration date on or after the effective date of the resolution regardless if a time extension is approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby finds and determines that the park impact fees shall be calculated based on the _2t_ methodology described in Exhibit A. This methodology also includes the calculation of park impact fees for apartment projects in the City which do not require a residential subdivision (i.e. multi -family residences; renter). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council also hereby adopts new parkland impact fees as described in Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that park impact fees shall apply to current and pending as described in Exhibit C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the park impact fees shall be updated to ensure it meets State Government Code 66470 and 66000 in four years but be automatically adjusted on an annual basis every July using the Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange CO CA Consumer Price Index to adjust for escalation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to State Law the above -fees shall go into effect no sooner than 60 days after Ordinance No. is final and effective. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of August 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa 2- ATTACHMENT 3 ARTICLE 5. PARK AND RECREATION DEDICATIONS Sec.13-250. PURPOSE The purpose of this article is to establish the procedures for requiring park and recreational facilities in conjunction with residential developments ("PARK FEES"). Sections 13-251 through 13-261 relate to residential _developments which require a subdivision and which shall be sub'I_ect to State Government Code Section 66410 et seq. Section 13-261.1 through Section 262.8 refer to multi -family residential developments for renters ("apartments") which shall be subject to State Government Code Section 66000 et seq. The-{-)urpose--of✓th4s-art s-Co. establish. -the pro edures -for-regt4irang-.park-and--reereatiofial.-facilitie6-in Geniunn4inn V.d#h rociiJcn+i_l ch`I iiic inns Sec. 13-250.1 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH SUBDIVISION Sec.13-251. REQUIREMENT Every residential subdivider who creates a subdivision shall be required to dedicate a portion of the land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or do a combination of both, as established in this article for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities to serve future residents of the subdivision. Sec.13-252. APPLICATION The provisions of this article shall apply to all residential subdivisions, as defined in State Government Code Section 66410 et seq.. (a) Subdivisions containing fewer than 5 lots and not used for residential purposes shall be exempted from the requirements of this article. However, a condition may be placed on the approval of the tentative or parcel map that if a building permit is requested for construction of a residential structure or structures on one or more of the lots within 4 years, the fee may be required to be paid by the owner of each such lot as a condition of issuing the permit. (b) This section does not apply to commercial or industrial subdivisions, or to residential common interest development projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building which is more than 5 years old when no new dwelling units are added. Sec. 13-253. RELATION OF LAND REQUIRED TO POPULATION DENSITY Consistent with the General Plan, it is hereby found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that 5.76 acres of property for each 1,000 persons residing within the City be devoted to public park and recreational purposes. The requirement will be satisfied in part by arrangements between the City and the local school district to make available for park and recreation purposes, 1.5 acres of school sites adjacent to the proposed park for each 1000 persons residing within the City. The remaining 4.26 acres of the required 5.76 acres shall be supplied as required by this article. Chapter XI Subdivisions Park and Recreation Dedications - 2 Z r Sec. 13-254. POPULATION DENSITY For the purposes of this article, population density shall be established by resolution of the City Council, utilizing the following classifications: (a) Single-family residential. Detached single-family homes where there is no more than one dwelling unit on a lot. (b) Multiple -family residential. Apartments, common interest developments, townhouses and similar multiple -family residential developments, including detached single-family homes where there is more than one dwelling unit on a lot. (c) Determination of the number of dwelling units. The total number of dwelling units shall be determined by the number of units proposed for construction. When the actual number of units is unknown, the number of the units shall be based on the maximum number of units which are permitted by the General Plan for the property at the time the tentative or parcel map is filed with the City. Sec. 13-255. AMOUNT OF LAND TO BE DEDICATED The amount of land required to be dedicated by a subdivider pursuant to this section shall be based on the following formula: A = 4.26(D.F. X D.U.)/1,000 Definition of terms: A - The area in acres required to be dedicated as park sites or to be appraised for fee payment in lieu of dedication. 4.26- Number of acres per 1000 persons. D.F.- Density factor obtained from Section 13-254 POPULATION DENSITY as applicable to the proposed development. D.U.- Number of dwelling units. Sec. 13-256. AMOUNT OF FEE IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION (a) Where there is no public park or recreation facility required within the proposed subdivision, or where the subdivision contains 50 lots or fewer, the subdivider shall pay a fee in lieu of land dedication reflecting the value of land required for park and recreation purposes in accordance with the schedule of fees as adopted by resolution of the City Council. This fee shall reflect the average fair market value of neighborhood and community park land within the City. The fair market value shall be determined by an appraisal of at least one neighborhood park site and one community park site. The appraisal shall be conducted by an M.A.I. appraiser and shall consider the factors set forth in subsection (e), where applicable to the appraisal of public park land. (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the dedication and acceptance of land for park and recreation purposes in subdivisions of 50 lots or fewer, where the subdivider proposes the dedication voluntarily and the land is accepted by the City Council. (c) When a common interest development project, stock cooperative, or community apartment project exceeds 50 dwelling units, the City may elect to require dedication of land notwithstanding that the number of lots may be 50 lots or fewer. (d) For subdivisions in excess of 50 lots, the City Council may elect to receive a fee in lieu of land dedication. The amount of such a fee shall be based upon the fair market value of land which would Chapter XI Subdivisions Park and Recreation Dedications ^� otherwise be required for dedication. The fair market value shall be determined by an M.A.I. appraiser acceptable to the City and at the expense of the developer as set forth in subsection (e). If more than one year elapses between the appraisal and recording of the final map, the City shall have prepared a new appraisal and shall invoice the subdivider for the cost of the appraisal. (e) For purposes of this section, the determination of the fair market value of neighborhood and community park land or unimproved residential land which would otherwise be required for dedication shall be determined by an M.A.I. appraiser acceptable to the City and shall consider, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: (1) The value of the unimproved residential land by residential density shown on the tentative subdivision map at the time the final map is to be recorded; (2) Approval of and conditions of the tentative subdivision map; (3) The General Plan land use designation of the property; (4) The zoning classification of the property; (5) Property location; (6) Off -site improvements facilitating use of the property; and (7) Site characteristics. (f) If the subdivider objects to the amount of the fee pursuant to this section, an appeal may be made to the City Council by filing an application of appeal with the City Clerk and payment of an appeal processing fee as determined by the City Council. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 7 days of payment of the in -lieu fee. The subdivider shall have the burden of proof in contesting the amount of the fee. Within 30 days of receipt of the notice of appeal, a public hearing on the appeal shall be held by the City Council, and the decision shall be final and conclusive in determining the amount of the fee. (g) The fee shall be paid to the Development Services Department and shall be deposited and held in appropriate trust accounts and may be expended therefrom only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreation facilities to serve the subdivision on which the fee is charged. Upon receipt of the fee, the Development Services Department shall issue a receipt, and the receipt shall be presented as proof of payment of the fee prior to the issuance of any permit for buildings and structures pursuant to this Zoning Code. (h) In order that the fees levied pursuant to subsection (a) keep pace with the cost of land, the fee schedule described in subsection (a) shall be periodically adjusted on a biennial basis, or as specified by City Council by resolution. The fee schedule shall be adjusted using the methodology described in subsection (a) for establishing the fee schedule. (h) -AFT-order-that-the-€ees-#evied-puf-swat to--subsection--(a-)-keeppase With the -GO"f-land—th+e--fee sc#�edutledescribed-iF�-st:�bseot+pan-(e}-sha4t-tie-pea��disa#ly-adjusr©�'�.�„^--�.-bis+�iat-t�asFs—The-fee schedUle- shall be- adjUstedU&ing4h& methodo#ogy described-in-subseetion (a)-'For�stab4s_har-the fee s�hpd, ;p (i) Upon application to the Development Services Department, the payment of the fee in lieu of land dedication pursuant to this section may be deferred where the department makes the following findings: Chapter XI Subdivisions Park and Recreation Dedications _ Z 5 (1) The subdivider has entered into a fee agreement with written evidence of adequate security to assure payment of the fee at a date prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and in a form approved by the City Attorney; and (2) The deferral of the fee shall not adversely impact the development of new or the rehabilitation of existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. Sec. 13-257. COMBINATION OF LAND AND FEE In determining whether a subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu of land dedication, or a combination of both, the following procedure shall be used: (a) Subdividers required to or desiring to dedicate property for park and recreational purposes shall, upon filing a tentative map for approval, check with the City to determine whether their property has been designated for a park site in the General Plan. If a subdivider's property is so designated, the subdivider shall coordinate with the necessary departments to incorporate the park sites(s) into the property's development plan. (b) If the subdivider's property is not so designated, and a school site is proposed within or in proximity to the property, a park site adjacent to the school site shall be developed and the subdivider shall coordinate with the necessary departments to incorporate the park site(s) into the property's development plan. Sec. 13-258. ACTION OF CITY (a) At the time of tentative or parcel map approval, the Planning Commission shall determine whether to require dedication of land within the subdivision, payment of a fee in lieu thereof, or a combination of both. (b) Determination: Whether the City accepts land dedication, requires payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, shall be determined by consideration of the following factors: (1) The Open Space Sub -Element of the General Plan. (2) Provisions of Sections 13-256 AMOUNT OF FEE IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION, and 13- 257 COMBINATION OF LAND AND FEE, of this article. (3) Topography, geology, access and location of land in the subdivision available for dedication. (4) Size and shape of the subdivision and the land available for dedication. (c) The determination of the City that land shall be dedicated or a fee paid in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, shall be final and conclusive. Sec. 13-259. PROCEDURES, CREDITS (a) Procedures. When land dedication is required, it shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and applicable local ordinances. When fees are required, the same shall be deposited with the Development Services Department prior to recordation of the map or issuance of building permits. (b) Credits. Credits against the amount of land to be dedicated or the amount of fees to be paid in lieu of dedication shall be granted as follows: (1) Existing dwelling units: Credit shall be granted for dwelling units demolished as a part of the development of the subdivision. This credit shall be limited to the number of units existing at the time of the approval of the project and shall not be transferred to other subdivisions. Chapter XI Subdivisions Park and Recreation Dedications �� ` (2) Privately developed, owned and maintained open space: Where private facilities for park and recreational purposes are provided in a proposed subdivision and the facilities are to be privately owned and maintained by the future residents of the subdivision, the areas occupied by the facilities shall be credited against the requirement of dedication of land for park and recreation purposes or the payment of fees in lieu thereof, to the extent that the Planning Commission finds it is in the public interest to do so and that the following standards are met: a. That each facility is available for use by all the residents of the subdivision; b. That the area and the facilities satisfy the recreation and park needs of the subdivision so as to reduce the need for public recreation and park facilities to serve the subdivision residents; C. That the area provided is in excess of the minimum amount of open space required for the subdivision; d. That the area provided in excess of required open space is not used as a credit or bonus incentive as provided in other sections of this Zoning Code; and e. That the area provided is of sufficient size, location and design to facilitate functional use of the area to meet the park and recreation demands of the future subdivision residents. (3) Credits shall be granted, dollar for dollar, for the value of park and recreational area and other improvements as approved by the Planning Commission. The value of the facilities shall be established by written documentation of the actual acquisition cost of the facilities paid by the subdivider. (c) Previous fees. Credit shall be granted, dollar for dollar, for any park and recreation fees paid for the property pursuant to this Zoning Code within the preceding 5 years. (d) Improvements to dedicated land. Credit shall be granted, dollar for dollar, if the subdivider provides park and recreation facilities and/or improvements to land dedicated for park and recreation purposes. The value of the facilities and/or improvements shall be established by written documentation of the actual acquisition cost of the facilities or construction costs of the improvements paid by the subdivider. (e) Limitation on credits. The maximum amount of credits provided by this section shall not exceed 100% of the calculated fee in lieu of land dedication. (f) Transfer of credits. Credits provided by this section shall not be transferred or assignable to apply to property outside of the subdivision awarded the credit. (g) The granting of credits. Pursuant to Section 13-259(b) PROCEDURES AND CREDITS, credits shall be granted subject to the following conditions: (1) The private ownership and maintenance of the facilities shall be adequately provided for by written agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney; (2) The use of the private facilities is restricted for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenants which run with the land in favor of the future owners of property within the subdivision and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the City Council; (3) The proposed private facilities are reasonable and adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access and location of the private open space land; and (4) The facilities proposed are in substantial accordance with the General Plan. Chapter XI Subdivisions Park and Recreation Dedications — 2n — (h) Additional credits. In lieu of the dedication of land for park and recreation purposes or the payment of a fee, the Development Services Director, with the approval of the Planning Commission may permit the following: (1) Dedication of land for park or recreation purposes outside of the subdivision; (2) Improvements to be made to an existing City park or upon land being dedicated as a public park; (3) Recreational facility to be installed upon land being dedicated as a City park; or (4) Any combination of 1, 2, or 3, above, provided that the land to be dedicated, the improvements to be made or the facilities to be installed or constructed are so located as to bear a reasonable relationship to the use thereof by future inhabitants of the subdivision. The dedication of land or providing of improvements or facilities may only be used as a credit against the otherwise required dedication or fee to the extent of the value of the land, improvements or facilities as determined by the Planning Commission to be equal to or greater than the value of the land which would have been dedicated or the fee which would be paid pursuant to Section 13-256 AMOUNT OF FEE IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION. Sec. 13-260. STATEMENT OF CITY RESPONSIBILITY The City shall comply with all requirements of State Government Code Section 66477 with regard to acceptance and use of land dedicated or fees paid for park and recreational purposes. Sec. 13-261. PARK AND RECREATION FEE IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION NOTICE Where the residential subdivision contains 50 lots or fewer, the Development Services Department shall affix to any permit for buildings or structures and any vesting tentative map issued pursuant to this Zoning Code located within the subdivision a notice to read as follows: PARK AND RECREATION FEE IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION NOTICE: The City of Costa Mesa is giving consideration to enactment of a resolution or ordinance, or a combination thereof, for the increase in the park and recreation fees in lieu of land dedication pursuant to Section 13-256(a) AMOUNT OF FEE IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION, and State Government Code Section 66477. The owner of the project designated in this permit or vesting tentative map shall be obligated to pay to the Development Services Department a park and recreation fee in lieu of land dedication if such a fee is adopted in the future by the City of Costa Mesa. The fee will only be used for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. Sec. 13-261.1 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR RENTERS (APARTMENTS) Sec. 13-261.2 REQUIREMENT Every residential developer who creates a multi -family residential development for renter households ("apartments") shall be required to remit a park fee as established in this section for the purpose of providing_ parr and recreational facilities to serve the future residents of the apartments. Chapter XI Subdivisions Park and Recreation Dedications 2g Sec. 13-261.3. APPLICATION The provisions of this article shall apply to all residential developments, which are not subdivided and subiect to State Government Code Section 66000 et. sea. Sec. 13-261.4 RELATION OF LAND REQUIRED TO POPULATION DENSITY Consistent with the General Plan. it is hereby found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that 4.26 acres of property for each 1,000 persons residing within the City be devoted to public park and recreational purposes. Sec. 13-261.5 POPULATION DENSITY For the purposes of this section, population density shall be established by resolution of the City Council. utilizing the following classifications: (e) Apartments Any building (or portion thereof) or collection of buildings which provide two or more self-contained dwelling units not designated for separate ownership. (f) Small Multiple -Family residential, renter. Apartments and other multiple - family residential developments, with less than 50 units, where the units are for rent and are not leaallv subdivided for homeownership.. (g) Lame Multiple -Family residential, renter. Apartments and other multiple - family residential developments. with 50 units or more, where the units are for rent and are not Iegaliy subdivided for homeownership. (h) Determination of the number of dwelling units. The total number of dwelling units shall be determined by the number of units proposed for construction. When the actual number of units is unknown, the number of the units shall be based on the maximum number of units which are permitted by the General Plan for the property at the time the tentative or parcel map is filed with the City. Sec. 13-261.6 PARK FEE FORMULA FOR APARTMENTS The amount of park fee reauired pursuant to this section shall be based on the followi formulas: For Apartment projects with less than 50 units: Use the fee assigned to multi -family subdivided developments in Sec. 13-255 For Apartment projects with 50 units or more: = 4.26 (D.F. x D.U. x P.C.) / 1.000 Definition of terms: FEE — The per unit cost to be appraised for fee payment Chapter XI Subdivisions Park and Recreation Dedications ,2n 4.26- Number of acres per 1000 persons. A.D.F. - Apartment densitv factor obtained from Section 13-261.5 POPULATION DENSITY as applicable to the proposed development. D.U. - Number of dwellina units. P.C. Proportionate cost is the sum of the weighted cost of park land ac uisition per acre of land and cost of construction per acre of land. Sec. 13-261.7. AMOUNT OF PARK FEE FOR APARTMENTS (i) The park impact fee for apartments must meet all benefit requirements for State Government Code Section 66000 as follows: (6) Identifies the purpose of the fee: (7) Identifies the use to which the fee is applied; (8) Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development proiect on which the fee is imposed; (9) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed; and (10) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. (j) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the dedication and acceptance of land for park and recreation purposes where the developer proposes the dedication voluntarily and the land is accepted by the City Council at their discretion. When land dedication is provided, it shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and applicable local ordinances. (k) If the developer objects to the amount of the fee pursuant to this section, an appeal may be made to the City Council by filing an application of appeal with the City Clerk and payment of an appeal processing fee as determined by the City Council. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 7 days of payment of the fee. The developer shall have the burden of proof in contesting the amount of the fee. Within 30 days of receipt of the notice of appeal, a public hearing on the appeal shall be held by the City Council, and the decision shall be final and conclusive in determining the amount of the fee. (1) The fee shall be paid to the Development Services Department and shall be deposited and held in appropriate trust accounts and may be expended therefrom Chapter XI Subdivisions Park and Recreation Dedications - 5O only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreation facilities to serve the development on which the fee is charged. Upon receipt of the fee, the Development Services Department shall issue a receipt, and the receipt shall be presented as proof of payment of the fee prior to the issuance of any permit for buildings and structures pursuant to this Zoning Code. (m)ln order that the tees levied pursuant to subsection (a) keep pace with the cost of land, the fee schedule described in subsection (a) shall be periodically adjusted on a biennial basis, or as specified by City Council by resolution. The fee schedule shall be adjusted using_ the methodology described in subsection _(a) for' establishina the fee schedule. (n) Upon application to the Development Services Department, the payment of the fee may be deferred where the department makes the following findings: (1) The developer has entered into a fee agreement with written evidence of adequate security to assure payment of the fee at a date prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and in a form approved by the City Attorney; and (2) The deferral of the fee shall not adversely impact_ the development of new or the rehabilitation of existina neiahborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the development. Sec. 13-261.8 PROCEDURE, CREDIT a) Procedure. When fees are reauired. the same shall be deposited with the Develo ment Services Department prior to issuance, of bulldirlq permits. Credit. Credit shall be granted for dwelling units demolished as a part of the development. This credit shall be limited to the number of units existing at the time of the approval of the project and shall not be transferred to other developments. A second dwelling unit legally established in conjunction with and subordinate to a primary dwelling unit in an R1 zone (i.e. accessory apartment, granny unit, granny flat, or in-law apartment) shall not be subject to the park fee. Chapter XI Subdivisions Park and Recreation Dedications I Chapter XI Subdivisions Park and Recreation Dedications 32 ATTACHMENT 4 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION March 9, 2015 These meeting minutes represent an "action minute" format with a concise summary of the meeting. A video of the meeting may be viewed on the City's website at www. costamesaca.gov or purchased on DVD upon request. Counsel Yolanda Summerhill led in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Robert Dickson Vice -Chair Jeff Mathews Commissioner Colin McCarthy Commissioner Tim Sesler Commissioner Stephan Andranian Staff: Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director Yolanda Summerhill, Planning Commission Counsel Fariba Fazeli, City Engineer Willa Bouwens-Killeen, Principal Planner Dan Inloes, Associate Planner Chelsea Crager, Assistant Planner Martha Rosales, Recording Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS Martin Millard, Costa Mesa resident, requested Mesa North improvements on Baker Street from Fairview Street to Babb Street. Mr. Millard discussed the following; concern with outdated north -side block wall, possible barrier median at 1097 Baker Street; and improvements to dated shopping center south of Baker. Beth Refakes, Costa Mesa resident representing the Costa Mesa Military Affairs Team, reported they were collecting Easter items through Friday, March 27, 2015 for the 1/5 Troop. A trunk is placed on the 1 sc Floor of City Hall to collect the Easter items. Barrie Fisher, Costa Mesa resident representing the west side, expressed concerns of outdated and dangerous sidewalks, narrow streets and vehicle congestion, and the need for improvements before allowing more redevelopment into the area. Ann Parker, Costa Mesa resident, inquired clarification on Abbie Way matter approved at the previous commission meeting and asked could the item be pulled back. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Commissioner Andranian addressed Ms. Fisher's comment and stated he attended the meeting regarding sober living homes on March 41h, 2015. He agreed this is an important issue for the City and staff is working on a new ordinance for R2 neighborhoods. Commissioner Sesler mentioned the crime mapping feature on the City of Costa Mesa's website is functioning after a yearlong absence. Commissioner Sesler appreciated Ms. Fisher on her consistent requests for City repairs through Costa Mesa Connect and agreed an investment - either public and/or private - needs to be made. Commissioner Sesler addressed Ms. Park's concern and acknowledged the challenging issue and asked the citizens to report incidents or complaints thru Costa Mesa Connect. Commissioner McCarthy requested clarity on the Wharf decision and how it could affect the City. Commissioner McCarthy agreed the block wall on Baker Street needs an update and requested staff to look into it. Commissioner McCarthy attended Costa Mesa Little League opening day and expressed concern that many children are migrating to other cities to play sports. Vice Chair Mathews addressed comments made regarding condition of the west side of the City and offered to look into the matter. Chairman Dickson announced the city is conducting a community workshop for the East West bicycle connection taking place Wednesday, March 18, 2015 in the Emergency Operation Center adjacent to the police department from 6:OOpm-7:30pm. Chairman Dickson addressed speaker comments regarding the cinder block walls on Baker Street; plans for possible medians; and sidewalk infrastructure and rehabilitation. Fariba Fazeli, City Engineer, provided an update. Chairman Dickson addressed the Abbie Way appeal. Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director, stated that the appeal deadline expired Monday, March 2, 2015 and absent the receipt of a timely appeal application and appeal fee if applicable, the matter cannot be re- opened. Chairman Dickson addressed west side plan review. Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director, confirmed the matter will go before the Planning Commission in April or May. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chair Dickson pulled Consent Calendar Item No. 2 for discussion. Minutes for the meeting of February 23, 2015. MOTION: Approve February 23, 2015 Minutes. Moved by Commissioner McCarthy, seconded by Commissioner Sesler. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None 2. Update of major development activity and demographic trends in Costa Mesa. Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director, presented part one of a two part PowerPoint that showcased major development activity and trends. Chair Dickson expressed excitement on the median projects presented and asked if any Baker Street improvements were included in the plan. Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director, and Fariba Fazeli, City Engineer, provided an update. Commissioner McCarthy asked if Fairview Development Center still employed 1,500 employees and inquired on statistics, plans and tracking of soil remediation. He commended the staff on the great presentation and for doing a great job meeting applicant and community needs. Commissioner Sesler asked whether staff tracked economic impact in terms of taxes. Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director, provided some general information and added an economic consultant will produce additional data for Part Two of the presentation coming in April. Commissioner Andranian asked for data on park fees and increased property tax revenue generated by new developments. He also requested to see before and after pictures of the developments in part two of the presentation. Commissioner Andranian asked for clarification on the resident statistics, specifically the 19-39 age range and if they were employed. Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director, confirmed the statistic shows working age only. Chair Dickson agreed before and after pictures for planning projects are important. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None MOTION: Receive and file. Moved by Commissioner McCarthy, seconded by Commissioner Sesler. The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: Application No. PA-14-48, R-14-05 and TT-17824; Master Plan Development for a 13-Unit, Two -Story Residential Development with a Rezone and Tentative Tract Map at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East Applicant: Pinnacle Residential Site Address: 2880 Mesa Verda Drive East Zone: I & R Project Planner: Mel Lee Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt under Section 15332 of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines — Class 32 (In -Fill Development Projects). Description: The proposed project involves the following: 1. Rezone R-14-05: An ordinance to rezone the 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to PDR-LD (Planned Development Residential —Low Density). The maximum allowable General Plan density would be 16 dwelling units at a density of 8 dwelling units per acre. 2. Planning Application PA-14-48: Master Plan for the development of a 13- unit, two-story detached residential development at a density of 6.5 dwelling units - 55 per acre. The Master Plan also includes the following requested deviations from Zoning Code requirements: • Variance from perimeter open space requirement for location of block walls (20 feet required, 3 feet proposed on Mesa Verde Drive East); • Administrative Adjustment from perimeter open space requirement for buildings (20 feet required, 13 feet proposed on Andros Street); 3. Tentative Tract Map T-17824: Subdivision of property into fee simple lots for homeownership. Mel Lee, Senior Planner, reported the applicant was reviewing comments received from Mesa Verde residents and possibly making modifications to the proposed development; hence, the request for a continuance to the first meeting in March. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None MOTION: Continue to a future Planning Commission meeting with public noticing required. Moved by Commissioner McCarthy, seconded by Commissioner Andranian. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None 2. Application No.: ZA-14-38: An appeal by the applicant of the denial of a minor conditional use permit at 111 Del Mar Avenue Applicant: ZA-14-38 Site Address: 111 Del Mar Avenue Zone: C1 Project Planner: Chelsea Crager Environmental Determination: This project is categorically exempt under CEQA section 15301 if approved; or exempt under CEQA section 15270(a) if disapproved. Description: Appeal by the applicant of the denial of a minor conditional use permit to legalize existing outdoor kiosks for DVDs (Redbox) and Glacier Water in front of a Circle K convenience store. This request was denied by the Zoning Administrator. Chelsea Crager, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report in response to appeal filed on January 24, 2015. The project was found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15301 Existing Facilities and staff recommends planning commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny Minor Conditional Use Permit ZA-14-38. Commissioner McCarthy asked if water and movie rentals could be located inside or outside. Ms. Crager, Assistant Planner, confirmed there are no codes requiring items to be located outside. Chair Dickson asked if adding a new vending machine such as water or Redbox kiosk impact parking calculations. Ms. Crager, Assistant Planner, confirmed the vending machines are not used in parking calculations as they are considered part of the convenience store. Ahmad Gharderi, applicant, thanked the staff for their work and guidance through the process. Mr. Ghaderi addressed three items of concern; first that the two vending machines are not visible from Del Mar; second there have been no water leakage issues as the water vending machines are self-contained and are equipped with a containment tray to catch possible leaks; and third there is approximately 48 inches plus in front of the units to allow safe ADA accessibility. Mr. Gharderi stated inside or outside placement of DVD and water vending machines have no impact on sales generated; however, outside placement is preferred for customer's convenience. Mr. Gharderi asked if the Planning Commission would reconsider their decision based on the information he provided. Commissioner McCarthy referred to the Supplemental Staff Report which chronicled 135 Police calls for service and asked applicant if more calls were anticipated and given the volume of disturbances, would it not be safer to have the vending machines inside, Mr. Gharderi was not familiar with the Supplemental Staff Report but does not anticipate more calls. Commissioner Mathews asked if 24 hour security could be provided. Mr. Gharderi stated he could not provide a response. Commissioner Sesler referred to a July 2014 code enforcement violation which required outside vending machines be removed and Circle K did not comply. Mr. Gharderi was unaware of the July 2014 violation and could not respond. Commissioner Sesler asked what type of security cameras operate at the store and if there was access to a security guard. Mr. Gharderi stated the store is open 24 hours a day and runs closed circuit cameras running 2417 and the store does not have a security guard. Commissioner Andranian asked if the vending machine were moved inside would other merchandise be displaced. Mr. Gharderi stated yes and reiterated the outside placement is for customer convenience. PUBLIC COMMENTS — None Chair Dickson stated concern for safety given proximity to a residential area and is amendable to continuing the matter. Commissioner McCarthy stated he was not in support of placing services outside the store and upholds the staffs recommendation. Commissioner Mathews agreed with the decision and upholds the staff's recommendation. MOTION: Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a minor conditional use permit to legalize outdoor placement of a water vending machine and an outdoor DVD rental kiosk at the Circle K convenience store based on the findings put forth in the record. Moved by Commissioner McCarthy, seconded by Commissioner Andranian. RESOLUTION 15-13 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF ZONING APPLICATION ZA-14-38 AND DENY A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR USES LOCATED AT 111 DEL MAR AVENUE (CIRCLE K STORE) Chair Dickson stated the commission encourages business but in this case, the commission does not support the permit. _3�- The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None NEW BUSINESS ITEM(S): 1. Review of Proposed Parkland Impact Fees Dan Inloes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. David Taussig, president of David Taussig & Associates, gave presentation on the Quimby Act and Methodology of Park Fee Update. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa resident, stated he was happy staff brought the item forward but. Mr. Humphrey expressed concern with the numbers of residents and acreage used in the presentation and how that could impact fee cost, property owners opting to pay fees since they are less than property dedication and if conversions are allowed, they should not get fee exemptions. Steven LaMotte, Director of Government Affairs of the Business Industry Association, supported the proposal. Beth Refakes, Costa Mesa resident, addressed concerns with the fee proposal. Ms. Refakes would like to see further breakdown of bedrooms per residence, to see an automatic adjustment for inflation and what other cities are doing to calculate fees. Commissioner McCarthy stated he doesn't think it is realistic for the city to be purchasing park space in the future but supports the methodology and BIA support. Commissioner McCarthy would like a future meeting to see if there are plans from Public Services to acquire park space. Chair Dickson supported the methodology but would like to find a better way of quantifying apartments. Commissioner Sesler supports the methodology but is concerned with the location. MOTION: Receive and file. Moved by Commissioner McCarthy, second by Chair Dickson. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None DEPARTMENTAL REPORT(S) 1. Public Services Report — None. 2. Economic and Development Services Report — None. CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REPORT(S) 1. City Attorney — None. ADJOURNMENT: NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 6:00 P.M. ON MONDAY, MARCH 23, 2015. Submitt d by: CLAIRI FLYNN, S CRETARY COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION 2M ATTACHMENT 5 PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE JUSTIFICATION STUDY CITY OF COSTA MESA AUGUST 4, 2015 Prepared by: DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5000 BIRCH STREET, SUITE 6000 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (800) 969-4382 Novport 13cach Sail FrMICIS O TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................I I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... I II. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ............................................... 2 III. DEMOGRAPHICS......................................................................................................-..........................8 IV. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES............................................................................................... 11 V. METHODOLGY UTILIZED TO CALCULATE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES...................................17 APPENDIX A MAP OF VACANT LAND SALES APPENDIX B CITY OF ENCINITAS- ENCINITAS COMMUNITY PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA APPENDIX C JARP DISTRICT- HORSESHOE LAKE PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA APPENDIX D JARP DISTRICT- VETERAN'S MEMORIAL PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA APPENDIX E CITY OF LAKE FOREST - SPORTS PARK APPENDIX F CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL - CROWN VALLEY PARK APPENDIX G CITY OF PASADENA - DESIDERIO PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA APPENDIX H CITY OF REDONDO BEACH - HEART PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA APPENDIX I CITY OF SAN MARCOS - BRADLEY PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA APPENDIX J CITY OF TUSTIN - TUSTIN LEGACY PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to adequately plan for new development and identify the public park and recreation facilities and costs associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of new development, David Taussig & Associates, Inc. ("DTA") was retained by the City of Costa Mesa (the "City") to prepare an AB 1600 Fee Justification Study (the "Park Fee Study"). The Park Fee Study is intended to comply with Section 66000 et. seq. of the Government Code (the "Act" or "AB 1600"), which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, by identifying the additional public park and recreation facilities required by new development ("Future Park Facilities") and determining the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of the Future Park Facilities. Fee amounts have been determined that will finance park and recreation facilities at the standard established in the City's General Plan, or 4.26 acres of improved park and recreation facilities for every 1,000 new residents. The Future Park Facilities and estimated land acquisition and associated construction costs per residential dwelling unit are identified in Section IV of the Park Fee Study. A description of the methodology used to calculate the fees is included in Section V. All new residential development may be required to pay its "fair share" of the cost of the new infrastructure through the development fee program. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT Section I of this report provides an introduction to the Park Fee Study including background information on development fee financing. Section II provides an overview of the legal requirements for implementing and imposing the fee amounts identified in the Park Fee Study. Section III includes a discussion of household sizes, or persons per household, for residential land uses within the City. Section IV includes a description of the Future Park Facilities needed to serve new residential development that are eligible for funding by the impact fees, including estimated costs, offsetting revenues, net costs to the City and costs attributable to new residential development. Section V discusses the findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act and requirements necessary to be satisfied when establishing, increasing or imposing a fee as a condition of new residential development, and satisfies the nexus requirements for the Future Park Facilities. In addition, Section V contains the description of the methodology used to determine the fees. Appendix A includes a map showing the location of the properties comprising the vacant land sale data employed in the Park Fee Study. Appendices B — J identify the park and recreation facilities cost data employed in the Park Fee Study. IMPACT FEE SUMMARY The recommended Future Park Facilities fee amounts are summarized in Table ES-1 below. Table ES-1 includes two fee level alternatives developed by City staff that reflect historical and projected rates of parkland acquisition. Fees within this Park Fee Study reflect a range of fee levels that may be imposed on new residential development depending upon the residential dwelling unit type. City of Costa Mesa Page i Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 ---1z- TABLE ES-1 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SUMMARY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AP AR e50 UNIr I a- SINGLE FAMCLY MULTI-FAMMY PROJECTS PRaJE ($PER UNIr) ($PFRUNIT) {$PFR'UNIT (SPERU Park and nRecreation Facilities Alternative 1 (Historical Parkland Acquisition') $11,285.19 $8,777.37 $10,597.56 $10,597.56 Alternative 2 (Projected Parkland Acquisition') 1 $18,006.38 $14,004.96 $14,004.96 $5,056.611 ' Based on the City's rate of parkland acquisition from 2006 through 2014 which results in park and recreation facilities costs of $949,500 per acre. z Based on the City's projected rate of parkland acquisition which results in park and recreation facilities costs of $1,515,000 per acre. 3 Fee for apartment projects with 50 or dwelling units adjusted (i) in consideration of typical on -site amenities, (ii) persons per household case study for an existing greater than 50 dwelling unit apartment project, and (iii) citywide distribution of apartment dwelling unit type (i.e., studio, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, and 3 or more bedroom dwelling units) for greater than 50 dwelling unit apartment projects. City of Costa Mesa Page ii Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 --415- I. INTRODUCTION In order to adequately plan for new residential development and identify the public park and recreation facilities and costs associated with mitigating the direct and cumulative impacts of new residential development, David Taussig & Associates, Inc. ("DTA") was retained by the City to prepare a new AB 1600 Fee Justification Study (the "Park Fee Study"). The need for this Park Fee Study is driven by anticipated residential development, including development on which the City's existing Quimby Act fee cannot generally be imposed, such as the redevelopment of existing property into multi -family uses without the subdivision of land. The Park Fee Study is intended to comply with Section 66000 et. Seq. of the Government Code, which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, by identifying additional public park and recreation facilities required by new residential development ("Future Park Facilities") and determining the level of fees that may be imposed to pay the costs of the Future Park Facilities. Fee amounts have been determined that will finance park and recreation facilities at the standard established in the City's General Plan, or 4.26 acres of improved park and recreation facilities for every 1,000 new residents. The Future Park Facilities and estimated land acquisition and associated construction costs per residential dwelling unit are identified in Section IV of the Park Fee Study. All new residential development may be required to pay its "fair share" of the cost of the Future Park Facilities through the development fee program. Based upon projections from the Center for Demographics Research, California State University, Fullerton (the "Center"), new residential development is expected to result in approximately 5,213 new residents within the City by 2040, representing an approximate 4.7% increase compared to the Center's 2012 population estimate for the City. The City will need to expand its public park and recreation facilities to accommodate the impacts of this growth and the levy of impact fees in conformance with AB 1600 legislation will help finance new park and recreation facilities which are needed to mitigate these impacts. The following steps were incorporated in the Park Fee Study: 1. Demographic Assumptions: Identify future housing growth that will generate the increased demand for park and recreation facilities. 2. Facility Needs and Costs: Identify the amount and cost of park and recreation facilities required to meet the demands of new residential development. Facilities costs are discussed in Section IV. 3. Cost Allocation: Allocate these costs per new residential dwelling unit. 4. Fee Schedule: Calculate the fee per new residential dwelling unit. City of Costa Mesa Page 1 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study Auaust 4, 2015 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Prior to World War II, development in California was held responsible for very little of the cost of public infrastructure. Public improvements were financed primarily through jurisdictional general funds and utility charges. It was not uncommon during this period for speculators to subdivide tracts of land without providing any public improvements, expecting the closest city to eventually annex a project and provide public improvements and services. However, starting in the late 1940s, the use of impact fees grew with the increased planning and regulation of new development. During the 1960s and 1970s, the California Courts broadened the right of local government to impose fees on developers for public improvements that were not located on -site. More recently, with the passage of Proposition 13, the limits on general revenues for new infrastructure have resulted in new development being held responsible for a greater share of public improvements, and both the use and levels of impact fees have grown substantially. Higher fee levels were undoubtedly driven in part by a need to offset the decline in funds for infrastructure development from other sources. The levy of impact fees is one authorized method of financing the public facilities necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development. A fee is "a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, which is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project..." (California Government Code, Section 66000). A fee may be levied for each type of capital improvement required for new development, with the payment of the fee typically occurring prior to the beginning of construction of a dwelling unit. Fees are often levied at final map recordation, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or more commonly, at building permit issuance. However, Assembly Bill ("AB") 2604 (Torrico) which was signed into law in August 2008, encourages public agencies to defer the collection of fees until close of escrow to an end user in an attempt to assist California's then troubled building industry. The authority of local governments to impose impact fees on development is derived from their police power to protect the health and welfare of citizens under the California Constitution (Article 11, Section 7). Furthermore, the California Mitigation Fee Act provides a prescriptive guide to establishing and administering impact fees based on "constitutional and decisional law." Development impact fees ("DIFs") were enacted under Assembly Bill 1600 by the California Legislature in 1987 and codified under California Government Code §66000 et. seq., also referred to as the Mitigation Fee Act (the "Act" or "AB 1600"). AB 1600 defines local governments to include cities, counties, school districts, special districts, authorities, agencies, and other municipal corporations. Fees governed by the Act include development fees of general applicability, and fees negotiated for individual projects. The Act does not apply to user -fees for processing development applications or permits, fees governed by other statutes (e.g., the Quimby Act), developer agreements, or penalties, or fees specifically City of Costa Mesa Page 1 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 excluded by the Act (e.g., fees collected pursuant to agreements with redevelopment agencies or various reimbursement agreements). Public facilities that can be funded with impact fees are defined by the Act as "public improvements, public services, and community amenities." Government Code, §65913.8 precludes the use of DIFs to fund maintenance or services, with limited exceptions for very small improvements and certain temporary measures needed by certain special districts. In combination, these provisions effectively restrict the use of most impact fees to public capital improvements. For general information, please see: ❖ "Exactions and Impact Fees in California: A Comprehensive Guide to Policy, Practice, and the Law," edited by William Abbott, et al., Solano Press Books, 2012 Third Edition. The City has identified the need to levy development impact fees to pay for public park and recreation facilities. The development impact fees presented in this study will finance public park and recreation facilities for new development at the level established by the City in its General Plan. Upon the adoption of the Park Fee Study and required legal documents by the City Council, all new residential development will be required to pay its "fair share" of the cost of public park and recreation facilities through these development impact fees. In 2006, Government Code Section 66001 was amended to clarify that a development impact fee cannot include costs attributable to existing deficiencies, but can fund costs used to maintain the existing level of service or meet an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan. This Park Fee Study for the City is intended to meet the nexus or benefit requirements of AB 1600, which mandates that there is a nexus between fees imposed, the use of the fees, and the development projects on which the fees are imposed. Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code requires that all public agencies satisfy the following requirements when establishing, increasing or imposing a fee as a condition of new development: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(1)) 2. Identify the use to which the fee will be put. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(2)) 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(3)) 4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is to be imposed. (Government Code Section 66001(a)(4)) City of Costa Mesa Page 3 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 5. Discuss how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. Identifying these items will enable a development impact fee to meet the nexus and rough proportionality requirements established by previous court cases. This section presents each of these items as they relate to the imposition within the City of the proposed development impact fees for public park and recreation facilities. Current state financing and fee assessment requirements only allow new development to pay for its fair share of new facilities' costs. Any current deficiencies resulting from the needs of existing development must be funded through other sources. Therefore, a key element to establishing legal development impact fees is to determine what share of the benefit or cost of the new facilities can be equitably assigned to existing development, even if the facilities have not yet been constructed. By removing this factor, the true impact of new development can be assessed and equitable development impact fees assigned. A. Purpose of the Fee (Government Code Section 66001(a)(1)) Based upon projections from the Center for Demographics Research, California State University, Fullerton (the "Center"), new residential development is expected to result in approximately 5,213 new residents within the City by 2040. These future residents will create an additional demand for public park and recreation facilities that existing public park and recreation facilities cannot accommodate. In order to accommodate new residential development in an orderly manner, without adversely impacting the current quality of life in the City, additional public park and recreation facilities will need to be constructed. It is the projected direct and cumulative effect of future residential development that has required the preparation of this Park Fee Study. Each new residential dwelling unit will contribute to the need for new public park and recreation facilities, and as such, the proposed impact fee will be charged to all future residential development, irrespective of location, in the City. While a significant portion of the City's future residential development can be characterized as "in fill" development projects, these projects contribute to impacts on public park and recreation facilities because they are an interactive component of a much greater universe of development located throughout the City. First, the residents associated with any new residential development in the City have access to and in fact may regularly utilize and benefit from the City's park and recreation facilities. Second, these residents may have chosen to purchase or rent the specific homes in which they reside partially as a result of the parks and other recreational opportunities located nearby. Third, the availability of park and recreation facilities throughout the City has a growth -inducing impact, in that it enhances the City's reputation as a great place to live, thereby attracting new development that may have otherwise gone elsewhere. As a result, all residential development projects in the City contribute to the cumulative need for new park and recreation facilities throughout the City of Costa Mesa Page 4 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 City. The development impact fees, when collected, will be placed into a dedicated fund that will be used solely for the design, acquisition, installation, and construction of public park and recreation facilities and other appropriate costs to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new residential development in the City. The discussion in this subsection of the Park Fee Study sets forth the purpose of the development impact fee as required by Section 66001(a)(1) of the California Government Code. B. THE USE TO WHICH THE FEE IS TO BE PUT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(2)) The development impact fee will be used specifically for the design, acquisition, installation, and construction of the public park and recreation facilities discussed in Section IV of the Park Fee Study and related costs necessary to mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of new residential development in the City. By directly funding these costs, the development impact fees will both enhance the quality of life for future City residents and protect their health, safety, and welfare. The discussion presented in this subsection of the Park Fee Study identifies the use to which the development impact fee is to be put as required by Section 66001(a)(2) of the California Government Code. C. DETERMINE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEES USE AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP) (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(3)) As discussed in Section A above, it is the projected direct and cumulative effect of future residential development that has prompted the preparation of this Park Fee Study. Each residential dwelling unit will contribute to the need for new public park and recreation facilities. Even future "in fill" development projects, which may be adjacent to existing park and recreation facilities, contribute to impacts on such facilities because they are an interactive component of a much greater universe of development located throughout the City. Consequently, all residential new development within the City, irrespective of location, contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public park and recreation facilities and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth. As set forth in Section V of the Park Fee Study, the fees will be expended for the design, acquisition, installation, and construction of new public park and recreation facilities identified in Section IV, as that is the purpose for which the DIF is collected. As previously stated, all new residential development creates either a direct impact on park and recreation facilities or contributes to the cumulative impact on park and recreation facilities. City of Costa Mesa Page 5 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 i For the foregoing reasons, there is a reasonable relationship between the design, acquisition, construction, and installation of the public park and recreation facilities and new residential development as required under Section 66001(a)(3) of the Mitigation Fee Act. D. DETERMINE How THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEED FOR THE PUBLIC FACILITY AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED (IMPACT RELATIONSHIP) (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66001(A)(4)) As set forth in part A above, all new residential development contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts on public park and recreation facilities and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth. Also as previously stated, all new residential development within the City, irrespective of location, contributes to the direct and cumulative impacts of development on public park and recreation facilities and creates the need for new facilities to accommodate growth. Moreover, the public park and recreation facilities identified in Section IV are specifically a function of the number of projected future residents within the City and do not reflect any unmet needs of existing development. For the reasons presented herein and in Section V, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public park and recreation facilities and all new residential development within the City as required under Section 66001(a)(4) of the Mitigation Fee Act. E. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE AND THE COST OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT UPON WHICH THE FEE IS IMPOSED ("ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY" RELATIONSHIP) (GOVERNMENT CODE 66001(A) As set forth above, all new residential development in the City impacts public park and recreation facilities. Moreover, each individual residential development project and its related increase in population will adversely impact existing park and recreation facilities. Thus, imposition of the development impact fee to finance new public park and recreation facilities is an efficient, practical, and equitable method of permitting development to proceed in a responsible manner. New development impacts the need for public park and recreation facilities directly and cumulatively. Even new development located adjacent to existing facilities will have access to and benefit from new public park and recreation facilities. Again, the design, acquisition, construction, and installation of the public parks and recreation facilities in Section IV are specifically a function of projected new residents within the City and do not reflect any unmet needs of existing development. As set forth in part F below, the proposed development impact fee amounts are roughly proportional to the impacts resulting from new residential development. Thus there is a City of Costa Mesa Page 6 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 - "1 reasonable relationship between the amount of the development impact fee and the cost of the public park and recreation facilities. F. AB 1600 NEXus TEST AND APPORTIONMENT OF FACILITIES COSTS Section 66000 of the Government Code requires that a reasonable relationship exist between the need for public facilities and the type of development on which a development impact fee is imposed. The need for public park and recreation facilities is related to the level of service established in the City's General Plan, which varies in proportion to the persons per household ("PPH") generated by a particular residential land use. DTA established fees for the following three residential land use categories to acknowledge the difference in PPH impacts from various residential land uses. The City will develop a table of general plan land use designations that link to the land use classifications used in this study for clarification and consistency with City zoning. This table will be made a part of the ordinance or resolution that will be adopted for the purpose of implementing this development impact fee program. TABLE II-1 Land Use Classification for Park Fee Study Single Family Residential ("SFR") Multi -family Owner ("Multi -family") Apartment The costs associated with the public park and recreation facilities needed to serve new residential development are identified in Section IV. As mentioned above, the public park and recreation facilities costs per person drive the development impact fee amount for each land use classification and establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for public park and recreation facilities and the residential land use type characterizing the development on which a development impact fee is being imposed. Section V presents the nexus test and the analysis undertaken to apportion public park and recreation facilities costs to each residential land use classification. City of Costa Mesa Page 7 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 5® I- III. DEMOGRAPHICS In order to determine the public park and recreation facilities needed to serve new development as well as establish fee amounts to fund such facilities, the City commissioned a demographics analysis from Stanley R. Hoffman Associates ("SRH"). SRH utilized Public Use Microdata Areas ("PUMA") data to estimate PPH for each residential land use type. Population and occupied households derived from the PUMA data for the Costa Mesa area are shown in Tables III-1 and III-2 below. TABLE III-1 - I POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD— OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE Mobile Home or Trailer One -Family House Detached PERSO USEHOLOS 1,013 35,500 439 12,476 One -Family House Attached 5,015 2,502 2 Apartments 3-4 Apartments 347 119 992 385 5-9 Apartments 513 293 10-19 Apartments 20-49 Apartments 333 166 111 94 50 or More Apartments Boats Total 173 81 20 20 44,017 16,575 City of Costa Mesa Page 8 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 TABLE III-2 A RENTEk 'JiE LLING UNIT TYPE fl 9J5EH Mobile Home or Trailer 159 121 One -Family House Detached 10,867 3,373 One -Family House Attached 2 Apartments 4,109 1,510 4,228 1,317 3-4 Apartments 5-9 Apartments 10-19 Apartments 15,208 4,572 7,668 2,624 7,360 3,047 20-49 Apartments 7,435 3,678 50 or More Apartments 6,226 3,111 Boats 26 26 Total 63,286 23,379 All One -Family House Detached and One -Family House Attached units are classified as SFR units. Owner occupied Apartments are classified as Multi -family units. Renter occupied Apartments are classified as Apartment units. Grouping the data accordingly results in the PPH shown in Table III-3 below. TABLE III-3 I� RESIDENTIAL DwILLING UNIT TYI' SFR 55,491 19,861 2.79 Multi -family Apartment 2,469 1,138 2.17 48,125 18,349 2.62 Total/Average 106,085 39,348 2.70 In addition, City staff conducted a case study analysis of the PPH for large apartment projects using an existing apartment project with over one hundred (100) dwelling units. City staff City of Costa Mesa Page 9 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 ._ 1521- calculated PPH separately for studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, and three or more bedrooms. The results of this case study are shown in Table III-4 below. TABLE III-4 PPH AND EDU5 LARGE APARTMENT PROJECT CASE STUDY qp RE51DENTIlAL 1NG UNIT TYPE DiSTRIBUTIQN1 Studio 9.5% 1.2000 1 Bedroom _l 45.5% 1.5000 40.6% 2.1000 2 Bedroom 2.8000 3+ Bedroom 4.4% Total/Weighted Average 100.0% 1.7723 'Distribution based on all existing apartment projects within the City with 50 or more dwelling units. City of Costa Mesa Page 10 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4.2015 - 5-3- IV. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES Government Code Section 66000, which codifies California's Mitigation Fee Act, requires that if impact fees are going to be used to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified prior to the adoption of the fee. There are three basic methodologies that can be employed to determine the facilities to be financed. The first methodology, which is called a "Plan -Based Approach," is based on the existence of a "Facilities Plan" that lists the specific facilities necessary to serve future growth. The Facilities Plan utilized under this approach is usually prepared by a municipality's staff and/or consultants, often with community input, and is then adopted by the municipality's legislative body either prior to or at the same time the fee program is approved. The Facilities Plan also identifies the costs of the facilities listed, and these costs are in turn allocated based on the level of benefit to be received by projected future land uses anticipated to be developed within the time period being analyzed. In the case of the City, the only existing Park and Recreation Facilities Plan was prepared and adopted by the City Council in 2002 and is out of date. While the City is now working with the community to prepare a new Park and Recreation Facilities Plan, the completion of this Facilities Plan and its adoption by City Council is not imminent. As a result, a Plan -Based Approach is infeasible at this time. A second methodology to identify facilities needs is the "Capacity -Based Approach," and is based on the magnitude of existing capacity or expanded capacity needed for a type of public facility in order to handle projected growth during the selected time period. This approach works best for facilities such as an existing water storage facility or sewer treatment plant where existing costs or facilities expansion costs necessary to serve future development are already known (and in the case of existing capacity, may have already been expended). This kind of fee is not necessarily dependent on a particular land use plan for future development, but is instead based on the cost per unit of constructing the remaining existing capacity in a facility, or the cost to expand such capacity, which can then be applied to any type of future development. However, the City has already determined that, based on a standard of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents, there is no existing surplus of park and recreation facilities that is available to serve new development. Furthermore, the City has not determined what specific improvements could be added to existing park facilities to adapt them to use by a greater population of residents, nor the cost of such improvements, so insufficient information was available to employ the "Capacity -Based Approach" in this Park Fee Study. A third approach is to utilize a facilities "standard" established for future development, against which facilities costs are determined based on units of demand from this development. This approach, which is often applied to park and recreation facilities when there is no existing Facilities Plan, establishes a generic unit cost for capacity, which is then applied to each land use type per unit of demand. This standard is not based on the cost of a specific existing or future facility, but rather on the cost of providing a certain standard of service, such as the 4.26 acres of park and recreation facilities per 1,000 residents established by the General Plan. This method has several advantages, including not requiring a municipality to know (i) the cost of a specific facility, (ii) how much capacity or service is provided currently (as the new standard does not City of Costa Mesa Page 11 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justl cation Study August 4, 2015 �5�1- necessarily need to reflect the existing standard), or (iii) the size, site, or characteristics of specific future facilities. In the case of the City, in which specific facility sites or sizes, or types of park and recreation improvements or facilities have not yet been determined, the City does intend to acquire (or require future development to provide on -site) 4.26 acres per 1,000 new residents, whether those residents are generated by Single Family, Multi -family, or Apartment dwelling units. As a result, a "Standards -Based Approach" was determined by the City and DTA to be the most appropriate methodology for purposes of calculating impact fees for the Park Fee Study. Since no specific park and recreation sites and/or facilities have been determined to -date, specific costs are not yet known. Consequently, it was necessary to estimate what anticipated land acquisition costs could be expected, as well as which types of improvements should be included in developing these future parks and the costs related to constructing these improvements. Further information on these improvement costs and types is provided below in Section IV.A, below. A. LAND ACQUISITION COSTS As the City is already substantially built out, it is anticipated that sites for new park and recreation facilities will be limited to the acquisition of small parcels of vacant or underutilized land, such as underutilized public facilities, surplus school property, or industrial property or low -density residential property on which existing uses could be cost-effectively demolished. Without knowing which specific sites will be acquired by the City, DTA conducted a survey of vacant sites within the City that have been purchased over the past twelve years, and calculated a weighted average price per acre. Table IV-1, below, reflects land use and acreage data, dates of sale, and sale prices per acre for the eight (8) vacant land parcels reported by LoopNet.com as having been sold within the City since 2003. Based on these data, the City will be utilizing an estimated land price of $2,500,000 per acre as the cost of new parkland, with an annual price escalator applied on July 15t of each year, starting July 1, 2016, based on the change to the Los Angeles -Riverside - Orange County Consumer Price Index in the previous calendar year. City of Costa Mesa Page 12 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 TABLE IV-1 VACANT LAND SALES CITY OF COSTA MESA _ -- � []ATE SOLD l PARCEL LOCATION' SITE ACREAGE ' TYPE OF U SALE PRICE PER_AGStE $1,650,000 4/30/2009 2 6 0.76 Industrial 9/22/2008 1.61 Multifamily $3,226,667 12/31/2006 1 0.72 Commercial/Other $2,969,655 5/5/2006 5 0.42 Multifamily $2,744,384 6/8/2005 7 0.25 Multifamily $3,682,801 2/23/2004 8 0.24 Commercial/Other $2,534,389 7/14/2003 3 0.61 Retail $2,131,147 5/21/2003 1 4 0.76 Retail $1,578,947 Weighted Average Sales Price per Acre $2,564,000 ' See Appendix A Source: LoopNet.com B. PARK IMPROVEMENT TYPES AND COSTS As noted previously, the specific types of improvements/facilities to be constructed within future City parks have not yet been specifically identified, but are expected to be included in the City Park Facilities Plan that is currently being prepared by City staff, with the assistance of the community. In order to maintain as much flexibility as possible, City and DTA staff have prepared a generic list of facilities/improvements that could potentially be included within these future parks. The types of park facilities listed in Table IV-2 are expected to be financed, in whole or in part, through the levy of a development impact fee on all future residential development in the City. City of Costa Mesa Page 13 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 —5G TABLE IV-2 MKIMPROVEMEN Amphitheatre Picnic Tables Ball Fields (Baseball, Football, Soccer, Multi -Use) Playground (Tot Lot, Water Play) Bike Paths Recreation Center Bike Rack Restrooms Community Events Center Retaining Walls and Fencing Concession Building Security Lighting Courts (Basketball, Horseshoe, Tennis, Volleyball) Shade Structures Demolition Site Furniture Drinking Fountains Site Preparation Grading / Earthwork Skate park Irrigation and Landscaping Swimming Pool Synthetic Turf Fields Park Benches Parking Lot/Paving Trash Receptacles Pedestrian Path/Trails Utilities (Drainage, Sewer, Water, Gas, Electrical) Permanent Sports Lighting In an effort to determine the appropriate cost of the types of public park and recreation facilities listed in Table IV-2, DTA collected park and recreation facilities cost information for recently constructed public parks in Southern California. These cost data are shown in Table IV-3 and were obtained from a park and recreation facilities cost database derived from other DTA park fee studies, as well as on-line and municipality -provided park cost information. While the source data for certain parks included design and other soft costs, the majority of the source data did not. Therefore, with the exception of Desiderio Park, for which it was not feasible to exclude design costs, the park and recreation facilities cost figures in Table IV-3 do not include design costs, meaning that they are generally conservative. Notably, the Cities of Encinitas, Lake Forest, and Laguna Niguel park construction costs are based on actual bids, while the construction costs for the other parks listed are estimates provided by the municipalities in which the parks were to be developed. To determine the weighted average public park and recreation facilities construction cost per acre, the high and low construction cost estimates (Desiderio Park and Veteran's Memorial Park) were excluded from the computations because they appeared to be outliers. The resulting weighted average public park and recreation facilities construction cost is $391,074 per acre and the City will be utilizing an estimated construction cost of $390,000 per acre. As is the case for land acquisition costs, estimated park improvement/facilities costs will be adjusted on July 11t of City of Costa Mesa Page 14 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 ,,5 I -- each year, starting July 1, 2016, based on the change to the Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange County Consumer Price Index in the previous calendar year. Detailed park and recreation facilities construction costs are included in Appendices B - J. TABLE IV-3 _ UBLIC AGE., PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION COSTS - — - --- ESTIMATED ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION 6, PAI7 YEAR ACRES i COST COST PER ACRE Encinitas Encinitas Community Park 2012 44.0 $13,927,642 1 $316,537 Jurupa Area Rec and Parks District Horseshoe Lake Park 2006 13.0 $2,375,000 $182,692 Jurupa Area Rec and Parks District Veteran's Memorial Park 2006 9.98 $1,487,750 $149,073 Lake Forest Sports Park 2013 86.20 $35,888,810 $416,344 Laguna Niguel Crown Valley Park 2014 18.00 $4,599,531 $255,529 Pasadena Desiderio Park 2014 3.80 $2,410,000 3 $634,211 Redondo Beach Heart Park 2003 76.5 $32,473'900 z $424,495 San Marcos Bradley Park 2012 34.0 $12,492,484 $367,426 Tustin Tustin Legacy 2014 31.50 $16,816,265 $533,850 Weighted Average (Excluding High and Low Data Points) $391,074 1 Excludes $5,250,000 for EIR, design, and development. Z Excludes $91,864,600 for remediation/site preparation, 3 Includes design costs. C. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES COSTS 1. MAXIMUM PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES COSTS Adding the $2,500,000 per acre in land acquisition costs to the $390,000 per acre in improvements costs yields a full cost for park and recreation facilities of $2,890,000 per acre. Note, the City has no revenues (e.g., grants, general obligation bond proceeds, etc.) with which it can offset these facilities costs. 2. ALTERNATIVE 1 The City's ability to acquire parkland has been hampered for two reasons. One, the City has to -date imposed park fees pursuant to the Quimby Act which is not applicable to apartment projects. As a result, only forty percent (40.00%) of the residential dwelling units developed within the City since 2000 have paid park fees. In short, park fee revenues have been insufficient to acquire parkland in amounts consistent with the City's City of Costa Mesa Page 15 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 SS� goals. Two, there is a limited supply of vacant land remaining within the City. Since 2006, the City has acquired park land equivalent to twenty-two and thirty-eight hundredths percent (22.38%) of the potential park acreage it would have purchased had it expended the full component of park impact fees collected that were intended for land acquisition. Specifically, total park fee expenditures since 2006 have equaled $15,494,816 which indicates that the City could have acquired and developed 5.36 acres of parkland ($15,494,816 divided by $2,890,000). The actual park acreage acquired since 2006 was only 1.2 acres, which equals 22.38% of the potential park acres that should have been acquired. Given a continuation of this practice by the City, the amount anticipated to be spent on land acquisition would be only 22.38% of $2,500,000 per acre, or the equivalent of $559,500 per acre for each of the 4.26 acres per 1,000 new residents. If this trend was to continue in the future, total adjusted parkland acquisition and recreation facilities costs would be $949,500 per acre ($559,500 for land acquisition plus $390,000 for improvements). 3. ALTERNATIVE 2 Alternative 2 recognizes that this Park Fee Study will establish a development impact fee for park and recreation facilities that will be applicable to all residential development, and therefore the City anticipates that there will be fee revenues sufficient to acquire parkland in the future at approximately twice the historical (2006 — 2014) rate, or forty- five percent (45.00%), resulting in the expenditure of an equivalent of $1,125,000 per acre for each of the 4.26 acres per 1,000 new residents. Total adjusted parkland acquisition and recreation facilities costs projected under this scenario would be $1,515,000 per acre ($1,125,000 for land acquisition plus $390,000 for improvements). In addition, Alternative 2 (i) caps the fee for apartment projects comprised of fewer than fifty (50) dwelling units at the fee level for Multi -family and (ii) substitutes the Alternative 1 land acquisition cost of $559,500 per acre adjusted by an additional fifty percent (50.00%) for apartment projects with fifty (50) or more dwelling units in recognition that a DIF for Apartments has not previously been imposed and large apartment projects typically include on -site recreation amenities such as a recreation or community room, dog runs, pools, barbecues, etc. Total adjusted parkland acquisition and recreation facilities costs for apartment projects with 50 or more dwelling units would be $669,750 per acre ($559,500 for land acquisition multiplied by 0.50 (or $279,750) plus $390,000 for improvements). Section V below shows the calculation of the development impact fees for park and recreation facilities for all three scenarios. City of Costa Mesa Page 16 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 V. METHODOLOGY UTILIZED TO CALCULATE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Pursuant to the nexus requirements of Government Code 66000, a local agency is required to "determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the development impact fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed." It is impossible to accurately determine the impact that a specific new residential unit will have on existing facilities. Predicting future residents' specific behavioral patterns, park, and health and welfare requirements is extremely difficult, and would involve numerous assumptions that are subject to substantial variances. Recognizing these limitations, the Legislature drafted AB 1600 to specifically require that a "reasonable" relationship be determined, not a direct cause and effect relationship. This reasonable relationship, which was discussed in detail in Section II of the Park Fee Study, is summarized in Table V-1. TABLE V-1 PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES AB 1600 Nfixus TEST Identify Purpose of Fee I Park and Recreation Facilities Identify Use of Fee Demonstrate how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility, the use of the fee, and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed The design, acquisition, installation, and construction of public park and recreation facilities, including parkland New residential development will generate additional residents who will increase the demand for active and passive park and recreation facilities within the City. Land will have to be purchased and improved to meet this increased demand, thus a reasonable relationship exists between the need for park and open space facilities and the impact of residential development. Fees collected from new development will be used exclusively for park and open space facilities identified in Section IV. There are many methods or ways of calculating development impact fees, but they are all based on determining the cost of needed improvements and assigning those costs equitably to various types of development. Development impact fees in this study have been calculated utilizing a "standards -based" methodology. The fee levels are a function of (i) the City's existing park standard of 4.26 acres per 1,000 residents, (ii) the estimated cost per acre for new park and recreation facilities, and (iii) the estimated PPH. One global assumption utilized within this Park Fee Study for the allocation of costs between existing and new development relates to the allocation of costs based on the facilities standard. The public parks and recreation facilities described in Section IV are 100% allocated to new residential development because these facilities are specifically a function of projected new residents within the City and do not reflect any unmet needs or deficiency pertaining to existing development. The recommended fee levels and fee calculation methodologies are summarized in Tables V-2 and V-3 below. City of Costa Mesa Page 17 Park and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2D15 TABLE V-2 PARK AND RECREATION - ALTERNATIVE 1 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES BASED ON HISTORICAL RATE OF PARKLAND ACQUISITION FROM 200& - 2,Jl RESIDENTIAL ACRES f COST f DWELLING UNIT TYPE- — - — PPH 1,000' FEE: Single Family 2.79 4.26 $949,500 $11,285.192 Multi -family 2.17 4.26 $949,500 $8,777.372 Apartment 2.62 4.26 $949,500 $10,597.562 1 Column C represents the z Fee equals Column B x Column General Plan standard of 4.26 park and recreation acres C / 1,000 x Column D. per 1,000 residents. TABLE V-3 ALTERNATIVE 2 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES BASED ON PRoIECTED RATE OF PARKLAND AcQuISITION (A) (B) (C) (D) t RESIDENTIAL I ACRES f COST/ DWELLING QXT TYP€ I _ PPH I. 1,0001 _�i ._ ACRI _ _ 1 F', E 2.7900 4.26 $1,515,000 $18,006.382 Single Family Multi -family 2.1700 4.26 $1,515,000 $14,004.962 Apartment < 50 Project Dwelling Units 2.6200 4.26 $1,515,000 $14,004.963 >= 50 Project Dwelling Units 1.7723 4.26 $669,750 $5,056.61 1 Column C represents the General Plan standard of 4.26 park and recreation acres per 1,000 residents. z Fee equals Column B x Column C / 1,000 x Column D. 3 Capped at fee level for Multi -family. City of Costa Mesa Page 18 Park and Recreation Facilities Devefaoment lmnact Fee Justification Study August 4, 2015 —(pl APPENDIX A MAP OF VACANT LAND SALES 2 2 U U Maur Blvd if, a gr� If!H pod, wl 10 ` a rr v O 4A m C C © O O O O Ly' aL„ u 3 '�� Rr 9 9 m ' -�� zi�� G 4M1 ih r a�ei S Fb molti�i u r1 1 Q. a :ip^181©q,eH R,^18 -jaq+e 0 � 0 tit U _ Ln j 00 rr #CL OAV POUB30:4 PL+cen is *0 z d is Piem U- ko 3S jsln4lvou8 _. a IS e+lou60vf a� 4 W -�� APPENDIX B CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENCINITAS COMMUNITY PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA - City of Encinitas Source: USS Cal Bid and Native Grow Nursery Bid (www.ci.encinitas,ca.us) Land Acquisition EIR, Design, and Development Construction (USS Cal Builders) Park Amenities Landscaping Landscaping (Native Grow Nursery) Park Acres Construction Cost per Acre (Park Amenities only) Landscaping Cost per Acre Total Improvement Costs per Acre Land Acquisition Costs per Acre Description Encinitas Community Park Construction General Work Mobilization Clear and Grub Grading Fine Grading Soil Removal/Recompaction Soil Reuse (Primary Soils Management Zone) Storm Water Pollution Control/ SWPPP Striping, Signage, & Painted Curb Traffic Control Utility Work Fire Hydrant Assembly Reclaimed Water 1-1/2" PVC Reclaimed Water 2" PVC Reclaimed Water 12" PVC Reclaimed Service 1-1/2" Reclaimed Water Service 6" Sewer 4" PVC Sewer 6" PVC Sewer 8" PVC Sewer Cleanout Sewer- Cut and Cap Existing Pump Station Sewer Manhole Water 1/2" PVC Water 1" PVC Water 2" PVC Water 8" PVC Water 12" PVC Water- Remove Existing ACP Water Service 1" Water Service 2" Summary Total Costs $18,200,000 $5,250,000 $11,216,788 $2,710,855 $122,594 44.00 $254,927 $64,397 $319,324 $413,636 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail uantit Unit Cost 1 LS 1 LS 164,100 CY 1,533,000 SF 32,000 CY 55,000 CY 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS 4 EA 220 LF 695 LF 3,035 LF 2 EA 1 EA 710 LF 1,240 LF 649 LF 29 EA 1 EA 2 EA 980 LF 555 LF 320 LF 1,250 LF 2,735 LF 1,100 LF 3 EA 1 EA $216,000.00 $87,000,00 $1.62 $0.11 $ 2.81 $9.35 $27,000.00 $48,600.00 $54,000.00 $5,562.00 $12.42 $15.12 $115.56 $3,456.00 $23,247.00 $48.60 $51.84 $92.88 $648.00 $1,080.00 $6,307.20 $10.80 $11.88 $15.12 $75.60 $133.92 $5.40 $3,990.60 $5,346.00 Subtotal $216,000.00 $87,000.00 $265,842.00 $168,630.00 $89,920.00 $514,250.00 $27,000.00 $48,600.00 $54,000.00 $22,248.00 $2,732.40 $10,508.40 $350,724.60 $6,912.00 $23,247.00 $34,506.00 $64,281.60 $60,279.12 $18,792.00 $1,080.00 $12,614.40 $10,584.00 $6,593.40 $4,838.40 $94,500.00 $366,271,20 $5,940.00 $11,971.80 $5,346.00 Drainage Atrium Drain 129 EA $248.40 $32,043.60 Bio-Retention Area (C-1.8,p22) 1 LS $183,600.00 $193,600.00 Bio-Retention Area (Dog Park) 1 LS $41,040.00 $41,040.00 Catch Basin and Grate 73 EA $1,431.00 $104,463.00 Catch Basin per SDRSD D-8 3 EA $2,997.00 $8,991.00 Curb Inlet 5 EA $5,076.00 $25,390.00 HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 18" 2,540 LF $64.80 $164,592.00 HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 24" 450 LF $77.76 $34,992.00 Headwall 3 EA $2,700.00 $8,100.00 Headwall w/ Trashrack 12 EA $3,888.00 $46,656.00 Headwall with Manifold 1 EA $4,050.00 $4,050.00 Junction Structure -APWA 331 3 EA $540.00 $1,620.00 Junction Structure - APWA 332 25 EA $702.00 $17,550.00 Manhole 5 EA $5,454.00 $27,270.00 Manhole - APWA 320/ Modified APWA 320 3 EA $9,558.00 $28,674.00 Total Grand Total $13,927,642 $1,471,242.00 $1,113,970.32 $1,544,243.40 - (5 - Improvement/Construction Costs Detail - Continued Description Quantity Unit Cost Subtotal Parkway Culvert APWA 151 11 EA $2,430.00 $26,730.00 Perforated Drain at Backstop(4") 570 LF $37.80 $21,546.00 Rip -Rap 3,125SF $21.60 $67,500.00 Stormceptor 1 EA $49,194.00 $49,194.00 Storm Drain 6" PVC 6,800 LF $31.86 $216,648.00 Storm Drain 8" PVC 2,580 LF $35.91 $92,647.80 Storm Drain 10" PVC 145 LF $64.80 $9,396.00 Storm Drain 12" PVC 2,420 LF $54.00 $130,680.00 Storm Drain 54" rcp 366 LF $367.20 $134,395.20 Storm Drain Cleanout 11 EA $324.00 $3,564.00 Subdrain- Play Area 40 LF $59.40 $2,376.00 U-Channel V-6" 50 LF $27.00 $1,350.00 V-ditch V-6" Deep 1,185 LF $27.00 $31,995.00 V-Gutter 1,095 LF $24.84 $27,199.80 Building, Fence, and Wall Improvements Building -South Concession/ Restroom 1 LS $525,000.00 $525,000.00 Building- North Restroom 1 LS $510,000.00 $510,000.00 Electrical- Main Service 1 LS $59,400 00 $59,400.00 Electrical- Site Conduits, Conductors, Trenching, Complete 1 LS $95,040.00 $95,040.00 Light Fixture 14' 58 EA $7,000.00 $406,000.00 Light Fixture (18' single head) 11 EA $8,835.00 $97,185.00 Light Fixture (18' double head) 2 EA $15,120.00 $30,240.00 Light Fixture (20' single head) 58 EA $10,044.00 $582,552.00 Light Fixture (20' double head) 10 EA $10,962.00 $109,620.00 Light Fixture- Bollard 4 EA $9,450.00 $37,800.00 Junction Box for Future Light 69 EA $1,252.00 $86,388.00 Fencing- Backstops at 2 Ballfields 1 LS $155,000.00 $155,000.00 Fencing- 6' HT. Chainlink 360 LF $37.80 $13,608.00 Fencing- 8' HT. Chainlink 1,340 LF $59.40 $79,596.00 Fencing- 20' HT. Chainlink 450 LF $145.80 $65,610.00 Fencing- Lodge Pole 115 LF $48.60 $5,589.00 Gate w/ Pilasters -Tubular Steel 1 LS $14,040.00 $14,040.00 Trash Enclosures 2 EA $31,054.00 $62,108.00 Wall- 18" HT. at Park Entry 70 LF $75.60 $5,292.00 Wall-18" Planter 300 LF $75.60 $22,680.00 Wall-4' HT. For Material Bin Storage 70 LF $86.40 $6,048.00 Wall 6' HT. Masonry w/ Pilaster 4,105 LF $135.00 $554,175.00 Wall- Cheek Wall At Stair 175 LF $86.40 $15,120.00 Wall- 6' HT. Masonry at Maintenance Yard 140 LF $135.00 $18,900.00 Wall- Planter/Ret., incl. Guard Rail where required 475 LF $145.80 $69,255.00 Wall -Seat Walls 45 LF $378.00 $17,010.00 Site Improvements Asphalt Paving 2700 TON $100.00 $270,000.00 Bollards at Lot 'A' 7 EA $702.00 $4,914.00 Class II Base- Provide and Place 8,009 TON $23.76 $190,293.84 Class II Base- Place Onsite Material 6,529 TON $23.76 $155,129.04 Color Concrete Band 18" Wide 2105 LF $19.44 $40,921.20 Color Concrete Walkways 116,040 SF $9.18 $1,065,247.20 Concrete Mowcurb 6" Wide 6,750 LF $12,96 $87,480.00 Concrete Mowcurb 12" Wide 1,130 LF $16.20 $18,306.00 Concrete Stairs at Ball Fields 625 LF $54.00 $33,750.00 6" Curb/ Class II Base 8,350 LF $17.28 $144,288.00 6" Curb & Gutter/ Class II Base 3,670 LF $22.68 $83,235.60 6" Curb & Gutter w/block out/ Class II Base 1,600 LF $25.92 $41,472.00 Curb Ramp 25 EA $810.00 $20,250.00 Driveway Approach - SDRSD G-14A 1 EA $2,268.00 $2,268.00 Grass Pavel 1,480 SF $13.50 $19,980.00 Overlook w/ Seatwall, Conc. Band, & Interlocking Paver 1 LS $29,160.00 $29,160.00 Pavers 13,285 SF $9.18 $121,956.30 6" PCC Pavement 785 SF $8.10 $6,358.50 Simulated Bridges, Complete with Lodge Pole Fence, Stamped Concrete, and Flatwork 2 EA $7,020.00 $14,040.00 Stabilized Decomposed Granite Walkways w/ Curbing 9,245 SF $14.04 $129,799.80 Total $3,643,256.00 $2,478,849.48 (0 - Description Site Furnishings Bat Rack @ Dugouts Bench @ Dugouts Bench- Custom with Back Bench- Custom without Back Bike Rack Bleacher w/ Guard Rail BQ Unit Group BQ Unit Single Concrete Seating Pad- Accessible Concrete Seating Pad Picnic Tables Picnic Pads (Large 327 SF) Picnic Pads (Small 130 SF) Improvement/Construction Costs Detail - Continued Quantity Unit Cost subtotal Total $304,938.00 Pitching Rubber, Bases, Home Plate (Complete Set) Pedestrian Drinking Fountain Score Table Trash / Recycle Receptacles (Install Only) Street Improvements Adjust Existing Facility to Grade Asphalt Deeplift Asphalt Dike (B") Asphalt Grind and Overlay Asphalt Paving Class II Base Concrete Alley Apron Concrete Crass Gutter Concrete Driveway (w/8" PCC/6" AB) Concrete Enhanced Paving @Santa Fe Entry Concrete Pedestrian Ramp. Concrete Sidewalk 6" Curb/ Class II Base 6" Curb & Gutter/ Class II Base 6" Curb & Gutter (Rolled), Incl. Transitions/ Class II Base Grass Pavel Miscellaneous Relocations Parkway Culvert Sawcut Traffic Signal and Signage Improvements 3" PVC Conduit 2" PVC Conduit Signal Cables and Wires 6T Pull Box 6E Pull Box 5T Pull Box 5E Pull Box Type 1A Pole and Foundation Type 15TS Pole, Foundation, 15' Lum Arm HPS Luminaire SV-4-TB SV-1-T SP-1-T Ped. Head SP-2-T Ped Head Polara Audible Navigator PPB Assembly and System Type E Loop Detector Overhead Box Guard Miscellaneous Equipment Modification Miscellaneous Relocations/ Removals 4 EA $2,700.00 $10,800.00 4 EA $2,970.00 $11,880,00 22 EA $1,620.00 $35,640.00 6 EA $1,620.00 $9,720.00 5 EA $810.00 $4,050.00 4 EA $7,020.00 $28,080.00 5 EA $702.00 $3,510.00 10 EA $486,00 $4,860.00 7 EA $2,700,00 $18,900.00 12 EA $2,700.00 $32,400.00 28 EA $1,458.00 $40,824.00 8 EA $3,780.00 $30,240.00 12 EA $1,512.00 $19,144.00 2 EA $5,940.00 $11,880.00 4 EA $2,970.00 $11,880.00 2 EA $1,890.00 $3,780.00 35 EA $810.00 $28,350.00 11 EA $702.00 $7,722.00 450 LF $9.72 $4,374.00 30 LF $9.72 $291.60 165 SF $2.16 $356.40 151 TON $102.60 $15,492.60 247 TON $23.76 $5,868.72 1020 SF $6.48 $6,609,60 480 SF $6.48 $3,110.40 2 EA $2,052.00 $4,104.00 208 SF $8.10 $1,684.80 8 EA $449.28 $3,594.24 2000 SF $4.86 $9,720.00 180 LF $17.28 $3,110.40 595 LF $21.60 $12,852.00 36 LF $22.68 $816.48 225 SF $13.50 $3,037.50 1 LS $8,100.00 $8,100.00 1 EA $2,430-00 $2,430.00 675 LF $10.80 $7,290.00 180 LF $27.00 $4,860.00 150 LF $27.00 $4,050.00 1 LS $21,600.00 $21,600.00 1 EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 1 EA $1,890.00 $1,890.00 1 EA $1,890.00 $1,890.00 2 EA $1,890.00 $3,780.00 1 EA $27,000.00 $27,000,00 1 EA $27,000.00 $27,000.00 1 EA $4,860.00 $4,860.00 1 EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 1 EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 1 EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 1 EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 8 EA $243,000.00 $194,400.00 22 EA $4,860.00 $106,920.00 1 EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 1 LS $12,960.00 $12,960.00 1 LS $16,200.00 $16,200.00 $100,564.74 $437,130.00 6-1 - Improvement/Construction Costs Detail - Continued Description Quantity Unit Cost Subtotal Total Landscaping $2,710,854.55 1 Gal. Container Planting (Install Only) 50,640 EA $1.94 $98,241.60 15 Gal. Tree 461 EA $129.60 $59,745.60 24" Box Tree 452 EA $259.20 $117,158.40 3" Mulch 4,325 CY $34.56 $149,472.00 Bio-Retention Planter Strips 6,280 SF $4.32 $27,129.60 Bio-Swale w/ Boulders, Pebbles at Parking Lot E 2240 SF $9.18 $20,563.20 Garden Buffer Bioswale w/ Boulders, Cobble 31295 SF $9.18 $287,288.10 Hydroseed Mix (Irrigated) 126,315 SF $0.45 $56,841.75 Hydroseed Mix (Non -irrigated) 329,375 SF $0.06 $19,762.50 Infield Mix 45,740 SF $1.30 $59,462.00 Irrigation (Complete) 1,154,545 SF $1.14 $1,316,181.30 Palm Brehea armata 5' B.T. 13 EA $3,780.00 $49,140.00 Palm Brehea armata 8' B.T. 7 EA $4,590.00 $32,130.00 Palm Brehea armata 10' B.T. 3 EA $5,400.00 $16,200.00 Palm Phoenix reclinata 10' B.T. 8 EA $5,940.00 $47,520.00 Palm Queen 15' B.T. 35 EA $540.00 $18,900.00 Palm Queen 18' B.T. 20 EA $432.00 $8,640.00 Palm Queen 20' B.T. 16 EA $432.00 $6,912.00 Soil Preparation 1,155,545 SF $0.22 $254,219.90 Turf Stolons 624,740 SF $0.09 $56,226.60 Vegetated Swale 24,000 SF $0.38 $9,120.00 NATIVE GROVE NURSERY - LANDSCAPING $122,593.95 Achillea'Island Pink' 1,340 $1.80 $2,412.00 Aloe Arorescens 658 $2.10 $1,381.80 Alyogyne Hugelii 216 $2.05 $442.80 Arctostaphyos Hooker! 'Monterey Carpet' 478 $2.25 $1,075.50 Arteisia'Powis Castle' 131 $1.90 $248.90 Baccharis Pilularls'Pigeon Point' 1,439 $1.80 $2,590.20 Buddleja Davidii Nanohoensis 268 $2.40 $643.20 Cares Divulsa 6,774 $2.10 $14,225.40 Carex Spissa 1,097 $2.10 $2,303.70 Carssa Macrocarpa'Tuttle' 1,207 $2.10 $2,534.70 Ceanothus Gloriosus'Emily Brown' 701 $2.60 $1,822.60 Ceanothus'Yankee Point' 372 $2.20 $818.40 Cistus Purpurus 2,532 $2.25 $5,697.00 Dasyliron Wheeleri 1,644 $2.60 $4,274.40 Denromecon Hafordii 639 $3.10 $1,980.90 Hemerocallis Hybrid 404 $2.25 $909.00 Hesperaloe Parviflora 3,409 $2.25 $7,670.25 Heteromeles Arbutifolia 396 $3.60 $1,425.60 Loropetalum Chinese 119 $2.40 $285.60 Mahonia Repens 1,560 $3.80 $5,928.00 Muhlenbergla Capillaris'Regal Mist' 823 $2.25 $1,851.75 Muhlenbergia Rigens 2,148 $2.10 $4,510.80 Myoporum Parvifolum 'Putah Creek" 678 $2.40 $1,627.20 Parthenocissus Tricuspidata 45 $28.50 $1,282.50 Penstemon Barbatus'Navigator' 3,459 $1.80 $6,226.20 Pennisetum Setaceum'Rubrum' 684 $2.60 $1,778.40 Photinia Fraseri 205 $2.25 $461.25 Phormuim'Wings of Gold' 436 $3.10 $1,351.60 Pittosporum Tobira 'Variegatum' Mock Orange 313 $2.20 $688.60 Prunus Ilicfolia 365 $2.60 $949.00 Rhamus Californica 554 $3.10 $1,717.40 Ribes Viburnifolium 327 $3.10 $1,013.70 Rosa Floribunda 'Bright Pink Iceburg' 151 $2.80 $422.80 Rosmarimus Officinalis'Huntington Carpet' 16,368 $2.10 $34,372.80 Salvia Celevelandii'Winnifield Gilman' 657 $2.10 $1,379.70 Salvia Leucantha 1,803 $2.10 $3,786.30 Westingia Fruticosa 135 $2.10 $283.50 Xylosma Congestum 98 $2.25 $220.50 APPENDIX C 1URUPA AREA RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT HORSESHOE LAKE PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA --rq- Land Acquisition Construction Park Acres Construction Cost per Acre Description Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District Source: DTA, DIF Study, 2006 Summary Total Costs n/a $2,375,000 13.00 $182,692 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Horseshoe Lake Park Design and Development of Horseshoe Lake Park Subtotal $2,375,000 Total $2,375,000 APPENDIX D 1URUPA AREA RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA --I I- Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District Source: DTA, DIF Study, 2006 Summary Total Costs Land Acquisition n/a Construction $1,487,750 Park Acres 9.98 Construction Cost per Acre $149,073 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Description Subtotal Veteran's Memorial Park BBQs, Picnic Tables, Benches, and Trash Receptacles $18,750 ADA Drinking Fountains $4,000 Security Lighting $31,250 Picnic Shelter and Slab $81,250 Half Court Basketball Court $27,500 Construction of Restroom Combination Storage Building $181,250 Demolition of Horseshoe Court Area $18,750 Construction of Teen Mini -Activity Center with Outdoor Amphitheatre $1,125,000 Total $1,487, 750 /2_ APPENDIX E CITY OF LAKE FOREST - SPORTS PARK - 73 --- Lake Forest - Skate Park Source: Bid Results, 2013 Summary Total Costs Land Acquisition n/a Construction $35,888,810 Park Acres 86.20 Construction Cost per Acre $416,344 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Description Subtotal Total $35,888,810 Project Start Up $1,937,400 General Construction $1,700,000 Temporary Construction Fence $60,900 Construction Staking and Surveying $120,000 Traffic Control, Public $6,500 Sheeting, Shoring, and Bracing $5,000 Supplemental Traffic $20,000 Permits, Licensing, and Fees $25,000 Demoliton $5,000 Demolition, Removal, $5,000 Earthwork $420,500 Site Grading $300,000 Laser Grading Ball Field 1 $2,500 Ball Field 2 $2,500 Ball Field 3 $2,500 Ball Field 4 $2,500 Ball Field 5 $2,500 "Commons" Lawn Area $13,000 Synthetic Turf Base $5,000 Southern Natural Turf Athletic Fields $25,000 Erosion Control $30,000 SWPPP Implementation and Monitoring $35,000 Storm Drain Improvements $885,000 Storm Drain $885,000 Sewer Improvements $205,000 Sewer Improvements $205,000 Water Improvements $245,000 Water Improvements $245,000 Natural Gas Improvements $13,000 Natural Gas $13,000 - `14 - Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Description Subtotal Architecture Recreation Center, Complete $6,485,000 Restroom / Concession Buildings, Complete $1,940,000 Trash Enclosures, Complete $50,000 Shade Structures at $840,000 Shade Structures at Ball Fields - Design Build Ball Field 1- Design Build $72,000 Ball Field 2 - Design Build $72,000 Ball Field 3 - Design Build $72,000 Ball Field 4 - Design Build $72,000 Ball Field 5 - Design Build $72,000 Shade Structure at $333,000 Shade Structures at $160,000 40' x 40' Shade Structures - Design Build $400,000 30' x 30' Shade Structures - Design Build $325,000 30' x 30' Maintenance $95,000 Glass Creek Overlook $185,000 Paving 4" Asphaltic Concrete $725,000 Architectural Concrete $3,110,000 Natural Concrete Paving $430,000 Plexipave Surface $11,000 Flagstone Paving, Complete $226,000 Pedestrian "Bridges", Complete $17,000 Concrete Mow Curbs $445,000 Playground Resilient Surfacing Northern Tot Lot $79,000 Southern Tot Lot $160,000 'Organic Lock' Decomposed Granite $45,000 Decomposed Granite $2,500 Interlocking Concrete Pavers $72,000 Site Striping, Markings, $30,000 Walls Concrete Masonry Unit $777,000 Concrete Cast-inPlace $370,000 Entry Monument Walls, Complete Rancho Parkway $80,000 Portola Parkway $37,000 Vista Terrace $17,000 'Cultured' Stone Veneer $700,000 Fencing/Metal Work Lodgepole Fencing, Complete $62,000 Metal Guardrails for all $356,000 Metal Handrails for all $58,000 Tubular Steel Fence and $172,000 Permanent Chain Link $550,000 Sliding Tubular Steet $24,000 HDPE Lumber at Ball Fields 1-5 $36,000 Netting, Posts, and Foul $520,000 Cor-Ten Steel Animal Silhouettes $11,000 Embedded Cor-Ten Steel Leaves $6,500 Phase One Access $5,000 Total $11,173,000 $5,352,500 $1,981,000 $1,800,500 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Description Subtotal Total Site Electrical $2,900,000 Site Electrical for all Work required, Complete $2,900,000 Site Furnishings $1,263,000 Site Furnishings, Complete $672,000 Playground Equipment, Complete North Tot Lot $95,000 South Tot Lot $417,000 Wayfinding Signage and $13,000 Field Striper $1,000 SunPac Trailers, Complete $65,000 Irrigation $1,775,410 Recycled Water Irrigation System, Complete $1,685,000 Domestic Water Irrigation, Complete $90,410 Landscape $3,997,500 Soil Preparation / Fine Grading $230,000 Planting and Landscape $2,035,000 Dwarf Hybrid Bermuda Turf (Sod), Complete $865,000 Hydroseed Mix No. 1 $10,000 Synthetic Turf Drainage System Fields A & B $260,000 Batting Cages $12,500 Sand at South Tot Lot $1,000 Engineered Wood Fiber at South Tot Lot $27,500 Infield Mix at Ball Fields 1-5 $180,000 Hilltopper' Mound Mix at Ball Field 4 $5,000 'La Cresta' Boulders for $65,000 Thematic Dry Creek Bed $10,000 Dos Rios Cobble for all $40,000 Cobble Edging at Building Perimeter $2,000 90-Day Site $254,500 Bid Alternatives $1,935,000 Dwarf Hybrid Bermuda $605,000 Natural Stone Veneer $1,130,000 Import Dirt Contingency $100,000 Export Dirt Contingency $100,000 APPENDIX F CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL - CROWN VALLEY PARK --71 Total Costs Land Acquisition Construction Park Acres Construction Cost per Acre Description General Mobilization (Not to exceed 2% of contract price) Develop Construction Water Payment and Performance Bonds Construction Field Office Traffic Control Site Preparation Clearing and Grubbing Instill Temporary Construction Chain Link Fence Rough Grading Over Excavation (5 ft average) unsuitable material excavation and recompaction (keyway) Ampitheatre - 4" PVC Schedule 40 Perforated Pipe Back Drain with Filter Material 4" PVC Schedule 40. Pipe On -Site Export Materials Disposal/Handling Erosion Control (Entire Site) Demolition Exist Ampitheatre Area - Demolition Ex. Spray Ground Play Area - Demolition Precise Grading Construction - Ampitheatre 6" Curb per OCPW STD 120-2 3' Cross Gutter 4" AC/10" AB Sidewalk Access Ramp Grade Keyway 5'x15' Replace Salvaged Gate 0" to 6" Curb Transition 0" Curb per OCPW STD 120-2 10" Wide Seatwall Seatwall (18" Wall Retaining -Note 18) Concrete (Retaining Wall-H-Varies) 12" Wide Border with Grooves Landscape Tie Steps Seatwall (18" Wall Retaining -Note 20) DG Trail Drainage Construction - Ampitheatre 4" PVC Subdrain 4" Perforated Pipe 6" PVC 8" PVC Connect to Ex Storm Drain 12" Area Drain Conc. V-Ditch 12" Landscape Drain 18" Area Drain 12" Area Drain 1' Concrete Wide V-Ditch 18" N-12 HDPE Pipe 4" Trench Drain Concrete Cradle 24" HDPE Piple Manhole 6" Clean -Out Trench Backfill/PVMT Repair Construction - Ampitheatre Accessibile Stall Striping Accessible Parking Sign 4" Wheel Stop Stall Striping Re -Stripe Hump Markings Re -Stripe Crosswalk Laguna Niguel - Crown Valley Community Park Source: Bid Results, 2014 Summary n/a $4,599,531 18.00 $255,529 Improvement/Construction Costs Detall Unit Cost uantlt 1.00 LS 1.00 LS 1.00 LS 1.00 L$ 1.00 LS L58 AC 1.00 LS 13,010.00 CY 3,280.00 CY 304.00 LF 135.00 LF 3,070.00 CY 1.00 LS 1-00 LS 1.00 LS 103.00 LF 69.00 5F 1,271.00 SF 1.00 EA 150.00 CY 1.00 EA LF LF 122.00 LF 112.00 LF 400.00 SF 1.00 EA 3.00 EA 23.00 LF 427.00 SF 19.00 LF 447.00 LF 257.00 LF 153.00 LF 4.00 EA 4.00 EA 7.00 EA EA 1.00 EA 190,00 LF 293.00 LF 82.00 LF LF 2.00 EA 3.00 EA 131.00 SF 144.00 SF 2.00 EA 2.00 EA 18.00 LF 2.00 EA 31.00 LF $90,000.00 $9,740.00 $68,850.00 $6,377,00 $2,085.00 $11,361.00 $10,957.00 $6.50 $8.60 $50,00 $ 2100 $8.00 $15,974.00 $40,433.00 $31,517.00 $18.00 $17,00 $10.00 $1,768.00 $36.28 $3,305.00 $0.00 $0.00 $222.00 $243.00 $75.83 $185, 00 $692.00 $263.00 $4.00 $23.00 $27.00 $26,00 $27.00 $1,147.00 $600.00 $230.00 $0.00 $599.00 $33.00 $33.00 $151.00 $0.00 $3,711.00 $995.00 $38.00 $17.00 $522.00 $116.00 $7.00 $407.00 $35.00 Subtotal Total Grand Total $4,599,531 $177,052.00 $90,000.00 $9,740.00 $68,850.00 $6,377.00 $2,085.00 $28,907.38 $17,950.38 $10,957.00 $84,565.00 $28,208.00 $15,200.00 $2,835 00 $24,560.00 $15,974.00 $40,433.00 $31,517.00 $1,854.00 $1,173.00 $12, 710.00 $1,768.00 $5,442.00 $3,305.00 $0.00 $0.00 $27,084.00 $27,216.00 $30,332.00 $185.00 $2,076.00 $6,049.00 $1,708.00 $437.00 $12,069.00 $6,682.00 $4,131.00 $4,588.00 $2,400.00 $1,610.00 $0.00 $599.00 $6,270.00 $9,669.00 $12,382.00 $0.00 $7,422.00 $2,985.00 $4,978 00 $2,448.00 $1,044.00 $232,00 $126.00 $814.00 $1,085.00 $171,342.00 $71,950.00 $120,902.00 $76,222.00 $5,749.00 �--IQ'_ Description Site Amenities - Ampitheatre Concrete A: Natural Color Concrete B: Salmon Colored, 24" Scored Concrete C: Mesa Buff Colored Banding Concrete D: Checkerboard Finish, MICA, 24" Scored Concrete F: Salmon Colored Decomposed Granite Concrete Mowstrip Concrete Risers Stage Ramp Railing Parking Lot Ramp Railing Concrete Curb Ampitheatre Stage Stone Structure Ampitheatre Overhead Framework Ampitheatre Stage Lighting. Site Furniture Trash Receptacles Recycled Material Receptacle Bench Botanical Preserve Sign with Pilasters Grading Edge Adjustments Irrigation -Ampitheatre Automatic Irrigation System Automatic Controller Planting - Ampitheatre Soil Preparation and Weed Abatement Sodded Turf - Ampitheatre Artificial Turf 3" Thick Layer of Mulch 36" Box Tree 5 Gallon Shrub 1 Gallon Shrub Post Installation Maintenance - Amoitheatre 90 Day Maintenance Precise Grading Construction-Sprayground Play Area 6" Curb per OCPW STD 120-.2 4" HMA Over 6" AB 4" Sidewalk 0"to 6" Curb Transition 0" Curb per OCPW STD 120-2 8" Wide Seatwall Concrete (Retain) Wall Retaining Wall (2:1 Backfill) 6" CMU Wall 12" Wide Border with Grooves (At H/C Ramps) Seatwall (18" Wall Retaining -Note 20) Seatwall (18" Wall Retaining -Note 18) Drainage Construction - Spravground Play Area 4" PVC Subdrain 4" Perforated Pipe 6" PVC 8" PVC Connect to Ex Storm Drain 12" Area Drain Conc. V-Ditch 12" Landscape Drain 6" Landscape Drain 12" Area Drain 18" Area Drain 1' Concrete Wide V-Ditch 18" PVC Connect to Rain Drop Box 4" Trench Drain 12" PVC 4" Trench Drain JS Type VI 24" HDPE 6" Clean -Out Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Unit Cost Subtotal Total Grand Total $295,322.00 6,463.00 SF M00 $51,704.00 140.00 SF $16.00 $2,240.00 686.00. SF $10.00 $6,860.00 1,182.00 SF $16.00 $18,912.00 937.00 SF $12.00 $11,244.00 28.00 CY $143.00 $4,004.00 195..00 LF $11.00 $2,145.00 236.00 LF $29.00 $6,844.00 60.00 LF $427-00 $25,620,00 84.00 LF $143..00 $12,012,00 23.00 LF $38.00 $874.00 1.00 EA $81,596,00 $81,596.00 1.00 EA $8,696.00 $8,696.00 1.00 LS $62,571.00 $62,571.00 5.00 EA $1,240.00 $6,200.00 100 EA $1,240.00 $3,720.00 1.00 EA $1,559.00 $1,559.00 1,.00 EA $5,382.00 $5,382.00 1.00 EA $8,217.00 $8,217.00 36,703.00 SF $2.00 $73,406.00 1.00 EA $12,668.00 $12,668.00 36,703-00 SF $0.40 $14,681.20 30.,905.00 SF $1.00 $30,905.00 2,208.00 SF $15.00 $33,120,00 5,798.00 SF $0.50 $2,899,00 5.00 EA $913.00 $4,565.00 324.00 EA $18,00 $5,832.00 731.00 EA $12.00 $8,772.00 36,703,00 SF $0.30 $11,010.90 322.00 LF $14.00 $4,508.00 3,23100 SF $6.00 $19,398.00 - SF $0,00 $0.00 52.00 LF $14.00 $728.00 43.00 LF $16.00 $688.00 242.00 LF $242.00 $58,564.00 720.00 SF $87,00 $62,640,00 320.00 SF $101.00 $32,320,00 70.00 LF $174.00 $12,180.00 4.00 EA $1,224.00 $4,896.00 46.00 LF $146.00 $6,716,00 8.00 LF $321.00 $2,568.00 274,00 LF $25.00 $6,850.00 438.00 LF $28.00 $12,264.00 457.00 LF $29.00 $13,253.00 265.00 LF $30.00 $7,950.00 • EA $0.00 $0.00 11.00 EA $600.00 $6,600.00 - EA $0.00 $0,00 1700 EA $246,00 $4,182.00 5.00 EA $599.00 $2,995.00 - EA $0.00 $0.00 341.00 LF $33.00 $11,253.00 - LF $0,00 $0.00 1.00 EA $432.00 $432,00 111.00 LF $154,00 $17,094.00 26.00 LF $34.00 $884.00 62.00 LF $169,00 $10,416.00 2.00 EA $2,635.00 $5,270.00 - LF $0.00 $0,00 3.00 EA $995.00 $2,985.00 $25,078.00 $86,074.00 $100,774.20 11 010.90 $205,206.00 $102,428.00 - { 6 Description Wet Utility Services - Sprayeround Play Area Install 2" Backflow Preventer 2" PVC Water Line Point. of Connection to Bullding Connect to Ex Service Connect to Ex 1" Water Line 4" SDR-35 PVC Sewer Pipe Remove Cleanout and Join Connect to Drain Pipe Remove 1" Water Line Water Meter Storm Drain Construction - Spraveround Play Area 24" RCP Adjust Existing MH Remove Ex 24" RCP Concrete Saddle Concrete Collar Construction - Sorayground Play Area Accessibile Stall Striping Accessible Parking Sign 4" Wheel Stop Stall Striping Re -Stripe Crosswalk Erosion Control Site Amenities - Spraveround Play Area Concrete A: Natural Color Concrete B: Salmon Colored, 24" Scored Concrete C: Mesa Buff Colored Banding Concrete E: Checkerboard Finish, 48" Scored Concrete F: Salmon Colored Concrete G: Salmon with Mica Feldspar Concrete Risers Concrete Curb Concrete Mowstrip Mosaic .Architectural Art Panel 42" High Guardrail Handrail at Steps and Ramps - Play Area Concrete Cheek Wall/Curb 42" Tubular Steel Fence with Embelllishments 6' High, Water Feature, Tubular Steel Fence Entry Archway with Columns - No Gates 6' High Tubular Steel Service Gates 6' x 5' High Tubular Steel Service Gates 6' x 10' High Tubular Steel Service Gates 6' High Pilasters 4' High Pilaster 30" High Pilasters Service Switchgear Total Site Lighting Fixtures Architecture - Spraveround Play Area Restroom and Pump Room Building Outdoor Shower and Drain to Sewer Life Guard Chair Shade Canopy at Picnic and Water Feature Areas Site Furniture -Spraveround Play Area ADA Picnic Table Picnic Table Bench Trash Receptacles Bike Rack Recycled Material Receptacle Play Equipment - Spraveround Play Area Water Spray Ground Features with Recycling Pump Playground Equipment and GFRC Amenities Ruberized Surfacing Water Spray Ground - Natural Color with Glass Sand Colored Concrete Irrigation -Spraveround Play Area Automatic Irrigation System Automatic Controller Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Unit Cost Subtotal Total Grand Total $41,192.00 2.00 EA $5,758.00 $11,516.00 190.00 LF $13.00 $2,470.00 3.00 EA $498,00 $1,494.00 2.00 EA $492.00 $984.00 1.00 EA $171.00 $171.00 72.00 LF $3L00 $2,232.00 2.00 EA $603.00 $1,206.00 1.00 EA $455,00 $455.00 78,00 LF $8.00 $624,00 2.00 EA $10,020,00 $20,040.00 108.00 LF $185.00 $19,980.00 1.00 EA $1,584.00 $1,584.00 545.00 LF $22.00 $11,990.00 31,00 LF $73.00 $2,263.00 3.00 EA $404.00 $1,212.00 143.00 SF $17.00 $2,431.00 2,00 EA $522,00 $1,044.00 2.00 EA $116.00 $232.00 278.00 LF $7.00 $1,946.00 51.00 LF $35.00 $1,785.00 1.00 LS $15,892,00 $15,892.00 5,316.00 SF $8.00 $42,528.00 285.00 SF $17.00 $4,845.00 760,00 SF $10,00 $7,600.00 3,334.00 SF $15.00 $50,010.00 640.00 SF $13.00 $8,320.00 179.00 SF $22.00 $3,938.00 252,00 LF $23.00 $5,796.00 165.00 LF $20.00 $3,300.00 150.00 LF $14.00 $2,100.00 1.00 LS $6,492.00 $6,492.00 3.00 LS $5,797.00 $17,391.00 90.00 LF $416.00 $37,440.00 321.00 LF $485.00 $155,685.00 190.00 LF $191,00 $36,290.00 185.00 LF $536.00 $99,160.00 146.00 LF $450.00 $65,700.00 2-00 SET $29,212.00 $58,424.00 2A0 SET $13,333.00 $26,666,00 1,00 SET $4,116.00 $4,116.00 1.00 SET $7,189.00 $7,189.00 3.00 EA $5,411.00 $16,233.00 1,00 EA $5,382.00 $5,392.00 9.00 EA $2,551.00 $22,959.00 1.00 LS $124,609.00 $124,609.00 1.00 LS $694,329.00 $684,329.00 682.00 SF $700.00 $477,400.00 1.00 EA $10,319.00 $10,319.00 2.00 EA $1,780.00 $3,560.00 3.00 EA $21,520.00 $64,560.00 4.00 EA $2,386.00 $9,544.00 5.00 EA $2,131.00 $10,655.00 11.00 EA $1,559.00 $17,149.00 11.00 EA $1,240.00 $13,640.00 1,00 EA $934.00 $934.00 10.00 EA $2,204.00 $22,040.00 1.00 CY $259,705.00 $259,705.00 2.00 SET $174,892.00 $349,764.00 2,495.00 SF $26.00 $64,870.00 934.00 SF $19.00 $17,746.00 685.00 SF $10.00 $6,850.00 20,212.00 SF $2.00 $40,424.00 1,00 EA $12,668.00 $12,668,00 $37,029.00 $23,330.00 $1,496,502.00 $555,839.00 $73,962.00 $698,935.00 $53,092.00 g().- Description Planting - Sorayground Play Area Soil Preparation and Weed Abatement Sodded Turf 3" Thick Layer of Mulch 60" Box Tree 48" Box Tree 36" Box Tree 5 Gallon Shrub 1 Gallon Shrub Post Installation Maintenance - Spravground Play Area 90 Day Maintenance Landscape Ties Trash Enclosure 8"x8"x16" Precision Black CMU Wall 4" Mon PCC Curb 6" PCC Pavement 6"x4" Schedule 40 Gal Steel Tube FTG Fab and Install Metal Gate Fab Slide Bolt Install 6" Schedule 40 Gal Steel Bollards Mortar Cap Type A1-6 PCC Curb 3" AC Over 4" AB Pavement Sawcut and Remove AC Pavement Remove 6" Curb Paint DBL4" Wide Striping Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Unit Cost Subtotal Total Grand Total $87,719.60 20,212.00 SF $0.50 $10,106.00 5,929.00 SF $0.90 $5,336.10 14,283.00 SF $0 50 $7,141.50 1.00 EA $5,481.00 $5,481.00 3.00 EA $1,495.00 $4,485.00 24.00 EA $889.00 $21,336.00 882.00 EA $19.00 $16,758.00 1,423.00 EA $12.00 $17,076.00 20,212.00 SF $0 40 $8,084 80 155.00 LF $35.00 $5,425.00 83.00 LF $133.00 $11,039 00 60.00 LF $13.00 $780.00 547.00 SF $7 00 $3,829.00 5.00 EA $552 00 $2,760 00 36.00 LF $389.00 $14,004.00 3.00 EA $267.00 $801.00 2.00 EA $487.00 $974.00 83.00 LF $4.00 $332.00 17.00 LF $27.00 $459.00 73.00 SF $12.00 $876.00 75.00 LF $13.00 $975.00 58.00 LF $16.00 $928.00 882.00 EA $3.00 $2,646.00 $13,509.80 $40,403.00 -Qj- APPENDIX G CITY OF PASADENA- DESIDERIO PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA 2 --� Land Acquisition Pasadena Source: City CIP Budget, 2014 Summary Total Costs n/a Construction (Design & Development) Park Acres Construction Cost per Acre Location Description $2,410,000 3.80 $634,211 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Subtotal Total Desiderio Park Development of New Park $2,410,000 $2,410,000 -33- APPENDIX H CITY OF REDONDO BEACH - HEART PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA Redondo Beach Source: DTA, DIF Study, 2003 Summary Facility/Item Land Acquisition $227,397,770 Construction $32,473,900 Park Acres 76.50 Construction Cost per Acre $424,495 Land Acquisition Costs per Acre $2,972,520 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Subtotal Total Grand Total Heart Park $32,473,900 Area A $3,396,000 Community Events Center Site Acres 4.40 $250,000 $1,100,000 Multi -Use Community Event Area Acres 8.80 $25,000 $2,200,000 Parking Lot Per Space 120.00 $800 $96,000 Area B $1,035,500 Swimming/Tennis Complex Site Acres 2.30 $250,000 $575,000 Swimming Pool Square Feet 7,500.00 $55 $412,500 Tennis Courts Square Feet 57,600.00 Parking Lot Per Space 60.00 $800 $48,000 Area C $11,060,400 Active Recreation/Sports Acres 12.70 $250,000 $3,175,000 Natural Area Acres 7.90 $150,000 $1,185,000 Amphitheatre Square Feet 87,120.00 $20 $1,742,400 Passive Park Acres 11.00 $200,000 $2,200,000 Multl-Use Community Event Area Acres 5.00 $250,000 $1,250,000 Pedestrian Path Acres 8.40 $150,000 $1,260,000 Parking Lot Per Space 310.00 $800 $248,000 Area D $16,350,000 Harbor Recreation Acres 10.60 $250,000 $2,650,000 Boat Launch Acres 1.10 N/A $13,340,000 Parking Lot Per Space 450.00 $800 $360,000 Area E $632,000 Bike Path Trailhead Acres 0.60 $225,000 $135,000 Multi -Use Harbor Recreation Area Acres 1.10 $250,000 $425,000 Parking Lot Per Space 90.00 $800 $72,000 APPENDIX I CITY OF SAN MARCOS - BRADLEY PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA San Marcos - Bradley Park Source: Bradley Park Master Plan, 2014 Summary Land Acquisition n/a Construction Costs $12,492,484 Park Acres 34.00 Construction Cost per Acre $367,426 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Description Quantity Unit Cost One South Rancho Santa Fe Road on -site parking Head Start Parking Lot Pacific Street Parking Two Football/Soccer Field #1, Softball/Baseball Fields #1 & #2 241 Car Parking Lot with Access Drives Center Core Area Walking Trail Three Baseball Field #1 Softball/Baseball Field #3 & Soccer Field #4 Softball/Baseball Field #4 Restroom & Concession Building at S. Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Walking Trail Four Group Picnic Area at Lower Mesa Football/Soccer Field #2, Softball/Baseball Fields #5 & #6 Baseball Field #2 with Cover Play Area and Picnic Amenities Baseball Field #3 Subtotal Total Grand Total $12,492,494 $339,568 168 $552.45 $92,811 43 $2,866.21 $123,247 107 $1,154.30 $123,510 $4,552,878 $2,122,177 $1,070,011 $1,275,810 $84,880 $4,310,556 $1,582,821 $1,161,504 $932,111 $549,240 $84,880 $3,289,482 $212,157 $2,122,177 $694,207 $260,941 _g0 APPENDIX J CITY OF TUSTIN - TUSTIN LEGACY PARK CONSTRUCTION COST DATA i�i Tustin Legacy Park Source: Tustin Legacy Park Master Plan, 2014 Summary Total Costs Land Acquisition n/a Design Contingency $1,158,626 Construction $16,816,265 Park Acres Construction Cost per Acre Description General Construction Mobilization Fine Grading Erosion Control Utilities 31.50 $533,850 Improvement/Construction Costs Detail Total $1,139,482 Ballfields $1,927,000 3 Fields Lighting Amenities Miscellaneous Paving & Trails $890,000 Paving Trails Lighting Signage Multi- Purpose Fields $2,315,000 4 Fields Lighting Amenities Courts $750,000 Basketball Tennis Pickleball Sand Volleyball Lighting Amenities Children' s Play Environment $2,110,000 Play Equipment Passive Areas Par Course Equipment Veteran' s Memorial Signage Amenities Parking Lots $2,110,000 Small Parking Lot Large Parking Lot Buildings $650,000 Two Buildings Skate Park $396,500 Lighting Amenities Miscellaneous Landscape & Irrigation $1,408,283 Soil Preparation Trees, Shrubs, Groundcover Irrrigation Additive Alternative $3,120,000 Synthetic Turf @ Soccer Fields Grand Total $16,816,265 ATTACHMENT 6 Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. It ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER Bin March 9, 2015 Chairman Robert Dickson and Planning Commission Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair View Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PARKLAND IMPACT FEES Dear Chairman Dickson, On behalf of our membership, we are in support of the proposed update to the City's Parkland In -Lieu Fees Program (Parkland Impact Fees). We would like to thank City staff for the opportunity to review the proposed fee adjustment, and for requesting our input in this important matter. The Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter (BIA/ OC) is a non-profit trade association of nearly 1,000 companies employing over 100,000 people affiliated with the home building industry. The Orange County Chapter represents the largest member base within BIA Southern California. Our mission is to champion housing as the foundation of vibrant and sustainable communities. After review of the City staffs report related to the proposed Parkland Impact Fees, we are pleased to see a reduction from the current fee program for Single Family and Multi -Family Owner dwelling units (condominiums). Housing costs in our region are affected by development fees, we applaud City staff for re calibrating the City's park fees in accordance with the requirements of State law. As always, we remain a resource to the City on important issues that are related to the well-being of our local communities. Thank you for time and thoughtful consideration. Respectfully, Michael Balsamo Chief Executive Officer PRESIDENT JOAN MARCUS-COLVIN THE NEW HOME COMPANY VICE PRESIDENT JIM YATES RANCHO MISSION VIEJO TREASURER PHIL BODEM TAYLOR MORRISON SECRETARY MIKE GARTLAN KB HOME IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT DONNA KELLY LENNAR TRADE CONTRACTOR V.P. ALAN BOUDREAU BOUDREAU PIPELINE CORPORATION ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT MARK HIMMELSTEIN NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP MEMBER -AT -LARGE MIKE MCMILLEN TRI POINTE HOMES MEMBER -AT -LARGE SCOTT STARKEY STARKEY COMMUNICATIONS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MICHAEL BALSAMO PH-2 PH - 2 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CITY OF COSTA MESA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Costa Mesa City Council at its regular meeting on Tuesday, August 4, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers, 77 Fair Dr., to consider the following item: Description: A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CASE NO. PA-08-27 Al — 1827 NEWPORT BLVD. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA-08-27 ALLOWING A JEWELRY STORE TO OPERATE WITH A PAWNBROKER LICENSE (JACK'S JEWELRY AND LOAN), TO REMOVE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRING THAT PAWNBROKER SERVICES BE LIMITED TO WATCHES AND JEWELRY ONLY, AND PROHIBITING LOANS FOR LESS THAN $2,500.00. Environmental Determination: THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 15301 OF THE STATE CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT) GUIDELINES — CLASS 1 (EXISTING FACILITIES). Public Comments: Public comments in either oral or written form maybe presented during the public hearing. Any written communication, photos or other materials for copying and distribution to the City Council must be received by the City Clerk (15l floor) no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing, August 4, 2015. If you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you, or someone else raised, at or prior to the hearing. For further information, telephone (714) 754-5245, or visit the Planning Division, Second Floor of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. The Planning Division is open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The City Council agenda and related documents may also be viewed on the city's website at: http://costamesaca.gov, 72 hours prior to the public hearing date. Brenda Green, City Clerk, City of Costa Mesa Published on: July 24, 2015 III JUL 242015 PH - 2 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CITY OF COSTA MESA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Costa Mesa City Council at its regular meeting on Tuesday, August 4, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers, 77 Fair Dr., to consider the following item: Description: A REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CASE NO. PA-08-27 Al — 1827 NEWPORT BLVD. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PA-08-27 ALLOWING A JEWELRY STORE TO OPERATE WITH A PAWNBROKER LICENSE (JACK'S JEWELRY AND LOAN), TO REMOVE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRING THAT PAWNBROKER SERVICES BE LIMITED TO WATCHES AND JEWELRY ONLY, AND PROHIBITING LOANS FOR LESS THAN $2,500.00. Environmental Determination: THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 15301 OF THE STATE CEQA (CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT) GUIDELINES — CLASS 1 (EXISTING FACILITIES). Public Comments: Public comments in either oral or written form may be presented during the public hearing. Any written communication, photos or other materials for copying and distribution to the City Council must be received by the City Clerk (1sl floor) no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing, August 4, 2015. If you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you, or someone else raised, at or prior to the hearing. For further information, telephone (714) 754-5245, or visit the Planning Division, Second Floor of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. The Planning Division is open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The City Council agenda and related documents may also be viewed on the city's website at: http://costamesaca.gov, 72 hours prior to the public hearing date. Brenda Green, City Clerk, City of Costa Mesa Published on: July 24, 2015 dq(Iss -Pftt-eCe-�ti-"-- 4-ep, sS - ei c,-a- o� --- City Council Meeting August 4, 2015 PA-08-27 Al 1872 Newport Boulevard Conditional Use Permit Amendment Request Amend Conditional Use Permit PA-08-27 for a watch and jewelry store with ancillary pawn services to remove two conditions of approval: • Pawnbroker services shall be limited to watches and jewelry only • No loans less than $2,500 shall be permitted Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Approved by Planning Commission • No loans less than $1,000 shall be permitted • Pawnbroker services shall be limited to luxury items, including: jewelry, watches, loose gemstones, precious metals, art, and antiques. • Pawnbroker services further shall not be permitted for sports equipment, lawn equipment, clothing, household goods, electronics, or any other item not specifically permitted in previous condition. Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Approved by Planning Commission • Required security measures: • 27 surveillance cameras with 6 months stored footage • Armed security guard during operating hours • Alarm system • Sign plan: • Remove wall signs on side elevations • No changes required to above -roof sign Vicinity and Zoning Map MIR W- 4qmwpr" MOM multi tea !e r Y •• i Li• 1 Y' fj2I 4 whL LN +A6 F di Site Address PA Number Business Name Limitation on Types of Minimum Loan Items to be Pawned Amount 1860 Newport PA-08-24 Newport Watch and Watches and jewelry only $1,000 Boulevard* Jewelry Center 1836 Newport NIA (Legal Coast Jewelry and Loan No Restrictions No Restrictions Boulevard nonconforming) 780 W 191h NIA (Legal AA Cash for Gold No Restrictions No Restrictions Street nonconforming) 710 W 19th NIA (Legal Rio's Jewelry and Loan No Restrictions No Restrictions Street nonconforming) 1145 Baker NIA (Legal American Jewelry and No Restrictions No Restrictions Street nonconforming) Loan Subject PA-08-27A+1 Jewelry-N-Loan Jewelry, watches, loose $1,000 Application:** (Subject Property) gemstones, precious 1872 Newport metals, art, and antiques Boulevard *Existing CUP approved in 2009 for Newport Watch & Jewelry Center. *'`CUP as amended by the Planning Commission on 22 June 2015. Intent of PA-08-27 • Primary business is to be retail sales of watches and jewelry, operated like a traditional jewelry store • Discourage blight and deterioration from proliferation of pawn shops Police Calls for Service • June 6, 2014 - June 5, 2015: 1 call for service • Does not include stolen property recovered from the pawn shop m1l 4'-9' Vr. 21, dr-� �fr <-4ry W-0' 4'-5 1Ir sarn jmsf 5/t/aili if is-'C's - I � C406 V-Ir Site Address PA Number Business Name Limitation on Types of Minimum Loan Items to be Pawned Amount 1860 Newport PA-08-24 Newport Watch and 'Watches and jewelry only $1,000 Boulevard* Jewelry Center 1836 Newport N/A (Legal Coast Jewelry and Loan No Restrictions No Restrictions Boulevard nonconforming) 780 W 191h NIA (Legal AA Cash for Gold No Restrictions No Restrictions Street nonconforming) 710 W 19th NIA (Legal Rio's Jewelry and Lean No Restrictions No Restrictions Street nonconforming) 1145 Baker N/A (Legal American Jewelry and No Restrictions No Restrictions Street nonconforming) Loan Subject PA-48-27A1 Jewelry-N-Loan Jewelry, watches, loose $1,000 Application:** (Subject Property) gemstones, precious 1872 Newport metals, art, and antiques Boulevard *Existing CUP approved in 2009 for Newport Watch & Jewelry Center. **CUP as amended by the Planning Commission on 22 June 2015. owr wor R7W MIR W- 4qmwpr" MOM multi �� � � +k _: �� DARDAM PARKING A I Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH-2 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-08-27A1 TO AMEND AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A JEWELRY STORE WITH ANCILLARY PAWN SERVICES AT 1872 NEWPORT BOULEVARD FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: CHELSEA CRAGER, ASSISTANT PLANNER DATE: JULY 23, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CHELSEA CRAGER (714) 754-5609 chelsea.crager@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to the Planning Commission's action: UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision and approve amendment to Conditional Use Permit PA-08-27A relating to certain conditions of approval for an existing jewelry store with ancillary pawn brokerage services at 1872 Newport Boulevard. APPLICANT Dan Stansell is the authorized agent for the property owner, Coastline Equity, Inc. BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The project site is located on the southeast corner of Newport Boulevard and Flower Street on a 3,546 square foot lot, with the building frontage facing Newport Boulevard and vehicle access from Flower Street. It is zoned C2 (General Commercial) with a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. The site is developed with one single - story building and 11 parking spaces. The building is 1,012 square feet. The subject property is abutting C2 zones to the north and south, which contain commercial uses. To the west across Newport Boulevard is The Triangle retail center, zoned PDC (Planned Development Commercial) and to the east across a public alley are residential uses, zoned R2-HD (Multi -Family Residential, High Density). Pawn broker services require a conditional use permit (CUP) in the C2 zone. Previous Entitlement On October 27, 2008, Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit PA-08-27, allowing for two existing watch and jewelry stores at 1808 Newport Boulevard and 1827 Newport Boulevard, both named Estate Watch Jewelry and Loan, to add ancillary pawnbroker services. The business at 1808 Newport Boulevard has since stopped operating, and therefore the conditional use permit was revoked for this location. Intent of the Original Conditions of Approval The staff report for the original CUP states that there was a concern that pawn shops, pawnbroker services, and second-hand stores may give the appearance of blight and deteriorated retail conditions. To address this concern and ensure compatibility with the surrounding area, a condition of approval was included limiting pawnbroker services to jewelry and watches only. A condition of approval setting a minimum loan amount of $2,500 was included as a justification for approval as it was expected that customer traffic to the pawnbroker/loan aspect of the business would be limited by the condition, thereby maintaining the store primarily as a jewelry and watch retail store. The Police Department was supportive of regulations for pawn shops. Project Description The applicant proposed amending the previously approved conditional use permit to remove the following conditions of approval from the original entitlement: • Pawnbroker services shall be limited to watches and jewelry only. • No loans less than $2,500 shall be permitted. Expansion of Eligible Items to be pawned The applicant would like a greater array of items to be eligible to be pawned. The request to amend the conditional use permit includes a request to remove all limitations on items eligible for pawnbroker services, however, when asked by staff, the applicant provided a more extensive list of items to be included in pawnbroker services. Specifically, the list includes: • Jewelry • Watches • Loose gemstones • Precious metals • Items containing gemstones and/or precious metals • Coins and currency • Art • Memorabilia • Designer handbags • Crystal • Rare collectibles • Antiques • Individual items with a fair market value of $5,000 or more The applicant believes that the above list of items are appropriate additions to the items eligible for pawnbroker services at the subject property because they are luxury items. The applicant also states that there are several pawn brokers operating in the City without a restriction on items eligible for pawn. Increased Loan Services by Eliminating Loan Minimums The applicant also requests that there be no minimum loan amount. The applicant believes that the pawn brokers operating in the City without the minimum loan restriction creates inequitable competition for his business. The applicant also states that because pawnbroker services are restricted by a minimum loan amount, this encourages customers with items valued less than the $2,500 minimum to sell the item. Additionally, the applicant states that the minimum loan amount encourages customers to take out larger loans than necessary. Planning Commission Action On June 22, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the conditional use permit. The application to completely remove the conditions of approval was denied, and the Planning Commission instead approved modified conditions on a 3- 1 vote (Commissioner Andranian absent). Although the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the CUP to a certain degree, the Commission did not fully grant the request made by the applicant. The following table is a comparison of the applicant's request to the Planning Commission's action: Applicant No changes requested to the building Building Wall Signage to be renovated and/or removed: wall signage. • The applicant shall submit a sign plan to upgrade and renovate the existing building wall sign on the front elevation to complement existing signage in the downtown district for the review and approval of the Development Services Director. The existing building wall signs on both side elevations of the building shall be completely removed. The installation of the new building wall signage on the front elevation and the removal of all wall signage along the side elevations shall occur within 60 days of the date of approval of the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, unless an extension is granted by the Development Services Director for just cause. No changes to the existing above -roof sign are required. Remove requirement for minimum 0 No loans less than $1,000 shall be permitted. loan amounts of $2,500. Expand the list of eligible goods for 0 Pawnbroker services shall be limited to luxury items, including: pawning to include: jewelry, watches, loose gemstones, precious metals, art, and antiques. • Loose gemstones • Precious metals • Items containing gemstones and/or precious metals • Coins and currency • Art • Memorabilia • Designer handbags • Crystal • Rare collectibles • Antiques • Individual items with a fair market value of $5,000 or more Other modified conditions that are not disputed by the applicant are shown below: • Pawnbroker services further shall not be permitted for sports equipment, lawn equipment, clothing, household goods, electronics, or any other item not specifically permitted in Condition of Approval Number 11. • Security measures described in the security plan shall be maintained, including: o Installation of 27 surveillance cameras covering the interior and exterior of the building, with 6 months of stored footage o An armed security guard on the premises during operating hours o Installation of an alarm system The Planning Commission staff report, adopted resolution, and meeting minutes are attached (Attachments 7-9). Appeal of Planning Commission Action On June 29, 2015, the Planning Commission's approval of modified conditions for PA-08- 27A1 was appealed by the applicant to the City Council. The basis for the appeal includes the following: 1. The remaining conditions are unnecessary and ineffective to ensure the use is compatible and complimentary to the community. 2. The conditions of approval impose a significant burden on the business and customers. 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. ANALYSIS The following analysis provides information intended to address the issues raised by the appellant in the appeal application. 1. Per the appellant, the remaining conditions are unnecessary and ineffective to ensure the use is compatible and complimentary to the community. • After the Planning Commission meeting, the Police Department reiterated their opposition to any changes to the CUP. Lieutenant Beckman, Investigative Services Bureau, communicated with the applicant on July 21, 2015 to give the applicant an opportunity to express his position. Lieutenant Beckman summarized the communication in an email [excerpt below]: "Mr. Stansell [applicant] felt that allowing more opportunity for people to get lower loans for a greater variety of property would benefit the police department because it would help us identify more stolen property that would otherwise be sold by other means. I disagreed with his assessment as it suggests that the current reporting of pawns and loans is an efficient means of identifying stolen property. Some property may get identified, however, the majority of reported stolen property lacks serial numbers or other definitively unique characteristics as to ever be re- united with the rightful owner. After he made his statements, I advised him that I was not in agreement with his position and that based on my professional experience I would not be in support of changing any of the conditions of the existing CUP. My position in regards to this matter is based on my own professional experiences dealing with pawn shops and secondhand dealers and investigating all types of thefts. I had been a detective assigned to oversee Costa Mesa Pawn and Secondhand dealer licenses, I had supervised investigators assigned to handle the pawn licensing and am currently managing the Investigative Service Bureau that is responsible for the pawn and secondhand dealers." (7/23/2015 Email from Lt. Beckman, Attachment 10) The original CUP ensures that the retail sales of jewelry/watches be the primary business and establishes appropriate conditions of approval to prevent blighted conditions and increased criminal activity (burglaries, robberies, sale of stolen goods). • The Planning Commission considered the Costa Mesa Police Department's position and approved select modifications to the original report. At the Planning Commission meeting, there was discussion about the Police Department's concerns related to the existing concentration of pawn shops in the City, trafficking of stolen goods at pawn stores and potential increase in criminal activity. The Police Department indicated that expanding the list of items eligible for pawnbroker services may increase criminal activities associated with stolen goods, as these types of items are often sold on the pawn market. The Police Department also indicated that it is difficult to trace and recover stolen goods offered in pawn shops. • The CUP was amended to allow additional goods to be pawned. The condition of approval limiting pawn brokerage services to watches and jewelry only ensures that that pawn brokerage aspect of the business remains ancillary to the primary retail use. The condition serves to address the concern that second- hand stores may give the appearance of blight and deteriorated retail conditions. Limiting pawn brokerage services to luxury items only (jewelry, watches, loose gemstones, precious metals, art, and antiques) is included to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. • The loan amount was reduced from $2,500 to $1,000 to be consistent with the CUP for another similar business. The condition of approval setting a minimum loan amount of $1,000 is consistent with the minimum loan amount required by the CUP for the pawn broker located at 1860 Newport Boulevard (PA-08-24 for Newport Watch and Jewelry Center). This condition of approval is included as it is expected that customer traffic to the pawnbroker/loan aspect of the business would be limited by the condition, thereby maintaining the store primarily as a watch and jewelry store. 2. Per the appellant, the conditions of approval impose a significant burden on the business and customers. The following pawn brokers are currently operating in the City of Costa Mesa: Site Address PA Number Business Name Limitation on Types of Minimum Loan Items to be Pawned Amount 1860 Newport PA-08-24 Newport Watch and Watches and jewelry only $1,000 Boulevard* Jewelry Center 1836 Newport N/A (Legal Coast Jewelry and Loan No Restrictions No Restrictions Boulevard nonconforming) 780 W 191h N/A (Legal AA Cash for Gold No Restrictions No Restrictions Street nonconforming) 710 W 191h N/A (Legal Rio's Jewelry and Loan No Restrictions No Restrictions Street nonconforming) 1145 Baker N/A (Legal American Jewelry and No Restrictions No Restrictions Street nonconforming) Loan Subject PA-08-27A1 Jewelry-N-Loan Jewelry, watches, loose $1,000 Application:** (Subject Property) gemstones, precious 1872 Newport metals, art, and antiques Boulevard *Existing CUP approved in 2009 for Newport Watch & Jewelry Center. **CUP as amended by the Planning Commission on 22 June 2015. Of the six operating pawn brokers in the City, four are legal nonconforming without conditional use permits, and two are subject to conditional use permits. The site at 1860 Newport Boulevard was granted a conditional use permit in 2008 to provide ancillary pawn broker services to a watch and jewelry store, similar to the subject property. This property also had a minimum loan amount of $2,500, however in 2009 the City Council approved an amendment to the CUP, lowering the minimum loan amount to $1,000 due to the economic climate at the time. The modified conditions of approval at the subject property are consistent with the CUP at 1860 Newport Boulevard. 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 approve modified conditions of approval for PA-08-27A1. Any further 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 of modified conditions and deny PA- 08-27A1. 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. CHELSEA CRAGER GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Assistant Planner Economic Development & Development Services Director / Deputy CEO Attachments: 1. Location Map, Zoning Map, and 500' Radius Map 2. Site Photos 3. Appeal 4. Draft Resolutions and Exhibits 5. Correspondence From Public 6. Plans 7. Planning Commission Minute Excerpts 8. June 22, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments 9. Planning Commission Resolution 10. July 23, 2015 Email from Lieutenant Paul Beckman 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) Dan Stansell 9400 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Coastline Equity, Inc. 24564 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 201 Torrance, CA 90505 City of Costa Mesa ZONING - 1872 NEWPORT - [Created: 6/3/2015 3:52:11 PM] [Scale: 368.4] [Page: 8.5 x 11 / Portrait] Overview Map Map Display Legend Address 04/ C.6.1. Paints .0/ Frwway Freeway Mom Newport BLVD Reads rJI/ Primary (coat) (coat) SECONDARY w Street Hydrology Centerlines Chan-nels Parcal Unes City Street NamesBoundary (C) 2002-6 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec, Inc.) - (866)422-2606 ` i i -- d 41 fi .q Ap — d ALLEY) r\ — fA8AV10 �P--I �- I� — �� I p I I I ;� 0-x !r er I �r er so• �a j ev �o I r LIr i.__.1---- --�}- j-- - ---- STREET) A VEMC) p I y Map Preparer: SUSAN W. CASE, INC. 917 GLENNEYRE ST #7 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 949 494 6105 susancaseinc yahoo com BOULEVARD 't, �rEWPORT rrNECY. � � I LOT a `J IN N $ FULLERTON 7-7 NEWPORT HEIGHTS TRACT N0. I086 PARCEL MAP FILE # 151715 1872 NEWPORT BLVD COSTA MESA CA MARCH 16 2015 500' OWNERS 425 452 18 NORTH Www ._�'� — _ _ "_= — •ti --- — —� �,, .. ..� • , y ! _ ►'� �� � i a �... r�` f 1� __I , � ��� PAI'YFAM . PARKING Alt - _� _ �� ATTACHMENT 3 Costa. Mesa City of Costa Mesa .42 Appeal a3PlannknrCur� arin $1,220.#0 ` lV� Appeal of2ojliiVJW i't1[ U%r1 i:Sftill tlij LJt' 4'. + 49hM1 t t Staff 13acisia;- $690.00 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW AppiicantNatine" Dan Mansell as I140114 frsr ns. Address 9400 Santa tvlonic,a Blvlt, Sait"p1, iieyerl, — ills CA 9(}210-- Phone REQUEST FOR. EXI APPEAL 0 REVIEW" Decision of which appeal or review is requested: Give application number, if -applicable., and the date of the decision, if knower.) Planning Application l'r''<•gli-?: Al A June 22,20t = I Decision lay: €=1:n11tin1= t:frr,llatissis,n Reasons for requesting appeal or review: i' hile sA`r 3Pj,4rV late vl;e re,.i;lcetl reslrictuoils tut aur• opvralion,as were AprrOvc'd €+y lire Phaming Cmiintission, wr rerptaiil co avini-ed tililt tht- renulinlil.g1'CKIrictialfts =irc lmoc': 35ary anti ill I'ffi dive to ei;�qlre thak otlr use is Colnpillillle mid &JInpilmeMary to t€l COMMttllily, Rli- iler. tlu' r+•Strictit,us impose a sibniii4:anf horlicit on our husiness and en1 otir clohllv&%. W4. 1z>s} rclf;tlly:rSR that ihv CiiV ({' until 1-tow'sil}i'i's tilt: lluAJ; ion ;md will Glllipivill"111 a111ti :si 17iif .it lt)}t mile .li€iifilf lii.;i ln:itr rFillti in .itl V:illii <Ij tl9r lSt i;Citt , Date: If you are Seiving its the agent for anultler perSUi't, DjeaL%r; identity tile ps:rson you 1•eltre5eot and Qrc3uide;trool at al;ltfgri�alitrrt "Review may be resque:sted only by Planning Commission, Planning +Comrnisflion Mernber, City Council, or City Council Member ,-.ems--�_. _ •�--�----'--� .�- ]wear office use only --%lo not write below this line SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY C'.QUNCILllyt..ANNING COMMISSION ISS€ail MEET114G Oi If appeal, rehearing, or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing oT appeal, rehearing, car review: ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING CERTAIN AMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA-08-27A1 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN ON -SITE PARKING SPACES FOR A PAWN BROKER LOCATED AT 1872 NEWPORT BOULEVARD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed Dan Stansell, representing Coastline Equity, Inc., the property owner, requesting approval of the following: Planning Application PA-08-27A1 is an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to operate a jewelry store with ancillary pawnbroker services. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project by a 3-1 vote; 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 August 4, 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 UPHOLDS the Planning Commission's decision and APPROVES Planning Application PA-08-27A1. 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-08-27A1 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 4th day of August, 2015. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA -I g- 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 4th day of August, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4th day of August, 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 substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that: Finding: The proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Finding: The use, as conditioned, is not anticipated to have any negative effects on the surrounding properties, and is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses. No noise impacts to the nearby residential properties are anticipated due to the nature of the business. The parking demand of the proposed use is compatible with parking demand existing at the subject property. No security impacts are anticipated due to included conditions of approval requiring surveillance cameras, an alarm system, and an armed guard on the premises during operating hours. Finding: Granting the 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 Finding: The use, as conditioned, will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public in that security measures will be in place. The project is conditioned to maintain the security measures currently in place and described in the attached security plan submitted by the applicant. These security measures include: • Installation of 27 surveillance cameras covering the interior and exterior of the building, with 6 months of stored footage • An armed security guard on the premises during operating hours • Installation of an alarm system Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. Facts in Support of Finding: The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial, intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses. Granting the modification to the CUP for the jewelry stop and pawnbroker services shall not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan. The shop has been in operation with a CUP since 2008, and the proposed modification to the CUP will not substantially increase the use or intensity of the store. B. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code section 13-29(e) because: a. The proposed development and use is compatible and harmonious with uses both on site as well as those on surrounding properties. The project is conditioned to minimize any security impacts to nearby residential and commercial uses. b. Safety and compatibility of the design of the parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. The proposed used will be conditioned to maintain all security measures currently in place, and has sufficient parking for the proposed use. c. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. This designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses to serve local and regional needs and should be insulated from sensitive uses through buffers or onsite mitigation measures. The proposed project will prevent security impacts to surrounding residential and commercial uses through onsite security measures. d. The proposed use is compliant with performance standards as prescribed in the Zoning Code. The proposed swim school will be conditioned to operate as described in the submitted business description and is compliant with Zoning Code. e. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. Approval will apply to this project -specific locations. Conditions have been included that are specific to the proposed project. EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL f*As modified pursuant to Amendment No. 1_to PA-08-27 on June 22, 20151 Ping, 1. The use shall be limited to the type of operation described in this staff report: a jewelry store with ancillary pawn broker services. Any significant change in the operational characteristics will require approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit, subject to Planning Commission approval. The Development Services Director shall make a determination that certain changes could be approved at a staff level. 2. 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. 3. If construction is proposed, the conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA-08-27 Al shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 4. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site upon completion of all site improvements and prior to final approval of any building permits for interior building improvements. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and Code requirements have been satisfied. 5. 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. 6. *The applicant shall submit a sign plan to upgrade and renovate the existing building wall sign on the front elevation to complement existing signage in the downtown district for the review and approval of the Development Services Director. The existing building wall signs on both side elevations of the building shall be completely removed. The installation of the new building wall signage on the front elevation and the removal of all wall signage along the side elevations shall occur within 60 days of the date of approval of the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, unless an extension is granted by the Development Services Director for just cause. No changes to the existing above -roof sign are required. 7. The business shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or business owner shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 8. The conditional use permit herein approved shall be valid until revoked, but shall expire upon discontinuance of the activity authorized hereby for a period of 180 days or more. The conditional use permit may be referred to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if the conditions of approval have not been complied with, if the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances, or if, in the opinion of the Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO or his designee, any of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 9. As required by Conditional Use Permit PA-08-27 Al, except as permitted by the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code for temporary window signs, windows shall not be blocked or obscured. 10. *No loans less than $1,000 shall be permitted. 11. *Pawnbroker services shall be limited to luxury items, including: jewelry, watches, loose gemstones, precious metals, art, and antiques. 12, *Pawnbroker services further shall not be permitted for sports equipment, lawn equipment, clothing, household goods, electronics, or any other item not specifically permitted in Condition of Approval Number 11. 13. *Security measures described in the security plan shall be maintained, including: • Installation of 27 surveillance cameras covering the interior and exterior of the building, with 6 months of stored footage • An armed security guard on the premises during operating hours • Installation of an alarm system RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION PA-08-27A1 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REDUCTION IN ON -SITE PARKING SPACES FOR A PAWN BROKER LOCATED AT 1872 NEWPORT BOULEVARD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed Dan Stansell, representing Coastline Equity, Inc., the property owner, requesting approval of the following: Planning Application PA-08-27A1 is an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to operate a jewelry store with ancillary pawnbroker services. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project by a 3-1 vote; 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 August 4, 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 REVERSES the Planning Commission's decision and DENIES Planning Application PA-08-27A1. 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 4th day of August, 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 4th day of August, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4th day of August, 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 proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: 1. A compatible and harmonious relationship does not exist between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses on surrounding properties. 2. The proposed project does not comply with the performance standards as prescribed in the Zoning Code. 3. The proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan or Zoning Code. B. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section Code Section 13-29(g)(1) because: • The proposed use is not substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would be materially detrimental to other properties within the area because: • The retail sales of jewelry and watches is intended to be the primary business. • The original intent of the conditions is to discourage blight and deterioration from proliferation of pawn shops. Increased crime may be associated with the ability to pawn a great variety of stolen items without being traced and with ease. • Granting the amendment to the 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. • Granting the amendment to the conditional use permit will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. « The original CUP ensures that the retail sales of jewelry/watches be the primary business. Pawn brokerage and loan services were required to be ancillary to the retail sales of jewelry/watches. • The CUP establishes appropriate conditions of approval to prevent blighted conditions. The staff report for the original CUP states that there was a concern that pawn shops, pawnbroker services, and second-hand stores may give the appearance of blight and deteriorated retail conditions. _ Qr1 - To address this concern and ensure compatibility with the surrounding area, a condition of approval was included limiting pawnbroker services to jewelry and watches only. • A condition of approval setting a minimum loan amount of $2,500 was included as a justification for approval as it was expected that customer traffic to the pawnbroker/loan aspect of the business would be limited by the condition, thereby maintaining the store primarily as a jewelry and watch retail store. • Planning staff consulted the Costa Mesa Police Department, who expressed concern that expanding the list of items eligible for pawnbroker services may increase criminal activities associated with stolen goods, as these types of items are often sold on the pawn market. The Police Department indicated that it is difficult to trace and recover stolen goods offered in pawn shops. • Lowering the minimum loan amount and increasing the items eligible for pawn broker services may substantially increase the use or intensity beyond what was previously permitted as a jewelry and watch store, with ancillary pawn brokerage services. C. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied Planning Application PA-08-27 Al. 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. D. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. ATTACHMENT 5 sk R Coast Jewelry & Loan June 17, 2015 Dear Planning Commission Members: My name is Donald J. Klein, and I am the owner of Coast Jewelry and Loan at 1836 Newport Boulevard. Our family has been in Orange County since 1950, operating a collateral lending and jewelry business, as well as operating in Las Vegas, Nevada. I am not in favor of passage of PA-08-27 Al for the following reasons: At the present time, Newport Boulevard, from 191h Street to 17th Street, has 5 active licensed pawnbrokers in less than 1 mile of distance. That is over saturation. When I opened in 1995, 1 was the second store on Newport Boulevard, along with Winston's to have a Pawn License, now there are 3 more, for a total of 5. Has the population base increased the same amount to warrant additional pawn operations? No. With the passage of the removal of the conditional use provisions, the additional burden on the Police Department for the inspection of daily pawn tickets would occur as well. The original applicant, Jack Schecter, was granted a higher loan limit to be ancillary to the sale of jewelry and watches. The new applicant wants a different type of operation, with loans being the driving factor, which is not what the City Council or Planning had in mind for the area. Nor have conditions changed to warrant another pawn operation. Finally, even if the license is allowed; I would suggest renaming the boulevard to "Newpawn Boulevard," instead of Newport Boulevard, which would be closer to its actual use. If this license is granted, where does it stop as the other jewelry operations in Costa Mesa will apply as well. Sincerely, Donald J. Klein Coast Jewelry & Loan Received City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department JUN 18 2915 1836 NEWPORT BOULEVARD COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92627 PHONE: PW)650-7561 (�M) 00 DAR13AR1 18" NEWPORT BLVD COSTA MESA, CA 926V Kali -o s 949-650-8080 WWW.DARBARIGRILL.CON June 16. 2015 City 017Coma MQ&I I'ianllin� L?etlr trnent 77 Fail- (sorl.I Mesa. C-A 92628-1200 Itl?: Je elry-N-Loa n AIlrlendnlcnt u1 CORdltllr"it I (1se Permit PA-08-27 granted Oct. 3f), 20olS ("Ct1P") I operate a husiness near lcwelry-N-Loan and am familiar Mill tlicir operation, I undersland that the moiler; havo applied 1m Etn=�rrt�c�n�ltncrtt to their CTI, that k4•��u1J perniit thetit to make loans 11"ainst arl� tvpc oi,ctflkltet'al and in 1,11110untr 01,less than $2,500, 1 believe the. rtillicivjI cal°Iltctse re Sinctiow, ` OUld ht benenci.11 to Consumers and to the surrounding colllrltuntty. Jewelry'-N- L Lan ot•I`er5 ;tn illll?cn t.rnt sere ice ti, these that naed short tcrnl tinancin 'I lie Ilk-luidit 111,Mid<cl lea Consumer' h� JewelrN.-IN-Loatt is'111Cn spent at ad_jaccul husin4sScs -QuCh IS niitle, This viunilicant bent lit to the loe;ll (radt! area and should he enc��Eu'ared. I �10 1101 helieVe that th4 restrictions a[v 11CCCN; a1-v ol, e(Twi-ve in .lttemptill" to CXCILI(IC all "ull le.5irak�le" 4rl t �rtler ha,� , `±irleerel" allplieation and ask dial you kit) io as well. —30— June 16, 2015 City of'Costa Mesa Planning [department 77 fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1300 RE: Jewelry-N-Lorin Amendment of Conditional Use Permit PA-08-27 granted Oct. 30, 2008 („CUP") Manning Commission, I operate a business near Jewelry-N-Loan and am familiar with their operation. I understand that the owners have applied ['or an amendment to their CUP that would permit them to make loans apinst any ty foe of collateral and in amounts of less than $21,i 1. I believe the removal of those restrictions would be beneficial to consumers and to the surrounding community. Jewelry-N- Loan offers an important service to these that need short term Financing. The liquidity provided to consumers by Jewelry-N-Loan is oticn spent at adJacent businesses such as mine. This is :t significant benelit to the IOCal trade area and should be encouraged. I do not believe that the reswictions are necesiaxy- or elTective in attempting to exclude an -undesirable- customer base. I support Jewelry-N-Lean"s application and ask that you do sea as well Sincerely, ,I line: 16, 20I 5 City or Costa \loa Plamiillg Department , e Fair Drive Costa kle,,a, CA 92628-1200 RE: Jewelry-N-Lorin Amendment of Conditional (Ise Permit Pry-08-2', granted Oct. 30, 20018 ("CLIP") Plannino Commission, operal,� a htltilnetis lleill• Jewel y-N-Loan and am Calilili u• with their operation. I understand that (tic owners have applied fi)r Can amendment to their CI IP that kvrluld permit them til make loans 1l6-ainsl any type orcolimeral and in amounts of less then $2,5% 1 believe the removal ol'those 1'ea0riCti0ll5 wnuld he helleficial to Consumers and to the surrounding co1n11ulnily: ,lewelry-N- l.«an orl"rs In itllporlanE ticr4°ice t�l thE�yc lh�lt nee�I she�rt Ec:rnl li oncing. The lieluiclity 1�ruvi�lcc! to consunlurs by kwelry-N-Loan is col`ten spent at aeljrlcenl, busillesses such as aline. This iti a iallilicant fienelit t0 the local trade :INN tad Should he cncottrag,cd. I LIO nul believe tlt,lt the restrictmil-. are necessan, or C11'e live Ill atlempting [o exclude ail "Uf1e CSil`ablei" customer base, I .tlpport Jewelry-NiA.,mil'i application mul ltsk that you do,(,l sts well �illccrcl�. ul � 32 IRWIN WATHIN Vice President LIGHT -BULBS'. 44 IGHTSTYLES 1848 Neu*on Blvd. Cosby Moso, CR 9f6M27 TEL (949) 646-5227 e FFIX (949) 646-505 Co/TA men a P1t onTCLAIR + ORAnGe wnbsettc. aaU"1 WWbsrtc.com June I ..(il5 City of Costa Mesa Planning Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa. CA 92628-1200 RE: Jewelry-N-Loan Amendment of Conditional Use Permit PA•08-27 granted Oct. 30, 2008 ("CUP") Planning Commission, I operate a business near Jewelry-N-Loan and am familiar with their operation. I understand that the owners have applied ror an amendment to their CUP that would permit theta to make loans against any type of collateral and in amounts of less than $2,500, 1 believe the removal ofthose restrictions would be beneficial to consumers and to the surrounding community. Jewelry-N- Loan offers an important service to those that need short term financing. The liquidity provided to consumers by Jewelry-N-Loan is often spent at adjacent businesses such as aline. This is a significant benefit to the local trade area and should be encouraged. I do not believe that the restrictions are necessary or effective in attempting to exclude an "undesirable" customer base. I Support Jewelry-N-L can's application and ask that you do so as well. Sincerely, F 33 Newport-V.esa Orthodontics NM & Family Dentistry Dr. Peter Skuben I DDS Dr. Divp Agarwal I DDS. Orthodontist 145 East t stn Street #A (949) 650-1414 Costa ILta'S h r'a Market) D�NewPoa+Masa®i#�odan#cf.com (rr�xd ace hrfarifar's Market) .!' iVewportMssaOrthodontics.00m .franc 16, 2015 Pity cifCosta klesa Planning Depariniont ?' Fair Drive G)stal klesaa, ('A 9-161-8-1 IMO RC: Jewelry..-Loaln lmcndn>Icnt of Conditional Use Permit PA-08-27 grunted Oct. 30, 2008 (-CUP") 111.1nnim, Commission, I operaw >a business liear Jewelry-N-Loan and mil (amiliar with their operation. I understand (halt the owners have applied for all amendment to their CUP that would permit them to make loan MU,alintil ,any type of coll>ateml and in aanlount,s of leis than $2,500. f believe the removal of those restrictioo.' w(I'lld be betaeti6a1 trr consttlr m and to the surroa.ulalillg ea"alillunity. Jewelry-N- Imall offcrti ,an irziparrLlllt xcrw�iCC to titu,c thbtt lieed short (erm Iln an`lny� The liquidity pr'Ovided to constanlers by Jewaelry-N-Loall k «Baas tihelat al adhacellt businesses,tich as mine, Thiti is Ea ;i1C.1111 l-'ena:liI to 11w local trade iroaan, f ,lar,uld N cncc�ur,t_�ed. I do not helievo that the rQalrietrolls are necessau y of ef(eetiwe ire Eattellitliillg to CXCIUde sul "ulxle;sirahle" customer haase. I Support Jewelry-N-Loan's applieatioai and ask that you do So as well. Silacercly, PETERS GALLERY iiHCl IT CUSTOM PICT M FRAMING AµT tic FRAM6 RESTORATION DIGITAL IMAe7tN(7 Idly NEWPORT BLVD JANICEMAXSON COSTA MESA c:AUQ7 OWNER ` 4 )S48.4911 1N"1PVFrTAIe5l,A1,LRHY,NkT J tine 16, "2015 City ol., Costa N tesa Planning Dcpartnlcltr 77 l air Chive C'ustit iVlesa, CA 92628-1 0o ItE: ,Jewel ry-N-Loa n Amendment of Conditional five Permit PA-08-27 granted Oct. 31), 2008 ("(Xp") Pianning Conullis5ion, [ operate: a btlsine sss near .lcwe iry�-ti-1 Lan and am familiar with their operation, I understand that die m1 -tl ers have applied for an aniundiltent Io their CUP that would permit them to make luau against any type ol`coll:lteral and in tnio�unts (.it less than $1,500, 1 helicve tic removal of'those restrictions be be',netw.lal to con unior, and to theSllrrtmurkling celntms.111ity. Jc we lry-N- I.u:tri a1f'I rti an illlllelrtant service to those: Ilim need short term Ilwiticil1g. Hie liquidity provided LO 01115 1111c'z INN Je"welr1_N-1 o.111 I }ltw'Vl yt'+etlt 1t adjZICCtlt busitlt::;seis such its mine'_ TIlis is a si nil icant lie ne!`1t iu Ille It1c:13 tr.td` arc.i .liul should he encuur r ,e cl, I (to no( believe th.lt the retiuicticnls arr Ilecess,u}car ��I'I�clivc in altcnlptin te1 e clu�te an "tinel4:gir,ihlc" clistoinier hasc,, I suhllcrrt Jc\"clry-IN, 4.f1an'ti applIcation and ask that gull de? so as well. Sincerely, pp� - - Pacific Time i Clock & Watch Repair Services Anitque. Vfnt"s, Gamemparary qP Buy, Sell. Tmle Mw-a Noon v 31va Marek Wojciechowski Cusla Wma, CA 92627 Etomnuan Mitoor Wall.timkpk*i (949) 050-0522 .N+.r•s, ,,, DAl4fnip (Vit0cu741)lId P si June 16, 1-015 City of Costa Mesa Planning Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1-700 RE: Jewelry-iV-Loan Amendment of Conditional Use Permit IIA-08-27 granted Oct. 30, 2008 ("CUP") Planning; Cotnnussion. I operate a business near Jewelry-N-Loan and am familiar with their operation. I understand that the owners have applied for m amendment to their CUP drat would permit them to male leans ag;ainit ally type of collateral and in amounts of less than $2,500. I believe the removal of those restrictions would be beneficial to consumers and to the surrotuiding community. Jewelry -NI - Loan offers an important service to those that need short term financing. The liquidity provided to cOnatialers by .1owelry-N-Loan is utteti spent at ailiacent businesses such as rnine. This is a significant benefit to the local trade area and should be encouraged. I do not believe that the restrictions are necessary or eCfeelive in attempting to exclude an -'undesirable" customer base. I support Jewelry-N-Loan's application and ask that you do so as well. Sincerely, !l -7,. 3(�)— tUtlt; 1y• ?i)k i C0Y oa ,C.)4i;1 1.1,"'a I'Ill�u!!1:• f ?r_I}�!riln,.11l 77 i-,ilr I tl•ive ("A 9202,j.I?r)(] RE?;-telvelry-N-I,nttn Aincilelttlent (if Cuntlitit)nal lase Purmh I'A-08-27 917:111(ed ()et. 30, 2008 (E9(lUI„') t'l:11111mv CtllllIII H-41E}11, f cl11CC:ItC :1 t)kifilll 4S Ile, ' .1�4v It'-�i-I,,(l�lll illlCl »Illl I�I�ililf.11' LulCll lflvdl' r1f1L'I ,tl;l,{t, { ;,Il>frY:ilifill[l {hill tilU c3','alvC hilkt Cl7f)f lc tl I,61' an ill]1endillent to their C'111' 11) 11 Y� ulklt, 1C1,1 I I " I , d.13111,9; Eilly l 'c ,I �t:i 4tCc1 # I I i d:i,r t4) Illl ., gars I ill Mid ill tat1lowlt.iC)i 1f.I . Own S2,v:llij, I I+NII't': I`C::iii%i<tl(tl,: 1V(lllftl 110 ()elletit`I61l to c:tlilil11 ere ,lilt! to (I1�.l.lil)li.fll-i;� �+i;]l+];,,Il�tl}• l.ts,�E] ,`I ILrs d€(l ifilllt}t".,111t 4�urviCC to those tlt]t '1wed Shol,l !,:lll] t111.•t1lClti� IT C !I:;LII llly rl"tlti+tdaj IL :11vimlcrs Ill' .InVl ky-N-boon t3 tlftel] spcllf ;v,I.It: C+'llI t'•tl ll]K tii':5 vY.ICl1 :'I, 17!I!14 ! I113 11 .1 t1 !i'llc'lll[ i1E'll�lll tf1 11'4. lCl4:ll Ir61tlC ,IEI:I k1;,Id shu, It1 aC cllCtllla•.I E'(1, I .;c; I1Lr !}tiil ti'4 tf]<li tilt' L'.; lrt4]irlll., iEl" 1)c,c ;Nary M' Ul Ieuli ve in rll lt:"llptillg t(I c`XC-f!,I& till 'AtklltlrY411':Itaf4 ' Cl Ia�ISC. I ir111]tirl .lq�.vcle�-�i-f.c,ct!l'., alal}1ic411ion and mik that you del so i1:7 4\ee!j. �t.i�t:lFl ;- - 39 C ama Win Store / Carpornte Office 22 5 tam 17th Street 4 Costa Mesa, California 9.162 7 • t 949) 611-4741 0 Fax t 9-491 548-421-1 VT 6 _33-_ o + 1334yi S T ,yJ A(3313NIN F 7v I Fj- !40 ATTACHMENT 7 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MINUTE EXCERPTS FROM THE JUNE 22, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING 1872 Newport Boulevard (Public Hearing No. 1 — PA-08-27 Al) 1. Application No.: PA-08-27 Al Applicant: Dan Stansell Site Address: 1872 Newport Boulevard Zone: C2 Project Planner: Chelsea Crager Environmental Determination: If approved, the project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines — Class 1 (existing facilities). Description: Amend Conditional Use Permit PA-08-27 allowing a jewelry store to operate with a pawnbroker license (Jack's Jewelry and Loan) to remove the conditions of approval requiring that pawnbroker services be limited to watches and jewelry only and prohibiting loans for less than $2,500.00. Chelsea Crager, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McCarthy asked if the police are in support of the project. Ms. Crager responded no. The Commissioners discussed in length the police not being in support of the application, why the loan amount was lowered, issues with service calls, if they kept records of who comes in, how staff chose the particular luxury items, code enforcement violations, and if a sign program would apply. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dan Stansell, applicant, gave an overview about of the business and presented justification for approval of the application. Jordan Tabach-Bank, business co-owner, gave a presentation about eliminating the restrictions against making loans for under $2,500, letters of support for their business, and addressed Commissioners inquiries about requirements for obtaining a loan or purchasing an item. Chair Dickson asked if the business sends the pawn ticket to the Department of Justice and the local police department and what the police department does with them. Mr. Tabach-Bank responded that the local police department handles it and manually enters it into a computer database. Commissioner McCarthy asked why it is the police department's responsibility to do the paperwork and processing to see if the pawned items are stolen. Mr. Tabach-Bank responded that is the current law and that they are working for a state wide uniformed downloading system. A Costa Mesa resident stated concerns with the letters of support and spoke against the application. A Costa Mesa resident spoke against the application and stated concerns with the signage. Teresa Drain, Costa Mesa resident, spoke against the application. Beth Refakus, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with the signage and supports the denial of the application. A Costa Mesa resident stated that they are not in support of the change in the conditional use permit, concerns with the letters of support, crime increase, home values, policing of the tickets and the revenue it will bring to the City. Jack Shetner, founder of Jewelry-N-Loan, gave a character reference and addressed the issue of the sign violations that occurred when he was the owner. Mr. Tabach-Bank and Mr. Stansell responded to public comments. Vice Chair Mathews asked for clarification of the request for the expansion of list of eligible items to be pawned is for the purchased item or loan amount. Ms. Crager responded it is only for the loan amount. Commissioner Sesler and Vice Chair Mathews asked the applicant if they would be willing to bring their signs on the side of the building into compliance with the City's sign ordinance. Mr. Tabach-Bank responded they are open to suggestions. Commissioner Sesler asked about how they could enhance their security and what steps they take to make sure the item is not stolen. Mr. Tabach-Bank responded by going over what security measures they have now and are open to suggestions. He also stated they do their due diligence in customer qualification to insure the items are not stolen. Chair closed the public hearing. The Commissioners discussed the application in length. MOTION: Based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, subject to conditions of approval contained in Exhibit B, that we approve Planning Application PA-08-27 Al with the following modifications: Condition of Approval No. 6 to read: "The applicant shall submit a sign plan to upgrade and renovate the existing building wall sign on the front elevation to complement existing signage in the downtown district for the review and approval of the Development Services Director. The existing building wall signs on both side elevations of the building shall be completely removed. The installation of the new building wall signage on the front elevation and the removal of all wall signage along the side elevations shall occur within 60 days of the date of approval of the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, unless an extension is granted by the Development Services Director for just cause. No changes to the existing above -roof sign are required". Condition of Approval No. 12 to read: "Pawnbroker services further shall not be permitted for sports equipment, lawn equipment, clothing, household goods, electronics, or any other item not specifically permitted in Condition of Approval Number 11 ". Condition of Approval No. 13_to_read: "Security measures described in the security plan shall be maintained, including: • Installation of 27 surveillance cameras covering the interior and exterior of the building, with 6 months of stored footage • An armed security guard on the premises during operating hours • Installation of an alarm system" Moved by Chair Dickson, seconded by Vice Chair Mathews. RESOLUTION 15-40 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING CERTAIN AMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA-08-27 Al A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PAWN BROKER LOCATED AT 1872 NEWPORT BOULEVARD The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, Sesler Noes: McCarthy Absent: Andranian Abstained: None The Chair explained the appeal process. ATTACHMENT 8 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE:' JUNE 22, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: . SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO PLANNING APPLICATION PA-08-27: REMOVAL OF LIMITATIONS ON PAWN BROKERAGE INVENTORY AND LOAN SERVICES AT 1872 NEWPORT BOULEVARD DATE: JUNE 12, 2015 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION / DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: CHELSEA CRAGER, ASSISTANT PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CHELSEA CRAGER (714) 754-5609 chelsea.crager@costamesaca.gov DESCRIPTION The proposed request is an amendment to Planning Application PA-08-27, an existing conditional use permit for a jewelry store at 1872 Newport Boulevard (Jewel ry-N-Loan). The existing CUP required that jewelry sales be the primary business but allowed ancillary pawn brokerage and loan services. The applicant is requesting the removal of limitations to the pawned inventory and loan services by the deletion of two conditions of approval (below): • Pawnbroker services shall be limited to watches and jewelry only. • No loans less than $2,500 shall be permitted. APPLICANT Dan Stansell is the authorized agent for the property owner, Coastline Equity, Inc. RECOMMENDATION Deny the amendment request to entirely delete the two specified conditions, by adoption of Planning Commission resolution. BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The project site is located on the southeast comer of Newport Boulevard and Flower Street on a 3,546 square foot lot, with the building frontage facing Newport Boulevard and vehicle access from Flower Street. It is zoned C2 (General Commercial) with a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. The site is developed with one single -story building and 11 parking spaces. The building is 1,012 square feet. The subject property is abutting C2 zones to the north and south, which contain commercial uses. To the west across Newport Boulevard is The Triangle retail center, zoned PDC (Planned Development Commercial) and to the east across a public alley are residential uses, zoned R2-HD (Multi -Family Residential, High Density). Pawn broker services require a conditional use permit (CUP) in the C2 zone. Previous Entitlement On October 27, 2008, Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit PA-08-27, allowing for two existing watch and jewelry stores at 1808 Newport Boulevard and 1827 Newport Boulevard, both named Estate Watch Jewelry and Loan, to add ancillary pawnbroker services. The business at 1808 Newport Boulevard has since stopped operating, and therefore the conditional use permit was revoked for this location. Intent of the Conditions of Approval The staff report for the original CUP states that there was a concern that pawn shops, pawnbroker services, and second-hand stores may give the appearance of blight and deteriorated retail conditions. To address this concern and ensure compatibility with the surrounding area, a condition of approval was included limiting pawnbroker services to jewelry and watches only. A condition of approval setting a minimum loan amount of $2,500 was included as a justification for approval as it was expected that customer traffic to the pawnbroker/loan aspect of the business would be limited by the condition, thereby maintaining the store primarily as a jewelry and watch retail store. The Police Department was supportive of regulations for pawn shops. ANALYSIS Project Description The applicant proposes amending the previously approved conditional use permit to remove the following conditions of approval: • Pawnbroker services shall be limited to watches and jewelry only. • No loans less than $2,500 shall be permitted. _15- Expansion of Eligible Items to Pe pawned The applicant would like a greater array of items to be eligible to be pawned. The applicant provided a more extensive list of items to be included in pawnbroker services, which includes luxury items. Specifically, the list includes: • Jewelry • Watches • Loose gemstones • Precious metals • Items containing gemstones and/or precious metals • Coins and currency • Art • Memorabilia • Designer handbags • Crystal • Rare collectibles • Antiques • Individual items with a fair market value of $5,000 or more The applicant believes that the above list of items are appropriate additions to the items eligible for pawnbroker services at the subject property because they are luxury items. The applicant also states that there are several pawn brokers operating in the City without a restriction on items eligible for pawn. Increased Loan Services by Eliminating Loan Minimums The applicant also requests that there be no minimum loan amount. The applicant believes that the pawn brokers operating in the City without the minimum loan restriction creates inequitable competition for his business. The applicant also states that because pawnbroker services are restricted by a minimum loan amount, this encourages customers with items valued less than the $2,500 minimum to sell the item. Additionally, the applicant states that the minimum loan amount encourages customers to take out larger loans than necessary. Parking The property currently is developed with 11 parking spaces for 1,012 square feet of building area. Code required parking for a retail use is 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, with a minimum requirement of 6 spaces. Therefore, there is no shortage of parking at the subject property. Security Improvements The applicant has provided a list of security measures (See Attachment 2) taken at the subject property, including: -No_ • Installation of 27 surveillance cameras covering the interior and exterior of the building, with 6 months of stored footage • An armed security guard on the premises during operating hours • Installation of an alarm system These security measures are included as conditions of approval to ensure that they remain in place. Code Enforcement History The jewelry story and pawn broker services have been operating with a conditional use permit at the property since 2008. Since that time, there have been 18 code enforcement cases opened at the property, 16 of which were for signs. In the past four years, there has �A been one code enforcement case opened on the property, which was for illegal portable \,signs. All code enforcements cases have been closed with the last case being filed in March ,'20X15 for portable signs. Denial of CUP Amendment Request Staff recommends that the request to remove these conditions be denied based on: • The retail sales of jewelry and watches is intended to be the primary business. • The original intent of the conditions is to discourage blight and deterioration from proliferation of pawn shops; • Increased crime may be associated with the ability to pawn a great variety of stolen items without being traced and with ease. The following pawn brokers are currently operating in the City of Costa Mesa: Site Address PA Number Business Name Limitation on Types Minimum Loan of Items to be Amount Pawned 1860 Newport PA-08-24 Newport Watch and Watches and jewelry $1,000 Boulevard Jewelry Center only 1836 Newport N/A (Legal Coast Jewelry and Loan No Restrictions No Restrictions Boulevard nonconformin 780 W 19"' Street N/A (Legal AA Cash for Gold No Restrictions No Restrictions nonconforming) 710 W 191" Street N/A (Legal Rio's Jewelry and Loan No Restrictions No Restrictions nonconforming) Subject PA-08-27 Jewelry-N-Loan (Subject Watches and jewelry $2,500 Application: Property) only 1872 Newport Boulevard Of the four operating pawn brokers in the City, three are legal nonconforming without conditional use permits, and two are subject to conditional use permits. The site at 1860 Newport Boulevard was granted a conditional use permit in 2008 to provide ancillary pawn broker services to a watch and jewelry store, similar to the subject property. This property also had a minimum loan amount of $2,500, however in 2009 the City Council .-9 9 - approved an amendment to the CUP, lowering the minimum loan amount to $1,000 due to the economic climate at the time. The minutes from this meeting are attached as Attachment 3. • The orfgina/ CUP ensures that the retail sales of iewelry1watches be the primary business. Staff recommends that the request to completely remove the conditions of approval be denied because the intent of those conditions was to ensure that the retail sales of jewelry items be the primary business. Pawn brokerage and loan services were required to be ancillary to the retail sales of jewelry/watches. • The CUP establishes appLQQriate conditions of approval to jorevent bli kited conditions. The staff report forthe original CUP states that there was a concern that pawn shops, pawnbroker services, and second-hand stores may give the appearance of blight and deteriorated retail conditions. To address this concern and ensure compatibility with the surrounding area, a condition of approval was included limiting pawnbroker services to jewelry and watches only. A condition of approval setting a minimum loan amount of $2,500 was included as a justification for approval as it was expected that customer traffic to the pawnbroker/loan aspect of the business would be limited by the condition, thereby maintaining the store primarily as a jewelry and watch retail store. • The Police Department provided feedback regarding increased criminal activity due to the sale of unlimited pawn items. Planning staff consulted the Costa Mesa Police Department, who expressed concern that expanding the list of items eligible for pawnbroker services may increase criminal activities associated with stolen goods, as these types of items are often sold on the pawn market. The Police Department indicated that it is difficult to trace and recover stolen goods offered in pawn shops. • Granting the amendment to the CUP creates an intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan. Lowering the minimum loan amount and increasing the items eligible for pawn broker services may substantially increase the use or intensity beyond what was previously permitted as a jewelry and watch store, with ancillary pawn brokerage services. • If Approved, Staff Recommends Modified Conditions Only Staff recommends that the request be denied and that the CUP not be modified. However, if the Planning Commission is supportive of the request to a certain extent, staff recommends that the conditions be modified rather than completely removed. With regard to the loan amount, the existing CUP for another business at 1860 Newport Boulevard (Newport Watch & Jewelry) specifies a minimum loan amount of $1,000. Planning Commission may lower the loan amount from $2,500 to $1,000 for the subject business. However, it should be noted that the CUP for Newport Watch & Jewelry limits pawn brokerage services to jewelry and watches only. With regard to the goods eligible for pawn brokerage, Planning Commission may consider a limited allowance for the following additional items: • Loose Gemstones • Precious Metals • Art • Antiques Thus, if the amendment request is supported, conditions may be modified as follows: • No loans less than $2,500 $1,000 shall be permitted. Pawnbroker services shall be limited to watches and jeweIF i ORI!V jewelry, watches, loose gemstones, precious metals, art, and antiques. The applicant has submitted a security plan for the property, which includes cameras covering the interior and exterior of the building with 6 months of stored video footage, a hired armed security guard on the premises during operating hours, and an alarm system. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure that these security measures remain in place. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE As conditioned, the proposed project is in conformance with the 2000 General Plan. The Commercial Residential land use designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses. As conditioned, the proposed project is compatible with surrounding uses. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION If approved, the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15301 (Class 1), Existing Facilities. This exemption applies to the operation of existing public or private structures involving negligible or no expansion of use. 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: 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 The Planning Commission has the following alternative to the staff recommendation for modified conditions: 1. Deny the proposal. No changes to the conditions of approval shall be allowed. 2. Approve modified conditions. If the Planning Commission believes that the findings to support a modification to the conditional use permit can be made, Planning Commission may approve modified conditions. A resolution to approve amended conditions is attached. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the request to remove these conditions be denied based on: • The retail sales of jewelry and watches is intended to be the primary business. The original intent of the conditions is to discourage blight and deterioration from proliferation of pawn shops; • Increased crime may be associated with the ability to pawn a great variety of stolen items without being traced and with ease. AZWA PpA&* I VW CHELSEA CRAGER Assistant Planner 01"- - I CLAIRE FLYNN, AICP Assistant Director of Development Services -50- Attachments: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolutions and Exhibits 2. Applicant's Project Description 3. City Council Minutes from Public Hearing ZA-09-05 4. Location and Zoning Maps 5. Photographs of Existing Site 6. Notification Radius Map 7. Proposed Concept Plans 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) Dan Stansell 9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Coastline Equity, Inc. 24564 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 201 Torrance, CA 90505 -51- A TTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. PC-15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION PA-08-27 Al FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1872 NEWPORT BOULEVARD THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Dan Stansell, as the authorized agent on behalf of the property owner, Coastline Equity, Inc., with respect to the real property located at 1872 Newport Boulevard; WHEREAS, the proposed project involves an amendment to a conditional use permit for a jewelry shop with pawn broker services at 1872 Newport Boulevard (Jewelry- N-Loan) to lower the minimum loan amount and to allow pawn broker services for a more extensive list of items. The existing jewelry store and pawn broker service is located in a 1,012 square foot building. The applicant is requesting the removal of limitations to the pawned inventory and loan services by the deletion of two conditions of approval (below): Pawnbroker services shall be limited to watches and jewelry only. • No loans less than $2,500 shall be permitted. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing 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-08-27 Al with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF JUNE, 2015. Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission r-52_ EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13- 29(e)because: 1. A compatible and harmonious relationship does not exist between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses on surrounding properties. 2. The proposed project does not comply with the performance standards as prescribed in the Zoning Code. 3. The proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan or Zoning Code. B. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section Code Section 13-29(g)(1) because: • The proposed use is not substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would be materially detrimental to other properties within the area because: The retail sales of jewelry and watches is intended to be the primary business. • The original intent of the conditions is to discourage blight and deterioration from proliferation of pawn shops. • Increased crime may be associated with the ability to pawn a great variety of stolen items without being traced and with ease. • Granting the amendment to the 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. Granting the amendment to the conditional use permit will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. The original CUP ensures that the retail sales of jewelry/watches be the primary business. Pawn brokerage and loan services were required to be ancillary to the retail sales of jewelry/watches. The CUP establishes appropriate conditions of approval to prevent blighted conditions. The staff report for the original CUP states that there was a concern that pawn shops, pawnbroker services, and second-hand stores may give the appearance of blight and deteriorated retail conditions. To address this concern and ensure compatibility with the surrounding area, a condition of approval was included limiting pawnbroker services to jewelry and watches only. -53- A condition of approval setting a minimum loan amount of $2,500 was included as a justification for approval as it was expected that customer traffic to the pawnbroker/loan aspect of the business would be limited by the condition, thereby maintaining the store primarily as a jewelry and watch retail store. Planning staff consulted the Costa Mesa Police Department, who expressed concern that expanding the list of items eligible for pawnbroker services may increase criminal activities associated with stolen goods, as these types of items are often sold on the pawn market. The Police Department indicated that it is difficult to trace and recover stolen goods offered in pawn shops. Lowering the minimum loan amount and increasing the items eligible for pawn broker services may substantially increase the use or intensity beyond what was previously permitted as a jewelry and watch store, with ancillary pawn brokerage services. C. The Costa Mesa Planning Commission has denied Planning Application PA-08-27 Al. 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. D. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. RESOLUTION NO. PC-15- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING CERTAIN AMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA-08-27 Al A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PAWN BROKER LOCATED AT 1872 NEWPORT BOULEVARD THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Dan Stansell, as the authorized agent on behalf of the property owner, Coastline Equity, Inc., with respect to the real property located at 1872 Newport Boulevard; WHEREAS, the proposed project involves an amendment to a conditional use permit for a jewelry shop with pawn broker services at 1872 Newport Boulevard (Jewelry- N-Loan) to lower the minimum loan amount and to allow pawn broker services for a more extensive list of items. The existing jewelry store and pawn broker service is located in a 1,012 square foot building. The applicant is requesting the removal of limitations to the pawned inventory and loan services by the deletion of two conditions of approval (below): • Pawnbroker services shall be limited to watches and jewelry only. • No loans less than $2,500 shall be permitted. 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 the project was determined to be exempt from further CEQA analysis under Section 15301 for Existing Facilities; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing 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 -�5y B, the Planning Commission hereby approves certain modified conditions for Planning Application PA-08-27 Al with respect to the property described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for Planning Application PA-08-27 Al and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibit B, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the 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 6-60 - 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 22, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission -5-9- EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that: Finding: The proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Finding: The use, as conditioned, is not anticipated to have any negative effects on the surrounding properties, and is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses. No noise impacts to the nearby residential properties are anticipated due to the nature of the business. The parking demand of the proposed use is compatible with parking demand existing at the subject property. No security impacts are anticipated due to included conditions of approval requiring surveillance cameras, an alarm system, and an armed guard on the premises during operating hours. Finding: Granting the 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 Finding: The use, as conditioned, will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public in that security measures will be in place. The project is conditioned to maintain the security measures currently in place and described in the attached security plan submitted by the applicant. These security measures include: • Installation of 27 surveillance cameras covering the interior and exterior of the building, with 6 months of stored footage • An armed security guard on the premises during operating hours • Installation of an alarm system Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. Facts in Support of Finding: The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial, intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses. Granting the modification to the CUP for the jewelry stop and pawnbroker services shall not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan. The shop has been in operation with a CUP since 2008, and the proposed modification to the CUP will not substantially increase the use or intensity of the store. WAM B. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code section 13-29(e) because: a. The proposed development and use is compatible and harmonious with uses both on site as well as those on surrounding properties. The project is conditioned to minimize any security impacts to nearby residential and commercial uses. b. Safety and compatibility of the design of the parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. The proposed used will be conditioned to maintain all security measures currently in place, and has sufficient parking for the proposed use. c. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. This designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses to serve local and regional needs and should be insulated from sensitive uses through buffers or onsite mitigation measures. The proposed project will prevent security impacts to surrounding residential and commercial uses through onsite security measures. d. The proposed use is compliant with performance standards as prescribed in the Zoning Code. The proposed swim school will be conditioned to operate as described in the submitted business description and is compliant with Zoning Code. e. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. Approval will apply to this project -specific locations. Conditions have been included that are specific to the proposed project. C. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15301 (Class 1) for Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond what that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Because the modification to the CUP at the project site will not include a major alteration or expansion to the existing facility, the project qualifies for this exemption. D. The project is exempt from Chapter XI I, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. , J_q_" EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL f As modified pursuant to Amendment No. 1 to PA-08-27 on June 22, 20151 Ping. 1. The use shall be limited to the type of operation described in this staff report: a jewelry store with ancillary pawn broker services. Any significant change in the operational characteristics will require approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit, subject to Planning Commission approval. The Development Services Director shall make a determination that certain changes could be approved at a staff level. 2. 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. 3. If construction is proposed, the conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA-08-27 Al shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 4. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site upon completion of all site improvements and prior to final approval of any building permits for interior building improvements. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and Code requirements have been satisfied. 5. 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. 6. New tenant signage shall comply with the City's Sign Code. 7. The business shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or business owner shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. O 8. The conditional use permit herein approved shall be valid until revoked, but shall expire upon discontinuance of the activity authorized hereby for a period of 180 days or more. The conditional use permit may be referred to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if the conditions of approval have not been complied with, if the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances, or if, in the opinion of the Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO or his designee, any of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 9. As required by Conditional Use Permit PA-08-27 Al, except as permitted by the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code for temporary window signs, windows shall not be blocked or obscured. 10, *No loans less than $1,000 shall be permitted. 11, *Pawnbroker services shall be limited to luxury items, including: jewelry, watches, loose gemstones, precious metals, art, and antiques. 12. Pawnbroker services further shall not be permitted for sports equipment, lawn equipment, clothing, household goods, electronics, or any other item not specifically permitted in Condition of Approval Number 11. 13. Security measures described in the security plan shall be maintained, including: • Installation of 27 surveillance cameras covering the interior and exterior of the building, with 6 months of stored footage • An armed security guard on the premises during operating hours • Installation of an alarm system _�0I— .leweh-N-N-Loan 1872 Newport Blvd. Costa klesa. CIA 92627 May 1.6. 2015 C'itv of Costa Mesa Planning; Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa. CA 92628-1200 ATTACHMENTP RE: 1872 Newport Blvd. ("Premises") Amendment of Conditional Ilse Permit PA-08-27 granted Oct. all, 2008 Ms. Crager. This communication is meant to supplement my letter to Ms. Minoo Ashahi dated March 10. 2015 wherein I reducsted an amendment to the Cl11' referenced above. Our purchase of.lack's .lewelrV-N-1,oan is now complete and we have hemin renovations to the Premises in keeping with our high standards ol'operation. YOU nlay find the security measures we've undertaken to he of interest in connection with our rcLluest. In that regard, we have: 1. Installed 27 surveillance cameras covering the entirety of the interior of the Premises as well as the eXterior ol' the building. It is our intention to store a minimum of h months of 16otagc liar I—CView should the need arise. Contracted with Exclusive PrOICCII011 Inc. fur a prol'essiorlally licensed armed security guard to remain on the Premises during operating hours. Installed a `tale 01'111 art alarni system that is conlinually monitored and periodically tested by 13uy Alarm via redundant communication methods. This system has been certified h\ Underwriters Laboratories. which is a third party company that verifies that it has heell Installed and will he maintained, tested and monitored according to the latest applicable codes and standard~. hope this proves helpful. Please let me know should you have any o.luestiorls. Kind regards, 4 Dan 5tanselI Chief(lperatin_, Officer - (2-- March 11, 2015 City of Costa Mesa Planning Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 RE: 1872 Newport Blvd. ("Premises") Amendment of Conditional Use Permit PA-08-27 granted Oct. 30, 2008 ("CUP") Ms. Ashabi. I appreciate your reviewing this letter, written for the purpose of requesting an amendment to the CUP for the above referenced Premises. The principals of Beverly Loan Company (www.beverlyloan.com), an upscale collateral lender in Beverly Hills, are in the process of purchasing a licensed pawnshop, Jack's Jewelry N Loan, located at 1872 Newport Blvd. This particular pawn shop is subject to a CUP that has two concerning restrictions: 1. Pawnbroker services shall be limited to watches and jewelry only. ?. No loans less than S2,500.00 shall be permitted We ask that both of these restrictions be eliminated. Their removal is substantially compatible with other uses permitted in the general area. Further, their removal would not in any way be detrimental to other properties in the area and would, in fact, be advantageous to residents of Costa Mesa. This is true for several reasons, including the following: There are currently three pawnbrokers (including the applicant) in operation within 450 feet of the Premises. The removal of the restrictions above would not increase the number of pawnbrokers operating in the area. The number of pawn shops would remain status quo. It is our understanding that the other two existing pawnbrokers located at 1836 Newport Blvd. and 1860 Newport Blvd. do not operate under the restrictions as listed above. It is inequitable that all pawn shops within a small trade area do not operate under the same —� -3 restrictions. And, to the extent customers visiting the Premises seek loans against alternative collateral or in amounts of less than $2,500, those customers can easily (and often do) walk 450 feet to a pawnshop that is able to provide those services. Given this, the restrictions often do not serve to limit these transactions in the general area; they just prohibit them from occurring at the Premises. The purchase and sale of items is not limited to jewelry and watches; only the origination of pawn loans against such items is limited. As such, a customer seeking to sell a gold coin could so, but a customer seeking to loan against that very coin would be denied. This does not serve to limit transactions in lower amounts or against alternative personal property from occurring — it simply forces the customer to sell their item rather than obtain a loan. Further, borrowers often have a sentimental attachment to their items of personal property, and it is inappropriate to force them to part with such items forever if all they require is a short term loan. 4. The purchase and sale of items is not limited to amounts of $2,500 or less; only the origination of pawn loans in lesser amounts is limited. As such, a customer seeking to sell a diamond ring valued at $2,000, $1,000, $500 or even $50 could do so, but a customer seeking to loan against that very same gold chain would be denied access to short term credit. Again, this does not serve to limit transactions from occurring, it simply forces the customer to sell their item rather than obtain a pawn loan, no matter if their item is sentimental in nature and they would like the opportunity to redeem it. Many customers simply do not require a loan of $2,500 or more. A borrower may have a watch worth $10,000, but only need a loan of $500. The restrictions often force such customers to borrow more than they require, encouraging irresponsible lending and borrowing. 6. Potential borrowers are unaware of the restrictions, making them ineffective. A passing customer has no way of knowing that they will be unable to obtain a loan against tine art, for example, or in an amount of less than $2,500, so the restrictions do not serve to deter such customers from visiting the Premises. These customers will inevitably visit with the intent of obtaining loan, but find themselves: a) obliged to sell their item, b) forced to visit a neighboring pawn shop that is not subject to the restrictions; or c) denied access to short term credit entirely. 7. To the extent the restrictions are intended to prohibit the operation of a pawn shop featuring items such as lawn mowers and power tools, they are unnecessary. Only luxury items such as designer handbags, coins, contemporary art, one -of -a -kind memorabilia, rare collectibles and antiques will complement the primary use of the Premises as a jewelry store, just as is the case at our Beverly Hills location. And, as a practical matter, there is little difference between loaning against a loose diamond (non jewelry) and loaning against a diamond mounted in a ring (jewelry). 8. Finally, access to pawn loans at all levels and against various types of collateral allows Costa Mesa residents access to non -recourse short term credit. Pawn shops do not check credit or negatively affect credit should the borrower choose not to repay the loan. We J are responsible lenders and would be an enormous benefit to the community. Please rest assured that we intend to operate Jack's Jewelry N Loan with the same high level of professionalism and integrity that we have maintained at Beverly Loan since 1938. We are the premier collateral lenders in the United States and look forward to making our unparalleled services available to all residents of Costa Mesa. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your Questions and comments. Kind regards, n rSt sell Chief Operating Officer -ky A TTACHMENT 3 system, and traffic circulation improvements. MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. 09-23 modifying the Planning Commission's decision based upon findings established in Exhibit "A" and subject to conditions of approval in Exhibit "B". Moved by Council Member Gary Monahan, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Wendy Leece. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Mayor Allan R. Mansoor, Mayor Pro Tern Wendy Leece, Council Member Eric R. Bever, Council Member Gary Monahan Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Katrina Foley RECESS: The Mayor declared the meeting recessed at 7:35 p.m. AFTER The Mayor reconvened the meeting at 7:52 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the Planning Commission's determination regarding Zoning ADDlication Z4-0.9-05. for Scott Mitchumauthorized agent for Murray Seidner, for an amendment to the condition of approval for PA-08-24 to reduce customer loan amounts from $2500.00 to $500.00 for ancillary pawnbroker services, located at 1 860 Newport Boulevard in C2 zone (General Business District . Environmental_ determination exempt. Senior Planner Mel Lee presented the staff report and responded to questions from the City Council. Murrey Seidner, property owner, Costa Mesa, commented on business transactions and the impact of the economy on his business and encouraged the Council to approve reducing customer loan amounts to $500. Jim Caviola, Attorney for Mr. Seidner, encouraged the reductions in the loan amount noting the current conditions of the economy. He requested that the condition be approved in order for the company to continue in business. Beth Refakes, Costa Mesa, expressed concern on the amount of pawn shops on Newport Boulevard and questioned if the other existing pawn shops had the same loan condition. In reference to a question from the Mayor the Senior Planner advised that there was one remaining jewelry store with the condition of approval for a $2,500 loan amount limit. MOTION: Modify the Planning Commission's decision in respect to condition number four that would allow a decrease in the minimum loan 4 amount from $2,500 to $500. Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Wendy Leece. Motion died for lack of second. The Mayor noted his concern of the amount of pawn shops in the area and expressed his support in upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny the applicant's request. Mayor Pro Tem Leece felt that there was a need for such a business given the current economy and resubmitted her motion. MOTION: Adopted Resolution No. 09-24 modifying the Planning Commission's decision based upon findings established in Exhibit "A" and modificaiton of conditions of approval numbers four to read as follows: 1. No loans less than $750 shall be permitted. Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Wendy Leece, seconded by Council Member Eric Bever. Council Member Bever requesting that the motion be amended for the customer loan amount to be no less than $1,000. Mayor Pro Tem Leece agreed. The motion restated. MOTION: Adopted Resolution No. 09-24, modifying the Planning Commission's decision based upon findings established in Exhibit "A" and modification of conditions of approval numbers four to read as follows: 1. No loans less than $1,000 shall be permitted. Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Wendy Leece, seconded by Council Member Eric R. Bever. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Adopt a resolution to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Moved by Mayor Allan R. Mansoor. Motion died for lack of second. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Wendy Leece, Council Member Eric R. Bever, Council Member Gary Monahan Noes: Mayor Allan R. Mansoor Absent: Council Member Katrina Foley The Mayor announced that Public Hearing Item Nos. 4 and 5 would be addressed collectively. _�o-7— City of Costa Mesa ZONING - 1872 NEWPORT - [Created: 6/3/2015 3:52:11 PIUi] [Scale: 368.4] (Page: 8.5 x 11 / Portrait] Overview Map Map Display Legend Address C.46d. SECON.Q/1AY street Points �r F reawy py ,o,Sy Ca Me r) i roes Freeway 4,0 Channelsparcel L1rMes Rcmds Nawpatd.8OM � (Cont)ft C Street Name 843-undary (C) 2002-5 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec, Inc.) - (866)422-2505 _ MORON r ,4 Mips �r,ti fir' M U*!�' PARKING ---► 3� �`�Ty \ �rw \};.� --,y�•. ��� ■ fA f%�r�h)• ,�i/,��, +/may ri}j`A T H EN ✓T 1 V I f V a a QLi ✓o.S 3ti Y ` 11 a u ! — — _ ar a I I aa• iya, I N, sP I am I ar ea 1 ao 1 31� I I I k .,.,hl + I I.. ri �'.s.•1 t � i I 1 I 1�" I --- L—Ar--II----? -- i--_I---� -- t srREEn AVM) Map Preparers SUSAN W. CASE, INC. 917 GLENNEXRE ST #7 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 949 494 6105 susancaseinc(cDyahoo com aOULE VARD 3 it —1 • I --?i 2.447 AC. i � I . I I LOT 13 5I - - I • 6� g — — N0. 5229 ' TI nf.a• r 9 1 ® ins` '.YI PAR 4 0. 02 _ PAR. I_ �'i,17 I kEWPORr XNEGY. LOT :f 9 rrk. •.a v.+. � FOR. a car 11 3 O a 4q r 15 0 r° CHURCH FULLERrON ho F H a NEWPORT HEIGHTS , TRACT NO. 1086 PARCEL MAP FILE # 151715 1872 NEWPORT BLVD COSTA MESA CA MARCH 16 2015 500' OWNERS 42545218 NORTH —93— VT7 /;- 11 0� 133�f1 S �11 A(-7313NIN e I fl '}t 4 . • 7 � In I 4 1-g3bI1S — I bl3Af07Y � I Lima I I I I i � � .l 33-yls ,� b'MOD'O�iB er3d�rN1 Of ts1 _N aj.fvmj eelH f m 1 par I �a • me ATTACHMENT 9 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-08-27 Al 1872 Newport Boulevard 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-15-40. 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: Chelsea Crager, Assistant Planner, 714-754-5609 chelsea.crager@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: Dan Stansell 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Coastline Equity, Inc. 24564 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 201 Torrance, CA 90505 -99- 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-15-40 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING CERTAIN AMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA-08-27 Al A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PAWN BROKER LOCATED AT 1872 NEWPORT BOULEVARD THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Dan Stansell, as the authorized agent on behalf of the property owner, Coastline Equity, Inc., with respect to the real property located at 1872 Newport Boulevard; WHEREAS, the proposed project involves an amendment to a conditional use permit for a jewelry shop with pawn broker services at 1872 Newport Boulevard (Jewelry- N-Loan) to lower the minimum loan amount and to allow pawn broker services for a more extensive list of items. The existing jewelry store and pawn broker service is located in a 1,012 square foot building. The applicant is requesting the removal of limitations to the pawned inventory and loan services by the deletion of two conditions of approval (below): • Pawnbroker services shall be limited to watches and jewelry only. • No loans less than $2,500 shall be permitted. 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 the project was determined to be exempt from further CEQA analysis under Section 15301 for Existing Facilities; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing 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 certain modified conditions for Planning Application PA-08-27 Al with respect to the property described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for Planning Application PA-08-27 Al and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibit B, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the 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 J Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission - qq- 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. 15-40 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, Sesler NOES: McCarthy ABSENT; Andranian ABSTAIN: None Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission 6 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that: Finding: The proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Finding: The use, as conditioned, is not anticipated to have any negative effects on the surrounding properties, and is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses. No noise impacts to the nearby residential properties are anticipated due to the nature of the business. The parking demand of the proposed use is compatible with parking demand existing at the subject property. No security impacts are anticipated due to included conditions of approval requiring surveillance cameras, an alarm system, and an armed guard on the premises during operating hours. Finding: Granting the 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 Finding: The use, as conditioned, will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public in that security measures will be in place. The project is conditioned to maintain the security measures currently in place and described in the attached security plan submitted by the applicant. These security measures include: Installation of 27 surveillance cameras covering the interior and exterior of the building, with 6 months of stored footage An armed security guard on the premises during operating hours Installation of an alarm system Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. Facts in Support of Finding: The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial, intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses. Granting the modification to the CUP for the jewelry stop and pawnbroker services shall not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan. The shop has been in operation with a CUP since 2008, and the proposed modification to the CUP will not substantially increase the use or intensity of the store. B. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code section 13-29(e) because: a. The proposed development and use is compatible and harmonious with uses both on site as well as those on surrounding properties. The project is conditioned to minimize any security impacts to nearby residential and commercial uses. b. Safety and compatibility of the design of the parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. The proposed used will be conditioned to maintain all security measures currently in place, and has sufficient parking for the proposed use. c. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. This designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses to serve local and regional needs and should be insulated from sensitive uses through buffers or onsite mitigation measures. The proposed project will prevent security impacts to surrounding residential and commercial uses through onsite security measures. d. The proposed use is compliant with performance standards as prescribed in the Zoning Code. The proposed swim school will be conditioned to operate as described in the submitted business description and is compliant with Zoning Code. e. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. Approval will apply to this project -specific locations. Conditions have been included that are specific to the proposed project. C. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15301 (Class 1) for Existing Facilities. Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond what that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Because the modification to the CUP at the project site will not include a major alteration or expansion to the existing facility, the project qualifies for this exemption. D. The project is exempt from Chapter XI I, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. _ 9Z EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IRAs modified pursuant to Amendment No. 1 to PA-08-27 on June 22, 20151 Ping. 1. The use shall be limited to the type of operation described in this staff report: a jewelry store with ancillary pawn broker services. Any significant change in the operational characteristics will require approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit, subject to Planning Commission approval. The Development Services Director shall make a determination that certain changes could be approved at a staff level. 2. 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. 3. If construction is proposed, the conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA-08-27 Al shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 4. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site upon completion of all site improvements and prior to final approval of any building permits for interior building improvements. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and Code requirements have been satisfied. 5. 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. 6. *The applicant shall submit a sign plan to upgrade and renovate the existing building wall sign on the front elevation to complement existing signage in the downtown district for the review and approval of the Development Services Director. The existing building wall signs on both the side elevations of the building shall be completely removed. The installation of the new building wall signage on the front elevation and the removal of all wall signage along the side elevations shall occur within 60 days of the date of approval of the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, unless an extension is granted by the Development Services Director for just cause. No changes to the existing above -roof sign are required. 7. The business shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or business owner shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 8. The conditional use permit herein approved shall be valid until revoked, but shall expire upon discontinuance of the activity authorized hereby for a period of 180 days or more. The conditional use permit may be referred to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if the conditions of approval have not been complied with, if the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances, or if, in the opinion of the Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO or his designee, any of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 9. As required by Conditional Use Permit PA-08-27 Al, except as permitted by the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code for temporary window signs, windows shall not be blocked or obscured. 10. *No loans less than $1,000 shall be permitted. 11. *Pawnbroker services shall be limited to luxury items, including: jewelry, watches, loose gemstones, precious metals, art, and antiques. 12. *Pawnbroker services further shall not be permitted for sports equipment, lawn equipment, clothing, household goods, electronics, or any other item not specifically permitted in Condition of Approval Number 11. 13. *Security measures described in the security plan shall be maintained, including: • Installation of 27 surveillance cameras covering the interior and exterior of the building, with 6 months of stored footage • An armed security guard on the premises during operating hours • Installation of an alarm system CRAGER, CHELSEA ATTACHMENT 10 From: BECKMAN, PAUL Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 12:33 PM To: CRAGER, CHELSEA Subject: RE: 1872 Newport, PA-08-27A1 Chelsea, In regards to our telephone conversation from July 22, 2015 and your below mentioned request, I am providing a synopsis of my telephone conversation with Dan Stansell. On July 21, 2015, 1 telephoned Dan Stansell at his request. Mr. Stansell had sent me emails and left a telephone message requesting to speak with me in regards to a conditional use permit for a jewelry and loan business. I provided Mr. Stansell with an opportunity to express his position as it related to changing the restrictions of the conditional use permit regarding the ability to offer lower loan amounts for certain personal property. Mr. Stansell felt that allowing more opportunity for people to get lower loans for a greater variety of property would benefit the police department because it would help us identify more stolen property that would otherwise be sold by other means. I disagreed with his assessment as it suggests that the current reporting of pawns and loans is an efficient means of identifying stolen property. Some property may get identified, however, the majority of reported stolen property lacks serial numbers or other definitively unique characteristics as to ever be re -united with the rightful owner. After he made his statements, I advised him that I was not in agreement with his position and that based on my professional experience I would not be in support of changing any of the conditions of the existing CUP. My position in regards to this matter is based on my own professional experiences dealing with pawn shops and secondhand dealers and investigating all types of thefts. I had been a detective assigned to oversee Costa Mesa Pawn and Secondhand dealer licenses, I had supervised investigators assigned to handle the pawn licensing and am currently managing the Investigative Service Bureau that is responsible for the pawn and secondhand dealers. Respectfully, Paul Beckman, Lieutenant Investigative Services Bureau From: CRAGER, CHELSEA Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:46 AM To: BECKMAN, PAUL Cc: VUCINIC, KELLY Subject: 1872 Newport, PA-08-27A1 Lieutenant Beckman: Thanks for speaking on the phone with me yesterday. Is there any way you could provide me a brief summary of your conversation with the applicant, Dan Stansell, and your position? An email would be fine, and you don't need to get into details, it would just be helpful to have something from you instead of relayed through me. Let me know! Thanks Thank you, Chelsea Crager Assistant Planner City of Costa Mesa (714)754-5609 CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 P.O. BOX 1200 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR August 10, 2015 Dan Stansell Coastline Equity, Inc. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite #301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Dear Dan Stansell, At the regular meeting of the Costa Mesa City Council on Tuesday, August 4, 2015, the following occurred: The City Council, on a vote of 3-2, with Council Member Foley and Council Member Monahan voting No, adopted Resolution 2015-45 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING CERTAIN AMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA-08-27A1 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PAWN BROKER LOCATED AT 1872 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Please be advised that any judicial review of this decision is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 and must be brought within the 90-day limitations period contained in the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. Sincerely, j6m c " Brenda Green City Clerk City of Costa Mesa Enclosure: Resolution No. 15-45 77 FAIR DRIVE PHONE: (714)754-5285 • FAX: (714)754-5330 • TDD'. (714)754-5244 • W .d.costa-mesa.ca-us RESOLUTION NO. 15-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING CERTAIN AMENDED CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA-08-27A1 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PAWN BROKER LOCATED AT 1872 NEWPORT BOULEVARD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed Dan Stansell, representing Coastline Equity, Inc., the property owner, requesting approval of the following: Planning Application PA-08-27A1 is an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to operate a jewelry store with ancillary pawnbroker services. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal; and and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project by a 3-1 vote; 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 August 4, 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. Resolution No, 15-45 Page 1 of 7 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 UPHOLDS the Planning Commission's decision and APPROVES Planning Application PA-08-27A1. 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-08-27A1 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 41h day of August, 2015. Stephen M. Mensinger, Mayor Resolution No. 15-45 Page 2 of 7 ATTEST: , Brenda Green, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Thomas Duarte, Attorney 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 15-45 as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 41h day of August, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4"' day of August, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Genis, Righeimer, Mensinger NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Foley, Monahan ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 5"' day of August, 2015. n Brenda Green, City Clerk (SEAL) I declare under penalty of perjury that this document Is a full, true, and correct copy of the original on file in this office. ATTEST: DATED:B "l o —( S City Clerk, City of Cost esa, County of Orange, California Resolution No. 15-45 Page 3 of 7 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (APPROVAL) A. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that: Finding: The proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Finding: The use, as conditioned, is not anticipated to have any negative effects on the surrounding properties, and is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses. No noise impacts to the nearby residential properties are anticipated due to the nature of the business. The parking demand of the proposed use is compatible with parking demand existing at the subject property. No security impacts are anticipated due to included conditions of approval requiring surveillance cameras, an alarm system, and an armed guard on the premises during operating hours. Finding: Granting the 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 Finding: The use, as conditioned, will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public in that security measures will be in place. The project is conditioned to maintain the security measures currently in place and described in the attached security plan submitted by the applicant. These security measures include: • Installation of 27 surveillance cameras covering the interior and exterior of the building, with 6 months of stored footage • An armed security guard on the premises during operating hours • Installation of an alarm system Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. Facts in Support of Finding: The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial, intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses. Granting the modification to the CUP for the jewelry stop and pawnbroker services shall not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan. The shop has been in operation with a CUP since 2008, and the proposed modification to the CUP will not substantially increase the use or intensity of the store. Resolution No. 15-45 Page 4 of 7 B. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code section 13-29(e) because: a. The proposed development and use is compatible and harmonious with uses both on site as well as those on surrounding properties. The project is conditioned to minimize any security impacts to nearby residential and commercial uses. b. Safety and compatibility of the design of the parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. The proposed used will be conditioned to maintain all security measures currently in place, and has sufficient parking for the proposed use. c. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. This designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses to serve local and regional needs and should be insulated from sensitive uses through buffers or onsite mitigation measures. The proposed project will prevent security impacts to surrounding residential and commercial uses through onsite security measures. d. The proposed use is compliant with performance standards as prescribed in the Zoning Code. The proposed swim school will be conditioned to operate as described in the submitted business description and is compliant with Zoning Code. e. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. Approval will apply to this project -specific locations. Conditions have been included that are specific to the proposed project. Resolution No. 15-45 Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL [*As modified pursuant to Amendment No. 1 to PA-08-27 on June 22 20151 Ping. 1. The use shall be limited to the type of operation described in this staff report: a jewelry store with ancillary pawn broker services. Any significant change in the operational characteristics will require approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit, subject to Planning Commission approval. The Development Services Director shall make a determination that certain changes could be approved at a staff level. 2. 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. 3. If construction is proposed, the conditions of approval, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA-08-27 Al shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 4. The applicant shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site upon completion of all site improvements and prior to final approval of any building permits for interior building improvements. This inspection is to confirm that the conditions of approval and Code requirements have been satisfied. 5. 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. 6. *The applicant shall submit a sign plan to upgrade and renovate the existing building wall sign on the front elevation to complement existing signage in the downtown district for the review and approval of the Development Services Director. The existing building wall signs on both side elevations of the building shall be completely removed. The installation of the new building wall signage on the Resolution No. 15-45 Page 6 of 7 front elevation and the removal of all wall signage along the side elevations shall occur within 60 days of the date of approval of the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, unless an extension is granted by the Development Services Director for just cause. No changes to the existing above -roof sign are required. 7. The business shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or business owner shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 8. The conditional use permit herein approved shall be valid until revoked, but shall expire upon discontinuance of the activity authorized hereby for a period of 180 days or more. The conditional use permit may be referred to the Planning Commission for modification or revocation at any time if the conditions of approval have not been complied with, if the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances, or if, in the opinion of the Director of Economic & Development Services/Deputy CEO or his designee, any of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 9. As required by Conditional Use Permit PA-08-27 Al, except as permitted by the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code for temporary window signs, windows shall not be blocked or obscured. 10, *No loans less than $1,000 shall be permitted. 11, *Pawnbroker services shall be limited to luxury items, including: jewelry, watches, loose gemstones, precious metals, art, and antiques. 12 *Pawnbroker services further shall not be permitted for sports equipment, lawn equipment, clothing, household goods, electronics, or any other item not specifically permitted in Condition of Approval Number 11. 13 *Security measures described in the security plan shall be maintained, including: • Installation of 27 surveillance cameras covering the interior and exterior of the building, with 6 months of stored footage • An armed security guard on the premises during operating hours • Installation of an alarm system Resolution No. 15-45 Page 7 of 7 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Brenda Green, being first duly sworn, depose and state: I am a citizen of the United States; am employed in the County of Orange; my business address of the City Clerk's Office, City of Costa Mesa, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626, 1 am over the age of 18; and am not a party to the cause. On August 10, 2015, 1 served the within letter by depositing a copy of the original thereof in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon full prepaid, in the United States mail at the Costa Mesa, California, addressed to the interested parties as follows: Dan Stansell Coastline Equity, Inc. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 10, 2015, at Costa Mesa, California. &WCo- Ok1'oe .2 Brenda Green City Clerk City of Costa Mesa /j\/ Q\/ PH-3 • PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RECE:IVIE U CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 IS juL 30 ,M R 38 Costa Mesa City Council CITY OF COS1A MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4tt'when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: UC Address: �V 1 /bt `j a )21 a �Ke-)-7 Telephone: Email MM4-I' 6 aelllll�_ PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Jul St. John the Divine Parking Lot Thank You My name is Jane Hyde I have lived in Costa Mesa for approximately 37 years. My husband and I were married at St. John the Divine. Our children were baptized there. I have been a member of St. John the Divine for most of the time I have lived in Costa Mesa. I Did leave St. Johns' for a period of time as we wanted our children to participate in Sunday school activities. With my children grown I came back to St. John's. I am thrilled that we have many children in the church school. With the growth of the church we need a larger parking lot to have parking for our increased membership. I support the request of Fr. Phil and our Vestry to enlarge our parking lot to accommodate our members. I also support the request to have a Farmers Market in our parking lot on Saturdays. If successful this will provide the neighborhood with locally grown food as well as provide revenue for organizations in Costa Mesa. Our seniors who live in the manor are supportive of the market as many of them are unable to travel distances to obtain healthy food. Thank you for your consideration and support. Jane Hyde 2074 Continental Ave Costa Mesa, Ca 92627 CU c-, -C=:i Ln CD C~ O C -) _a fT� co PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS REC1r Ivi. CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 IS JUL 30 M 9 38 Costa Mesa City Council CITY pE QSTA MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger BY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: JUL 28,15.q.4 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 41"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 30 AM a, 38 Costa Mesa City Council CITY OF COSTA MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa �Y' 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: JUL 28115 Am 8:55 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4`hwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: n` ckae�I 50,DC0C�� Address: 3 !�_7 t: efnard Sf 9Z �-. � Telephone: Email: rn1 C.�CAe SbC�10bet 1.nIe� PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS REGE Il CITY CLERK JUL 28115 HM 8;55 July 18, 2015 !S JUL 30 AM 3t 38 Costa Mesa City Council CITY OF COS [A MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4`hwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: uZ_ &r1q Address: 3005 /Y"__�— �4 fi 6-,� Telephone: Email: IiS�1� 1i5�i1��`r�L• CJh^ r Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger Costa Mesa City Hall 77 Fair Drive Costa mesa, CA 92626 RE: Proposed Eastside Farmer's Market Dear City Council Members: REGf PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CITY is JUL 30 AK9: 3s CITY OF LOSTA MESA July L/,-NlD As a member of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church for nearly 25 years, I am unqualified, enthusiastic supporter of the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the grounds of the St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay St. in Costa Mesa. As a family member of small farmers who are an endangered species, I support Farmers Markets for the benefits they provide to our local community by offering fresh, high quality fruits and vegetables which are locally sourced. In addition, they provide a ready commercial outlet for the farmers and support the farm to table movement which benefits our community not just by offering healthy food alternatives, but also our environment as well. Money spent at the Eastside Farmer's Market will go directly to farmers, local men and women who are important members of our community. It's important to remember that from 1992 to 2007 nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to close and/or cease operations. Farmers markets provide the men and women who run these farms an opportunity for increased financial stability as well as increasing their economic opportunity. I value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on our property. Please vote yes on August 4`" when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for supporting the families, both from the farms and the neighborhood, that will benefit from your affirmative action. Sincerely, 0 Cheryl Hyon 13612 Fairmont Way Tustin, CA 92780 714-734-6197 rexnchery@earthlink.net PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CITY CLERIVJUL July 18, 2015 15 JUL 30 All 9: 39 Costa Mesa City Council CITY OF c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger BY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4`hwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Vd _io' 6 7 Telephone: % --'19— to � = e7S-7(o Email: PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RECFiVL, CITY CLERK JlJL 8'15Am8:54 July 18, 2015 fS AIL 34 AN 9: 39 Costa Mesa City Council CITY OF A c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger BY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4' when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: c2 6 3s" //,e! 4 n 4 d s� N4sri 6A Jd eoa 7 Telephone: Email: PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RECEN CITY CLERK AjL28'15M8:5;e,' July 18, 2015 15 JUL 30 At4 9. 39 Costa Mesa City Council CITY Gf STA MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger BY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers -markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, , s Name: M i e/iae( ,L^ j P1 dIsUe Address: &', � D i? ( a 0- ev. // Telephone: Email: July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: t� G1 iVE PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS CITY CLERK 15 JUL 30 A% 9� 39 BY OF 0¢ IA YES J dl_ `8 515 rh 0:5 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmers Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmers market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4v'when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: MAVIA- J\8677 Address: 9Jd 7 F. 64 Ora n,5 e- d-j+ is �6 9 Telephone: Email. M Su7T/N ,/GSM —3 �0AY /7e- PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: St. John's Episcopal Church: Proposed Farmer's Market at 1833 Bay Street (Please don't approve) From: Matt Christensen fmailto:matthewichristensen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 9:41 AM To: aventureCcDca.rr.com; colinkmccarthv@vahoo.com; Tim Sesler <twsesler@gmail.com>; ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.ARMSTRONG @costamesaca.goy> Subject: Fwd: St. John's Episcopal Church: Proposed Farmer's Market at 1833 Bay Street (Please don't approve) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Matt Christensen <matthewjchristensenAgmail.com> Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:40 AM Subject: Fwd: St. John's Episcopal Church: Proposed Farmer's Market at 1833 Bay Street (Please don't approve) To: stgphen.mensinger&costamesca.gov, jim.rieimer&costamesca.gov, katrina.foley@costamesaca.gov, sandra.genisna,costamesaca.gov, gary.monahangcostamesaca.gov Dear Council Members, I am writing once again in OPPOSITION to the proposed farmer's market at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, 92627. I've included my original letter below for reference. I'd like to start by providing a little background on myself and my neighborhood. I am a commercial real estate broker who works the Costa Mesa / Airport Area market. I am typically pro -development both because of my career and I believe our cities need to adjust to the changing landscape and population that is Southern California. I believe Costa Mesa must upgrade its housing, infrastructure (sidewalksibike lanes) and image in order to attract the type of quality residents that city officials seek for tax dollars. This immediate neighborhood is comprised of long-term, multi -generational residents and new home owners such as myself. As new homeowners we pay approximately three quarters of a million dollars for starter, fixer -upper homes ($900K in today's market). Buoy Street and a few neighboring homes have five corporate attorneys, a doctor, fire fighter, real estate broker and several sales managers. There a five new babies just in 2015!! Is this not the type of demographics you seek for Costa Mesa? I am opposed to the farmer's market for the following reasons: 1. Traffic/Speeding: I welcome the city council to appoint a motorcycle cop on the corner of Buoy/Bay and Orange Street. The speeding down this street is absolutely incredible. I have never seen a police office monitoring this thoroughfare of a street. As residents we want to bike to 17th Street or the beach but it is very dangerous. Adding Saturday congestion will not do this neighborhood any favors. 2. Grower's Ranch Market: The same exact service is provided two block away. This business is a Costa Mesa staple and has supported the community for nearly 60 years. They work within the existing zoning laws and exist on a two land thoroughfare street. The city should support tax generating businesses. It would be shameful to cannibalize such a service to community. 3. Zoning adjustments: Within one block of the church their exists three sober living homes (2 on Bay St.). I understand the need but it does not add value to our neighborhood. I digress but there are already three zoning variances right here. Maybe I can start a bed and breakfast or hostel? 4. Traffic Study: The CUP process should require a traffic study. I know many businesses struggle to get CUP's through the city and I think the church should not be granted any special favors. Come to this intersection on a Saturday and see the flow for yourself Try biking past or walker your stroller across the street ... it harrowing. 5. Location: It's a terrible, hidden location... bottom line. How about 17th Street. Look at Santa Monica as model for a Class A farmer's market. 6. Per the City Land Use Document: "High -Density areas should be located in proximity to transportation routes, especially those served by public transit, and also within convenient distances to shopping and employment centers. Although proximity to the above uses and transportation routes often results in a residential development being subject to adverse impacts." The city already know this fact ... please don't burden us further because we cannot afford to spend $1.2M dollars on a 1,300 Sf home on Flower Street. 7. Loss of Landscape: I have never seen the church parking lot full. The proposed plan would eliminate a green buffer space between the street and a parking lot. Per the same Land Use Document noted in point 6., it discusses the need for screening high -density locations in low -density neighborhood. Removing the greenery will simply provide more area for people to park during the day, litter, sleep in cars. I urge the city council to revoke your approval for this project. Respectfully, Matt Christensen I like the idea of a Costa Mesa farmer's market but I cannot logically see how this location could ever be a logical ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Matt Christensen <matthewichristensen@,gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:54 PM Subject: St. John's Episcopal Church: Proposed Farmer's Market at 1833 Bay Street (Please don't approve) To: aventure@ca.rr.com, colinkmccarthv2yahoo.com, twseslera,gmail.com, gary.armstrong(7a costamesaca gov Dear Costa Mesa Planning Commission, I am writing in OPPOSITION to the proposed farmer's market at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, 92627. As a home owner of 197 Buoy Street, my house is located two parcels from the proposed market. My points of my opposition are the following: - Zoning: The current zoning is not for commercial enterprises. Within one block of this church there are already several property owners who operate businesses our their homes for the use of substance abuse rehabilitation. This is a neighborhood for me to raise my four month old daughter and the residents of this community are very close knit. A church site should be used to bring the community together but not a profit center. If the church would like to partner with a local property owner in a commercially zoned parcel, I would support these efforts 100%. -Existing Competition: Please take note that there is an existing local "farmer's market" located within two blocks of this church. Grower's Ranch, recently renovated on Newport Blvd., has been serving this community with fresh produce since the 1960's. It is located within a five minute walk from the church site. This is a well established business that pays property taxes, sales tax and provides the same healthy food at competitive prices. Costa Mesa must remain a pro -business environment and to expect a business with tax overhead to compete with a church who has no tax burden is simply unfair. If the argue for a farmer's market is to provide 2 fresh, affordable and locally grown produce to our city, this service already exists and I would be appalled to allow the city to have the church cannibalize this business. If there were a commercial strip mall, a pious owner would never permit competing interests in the same center. -Traffic: The parking lot can accommodate a farmer's market but not the parking required to make it successful. This will require people to park on Buoy Street, Bay Street and Orange Ave. Currently Orange Avenue has one of the highest speeding ticket numbers on the east side of Costa Mesa. It has become a thoroughfare through a residential neighborhood. On a personal note, I just brought my entire garden/parkway up to drought tolerant standards and cannot stop the foot traffic and litter from infecting the time and money I have spent to be a real example of what the city's planners are hoping for. On a personal note, I purchase my house 18 months ago. I love the neighborhood and my neighbors. I have a beautiful new baby girl and I think the fabric of our neighborhoods need to stay in tact. I 100% support a Costa Mesa farmer's market, my hometown of Santa Monica has one of the best in the country. What makes it great is its accessibility, full community support and the fact that it is held in an area where no residences are affected. would hope the planning commission drives down 17th Street and sees the potential to provide this service somewhere in this area. It would link Eastside Costa Mesa and Newport Heights including West Costa Mesa. Nobody knows Bay St & Orange Avenue and I believe the City should promote such a great service to the community in a more appropriate venue. Adamantly opposed, Matt Christensen 310-922-4555 dU1_ 30'15 art 3:31 CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 31 AM S: 56 Costa Mesa City Council DU OF COS [A M �H c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger V City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA.92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4t^when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely,,,, Name: De�X�YAIiI F�fS�Yl1QV� Address: Zg85 Fo 1y-Vt fux-) Rd C Z O(a CI�� esa Cn aa(ao�O Telephone: l[� - ! 3�0 CD Email: C L2�� �PSV YY1��> ,�ar�.1/1 b©• (Gn-\ July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: ;iECEIVEu CITY CLERK 15 JUL 31 AN 9: 56 CITY LC §OS[; i�lE At BY I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4`hwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely���� Name: Acwo:i RRbQSon Address: 2-805 FG 1 ✓ %/1 C i.l) Rd C 20(O bs� M na CA C1a to )-1v Telephone: I(On I — 1?HQ9 _623'1 Email: 0AY-On..—V-C(IOSOI-) "a.V1DO,CJ✓YL August 28, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: i�lMlLiJ CITY CLER 15 JUL 31 P11 2: 46 CITBY Y DF �U5 u:iLul'115 Nm8:241 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 3.83 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly zi% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4 hwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: August 28, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: H'EC;EiVEb CITY CLERK 15 JUL 31 PM 2. 46 BY OF ' SrA h1E5A jUL 31515 Nm 8' 2r I am writing to express my enthusiastic supportfor the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From iggz to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4tnwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: { 1 �// l,LL�� 69e—� Address:<b �l��G L eJw%U4C Q� Telephone: Email: A/ [, S, 4V� MIEJIA, JESSICA From: Mike Lingle <m_lingle@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 4:45 PM To: CITY CLERK Cc: RIGHEIMER, JIM; GENIS, SANDRA; MONAHAN, GARY; FOLEY, KATRINA; MENSINGER, STEPHEN Subject: Public Comment: Appeal of Approved PA-14-41 CUP for Farmer's Market I'd like to reiterate my strong support for the proposed Farmer's Market at St. John the Divine Episcopal Church. I live in East Side Costa Mesa. In my view, the Farmer's Market would be an asset for our neighborhood. It would provide a new option for fresh produce and other farm goods, it would benefit local charities, it would provide a regular neighborhood gathering place on Saturdays, and it would improve the walkability of our neighborhood by providing another destination to walk to. These are just the kinds of attributes that make East Side Costa Mesa a desirable place to live. Please uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Thank you for your consideration. Michael Lingle 243 Magnolia Street Costa Mesa MlEJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: August 4th City council meeting- farmers market appeal comments -----Original Message ----- From: Laurene Keane [mailto:getlaurene@yahoo.comj Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 5:56 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: August 4th City council meeting- farmers market appeal comments To City Council members I am an Eastside Costa Mesa resident and I DO NOT support a Farmers Market at this location. believe the residents in the immediate area SHOULD NOT have their quality of life invaded by a weekly commercial event in a residential neighborhood. Sincerely, Laurene Keane Eastside Costa Mesa resident Sent from my Pad MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Farmer's Market, Aug. 4 agenda item From: Mary Spadoni [mailto:marvatsis@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 9:31 AM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.areen@costa mesaca.aov> Subject: Farmer's Market, Aug. 4 agenda item The idea of a Farmer's Market, on the face, appears to be a "good thing" until you consider the quality of life for all the neighbors within several square blocks and the community as a whole, who utilize Orange and Bay streets. This church is not the right location but one of the larger churches on Newport Blvd. seems to be a more appropriate choice, with available parking access and similar goals to establish a partnership. This event will. be EVERY Saturday, one half of your weekend disturbed, EVERY week. The need is great BUT not at this location. M.M.Spadoni dent frem AiJL Mobile Mail Genhe ti : AOL. app: mail.mobile.aol.com MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: My appeal of Farmers Market From: carrie.renfro@att.net [mailto:carrie.renfro@att.net] Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 9:30 AM To: MENSINGER, STEPHEN <STEPHEN.MENS] NGER@costamesaca.aov> Subject: My appeal of Farmers Market Hi Mr. Mayor. This is Carrie Renfro and I am appealing the Planning Commission's approval of PA-14-41, CUP for a Farmers Market. The appeal will be heard this Tuesday, Aug 4 and I will present to you the reasons why this commercial venture in our residential area is detrimental . I am writing to ask you to please visit the location and premises of St. John's Church and St. John's Manor, which are both located at the Corner of Orange and Bay, prior to the hearing, in order to be familiar with the layout and connectivity of the two joined parcels. This project includes paving over the green space park area which was created when the Manor subsidized housing project was built. If you enter the Manor via the 2031 Orange driveway, pass through the parking lot into the Church's parking lot (183 E. Bay) you will have a better idea of the layout. Please go into the Manor lobby and view the inside common area to see what little open space area will remain after the park space is paved over. I appreciate you taking the time to check the property out and look forward to presenting my case to you. Two years ago, you came to my house for a neighborhood meeting, with then Mayor Righeimer . I am located on the corner of Orange and Buoy, two doors away from the proposed project. I don't know if you recall, but the traffic was so busy during that meeting, that it was hard for people to hear the speakers due to the noise of the traffic and congestion along Orange. And they were using a microphone! I am pointing this out just to illustrate how busy this intersection is now, without the added traffic a commercial farmers market will bring to us. Over the years, the lack of street parking has been exasperated due to the numerous sober living businesses on and around Bay Street that take up so much of the available parking, especially on the weekends. The increase in traffic due to this proposed commercial activity will only more negatively impact this location. Thanks very much. Carrie Renfro 198 Buoy St 92627 949 646 8223 August 28, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: CITY CLERK 15 Alai -3 AM If: IS CITY OF COSTA MESA BY AUG 315 Ay 8:47 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From zggz to 2007, nearly zi%of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4th when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: � N N Address: 61 iAJ Telephone: [i 3 5--y —7 ?, �,'6 Email: JF�iC%� % % C , % n l lV 50 IV CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 II: IS 0 "3 � r Costa Mesa City Council CIS'! (jF �flsj c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger By City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: a'a; . !.5 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmers markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmers Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmers market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4'"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, t Name: Address: Z�Le (Hw) cl-A 906—L7 Telephone: Email: RECEIVED CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 AUG —3 M 11: 15 Costa Mesa City Council CITY OF COS FA MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: AUG 3115 Am 0:44 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4`hwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. r Name: jtW 6Lf. ejw_ 4, Address: :?Z./n6qV!P1�06 �1 Telephone: ZV - 72 — 3©314 RECEIVED AUG 315PNS:114 CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 iS AID —3 AN II= 1S Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger ���Y �� �flS lA MESA City of Costa Mesa �X 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4`hwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. mcerely, n J Name: ao SAY, Address: C ry��n� � C/� z-& Telephone: �l7 l� 27.7 - ,r l 0 Email: Z �1'V 44w .k. k F" v) VA 's A (A � ce c mn hr i I�u�i a , �tiz nlQA city- bb- VE)VA- in CO$0. Ups a.� �P J 1Gvtou� 91n a f fjt-tt,� 41w, "ilk n I VLOJVL.,Vt CITY Cl,ER July 18, 2015 15 AUG -4 AM 9: 32 Costa Mesa City Council CITY OF f A MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger�JJ��� City of Costa Mesa' 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4thwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: cLr_Za K Telephone: �k lQ-0100a Email: �7 5-jc- J, z6l �— AUU 4'15Igm8:,Q5 V1ij fiLt %!i c T �f , cl v h i 7`0 7 1-,--7 5-�� �-01�5 I G� `C Ck < G( 1-77ce 7.2 �/ ( �i Casfzt !�/�s�j 6�4• q Zlvz� CoC-- -�-, � c� Zi c; cn 41, w ti August z, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: RECENED CITY CLERK 15 AUG -4 M 9r� 32 BYiOF COSTA MESA . _ I am writing to express my enthusiastic support forthe proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at i83 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directlyto farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2oo7, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods_ We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit forthe operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4t1when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincer Name: Address: �2' '(2au-1Z-�%2 Telephone: �y� !%J % 7.�/J O� Email: ��%GI../r//'/�l✓.(/Iaxe," AUG 4'115 yet 8:334 August z, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: CITY CLERK 15 AUG -4 AM 9= 33 Cir; a- rosra;s�� �Y�..�._ I am writing to express my enthusiastic support forthe proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From zggz to 2007, nearly zi%of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4`'when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: R010 1. Address: C 11�, �12Eo 7_(P Telephone: q `[ a (p--) 1 ]�/� Email: oLc-nyl. Vl l t,l/li� v = � . M" . Cl7w/t PH-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS From: Marlo[mai[to:marlo.thatgirl@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 10:01 AM To: FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costa mesaca.gov>; MENSINGER, STEPHEN <STEPHEN.MENSINGER@costamesaca.gov>; RODELIUS, SHARON <SHARON.RODE LIUS@costa mesaca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Saint John the Devine parking lot/farmers market To: Jim Righeimer <JimkRFComsites.com>, SANDRA GENIS <SANDRA.GENIS(kcostamesaca. gov> Subject: Saint John the Devine parking lot/farmers market Ladies and Gentlemen: I oppose the farmers market/lot expansion. My over all concerns regarding the proposed St. John the Divine farmers market and parking lot increase in correlation with, the prevalent growth of slh/AA meetings hosted by the church are as follows: Whether intended or not, St. John the Divine church has become a large hub for group home/AA meetings. In comparison, St. Joachim's has 5000 attendees, 3000 of which are registered parishioners and they offer 1 AA meeting/monthly for 35, St. Andrews, another substantial parish, has 1 AA meeting and 3 Alanon meetings/weekly and St. Mary's, with 2000-3000 parishioners offers 0 meetings. However, St. John the Divine has 12 meetings/per week (that's 6 days a week), of heavily attended meetings scattered throughout the day from 6:30am to 8:30pm which generate increased traffic, smoking and loitering. I understand Pastor Phil's hopes to increase the number of parishioners beyond the now 200 or 300 and increase the church masses beyond the scheduled 4/weekly. In the past 10 yrs there has not been enough interest to warrant a Saturday evening service. Yet, they do offer a Saturday 6pm AA meeting. I appreciate Pastor Phil's passion for a farmers market as I myself am fond of the occasional farmers market, but the above statistics are real and concerning. Our neighborhood is inundated with slh homes and all that is associated with them, high traffic volume, compromised street parking outside our homes and the increasing number of unsavory characters and their "friends" aimlessly roaming our surrounding streets. It seems fair to say with only 4/weekly church related services and I farmers market /weekly, one might deduce that the request for additional parking is to meet the potential growth needs of the predominate slh community. The pastor insists that he has no intensions too increase the actual number of AA meetings beyond the current weekly 12, but he will not clarify any restrictions as to the number of persons attending each of these 12 meetings. In summary, regardless of the weekly farmers market success or failure, essentially you are being asked to approve a larger parking lot potentially for increased AA attendants, which this neighborhood should not have to accommodate. I have had the pleasure of meeting most of you at neighborhood gatherings regarding all of the many sober living homes surrounding our Bay Street. With all that comes with those homes, we have been forced to as they say, suck it up and have faith in the new ordinances. If and when an actual "parking lot" expansion must occurs, please consider the residents on Bay Street who will be directly impacted by these changes and unknowns. * Reevaluate overall parking lot design to incorporate parking spaces aligned from east to west. According to the proposed design there will be 10 north facing parking spaces provided. This will mean car lights at all hours of the day/weekly, intruding on the residential homes on Bay Street. As for residents of 2040 Orange Ave, they would have the shield of their high fence. * Increase the easement on Bay Street back more than the proposed 5 feet from the outlined sidewalk. This being a hot topic for many living in the neighborhood, I appreciate your time and thought on all of the above issues and interests. Best regards, Marlo Steinhauser 196 E. Bay Street PH-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MI ENA, J ESSICA Subject: FW: Public Hearing Item #3 on tonight's City Council Agenda (St. John the Divine Episcopal Church proposed farmers' market) Attachments: Orange County Farmers Markets.pdf, Orange County Farmers Markets.pdf From: Cynthia McDonald[mailto:cmcdonald.home@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 1:00 PM To: GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.Rov>; FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM<JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; MENSINGER, STEPHEN <STEPHEN.MENS] NGER@costamesaca.&ov>; MONAHAN, GARY <GARY.MONAHAN@costamesaca.gov> Cc: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.Rov> Subject: Public Hearing Item #3 on tonight's City Council Agenda (St. John the Divine Episcopal Church proposed farmers' market) Councilmembers: I am a great fan of farmers' markets. Each Saturday, rain or shine, I shop at the SOCO Farmers' Market. In fact, most of my grocery money is spent there. I've shopped at many farmers' markets. All have been in areas that are either zoned commercial or on public land, such as parks. None have been in a residential area. While I think the Eastside of Costa Mesa could benefit from a farmers' market, I feel the proposed location would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: There will be a negative impact of increased traffic on the neighborhood. Most clients will arrive by car, as riding a bicycle on Orange Avenue is precarious at best, and carrying a bag or two on a bike makes it difficult to prevent bruising of fruit and veggies (we use a trailer when shopping by bike, which takes up more parking space). The market will be busier at certain times as opposed to others, and if the popularity of the SOCO market is any indication, the proposed number of off-street parking spots will not be enough and overflow will impact the nearby streets. Parking on the Eastside is almost always a problem, so why make it worse? • Adding a stop sign on a street that is used for emergency vehicles is likely going to cause a delay in providing fire, ambulance and police services. • Many vendors use generators for equipment or refrigeration units, as health department inspectors require food to be kept at safe temperatures. The generators are loud and emit fumes. • There is always trash, dropped food, etc. and fanners' markets need to provide the cleanup after the vendors depart. This will require the use of water to wash away sticky fruit at a time when we are to be conserving. • Farmers' markets are commercial operations designed to make money for the lessors, operators and vendors. While I understand the church will be providing a service to the community, there is no way the City can confirm that the church is not benefiting from the operation of the farmer's market or using it as a fundraising vehicle for its proposed expansion. The church property is not zoned commercial and should not be used as such. In addition, I was unable to confirm that this will be a Certified Farmers' Market, which is a very important distinction. If the farmers' market is unsuccessful, then the church has received an entitlement for additional parking that it may not have received otherwise. While I have nothing against the church, rules are rules and the City should protect the interests of all Costa Mesa residents. I believe a better solution would be for the church would use a van or bus to transport parishioners to the Saturday SOCO Farmer's Market or the one on Thursdays at the Fairgrounds. SOCO has the added value of shops that supply additional food products and kitchen equipment. There are cooking classes where the chef takes students to the farmers' market, helps them select food and then teaches them how to prepare it. I guess I'm proselytizing a bit, but I doubt the church's market will be able to provide the same benefits. Attached is a list of farmers' markets in Orange County and their locations. Please review this list, as it will give you further indication of why the location of the proposed market is untenable. Thank you for your consideration. Cynthia McDonald 1181 Atlanta Way Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 549-5884 cmcdonald.home a,gmail.com 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Visitors Center Fury Zone Surf & Sand W Art & MUS14Li Shop & Dien-e10 OC Business Health & Beauty Living in OC Education J Real Estate Advertising Contact lies Home OC Farmers Markets ap Orange County Farmers Markets - Listed by city - **Due to possible seasonal or weather related changes to times & locations, we encourage you to click on the link of the event holder to get the most updated information. Anaheim Buena Park Corona Del Mar Costa Mesa Dana Point Fullerton Huntington Beach Irvine Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel Newport Beach Orange San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana Seal Beach Tustin Yorba Linda SHOP BY DAY OF THE WEEK - Related Sections - Organic Food / Stores Food Product Compliance / Marketing List of Farmers Markets in Orange County Anaheim Farmers Park Certified Farmers' Market MEWOMPF pI WRQ7 Anaheim Packing District 400 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA Sundays LOAM-3PM More Information Operated by Downtown Anaheim, the vision for this new urban market is to offer the k •_ =. community high quality agricultural goods from local growers and ranchers, as well as gourmet artisan foods. Whale Watching Cruise Special $16 http://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 1/10 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Downtown Anaheim Certified Farmers' Market & Craft Fair Center St. Promenade & Lemon Sts. Thursdays 12PM-7PM *January 17-March 7, 2013 12 PM - 4 PM (Winter Hours) More Information Local California certified Farmers, International Foods, craft fair and Homegrown Music series. ------------ Anaheim Kaiser Permanente CFM 04 vAism 3440 E. La Palma Ave. Anaheim, CA PUMANENTE. Fridays 9AM-2PM More Information In Located across from the parking structure. Affiliated with California Federation of Certified Farmers' Markets. The certified farmers market concept is an effort to re-establish the traditional link between farmers and consumers in California. Buena Park Corner of La Palma and Stanton Sears Parking Lot Saturdays 9AM-2PM More Information Affiliated with California Federation of Certified Farmers' Markets. Farm fresh fruits & vegetables, free range eggs, raw honey, baked goods. Along with your fresh produce, shoppers can enjoy a variety of hot, fresh foods made to order! 14, J Corona Del Mar Margarite & Pacific Coast Hwy Saturdays 9 AM - 1 PM More Information Limited parking on -street and in a small lot. Affiliated with California Federation of Certified Farmers' Markets. Open since 1996, look for prepared foods, honey, fresh fish, and flowers —and lots of fruits and vegetables from premier growers often not seen at other markets. Costa Mesa Orange County Fairgrounds 88 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa Thursdays 9 AM - 1 PM (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified http://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 2110 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. SoCo Farmers' Market ' SoCo Collection 3315 Hyland Ave Saturdays 9AM-2PM More Information Certified Farmers' Market run by community non-profit, Sprouts of Promise Foundation. Featuring local farm fresh fruits and vegetables, raw honey, fresh almonds, fresh eggs, meat, and poultry. Dana Point A Pacific Coast Hwy & Golden Lantern S Saturdays 9 AM - 1 PM More Informationh+r Affiliated with California Federation of Certified Farmers' Markets. The certified farmers market concept is an effort to re-establish the traditional link between farmers and consumers in California. Put simply, certified farmers' markets (CFM's) are "the real thing," places where genuine farmers sell their crops directly to the public. It is where the agrarian community relates to the urban community Fullerton Independence Park, 801 W. Valencia Drive Wednesdays 8 AM - 1: 00 PM More Information The Farmers Market offers fresh fruit, vegetables, eggs, honey, fish, flowers, plants, nuts and bread. It is operated by the nonprofit Fullerton Certified Farmers Market Board Downtown Plaza, Wilshire & Pomona Thursdays 4 PM -8:30 PM / April -Oct More Information OPEN APRIL - OCTOBER Fullerton Market offers farm -fresh produce, flowers, fresh -baked breads, live entertainment, outdoor beer garden, arts and crafts, and activities for children. In addition to the traditional favorites, new vendors will be added each week. The market is free. http://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 3110 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Huntington Beach Surf City Nights is a Weekly Street Fair and Certified Farmers Market Tuesdays 5PM - 9PM More Information Orange County's largest weekly street fair and certified farmers' market. Every Tuesday from 5 pm to 9 pm, 90 vendors presents unique handcrafted wares: furniture, jewelry, art, clothing, live music, street performers, community groups and kids' activities. Pier Plaza Main Street & Pacific Coast Highway (next to the pier) Fridays 1 PM - 5 PM (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. Irvine (0 make sure Irvine Kaiser Permanente CFM I wusm 6670 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA PERMANFJ TE. Wednesdays 9 AM - 1 PM More Information In Located in front of the Medical Office Building. Affiliated with California Federation of Certified Farmers' Markets. The certified farmers market concept is an effort to re-establish the traditional link between farmers and consumers in California. http://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 4/10 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Mariners Church parking lot, On the corner of Bonita Canyon & Turtle Ridge Saturdays 8 AM - Noon (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. The Great Park in Irvine, Marine Way off Sand Canyon` Sundays 10 AM - 2 PM (rain or shine) More Information Every week, rain or shine, the Great Park Certified Farmers Market features fresh, locally grown fruits and vegetables, handcrafted artisan products, live music and entertainment, and a selection of gourmet food trucks. Take home fresh produce grown on the Great Park Farm and other local farms and enjoy live entertainment, including live music, car shows, and more. J Laguna Beach Lumberyard Parking Lot - next to the City Hall Saturdays 8 a.m. - Noon 8 - 11 a.m. July and August (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. J Laguna Hills Laguna Hills Mall Parking Lot the 5 Freeway and El Toro Road Fridays 9 AM - 1 PM (rain or shine) More Information http://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 5/10 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. J Laguna Niguel Plaza De La Paz Shopping Center on the Corner of La Paz and Pacific Park Sundays 8 AM - 12 PM (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. J Newport Beach TEMPORARILY CLOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION Newport Beach Farmers Market Lido Marina Village Sundays 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Open Rain or Shine More Information Established in 2010, this certified farmers' market is located in Lido Marina Village of Newport Beach. Orange Orange Farmers & Artisans Market * • , Located at 304 N. Cypress Street .' on the corner of Cypress & Palm in Old Towne Orange ORANGE Saturdays FA.R�ERS 9AM - 113M (rain or shine) A€zTf5ANS More Information MARKET The Old Towne Orange Farmers and Artisans Market is a certified farmers market operated by the non-profit Orange Home Grown, Inc. The market features a large selection of fruits, vegetables, nuts, mushrooms, honey, free range eggs, hormone free beef, poultry and milk, and shell fish from a local aqua farm, fresh bread, baked goods, jellies and more. Enjoy complimentary coffee while you shop. http://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 6/10 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Orange Irvine Regional Park 1 Irvine Park Road, Orange, CA Tuesdays 9 AM - 1 PM (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. 1-1 J San Clemente 200 block Avenida Del Mar Dr. Sundays 9 AM - 1 PM (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with California Federation of Certified Farmers' Markets. The certified farmers market concept is an effort to re-establish the traditional link between farmers and consumers in California. Put simply, certified farmers' markets (CFM's) are "the real thing," places where genuine farmers sell their crops directly to the public. It is where the agrarian community relates to the urban community � 1 San Juan Capistrano .. _A El Camino Real & Yorba Street Wednesdays Spring & Summer 3pm - 7pm Fall & Winter 3pm - 6pm More Information More than 30 vegetable, fruit and flower vendors will be selling farm -fresh goods. The Market also includes fresh breads, olives, eggs and Hummus with pita chips, all right in the heart of San Juan Capistrano historic downtown! Seal Beach Seal Beach Village 13960 Seal Beach Blvd., Seal Beach Tuesdays 9am-1pm Opened in 2010, this small Tuesday market is convenient for nearby Leisure World residents. Around 15 vendors that and include many familiar to other Orange County farmers markets. J http://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 7/10 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Santa Ana byJ�. Cw�]i Spurgeon Promenade / Between 3rd and 4th _- Street on Spurgeon Street Thursdays.r 4-8pm More Information Opened in March 2014. The DTSA (Downtown Santa Ana) Farmers' Market is a community -oriented, chef -driven Farmers' Market that strives to bring the highest quality produce at the best price possible. J Tustin Corner of Ell Camino Real and 3rd Street Wednesdays 9 AM - 1 PM (rain or shine) More Information Affiliated with Orange County Farm Bureau ww.'w I Sponsored Certified Farmers' Markets. California certified farmers' markets are the real thing - places where genuine farmers sell fruits, nuts and vegetables directly to the public. Every farmer who sells at a certified market is inspected by the county agricultural commissioner to make sure he/she actually grows the commodity being sold. J Yorba Linda Main St. & Imperial Highway Saturdays 9 AM - 1 PM More Information Crafters, Food Vendors and Certified Farmers. Featuring produce grown naturally or organically, honey, flowers, eggs. back to top Organic Food / Stores Hanson's Market San Clemente & San Juan Capistrano ° f Y_ San Clemente & San Juan Capistrano's Han on's Market Natural & Organic community food naturalf ods stores featuring organic fruits and vegetables, deli with meat, cheese sandwiches to order, raw juice & smoothie bar, wine, craft beers plus a Health & Wellness Center with staff available for your holistic and nutritional questions at any time!!! LOCATIONS: 415 Avenida Pico #P hftp://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 8/10 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets San Clemente, CA 32382 Del Obispo St San Juan Capistrano, CA J back to top Food Product Compliance / Marketing Food Trade Consultants Start you own food business! Do you have a secret recipe or food idea? FTC provides newcomers to the commercial food manufacturing business with a crash course in the basics. We will take you step-by-step through the process and show you how to get your stovetop recipe converted into a certified, FDA compliant, commercial manufacturer's formula, into production, packaged and ready for sale to the mass market. 949-584-2079 back to top OrangeCounty.net - Premier listings for all of Orange County Featuring Orange County Farmers' Markets http://www.orangecounty.net/htmI/shop-produce.htmI#cm 9/10 8/4/2015 Orange County Farmers Markets Home - Orange County Visitor Information - Fun things to do in OC - OC Beaches -Art & Music in Orange County Shopping & Dining in Orange County Orange County Business - Orange County Health Inforrmation - Orange County Rescources for Residents - Orange County Education - Orange County Real Estate Facebook - Twitter - Site Map - Disclaimer © 2015 OrangeCounty.net All rights reserved worldwide. Site Owned and Operated by Purpose Media For info on ad rates call 949.443.1323 or sales(aa)orangecounty.net Many photographic images courtesy of OCBook.com jd„y'�Ia� rn[I s �tano:nct http://www.orangecounty.netihtm I/shop-produce.htm I#cm 10/10 r.�ECEIVEU CLERK Exhibits toS AUG -4 M " 44 Cif sF i,i��i i, 5s1 Appeal of Planning Application PA-14-41 SECTION I Application to Rezone From Vacant R-1 To Erect a Church Ell 00 N9fAX CITY via j ��' COSTA MESS t $25.00 Application MjMt be ejab- TG Ya CT1'?,' PLmvA3 CO"8't + +� . mii.ted in qusdr¢pliceLe, COBT1 K4 FA, CALj?Q0;TAi .. Mtn•: enat.4 uWRN kM k2q 5oti 615 So -Figueroa at. qp s A6010a 14,Calif. . •7t To sr*ot Church rz,.. y� /JC' 3 4, A309Y -rr. AWACH three (3) pLsns (w::'..=-.h _;�.....�..., :„..r•r, ;wrarnC} on tSie 3uriject Giveproperty, logal deseriryt'on o.i ra:A,^Lr; tt, Loo 1t171Athy, please attach,) Girt street addteta of pre,jse-j ar 10reWit," 1M'cLcjrG clearly to enable property to be readily identified in ti:e ,'1,y:t;i� T.nt xMo -. w-_--- i7_. — ___ .._ _. Rropart.!.i� orac•7 or itta;'c�d by applioaatt Ao "----- Present use of propertyr 1AO"t- .._. Ps'operty oitasified (zax:ed,' A�' ,_,R-4, ,_...._. ._...._ Sttta hereunder in xtsst ram,,ecL.s. .<^ to t '_ n'r.,N; •:, practical difficulty, un. Mmessery hardships, ormrel purpose and itttsttt Of the land UsB Grdinur.. : c w th g; ;+rjc= ani; i :lei.vi o.t its regulations tios -r<... 1'l' K&iM> JF 'YI INv'F' A. .iL M: I SECTION II Request for A General Plan Amendment from Low Density to Planned Developmental Residential GP-79-3A City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive PLANNING ACTION APPLICATI Costa Mesa, CA 92 (714) 556-5245 -" - (Please See Instruction Sheet) " 7` n/i' 1 179 rL APPLICATION N0.{sj:. (t) G{' 1. (4) DATE (() --� — CEQA (3) 1 _hh, igkr apply for the Planning Action(s) as indicated below on my praperty which is described as follows: (5) Address: 9$ /i, f�.#_- f' ..ic. (y ,• (6) Assessor's Parcel No AP# 11s- (7) Nearest Major Cross Streets C'Tkt ,, - �l ., y311t� to t� ..J - ..-- (as per Maps, 19 (8) PLANNING ACTION(s) REQUESTED 01 Zone Exception(s) Account No. A. ❑ Variance(s) No. S. ❑ 0131110009 Go. ditional Use Permit(s) No. 0131110009 ❑ C. ❑ CPAPprovdl No. 01311100o9 Development Review ❑ Subdivision: A. ❑ Tentative Map of Tract _ 0131120004 B. ❑ Parcel i.vao C. 1 Lot Line Adjustment 0131120004 ❑ Encroacnment Permit ❑ Planned Development Review A. ❑ Preliminary R. ❑ Final G ( Relocation Permit Other C- l!(�tvt 0130750000 Se i Wv"1 i`.i-L tYtl4 r.c�/Yf(• k7 Negative Declaration ❑ Environmental Impact Report - 0131190009 NF = No Fee Required by Ordinance (9) Total Fee 00) LJ ALL REQUIRED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS ATTACHED (See Appropriate Instruction Sheets) (11) [B' PLANNING ACTION DESCRIPTION/.JUSTIFICATION FORM ATTACHED. (12) APPLICANT (Owner of Record Only) Type or print (on;e< use) Fee �02 $ T�¢ r , I :1 itc Jt t. � •�(.{( �.c �t ;�<.-r,tt C )'l)>t 4 (s,:( I attest under penalty of law to the truth and In o L: C�.� t1 (, Yz„), - S 1[ correctness of a71 facts, exhibits, maps and (owner or r:eoortll attachments presented with and made a part Of this application - ON /�t�-o 4�F.sf Jz •ld1r S�-tf(� ania//g Ad,o.,J (131 thereby authorize.1. C%Ilr.(c�A h'f �t•ip it At C[a 1, 4tY Ls ict to act as my representative and to bind me (city/State/21p) in all matters concerning this application. Phone: 21� •��� Zc`VU '7 .� _ r 05) AUTHORIZEDAGENT T�perp��riJ, +t J . Iry r[�IY`•rGL (Au[norizetl ant) (City/State/Zip) Phone: %it 1 .:YYk 2237, (14) .a[ J .-,4— c i gnat., — App"?.-t ((Acaner W Recortl on,) Subscri d and sworn to before me this day of OFFtCIAL SCr,t :.urnar .... {oftiice LIU Only) ... . ?06) Zone V4 (17) General Plan Designation VC-+Ll� ff—oJr'if RgtipEizr tl�i.--^•A (181 REQUEST: G� +se►4l.. TG> N 1G+� C �Js l f;.- VZ it Jul (19) C Planning Commission Hearing - 6:30 p.m. (20) ❑ Staff Review Only. You will be notified by mail of the final decision. (21) Application Complete - .P 0602-32 White - City Clark or Planning; Green - Planning} Canary - Appilgnt; Pink - finance; Goitlanrod - Authwlzve Agent —__ RESOLUTION NO. 79-132 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Imo' >3517� CITY OF COSTA MESA CALI-FORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAfi: AMEhD MESA. NE`:T GP-79-3A, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF COSTA, WHEREAS, the General Plan 1990, as amended, was adopted by the r;,v Council of the City of Costa Mesa by Resolution No. 71-27 on Ap;il 5, 1971; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A, a plan to change the pro_ posed land use at 183 East Say Street and at 2043 Orange Avenue has been recorriended for adoption by the Planning Commission and WHEREAS, the change recommended for adoption by the Planning Comr.is- Sion is Option, II, from Low Density Residential to Planned Development Residentia'.-High Density, PDR-HD; and WHEREAS, Public.hearing ws duly held in accordance with Section 65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, all persons hav- ing been given the opportunity to be heard, hoth for and agains' sa'd Amendment GP-79-3A to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City that said Amendment to the General plan be adopted; NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that General Plan 1990 is hereby amended by the adoption of Option 11 of General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A, as shown on Exhibit "A", -- attached hereto and made a part hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 1979. ATTEST- 1�t� tty o n -a ,esa Mayor OT the L iry o T 1, osta Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) fPROV D AS TO FORM COUNTY Of ORANGE ) SS �� CITY OF COSTA MESA C;Tf RitiEY ! I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 79-132 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of November, 1979. � NB IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal " _r ,n,n r WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A, a plan to change the pro- posed land use at 183 East Bay Street and at 20443 Orange Avenue has been recorv,ended for adoption by the Planning Com9iSsion; and WHEREAS, the change recommended for adoption by the Planning Conr-is_ Sion is Option 11, from Low Density Residential to Planned Development Residential -High Density, PDR-HD; and WHEREAS, Public -hearing w5 duly held in accordance with Section 65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, all persons hav- ing been given the opportunity to be heard, both for ann aga'nz•. sa`d Amendment GP-79-3A to the General clan; and WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City that said Amendment to the General Plan be adopted; NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that General Plan 1990 is hereby amended by the adoption of Option 11 of General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A, as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 1979, ATTEST_ t� Y e ity o o a Y.esa ayor of the -City of r o`Sta Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA } PPROV D AS TO FORM COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF COSTA MESA ) �Te R'b iVEy I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 79-132 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the Sth day of November, 1979. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 6th day of November, 1979, City C e of the City Council of the City of to Mesa CITY OF COSTA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 TO: PaVerCMdCalrad A. Nordquist 183 Bay S 006ta Mwa, CA 92627 FROM- WE PI,AMM DUARIMTTI am: October 11, 1979 RE: General Plan Amendvent (71-79-3A Specific Plan Precise Plan (Streets) AbandOment Other At the regular meeting of the Costa Mesa Planning Cartmission held on Qztobe= Q, 1979 , the ebc-e was considered and the following action taken: It was moved by lea. =orenimeeconde � Dr. +Hyen and c uziec3 5-0 that l2'oontained in the Platzng Mvisim Staff Report be rem for -a E GENERAL, PLAi7 AMENDN=T GF-�9-3A 1. IRMDUCfICN This privately initiated General Plan hnendment concerns the Saint John the Divine StreProet ItantpEp;scopalsChurch property located southwest of Orange Avenue and Bay the General Plan and a High Densrty ity Residentiallddesig ed Low Density Residential requestedtion is eby r to enable the construction of 36 senior citizen housiing units ' These would be financed through HfJD Section 202 funds. The proposed project includes a new church with ancillary facilities to also be located on the site. The Amendment is requested by Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist as authorized agent for the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 11. AREA DFSCRI PTIOt. The subject property is 2.015 acres in area. The westerly portion of the area is developed with the existing church and parking lot. A single-family residence occupies the southeasterly corner of the site. The remainder of the site is vacant. In order for HUD funds to be used in financing the proposed project, a Parcel Map will have to be processed to separate the Church and housing sites, although the church would retain manage ent of both parcels, Adjoining the subject property to the south are properties developed wit single - and multiple -family uses (Map 8). 7be General Plan designates this area s Medium Density Residential and the zoning is R2 except for one parcel at 20 orange Avenue. This Property is developed with a five unit apartment althcugt zone Rl and designated Low Density Residential. West of the study Area across Laurie Lane is also designated as low Density Residential by the General Plan, although zoned R2.CP. This area of inconsis- tency includes ten parcels fronting on Laurie Lane and Fullerton Avenue which ar developed with duplexes and triplexes. North of the Study Area are single-family hones along the north side of Bay Street, These Properties are designated for Low Density Residential use and are zoned Al The area east of Orange Avenue, zoned Rl, is also indicated as Lxw Density Resi- dential by the General Plan. Although most of the parcels an developed with single-family homes, there are several nonconforming properties w;ch more than one unit, a frequent occurence throughout this easterly section of Costa Mesa. Directly across the street from the subject Property is a day care center. The Study Area for this Amendment has not been expanded to inclsde adjacent areas with inconsistencies between the General plan, zoning or land use. These areas are being examined in the studies being conducted for the Land Use Element of the General Plan. -1s- to B✓Or �r'FifET BAY STP.££7' ri.wr Lwwi l THLNT/ETH .5rRfF7- �a GZ,VZoQAL PLAN DES/GNATION ULew Z>s&s,rr Ar,!/OrNI,A4 ,VroRAy Dems,rr Ar3,GrNr,A4 GI - i V-3A OPTION I EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP 7 R1 W Sro�r. L } __ Z C 103 GP•79.3A LAND USE MAP g BVGr .STREET D, D, B �r Sr.QEer Dz Dz MsDs [ Hru.,.� D Curie, Lira a I n., 1 D, 1 D, 1 D, j D, ! Ds T1YLNr/E rF/ 5r.4Er7- 4 �4 D W Sr+er. D, D 4 Dz E D, D, C Ds: ®wr44~C1NV,v®t,t or a,v,rs (r,r6] 104 III. EVVIW^A:. REVIEN An Initial Study of Envirorrrental Impact was conducted for t..�e proposed pry e t to the General Plan and the subsequent development of 36 senior citizen i»asirn Units arce nchurch facilities. laThe imde g3cts identified relate tc c:rculatu land use arc population. Since the new drurch is actually a reloca_ion of an existing use, no new traffic or lard use ir!pects would be caused. The 36 unit se for citizen apartment would have three potential areas of impact. apartzment building this size would normally generate approxilia tely 290 vehicle. trip ends daily, the tenant composition of this development is expecte^ to res,:lt in substantially lesser traffic generation. Sisrilarly, 36 apertr*nt snits wD;ld normally louse an estimated 72 persons, however, the small u-.rt s>zF. a-d tenant aceposition of this project will result in many single tenant units. Since the use is compatible with adjacent uses, rn significant land use impacts are a^,tici_ pated. She Initial Study concludes that a Negative Declaration. ofviro r ena: Impact can be adopted. IV. GDERBL PLAN CXXFORkial The requested Amendmer:t has been examined in respect to tyre various eleaents anj subelements of the General Plan currently being prepared. Although, the Genera: Plan has not been adopted, the proposed pemendrent and subsequent development have been compared to those applicable ecuponents which will be included in the General Plan (Table 3). Of the eight sections of the Environmental Resources/Manaoement Element, the irc�zr on open space appears to be the only�iorrif: a The majority of the site is vacant and planted with grass. Development of the project will e1L;inate this private open space, which is not included in the City's inventory of inter1 open space. Several applicable cmncerns were identified in corparirg the proposed Are-drrent and development with the subelements of the Ctrrr,unity Developr7en. anagement Element. She prefect involves Private redevelopment of the Property. Tie ne. development will play a significant role in maintaining or altering the image of the existing neighborhood. The church, which will be located on a more visible portion of the site, will be a prominent feature. She housing and other facilities_ to be provided for elderly persons are consistent with the needs identified in both the Human Reams and fusing Subelements. Because of the density of the uxeits, an amendrnenE to the current General Plan and Land Use Ordinance may be necessary to permit more than 30 units per acre. She Housing_ Subelement being prepared will include a means of permitting increased densities for projects whi-n ■eet the needs of hmtseholds with specialized housing requirements. The proje.- will cause an increased demand for public services in this area. However, tix prvferty will not generate property taxes since it will be operated by a non-profit organization. 'lhe Lad use concerns, being examined in discussed in greater length later in this report, are also requested High the Density studies being conducted for the land Residential designation is one three LLse Element. The for the area. Low and of Medium Denssty Residential are also being considered being considered for the subject and adjacent properties. 105 .. . —._ Mew TABLE 3. C TTtiA PRti, PR�CYo?T AK?ZDr'y'! C�N�jfl+S"' I. 3rvirorrertal Resources.! Hanagenent Element A. Cpen Space A. Although a large portion of this site is vacant, it is rot included in the invent�ry of interim open, space. II. Cartcwnity Development! l6anagernent Elermtrt A. Fedevelognent A. Replacerent of tip existIna str ctures with those included in t�.is project is a for- of private redevelopment. B. Urban Design B. The design of the proposed development, particularly that of the Churc,., will irlPact the uraae of the neig;bor!)ood. C. Fhxran Resources C. Providing housing ad recreation facilities for persons with specialized require-en-:,s is consistent with needs identified, D. Housing D. Project provides housing for households with special needs. Project may excee-3 the maximum, density of the High. Density P--si- dential designation, requiring a density bonus for including specialized housing, £. Public Facilities E. Project will cause general increase in and Services demand for public services. F. Economic F. Being tax exempt, the project will not generate p;-ap-.-tY tax revenue. III. Iard Use Elemevt the proposed designation of High Density Resi- dential is one of three being considered for the subject and adjacent properties in ts,r lard use studies. mi47 V. 1 ND. USE OPTIC[;= Pour lard use options have been prepared,ic.; arrpare tine existing Gene, -a. ?lar and zoninn (OPtio:: I with the requested t. Oat.o^s II, In a A- I': discuss a Hign, Dens;t,: Residert.a: Ia-r_' Use des;gnat;;>n but present different zoning alternatives. A 'On I (Map 7) retains the existing Iota Density Pesidential landUse designatioa and the Rl zc:dng. Th4s arra.-r4eTent wood be cta-ca-- the Genera? Plan and yan;.r_ of properties across the streets to the .-r.rt`, and east, aithougi: dissi.;lar to the General Plan designation:, za._m_ or development of adjacent properties in the swe bloc%:. 7b- spec;f;c use being considered for the site waald not be per-ittei jr, the P_ zone, ale the unit tiensltM exceeds the General Plan Lob- Density Resi3ert2ai raxt^..r. If the F1 zaning is retained, eventual residential re e-:e'_o;.ra_nt pewit the subdivision of the subject property ane construrtix o-_ approximately 14 single-fa:ily hares on the subject prcoert-,. i B. option II ;aw; M9) wa.21dacre-C tr-e General Plan. designatio-. Aesi'3entia. and eztablis.L . Plated De✓elgrment FiEside.^.u-1-tg. 17E^s_ Pf7R-M, zoning on tr entire Stud;- Area. Planned Development zoning has the pzrpose of enco.uay;Tr t'w applica.-.-n Of more imaginative rrd innovative planni-sc, concepts than wo::ld be pern.:tt unr3=z oornentio,ai zoning catea�ries. one of t`Y a✓;'Iic_.2e i^tent= ti•e Planned Development ordinance is tc era le developreato tit.lc:. r'L-et t e broa3er goals of the Genera: Plan t3,xos3.`. the i.,tegration of uses. TY,e mp Zones PeMit cYmplisoentarl uses of a relig;:ws or educatioxl nature. This the church and related classrrrss would be considered corrrli^nent r: uses and the dual use of the r* opervy world be accarodated. . Tt;e` existingchurch building is prcQosed to be used cy both the cl:,rc.n congregatix: anc the senior citizens. Ttiis shared u-_ is in :�crordance wit:. the P/a-L-e3 Development eft, which encourages tC integr>_tio.^. of use- and str;ctures, The PM-IM Zone Permits residential develor+ezt at a de -sits of 1 30 ❑nits to the acre. Consider;-c thr entire site in the calculator. a density would result in a ratio of 17.9 units per acre with the 3£ units proposed. A oonC pt;al site plan had been prepared which Dlaces the C ff^ on the corner of Orange Avenue and Bay Street and t1� apartent omits near the southerly end of Laurie Lane. ?his plan dig rat riz.:e the 25 foot setba-- or the anent of marlin rea. AJ ?_1 :'i" T♦ e1 -21- l GP•79.3A OPTIONS 11,111, d to I MAP B I BAr SrREEr TlY£w'TfE rM SrR£r- t �4 GENERAL r'LAK OED/LNATrOn ® for Dexs rr Rca,u,.r.na AP✓ailMr Dawoirr Rca �D[rT.:��, ��/ DcvsJrf Rtslawr... I rrO��PP/oN E-: POR-HD zay.Irs OVIR fMrlltS Xlrr VPTioK ZT: YR $owe*,a rom Otero. c►r sfrt, .19 R ~ tr. ,vocsi e✓PTfol d/( /lzavava jmtvc t.rrdAj n,rg, Cu�cax< L4X RYrA'D Hr YT DIUT Lya A'TV. �YJ dCIY3Ji'K log— OLL go it i' — ':M General Plan designation of the The portion of the site to to � a.: d be rezoned R4 and the rema inde r "" `� ' *• i Y t the High Density Residential a, more than 30 units to the acre. P" 12r, :nt;, two Parcels, the residential '� = d< •'"' - _ <<. , respective parcel. The residential acres in area, resultirrl in a �'^' * M• :assification tc allow nDre than ^4 its application in the Dnwntown . u ea plan, an element of the General ti -, over 35 units per acre can be s;+r ,a.; led housing. In Order to acoom- va < `s• "•� +'•' _...:ar proposals in the future, the • r '< 4 :,e amended to allow densities in ':as the specific intent of provid- fa::aies and individuals with _"' _. - ^-'r ! ..�'•, ...s of Such households would be • ... •...• ti!_ •our .. .:r•,- "'' e:a.- classification, the property +•- ,_� ,.L < P{ zone (CMMC§ 13-178) mould also •" `Y • • ::4 processing of a Conditional Use ht ^ •• �' pern::tted by the R4 zone in the P woj1d have to be expanded to ' e::Owed Citywide when a'project has t'a" •" '" +- '.'- list of permitted uses in the �•' + --' °� ^': sxe. Churches are not listed as a P '' " _ • - • ': • xx� they have been allowed in this ,`• :' +•, _ a hax�Y: a Zone Exception could be °���'•"' •- ►--^ - v ,: « r X .r., it may be appropriate to add d ^� ''�'* a Ya -> . Y - - .. • w - rnr n nts for religious worship as F.W-r"' .. �' :J :A %r �-':< • P Y..r ;. n��Y3RY1ate the current proposal as well ` : `+ `-• , *' •:fix=f' s• . ,y �c General Plan to High Densibj °'" �'� �� e+' i./_f .wr7^ �' 4. F zoning. In addition to adding tea.., •' :- �'N L P sore as discussed under Option III, ricer amended to include housing as a .d uMl• ,.rr un.+. v:,. ,n.,.c< zrti . ,< Permit could be granted to allow Yana'.r .-v P:r r, hem •,, °w.. .�+ al'.F>;''actrl rr, rr•`J'9e� by the primary contorming user 3f ',.M 7}!:?P!•- ? .e u •r'.�.r^• ✓.q..d thus allow the prapnsed units sirxe tl.e;, .q•:. d a. .rr:rq..t ',, 3 our,• vK n.i v !nr Church. � 10 It should be pointed out that the General Plan would not necessarily require amendment if the I i R zoning is modified as discussed above, however, the retention of a Low Density Residential Lard Use designation may not be appropriate if the City actually plans to allow a development with a unit density which far exceeds that associated with a Low Density Residential area. Costa Mesa contains 1,763 acres of lard zoned Institutional and Recreational. Mending the I i R zone to allow housing as a conditional use Could have widespread potential applicability. VI. RECaMMMpgq`ICN Planning Staff reaxrMMI-Ids implementation of option II. The proposed development is in accordance with housing Element Goal No. 2 in that it provides housing for families and individuals with specialized housing requirements. A High Density Residential General Plan designation and PDR-M zoning will permit the uses Proposed without requiring modification to the existing General Plan classifica- tions or Land Use ordinance. Although the size of the parcel for the apartment development results in a density exceeding 30 units per acre for that individual parcel, both the church and apartment parcels can be used in the calculation of density since a Planned Development is defined as an area developed as an integrated unit under single ownership or control and having a Planned Development designation. The shared use of the existing church building is an example of the integration of uses on the subject property. Establishment of Planned Development zoning on the site will also afford review of the development by both planning Ccmnission and City Council. A High Density Residential designation would be consistent with existing General Plan designations east of Orange Avenue, which are predominantly Medium and High Density Residential. The adjacent areas of inconsistency will remain as Ina .Density Residential;. however, they will be re-examined in the considerations of the upcoming Land Use Element. RE:SOULTfICN NO. PC-79-14 A RESOLUtICN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ME CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, REC MMENDING To THE CITY COUN. APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMEN MENUnCI:T, GP-79-3A gq A+Y74fE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPEKPY LOCATED AT 183 E. BAy STREET AND 2043 ORANGE AVENUE FROM L01 DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES REREBy RESOLVE AS FOLLUZ- THAT, WHEREAS, pursuant to applicable provisions of the California Govern- ment Code, Title 7, Chapter 3, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission has processed and reviewed the proposed amendment to the General Plan of the City of Costa Mesa as designated herein; and WHEREAS, the purpose of General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A is to enable the construction of low and/or moderate income senior citizen housing units; and WHEREAS, the requested amendment is consistent with the goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan to provide housing for families and individuals with specialized housing requirments; and WHEREAS, the requested General Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan designations and development in the immediate vicinity; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Government Code Section 65351, said Planning Camnission herewith transmits its recommendation to the City Council, as found, determined and decided upon at a duly noticed public hearing thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Cased upon the findings as set forth in the Planning Division Staff Report for General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A be, and is hereby re=w ended for approval to amend the C:neral Plan Designation of the property located at 183 E. Bay Street and 2043 orange Avenue from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. PASSED AND ZS r da Jxtober, 1979 Richard Carstensen, Chairman of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission m STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGC ) ss, CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, DXGGIAS K. CLARK, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. jt'was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission which was held on the *_ day of ('%�pp 1979, and carried by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: Oa MISSIONERS: ABSENT: 014KISS I ONERS : Acting Secr ry, Costa Mesa P1annin� Connission APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY BY: CC yrn Ass stant City Attorn i2 G W� bevel nt�rvi�cesDire�ctor v// SECTION III Zoning Exemption ZE-82-88 Variance and Conditions for Construction of St. John Manor r� "l Ju_b_( ! i uz. MOTION Ordinance 82-12 Adopted Cl_f �, J iDt CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE ZONIMG OF A PORTION OF LOT 117 OF TRACT NO. 300 FRO14 RI TO PDR-LD, in connection with Rezone Petition R-82-07, Norma Hertzog, for; property located at 273 and 277 Monte Vista Avenue, was given second reading and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, McFarland, Johnson NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: done ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Schafer ABSTAINING: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herttog C• L to [Lt iLC.t lLC T� R-79-15 Nordquist/ The Cleric presented for second reading and adoption, Ordinance 79-32, to change the Episcopal Church zoning of property located at 183 East .Bay Street from R1 to PDR-N0, in connection with Rezone Petition R-79-15, the Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist, authorized agent for the Bishop Of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 1220 West Fourth Street, Los Angeles. Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration adopted for General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A. ZE-82-88 The Clerk also presented Zone Exception ZE-82-88, for variances from parking requirements including reduction in total parking, parking in a street setback, and inadequate turn -around area, in conjunction with a Planned Development Review, for a 36-unit senior, citi- zens housing project in connection with an existing church. The Development Services Director presented the back- ground for the subject project and reported that first reading was given to Ordinance 79-32 on December 17, 1979, with second reading and adoption held until fund- ing was approved by Housing and Urban DOVelnpment (HUD). The funding has been obtained by the applicant. The Director further reported that at the request of the Planning Commission, new site plans have been submitted of which will eliminate the need for a turn -around and wil1G"`—' provide improved traffic circulation; the proposed auto- matic gate at the entrance. to the Orange Avenue parking area will be deleted, thereby eliminating concerns about adequate stacking area and,traffic congestion on Orange Avenue; and the modified site plan will allow - greater joint use of parking 'between the church and housing parcels. At the request of Vice Mayor Hall, the Development Services Director explained the Federal funding for non- ' profit organizations in which the tenants' rents are in an amount equal to 25 percent of their income, with the balance funded by HUD. Reinhold 11. Klein, 1910 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, housing consultant for the project, stated that the maximum height of the project is 30 feet and pointed out on the slide screen the location of the two- and three-story structures. Mr. Klein also mentioned that because of the revised plan, only two variances are now needed: setback on Bay Street, and reduction in total parking. He also reported that based on a survey of similar projects, the need for the same number of park- ing spaces which would be required for family housing is not necessary since many of the elderly do not drive automobiles. Mr. Klein also stated tl_.:t surveys indi- cate that as the project natures, use of automobiles decreases. In response to Vice Mayor Hall's questions reg.irdinq selection of tenants, Mr. Klein detailed the procedure required by HUD which includes priority being given to qualified citizens of the cmvnunity. I4'y 143 Alb J- Reverend Conrad Nordquist, St. John the Divine Episcopal r Church, spoke in support of the project stating that there was a crucial shortage of housing in the area, and he felt this project would alleviate at least a small portion of the low -rent housing shortage. Responding to questions from the Council, Reverend Nordquist stated that van transportation is not being planned at this time but such a service is a possibility, and that the tenants of the project will have the use of the Church's recreational facilities. Jerome Vandewalle, 2810 San Juan Lane, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the project and pointed out the following reasons: additional housing is needed in Costa Mesa, especially senior citizens housing as evidenced by the waiting list at the Casa Bella development; the project is yell -conceived and will not cause additional taxation of Costa Mesa residents; the community has an obligation to the elderly who have spent their lives in the comnun- ity and,who have contributed to all; the project will not be detrimental to the community and will not be an incon- venience to Costa Mesa citizens. Walter Miller, 275 East 18th Street, Apartment 37, Costa Mesa, supported the project and related the plight of an elderly friend living in a small room for which he must Pay a rental of $300,00 per month. Anna Shereshevsky, 2152 Elden Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated that there should be no objecttions to caring for the elderly and the handicapped, and there was a need for this type of development based on the waiting list which exists at the Casa Bella Senior Citizens Apartments. Gigi Nordquist, 974 Modjeska Circle, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the project because of the need that exists for senior citizens housing. Vice Mayor Hall asked if any communications had been received opposing the project, and the City Clerk responded that there were none. Bob Yoder, 155 Buoy Street, Costa Mesa,. voiced his objection to the proposed project and submitted for the record the following communications in opposition to the development: a petition containing 52 signatures, a letter from Alyce H. McCardle, '1997 Fullerton Avenue, Costa Mesa, and Roy R. McCardle, 273 East 21st Street, Costa Mesa. Mr. Yoder stated t he is not against elderly, however, he twas concerned homes with the qualityoflife on the eastside, and suggested the City purchase subject site for a park. He based his objection to the - the project for the following reasons: traffic. increase , on Bay Street and Orange Avenue which are already heav- ily traveled, lack of sidewalks; density too high for the neighborhood; insufficient parking; and project is i not easily accessible to stores and reasonably -priced restaurants. Mr. Yoder proposed that the Church dedi- cate subject site to the City for a one -acre park, and In return the City allow the project to be built on City property across from Lions Park, within the Redevelup- ^� ment Area. Linda Young, 252 Sierks Street, Costa Mesa, opposed the traffic. stating suggested t that l since cause there were a twose vacant school sites in the neighborhood, one of those sites _ would be more appropriate for the project. Ms. Young --------- also objected to the three-story design for a portion of the development. 144 ob homas Barr, 218 Sierks Street, strongly objected to any three-story structures in the neighborhood. Albert Ogden, 2066 Orange Avenue, and James Crilly, 184 East Bay Street, stated that they agreed with the '- objections presented by Mr. Yoder. Keith Hall, 1958 Fullerton Avenue, Costa Mesa, opposed three-story development. i Fran Albers, 2012 Orange Avenue, owner of four RI lots in the area, voiced opposition to any other zoning except Rl. Eileen White, 543 West 'Wilson Street, Apartment C-1, Costa Mesa, former resident at 184 East Bay Street, Opposed the project because as a child a Church official promised that the children could play on that property. Stanley Brawn, 308 Robinhood Lane, Costa Mesa, stated that he did not know if he was for or against the project, however, since residents moved into the area with Rl zoning, this should be an overriding considera- tion in making a decision. Reinhold Klein again spoke to clarify issues that had been addressed. He stated that three sides on Day Street are higher density than Rl. As to the three- story structure, it will be located from 175 feet to 200 feet from Say Street and only 7 of the 36 units will be in the three-story structure. Mr. Klein responded to a suggestion made by Mr. Yoder that the project be transferred to another site, stating that this is not permitted by HUD. He also suggested that the two vacant school sites in the area would be more appropriate locations for parklands. Mr. Klein reiter- ated that the height of the proposed project does not exceed 30 feet. Mr. Yoder disagreed with Mr. Klein's statement concern- ing present zoning in the area, and expressed his doubt regarding Mr. Klein's statement that the project could not be transferred to another site. Mr, Yoder also stated that if the higher density is approved, it will set a precedent to allow higher density for other properties in the area, There being no other speakers, Vice Mayor Hall asked for Council comments. Councilman Johnson commented that both the applicant and the residents had valid arguments and it would be difficult to reach a decision. In view of this, he asked that this item be continued for further study. Councilman McFarland expressed appreciation for the input from the residents and their concerns, however, he stated his opinion that in view of the present housing shortage, it is imperative to allow higher densities. Referring to the concerns of the residents regarding traffic, Councilman McFarland stated that Rl development would generate more traffic than the proposed project. He further stated that the need for this type of housing cannot be questioned, that he felt it was an excellent project with an excellent location, and that since Council has dealt with the request for over two years, there was no reason to delay a decision. Councilwoman Hertzog comnented that everyone a:- -ees that senior citizens housing is needed but not �n their own neighborhood. She also voiced her opinion 50 that traffic would not be significantly increased, the 30-foot height would blend in with the surrounding area, and that although changes are difficult to must be made to alleviate the accept, they present housing shortage, Vice Mayor ball asked the Director of Public Services for an estimate of additional traffic generated by Rl zoning, family units, and the proposed zoning for senior citizens housing. It was concluded that assuming all residents of the proposed project drove automobiles, increase in traffic would be approximately the same for all three uses, Vice Mayor Hall addressed Mr. Yoder's recommendation that the din that prioritiestee must be considered,devloped aand itrWould sbe ntoo9 costly to develop the site for park use. The Vice Mayor also alluded to the concern over increased voiced his opinion that heavy itraffic, and ncrease in traffic throughout the City is inevitable. Referencing R1 zon- ing, Vice Mayor Hall stated that it is very difficult be retain this designation, that higher densities must be allowed in order to alleviate the shortage of hous- ing. As to parking, the Vice Mayor reported that the parking situation will be review required. ed in six months in order to determine if more parking spaces will be MOTION Ordinance 79-32 On motion b y Councilman McFarland, Adopted woman Hertzog the seconded by CoUnCil- the Negati Impact was adopve Declaration of Environmental , and Ordinance 79-32, being AN ORDI- NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, GFIANGING THE ZONING OF A ---,.. NEWPORT MESA TRACT, PORTION OF LOT 901, FROM III TO PDR-HD, was given second reading and adopted by the following roll call AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Hertzog, vote; NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS; McFarland Johnson ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Schafer Responding to Vice Mayor Hall-s question regarding the variances, the Development Services Director reported that the zone .exception and two variances are under consideration at this time, the variances being for setback on Bay Street, and reduction in MOTION total parking. ZE-82-88 Approved On motion b y Councilman McFarland, seconded by Council - woman Hertzog, the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was adopted, and Zone Exception ZE-82-88 was approved based on the analysis and findings contained in the Planning Staff Report, and subject to all condi- tions also _contained in the Staff Report. - •� } vice Mayor Mall asked if the applicant jf agreed to atl conditions, and the Reverend Nordquist replied he had ead the condition= and�agreedTtQ,-.a7.,1-,a.f...11Tem. __ The motion to approve the zone exception carried3-1,~ Councilman Johnson voting no. RECESS Vice Mayor Hall declared a recess at 8:55 meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. and the WARRANTS p.m. MOTION On motion b Hertzog, seconded by Council - man McFarland, Warrlwomanant tJarrant Resolution Warrant 1184 1184, including Payroll 8214, was approved by the fell wing roll Approved call AYES: COUNCIL ,MEMBERS: Hall, Hertzog , NOES: OLINCIL MEMBERS: McFarland, Johnson ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Schafer / / -/. b` '�'.., OLD BUSINESS; (Continued) .. - - .� - ZE-82-79 Approval was based on ftrdings that -would lead (Continwd) approval not to precedent setting inasnuch as the trailers are tonally non -visible from the street. and appear to be aL'mst a part Of an older nmbile home park adjacent. to subject property. The Comniss Lon felt there was sufficient. justification to grant use of the trailers due to the unique situation and circlumstances that exist. ' Mr. Davenport stated that he. had voted against the mxption because he felt the applicant was remiss in not disclosing previwsly the charitable nature of his involvement in the Immunity. Mr. Davenport felt. that Staff findings were valid and he had difficulty in approving the Conditional Use. Permit. Zone Exception The CCMission MnsidnrPA the public hearing continued from Permit ZE-82-81 the me ting of June U , 1982, for Zone Exception permit. Dave Lavin/ ZE-82-01, for Cave Lavin, authorized agent for Tar¢pin Sharon, Temple Sharon 617 Hamilton Street, for a Conditional Usn Aennit, to allow a school in an ex Lst.Lng building currently occupied by Teanple Sharon, located at the above address, in an R2 zone. Environmental De term ir,at.tpn: Exrampt. Planning Staff racas, -n3ed approval, subject to conditions. Mr. Dave Lavin, repcesentiml the applicant„ stated he. had received a copy of the Staff Report and was in agreem nt with the conditions contained tierp.Ln. Mr. Sloate asked various questions concerning proposed use of the. tmple. There being m one else wishhg to speak on this item, the, Chainilan closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Ms. Sawyer -Watson, secon3ed by Mr. Clarke, Approved and carried 5-0, that Zone Exception Darn Lt 2E-02-01 be ^^,roved, based on the analysis and findings and subject. to the conditions contained is the Planning Division Staff Report. Zone Exception The Commission considerd the public hearing continued from Permit ZZ-82-88 the nmeting of June 28, 1932, for Zone Exception per nitr. Reverend Conral A. ZE-82-88, for Reverend Conrad A. Nordyutst, authorized Nordquist/Bishop agent for the. Bishop of the Protestant b� (-copal Gmrch, of Protestant. 1220 West Fourth Street, Los Angeles, for variances from Episcopal Church parking rn:qulre .nts including reduction in total parklnr3, parking in a street setback, and inadwluate turn -around area, in conjunction with a Planned M:veloFapunt Pry Law for a 06-unit senior citizens' Musing project in conjunct Lon with an existing church located at 183 East Bay street„ in an R1 zone. (Rezone, to PDR-HD pending.) Environmm-ital Determination; Negative Declaration for GP-79-3A. Planning Staff recomnenled that this appltcati.on be rec n- mended tv the City Council for approval, subject, to dt_ t ions. _ 13:vererd COnral Nonlqu Lstr representi-ng the appl.icant, stated he had received a copy of the Staff Report and was in agree- ment with the conditions contained therein. Rxvnrervd Nord- qutsr. explained this. the plans had been maiifted two relocate one unit to resolve. the Problem of turn -around area on -sire. He felt the projeet was now ready for construction. Mr. fbbert Yoder, 155 Buoy Street, informed the cc ntssl.on he had a petition with approximately 36 signatures of resi- dents opposed to the planned develoixnant of the subject property. Mr. Yoder further stated that the project did not conply with the 30-faon, two-story height limitation ard'was OLD BUSINESS: (Continued) 2E-82-82 three stories in some arras. Mr, Yoder also felt the planned (Continued) parking was too far away from the. units; he. rhovght the units Were bein3 jammed in and would not serve the ixs r. interests the neighborhood as a whole, Ms. Su —rlin informer] tilt. Crn ission that a Planned Cevel- ognent does not have a height, limitation, Mr. Valantine stated that at the previous public hearine the Staff remrinandation was for denial; however, since that t im= significant improvements have W.en made to the On site parking and traffic circulation for the project, which was the reason for the change in the Staff re m-ne rdar. i.on.. Mr. Yoder asked further questions conceming the lack of garages for rile units, and noted that the propexty is still zoned Rl. Mr, valantine informed the Commission that the, Re2one Ordinance had received first hearing by the City Council; the second reading and adoarion of the Ordinance are still ixndierg and Would be hear;] in conjunction with the City Counc]1 hearing of the planned Developmmnt. Mr, yoder sta rd he would present his petition tO the City Council at char, time Some dlscuss].cn of the parking facilities follo J. Mr, p-art Olden, 2056 Orange Avenue, asked questions con- cernin3 the institutional -looking elevations of the build- -ngs• Mr. Davenport stated that the COMission had been concerned with [his issue due to the fact the drawings orl- gina..ly did net sP.ow any derailed elevations, However, since that tine the appl leant ha] pmvuin] drawings that relieved the Cgmniss ion's ad Staif's concerns in this resttect. Mr, Davenport asked the architect. who was in attendance to show the concerned t�aabnrs of the pijblic rha drawings which depict the t.,hree-d );�,�ional design of the buildings. Mr. W. F. Albers, 2012 Orange Avenue, stated that he odes several properties in the area and had recently constructed a new hos .. lie noted that a nw Ce.r of rpstrict7.om had been placed on his project and objected to the Eact that the sub- jecr project had progressed this Ear with the neighbors being unaware of what is really going on, Ms, daanie Murphy, 190 East Day Street, stated that. she lives directly across the stretet fron the church, She was not opposed to senior cit.izpns' housing but was oir,xvsed to sub -standard housing which she felt the project will pro- duce due to insufficient parking. Ms. Murphv further stated there are traffic probinns in the area and 1pss traffic was needed —not more. Mr. Reinhold Klein, representing the applicant, gave an in formative explanation of "his years spent in planning housing for senior m nbers of the mmnuniry. He infoaixed the COmnission that the higher structures will be locate] closer to the church, with no-st.Jrl structures located closer to the residential ne Lghbors. Mr. Klni.n also des_ rss idrnrsptUsu design of the pro jecr, arc] urged the neighboring Lrt this plan for senior cit).zens' housing, •—, Mr. Yoder stated that the federal gcvenntm..n. did not have a good track record for providing attractive develolamnts and had Produced saM: very Poor develo,anrnts. He. did mt. Ern ir. was fair to sugy,=s t. rile ] neighbors were q)pOsed to hones for t'ne aged; bcna:ver, Mr, Yoder suggesred there are other 0 U (0 i. 6'l lxar.io s Where the proposed housing Would be. appropriate. OLD BUSINESS: (Continued) ZE-82-88 More dl.scussian follom-d concerning parking for the Casa (Continued) Bella project and the traffic situation in the area of the proposed project. There being reo one else wishing to speak on this item, the Chair, n closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Mr. Van Aken, seconded by Ms. Clarke, and R:canrend Approval carried 5-0, that Zone Exception Permit ZE-82-88 be. recom- mended to the City Council for approval, based on the anal- ysis and fLndings and subject to the coiditions contained in the Planning Division Staff Report. Zone Exception 'Ihe Commission considered the public hearing continued from Permit ZE-82-93 the meeting of June. 28, 1982, for Zone Exception Permit Craig Chamberlain/ ZE-82-93, for Craig Chamberlain, authorized agent for Robert Robert J. Krcr3h J. Krogh, 17781 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, for variances from density, parking and setback requirements to legalize the use of a fiberglass dare as a second dwelling unit, located at 1984 Church Street, in an P2 zone. Environ- mental D:terml.nat.icn: Exempt, Planning Staff reccxmxmded denial and removal of the done structure. within 30 days of Ccomiss ion action. Ms. SmrmrlLn informed the Commission that Condition X3 in the staff Report should be. corrected to show that, CorvItti.ons 414 through $18 must be camleted within thirty (30) days or the structure r,aroved (with c1molit.i.on pernit.), Mrs, Ctnr3 Lana 'Aiwc, 1986 Church Avenue, informed the Conmi,ss Lon that the applicant had left the Council Chambers and had tnformrt3 her he had another meeting to attend, 'there was nobody in at,tendanm to represent the applicant in this matter. Chal.man Davenport. asked Mrs. Minor to make any statements stir. wished concern Lny the application. She informed the Commission that she lives next door to the subject property and the. only way for acenss to the. fiberglass clone was via an eascartant.. Although soma pe, pin feel it is an alley, Mrs. Ml.nor stressed that. it is sham on her deed as a 7-1/2- foot utility easement. She further stated she has a 4-car garage on her property facing the easewtnt. and noted that she frequently has difficulty in getting out of her garage because the tenants of the subject property park on the east nt. Although Mr. Davenport felt the item was a so.�.what contro- versial issue, he. tyought, that as the applicant had left the public hearia3 and would not be. returning, the Ca Ls- sion should take action. 9iere being no one else wLsh Ln3 to speak on this item, the Chairman closed the ix,blic hearing. MOTION It was moved by Mr. Clarke, se. n,3ed by his. Sawyer -Watson and carr Lai 5-0, that the variances Iran parkLrx3 and setback rtx)uirnnrnts to legalize the use of a fiberglass dam as a second dwelll.n3 unit be denim, based on the analysis and flndimJ3 contained in the Planning Division Staff Report Ear Zone Exception Fermat. ZE-82-93. 'the density variance was approved subject to conditions contaireed in the Staff Report with additional corA it.i.ons to read: 21. Applicant, shall di€€i@t the tenant to vacate, the dorm as scan as is legally Wggible under tlie• t,,rms of the lease. 00*J 3 0 Agenda No. ZE-82-88 I• DESCRIPria] -1- �brdquist/EPis.Church A. Subject Property I. Location - ScIth-west Of Orange Avenue and gay Street, and East of Laurie Lane 3. General R1 Plan Designation - High Density Residential one (PDR-HD pending, under Rezone Petition R-79-15) 4. Present )Dec'elcprent - Church, residence, vacant 5. Property Size - 2.01 acres - 6. CEQA Determination - Negative Declaration adopted for General 7. Backgrotrx3 - Plan Almr-daent GP-79-3A a. GP-79-3A areryded the La.rx3 Use LesignatiOn of subject or., from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. b. R-79-15 has had f± st rea?in3 of the Ordinance (79-32). Second ties held u:til Dry approved the project funding and the protect was filed with the City. This rezoning ,ould es Planned Developtahl=sh Development Residential -High Density zoni xl on the Property. 11. SR-4-10 d• surrounding Property - 1' rbrth - Single-fam ly residences, Rl zone. Sout3. East - Multiple -family develoorent, R1 and R2 zO r s. - Day Care Center, single-fam dwellings, RI zone. ily and multiple-fa;ily 4. Piest - Multiple-fa,-uly development, R2 zone. REQUEST` A. Request is for variances fr in total Parki om pared g requirements including reluctinO ng, parking in a street setback, and inadequate turn -around area, in conjunction with a Planned Development Review for a 36-unit Senior Citizens' Project in conjunction with an existing church (St, John the Divine Episcopal Church). g Project lin Proposes a 3 story residential structure containing 36 I -be dwelling units. Project funding will be through the Decrirtnent of H and Urban Develcpnent. The church is and will retain the s project, The casing DePartrnent of Housing and Urban Develop ent, sponsor of the required that a nonprofit corporation be formed to c�,n a ', has Project. The housing Project will occupy a se nrpnage the the church and related facilities will retain pparate 39,622-sq ft. Parcel; C, -s4. ft. parcel. APPlicant has proposed that residents of the horsing facilitybe to utilize the social and recreational facilities of the church on a uled Or as -needed basis to avoid the need for more extensivenmrtted recreational facilities to to sched built as part of the social and hOusirg project. PLANNING DIVISION ��- STAFF REPORT AGE^1D SITE LOCATION 183 East gev gtreet A NO. AP APPLICATION ND. zE-82-88 �_ 4nF-191-T6 MANDATORY ACTION DATE JLiae 4, 1933 APPLICANT 3.15.'IOP Of protestant Epic, L' ,,cll to^^r. ci ae�a.ai AUTHOR[ZED AGENT PeV' C711ra3 A. rAr'dquist ADDRESS 1220 West Fourth Street ADDRESS 20._,., 43 Dra--)ge A%,Mue I.Os Angeles, Ct'i 900�1 +� M sa C- 92627 Applicant is reminded chat all ordinanaez and requtatiorls application governing pertains the s the land or bui[dingfzl to Wlicb this PREPARED BY fled herein or not. tains mvzt be wMPlied with whether sPe6_ REQUEST: Variances frm parking ra nts, incl in a street setback, and inadequate ud'rKJ =eduction in total. pazic_ng Planned DeveloFtrent � g 3�� �osazea, in conjun�on with a�nF junction with an exis tizeas Haas FINAL COMMISSION ACTION: APPLICANT NOTIF1 DA CITYOF COSTA MESA,77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 CMF 0360-30. ", I.®? f714f 754-5245 11. Agenda tb. ZE-82-88 I DESCRIprICt7 -1- �Iord7uist/Epis.Church A. Subject Property 1• location - Scuth-west of Orange Avenue and Bay Street, and 2. General Plan DesignnatonFast Of ttiHelah L�nsi 3• Zone - R1 (PI$t_Hp g ty Residential 4. Presentsel Pending, under Rezone Petition R-79-15) 5. Pr cPrent - Church, residence, vac operty Size - 401 acres ant 6. CDQA Leterrrination - r1egative Declaration adopted for General 7. Background - Plan Anmrtinent GP-79-3A a. ffrom Low a ��ed Resxde�i�eto Hi tion of subject uccoorty b. R-79-15 has had fist rea9i c3h Density Residential. reading was held c:til fF J e r thvede Ordinance (79-32), Second Project was filed with the Ci�o the project funding and the Planned Develo Y• This rezoning would estahlish Property. Arent Residential -High Density zonimi on the B. Surrounding Property - 1, rbrth - Single-fal-nily residences, R1 zone. 2' 3. South - Multiple -family developrent, Rl and R2 zorrQs. Fast - Day Care Center, single-family and 7Ultiple-fa,,dly 4. vies dwellings, RI zone, multiple-faMly develoPent, R2 zone. REQUEST A. Request is for varian �s fromparking in total parking, Parking in astret setb",Icrem is including reduction area, in conjunction with a Planned Devel nd inadequate turn -around Senior Citizens, Project in conjunction with an existing for a 36-unit the Divine Episcopal Church), ng church (St. John Project B• duelling Proposes Pro tOrY residential structure containing 36 1-bedr dolling units. 3 funding will be throe and Urban �lapmant. The church is and will the DePartrnnt of H ool Project. The De remain the s casing z uirc�3 that a Partrrent of Housing and Urban Devel hf1Sve of the non-profit corporation be formed oPrent, hown has Project. The housing Project will occupy to and rang e the the ��� a� related facilities will rye a seForate 39,622-sq. ft. fain a 48,736 Parcel; C. -sq. ft. parcel. Applicant has Proposed that residents of the housing facilit be to utilize the social and recreational facilities of the uled or as-neededY n a sched recreational facilities to s to avoid the need for nore extensive s ,a a sch 3- be built as usnsocial and port of the housir� project. SR-4-10 t1 1 Agenda Fq, 2E-82-88 �- -2 11ordquist/Epis. Church ZZ REQUEST (continued) D• The approved General Plan Amendrre,it and pending rezone were initiated specifically for this project. The shared use of facilities and Special- ized housing provided in the proposed development were cited in the General Plan Report as examples of Planned Developrent features. ZII. ANALYSIS A. Planned D--velcprrxnt Review - 3 1. It is the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance to acccMMdate developments which utilize innovative planning concepts and which meet the broader goals of the General Plan, but which may not with zoning regulations. comply strictly Compliance with the General Plan can be ex- hibitt�3 through excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. ?• The Planned DavelcprFnnt Residential - High Density zone alloys resi- dential developments to be combined with religious, educational, or recreational uses if the City Council finds such uses to be ccnpatible with the residential project. With the shared use of recreational facilities, it appears that the uses in the proposed project will be compatible. Density - a. Permitted: 15.1 to 30.0 units Per acre Proposed: (1) Overall site: 17.9 units e ro parcel: 39 (2) Housing Per acre b. Subject application .56 units per acre wherein c�vel Proposes the concept of a density transfr e thedecprent rights of the church parcel are transferred to housing Parcel. Within an overall Planned Development, this Is an acceptable development tech nique ina mwch as the project is viewed as a whole rather than as separate parcels. c. Applicant is advised that, due to the density transfer, should the church elect to develcgr additional dcelling units on its parcel, the maximum allawable units would be 24. Prior to such development, it would be necessary to amend subject Planned Developrent (if approved) . d. Based on the provisions of the Planned Eevelcpment Ordinance, subject Project is entitled to 15 units per acre (30 units total}• However, 11 sincreed density may be obtained if a project meets �me or all er, specific design criteria. The re{luested density (17.9 omits peof r acre) is warranted based on the project's compliance with the units - ing criteria: (1) Provision of low or moderate ino me housirg, (2) location within one -quarter mile of a public transit ro te. SR-4-10 152 i, III• ANALYSIS (continued) 4. OPen Space - a. Required: 42%- b. Site Coverage: E Building Area (sq.ft.) Paved Vehicular Area (sq.ft) Open Space (sq.ft.) Percent Open Space -3- Provided: 42.76% agenda t1o. M-82_88 tbrdquist/Epis. Churc Housln,g Existirr., Church and Pr_, o,Ze,ct Future E xpansion Total 16,687 14,146 �'%'� 27,292 19,789 ` + 17,991 i 23,286 49.9 36.9 37,780 Traffic Circulation - 42.76 a, The new Parking area for the church will b4 located off Ea. 5 and parking for the housing project will have access fr m Orange Avenue. There will 1 trees Lane. be no access to any Parking area from Laurie b. h does not appear there will be any joint use of Church and the Senior Citizens' housing project. parkin between the C1 v�rnSv' -e c• A card operated au pn taaatic gate is shown at the entrance of } pr Parking. There is only 25 feet of "stac.in the Crang, This limitedstacking gate, sufficient area for only �, g area,' between the w frei /e Avenue. area could create additional traffic congone vehicle estion ° Mn Ora Staff u area be Provided, suggests that a minimum 40-foot deep stac1;ing d. Since the gate is card -actuated, it appears that able to utilize .this Pxarking area. T}ws it will a Parking gu_�ts would ld not be the church agreement allowing visitors Of the senior citizens to record churtil lot. Park on 6. Building Height and Design - a• The Planned Development Ordinance does not i ¢ose a height limit but rather. requires that the design of the building Comply with the of the Ordinance, b. Details are not available on the intent facilities. Thus, a final developsign and height of the jest will need to he s Pm nt plan for that future church c. The residential buildiUbMItted Sedately. port; of the pro_ stem of the "T" ng colnf guration is approximatel a The intent containing 2 stories and the to y .L„ with the on arijacent residenis tial is to nunzz the p containing 3 stories. The 2 sto facts of the structure d. 2--story roofline haspa 4lesof2t e Sou�nches, line a Maximum ft. 6 inch Des high, and other portions of the to a maximum height the 3-story roof_ e. From the submitted Plans6 feet. building extend box -like and institutional. he Pressed residential structure a other "relief" The exterior is stucco apparently appears f. The strict materials. The roof is flat. with.t Minding development also ap ears massive, especially in relation to the s has a widthf 185 Parallel to Bay Street, the residential structure of 185 feet, Parallel to Laurie urr imately 150 feet. Lane, the lee gth is approx- SR-4-10 Agenda No. ZE-82-88 tbrdquist/Epis. chu.:ch III. ANALYST-S (continued) g. The structure does not appear to be particularly compatible with surrounding development. 7. Perireter fencing - a. There are no specific fencing requirements in the Planned Develop-- ment,Ordinance for residential developments. This Ordinance does require that "Each planned developmnt shall provide reasonable visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units" and that fencing "shall be used as appropriate for the aesthetic enhancement of (the) property." b. This application proposes 6-foot high chain -link fencing between the housing and church parcels, and between the housing parcel and the adjacent residential properties. (1) Staff suggests that chain -link, fencing will not enhance the Property nor will it protect the privacy of the residents of either the housing project or adjacent properties. (2) The chain -link fencing between the church arxi housing portions Of the project may create a "fish bawl" effect for the resi- dents of the housing project. Additionally, several of the residential units are located opposite the church parking and could be adversely impacted by the church and day school traffic without more substantial fencing. C. In keeping with the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance, Staff is reconnending installation of 6-foot high wood fencing on interior prcperty lines. d. A separate section of City Code regulates fencing within street setbacks and prohibits fencing in excess of 30 inches in height within 10 feet of the street property lines. A 3 ft. 6-inch con- crete block wall is shown on the housing parcel within 3 feet of the ultimate property line on Laurie Tane. It will be necessary to reduce this wall to 30 inches in height or to obtain a separate variance. Additionally, it appears that there is an 8-ft. high entry gate connected to this law wall. An 8-ft. high gate would only be permitted 25 feet behind the property line. 8. Dedication of Land - The Engineering Division is requiring additional right-of-way dedica- tion on Laurie Lane area at corners of the property. On the submitted plans, this dedication is shown on the housing parcel but not on the church parcel. Applicant is advised that development standards, in- cluding density and open soace, are based on net larx3 area after dedi- cation. Thus, at such tine as the church parcel is developed, open space and overall density, etc., will be reevaluated based on total net parcel size. SR-4-10 M7= III. ANALYSIS (continued) B. Variance: Arount of Parking Agenda tio. ZE-82-88 - Nbrdquist/Epis.Church 1. Plans have not been submitted showing the floor plan and seating arrangement of the existing or proposed church. Hodever, the project architect indicates that the existing facility contains pew seating for 132 persons. Based on this information, the proposed 44 parking spaces would be adequate for the church (1 space for each 3 fixed seats within the main auditorium or assertbly area). Staff requests that two dies of a detailed floor plan of the existing facilities be submitted for Fire and Planning Division records and also to verify the parkirg requiremmnt. 2. The existing parking for the church is 69 spaces. Staff has received calls from surrounding property owners indicating that currently there is sign parking congestion during church services. 3. 20 parking spaces are provided for the housing parcel. 58 are required by Code. This represents a 65.5% reduction in required parking. -(Ratio =,4..56 4pace provided per unit). 4. The basis for this reduction is ar, as that elderly people do not have as many vehicles as the,ger.r:ral populace. S. The Casa Bella Senior Citizens' Housing Project at 1840 Park Avenue was granted a parking variance in 1977 based on a similar assumption. Additionally, Casa Bella is located within the dcwmtom area and it could also be assumed that the need for cars would, therefore, be reduced. Thus, a 77% reduction in parking was granted (0.37 space provided per unit). Unfortunately, however, there appears to be a decided parking problem at that site. 6. Subject property is not conveniently located to shopping or recrea- tional facilities, thus there may be even a greater need for parking than.at Casa Bella.-- 7. The Police Department indicates that there is already significant off -site parking congestion on the streets surrounding subject prop- erty and suggests that the variance request is unreasonable. C. Variance - Inadquate Turn -around I. Code requires that a turn -around be provided at the end of dead-end parkirx3 aisles in excess of 100 feet in length. An adequate turn- around is not prarided at the end of the Orange Avenue parking lot; thus, if all spaces are occupied, a vehicle would be required to back out onto the street. Such an exit would be difficult due to the auto- matic gate and would be hazardous -due to traffic on Orange Avenue. SR-4-10 Agenda No, ZE-82-88 dbrdquist/Epis.Churcih III. ANALYSIS (continued) 2. There is no hardship warranting the omission of a turn -around. 3- The lack of a turn -around and lack of adequate stacking area at the automatic gate entrance are inconsistent with development standards Of the Planned Development Ordinance which require "smooth traffic flow" and "minimum hazards." D. variance - Parking in Street Setback - 1- For Planned Developrent zoned parcels, Cade requires a 25-foot deep landscaped setback adjacent to ary public right-of-way. 2. Applicant is requesting a variance to provide parking within 5 feet of the Bay Street property line. 3. The property has a unique circumstance inasmuch as it is abutted by streets on three sides. Few properties are faced with this condition. 4. A significant amount of landscaped area will be available on the remain- der of the Bay Street setback. E. Summary - She concept of providing law- to moderate-incane housing for senior citi- zens is both acceptable and desirable, as evidenced by the City's approval Of a General Plan Amendment on subject property to accaTTodate such a pro- ject. It appears that the implementation, however, needs sore modifications before firdings can be made that the project meets the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance, especially with respect to adequacy of parking and traffic circulation. Staff would be reluctant to reccmmnd approval of subject proposal unless at least 50% of the required parking for the housing project were provided aM unless the traffic circulation problers were re- solved. IV. PI-MUNG STAFF FINDINGS A. The project is consistent with a goal of the City's General Plan by pro- viding low- to moderate-inoom housing. B. The combination of uses will be acceptable inasnuch as the church and the residential development should be compatible. C. The proposed shared use of facilities and the proposed density transfer are acceptable functions of a Planned Development. D- Housing parcel parking: 1- The Overall property is large and does not have any inherent site hardships which warrant the proposed reduction in parking for the housing parcel. 2. The parking reduction appears excessive, particularly since subject Property does not have convenient, nearby shcoping and recreational facilities. SR-4-10 Agerda too. ZE-82-88 -7- hbrdquist/Lpis-Church IV. PLrtMMG STAFF FINDITiGS (continued) 3. With respect to Parking and circulation, the project fails to meet the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance that projects exhibit excel- lence in site planning, and the specific requirements that there be snooth traffic floe and minimum harards. E. The appearance of the proposed residential structure is institutional and box -like, with little visual relief. Other low- to nnderate-incorm projects approved by the City have not demonstrated such starkness. F. The proposed variance to allow parking in the Bay Street setback is accep- table due to subject property,s frontage on three streets. V. PLANNING STAFF RECCfM1i2MTION Recamiand denial to the City Council. VI. CONDITIONS, IF APPROVED Shall meet all requirements of various City departrmnts, copy attached hereto. VII. PLANNING CCM-IISSICU ACTIM - MELTING OF JUKE 26, 1982 Continued to July 12, 1982. FOR MEETING OF JULY 12, 1982 VIII. EVAWATICBa A. The applicant met with the Planning Commission at the Study Session of July 6, 1982 and suggested possible rmdifications which appear to resolve the major problems. Plans suing the modifications, however, have not been submitted. B. Traffic Circulation 1. The proposed revisions include modifying the easterly end of the apartment building by removing a one-story end unit and providing one additional third --story unit. This will allow a driveway between the housing project parking and the church parking area which will elimin- ate the need for a "turn -around" and will provide inprowed traffic circulation. 2. The prc:posed automratic gate at the entrance to the Orange Avenue parking area will be deleted, thereby eliminating concerns about ade�luete stack- ing area and traffic congestion on Orange Avenue. C. SR-4-10 ,genda No. ZE-82-68 -8- tbrdquist/Epis. Church VIII. EVALUATICN (Cont.) C. Building Design Apparently, the applicant demonstrated at the Study Session that the building is not as stark as it appears in the submitted elevation draw- ings. D. Parking Variance 1. The modified site plan will allow greater joint use of parking between the church and housing parcels. Should there be a higher demand for tenant and/or guest parking for the apartment project than anticipated by the applicant, it can be accammdated on the church parcel. 2. Staff has included a condition of approval which requires review of the parking six tmnths after completion of the housing project. If, at that time, it is determined that there is a parking problem, provision of additional parking on the church parcel could be required. IX. PLAIT RIG STAFF FINDINGS A. The project is consistent with a goal of the City's General Plan by pro- viding low- :o moderate -income housing. B. The combination of uses will be acceptable inasmuch as the church and the residential develcpnent should be compatible. C. The proposed shared use of facilities and the proposed density transfer are acceptable functions of a Planned Development. D. The joint use of the overall parking between the housing parcel and the church parcel may accommodate the t)eedp of both activities. Should over- all parking be inadequate, additional parking can be provided on the church parcel at a later date. E. The proposed variance to allow parking in the Bay Street setback is accept- able due to subject property's frontage on three streets. X. PLANNING STAFF RECCORENDATIal Recommend approval to the City Council. XI . CONDITIMS, IF APPROVED Shall met all the requirements of the various City Departments, copy attached hereto. Agenda R>. zE-82-88 PEordq ui s t/Epi s . Church -9- MIDITIONS, IF APPROVED (REVISED FUR PLANNING COMMISSIal MEE PS CF .T.ILY 12, 1982) Plan. 1. Prior to issuance of building permits: a. Detailed floor plans (2 cries) of the existing church facilities shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review. b. The new parking area for the church shall be paved and striped in accordance with City standards. c. A trash enclosure shall be provided for the church.parcel. d. The irethud of trash pickup for the housing project is unclear. Details shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. An exterior trash enclosure may be required. 2. Prior to occupancy of the housing project, an agreement shall be appra•ed by the Planning Division and recorded with the County, at,ich allows joint parking between the housing parcel and the church parcel. 3. Six-foot high opaque fencing shall be provided on all interior property lines. Type of fencing shall be approved by the Planning Division. 4. Future development on the church parcel is considered only conceptual at this time. A separate final development plan must be approved prior to any additional development or construction on that portion of the property. 5. Grading and construction can increase the amount of airborne dust in the vicinity of the procKsed development. To control the dust, the developer shall spray and water the construction site under the direction of the Building and Safety Division and all construction vehicles shall be sprayed prior to leaving the site. 6. All on -site utility services (Edison and Telephone) shall be installed underground. 7. Installation of all utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure said installation from view from arty place on or off the property. Said installation shall be in a m miner acceptable to the Public Utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box, and shall be installed in accordance with standard plans and specifications of the City of Costa Mesa. S. Any mechanical eguipment such as air-conditioning caTpressors and duct work shall be screened fran view. 9. The parking for this project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission six aonths after opening of the senior citizen's apartments. If it is determined that there is a parking prcble,.n, provision of additional parking on the church parcel may be required. 10. Revised site plans shall be available for Staff reviRa at least one week prior to City Council action on this natter. Full-size and reduced site plans shall be submitted for City Council review under the direction of the Planning Division. Eng. ' 11. Submit current Title Report. •12. Submit Grading Plan. Leis. 13. Existing trees shall remain. Serv. APPLICANT IS RFMINDED THAT THE FOLLCWIM CaMITIalS ARE R.D3UIRLMEIM OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LLGAL LA45: M Eng. 14. • Construct P.C.C. residential sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standard Drawings at applicant's expense on Orange Avenue, Bay Street and Laurie Lane. Agenda No. 7.E-82-88 hbrdquist/Epis.Church -10- CONDITIONS IF A.PPR= - ORDINANCE RDWIRE`1E'M (Continued) 15. Construct P.C.C. driveway approach per City of Costa Mesa Standard Plans. Location, width and type are subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 16. Any existing drives and/or curb depressions that will not be used shall be removed and replaced with full height curb and sidewalk at applicant's expense. . 17. a. Dedicate all land 25 feet from the centerline of Laurie Lane. b. Dedicate all land for cul-de-sac on Laurie Lane. c. Dedicatc a 3-ft. public utility easement behind existing right-of-way line on Laurie Lane. 18. Fulfill Drainage Ordinance Fee requirements prior to issuance of building permits. Fire 19. Provide for the installation of fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A to be located within 75 feet of travel distance from the front door of each unit. Extinguishers may be of a type rated 2A10BC as these ex- tinguishers a?-e suitable for all types of fires and are less expensive. 20. Provide for approved detectors of products of combustion other than heat to be installed in accordance with the 1973 Edition of the Uniform Build- ing Code. 21. Provide an approved fire alarm system in accordance with Section 13.307 of the Uniform Fire Code - 1976 Edition. Plan. 22. Approval of the Planned Development shall be for a period of one (1) year. Prior to expiration of that time an extension may be requested or the permit will lapse. 23. Any subdivision of the property shall meet all requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and of City Codes. 24. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with City Standards prior to issuance of building permits. 25. Care and maintenance of men space and other common facilities shall be be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Planned Development Ordinance. Both parcels shall be fully landscaped in conjunction with development of the housing project to provide a unified appearance for the overall planned development. 26. A11 fences and required street setbacks shall comply with City Code. 27. A detailed landscape/irrigation plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to: type, size, and location of all plants and trees; type of ground cover; sprinklers; all walls, fences, or barriers; trash enclosures, driveways; parking lots and security lighting; and type, location, and assigrarent of street addresses on property. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to release 28. All landscaped areas shall be separated from paved vehicular areas by 6-inch high continuous Portland cement concrete curbing. 29. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. 30. In compliance with the provisions of the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Sub -chapter 1, Article 4, the applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis of the proposed development, prepared under the supervi- sion of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering. Two copies of said report shall be submitted with the application for building permits. The acoustical analysis shall evaluate existing and projected M -11- CCUDITIOVS, IF APPRWM (continued) Agenda 11ba. ZE-02-88 Nordquist Epis.Church noise levels, noise attenuation measures to be applied, and the noise insula- tion effectiveness of the proposed construction. The person preparing the report shall, under the direction of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, perform an inspection of the project prior to or at the time of the framing inspection to certify that construction techniques comply with recommendations contained within the acoustical analysis, upon completion of the subject structures, field tests may be required under the provisions of Title 25. of utilities. REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOUCHIM SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARE HMEBY FMARDED TO APPLICRZT Sani. 31. Developer will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at Dist. his own expense, meetng the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 32. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, and sewer permit required prior to installation of sewer. Water 33. Applicant is reminded that additional conditions o Dist. imposed by Mass Consolidated Water District and/or SR-4-10 f development may be other serving utilities. SECTION IV Interoffice Memorandum dated May 17, 1984 Regarding the explanation of the Transfer of Development Rights INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM M :. :ram,- • ; r Re: ST. JOHN THE DIVINE SENICFS HCUSIWI EEVELOPWtTr 2031 ORANGE AVENUE/183 EAST BAY STREET Mr. Robert Yoder has alleged several irregularities in the construction of the hous- ing development, block wall, and sidewalk at the referenoai location. The allega- tions and results of Staff investigation are detailed below. 11 R 0 FW-:-4TU9,Vv- S�J 2. 3. Allegation: Insufficient dedication was taken for the sidewalk on the east side of Laurie Lane. Response: The 416" dedication required on the east side of the street equal- izes the two halves at 25' fran centerline, allowing 416" from back of curb to property line on both sides in accordance with City standards. A 3' public utility easenent (P.U.E.) was also\ dedicated behind the new property line. CN Allegation: Block wall was not built in the proper location it should have been set back 3' to 4' behind the property line. Response: The Staff Report and approved plan for - - variance to allow the wall to encroach into the required 10' setback, indicate that the wail would be built 3' to 4' behind the property line, thus behind the P.U.E. Adjacent to the existing church build- ings, the wall was actually constructed 4' behind the back of curb, encroaching 6" into the right-of-way. This pla-es the wall between the sidewalk and the P.U.E. The portion of wall adjacent to the housing project was constructed 7' behind the back of curb. =;though this encroaches 4" into the P.U.E.: there is sufficient rk-xm to construct a standark; width sidewalk. The wall was con- structed without benefit of building permit. In addition, three of six existing trees were rc,mved to accauQm- date the wall. Condition $1 of ZE-84-38 requi n :if the trees "to the greatest extent passible, under directs Ct Plannin Division." Planning Staff was not consulted p 'or their removal. Sidewalk width on the east side of the street is about 6" narrower than on the west side. "a: n • The standard sidewalk detail calls for a 4'4" sidewalk behind tke curb and a 2' separation between the sidewalk and property Lin (to accomodate 2' by 4" forms). The sidewalk on the west sid;Et the street complies with this standard. Due to the encroach of the new well into the right-of-way, the area available fo ide- walk is reduced to 41; 4" less than standard. (The 2" pace .torms is not required as the wall will act as a fo PUBLIC UTILITY EASEi4ENr Allegation: Utility lines were installed under the sidewalk rather than in the P.U.E. becaise of the location of the new wall. Response: According to the contractor, electrical conduit was buried in the area where the sidewalk will be installed. Engineering Division permits are required to install utilities in the right-of-way or P.U.E. to such permits have been obtained. 5. DENSITY Allegation: Density approved for the housing project conflicts with the starr dards of the Zone. OW Section 13-252.1(b) indicates that the density of the residential component of a mixed use development is based an the "portion of the total site area devoted to resi- -dential uses, including required parking, l.anJscaping, open space, and driveways .to._serve_the_residential-eonp�nent." - Response: The project was approved on July 19, 1982, under 2E-82-88. Al- though the Staff Report identified the derity based on the entire site as 18 units per acre, density of the residential portion alone is approximately 40 wits per acre. The Staff Report indicated that the excess density, above the 30 units per acre allowed by the PM -HD acne, was accanplished by transfer of developuent rights from the vacant portion of the church parcel to the residential parcel. this would reduce the number of units which could be cor.- structed on the remainder of the site in the future. In addition, a Condition of Approval was added requiring recordation :f an agreement allowing joint use of parking between the housing parcel and church parcel. The residents of the housing project will also have use of certain church facilities for recreation/meeting roods. This would increase the land area availabl- for calculation of density in Wcordance with C414C Section 13-252.1(b). SECTION V August 4, 2015 City Council Agenda Report Reference pages Parking Lot Temporary lighting for potential Installation of low hedge / shrubs along Reconfiguration / evening hours. Bay Street frontage to shield light and Lighting (night hours) glare from headlights. Fire Department Parking lot reconfiguration allows Submittal of an emergency access plan Access to St. John's vehicle circulation and access to St. to be approved by the Fire Chief Manor John's Manor from the Church parcel. ensuring direct access for emergency fire response/paramedic vehicles to St. John's Manor senior housing complex. Revised Site Plan Residents living across Bay Street expressed a concern with light and glare as a result of the reconfiguration of the parking lot. A condition of approval required construction of a low wall or planting of a hedge along the Bay Street frontage of the parking lot to mitigate this concern. In response, the applicant further revised the site plan to increase the landscaped area along the Bay Street frontage. The parking spaces that faced north were eliminated, reducing the total number of on -site parking from 80 to 70 spaces. As the conceptual landscape play. shows, the additional landscaped area would be planted with drought tolerant shrubs and ornamental plants (Attachment 8). Existing Open Space Area Originally Considered for Future Church Building 19 The church has a large lawn area (approx. 17,000 SF) that faces Orange Avenue that was intended as a future development site. At the time that the City Council approved the neighboring senior housing complex (Zoning Exception Permit ZE-82-88), a Church expansion concept was also granted. The site plan included a complex of buildings in the location of the front lawn area. The new buildings were not constructed and instead the entire front portion of the property was landscaped until more definitive expansion plans would be submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission. Review of City records, including the HCD records of Agreements between the City and St. John Manor, indicates no requirements or conditions of approval mandating the preservation of the front lawn area as open space. Public Correspondence Received to Date A total of 35 form letters have been received in support of the proposed farmers market. The reasons provided in support of the farmers market included support of locally sourced agriculture and the fostering of a sense of community. Eight emails and letters in opposition were submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting. As noted above, the concerns included the appropriateness of the use within the residential neighborhood, noise, litter, items for sale by vendors, increased traffic, sufficiency of parking, and provision of emergency response vehicle access to St. John's Manor. Since the Planning Commission meeting, one phone call and letter were received in opposition to the proposed project reiterating land use compatibility and traffic concerns. All of the public correspondence is included as an attachment. `Appeal/De Nova Hearing 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 On June 12, 2015, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed by Carrie Renfro, a neighboring property owner. The following is a listing of the concerns described in the appeal application: • Concerns with additional traffic and parking. The appellant stated that a traffic study should be conducted for the intersection of E. Bay Street and Orange Avenue. • Farmers market would be an incompatible commercial use in this residentially zoned neighborhood. ANALYSIS The following analysis provides responses to the concerns raised by the appellant. More detailed information is provided in the Planning Commission staff report. • Traffic and pedestrian safety The Transportation Division determined that since the farmers market would take place on Saturday during off-peak hours, the traffic volume is anticipated to be low. The Planning Commission concurred with the information included in the supplemental memorandum dated June 3, 2015 (Attachment 3), and required a traffic study to be completed to determine if a stop sign and cross walk are warranted at the intersection of Orange Avenue and E. Bay Street before the farmers market operations could commence. • On -site Parking The farmers market would take place on Saturdays when no other church activities are being held. Based on a parking ratio of two parking spaces per vendor booth, 30 parking spaces are required. A minimum of 46 on -site customer parking spaces would be provided. As conditioned, parking attendants would be present to direct and guide patrons onto the site and would post temporary signs directing customers to the parking lot. In addition, a condition of approval would require reducing the number of vendors, if parking impacts are experienced. The church is located at the intersection of two collector streets and is readily accessible via alternate modes of transportation, including walking, biking and a transit line. M-17EL " lei; tO 5, y 1, 4"1 I I discretionary review but is subject to the City's development standards and code requirements. Parking Lot Improvements The applicant intends to expand the existing parking lot into the front lawn area. The parking lot would be reconfigured to add 34 more spaces for an overall total of 80 parking spaces. Six existing trees on the front lawn would be removed. As part of the improvements, the freestanding wood sign would also be removed and replaced. The replacement sign will be submitted under a separate permit and is subject to a specific sign provisions in residential zones. The vehicular connection to the St. John's Manor parking lot would be closed but pedestrian access would remain. The parking lot improvements are subject to the City Zoning requirements and development standards. The PDR-HD zone requires a 20-foot minimum, perimeter landscaped setback. As mentioned above, a variance was granted to the church allowing a five-foot setback along Bay Street; the proposal is consistent with the approved setback along that frontage. The emergency preparedness bin would be relocated further to the east and along the south side of the expanded parking area. The container would be screened from view from Orange Avenue by landscaping but would be directly accessible from the parking lot. A new trash enclosure would be constructed near the southeast corner of the property and would also be accessible from the expanded parking lot area. The parking lot expansion will need to meet the minimum landscape requirements; six trees per each parking space are required, with at least half of the trees required to be evergreen. Because of the number of new parking spaces and impervious surface area, a water quality management plan has been submitted for review and approval by the Public Services Department. ANALYSIS Farmers Market The applicant proposes to establish an outdoor farmers market in conjunction with the parking lot expansion. The farmers market would take place on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on a weekly basis. A maximum of 15 vendors would be accommodated on the proposed parking lot expansion area. According to the applicant, the farmers market would support local, independent, and small-scale farmers and artisans selling high quality fruits, vegetables and other products. The Episcopal Church is looking to bring the community and farmers together to promote the value of locally sourced products. Although proceeds will support Costa Mesa based charitable organizations, social services, in terms of providing food or social services for the homeless, will not be provided at the site as part of the farmers market activities. The proposal is a typical outdoor farmers market open to the public and operated by a nonprofit organization. The majority of the goods are farm products, sourced within a specific distance of the site. As a condition of approval, the majority of the booths would -31- Y•Q I AI [a SECTION VI E-Mails from Staff regarding 1) Confirmation of Open Space Requirement 2) Definition of Open Space ASHABI, MIN®O From: fi Subject: GARDEA, ANTONIO Monday, June 08, 2015 10:57 AM ASHABI, MINOO RE: St John the Divine Farmers Market The,two iawn are elped-fulfil l-thgopen space requirement -for the St- John's Manor project. The parcels are considered as one projecEsite in terms ofiallowable density and minimum open space. l A/conceptual approval was granted for eas sio arose Church which jw as not carried out. mbined site complies with the 421 open space requirement , From: ASHABI, MINGO Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 10:21 AM To: GARDEA, ANTONIO Subject: FW: St. John the Divine Farmers Market Please see Claire' email below. For examples of PDR-HD, I only found these two uses. Wyndham Hotel and The Lakes Shopping Center Page 1 of 1 From: "GARDEA, ANTONIO"<antonio.gardea@costamesaca.gov> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 3:37 PM To: Subject: RE: farmers market appeal Carrie, As I mentioned both parcels, St. John's Manor and the Church, are considered one site. The total site area is 88, 358 sf Building and parking areas are 51, 176 sf Open space is 37,183 sf. Here is the zoning definition of open space. Open space. An area that is intended to provide light and air, and is designed for either environmental, scenic or recreational purposes. Open space may include, but is not limited to, lawns, decorative planting, walkways, active and passive recreational areas, playgrounds, fountains, swimming pools, wooded areas; first floor decks; unenclosed patios with solid or lattice roofs; water courses; and surfaces covered by not more than 5 feet in depth by projections which are at least 8 feet above grade. Open space shall not include the following: driveways; parking lots; other surfaces designed or intended for vehicular travel; and upper floor decks, balconies or areas under projections which are less than 8 feet above grade. From: Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 3:01 PM To: GARDEA, ANTONIO<antonio.gardea@costamesaca.gov> Subject: farmers market appeal Hi, Carrie Renfro here. Can you please give me a specific breakdown of square footage for how you are calculating the open space for the farmer's market? • 172 o* SECTION VII Photos: 1) Manor Resident Parking Lot 2) Newport Blvd. at Bay Street 13 0 SECTION VIII Costa Mesa Bicycle Map And Safety Guide is r Civic _ + Center Get Mar h Park yaeglaai Pl //; - /f Community Garden 6 Van a<; ; guard : ' 4%. Costa Mesa Tdae R1 University / e Pi 4eAent Ra \aAi i i / 9�db ie + '04 44 BICYCLE MAP = o55 AND i '%' F z` y 141 SAFETYGUIDE v DF/d O r[tOrlay/ / \�0 6 Qp t� f d Xanitee it z e � % / a +f/Lindbergh 9jd+�P Park p Hamilton Community em we f a'c 1J�rCD Garden W Bay St _ WBay St aas\ ' // oa as, <//, ZZ+ vaa9 I Core St f Terkslin St W 20tk St Seal St - as .. / q f9°`% f/P"+ as� S s Ross Stsis e Fail Rd N f + n Bo Sort St a Reined St 4 Berna rd s d Read St a DMV 11ealytn / i / ��a `\`oe i�\ yam 9afd�+ae le 191A St O Jordan nior Center Costa Mesa TriangWi / e rp B�fi'+F Park Plower St Courtyards S u / Go 71 Center St Q 9 JS Enter St �p{�, dfi Beale Dr \' • a e Lions Park e ar Janes St Park Or o pa fo P/ SAalimar Dr 110p4 Terninalwy / `s, ti� P 3a P'® '/dam Q0 E IYtk St a o�P/! `soa- Oda+s used Sl oil p Dkws WY / Harper Waetaersof Park �; e� 4ddP i� -r�C' /e / /Q®iJ,l.. /+,d Pmkley �...� faG io ✓66+ '!•/. --r LEGEND / f a e / Oy/ �' :c 12 / FaP+e aq% 6/d'°i Multi -Purpose rt Trail Bike Lane �aDaa a Signed Bike Route Hi�c Volumes 4w. I , SECTION IX Costa Mesa Code Enforcement Brochure regarding Garage Sales w L. © rs N U �. cy "CS q 4•- C O O D] N ° Q il➢ i3 d p C y Cry L tW C C. as Ve a CL °0 o o � tpg wp � Z3 q 4 M CS u_ • Q a) • aui O N O E 'v) O p E q RS va G v q Z v ° 0 p o C R "0 to w 6 v O q 0.2 E iet aa)) N c q i7 47 N O C 0 t/f t7 i GD q n N C Q 4g — 4i °) zs q a E` L 'C ffi O CL L is Q) Q7 Q Ln v �L4 Gs n) 0 W u 0 q) O O � .- (D N z q " E w 3 E to 0 Q ,N L •N N L tJ CD O O -0� O _0 -CS a 6 Q) a L C p sz .a °' » N 3 a c LY C v O N © O N N .D) " O Q C N N U b p -0 O O j O O� a)r N 0 C mS > O" U O s v o a °) N n c Cr Cw c rZ Q) L C O>,O .0 6 C 0 Sv C O a) N a OU }6CS 'C •6 •s O O N E tpU Q 0 •" O a S N N E S L C O C a- C 0 Cn r E +C O' .Uo0)a°n O _ L S 41 O C S O N U � Q. � a oa'o o' m) o C x S p U '.S) S p O ' N D 11 0 ,--mmn�nonom�n h N00400 S7Nt} n h; *7 O� "t nm h.`Dn f nho '+# �'Y V eF 4-i 0� V' �1' .� O � n nhnnhp.hlTn1\ � m en tl7 N 'w ti y© ors i.. 4:. o Q p �'. V1 E .i CN P10 d c m S a O Y V p w c H w .°�. h ''�" O a Ln N 07 N �. � 'y S C C •O ,E- d , V4 W CLt h oU -MCN om �'a C n� un q o c E c =a '9 m G N 0 t N cv a, �S v a o ¢ a 0 0 �b o oc`N` 5--o-°-' E c d U ww,, 0 2^oVI rn w O O 'c'5 ou °� a o a E <CmUCJ(�c°�v°,�`t=t`Ni c ?. N ate- C A N U t i a O a Ltiz- C a U N E 3 p p p p a c c- E pa 0 E w c-a > 01 p 0 E$ o® i LL E U> p.S a v � o O LDa a _0 G o E = Q E C W C3 d' cs a � U � s° a 0-i S h E v T m w m s asp ° EID a N* o Oo y �c c o > > 0) rn'a)U h o rn co Lu C:". u c ®C p aR _> mH N N �a a c F D w p E p0)a o p4a e 1 p A ,ao Q u o o as .: •Qi JJ 4.1 4.3 ''� v Q '1' U C. la tL G) Q! N La a% a7 p .-r w -0 op'w .0 vajuaCa.c mac >>ar�+,a oo_ > wH 'wnAm�'v,i ar m as ��awcC. .� 4%m O w O6 4'O G N•H U w cv tj W-4 d u 44 � Qw: Id w Di iU i!i3 U L �a 41 Vim+ U 41 w;Co c:w af3 A. o rn vc b..o� io, d-Dm 44 a " V CN+ 0 ~ NC O C6 L as ap . Ir ii u s ay 'tAQU 41 Q o �Vi Id140 x+ .-t tq aE p .a a ;1, r • Q O f! tJY o i s,t9 . �+ tr'�.► �e ,tn a+ of , . _ 175 ja-4 . 40 vj 6 i*q -,ilf 4i fj: CL 0 Oy In 40 C6 M-AN JX 406 A S fa cm Off Ti 4 •0 C4 It C4 Ad- a JL L 3, PH-3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MEJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Farmer's Market SUPPORT ---Original Message ----- From., Taylor Dunn [mailto:tjdunn23@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 1:38 PM To: stephen.mensinger@costamesaca.gov Subject: Farmer's Market SUPPORT Hello Mr. Mensinger, I'm a 15 year resident here on the east side (Santo Tomas avenue). O I just wanted to let you know that I support the east side farmer's market proposed by Philip DeVaul of St. John the Divine. I'm not a parishioner but I support the work the church does and I really want this Farmer's market! Unfortunately I don't think I can make it to the city council meeting tonight, I have a friend in need O Thank you so much for your time. Taylor Dunn Sent from my iPhone PH - 3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum TO: CLAIRE FLYNN, AICP, ASST. DEV. SVS. DIRECTOR FROM: ANTONIO GARDEA, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JUNE 30, 2015 SUBJECT: ST. JOHN THE DIVINE (183 E. BAY STREET) & ST. JOHN MANOR (2031 ORANGE AVENUE) ENTITLEMENTS The purpose of this memo is provide a summary of the entitlements related to the St. John the Divine Episcopal Church and St. John Manor Senior Housing Development, highlighting the conditions of approval. 1. Variance Application #134: On July 18, 1955, the City Council approved the construction of the church. The approval was granted subject to conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission at the July 11, 1955 public hearing. The conditions of approval required the following: a. Adequate parking, blacktopped and marked. (78 parking spaces provided) b. A 50-foot setback from the centerline of Orange Avenue — 20-foot building setback from the property line. c. A 40-foot setback from the north property line for proposed street purposes (Bay Street) — 10-foot building setback from property line after street dedication. 2. Zoning Exception ZE-78-188: On October 14, 1985, the Planning Commission approved a reactivation of the permit allowing the day-care center. The conditions of approval limited the number of children (50 max.) and hours of operation (7 a.m. to 6 p.m.). 3. General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A / Rezone R-79-15: On November 5, 1979, the City Council approved an amendment of the General Plan designation for the properties at 183 E. Bay Street and 2043 Orange Avenue from Low Density Residential to Planned Development Residential High Density. On July 19, 1982, the City Council changed the zoning of the subject property from R1 (Single Family Residential District) to PDR-HD (Planned Development Residential High Density). These changes were granted in conjunction with consideration of the Planning Application for the 36-unit senior housing project. Although a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre was allowed, the overall density of the project is 18 dwelling units per acre. Zoning Exception ZE-82-88: On July 19, 1982, the City Council approved the Planned Development Review for the 36-unit senior housing project and the correlated parking variances. The staff report outlined the PDR-HD development standards applicable at the time, including the requirement for a minimum of 42 percent of the site area to be provided as open space. The report notes that the senior residents could use the social and recreational facilities at the Church including the parish hall and other ancillary rooms to avoid having these built as part of the senior housing project. The conditions of approval required the following: a. Submittal of detailed floor plans for the church. (Cond. #1) b. Future development on the church parcel is considered only conceptual at this time. A separate final development plan must be approved prior to any additional development or construction on that portion of the property.' (Cond. #4) c. Review of parking plan and provision of parking on the church parcel if necessary. (Cond. #9) d. Provision of consistent landscaping for both the church and senior housing parcels. (Cond. #25) The approved conceptual site plan shows a new complex of buildings on the front portion of the site abutting Orange Avenue. The new sanctuary with 134 seats, chapel and administrative offices as well as a new 'education' building. No dimension is provided, but the buildings appear to be setback 20 feet from the property line along Orange Avenue. The applicant did not proceed with the development of the new church buildings. Instead, a decision was made to design and landscape the entire front portion of the property until expansion plans would be brought back to the Planning Commission for consideration. The City Council meeting minutes describe a suggestion by Mr. Bob Yoder that the housing project site be dedicated as a park and in return that the housing project be constructed on City property across from Lions Park. Vice Mayor Hall addressed the recommendation stating that the site would be too costly to develop for park use. On January 18, 1984, Rev. Nordquist requested a waiver of the park fees, which was denied. 4. Zoning Exception ZE-84-122: On June 25, 1984, the Planning Commission approved abandonment of six inches of public right-of-way along Laurie Lane and a variance to setback requirements to legalize an existing block wall. The conditions of approval required the following: a. Planting of trees and vines along the inside of the wall. b. Revision of the landscape plans for the housing project. City records indicate that none of the entitlements included any condition of approval requiring the front lawn area to be preserved as open space in perpetuity. Attachments: Email from J. Reeves RE: St. John's Manor CD of Microfiche Files: 1. Variance Application #134 2. Zoning Exception ZE-78-188 3. General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A 4. Zoning Exception ZE-82-88 5. Zoning Exception ZE-84-122 GARDEA, ANTONIO Subject: FW: Senior Seating Area on the property of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church From: REEVES, JACQU I E Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 9:30 AM To: FLYNN, CLAIRE Cc: BOUWENS-KILLEEN, WILLA Subject: Senior Seating Area on the property of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church Good Morning, A review of HCD records revealed that neither the Regulatory or the Affordable Housing and Home Investment Partnership Agreements between the City and St John Manor have any requirement related to maintaining a grassy knoll seating area for seniors on the property of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church, Costa Mesa, CA. Jacqueline Y. Reeves Management Analyst Housing and Community Development 714-754-4870(Phone) 714-754-4913 (Fax) Jacqu ie. reeves@ costamesaca.aov • I A. C. SMOU ir CLak 1 Its at iholl v m A&* sdk*4 to Un vmmwmiw. • ommum vma duiaiiiiXm sub A ml* Mv imm MA a 100 odbm* ft� Tvw uvz yaws" 3 M-FIRROM ki v a TY Of COSTA MES( -txI $25.00 AppUcAtion mmt be aTih- nAc,ted in qudMlicate. TO M CM nwum COM Xws CALITAVONTA9 I*Li LS%A "W"W" ft . 0 wt,p X,A,00 h 616 5G.Figueroe, St. %�WkMMKOG A, Qvr!M Fhone Number To erw% Churoh p oper" major ehw2gh vuhuct- 04w-v /j- 7 'e. 0,09Y -r?- ATTACH t(3) plans (whi h 7 !*reof) on the subject property, G Lye leg%l daipeript t,-ln pertly T ; too I Lhy,, please att=h,) give stvvet addrew of premises nr claarly to enable proMrty to be readily J4w*AJW ir. ue Ii =_'04 Mk*M UM AI*-% GVWD of se 0 Jt.AIMD U$ * I n Charles PrIn 1CAI reod.ver 5,1993 ;�rcqwt-v 1-4 IM--sed by applJe&ftt_-4R_ Pry use of property;-_V,*0A.AJ,- Property alAssi.Md as 1 -- R-4— State havundler in whnt m,%*ct! to �1,,-Ls pz-actical difficulty, un- =MwwswT b&rfthips,, or thf� -&-mral purpose and intmit. regUl& of the land U3e Ordimnee $Z --U Of :Lta tiorot BirICL &I I.Q5 hxaw'su Cc- tf;",91 5, 1 AVAICH throp (3) r1lr:(wdmt 7. lwv4!�of) on the subjert prejxwty. Ave 1.1 de3eriPtiv, C7�-nrt Y 1, T'. '-11, . ,Ahy' please attach') 099f 7T--� . rive etreet address of .-,r clearlyr to enable rmopert7 to-) be readily IdentAl'Amd in tL,-UR2n 11210ta.% _.. Lit.. ?A..sue. A - — v ggIlasivii iz or Or S 01*2a- -&=@DtIV9 4 re L"'Y gang -Gig" 2 SUL Obarles Prinslow :N161"s in dd rood.Xay 5,1993 1� C)r ImAed IYy applieenti—M -- - Present use of propaty;.—TwOM State I'Awetaidw in Wint mv.*(A° , -,v, to ,,c practUal difficulty, tan® hLrdships, or Y.-es- 'oj.j' s t.rw .'xm!Y 1 ,1 i-v, ;wwal purpose and Intaft of the I&M Use Orftuwe 3"MC It Of its 'reffMUt:10nsi applismat G his AuthmizedA I 'j 6 N4 a . STO k 2 } J k i « � k � � 2 � � � § § � � & § ■ a PROM T"z z3froa; OF r"s PLAMN1ND COMMI9111IMN P. O. ■I]% all V a i�i cap !I 0 01TA M 1_i 9 frl id CALIFORNIA July 14' 1]�!, The Hor;orabl� a .tY Cownc 7:' City of Costa 4e3aa Costa Mesa, W lfom .:a I?,- llarianco ipr1i''a'..''_on ;. 1. is Pal Gentlemen: emen: it is Inat 4h- %tv Council "r%'.il"t' 't11e? c3t}'`V'e? z3 ;7? 2CatS ': J or tie co it.rlac'tion of a e—dre'- .1.. property located bet, irs ?sth an; ... Str rA on on the condition that, in the forthr,unin; plot l'+a n I., suhmitted by the a^L:licztnt,-toerl'.1ate par:c?n, space:, b1-.21r.-to-.- '.-d and marked, be provided and t'iat .:,1.10-prance be :naoic for a �()r setback from the centerline of Ora.r,r?e Avenue and -3 l:01 setb c.',c from the north property lire for proposed street al cc: Building Dept. ??e:'&Pectfully submitte:a, COSTA ;AMA PLANNING CI,AIS:'Tal l ter Weizrier, Chair:,. : i Sybil lewis, Secretary 9 rusMaws oorwn�ow C aTT COW 00"A Mm= CALIrOOtN1A 12 July 19�6 TCs FOR: FROM4 LOU PION s ZONK: iEt�`-195?s COMIZSSION ACTION s WLA: sat cc — Bldg. Dept. CITY OF CUJ `A MESA C43aTA MESA, CALIFOrdUA Plot +Uan for St. John the Pivine Prorestant Episcopal Church William C. Yisher, Onairman, building Comn^titi.ee 2603 isewport Blvd., NewDort Baacn, Calif. Lot No. 222 on Orange avenue, berx-:�ern 24th Street and 21 Street R4 Plot Plan for St. John tree Divine exotastant Episco c h - Variance No. 134 approved July9 Recommended that the plot plan be accepted granting ttie applicant a delay in paving* the parking area until b-months after completion of the first unit provided the driveway leadinf=, from Grange Avenue to t--e parking i area is paved; or, in the ev-ant that 4n371e complavnu are received within the six months' peri , that the applicant be rewired to pave and mark said narking areae is its Rat Y' William PbLining Teckmician im F7 REALTORS - INSURANCE 2603 NEWPORT BOULEVARD a NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFC)RNIA PH13NE HAROOR 44:!9 July 3. 19ia6 Planning Oommicsion, City of Costa ilies&, costaeaa, Calif. tart , tleaan: Re - Varianee '.- "� in accordance with the terms of the variance, ftj- described on the attached sheet, ae approved by tria City Cour.ail July 18, 1955, we are sub- mitting for your a-pTroval the plot plan of proposed conatruoticn s:owing aca-pliance with *at -back and parKing requirevente. Yours truly, C ha. r t: an Building Comittee St. John the Dlyine Protestant Episcopal Chureh IICFIU ONE GOOD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT MAY EQUAL A LiFIETI(ME OF HARD WORK Is] t 13loI *mom Gmvm� Fp.,sm^�ar.ew�ers�R PROPERT`l LJ k E R A�► G G. _:_ tins �J, M :r1E'9g�i �y� E "WI • t 'SEWE€Z L+uc UNDe or Jj �i B G 7,0p F Et or:;lF-rZTY LsW? VAM T) _1 4 f3TE' ` GAS. WATER. #-SeWE.1. bA4,1W$ 4 ELF-C. f OWILP. UMES OkVZE. L0r kTLrJ &LONG Q�IlJ�C��- Avg 12 �.. 7 P L 13 f I AP 101 w �S -y#o5 d . Y � a 14 VA y q � Ardli � ��. � `may. ,:.g•c .. - ... r,,... :.}_, '7 • j ` ilk .. . S ♦ q\ • ", 15 LRGAL DESCRIPTION LCT 222 of Newport Heights, M!4%83, Orange county, California, excepting, therefrom Swly 135 ft. of Sely 180 ft. Also excepting a one-half f ri t, in irrigation pipe line along Swly in ofsd land as reserved by. Charles Prinslow and wife in dd read. tlay 5, 1925, k4680 p8 231 Dead& . 3 ZI z T ccGTA m uA c, 14- CE RT. 1560 , CK 140013DON A.I.A. ARCHITECT - - 400 WEST COAST HIGHWAY SHEET # NEWPORT BEACH CALIF. n19Rwr9- 1 enCPl'rti 92_Ar-0207 T7 I Amnoar K, 190". Wr Mar *%u. * 0-1 hayx: r-it Fr mview Cctmot 11, JIM, .tj-f i Fitt.. Ales Cn- ltit_ a5la - VL!jj!_!r-,,7!1? r__ 7jaintS 61 armi t i n axop - Y� 1 nr an nwi t i -no! yy r r er, • -I-Ip- in 1 n I; ,,.I--r -70krgrityin r WK love ; cowc-r-s, 7, 7�4-0153 %waser I ro . or , !a 3Q inceral v, 17 KANNMG BMW STAFF REPORT AGENDA Na. ' 163 East Bay Street ZE-78-188 SITE LOCATION APPLICATION Na. __ __ AP* 426-191-29 MANDATORY ACTION DATE APPLICANT The Bishopof Los Angeles, AUTHORIZED AGENT The Rea. Conrad Nordquist ADDRESS Post Office BOX 2164 ADDRESS 183 East Bav Street Los Angeles, CA 90051 Costa Mesa, C-A 92527 Applicant is reminded that all ordinances and regulations PREPARED BY governing the use of the land or building(s) to which this application pertains must be complied with whether speci- fied herein or not. REQUEST: 6B: al -An Peactivation of a CorkUtionall useipermit t talow .a day-care center for no::vore .based on Planning Staff analysis and nta=ed within the Plarn ng Division (5-0) APPLICANT NOTIFIED __ DATE_ 10121185 _ CITY OF COSTA MESA. 77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA, CA 92526 j7+4) 754-5245 C%'F 0360.30, rev. A)87 Bishop of LA/Nordquist ZE-78-188 Page 1 (SR-8-16) I. DESCRIPTION A. Subject Property 1. Location - 183 E. Bay Street 2. General Plan designation - High Density Residential 3. Zone - PDR--HD 4. Present develop;nent - Church and Senior Citizens Housing Project 5. Lat area - Approximately 1 acre 6. CB�A - Exempt, Class I - Existing Facilities B. Surrounding Property All surrounding properties are residentially zonel and czevelopec. C. Request Reactivation of a Conditional use Permit to allow a day care censer for no more than 50 children at an existing church. D. Background This property recently underwent several publid hearings to al,-Yw t"Le construction of a sanior citizens housirx� project on a portion of th�3 church's property. In 1972, Punning Commission approved a pre-school for 20 children at the church. Hours of opeY_tion were from ".30 a.m, to 5:30 p.m, weekdays. In 1978, thk� church. was approved to increase the number of children to 60 total: 30 in a morning session and 30 in an afternoon session. This permit was renewed several times but was allowed to lapse in mi.. 1°84. II. PRWECr DESCRIPTION Applicant proposes a nurser-y school for ro more than 50 children. Hours of operation would be 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekdays. This request is similar t,, the nursery school previously approved for this s_-e. III. PLAMING STAFFS ANALYSIS A. Forty-eigF:� parkiryl stalls are Ic)cat(�.i to t�-,e church f,ar z�,,e church's use. Forty --eight spaces appear, to tt -zK)re than ac:t-caate for t`e teachers and for parents pickirn up and dr-)opin_f oft tri` chilrh,,�n. .Acces6 to this lot is from Bay Street, whiz . should ini!�imize tratti,: impacts on surroAutd i ng residences as ?Bay is already a r:� 1 it ive ly ,)usd' street. Additionally, most church activit1 ,s wr-)uld 'r«- _ unduc:tk-�; �t other times than the nursery school. C'onsc-,qu,_ -zLI-y, nc, i-)arki should occ�4r because of the school. 19 Bishop of LA/Nord uist ZE 78-188 Page 2 (5R-8--16) B. The play yard is to be on the west side of the church. T'he play yard; is surrounded on 3 aides by the building and there is an existing black gall on the westerly property line. The combination of the two should shield surrwnding residences from any adverse noise impacts the use might generate. C. The nursery scrxxoi, as it is to be located in a residential area, wi i i be in close proximity to those who potentially need such a service. D. Nursery schools are a use normally associated with churches. Ajditiorr- ally, many churches within the City have been permitted to conduct nursery schools on their grounds. IV. PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS A. Adequate parking exists for the nursery school use as the church anc school will not have the same hours of operation. S. Potential noise impacts should be snielded by the church building a-J Mock wall. C. The proposed use is normally associated with churches, and has :-3een Pe-- mitted for -other_ churches in the Cit-y. D. The evidence presented substantially satisfies conditions set forth Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-347 as the proposed nursery schc.-,l will not be detrimental to subject or surroundinq prcperties and consistent with the General Plan designation of the site. V. PLANNING STAFF R£COMME ATION Approve, subject to conditions. VI. OONDITIONS, IF APPROVED Shall meet all the requirements of the various City Departnents, copy attachee hereto. 20 L k4brdq gist CONDITIONS OF APPF43VAL Ping. 1. 'there shall be no more than 50 children on the premises at any one time. 2. Hours of operation shall be limited fran 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. 3. Approval shall be for a period of one (1) year. Prior to expiration, applicant may request renewal, subject to reevaluation at that time. The Development Services Director may extend the Planning Action for a period not to eweed two (2) years if all conditions of approval have been satisfied, no complaints have been reosived, and the site inspection reveals compliance with applicable ordinance requirements. 'Thereafter, the Development Services Director may extend the persait f-)r successive two (2) year periods under_ the same terms. APPLICANT IS REKINDED THAT THE FOLLOWI% CONDITIONS ARE REQUIR94E'NIS OF FEDERAL, SFATE, AND LOCAL IMS AND CAPNC3'T' BE WAIVED OR MODIFIED: 4. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. Fire 5. Provide fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A to be located within 75 feet of travel distance from the front door of each unit. Extinguishers may be of a type rated 2A,10BC as these extinguishers are suitable for all, types of fires and are less expensive. 6. Provide approved smoke detectors of to be installed in accordance with the 1992 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code. 7. Provide address numerals which conform to fire Department standards with respect to size (12") and location. 8. The day care facility shall meet the requirements for: Group E-3 occupan- cies from Title 19, California Administrative Code. Bldg. 9. Provide plans to show c liance with U.B.C. provisions for E--3 occupancy. 10. Show handicap access and facilities in compliance odth State law. 21 RECKATM CENTER 183 E. MW Strw Coats Mesa, CA M27 (71 #) 645-0362 The following is a daily program schedule: 7:00--8:00am Parent drop off. 8:00-8:30am Child drop off to school. PROGRAM CLOSED 11:30-12:00 Kindergarten pick-up. 12:15-12:45 Kindergarten lunch ---children bring lunch. 12:45-1:15 Children have a quiet rest time. 1:15-2:15 Children have free use of program activities such as arts and crafts. 2:00-2:30 Children are being picked tap from school and dropped off at the center. Grades 1-3 2:30-3:00 Snack preparation 3:00-3:15 Snack served when grades 4 and up are dropped off here at the center. 3:30-4:30 Individual drop offs for special after school activities. 4:30-5:30 Individual academic help and review. 5:30-6:00 Quiet table time. Program hours: 7:00-8:00 12:00-6:00 SWRTL NAMi[EMDOM. DWCTOD b� pb�. (714) 6454706 22 L') .4 'T 'i —4 LJ -a AJ LU nx. --j 7-) 14 04 LIJ 'D 23 24 SEP. 30,,' 1985 R7.010075 'PROOF LIST OW PLANNING UEPARTIMENT t� Pwt LIG HEARINGS WILL 8E HELD 8V THE COSTA MESA Pr, ANNIN4 / COMMISSIDN AT THE CITY HALL. 77 FAiG DRIVE, COSTA MESA* CALIFORNIA, AT 6:30 P.M. 11R A.i SLON AS PUSSIBLE THEkE- Af TE i, UN MVf 3i)A Y, U(;T GBEk 14• 1965. AE„ Afi u l�iu 1 -iL F LUCON 1 :4v APPL 1£AUGN 1L14L LAC Fr(1`34 I)L4MII Lt-78--lee F(jk THE kEVti2E.ND +.�- L� 'z;.,h?.;JI:.+ 11 , AJTriLi.1LEAGEN1 FLR IHE bISituP E,,t t _ s. A LLr.rr'�iRAIIt,N L L L i"RC ALTIvATIu�V —r w + t1 T 1 L 35L r''L tM11 I .; ALL,JAY L A k t C(-NTtr FHA, il. L hl' L.jnLfd AT A•'ri EX I511i11v 1.h4Kk h, Lv►.+ia LJ MS 1i� i-';Si hAY Slki i:. T, LJSTA MESA, IN A I PDK—ri'1 r. `sV lr,�j�q,40':TAL uE 1I:kMiNATIUort LAEMP I . +�. tom' 1 1 a. i5 • :'i i G Cs— 1 7 l— 1 UkiL Tics 'XILFK�, - 3L 7 aV ua I; f,`` ]•a, ..ML ti LCZ l Oar. I ;. 4c'-,`3— 1-, 1- 1'i Ii r I rU 1.�1. 74 A', L,47 [ L'� 1Cr, �s1r•i � r 1 � It. P• '',L • 42:�-1 'i L xN i-'. f .' i4.. •r L A.P. NL. =r1-1�11=12 ALitrta, I .-lv-A% 20ic 0- GE AVE tiL �rrSA� LA 4202 i A.Pr :,.lar 42o-191-14 1c18 ►. LLG PLJMLr%IAS IL: vt1`Y11ASv yA YcL�-* A. P. 'JU. 44o- L'� 1-1 7 LEf7r.AnJ APA^TMzNTS LTL 17?Aj5 VLIJv;(A uLVL X21,1 Ni';. + , CA I1.;i:, TE,:LIr.. JLJoLAS J yea 1sLEPr'G r. sc TJL1.E-PlL,", AVL Ck- yrb-1 rl—�S .�r�SJ'1 .I S_f' J7 '�'i. f•:i;. it '�. 1 i rriI t t 1 Ln., f. J. 25 .. �. . �,. ■ a.iwi. ■ V.. . �n�... a.�tis VL■ .a.\i.'ti�,�\ r A.P. We 4Z6-L91-24 A.P. NlO. 426-191-25 G"AY, Kr ITH J �iGRDUNt OCNALD 4 4�J31 LAURI�- L4 #A Lb671 VIA MLSSINA TA �L' At CAL 302bt7 194INE■ LAL �L71 r A.P. %L. 4.r b— I`r 1-2 7 201 4-44 L4J(�lW L— 232';l LAURIE LN 2+�27 CLS1A AESA, GA J4c.47 .1. ilJ. 42b-1-Y2-.I A.P. Au. Y4t-1132-j2 Y:;jL . ti ART SAXW., mILLIAm rt L :�I] uk. `f Sl 11I B bLKK,.S llht LN L a 'A 4L S ! .. +L Y 2 b 2 7 JEhPi,,RT L)EAL+7r w A lZu" , C 42o—L74—j,* t�,tL r L.. i rt Cr 1 7 .. J,T 171 �LT-,Y ST _k aIA r" L,: J441.3 L LLiKL-1. ALA;F 17bST 3d ASrIftLju C°�.si,: ;tia, w+L yC:Js?7 :rcV1E. GA 7iy h.i?. •'v. ♦i7—L`it-07 iyy�..13'• 41.. �t��-17c—Js� L 9t Q�Jr �]i L47 E3ULY �jT ` •i3]A kr 3Fi! :i `f tu_7 LL. j T A ;fit L c1 "!UKPHY! J lMLc-- AL 1 yu t --Ar a i 1 `st � ,�. � ,s i t, 1. �]i•: w� 1A! L lL a..'. i �.. LS .i � H � L � •i ! . �� 7 �4aG r i . r.,, r °4 _"_ +. — 1 L— 1 ♦ .� . h� . A,. iL—T .1A'LL_`a -�AL.Kt+! MALL 2§ L 141 2 1 Lk : a. E L. . SEP. 30. 19S5 R70JO05-PROM LISTW PLANNINGOPAIRTMEh1 A. P. N(J. 426-192-1.s A.P. NCv 426-192-14 FENLflAK* vMANIA m RULFEt EIJWIN ri 172 E i3AY ST 1513 VISTA aAVA ,CSTA -a 4cJ27 NEwPUr.1 bEACh# LAL y2C)t� :�•a. V`;. +�'`]-1`ic--•� k.r7. �:;. Stu—lSrt—lfi v�:i4i:uF� f �LLJ'-04 1 i ;,ILav* tlAMKY J Ito 3 AY ST 154 BAY ST I-uSTA ML,,Aip ti-AL 0,-54-6 CL S iA MCSAt i.:+ `y�O1 A.P. 6j. f�f�-1`J1—�s� ►a.P. mc,.-t2t-ls--,-,;,i t 1A-Jt-:)* .q*Li-lk:� ,; =i .L G'AMNT-, NILN 1 id z�UL x 51 id4 do-W ST 7 LL.. I.: S.�.4A* L++L yLbc'.: .a . ? 0 �N'- • 'i ) J"- i `f > — )-t H • f . f L_ • i14 iau b uut- A•r• fl.• Y�:.—iii��✓ �•F�w `. mot.-e�F_�Y��t�i �'�Y H►�.� t ,iA.� i aJ _. Jt.T,�ri }[ � wu �"• " i Bu bJ:,Y ST J�Y Sl CUSIA AaSA* L-- L kip; 27 LuSTra 4ESA, :i.P. %Lw fL1-1a•N. d.7. 42b—z� 1—c,-, CArN1N14" f 5-`JLLY ''i AL3cgaf WALILk F 19b 3oij s ST a' J L 1 '. r-: K6E A V 7 LL. ] i i F� . MJ • r f . �'f G � — ` �*,� 1 � .a r � • r / w ;f ti [l — � ) 1 V `t T. N L �'/ 1 t f L .I i 4 .�� I'l r yur?' r [ c, i .. � • +� N + M ar L % _ F Cl-F!'- qis, J.-1 _ : " KILL Yf K ;L (.(siA oCs, * .-A i..:nr..i LL5Tlei > u,.if L i :iT I'd ik w LANN I Nj iA PA' T ME.N I 42 2-,� 3 T L r, A J'J'Wk L U: 4 1 C. SS i 1 . L i 28 1W w Data 30`4 E— CERTIFIED FIRE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS c f t7 r� Address, 3� DR RA Evaluation - Findings �. (a) (b) (c) (d` 2. 3. 4. Requirements 5. (a), location 6. (a) (b) (c) 9. (a) (b) (c) 1 (a) (b), (a)�jD 14. (c) 15. (a) (b) 16. 17. 18. 19. 2 1. (a) (b) (c) Fire Department Conditions 22. (a) (b) 23. (a) (b) Additional Requirements r(2 —1/ L12- LtL ( location) 29 FOR PLAMING COMMISSION MEETING OF Q=d=LjA 1985 DUE BACK TO THE PLAMUM DIVISICN BY October 2, 12a5 TO: { } Building Safety (Lg. Site) { } police Department (8.1;2x11) ( ) Engineering Div. (Lg. Site) ( } Sanitary Engineer (Rob Hamers) (8.1l2x11) (. ? Eire Prevention (Lg. Set) ( ) Transportation Svcs. (Lg. Site) { ) Leisure Services (8-1 /2x11) { ) Water Dist. - Inform. 18.1 !2x11) ( 3 Streets (8-1,12x11) A.P. ITU-SEER 426-191-29 C C PLTER INPUT: 170112 851014ZP-1887821071 402 CaqW NORD=ST, AUrHORIZED AGENT FOR THE BISBpP OF 403 IDS ANGEIZS, A OJRPMATICN SOIE, FOR T CT1VAT;CV OF 404 A COMITICML [ZE PEFaUT TO ALUU A DAY CARE CENTER 405 FOR ND MIRE THAN 50 aII F2N AT AN EXISrRC MKTd Ii, 406 IiOCAT£0 AT 183 EAST BAY Si'R=, COSTA ham,, IN A 407 PDR HD ZONE. MWIRM12frAL pETERTDATION: EXEMn. 408 409 410 The Bishop of Las Anqeles, A Corp. Sole F.O. Box 2164 411 Los Angeles, CA 90051 412 413 The Rev. Conrad Nordgmst /1 183 East Bay Street; Costa Mesa, CA 92627 CDnditions/Ordinanv*- Requiremnts: (Ccm-eats other than stan3ard conditions/ Ordinanoes, shoul-: be addressed to the Punning Ccrurission in 7er-c for.-;. ) 30 '"Ic In— A:BS! FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DUE BACK TO VE PLANNING DIVISION BY October 2, 1985 ;O: ( ) building Safety (L.g. Site} (w` } Police Department (8.1 f2x,1) ( } Engineering Div. (Lg. Site) ( } Sanitary Engineer (Rob Hamers} (8.1/2x11) ( ) Fire Prevention (Lg. Set} ( } Transportation Svcs. (Lg. Site) ( 1 Leisure Services (8.1 /2x111 ( } Water Dist. - inform. 18-1,120 1 } ( } Streets (8-1 /2x11 ) A. P. ITUIBER 426-191-29 � • � k i u i r. �r� rrrrr� • • CMV TTER INPUT: 170112 851014ZE1887821071 � • i �lifaf" � ' at•• f A • ' 'i �i•1� 4f 402 aC[dRAD NCR7Q=, AXTrMRIZED AQVr FOR THE BISHDP DF 403 IDS ANC, A 001TORATION SOLE, EOR REAM7VATTON OF 404 A ClOW TICI,FAL USE PF.R 41T TO AUOW A DAY CAM CD?M 405 FOR NO WRE THAN 50 CiZ DMN AT AN EXISTING CH 70i, 406 IDM= AT 163 EAST BAY ST=, C}o6TA MESA, IN A 408 409 410 The Bishop of Las Anqeles, A Corp. Sole P.O. Box 2164 4I1 Los Angeles, CA 9,051 412 The Rev. Conrad Nordquist 183 East Bay Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 413 _ r t)k3LEM� Ct Conditions/Dr3 nance Requirements: other 'char sta7'.3a.ti cc: ditio^- Ordinanoss, should be addressed to the Planning Ce:r,.fission i^ mE-,a form.) 31 00 City of Costa Mesa Engineering Division STANDARD DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS 1. At the time of development submit for approval a Grading Plan, that shows Sewer. Water, Parkway/Street Improvements and the limits of work on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a Civil Engineer, to City of Costa Mesa F.rtgineering Division, Rough grade approval must be obtained prior to Building or Engineering Permits being issuer) by City of Costa Mesa. The extent of topography on this plan shall be sufficient enough to determine drainage impacts to adjacent properties. 2. A permit and deposit will he required from City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, prior to any on or off• site work to insure the integrity of remaining ar;d adjacent improve mentsdue to construction ingress/egress. 3. Maintain the site in a "wet -down" condition to the degree necessary to prevent excessive dust. Periodically remove spillage from the public R/W by sweeping or sprinkling, however, watering that results in mud can public streets is riot permitter) as a substitute for other cleaning methods. 4. Haul routes must be approved by City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division. 5. Obtain a permit from CALTRANS prior to performing any work in the State R/W. 6. 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, irf fully improve to its ultimate width per City of Costa Mesa Master Plan of Highways/Standards. 7. Submit required cash deposit to guararrtee construction of to its ultimate width per City of Costa Mesa Master Plan of Highways/Standards. Cash deposit to be determined by City Engineer, 8. Two copies of the Final Map and traverse closure calculations shall be submitted to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering Division for checking. #. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. Residential/Commercial sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Grading Plan/Improvement Plan, including 4 feet clear around obstruction in the sidewalk. 10. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then reconstruct/construct Type 1/11 P,C.C. driveway approach per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Grading Plan /Irnprovr.rnent Plan, location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Engineer, 1 1 . Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engrneerinq Division, at the ttmu cif development and then remove any existing drives and/or curt} depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk at applRc:ant's expenses. 12. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct Wheelchair Ramp on the corner of .. and 13 Per requirements of Real Property, City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, and prior to issuance of Building Permits, dedicate all land fait from the center line of-- 14 Prrr requirernonts of Real Property, City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, and prior to issuance of Building Permits, redicate all fail(] ___ ..._.feat from the center lines of _. 15 Per reguirprnents of Reaf Property, City of Costa Mctsa, Enclin-tiring Division, and prior to issuance of Building Permits, dedicate a 3 foot pul]lir utility easement behind existing right of way line on 163 Pei requirements of Real Prupeity, City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Oivisrnn, and prior to issuance of Building Permits, d"Alcate -a foot diagonal Coiner cut-off at the° corner of 32 k 0 12-21 Cc, a ci no m M J9 M all c 1=0 m CU z C a O d 0 C C\] 0 ej C z C CL > - ei tO go, E Z 0 z c ;l- V Cr F w q) 2 LL > 0 1 CL c CL v -, M o CL a Z c m > 0 -ca C E 0 0 c 0 LLJ CL o c 5 C. uj C: c Q: c z c -,n ct c LU w C cc 0 rc c tz 3: LU c LLI C.3 4V 0 c a o E Q v o o o m C o 0 M cu FLI j ¢ z FL CL CL CL t L) :� cu IV cm: , amIj E cc Ir - rz 1 cn em a C c U Lu ed 7, m D 0 2L m 0; x c cr OL -CL C: L 75 Ln Lt. Z f-i Lzi mC6 ai 0 Ci C�i 33 1 TO: Director of DmWpwwvt &rvtrim FROM: Transportation Swvkss Engirwar SUBJECT:� � ,/ i The following suggestions are for your consideration as checked: 1. Internal parking circulation is poor requiring backing into streets if spaces are occupied, 2. Parkingstalls difficult for access and/or exiting n9 •turn around inadequate. 3. Stall and aisle dimensions are inadequate. 4. Parking allows side of le to be to backing vehicles. 5. lather W! CONDITIONS: The following conditions should be included with the final development plan: J 1. Submit Development Plan for review and approval of driveways and internal circulation prior to issuance of permits. 2. Construct standard driveway entrance per CM Standard Plan 5G 4 (Type 11). I= 3. Submit driveway improvement plan for approval prior to issuance of permits. 4. Install HPSV street lights on marbelite poles. L. 5, Other R COMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve with conditions as noted. 2. !'approve with suggestions forwarded to developer. 3. Redesign plan to accommodate above comments. 4. Disapprove plan subject to submittal of additional information. 5. Deny. 6. See prior submittal for previous comments. 7. Other 34 C M F esSAI.94. rwv_ 10164 Srrvia" \ {» yy • �ti .t.:l ,i'_ . ar ;i;r Y:rr a, rr. FOR PLAMING CCMMISSION METING OF__Q=oher 14 _ L% _. DOE HACK TO THE PLAMUNG DiVISICN BY October 2. 1985 TO: ( 1 8uikfing Safety (Lg.Site) ( } Police Department 18-1/2x11) { 1 Engineering Div. (Lg. Site) ( i Sanitary Engineer (Rob Lamers) (8-1 /2x11) r--- { ) Fire Prevention ILg. Set) ( v ) Transportation Svcs. (Lg. Site) ( ) Leisure Services (8-1 �2x11) { ) Water Dist. - Inform. (8-1 /2x11) { ) Streets (8-1 /2x11) A.P. NUA ER 4 26-191-29 C OMPUrER INPUT: 170112 851014ZE1887821071 402 CMW NOPOQUIST , AU HDRI2M AGENT MR THE BISHOP OF 403 LDS ANCE,FS , A 00F :OR C7N SOLE, FOR REAC�ON OF 404 A = =1. 0NATI, SE PMVm TO A11CW A DAY = CZ%= 405 FOR NO MIRE THAN 50 CHIMPEN AT AN EXIM714G OW4M, 406 LOM-ED AT 183 MkSI` BAY STEM, COSTA MESA, IN A 407 PDR-HD 2IM. ION: EXEMP'r. 406 409 410 The BiWjop of Lps Anqeles, A Corp. Sole P.O. Box 2164 411 L06 Angeles, CA 90051 412 413 �11 The Rev. Cmrad 23azdqui5t. 183 Past Bay Street Costa Mesa, CA- 92627 Conditions/Ordinance Require,,Tents: (Ccr.zents other than standard con:91tions/ Ordinances, should be addressed to the PlanniN Ca%-Tussign in merry form-) 35 CM1, oyv? 10 (rev. 31s50- FDR PLANNING iCC MMISSION MEETING OF QztQbex 14, 1985 DUE BACK TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY QgtgkNr 2. 19$5 TO: ( } Building Safety (Lg. Site) ( j Police Department i8-1 %2x11 f ( 1 Engineering Div. (Lg-Site) ( } Sanitary Engineer (Rob Flamers( (8-1 201) ( } Fire Prevention (Lg. Set) ( } Transportation Svcs, (Lg_ S `o I.; ) Leisure Services (8.1 /2x11 } I } Water Dist. • Inform. (8.1 - - , 1 ) ( } Streets (8-12x111 A.P. 101MER 426-191-29 COMPUTER INPLT: 170112 851014ZE1887821071 402 •MW) NOMQUIST, AMMORIZED AMU FUR THE BLSIUP OF ! •. AWAaM, A ••.• P CIN SIXE,1'- RWTIVAT;ON OF 404 CONDITIONAL US PERMIT T! ALLOW • DAY • "J CENTER 406 • at• }r AT 183 K&Sr Ekz.Y"i} ••ti N MESA, 408 409 410 The BiW-jop of Ivs Anqeles, A Corp. Sole P.O. Box 2164 411 Ins Angeles, CA 90051 412 413 The Rev. Conrad Nordquist 183 East Bay Street Costa mesa, CA 92627 Conditions/Ordinance Requirements: (Canttients other than star�3ar3 condti-. s/ Ordinanoesr should be addressed to the Planning Ccan=ssion in ny--m fori•. 36 CMF D997-30 (riay. 31851 FOR PLANNIij COMMIS: ION FEETIM OF ck-t chgr 14, 7 995 DUE HACK TO THE PLAi+I41M DIVISION BY 1 2. 1985_ TO: { } Building Safety (Lg. Site) ( 1, Police Department (8-1 /2011 ( } Engineering Div, (Lg. Site} ( v`) Sanitary Engineer (Rob Hamers) {8 112011 { ) Fire Prevention (Lg. set) ( I Transportation Svcs. (Lg. Site) { 1 Leisure Services (8.1 /2x11) ( ) Water Dist. - Inform. ($-1 /2x11 ) ( i Streets (8-1;'2x11) A.P. NU4BER 426-191-29 COMPLYrER INPUT: 170112 851014ZE1887821071 41 •• -•D NoTOQUIsr,e• ear AGENT FOR THE SD• OF 1 • a; • N • 1 7 8017 5 i 5-1 I l z�• • ]� « t• 408 MSD C_ )NDITICN �K , 54 409 410 The Bishop of Las Angeles, A Corp. Sole P.O. Box 2164 4.11 Los Angeles, CA 90051 412 413 The Rev. Conrad Nordgu.ist 183 East Bay Street r Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Conditions/Ordinance Requirerrents: (Can•ne-7ts other than standarw conniltians/ Ordinances, should be addressed to the Plarimnq Ccr=.ission in r emo form..) 37 Ck4f: 0997.30 (Rrv. 3i551 ant 5erviow Dapart»nt iEQQ1 D C 3T'IOV.SAXE11WAM RaDUDWOM FOR PI.ADII+]ING C CMMLSSION MEErM OF =t4her 14t 1285 ..,�. DUE BACK TO THE PLANNING DIVISION BY TO: ifl Building Safety ILg.Sitel f ) Police Department 18-1/2x11i ( } Engineering Div. (Lg. Site) 1 ) Sanitary Engineer (Rob Hamers) (8.1 /2x11 i { } Fire Prevention (Lg. Set) 1 ) Transportation Svcs. (Lg. Site) { ) Leisure Services (8.1 /2xl 1) { ) Water Dist. - Inform. 18-1 /2x11) ( ) Streets i8-1/2x111 A.F. IUMER 426-191-29 1k*;k!0Aa- s 170112 851014ZE1887821071 .: 1 .1i_:. ♦_! �ii�� kw':► �1 Mf!• !'i".��i1fTI11�:j��.��iU��. M*� 1',.M:il! 406 IDCATED AT 183 EAST BAY STET, C WM MESA, IN A 407 PDR-i31 ZONE. iNICN: EXUJIPT. l 406 1-1-'04 {/ 7 409 / ' J f,- 410 Thy Eli&op of LDs Angeles, A Corp. Sole The 4v. Conrad Nordquist P.O. Boot 2164 183 East Bay Street 411 Los Angeles, CA 90051 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 412 413 Conditions /Ordirkince Requirements: (Caments other than. starndara conditiars Ordinarmnes, should be addressed to the P1arrarc, Ccrn^,ission in memo fors-.) 38 'iI Ail 39 vise Episcl Chtw�ch at Coats Ml 92627 1" s W&3 4 ZE-78-18-8 183 East Bay Street The Bid of Teas Angeles/NmxlqList 40 Caste Mesa, CA 926M ��r "r � � � CJw.J 1 ,..s 1 'l WWI 17141 754•5245 IPI*Mr Sw Instruction 5hsutl APPLICATION NO. Is) FEE - - i-q-9r I,flg The Bishop of Los Angeles, AS Corpnerebyapply for the Planning Action(s)asindic a below on my property which is described as follows: (2) Address: 183 E. Bay Street, Costa Mesa, 92b��L/ 03 PLANNING ACTIONISI REQUESTED Account No. I (Office UsO _ Variance(s) No _ 0131110009 ac_ Conditional Use Permals) No _.�_ -_-_ 01311110009 Development Review 0131110009 _ . Subdivision A. — Tentarve Map of Tract -__-_ - .. 01 31 12DO04 B. Parcel Map C. — Lot Lne Adjustment 013112000-' _ Planned Development Rev,evv A Preliminary B. F!nal 0 131110009 General Plan Amendment 0131110009 Rezone 013111000- Other Negative Declafat:on 013119010E NF = No Fee Requd by Ordinance Total Fee S Fee (4) x ALL REQUIRED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS ATTACHED 'See Appropriate lnstr-:-. 3- Sheets, (5) �x PLANNING ACTION DESCRIPTION•'JUSTIF]CATION FORM ATTACHED. l6) APPLICANT {Property Owner Only? Type or Prinr I attest under per -.a •, n.' rave to -"e truth a^C The Bishop o f Los A-P e 1 e s correctness of a: a.c exr his reaps anc C o r p. S, 1 Vrtachments prese- v..t�- and -ace a oar. of this appl'cat-C. P.O. Box 21r:_)4 eta - r4cC eas; _ -- ---- 7 } hereby a --- Los C o . r _i3 i s £_.`.. — Angeles, California 90051 toacrasr-v, xesenta„vean(, t)�c: e all matt'. _ 'tee'^•ng t^�s aPCf�':aT.'J" Phone: (213) 482-2040 {Area COQeI -� ...... _. .. ...�._.T..—_._.. 191 AUTHORIZED AGENT Type or P.r.nr Subscribe: _ ..0 7efore me *� ; Conrad Nordquist(The Rev.) u Of I zeo , 183 East Bav Street Mading ACcre%? Co a._fe sue, 3_r: y_ SEAL; Phone' i 7 ] 4 ] (pt�a C y (Srgnatur NOTICE TO APPLICANT: If you cha Inge this act on in couT!. you may be limited to •a!s ^ y those ,$sues you o >orneone else raised at the Public Hear.ng for this :tern, or wrtten correspondence delivered to the s_a" = P;ann na Com- ss on at o- prior to. the Publ;,- Hearing or final decision, (Office Use Only) f ref Assessors Parc 1 No. AP ` `w -{ - - 1 _.-_- - -. _.. _._ _ - _ _ . _._ _ . _ i a s per A4 a s 19 ,�. ' C E 0 A R Zone ' '� Generai Plan Deslgnatlo } ?mil 1 _ 7�'.1;fi'tt i REQUEST: Reactivation of a Conditional Use `Mrmit to all a Day Care Center for nc mre than 50 children at an existing church. .VPlanning C.ommissron Hearing — 6 30 o rn-L-,:--_ti_L-- Staff Review Only. You will be not:f,ed t)v rna,l of the f na1 decis;on A,)pllcat,or, React', WHEN COMPLETED, PLEASE RETURN ALL. COPIES To PLANNING pI VISION mow€ 06D2 30 SRev, 8.851 Wh,te—C:ty Geri ;-. a,annr^q. Cana" Ao.0 ca.s, P ^� �4e.. 41 City of Cam 111, Pon Otfioa lllm Inc 77 ILrr Urin cam Mr, Cowwri. s (714) 75445245 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION lFor Office Use Only: Project Number Z - ?g~ IS-`S� Date Received/By�/`��,`�� Zone � n General Plan Designation Recommendation f ,ram r Applications for projects in the City of Costa Mesa cannot be processed until an initial study of environmental impacts has been completed and an exemption granted or a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report prepared. Please fill out the following and return {with oralin*mry site „loans, including location and size of all existing structures and trees) five i53 wotkingdays ri'wr to submitting your application: Location of Project St. John's Church, 183 East $ay Street, Costa Mesa 92627 Description of Project Preschool and after school supervision of no more than 50 children, ?.L , tL� fi . r. wee:da� s. Submitted by Massing Add Conrad Nordquist (The Rev.)/ 183 East Bay Street `� 16 ' 8 5 Phone (_ _ �) 5'+8- , 2 _; Costa Mesa, California Zip Code 9-'r' Not ail projects will necessitate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. In order to make a determina- tion as to whether any significant environmental impacts may result from the proposed project, the above informa- tion is necessary. As soon as possible, the Environmental Evaluator will determine whether or not the project will require an Environ- mental Impact Report and will notify the project sponsor accordingly. 42 CWF 0329-30 Rev. 12ine MV:QF COWA MESA 77 Fait Dri" Co ob Mer. Cdffornia 92626 (714) 754-5243 PLANNING ACTION DESCRIPTIONJIUSMCATION (Pleaw Sae instructions) ( 1 ) Project Location St. John's Church, 183 E. Bay Street, Costa Mesa 92627 (21 Describe Project and Request(s) Day Care �C`enter.4c:c;�.yfy�l-,s•,r; _ Y.Vt 14` { �'� r; L i,'L. i 3) If application is for Conditional Use Permit(s), answer the following: Describe how the proposed use is substantially compafible with uses permitted in the same general area and how the pro- posed use would not be materially detrimental to ether properties within the same area This use is compatible with uses over the past nine vearswhy g war, ;tg;2Pndeµ in 1983-84. It is compatible with the day care center across tha street on Orange Avenue and with the zoning prescribed for the church. If application is for Variance(&), answer the following: Government Code Section 65906 states. "Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only when. because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surround- ings, strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of pnvileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification." Describe how your request for a variance(s) meets the above Government Code requirement.. 43 City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive PLANNING ACTION APPLICATI16 Costa Mesa, CA 92� (714) 556-5245 (Please See instruction Sheet) �•• �` i'� � I � � � JQ. Gi� TL APPLICATION NOJO (1) FILING DATE. (2) Lam; 1A _ ', CEQA (3) 1. (4)_hhere4y apply for the Planning Action(s) as indicated below on my property which is described as follows: (5) Address: fir (6) Assessor's Parcel No AP # . (as per Maps, 19 C (7) Nearest Major Cross Streets +'t'•>1� u i _ ft� ] +Q LI (8) PLANNING ACTION(s) REQUESTED Account No. (office Use) ❑ Zone Exception(s) Fee A. ❑ Variance(s) No. 0131110009 $ B. ❑ Co,-ditional Use Permit(s) No. 0131110009 C. ❑ CPApproval No. 0131110009 ❑ Development Review ❑ Subdivision: A. Tentative Map of Tract _ 0131120004 B. ❑ Parcel iWzo C. L_! Lot Line Adjustment 0131120004 ❑ Encroacnment Permit ❑ Planned Development Review A. ❑ Preliminary a. ❑j Final C Relocation rermit Other C to �jL s-t.1 (lLtt. t4 , ��c�ILIC i. 0130750000 iG>t>-� Negative Declaration ❑ Environmental Impact Report — 0131190009 002 _ NF = No Fee Required by Ordinance (9) Total Fee $ I D,(—'� (10) ALL REQUIRED PLANS AND DOCUMENTS ATTACHED (See Appropriate Instruction Sheets) (11) i8' PLANNING ACTION DESCRWTION/3USTI'FICATION FORM ATTACHED. (12) APPLICANT (Owner of Record OnI0 Type or Print + I attest under penalty TKLI 6 l i11c f L F r` C J, �'') i it L t,t correctness of at] facts, oexh exf law hibits, tmaps he uand th and 0 :-r cf -+.-+ Si iC attachments presented with and made a part (0wrier of Record of this application.. Iz;7-0 t�"-.Sf iz-. tl. 1 I f4 1 A `p y (Mailing Address) (13) I hereby authorize �� � „}Jl-,iC�lti`L't'i L", it u J A i rG (i If-f C., Er fl-e k t ti � cr -�'/ to act as my representative and to bind me - in all matters concerning this a hcation. [city/Statelztp} g pp Phone: Z 1 .? {Area Coda) (15) AUTHORIZED AGENT T pe rprr t i. '," ti (AuthorizedAgent) (Maiting Address) C 14, t 2jr (City/state/zip) Phone: f'i/ 2237 fj !" Areat Cj y _- /7W JOHice tigsr Only) gnature -- Avoiirnt (wner of Record only) Subscri d and sworn to before me this � day of. ;+ OFFICfAL SEAL Ir fJi Al?Y L or I MY cornmreslr•- (16) Zone RA __ (17) General Plan Designation � � ►'C r�' (181 REQUEST*. 09) Ie Planning Commission Hearing — 6:30 p.m. 120) E Staff Review Only. You will be notified by mail of the final decision. (21) Application Complete {init+ai) 44 CMF 0602-32 white • City Clerk or Planning; Green - Planning; Canary - Applicant; Pink - Finance; Goldenrod - Authorized Agent CITY OF COSTA NIESAO 0 77 Fair Urine Costa Mesa, California 92626 1' 141 754-5245 PLANNING ACTION DESCRIPf70NJL'STIF'1CATION i]'le;ise ice Irttiuii°ci,! (1) Project Location Icl[-YF F'� r , fir, A/C A r; (2) Describe Project and Request(s) (tr ! is~ %; i k t i , 4 °c•�t i F. 11 M i, Vi 1Lrlr, {'f_-A-U1LI Zt111iI1FlrL1rti�FL1'f �Lt0�LA /,-�° (Iiq i L L. -1! i Tic. (3) If application is for Conditional Use Perrtti[is ). answer the f'oll()Wirl,-': Whcrihc 110W till PT0110SCtl use is substantially compatible with uses permitted in the ,ante area awl how the Pro- posed use would not he materially detrimental to other 1) >crties within the same area. 7 t< • G{ Y'- L` i-v (, a j C', r� l E t 4 t1 1 i t� {. r C 4 t�- � 7) V-,;, eri v i t j6' �fl^imC urn: i Lt�f' Ctr .$i jL1.L c LL'i l IWtt7Yc'v A P—& P��C''r4l z14,-d L_.LSt, jt{f° )1`la��P,C, c°J( r i'Lil �r7� 3 VC yen jeSI , c I 1 � t S_ fUt F", , -C{ -fr iL V fly t- rLL (- (4) If application is for Variance(s), answer the following: Government Code Section 6S906 states: "Variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only when, because Of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surround- ings, strict application of the zoning ordinance: deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identi :al zoning classification." Describe how your request for a variances) meets the above Government Code requirements. IVle�irt��L lk tc0ftlf•r &Jt LLq Litcl Lit (v -.tY r 1+JI.; +[Li(. ,�djTL-l. 1'? rL'� 4' ) �' f _S'l(C ! 1. I! [ ;,lCf• ;i<rt c'4 o��t� ��- i3 S�t �t �•�Cc'�' aF�i �tt �c;l , �°�`cc � � �+¢IP-, r_L Fc(�1� c�t-(.fl£•�?c �/� f � Crc < l t•C 1� t c, l Glo cdf t��-_ILR !Yr rt."hial ilk ILt L i- t] 1L= /L`�- 4 1 +--t L C - &J. J') t' Cc ((A1tll it�� tiSE: �Yl�•4tj ��t( ter F '�. i: t_1 +-RYA �.irr111!cttr _ f�f.1r�• +� r v I 1 it 1�/, CMF 0603-32 White - City Clerk or Planning; Canary - Applicant; Pink -Planning; Goldenrod - Authotrzed Ageot45 `• i lk rac-� J57- W �7z l 46 C l' Y OF COSTA M' SA h INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM hi-ril 1 19 i' TO -- CITY COift�ECIL - - --- — FROM LOGE RE: SPECIAL STAGY SESSION OF APRIL 23, 197i, fC[vr:�tir', ANG CITI ZE'. FY✓ :'I c :�r POSAL BY W. JGQA Tfi:_. UI;lINE EKSCOP .L AVE:q_L AN. Ey'-Y V?= A consultant for St. Jo:T. the Divine (ux. R. H. yleir. - i.a Qc'%tact _ Staff regarding a proposed 36-unit HUG Sect= 232 prcje-ct for We harev property at Orange and Bay. Some Section 202 units are availa0e for Orange County bat the f inarp- cing package must be submitted to Hub by April 30, 1979. A concept Plan r.a= WO-. submitted to Staff for review (copy anaered;. mr. Klein has requested a lettor from Staff regarding the necessary stews tc acccr yiist too project anc tv, ixr -1 reception of the City to the proposal. Staff is besitart to We a position Council discussion and review. The Church is in the process of forming a Houviny Corporation to sponsor We prw;ect. Thirty-six one-be3roon (575 square feet) dwelling units are proposes:. The existin sanctuary wcu16 be used as the multi-pwr-yose roar for senior anu church act ivi t ieF. A new sanctuary would be constructev at the warner of bay anc Wanne. Kk hogs i% project would be constructed under Sectiun 2G2 (non-profit organization) acrtga:L- financing and combined with the Sectlun S REM Subsidy Proyra: for the occupar ts. It should be stressed that the attached plan is a concept. The proponents realize that details such as setbacks anc parking need to be refined. The proposed housing would front on Laurie Lane. Properties tc tne west on :.aerie Lane contain two --story triplexes and one-story dupiexes. Tin parcel tc the snow. contains a two-story 40-unit apartment building and the property to the east =o: tains a two-story 5-unit development. Sinyle family homes are loeateo cc the nortr. acmes Bay Street. The Church property is zoned Rl with a General Plan Resignation of low Density Residential. This area will be considered in the new Land Use Element scnec.;lec for City Council review in March, 1980. There are two processing options available if the City wishes to enoonrage this project. I. Amend General Plan and change zoning - Llepending on time constraints of the applicant, a General Plan Avenjount could either be processed as a separate amendment in October, 1979; or as a part of the new Land Use Element in 1980. 2. Am nd Institutional and Recreational (I&R) Zone and rezone property to The I&R Zone could be amended to allcw, as a conditional use, houszrx; projects owned, operated or manages+ by the prinary conforming user of the property. This could be accomplished within a 3-4 month period (by August, 1979). Continued... 47 Memo to City Council Re: St. John the Divine Church Property April 26, 1979 Page 2. The residential density of the prG ject is diff 1c2 tc calcalat_e arms 77c;' :Y • ;s meaningful since the "people" density wili we relative!) low. Us entire- Zn_rz.. site is slightly over two acre. Following are of the po5siole advantages a,c cisadvantages c. tin prc:&o%; Advantyes 1. The units will be provided to low-ircarF scAi r citize:-Z t:r- of ftuwinq frcr. tie City. 3,k, Rw ite cam..:." ram: is 2. There is a neW for UK type of bo.zi g. Yfornstion a-.ailao;_ t: W- City indicates there are approxiiateil i , 33� a:r-,/or housetalas in need of rental ass i star . o . 3. The Charch's facilities (yrnocsoc racy, ow-ld pro. ;ne aji-- tional at�oenities for t ,e rrc-ect. 4. Two-story naltiple family developments ann _ tLe ,-ro ert, oz t:.rv, s:. _ i. The "people" density would we similar to au soeni rrootc s. 5. The proposal would c assist the : u rcn to reams 'e _ �- t--,e Yro;.� : t� - r7:, its appearance. 6. Public transit is avaiiable on Orange Aven-Q- Disauvantacxes 1. As a Section, W cievelopuent (nor -prof it organization), the pr✓:wct te�ytax �pexmpproet. No prrt7 taxes wQUc ne poi�� to offset av ;c:yanC& service ice costs. 2. It is anticipated that some service costs (e.g. paransic; woold no .. _znr than normal without offsetting revenue gains. 3. 7hirty-six dwelling units in addition to the multi-yorpose rocs: and sa< onaa=1- on a 2-,acre site may be considered to be too dem5e for the area. 4. Everyday shopping facilities are not availanie within wa--fk:inq cistanse. Requested Action Staff requests that. City Council indicate whether there is a desire to erc;rarage this project so that a Staff letter may be prepared for the pro3ect proponents. WAS Attachments cc: City Manager City Attorney Public Services Director Fire Administration Planning & Development Services Director City Clerk 48 Ham- I %— DE i � - Rei nholid H. Klein t'as spent i r: excess & r i netee, years i r • e ese wDne-, ,^,` special purpose hc.is 4g. His Vitia! a:- vi? ues were in t` e dr=_a of 4 ce' ; . lousing utilizing Spc*ron 2Y of the Na,,ore; r,onOng Act. JA; t7e firs* Exe_- Director of Re 6rement Housing Fou datio-, he psonee"e:jrtoe bey_ oj,,e-- c4 she'ter ant full -Care fa_ l i t i es for t►ae e 0er a y, w ; in inn ; enei '' o` Fri , s ,-e_ financing. As the first Execul i ve Director of Nea! F+njO - Trust a' _ vne Rejave r 3y"►__• Corporat i o,n, he was an ea -lye participant i r be?, re_ & , , . a' ; s an: Of low and moderate rate income fa& i y housing i r tMe i nne- c - `: . & Los An pe r es . Activities were concentrate in the area wn;c" corre-.";y cons-i' m 'rye Greater WattsModel Cities Prcject arse tre Firesione-k l lore; rcc. Area;, Gacnime anC La Puente. His extensive experiences with nary -profit corpora,io,S, commur.ity olar-nn;, spe_;w' assistance hots i ng and inner city housing de we i o,pnent are of Great ass s stance jr. the development of well planned, f unct i ona i ant wonar • ce r l y soirs In his capacity as the Executive Wre_tor & Wirener' bousin; Fo,ncj!ior, ne purchased the land sites, planned, proCesse:, ar-angez tte financing, cow:"naye� the Construction and placed the follow+n•c eiyerly too.;_ .,rc'eC - ir`.. one-a';G The first was initiate. in 1958 and the last car;;etet in 19J. Y , .ere ;,-cessez and developed under Section 231 of the Na'iona Hous,rc Aw. The projects are as follows: Tri l ight Haver Fresno, Cal iforr.ia r&A 02 —38M : hl= 74 units l4brtyar Amount 1 775,0..'.,. Case de Modesto Modesto, California FNA 012 1- 36014 bi-- 72 units Mortgage Amount $ 80 03C. Pioneer House Sacramento, California FHA 0 136- 38;r:, 3 %= 132 units Nbrt gage Amount S 1 , 0i 3, 07 . Trinity House Sacramento, California FHh U 36-35112 U__ 71 units wartgage Majot s i , 14v,aa.. Plymouth Square Stockton, California FHA 1136-0305 lW 108 units Mbrtgage Amoirt S1,775,OOC. Plymouth Tower Riverside, Cakfornia FHA I122-38035 Q 108 units Nbrtgage Amourf S1,748,000. 49 7�C R. H. K"-E N A: The Ever farces 23E urn s is Sou' vai lea LCRr_= 110 li y:y^ ," . , -1,Z - a 0 23--3;_ S i .725. X:. In !"ho s cs;ac i!y as ExeCwt i ve Di remti 0 Re —I. -an -a-, negv,'atec the a���"5'tu�ri' of tlae fv 1o.;rc twz (2,; e.`�,. i v,,e FHT- Comr,'SS; One- _ 58-Ec projects ta- I projects were res*r6Pz'j'e' an..' ma�,G siccessfiii 6 . Ma.rflowe- Gardens Lancaster, Cel fCrria 555 waifs 0,-aCira� M�,--tSa__ S- Bixry Knolls Towers Lon.. Sea:-, Car fcrn e - 0 _..: r,v 169 units Or'ick'ri Mo!-tQa:ke 724 Total Units In his capacity as Exe:.utilve & recto- c' tre Mea_ Fao_s _ 'ram=_- a-: y the Mea:� Re evelopre•,i Corporal. ion, he deveio;:e_ tr_ r.c fa -- pro jeC* s under va- i ous sections of the drat i ona h 4�4: rb� "�' . r ne initiated in 1967 aria the last etel in 1972. All are subsidixec units. Section 221 (h ) S i -sc 1 er Farni I y Re.%a_ s p i t a' = o,- 19 projects W. I thrpi 19 133 ha•.�ses $2,527,50-- Section 235 (j) P.-d33ti l itation - Single Family 6 houses Los Angeles. C:s i i f orn i a S 156 Section 235 0 j' rye• Construction - Single Fan -fly 1E hoises Leos Angeles, California S M' , 001_ . Section 235 G) Experimental Modular Construction 3 houses Single l'airi I S 117,00ZZ. Los Angeles, California Sett i on 221 (a) (2) New Gorastruct i eM - S i nc1 r a-. : 1 y 3 bovses Las Angeles, California S 45,00C . 50 2 THE J- A. Q E RN COMPW Los kyoves, Ca Oarn;e Se t for ?3E he- CarSf,r;uprT or _ r Fna 0 ; 2-S I'. E NP - Los Amy:ei, Ca. Iota. a „t= 31. More recently, he `ma's erte'"ec Rr?c, pra: we as a Ac,s - :._ -- a-: r.a, concheled or tea f,. 4::.'n; Wder-y hous. n pro2ezfs w'__-w_ fr a .,-_ non-p rcf i t e N i err?i : E1derIIv NC3usinc Casa de Loss AK gas Renown Sew, Ca. 136 units Razonal T 4 az. Redevelonment Project (Secs ©n 7361 M4:r't_age A--". Pico Union Villa Us Angle„ Ca. � 15 units Paco ';lor' K c�_ Section 221 CUSec ,. 8. Nbrl p;x Amoort Bunker Hill Plaza Los AnIeFes, Ca. 764 units Bunker Hill Reaeve l apment Pro jeci Section 221d3rfSeL.8 Mtr0ax Aron*• Mbyf lower Gardens, i p Lancaster, Ca. 76 units Section 221d3f5ec-E Mortgue Amount Pilgrim Tamer East Pasadena, Ca. 158 units SNFA/Sec.8 Martgage Aeneas t Wadsworth P 1 ace Los A 9e 1 es , Ca. 45 units Section ZD215ec.8 Mortgage Amourl Casa de Goodw i 1 1 Los Angeles. Ca - 36 units Section M/Sec-s Fir.: pr.. a - Vac Etc_ FAA F''Cec- Cowes =vs`- F'44 Prciec' - CA 16-D ti i-03 V ■ Erb S &ti:, . Stale Hoa0 r,._ F -.ante Aaenz—, Unde' e* "*c1 .r�`• :fir, 75- 0-S Project 12869 393c,. Fire Goya menu FRA 122 EHOE38 S3,598,01D. 5 51 THE 9. H- 1IE V % CO PAW El1iAerk "cos ic T 0,. S ge"Tam ;to Whar Mart C:ZA1�1 �y� �+ Crn1iYInatowr�. iL #L-%qe11eS v'erdu ' i e.-mce raptn a�1S"R�;, r toe ry. bkaoe Saar Feirma;mc Val 1,pazaine. Ca. - S1_ "bTik"s Centel, Episcopal Churn *air huys. Ca. Ansehas Plaza Looms Bea&-, fay^:, I I Hous i npty`• Christian comptom, Ca. chutrcY 10_ 2 56 Units Ow aa; l itast fear' Wrtgage Anewt Section 2316 Paco Unite Plazas Lis Angeles,` a- 3 units f 7o n fS� aces) Ow C�"� .�i w. by Section 236 Marl yge Anou -..I i1Wbroand a e/5 Los Ante N es , Ca. I fa S i eg l e 1Fam i, u j Dwt l i a ng NOrna QW 5 OF relocatet from *e_.tchester to n d i e/5 NX McrtgAge ,AaOuar:* Section 22132A Pico Chionfl-Ax W Angehen Ca e S si n I e 1Faw: ! m Vi l l e rig MCC LOW NK relocated from Uestchester to Pico Unice NCP wbrrtgar Amount Section WOMAN e cm l e'er 17 3G ,OD3. 52 T,AE 9- ILEA CQW-W Lz_ An-e 'esw 0- iL4 _ k-sea e� y - =_ `r r QF MtY- jz' 40c _ -- Cast Pica WOO 0, Section 20WOZA ?w • Z-Z MC' ay,rr $-:. .;ACC O-r 3F__ ' AID'_ Khe mws lolaw e,xpr-;ence Zs 'e- Owx ems- - - Zvoni, �;,E- _,er„e_- ' C" er p1p-09;ram oe,.cisel s" a 19A l` epun a'_ __ _ ..__ �"WT__. Z ir �'+i k lP i' a ame +R:� li fir'L �'.. p b s ajV-'- 3 .y ..toes S .,` a I. '. ' i • e :,mow z e — -f e: '. .+f Ate- � mta* Lcs, air". The S104# o; 'tO�* 'R. _ Ak e`, raft'-• s K i a an a -w4 a» w Vie,- R. Ket M e- In his CapecAw as ass;stamf p,ro'w1't Id +sown` mtr w w m w m t r - N-4K?ewent . It esoa* cir'. ate' swce- V i s;"s M .O a-• , - 1' _ . a -ea Z. --: Z' �� !�►. I" r-00, aCIaliitraeS have cra"«s Cf $ N j $ w` yT rs° • "'i-_n �C;b:�!RMC�' A _ -3: _ Me �■ _ _ �+ ,.Tj h v ii # 7t Il t� . 3�` e a Iet ac a i1L �' . ' ^ . _ _`.�°r"� a t ` _wTaL work 4 "q draw H a-rd ncft�mekwg w r wwwra i " ; [i �' i �t +w ��- w a I-`S- °c s _ Of SO--Z2q-qz* desrw in the ; uwe d C� ` v"S z.rare � --e V � of bwo Design gn U k 1 Mdy has '? .S Cr` 5 CC I I i I)S has h a '.e E-, a: E- a-, u- :'r i or) a' pros r a - C> ttELE, C E, Cem-re- element Sc-'Vicez a:)enc er- Inc luaing Aj Lc_ Co! I ege os e z r e a• Dr) 5, 'p s t c ac ?-- I e ve the 9 r 51 rai Or' or Ce I 'I or n 'a AJr, -r-, F,*ra4 ve lrite-nsrip with oil i%85' D.C.; and iS & tl Y I o' A— r r at or- f rorr I Cal,fornia It tA..2 C the Greer 1'a I ley Homeow n e r s f Somf- 5 , QrJ ', re 5 1 Cie n1 s % � t h a as the for -us oi acre near park C! its, ki nC, And wa: Thu5, functionally e, for a r es i der-t cam; I c r t r,, e IL a calf frr assistance for 10, a E,kevav- Feasib}lity Study Team a D, of Governments, and 85 the Graduate anc Leisure Studies, California State IC.- SpeC a J Sery 1 CeS , Recreation and program st al I , adr i n i stereo 8 v va*,or eduCallon, services for the &--c _cwm-,jrly Cultural arts. 54 !::1 SRI Eli all •• •ti�r�nus, ?�3 ,�.���►.�e s114 .ENS ��■� •l�[*I •lifril 1Riom1 %mi loom== sense lummummi N -Vista �! 1 58 ■ CITY OF CUSTA MESA C►►UPORN$A 42626 P.O. Box 1200 FROM T14E OFFICE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 24, 1979 Mr. Fbland E. Canfield, Jr. Area Director Department of Hissing i Development 2500 Wilshire Bcxslevard Ins Angeles, California 90057 RE: CA1,SA ST. JOW, COSTA Mom, CALIFVFNIIA Dear Mr. Calmf ield: The City of Costa Mesa Planning Department has reviewed a proposal by St. John the Divine Episcopal Church to seek approval of a 34-unit Section 202, Senior Citizen Housing Project. In addition, the "concept" of Casa St. John has, been reviewed with the Carta Mesa City Council in a Study Session on Monday, April 23, 1979. The Costa Hesa Planning Department will entertain the necessary alppli- Cations to process Casa St. John. Every effort will be made to expedite the processing of the project within the legal peers of the Planning Department and the City of Costa Mesa. TheC:osta Mesa City Council indi- cated a willingness to pros and wider the pal; agreeing in concept with the need for additional senior citizen projects of this type in the City. Neither the Planning Department nor the City Council can, of course, guarantee the outcome of the various public hearings which will be necessary to complete this project. A General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Developrent Review will be required. If application is made for a General Plan Amendment in June, 1979, it is estimated that the necessary project approvals could be obtained by January, 1980. If you Lave any additional questions regarding the Planning Department's position orthis project please contact ny office. Sincerely, Charles W. Bober is Plwr irg & Developr ent Services Director cc: City Manager city Ccmncil Planning 0mvi.ssion 77 FAIR DRIVE (714) 754.5245 - _ _. 59 I• - I. CITY OF COSTA MESA — INITIAL, STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This Initial Study provides the basis for the determination whether the subject project may have a significant effect on the environment. If it is determined that the project may have a significant effect, an Environ- mert.al Impact Report will be prepared which focuses on the specific areas of concern identified by this Initial Study. EACKGR=JD 1. Applicant y .%�n�,01z�" 2. Address \ 3. Phone Number 0 loor.J' 4. Project Location ` el Zip Code tZ(to Z S-Zc�gc 5. Project Title/Description S 4=OC- L t i � .�:1 �1 MAi� T.�M4 I I . ENVIRQNMQT ML impne (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers attached. See Section V.) 1. Phjrsical Environment Yes Maybe No Will the project have a significant impact on the physical environment? a. Hydrology b. Air Quality C. Geology ./ d. Flora and fauna e. noise f. Archeological/Historical 2. Impact of Environment on Project Will the project be subject to impacts from the surrounding environment? a. Natural Environment - flood plains, seismic zones, landslide prone areas, etc. b. Manmade Environment - disruptive noise levels, degraded air quality, traffic, etc. 60 3• on Public Services Yes lea No Will the project have a significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas? a. Fire Protection b. Police Protection ----- �-� C. Schools d. Parks or Cher Recreational Facilities e. Maintenance of Public Facilities Including loads f. Other Governmental Services ✓ 4. Ryacts, on Traffic/Circulation Will the project result in: a. Generation of substantial vehicular movement? .` b. A substantial impact on the surrounding circulation system? c. Increased traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? 5. Land Use a. will the project result in i substantial alteration: of t.� present or planned land use of an area? b. Will the project !gave a substantial inpact on surrounding Land uses? 6. Pbpulation./Housing a. Will the project alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the 'iuman population of the area? b. Will the project affect the existing housing supply, or create a demand for additional housing? 7. Energy/Utilities a. will the project result in a substantial increase in the use of an energy source or require the development of new sources of energy? b. Will the project result in a need for new public utility systems or a substantial alteration to existing utilities? ,f 61 8. Natural Resources Will the project result in a substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? III. MiER AGENCIES AND/OR PERSONS CONZST,%TED [ l See attached X Not applicable IV. MANDATOFM FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Will impacts have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -tern, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? C. Does the project have impacts whict: are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? V. DISCUSSION OF ENVIROMMAL EVAU,,ATION [X See attached VI. DEi"MINATIONl [ ] Not applicable On the basis of this Initial Study: Yes Maybe No I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the enviro nient, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4tiILL BE PREPARED. [ ] I find that although the proposed Project cold have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DaCUMTION WILL BE PREPARED. [ ] I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date ...h]t _ TT t, CCJ CX Signature 62 s 1 : 4a. Traffic Generation GP-79-3A The General Flan Amendment to High Deansity Residential is being requested in order to permit the aonstruction of 36 senior citizen housing units. lbrmally, 36 apartment units world be expected to generate approximately 290 vehicle tripends daily. however, since the subject units are interned for senior citizen housing, the traffic generation will be suistantiayly less. The property has access from butuh 'range Avenue and Bay Street, b0-- of which are designated as crater highways by the Master Plan of Higk-ma,,s. No significant circulation in acts are anticipated. 5a. Land Use The amendment of the General Plan from L w to High Density F�esidential and the subsequent developuent of 36 units is a substantial ctznge o` ip--A use. Since this change involves the retuilding of a church on a different portion: Of the site and the construction of cxw residential cwplex similar to exis �- ing uses in the vicinity, the land use iapact is not expected to bee sigrifi- cant. 6a. Population The construction of 36 multi family un:Lts would rxwmally be expected to pro- vide housing for 72 persons. Since these units are intended for senior citizen households, a large portion of which will be single persons, the number of occupants is expected to be less. 'ire environcental effect should not be significant. 74- a 0 0 m fp".r4 cc. tlr- zt SPPAW r7 I Nk 0 C, !�)44NT 1-YOWAL TPE;-- :D�AL IF 64 City of AMe;*nning Department Post Offix 77 Fair Drive [[ Costa Mesa, California 92626 ffl Ct i (714) 754-5245 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION For Office Use Only: Project Number T � fate Received/By_ r Zone Gerieitrl Pidn Desiynati(n_ Recommendations z0lwe, s`k.� Applications for projects in the City of Costa Mesa cannot be 1)rocessed until an initial study of environmental impacts has been completed and an exemption granted or a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report prepared. Please fill out the following and return (with_ preliminary site plans, including location and size of all existing structures and trees) five (5) working days prior to submitting your armlication: Description of Project 4 Date Mailing Address --Phone AA ZipCoda Not all projects will necessitate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. In order to make a determina- tion as to whether any significait environmental impacts may result from the proposed project, the above informa- tion is necessary - As soon as possible, the Environmental Evaluator will determine whether or not the project will require an Environ- mental Impact Report and v_ilI notify the project sponsor accordingly. CMF 0325-32. rev. 4/77 66 C D --) City of Costa Mass Planning D"erhmot Pod Offios Boy. 1200 77 hair Drive j Cotft Mess, �5C,difomis 92626 t J (714) 246 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to the Procedures of the City of Costa Mesa for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Evaluator has completed an initial Study {copy attached) for the project described below: Project Number- -- Gw*xal Plant Ametxbmt GP-79-3A Applicant FL-v. Omrad U=dquu3t-- Project Location/Address 183 Bay Strut Project Title/Description. General Plan Xnw m nt fzrsn Low Density_ Residential to High Density lies!Amti.al to 1?m-t aonstntction of 34 spits for senior citizen Ming. M r _ and does hereby find: ®That the proposed project cannot, or will not, have a significant effect on the environment. Negative Declara- tion Status is therefore granted for this project and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is thereby not necessary. 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 on an attached sheet have been added to the project. APPROVED BY DATE Environmental Evaluator This determination is not final until adopted by the decision -making body or administrative official, and a Notice of Determination filed, 67 CMF 0503-22 Ibv. i/77 White—COUM Clark[ C§nwY--Pn*4Ct PrIMs PkW--My 4i@rkl G0id*nr0d Ap91iC2nt It I GP-79-3A DISCUSSIC N OF EWIRDwE TTAL FVALUATICN 4a. Traffic Generation The General Plan Amendment to High Density Residential is being requested in order to permit the construction of 36 senior citizen housing units. Normally, 36 apartment units would be expected to generate approximately 290 vehicle tripends daily. However, since the subject units are intended for senior citizen housing, the traffic generation will be substantially less. The property has access from both Orange Avenue and Bay Street, both of which are designated as ocawter highways by the Master Plan of Kighways. No signifi.,.;ant circulation impacts are anticipated. 5a. Land Use The amendment of the General Plan from Low to High Density Residential and tI,e subsequent development of 36 units is a substantial change of land use. Since this change involves the rebuilding of a church on a different portion of the site and the construction of one residential complex similar to exist- ing uses in the vicinity, the lam use impact is not expected to be signifi- cant. 6a. Pcpulation The construction of 36 multi -family units would normally be expected to pro- vide housing for 72 persons. Since these units are intended for senior citizen households, a large portion of which will be single persons, the number of occupants is expected to be less. The environmental effect should not be significant. 68 CITY OF COSTA MESA PLANNING DEPARTMENT This is to certify that - 71 — (Rezone Petition or Zone Exception Permit) for was Published on --- ` oZ p ' (date) }� Posted on L/ (date) 4�q^Post Cards mailed to property (no.) owners of record as shown in our files nn &",,- Al. Charles W. Roberts Director of Planning cMf 0324-25 ` 69 s 271 1979 005 PROF. LIST FOR OTHER0PT MONOAY► OCT04ER V8i 19799 PsOs $Cx 1200P COSTA MESAS "ALIFOR41A 92626 THE COSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION GILL HOLD A PJBLIC HEARING AT THE .CITY HALL+ 77 PAIR DRIVE• COSTA MESAi CALIFORNIA AT 3!00 PsMs OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE THERE- AFTER ON MONDAY OCTOSER Sr 1979s ,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SP-79-3A FOR REVERAND CONRAO As NOROOUISTA AUTHORIZED AGE,4T F30 THE BISHOP OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH• 1220 WEST FOURTM STREET, LOS ANaEL£S. CALIFl3QNIAj FOR A GENERAL PLAN. AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO H13►+ DENSITY RESIDEN- TIAL• ENVIRONMENTAL OETERiINATIOV: NEGATIVE DECLARATION A*P• NO# 119-061011 DORTON, THOMAS W (JT1 134 E MAY ST COSTA MESA, CAL 92627 AsPs 400 lie-G61-03 ROLFE, EDWIN H 2523 VISTA BAYA NEWPORT BEACH, CAL 92660 AsPs NO* 118-061-flS SKOR{1J VAL ( JT I 1601 SAYADERE TER CRONA DEL MARS CAL 92625 AsPs NO* 119-061-07 MURP14Yj JAMES E (JT ) 190 E KAY ST COSTA MESA, CAL 92627 AsPs NO* 119-061-09 SPAHRj CHARLES R (JT) 197 BUOY ST COSTA MESA] CAL 92627 AsPs NOs 118-061-11 LUKEIs ALAN F IJTI 34 ALDERSROOK ST IRVINEa CAL 9Z714 AsPs NO* 1186061-02 ASHCROFTP WILLIAM T S (WR1 160 E BAY ST COSTA MESAS CAL 92626 AsPs NO* li$-061-04 FENC4AKi VIRGINIA M 1'401 172 E SAY ST COSTA MESA& CAL 92627 AsP: NO* 118-061006 CRILLYJ JAMES 184 E SAY ST COSTA MESAP CAL 92627 AsPs NO* 1180061-08 STEIVHAUSERi 'MARILYN L ET AL IJT) 196 E SAY ST COSTA MESA, CAL 92627 AsPs NO* 118-061-11" JACKS GEORGE P ( JT f 191 BUOY ST COSTA MESAi CAL 92627 AsPs NO* 11S-061-12 JENNERA JAMES L 179 E BUOY ST COSTA MESA# CAL 92627 PA3E O1 70 1 7 ■ 4' 4 !-- 11 .l -a Iy Lal la. t: .] a,, i .1 i , 0 1 t r t.. ,r J7 I. 7 IF iJ f ta, lu (r ❑• i 1 la 1 m 3 J f' •� fY ? 4 U1 CT' . (', L1 Y 11 a 4. � 1 t.. A _ T 1 i •a • a • tr Q II u, A I tl J c (v IAI .Y Y ? ct f'. t7 to -C to C'1 U I C7 7 ' •� -• a 9) n u ar a R R, .� ti` 11+ L 1- to <-`- �-• a 1- �_ LA t C. ac a w !r I-- tr -' lu w F- C7 .il .al .J Y Jl `� r F ) r• a [3 ia- r R w •: [ Z or C. ►. t x ds Ix, a Q •. C3 t+ s Q oil r C` f C'i et En W r d� J r i-- W� •"� ry • 7 e� ft A IL' i l F- {7 7 ( ) d J' t/: 1 R' IY «+ [A) W Cy 1-- i J J W a J b- Z Q" C7 M (] e U I w a 1. w n [r C] [Y .-a C- I i r.4 a z o A IL r- n 71 R7U2,r01 SEP, 27, 1979 PAGE PUBLIC NEAkINGS WILL BE HELD SY T.IE COSTA MESA PLA'+NIN3 C04MISSION AT THE CITY +GALL# 77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA 11ESA, CALIFORNIA, AT 6:33 P.M• OR AS 533N AS POSSI3.E THERE- AFTER ON MJhOAY, UCTORER 08* 1979. RE3ARDINO TIME FOLLOWING APPLICATI34S: It GENERAL PLAN AMENOME04T ©P •79-3►. REVISED# FOR ROYALE 3USINESS CiNTER# INCORPORATED, AJTMORIZED AGENT FOR ROY K# SAKIGKA, SAKTAKA FARMS, I4C# 1*850 SUNFLOWER AVE# SANTA AINA, FOR PERMISS10% TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED N34T4 OF THE SAN OIEG3 FREEWAY# WEST OF MAIN ST. AND THE COSTA MESA FREEWAY, SOUTy OF SUN FLOwER AVE** AND APPR3XIMATELY 1#300 FEET EAST OF BRISTOL ST. FROM LOW OENsrTY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL CENTER (7904 ACRES)#4EI3H90RHOOD COMMERCIA. 13.3 ■CREB,o INDUSTRIAL PARK t6.9 ACRESI# LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 18.8 ACRES!• MEDr DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 13L ACMES:. AND FOR PERMISSION TO AMEND THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT* ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT E• REQUEST FOR PUBLIC NEARING ►REHARDING A PUBLIC NUISANCE VEHICLE LOCATED AT 926 we 18TH STREET, 3• REHEARING OF REZONE PETITION 4-79-13 FOR TARN�jTZER- HAMILTON# INCORPORATED# AUTi10RIZED AGENT FOR MORELANO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY# INCORPORATED# P•09 BOX 7600# LOS ANOELES# CALIFORNIA# TQ REZO+VE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 151 KAL4US DRIVE FROM !MP TO PDT (OLAVVE►D DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL OETERmINATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6• TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT TT 10864 FOR DONALD R• WARD# __. 2110 NErPORT ®OUL£VARD, APT• 1, FOR TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT FOR SIrNGLE`LOT SUBDIVISI3N FOR CONDOMINIUM PJR- POSES AT 380 we wILSO*!# IN AN R3 ZONE* ENVIRONMENTAL _ OETERMINA TION: NEGATIVE OECLARAT13N S. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT TT 10878 FOR GARY E• MALAZIAN AUTHURIZ€D AGENT FOR ELIZABETm M. WALLACE# 2017 E. OCEAN ROULEVARR, BALBOA# FOR APPROVAL OF TENTATIvE TRACT MAP FOR A ONE -LOT SUSOIVISI34 IN CONJUNCTION WITH A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1e14 FULLERTON AVENUE IN AN R2 ZONE• ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: EWEM4PT. 6+ 20NE ExCEPTIoN PERMIT ZE-79-1^�,6 FOR TADA 6 ASSOCIATES# AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR C• Jo SEQERSTROM 6 SONS# 3315 FAIRVIEW ROAD FOR VARIANCES FROM RE47UIREO FRUNT AND REAR S€TSACKS AND PARKING IN CONJUNCTION wITH CON- STRUCTION OF A 1980 S99 FT. DRIV€-THRU RESTAURANT AT 3140 HARBOR BOULEVARD IN A Cl ZONE# ENVIRONMENTAL DICTERMIN TIdN! NE'aATIVE DECLARATION 7a ZONE EXCEPTION PERMIT ZE079-147 FOR SERTHA Ea SMIT-Ii 2397 wESTmiNsT'ER AVENUE FOR A CON31TIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PRE-SC1400L FOR A MAXIMJ4 OF 20 CM16DREN IN CONJUNCTION wITM CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRE&SCh0 % FACILITIES AND A DWELLING JNITa LO_ATEC AT 2245 ORAvG= AVENUE IN AN R2 TONE• ENVIRONMENTA6 DETER41NATION: NE3ATIvE DECLARATIot4 9a ZONE EXCEPTION PER*IT ZE079-148 A43 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT TT 10871 FOR M• Da JANES C010ANY♦ IVC* AJTHORIZ• ED ASENT FGR La Me MILTENSJRQ, 773 PAULARINO AvENwE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 52•UNIT CGNDO'ti141J%l AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT FOR A SINGLEOLOT SJ3OI• VISION& LOCATED AT ►SOVE AODREsS& IN AN 42 20'aE+ F-NvIRONmENTAL DETERMINATION: NE3ATIvE DECLAnATIuy (907S+C21 90 ZONE EXCEPTION PERMIT ZE-790134 AND REZONE PETITION Ro79w14 FOR DAVID Na ROJRKE& 1500 ►DAMS AVEa& 93131 FOR A CONDITIONAL uSE PERMIT FDR A 24•usIT CONDO• MI%IUA PRO.ACT AND PERMISSION TO REZONE PROPERTY �.)s CATER! AT 1013+2J99 ANAHEIM STPEET F'RO!1 RE To R3a ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 9JRTHER INFORMATIJN ON THE ABOVE APPLICATIONS& TELEPHONE- 754•S245 OR CALL AT THE OFFICE OF TyE PLANNING OEPARTMENTa 1004 200a 77 FAIR DRIVE& COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA* COSTA MESA PLANNIN3 COM41SSI.ON RICNARD CARSTENSENs CHAIRMAN CHARLES we POSERTS SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR OF PLd.-1NI40 SEA- 27, 1979 005 DROOF LIST COR 3THER PT PA3E 0 ASPS NO► 119-061.13 BROWN# STANLEY C IJT? 173 BUOY ST COSTA MESA* CAL 92627 ASP► +SOS 11SM061=14 JARZO18, LEO F toR! JAR2316, FLOYD a O 93x 307 L38 ALA*lITOSA CAL 91723 ASP* NO► 118-061015 A►p, N0► 116-061016 wRIGHT. ESTMER L Y3CE4, ROBEPT F 161 E nuOY ST 155 BUOY ST COSTA MESA/ CAL 92627 COSTA MESA, CAL 92627 Asp, N0► 118+D63-05 wALSME4 J66EPH T (JT ) 176 E Pr I'm ST COSTA MESA4 CAL 92627 ASP► NO* 118-063009 EVA4SP DONALD 0 193EVTHST COSTA MESAS GAL 92627 A,PS NOS 11BaC63w11 JOKES♦ ALICE A €T AL 2015 GRANGE AVE COSTA MESA& GAL 92627 A,o• NO► 116-063009 LAuTENSC"LAGER, R:+BERT J ;JT) 04 E 20TH ST COSTA MESA) CAL. 92627 Asp* Noe 11ZS+�:,63�1G J3sE5i ALICE A ET AL 2315 E ORANGE COSTA MESAS CAL 92627 ASPS 1400 118-063-12 9RULOTTEA WILFRED 2017 ORANGE AVE COSTA MESA• CAL 92627 ASP► NOS 118+063.13 Amps N36 113-063-14 LAMIIERT• ADA B ( NO I 4AU, oEN S I JT ) 2019 ORANGE AVE 2027 ORANGE AVE COSTA MESA* CAL 92627 COSTA MESAS CAL 92627 ASP► NOS i1B+0e3-27 SNORES, GENE L iUMf 309 LA JOLLA OR NEWPORT BEACH• CAL 92663 ASP► NO► 118-063-30 I24THARA, ROBERT N t JT 1 1997 ORANGE AVE COSTA MESA• CAL 92627 A►PS NOS 11Bw363-28 - 0LL*VDj EDNA C (NO) GUMP, WALTER 4 12412 HALEY gT SJN VALLEY, CAL 91352 A►P- NOS 118-063-31 TAJIMA• 4ILLIAM T (SM) 1997 ORANGE AVE COSTA MESA♦ CAL 92627 0 0 74 SAP+ 271 1979 �JOS PROOF. LIST FOR 3THERPT AvPa NOm 118o463o33 2020 LTD IPT) 5858 wILSMIRE SLVO LOS A%QELES. CAL 90036 AaPa NDa Its-063.34 ;KENO, TAKENDRI 166 E 2OTw ST COSTA ME5AJ CAL 92627 AaPa NO* It&-063-35 AaPa NDa 118ir63-38 KINSFATNER# SAME :JSI^<i MOR916 w (CPI 16% E 2",Tm ST 229 L9TH ST COSTA MESA, CAL 92627 NE►aPORT BEACH. CAL 9266) A.Po tip• 118.063-39 TEULIE♦ DOUGLAS J (JT1 %10 ALEPPG NEwPORT SEACna CAL 92660 A a P a ND a i t aft063040 <EvTa ROBERT C IJTF 2032 FJLLERTON AVE APT A COSTA "ESAi CAL 92627 AaPa tip• 1180063 +41 AaPa NJa 118-063-42 LEDIN, ROGER (JT) DICAB:IAP STACY ISM) 2036 FULLERTON AVE 2J40 VULLERTON AVE #A COSTA MESA& CAL 92627 COSTA MESA& CAL 92627 A•Pa NOa 116.069043 SAUNDERSi EDwAA0 C (CP f SE29 S CALIFORNIA AVE wwiITTIE4a CAL 9C602 AaPa NO* 1I6.063-4S QOROON& DONALD S lJT) ISS71 VIA MESSINA IRVINEP CAL 92715 AaPa NO# 1180063.47 NEILLi CLYDE L (JT) 339 CWERRY TREE LN NEWPORT BEACHi CAL 92660 AaPa NDa 11$0063-44 SOLAYs KiIT" J I i%l) 2337 `AURIE Lw sA COSTA MESA* CAL 92627 AaPa NOa 118-063o46 9ABANO WILLIAM IJT) 23290A LAURIE LN COST; KESAA CAL 92627 AaPa NDa Ila-063-48 CHJRC40 BISHOP OF JDROTEST*NT EPISCD°AL :V 6 A ICR) C-Iu:RCga ST JOMN OIVIyE 2043 3lRANGE AVE 92627 AaPa Npa 118-063009 A+Pa N0a IIS-101-31 RODRIGUEZ& JO ANN iJW) CLARK& DONALD L (NO) _ ISE E frTk ST 23O-E 20TH ST COSTA ►MESA. CAL 92627 COSTA MESAO CAL 92627 AaPa 400 112-101•12 AaPa NDa 1150101-03 ALBERS. HALT€R F ALSERSI WALTER F 2701 S FAIRVIEW ORANME CST COLLUE COSTA MESA• CAL 92627 COSTA MESA, CAL 92626 PA3E J: 75 . , s r •Ea PT PA3E J r T4, • pv 5 tJTI ST • -F ��• CA�. 92627 • ..., ,v. 11l4�i�r3�J1 PEAgL ter..?�- ai+r_ ... •raat ',a ., a` 92661 .�,. } ISO 1C3-56 .1 4 l i• T i • 4�, i. � i s a t • � S '• � � AL 92627 + 1Igo 103-64 ► L 92627 ..�.f.y'�,•;;�i+. •, 1:�i�� ?Sy • �! is r � CAL 92627 41 a �i.* Wit,}�.a • i `��� , CITY OF COSTA MESA INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM September 28 . 19 79 TO t Heads FROM Doug dark, Assistant Planning Director SUB=: OCTOBER 1979 GENERAL PLAN AMUMMENrS Attached for your review is the October 1979 General Plan Report. The itw6 within the Report will be discussed by the Planning Cxmssion at their meeting of October 8, 1979. If you have tents regarding the Report, please forward them to the Planning Division by Thursday, October 4, 1979, if possible. Thank you for your assistance. DW:ks Attacbment cc: Development Services Director Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Engineer Transportation Services Manger City Manager City Attonxpy Fire Chief Public Services Director Leisure Services Director Tic Hewtm, Acting Building Safety .Director rAMiCe ✓ City Clerk Police Chief Cana, catioans Chief Personnel Director 77 16 H$ T GENERAL PLAN AM NlNF3+T,f GIP-78-3A ( Revised) .......... I Royale Business Center, Inc./Sakiaka Fars GENERAL PLAN ANENEMENT GP-79-3A...................18 Nordquist/Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church *Nf?dE: [FERAL PLAN AMENDIENiS GP-78-3". (Mesa Verde Shop- ping Center/C. J. Segerstran and Sons) and GA-79- 3B (Perez/Fairview State Hospital) were scheduled for this General Plan Review but have been con- tinued to the February 1980 General Plan Review. GENERAL PLAN AMENDKxr GP6-78-3A mvism) General Plan Amerrlment GP-78-3A was initiated by the Royale Development Company, authorized agent for Roy K. Sakioka and Sakioka Farms, Incorpor- ated, in May 1978. It* subject property of this application contains approximately 165 acres of agricultural fields located north of the San Diego Freeway, west of the Costa Mesa freeway and Hain Street, and south of Sunflower Avenue (Map 1). The original request proposed to amend the existing land use designation of LOw Density Residential to Medium Density Residential (23 acres), Ge.-cral Cam ercial (11 acres), Conrercial Center (77 acres), and industrial Park (47 acres). In order to facilitate the proposed land use pattern, an amendment to the circulation element to revise the proposed aligmaent of Anton Boulevard through the property was also requested. The requested amendment and acor panying Draft Dlvironmental Impact Repert were first heard by the Planning Ccmission at the October 9, 1978 meeting. At that time, the Planning Staff recc mended denial of the requested land use and circulation amendments. These reccomendations were designed to preserve the status quo until sufficient progress on the General Plan Review Program and the Central orange County Circulation Study (CETTROCCS) had been made. Ta provide additional review time, both the Draft EIR and General Plan Amendment were continued to February 13, 1979. At that meeting, these items were continued to June 11, 1979 in order to allay additional review and revision of the original request. During this time, the requested land use and circulation amendments were substantially revised. General Plan Amen:]ment GP-78-3A (Revised) proposes to retain 8.8 acres as Low Density Residential and to amend the remaining area to Medium Density Residential (16.5 acres), High Density Residential (30.0 acres), Neighborhood Commercial (3.5 acres), Owmercial Center (79.4 acres) and Industrial Park (6.9 acres). The revised request also proposes to alter the alignment of Anton Boulevard and the intersection of Main Street and Sunflower Avenue. Because of the scope of the revisions, the Draft EIR was also revised. At the June 11 meeting, GPI-78-3A (Revised) was continued to the October C, 1979 meeting. However, consideration of the Draft EIR was continued to the July 23, 1979 meeting to correct discrepancies in the document. Further discrepancies mandated additional continuances to August 13, August 27 and September 11, 1979. At the September 11 meeting, the Planning Commission forwarded the Draft EIR to the City Council and recanmended that the document be accepted as adequate. II. AREA DESCRIMON The 165-acre Study Area is primarily used for agricultural purposes (Map 2). It is zoned Al except for the easterly 13 acres which are zoned C2. The agricultural portion of the property is designated as as 80 1 3 LOW CONS7Y M-SlaFh(7141— � A4&DK*t DEA451 Y RESIDIFI-M L- Hi::zm CWN5ay �lf»ti71�+,L CaVA4EGC 4L C&47E 2 (aASM A4654) C<Mmu"ITY 6h4?pp'N4 C37vrEv- (S4'4TA . kM) Cret4EjQ,4L. INOV572JAL (10A F- GP'T8-3A IREVISED1 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP 1 O iv" iao' G[kp' A ?a= ORMW I : law 0ENbrT'e 2e5to:iv774t_ MEDIUM Ai wsirY 9F&DE1IM14 . C2 (CtVM 6eC4K Re-5-40LN7Z441) R4 (.S,0U2&Ma AFMZ-rA.eF-M73 C5(,4, 7E,eW- CGa�-fME�CIRL.} 81 GP-78.3 IREVISED] LAND USE MAP Z s. • ACIPJCi.i1MMi S1NC*L& ALWLY A-ESIAEN77 L MVI-TfP%5 MANLY RESVIENTLI,L C4MAAF- 2CAL AM1lSTli't,�TJbr�44G � VACAAfT a &0' 4'C%" &W' 8n AMW WA Prime Agricultural Land under tl* California Land Conservation Act of 1965. Farm related structures and residences are located on the east- ern portion of the site. A gas station used for autcuobile repair is located on the northeast corner of the site. The Study Area adjoins the San Diego Freeway to the south and the Costa Mesa Freeway to the east. Across Sunflower Avenue to the north are single-family and multiple -family hares in the City of Santa Ana. The western bourukry of the Study Area is coterminous with the Town Center Area. Farther west is South Coast Plaza. East of the Costa 'Mesa Fr.-e way is the Irvine Industrial Cazilex-West. Freeway access to the Study Area is provided by the San Diego Freeway intersection with Bristol Street. Additional freeway access is avail- able fran the Costa Mesa Freeway via MacArthur Boulevard and the Corona Del Mar Freeway at Bear Street. Surface street access is available :from Sunflower Avenue (approximately three-quarters of a stile of frontage). The Master Plan of Highways des- ignates Sunflower Avenue as a Secondary Highway. North -south access can be obtained from Bristol Street, a Major Highway, via Anton Boulevard or Sunflower Avenue. Additional north -south access is possible from Flower Street and Main Street in Santa Ana. 111. PfiC33ECT DE,SCRIPTICN The requested amendments are graphically illustrated by Map 3. T ^ larg- est portion of the site is allocated for general commercial develomnt immediately adjacent to the San Diego and Costa Mesa Freeways, aloDg both sides of Anton Boulevard and at the realigned intersection of Sunflower and Mains. The applicant indic, .es that typical development within this designation would consist ` one and b%x) story office buildings. A smaller area at the intersection of Flower and Sunflower is designated for Neighborhood Camnercial uses which will be occupied by a one story comiercial develaprent. Two story research and development bu4 :..inns are anticipated to occupy the Industrial kirk property between Anton and the Oosta Mesa Freeway. The remaining lard south of Sunflower Avenue is allocated to varying densities of reside3itial development ranging from two stories and 7.9 units per acre to 'three stories over a one story perking gafage at 27 units per acre. Pmposed Circulation Element amenikents consist of the extemion of Anton Boulevard through the total project to i'itersect with Main Street and Sunflower Avenue. The Main/Sunflower intersection would be realigned to became a four-way intersection. Flower Street would be extended to the south into the project to intersect with Anton Boulevard. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An noted in Section I, a raft Environmental L%mect Report has been pre- pared for the proposed amendments and has been re=mendeJ for acceptance by the Planning Ommission. A summary of the more significant impacts is provided in this section. -2- The uses proposed are a significant alteration to the current use of the property and Low Density General Plan designation. Development in accord- ance with the proposal +could eliminate 165 acres of Prime Agricultural Lard. Future residential development on the largest piece of land avail- able for residential de:velopmnt in the City would be precluded. The eastern portion of the site is impacted by aircraft -generated noise frcm Orange County Airport. The southern and eastern portions are also affected by freeway traffic noise. Mitigation would be required to reduce the noise to appropriate levels for the particular use developed. An archaeological survey of the Study Area has revealed a light shell scatter indicative of aboriginal habitation. Scientific excavation to determine the significance of this site has been proposed as a mitigation measure. A Circulation and Traffic Study has been conducted and is included in the Draft EM Circulation is a serious concern in the arpsa and has been studied in conjunction with several other high traffic volum., generators in this vicinity. EIRs prepared for the South Coast Plaza, Arnel, Downey Savings and Loan, Tbwn Center, Orange County Airport, and `rvine Industrial Omplex-West projects have all indicated that ultimate buildo v_ of this general area will result in more traffic than the circulatory system can adequately handle. These previous EIRs assumed either low or medium den- sity residential development for the sakioka property. The Circulation and Traffic Study determined development in accordance with the requested amendment would generate a total of 26,700 vehicle trip ends per day. Fourteen intersections in the vicinity were studied as to their capacity and the impact of the project upon them. Currently, all of the intersections are operating within their capacity. With full develop- ment of the area, including the Sakioka property, eight of these intersec- tions will be operating beyond rapacity during the afternoon,/evening peak period. An additional five intersections would operate at a level of service approaching unstable flaw. Implementation of the mitigation mea- sures in the Draft EIR would reduce traffic demands to capacity or lower for all but one of the fourteen intersections under study. Four other intersections, however, would be near capacity and have undesirable vehicle/capacity ratios. Existing or anticipated public utility capacities/facilities are adequate to accommodate project -related demand and consumption. The proposed pro- ject nary require additional mwnpower and equipment for police and fire protection in addition to a new fire station site within the project bound- aries. Traffic congestion in the area may impede public safety and eaeergerrcy vehicle access throughout the project area. Full development could result in the creation of These new eglaynent opportunities will increase of housing (especially in the lower and mmlerate area of high demand, limited supply and rapidly The incorporation of various densities and types in the proposed project could provide 983 units and reduce this demand. -3- jobs for 9,025 persons. the denaM for all types inacaee ranges) in an increasing housing costs. of housing opportunities to house 1,817 residents 84 The uses proposed are a significant alteration to the current use of the property and Low Density General Plan designation. Development in accord- arx>-- with the proposal would eliminate 165 acres of Prime Agricultural Land. Future residential development on the largest piece of land avail- able for residential development in the City would be precluded. 7he eastern portion of the site is impacted by aircraft -generated noise from Orange County Airport. The southern and eastern portions are also affected by freeway traffic noise. Kitigation would be required to reduce the noise to appropriate levels for the particular use developed. An archaeological survey of the Study Area has revealed a light shell scatter indicative of aboriginal habitation. Scientific excavation to determine the significance of this site has been proposed as a mitigation measure. A Circulation and Traffic Study has been conducted and is included in the Draft EIR. Circulation is a serious concern in the area and has been studied in conjunction with several other high traffic volume generators in this vicinity. EIRs prepared for the South Coast Plaza, Arnel, Downey Savings and Loan, Tmon Center, Orange County Airport, and Irvin Industrial Omplex-West projects have all indicated that ultimate buildout of this general area will result in more traffic than the circulatory system can adequately handle. these. previous EIRs assumed either low or medium den- sity residential development for the Sakioka property. 7he Circulation and Traffic Study determined development in accordance with the requested amendment would generate a total of 25,700 vehicle trip ends per day. Fourteen intersections in the vicinity were studied as to their capacity and the impact of trp project upon them. Currently, all of the intersection are operating within their capacity. with full develop- ment of the area, including the Sakioaka property, eight of these intersec- tions Will be operating beyond capacity during the afternoon/evening peak period. An additional five intersections would operate at a level of service approaching unstable flow. Implementation of the mitigation mea- sures in the Draft £IR would reduce traffic demands to capacity or lower for all but one of the fourteen intersections under study. Four other intersections, however, wound be near capacity and have undesirable `chicle/capacity ratios. Existing or anticipated public utility capacities/facilities are adequate to accommodate project -related demaA and consumption. The proposed pro- ject may rewire additional manpower and equipment for dice and fire protection in addition to a new fire station site within the project bound- aries. Traffic congestion in the area may impede public safety and emergency vehicle access throughout the project area. lull development could result in the creation of jobs for 9,025 persons. new eeploynent opportunities will increase the dmud for all types of housing (e%pecially in the lower and moderate income ranges) in an area of high dueand, limited supply and rapidly increasing housing costs. The incorporation of various densities and types of housing opportunities in the ptmposed project could provide 983 units to house 1,817 residents and reduce this dmrd. -3- 85 SAW DICOO FW y C� � ��n kaou� mmum Qum mmu[, 5 4tRftp MR o&Wq VffCOXAi ImmG 044mm GP-78--3A REVISED REQUESTED AMENDMENTS MAP 3 eiauas rr t - 7" 1, =1 I 110 �� "^4 AMMI !�!lILL�J lk=,& /AL OL4 sw�v*lb - m "aw f F 86 T�W r,--N--3A in October 1978 was based upcw�=:, '. • �r-y h&-A ua waken a major prOg am to revise the ant l ry Qe—wow w.. F,- a t,eis [ comideration of a proposal of this scale Would -v t �- �a -gal - ufficient egress had been made to can- plexs: tax* aea] F°ian Review Program. Since that time, the Environmental Res0u a, t Element was drafted and accepted pted as accurate and adequate by t�* Planning i Camnissiom (February 26, 1979) and City Council JApril 2, 1979). Additionally, research and analyses of all segments of the Community Development/Management and Land Use Elements have been initiated while drafts of portions of the Community Development/ Manage- ment Element have been completed. Sufficient progress on the entire program has been made to determine, in a general sense, the degree to which the requested amendments conform with the revised General Plan. Table I provides an identification of the various o3npoeents and status of the General Plan FL -view Program and a comparison of the applicacttI s proposal with the applicable General Plan Elements. Because of the nature of the General Plan at this point in time, this comparison is limited to the background discussion, research and analysis contained in each element or subelement. A direct comparison of the proposal to appli- cable goals and policies is not appropriate since the &)currents contain alternative policies which indicate varying degrees of ccimnitment for the Cib Which have yet to be adopted. Also, as the alternative policies now exist, internal inconsistencies and conflicts are apparent because the policies have not been subjected to inter -element cross examination to balances competing en+virot ntal, social and economic demands and con- straints. VI. ClRaIr ATION OP`I`ICNS The requested amendtrent to the Lard Use Element would also require an amendment to the Circulation Element since the proposed street layout does not conform to the Master Plan, of Highways. Discussed in this sec- tion are the circulation system specified by the Master Plan of Fighways, the proposed realignment of the Main Street arx1 Sunflower Avenue inter- section, and an alternative Anton Boulevard extension. A. 92tion I consists of a street system within the Stay Area as called for by the Master Plan of Highways. Antoci Boulevard is planned to he extended beyond its present easterly terminus as a Primary Highway. Anton Boulevard would curve northward to connect with Flower Street in Santa Ana (Map 4A,). The coppletion of the Anton/Flower connection can be expected to serve as a major access road to the subject property and Town Center cevel- op+ent. Internal service within the subject property would have do be provided by a network of local and collector streets with intersections on the extension and Sunflower Avenue. this level of the circulation nebiark is not addressed in the current Master Plan of Highways. -4- GP- 7 8 -8A (REVISEDi CIRCULATION OPTIONS 1. Existing Master Plan of Highways MAP 4 I!, Proposed Main/Sunflower 4-way Intersection 10M,rws m" or P 1. Alternative Anton Extension Proposal Dq Implementation of this option would require substantial modifications to the proposed land use amendment submitted with this application. Both the location and orientation of the major land use components would be altered because of the importance the proposed alignment of Anton and the realignment of the Main/Sunflower intersection play in the applicant's proposal. Information received from the Public Services Department indicates that this alignment follows the higher volume traffic flow. Addi- tionally, the existing alignment of the Anton/Flower connection is in conformance with the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. S. Option II (Map 4) presents the requested realignment of the Main Street Sunflower Avenue intersection. Under this. option, Anton Boulevard would extend eastward across the Study Area and connect with the north - south portion of Main Street in the City of Santa Ana. The east -west portion of Main Street, going toward Irvine, would connect with Sunflower Avenue. Thus, a conventional four-way intersection would be established. This alternative alignment would provide for direct movement into and out of the subject site via the north leg of Main Street, thereby reducing turning movemments and volumes on Sunflower Avenue adjacent to the Study Area. however, this alignment conflicts with the major through demand on Main Street between Santa Ana and Irvine. Map 4B depicts an alternative alignment which maintains a direct Main Street connection. Realization of this alternative is complicated by design constraints related to the adjacent development and freeway bridge which may preclude its implementation. Because of the heavy through traffic demands on Main Street, the four- way intersection which requires this demand to negotiate a turning movement while allowing more freedom to less traveled routes is not a desirable solution to the area's circulation problems. As a result, the City's Transportation Services Manager indicates that this alter- native merits the least consideration of the available options. C. Option III would amend the Master Plan of Highways by extending Anton Boulevprd farther east before curving north to intersect with Sunflower Avenue. Under this alignment, Anton would intersect Sunflower at a point between Foss and Timber Streets in Santa Ana. Option III would also call for the extension of Flower Street into the project to inter- sect with Anton. The alignment is similar to the original request contained in GP-78-3A. Option III differs in its location of the intersection with Sunflower (between Foss and Timber Streets as compared to a four-way intersec- tion with Timber) and its deletion of the loss Street extension to ,Anton. Option III could be implemented with miner modifications to the pro- posed land use amendments. All of the residential areas as well as -5- 89 VII. the Neighborhood Commercial site would not be im"cted. The revised alignment of Anton would separate the eastern -most High Density Resi- dential area from the Commercial Center area immediately south of Sunflower. [Kinar modifications to the Industrial Paris area located between Anton and the Costa Mesa Freeway and the Commercial Center areas in the northeast portion of the project area and north of the Anton alignment east of the Flower Street extension would also be required. An additional alternative would be to construct an east/west str•_et between the newly -aligned Anton extension and Main Street. 7biE proposal could be used to separate the Industrial Park area frcrL the northeast Commercial Center area while also providing an additional access point to the project area. Because of the constraints with regard to the freeway bridge, special care Hoist be taken in the design of the intersection With main. This can be accomplished by restricting turning movements (especially left hand turns) or limit- ing the new connection to one-way eastbound traffic. A number of alternative land use options have been evaluated in conjuno- tion with the requested amendment. The revision of the original request to reduoe the proposed intensity of development of the subject property is am example. Other options were evaluated in the preparation f the Draft EIR in Section IV (Alternatives) of that document. Itiree o-tions are also being evaluated in the Land Use Element of the General r. in. Although an infinite number of options can be generated, thiZ, sL-L IDn Of the report will review five of the options discussed in the Draft IR and the Land Use Element. Three options assume completion of the Master Plana of Highways with the Anton/Flower connection while the remaining tAo options include additional circulation alternatives. The following paragraphs discuss each of the five land use options. Vile 2 provides a comparative summary of the intensity of dev, aupment which could be expected from each land use and land use/circulation alternatives. A. Cption I retains the present Low Density Residential I rld use desig- nartion'and Master Plan of Highways alignments. Ultima.e development could range from 632 to 1,248 dwelling units housing t.tween 1,990 to 3,931 residents. With RI zoning, 916 single-family residences with a population of 2,885 persons could be anticipated. Lcw Density Residential development is the mast vulnerable to impacts from adjacent uses, particularly noise. The EIR prepared for this Project identified the eastern and southern portions of the Study Area as being isgmcted by high noise levels. This can be mitigated through the provision of noise walls and setbacks to reduce freeway - generated noise. Aircraft -generated noise from the Orange County Airport may require attenuation in building design for the eastern half of the site, which is within the 64 CNEL contour, in order to achieve a 45 CNEL interior noise level. -6- 90 Low density residential development has the least potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Traffic generation is the lowest of the three options. It would also be compatible with the residential area north of Sunflower avenue. Retention of a residential land use designation would preserve the opportunity to provide housing near several large employment centers. The QVDWth inducing Impacts section of the EIR points out that the damM for housing will increase as new employment opportunities become available in the area. The present shortage of low and moderate income housing is also mentioned. The Study Area is located between major employment areas. 7b the west are South Coast Plaza end 'Town Center. 7b the east are the Irvine Industrial Paris and Irvine Industrial Complex -[pest. These industrial centers contain many vacant acres and can be expected to employ several thousand more persons in the future. thus, the need for additional housing in the area is evident. B. CIption II would require the continued use of the property for agricul- tural production. This option is one of three included in the Lard Use Element and would require the adoption of an "Agricultural" land use designation in the General Plan. 7bis differs from the "No Project" alternative in the Draft EIR because of the assumption that the Anton/ Flower connection Would be completed and that Sunflower would be fully inlaroved to mitigate the circulation impacts from existing and approved projects in the vicinity of the subject property. This option would avoid the adverse environmental impacts associated with development of the property for urban uses. The site could be reserved for future land use option or for long-term agricultural production. Because of intense development pressures in the area, it would be necessary to establish the property as an Agricultural Preserve in conformance with the 1965 Williamson Act. This legisla- tion was enacted to encourage long-term agricultural production by offering reduced property tax assessments for owners of property in excess of 100 acres who contract with a local government to retain their land as agricultural fields. C. ion III would redesignate the area as Medium Density Residential and retain the existing Master Plan of Highways alignments. This option was discussed in the Draft EIR and is included as the second alternative in the Land Use Element. Penrdted development could range from 1,264 to 2,370 multiple family units with population ranging from 2,212 to 4,148 persons. Based on Current oonstruction trends, 1,980 units and 3,465 residents could reasonably be expected. As with low density development, a medium density residential develop- ment would also be exposed to impacts from the adjacent environment. Wine ixpacts could be mitigated as described in Option I. -7- 91 Traffic generation for medium density residential development would not increase substantially over that created by a low density develop - sent. 7he range of development generated -project traffic would increase from 8,216 to 16,224 trip ends in Option I to 10,996 to 20,619 trip ends in this option. As mentioned in the discussion of Option I, retention of a residential designation for the Study Area will retain future housing opportuni- ties. However, a medium density designation will permit more afford- able housing which may be more within the reach of low and moderate inom%e mployees in the adjacent industrial and commercial areas. Provision of a substantial number of housing units in this vicinity could also be a significant ,contribution towards alleviating local and regional circulation problems. D. Wtion IV represents the requested amendment to both the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. This option is the third alternative reviewed in the Land Use Element portion of the General Plan Review Program. Full development unde. these conditions could permit 917 to 983 dwelling units in the Low, Medium and High Density Residential areas; 38,115 square feet of retail commercial uses in the Neighborhood Commercial area; 1,518,742 square feet of office space in the Commercial Center areas, and 134,862 square feet of industrial space in the Industrial Park District. Maximum popula- tion would total 10,842 persons (1,817 residents and 9,025 employees). A schematic site plan submitted with the requested amendment indicates development at a slightly less intense scale. This plan proposes 910 residential units; 35,000 square feet of retail uses; 1,403,500 square feet of office area, and 115,700 square feet of research and development industrial space. 'this plan would anticipate a total project population of 10,256 persons (1,593 residents and 8,663 employees). It should be noted that these two scenarios represent potential development intensities which could be accamr,dated by the proposed General Plan Amendments. Granting of the requested amendment does not guarantee the specific number of residential units, an aunt of retail, office or industrial space. These allocations are determined during the site plan review stage. Additional employment in the area would also create additional demand for heu'sing far in excess of that included in the residential ccmpo- rent of the proposal. Tt* removal of these 165 acres of land available for residential use would increase pressures on existing housing. Because of the limited amount of lard available for residential pur- poses in the vicinity, many of the future employees within the Study Area would have to aamwte from more distant locations. ITfts wcxxld result in greater traffic congestion and pollution for th? area and region. Traffic congestion is a major concern in the rapidly developing North Costa Mesa area. As noted in the Draft EIR, four intersections in this area will operate beyond capacity even without the proposed pro- ject. Development of the project will double the number of intersec- -8- 92 tions which will operate beyond capacity, 70tal project -generated traffic will total 26,700 vehicle trip ends per day on an average weekday. 'This will result in 1990 daily traffic volumes on Bristol Street of 68,800 vehicles between Anton and the San Diego Freeway. This represents an increase of 50 percent over 1979 volumes and appir the 1979 volume on Newport Boulevard between 17th and Arrchester Streets. Vblumes on Anton would increase to 31,600 vehi- cles per day, approximating the daily volumes on Fairview Rud between Adams Avenue and the San Diego Freeway. While certain adverse environmental impacts can be anticipated frLe,, the development of an intemse urban center such as the Sakioka and Tbwn Center projects, a certain number of benefits are also provided. The additional full time jobs created by the subsequent businesses and temporary jobs created by construction activities will aid the economies of Costa Mesa, neighboring cities and all of Orange County. If the same square footage and number of units were developed as low rise garden offices or low density single-family tracts, a sub- stantial increase in land consumption would result. Concentrated developments also increase public transit opportunities. As public transit usage increases, automobile trips decrease, lessening air pollution and congestion. As distances between uses are reduced, increased pedestrian and bicycle usage is encouraged resulting in similar benefits. As a variety of employment, retail service and recreational facilities are located in a relatively small area, the needs for trips outside the developments are reduced. Table 2 and Map 5 depict two rodi€ications to the applicant's proposal based on alternative circulation configurations. One option (Map 5B) modifies the distribution of commercial and industrial areas to delete the four-way Main/Anton/Sunflower intersection and to extend Anton to intersect with Sunflower between foss and Timber Streets. This option reduces the amount of potential office area from 1,518,741 square feet to 1,462,996 square feet and increases the amount of potential indus- trial area from 13.4,862 square feet to 205,436 sere feet. Total project traffic remains nearly the same while total project population is reduced less than two percent. A secor)d alternative would add an additional east/west link between the Anton extension: and Main Street. 'This results in another reduc- tion in the anciunt of potential office space (1,447,677 square feet) and a slightly higher increase in potential industrial development (186,436 square feet) than proposed by the applicant. An approxi- mately am percent reduction in total project -generated traffic and an approximately three percent reduction in total project popula- tion would also result. Elimination of the four-way Main/Sunflower/Anton intersection and replacement with the Anton extension results in mare favorable traffic flow. This condition reroves the constraints to the major through travel demand. on Main Street and allows this intersection to operate within its design capacity, -9- 93 represents a modification of the applicant's propo�;aI to locate a greater portion of the site to residential development and a smaller portion to office development (see Table 2 and 10sap 6). This option also assumes the same circulation alternatives as illus- trated in Option rv. While the mount of Neighborhood Commmercial land is retained, this option suggests a relocation to the intersec- tion of the Flower and Anton extensions. Another modification results in the deletion of the Industrial Park designation. While a portion, of the Land area is allocated for aorQorate research and development uses, it is recommended that these uses be incorporated into the ommercial Center land use designation and that the PDC (Planned Development Commercial) zone be amended to permit non-caTmrcial uses of a light industrial/research and development nature. This would reduce the potential for incompatible industrial uses which may be permitted if the same area were planned and zoned for industrial pa-,-k uses. In allocating a larger area for residential uses, this option also includes minor revisions to the proposed designation of densities within the residential sector. The proposed low and high dem-.ty areas within the eastern loop road are redesignated to Medium Density Residential. This would allow the stare intensity of developmnt as proposed by the applicants by averaging the overall density a-itici- peted for this area. Also, the Medium Density area which abuts the Om mercial Center area in the eastern portion of the residential sector is redesignated as High Density Residential. The Neighborhood Commercial and High Density areas south of Sunflower between Flower and Foss are redesignated as Medium Density Residential. Generally, the modifications result in the location of the proposed Medium Density Residential areas immediately south of Sunflower and within the proposed loop roads which connect with the Flower Street extension. The High Density Residential areas would extend to the Anton extension and provide a buffer between the proposed Medium Density areas and the Town Center development and the proposed office oagxx it of this proposal. Ucept for the Neighborhood cammercial area, all residential areas would be separated from catsmmercial uses by a major street. The use of major streets as buffers between commer- cial apd residential developments has been supported by the Staff in other areas of the City (i.e., the proposed General Plan Amerj±Toent at the southwest corner of Hear Street and Sunflower Avenue). While such uses can be developed along common property lines, situations like these require considerable detention and sensitivity regarding the placement and design of buildings, the selection of compatible oamercial uses and the use of sufficient buffers to ensure the privacy and protection of the residential uses. A primary goal of this option is to better balance future employment wd housing opportunities. While it is unrealistic to assume all smployees in the pr; .43ed oammmercial sectors will went to live in the adjoining residential areas, this option provides greater opportuni- ties for those who do wish to live and work in the same area. -ID- 94 The proportion of resident population to total project, -generated Population would increase from a range of 15.8 to 17.2 percent to a range of 16.5 to 31.1 percent. This series of options reduces the am:)unt of total project population and traffic generation between one to four percent and two and four- teen percent, respectively. Reduction in traffic -generated impacts of a similar scope would also be anticipated. These options also increase the number of residential units located within the 60 to 65 CNEL contours for highway and airport --generated noise. The option. which includes the 'Double "T" extension between Anton arO Main would locate a portion of the units within the 65 to 70 CNEL contour of Costa Mesa Freeway -generated noise. VIII. ANALYSIS OF MAJOR ISSUES Consideration of this application involves two central issues of city- wide and regional significance. The first issue relates to the increas- ing level of traffic congestion generated by developments in North Costa Mesa, South Santa Ana and West Irvine. The second issue relates to the impact of the expanding employment base in this same area on the local and regional housing market. Relationships between these issues and the requested General Plan Amendment will be discussed in the following paragraphs. A. Traf f is The degree of area -wide concern in regard to existing and anticipated traffic and circulation problems is illustrated by the initiation of the Central Orange County Circulation Study (CENrRDCCS). in this study, the County of Orange and impacted cities combined efforts to review existing traffic problems and to develop a coordinated solution to these concerns. Full development in the area will create traffic volumes on Bristol Street which exceed the highest volumes an harbor Boulevard in 1979. Volumes will also approximate current levels on Newport Boulevard in the Downtown area. Full development without the proposed project generate demand which exceeds the capacity of four major intersections: Bristol.M=Arthur, Bristol/Anton, Bristol/Northbound 405 off -ramp and the proposed Main/ Sunflower/Anton intersection. Buildout of the proposed project will add four additional intersections to this list: Bristol/s4mflower, Main/ MacArthur, Flower/Sunflower and Fairview/Maarthur. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft SIR and the elimination of the Main/Sunflower/Anton four-way inter- section will result in only one intersection (Bristol/Anton) where demand exceeds capacity. While the other intersections in the Area will, theoretically, operate within their capacity, delays and congestion will still occur during peak hours. As rooted in the Staff mport for the 1977 krendment to the 7bwn Center Master Plan, 95 congestion is to be expected in an intense urban development. :Ire community, through its elected officials, must decide what level of congestion can be tolerated to accrue the benefits of Lhe increased business and employment base. B. Housing The local and regional housing market is in a crisis of critical proportions. This crisis is fueled by dramatic increases in housing costs, extremely low vacancy rates, dwindling supply of developable residential land and rapidly growing employment opportunities. Wile these constraints are felt in all price ranges, the needs are greatest in the low and moderate income categories. The proposed project will convert the largest single land area in the City designated for future residential development to an intense business and employment center. Wile a large number of residential units will be provided with the project, the employment generated by the commercial and industrial sectors will be far in excess of that which can be supplied within the project. While a certain percentage of the future employees will already live within the community, it can reasonably be assumed that a larger percentage will be drawn from outlying areas or will require relocation in the vicinity. Because of current housing conditions, many of the future employees may be forced to locate in areas with a larger stock of affordable housing in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, r!sulting in longer commuting distances, increased congestion and pollut.-)n. While cities cannot reasonably be expected to provide a one-t`--one balance between employment and housing opportunities, cities ca-, be expected to adequately acccmTodate a reasonable share of the ho sing demand to not overburden adjacent communities which do not benr--it from the assets of the ccmerrial/business development. This application also raises two additional policy considerations which relate specifically to this property. one issue dea' with the park dedication requirements of the residential components of Land Use Options IV and V mile the second relates to the intensity of development which may be appropriate for high density residential portions of these two land use options. C. Park Dedication The schematic site plan submitted with the requested amencaments pro- vides a central open space corrdor of approximately 5.5 acres which continues in an east/west direction through the residential portions of the property. This corridor was designed to serve the recreational weeds of the project residents and to provide a link with the open space went of the Town Center. Based an existing parkland dedication requirements, this area is sufficient to meet the demand generated by the future project residents. -12- 96 Preliminary discussions regarding the ownership and maintenance responsibilities have been held between the City and the applicants One proposal which has received considerable attention would allow general public use of the central park but would retain private ownership. Under this arrangement, maintenance responsibilities would rest with the project homeowners' association. Public use of the park could be guaranteed through the dedication of development rights, the execution of an open space easement or some other arrangement to ensure public access. The open space easement in the Town Center development is one example. While such ownership and maintenance arrangements could provide additional public recreational opportunities and reduce public maintenance costs, the provisions of the Municipal Code which relate to park land dedication (Sections 13-397 to 13-444 and 13-484 to 13-494) do not provide for these arrangements. These Sections permit the payment of fees to acquire needed parkland or the actual dedica- tion of land for public parks. Sections 13--407 and 13-443 allow credit to be given for private open space facilities available to the general public. However, only 50 percent of the area may be credited to the dedication requirements. In light of rapidly escalating costs of hark mainteruLwe, easement arrangements such as that proposed in this case could result in substantial public benefits. Additional public recreational opportunities wcauld be provided with minimal public cost impacts. Atte---native public/private arrangements for the public provision of future parkland Were discussed in the open Space segrent of the Environmental Aesources/Management Element. As such, the City may wish to com ider amendments to the Municipal Code which would capitalize on these benefits and permit the use of arrangements such as those proposed for future developments. D. Residential Densities land Use Options N and V a.,aue, two different intensities of develop- ment in those areas designated as High Density Residential. The more intensely developed areas approximate 27 units per acre and the less intensely developed areas approximate 17 units per acre. The schematic development plan indicates that buildings within the higher density areas would be three stories or three stories over one level of parking. A two story height will be retained in all other resi- dential areas. Based on the intensity of development and scale establi~— by the Zbwn Center and the demand for housing which will be generated by U-* expanding local employment bane, residential developwnts of a more intense nature may be appropriate for portions of the Sakioka property. This is especially true for that area along the western property line adjacent to the Town Center. Mid or high rise residential towers in this area could provide a transition between the Tbwn Center and the less intense residential areas to the east. iicing the same number of dwelling wits, additional -13- 97 land area would be available for open space uses. By increasing the density of the existing residential larsd area, additional hojsing opportunities are created. jpon.. c,7e appl'oa` trtke-,, +n-rit-*,nts to the 'General Plan aril P;.any.; iJPvekt-sirk- ;•, .d.' zore- may to required to permit .•'e , K, ,-• . • .a''. t ►ors in thi:. area. While the High �Oe ;� . � I a t i of, , and PM -HD zone do not •'f`SP `.' fications do include m clude maxi Y ;iv: aKrC . AS such, the density a .s. ' Z J , . .. _ ; , c • . ibvte the number of per- • - •} w °. th- oest and lower densities does not exceed 30 units r • - '* < 'sr - �.: y - a -• _i . tin i is wh icrl cause the mould recr.ure the amend- •section, 117w - +�' • �..� �� ti. z �- - tho previous the .: t i' K7 deve l o[x-en t Tray • • u : r, t.:' w.11 have significant anti; ccr r,dnities. re41uested amendments . I r • _ _ r : ' an i e nv i rormen t.a 1 oon•- s . -.a a• cer-pted to discuss the i .. Y 1 -• • r .. • ♦ ii'. � . a+J i Girl- d a t i on [.nl i ref -%ire: shx)L;1d on`. - I tn future use CGIf this What level . a',,• for the pro]ect bene•--• to provide adegaate Iasi_-? Wr at are the • _ eact, Land Use and •r ttK. 1977 'Item Center .. �. . r•... Y t! i, 7 discussion relates �•. ; , Pe preted by the Planning •a � • J r r t I a ��neS. �►r .: r �1as - r . Y , -, �e•T_;ire modification to p. 8.4. , Sak i oka property regard - of the three circulations -.L P. 1 : rt .- : x Anton Boulevar*3 extension :E I - I.... &v- x the greatest overall Ma :./Sunf lower/Anton inter- r,r A..;:er Tztt� 1ve.t� - "rr f./ .. reasonable t , AL J •*%I -W. - _ to provide a LGilso able 13, ,AWI .= r .,.% -. .- . _ -, ._.. .; - 4.. „ r : t ies. Further, that the 98 City has the responsibility to provide a wide range of housing opportunities for all socio-economic segments of the camnunity's existing and future population. This application presents a number of complex issues which must be resolved during the Commission and Council consideration of the requested amendments. The decisions which must be made extend beyond the selections of the most appropriate circulation and lard use options. In order to aid the Co mission and Council, the issues or policy ques- tions which must be addressed are listed below. 1. Which Circulation Element Option (Section VI) provides the most desirable solution to Moth the local and regional traffic/circula- tion problem? 2. Which Land Use Element Option (Section VII) provides the best balance between the competing social, econanic and environmental benefits or impacts? 3. Relating to Land Use Option IV, are all of the uses permitted by the Industrial Parr General Plan designation and zoning district =npatible with the other adjacent planned land uses? Relating to both Land Use Options IV and V, should the Commercial Center General Plan designation and the PDC (Planned Development Cormrercial) zoning district be amended to hermit nonccrmercial uses of a research and development or light industrial nature to prevent the location of incompatible industrial uses in the subsequent development of the subject property? (Section VII E). 4. Should the sections of the Municipal Code relating to parkland dedication requirements for residential developments be an -ended to allow alternative solutions (i.e., dedication of development rights, open space easements, public use/access easements, etc.) to the dedication of land in fee? (Section VIII C). 5. Should the maximum permitted densities in the High Density Resi- dential General Flan designation and PDR-HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) zoning district be amended to permit densities in excess of 30 units per acre? (Section VIII D). X. GENERAL PLAIT GUIDELINES Previous sections of this report and the Draft EIR for this project have indentified significant environmental impacts which require mitigation to reduce the adverse impacts to acceptable levels. This is especially true for Land Use Options IV and V which propose intense multiple -use urban environments. Without mitigation, the only acceptable alternative may be continued agricultural production Low Density, or possibly, Medium Density Residential. Because of the critical, relation of these mitigation measures to the acceptability of Options IV and V, additional direction is needed to -15-- 99 ensure that the appropriate measures are unplemrented in a timely and vonsi�stent manner. Since the project will be constructed in phases i by, possibly, a number of developers, it would be appropriate to provide the needed direction at this point in the planning pro ass, 'fie follow- ing implementation guidelines are presented to serve this function. A. Project_Phasing. To provide adequate housing opportunities for the future employees, portions of the residential and commercial/ industrial components shall be developed concurrently. As noted previously, the proposed residential components will not provide housing opportunities for all ultimate employees of the project. As such, a one-to-one balance of housing units and employment opportunities will not be possible. This project timing guideline does, however, require equal proportions (as a percentage of the total residential or commercial/industrial crxr,onent) to be con- structed within the same project phase. These proportions shall be as equal as is practical and as approved by thti Planning Ccarrassion and City Council. B. Construction Tining. To ensure that t1he development of the project does not unduely burden the surrounding circulation network, con- struction of phases within the project shall not be completed prior to the completion of necessary street and/or intersection improve- ments to carry the traffic generated by each project phase. The CQN*IRXCS study has identified a variety of circulation system improvements which will be required to service anticipated develop- ment within the Study Area. The key to the success of the study recommendations lies in the concurrent i,rnprovement of the area's circulation system and development of the major projects in the area. Phase I developments wit -bin the proposed project shall not exceed 750,000 square feet of office development and 475 dwellinq units, slightly more than half of ultimate development. Phase II developments withi•i the project area shall not be cammrmenced until Phase II CEMROCC: tnproveEmments have been funded by the appropriate implementing agencies unless alternative measures are approves, by the Planning Commission and City Council. C. Trans rtation System Mona ement. To reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the veh_, a trip demands on the surrounding street and freeway network, sut.-equent land and/or building leases shall include provizions wh,�:h will require tenants/developers/building owners to implement the transportation system management measures included in the Draft £IR to the extent feasible considering the mature of the proposed use. Such measures include: staggered/ flexible working schedules; transit fare reimbursement; adequate transit stop facilities; preferential, management controlled parking for high -occupancy vehicles; passenger matching services; prefererr tial freeway on -ramp, use for high -Occupancy vehicles; employer - awned, employee -operated vehicles; bike paths and storage racks; and similar measures. -16- D. Housing Qpportunities. 7b provide adequate housing acocnTcdations to serve all economic segments of the comtunity and to aid in minimizing traffic trip -ends, 25 percent of the future residential units shall be available for low- and moderate-incame households. Every attempt shall be made to provide a balance of such units in sales and rental housing. Appropriate agreements shall be executer to ensure continued availability of these units for low- and mxlerate-ineane households. E. EneM Con,smption. Tb reduce the rate of consumption of natural gas and oil, the incorporation of solar energy systems in all ccrnponents of the project shall be encouraged. Reliance on renewable energy sources has the potential for significant, long term benefits -- reduced consumption of nonrenewable energy sources, reduced air pollution and potential oast savings for future energy consumers. -17- 101 GEni£PAL PI-k4 AMENDtW-r G'-79-3A I . INTRODUMCN This privately initiated General Plan Amendment concerns the :paint John the Div_ Protestant Episcopal Church property located southwest of Orange Avenue and Bay Street (Hap 7). This property is currently designated Lcyw Density Residential by the General Plan and a High Density Residential designation is requested in order to enable the construction of 36 senior citizen housing units. These unite would be financed through 10D section 202 funds. The proposed project includes a new church with ancillary facilities to also be located on the site. the AmerdNent is requested by Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist as authorized agent for the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church. I I . AREA DESCRI PTIUt. The subject property is 2.015 acres in area. 'fie westerly portion of the area is developed with the existing church and parking lot. A single-family residence occupies the southeasterly corner of the site. The remainder of the site is vacant. In order for HUD funds to be used in financing the proposed project, a Parcel Hap will have to be processed to separate the Church and housing sites, although the church would retain management of both parcels. Adjoining the subject property to the south are properties developed wit single - and multiple -family eases (Map 0). The General Plan designates this area s Medium Density Residential and the zoning is R2 except for one parcel at 20 orange Avenue. This property is developed with a five unit apartment althougF zonee Rl and designated Low Density Residential. West of the Stu-y Area across Laurie Lane is also designated as Low Density Residential by the General Plan, although zoned R2-CP. This area of inconsis- tency includes ten parcels fronting on Laurie Lane and Fullerton Avenue which ar developed with duplexes and triplexes. North of the Study Area are single-family hones along the nort.') side of Hay Street. These properties are designated for Low Density Residential use and are zoned Rl The area east of Orange Avenue, zoned R1, is also indicated as Lao Density Resi- dential by the General Plan. Although most of the parcels ar, developed with single-family !lames, there are several nonconforming properties w :h more than one unit, a frequent occurence throughout this easterly section of Costa Mesa. Directly across the street frcm the subject property is a day care venter. 2e study Area for this Amerdment has not been expanded to include adjacent areas with inconsistencies between the General Plan, zoning or land use. 7hese areas are being examined in the studies being conducted for the Land Use Element of the General Plan. -18- 102 i vrAr-c-7' ABA S TP E L T �w��rri� rrr S r.Rz� E r i v a� �q a G£NFRAL PL, Ar Dra lcwA rl cw Law Dxpisrrr Rssjvr-r'AL MOM NjoIvA► Drmsirr !413-,dlNrlt4 taro IW*3/4 OPTION I EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP 7 5 rn�r- i Z-IR I �t 103 t B,qr- $r.Q61--r DZ D.2 C.vane.r Di DxDz ` t YiUM � As Ds17 LDr DoG a, D. Df I A t7s D. Ds D. A ' Da Dz TwzwrlE rar .5rRr c7- q4 GP -7 •3Q LAND USE MAP 8 Ds Dwr Cox[ Gr. rsa Z � 5rw✓�* D. Dz y i D. lz D. DS D �'�LL /MG��u✓M®6IR Qf f1N / rS Lf ✓Y�� 104 III. JNV1 CtD0— T 'A :- REVI E < An Initial Study of Environmental Impact was conducted for LLne proposed Pm- en _ to the General Plan .a*>d the subsequent development of 36 senior citizen hoas�-,c units xio new ch=ct. facilities, Tt;e impacts id,-ntified relate tr- circulat1!,7-., land use and population.. Since the new church is actually a reloca,,-vas of a-, existing use, no new traffic or land use irnFacts would be caused. 'It>e 36 unz- senior citizen apartment would have three potential areas of impact. &It^.oug an apartment building this size would normally generate approximately 290 vehiclE trip ends daily, the tenant composition of this development is expected to result in substantially lesser traffic generation. Sinilarly, 36 apart^e ,Mits wD.:ld not of ly house an estimated 7 2 persons, hm"r, , the small u . � t s : z( and te: ,antl composition of this project will result in many single ten--nt units. Since the use is ccrpatible with adjacent uses, no significant larad us: irpacts area- pated. The Initial Study concludes that a Negative Declaration of Dnvircmrie---a'_ Impact can be adopted. IV. Cam'. PLAN CONFOR`4ITY The requested Amenlrent has been examined in respect to tttie various eleaents a-v� subelements of the general Plan currently being prepared. Although: the General Plana has not been adopted, the proposed Arentrient and sabsequent clever: have been compared to those applicable carponerts which will 'tx included' in thF General Plan (Table 3). Of the eight sections of the Environmental Resources/Managernent Eienent, the impact on open space appears to be the only significant concern. The majority of the site is vacant and planted with grass. Development of the project w ,i l 1 el Lms rate this private open space, whit": is not include? in the City's inventory of interi open space. Several applicable concerns were identified in camparing the propose ,re d-nent ar4 development with the sutelements of the Ccrr unity Developnent,, 'a-+m,�-it Element. Mie prcject involves private redevelopment of the property, 'I`;e ew&-�: developnent will play a significant role in maintaining or altering the in. age of the existing neighborhood. The church, which will be located on a more visible portion of the site, will be a prominent feature. The housing and other facilities to be provided for elderly persons are consistent with the needs identified in both the Human Resources and Housing Subelements. Because of the density of the units, an aserAwnf to the current General Plan and Land Use ordinance may be necessary to permit more than 30 units per acre. 7,e Housim Subelement be ng prepared will include a means of permitting increased densities for projects whir-i met the needs of households with specialized using requirements. The proje.- will cem an increased demand for public services in this area. however, tt? property will not generate property taxes since it will be operated by a non�rof,.t organization. the land use concerns, discussed in greater length later in this report, are also being examined in the studies being conducted for the Land I16e Element. the requested High Density Residential designation is one of three being considered for the area. Low and Medium Denisty Residential are also being considered for the subject and as oent properties. 105 TABZ 3 . CU'=`RAL K AN,'PROPC GEr AK :.' ►"Y": CXM�n' I. awiromertal Resources/ llatrsgMTent Element A. C1pen Spate A. Alttrnagh a large portior, of this site is � vacant, it is not included in the inventory of inte-ir, open space. 11. 03%nan i ty De'-lel opment/ i Kwuvjenlent Element , A. Fedevelopment A. Reglacetent of to-R Existing stracta-.es wits 1 those included in t�is project is a for7 of private redevelopuent. B. Lt' ban Design B. Zhe design of the proposed devel opnen t , particularly tra t of the Churc :, w:.11 impact the L age of tt'* C. Haman Resources C. Providing hoasinc and recreation facili4ie, for persDns with s-pecialize3 req,:uirerle' t is consistent wit:. needs identified. D. Housing D. Project provides fusing for hovsseholas with special needs. Project may exceed the max31fxr, density of the tlig}. Density :*si- dential de*..-icnation, regLzring a den--;. _ bonus for including specialize-4- hoasing. E. Public Facilities E. Project will ca-use general increase i- and services demand for public services. F. Eoonm. is F. Being tax exert, the project will not geT?pzate g :.ax revenue. III. Iard Use Element The proposed designation of High: Density denial is ore of three being considered for the subject and adjacent properties in t: � land • use studies. -20- 106 V. 1AND. USE PTIt7t.. Four land use options have been prepared whint ctnjare the existing GerFerai Pla^: and zoning foptWn I) gait}; the .egnstei Anendiert. Cytin%r II. III a G :7 al discuss a Hign Density Resident:& La:� Use designatic>^ taut prese:.t darfere-.t zoning alterna _ives. A. QW1 I ON 7) retaar's the existing Low Density Pesiientaai Lard L'se Aesignation and the Q zscing. This a ra gement vowid be c rmatiVe wit_'. the General Plar: SW z ony of praperties across the streets to the rr'rt. and east, Ktho h dissi.. _lar to the General Plan designativ%, zcr.in: or development of ad3aoer.t r>rwpertles in the sar* block. Ile spezif i C use being ccrosidered for t33e site would not be pernittei Y the ?. zone, a`e tar unit den,=iti* exams to Ghnera Plan Low Density fes:dential :rax".: . If the Rl zoning is evernta-al. reside^tia✓ rede•:e'_oLrent permit t.'7e su:d:vision of tris sub;ect property an:: of apTroximateli 14 single-fa".0y hw.es an the s&jeet pr,qert,.. B. Lac.^, II (Map 9) awlr a-+enj the General Plan desi?5at c-. to - . Dev5ir. Fe ential and estabiis! Plan& Development aside.^.tit?-�isg PDP-HD, zmirg on entire Stud; Area. Punnet D iti ogle : _ zc ni ng has the pox?ose of encoara; it c t'?e- of more inaginative and i u'no►atine planning C=MCeptS than W01_.. be Per? under ct=vi-tional zoning categnKes. One of the aggliCawle int_..__ of t. - Pan d revel✓pment 'JL roan._ in is Grazie W:nJ ,.Mr-entC ^IeC� the brc*Jer goals of We General Pian tfr oug the intearati %.: of uses. The PDP zones pe=it arzo;1 ntary uses to: a religivas or education. ai nature. Thus the ct=ct and related clzssr;ja-:S woilr: be crz!jere~ CIrylimenW7 uses and ti& dual use of the ymcpert; wowld be accnrnodatwi. The exist.n9 chum, t]uiliinc is agosej tD be used by bot'. the Va c! congre;ation an- the Dior citizens. Wivs shared we is in --►ccort-ance wit.. to Plawro-ed Development Wit, which encoarages Vie integration of uses an! stroctures. the PIRSMD zone permits resiiential developnent at a densz^: of 15 tc, 3C units to the acre. ideri.c taut-- entire site in the cr' density would ressit in a zatic of 11.9 nits per acre with the 36 unit= prvpased• A oanceptua: site plan frail been pt,ared which vlaces the 01 - on, . the avtner of Orange Avenue and Bay Street and toe zlextment units near the aoutheQ end of Laurie Lessee. This plan ilia not hoe the 2; foot setbacr or the aPOLnt Of parking required by Planned NvelopmEnt zoning. It also appeared that maximean site coverage or 29 =percent was exceeded and that the min a ri 42 percent open space regairemw t was not attained. However, #his initial plan was imn0ed to be criy * tuai. 'The p eject - ponents are aware that the Fteparation of the actual site plan will require a move careful consideration of applicable development standards. 21- 107 G P o 7 9- 3 A I OPTIONS 11.111. & iV IMAP 9 i S V rwzrrrl__ rev r t ,401r Di,rj✓Ti Rsj,zrnrrrud All~ Dot*lrt' 1�? srp�rTta� jlr yw DJWSlrr +ZESrgr�rTit. AM�11gY�"�Irrl'�s�� 0PirO,y - R?d acwe.v& io.t .1ArRr-r -r ~rra- cW s,rf, I t R ~ Iltr+r ONChrrt i.aN XAdrgWVArjrNr Afar Z--&Z. rr.4_ 49iJT �d vfS 108 7 Ge:ieral Plan designation of the • :. The portion of the site to be bE rezoned R4 and the remainder ,• is+� +' •.; .. < a +r.- ' ' t.) the High Density }residential { mc)re than 30 units to the acre. i r:-e Pr, tiT L b:w '. 1 s,t; two parcels, the residential Air.'AP�r. s respective parcel. The residential v+ s ■_; ' . �. r y a,res in area, resulting in a h.-W t- :assification tr allow more than .., ti _ its application in the Downtown u ea Plan, an element of the General •�, .- *a, over 35 units per acre can be 42W -< W, � �,. A t , u :;: . A .: Zed housing. In order to acCan- or.ULe e .,� .e d-T proposals in the future, the 1� A tip amended to allow densities in r.as the specific intent of provid- y. w�: �" -�- gsr�ao f •.-' , fa:.:lxes and individuals with - w., of such holseholds would be art` WW ,' S. - F:a- classification, the property ?A zcr,e (CKMC§ 13-178 ) would also .r- Tt c-� processing of a Conditional Use r- L. r ., - .. .. . — pe r,r i tted by the R4 zone in the wa,;1 d have to be expanded to ,... �• <, ,e �: lowed Citywide when a project has list of permitted lases In the ► ,4:.. -� ..... ;� �, .,.V--)r* Churches are wt listed as a plop:" they have been allowed in this --err : r +aRs ' S a • 1►.i'. l Jay: a Zone E: Cception could be RJR W—' r■ : n v* a .•• " y '. . , i t may be appropriate to add Ct,_T-.+.-4EA . - � . 1, $' _. .gq:,*K .•a - .r _ . ; ry► nts for religious worship as the current proposal as well w. ! ,; . x: • r...�� fop ::; a 'r .� :-. r r' d by t,-,e General Plan to High Dens i tt.1 ` If—�:' a �►"� X-r. �.• AC. 3} i 'Fzoning In addition to adding ah 4,.wo ,.. �••.� 6 P sores as discussed under Option III, ,�.- . >ti _As= ... ._ ,. - ,. I.. , n4 wnended to include housing as . &O+,e . ..t t it..: . sq." 2 tw,0 l x4.e peran i t could be granted to allow !Mood . r'M 'P'f T!'I"*' - L C.rt4 .0 *.4 f t war.ar wd by the prunary conforming user : X ! 17r --a ' , ? . e — d v. xal low the proposed un i is s ince 4, k rV Ul r n_k " Lrw Ch UrCh . 109 it should be pointed out that the General Plans would not necessarily require amendment if the I i R zoning is modified as discussed above. However, the retention of a Low Density Residential Land Use designation may not be appropriate if the City actually plans to allow a development with a unit density which far exceeds that associated with a Law Density Residential area. Costa Mesa oontains 1,763 acres of lwd zoned Institutional and Recreational. Amending the I & R zone to allow housing as a oonditional use could have widespread potential applicability. VI. MCOMMENDATION Planning Staff eco muEnds implementation of Option II. The proposed development is in accordance with [lousing Element Goal No. 2 in that it provides housing for families and individuals with specialized Dousing requirements. A High Density Residential General Plan designation and PDR-HD zoning will permit the uses proposed without requiring modification to the existing General Plan classifica- tions or Land Use Ordinance. Although the size of the parcel for the apartment development results in a density exceeding 30 units per acre for that individual parcel, both the church and apartment parcels can be used in the calculation of density since a Planned Development is defined as an area developed as an integrated wait under single ownership or control and having a Planned Development designation. The shared use of the existing church building is an example of the integration of uses on the subject property. Establishment of Planned Development zoning on the site will also afford review of the development by both Planning Commission and City Council. A High Density Residential designation would be consistent with existing General Plan designations east of orange Avenue, which are predominantly Medium and High Density Residential. %be adjacent areas of inconsistency will remain as Lora Density Residential; however, they will be re-examined in the considerations of the upcoming Land Use Element. -23- It RESOLUTION NO. PC-79-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING OOMMISSICN OF THE CITY OF OOSTA MESA, CALIFORUA, RECOMM MIND TKO THE CITY CtOUNCI:. APPROVAL, OF GENERAL PLAN AMENMENI', GP--79-3A TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 183 F. BAY STREET AND 2043 ORANGE AVENUE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE OJSTA MESA PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLCWS THAT, WHEREAS, pursuant to applicable provisions of the California Govern -- meat Code, Title 7, Ch&peer 3, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission has processed and reviewed the proposed amendment to the General Plan of the City of Costa Mesa as designated herein; and WHEREAS, the purpose of General Plan Amendment GP--79-3A is to enable the construction of low and/or moderate income senior citizen housing units; and WHEREAS, the requested amendment is consistent with the goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan to provide housing for families and individuals with specialized housing requirments; and WHEREAS, the requested General Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan designations and development in the immediate vicinity; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Government Code Section 65351, said Planning Ccmmission herewith transmits its recommendation to the City Council, as found, determined and decided upon at a duly noticed public gearing thereon. NOW, 'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the findings as set forth in the Planning Division Staff Report for General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A be, and is hereby recommended for approval to amend the �a--neral Plan Designation of the property .located at 183 E. Bay Street and 2043 Orange Avenue from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. PASSED AND #IS da toter, 1979 Richard Carstensen, Chairman of the Costa Mesa Planning Camdssion "` STATE OF CALIFOEVIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE: ) S S . CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, DOWLAS K. CL4RK, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly adopted a: a regular meeting of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission which was geld on the �e day of b 1979, and carried by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: OC 4MISSIONERS: NOES: C7MMISSIONERS: ASSENT: 00tISSIONERS : !I Acting Secr ry, Costa Mesa Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY BY: ASS Stanfi City JAttArn� APPFDVM AS TO ODNTENT: r,< Devel nt Services Director "Pa CITY OF COSTA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 9262+6 TO: Hevarend CcY,rad A. Now at DAM: October 11, 1979 133 Bay sheet Leta Mesa, CA 32627 RE: General Plan Amendment �Z_-79--3A F".- THE PL WING WARIMa ' Specific Plan _ Precise Plan (Streets) Abandonment Other At the regular Ming of the Oosta Mesa Planning C mrission held on October Q, 1979 , the abcr ae was oxmidered and the following action taken: It was tmved by WS. DiDomwico, secaxW by fir. J[IrWen ani caxried 5-0 that Option 2 contained in the Planning Division Staff Report be re=mmrAed for tt%Movai. s W. Roberts, Planning Director -0 CITY OF COSTA MESA CAUVORWIA 92626 P.O. box 1200 U14) 556.5223 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK TO: Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist 2043 Orange Avenue Costa Mesa, California, 92627 FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CC: Bishop of the Episcopal Church Planning Department DATE: October 17, 1979 RE: Zone Exception Perm,i No. Subdivision No. Rezone Petition No. _ Tentative Tract No. Final Tract No. Building Moving No. ener�r��Gaan Am rr:en At the regular meeting of the Costa Mesa City Council held on October 15, 1979 the above was considered and the following action taken: General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A, to amend the land use designation for property located at 183 East Bay Street and at 2043 Orange Avenue, was set for public hearing on November 5, 1979, at 6:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Yours very truly, EILEEN P. PHINNEY City Clerk V14-16 114 Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds. including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, Catifornia, Number A-6214, dated 29 September, 1961, and A-24831, dated 11 June, 1963- STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange Pubis, [/mitt Aav0.11tt11a curorN w UWS a"Watid Is W4 .a • Point with 10 pica coiamrt N101% I am a Citizen of the Vnited :hates and a resident of the County aforesaid. I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT. with which is combined the NEWSTRESS, a newspaper of general circulation. printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa. County of Orange. State of California. and that a Notice of public Hearing of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa. Newport Beach. Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley. Irvine. Saddleback Valley. Laguna Beach and the South Coast communities issues of said newspaper for one ("*lK= moomrxWXI}{x1m issuers) of October 25 .197 9 197 _^.. . 197 197 197 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 26 197-2-- at Costa Mesa, California. Signature This spats Is for the County Clerk's Filing Stomp proof of Publication of / PUK&C NOTICE !N "a sir Cter 00" aw s of &-.* 7WC V aw sae fff t � tot tilt rwMt f, W Aavfts. 0 attwwa tap t� 1tM �aM/taYew !a+ y facataA at W iaaf §.ar ltnat &W at Im Ord 1►+�wM. IEwttitawatNtra4 eatatlwiaalia�: Ii0TKa Is PIWMR i ma" WA A Wd WM aa/ Plata a" a" ar /��arwatnp.datt — apaar Wd INr ltaar� .Q tin city COIN 1:1 on ow Mon. r. ntHttttEt teat owv P PROOF OF PUBLICATION 115 CITY OF COSTA MESA INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM Nmlerber 1 19 79 TO City Council FROM Doua Claris, A.ssistar:t P'la.,nirc Dixcy~to RE: GENTWI PLAN AMUENT 79-3A, S"T. JOWV' THE DIVINE EPISCOPAL OiTTf2 H CITY CC7WCIL M=ING NOVEVBEP. 5, 1979 The City Council will consider General Plan. Armnd-f-.-it G=-79-3A for St. ,7ehn the Divine Episcopal Church at Orange and Bay Streets at thi- hoverer 5, 1979 mec:tin�. The Staff Report on this itar was distributed to t Y Ca,mcil alone wit-, the repo ~ for the Sakioka proposal. Therefore, a new report will not be distributed. If you need an additional copy, please contact the Plarrm..in? Denartine-nit LC: sn 116 r ci y. LL. �a PU 14 .� o c � in � N ro o'er % C 1,2 �..4 8-4 a "m RESOLUTION NO. 79-132 A RESOLUTI(M OF THE CITY MIN CIL OF TK CITY OF T4 4E Tir CITY OF COSTA wESA CA11- FORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL P11J,"; GP-79-3A, AMENDING THE GEirFRAL PLAN OF THE CITY r"F COSTA YESA. 164ER£AS, the General Plan 1990, as amended, was adopted by '-fie �;ty Council of the f'it,y of Costa 4esa by Resolution No. 71-27 on Apy-il E, 1971; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A, a plan to change the pro- posed land use at 183 East Bay Street and at 2043 Orange Avenue has been recorreended for adoption by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the change recommended for adoption by the Planning Corris- sion is Option 11, from Lox Density Residential to Planned Development Residentia'-High Density, PDR-ND; and WHEPEA5, public.bearing ws duly held in accordance with Section 55355 of the Government Code of the State of California, all persons hav- ing been given the opportunity to be heard, both for anc, agairs' 5a4l Amendment GP-79-3A to the General Dlan; and WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City that said Amendment to the General Plan be adopted; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that General Plan 1990 is hereby amended by the adoption of Option 11 of General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A, as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 1979. ATTEST: 4y*erk of the i ty c� o a esa Mayor of t e i y of Uosta mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) d� OV a Al TO FORM COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF COSTA MESA ) C.Ti R,�EY I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 79-132 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of November, 1979. 118 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set spy hand and affixed the Seal WHIR' -AS, General flan Amendment GP-79-3A, a plan to Change the pro- posed land use at 123 East Bay Street and at 204? Orange Avenue has been recorr,ended for adoption by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the change recommended for adoption by the Planning Cori - .,is - lion is Option II, from Low Density Residential to Planned Development. Residential -High Density, PDR-HD; and WFEREAS, public.hearing ws duly held in accordance with Section 65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, all persons hav- ing been given the opportunity to be heard, hcth for ano anya-...fIr' ,_a:,4 Amendment GP-79-3A to the General plan; and WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City that said Amendment to the General Plan be adopted; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa mesa that General Plan 1990 is hereby amended by the adoption of Option 11 of General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A, as shown on xxhia ` "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 1979. ATTEST: y er 0f the ity of C Of a Mesa f ayor of the -City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) PPROV D A5 TQ FORM COUNTY OF ORANGE j SS CITY OF COSTA MESA ) C. }�i1fEY I, EILEEN P. P4INNEY, City Clerk and ex,-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 79-132 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of November, 1979. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 6th day of November, 1979. CT y Clerk and ex-officio CleyV of the City Council of the City of to Mesa F=c,T-, the Dc5k of . . CHARLES W. ROBERTS 4- 120 CITI Of CUSTA MESA � .. � V4WOMP ...:. P. o. •ox t too (71 a) 5%5Y?3 >"1<: t DI THE CITY CLERK '-'ATE November 7, 1979 RE Zone Exception Permit No. Subdivision No. - Rezone Petition No. Tentative Tract No. Final Fract No. Building Moving No. Communication of General plan AmPndmQnt nP_74_1A ,... d.t, k4.,. N C,.,,c,; ht,4d onMoodav,_ November 5. 1979 ktip. i n,,.TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE a .' ► +� , , k ':, = • ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT --"AN OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, Yours very truly, EILEEN P. PHINNEY Csty Cierk IPA City of Costs Mesa Planning Department Post Office Box 1200 L(� 77 Fair Drive ll} Costa Mesa, California 92626 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: Clerk of the Board County of Orange P. O. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Project Number _ Applicant v. ,,.• Proiect Title Project Location Decision Decision By _ i Date LINegative Declaration Published Date _ ❑Environmental Impact Report Filed Date . Environmental Impact Determination Approved Yc�' . �_��z:.ti�— Date'`"v I CMF 0342-32 Rev. 7/78 White - County Clark; Canary - Project File. 122 "-- U VW rw" 6 0, Luz �►r Sra�rr N a �z i Ch GAUmew Dz '' Ds Z e t 9 r Jl�Rrr,c D CrMra lrr = SrnEd-r W �� Doo t � o- 1 t� D : Drrc40vc1NVAfS&,* of 40W.A" kMWI 123 AG s. ! r+ rw .5 "WrT �..� L�rr �r 14s��Q�►te1fc i�� �r 14lsr• ' I-WFOR vPITIQN i i BXIBTtNG - O;MeRAL PL.;AMi AND ZMNG ~ 7 124 r I !:Sfi 125 taw I OPTIONS 11:111,.a1v fmp 8 =MEN 1: IN; iRi GWYMANow- PLAOV Ac�i a l air err Rxwomp--4ft T Rpi�L/rTl+t L +err DAwsiry Rss,A wraa Qp7la)v .lI : PDR -NO zo,arAM PU* Aravr~ MXrr O rlow ZT : R,/ zow ,,wr, Foot Artr .ter Ammaw /� o r s ars ,, � i R r W40JV OPXiON LIZE Z-CR z o vAv,- ~ s w,, r Aar.sn owtr,vr ,lor Z=APV r"kL AOL-fr AbV W5 126 Ti<BLI I (Cuntinur l) ELf \1! \1 SUBELUNIL\TS F . 1'tlbli,: I=a-sists,:, an,l SCrtil.:Cti s E;tilit� InEr:l,trtt�l�.trt i SS lrail�j`�fri.11lt'S1 tl: { irCLli l(ioII I1 ScLrti.t v Other Commune S,:r.icL:, +, i 0ty Sk rti is:e, G. Rr;uurtrti If. Etier_v i a Ill. L:rrrd Use f.k'rn rlt PROGR •%I S'1 ATUS In Prn�,1",�, (1, -1' 11 111L 127 (.'()%I %I I \ I S 1, . Projvct will iml r,:a-,c tlema-i,] *(ir whit, in,i p it) NL:r%k! pro tlonimid- llropisc,l int,!i,o ki,.: of t o the pri i,,c)n ot puhli,: i r i n -1', si I Al ;L I J! I I % Id 11In I ra t !'I L: tj I r j I I I j of urn M flit itl'-! sIrL C I C I f plans m, ill red uk: lie *:i, pe I I I - 1111 1 11 1 1 11 1 ,tMc(ldflje[Ij JMVNeN '.11) LAI'efINkt: - -i61,1XI residential a rC.1 -,. Will 'LnCfCaw J e ru i , i d lor NJ1,i )I t rr I i I , r .i i , i - c r, p, Nc r t c t w i I I c r,-.i "Iell0ral demand (,)r ptjlfli: Ncr%i�t:N gird idl'd i11. CON! f ML',A \d![JOIJJn1.1 !'1'f 74L:f .111k1 for police and fire Prt)teCti'lJl Will Ise rcqmr,-J Yr,i! ' ;till., ,,t !oti ' 11 1 fl',' 11 ',L 11! At S"IHI' ',afeiy ind crricr-L-criq vehicle l e1,. A U'%k I'ir-,* 1,ZJILOTI it;: -,(1. 1! j required to provide .-dcqu:ite fire prot_ctvm md ',i,m G. Conversion of exENting :Luricidtur.il fichIN to interi,,- ;-han re-,uh 1:1 UIIi !Nll :i increase,; in hotit nitIMC111,11 Celelllle, Aild 11L. Aegret: to which re%�:nkit:N I)A.jm,e e\pc:itIiIzirL'N in Ole N110;t Jr)I! IMI' 1',:!:1 l'urdicir analyse,. Projea will incre:jw con.,um lit ioli 1 o fi, Pri r;:ilL�.k t{t' .-n cr--, \% wilb ipplicable vncru% :mi,cr%,ation re,!ulat im, f I iti-, 241 .mii,ill.:' iL%,c%, legislation. The applicantsproposal is om: of ill FCL A ICI r L' lantt '.I%C , ipi it t*. i, m ; Li ;,i pi mt, 0 :r.i i i- w xid %i tik! '. i it the ]arid u-su cletilicut. 128 !-, - � 71L ArmPr' r7 - ----------------------- j 129 F. ! 130 TABLE I GENERAL PLAN.TROPOSED ANIENI ELE'.%JENTJSUBELEMEN`TS PROGRAM STATUS 1. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES! MANAGEMENT ELEMENT A. Climate A. Propo- B- Air Quality B llropo- Air Q C. Hydrology C slih 4e1 D. Biological Resources Element Accepted 1)% 0- No F.1 PlanninL, Commksion E. Open Space and City Council C)c till F. Geoloev F. suhie Slit, G. Historical Resources 3 G. A lit -,I H. Noise 11. sullie Or.im COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/ MANAGEMENT ELEMENT A. Redevelopment Draft Complete i A \01 B, Coastal Resources Draft Complete 13. NOT' C. Urban Desian Draft Complvic S L:!; C T multi lie P1 D. Human Resources Draft Complete 13. The -1 iywon F. Housing Ili Proyrcsss F. 11rop( ( pot k� ril it i woult CO Ilin red lit eLnCT 111a1 ti 131 OPOSED AMENDMENT CONFORMITY CONINIL\TS A. Proposed proJect %x ill be B. Propo-xd project will in,:rernenlalk Yi�: exposed 10 hiOl IMI concept anti proposed Air Qualio. Mawigement Plan, C. Subiect propervs is no! irl .1 'Sul,stanifal increast, in denland I,- V%;IIL,- 1). No rare or endanvered pl.!nT exist withir. the Pro-1ccl E, Development of lire PTVPOICL' z,rolt,- I ILk 0! 1 L, L of interim open spare. Adjaw n.;] v.lrk lxn,� F. Sut�ieet properi% has a riodcr3!%: pl lje*t,T.J] i4" 1. 1. Slie-specific %111il IL'I' 711�t:LZI'Lk: 1; 1:1, identify appropriate t'01171datIO-1 JTIL� G. A li-lit shell s,atter is 10CACd 11"U'll, necessary to determine ff. sub:Jecl impa"71ed Orange Count}' AiTl'%OTI. ATeas w development sul-aecl to Maic noVe iz: A. NOT APPLICABLE B. NOT APPLICABLE C. Schematic site plan indicates -,.Lron_• Multiple use circtilation plan tic project to Town Center. t>pL, s 1 "3 L, I D. The increase in the number (itemploml: Ill income range) will incrcase tht, '10ki '-I\ k01 1'." 1! 1 1"', E. PTOPOSed PTOJeCt W011ld prechd:: 1 :-% L+ llTm ni o! flt_,:' (potential development Of Ql(I mit construction of 917-q8_33 1711.0liph: 1.riiil% 01111" arnk would increase local demand I'M I :,pcJAl% lou ,):lit -,I, Commuting distance. lncorpora;ion (it' int: 1\ rel, ill il"V !`.:!:t%" 0; 11 1' reduce impact on local hoizz:ing niiarlez. lc 1*1111 :i generated by commercial and indLIF111i.11 olinollclit< k\ ill -,;:.tic i that which can be ,atisfied b,. . thC TC�Idonildl 132 TABLE 2 — GENERAL PLAN/CIRCULATION C • ti a 11-M E 1JT RESIDENTIAL Acres* Units" PnPulabon" Acres' ems= 158 632 1,990 r r 158 1,248 3,931 158 158 1,264 2,212 158 2,370 4,148 r. l 55.3 917 1,693 82.9 lop 55.3 917 1,693 74.4 983 1,817 55.3 917 1,693 73.4 983 1,817 r-' 85.8 1,478 2,586 52.5 _ 1,521 2,661 71.7 1,218 2,131 62.6 1,259 2,203 84.3 1,553 2,717 49.4 1,599 2,748 ^ram'' f' �` +� �• 48.9 910 1,593 12.3 "` " c"'` "' '' r, ' "'':' '� ' - r r r •. t S ,crest because of assumptions for street dedir.ations, •c ..•:=-rf=.�-. �, r _ ..., t. ,.. ;lark land dedication requirements. 133 ;ULAT10N OPTION IMPACT SUMMARY COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL Total Project Total Percent ,n** Acres* Sq. Ft. Employees Acres* 5q. Ft. Employees Traffic {Trip Ends) Project Population Resident Population 8,216 1,990 100. O11�0 16,224 3,931 100.0% Nominal 10,996 2,212 100.01tu 20,619 4,148 100.000 82.9 8,755 6.9 134,862 270 30,550"' 10,718 15.8% 1,556,856 1 31,119' # ` 10,842 16.8% I 74.4 ; 1,501,111 '. 8,436 11.8 205,370 411 30,536* 10,540 16.1 0 31,105 " ' 10,664 17.09r': 1 73.4 1,485,792 8,348 10.7 186,436 372 30,177"' 10,413 16.3% � 30,746'", 10,537 17,2;0 52.5 II1,093,32,J 6,104 6.9 134,862 270 29,403"' 8,960 16.5'�� 30,171- 9,035 29.4`� j I �62.6 411 30,362"' 9,452 22.5`- 1,209,320 1 6,910 11.8 205,370 30,699' „ 9,524 23,1 4 �10.7 49.4 1,008,000 1 51835 186,436 372 29,528* 8,924 30 4"' i 29,911"' 9,005 31.1`,.. t 72.3 1,448,400 '; 8,432 6.$ 115,700 231 29,65fl"' 10,256 15.5°� •eet dedications. 134 ri a,,960 FRJY A. MAIN/SUNFLOWER 4-WAY `•fir' J1E40 FWY B. ANTON EXTENSION k h 135 G .a' &00es.., ..�.• r M=CAWK D-W--. bay FZ60em — 4 L"' 0 R Irrf Ali EMW- CCtAK5 4A'- Cr1N1 v1� Fu'u—iz W, -� 01660 FWY C. DOUBLE "T" GP-78-3A [REVISED] MAP 5 OPTION! IV J 1. c....�....._.j 136 0 n at 10 D: !;Gv Fkr A.IMAIN/SUNFLOWER 4-WAY B. ANTON EXTENSION J Lit C Zcc don s-C Fm spy' 137 Ey%l D+::rO F VY C. DOUBLE "T" GP-78- 3A [REVISED] MAP 6 OPTION V N-ti 138 APPLICATION ADDRESS OFFICE SEARCH SURVEY DRO- TENT TRA s Z.E.*-*- MASTER PI R. A.;47 C - 10 REF- STREET,. EXIST C. iB G. ay (DIM. C. to C.) PROPOSED ULT. CURB LOCATION EXISTING R/W q_ to FL FLto FL ULT. R/W PER MASTER PLAN - EASEMENTS ZONING OF LAN PRECISE PLAN FIELD SEARCH EXIST. CURB 8 GUTTER EXIST. SIDEWALKS ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS DRIVE APPROACHES DEVELOPED LAND: YES,z-' NO 139 nuijai norn PAR ZONING: YES— NO— PPLICATION L`7-` f- a11—i)i` SURVEY DR' TENT TRACT#* S4* Z.E # MASTER FLAN R. A.; - C- 10 REFL-2--�- } 140 OI**ND ' a)NDITIaNS%ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PIMINING MWISSION MEETING OF_ June 28l 1982 DUE BACK TO THE PLAMING DIVISiC:N BY June 16, 1982 PLANNER 10: uilding Safety engineering Division j Fire Prevention { ) Leisure Services ( ) Police Department (2)-( ) Sanitary District (RDb 1 ( ) Transportation Services ( ) Water District (Informa° ( ) Streets & Sanitation (B A.P. NUMBER 426-191-16 Applicant/Authorized Agt Phone No. COMPUTER INPUT: 17011 � !. ( � !i � • !�' ' �I'< it A :: ! ` "2 �' � I � • ! I� i( fix. 270 �° 0 I I i F! � •#. ! � ° 1 Ili! ! �! !' f� ' ! ■ 141 A.P. WMER 426-191 16 _ Appl icantlAuthorized Agt Phone No. "IPLFI ER INPUT' : 17011 • `.s -st '� �i. ` big 1 �' -r �• 1' 406 36-SIT SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING PRDJECT IN ODNJUNC-- 411 i7 ICN: 412 413 414 Conditions Ordinance Requirements: (Ccwents other than standard condi', ordinances, should be addressed to the Planning Commission in memo forrr CMF 0934-30 142 i 9.z.Lcv( 1 c 3 z MOTION Ordinance 82-12 Adopted cct,�f iHt UIfY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE ZONING OF A PCRTION OF LOT 117 OF TRACT NO. 300 FROM R1 TO PDR-LD, in connection with Rezone Petition R-82-07, Norma Hertzog, for property located at 273 and 277 Monte Vista Avenue, was given second reading and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, McFarland, Johnson NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Schafer ABSTAINING: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hertzog R-79-15 The Clerk presented for second reading and adoption, Nordquist/ Ordinance 79-32, to change the zoning of property Episcopal Church located at 183 East Bay Street from R1 to PDR-HD, in connection with Rezone Petition R-79-15, the Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist, authorized agent for the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 1220 West Fourth Street, Los Angeles. Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration adopted for General Plan Amendment GP-79-3A. ZE-82-88 The Clerk also presented Zone Exception ZE-82-88, for variances from parking requirements including reduction in total parking, parking in a street setback, and inadequate turd -around area, in conjunction with a Planned Development Review, for a 36-unit senior citi- zens housing project in connection with an existing church. The Development Services Director presented the back- ground for the subject project and reported that first reading was given to Ordinance 79-32 on December 17, 1979, with second reading and adoption held until fund- ing was approved by Housing and Urban Development (11UD). The funding has been obtained by the applicant. The Director further reported that at the request of the Planning Commission, new site plans have been submitted which will eliminate the need for a turn -around and will provide improved traffic circulation; the proposed auto- matic gate at the entrance to the Orange Avenue parking area will be deleted, thereby eliminating concerns about adequate stacking area and traffic congestion on Orange Avenue; and the modified site plan will allow greater joint use of parking between the church and housing parcels. At the request of Vice Mayor Hall, the Development Services Director explained the Federal funding for non- profit organizations in which the tenants' rents are in an amount equal to 25 percent of their income, with the balance funded by HUD. Reinhold H. Klein, 1910 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, housing consultant for the project, stated that the maximum height of the project is 30 feet and pointed out on the slide screen the location of the two- and three-story structures. Mr. Klein also mentioned that because of the revised plan, only two variances are now needed; setback on Bay Street, and reduction in total parking. He also reported that based on a survey of similar projects, the need for the same number of park- ing spaces which would be required for family housing is not necessary since many of the elderly do not drive automobiles. Mr. Klein also stated that surveys indi- cate that as the project matures, use of automobiles decreases. In response to Vice Mayor Hall's questions regarding selection of tenants, Mr. Klein detailed the procedure required by HUD which includes priority being given to qualified citizens of the community. 143 'lB Reverend Conrad Nordquist, St. John the Divine Episcopal Church, spoke in support of the project stating that there was a crucial shortage of housing in the area, and he felt this project would alleviate at least a small portion of the low -rent housing shortage. Responding to questions from the Council, Reverend Nordquist stated that van transportation is not being planned at this time but such a service is a possibility, and that the tenants of the project will have the use of the Church's recreational facilities. Jerome Vandewalle, 2810 San Juan Lane, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the project and pointed out the following reasons: additional housing is needed in Costa Mesa, especially senior citizens housing as evidenced by the waiting list at the Casa Bella development; the project is well -conceived and will not cause additional taxation of Costa Mesa residents; the community has an obligation to the elderly who have spent their lives in the cominun- ity and who have contributed to all; the project will not be detrimental to the community and will not be an incon- venience to Costa Mesa citizens. Walter Miller, 275 East 18th Street, Apartment 37, Costa Mesa, supported the project and related the plight of an elderly friend living in a small room for which he must pay a rental of $300.00 per month. Anna Shereshevsky, 2152 Elden Avenue, Costa Mesa, stated that there should be no objecttions to caring for the elderly and the handicapped, and there was a need for this type of development based on the waiting list which exists at the Casa Bella Senior Citizens Apartments. Gigi Nordquist, 974 Modjeska Circle, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the project because of the need that exists for senior citizens housing. Vice Mayor Hall asked if any communications had been received opposing the project, and the City Clerk responded that there were none. Bob Yoder, 155 Buoy Street, Costa Mesa, voiced his objection to the proposed project and submitted for the record the following communications in opposition to the development. a petition containing 52 signatures, a letter from Alyce H. McCardle, 1997 Fullerton Avenue, Costa Mesa, and Roy R. McCardle, 273 East 21st Street, Costa Mesa. Mr. Yoder stated that he is not against homes for the elderly, however, he was concerned with the quality of life on the eastside, and suggested the City purchase subject site for a park. He based his objection to the the project for the following reasons: traffic increase on Bay Street and Orange Avenue which are already heav- ily traveled, lack of sidewalks; density too high for the neighborhood; insufficient parking; and project is not easily accessible to stores and reasonably -priced restaurants. Mr. Yoder proposed that the Church dedi- cate subject site to the City for a one -acre park, and in return the City allow the project to be built on City property across from Lions Park, within the Red=velop- ment Area. Linda Young, 252 Sierks Street, Costa Mesa, opposed the project, stating that it would cause an increase in traffic. She suggested that since there were two vacant school sites in the neighborhood, one of those sites would be more appropriate for the project. Ms. Young also objected to the three-story design for a portion of the development. 144 Thomas Barr, 218 Sierks Street, strongly objected to any three-story structures in the neighborhood. 4P: Albert Ogden, 2066 Orange Avenue, and James Crilly, 184 East Bay Street, stated that they agreed with the objections presented by Mr. Yoder. Keith Hall, 1958 Fullerton Avenue, Costa Mesa, opposed three-story development. Fran Albers, 2012 Orange Avenue, owner of four RI lots in the area, voiced opposition to any other zoning except R1. Eileen White, 543 West Wilson Street, Apartment C-1, Costa Mesa, former resident at 184 East Bay Street, opposed the project because as a child a Church official promised that the children could play on that property. Stanley Brown, 308 Robinhood Lane, Costa Mesa, stated that he did not know if he was for or against the project, however, since residents moved into the area with RI zoning, this should be an overriding considera- tion in making a decision. Reinhold Klein again spoke to clarify issues that had been addressed. He stated that three sides on Bay Street are higher density than Ri. As to the three- story structure, it will be located from 175 feet to 200 feet from Bay Street and only 7 of the 36 units •will be in the three-story structure. Mr. Klein responded to a suggestion made by Mr. Yoder that the project be transferred to another site, stating that this is not permitted by HUD. He also suggested that the two vacant school sites in the area would be more appropriate locations for parklands. Mr. Klein reiter- ated that the height of the proposed project does not exceed 30 feet. Mr. Yoder disagreed with Mr. Klein's statement concern- ing present zoning in the area, and expressed his doubt regarding Mr. Klein's statement that the project could not be transferred to another site. Mr. Yoder also stated that if the higher density is approved, it will set a precedent to allow higher density for other properties in the area. There being no other speakers, Vice Mayor Hall asked for Council comments. Councilman Johnson commented that both the applicant and the residents had valid arguments and it would be difficult to reach a decision. In view of this, he asked that this item be continued for further study. Councilman McFarland expressed appreciation for the input from the residents and their concerns, however, he stated his opinion that in view of the present housing shortage, it is imperative to allow higher densities. Referring to the concerns of the residents regarding traffic, Councilman McFarland stated that RI development would generate more traffic than the proposed project. He further stated that the need for this type of housing cannot be questioned, that he felt it was an excellent project with an excellent location, and that since Council has dealt with the request for over two years, there was no reason to delay a decision. Councilwoman Hertzog commented that everyone a—ees that senior citizens housing is needed but not n their own neighborhood. She also voiced her opinion 145 50 that traffic would not be significantly increased, the 30-foot height would blend in with the surrounding area, and that although changes are difficult to accept, they must be made to alleviate the present housing shortage. Vice Mayor Hall asked the Director of Public Services for an estimate of additional traffic generated by R1 zoning, fancily units, and the proposed zoning for senior citizens housing. It was concluded that assuming all ; residents of the proposed project drove automobiles, increase in traffic would be approximately the same for all three uses. Vice Mayor Hall addressed Mr. Yoder's recommendation that the subject site be developed as a park, responding that priorities must be considered, and it would be too costly to develop the site for park use. The Vice Mayor also alluded to the concern over increased traffic, and voiced his opinion that heavy increase in traffic throughout the City is inevitable. Referencing RI zon- ing, Vice Mayor Hall stated that it is very difficult to retain this designation, that higher densities must be allowed in order to alleviate the shortage of hous- ing. As to parking, the Vice Mayor reported that the parking situation will be reviewed in six months in order to detennine if more parking spaces will be required. MOTION Ordinance 79-32 On motion by Councilman McFarland, seconded by Council - woman Hertzog, the Negative Declaration Adopted of Environmental Impact was adopted, and Ordinance 79-32, being AN ORDI- NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE ZONING OF A PORTION OF LOT 901, NEWPORT MESA TRACT, FROM RI TO PDR-HD, was given second reading and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Hertzog, McFarland NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Johnson ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Schafer Responding to Vice Mayor Hall's question regarding the variances, the Development Services Director reported that the zone exception and two variances are under consideration at this time, the variances being for setback on Bay Street, and reduction in total parking. MOTION ZE-82-88 On motion by Councilman McFarland, seconded by Council- Approved woman Hertzog, the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was adopted, and Zone Exception ZE-82-88 was approved based on the analysis and findings contained in the Planning Staff Report, and subject to all condi- tions also contained in the Staff Report. Vice Mayor Hall asked if the applicant agreed to all conditions, and the Reverend Nordquist he replied had read the conditions and agreed to all of them. The motion to approve the zone exception carried 3-1, Councilman Johnson voting no. RECESS Vice Mayor Hail declared a recess at 8.55 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. WARRANTS On motion by Councilwoman Hertzog, seconded by Council- MOTION man McFarland, Warrant Resolution 1184, including Warrant 1184 Payroll 8214, was approved by the following roll call vote: Approved AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hall, Hertzog, McFa NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Nonerland, Johnson ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Schafer 146 OLD BUSINESS: (Continued) Ilk/ II-C4 /T 6.Ur11 d� lrf ZE-82-79 Approval was based on findings that approval would not lead (Continued) to precedent setting inasmuch as the trailers are totally non -visible from the street and appear to be. almost a part of an older mobile home park adjacent to subject property. The Commission felt there: was sufficient justification to grant use of the trailers due to the unique situation and circumstances that exist.. Mr. Davenport stated that he had voted against the motion because he felt the applicant was remiss in not disclosing previously the charitable nature of his involvement in the camunity. Mr. Davenport felt that Staff findings were valid and he had difficulty in approving the Conditional Use Permit. Zone Exception The Commission considered the public hearing continued from Permit ZE-82-81 the meeting of June 14, 1982, for Zone Exception Permit Dave Lavin/ ZE-82-41, for Dave Lavin, authorized agent for Trnple Sharon, Temple Sharon 617 Hamilton Street, for a Conditional Usr- Permit, to allow a school in an exLsti g building currently occupied by Toinple Sharon, Located at the above address, in an R2 zone. EnvironTmntal [-termination: Exempt. Planning Staff recornmPnded approval, subject to conditions. Mr. Dave Lavin, representing the applicant, stat.Pd he had received a copy of the Staff Report and was in agree-Inent with the conditions contained therein. Mr. Sloate asked various questions concerning proposed use of the trsnplp. There being no one else wishing to speak on this item, the Chairman closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Ms. Sawyer -Watson, seconled by Mr. Clarke, Approved and carried 5-0, that. Zone Exception Penni.t ZE-62-81 be ��provpd, based on the analysis and findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Planning T?ivision Staff Report. Zone Exception The Commission con.sidprd the public hearing continued from Permit M-82-88 the meeting of June 28, 1982, for Zane Exception Permit Reverend Conrad A. ZE-82-88, for Revrrerxl Conrad A. Nordquist, authorized Nordquist/Bishop agent. for the Bishop of the Prot.esrant. Episoopal Church, of Protestant 1220 West Fourth Street, Los Angeles, for variances Fran Episcopal Church parking requirements including reduction in total parking, parking in a street. setback, and inada{luate turn -around area, in conjunction with a Planned Development Review for a 36-unit senior citizens' housing project: in conjunction with an existing church located at 183 East Lay Street, in an R1 zone. (Rezone to pcR-HD pending.) Environw.ntal Determination; Negative D-claration for GP-79-3A. Planning Staff recamrnended that this application be recan- rnended to the. City Council for approval, subject. to condi- t. ions. Reverend Conrad Nordquist, representing the applicant., stated he had received a copy of the Staff Report and was in agree- y mpnt with the condit.i.ons contained therein. Reverend Nord- gvist explained that. the plans had been modified to relocate one unit. to resolve the problem of turn -around area on -site. He felt the project was now ready for construction. Mr. rObert Yoder, 155 Lucy Street., informed the Camnission he had a petition with approximately 36 signatures of resi- dents opposed to the planned development of the subject property. Mr. Yoder further stated that the project did not comply with the 30-foot., two-story height limitation and'was ll li J _ tJ t OLD SLEEPIEESS: (Continued ZS-82-88 three stories in some areas. Mr. Yoder also felt the planned (Continued) parking was too far away from the units; he thought the units were being jammed in and would not serve the best. interests of the neighborhood as a whole. Ms. Surtamrlin informed the Ccxmmis5ion that a planned Devel- opment does not have a height. limitation. Mr. Valantine stated that at, the previous public hearing the Staff recommendation was for denial; however, since that time significant improvements have been made to the on -site parking and traffic circulation for the project, which was the reason for the change in the Staff recommendation. Mr. Yoder asked further questions concerning the lack of garages for the units, and noted that the property is still zoned Rl. Mr. Valantine informed the. Commission that. the. Rezone Ordinance had received first hearing by the. City Council; the secord reading and adoption of the ordinance are still pending and would be heard in conjunct.i.on with the City Council hearing of the Planned Development. Mr. Yoder stated he would present his petition to the City Council at that time. Some discussion of the parking faci.lit.ies followed. Mr. Albert. Ogden, 2066 Orange Avenue, asked questions con- cerning the inst.itut.ional--looking elevations of the build- ings. Mr. Davenport stated that the Commission had been concerned with this issue due two the fact the drawings ori- ginally did not show any detailed elevations. However, since that time the applicant had providrrd drawings that relieved the Commission's and St.afE's concerns in This respect. Mr. Davenport asked the ardiitect who was in attendance to show the concerned members of the public the drawings which depict the three-dizrnnsional design of they buildings. Mr. W. F. Albers, 2012 orange Avenue, stated that he awns several properties in the area and had recently constructed a new home. He. noted that a number of restrictions had he -.en placed on his project and objected two the fact that the sub- ject project had progressed this Ear with the neighbors being unaware of what is really goirel on. Ms. Jeanie Murphy, 190 East. Bay Street., snared that she lives directly across the street Fran the church. She was not opposed two senior citizens' housing but was opposed to sub -standard housing which she felt the project will pro- duce due to insufficient parking. Ms. Murphy further stated there are traffic problems in the area and less traffic was needed —not more. Mr. PP-inhold Klein, repres.nt.i.ng the applicant, gave an informative explanation of his years spent. in planning housing Ear senior inemt)P.rs of the ca"Tiunit.y. He informed the Commission that the higher structures will be located closer to the d-iurch, with rwo-ct.)ry structures located closer to the resWential neighbors. Mr. Klein also dos- cribed the design of the project, and urged the neighboring resWents W support. this plan for senior citizens' housing. Mr. Yoder statflci thatthe federal goverr®nent di.d not have a good track record Eor providing attractive developm nts and had produced sane very poor developments. He did not feel it. was fair to suggNst the. neighbors were opposed to hones for the aged; hcrm:ver, Mr. Yoder suggested there are other locations where the proposal housing would be appropriate. OLD SCISINFSS: (Continued) ZE-82-88 More discussion followed Concerning parking for the Casa in the area of the (Continued) Bella project arri the traffic situation proposed project. There being no one else wishing to speak on this it(n, the Chairman closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Mr. van Aken, seconded by Mr. Clarke, and Recas nd Approval carried 5-0, that. Zone Exception Permit ZE-82-88 be rP.c(n- to the City Council .for approval, based on the anal- mended ysis and findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Planning Division Staff Report. Zone Exception qhP Ccrmission considered the public hearing continued from for Zone Exception Permit permit ZE-82-93 Craig Chamberlain/ the meetiM of June 23, 1982, ZE-82-93, for Craig Chamberlain, authorized agent for tmbert Robert J. Krcr3h J. Krogh, 17781 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, for variances from density, parking and setback requirements to legalize the use of a fiberglass dare as a second dwelling unit, located at. 1994 Church Street, in an R2 zone. Environ- mental Determination: Exempt. Planning Staff remanded denial and removal of the dome structure within 30 days of commission action. Ms. Sumneriin informed the commission that Condition 03 in the Staff Report should be corrected to show that Conditions #14 through 418 must be canpleted within thirty (30) days or the structure refnoved (with demolition permit). Mrs. Ceor(3t.ana MLnor, 1986 Church Avenue, informed the. Cc=ission that the applicant had left the Council Chambers anti had informed her he had another meeting to attend. Thera was nobody in attendance to represent the applicant in this matter. Chairman Davenport. asked Mrs. Minor to make any statements she wished concerning the application. She informed the Cammission that she lives next door to the subject property and the only way for access to the fiberglass dome: was via an easement. Although some people feel it is an alley, Minor stressed that it is sham on her deed as a 7-1/2- Mrs. foot utility easement. She further stated she has a 4-car garage on her property facing the easement and noted that she frequently has difficulty in getting out of her garage because the tenants of the subject property park on the easen.nt. Although Mr. Davenport felt the item was a somewhat oontro- versLal issue, he thought that, as the applicant had left the public hearirx3 and Mould not be returning, the Canmis- sion should take action. There Leing no one else wishing to speak on tlJs it.cln, the Chairman closfxd the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Mr. Clarke, seconi3ed by Ms. Sawyer -Watson and carried 5-0, that the variances from parking and setback requirm,p.nt.s to legalize the use of a fiberglass dome as a secorr.l dwelling unit be denied, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Planning Division Staff Report for Zone Exception Permit. ZE-82-93. The density variance was approved subject to conditions contained in the Staff Report with addtt.ional conditions to read: 21. Applicant. shall direct the tenant to vacate the dome as soon as is legally possible under the terms of the lease. UV :1;.VU PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT AGENDA IYC3. SITE LOCATION 183 East Rav 5tz t APPLICATION NO. ZE-62-88 AP* n - - 161ANDATORY ACTION 'DATE J.Me 4, 1933 APPLICANT Bishop of Protestant Fpis. C`u F'ev. C>�;�rad A. 1+orc3quist (O-ntr of Reco,a) AUTHORIZED AGENT ADDRESS 1220 West Fourth Street A!7 D R E 55 2043 Ora.-�e A%--mw Los Angeles, CA 90051 Cosa Mesa, CA 92627 Applicant is reminded that all ordinances and reViations governing the use of the land or building(s) to „",^Iich this PREPARED BY application pertains must be Complied with whetter speci- fied herein or not. REQUEST: Variances frm parking regviremmts, inrlud=q reduction in total in a street setback, and in��! tat,. turrsa.'"parking- �u:}xi area, iincx�a-Ijunc`�.iar► with a Planned DaveloFmnt Feview for a 36-u Ut Senior Citizens' Housing Project in con- junction with an exiztinq chtsdl. FINAL COMMISSION ACTION. APPLICANT NOTIFIED DATE r; r •a r r k BAR; r CITY OF COSTA MESA, 77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 (714) 754•5245 Be nda P;o . ZE-8 2-88 I• DESCRIPTIQI -I r b rdqu is t/Ep i s. Ch ur ch A. Subject Property I. Location - South-west of Orange Avenue and Bay Street, and East of Laurie Lane 2. General Plan Designation - High Density Residential 3. Zone - RI (PDR-HD pending, under Rezone Petition R-79-15) 4. Present D"VelOPment - Church, residence, vacant 5. Property Size - 2.01 acres 6. CEQA Determination - Negative Declaration adopted for General 7. Background - Plan Amendment GP-79-IA a. GP-79-3A amended the Land Use Designation of subject Mperty from Low Density ?residential to High Density Residential. b. R-79-15 has had N -s t rear? ing of the Ordinance (79-3 2) . Second reading was held L-Itil IT;D approved the project .funding and the Project was filed with the City. This rezoning would estahlish Planned Development Residential -High Density zoning on the property. B. Surrounding Property - I. �brth -- Single-family residences, Rl zone. 2. Seth - Multiple -family development, RI and R2 zonas. 3 • East - Coy Care Center, single-family and ;cult iple-fa. ,i l•✓ dwellings, RI zone. 4• WeSt - Multiple -fa, -oily development, R2 zone. II. REEQUI-9T A. Request is for variances from parking requirements including reduction in total parking, parking in a street setback, and inadequate turnaround area, in conjunction with a Planned Development Review for a 36-unit Senior Citizens, Project in conjunction with an existing church (St. Jahn the Divine Episcopal Church) . B. Project proposes a 3-story residential structure containing 36 1-bedroom dwelling units. Project funding will be through the Department of Housing and urban Development. The church is and will remain the sponsor of the prOicct. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, hcwvver, has required that a non-profit corporation be formed to oxen and manag� Project. The housing project will oc_ the the church and related facilities willreretaiseparate 39,622-sq. ft. parcel; -sq . f t . parcel. C. Applicant has Proposed that residents of the housing facility be perrrAted to utilize the social and recreational facilities of the church on a sched- uled or as -needed basis to avoid the need for more extensive social and recreational facilities to be built as part of the housing project. SR-4-10 151 Agenda No. 2 E-8 2-8 8 tbrdquist/Epis. Church -2- 1I REQUEST (continued) D. The approved General Plan Amendment and pending rezone were initiated Specifically for this project. The shared use of facilities and special- ized housing provided in the proposed develcpment were cited in the General Plan Report as examples of Planned Development features. III. AIUN.LYSIS A. Planned Develaprrint Review - 1. It is the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance to accommodate developments which utilize innovative planning concepts and which greet the broader goals of the General Plan, but which may not comply strictly with zoning regulations. Compliance with the General Plan can be ex- hibited through excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures, and protection of the integrity of neighboring deve loprre n t . 2. The Planned Development Residential - High Density zone allows resi- dential developrrents to be combined with religious, educational, or recreational uses if the City Council finds such uses to be cc patible with the residential project. With the shared use of recreational facilities, it appears that the uses in the proposed project will be compatible. 3. Density - a• Permitted: 15.1 to 30.0 units per acre Proposed: (1) Overall site: 17.9 units per acre (2) Housing parcel: 39.56 units per acre b. Subject application proposes the concept of a density transfer wherein develcprrent rights of the church parcel are transferred to the housing parcel. Within an overall Planned Development, this is an acceptable development technique inasmuch as the project is viewed as a whole rather than as separate parcels. c. Applicant is advised that, due to the density transfer, should the church elect to develop additional dwelling units on its parcel, the maximum allocable units would be 24. Prior to such development, it would be necessary to amend subject Planned Development (if approved). d. Based on the provisions of the Planned Develcpmnt Ordinance, subject project is entitled to 15 units per acre (30 units total). However, increased density may be obtained if a project meets some or all of 11 specific design criteria. The requested density (17.9 units per acre) is warranted based on the project's compliance with the follow- ing criteria: (1) Provision of low or moderate income housing, (2) Location within one -quarter mile of a public transit rotate. SR-4-10 152 III. N'ALXSIS (continued) 4. 5. Age nda i Da . ZE-82-88 --3- tbrdquist/Epis. Churc-, Open Space - a. Required: 42%; provided; 42.76$ b. Site Coverage: Housing 'ect Existing Church and Pro Future Expansion Total Building Area (sq.ft.) Paved Vehicular Area L,147 14,146 {sq•ft) ern Space (sq. ft.) 6,68 19, 789 16,599 27,292 23,286 Percent Open Space 49.9 17,991 37,780 36.9 42 7 Traffic circulation _ . 6 a, The new parking area for the church will be and parking for the housing located off Eay Street Avenue• project will have access frcrn ©range Lane. 'There will be no access to any parkirxi area from Laurie b. It does not appear there will be a ny ot Church and the Senior Citizens' housing pr use of parking between the c. A card -.operated automatic gate is shown atothe t. G Avenue parking. There is only 25 feet of "stacking the Orange Pr�rtY line and this gate, sufficient area for only one vehicle. the This limited stacking area could create additional traffic congestion on Orange Avenue. Staff suggests that a min0-foot deep stacking area be provided. d. Since the g gate is card -actuated, it appears that guests world not be able to utilize this parking area. Thus it will be necessary to record a Parkingchurc agreement allowing i the church .lot. vsitors of the senior citizens to park on 6. Building Height and Design - a. The Planned Development Ordinance does not i. rather, requires that the designma's a height limit but, of the Ordinance. of the building complY with the intent b. Details are not available on the design and height facilities. Thus, a final development g ght of the future church ject will need to he submitted seppa atePyan for that portion of the pry c•e residential building stems of the "T" configuration is approximately a "T" with the containing 2 stories and the top containing 3 stories. The intent of this design is to minimize the an adjacent residential acts of the structur d• Properties to the south, e 2-story roofline has a height of 21 ft. 6 inches, the 3-story roof_ line is 29 ft. 6 inches high, and other portions of the building extend The 2-sta to a maximum height cf 36 feet. e. From the submitted plans, the box -like and institutional. T eseexterior sisestucco, apparently ntial etuappears other "relief" materials. The roof is flat. without f. The structure also appears massive, especially ounding developrrant. in relation to the surr- Parallel to Bay Street, the residential structure has width feet. Laurie Lane, the length is a or imate feet. 150 feett.. Parallel to p` ox SR-4-10 153 III. ANALYSIS (continued) SR-4-10 Agenda P,b. ZE-82-88 1brdquist/Epis. Church -4- g. The structure does not appear to he particularly compatible with surrounding development. 7. Perimeter fencing -- a. There are no specific fencing ,requirements in the Planned Develop- mant.Ordinance for residential developments. This Ordinance does require that "Each plannal development shall provide reasonable visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units" and that fencing "shall be used as appropriate for the aesthetic enhancement of (the) property." b. This application proposes 6-foot high chain -link fencing between the housing and church parcels, and between the housing parcel and the adjacent residential properties. (1) Staff suggests that chain -link fencing will not enhance the property nor will it protect the privacy of the residents of either the housing project or adjacent properties. (2) The chain --link fencing between the church and housing portions of the project may create a "fish bowl" effect for the resi- dents of the Busing project. Additionally, several of the residential units are located oprosite the church parking and could be adversely impacted by the church and day school, traffic without mare substantial fencing. c. In keeping with the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance, Staff is recommending installation of 6-foot high wood fencing on interior property lines. d. A separate section of City Code regulates fencing within street setbacks and prohibits fencing in excess of 30 inches in height within 10 feet of the street property lines. A 3 ft. 6-inch con- crete block wall is shown on the housing parcel within 3 feet of the ultimate property line on Laurie Lane. It will be necessary to reduce this wall to 30 inches in height or to obtain a separate variance. Additionally, it appears that there is an 8-ft. high entry cpte connected to this low wall. An 8-ft. high gate would only be permitted 25 feet behind the property line. 8. Dedication of Land - The Engineering Division is requiring additional right--of-way dedica- tion on Laurie Lane and at corners of the property. On the submitted plans, this dedication is shown on the housing parcel but not on the church parcel. Applicant is advised that development standards, in- cluding density and open space, are based on net land area after dedi- cation. Thus, at such time as the church parcel is developed, open space and overall density, etc., will be reevaluated based on total net parcel size. 154 - 5- 111. NIALYSIS (continued) B. Variance. Amunt of Parking Agenda No. - ZE-B 2-88 Nordquist/Dpis.Church 1. Plans have not been submitted showing the floor plan and seating arrangement of the existing or proposed church. However, the project architect indicates that the existing facility contains pew seating for 132 persons. Based on this information, the proposed 44 parking spaces would be adequate for the church (1 space for each 3 fixed seats within the main auditorium or assembly area). Staff requests that two copies of a detailed floor plan of the existing facilities be submitted for Eire and Planning Division records and also to verify the parking requirement. 2. The existing parking for the church is 69 spaces. Staff has received calls from surrounding property owners indicating that currently there is significant perking congestion during church services. 3. 20 parking spaces are provided for the housing parcel. 58 are required by Code. This represents a 65.5% reduction in required parking. (Ratio = 0.56 space provided per unit). 4. The basis for this reduction is an assr.mption that elderly people do not have as many vehicles as the ge,n,:ral populace. 5. The Casa Bella Senior Citizens' Housing Project at 1840 Paris Avenue was granted a parking variance in 1977 based on a similar assumption. Additionally, Casa Bella is located within the downturn area and it could also be assumed that the need for cars would, therefore, be reduced. Thus, a 77% reduction in parking was granted (0.37 space provided per unit). Unfortunately, however, there appears to be a decided parking problem at that site. 6. Subject property is not conveniently located to shopping or recrea- tional facilities, thus there may be even a greater need for parking than at Casa Bella. 7. 'lire Police Department indicates that there is already significant off -site parking congestion on the streets surrounding subject prop- erty and suggests that the variance request is unreasonable. C. Variance -- lnadquate Turn around SR-4-10 1. Code requires that a turn -around be provided at the end of dead-end parking aisles in excess of 100 feet in length. An adequate turn- around is not provided at the end of the Orange Avenue parking lot; thus, if all spaces are occupied, a vehicle would be required to back out onto the street. Such an exit would be difficult due to the auto- ratic gate and would be hazardous due to traffic on Grange Avenue. 155 -6- III. ANALYSIS (continued) Agenda No. ZE-8 2-88 Nordqui st/Epis. Church 2. There is no hardship warranting the omission of a turn -around. 3. The lack of a turn -around and lack of adequate stacking area at the automatic gate entrance are inconsistent with development standards of the Planned Development Ordinance which require "smooth traffic flow" and "minimum hazards." D. Variance -- Parking in Street Setback - 1. For Planned Development zoned parcels, Code requires a 25-foot deep landscaped setback, adjacent to any public right-of-way. 2. Applicant is requesting a variance to provide parkirxg within 5 feet of the Bay Street property line. 3. The prape rty has a unique circumstance inasmuch as it is abutted by streets on three sides. Few properties are faced with this condition. 4. A significant amount of landscaped area will he available on the remain- der of the Bay Street setback. E. Summary - The concept of providing lcw- to moderate -income housing for senior citi- zens is both acceptable and desirable, as evidenced by the City's approval of a General Plan Amendment on subject property to accerurodate such a pro- ject. It appears that the i.mplerrcntation, however, needs some modifications before findings can be made that the project meets the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance, especialiy with respect to adequacy of parking and traffic circulation. Staff would be reluctant to recc vre nd approval of subject proposal unless at least 50% of the required parking for the housing project were provided and unless the traffic circulation problems were re- solved. IV. PLANNING SPAFF FINDIT7GS A. The project is consistent with a goal of the City's General Plan by pro- viding low- to moderate -income housing. B. The eambination of uses will be acceptable inasmuch as the church and the residential development should be compatible. C. The proposed shared use of facilities and the proposed density transfer are acceptable functions of a Planned Development. D. Housing parcel parking: 1. The overall property is large and does not have any inherent site hardships which warrant the proposed reduction in parking for the housing parcel. 2. The parking reduction appears excessive, particularly since subject property does not have convenient, nearby shopping and recreational facilities. SR-4-10 156 Agenda No. ZF-82-88 Nordquist/Epis.Church -7_ IV. PLAIZt ING STAFF FIlMlNGS (continued) 3. With respect to parking and circulation, the project fails to meet the intent of the Planned Development Ordinance that projects exhibit excel- lence in site planning, and the specific requirements that there be smooth traffic flora and minimum hazards. E. The appearance of the proposed residential structure is institutional and box -like, with little visual relief. Other low- to moderate-incor e projects approved by the City have not derronstrated such starkness. F. The proposers variance to allow parking in the Bay Street setback is accep- table due to subject property's frontage on three streets. V. PLAMING STAFF RECCMI'S=TICN Recanmend denial to the City Council. V1. CONDITIONS, IF APPROVED Shall meet all requirements of various City departments, copy attached hereto. VII. PLANNING CC MISSION ACTION - MEETING OF JUTE 28, 1982 Continued to July 12, 1982. FOR MEETING OF JULY 12, 1982 VIII. EVALUATION A. The applicant met with the Planning Commission at the Study Session of July 6, 1982 and suggested possible codifications which appear to resolve the major problems. Plans showing the modifications, however, have not been submitted. B. Traffic Circulation C. SR-4-10 1. The proposed revisions include modifying the easterly end of the apartment building by removing a one-story end unit and providing one additional third -story unit. This will allow a driveway between the housing project parking and the church parking area which will elimiri- ate the need for a "turn -around" and will provide improved traffic circulation. 2. The proposed automatic gate at the entrance to the Orange Avenue parking area will be deleted, thereby eliminating concerns about adequate stack- ing area and traffic ccngestion on Orange Avenue. 157 ,,ge nda 1b . ZE-8 2-88 -8- rbrdquist/Epis. Church VIII. EVALUATION (Cont.) C. Building Design Apparently, the applicant demonstrated at the Study Session that the building is not as stark as it appears in the submitted elevation draw- ings. D. Parking Variance 1. The modified site plan will allow greater joint use of parking between the church and housing parcels. Should there be a higher demand for tenant and/or guest parking for the apartment project than anticipated by the applicant, it can be acca=dated on the church parcel. 2. Staff has included a condition of approval which requires review of the parking six months after completion of the housing project. If, at that time, it is determined that there is a parking problem, provision of additional parking on the church parcel could be required. IX. PLAPINIPIG STAFF FINDINGS A. The project is consistent with a goal of the City's General Plan by pro- viding low- -o moderate -income housing. B. The combination of uses will be acceptable inasmuch as the church and the residential development should be compatible. C. The proposed shared use of facilities and the proposed density transfer are acceptable functions of a Planned Developmnt. D. The joint use of the overall parking between the housing parcel and the church parcel may accommodate the needs of both activities. Should over- all parking be inadequate, additional parking can be provided on the church parcel at a later date. E. The proposed variance to allow parking in the Bay Street setback is accept- able due to subject property's frontage on three streets. X. PLANNING STAFF RECOr'IN=TION Recommend approval to the City Council. XI. CONDITIONS, IF APPROVED Shall meet all the requirements of the various City Departments, copy attached hereto. 158 Agenda 1x) . ZE-8 2-88 Nordqu.i st/Epi s. Church ME COUDITICUS, IF APPROVED (REVISED FOR PLANNING COVDIISSION MEETING C;iE DULY 12, 1982) Plan. 1. Prior to issuance of building permits: a. Detailed floor plans (2 copies) of the existing church facilities shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review. b. The new parking area for the church shall be paved and striped in accordance with City standards. c. A trash enclosure shall be provided for the churc`:. parcel. d. The method of trash pickup for the housing project is unclear. Details shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval. An exterior trash enclosure may be required. 2. Prior to occupancy of the housing project, an agreerx-mt shall be approved by the Planning Division and recorded with the County, ktiich allows joint parking between the housing parcel and the church parcel„ 3. Six-foot high opaque fencing shall be provided on all. interior property lines. Type of fencing shall be approved by the Plarmirx; Division. 4. Future develcprrent on the church parcel is considernj only conceptual at this time. A separate final development plan must 62! appproved prior to any additional development or construction on that portion of the property. 5. Grading and construction can increase the amount of airborne dust in the vicinity of the proposed development. To control the dust, the developer shall spray and water the construction site under the direction of the Building and Safety Division and all construction-w!hicles shall be sprayed prior to leaving the site. 6. All orr--site utility services (Edison and Telephone) shall be installed underground. 7. Installation of all utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure said installation from view from array place on or off the property. Said 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, and shall be installed in accordance with standard plans arxJ specifications of the City of Costa Mesa. 8. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning i }ressors and duct work shall be screened from view. 9. The parking for this project shall be reviewed by the Planning Co fission six mmnths after opening of the senior citizen's apartments. If it is determined that there is a parking proble-n, provision of additional parking on the church parcel may be required. 10. Revised site plans shall be available for Staff review at least one week prior to City Council action on this matter. Full-size and reduced site plans shall be submitted for City Council review under the direction of the Planning Division. Eng.' 11. Submit current Title Report. •12. Submit Grading Plan. Leis. 13. Existing trees shall renain. Se rv. APPLICANT IS RLMINDED THAT THE TOLL ,711 G C011DITICXJS ARE REQUIREME[TrS OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL, LAYS : ' Eng. 14. � Construct P.C.C. residential sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa StarOard Drawings at applicant's expense on Orange Avenue, Bay Street and Laurie Lane. 159 Agenda No. ZE-82-88 Nordqui s t/Epis. Church -IO- CONDITIONS IF APPR=D - ORDINANCE REQUIRE21ENTS (Continued) 15. Construct P.C.C. driveway approach per City of Costa Mesa Standard Plans. Location, width and type are subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 16. Any existing drives and/or curb depressions that will not be used shall be removed and replaced with full height curb and sidewalk at applicant's expense. . 17. a. Dedicate all Land 25 feet from the centerline of Laurie Lane. b. Dedicate all land for cul-de-sac on Laurie Lane. c. Dzdicat.c a 3--ft. public utility easement behind existing right--of-way line on Laurie Lane. 18. Fulfill Drainage Ordinance Fee requirements prior to issuance of building permits. Fire 19. Provide for the installation of fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A to be located within 75 feet of travel distance from the front door of each unit. Extinguishers may be of a type rated 2A10BC as these ex- tinguishers aye suitable for all types of fires and are less expensive. 20. Provide for &pproved detectors of products of combustion other than heat to be installed in accordance with the 1973 Edition of the Uniform Build- ing Code. 21. Provide an approved fire alarm system in accordance with Section 13.307 of the Uniform Fire Code - 1976 Edition. Plan. 22. Approval of the Planned Development shall be for a period of one (1) year. Prior to expiration of that titre an extension may be requested or the permit will lapse. 23. Any subdivision of the property shall meet all requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and of City Codes. 24. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with City Standards prior to issuance of building permits. 25. Care and maintenance of open space and other cuTton facilities shall be be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Planned. Developr7ent Ordinance. Both parcels shall be fully landscaped in conjunction with development of the housing project to provide a unified appearance for the overall planned development. 26. All fences and required street setbacks shall comply with City Code. 27. A detailed landscape/irrigation plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to: type, size, and location of all plants and trees; type of ground cover; sprinklers; all walls, fences, or barriers; trash enclosures; driveways; parking lots and security lighting; and type, location, and assignment of street a3dresses on property. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to release 28. All landscaped areas shall be separated from paved vehicular areas by 6-inch high continuous Portland cement concrete curbing. 29. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions'of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. 30. In compliance with the provisions of the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Sub -chapter 1, Article 4, the applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis of the proposed development, prepared under the supervi- sion of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering. Two copies of said report shall be submitted with the application for building permits. The acoustical analysis shall evaluate existing and projected 160 -11- COMITICxIS, IF APPROVED (continued) Agenda No. ZE-a 2-88 Nordquist Epis.Church noise levels, noise attenuation measures to be applied, and the noise insula- tion effectiveness of the proposed construction. The Person preparing the report shall► under the direction of a person experienced in the field of accustical engineering, perform an inspection of the project prior to or at the time of the framing inspection to certify that construction techniques comply with recommendations contained within the acoustical analysis. Upon completion of the subject structures, field tests may be required under the provisions of Title 25. of utilities. R=UMLMENTS OF THE FOLLCWING SPECIAL DISTRICTS ARE HEREBY FORIARDED M APPLICANT Sani. 31. Developer will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at Dist. his awn expenses, meetng the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 32. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, and sewer perruit required prior to installation of sewer. Water 33. Applicant is reminded that additional conditions of development may be Dist. imposed by Mesa Consolidated Water District and/or other serving utilities. SR-4-10 161 FUL L ER ro1v r 4 Vf- N Uir as gil ro 4 J6 0 NE PORT Ll ,4, gy 64.9;' TRA CT (2 1)0 22 /0 6go 9 4 !z �)4 4 Jf- 5,94 NO 7714 go 13 LANE ORANGE MARCH 1979 A1FWPC)pf- rRA('7 'VO 3106 T)94CTIVO 7714 M"293 -:)J-50 20 THA C T 24 3�4� 7 cn In 162 i c 03 I� I i I b I � C �t l�Ti Mh,�sy 1 r 8F existing mutts purpose center t 1 " 163 - bay street CID ---------------- Oi,C'- 117 j; C\j PFZ-'FEX--r,T, Sant n chur-cr' lor-I �ducat-.-; r 6 I La C -2 n +L john the divine 'I C7' a Pe church CL MObTA., T E V i < 0 f7' 0 �cluc at-c-n ZR - D-- �l ) am -1 R"TIA 165 t _FM ExK--IT 1tea PsZ, .. r—l.<! lollr 1NJ4, c1r) z Z (L) < � T :D z 7-1 L- 0 166 i o � ! � I •� :-!._ .ICE f `! � � =3 � �� h. Ol } } 4 I � >•raw. f83- 0" �. i 167 jj 4 61�yT x�yt ri 2 d*FTC?—y f �XY r-T '� .1 2 di.7C]iv1 168 ducat o-I r- 10 AF-r rY,K.Tlt-4r3 Z :Err50---T " r'T 169 �r rvGt ! �' rics� c� 5F- %-a-lovmc:, rU ,�&f :Xl�T. Gi�Rlb �r1l7 rp � � }'�►Q''tUV �T� I�OJEGT �I�i�S� W5 q 2cA 2 i TOTA ": (Y - '?�� F ._ter-1��. �= ' � �.: _ , 7 -' �• � �' � "y4. Ft'� ^.:C31 al" ?F 0 1V E V ) Cr L 0 . r� (n cu 45 170 CITY OF COSTA MESA LOG SHEET TRACT NO. PARCEL MAP NO ZONE EXCEP MISC. IMPR . CROSS REF. ~ f'% 0A. P NO. o . LOCATION ENGINEER - DEVELOPER - _ .,_.. ADDRESS ADDRESS TELEPHONE RECEIVED FROM PLANNING. DRAWN IN C-10 FILE. APPLICATION SURVEY OFFICE. DONE! APPLICATION SURVEY FIELD. DONE ENGINEERING CONDITIONS WRITTEN RETURNED TO PLANNING FEES AND RECORDS FEE AMOUNT DATE PAID ❑ MAP CHECK ❑ DRAINAGE ❑ WATER ACREAGE 11 ADVANCE ENERGY [] INSPECTION TELEPHONE PLANNING COMMISSION AC PPROVE D CITY COUNCIL ACTION. D, ❑ APPROVED. TENTATIVE MAP EXPIRE (IS MONTHS FOR TRAC (CHECK ❑ IF APPLICABLE) RECORD ❑ TITLE REPORT [� TRAVERSE SHEETS ❑ HYDROLOGY CALCS ❑ SOILS REPORT ❑ COUNTY CHECK LETTER C] DRAINAGE FEE DRAWN IN CMCWD BOOK 1 ❑ WATER ACREAGE FEE DEPOSITS TYPE AMOUNT BOND PERFORMANCE LABOR, MATERIAL SURVEY MONUMENT CHECK NO RECEIVED DEPOSIT INFORMATION REF. AMOUNT BOND NO. INSURANCE COMPANY ADDRES£ 171 SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RECEIVED. _ HELD BY ►STA MESA LOG 'A RCEL MAP N4 TOSS REF.' SHEET ZONE EXCEPTION NO. II _, - ..� A P . N0 . L-� .:r - L,� DEVELOPER-C� c ADDRESS���- T ELE PHONE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. DATE, ,*-APPROVED 0 DENIED. CITY COUNCIL ACTION. DATE ® APPROVED. ❑ DENIED. TENTATIVE MAP EXPIRES ( IS MONTHS FOR TRACTS & 12 FOR PARCEL MAPS ) 5 (CHECK❑ IF APPLICABLE) ATE PAID RECORD DATE RECEIVED TITLE REPORT Q TRAVERSE SHEETS [ HYDROLOGY CALLS l] SOILS REPORT C� COUNTY CHECK LETTER )OK ❑ WATER ACREAGE FEE DRAWN IN CMCWD BOOK K NO RECEIVED DEPOSIT INFORMATION REF. NO SENT TO FINANCE. OND NO_ INSURANCE COMPANY ADDRESS RECEIVED HELD BY 172 HELD RY n 0 at .a VL 2 0 00 co l 00 tQ tR Nil - F` a� f� P•r E? 0 4IJ 04 �1 174 44 It C3' 4.J - -s to iu �6 G a 41 . e is r. 0 s �+- > s -< Q 0 0' 0) s"+ 10 C F t 4 r-1 O v be40 ti. i 0 Qi 0 U (i 0 P. �Si G Q lb 4) es .3& In (U 'E3 > w 10 1Z to .0 34 4D on G ea �0 iJ r, a .to fto vs be w = M Q) W Q. " 'L3 V Iz w 41 w C4 IV 4 r1 i- .:, -r# $ U -H b V LI IV .N u 0 Q R! 1y 41 ►�' Ci 6 +0 ' +® -14 M4 0 � � w Ili � .0 t 0 41 Aj *rf .-4 rt C9 Via. �„ p. 09 0-4 - � � ' �+► �:" +i C as ' +s *� w � + ' �. +� � � . �. �. of . A ©.0 ai . u �a 0C ~ I t t 4w 175- ' h ' lie p . 17. G s� • d- 00 as 44 H x o 4j 44 �.r u •46J �►'� "E3 �. G. r.1 tJ i.1 p *v i ' p. Cf V w96 b- O ' � a. ■ „� ; a �+ � «�. � .-� cis b �+ ; � i tll as `.r 0 V4 ,.k a) • C� ,--+ w � .N o fe �. t+ s+ IL � a .art .a w uao� �' . �, m 4 Q . ! + ra r * ■ air p a ■ G + s o -ci CL O' u .:A p. a.+ or C.31w N F. z .i=.wli wie._ iI it�:► ids i :I is . 44 Ofl I Rl 111M IV. I N � 178 �� yly. 4/ M�� r -� 41 Mit Iw UM at 'SM Smaption fruit 1"2-68 and _Wks"ntatAw *goal Mtp "3-360 for I y"C"I 3 amrad A, Ott a timised spent for the ■iwxv at thr Protestant a MAN�► R41 13t 'eh: l 0 Ont 4th 8t , Lee A p lms, for an OXOPIW at tier for a IPLWW*d Drool went review for a 4900 36-Unit Mnior oitisene' homing project in cionjunation with Sri an existing dwrcht with rarianoee from parking raguireawnta iMtb ding a M&Nftion in botial pia tins, parking in a street suet ard Inalopmtre tm"vaxd area, and a pwoel mW Id me. Owironmental 110torminationt to City Council Potting of $tw Declaration � Go 1943t. with a r+rocmendat'ion to grant the r *mtod extenwioni to July Up 1994 and AL*wt 33, 1994, respectively. iM D 182 H C C 46 A �N �i i r �-. F � �, 1Y i � �� i1 �� _ � � , �' �+ 186 183 East Hay Stree�t t �ta New, Cai{.��i4i�i.$2 i �% s r Rez went of`` -yof and Utility Easemaett Ctn Laurie Late Dear Pay. Nordquist: , In � with ' city -:�;AbuncUl a denial of the, prcposed abandon- ment orn %,aiis Lazne, ithe °4Lac: l aagt be no - so teat it is not located within the right pt-+a y*= the ' 3' utility =aob nt. As the existing wall is locatndt0� sttbe right-of-way, It Will bame to be moved at loot 31,/2• �._ .to 'may mdjjj�rgo City Oauncil' a decis icn. Dm to the delay involved m ith City Council* s request for a second hearing on than Ab a , P1madmg ')ivisiaa al extern the deadline for rural`? -oU. the � C wall to' DK=kber 50 This allows 30 days fr"as .t ee- dace at .City Oamci I *& decisko for ratwva3 of the well. s Please be reed that both dattsolition of the Well and rebuilding in a new location' require poinitar frcu the Building Safety Division (located an the 20 .floor of. City hall). Sirceraly, KA7iM L017W Mats Planner M:alm (C-*-63 ) .r 188 September 5, 1984 'V-iceW- rMV►.-r - • ,r.t•it 183 East Bay Street Ccata Mersa, California 92627 ' Dear Reverend Nordquist: As you are mare, the abanda ant of 6' of right -of -my and the public utility east a1cwQ Lwxie IAm rags denied by City Cc mil or. *,gust 69 1984. CmKquentlyr the misting 6' block roll that mas constructed 6" into the public right-of-way on the east side of Lade LAm m mt be relocated. Based on the Council's decision, it appears that the wall should be placed at least 3' away frao the prcgerty l m on Laurie Lane, Demolition CC the existing block wall should be camleted ta_y October 6, 1984,' thm allowing 60 days. for the demolition work. If you desire to construct : a new well, please obtain the necessary building permit from the FlamujV and. Building Safety Divisicm. If you have any quastions, please call me at (714) 754 -5604. Sincerely, Yjaum LOTTES Associater I 189 Septanber 5, 1984 Rawrend Conrad Nordquist 183 East BW Street Costa Mesa, California 92677 Dear Reverend Nosdquists As you are a vares the ant cf 6' of right--af- uuy and the public utility east &1oM Laurie Lane was dmied by City Council on Auq�mt 5, 1984. ConseQlm tlY. the adating 6' bloat mull that was constructed 5" irtm the public riot -of -way on the east side of Laurie Large mst be relocated. Based on the Cour.cil's decision., it appears that the wall should be plaoW at least 3' away frca the pecperty line on Laurie Lane, Dwolition of the existim block mil should be oopleted by October 5, 1984, thus allowing 50 days for the dwolition tick. If you desire to cvr struct a rAr wall, please obtain the neoesauy building permit fran thei.T]awdmg and Suiidi M Saafety Divisions. If y cu have ary questions e�,, P call w at (714) 754-5604 sinasrslye KATHM WnIES Aseociate Planner `•e September 17, 1984 rev. Conrad wrowAst 183 Fist Bay Street eta tusa, Cali fcrnia 92W Ple r Black wall an die LAM The October 6, 19" damUine for dw liti+nn of the blcx* mall on Laurie ndied that 4emalition of the weU aunt be tod by this date aimxUted in vV letter to you � dated September 5. 1984. _ Onc a the existing wall is tAkw down, a raw wa.11 my be camtnwted that is at least 3' away from the property liar on 1A=i* fair. If the new wall is of blo* e a jX%jje14 permit oast be obtained prior 1 to i If ym hwe OW Questicm,, plwm Call ■a at Y 714) 754- 5604. Sincracely, FAtta�n 1,10C a - �Rssistaat Plat�aet Mials (C-3-4) Cos DOW their 191 7,1 4 April 10, 1985 r Aav • Elanrad A. No do sist " ate 14@41 0A " 926Z7 Lear Rev. Nordquistz Taw* you for removing the ro-bar adjacent ent to the new Laurie Lane :ell as was requested in may letter a! Mx%hary 4, 1985. It has recently come to our attention :her- several Boston ivy plants (Parthw=issu Triampicata) hm not bash planted aloq tim outside Of the Laurie Lease MU' asfeTdred by the apptua d landscape plaun. Please add three, evenly spumeHraston Ivy plants aloing th* 6- high portion of the Lewis Law wU, as reegtfre d, by llay 60, 1985. in addi- tiara to the ivy plants: It would be bwwficial to add sitter grass or ground corer to the area which is now bare soil in der to prevent roil etteion ( that could ulUmettely expose this foundation of the block wall) . Crce the ivy is planted, err should reach closure on all matters per- taining to the Lawrie lane roll. Sincerely, MTHRYN LCTrES Aoasoclate Plainer XUalm (C-2-50j 192 � x n r' 193 ',U Jl 7' D u r It tL ow I %: U, Z Aj C '4- tj -i uj 0- Lki tn 5j Z "j _j J m CL A 41 mn J* -Ij z Y" 0 tv wr (.j -0 .j • LL j J7 -t A. A -.) L. -) d jj 194 0 195 a 196 AL y �b VAL us 1200 OM OUSA CA 9 - / (Name of suer) (Stcect or P 0 Wx) (City, ate, Mid ZIP Cam) S. TH9 VFIFICZ OF Tit! CITY CLERK The Aeverend C mitad Norc3guist TO: St. John the Divine Episcopal Church 183 East Bay Street Costa 1rbw, California 92627 FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CC: Playing Division Peal Property ©ATE: Nmmnber 9, 1984 RE: Zone Exception t No. General Plan Am►t . Rezone Petition No_ Encroachment Perv*t _ Final Tract No. i• .,• _ � � • � � �,• • a • Ga sea. +r,.• s At the r+epLw meeting of the Coble Mesa City Council d on y, N&Jember S, 1984 .the atione vm comidered and the foilowing action: taken: 7he abardcn>ment of public right-of-way along the east side of Laurie Iane 1m denied, and MRx=1 directed that the wall be moved to the location mppr-red car Zom Fwegticn ZE-84-38. Yours very truly, EILEEN P. PHINNEY City Cleric 77 FAIR DRIVE (7141 754.5223 CUP 6016-1-4, rev. W62 199 4 �t INTER -OFFICE MEMO FROM: OFFICE OF ThE CITY CLERK VI0 August 9, 1984 TO: City Manager RE: ,'arfiance No. Director of public works iirrisi.:^ Director of public Safety Rezone Petitiv, ,7. Building Safety 7_nvative MCC ?:c, 74 name Final 'mac: Q . Planning Buildinz . ovin. :. . Street FermiFermit for Precise Fla.-: for City Attorney Cammunication of City Engineer XX Abandorrent can Laurie Tangy. Traffic Engineer (ZE-84-112 ) xx %1 Property Right of Way police IEEE] Fire parks punning Q--mmission Traffic Commiss_an sec _ .. _aC:- _-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rig the regular meeting of the Ci Ly Council nets on hM&mxxdhaI August 6, 1984 , the above was covsile nl and The following action taken: A motion to order the abandonment can the east side of Laurie Lane failed to carry. 200, INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM t October 31 , is 94 T4 City Council FROM Kathryn Lottes, Associate Planner Re: Abandonment of Public Right -of -Way and Public utility Easement 183 Bast Bay Street CITY COUNC I i.. FETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1984 City Council has requested reconsideration of the abanc30nment of 6" of public right -of --way and 3' public utility easement along Laurie Lane. This proposed abandonment was denied at the City Council meeting of August 6, 1994. aim (C-8-64) cc: City Manager Assistant City [tanager Public services Director Fire Administration Bevelopmient Services Director City Clerk (12) Staff (3) File (2) Cccurad Nordquist 183 East Bay Street Costa Mesa, California 92627 201 f 'C.-'WW T A ISE S A WTER OfFICE MEMORANDUM TO City Council Nmst I , 19 84 FROM Kathryn Lutes, Associate Planner Re: ABANDOWNT OF PUBLIC RIOT -OF -WAY AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 183 EAST SAY STREET CITY AIL MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 1984 on June 25, 1984, a variance from setback requirements was approved in order to legalize an existing 6' block wall that was constructed 6" into the public right- of-way on the east side of Laurie Lane. In conjunction with the approved variance, Staff recamoends abandon ant of 6" of public right-of-way and also abandonment of a 3' public utility easement located just inside (to the east) of the wall. As discussed in the attached Staff Report, abandonment of the riot -of -way does not preclude installation of normal street imprints, including a 4' sidewalk and 6" curb. Additionally, no utilities are located in, or planned for, the public utility easement nor is the easement needed for installation of public fixtures such as street lights or fire hydrants. a0 =Fez Abandon 6` of public right-of-way and 3' public utility easement. hwm (C 8-23) Attachments cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager Public Services Director Fire ministration Development Services Director City Clerk (12) Staff (3) File (2) Gonrad Nor uist 183 East bay Street Costa Mesa, California 92627 202 IN EXOFFICE FROM: OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK DATE: Judy 3, 1984 TO: CAY T' id7 ager _ b . . Lirector of Public '4brks 5uh:; . Ln :;c. Director of Public Safety Rezc �- building Safety Ter,... _i _ ract No. Finance Fi_•:a_ Trac7 W. Street Prezist Flan for City Attorney Cci-.1 dCa- L ;n 'af City Engineer }{ Alaa�-�t on Laurie IAW Traffic Engineer Engineering Fight of Wav LEPolice Fi.—= Paris C=iss::.cn ElFla:-nir�g Trof f ic Commission ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _.__-71a;_.4z Az the regular meeting ;f the _ 1t : � nnj! no!: ... I,ja -- July 2, 1984 _. _ above was 2znsifered art rhe Q11owing action taken: Resolution 84-85, being A LION OF THE CITY CODICIL OF THE CITY OF COM MESA, CAL:IFCRNIA, DRAWMNG ITS INTENTION TO ORZER THE VACATION OF SURPLUS CITT RI( RT-OOF"WAY L CAM ALONG 'ice EAST SIDE OF i.AURIE LAME, setting a public hearing for August 6, 1984, at 6:30 p.m., as adapted. A copy of Resolution 84-85 is attached for your records. REsowriON No. Pf- KS A RESOIL L)TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY OF OOSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, LBCLARING ITS IWENTION TO {ORDER THE VACATION OF SURPTIS CITY RIGHT- OF-WAY LOCATED ALA THE EAST SIDE OF LAURIE LANE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY of COSTA MESA LXIL-- HERESY RFSOLVE AS FOLLOW: . SECTION I. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa does hereby declare f6s ntion to vacate surplus City right -of -,way located along the east side of Laurie Lane, described as follows: Those portions of Lot 2 as shown on a map filed in Boric 182, Page 23 of Parcel Maps, records of the County Recorder, Grange County, California, more particularly described as follows: Parcel 1: All that land lying 0.50 feet nortliwesterly of the follao-- ing &scribed line; beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence south 50*00100" east 4.50 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 40'00'42" east 121.22 feet. Parcel 2: All that land lying -1.00 feet southeasterly of the follow- Ti;g-ribed line; beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; them south 50000100" east 4.50 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 40*00142" east 121.22 feet. RESERVItG therefrom an easement for all existing underground and overhead public utilities together with the right of ingress and egress for the purpose of maintaining, replacing, and upgrading said existing public utilities. SFX. ON 2. Mon Jay, the 6th day of August, 1984, at the hour of 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Full, 77 Fair Drive, Costa. mesa, California, is hereby fixed as the time and place for hearing all persons interested in or objecting to the proceed vacation. SECTION 3. These proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to the provisionse of Section 8300 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. SECiICH 4. The City Mauer of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby direct cause notices of the said proposed vacation to be conspicuously posted along said strips of land for at least ten (10) days before the date of said hearing. Said notices shall be posted not more than three hundred (300) feet apart, but in no event shall less than three (3) notices be posted. SECTION 5. This Resolution sha1.1 be published] once in the ORANGE COAST DAT.LY PILfJT, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, Orar.-ge County, California. PASSED AND ADL)PTED 'Luis 2nd day of July, 19 /-C 204 ma c of t Qit? C ` C3 �t a Mesa %roll LLlLIIla, 71RALG rJCU, L. d.{r LLLAl 1r L=CKrLL9JCI.1 QM LV.L�LVF••7. Parcel 1: All that land lying 0.50 feet northw&sterly of the follow- ing c scribed line; beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence south 50000'00" east 4.50 feet to the true Point of beginning; thence north 400001420 east 121.22 feet. Parcel 2: All that land lying 1.30 feet southeasterly of the follow- ing cWa—cribed line; beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence south 50'00100" east 4.50 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 400001420 east 121.22 feet. RESERVIPG therefrom an easenent for all existing underground and overhead public utilities together with the right of ingress and egress for the purpose of maintaining, replacing, and upgrading said existing public utilities. SEMCN 2. Monday, the 6th day of August, 1984, at the hoar of 6:30 p.m., n 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. SEMCN 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 Cal i fornia . SWTiON 4. She City Manager of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby directcause notices of the said proposed vacation to be conspicuously posted along said strips of land for at least ten (10) days before the date of said hearing. Said notices shall be posted not more than three hundred (300) feet apart, but in no event shall less than three (3) notices be posted. SECTION 5. 7his Resolution shall be published once in the OPANM COAST DAILY PILDT, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. PASSED AND ADOF'M this 2nd day of July, 19 j o Costa Mesa ATr ST: J-'P'r 0VLD AS TO FARM Deputy C#y Clerk of the City ofT- Costa md4ka CITY ATTORNEY QS 3-� N 206 STAWWW AGENDA NO, -793- SITE LOCATION 183 East Bay Street APPLICATION NO, zE-84-112 AP =0 426-191-16 MANDATORY ACTION DATE may 30, 1985 APPLICANT BishOP of Prot. EP'222221 9!1-'Lc1XUTI4ORIZED AGENT Conrad ' 'i0rdquist (Owner of R,,rcord I ADDRESS 1220 West 4th Street ADDRESS 183 E. Bay Street Los Angeles, CA 90051 Costa ma-sa, CA 92627 REQUEST., APPLICANT NOTIFIED 0 It I iNi'the analysis and fib ms wid Lxiq'bivisicii Staff - Report, with raW with virx—.Uke plants shall a..m lerA#h of the 6-foot high d*:mdpx the directim of the (5-0) DATE June 28,1984 CITY OF COSTA MESA, 77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA. CA 92626 (7141754-5245 C11AF 0360-30, rev. 1/%2 207 PUMM A CM Location 183 East Bey _ Application ZE-84-1,12 - Paque s t Abandonment of 5" of public right--of-way and a _ 3' Lubl. is utility easer- ment. variance from setback requirements to legalize an existing block wall. SUBJECT PRpPERN : Zone PDR-HD North RI/si le-famil , residence General Plan High Density Residential South RI 6 multi- amzl residences Lot Dimensions East RI/day-care center si le ti Lot Area 2.01 acres West lti le-famil development. Existing Develop ent Church i sand senior citizens house Eq ect r comtruction3 Development standard Lot Size Lot Width Lot area Density (Residential) Building Coverage Buildings Paving Open space TOTAL Building Height Setbacks Front Side (left/right) Rear Parking Covered Open (Standard Size) (Coact) (Handicapped) TOTAL Driveway Width Interior LandscapiN Code RMirement NN =riot Applicable or No Requirement .r i 4. . ' • r _s mm� CEQA Status n t : CODA General Rule Final Action City Council Fr, Protestant Episcopal ChurdVNordquist ZE 84-112 Page 1 ( SR -7-4 2 ) 1. DE:SCRIPTION See Planning Action Sunmary. Ii. PRWE)C'T DFSCRIPTIM A. Applicant proposes to legalize an existing 6' block wall that is con- structed 6" into the public right-of-way along Laurie Lane. The wall was revently constructed without building permits, and does not comply with a previously granted variance from setback requirements. B. A variance frcm setback requirements (ZE-84-38) , approved by Planning Commission on February 27, 1984, allowed the wall to be constructed approximately 3' to 4' behind the property line. Additionally, a Corn- ditia: of Approval regaired the existing, mature try to be retail to the greatest extent possible. Applicant has rmoved three of the existing trees without authorization frcm the City. III . PIANKM STAFF ANALYSIS A. The present location of the wall will permit construction of a 4' wide sidewalk, althcugh the proximity of the wall to the sidewalk may not allow two pedestrians to pass side -by -side. B . Abandonment of 6" of the public right -of --way does not preclude install- ation cf normal street tnproverments, including a 4' sidewalk (measured from curb face to wall face). C. Plaint of the wall beboeen the public utility eas-;gent arri the side- walk effectively eliminates usefulness of the 3' public utility easement. The primary purpose of the public utility easements (?',E) is not for installation of water, sewer and electrical lines, but 5or the purpose of providing room for public fixtures, such as street and fire hydrants. No utilities are located in, or planned for, the easemment area. Staff recaemends abandonment of the public utility easement as the easerent is not needed for. the City's :utilization. 209 IV. V. Prates ant Epecapal Church/Wordquist VE-84-112 Page 2 f SR -7-4 2 i D. The wall only partially screens church activities from the street and fran homes across Laurie Lane because there is a 21-3' grade difference between the base of the wall and the church courtyard area. As it is not possible to install Landscaping between the wall and the sidewalk, Staff suggests that the applicant add trees and vine -like plants behind the wall. In order to soften the block wail, the vine -like plants shoed be installed to encourage a cascading growth over the outside of the wall. Trees behind the wall will soften the streetscape and pro -- vide additional screening of church activities. They will also replace the mature trees that were rmoved without City approval. PLANNING STAFF FINDINGS A. Additional landscaping behind the wall will buffer church activities from adjacent residences and will soften an otherwise stark appearance of the wall. B. Abandonment of the 6" public right-of-way and the 3' public utility ease- xwn t- will not preclude hive iistallation of 3'ei-essary Street i11xoV r1ts including a standard 4' sidewalk; additionally, the public utility ease- ment is not needed for installation of public fixt:xe<s such as street lights or fire hydrants. C. The evidence presented substantially satisfies conditions of set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-347 in tlot: location of the gall does not preclude installation of necessary right--of-way improve-- mants and therefore the requested variance is warranted on the basis of special circumstances; additional landscaping will minimize visual impacts on the streetscape thereby making the project compatible with subject and surrounding properties, and the project will not result in a use or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation for the property. PLANNING S'?'AFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve variance fran setback requirements, subject to cortditions. 2. Ikeccamnd to the City Council abandonment of the publi4 right -of --way and public utility easm*nt. VI. OWDITIONS, IF APPRCM Shall meet a? 1 of the requirements of t.fte various City Deparuents, copy attached hereto. 210 PrMOStWlt'iW=CPIkI CtUrchJb =dquiet OONDITIONS OF APPRMAL Ping. 1. A minimin of four 240 boxx trees interspersed with vine -like plants shall be installed just inside, and along the entire length of the 6' high block well and shall be properly irrigated, under the direction of the Planning Division. 2. The landscape and irrigation plan submitted in conjunction with the hous- ing project shall be amended to incorporate the plant materials required along the inside of the wall on Laurie Lane, under the di rect ion of the Planning Division. PLANNIM MISSION AMON - Meeting of Jug 25, 1984. Mc di f icatiorn of Condition No. 1 to read 1. A Tn:b umm of four 157gallon trees interspersed with vine -like plants shall be installed just inside and along the entire length of the 6-foot high block wall, and shall be properly irrigated, under the bisection of the Planning Division. PAM La � Vx P� 7" T I .el Li ta 12-1 Lo tj -d PA M 213 W1' z� INTER OFFICE MEROOMANOW Mw _U - __ 19 84 TO—Planni2g Commission FROM Perry L. Valantine, Senior Planner akr- I Re: ST. JOHN THE DIEVINE SENIORS H(MINGY r1,'VELaDW9r 2031 ORANGE P..VUUE TREET �183 EAST MY S Ycu may be xiere of the cumplaints recently f iled with the City Council on tr*-- above project. For your infometion, and as you may gDon bec�* involved in res-d1ution of the block wal 1 i sse , I have attached a copy of the Staffs report on the allega- tions. ALSO attached is a ccpy of the letter sent to the church outlinirx-, -heir opt ions relative to the wall. hwa (C-6-16) Attachments cc- 0eve.1cpmnt Services Direct .r Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Engineer Fire Protection Analyst staff (4) File (2) PAM May 18 , 1984 Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist 183 East Bay Street Costa Mesa, California 92627 Dear Reverend Nordquist. On Wednesday of to rnoon, May 16, mew rs of the City Staff 'net °.ai t h yt rur contractor, Iaioyd Beach, regarding the block wall recently installed along Laurie Lane. it was agreed by all parties that the Wall had been constructed in aa inWoper location and without benefit of bu il� i rk3 pernits. 'While the variance (ZE-84-38) apprr-wed by }''w- Planning Ccsusission on February 27, 1984, allowed the wall to be constructed approximately 3' W 4' behind the property line, actual construction of the wall places it 6" within the City riot -of -way. This has also plac:eu the wall between the sidewalk acrid 3' public stlity easement, effectively elimi- nating the usefulness of the easement. To accom iodate construction of the wall, three of the existing trees in the area Were rsvmed without authorization from the City. 7ondition ?io. 1 at the Variance required that "applicant shall retain the existing, mature trees to the greatest extent possib:a, under the direction of the Planning Divisi<�n." There appear to be two Options for solutions to the problEm: (1) Demolish the wall and reconstruct it at the approved location, or ( 2 i Request abandom ent of the 6" of right-of-way where the wall is located and request and )btain a setback variance to allay thy: wall to remain at its present location. if the wall is allowed to remin as constructed, it is likely that the City would also abandon the portion of 3' public utility easement which is located behind the wall. 215 ftmrad Oxwod A. Wv&*dst NW 1'6 ► 1964 PIS 2 The Planning Division is currently awaiting submittal of the Landscape plan for the church parcel as required by Condition 025 of Zone Excepp- tion Permit. ZE.-82-88. Review of this plan will include considerat.on of specinen trees to replace those removed without proper approval. In order to resolve these problems as quickly as Possible, it is requested that action towmrd one [# the options outlined above t)e initiated no later than: Ma&y 30, 1984. This is the final filing date for the Pianning Cassion hearing of ,3une 25 should you elect to request abandonment cf the right-of-way and a setback variance for the wall. For information or applicrations for the variance, please contact Kathryn Lottes, Associate Planner, at '754-5604. The 30 * high o lock wall located along Laurie Lane at the west boundary of the housing site was also constricted without building permits. As this wall has been completed and as the location appears proper, it s suggested that building permits be applied for as soon as p3ssiole. Permits for :.'►e 6` wall adjacent to church property may not !)e apPlie(i for until the matters discussed above have been resol%-,-d. If you have any guest ions regarding the situation, please lee l free t^ call me at Sincerely, PERRY L. Vhl-)'VrINE Senior Planner PLV : t*m (C-8-56 ) cc: iJictor Newton Kathryn Dttes 216 98A— �i7 17 ce+.... 1 Re: ST. JOIN THE DIVINE SENIORS HOUSING LEVELMMEW 2031 ©RANGE AVENGE 183 EASE' BAY STREET Mr. Robert Yoder has alleged several irregularities in the construction of the hous- ing development, block wall, and sidewalk at the referenoai location. The allega- tions and results of Staff investigation are detailed below. 1. DEDICATION Allegation: Insufficient dedication was taken for the sidewalk on the east side of Laurie Lane. Response: The 416" dedication required on the east side of the street equal- izes the two halves at 25' from centerline, allowing 416" frcm back of curb to property line on both sides in accordance with City standards. A 3' public utility easement (P.U.E.) wars also dedicated behind the now property line. 2. WALL LOCATION Allegation: Block wall was not bLilt in tam proper location; it should have been set back 3' to 4' behind the property line. Response: The Staff Report and approved plan for ZE-84-38, a variance to allow the wall to encroach into the required 10' setback, indicate that the wall would be built 3' to 4" behind the property line, thus behind the P.U.E. Adjacent to the existing church build- ings, the wail was actually constructed 4' behind the back of curb, encroaching b" into the right-of-way. This pla-es the wall between the sidewalk and the P.U.E. The portion of wall adjacent to the housing project was constructed 7' behind the back of curb. *htx�gh :.his encroaches 4" into the P.M., there is sufficient rutug --onstruct a srandarc: width sidewalk. The wall eras con- structed without benefit of building permit. In addition, three of six existing trees were re roved to acCC1MM_ date the wall. Condition #1 of ZE-84-38 required t }. i ;n ct tine trees "to the greatest extent possible, under di ection cr °- Planning Division." Planning Staff was not coy _3ulted prior their renx>val . 3. SIDEWALK WIDN Allegation: Sidewalk width on the east side of the street is about 6" narrcwc-r than on the west side. PAN Allm ft Ow Page 2 Response: The standard sidewalk detail calls for a V 4" sidewalk behind the curb and a 2" separation between the sidewalk and property line ( to accrmndate 2" by 4" forms) . The sidewalk on the west side of the street replies with this standard. We to the encroachment of the now wall into the right-of-way, the area mailable for side -- walk is reduced to 4' ; 4" less than standard. (The 2" space for forms is not required as the wall will. act as a form.) 4. MBL.IC UTILITY EA.SEMW Allegation: Utility lines were installed under the sidewalk rather than in the P.U.E. because of the location of the new wall. Response: According to the contractor, electrical conduit was buried in the area where the sidewalk will be installed. Engineering Division permits are required to install utilities in the right -of -day or P.U.E. No such permits have been obtained. 5. DESITY Allegation: Density approved for the housing project conflicts with the stan- dards of the rake.. CMMC Section 13-252.1(b) indicates that the diersity of the residential component of a mixed use development is based on the "pottion of the total site area devoted to resi- dential uses, including required parking, landscaping, open space, and driveways to serve the residential component." Response*. The project was approved on July 19, 1982, ender ZE-82-88. Al- though the Staff Report identified the density oa.sed on the entire site as 18 units per acre, density of the residential portion al.rxne i, approximately 40 units per acre. The Staff Report indicates that the excess density, above the 30 units ;per acre allowed ty the PM -HD none, was accomplished by transfer of devel.opRent rights frcan the vacant portion of the church parcel to the residential parcel. This would reduoe the numder of units which could be cor,,- structed on the remainder of the site in the future. In addition, a Condition of Approval was added requiring recordation -nt an agreement allowing joint use of parkin; between the housing parcel and church parcel. The residents of the housing project will also have use of certain church facilities for recreation/meeting roc7as. This would increase the land area availat't- for calculation of density in accordance with CMMC Section 13-252.1(b). 218 6. MUM Allegation: Mr. Yoder has heard rumors that parking is being developed in the open space area to the west of the housing project at the end of Laurie Lane, and that retail stores may be installed on the lower level of the residential building. Response: Neither parking nor commercial activities have been approvea in these areas; such amendments to the plan wold require additional hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council. The appear- ance of access for a parking lot may result from a gap in the block wall which has been left open for construction access. Masonry blocks are stockpiled near this area to complete the walk, and this will be done prior to occupant' of the development. Of the allegations made, there appears to be validity to those relating t-c the location of the block wall adjacent to the church buildings. The &,urch has been advised of the two options available to remedy the problem: (1) Demolish the wall and reconstruct it at the approved location, or (2) Request abandonment of the 6" of right-of-way where the wall is located and obtain a setback variance to allow the wall to remain at the property line. If the setback variance is approved, the P.U.E. behind the wail .my also be aban- doned. the Engineering Division indicates that abandonrwnt of the 6" of right-of- way and P.U.E. shDuld not significantly affect the design or imprcxNhnent of public facilities in the area. Review of the required landscape plan for the churai par- cel (required by Condition #25 of ZE-82-88 will include consideration of specimen trees to replace thosa removed without approval. hwm (C-4-92) cc: Doug Clark 219 ,Al ian M�PwWr Pk-4:� Valantim tst L r U;�P*-,!:T Me, I )rvr; , 44� �IILRS AMAW EV; ip� f1i LAUtUE 1.4�� For ycxw infomation, anc-I in case rru want tz joss on Wt-w haw Att&chad a copi rA trw letter -,e-nt to Keverenti R--rdqui;,t cut linin,, steps r"Cesaari to loqoltze tt*r olock wall. 220 C-111 BY CUT& MESA C AILIFOON" 12INWfa! P. O. "X Ina ' 06VELOPM W WAVI"S DEPAIRTMIENT May 18, 1984 Reverend Conrad A. Nordquist 183 East Say Street Costa Mesa, California 92627 Dear Reverend Nordquist. On Wednesday afternoon, May 116, members of the C z ty Staff met with your contractor, Lloyd Beach, regarding the block wall recently installer'. along Laurie bane. it was agreed by all parties t<at the wall had been constructed in an improper location and without benefit of kauiidin- permits. While the variance (ZE-84-38) approved by the Planning Ccmmission --n February 27, 1994, allowed the wall to be constructed approximately 3' to 4' behind the property line, actual construction of the wall place it 6- within the City right--of-way. This has also placed the wai- between the sidewalk and 3' public utlity easement, effectively elim - nat ing the usefulness of the easement. To accawmx1ate construction ti"e wall, three of the existing trees in the area were removed withou- authorization from the City. Condition No. .l the variance require.l that "applicant shall retain the existing, iatjre trees to the greatest extent possible, sander the direction of the Plarming Division." There appear to be two cptions for solution to the problem: (1) Demolish the wall and reconstruct it :at the approved location, or (2) Request abandonment of the 6" of right-of-way where the wal'- is located and request and obtain a setback variance to allcyd the wall to remain at its present Location. If the wall is allowed to ruin as constructed, it is likely that the City would also abandon the portion of 3' public utility ease'nen~ which is located behind the wall. Eurl&ng Division (714) 754.5626 Code Enfc ceme-it `Business LicQr to i7 1 41 ?54-52'sy 77 FAQ R D9NE PI;,rviIrig .'' 4 / i - 21 Iiawerw,d Oorwad A. Hordquiat NOV 18, 1984 Page 2 The Planning Division is carrencly awaiting submittal of the landscape Plan for the church parcel as required by Condition #25 of Zone Excep- tion Pemit ZE-82-88. Review of this plan will include consideration of spectwn trees to replace these removed without proper approval. In order to resolve these problems as q,-ickly as possible, it is requested that action toward one of- the option outlined above be initiated no later than MW 30, 1984. This is the final filing date for the Plaming Commission hearing of June 25 should you elect to request abandocucent of the right-of-way and a setback variance for the wall. Fbr information or applications for the variance, please contact Kathryn Lottes, Associate Planner, at 754-5604. The 30" high block wall located along Laurie Lane at the west boundary of ttte housing site was also constructed without building permits. As this wall has been completed and as the location. appears .,.)roper, it is suggested that building permits be applied for as soon as possible. PerEnits for the 6' wall adjacent to church property may not be apriied for until the matters discussed above have been resolved. If ytu have any question regarding the situation, please feel free to call me at 7 54-5 a0- . Sincerely, PEM L�VI AN'T' NE Senior Planner PL.v : hwm (C-8--56 ) cc: victor Newton Kathryn Lottes 222 PACIFIC Slims: 5 'Third Sufi, Suite 600* San Francisco, �CA 94103 MO WOO 0 AYON jM1 4ani Swan" fly yoW q.y. 10617 AGENT: Charter Insurance Agency, 610 Shatto Place, Los Angeles, CA 900WO Policy Type: Complrehmsive Quarterly premi I:m Z62.0(1 Policy No. Renews Policy No. P-21.01-008 Certificaxe Account No. 2879 Nat„$d In red and Post Office Adores : The Bi sh of the Protestant Episcopal_ Church in Los_ nge es, a Corporation koTe-, et e . —_ P. 0. Box 2164, Los Angeles, Gal iforni a Policy Period : From —April 11.1983 To April i, 1966 Noon $tarld8rd Time at the IOG711An 03 the. da+5cribpd , 1��'sYReplaCernent Cost Location and description of Premises:---.--4_ -- --_ 11 114�---- .-- - _.Contents St. John the Divine Church Mesa aj Church - 183 East Bay Street - bY-1li�y School -_- --- $274,046..___ .._. $27,390 Tnclud(ed xrt,:3udec Linmiit oV Liability _ COVERAGE - Perils Insured Against -� S 33,404,964 - A $r-B. Bullding(sl & Personal Property _ : rn L.9hinina, SECTION C. LOSS of Income ^ - - _ - - .------- ----_ _, _.._ p. Add it tonal Expense xterxied Cowfagr, E VaNUIISMWAT�_-nus anti $per:1al Cove -age S S S,QOQ Propert $ Coveraw E. Fine Arts and grher Valuable Enulprnent F �rflpfl. 1nciur+Inq Marries & $Ncuniies G. ComprPhens+ve Glass5�- Ali Risk S Per Folln CP-5 s 1,000 S S H. Other4sl 1 'F.(b) Theft, Excluding Monies COVERAGE Securities s 1,500 Limit of Liability SECTION ll covers" S 2 Q00 V4eQ ' � L IabiIit - - - - - - -- - y - GOmp►eiten3ive_- Perso gal Inlury'Prnoerty Damage pac* c'rr jrrvhtn � t t ^-- Products - Aggregate Limit of Liabil+ty Medepl Paymenrs - EaCh Person j �. Mpd�cal Payments Each Occurrence 3 100010W 3 S 5,000 S - K. Otherfsl, — -- --- .- i S coinsuranceclause(s): Coverages A & B - 90% (Agreed Amount Endorsement) Loss Deductible Clauses}: C&vita-eS--A-&� - 1 SaO- ear ng at $500; Coverages 0 - None; Coverages �. -anon. (6j — $I -flat eac+ Occur -ef Forms Applying: - , ; �7;-8 a—nIBA S=?3r��R=?I T-�i1 -7� 17�-grid 2"1'0-7??1 ; Cartifici to isetaed to: _St..—J-QbIL the._DiYine._ Epi-s opal_ - Address: 183 East Bay Street, Costa Mesa z CA 92627 This is to Certify that the desuibed policy providing. sublect to the terms thereof, the insurance set forth abovo has t)-1—• mk-4i Iry the Company and is inforreat this date. The insurance 3ff0rde(f i5 only with TeSpeCt to sLICI1 and sn many of the Covoracr, : ` } a limit of liabiifiy itoii t . In the event thk 00ft r Ali 6+rrrex/kd, the company agrees to notify the mortgagee r Meti herPlfl tw°nty (20) days prior t ^ in ceilation. Noti©stry certified mail shalt be dt-emer' to he sufficient nmice. If. i :.•,:,�l.,�tty iMwtwo to nobly the pwy to whom th s certificate -, issued said caI10El(at+c�ry�l all [)n i pan-,, `.0 give ss1�f14 OoM ee lltiil !K"t, howevet, impose r,iy tlabtii,y on its part. f�J A. r I'jSrCh 1, :9$ Wien (� r --- s.utl`)1Q- ?P� r��.wi♦ 223 I crAM 39Ji iq.761 k � -A a � / 04 � � / � k �� - \ 4-4 Id. 9 44 ■ 04 49 k � k 224 v � � .S .WILL At. IOU BY 114E COSTA RESh 'AL..N..I' C60141 AT THE CITY HALL, 77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MiESA# CALIFORNIA, AT 6:30 P-Mo OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE THERE— AFTER ON MOWDAY, JUNE 25* 1984. REGARDING THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION LONE EXCEPTIC-N PERMIT ZE-84-112 FOR LiCNRAD tiJKDQUIST, AuTtAGRIZE3 AGENT FOR THE BISHOP OF THE PROTCSTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCHr A CORPORATIGN SQLr, 122�1 'WEST FbxJRTli STREET, LOS ANGELES, FOR ABANDCNMENI Lb" uE PUBLIC RIGHT-CF- WAY. AND VALIANCE FROM SETBACK REQUiR,EMENTS TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING 8LGCK iiALL LCCAfEO AT Is33 EAST BAY STREET IN AN ill ZONE. ENV'IRGNMENTAL JETERMIM- ATION: EXEMPT. A. P . NO. 4 26-191— 01 RUORLGUEZ, JO AN-4 152 E 20TH ST COSTA 4FLSA, CAL y2627 A.P. NO, 425-191-03 GUNP , -A 0 12412 "AL EY ST S J N VALLtY, CA 91352 A.P. NO, 426-191-05 UENG, TAKENCRI 166 E 2DTH ST COSTA 4i:SA9 CAL w627 A.P. NO. 426--191-07 I SHI HARA, ROBERT N 1997 2KAN E A4 E COSTA '!ESA, CAL 92627 A .P . NCs. 4 20- 191- O'+ 4flU0HEADv WI.LLIAM H 1531 BGNNl f 300N NFiORWr BEACH, CA 92v60 A.P. NU. 426-191-11 AL BERS, ILA JEAN 2012 URAYGE AVE C>�S f A 'MESA, CA i25 27 Ai *P. 4D. �R.�..LTTIF• �RI L.F�,,;i, C cif:. �..�:, E,►L ';:'.��! A.P. NO. 426-191-02 SHORE -So uENE L . "4C KEVZIE. RCGEF u 2625 PL CO&T i AcSAj i i 9 bZ 7 A. P. NIL. 4 b-1. 1-94 KI°,SFATHFki -� )Rr-'JHFA i 1 :4 E 20Tn 51' (-'.;ST.; V,E3A1 11 92b, ' A.P. 'i5. 426�—i'91--06 tvAL S-1E. JGSFPH T 17=- 2�-Th ST COSTA 2t2: 4.13. NC. 426-191-0b T4J114A g1LLIA'A T 13-5 --A t 2:;T�4 C.` 5T4 LA 1;2i,27 A. P. . 4t2 I-)1-10 '-VANS, j NAL , I--3 E 2_fH SI C,• j TA !4"- SA 1 „ i. 7 2 E; 7 7 A.P. NC. 42b-1'.ii-12 RS, ILA JEA'i L 40 225 OW �*tAhli+tNG UEPT A.P. N®. 426-191-15 PALL, WEN S u 18012 STARMOINT LN HUNTINGTUN BLAICHt CA92649 A.P. NO. 426-1y1-17 LEEWARD APARTMENTS LTD 17635 VENTURA BLVD 4213 ENCIN(,, CA 91316 A, P. NO. 426-191-16 CHURCH, KISHCP CF PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL IN L A MR) CHURCH, ST JCHN DIVINE 2043 GRANGF AVF A.P. NO. 426-1-J1-id CUS I CK, MGiiR I S W 229 19TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CAL 2bbt A.t'. NO. 426-191-19 A.P. Nu. 42`>-1')1-2) TEULIFr DOUGLAS J KENT, RCBEkr C 920 ALEPP 2032 EULLERTts'a AV�f APT A �vEW'POkT i3tACH* CAL 92660 COSTA MESA, CAL 'i2627 A.P. .v.'. 4 26-191-21 LEt)IN, RUGE+7 TR 2036 FULLERTON AVE COSTA MESA* CA 92627 A.P. ,. 426— I91-23 SAUNDEKS, EDWARD C TR 8229 li CALirLRtNIA hVE WHITi[Ekv CA 90602 A.P. ,NO, 426-192-02 SAXTUNe wILLiAM W 1118 BERKSHIRE LN NEwPGRT TEACH* CA 926bo A.P. NO. 426--192-04 HECK, CHRISTIN[E 9 173 BUOY ST COSTA MESAr CA 92627 A.P. NiO. 426-192-06 LUKE I, ALAN F 36 ASHWOOD IRVINE, CA 92714 A.P. NJ. 425-11)2-jd GILBERT, SUSAN G 197 BUOY ST i-GSTA MESA• f A 92627 A.P. Ai✓. 421t,-1'y1-�2 PiCASCIA, STACY 2040 'FULLEPT�'N A vE 44 ::OSTA MESA, CAI ;�Zt02 7 S.P. "'4C. 42 YuDEcR, REiPERr F 155 5unY ST COSTA 14E SA, CAL iiz6i r A.P. VC.. 4L 1 1._-J } JAR.ZOMBi LEJ F C,:STA MESA, LA '1261r- A.i?0 wC. JENNER, JA4ES L 179 E BUCY ST A. P. iii. 426-- !,-)2- i7 .JACK, GEORk;f P 191 3UGY ST COSTA MESA, CAL 92 A. P. coL,. 42"— 1 - 7—„ STEINHAUSEk, 'A1kiLY"i 1_ hl AL 196 F 6AY 0 0 226 A.P. NO* 426-192-10 A.F. NO. 426-192-11 MURPHY# JAMES E CRILLY, JAMES 190 E BAY ST 184 E BAY ST COSTA MESA# CAL 92627 COSTA MESA# GAL 92627 A.P. NO, 426-192-12 SKGRG, VAL 16J1 BAYADERE TER CRONA DEL ►BAR, CAL 92625 A.P. '40. 426-192-1+4 ROLFE, EDWIN H 2523 VISTA RAYA NEWPGRT BEACH, CAI. 92600 A.P. NCB. 426--192-16 HILL, HAgRY J 154 BAY 51 COSTA HESA, CA 92627 A. P. NO. 42�3-201-03 ALBERS• HALTER F 2012 ORANGE AVE COSTA MESA, CA 92627 A.P. NU. 426-201-05 FOREHAND, JACK P 213 SIERKS ST COSTA 'HESA# C.4 92G-27 A.P o NO. 426-2,72--J3 FENTON* PETER J TR %K ING, M E 2040 URAiVvE AVE COSTA MESA, CAL 92627 a.P. NC. 426-202-;5 i4FLLC, ARTHUR 516 TUSTI14 AVE N,EWPUkT BEACH, CA 921361 AoP. NO. 42i-202-01 SPARKS, AR VI L 710 S AfiAHEI M BLVD lid? ANAHEIM, CA 92805 A.P. NO. 426-192-13 FFNCHAK, VIR6INIA M 172 E BAY ST COSTA MESA, CA 92627 A.P. NO. 426-192-15 ASHCROF7, WILL14A T S 160 E RAY ST CGSiA MESA, CAL 9Z626 A.P. %0. 42v-20,1-i}2 A �nALTE :' 2012 CRA u ° COSTA MESA# l--Ao 92627 A.P. `, . 4 - 31—J4 LEAKE, KEIT'NE.I- 3 202C CRANGF '' Z COSTA .MESA, CAL ti2627 A.P. Nf,. 42-t-ti31-i9 PETERKAf JOHN L 216 E 20TH ST COSTA 4ESA, C4 92627 �HI7ENEAJr v�;;�3Y D 2044 Alvr COSTA OFSA, CAE 92627 A.P. 4 6-20-7-,,i0 SPARKS, ARVIL 2056 URANGE VrL- COSTA HESA, CA 92b27 060F�v! AL D!- RT ?066 DkANGE; A i S LOSTA 'AES.A, C".I- A.P. fp s. $26-2J2-313 USER, AAR GAk ET E TR 16451 AALDEN CIR HUNT 1NGTUN BE4CHt CAV2649 :YAR+C 1 A, LJ f S 227 227 WEPWOOD Pi CuSfA MESAP CA '12627 A.P. MG. 426-2J2-49 A. P. NO. 4&�6-2 32-r,') 1 FARAELL. RC3FRT L ET AL 6ARR9 THOM4S A �T AL 2251 ROBINHOOD PL 218 SIERKS ST CDST.d MESA, CA 92627 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 r r r r r r r r A..>. NO. 426-232-60 A.P. NO. 426-2JZ-63 ASSi STANCE LEA'GUE OF Y04J.ZSTANiCE LEAvUw 03 NEWPGkT 8EACN LAL I FORK I A NE owP0it H 535 32NO ST 505 32ND ST NE,dPORT BEACH, CA 92663 IEWPGRT BEACH* CA '42663 I 0 0 228 zs AA RCEL I Z4.�� i i �ls• BAR. 2 f ORAM F a C,tTT--d&FCOSTA 229 1�ir..�livil � a7arrriw>E rw�s�r.....wt+savw coot tMm. CA 92626 (714) 7115 -045 (tl.we ire rrleeruwtioe, Shoot) f TT_ APPLICATION NO. (s) I, (1) _i2J a M 5' _J' 42 Wr Uil 1: / , hereby apply f he Planning Actionls) as indicated below on my property which is described as follows: (2) Address: It ., � L-T4!n-' 7� 13) PLANNING ACTION(S) REQUESTED Acoount No. (Office Use) �i Zone Exceptions) Fee A. ;K Variance(s) No. 013111DD09 $ CU B. ❑ Conditional Use Permits) No. 0131110009 Development Review 013111D009 Subdivision: A. E Tentative Map of Tract - — 0131120004 B. ❑ Parcel Map C. C Lot Line Adjustment 0131120004 =7 Planned Development Review A. C Preliminary B. El Final 0131110009 General Plan Amendment 0131110009 Rezone 013111D009 r❑ Other LA IL0, ,'• 1iti L r- , A: — i Negative Declaration Environmenta4 Impact Report — 0131190106 Z R NF = No Fee Required by Ordinance Total Fee S r W I� ALL REQUIRED PLAINS AND DOCUMENTS ATTACHED (See Appropriate Instruction Sheets) 15) i PLANNING .ACTION DESCRiPTIONf-1USTIFICAT{ON FORM ATTACHED. w IB) APPLICANT (Property Owner Only) Type or Print I attest under penalty of law to the truth and -- f�'�� correCtness of all facts exhibits, maps and (2 I �`� ,zn� 1 attachments presented with and made a part ( 013,Wty Owner) n, r 1 .' : W ►ndtW1. of this application. 60 Ia (Maii,ng AdCr (7) 1. hereby Authorize 0 5 )_ LF S n 3 ; — t to act as r.,v representative and to bind me , - - — in all matt--s concerning this application (City: State/tip) Phone Z 1 �- 6. ' w 57tT i� - - i81 ._..- (Arta Coca) Signature - APP lscant (property owner (9), AUTHORIZED AGENT Type or Print Subscribed and sworn to GefDra, tree this - - nj_,'i 'e to day of- tnorizad Agent) Ai4arK3) /^ Signature I NCtary # ar f5EA L1 (CityJState/zip) 21L ZZ tip/ ,� Z_1� (Office Use Onty Assessors Parcel No. AP �f .f "� 91 -16 i s per Maps, 19 * CEGA MR01 Fil -- Zone General Plan Designation REQUEST: Aban3mvnmt of 6" of public right--of-way-, and variance from setback re- quirements to legalize an existing block wall. Planning Commission Hearing — 6:30 p.m. 4staff Review Only, You will be notified by mail of t1d final decision- Application Readyto 'Process Wrl[N COMPLETED, rLEASE RETURN ALL COMES TO PLANNING DIVISION. 7a CNIF 0602-30 rav- 7183 wrnta -City Clarx or Pianning; Canary - Applicant; Pink - Finance: Goloenrod -Authorized Agent 230 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION For Office Use Only: Project Number L — Date Received/By !) - - O - g Zone General Plan Designation c ° Recommendation I — Applications for projects in the City of Costa Mesa cannot be processed until an initial study of environmental impacts has been completed and an exemption granted or a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report prepared. Please fill out the following and return (with Qreliminary simians, including„location and size of all existing structures and trees) five (b) world da for to submitting our a lication: Location of Project 3 '7' Submitted by f ell e-7i 1/1 t Mailing Address_ ij' � V r - Date - l; Phone Zip Code -, Not all projects will necessitate the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. In order to make a determina- tion as to whether any significant environmental impacts may result from the .proposed project, the above informa- tion is necessary. 231 As soon as possible, the Environmental Evaluator will determine whether or not the project will require an LnOron- mental Impact Report and will notify the project sponsor accordingly. .. AFT :, �: •-,y _;` •_ -----+^��[� "-1" /, - VtIA1 r,��� ♦. ,/I.w L y� � � r J L � 1r� .5 • Ale rz) t fAi- !•'i,��'i '.fG��� Fes' U�C* %~ -_ — --Y ]AiL ■ 232 Omy >T IEFT ' = --- 40 �+� • � _ � •,.��.. -_ .r ��..._. � _ �.T�...�� 'tom, .� .` _ ..,_^ �...p.17.4.1 (0 1. Lilrr-6CAPIW7-' '- - .'�'► v*i—. lrli - +1.St'E'l�ij{� i�.� .f r- -F• � l EX:^T:•t U 'ki.f ►JET h4CON coiJc SWM~ i � Y � I Ex t J ?c M ULT i f",r-lcbt L-N;T-r, t ti U xur N i vv I - I t_ N F 'AV7lCQ ti4Y�i b-l+LLt 'AAAp_ . Y a . ....---.. _.. - — -__. .—.- -..— -.- �. P!r'Ugls WALL M i tT MIOP LtNE __8 SAC? 233 iio MMOM MW 77 Coob MUSE CWWWN& 92626 (714) 754-5245 PLANMNG ACTION D£SCRIMON/JUS`11F'iCATION (Aerie See Instructions) t1 Project Location 193 E. Bay Street (along Laurie Lane) (2) L]escrib. Project,snd Requests) Abandonment of 6" of right-of-way whore the wall was constructed according to Variance 7E-84-SS, and a set -back v-ariance to allow the wall to remain in its present location as well as the abandonment of the 3' public utility easement located behind the wall, If application is for Conditional Use Permit(s), answer the following• Describe how the proposed use is substantially compafible with uses permitted in the same general area and how the pro- posed use would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the same ar; a (4) if application is for Variance(s), answer the following. Gnye:mment Code Section 65906 states: "Variance from the terns of the xoning ordinance shall be granted only when. because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography. location or surround- ings, strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. - Describe how your request for a variance(s) meets the above Government Code requirement. The granting of this variance would confrn, to Government Code section 65906 because it would acknowledge that the wall, constructed according to the intent of all parties t,:ould conform to the drawings, which had 1)revi1_)i1s11. heCrl 3')1)r0V0d. CMF 4603.36 a234 ML4 r�- fJ•ICJ VC/ .5G I ! 1' !' ( 235 I-73Y-CS' 4 Vb T- J, ;T4 O E+ V i z 0 z 236 ar L-A L 12 44L. xw 4p- & JAI > r V. 237 :.�x ter'_ �►c U 1-~ .•\�f: � r �� r- - - - .� -lC 1. � ..� � S w UJ Lill Y yT Kr +al. L FL NE iM a +' ! 4. Wei LAy► C rM�WtK , to 4 OL.OGK r�� er ! If r. F Ex i ,71 q: MULTI puticm F S'"k�lrfp MCP L 238 LAO MI do LL FDlt 239 C—a,C.E. K- '-,JAL T W rl, 1A.7 .......... N S CC L Ag 14 -71 Moir SAL~' QL L MF 7C) Al 1C15 ;.. AA 4: WOW C*iJc 94X~ vwz�- I it: MULTI !"itnot L-N-mle t.tjtwf4 1�1 L - Z*D%A 4WC A4 L cow • 46 4F W&LL MSET 240 A in' -pox 09VEUMMINT SERVKU DUARTMOff Building Safety Division Business LiCerne DiviSiCn Cbinitmicrtions County Administration Office County Cletk County Registrar of Voters County Tax Assessor Engineering Division... (2) Finance, Revenue Division Fire Prevention Manager, MID Mesa Consolidated Vbter District Newport -Mesa Unified School District (2) ..Pacific Telephone ccmpiuW (2.). Police Department - Ping. & Research Santa Ana Heights Water CmpwV Sanitary District Engineer Southern California Edison Co. Southern California Gas Cb. State Board of Equalization Street Division United States Post office, Adams Avenue United States Pcet Office, Santa Ana Zip 4 - Santa Ana File (2) The City of Costa Mesa wishes to advise you that, ir, conjunction with a new pro- ject, the following addresses have been changed: 183 East, BaTy Street .L -- 183 East Bay Street * See attached plan NEW ADDRESS* Parcel 2. = 183 East Bay Stre-et Parcel 1 - 2031 Orange Avenue A.P. We 42&-191-16 426-191-16 For your convenience we are listing the agencies above that we have not if ied of the change, In addition to those listed, you are advised to notify your correspondents of the change in order to avoid any possible interruption of mail service. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, MILLIE SUMMEF&IN Associate Planner MS-.hwm (P-1-81) cc: Rev. Conrad A. Nordquist 163 East Bay Street Costa Mesa, California 92627 Code Enforcement/Business Ucense (714) 754-5234 Building Division (714) 76"626 Manning Division (714) 754-5245 77 FAIR DRIVE 241 SC&L if a 6d dw oft go** %L *J.P WN -wom AUIWDCJMW AAMC*&T% Wr mum "a caw. opmmmwa&. OWMWM4 Aw"hL sum &a *ff., mn iqs&& %60F%W W� w4U,ff MWA4 &PC VONC934T- -fto a m savad"ATdow al"'Awr 49 v6mb� 4ulwo mobboadmvw. ew vwjomn*Ammr OGREINOAins" ms is mumpmawa 6r 4L.M, M. AAb dl& 4m slY wew%wdww 2 1 Mmumm � Ift Off "NAM A 4WMLbdm no-411-P&AWN ,2o 31 Cran -r- IL W"Mm &AWT. SOM ig � MMn%.= PA= MAP S-82-38?) Rev-Nordquist/ EDiSoonal BiShoo 183 BaV Street „opt 1bt SAW AWL County AdRdniSMUMOAAam. Off County CIO& 0106ty 8*40trar at Voters County TAx Asamor Enjawwring Qvision (2) Finances wevenue vivialoxi Fire PrevewtIoun Nar"jer, :41"1 Onasolidated After Ustrinct mwAVor*+Wm Unified Wool Wtrtct (2) Wif ibe 7010phaqo qaamVpapy (2) POUCO 1' - 10 1 ”" A .- PlIngo & Ammea Santa An;ft� Water OmWV Sanitary DdArlet Engineer Soothern California Edison Co. Sc uthern Calitbrain Gas GD. StWx ,Ward of Equal izatboor, Stroet Dimision Unit& Statez be .1V3x--,s Awrkir- united StAtes qmt ice, sm-Ita. z'na QQ 4 - Santa Ana File (2) The City of Costa ftsa wishes to advise you that, in omjunction with a now pral- note me fallminu aadres,8 have Oeen dhanged: CY...) ALORM-31 -- ";V114 We 133 Last Day Street force! 2 - 10 FASt Bay Street lis3 ZAst; Street Parcel 1 - 20,11 ,"nArrj�; Aw-mv? * We nwached plan "Or - '"-Ir ccmeniane--- we ar*-- lijUoi tvtt- aLxyve ttut t;e t'csve rX the Qhanp. In adkUtion � t4rmi-, li:;tcxlj, yw dr-a �Ovisr-xd to notify YCxAr cmivajonderats of the d)ancp. in to )id iar7y xiseible interruptiur. of mil service. Our cooperatbon in this mttar is k',!xeciatod. Sincerely, MILLIE APOERLIN Associate Plarnmer cm am Conrad A. urn: yiiat 193 Cast say street Ccxit.i 4tsar Califqmia 926il 243 City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum TO: CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GARY ARMSTRONG, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR/ DEPUTY CEO Gy� DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 / & DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: CLARIFICATIONS IN RESPONSE TO CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT THE LEGALITY AND PERTINENCE OF THE C.U.P. PROCESS FOR THE FARMER'S MARKET AT ST. JOHN'S CHURCH (183 E. BAY STREET) The purpose of this memo is to make technical clarifications in response to concerns raised by the public about the legality and appropriateness of the Conditional Use Permit process for the Farmers Market Application at 183 E. Bay Street. Due to ongoing claims that the CUP process was not lawful or appropriate, it is important to clarify for the administrative record that the CUP process for the Farmer's Market was in conformance with the Zoning Code and the above -specified operational requirements between the Church and St. John's Manor. During the Appeal Process the Appellant made certain claims and drew conclusions regarding the past entitlements, Conditions of Approval and Title restrictions to the property. Staff disagreed with some of the Appellant's conclusions and interpretations of the past record. However, since staff is not called upon to provide a rebuttal to the Appellant's assertions, staff has prepared the following to clarify some of the details related to the Farmer's Market proposal and some of the misinformation related to the Appellant's presentation. Please note that this memo does not provide any arguments in support or against the Farmer's Market. This application has been denied by City Council. Staff is strictly addressing the assertions that the CUP process should have been null & void due to: • Existence of a Reciprocal Parking Agreement from 1950's • Certain ongoing HUD requirements for St. John's Manor Senior Apartments BACKGROUND: On August 4, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing and received public testimony. The appellant discussed several issues related to site access, parking, traffic and compatibility of the farmers market with the residential neighborhood and requested that the City Council overturn Planning Commission's decision. The City Council reversed the Planning Commission's decision, denying the request based on the following findings: • The farmers market is deemed an incompatible use with the surrounding residential properties. The farmers market would incur traffic and parking impacts in the neighborhood. • The farmers market would be detrimental to the surrounding single-family residential properties because vendor operations would result in additional noise and traffic congestion. ISSUES NOTED BY THE APPELLANT During the public presentation, the appellant referred to a comprehensive list of items alluding to why the Farmers Market should not be allowed and requested reversal of Planning Commission's decision. Staff is addressing statements that were made regarding the legality of the CUP process. • The CUP process is appropriate for the request and does not violate the reciprocal parking agreement between the Church and St. John's Manor. Concern: The entitlement approved in 1982 refers to connectivity of the two uses (Church and St. John Manor) and joint use of the parking lot and facilities. The staff report does not refer to the joint use of parking and the parking impacts of the farmers market in connection with both uses. St. John Manor has a higher parking demand on Saturdays and the farmers market will limit availability of the parking. Staff Response: Even though the parking for both the church and St. John Manor is currently connected; there was no requirement to record a reciprocal agreement. The 1982 staff report indicates that modifications to the project would enable vehicular access between the Church and the Manor and eliminate the need for a turnaround. However, the revision was not included in the conditions of approval. Instead a six-month review of the parking lot condition was required that did not result in recordation of a reciprocal agreement. Since there is no record of a reciprocal parking, the staff report did not include erroneous information. The proposed site plan for the parking expansion eliminated the access; however, an adequate area for backup from the end parking spaces was provided (Attachment). The site plan was reviewed by Planning, Transportation, and Fire Prevention and it was determined that adequate back up area consistent with -2- City's requirements is provided and the revised site plan will not impede any access to visitors of St. John Manor or emergency vehicles. • The CUP process is appropriate because the open space area was not permanently desiqnated as open space in perpetuity. Concern: The open space at the corner was intended to satisfy open space requirements and to screen the institutional appearance of St, John Manor from the neighboring residences. Staff Response: The Manor and Church are located on separate parcels but are considered as one site for purposes of density, intensity, and open space. With approval of the church expansion in 1982, the existing open space at the corner was part of the development plan for the church expansion. The open space calculation for the church and St. John Manor did not include the landscape corner and a land use restriction was not recorded precluding the area for any development. The open space (lawn area) was considered a placeholder for future development, it was not deed restricted, nor required as a condition of approval, to remain as open space in perpetuity. The proposed landscape plan for expansion of the parking lot allowed for installation of adequate number of trees, hence meeting the intent of the screening of the institutional building from the nearby residences. Furthermore, in response to concerns from the neighbors opposite the corner open space, the applicant revised the parking layout and provided additional setback to eliminate any potential light and glare from the parking lot. • The CUP process was appropriate because vehicle parking, ingress, egress between the two properties would not be significantly affected. Concern: The vehicular connection was provided for ease of backing out of parking spaces. Eliminating the connection is not in conformance with the original approval and will impact emergency response to St. John Manor. Staff Response: Since the site has multiple street access points, the fire engines will not be driving onto the site from Orange Avenue. Access could be provided from any of the adjacent streets and the driveway between the two parking lots is not required for emergency response. Guests of the St. John Manor will still be able to use the church parking lot and the pedestrian access to the building. Based on City records, installation of the driveways was not implemented as a condition of approval of the 1982 approval. • Zoning Code allows considering of ancillary uses by churches in a PDC zone (i.e. Farmers Market) through the CUP process. Concern: The parking lot for the church was approved for church activities and joint use with St. John Manor. Using the parking for commercial purposes is not _ 3e compatible with the zoning for institutional uses or the General Plan land use designation. Staff Response: The 1982 staff report for the Manor indicates that there would not be joint use of parking between the Church and the housing project and that a parking agreement may be necessary for visitors to the housing complex. A joint use parking agreement was deemed unnecessary upon reconsideration by staff six months after the housing complex opened. Based on City records, there is not a joint use parking agreement executed between the church and St. John Manor. Use of the church parking lot during hours that the church is not in operation is not in violation of the church use. This is not a commercial enterprise, it was proposed and intended to be an ancillary use fully operated by the church and during the hours that other uses were not in session. Staff did not misrepresent the zoning requirements, since the famers market is an ancillary use and subject to approval of a conditional use permit. • The proposed parking lot does not meet HUD requirements for St. John Manor. Concern: The multipurpose and recreational facility requirements for the HUD project were satisfied by unitary sharing of Church facilities. Staff Response: The farmers market was proposed on the parking lot of the church property during non -operating hours of the church. There is no specific requirements for retention of the open space by HUD and the farmers market does not limit use of any of the shared facilities with St. John Manor. A review of HCD records revealed that neither the Regulatory or the Affordable Housing and Home Investment Partnership Agreements between the City and St John Manor have any requirement related to maintaining a grassy knoll seating area for seniors on the property of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church, Costa Mesa, CA. CONCLUSION This memo was provided in response to statements made during the appeal hearing and to clarify the administrative record that the CUP process for the Farmer's Market was in conformance with the Zoning Code and the above -specified operational requirements between the Church and St. John's Manor. cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant CEO's City Attorney Assistant Development Services Director Public Services Director City Clerk Staff (4) File (2) _ L4--- City Council Meeting August 4, 2015 Conditional Use Permit Farmers Market St. John the Divine 183 E. Bay Street Basis of Appeal • Traffic Study • Volume • Speeding • Insufficient Parking • Emergency Calls to St. John's Manor • Incompatible Commercial Use in a R1/R2 Zone Planning Application PA-1 4-41 Planning Commission Approved the Farmers Market by Majority Vote Added / Modified Conditions of Approval to address: •Noise •Traffic/Parking •Light/Glare •Operational Restrictions •Safety Concerns F M46.- 6L im i ------------------------------------ --------------------- BAY STREET- ATTE HDAN r= Yo ro*f.rlvh M M. ax� N ~o-m- -F—F, T v F ��-j -T �TT-r—*T, LL 40FwIOIIrI In cqw� (11 rp, obbmu am,' -Olt > FARMERt:� I RKET Lu .—bj&ww%wM r, (-5 END PACES) R Lu WA EX. CHURCH CAMPUSF A Lu *�ICLWr Lu I' r— II CUSTOMER PARKJNG aE— EN VDO A& i 61 M rrr. -W f4E rg 1', 7 U.) EX. T. JOHN'S MANOR I EX— T. JOHN'S MANOR PRKG. Recommendation Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Planning Application PA-14-41 • Traffic / Pedestrian Safety • Parking • Land Use Compatibility • Ancillary Use to the Church Conditions of Approval • No. 22 to read that: • `A maximum of six portable signs may be posted.on Saturdays during farmers ^r;^ds ^n Erich" Rat, ,rcia" market time aR d. SO qw-4 1 1 %-1 %.4 Y (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.). All portable signs shall be removed prior to the end of closing of the farmers market. • No. 14 - Provide flexibility in tree selection. 0 No. 29. — Sunset from Start of Market City Council Meeting August 4, 2015 Conditional Use Permit Farmers Market St. John the Divine 183 E. Bay Street • 2, 4 179 192 t �p w. A. A. d Fly ryq dp 2p \\ � ryti a2a.m dp \ dp5 T 1 k9 ------ ------ --------------- T-F-T-T-I-T-T- BAYSTREEr ILNJMN ICI 16 FmHm XAV -E.RCHC# LLI ---IE Dlb LLJ F-I M WR.-03- II a. T. JOHN'S MANOR E-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- a MENU :H mum&%maw —4-10 11111 jjgj�j /111771 71 EX. SL J ci I H - N S - MANORT 0 Ili - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - K - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------- - --� BAY 'l Yo ro#E.rlvh I� +IRF1I11 % io aocwaK A ,wATH�VAMS' Wul - -� �Tr-T-1-T-T-TT'_-,fir* ,` 5 -- --- _ter -r-r' r T-r 1■ Svc r - j 4.Q .. lit mt NI 4.1 E La f fN fa..GhFLf�M:7MW r ��i Lu I --� -- -- -- -- � �}'-0-t ♦1 W/MY018TF.TfS !_� _ - raj �M°R I I .tip FARMEFI RKET ` I , ,u - N PACES) R Lu Irk¢ 4 EX. CHURCH CAMPUS i U.4 R111 aLG1f A W �_ CUSTOMER PARKINS n ,r l (33 SPLICES) I I : � _ "`ram f -- I I � #..+ •� ;'ri . k • r i _ I 4 � I I EX. ST. JOHN'S MANOR I EX- ST. JOHN'S MANOR PRKG. J1 --- — — ---------- — ------------- ---K — --------------- eew r ATTEI V UA V I S i--� �' �F �Yp m#{. f++h I"6 - 7pxvaf.r t�.fx�r.x Irt Aai7+rV9W19w. I _ _ MC+[I SI ' RTl41 N,r {ilMtl i - -� rTr-r-�T -TrT -, i-T'9 -- - -Tr - --- =r7T, LET- L� _z . I 7■ sv� � '� � -�'�Ic*r r+¢' �� 'y Iro' E . �-7�;:' 1 `�"r � irnfRSRfF � i.,� � 'sN 9iV,0lIDF.7HFI1 ��'w I JAmu f" 711'-il"t �� ' - !M1•' _ fIJ �7dIMAf -AIM -; FARf+ER M,RKET I I._; Lu EN PACES) Lu 1i 1WIIJ EX. CHURCH CAMPUSr ® �. � .: - , � _ .� � .. i . '� ; Y I v$R1R"a'01 Gi-Lf N Lu W lO7iR# E E�. Q / 'LaSTOMER PARKING e1 (33 SPACE) V NDO - I i I l I I EX. ST. JOHN'S MANOR I EX- ST. JOHN'S MANOR PRKG. J1 Site Photos Site Photos ry .= •'. � -. .� ._ a _�R4 .l 11 3� a . . ' a � Is ik : _ _ , r i. � mvlrac _•aim ifs � r . • �L� iv i low f3 �g 1 w.bIrw 4 s i�-s xuM*., e C hLrc bTh. iT E u[ 34 f C•}f ors 1 7f••'f -�"_ art-, I♦ Ir Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH-3 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-41: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF AN OUTDOOR FARMERS MARKET 183 E. BAY STREET (ST. JOHN THE DIVINE EPISCOPAL CHURCH) DATE: JULY 20, 2015 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: ANTONIO GARDEA, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ANTONIO GARDEA (714) 754-5692 antonio.gardea@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION UPHOLD the Planning Commission's decision and approve the proposed project, described below: • Planning Application PA-14-41 — A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the operation of a farmers market at an existing church (St. John the Divine Episcopal Church) from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The parking lot would be reconfigured and enlarged into the front lawn area to add 34 parking spaces. A maximum of 15 vendor stalls would be located in the new parking area. Existing trees and landscaping would be removed and replaced. APPLICANT The applicant is the Reverend Philip DeVaul, Rector, representing the Bishop of the Episcopal Church of Los Angeles for the Saint John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 E. Bay Street. APPELLANT The appellant is Carrie Renfro, owner of property located at 198 Buoy Street. PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 183 E. Bay Street Application: PA-14-41 (St. John the Divine Episcopal Church) Request: A Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a farmers market at an existing church from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday mornings. The parking lot area would be reconfigured (approximately 17,000 square feet), to add 24 more parking spaces. The existing mature trees and landscaping would be removed and replaced. On farmers market days, 15 vendor stalls would be located in the new parking area. SUBJECT PROPERTY: Zone: PDR HD SURROUNDING PROPERTY: North: R1 — Sinale Familv Residential General Plan: High Density Residential South: PDR HD — St. John Manor Senior Housing Lot Dimensions: Rectangular East: R1 — Single Family Residential Lot Area: 48.736 SF West: R2 MD — Multi-Familv Residential Existing Development: Church DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON Development Standard Required/Allowed Proposed/Provided Maximum Density (dwelling units per acre 35 18 Maximum Site Coverage N/A N/A Perimeter Open Space per Section 13-61 Perimeter Open Space Criteria. 20 feet abutting all public rights- of -way, excluding alleys. 20 FT / 5 FT Open Space 42% of total site area, inclusive of Perimeter Open Space 42% Setbacks Front (Orange Avenue 20 FT 20 FT Side(Bay Street 20 FT 5 FT Rear Laurie Lane 20 FT 0 FT 2 Parkin Church 1 space / 35 SF assembly area 55 3 704 Farmers Market 2 / Vendor 30 5 76 Signs Total 45 SF Freestanding Max. Area 30 SF TBD Max. Height 7 FT. TBD Setback Variance (R-79-15) from E. Bay Street granted 7/19/1982. 2 Setback Variance (ZE-84-112) from Laurie Lane granted 6/15/1984. 3 Required Parking for Sunday Church services. 4 Per Revised Site Plan 5 Required Parking for 15 vendors during farmers market events. BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The site is located at the southwest corner of Orange Avenue and East Bay Street and abuts Laurie Lane. The property is zoned PDR-HD (Planned Development Residential - High Density) and designated as High Density Residential in the General Plan Land Use Element. The 36-unit senior housing complex (St. John's Manor) is adjacent to the south. The property is approximately 1.1 acres (48,736 SF) in size. In 1955, the City Council approved the construction of Saint John the Divine Episcopal Church (Variance Application #134). The Church property comprises of the chapel and ancillary facilities, including the guild room with a kitchen, classrooms, offices, and the surface parking lot. A total of 46 parking spaces are currently provided. This staff report provides a summary of the proposed project, as well as the Planning Commission's action related to the project. Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report dated June 8, 2015 for detailed information and analysis related to the proposed project at the following link: http://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/planningcommission/agenda/2015/2015-06-08/PH-4.pdf An excerpt of the (Unofficial) Planning Commission Minutes from the June 8, 2015 meeting is attached (Attachment 5). Commercial Uses Allowed in Planned Development Zone Article 4.5 of Title 13 of CMMC allows other land uses that are an incidental function of the church, such as a farmers market, to be considered through a conditional use permit process. In the Planned Development Residential zone, nonresidential uses of a commercial nature may be allowed if the Planning Commission finds the uses to be compatible with the Planned Development Residential project and if the FAR does not exceed that established for the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan land use designation. In this case, the residential project in question is St. John's Manor. The proposed farmers market is a complimentary use as the venue provides the residents of the senior housing complex with the opportunity to purchase locally sourced goods and interact with vendors and other community members. The proposed project would not increase the floor area ratio of the site because no additional building area would be constructed. The allowable floor area ratio of moderate traffic uses is 0.25 and the existing floor area ratio is 0.11 for the church site. Summary of Planning Commission Action On June 8, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the outdoor farmers market. Staff provided a presentation of the proposal. The Planning Commission received public comments both in support and in opposition to the proposed farmers market. There were concerns from the community related to the early operations on Saturday, pedestrian safety to the site, aesthetics and light and glare from the parking lot. The Planning Commission, by majority vote (3-1, Commissioner Andranian opposed, Commissioner Sesler recused), approved the CUP with modified conditions of approval. A summary of the changes follows: Planning Commission Modifications to Conditions of Approval Proposed.. Hours of Operation / Hours of operation for the farmers Start -Time of 9:00 a.m. for set-up and Noise market of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., 10:00 a.m. for Farmer's Market; take with set up at 8:00 a.m. and take down down to start at 2:00 p.m. and end no until 4:00 p.m. later than 3:00 p.m. Solo musician performance. Live entertainment prohibited. Sale of Second Hand One third of vendors to sell second Sale of second hand items prohibited. Items/Swap Meet Use hand items. All vendors to sell farm products and value added farm products. Alcohol Sales Alcoholic beverage sales shall be Non-food related items and alcohol limited to artisanal type of beverages sales prohibited. (i.e. craft beers) subject to the approval of an ABC license. Long-term Conditional Use Permit to run with the Expiration of the Conditional Use establishment of land without expiration. Permit in two years and requiring potentially reapplication to the Planning incompatible use Commission for any operation beyond the initial two years. Future Changes Option to operate on other days/times. Changes to operations prohibited. Adequacy of Parking / A total of 46 on -site, customer parking Installing bicycle racks to encourage Spillover Parking spaces and 30 vendor parking spaces use of alternate modes of provided. transportation to the farmers market. Posting of temporary signs to discourage parking along Bay Street. Attendants to direct customers into the church parking lot. Pedestrian Safety and Farmers market proposed on Establishment of the farmers market to Traffic Concerns Saturday mornings to avoid weekday occur only after the Transportation evening peak hour commute traffic. Division completes a study to determine if an all -way stop or addition of a new crosswalk across Orange Avenue are warranted. Proposed.. Parking Lot Temporary lighting for potential Installation of low hedge / shrubs along Reconfiguration / evening hours. Bay Street frontage to shield light and Lighting (night hours) glare from headlights. Fire Department Parking lot reconfiguration allows Submittal of an emergency access plan Access to St. John's vehicle circulation and access to St. to be approved by the Fire Chief Manor John's Manor from the Church parcel. ensuring direct access for emergency fire response/paramedic vehicles to St. John's Manor senior housing complex. Revised Site Plan Residents living across Bay Street expressed a concern with light and glare as a result of the reconfiguration of the parking lot. A condition of approval required construction of a low wall or planting of a hedge along the Bay Street frontage of the parking lot to mitigate this concern. In response, the applicant further revised the site plan to increase the landscaped area along the Bay Street frontage. The parking spaces that faced north were eliminated, reducing the total number of on -site parking from 80 to 70 spaces. As the conceptual landscape plan shows, the additional landscaped area would be planted with drought tolerant shrubs and ornamental plants (Attachment 8). Existing Open Space Area Originally Considered for Future Church Building The church has a large lawn area (approx. 17,000 SF) that faces Orange Avenue that was intended as a future development site. At the time that the City Council approved the neighboring senior housing complex (Zoning Exception Permit ZE-82-88), a Church expansion concept was also granted. The site plan included a complex of buildings in the location of the front lawn area. The new buildings were not constructed and instead the entire front portion of the property was landscaped until more definitive expansion plans would be submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission. Review of City records, including the HCD records of Agreements between the City and St. John Manor, indicates no requirements or conditions of approval mandating the preservation of the front lawn area as open space. Public Correspondence Received to Date A total of 35 form letters have been received in support of the proposed farmers market. The reasons provided in support of the farmers market included support of locally sourced agriculture and the fostering of a sense of community. Eight emails and letters in opposition were submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting. As noted above, the concerns included the appropriateness of the use within the residential neighborhood, noise, litter, items for sale by vendors, increased traffic, sufficiency of parking, and provision of emergency response vehicle access to St. John's Manor. Since the Planning Commission meeting, one phone call and letter were received in opposition to the proposed project reiterating land use compatibility and traffic concerns. All of the public correspondence is included as an attachment. Appeal/De Novo Hearing 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 On June 12, 2015, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed by Carrie Renfro, a neighboring property owner. The following is a listing of the concerns described in the appeal application: • Concerns with additional traffic and parking. The appellant stated that a traffic study should be conducted for the intersection of E. Bay Street and Orange Avenue. • Farmers market would be an incompatible commercial use in this residentially zoned neighborhood. ANALYSIS The following analysis provides responses to the concerns raised by the appellant. More detailed information is provided in the Planning Commission staff report. • Traffic and pedestrian safety The Transportation Division determined that since the farmers market would take place on Saturday during off-peak hours, the traffic volume is anticipated to be low. The Planning Commission concurred with the information included in the supplemental memorandum dated June 3, 2015 (Attachment 3), and required a traffic study to be completed to determine if a stop sign and cross walk are warranted at the intersection of Orange Avenue and E. Bay Street before the farmers market operations could commence. • On -site Parking The farmers market would take place on Saturdays when no other church activities are being held. Based on a parking ratio of two parking spaces per vendor booth, 30 parking spaces are required. A minimum of 46 on -site customer parking spaces would be provided. As conditioned, parking attendants would be present to direct and guide patrons onto the site and would post temporary signs directing customers to the parking lot. In addition, a condition of approval would require reducing the number of vendors, if parking impacts are experienced. The church is located at the intersection of two collector streets and is readily accessible via alternate modes of transportation, including walking, biking and a transit line. • Compatibility of the farmers market use within a residential community The proposed farmers market provides a venue for small and local farmers to provide locally grown and affordable foods. Per the conditions of approval, the scale of the farmers market will be limited to a maximum of 15 venders on Saturdays and would not conflict with church services. Vendors are required to set up no earlier than 9:00 a.m., amplified sound is prohibited, and motor vehicle engines are not allowed to idle to minimize noise. The applicant has agreed to specific site improvements to address neighbor concerns. With the reconfiguration of the parking, the vehicles would face north/south instead of east/west. In order to minimize light and glare from parked vehicles, a low wall or hedge will be installed along the Bay Street frontage. The proposed farmers market is intended to support local agriculture and provide a venue for the small and independent farmers and sales of non-food merchandise is prohibited. Vendors will be limited to those specialty providers and retailers of home grown artisanal products and organic produce. The applicant has also agreed to abide by a sunset clause of two years for the farmers market. • Farmers market as ancillary to Church Use in PDR-HD zone In the Planned Development Residential zone, nonresidential land uses that are incidental to the church, such as a farmers market, may be allowed if the Planning Commission finds the uses to be compatible with the residential project. The proposed farmers market is a compatible use with the St. John's Manor residential project. The proposed farmers market provides a venue for the residents of the senior housing complex to purchase locally sourced goods and provides an opportunity to interact with other community members as well. LEGAL REVIEW The draft resolution has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. ALTERNATIVES The City Council has the following alternatives: • Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve PA-14-41. 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-14-41. 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. ANTONIO GARDEA GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Senior Planner Economic and Development Services Director / Deputy CEO Attachments: 1. Vicinity, Zoning, and 500 ft. Radius Maps 2. City Council Draft Resolutions and Related Exhibits 3. Appeal Application 4. Planning Commission Staff Report, Supplemental Memo and Related Exhibits 5. (Unofficial) Planning Commission Minute Excerpts 6. Notice of Decision Plannina Commission Action and Plannina Commission Resolution 7. Public Correspondence (Under Separate Cover) 8. Revised Site Plan, Preliminary Landscaae Plan. Landsca Imagery 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: Bishop the Episcopal Church of Los Angeles Cathedral Center of St. Paul 840 Echo Park Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90026 Authorized St. John the Divine Episcopal Church Agent(s): Attn: Father Philip DeVaul, Rector 183 E. Bay Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Yenny Ng Designs, Inc. Architects Attn: Ada Rose 1524 Brookhollow Drive, Ste. 6 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Appellant: Carrie Renfro 198 Buoy Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ATTACHMENT 1 Vicinity Map Zoning Map Y 4 PCM KY lbo Apt 4b, .. STR;�)'_•a--�. M7 10 IS ' tar rdr ter Hr O 4 9 '"r 7 2 Qr ••4 19 �y' •�I r �rr� 4 � O � Iinc. ,POA core 4Z6r �Lor Prl ' ® j .. 0 �i i P.w.r . } l �+, Itl , �17 `15 if = -Ikrd$4 s.7 IvE.+rSf 7S r.^ it 'p �rr�♦ � � $6 re r y rr � a, ` ; °I� rrY1:� . ,SV£.N aS na—^—� «ru• ,u. R d�' .,9d /�y,�, AVENUE C s 1 PLACE ! I D. w ra h�J� Va ru f3 nJ /i r(0 r ,� � rr ■. s{ � f ICi O 1�J ' I ,�. rar ` 17 LA(/R/E % LANE 33 I r.sr +c � CLT d:d RN rNd-rS T Omr ru Ig y I J } I •. � L. � 10 � - � d HEIGHTS r 1 m ;ram+ 4tl L"J fAt Qli A 7 9 ORANGE 1 P. AI. PNr ' 2veWA so - 7 ra><cy PAJU �P.,/f° J w +s rl• hot A i -. a 1 kC, 3 � l ��;••,+�� V l.4 � � 0 r.0 a �;y 4s f �► i 62 e� 4i � •a � f AAA ) rr (n Ol df! Co-H L'.J y ,�7 . Ont rN U n r ,., RYt 02 j + 0)5 : fG •• "r"' ,. A NO l2815 ! rNA q01 r St7� i LOT 20! ,p ler dY Jr. 1d � ; � ly i .w• ' �` Et AfARlAN WAY A e 3r ra• g Q'i + - w a 3till � �� I�r � ,s � � dr. g ,ire ...: . i z� za 72 e k .♦ n e i*1 , ».. , .. . NO. �. 'R Map Preparer: SUSAN W. CASE, INC. 917 GLENNEYRE ST #7 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 949 494 6105 susancaseinc(@vahoo.com FILE#1499iP44 STJOHN THE DIVINE 183 E BAY ST COSTA MESA CA 500' OWNER JUNE 18 2014 496 191 28 AND 29 NORTH 11 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-41 FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OUTDOOR FARMERS MARKET AT 183 E. BAY STREET (ST. JOHN THE DIVINE EPISCOPAL CHURCH) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by The Reverend Paul DeVaul, Rector, representing the Bishop the Episcopal Church of Los Angeles for the Saint John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 E. Bay Street, requesting approval of the following: A Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a farmers market at an existing church (St. John the Divine Episcopal Church) from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday mornings. The parking lot area would be reconfigured and enlarged into the front lawn area, which is approximately 17,000 square feet, to add 34 more parking spaces. On farmers market days, a maximum of 15 vendor stalls would be located in the new parking area; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2015, with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, voted to approve the project by a 3-1-1 vote (Ayes: Chair Dickson, Vice -Chair Mathews, Commissioner McCarthy; Nay: Commissioner Andranian; Recused: Commissioner Sesler); WHEREAS, on June 12, 2015, an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's approval of the project was filed by Carrie Renfro; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on August 4, 2015 with all persons having the opportunity to speak for and against the proposal. 1_ _ WHEREAS, the project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines; and the City's environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15311 for Accessory Structures. Class 11 consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to existing facilities, including but not limited to placement of temporary use items such as lifeguard towers, mobile food units, portable restrooms, or similar items in generally the same locations from time to time in facilities designed for public use. 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 Exhibits B, the City Council UPHOLDS the Planning Commission's decision and hereby APPROVES Planning Application PA-14-41 with respect to the property described above. 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-14-41 and upon the applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions in Exhibits B, and compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the 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 on this 4th day of August, 2015. 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 Resolution Number 15 as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4th day of August, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4th day of August, 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 —�,I— EXHIBIT A FINDINGS APPROVAL A. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) with regard to the conditional use permit because: Finding: The proposed development or use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Finding: The site is located in a residential area characterized by variety of single-family and multiple -family residential uses. Complementary uses are permitted in the PRD-HD zone provided that adequate parking exists to support the use and there are no land use incompatibility issues. The proposed farmers market is a use that can operate in harmony with the existing Church during their non -operating hours on Saturdays and is compatible with the surrounding residential uses. The location of the farmers market would be along a visible collector street with ample parking but also readily accessible via alternate modes of transportation, including walking, biking and a transit line. The farmers market provides a venue for exchange of goods while educating the public about the benefits of locally sourced products. Finding: Granting the 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 Finding: The farmers market would take place on Saturdays when no other church activities are being held. Since the farmers market would take place during regular daytime hours, no additional lighting would be necessary. The Planning Commission has required through a condition of approval, a maximum of 15 venders that offer only farm products and value added farm products and restricted amplified or live music, as well as sales of alcoholic beverages. Church restroom facilities would be available for vendors and patrons. Based on a parking ratio of two parking spaces per vendor booth, 30 parking spaces are required. A minimum of 46 on -site customer parking spaces and 30 vendor parking spaces would be provided. The Planning Commission has required parking attendants to direct traffic and an on -site manager to prevent spill over parking onto the adjacent streets and in front of neighboring residents, specifically along E. Bay Street. Required Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. ISM Facts in Support of Finding: Although the property is designated as High Density Residential in the Land Use Element, nonresidential uses are allowed in the Planned Development Residential — High Density zone, subject to the maximum for Floor Area Ratio of the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan land use designation. Since the primary use of the site is a church and no additional facilities are proposed at this time, the existing total building area remains unchanged. The Planned Development Residential High Density designation of the site encourages the incorporation of complementary uses that are supportive of and in harmony with the allowed residential uses. The Planning Commission has determined that, as conditioned, the farmers market conducted within the Church parking lot would be an amenity for the nearby resident and senior citizens living in the abutting residential complex. B. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines; and the City's environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15311 for Accessory Structures. Class 11 consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing institutional facilities, including but not limited to: (a) On -premise signs; (b) Small parking lots; and/or (c) Placement of seasonal or temporary use items such as lifeguard towers, mobile food units, portable restrooms, or similar items in generally the same locations from time to time in facilities designed for public use. C. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. - ILP EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROV Ping. 1. The use shall be limited to the type of operation described in the staff report, subject to conditions. Any change in the operational characteristics including, but not limited to, type of service provided, hours of operation, number of patrons, size of the restaurant/event venue, and lease terms for off -site parking, shall be subject to Planning Division review 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 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)]. 2. 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. 3. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance 4. A minimum of 14 trees shall be provided on site, half of which shall be 24- inch box Agonis flexuosa trees. 5. The applicant shall install a low wall or hedge along Bay Street frontage to minimize light and glare to neighboring properties. 6. Farmers Market hours shall not coincide with any other operations of the church property for assembly use, classrooms, dance halls, or other events so that the available parking shall be strictly provided to the Farmer's Market. 7. A minimum of two parking spaces per booth shall be provided; one parking space per vendor and one space for customers. 8. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise on- or off -site, the applicant or operator shall institute whatever operational measures are necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem, including, but not limited to, revision of operating hours, reduction of the vendor area, under the direction of the Planning Division. 9. Hours of operation shall be during a window between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Commencement of market operations including but not limited to vendor set up, shall begin no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and take -down shall end no later than 3:00 p.m. 10. Motor vehicles shall not be allowed to idle in the parking lot during set up or breakdown of the farmers market. 11. Amplified sound and/or use of outdoor speakers shall be prohibited during operations of the farmers market. 12. A Farmers Market Manager shall be present during all hours of operation who shall direct the operations of all vendors participating in the market T_ 19 and verify that the requisite number of individual booth are operated by local, independent and small-scale farmers and artisans. 13. The Farmers Market manager shall obtain and have on site all operating and health permits during the hours of operation. 14. The name and contact information of each vendor shall be prominently displayed at their booth. 15. The vendors shall be dedicated to the sale of farm products such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, herbs, eggs, honey, livestock food products (meat, milk, cheese, etc.), or flowers and value added farm products such as baked goods, jams, and jellies. Sale of alcoholic beverages and non-food related items (unless otherwise previously specified) shall be prohibited. 16. Access to adequate sanitary facilities, including restrooms, shall be provided. 17. A minimum of 42 percent of the total lot area (both the Church and St. John Manor parcels) shall be provided as required open space, per the development standards of the PRD-HD zone. 18. The applicant shall maintain free of litter all areas of the premises under which applicant has control The farmers market manager shall provide containers for recycling, composting and waste removal in accordance with all applicable codes. Refuse not contained within the trash enclosure shall be removed from the property at the close of the farmers market. 19. The conditions of approval and Code requirements of Planning Application PA-14-41 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 20. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The business owner shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 21. The applicant shall provide attendants to direct customers to the parking lot to ensure that street parking is minimized and shall post temporary signs to discourage customers from parking along the north side of Bay Street. 22. A maximum of six portable signs may be posted during farmers market time periods on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. All portable signs shall be removed at the close of the day of the Farmers Market. 23. A -frame signs shall be located on private property and not within the City's parkway or public right-of-way. 24. The application shall install bicycle racks prior to the opening of the farmers market for full operations. 25. Applicant/operator shall promote the use of eco-friendly / reusable bags as opposed to plastic bags to the extent possible. For example, natural fiber bags may be offered for sale at the Farmer's Market to promote their use and minimize the need for plastic bags. 26. The applicant shall not commence operations of the farmers market until the Transportation Division completes a study to determine if an all -way stop and addition of a new crosswalk across Orange Avenue are warranted. 27. Within 60 days of commencement of the farmers market, or full operation of eight market events, whichever comes first, the applicant shall provide a letter report to the City indicating how resident concerns (as applicable), including but not limited to the residents of the St. John's Manor senior housing complex, were resolved and how parking issues were managed to the Development Services Director for review and approval. 28. The applicant shall submit an emergency access plan approved by the Fire Chief to ensure that direct access for emergency fire response/paramedic vehicles to St. John's Manor remains unrestricted at all times. 29. The City grants this conditional use permit for a period of two (2) years from effective date of the approval, June 15, 2015 to June 15, 2017. On June 15, 2017, the approvals set forth herein shall have no further force or effect nor shall it require additional notice and/or hearing to terminate. Any operation beyond this period shall require a new application for conditional use permit. Iq - 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, Approval of the planning 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 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 planning application. 2. Once the use is legally established, the planning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked. The Development Services Director or his/her designee may refer the planning 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. 3. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. 4. Street addresses shall be displayed on the freestanding sign or, if there is no freestanding sign, on the fascia or store front adjacent to the main entrance of the building, in a manner visible to the public street. Numerals shall be a minimum 12" in height with not less than W stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 5. A business license shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the business approved under this application. 6. 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. 7_ 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. Parks 8. Street trees in the front setback shall meet with the approval of the parks Pkwys. and parkways division. Street trees shall be Arbutus `Marina', 15-gallon minimum size, spaced at 30' on center along East Bay Street and Pyrus -20' calleryana `Chanticleer' 15-gallon minimum size, spaced at 30' on center along Orange Avenue. Bldg. 9. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Electrical Code, 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. Provide a plan to the County of Orange Health Dept. for review and approval. WQMP 11. Prior to or concurrent with submittal of plans for grading/building plan check/submittal of the final subdivision map for engineering plan check, applicant shall prepare and submit documentation for compliance with the state Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water quality Order 99-08- DWQ; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS000002 for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit); the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2002-0010 and NPDES Permit No. CAS618030; and the City of Costa mesa Ordinance No. 97-20 for compliance with NPDES Permit for the City of Costa mesa. Such documentation shall include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan if over 1 acre and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying and detailing the implementation of the applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs). SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: AQMD 1. 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. CDFA 2. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Call CDFA at (714) 708-1910 for information. -21- RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-41 FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OUTDOOR FARMERS MARKET AT 183 E. BAY STREET (ST. JOHN THE DIVINE EPISCOPAL CHURCH) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by The Reverend Paul DeVaul, Rector, representing the Bishop the Episcopal Church of Los Angeles for the Saint John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 E. Bay Street, requesting approval of the following: A Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a farmers market at an existing church (St. John the Divine Episcopal Church) from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday mornings. The parking lot area would be reconfigured and enlarged into the front lawn area, which is approximately 17,000 square feet, to add 34 more parking spaces. On farmers market days, a maximum of 15 vendor stalls would be located in the new parking area; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2015, with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, voted to approve the project by a 3-1-1 vote (Ayes: Chair Dickson, Vice -Chair Mathews, Commissioner, McCarthy; Nay: Commissioner Andranian; Recused: Commissioner Sesler); WHEREAS, on June 12, 2015, an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's approval of the project was filed by Carrie Renfro; ® 2--- WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on August 4, 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-14-41 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 4th day of August, 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 4t" day of August, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4t" day of August, 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 -24 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The requested conditional use permit does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) because: Finding: The proposed development is not compatible with developments in the same general area and would be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Finding: Granting the 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. Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. B. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied Planning Application PA-14-41. 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 IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. -- 2.5 ATTACHMENT 3 Costa City of Costa Mesa Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - $1,220.00 ❑ Appeal of Zoning Administrator/Staff Decision - $690.00 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW Applicant Name"RESIDENTS OF COSTA MESA - CONTACT PERSON: CARRIE RENFRO Address 198 8�, Phone 94�64`i l ESQ`---- Representing REQUEST FOR: V APPEAL. ❑ REVIEW" Decision of which appea or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, if known.) PA-14-41 JUNE 8, 2015 FARMERS MARKET Decision by: �_ t 10 tin ie Reasons for requesting appeal review: M zlv,, S � A. The project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (e) because: a. The proposed use is not compatible and harmonious with use both on site and those on surrounding properties. b. The project is not consistent with the General Plan B. The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code section 13- 29(g)(2) because: a. The proposed use is not compatible with developments in the same general area b. Granting the conditional use permit will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the immediate vicinity. c. Granting the conditional use permit will allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation for the property. C. A recent traffic study (within 6 months) should have been conducted prior to the decision. Date: ,�-�J _ 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: CITY OF COSTA MESA 15435 1 CUSTOMER SERVICE RECEIPT ORIGINATED BY: DATE 20 Building M —1 �_ Received from City Clerk 1. Finance❑ the sum of 0 for Fire r-4Z,41 EK S Admin. Services ❑ BY: Planning -1010 Not valid unless properly validatedlendorsvd. f_1 Q', Public Services ❑ Account No. g 2 o /0 Tran. Code rrl Cash ve--c4hoeck [] Credit Card F-1 0405-22 (rev. 6103) White-cuslomer: Canary-Flnanc ; Pink -Depart, R - 2--1 1-- ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 8, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-41: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF AN OUTDOOR FARMERS MARKET AT ST. JOHN THE DIVINE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 183 E. BAY STREET DATE: MAY 29, 2015 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: ANTONIO GARDEA, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ANTONIO GARDEA (714) 754-5692 antonio.gardea@costamesaca.gov PROJECT DESCRIPTION A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the operation of a farmers market at an existing church (St. John the Divine Episcopal Church) from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday mornings. The parking lot area would be reconfigured and enlarged into the front lawn area, which is approximately 17,000 square feet, to add 34 more parking spaces. On farmers market days, 15 vendor stalls would be located in the new parking area. The existing mature trees and landscaping would be removed and replaced. APPLICANT The applicant is the Reverend Philip DeVaul, Rector, representing the Bishop of the Episcopal Church of Los Angeles for the Saint John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 E. Bay Street. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Planning Commission resolution approving the project, subject to conditions. _ 2g PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location 183 E. Bay Street Application! PA-14-41 _(St. John the Divine Episcopal Church) Request: A Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a farmers market at an existing church from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday mornings. The parking lot area would be reconfigured and enlarged into the front lawn area, which is approximately 17,000 square feet, to add 34 more parking spaces. The existing mature trees and landscaping would be removed and replaced. On farmers market days, 15 vendor stalls would be located in the new parkina area. SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: PDR HD North: General Plan: High Density Residential South Lot Dimensions: Rectangular East: Lot Area: 48,736 SF — West: Existing Development: Church DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON Develoornenl Standard R1 — Single Family Residential PDR HD — St. John Manor Senior Housing R1 — Single Family Residential R2 MD — Multi-Familv Residential Rpnuired/Allowed Prnnnc;Pd/Prov1dPr1 Maximum Density (dwelling units per acre 35 18 Maximum Site Coverage _ N/A N/A Perimeter Open Space per 20 feet abutting all public rights- Section 13-61 Perimeter Open of -way, excluding alleys. Space -Criteria. _ Open Space 42% of total site area, inclusive of Perimeter Open Space Setbacks Front (Orange Avenue 20 FT Side (Bay Street) 20 FT � Rear (Laurie Lane) 20 FT 20 FT / 5 FT 42% 20 FT � 5 FT' 0 FT2 Parkin Church 1 space / 35 SF assembly area 553 80 Farmers Market 2 / Vendor 304 76 Si ns Total 45 SF Freestandin TBD TBD Max. Area 30 SF Max. Height 7 FT. Setback Variance (R-79-15) from E. Bay Street granted 7/19/1982. 2 Setback Variance (ZE-84-112) from Laurie Lane granted 6/15/1984 3 Required Parking for Sunday Church services. 4 Required Parking for 15 vendors during farmers market events, BACKGROUND Project Site / Environs The property is located at the southwest corner of Orange Avenue and East Bay Street. The property also abuts Laurie Lane. The site is zoned PDR-HD (Planned Development Residential - High Density) and is designated as High Density Residential in the General Plan Land Use Element. The St. John's Manor senior housing complex that consists of 36 one bedroom units is immediately to the south. The properties to the north and east are zoned R1 and developed with single-family residences. The properties across Laurie Lane are zoned as R2-MD and developed with multiple -family residences. The property is approximately 1.1 acres (48,736 SF) in size and is presently developed with a church comprised of the chapel and ancillary facilities including the guild room with a kitchen, classrooms, offices, and the surface parking lot. A total of 46 parking spaces are provided. The Church has a large lawn (approx. 16,500 SF) that faces Orange Avenue. The church and the senior housing complex are currently connected via a pedestrian walkway and driveway between the parking lots. A minimum of 20 parking spaces are required for the housing complex. An emergency preparedness storage container is kept on the premises at the request of the City's Fire Department. Previous Entitlements Zoning Exception Permit ZE-78-188 On October 14, 1985, a conditional use permit was reactivated for operation of a daycare center at the existing church. The daycare center was limited to a maximum of 50 children. The hours of operation were from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. The daycare center had originally been established in 1972. The daycare center use is no longer in operation, but the Church would like to retain the use permit at this time. Variance #134/Zoning Exception Permit ZE-82-88 The City Council approved Variance Application #134 to allow construction of the church in 1955. At the time, a 50 foot setback from the centerline of Orange Avenue was required for the parking area. The dedication of a 30 foot right of way from the center line of the street results in a 20 foot front yard setback from Orange Avenue. A 40 foot setback was required from the north property line in anticipation of the Bay Street dedicated. Future Long -Term Church Expansion St. John the Divine Episcopal Church is planning two improvement phases. The first phase is a parking lot expansion and establishment of the farmers market. The second phase involves building improvements. The parking lot expansion on its own would not entail discretionary review but is subject to the City's development standards and code requirements. Parking Lot Improvements The applicant intends to expand the existing parking lot into the front lawn area. The parking lot would be reconfigured to add 34 more spaces for an overall total of 80 parking spaces. Six existing trees on the front lawn would be removed. As part of the improvements, the freestanding wood sign would also be removed and replaced. The replacement sign will be submitted under a separate permit and is subject to a specific sign provisions in residential zones. The vehicular connection to the St. John's Manor parking lot would be closed but pedestrian access would remain. The parking lot improvements are subject to the City Zoning requirements and development standards. The PDR-HD zone requires a 20-foot minimum, perimeter landscaped setback. As mentioned above, a variance was granted to the church allowing a five-foot setback along Bay Street; the proposal is consistent with the approved setback along that frontage. The emergency preparedness bin would be relocated further to the east and along the south side of the expanded parking area. The container would be screened from view from Orange Avenue by landscaping but would be directly accessible from the parking lot. A new trash enclosure would be constructed near the southeast corner of the property and would also be accessible from the expanded parking lot area. The parking lot expansion will need to meet the minimum landscape requirements; six trees per each parking space are required, with at least half of the trees required to be evergreen. Because of the number of new parking spaces and impervious surface area, a water quality management plan has been submitted for review and approval by the Public Services Department. ANALYSIS Farmers Market The applicant proposes to establish an outdoor farmers market in conjunction with the parking lot expansion. The farmers market would take place on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on a weekly basis. A maximum of 15 vendors would be accommodated on the proposed parking lot expansion area. According to the applicant, the farmers market would support local, independent, and small-scale farmers and artisans selling high quality fruits, vegetables and other products. The Episcopal Church is looking to bring the community and farmers together to promote the value of locally sourced products. Although proceeds will support Costa Mesa based charitable organizations, social services, in terms of providing food or social services for the homeless, will not be provided at the site as part of the farmers market activities. The proposal is a typical outdoor farmers market open to the public and operated by a nonprofit organization. The majority of the goods are farm products, sourced within a specific distance of the site. As a condition of approval, the majority of the booths would _3i- have to be dedicated to providing farm products from local sources. The other booths can provide flowers and value added farm products such as baked goods, jams, and jellies. The Episcopal Church of St. John the Divine would provide a venue for local farmers to provide healthy and affordable goods while encouraging community building. As proposed, the farmers market would not conflict with other Church activities, which take place during evening hours and Sundays. Since the farmers market would take place during regular daytime hours; no additional lighting, amplified noise or live music is requested. The new trash bin would be located within close proximity to the vendor area and would be accessible for efficient trash disposal. Church facilities (restrooms) would be available for vendors and patrons. Circulation & Parking The farmers market would be self-contained in terms of parking and circulation. As previously noted, the parking lot would be reconfigured and expanded into the existing front lawn area. Four attendants would be present to direct traffic to the parking lot. An attendant would be posted on site at each point of ingress/egress and one would be assigned to handle parking lot management. Vehicles would be directed to enter on the west driveway and exit from the east driveway. In an effort to be respectful of the neighboring residents, the fourth attendant would direct farmers market customers to the parking lot and encourage people not park on the north side of Bay Street. The vendors would be visible from the intersection of Orange Avenue and East Bay Street. The Church would encourage the neighboring residents to walk, bike or use other alternative methods to get to the farmers market. The vendor area would be located on the easterly portion of the expanded parking lot. A ratio of two parking spaces per booth can be applied: A parking space would be required for each vendor and one additional customer parking space. Two parking spaces per vendor would be more stringent than applying the retail ratio of four spaces per 1,000 square feet of vendor area. The 15 vendor booths will each consist of a 10 foot by 20 foot space (200 square feet) for a total vendor area of 3,000 square feet. Each vendor would have a parking space immediately adjacent to their designated booth. A minimum of 30 customer parking spaces would be required. A total of 46 customer parking spaces would be available on the existing parking lot. 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 as noted below: -32®- • The proposed farmers market is a use that would be beneficial for surrounding residents and would not adversely affect local businesses. The proposed farmers market provides a venue for small and local farmers to provide locally grown and affordable foods. The farmers market encourages community - building and supports local agriculture and allows a venue for the small and independent farmers. The proposed venue is relatively small in scale, and as conditioned, would not allow sales of retail items or second hand merchandise. The farmers market would be located in a residential neighborhood and would not compete or adversely affect the businesses located on Newport Boulevard. • Direct_ impacts of the _ farmers market on St. John's Manor are minimized through conditions of approval. To limit the scale of the proposed farmers market as a neighborhood venue, vendors are required to set- up no earlier than 8:00 a.m., amplified sound is prohibited, and motor vehicle engines are not allowed to idle to minimize noise. If the farmers market expands the hours or days of operation, any temporary lighting is required to be shielded and directed away from St. John's Manor to prevent light and glare impacts. Limited weekday operations may be allowed as a minor amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Operational changes, such as adjustment to market days times and the number of vendors, are required to be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director. • The pmeosed farmers market is a compatible and supportive use for the Church. The farmers market would be hosted on Church property that is located in a residential area characterized by variety of single-family and multiple -family residential uses. Complementary uses are permitted in the PRD-HD zone provided that adequate parking exists to support the use and there are no land use compatibility issues. The proposed farmers market is a use that can operate in harmony with the existing Church and is compatible with the surrounding residential uses. The location of the farmers market would be along a visible collector street with ample parking but also readily accessible via alternate modes of transportation, including walking, biking and a transit line. Conditions are included to ensure that access, parking circulation and signage is controlled within private property and not impact adjacent communities. • Limited weekday operations may be allowed as a minor amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. At this time, the success of the Farmer's Market as a Saturday event is unknown, and the applicant has requested some flexibility to allow potential market events on a weekday. A condition of approval is included to allow a minor amendment to allow one additional week day event if requested. 3 -- • The Farmer's Market will be limited to locally -sourced products and artisanal oods to promote commerce of specialty items versus second-hand goods. Vendors will be limited to those specialty providers and retailers of home grown products, organic produce, and artisanal wares. To ensure that the farmers market does not serve as a flea market of second-hand goods, a condition of approval requires that the sale of used or second-hand items such as old bicycles, lawn & garden equipment, electronics, and furniture shall be limited to no more than 5 of the 15 vendors (about 33 percent). Additionally, as conditioned, alcoholic beverage sales shall be limited to artisanal type of beverages (i.e. craft beers) subject to the approval of an ABC license. • Adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the fanners market based on off- set hours of operation and availability of on -site parking The farmers market would take place on Saturdays when no other church activities are being held. Based on a parking ratio of two parking spaces per vendor booth, 30 parking spaces are required. A minimum of 46 on -site customer parking spaces would be provided. In addition, a manager would be present to prevent spill over parking onto the adjacent streets. Attendants would be present to direct and guide patrons onto the site. Conditions are included that would require adjustment to number of vendors or timing, if parking impacts are experienced. • The expansion of the parking lot will be subiect to landscape requirements. Even though a portion of the landscaping will be replaced with the expansion of the parking lot, the improvements will meet landscape requirements for parking lots. The reconfigured parking lot is required to incorporate planting of native and drought tolerant landscaping. A minimum of 14 new large trees shall be planted within the expanded area of the parking lot and along the landscaped perimeter, half of which will be evergreens. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The farmers market is in conformance with the following goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan: Objective LU-1A.1: 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 LU-1A.1: Provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial goods and services, and employment opportunities in consideration of the needs of the businesses and residential segments of the community. o LU-1A.5: Provide housing and employment opportunities within planned development areas to the extent feasible. Since the primary use of the site is a church and no additional facilities are proposed at this time, the existing total building area remains unchanged. With the recommended conditions of approval, the farmers market will be consistent with surrounding residential uses and provides an imaginative use for the expanded parking lot. The farmers market would be a complementary use to the church and housing complex and provides opportunities for learning about the benefits of purchasing locally sourced and organic produce. 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 from CEQA under Section 15301 for Existing Facilities. If the project is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA Section 15270(a) for Projects Which Are Disapproved. 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 The Planning Commission has the following alternatives: Approve the project with modifications. The Planning Commission may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any of the additional requested changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or additional analysis. In the event of significant modifications to the proposal, 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 to be included in the draft resolution for denial. If the project were denied, the applicant could not submit the same type of application for six months. CONCLUSION Staff supports approval of the CUP for the establishment of a farmers market, given that the venue will be subject to conditions of approval to minimize impacts to surrounding uses. Based on the project description, the proposed use will not negatively impact uses in the area. A TO 1O GARD Senior Planner CLAIRE FLYNN, AICP Asst. Director of Development Services Attachments: 1 Draft Planning Commission Resolutions 2. Applicant's Project Description and Justification 3. Location Map 4. Site Photos 5. Plans 6. Radius Notification Map cc: Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO Sr. Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst File (2) St. John the Divine Episcopal Church Attn: Father Philip DeVaul, Rector 183 E. Bay Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Bishop the Episcopal Church of Los Angeles Cathedral Center of St. Paul 840 Echo Park Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90026 Yenny Ng Designs, Inc. Architects Attn: Ada Rose 1524 Brookhollow Drive, Ste. 6 Santa Ana, CA 92705 EPISCOPAL ('IIUNCII 183 E. Bay Street Costa Mesa Ca., 92627 949.548.2237 rector@stjohncm.org May 19, 2015 City of Costa Mesa Planning Department & Planning Commission Board Members Re.: Farmers Market CUP application for 183 E Bay Street Planning Dept. Staff and Board members: St John the Divine Episcopal Church is planning two phases of improvements. Phase I is a parking lot expansion (& landscape design) to accompany the proposed Farmers Market CUP application. The larger parking lot will accommodate the growing size of the congregation and allow the church to serve the community through programs such as the farmers market. The goal of the farmers market is to provide locally sourced produce and goods to the neighborhood St. Johns serves in a way that is affordable and convenient. Phase II will be the building improvements to the church campus. The current facility is not adequate for the congregation and its weekly activities. For example there is no room for youth groups or study groups to meet concurrently on Sunday mornings. Office space is inadequate as well. Phase II will replace the current one story office and classroom complex with a two story building in the same footprint. The new building will provide increased classroom and office space as well as updated and adequate restroom facilities. The current Guild room will be demolished and in its place a new Guild/Public Meeting Room/Kitchen constructed in the current courtyard location. The Chapel will be remodeled, adding approximately 300 -500 SF. The building improvements will provide more room for our current congregation and allow for future growth. Details of the Farmers Market operations are as follows: Market day will be Saturdays from 9am- 3 pm. This will be a weekly event throughout the year. We are planning on having (15) 10' X 20' vendor booths. The vendors will park adjacent to their booths. On market day there will be 46 parking spaces available for customers. Four security and parking attendants are planned. Two will be assigned to the driveways, one at the entrance and one at the exit. There will be one attendant assigned to monitoring compliance for the "No Parking Zone" on the North side of E. Bay St. The remaining attendant will be assigned to the parking lot management and vendor needs. Proposed signage is as follows: Banners will be located on the West end of the classroom building and on the corner at E. Bay St. and Orange Ave. Banners will state the dates and times for Market day along with the contact number for further information. Signs will be placed at the entrance and exit to the customer parking area. The West driveway will be "Entrance Only"; the East driveway will be "Exit Only". Also "No Farmers Market Parking" signs will be located on the North side of E. Bay St. directly across from the church. The signs will be spaced every 50' for 200', East and West of our parking center line for a total 400' of "No Market Parking" on the North side of E. Bay St. These are temporary signs to be put out and removed on Market days only. (Typical "A - frame" reflective traffic control barricade.) ,3` -- In a previous meeting with the planning staff the parking needs of the church were discussed and it was determined that the 80 proposed parking spaces would accommodate the congregation. (The current number of parking spaces Is 46.) There is no conflict in schedule between Church activities and the Farmers Market on Saturdays. Therefore there is no additional demand for parking, other than the vendors and customers. Sincerely, Father Philip DeVaui Rector, St. John the Divine Episcopal Church -3S- ST. JOIIN Al114] 1)1 NA NV, jAIPSCOPAll (111t'PC11 183 E. Bay Street Costa Mesa Ca. , 92627 949-548-2237 rector@sgohncm,org May 18, 2015 Antonio Qard m Claire Flyn Minoo Ashabi City of Costa Mesa Planning Department Re.: Signage and Traffic Control for proposed Framers Market DearAntonio, Claire and Minoo: We had been asked to outline our plans for signage and traffic control on market days (Saturdays, 9am-3pm). Followingare our proposals: Signage: 1. Banners to be located on the West end of classroom building and on the comer at E. Bay St. and Orange Ave. Banners will declare dates and times for market activity along with contact numberfor further information. 2. "No Farmers Market Parking" signs to be located on North side of E.Bay Street directly across from the church. Signs will be spaced every 50' for 200', East and West of our parking drive center line. Total 400'of "No Market Parking" on North side of E. Bay St. These are temporary signs to be put out and removed on Market days only. Typical "A "frame reflective traffic control traffic barricade. An example can be found at : athttp://www.spoWbumpsandhumps.com/traffic-oontrol-and-saf` t /barriers -and -bar lcadosleconocade-type- 1-barricade 3. Signs to be placed at entrance and exit to customer parking areas. West drive to be "Entrance Only". East drive to be " Exit Only" Marketday parking and crowd attendants are planned as well. We are proposing four attendants. Two will be assigned to the drives, one at entrance and one at exit. There will be one attendant assigned to monitoring compliance for No Parking zone on North side of E. Bay Street as well. The remaining attendant will be assigned to interior parking management and vendor needs. This should get us started. If any problems arise as we get going or if issues arise with our surrounding community, we will of course adjust to needs as they evolve. Sincerely, Father Philip DeVaul Rector, St. John the Divine Episcopal Church The Eastside Farmer's Market A proposal to the City of Costa Mesa from St. John the Divine Episcopal Church 183 East Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627-2145 (949) 548-2237 Father Philip DeVaul, Rector (rector@stjohncm.ora) Jim Gatewood, PhD, Farmer's Market Committee Chair (ivgatewood@yahoo.com Mission Statement The mission of the Eastside Farmers Market is to celebrate and support the activities of local, independent and small-scale farmers and artisans selling the highest quality of affordable fruits, vegetables and other products to neighbors and friends living in our community. As an organization with deep roots in Costa Mesa, St. John the Divine seeks to enhance the quality of life for our local community by promoting meaningful relationships with the people who grow and make our food, to foster dialogue and promote education about the value of locally sourced products, and to use proceeds from the Eastside Farmer's Market to support a wide range of charitable activities that promote the social good. Overview As part of its ongoing mission to serve the greater community of Costa Mesa, St. John the Divine Episcopal Church proposes the development of a farmer's market to be held on our church property at 183 East Bay Street, Costa Mesa, on Monday afternoons from 3:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. throughout the calendar year. The Eastside Farmer's Market would serve multiple purposes: it would provide a venue for farmers and vendors of locally sourced goods to sell the highest quality of fruits, vegetables and artisan foods to customers living and working in our surrounding neighborhoods, thus supporting local businesses and promoting commerce within Costa Mesa; it would serve as an important gathering point for our community, fostering a spirit of friendship, cooperation and civic engagement among the men, women and children of Costa Mesa, providing educational opportunities on the benefits of fruits and vegetables to the American diet while also promoting relationships between consumers and the farmers who grow their foods; and, most importantly, the revenue generated by St. John the Divine from the Eastside Farmer's Market would be used solely for operational expenses of the market and to support the work of several nonprofit organizations with whom we are affiliated whose mission is to enhance the quality of life for Orange County's homeless and working poor populations. In short, the Eastside Farmer's Market would serve as a driving force for social good while also providing a valuable service to our neighbors in Costa Mesa. St. John the Divine, Eastside Farmer's Market, PropoWl to the City of Costa Mesa 183 E, Bay Street Costa Mesa Ca., 92627 949.548-2237 rector@stjohncm.org April 9, 2015 Claire Flyn Minoo Ashabi City of Costa Mesa Planning Department Re.: Farmers Market CUP application for 183 E Bay Street Dear Claire and Minoo: Several questions regarding scope of work and scheduling have come up as we move forward with the planning and permitting of our proposed Farmers Market and Building Improvements at St John The Divine Episcopal Church. Below are our responses to those most recent questions asked by the City of Costa Mesa Planning Department : 1. WIII Phases One (Parking Improvements/Farmers MerkeQ and Two ( Building construction) be submitted atthe same time? At this time we would like to consider only the CUP for the Farmers Market. As requested ,we are however providing a project description for both phases. 2. There Is currently an approved CUP for Pre school a" at St. Johns. What Is Its status ? There has not been a preschool operating at any time in the past and there are no plans for a preschool facility at St. Johns at this time. We would like to see this as an option in the future. The classrooms are currently utilized only for Sunday School activity and during worship, During the week there are daily recovery group meetings taking place as well. 3-What Is the Church ectIft schedule as it relates to the operation of the Fanners Market? Scheduling conflicts with Church activity and Farmers Market are minimal. The market is set to run on Tuesdays from 3-7 PM. The only use of church facilities on that day and during those hours is the Tuesday evening Alcoholics Anonymous meeting held in the guild room. The meeting starts at 7:OOPM. Meeting will be moved to 7:30 PM. 4. What are the details of the Farmers Market operations. A.) We are planning on having (15) 10' X 20 ` vendor booths. This is well within the 4,OOOsf allotted. B.) Market day will be Tuesday; hours are from 3 - 7 PM. This will be a weekly event, expected to be active throughout the year C.) Vendor parking spaces will be added to the site plan. D.) The goal is to provide locally sourced produce and goods to the neighborhood St, Johns serves in a way that is affordable and convenient. 5.) What are the details for the Phase Two building project A.) Why are more classrooms being added? Current facility is not adequate for the congregation and its weekly activity as it stands. For example there is no room for youth groups or study groups to meet concurrently on Sunday mornings. Office space is inadequate as well. The addition of classrooms will give us some room for our current congregation and allow for some growth as well. -41- 6.) Is the seating in the chapel fixed or loose? The seating will not be fixed. This will allow greater flexibility as we envision this space as multipurpose not just worship space. Loose seating gives us many options for offering this space to the community for its use as well. 7.) On Sundays -outside of the Chapel, what other spaces are used? We currently have three classrooms and the Guild room which are utilized on Sundays, along with the chapel. Child care and K-6 Sunday school take place in the classrooms, The Guild hall is utilized for coffee etc. between services. 8.) An overall project description? The Phase two project, when completed, will result in the replacement of the current one story office and classroom complex with a two story building in the same footprint. The new building will provide increased classroom and office space as well as updated and adequate restroom facilities. The current Guild room will be demolished and in its place a new Guild/Public Meeting Room/Kitchen constructed in the current courtyard location. The Chapel will be remodeled, adding approximately 300 -500 SF, Sincerely, Father Philip DeVaul Re r, St. John the Divine Episcopal Church Signature 1Z- "The mission of the Eastside Farmers Market is to celebrate and support the activities of local, independent and small-scale farmers and artisans selling the highest quality of affordable fruits, vegetables and other products to neighbors and friends living in our community. As an organization with deep roots in Costa Mesa, St. John the Divine seeks to enhance the quality of life for our local community by promoting meaningful relationships with the people who grow and make our food, to foster dialogue and promote education about the value of locally sourced products, and to use proceeds from the Eastside Farmer's Market to support a wide range of charitable activities that promote the social good." Costa Mesa was incorporated in 1953. St. John the Divine began its ministry to Costa Mesa just two years later. Over the last 60 years, the fortunes of both the church and the city have waxed and waned. At the present moment, both are experiencing an exciting resurgence. As the housing market continues to rebound in Costa Mesa, and younger families move in, and we see areas like 17th Street, West 19'1' St., and Bristol & Baker, become centers of a new culture, in the meantime, the Episcopal church of St. John the Divine has grown in attendance by over 50% in the last two years, and is entering a new, vibrant chapter of its life and ministry to this city. We find ourselves situated on the East Side - a neighborhood at the forefront of Costa Mesa's cultural and economic ascent. We see statistics that show people desiring less mobility and more stable community structures. In short, people want to have a neighborhood to call their own. They don't just want to live somewhere - they want where they live to be their community. Meanwhile, we feel a deep calling based on our Christian foundation to foster real community, friendship, neighborliness. It's in our DNA as the Church to figure out positive and practical ways to transform the neighborhood around us into a more loving, life-giving place to live. And we have a very obvious resource to aid us in our mission. We have open space where people can gather. Our desire is to create a farmer's market that will utilize our space for the purpose of bringing people together, to support local small businesses (with a particular emphasis on Costa Mesa), to promote healthy and sustainable food purchasing and eating, and to foster the kind of friendly, neighborly community the East Side deserves. In a recent study, Costa Mesa was listed as the 4°i most economically diverse city in the country. This means that we have people with great resources, people with few resources, and everyone in between all living together. The Church has a very explicit call to care for and work with the poor of this world. But how we do that can oftentimes fluctuate between ineffectual and alienating to neighbors. The East Side Farmer's Market will donate 25% of all sales to Costa Mesa based community outreach and development organizations. Essentially we will be providing well-resourced people with a product that is beneficial to them, while using a large portion of the money they spend to help fund organizations that work effectively to alleviate homelessness and poverty in Costa Mesa, all the while supporting local small businesses. In this way, the Farmer's Market will be a boon to people of every income level, whether they shop with us or not. It will recognize and facilitate the need for community on the East Side, highlight some of the great up-and- coming entrepreneurs of the city, and address the issue of homelessness in a thoughtful, pragmatic way. This market has the potential to be a great marriage of the life of the city and the life of our church. St. John the Divine — A Church Rooted in Community St. John the Divine Episcopal Church broke ground in 1955, only two years after the incorporation of Costa Mesa as a city. From its earliest inception when the congregation worshipped, held Sunday School and celebrated parish activities in a modest one-story building that now serves as our guild room, St. John the Divine has been actively involved in the life of our city and its myriad community. -based organizations, working to fulfill our mandate "to serve the needs of our community as an expression of God's love through purposeful prayer, education, worship and service." We have a longstanding history of service to our community, with a focus on providing assistance to the working poor and homeless through programs and organizations such as Laundry Love, Share Our Selves our Girls Friendly Society and the Daughters of the King. We envision the Eastside Farmer's Market as another step forward in our church's history of service: we want to bring healthy foods to our neighbors while at the same time generating revenue that will support the endeavors of nonprofits working to address the challenges of homelessness and hunger within Orange County. Why a Farmer's Market? The farmer's market is a natural outgrowth of our history of service in Costa Mesa. Farmer's markets have enjoyed incredible popularity over the last several decades because of their ability to bring products directly from the farm to the consumers' tables, often providing fruits and vegetables that were picked only hours earlier. According to the USDA's agricultural marketing service, there are currently over 8,100 farmers markets listed in its National Farmers Market Directory. This number reflects a dramatic increase from just a decade ago when there were only 1,744 farmers markets operating in the United States. Renewed interest in farmer's markets reflects a shift in American attitudes toward the food we consume and a desire to make fruits and vegetables a substantial part of our diets. "Farmer markets are a critical ingredient to our nation's food system,' says former USDA Deputy Secretary and current director of the George Washington University Sustainability Institute, Kathleen Merrigan. "These outlets provide benefits not only to the farmer looking for important income opportunities but also to the communities looking for fresh, healthy foods."' As a church community, we see it as part of our mission to educate our community about the benefits of fresh fruits and vegetables while also promoting the invaluable but sometimes overlooked contributions made by the men and women who grow our foods, Farmer's markets benefit the communities they serve by strengthening social ties and providing opportunities for men, women and children from diverse social backgrounds ' Tracie Cone, "Number of Farmers Markets in the United States Surges," Huffington Post http;//www.huffi+iQ.tonpost,com/2Q12/08/0.3Jnumber-ofmus=farrrl rs,ti�ar n 1;Q---,htmf accessed on August 3, 2014 at 3:00 pm St. John the Divine, Eastside Farmer's Market. Proposal to the City of Costa Mesa 2 _ Y-1 to come together in a spirit of friendship and cooperation. While farmer's markets exist to sell goods and services to would-be consumers, they have the added benefit of providing a space where friends can socialize, where people can discuss pressing neighborhood issues, or where community -based organizations or local politicians may come to speak with constituents. Farmer's markets play a role once occupied by public squares in small towns and communities throughout our country. According to one report authored by a coalition of farmer's markets in New York, customers frequently cite the "experience" of visiting a farmer's market as their primary reason for shopping in them. Farmer's markets are often venues of civic engagement; it is not unusual for politicians or nonprofit organizations to visit farmer's markets and to raise awareness about issues directly impacting our local government. The Eastside Farmer's Market would serve as a viable community resource; we hope to utilize the experience and expertise of individuals such as Jenny Ross, a member of our organizing committee and proprietor/chef of Costa Mesa restaurant 118' Degrees, and others to provide educational programming at our market to enhance individual understanding about the added benefits of fruits and vegetables as part of our everyday diets. While there are many excellent options from which to purchase fruits and vegetables in Costa Mesa, few offer customers the opportunity to source all of their foods locally. Larger retailers are often required to ship in fruits and vegetables from other states and from other countries in order to provide their customers with a wide variety of produce; food in the United States travels an average of 1,500 miles to get to consumers' plates. Shipping foods from such long distances has a net negative environmental impact, promoting the excessive use of fossil fuels, the use of pesticides and other preservatives that ensure "freshness" and extra packaging necessary to sustain freshness. Farmer's markets source entirely from farmers and vendors located within a relatively short distance from the market. It is our intention at the Eastside Farmer's Market to source from vendors within a 60-mile radius, covering the greater Southern California area, and to — whenever possible — use vendors who only sell organic goods free from pesticides. Ultimately, and perhaps most importantly, the Eastside Farmer's Market would generate revenue that would be allocated to organizations working to address the challenges of homelessness in Orange County. We see a farmer's market as a win -win issue for our community. We are able to provide our neighbors with a valuable service — fresh fruits and vegetables and other locally produced goods — while at the same time raising money for charities that are helping men, women and children in our county. This is no small task; Orange County, the third largest county in California, is one of the least affordable in the nation, with a general cost of living 63% above the national average. Estimates of the homeless population vary from 12,000 to just over 18,000 adults and some 28,000 school -age children, approximately 3.5% of all children attending schools St. John the Divine, Eastside Farmer's Market, Proposal to the City of Costa Mesa 3 in Orange County.' We are already partnering with organizations whose mission is to alleviate some of these problems (including the need for clean, low-income housing) through individual parishioner contributions of food, clothing and money, but the revenue generated from vendors' use fees and a percentage of their total profits from goods sold at the Eastside Farmer's Market would provide a reliable, monthly source of income to organizations such as Share Our Selves, Laundry Love, and the Project Hope Alliance. It is not our intention to use the market as a venue for feeding or clothing the homeless; instead, we would use money raised from the sale of produce and goods to our neighbors to offer financial support to our partners. We see this as an important aspect of our institutional mission and the farmer's market is a logical way for us to support these efforts with sustained financial contributions. How it Would Work — The Logistics of the Eastside Farmer's Market Days and Hours of Operation Of the 38 farmer's markets currently operating in Orange County, only two are located in Costa Mesa: the farmer's market on the SOCO campus located at 3303-3323 Hyland Avenue (operating on Saturdays) and the other located on the Orange County Fairgrounds at 88 Fair Drive (operating on Thursday afternoons). The proposed Eastside Farmer's Market would operate on Monday afternoons from 3:00 pm until 7:00 pm. Vendors would be able to set up their stalls at 2:00 pm and be required to vacate the property at 8:00 pm. Sourcing our Vendors We would require that all vendor farms and businesses would be located within a 60- mile radius of Costa Mesa with vendors outside of this radius being considered by the administrator of the Eastside Farmer's Market on a case -by -case basis. Our purpose in limiting the radius in which our food is sourced is to ensure that we are indeed providing "locally sourced" food grown in the larger Southern California region and to especially promote goods produced in and around the Orange County region. Jenny Ross is serving as our point person to contract vendors for the market should we receive approval for a conditional use permit from the City of Costa Mesa. Her expertise and extensive range of contacts will be an extraordinary asset as we move forward in this endeavor. The Kinds of Goods to be Sold at the Eastside Farmer's Market Each vendor's application would clearly define the types/kinds of goods they would sell at the market and at the time of application would provide current copies of any 2 Source: h T///www.fami promiseoranoecounty or-9 Mhomeless-statistics/c19oy accessed on August 8, 2014 at 11:19 a.m. See also David Montero, "More than 12,700 homeless in O.C., nonprofit's analysis says," Orange County Register, September 24, 2013 accessed online at http://www.ocregister.com/articles/homeless-527830-county- people.html on August 8, 2014 at 11:21 a.m. St. John the Divine, Eastside Farmer's Market, Proposal to the City of Costa Mesa 4 __I� permits insurance and licenses applicable to the sale of their products. Any vendor selling prepared foods and baked goods would require current Orange County Health Department Food Worker Cards and applicable operating permits issued by the Orange County Health Department and be required to display these permits at their stall during the period of operation. Products sold at the Eastside Farmer's Market would be limited to three categories, listed below as A though C. A. Fresh Farm Products: Includes fresh fruit and vegetables, herbs, nuts, honey, dairy products, eggs, poultry, mushrooms, meats and fish. Also included in this category are fresh grown flowers, nursery stock and plants. All fresh farm products must be grown or produced by the seller. B. Value added Farm Products: Includes preserves, jams and jellies, syrups, salsas, smoked or canned meats or fish, dried fruit, flours, salad dressings and limited on -site processed farm food such as roasted peppers and roasted peanuts, nursery stock and plants. All value added farm foods must be made from raw products/ingredients, a majority of which are grown and produced by the seller. Nursery stock and plants must have value added from original state. C. Processed Foods: Includes juices, preserved foods, salad dressings, jams, pastries, pasta, granola, cookies, muffins, breads, pies and related take home desserts. Vendor must be an active owner/operator of the business and may not be operating under a franchise agreement. Processed foods must be produced by the vendor from raw ingredients. Vendors in this category are those who have cooked, baked or otherwise treated the product they sell, No commercially prepared dough mixes, crusts, shells or fillings are allowed. All processed foods must have the proper permits and must carry product liability insurances. Copies of proof of insurance must be provided to market manager. Operational Procedures All vendors would need to be set up and ready to sell by the market's start time. Vendors with vehicles would need to arrive at least 30 minutes to market opening, and as early as one hour before market start time. Vendors with vehicles who arrive less than 30 minutes before the Market opens run the risk of having to load off from the parking area and transport items to the assigned stall. Vendors who offload onto their stall must remove their vehicle from the Market area within 30 minutes of start time. Additionally, vendors would be asked to park their vehicles out of the customer parking area to maximize the number of spots available to customers and neighbors living St. John the Divine, Eastside Farmer's Market. -Proposal to the City of Costa Mesa .— /] 9 - within the area (see subsequent section on parking). All vendors would be required to post a sign identifying the name of the farm/business represented and where it is located. Signs would not be smaller that 24-inches by 8- inches high. All goods for sale would be clearly marked with their prices. This can be done individually or on a larger sign that is clearly readable. This is a critical component of providing a reputable farmers market, allowing customers to refer to growers and businesses by name and allowing us to handle any consumer complaints in a timely and orderly fashion. Vendors would required to clean up after themselves and to provide receptacles for garbage from consumers. Vendor space must be maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary manner. Vendors are responsible for taking away any trash or garbage that is generated in or around their booths and sweeping up any product debris left on the ground. Farmers would not be permitted to dispose of produce waste, overripe or leftover produce or boxes in any onsite garbage cans or dumpsters. Vendors who do not clean up at the end of the Market may receive a $25 fine and/or termination of their contract with the Eastside Farmer's Market. Parking We are dedicated to being considerate neighbors who are mindful of any impacts that our proposed farmer's market would have upon the surrounding community. As part of the process of creating a farmer's market, we want to take seriously the need to provide ample parking for our vendors/customers while at the same time not displacing our neighbors who park in the immediate vicinity of the church. We will require all of our vendors to park on Newport Boulevard, a large industrial road that parallels the 55 Freeway. There is always ample parking along this corridor from 2011 Street (to the west of Bay) and 21 ` Street (to the east of Bay). While there is extensive street parking in the neighborhoods surrounding St. John the Divine Episcopal Church (along E 215' Street toward Tustin Park; along E 20th Street toward Woodland Park; along Orange Avenue from Bay all the way toward 17" Street; and along Fullerton Avenue from Bay to 17th Street), we are actively pursuing additional options for overflow parking in the immediate vicinity and plan to approach St. Joachim's Catholic Church and School (located at 1964 Orange Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92627) among others to inquire about the use of their parking lot during the period of our farmer's market. We also plan to create a marketing campaign that will encourage people to walk/bike to the market to reduce the flow of car traffic coming into the area. We will purchase additional racks for bike parking and will adopt plans that will reward customers who come by bike or on foot to the market (giveaways, raffle tickets, coupons, etc.) St. John the Divine, Eastside Farmer's Market Proposal to the City of Costa Mesa 6 Compatibility with the General Uses of the Surrounding Neighborhood We hope it is clear from the information above that our proposed farmer's market intends to offer a valuable service to our surrounding neighbors and would not be "materially detrimental to other properties in the same area." If anything, as a church community, we want to foster collaboration, mutual respect, and fellowship with our neighbors and will work closely with them to make this farmer's market a success. The size, scope, date and time of the farmer's market, and desire to promote this as a "neighborhood" endeavor generated by people within the surrounding community for people within the surrounding community reflects our heartfelt wish to make this a positive experience for everyone involved. To that end, we plan to meet with our neighbors to discuss our farmer's market, to receive feedback and incorporate suggestions/concerns into the actual week -to -week operation of the market. Conclusion We are excited to work with the City of Costa Mesa to secure a conditional use permit for the development of the Eastside Farmer's Market. We believe this is an important project that will be well received by our neighbors and by those who support the causes this will ultimately go to support. We thank you in advance for your consideration and look forward to speaking with you in greater depth about our proposed market. St. John the Divine, Eastside Farmer's Market, Proposal to the City of Costa Mesa 7 _'lq — FRESH FOOD. GOOD PEOPLE. "The mission of the Eastside Farmers Market is to celebrate and support the activities of local, independent, and small-scale farmers and artisans selling the highest quality of affordable fruits, vegetables and other products to neighbors and friends living in our community. As an organization with deep roots in Costa Mesa, the Episcopal Church of St. John the Divine seeks to enhance the quality of life for our local community by bringing our neighborhood together with the people who grow and make our food, promoting education about the value of locally sourced products, and supporting Costa Mesa based community development organizations." -5b,- Costa Mesa was incorporated in 1953. St. John the Divine began its ministry to Costa Mesa just two years later. Over the last 60 years, the fortunes of both the church and the city have waxed and waned. At the present moment, both are experiencing an exciting resurgence, As the housing market continues to rebound in Costa Mesa, and younger families move in, and we see areas like 17th Street, West 19th St., and Bristol & Baker, become centers of a new culture, in the meantime, the Episcopal church of St, John the Divine has grown in attendance by over 50% in the last two years, and is entering a new, vibrant chapter of its life and ministry to this city. We find ourselves situated on the East Side — a neighborhood at the forefront of Costa Mesa's cultural and economic ascent. We see statistics that show people desiring less mobility and more stable community structures. In short, people want to have a neighborhood to call their own. They don't just want to live somewhere — they want where they live to be their community. Meanwhile, we feel a deep calling based on our Christian foundation to foster real community, friendship, neighborliness. It's in our DNA as the Church to figure out positive and practical ways to transform the neighborhood around us into a more loving, life-giving place to live. And we have a very obvious resource to aid us in our mission: We have open space where people can gather. Our desire is to create a farmer's market that will utilize our space for the purpose of bringing people together, to promote and support local small businesses (with a particular emphasis on Costa Mesa), and develop a fuller sense of neighborhood on the East Side. We do this with good food, sourced or made responsibly and creatively, And we do all of this conscientiously, A recent article in the OC Weekly stated that Costa Mesa is the Vh most economically diverse city in the country. This means that we have people of great means and people with little to no resources living in the same city — along with everyone in between. One of the core priorities of the Church is to care for the poorer members of our community. We seek to do this entrepreneurially through our Farmer's Market. So 25% of all sales will go directly to local community development organizations — well established non -profits focused on working with people on the margins to help bring them out of poverty and work alongside them in order to get their lives back on track. So every vendor with which we work is helping. Every costumer is lending a hand. This will be a Farmer's Market not only with a conscience, but with a heart for this city and the people who live in it. Good food, good people, good for all involved. -5'1 z«S Visoo~ �` q _, Avq ,m ®® % HDN maigooisg z„ Q AN g�IwN�E3 AQ 2sGsd & , \3nNBAVkNVdO \ U j . .,1.| z\ A& A& |[ �| _V'l Z it l —54— Z69Z6 YO'VS3Vq VISOD BMEAve ANt Ho6nHO lVdODSIdD 133HS 3NNG 12 NHOFIS Liu] 12 0 11 0 X I ""2 7= LU U Z z CL V) Oz< < CL 0. LU LU 4 it LU TZ A OZ I Ate, flit i I C) z >< 7= yj K2m z p Z a- 0 Ui list V) Hit 0 CIO 9 6 31 14 111! q p inil upp pull IRE 1 it low 1 1 161E to lull ON 'Nit ME 18% HIJ whin 1UNI lug U! N Hog lag z < H1 Mri IQ 4 H1 "m & YNTA 2 1 1 qnl; 2, z Mo Mum 11 1 1111 1 N 1 lull ill 011 1AM I, p ul :3nN3AV 30N"O AI d 1p i �" �� , i� ryarys T* LU 1. id LU F— U) co V[F F 11 NOuvnNIiNOO Ho Z-O IS 33S —15(0— w NouvnNUN00 NOJ 6-0133HS 33S , x A 1 ti.+, •:IM M1MI+C: ,IAIII y6 �trM 7r+a! 'k '� •,.uuw dY I•�. RR� [ -- � YI u a Ir "' --aNdI 3i'dnen LL9L6 VJ'VS3W V1SOJ asueur+ 133diS AV9 369l 771 HOdnHO lVdOOSld3 X (m) 3NIAIa 3H1 NHOf '1S NVId 311S ONIISIX3, r F-75; � w. ? ZZ9Z6 V3,'VS3W VMD AgNIS kV9'3 EBI �. , HOWIH0lVdOOSld3 Q r+i :'�" ,, .es 3NIAI4 3H1 NHOf '1S NVId 311S 4350d0?Jd w O w J Lli LZ9Z6 VD'VS3W V1SOD 133&SAV9 3C91 HONFIHDIVdOOSId3 3NIA10 3H1 NHOf '1S NVId US 43SOdOdd Q IL 1112"'N MUNI 51 Ng Z6 LLI w IL DnNRAV 39NVW -- -------- - lK "ll, jz, All U n+� U Z O V T Z S Ssl I y ui 1 ':, F U � � I m � 'r,3L;u5t elf U ` R w J ! U Z O — yU c C) Q O Q1 — s? Q> E +' CD L 0 r+ U) U cc c O a .�, m m I_ o — U C6 5 U Q Ag— at LO i5LO a v -- a 1 3Eo g n � S P ■ � .t w P Y 8 o 1� wo a� Ch t. II,,�1�Y wx C/] o u U w N 0 Z It PLANNING COMMISSION m2UPPLEMENTAL MEMO .y MEETING DATE: JUNE 8, 2015 ITEM NUMBER P fl —� SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-41: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF AN OUTDOOR FARMERS MARKET AT ST. JOHN THE DIVINE EPISCOPAL CHURCH 183 E. BAY STREET DATE: JUNE 3, 2014 FROM: ANTONIO GARDEA, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ANTONIO GARDEA (714)754-5692 anton io.gardea@costamesaca.gov The objectives of this memo are to: • Highlight modifications to the original proposal based on public comments. • Provide an update of public comments at a neighborhood meeting on Monday, June 2, 2015 and from correspondence received to date. • Provide copies of all public comments. Summary of Revised Proposal Hours of Operation ModifiedIssue Additional or . . . of ApprovalModified Hours of operation shall be during a window between 10:00 Operations New Proposed Start -Time a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Commencement of market operations of 9AM for set-up and including but not limited to vendor set up, shall begin no earlier 10AM for Farmer's Market than 9:00 a.m. and take -down shall end no later than 3:00 p.m. (formerly BAM and 9AM respectively) Stop Sign & Crosswalk Applicant shall not commence operations of the Farmer's on Orange Avenue Market until the Transportation Division completes a study to determine if an all -way stop and addition of a new crosswalk across Orange Avenue are warranted. This study is anticipated to be completed leted in a four week time frame. Emergency Vehicle Prior to opening of the Farmer's Market, applicant shall submit Access to St. John's an emergency access plan approved by the Fire Chief to ensure Manor that direct access for emergency fire response/paramedic vehicles to St. John's Manor remains unrestricted at all times. Parking Applicant shall install bike racks on the church property prior to opening of the Farmer's Market for full operations. To ensure that street parking is minimized, the applicant shall also provide attendants to direct customers to the parking lot and shall post temporary signs to discourage customers from parking along the north side of Bay Street. Parking Lot (night hours) Applicant shall install a low wall or hedge along Bay Street Applicant agreed to frontage to minimize li ht and glare to neighboring roerties. additional landscaping Special Event Permit No Change. Applicant versus Conditional Use would like to proceed with a Permit CUP rather than apply for a , weekly Special Event Permit. Additional Weekday Delete the following condition: The applicant may submit a Applicant concurs with Farmers Market in the request to the Development Services Director for the deletion. Future approval of minor changes to the hours of operation of the Farmer's Market. A minor amendment to the operations would involve: (1) Adjustments of the operational hours on Saturdays by no more than two hours; (2) Addition of one weekday market event while church assembly is not occurring; (3) Increase in the number of vendor booths by no more than five additional booths. Summary of Neighborhood Meeting A town hall meeting was hosted at St. John Church on Monday, June 2, 2015. The Rev. Philip DeVaul discussed the Church's plans to expand the parking lot to accommodate the farmers market and future expansion plans. The meeting was attended by approximately 40 people; many of which were residents of St. John Manor and the rest included nearby community and City residents. The following issues were raised regarding the proposed market and the expansion of the parking lot: Traffic and parking: • Issue: The farmers market is a commercial venture that will add trips on Saturday mornings and increase traffic congestion on Orange Avenue, which already receives overflow traffic from the 55 Freeway. A traffic study should be conducted. Response: The farmers market is proposed to take place on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The proposed hours of operation are during off-peak hours. It is not anticipated that the farmers market will be adding substantial trips to Orange Avenue, which is a two-lane, collector street with a year 2020 average daily capacity of 12,500 vehicles. The current volume is approximately 6,000 vehicles. Typically, the average traffic volume on residential streets is lower on weekends (Saturday) as compared to the weekdays. The farmers market will add vehicles trips to the church site during a time period which typically has low traffic along adjacent residential streets. Additionally, during the proposed hours of operation of the farmers market (Saturday morning) the church does not have any scheduled services which will avoid any traffic and parking conflicts. • Issue: Orange Avenue is heavily traveled and this stretch has more speeding violations than other sections of the street. There is too much cut through traffic on Bay St and Orange Avenue. The intersection needs a stop sign and a crosswalk should be painted to cross Orange Avenue. • Response: The Transportation Services Department will conduct a traffic analysis to ascertain if the conversion of this intersection to an all -way stop and addition of a new crosswalk is warranted at this location. This analysis will be conducted in the next four weeks. • Issue: There is insufficient street parking on Bay Street. No parking should be allowed off site. • Response: The parking for patrons of the farmers market is required to be provided on -site and no parking should be allowed off -site. A minimum of two parking spaces are required per vendor booth; one space for the vendor's vehicle and one customer parking space. The expanded parking lot would provide a total of 80 parking spaces. A minimum of 30 parking spaces would be provided for the vendors and 46 for customers. In addition, the applicant will be providing bike racks to encourage customers to ride bicycles to the site. To ensure that street parking is minimized, the applicant will provide attendants to direct customers to the parking lot and will post temporary signs to discourage customers from parking along the north side of Bay Street. Issue: The retirement facility generates a large number of emergency calls for service. Would the farmers market hamper responses and block Fire Dept. access to St. John's Manor? Response: With the proposed site plan, adequate vehicular access, including emergency vehicles, would be provided during the proposed farmers market. As conditioned, attendants would be present to direct traffic within the parking area. St. John's Manor also has direct access for emergency vehicles from Orange Avenue. This access will not be restricted. Operational Concerns: • Issue: Vendors would set up early in the morning prior to the 9:00 a.m. start time. The neighborhood is quiet on Saturday mornings and people don't want to be disturbed. Response: The applicant has agreed to modify hours of operation, or number of vendors as deemed necessary. As conditioned, the vendors will be restricted to arrive and start set up not earlier than 8:00 AM. The parking attendants will need to make sure that no vendors arrive earlier than the designated time. • Issue: The farmers market will generate trash and the produce will bring mice and roaches. Response: As conditioned, a manager will be required to ensure that the property is maintained and that adequate trash facilities are provided to ensure that trash is contained and collected in a timely manner. Land Use / Compatibility: ® Issue: The area is residential, not commercially zoned. Allowing the farmers market at the Church sets a precedent to allow other commercial uses within residential areas. The Church is also compensated for having recovery meetings which is a business in the residential area. Response: Pursuant to the Zoning Code, primary and incidental retail sales at churches and other places of religious assembly would be subject to a use permit in the PDR-HD zone. As a planned development zone, this zoning district allows the following comparable retail uses subject to a Minor CUP: o Carts - outdoor retail sales in conjunction with an established business o Flower stands o Grocery stores [Table 13-30, Land Use Matrix] While the proposed Farmer's Market would involve incidental retail sales at St. John's Church and outdoor retail sales may be allowed in the PDR-HD zone subject to the approval of a MCUP, Code does not specify a "Farmer's Market" in the land use matrix; Therefore, a CUP is required prior to the establishment of the use. The PDR-HD zoning classification for the site encourages uses that complement the existing residential and senior citizen housing complex. The applicant intends to provide local and organic goods to neighboring residents. As conditioned and with the limited number of vendors, the proposed farmers market would be considered an ancillary and incidental retail use for the church. • Issue: The farmers market would compefe with Growers Ranch and other retailers in the area. Can a special event permit be issued to try it out first? Response: The applicant would like to proceed with the CUP request due to the commitment of resources and pre -planning required to implement a Farmer's Market. As conditioned, the farmers market will be reevaluated in two months. Adjustments may need to be made to address any issues that may arise during this period such as adjustment to hours of operation and number of vendors. Parking Lot / Landscape Design: Issue: Expanding the parking lot creates more impermeable surface area. The intersection floods. Where is the additional runoff going? The storm drain system is inadequate. Response: A preliminary Water Quality Management Plan has been provided and is under review by Engineering Division Staff. The applicant is required to implement best practices to reduce runoff volume and may be required to install an on -site detention basin. Issue: If it is determined that the Farmer's Market is negatively impacting the community due to noncompliance with the CUP, parking impacts, noise impacts, lighting/glare issues, etc., what is the process/timing for CUP revocation compared to a Special Event Permit? Response: A 60-day review of the operations is currently required pursuant to a condition of approval. Applicants are typically given 30 days to rectify violations. The CUP revocation process requires documentation of violations, including all consistent infractions and negative impacts, and the CUP revocation process may take 6 months to a year. This includes documentation of incidents, revocation hearings, and appeal periods. A Special Event Permit is allowed for a single event. A subsequent permit may not be approved if negative impacts are ecturring and not being addressed. Issue: California native plants should be used for the new landscaping. Response: A landscape and irrigation plan is required for the parking lot improvements. The plans are required to comply with the landscape standards of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108. The Streetscape and Median Development Standards require be Arbutus marina (Strawberry tree) and Pyrus calleryana (Ornamental Pear) trees to be planted along Bay Street and Orange Avenue, respectively. Agonis flexuousa (Peppermint tree) trees are recommended as shade trees for the parking lot. Other Public Comments: Eleven public correspondences (four in favor and seven opposed) have been received to date. Staff has also received a verbal complaint from a neighbor concerned with the expansion of the parking lot along Bay Street and potential light / glare from the parked cars along that frontage. The applicant has agreed to installation of a low wall or hedge along that frontage to mitigate any light and glare that may be impacting the neighbors. A response letter from Reverend Paul is also attached. Attachments: Applicant's Response Letter Correspondence received to date 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) St. John the Divine Episcopal Church Attn: Rev. Philip DeVaul, Rector 183 E. Bay Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Bishop the Episcopal Church of Los Angeles Cathedral Center of St. Paul 840 Echo Park Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90026 Yenny Ng Designs, Inc. Architects Attn: Ada Rose 1524 Brookhollow Drive, Ste. 6 Santa Ana, CA 92705 u�'�3�Acrf, '-�,7%.x '�G,•.,•-1 f`�=.I�', �''Ls��.t/ "�J✓J !. 183 E. Bay Street Costa Mesa Ca. 92627 949-548-2237 rector@stjohncm.org June 5, 2015 Antonio Gardea Minoo Ashabi City of Costa Mesa Planning Department Re.: Farmers Market CUP application for 183 E Bay Street Dear Antonio: Several questions and concerns were raised by our neighbors surrounding St. Johns at the Town hall meeting held Monday night. During the discussion of our proposals for the Farmers Market and parking expansion plans, it became clear there are concerns over the scope and execution of both. We would like to respond to those concerns as follows: • Issue: The farmers market is a commercial venture that will add trips on Saturday mornings and increase traffic congestion on Orange Avenue, which already receives overflow traffic from the 55 Freeway. A traffic study should be conducted. Fair comment. The Market, however, has been limited to 15 vendor booths, so a small scale operation.. We envision this as a word of mouth, neighborhood market that primarily draws foot and bike traffic from the surrounding area. Of course there will be cars. It would be unrealistic to say otherwise. We will contract with our Civil Engineer, Coast Engineering, for the Traffic Study. • Issue: Orange Avenue is heavily traveled and this stretch has more speeding violations than other sections of the street. There is too much cut through traffic on Bay St and Orange Avenue. The intersection needs a stop sign and a crosswalk should be painted to cross Orange Avenue. This is the current condition without added activity. We are willing to have this added to our Conditions of Approval. Construction of ADA curb ramps, signage, and striping per city standard. • Issue: There is insufficient street parking on Bay Street. No parking should be allowed off site. We addressed this issue originally to answer concerns voiced by planning staff as we developed the Site Plan and parking lot improvements. This was also discussed openly with residents at our Monday Town Hall meeting. The scope of the Market activity is bound by our ability to accommodate vendor and customer traffic onsite. As part of our submittal we have also provided a plan for managing traffic utilizing signage and attendants to insure compliance. North side of Bay, 200 ft. either side of our drive to be posted "No Market Parking" and monitored by parking attendant. Attendants placed at entry and exit points that will coordinate with attendant roving parking area to facilitate flow and compliance. r • Issue: The retirement facility generates a large number of emergency calls for service. Would the farmers market hamper responses and block Fire Dept. access to St. John's Manor? We spoke briefly with David Hollister, Fire Protection analyst for the City of Costa Mesa after this concern was raised. We have scheduled a plan review meeting with him on Tuesday June 4, 2015 to review our plans to ensure access compliance. Comments from this meeting will be incorporated into the plans. My experience is that this would have been a typical component of our plan check process as well. • Issue: Vendors would set up early in the morning prior to the 9:00 a.m. start time. The neighborhood is quiet on Saturday mornings and people don't want to be disturbed. Based on these concerns, the Market will set up at 9am and open at 1 Oam. This would be more consistent with other noise abatement measures and start times. For example, those required for residential Construction. • Issue: The farmers market will generate trash and the produce will bring mice and roaches Why would we leave, or allow to be left, vermin attracting debris? This facility is our home as well. We worship here. We encourage community here. We are a part of this community and have a vested interest in promoting and caring for it. We will ensure proper clean up and disposal of trash. • Issue: The area is residential, not commercially zoned. Allowing the farmers market at the Church sets a precedent to allow other commercial uses within residential areas. Other churches could have ongoing rummage sales. The farmers market will be having a garage sale every Saturday morning. The Church is compensated for having recovery meetings which is a business in the residential area. The area already has commercial enterprise compatible with the nature of the neighborhood. The Preschool located on Orange Ave is a good example. The small scale of the market and emphasis on local farmers and artisans is compatible with that. This is not a swap meet. This is not a flea market. It is intended as a community gathering place. It is a resource. The expectation is that any other proposed activity by others would be subject to the same review and permit process that we are engaged in. Hosting recovery groups as a business model? The use of our facility by recovery groups is not a business, again it is a service, and the donations to the church from the recovery groups account for less than 5% of our church's annual expected income. It is the same for any community center, park, or other church facilities. Compensation for use of facility is normal and expected. 6q- Issue: The farmers market would compete with Growers Ranch and other retailers in the area. Can a special event permit be issued to try it out first Let's address these separately: 1) We see a grocery store and a Farmer's Market as services with different goals. While both provide produce, grocery stores are open daily and exist primarily to accommodate people running errands and shopping. A Farmer's Market is meant as a way to build community through gathering, meeting farmers & artisans face to face, and interacting with neighbors. Aside from this, if people decide that they would rather go to Grower's Direct or Mother's, and that they are not interested in our Market, then we won't succeed, and that will be that. 2) Our concern with a special event permit is twofold. In the first place, markets take time to build a customer base and develop relationships and a reputation. And we will have a trial and error process, tweaking things, working with vendors and neighbors, making sure we are creating a positive experience. Trying it out as a special event will not prove that it's viable or workable in the long run. Secondly, if we were to try to prove that it was workable and viable through a special event permit, we'd have to advertise it as just that: A special event. But this would create an atmosphere that would not reflect the regular reality of the market. We are seeking to create something that will'be a low-key, long-term part of the rhythm of living on the East Side. We aren't trying to create events — we are trying to contribute to overall culture of this developing neighborhood. • Issue: Expanding the parking lot creates more impermeable surface area. The intersection floods. Where is the additional runoff going? The storm drain system is inadequate. Coast Engineering has completed our grading and parking construction plans. Our intent was to submit these for plan check after the Market CUP decision is made. I have attached the plan sheet showing drainage devices and detail. The plan as it stands now calls for the construction of a Stormceptor system that will retain run off onsite. • Issue: California native plants should be used for the new landscaping This is our desire as well. We are reviewing bids for Landscape Design from several local firms and will be contracting this design work within the next two weeks. Drought tolerance, sustainability and use of native plant materials will be key components of the design. -lo-- ATTACHMENT 5 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MINUTE EXCERPTS FROM THE JUNE 8, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING APPEAL OF AN OUTDOOR FARMERS MARKET AT 183 E. BAY STREET (ST. JOHN THE DIVINE CHURCH) (Public Hearing No. 4— PA-14-41) 4. Application No.: PA-14-41 Applicant: Father Philip DeVaul Site Address: 183 East Bay Street Zone: PDR-HD Project Planner: Antonio Gardea Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines — Class 1 (existing facilities). Description: Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor Farmers Market at St. John the Divine Episcopal Church. The existing front lawn area (approximately 17,000 square feet) will be converted into a paved parking lot area to accommodate the Farmers Market. An overall total of 34 new parking spaces will be created. The Farmers Market will feature approximately fifteen vendor stalls, and the hours of operation are proposed from 9:OOAM to 3:OOPM on Saturdays (weekly). A new landscape plan is also being proposed. Commissioner Sesler recused himself based on the fact that St. John the Divine Episcopal Church is his home church. Antonio Gardea, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Dickson asked for clarification of what the PDR-HD zone allows. Commissioner Andranian asked if the conditional use permit were granted tonight would it run with the land and transfer to the next applicant. Mr. Gardea responded yes. PUBLIC COMMENTS Father Phillip DeVaul, applicant, gave a presentation outlining the reasons for the farmers market, why he felt it would succeed on the East side and how it relates to the mission and objectives of St. John the Devine Church. Vice Chair Mathews asked when the farmers market would start operation, if approved. Father Phillip responded by the beginning of September. Chair Dickson asked why they did not go through the special event route. Father Phillip responded that it would be less intense making it a weekly occurrence not a weekly event. Dr. Jim Gatewood, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in favor of the application. Jerika Hayes, Costa Mesa resident, stated the benefits of having the farmers market. Roger Jacobs, Costa Mesa resident, stated one reason to have the farmers market is that it will help the community have better food. Betsy Densmore, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in favor of the farmers market because it will give an opportunity to buy local, eat local, create a town common, and help non -profits to generate earned income. Mike Lingle, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in favor of the application. Cory Linman, Costa Mesa resident, stated that Costa Mesa is desirable location and that they are in fan of keeping the resources and the money local. Jane Hyde, Costa Mesa resident, supports the requests of the application. Dede McCorey, Costa Mesa resident, spoke against the farmers market. A Costa Mesa resident spoke against the farmers market. Janine Maganagel, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in favor of the farmers market. A Costa Mesa resident spoke in favor of the application. Taylor Dunn, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in favor of the farmers market. Nina Marshall, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in favor of the farmers market. Cindy Foley, Costa Mesa resident, stated favor with the quiet enjoyment being disturbed and traffic. Jeanie Murphy, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in favor of the farmers market. Marilyn Ashwell, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in opposition of the application. Barbie Gareaw Costa Mesa resident, spoke in favor of the farmers market. Tim Marshall, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in favor of the application. Patricia Chung, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in favor of the farmers market. Brian Summerfield, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in favor of the farmers market. Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with setting a precedence with approving this application, the conditional use permit running with the land once approved, and the parking. A Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with the traffic, there being no bike path and the impact on the neighbors and the business of Grower's Ranch. Beth Refakes, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with selling liquor around the area where there are lot of sober living homes, directing the traffic, conducting a commercial enterprise in a residential neighborhood, having the farmers market at the same time as the daycare center, processing sales tax will be handled, and the traffic that will happen when adding the three-way stop. A Costa Mesa resident stated concerns with the traffic, the character being maintained in the neighborhood, and the parking. A Costa Mesa resident stated concerns with the impact it would have on the surrounding neighborhoods. Anastasia Winley, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in favor of the farmers market. Cindy Black, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with a commercial use bringing more negative impacts to the residents than benefits. Brian Winley, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in favor of the farmers market. Martin Ward, project manager, talked about the project and addressed public concerns. Father Phillip responded to public comments and asked for the provision of the possibility of alcoholic beverages be deleted from the application and add that there will be no marijuana sold if it becomes legal. Commissioners discussed the conditions of approval, public concerns and the project. MOTION: Based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A and subject to revised conditions contained in Exhibit B as follows: Add Condition of Approval No. 5 to read: "The applicant shall install a low wall or hedge along Bay Street frontage to minimize light and glare to neighboring properties." Revised Condition of Approval „No. 9 to read: "Hours of operation shall be during a window between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Commencement of market operations including but not limited to vendor set up, shall begin no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and take -down shall end no later than 3:00 p.m." Revised Condition of Approval No. 15 to read: "The vendors shall be dedicated to the sale of farm products such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, herbs, eggs, honey, livestock food products (meat, milk, cheese, etc.), or flowers and value added farm products such as baked goods, jams, and jellies. Sale of alcoholic beverages and non-food related items (unless otherwise previously specified) shall be prohibited." Revised Condition of Approval No. 21 to read: "The applicant shall provide attendants to direct customers to the parking lot to ensure that street parking is minimized and shall post temporary signs to discourage customers from parking along the north side of Bay Street." Strike Condition of Approval No. 24 and add condition that was outlined in the supplemental memo to read: "The application shall install bicycle racks prior to the opening of the farmers market for full operations." Revised Condition of Approval No. 26 to read: "The applicant shall not commence operations of the farmers market until the Transportation Division completes a study to determine if an all -way stop and addition of a new crosswalk across Orange Avenue are warranted." Revised Condition of Approval No. 28 to read: "The applicant shall submit an emergency access plan approved by the Fire Chief to ensure that direct access for emergency fire response/paramedic vehicles to St. John's Manor remains unrestricted at all times." Revised Condition of Approval No. 29 to read: "The City grants this conditional use permit for a period of two (2) years from effective date of the approval, June 15, 2015 to June 15, 2017. On June 15, 2017, the approvals set forth herein shall have no further force or effect nor shall it require additional notice and/or hearing to terminate. Any operation beyond this period shall require a new application for conditional use permit." That the Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application PA-14-41. Moved by Chair Dickson, seconded by Vice Chair Mathews. RESOLUTION 15-37 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-41 FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A FARMERS MARKET AT 183 E. BAY STREET (ST. JOHN THE DIVINE EPISCOPAL CHURCH) The motion carried by the following roll call vote Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy Noes: Andranian Absent: None Abstained: Sesler The Chair explained the appeal process. -- 7A - ATTACHMENT 6 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATE: PROJECT NO: SITE ADDRESS: NOTICE OF DECISION PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION June 9, 2015 PA-14-41 183 East Bay Street FINAL ACTION: At a noticed public hearing on June 8, 2015 the Planning Commission approved this application, subject to conditions, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution PC-15-37. The final resolution is attached. APPEAL PERIOD: This decision will become final unless appealed by 5 p.m., 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: Antonio Gardea, Senior Planner, (714) 754-5692 antonio.gardea@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: St. John the Divine Episcopal Church Attn: Father Philip DeVaul, Rector 183 E. Bay Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 --75- 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 Bishop the Episcopal Church of Los Angeles Cathedral Center of St. Paul 840 Echo Park Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90026 Yenny Ng Designs, Inc. Architects Attn: Ada Rose 1524 Brookhollow Drive, Ste. 6 Santa Ana, CA 92705 --7(o: RESOLUTION NO. PC-15-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-41 FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A FARMERS MARKET AT 183 E. BAY STREET (ST. JOHN THE DIVINE EPISCOPAL CHURCH) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by The Reverend Paul DeVaul, Rector, representing the Bishop the Episcopal Church of Los Angeles for the Saint John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 E. Bay Street, requesting approval of the following: A Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a farmers market at an existing church (St. John the Divine Episcopal Church) from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday mornings. The parking lot area would be reconfigured and enlarged into the front lawn area, which is approximately 17,000 square feet, to add 34 more parking spaces. On farmers market days, 15 vendor stalls would be located in the new parking area. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2015, with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project; WHEREAS, there is an increased interest and demand for access to locally grown and raised, affordable foods from local sources; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit B, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES Planning Application PA-14-41, with respect to the properties described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon the activity as described in the staff report for PA-14-41 and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions contained in Exhibit B as well as with compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Any approval granted by this resolution shall be subject to review, modification or revocation if there is a material change that occurs in the operation, or if the applicant fails to comply with any of the conditions of approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this resolution, or the 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 8t" day of June, 2015. f Robert L. Dickso 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. 15-37 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 NOES: Andranian ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RECUSED: Sesler Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission _ q_ PA-14-41 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) with regard to the conditional use permit because: Required Finding: The proposed development or use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area and would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the area. Facts in Support of Finding: The site is located in a residential area characterized by variety of single-family and multiple -family residential uses. Complementary uses are permitted in the PRD-HD zone provided that adequate parking exists to support the use and there are no land use incompatibility issues. The proposed farmers market is a use that can operate in harmony with the existing Church during their non -operating hours on Saturdays and is compatible with the surrounding residential uses. The location of the farmers market would be along a visible collector street with ample parking but also readily accessible via alternate modes of transportation, including walking, biking and a transit line. The farmers market provides a venue for exchange of goods while educating the public about the benefits of locally sourced products. Required Finding: Granting the 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 Finding: The farmers market would take place on Saturdays when no other church activities are being held. Since the farmers market would take place during regular daytime hours, no additional lighting would be necessary. As conditioned, no amplified or live music is permitted and thereby the use would not generate unusually or loud noise in the neighborhood. The new trash bin would be located within close proximity to the vendor area and would be accessible for efficient trash disposal. Church restroom facilities would be available for vendors and patrons. Based on a parking ratio of two parking spaces per vendor booth, 30 parking spaces are required. A minimum of 46 on -site customer parking spaces and 30 vendor parking space would be provided. Adequate parking attendants will direct traffic and a manager would be present to prevent spill over parking onto the adjacent streets and attendants would direct and guide patrons onto the site. Required Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation and any applicable specific plan for the property. Facts in Support of Finding: Although the property is designated as High Density Residential in the Land Use Element, nonresidential uses are allowed in the Planned Development Residential — High Density zone, subject to the maximum for Floor Area Ratio of the Neighborhood Commercial General Plan land use designation. Since the primary use of the site is a church and no additional facilities PA-14-41 are proposed at this time, the existing total building area remains unchanged. The Planned Development Residential High Density designation of the site encourages the incorporation of complementary uses that are supportive of and in harmony with the allowed residential uses. The Farmers market conducted within the Church parking lot would be an amenity for the nearby resident and senior citizens living in the abutting residential complex. With the recommended conditions of approval, the farmers market will be consistent with surrounding residential uses and provides an ancillary use for the expanded 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, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15301 for Existing Facilities. C. The project is exempt from Chapter XI I, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. PA-14-41 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. The use shall be limited to the type of operation described in the staff report, subject to conditions. Any change in the operational characteristics including, but not limited to, type of service provided, hours of operation, number of patrons, size of the restaurant/event venue, and lease terms for off -site parking, shall be subject to Planning Division review 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 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)]. 2. 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. 3. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance 4. A minimum of 14 trees shall be provided on site, half of which shall be 24- inch box Agonis flexuosa trees. 5. The applicant shall install a low wall or hedge along Bay Street frontage to minimize light and glare to neighboring properties. 6. Farmers Market hours shall not coincide with any other operations of the church property for assembly use, classrooms, dance halls, or other events so that the available parking shall be strictly provided to the Farmer's Market. 7. A minimum of two parking spaces per booth shall be provided; one parking space per vendor and one space for customers. 8. If parking shortages or other parking -related problems arise on- or off -site, the applicant or operator shall institute whatever operational measures are necessary to minimize or eliminate the problem, including, but not limited to, revision of operating hours, reduction of the vendor area, under the direction of the Planning Division. 9. Hours of operation shall be during a window between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Commencement of market operations including but not limited to vendor set up, shall begin no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and take -down shall end no later than 3:00 p.m. 10. Motor vehicles shall not be allowed to idle in the parking lot during set up or breakdown of the farmers market. 11. Amplified sound and/or use of outdoor speakers shall be prohibited during operations of the farmers market. 12. A Farmers Market Manager shall be present during all hours of operation who shall direct the operations of all vendors participating in the market and verify that the requisite number of individual booth are operated by local, independent and small-scale farmers and artisans. 13. The Farmers Market manager shall obtain and have on site all operating and health permits during the hours of operation. PA-14-41 14, The name and contact information of each vendor shall be prominently displayed at their booth. 15. The vendors shall be dedicated to the sale of farm products such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, herbs, eggs, honey, livestock food products (meat, milk, cheese, etc.), or flowers and value added farm products such as baked goods, jams, and jellies. Sale of alcoholic beverages and non-food related items (unless otherwise previously specified) shall be prohibited. 16. Access to adequate sanitary facilities, including restrooms, shall be provided. 17. A minimum of 42 percent of the total lot area (both the Church and St. John Manor parcels) shall be provided as required open space, per the development standards of the PRD-HD zone. 18. The applicant shall maintain free of litter all areas of the premises under which applicant has control The farmers market manager shall provide containers for recycling, composting and waste removal in accordance with all applicable codes. Refuse not contained within the trash enclosure shall be removed from the property at the close of the farmers market. 19. The conditions of approval and Code requirements of Planning Application PA-14-41 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package. 20. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The business owner shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 21. The applicant shall provide attendants to direct customers to the parking lot to ensure that street parking is minimized and shall post temporary signs to discourage customers from parking along the north side of Bay Street. 22. A maximum of six portable signs may be posted during farmers market time periods on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. All portable signs shall be removed at the close of the day of the Farmers Market. 23. A -frame signs shall be located on private property and not within the City's parkway or public right-of-way. 24. The application shall install bicycle racks prior to the opening of the farmers market for full operations. 25. Applicant/operator shall promote the use of eco-friendly / reusable bags as opposed to plastic bags to the extent possible. For example, natural fiber bags may be offered for sale at the Farmer's Market to promote their use and minimize the need for plastic bags. 26, The applicant shall not commence operations of the farmers market until the Transportation Division completes a study to determine if an all -way stop and addition of a new crosswalk across Orange Avenue are warranted. 27. Within 60 days of commencement of the farmers market, or full operation of eight market events, whichever comes first, the applicant shall provide a letter report to the City indicating how resident concerns (as applicable), including but not limited to the residents of the St. John's Manor senior housing complex, were resolved and how parking issues were managed to the Development Services Director for review and approval. 28. The applicant shall submit an emergency access plan approved by the Fire Chief to ensure that direct access for emergency fire response/paramedic vehicles to St. John's Manor remains unrestricted at all times. - g3_ PA-14-41 29. The City grants this conditional use permit for a period of two (2) years from effective date of the approval, June 15, 2015 to June 15, 2017. On June 15, 2017, the approvals set forth herein shall have no further force or effect nor shall it require additional notice and/or hearing to terminate. Any operation beyond this period shall require a new application for conditional use permit. �� PA-14-41 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. Approval of the planning 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 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 planning application. 2. Once the use is legally established, the planning application herein approved shall be valid until revoked. The Development Services Director or his/her designee may refer the planning 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. 3. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. 4. Street addresses shall be displayed on the freestanding sign or, if there is no freestanding sign, on the fascia or store front adjacent to the main entrance of the building, in a manner visible to the public street. Numerals shall be a minimum 12" in height with not less than W stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 5. A business license shall be obtained prior to the initiation of the business approved under this application. 6. 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. 7. 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. Parks 8. Street trees in the front setback shall meet with the approval of the parks and Pkwys. parkways division. Street trees shall be Arbutus 'Marina', 15-gallon minimum size, spaced at 30' on center along East Bay Street and Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer' 15-gallon minimum size, spaced at 30' on center along Orange Avenue. PA-14-41 Bldg. 9. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Electrical Code, 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. Provide a plan to the County of Orange Health Dept. for review and approval. WQMP 11. Prior to or concurrent with submittal of plans for grading/building plan check/submittal of the final subdivision map for engineering plan check, applicant shall prepare and submit documentation for compliance with the state Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water quality Order 99-08- DWQ; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS000002 for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit); the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2002-0010 and NPDES Permit No. CAS618030; and the City of Costa mesa Ordinance No. 97-20 for compliance with NPDES Permit for the City of Costa mesa. Such documentation shall include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan if over 1 acre and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying and detailing the implementation of the applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs). SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: AQMD 1. 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. CDFA 2. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Call CDFA at (714) 708-1910 for information. ATTACHMENT 7 Public Correspondence (Under Separate Cover) z ATTACHMENT 7 July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: CITY CLERK 15 JUL 22 PH 3: 19 CITY CSC COS [A ME' SA I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August Owhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: OW C{TY 'REEKK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 22 PN 3 19 Costa Mesa City Council CITY OF COSTA MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4t''when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely. i � y Name: Address: Telephone: Email: CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 22 PH 3 17 Costa Mesa City Council Cl T Y G F INS [A MLESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger BY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4tt'when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: r 3 Telephone: Email: CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 22 PH 3: 17 Costa Mesa City Council C3 T y OF COSTA MESA do Mayor Stephen Mensinger LI City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August Owhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. i Sincerely, Name: Address: �( ::1 Telephone: Email: CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 22 PH 3, 19 Costa Mesa City Council ��1, €.0 '; s trt .E. c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, l0F" Address: Telephone: Email: I Z im t, ' . I! V E.... CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 22 Pad 3: 19 Costa Mesa City Council Li FY Of LOS i A MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger� - — City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4thwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: K-1 /�V I � Telephone: Email: CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 22 PH 3: 19 Costa Mesa City Council E T Y 0 F L0SFA IIMESri c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger BY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4t''when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Lttl At, Address: _ Telephone: Email: i" l lam. 1L"' f ,r 1 V E! l CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 22 PH 3� 19 Costa Mesa City Council CITY OF COSTA M A c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger Qy _ __ City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4thwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name:�4 Address: f, _ J Telephone: Email: CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 22 PH 3 19 Costa Mesa City Council Lf i ; LUZ)F F03 I MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger BY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4thwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: Email: CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 22 PH 3: 19 rITI• Costa Mesa City Council t LUJ ill MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger BY City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4thwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: 0A3'� bzstJ Address:_ Telephone: Email: CITY CLERK' July 18, 2015 15 AL 22 pH 3 (g Costa Mesa City Council ��T �' U,t� A c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4`''when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: e Address: Telephone: Email: CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 J1 22 PH 3t 19 Costa Mesa City Council CITY O COS rA MESA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger - — City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA.92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4'when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, t Name: /'fin d /At's Address: Telephone: Email: ECENEU CITY CLERK JUL 21115 Am 8:44 July 18, 2015 15 JUL 24 M 9. 16 Costa Mesa City Council "I� c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger BY "►v t City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers. Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: 6 r; ry-) Q r� y Address:C c9,5 (a_ c, C R -?, 7 Telephone: , i - v • "I - Email: REGEIVEU CITY CLERIC July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: JUL 21'15 Um I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: ILL -LA Address: Telephone: Email: CITY CLERK JUL 21115 -Hm 8:43 July 18, 2015 15 JUL 24 M 9: 17 Costa Mesa City Council OF COS FA NSA c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger 6Y� ' City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August Owhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, � r Name: -r✓`�1 Cr42� Address: JI L� of Telephone: ! , t= , /rrv- . r — w Email: REC"Ei i Eb JUL 21 515 Am 8:43 'CATY CLERK July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council CITY i st c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa e 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August Owhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address:) Telephone: Email: RECEIVED JUL 2 V15 Am 8: 42 CITY CLERK: July 18, 2015 I`5 JUL 24 IN 9 17 Costa Mesa City Council, c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger, City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA.92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4'when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: P� Address: CSC 6� Telephone: Email: CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 24 M 9: 17 Costa Mesa City Council CITY n c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger B mm City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa M-esa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4thwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: 0 in tom- R OL J l V Address: GA � On I a7 Telephone: _ Email: I `� • /'1, July 18, 2015 s JUL 2E4 AN9, 16 Costa Mesa City Council CITY OF P . c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Der, Address: Telephone: Email: RECEIVIr:0 CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 I5 A 24 M S. t S Costa Mesa City Council CITY G # CD-T i 1I '43- c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger By City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4tf'when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: Email: - . - I . -1 1 1 r-- I I It ff f, , I- . I V F An I ] L / • T v - l..- v July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: CITY CLERK I5 JUL 24 M 9 16 CIIiY OF C SfA MESA 8Y.��.� J L 21'15 ism Q8:44 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4thwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: �-S Z I Telephone: Email: July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: CITY CLERK 15 JUL 2,3 PH 3: 24 'IT BY Y I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August Owhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: �HA%Z, RdaegT 73oyn Sou 1 Address: ' — 1 (205T A M Sri 9 Z4aL Telephone: _ _ Email: July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4thwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: Email: O_ns-ki MRSQ qZ&L� 1 -i EC>�� NEU CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 23 PH 3; 29 Costa Mesa City Council Cj } Y OF L° a E A c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger B`� City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August Owhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: Email: a C j`-U¢ to, . CA 126 2� July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: CITE' CLERK CITY OF ' MESA �,.Ail_ze 1 am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 41hwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Dt 6Acc 7 t� Address: _ DUoa 7 Z�1Z� Telephone: Email: (25 u 11)/74— REGEivE CITY CLEWK July 18, 2015 1`5 JUL 23 PH 3 28 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger CITY OF COSTA City of Costa Mesa,.. 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21%0 of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4thwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, ClY Name: L� /Z �2 (_/ c !1'Lt f L-D Is J��Jij / i Address: Telephone: Email: -- � EECEt4VsrEb CITY CLE 15 JUL1 18 il5�7 C,ct ity Council ensiner C 1 i y � �� � � B c r*'' g i y at o a Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 41hwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name:}'�di IhiSyC�' f Address: ---- wµ - _f Telephone: - Email: _ _ July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: CITY CLERK �s A 23 pM 3: 26 y I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August Owhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: t, LO K0 104 ��)5 dot Address: Telephone: Email: COS _HL Ne-s�U, Lid v 1 U '-'C - I - t { i - July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: � I `tf L L CITY CLERK 15 JUL 23 Pt 3 25 YU 0 COS [A ME A I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: "ll �-�., be,ovt,L��e, 44 _ r Telephone: k t- � L — W Email: �,��,� Lwv w July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4thwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: f, dry Address: t�3 Telephone:" Email: 0 X: July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair. Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: H CITY CLERK 15 JUL 24 PR 12: 36 I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St_. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: — — — Email: >Af r_ v CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 5 JUL 24 PH i2: 36 Costa Mesa City Council do Mayor Stephen Mensinger CITY OF COSTA Mr A City of Costa Mesa BY 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 41hwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: 1 L" Address: Telephone: Email: RECtEAVEl CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 24 PH 12, 37 Costa Mesa City Council L I V_ �U � 1 A M! ?5 A c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA.92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4"'when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: Telephone: l� Email: July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: CITY CLERK 15 JUL 24 HA 12. 37 C1T By I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, < . Name: Address: _ OA Telephone: Email: { D CITY CLERK July 18, 2015 15 JUL 24 PH 12' 37 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensin er BY Y p g City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4thwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Uv �es \�6 Address: Telephone: Email: July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4thwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Sd Address: Cj Telephone: Email: v JUL 27 `1 AM J:11 July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August Owhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: 3,y t> P, A Xtc, /* r Address: �1� ./��%©✓�'9 ez9 ,e �a /4� �cc , {` ' /� 9 7 Telephone: Email: July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council JUL2.7 `15 H49 c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4tt'when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: J- X Address: eo_S� ih-esc- Telephone: Email: ULT 15"M9_1-1 July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's. decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: f� i re 'et �� I a2 7 Telephone: Email: JUL2-7'15 eta 9; 11 July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council do Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 9262.7 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21 % of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August Owhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: R Address: i SPa )�jlb P� r Telephone: L_o1)'_�_11 �L.? Email: JUL 27'15 RM 9:11 July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4t"when this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, P - Name: ""� Address: Telephone: Email: -jUL T15 iP,M 9'- I1 July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August 4Ihwhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: i Address: Telephone: Email: Cc h v�cc�S July 18, 2015 Costa Mesa City Council c/o Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed Eastside Farmer's Market to be held each Saturday on the campus of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Farmer's markets benefit local communities by bringing healthy, high quality, and locally sourced fruits and vegetables from farm to table. Money spent at the Eastside Farmers Market will go directly to farmers, men and women who are important members of our local community. From 1992 to 2007, nearly 21% of mid -sized farms were forced to cease operations; farmers markets provide the men and women who grow our food with additional opportunities for financial stability and economic opportunity. Farmers markets are about community: they are gathering places where men, women and children of all ages can share information, exchange ideas, nurture friendships, and learn about healthy foods. We value the contributions that the Eastside Farmer's Market will make to our community and encourage you to support the Planning Commission's decision to grant St. John the Divine a conditional use permit for the operation of a farmer's market on its property. Please vote yes on August Owhen this agenda item is addressed by the Costa Mesa City Council at your monthly meeting. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Name: Address: cc�tZx- Oes a . Telephone: Email: .v S C WZr- b 0 97 C)L) 1 ` a fit • � C) VL P.O. BOX 1200 . 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 • (714) 754-5245 City of Costa Mesa TELEPHONE RECORD Date: July 27, 2015 Name: S. Legere Address: 183 E. Bay Street (St. John the Divine Church) Call Received by: Antonio Gardea, Senior Planner COMMENTS: Property owner at 2048 Orange Avenue, located across the street from the proposed farmers market, called with concerns regarding land use compatibility, traffic, and parking. Specific issues raised included the following: - Commercial uses are not appropriate in residential areas. The farmers market would be like an on -going yard sale every weekend and would be disruptive to the surrounding neighbors. Why would staff support this type of use in a residential area? - The people attending the recovery meetings at the Church loiter in the area after their meetings. - Weekend traffic along Bay Street and Orange Avenue impacts residents. The farmers market would make the impact worse. Safely entering and exiting the driveway to and from Orange Avenue is difficult. - There is insufficient parking for the existing residential uses in the neighborhood. The parking lot for the farmers market would be filled quickly and spillover parking would occur. COLGAN, JULIE Subject: FW: Proposed Eastside Farmer's Market and Town Hall Meeting at St John's Church 183 E. Bay on Monday June 1, 2015 From: surfotog [: I Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 6:31 PM To: Mayor; RIGHEIMER, JIM; MONAHAN, GARY; FOLEY, KATRINA; GENIS, SANDRA Subject: Proposed Eastside Farmer's Market and Town Hall Meeting at St John's Church !83 E. Bay on Monday June 1, 2015 Dear Councilmen and Women, I just received a flyer at my residence of 2077 Orange Ave. regarding a proposal for an Eastside Farmer's Market at the Episcopal Church of Saint John the Divine located at 183 East Bay Street at its intersection with Orange Avenue. I do agree with their flyer's statement that St.John's "seeks to enhance the quality of life for our local community by bringing our neighborhood together together with the people who grow and make our food.... and supporting Costa Mesa based community development.... I also appreciate their work in providing a location for the elderly and their participation in providing space for substance abuse healing. I have a number of concerns to address: TRAFFIC 1) St. John's occupies the area at the Southwest corner of the intersection of Orange Ave and Bay Street. 2) Orange Ave is a busy secondary traffic arterial of the Eastside of Costa Mesa. The 173 OCTA bus line utilizes Orange Ave as a Route Monday through Friday. There is a bus stop, (both a plus and a minus for their proposed market), at the northeast corner of St John's property. 3) If you research Costa Mesa Police Records you will find that the area from the intersection of Orange Ave and 20th St, past Bay Street, to the intersection of Orange Ave. and 21 st, has more speeding violations issued than any other area along the entire length . of Orange Ave 4) Orange Ave is the first through street east of Newport Blvd and handles, I feel, more than its share of overflow traffic from Newport Blvd. Summer is only weeks away. Traffic during weekends increases greatly during the summer when the 55 becomes congested. This condition is especially exacerbated on Sundays when both St John's and St Jochim's are conducting Sunday services during the same time that the largest number of people are trying to get to the beach. 5) If St John's intends to utilize their parking lot as their marketplace, including sales stalls and parking for the vendors, there is not sufficient off street parking. Please remember that even now, today or any other day, there is not sufficient on street parking on Bay Street nor Orange Ave to support the additional traffic for a "community market place". 6) Regarding Orange Ave: Tuesday should not be a option day as that is trash collection day. Wednesday should not be an option day as that is street sweeping day. 7) When you check with the Costa Mesa Fire Department you will find that because of the nature of St John's manor, the fire department receives a large number of requests for assistance at the facility. This facility is part of the property proposed site to be utilized as a marketplace. Would this use encumber the CMFD's ability to respond to emergency requests? Could the City incur any liability for this? RETAIL NEED CONCERN 1) Costa Mesa also has a very good Farmer's Market at the fairgrounds every Thursday. This site is not far away. 2) Growers Ranch, a retail fresh produce seller that sells fresh, including organic produce, and some local products is LESS THAN 1000' AWAY FROM ST JOHNS (as the crow flies), next to Gary's business In conclusion I consider St John's idea to be good, but the location for any business, in an already overcrowded residentially zoned area, would be unfair to the surrounding residents. This just not the right location for this proposal. Looking forward to your assistance in the resolution of this proposal. Thank you, William Madigan May 30, 2015 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Costa Mesa Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Dear Sirs: We would like to express a very strong concern about the application #PA-14-41, a conditional use permit for an outdoor Farmer's Market that will occur on every Saturday on the corner of Orange and Bay Avenues. The plan presents itself as an opportunity for the Eastside neighborhood to have access to local products, but we sincerely believe that there is no reasonable need for a retail outdoor market in this specific location that outweighs the potential for a risky vehicle and pedestrian traffic problem in an already tight area. It is basically a plan to have a huge yard sale every single Saturday in an area that was not designed for it. 1. Orange and Bay is already a busy spot. It is in a neighborhood of homes with no stop lights and frequent walkers. On Saturdays, Orange Street is filled with churchgoers for various large ceremonies, bicyclists going down to the beach, and walkers to 19"' street and 17'h street businesses. if you have ever been in Corona del Mar on Saturday morning for their farmer's market off of PCH, it is clear how it is a burden to the surrounding neighborhood. Visitors come and go constantly, destroying the peace of what should be a Saturday in a beautiful neighborhood. 2. The Orange and Bay Avenues area was not designed for retail establishments. We as homeowners moved to the area expressly to be away from commercial areas and yet still a nice walking distance to desired stores. Our homes on Buoy Street, just one street over from Bay, were purchased expressly because of the lack of through traffic, and others parking in front of our homes. We already have vehicles parked on our street from people who do not live on our street, due to the rehabilitation homes on Bay and the apartment complexes on Bay, as well as the tightly spaced housing on Orange Avenue across from Buoy Street. 3. The people in the neighborhood already have several options, many more than almost all neighborhoods, for fresh local produce. The local businesses, specifically Grower's Ranch and Mother's Market, are walking distance within our neighborhood, and are open daily. These businesses are good neighbors and are located off of main roads so that traffic is not an issue for those who live around them. In addition, there is a fresh local produce, farmer's market style, available at the OC Fairgrounds three days a week. There is no need for more choices. Simply, this is not a good thing for the location. We have tried to accept the burden of others using our area as temporary visitors as good neighbors and citizens, but adding the traffic of vehicles and pedestrians to an area that is meant to be a family -friendly, safe place to raise our children in the name of providing produce and other products every single Saturday is too much. Please consider us as your neighbors, and what is already going on. Please do not add this burden to our little area. We appreciate the communication from the City of Costa Mesa and the opportunity to express our concern. Thank you very much. Pete and Marian Dickey v COLGAN, JULIE Subject: FW: PA-14-41 On May 31, 2015, at 4:14 PM, _ __ _ wrote: Mr. Dickson: I reside at 198 Buoy St, several houses away from the church at 183 E. Bay St and I am very much opposed to a farmer's market at this busy location. Over the years our neighborhood has suffered due to increased traffic and less parking, in part due to the abundance of sober living/parolee homes on that same block. Now this proposal will further negatively impact our neighborhood. I am listing my reasons for your consideration: • This area is 111/112, not commercial zoned. • Orange Ave is an already heavily traveled beach route as well as overflow from Newport Blvd and the 55. • St. John's Manor (at same location as proposed market) is retirement facility which generates a large number of the emergency service calls for fire and police. Would this hamper responses and/or incur city liability? • Police records indicate this stretch of Orange Ave has more speeding violations than any other part of Orange Ave without the added volume generated by a commercial venture • This is a major bus stop/route • Even now there is not sufficient street parking. This proposed increase in spaces cannot possibly accommodate vendors and customers • At the least, a traffic study should be conducted prior to any decision regarding this issue. • The only times this parking lot is full is when the church uses it for meetings such as recovery group meetings, which the church is being compensated with rental fees, i.e., business in residential area. • Vendors/trucks would be setting up early morning prior to the 9 am start date • Would you want the commotion and congestion every Saturday morning at your home? It will be like having a huge garage sale every weekend next door. Unacceptable. I have been hoping your placement on the Planning Commission might bring some sanity back to our city. I have personally been harassed and bullied by a prior member of your commission and am sick over the condition of our city. 1 implore you to let good judgment and good conscience be your guide and to oppose this proposal. Also, please ensure that Mr. Sesler recuses himself from this action as he is involved with this church and should not be involved. Thanks very much. Carrie Renfro - - ARMSTRONG, GARY From: Matt Christensen < > Sent: Monday, June 01, 201510:54 PM To: i; ARMSTRONG, GARY Subject: St. John's Episcopal Church: Proposed Farmer's Market at 1833 Bay Street (Please don't approve) Dear Costa Mesa Planning Commission, I am writing in OPPOSITION to the proposed farmer's market at 183 Bay Street, Costa Mesa, 92627. As a home owner of 197 Buoy Street, my house is located two parcels from the proposed market. My points of my opposition are the following: - Zoning: The current zoning is not for commercial enterprises. ,Within one block of this church there are already several property owners who operate businesses our their homes for the use of substance abuse rehabilitation. This is a neighborhood for me to raise my four month old daughter and the residents of this community are very close knit. A church site should be used to bring the community together but not a profit center. If the church would like to partner with a local property owner in a commercially zoned parcel, I would support these efforts 100%. -Existing Competition: Please take note that there is an existing local "farmer's market" located within two blocks of this church. Grower's Ranch, recently renovated on Newport Blvd., has been serving this community with fresh produce since the 1960's. It is located within a five minute walk from the church site. This is a well established business that pays property taxes, sales tax and provides the same healthy food at competitive prices. Costa Mesa must remain a pro -business environment and to expect a business with tax overhead to compete with a church who has no tax burden is simply unfair. If the argue for a farmer's market is to provide fresh, affordable and locally grown produce to our city, this service already exists and I would be appalled to allow the city to have the church cannibalize this business. If there were a commercial strip mall, a pious owner would never permit competing interests in the same center. -Traffic: The parking lot can accommodate a farmer's market but not the parking required to make it successful. This will require people to park on Buoy Street, Bay Street and Orange Ave. Currently Orange Avenue has one of the highest speeding ticket numbers on the east side of Costa Mesa. It has become a thoroughfare through a residential neighborhood. On a personal note, I just brought my entire garden/parkway up to drought tolerant standards and cannot stop the foot traffic and litter from infecting the time and money I have spent to be a real example of what the city's planners are hoping for. On a personal note, I purchase my house 18 months ago. I love the neighborhood and my neighbors. I have a beautiful new baby girl and I think the fabric of our neighborhoods need to stay in tact. I 100% support a Costa Mesa farmer's market, my hometown of Santa Monica has one of the best in the country. What makes it great is its accessibility, full community support and the fact that it is held in an area where no residences are affected. I would hope the planning commission drives down 17th Street and sees the potential to provide this service somewhere in this area. It would link Eastside Costa Mesa and Newport Heights including West Costa Mesa. Nobody knows Bay St & Orange Avenue and I believe the City should promote such a great service to the community in a more appropriate venue. Adamantly opposed, COLGAN, JULIE Subject: FW: St. John's Episcopal Church - Request for Saturday Farmer's Market 9-3PM Begin forwarded message: From: "Jana Darnell" <I t> Date: June 1, 2015 at 5:00:51 PM PDT To: < )m> Subject: St. John's Episcopal Church - Request for Saturday Farmer's Market 9-31PM Dear Sir, I am a resident in Costa Mesa and have lived in Newport/Costa Mesa for 30 years. I live one block from the church making a request to have a weekly farmers market. I am not able to attend the meeting on June 8, 2015, but wanted to provide you with my opinion concerning this change in our environment. am opposed to for the following reasons. • Intrusion and noise —We are coming into our peak summer season of congestion on Orange. Sierks Street will get the overflow of people parking. • Traffic — When Orange is backed up, people use Sierks Street as a pass through to get are around it and enter Santa Ana Street. This is a danger to residences, children, and animals. Cars drive too fast with little concern for the people. • Trash —Again, this will be part of the stream of people visiting the area. • Diminished Property Values — Based on the impact of the above issues. I have suggest to Paster DeVaul that he partner with Saddleback Church who just opened a location off Triangle Square and see if they would allow him to utilize their parking area. It is central to the neighbor (both East and Westside) and is freeway accessible. It is also in a more industrialize section of the city where such a venue belongs. I hope you will take this into consideration when making your decision to allow a permit to proceed. Thank you and kind regards, Jana M. Darnell Costa Mesa, CA 92627 COLGAN, JULIE From: Mike Lingle < _ Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:50 PM To: PLANNING COMMISSION Subject: PA-14-41 Farmer's Market at St. John the Divine Episcopal Church I'm writing in support of the proposed farmer's market at St. John the Divine Episcopal Church. I live near St. John the Divine (roughly 8/10 of a mile away). A weekly farmer's market within easy walking / biking distance will provide a place where we can meet neighbors, buy locally -grown organic produce and other products from local vendors, and know that we are supporting local non -profits that are working to make our City a better place. This can be a great benefit for our neighborhood - not only by fostering East Side Costa Mesa's sense of community, but also by adding to our neighborhood's charm and desirability for potential home buyers. I urge the Planning Commission to approve this application and grant a Conditional Use Permit. Michael Lingle Costa Mesa COLGAN, JULIE From: Andy Lingle <; Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:30 AM To: PLANNING COMMISSION Subject: PA-14-43 June 3, 2015 Dear Commissioners, I.'m writing this letter to express my enthusiastic support for the planned Eastside Farmer's Market at St. John's Episcopal Church. This wonderful and creative project will only add to the sustainability and charm of the Eastside, and will soon become a once -a -week neighborhood gathering place. People can walk or bike there for a cup of�coffee, a visit with their neighbors, and to shop for fresh locally grown produce. I will love that. There is an enormous added benefit. St. John's will donate all of the proceeds from this market to some of our most established and worthy local charities. I urge you to let this exciting win -win project go forward. Thank you and regards, Andrea Lingle ARMSTRONG, GARY From: cami scagliotti <i Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:17 PM To: _ ---- --- - — ,m; ARMSTRONG, GARY Subject: farmers market Dear Planning Commission, My husband and I are residents of 221 E 19th Street. I am writing to you today to express our support for the CUP to allow St. John's Episcopal Church to host a farmers market on Saturdays. We think this would be a great addition to our neighborhood and we hope that you approve their request without modification. Thank you, Cami Scagliotti ARMSTRONG, GARY From: Corey Gulbranson < > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 201510:08 AM To: ARMSTRONG, GARY Subject: CUP for Farmers Market at St John's Episcopal Church Dear Planning Commission, My wife and I are residents of 216 E 19th Street. I am writing to you today to express our support of the proposed CUP for a farmers market at St. John Episcopal Church. With such a small venue, the negative side effects on the surrounding community will be, at the worst, negligible. There will hardly be any increase in traffic or parking issues, because most residents (like myself) would walk or ride bikes to the small farmers market. Since it is so small, it is very unlikely to attract residents of other communities to drive there cars and increase the congestion in our neighborhood. As a licensed California real estate broker, I can assure you that surrounding property values will not suffer from this. Quite opposite, values will most likely increase because the majority of Eastside home buyers are now younger couples/families. These buyers tend to flock to walkable neighborhoods with amenities such as farmers markets. This is precisely the reason my wife and I bought our home in Eastside. If the church was asking to establish a commercial venture in their parking lot multiple days of the week with long hours, I would gladly tell you to vote against a CUP. However, this is not the case. It will hardly affect the surrounding neighborhood and the benefits greatly outweigh any negatives. Thank you for your consideration. Corey Gulbranson Shorecrest Real Estate, Inc. www.shorecrestmc.com CA BRE #01957238 CA CSLB #13993064 June 1, 2015 Costa Mesa Planning Commission PO Box 1200 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Application: Father Philip DeVaul Application Number: PA-14-41 Site Address:183 E. Bay Street To: Costa Mesa Planning Commission, We are writing concerning the permit request for Saint John's Episcopal Church to hold a flea market at their location. Please do not grant this permit for the following reasons. 1. TRAFFIC is already very heavy in this area (Orange Avenue) especially with summer it will be twice as bad. This would just add to the traffic problem. a. This area of Costa Mesa already has traffic issues with Newport Beach traffic cutting thru the residential homes to the Newport Freeway because 17th street and Newport Blvd. is jammed with traffic. Traffic on Orange Avenue is backed up continuously including, 19th, 20th, 21't, Bay Street and 22"d Street. b. Costa Mesa is adding lot of additional homes (where there was one home there is now maybe 5 —10 homes but no new streets). c. Traffic has doubled Monday thru Sunday at the Saint Joachim Catholic Church and School. The traffic from the church is continuously (that is why they had to add a pedestrian post in the middle of Orange Avenue and Walnut Street to stop traffic so pedestrians could cross the street). We do not need any more traffic in this area. 2. PARKING a. We already have parking issues with the Saint Joachim Catholic Church especially on the weekends. They do not have enough parking for their congregation. They park blocks from the Saint Joachim Catholic Church up and down Orange Avenue all the way to Bay Street, up and down 20th Street and Fullerton Avenue. Where would the people that are coming to the flea market park? There is no place for them to park. People are already parking on the corners of the block, and blocking driveways. Please do not add to our parking issues. 3. RESIDENTIAL AREA this is a residential area not a commercial area. Please have the Flea Market in a commercial area. The Orange County Swap or Orange Coast College Swap Meeting is close by and have opened spaces. We do not need a flea market in a residential area. Take the commercial business to the commercial area. Plus this area is not zoned for commercial, lens not opened that door. This is where we live; we do not need more strangers in the area. These are our homes where we the residences pay taxes (don't believe churches pay taxes) and where many have lived for many years. We do not need to trash the area with more traffic, parking, and who knows what type of strangers it will bring in. Pleases do not allow this permit to be passed. Sincerely,� oJ" n and Esther Clark/ Received City of Costa Mesa Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Development Services Department JUN 0 5 2015 ARMSTRONG, GARY From: susan contreras < Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:01 PM To: Y com; ARMSTRONG, GARY Subject: Proposed Farmers Market at St. John the Divine Episcopal Church Dear commissioners and staff of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission, My name is Susan Contreras and my family and I have lived on the East Side of Costa Mesa for 10 years. I am writing to you today in support of the proposed farmer's market at St. John the Divine Episcopal Church. I am excited for the possibility of walking to a local farmer's market on a Saturday morning and think this will be a wonderful addition to our neighborhood. I am a mother of two young children, and we live on the East Side of Costa Mesa because we love its energy and its sense of community — and I believe this farmer's market will contribute positively to both. My husband and I think this is a great place to raise our family. We are inspired by the idea of bringing our children to the market, of teaching them firsthand about healthy, sustainable foods, of getting to know our neighbors and neighborhood better. This is a conscientious market that seeks to bring people together, support local small businesses and farmers, and enable us to help the poorer members of our city. This is the kind of thing that makes me proud to live on the East Side of Costa Mesa. Please approve the CUP for this market. Thank you for your time, Susan Contreras ARMSTRONG, GARY From: Marlo <r Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 4:36 PM To: FLYNN, CLAIRE Subject: St. John the Devine church > Ladies and Gentlemen of the planning commission, > My over all concerns regarding the proposed St. John the Devine farmers market and parking lot increase in correlation with, the prevalent growth of slh/AA meetings hosted by the church are as follows: > Whether intended or not, St. John the Devine church has become a large hub for group home/AA meetings. In comparison, St. Joachim's has 5000 attendees, 3000 of which are registered parishioners and they offer 1 AA meeting/monthly for 35, St. Andrews, another substantial parish, has f AA meeting and 3 Alanon meetings/weekly and St. Mary's, with 2000-3000 parishioners offers 0 meetings. However, St. John. the Divine has 12 meetings/per week (that's 6 days a week), of heavily attended meetings scattered throughout the day from 6:30am to 8:30pm which generate increased traffic, smoking and loitering. > I understand Pastor Phil's hopes to increase the number of parishioners beyond the now 200 or 300 and increase the church masses beyond the scheduled 4/weekly. In the past 10 yrs there has not been enough interest to warrant a Saturday evening service. Yet, they do offer a Saturday 6pm AA meeting. I appreciate Pastor Phil's passion for a farmers market as I myself am fond of the occasional farmers market, but the above statistics are real and concerning. Our neighborhood is inundated with slh homes and all that is associated with them, high traffic volume, compromised street parking outside our homes and the increasing number of unsavory characters and their "friends" aimlessly roaming our surrounding streets. It seems fair to say with only 4/weekly church related services and 1 farmers market /weekly, one might deduce that the request for additional parking is to meet the potential growth needs of the predominate slh community. The pastor insists that he has no intensions too increase the actual number of AA meetings beyond the current weekly 12, but he will not clarify any restrictions as to the number of persons attending each of these 12 meetings. In summary, regardless of the weekly farmers market success or failure, essentially you are being asked to approve a larger parking lot potentially for increased AA attendants, which this neighborhood should not have to accommodate. > If and when an actual "parking lot" expansion occurs, please consider > the residents on Bay Street who will be directly impacted by these changes and unknowns: > * Reevaluate overall parking lot design to incorporate parking spaces aligned from east to west. According to the proposed design there will be 10 north facing parking spaces provided. This will mean car lights at all hours of the day/weekly, intruding on the residential homes on Bay Street. As for residents of 2040 Orange Ave, they would have the shield of their high fence. > * Increase the easement on Bay Street back more than the proposed 5 feet from the outlined sidewalk. > This being a hot topic for many living in the neighborhood, I appreciate your time and thought on all of the above issues and interests. > Best regards, GARDEA, ANTONIO From: Robert Dickson < n> r Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 4:53 PM To: Mitch Healy Cc: GARDEA, ANTONIO Subject: Re: Farmers Market Mr. Healy, Thank you for your comments, it is important that we hear from as many residents as possible. Thanks again, Rob Dickson Sent from my Phone > On Jun 7, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Mitch Healy <mitch.healy@earthiink.net> wrote: > I understand there is a commission meeting tomorrow and I am out of state. I also understand you are takin public comments regarding a farmer's market at Bay/Orange. > I wanted to inform you of my support of the farmers market and would have attended the meeting if I were home. > Thank you. > Mitch Healy > Costa Mesa, CA 92627 > Sent from my iPhone COLGAN, JULIE Subject: FW: St. John the Divine church lot expansion / farmers market -----Original Message ----- From: Marlo [mailto: Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 6:24 PM »» Ladies and Gentlemen: »» I oppose the farmers market/lot expansion. »» My over all concerns regarding the proposed St. John the Divine »» farmers market and parking lot increase in correlation with, the prevalent growth of slh/AA meetings hosted by the church are as follows: »» Whether intended or not, St. John the Divine church has become a »» large hub for group home/AA meetings. In comparison, St. Joachim's has 5000 attendees, 3000 of which are registered parishioners and they offer 1 AA meeting/monthly for 35, St. Andrews, another substantial parish, has 1 AA meeting and 3 Alanon meetings/weekly and St. Mary's, with 2000-3000 parishioners offers 0 meetings. However, St. John the Divine has 12 meetings/per week (that's 6 days a week), of heavily attended meetings scattered throughout the day from 6:30am to 8:30pm which generate increased traffic, smoking and loitering. »» I understand Pastor Phil's hopes to increase the number of »» parishioners beyond the now 200 or 300 and increase the church masses beyond the scheduled 4/weekly. In the past 10 yrs there has not been enough interest to warrant a Saturday evening service. Yet, they do offer a Saturday 6pm AA meeting. I appreciate Pastor Phil's passion for a farmers market as I myself am fond of the occasional farmers market, but the above statistics are real and concerning. Our neighborhood is inundated with slh homes and all that is associated with them, high traffic volume, compromised street parking outside our homes and the increasing number of unsavory characters and their "friends" aimlessly roaming our surrounding streets. It seems fair to say with only 4/weekly church related services and 1 farmers market /weekly, one might deduce that the request for additional parking is to meet the potential growth needs of the predominate slh community. The pastor insists that he has no intensions too increase the actual number of AA meetings beyond the current weekly 12, but he will not clarify any restrictions as to the number of persons attending each of these 12 meetings. In summary, regardless of the weekly farmers market succAss or failure, essentially you are being asked to approve a larger parking lot potentially for increased AA attendants, which this neighborhood should not have to accommodate. »» I have had the pleasure of meeting most of you at neighborhood gatherings regarding all of the many sober living homes surrounding our Bay Street. With all that comes with those homes, we have been forced to as they say, suck it up and have faith in the new ordinances. If and when an actual "parking lot" expansion must occurs, please consider the residents on Bay Street who will be directly impacted by these changes and unknowns. »» * Reevaluate overall parking lot design to incorporate parking »» spaces aligned from east to west. According to the proposed design there will be 10 north facing parking spaces provided. This will mean car lights at all hours of the day/weekly, intruding on the residential homes on Bay Street. As for residents of 2040 Orange Ave, they would have the shield of their high fence. »» * Increase the easement on Bay Street back more than the proposed 5 feet from the outlined sidewalk-. »» This being a hot topic for many living in the neighborhood, I appreciate your time and thought on all of the above issues and interests. »» Best regards, »» Marlo Steinhauser Costa Mesa, CA 92627 City of Costa Mesa Development Department — Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Agenda Item PA-141-41 (June 8, 2015 Meeting) Planning Commission: We am writing to express our support for the CUP to allow a FARMER'S MARKET that is being considered at St. John the Divine Church (183 E. Bay Street, Costa Mesa, CA). We live in the immediate neighborhood, about 1/3 of a mile away off Santa Ana Avenue. We believe this to be a great addition to our neighborhood to help provide a sense of community and fellowship. Few venues say "small town fellowship" like a farmers market where children and adults can interact with those that actually grow the food we consume. Please do not be swayed by the vocal group of dissidents who not only oppose this, but anything that resembles progress. We live in a dynamic, growing community and many wish to put their head in the sand and ignore the positive benefits of growth and change. Please approve their request. Thank you, John R. Drake, Jr. Meloi Received city of Costa Mesa Development Services Department SUN 0 8 2015 GARDEA, ANTONIO From: Jeff Kirst < > Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 9:27 AM To: gym; ARMSTRONG, GARY, FLYNN, CLAIRE; GARDEA, ANTONIO Subject: St John the Divine CUP hearing Esteemed Commissioners and Staff Please note that I am overwhelmingly in support of Phil DeVaul's proposed Farmers Market. I have lived on Esther St, on the Eastside, for close to 40 years and see absolutely no reason to deny his application. I know Phil personally and hold him in the very highest regard. I applaud him in his attempt to make our community a richer environment by bringing people together to shop healthy in a safe friendly environment, and at the same time to give back funds to help worthy organizations. Thanks for all that you do for our city, Best regards. Jeff Kirst ps. My wife Kathy also is a strong suppporter of the Farmers Market GARDEA, ANTONIO Subject: FW: Support for CUP PA-14-41 Farmers Market at St. John the Divine Episcopal Church From: Julie Askelson fmailtc n] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 10:21 AM To: Cc: ARMSTRONG, GARY; FLYNN, CLAIRE; GARDEA, ANTONIO Subject: Support for CUP PA-14-41 Farmers Market at St. John the Divine Episcopal Church Dear Planning Commissioners, As a resident of East Side Costa Mesa (23rd St) I want to convey my support of the Farmers Market at St. John the Divine Episcopal Church. I am not a member of the church but a neighbor that would benefit from the farmers market. The farmers market will be an asset to the neighborhood by providing both access to vendors not already available near us and bring a sense of community which is so vitally important to an area such as East Side Costa Mesa. The proposed Saturday morning farmers market will be a welcome community resource. I know I would enjoy the opportunity to walk or ride my bike to the farmers market. I support this CUP application and hope that you will approve the application. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you for your consideration. Julie Askelson %�.<.�.:a .r...:;;x.,.-:... .,__��,;.r�s✓....�}. .,..s.�m,.�:c�r.�:�:�°a.2c�. ��".i-�':�No-.�.,�ar.;>:.:,,,.,�..�Y/`.k.�,-cf,.�z,.�;;a,�`�`,�w.w..z�riz.�..:.�...�:.�A.,�:.��.r.�6s:..,�:b,�.>s*�.n.:�-.�..:z.�r.�t.,,�:'�,�"�:�.rYY_^ee'�`.�:�.�Y.�ir.�1?�'....a,.>M GARDEA, ANTONIO Subject: FW: Planning Application PA-14-41: CUP for Farmers Market From: Mark Askelson [mailto: Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 11:26 AM To,. n Cc: ARMSTRONG, GARY; FLYNN, CLAIRE; GARDEA, ANTONIO Subject: Planning Application PA-14-41: CUP for Farmers Market Dear Planning Commissioners, My name is Mark Askelson. I am a resident of the East Side of Costa Mesa, and as such a neighbor of the proposed farmers market. I am not affiliated with the Episcopal Church of St. John the Divine or the proposed farmers market in any way. I write in favor of the proposed community farmers market not only as an interested neighbor, but also as a planning professional. I hold a Bachelor of Science Landscape Architecture from the University of Wisconsin. The focus of my studies at Wisconsin were real estate and land use planning. Earlier in my career I was a Principal Planner with the Department of Planning, Zoning, and Environmental Quality of the County of Lake, Illinois. In that role I was a member of the team that administered the County's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. Churches are an interesting land use. Municipal zoning ordinances around the Country have traditionally established that churches are a permitted use in most every zoning district, including residential districts, despite the fact that the nature of the land use ... the size of the building, the height of structures, the amount of parking, the vehicle traffic they generate, their hours of operation, and their many and varied ancillary uses ... are more similar to uses typically restricted to commercial zoning districts. The reasons for this are many, but one core argument for permitting churches to be built and to operate in residential neighborhoods is that churches are seen to provide an important place for community gathering, and therefore a church is a valuable asset to a residential neighborhood. Among the safest and.most desirable to live in neighborhoods are those that provide their residents with multiple places for community gathering such as parks, schools, churches, and libraries. The retail operations of the proposed farmers market, by themselves, are arguably out of character with a suburban residential neighborhood; however, as a temporary ancillary use of a church property, the event like nature of a farmers market is very consistent with a church's role as a valuable place for community gathering. Although the proposed farmers market will be open to all, it will not likely make for destination shopping; people are not likely to drive from long distances to shop this farmers market. In fact, for this farmers market to be a success, the people who shop the market will necessarily be my neighbors from the East Side of Costa Mesa. We will choose to shop the farmers market not only for access to artisanal and organic products not always available to us in our neighborhood shopping districts along 17th Street and Newport Boulevard, but because we enjoy and value the opportunity to informally gather with our neighbors and to participate in a standing community event. Go to a community farmers market and observe what happens there; Corona Del Mar's weekly farmers market as an example. Take a cup of coffee, find a bench or a curb, and spend an hour observing the comings and goings. Pay attention to what happens not so much at the retail stalls, but what happens in between the stalls. You will see that friends and neighbors meet. They talk about local events and issues. They strengthen friendships and neighborly bonds. They are active participants in a community event. You will also observe that many people walk or ride bikes to and from their local farmers market. They frequently bring their own reusable shopping bags. In conclusion, I believe a farmers market is more about community than it is about retail sales. I believe the proposed farmers market will be valuable asset to our neighborhood. I urge you to approve this CUP Application. Thank you. Mark Askelson ATTACHMENT SWOT031 J92a+ BAY STREET IE) SIDEWALK —rE) TREE,TYP —IW ARBUTUS'MARINA' .-1E) SIDEWALK IN, ARBUTUS'MARINA' I ALONG BAY STREET AL0.% BAY STREET EL�,, i !1 1 SIGN PER CITYj I d-y�i•.R`Y F! G tj` - =r- N=/.r / IN) MONUTA I STANDARDS (E1 COVERED WALKWAY I E - fl'8"4 N45GJi11 R p;• S "?Y- (M LM°DSC"E 1 � 4 tj 3.�ii, 230'-0"3 25'-0' °--`r-5 _. _- __._-.__-_ ______..____.___. ___ ♦ `, y. r •1�1 - - ,r dE)S A1x f 18r-0 y iry IOLEA EUROPAA-SWAN HILL' T:, (E) Bll}RFH:CH N} AT PARKING LOT INTERIOR, TYP. 4 EASWr.ENT it�'. 3" W - / rb r i IQ COURTYARD / .'" G!M USkMMkIK 14 LLI 6 'o 6HIGH W ( EI ' FT ° / _. -1 �-,,, CMU BLOCK WALL �_ ,� m i ,.,.. '`.*'..�' ICI �.1 - C7 u EX. RICH CA PUS 14 �� I I M PYRUS k" z E PANDED PA'RKI G T V 1 25'-4n J25`-e' W I 7 { BT (/ O SPACES) AT PARKING ROPA'SWAN �\ AT PARKING LOT INTERIOR TYP. f 1 (E) COVERED WALKWAY li P. C1pmkm TUF-0_ to o°o !G _ TIPL� u '(E) 6'FT. HIGH ........... ........._-•__ _—._..____'__, 16 'M1+ yMU BLOCK WALL - Sj _ • • f M 6 DSCAVhG . � 3 T/ j o n a - ... `` r i'^Eh P,WIII _S EMERGENCY � ME rn n sh. I Y r I WE, rn III � tI .1 r ME.N i LOG... Yh r 1, I I� 1111 ,I �I EX. ST. JOHN'S MANOR I •� - - i---" I- I FE -1 �J EX. ST. JOHN'S_ MANOR PRIas__ ,�gDEWAL�I i (21 SPACES) 2 IQ ACCESSIBLE PATH or TRAVEL TO PUBLIC WAY (4'WIDEMINJ SUMMARY i { PARK114G REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCH CAMPUS: - - ASSEMBLY = ISPACE/ 35SF PARKING LOT PAVING MATERIAL CLASSROOMS ,SPACE/CLASSROOM I OFFICES 1 SPACE 1250SF TO BE ASPHALT. STORAGE _ ISPACE/500 SF PARKING LOT EXPANSION TO 11 "PARKwc REQUIRED: INCLUDE NEW LANDSCAPE DESIGN. CHAPEL (1,898 SF) = 55 SPACES- 10°%REDUCTION=50. - - - -- GUILD ROOM (532 SF) = 0 SPACES OFFICES (613 SF) = 0 SPACES CLASSROOMS = 3SPACES + 'GUILD ROOM AND OFFICES WILL NOT BE USED WHILE SERVICES ARE BEING HELD IN THE CHAPEL. PER COSTA MESA PLANNING DEPT. STAFF -ADDITIONAL n, E — PARKING SPACES WILL NOT BE REQUIRED FOR THESE ROOMS - TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED = 53 SPACES ,{ - _-�-----------___ �I - ��_ �.� PARKING PROVIDED: TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 70 SPACES W _ S �- S TRUE NORTH 14CIRTH SITE PLA NJ SCALE: 1/16"= V-0" w e u Q w = z U N > wN L Lu u Z Q m w Ill =06,7< n V 0 N w U Z Q J IL p I— T) 0 W v> O CL CL 07/ 1 5/ 1 SEE PLAN oRAwN Y. N../ A R �o6e YR14C, SHEF# Al.l —n— - - -._.._-_------------•----�----._..._- BAY STREET LE} SIDEWALK 710 TREE,TYP, 1N ARBUTUS'MARINA- (ALONG BAY STREET i YI i h- f 0 0 I 8 rro I:1¢.L s ♦i`'}ril 4 fE) COVERED WALKWAY I ----•_•-"-•--•-----_ . .h. 25-0' - 2 f >L ID COURTYARD A71 i v(1<oD11wAu I ;EX. CHURCH CAMPU i A. ILu z I! (E) VFT. HIGH• �MU BLOCK WALL (E) COVERED .+f I WALKWAY 20'-0` m El"At EX. ST. JOHN'S MANOR S✓ E 23B'-0"t 1 I I I 1 1 61 CUSTOMER PARKING (33 SPACES) Y S5C00'03"i 39200' E) SIDEWALK r-1N ARBUTUS'MARINA' - ALONG BAY STREET MAST fl1 .k .r(4' LRZ ' "4' - --� I1N1 `�, `STa LEGEND ACCESSIBLE PATH Cl TRAVEL TEI.IPOr.AR, FENCF % o MONUMEN e SION PER CITY - STANDARDS _ Iq lWi �•' 41194C4. - smevlswI IL w Z1 zk a ' w Y zI i!) 1 tit (N PYRUS lE , ALONG E0. •_ tin• l 1, II 1 a I EX. ST. JOHN'S_MANO_R PRKG, I �� 1 - (21 SPACES) - - -� @soEWAL 55l'gl'07T IIB 49' - I ( ACCESSIBLE PATH OFF TRAVEL TO PUBLIC WAY (4'WIDE MIND SUMMARY PARKING REOUIREMENTS FOR CHURCH CAMPUS: ASSEMBLY = 1 SPACE/35SF PARKING LOT PAVING MATERIAL CLASSROOMS 1SPACE/ CLASSROOM OFFICES 1 SPACE/2503F TO BE ASPHALT. STORAGE .. 1SPACE/500 SF "PARKING REQUIRED: I CHAPEL (1,B9B SF) 55 SPACES 10% REDUCTION=50 - GUILD ROOM (532 SF) = 0 SPACES OFFICES (613 SF) = 0 SPACES - - CLASSROOMS = 3SPACES 'GUILD ROOM AND OFFICES WILL NOT BE USED WHILE SERVICES ARE BEING IJ I HELD IN THE CHAPEL PER COSTA MESA PLANNING DEPT, STAFF -ADDITIONAL N F PARKING SPACES WILL NOT BE REQUIRED FOR THESE ROOMS. TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED =53 SPACES — - — - — rl PARKING PROVIDED: TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 70 SPACES W S S TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH SITE PLAN- FARMERS MARKET SET UP SCALE: 1n6'= 1 0° a IN OLEA ELIROPA9WAts NY" AT PARKING LOT INTERIOR SYP aIt lµv FARMER$ MARKET j (15 VENDOR-8PACES) � S r?l II i_al l tr I25`-a' VENDOR AREA—/ 10'XIC' TYP - EAS' UP, .1 I If IIA N L�li 4MlA3 �•��. __yy _— — jjjj It 'I 1 1 ICI I 1 _ r 1 I ¢ { z W p t s x» f Lu V IC Q ? U N o > � Lw & = cz wUNU 2 � Z CL c- O w GUN N 0 E: U o N L.I o Z Q J CL W I"— V) Q w O IL CL DATE 07/22/ 1 5 SCALE 5EE PLAN DRAWN Y.N. / AR. JOB. YR14008 ucerlr A11 .2 BAY STREET I 114 I I LANDSCAPE TABULATIONS DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT NO REQUIRED NO PROVIDED PARKING LOT TREES (1) TREE PER 6 SPACES 12 EA 17 EA (TOTAL PARKING SPACES = 66) COUNTED PARKING LOT TREES DENOTED BY *SYMBOL STREETTREES BAYSTREET- ARBUTUS'MARINA' 24" BOX Q 25' O C; 3'-0" BEHIND SIDEWALK ORANGE AVENUE - PYRUS C 'CHANTICLEER 24" BOX @ 25' O.0 ; T.0" BEHIND R O W _qo_ LEGEND ODECORATIVE COBBLE © STABILIZED DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH © SHADE TRELLIS OVER TABLE AND CHAIRS OENHANCED PAVING PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION © ENTRY PLAZA ENHANCED PAVING OSMALL FLOWERING ACCENT TREES OSTAGE AND ALTAR QPALM COURT • ENHANCED PAVING • PALMS IN TREE WELLS OSMALL WATER ELEMENT BENCH SIGN MONUMENT ® CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE FORM COMMENTS WATER USE TREES ARBUTUS'MARINA' MARINA STRAWBERRY 24"BOX STD BAY STREETTREE LOW TREE 8 PARKING LOT TREE EUROPEA'SWAN SWAN HILL FRUITLESS 36" BOX MULTI ENTRY ACCENT LOW HILL' OLIVE 4$OLEA LAGERSTROEMIA CRAPE MYRTLE INDICA INDICA 36" BOX MULTI SMALL FLOWERING ACCENT TREE MOD PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA DATE PALM 29' BTH .. COURTYARD PALM LOW BOSOUE PYRUS CALLE;RYAp1A CHANTICLEER 24" BOX STD ORANGE AVENUE MOD 'CHANTICLEER' EVERGREEN PEAR STREETTREE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING COMMENTS WATER USE SHRUBS ORNAMENTAL GRASSES SUCCULENTS, VINES AND GROUNDCOVERS AGAVE ATTENUATA BLUE GLOW FOXTAIL 5 GAL 36" O.0 SHADE ACCENT LOW 'BLUE GLOW' AGAVE AGAVE VILMORINIANA OCTOPUS AGAVE 5GAL 48"0.0 LARGE SUCCULENT LOW ACCENT ALOE STRIATA CORAL ALOE 5 GAL 24" O C FLOWERING LOW SUCCULENT CALLISTEMON'LITTLE DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH 5 GAL 30" OC FLOWERING MASS LOW JOHN' CAREX DIVULSA BERKELEY SEDGE 1 GAL 24" O C ORNAMENTAL LOW GRASS MISCANTHUS'MORNING MORNING LIGHT SILVER 5GAL 48"0C ORNAMENTAL MOD LIGHT' GRASS GRASS MUHLENBERGIA'REGAL PINK MUHLY 5 GAL 36" O C ORNAMENTAL MOD MIST' / GRASS SENECIO BLUE CHALKSTICKS 1 GAL 12" O:C FOREGROUND LOW MANDRALISCAE TEUCRIUM X LUCIDRYS DWARF GERMANDER 1GAL 24"0. C. FOREGROUND LOW WESTRINGIA F.. WYNYABBIE GEM COAST 5GAL 36"0.0 BACKGROUND LOW WYNYABBIE GEM' ROSEMARY Z } c /' ) W ZELQ �UCL J N J Lu 0 _1 Q Q J DATE 0710912015 SCALE SEE PLAN DRAWN RLA 1064 YR14006 SHEUI? Ll.l C z C — - - — GRANITE TOP DINING TABLE • - TRELLIS WITH TALL STONE PILASTERS _ TRELLIS WITH LOW STONE PILASTERS LANDSCAPE COBBLE TEAK DINING TABLE Mil o Lu cN ,i I 1 > ~ c _ -Lj LLJ r Y Q - _i Q m w 44 OU20� - -- _v) o , Fr` F- CL U c) Lu o r m ARBUTUS 'MARINA'/ OLEA EUROPEA'SWAN HILL' / CERCIDIUM'DESERT MUSEUM' / LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA / PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA / PYRUS CALLERYANA'CHANTICLEER' / MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE SWAN HILL FRUITLESS OLIVE DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE CRAPE MYRTLE DATE PALM CANTICLEER EVERGREEN PEAR I Lu Lu d AGAVE ATTENUATA I AGAVE VILMORINIANA / ALOE STIR IATA / CALISTEMON V.'LITTLE JOHN' / CAREX DIVULSA / MISCANTHUS S.'MORNING LIGHT' / MUHLENBERGIA C 'REGAL MIST' / Z FOX TAIL AGAVE OCTOPUS AGAVE CORAL ALOE DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH BERKELEY SEDGE MORNING LIGHT MISCANTHUS PINK MUHLY � t _ w *♦.• , i DATE 07/09/20 1 5 ♦ pf ' ^ o "• SCALE SEE PLAN k.''! rt DaAwn RLA toes YR14006 ul Q SENICIO MANDRALISCAE I BLUE CHALK. STICKS _- TEUCRIUM LUCIDRYS / GERMANDER WESTRINGIA F.'WYNYABBIE GEM' WYNYABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY snEE1w CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 P.O. BOX 1200 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR August 11, 2015 Carrie Renfro 198 Buoy Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Dear Carrie Renfro, At the regular meeting of the Costa Mesa City Council on Tuesday, August 4, 2015, the following occurred: The City Council, on a vote of 5-0, adopted Resolution 2015-46 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-41 FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OUTDOOR FARMERS MARKET AT 183 E. BAY STREET (ST. JOHN THE DIVINE EPISCOPAL CHURCH) Please be advised that any judicial review of this decision is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 and must be brought within the 90-day limitations period contained in the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. Sincerely, Brenda Green City Clerk City of Costa Mesa Enclosure: Resolution No. 15-46 77 FAIR DRIVE PHONE: (714) 754-5285 FAX (714) 754-5330 TDD_ (714) 754-5244 • N .ucosta-mesa.ca.us RESOLUTION NO. 15-46 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA-14-41 FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OUTDOOR FARMERS MARKET AT 183 E. BAY STREET (ST. JOHN THE DIVINE EPISCOPAL CHURCH) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by The Reverend Paul DeVaul, Rector, representing the Bishop the Episcopal Church of Los Angeles for the Saint John the Divine Episcopal Church located at 183 E. Bay Street, requesting approval of the following: A Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a farmers market at an existing church (St. John the Divine Episcopal Church) from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday mornings. The parking lot area would be reconfigured and enlarged into the front lawn area, which is approximately 17,000 square feet, to add 34 more parking spaces. On farmers market days, a maximum of 15 vendor stalls would be located in the new parking area; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2015, with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, voted to approve the project by a 3-1-1 vote (Ayes: Chair Dickson, Vice -Chair Mathews, Commissioner, McCarthy; Nay: CommissionerAndranian; Recused: Commissioner Sesler); WHEREAS, on June 12, 2015, an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission's approval of the project was filed by Carrie Renfro; Resolution No. 15-46 Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on August 4, 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-14-41 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 this 5th day of August, 2015. 40& Stephen M. nsinger, Mayor ATTEST: GO- .W� Brenda Green,Pity Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: a AM/m/�v Thoma"s Duart , City Attorney Resolution No. 15-46 Page 2 of 4 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. 15-46 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of August, 2015 (August 4, 2015 meeting continued past midnight), by a unanimous 5-0 vote, to reverse the approval of the Planning Commission and DENIES PA-14-41 with respect to the property described above, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Foley, Genis, Monahan, Righeimer, Mensinger NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 5ch day of August, 2015. -e-P�--- Brenda Green, Cif4 Clerk (SEAL) Note: the Regular City Council Meeting of August 4, 2015 continued past midnight. Ordinance No. 15-08 was approved on August 5, 2015 at 1:34 a.m. MOTION: To continue the meeting past midnight. MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Foley/Council Member Genis The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer Absent: None Motion carried: 4-1-0 Resolution No. 15-46 Page 3 of 4 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (DENIAL) A. The requested conditional use permit does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) because: Finding: The proposed development 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 Finding: The farmers market would introduce a commercial -type use within this low -scale residential area. The proposed use is not compatible with the single-family homes in the surroundings and would incur traffic and parking impacts to the neighbors. Finding: Granting the 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 Finding: The farmers market would be detrimental to the properties in the immediate vicinity because the vendor operations would result in additional noise and traffic congestion. Finding: Granting the conditional use permit will allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. B. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied Planning Application PA-14-41. 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 IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Resolution No. 15-46 Page 4 of 4 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Brenda Green, being first duly sworn, depose and state: I am a citizen of the United States; am employed in the County of Orange; my business address of the City Clerk's Office, City of Costa Mesa, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California 92626, 1 am over the age of 18; and am not a party to the cause. On August 11, 2015, 1 served the within letter by depositing a copy of the original thereof in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon full prepaid, in the United States mail at the Costa Mesa, California, addressed to the interested parties as follows: Carrie Renfro 198 Buoy Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 11, 2015, at Costa Mesa, California. Brenda Green City Clerk City of Costa Mesa PH-4 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MINUTES OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MAY 265 2015 3:30PM CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mr. Shaw at 3:30 p.m. in Conference Room 1A at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair Terry Shaw, Members: Jeff Arthur, Howard Hull, Robert Juneman, Tom Pollitt, Richard Riva, Mayor's Designee - Katrina Foley Staff Present: Interim Finance Director Stephen Dunivent, Assistant Finance Director Colleen O'Donoghue, Revenue Supervisor Jennifer King, Executive Secretary Kathy Ulrich Members Absent: Vice -Chair Jim Fisler, Members: Christopher Graham, Colin Smith, CEO Tom Hatch PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. MEMBER'S REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS There were no member comments. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Meeting of April 28, 2015 — Moved/Second: Richard Riva/Jeff Arthur The motion carried, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Terry Shaw, Jeff Arthur, Howard Hull, Bob Juneman, Tom Pollitt, Richard Riva Nays: None Absent: Jim Fisler, Christopher Graham, Colin Smith, Tom Hatch Abstain: Katrina Foley Motion carried: 6-0-1 OLD BUSINESS — a) BUSINESS LICENSE UPDATE Ms. King updated the Committee on the status of business licenses — applications and on-line renewals, as well as the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) data sharing UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED program. The Committee has asked Staff for estimated costs associated with the Business License program, to include mailings and staff time. NEW BUSINESS - a) INTRODUCE NEW FINANCE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL Mr. Dunivent introduced new Treasury Management staff; Melynda Shank, Matt Schmelzel and Jon Kondo, and Budget staff: Anna Baca and Dustin Birn. b) FILLED & VACANT REGULAR FULL-TIME POSITION UPDATE Mr. Dunivent updated the Committee with a chart indicating filled & vacant full-time employees, but will be updated to reflect part-time employees too. c) CAPITAL ASSET IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE Mr. Dunivent reviewed the draft ordinance, followed by discussion. A motion was made by Mr. Pollitt, seconded by Mr. Riva to accept the draft as written. The motion carried, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Jeff Arthur, Howard Hull, Tom Pollitt, Richard Riva Nays: Terry Shaw, Bob Juneman Absent: Jim Fisler, Christopher Graham, Colin Smith, Tom Hatch Abstain: Katrina Foley Motion carried: 4-2-1 The ordinance is scheduled to go to Council at the June 161h Council meeting. d) THE MILLS ACT Mr. Dunivent and Mr. Shaw explained the concept of the Mills Act, which is sometimes difficult to qualify for and homeowners have to maintain and rehabilitate their structures if necessary. e) FY 15-16 PRELIMINARY BUDGET UPDATE Mr. Dunivent updated the Committee on the upcoming budget adoption, scheduled to go to Council at the June 161h Council meeting. OPEN DISCUSSION / FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Business License Updates ■ Business Development • Dashboard request on the City website for the FAC • Meet new Finance personnel ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. to the regular meeting on June 30 at 3:30 p.m. Terry Shaw, Chair 7.FCC� IGL�%GGCtIc.�.l-" Stephen Dunivent, Interim Finance Director CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: August 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH-4 SUBJECT: FIRST READING OF THE CAPITAL ASSET NEEDS ORDINANCE DATE: July 9, 2015 FROM: FINANCE DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: STEPHEN DUNIVENT, INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: STEPHEN DUNIVENT, INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR, (714) 754-5243 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Introduce for first reading Ordinance 15-XX, to be read by title only, and waive further reading, regarding the Capital Asset Needs Ordinance. BACKGROUND: On March 3, 2015 the Council adopted updated Financial & Budget Policies. These policies included a section regarding a percentage set aside for capital expenditures: Percentage of General Fund Budget for Capital Expenditures: The City will allocate a minimum of five percent (5%) of the General Fund budget to capital expenditures and plan a goal of an additional one and one-half percent (1.5%) dedicated to a Capital Facilities Account. This allocation may be annually reviewed by the Finance Advisory Committee. During an economic downturn or in the event of a disaster these allocated funds could be used as a type of reserve for operations. This ordinance would add Article 8 to Title II, Chapter V of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code to establish the requirement for a minimum of 5% of annual General Fund revenue to the Capital Expenditures account and a minimum of 1.5% to a Capital Facilities account annually. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure the annual budgeting of adequate capital funds to meet the needs of the city. The needs are illustrated by the seven-year capital improvement program that totals over $230 million. The ordinance contains definitions to clarify the distinction between capital expenditures and capital facilities; outlines the use of funds and includes an emergency exception for circumstances in which the City need not comply with the ordinance. 1 The Finance Advisory Committee reviewed a draft copy of this ordinance on May 26, 2015. Some Committee members expressed concerns about the loss of flexibility that the ordinance would bring while others expressed that the ordinance represents added financial discipline for the City. The Committee voted 4-2-1 in support of the ordinance. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The Council could choose to amend this ordinance or not adopt it and continue to use the existing Financial & Budget Polices currently in place. FISCAL REVIEW: The impact of the 5% and 1.5% requirements is currently $5,587,335 and $1,676,201 of General Fund resources annually dedicated to capital and is included in the FY 15-16 Adopted Operating & Capital Budget. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney prepared a draft ordinance for consideration and has reviewed this report. CONCLUSION: Adoption of this ordinance require the City to annually budget minimum amounts of funds for capital improvements and capital facility projects. Stephen Dunivent Thomas R. Hatch Interim Finance Director City CEO Thomas Duarte City Attorney Attachment: 1. Capital Asset Needs Ordinance it Attachment 1 COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE II CHAPTER V ARTIC'IT R CAPITAL ASSET NEEDS ORDINANCE ARTICLE S Section 2-210. - Definitions. Section 2-211. - Reserve Requirement. Section 2-212. - Limited Use. Section 2-213. - Emergency Exception. Sec. 2-210. - Definitions. For the purpose of this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings unless it is clear from the context that a different meaning is intended: (1) Capital Expenditures are defined as expenditures on fixed assets with value greater than $30,000.00 that are stationary in nature including, but not limited to, publicly owned or operated streets, highways, bridges, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, alleys, storm drains, trees and landscaping, medians, parks, playgrounds, traffic signals, streetlights, fences, facilities and walls. (2) Capital Facilities are defined as city owned or operated buildings including, but not limited to, City Hall, Civic Center, Police Department, Old Corp Yard, New Corp Yard, fire stations, libraries, and community centers. Sec. 2-211. Reserve Requirement. (1) The City shall allocate a minimum of five percent (5%) of the annual General Fund revenue to the Capital Expenditures account. (2) The City shall allocate a minimum of one and a half percent (11/2%) of the annual General Fund revenue to the Capital Facilities account. Sec. 2-212. - Limited use. (1) Capital Expenditure funds shall only be used for the construction, replacement, maintenance, improvement, or modification of city owned or operated Capital Expenditure as defined in Section 2-210(1) including construction, design, engineering, project management, inspection, and contract administration. V. 5/8/15 1 (2) Capital Facilities funds shall only be used for the construction, replacement, maintenance, improvement, or modification of city owned or operated buildings Capital Facilities as defined in Section 2-210(2) including construction, design, engineering, project management, inspection, contract administration and property acquisition. Capital Facilities funds may be applied toward debt obligations created to fund Capital Facilities where the indebtedness originated after the date of this Ordinance. (3) The use or loan of Capital Expenditures or Capital Facilities funds for a purpose other than those referenced in this section shall require approval of a supermajority vote of the entire City Council. Sec. 2-213. - Emergency Exception. (1) In the following circumstances, the City need not comply with the requirements set forth in Section 2-211 subject to supermajority approval of the entire City Council: (a) General Fund Operating Reserve falls below the amount set by resolution of the City Council as set forth in Section 2-205; [NOTE: Section 2-205 states "General fund operating reserve means those unappropriated cash funds from the general fund which have been designated by resolution of the city council as operating reserve." Since the resolution adopting the new GFOR changes, it makes better sense to identify Section 2-205 which defines GFOR and also specifies that the amount will be set via resolution.] or (b) An economic downturn, natural disaster, emergency or other unforeseen circumstances. (2) The exception set forth herein shall require annual supermajority approval of the entire City Council. (3) In the event this provision is applied, the City shall develop a plan to replenish the Capital Expenditures and/or Capital Facilities funds for the amount exempted. V. 5/8/15 2 Cl T Y COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: OB-1 SUBJECT: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-08 FOR REZONE R-14-05 DATE: JULY 23, 2015 FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION: Give second reading to Ordinance No. 15-08 approving Rezone R-14-05 to rezone a 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family Residential District), for property located at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East. The maximum allowable General Plan density is 7.26 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of 14 dwelling units. The proposed density is 5 dwelling units per acre, 10 units proposed. ANAI YRIS- On July 21, 2015, City Council gave first reading to Ordinance No. 15-08 by a 4-0 vote (Council member Foley absent). R-14-05 is in conjunction with the following: • 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. City Council also adopted an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the project. MEL LEE, AICP GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Senior Planner Economic Development & Development Services Director / Deputy CEO Attachment: Ordinance No. 15-08 cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO Public Services Director City Attorney Transportation Services Manager City Engineer City Clerk (20) 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 Cl T Y COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: OB-1 SUBJECT: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-08 FOR REZONE R-14-05 DATE: JULY 23, 2015 FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION: Give second reading to Ordinance No. 15-08 approving Rezone R-14-05 to rezone a 2-acre site from I&R (Institutional and Recreational) to R1 (Single Family Residential District), for property located at 2880 Mesa Verde Drive East. The maximum allowable General Plan density is 7.26 dwelling units per acre, or a maximum of 14 dwelling units. The proposed density is 5 dwelling units per acre, 10 units proposed. ANAI YRIS- On July 21, 2015, City Council gave first reading to Ordinance No. 15-08 by a 4-0 vote (Council member Foley absent). R-14-05 is in conjunction with the following: • 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. City Council also adopted an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for the project. MEL LEE, AICP GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Senior Planner Economic Development & Development Services Director / Deputy CEO Attachment: Ordinance No. 15-08 cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO Public Services Director ORDINANCE NO. 15-08 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 (R1). 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. 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. 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) 2W4 29Y. Li MINORC.A DR U - t II PONDEROSAST 1 2a55 �' 295f 2850 J a zazs Zama M39 W 01 2M3 283s V ?Cj 2W2 5v * Go Prr .NET URBAN MASTER PLAN SCREENING UMP-15-01 527 AND 531 BERNARD STREET AUGUST 4, 2015 CITY COUNCIL MEETING BERNARD ST FORD RD BERMARG i AT 7s— T,k Autc 4 -- PURPOSE OF SCREENING: 1. DOES THE PROPOSED PROJECT MEET CITY COUNCIUS EXPECTATIONS FOR PROJECTS IN THE URBAN PLAN AREAS? 2. DOES CITY COUNCIL HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE REQUESTED DEVIATIONS? DEVIATIONS REQUESTED: • FRONT SETBACK (20 FEET REQUIRED; 16 FEET PROPOSED) • MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR DENSITY BONUS (1 ACRE MINIMUM REQUIRED; .53 ACRES PROPOSED) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: NB-1 SUBJECT: URBAN MASTER PLAN SCREENING REQUEST (UMP-15-01) FOR A 10-UNIT DETACHED SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MESA WEST RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP URBAN PLAN 527 AND 531 BERNARD STREET DATE: JULY 23, 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 RECOMMENDATION Provide feedback on a proposed Urban Master Plan for a 2-and 3-story, 10-unit, detached, small lot residential development project within the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. PROJECT SITE AND ENVIRONS The subject property is located on the south side of Bernard Street, west of Harbor Boulevard. The site is approximately 23,363 square feet in size and contains an 8-unit apartment project built in 1958. The 8 units are contained in 4 2-unit buildings on the property. All units are one-story. The site is bounded by residentially -zoned properties (R2-HD) to the east and west, and an existing trailer park to the south (also zoned R2-HD). URBAN PLAN BACKGROUND The subject property is located within the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. On April 4, 2006, City Council adopted the Urban Plan to allow incentives for the development of ownership housing projects. The intent of the urban plan is to provide development/economic incentives for private property owners to reinvest and redevelop their properties. Residential units up to 20 du/acre and three -stories are allowed in the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. The proposed project is a 10-unit, 2- and 3-story, detached small lot residential development (refer to the summary sheet for more information - Attachment 1). EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The purpose of the urban plan screening is to obtain feedback from the City Council on the following issues: 1) Does the project meet Council's expectations for projects in the Urban Plan areas? The screening process is an opportunity to determine if the conceptual project meets Council's expectations for new projects in the urban plan areas. Council will be providing initial feedback to the applicants. 2) Does Council have any comments on any requested deviations? The screening process will highlight any requested deviations from the urban plans to Council's attention. The screening process allows the applicant to consider City Council's initial comments and to refine the development concept based on their feedback. The final development plan requires approval by the Planning Commission. CONCLUSION The screening process enables Council to discuss the project at preliminary planning stage and consider whether the project meets Council's expectations for new development in the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan area. Council's general comments do not set precedent for approval/denial nor constitute final action on the development project. In addition, the applicant should expect the Planning Commission to have other comments/concerns on a proposed development concept that may not have been raised by City Council. The screening process allows the applicant to consider Council's initial comments and to refine the development concept based on their feedback. MEL LEE, AICP GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Senior Planner Economic Development & Development Services Director / Deputy CEO Attachments: 1. Urban Plan Screening Summary Sheet 2. Location/Zoning Map 3. Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan Map 4. Site Photos 5. Applicant's Project Description 6. Conceptual Plans CC' Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Public Services Director City Attorney Transportation Services Manager City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Planet Home Living Attn: Patric Lynam 1451 Quail Street, Suite 204 Newport Beach, CA 92660 UMP-15-01 ATTACHMENT 1 10-UNIT DETACHED RESIDENTIAL SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT MESA WEST RESIDENTIAL OWNERSHIP URBAN PLAN 527 AND 531 BERNARD STREET DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The proposed project is a 10-unit, 2- and 3-story, detached small lot residential development. The site has a General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential and a zoning classification of R2- HD (Multiple Family Residential — High Density). The site is also located within the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan. Unit Type Summary Plan 1 Plan 2 Unit Size Not Including Garage) 1,654 Sq. Ft. 1,661 Sq. Ft. Total No. of Units 4 6 No. of Stories/Height 3 Stories/42 Ft. 2 Stories/32 Ft. No. of Garage Spaces 8 Spaces 2 Per Unit 12 Spaces 2 Per Unit No. of Open Spaces 16 Spaces Total Parking 36 Spaces Meets Code Traffic Evaluation The Transportation Division completed a preliminary trip generation analysis to compare the proposed project to existing conditions and General Plan conditions at full build out. The preliminary projections (95 daily trips) indicate that the proposed development would generate more trips compared to the existing development (53 daily trips); at potential build out (95 daily trips) the overall number of trips would not increase under the R2-HD zoning designation and the High Density Residential General Plan designation. Preliminary Trip Generation Analysis Land Use Size AM PM Daily Proposed Development 10 DU 8 10 95 (Single Family) Existing Uses/R2-HD Zone (Apartments) g DU 4 5 53 General Plan Build Out/Urban Plan (High 10 DU 8 10 95 Density) —Single Family DU — Dwelling Units Interface with Neighboring Residential Uses The following table summarizes the setbacks between the residences of the proposed residential units from the side and rear property lines and nearby structures: Address Setback to P.L. Setback to Nearest Structure 523 Bernard St. 5 FT 17 FT 535-549 Bernard St. 5 FT 10 FT 525 Fairfax Dr. 13 FT 17 FT DEVIATION FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan allows development flexibility in exchange for quality projects that meet the Urban Plan vision. In this case, the applicant is proposing the following deviations from the Urban Plan Standards: 1. Front Setback (20 feet required; 16 feet proposed); 2. Minimum lot size for density bonus within the urban plan (1 Acre minimum lot size required; 23,363 square feet (.53 Acres) proposed). Staff also informed the applicant that the overall open space (30% required; 29% proposed) and private open space (200 square feet minimum size with 10-foot minimum dimension required; 135 square feet with 9-foot minimum dimension for Lots 1 and 10 proposed) does not meet code. The applicant has stated he will revise the project to be in compliance with these standards and will not be requesting a deviation for these items. The final development plan requires approval by the Planning Commission. MERITS OF THE URBAN PLAN SCREENING REQUEST Following is a summary of the merits of the proposed project at this location: 1. Project meets the following objectives of the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan: Encourage owner -occupied housing. The Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan strongly encourages the development of owner -occupied housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership opportunities in the City (General Plan Policy LU- 1A.4). Revise development standards. The overlay district codifies a number of development provisions that may facilitate condominium conversions or new construction of ownership housing to realize the vision of the Urban Plan. 2. Proposed development, with the requested revisions to provide code -required open space, is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Code and Urban Plan. The proposed development, with code -compliant open space as discussed above, will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Zoning Code and the Mesa West Residential Ownership Urban Plan as it pertains to density, open space, on -site parking, and vehicular circulation. ATTACHMENT 2 a ca U c co X LQ 00 a 00 z O ce ILL LjJ OAl2 HOBEIVH LU -♦iiii ♦iiti �►iiiiit+- ++�►+* +i�►�a +++i+++i+++i�����"a�� :��►i►+'i�►+ice '�►.i#+�►# �►t►♦ �iiii#♦ii♦ +►�► +►+�rr►�;:, +iVp+*i++'p►++i++ire; ;�iri�#++i+i'+�ii+a+ iIV. i♦i4� ♦##+++i♦i►i �+►'�� ���,�.+�+�;,+%sue%i�%++++i�+'�. �'i+*++�++i*iii+w+�++ XX 9�♦i. �is� iii+i+ii#i is IF �r +� + � � + �► + ♦ s fM?,Al.. � I ♦,�±9: ate+" ,'�'..�' +�+� .��►� .. a to 3 6.a r as Ia a� 33 ivea��9l am's 13 -� a c bi 97 d 41 a 2� t3 J 0 .—n— a El LA N N N 4 4CJ 0coFu 0(pW a+ mm ttqj ra)Qj tay r� 3s3i 0NJ QHJ 0NJ a C O C w 4 °' _ °' j r C m aE ��,� = rn (nz a1D (52 � .j . ❑ to to N N a (O f0 c a 0 c? v d 0 a 0 N 4 w 4 !- r■-■■■■■■■ N-i---[,-11� "li •`�� I rr r as -� ��. I � �. a Ln OF s IBM m u w � r r • r. r '■ �� i Z s� N 5:g5 9ffil cV j Q g3i r•n�r.. ZLLJ es o ¢t i o� to � �I r� _ �sas� 3 4�sga MEN @ Yoy eon.. .. HMO -g� fez ATTACHMEN z aao °z ig8� Yz 4@n� •'� Z a 6 nay co to w Sa 4 Q. n H �gi axe N �Z Lg , ¢� •t+ Em .11 - lmllmr -%l T4 miffrig f- 114T 69 r Aw . . .,®`Z. � �r f . \/ ..� ���. � *: ; >\/ �� .�, % . . �� . . `� ƒ� � - := ��� \ /` , � � � 2 , , . ? �`. ��C D w :�� gal �s.. ok d.' . � CSJ b r ATTACHMENT 5 It planet home living June 26, 2015 City of Costa Mesa Re: Costa Mesa Bernard Street To Whom It May Concern: The architecture is predicated on the notion of creating a unique design while fitting in within its context. As such, the design began by abstracting the massing of a traditional home to establish the footprint for a contemporary design, a design that is unique yet welcoming. This was followed up by the addition of fresh yet warm materials, such as fiber cement lap siding, to scale the contemporary design to fit within its context. Inspiration was drawn from the new construction sprouting throughout Costa Mesa, in particular, the clean lines, material palette and fresh color schemes of the traditional homes that are currently being built. Special care was taken to integrate modern details to increase the homes' curb appeal such as mitered corner windows, floor to ceiling windows, and stained lap siding at the ground floors that direct the home owners and visitors to the entries of the homes. The alley facing elevations, which will be more visible than the other sides on daily basis, provide an abundance of upgraded materials, and in most cases, the upgraded materials are wrapped to the sides and to the back of the homes. T k you, P tric Lyn m Sr. Project Manager 1451 Quail Street, Suite 204, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone 949.208.7248 Fax 877.279.6159 www.PlanetHomeLiving.com •— I II — W— � � r MLSAH a � BERNARD 5 R E E T Y MAW GN GL fllcml DRRIVEWr6vWA' AY � pw- cmw,. ELPf04 . I 1 ,L 865 PAD d 1 77 'er9u'p• s � r.� �`� F; . W 5 �- B7A7FF i-iQi i 87.n FF- B69 PAD ry I• I , A• ' 57.4' BF4^Sf r 81.61 FF I •. [B7.0 �j —(DTI �:NSt h i 'f jjj gg `Jl 1 PAD r H}SL K PA -21 4 pQ 01.4' BSA ` _ _ 't f e7n►r �BIYPA. gf7lT B13 PAS ll .. 1'J YI 1g11 FA0 ` j't I; 1. �� i I J s �"„%�� ,.,•. �,'!:�e;/ �, j wY1 4,^a38V 66 n^+4ai I � +N`y „M4*L f GITNIT rlfa� � N .1.1, } 20 1 �__Lj FRP1 SCALE: 1"10' PROPERTY LINE F W/1' MAX EXIST PROPERTYLINE PENCE/WALL W/1 MAX RETAINING EXIST.&RADC 1s_ ATTACHMENT 6 TENTATIVE TRACT NO.17921 LOT B &7IN iLOG1I B PF TRAiTNO. 547, W BSONHOAIFACRFS, IF115F CITY OP GPSiA NAFaA COUNTY OF nRANYE, STATE OF CILIFORYAA, ASPERMN' RECORDED I1N BPOC 20 PAGE 4OF MiSfEU-ANEOUS MAYS, W'nEC1iP70EOF TI4EGWNryRECPROER OF'.�. IPCO+MkT.TP6ETIGR Wi711 T06FTYEA q°iTHM T MR7ION qi AN NNINA4lE0 Ali-EV Ad SiNTNfOf4 SAIO TRACT. LYMW gOPJTTfNB.YOF 5AIbLOES DATE OF PREPARATION: June 5, 2015 RAN PAW ��FFFF------------- w PROJECT SITE 3w e' 2r 1e• I I A[1i I 1 6 TYPICAL SECTION: BERNARD STREET PL � AIrNT ^ VCBTCSAA STYARATION BETWEEN f 14FA-4*0 MOM AM FWBSlago OADRWDJ SHATLMI-AUNUM SECTION B NOT TO SCALE PL IN70TE' •"'•'- 'NSII'FAIVMYEitTTCAL STPARATTOI BETWEEN FINC°.FIED FLOW MID F1NIyIEp GRADE(SOD-) ` SHALL BE d'WHW7M SECTION A NOT TO SCALE P.L I 2Y'EAEMENT 1 4" ROLLED CURB (TYV) I AC/AB OR 'CC PAVEMENT TYPICAL SECTION: DRIVEWAY ;w To SCALE VICINITY MAP NOT TO WALE ENT MR fIDENITYNATIGTGlL TTiLE ITOMPANYRBOpT ORRERNO.010•S7D7YTOY.oYL f:�L /lkNTj/ a ' 10 - =0 `+ W TS RESERVED fM THE BEN>EFI'I pF e+E YwIRY3EW AAAA15 WAtm cwAw THIS EASEMENT IS HOT LOCATED OF RECORD ITEM 3- EASEMENT TO E P BRYAN AND JOSEPH ERTLER FOR PIPE LINES, ETC, RECORDED FEBRUARY 26, 191B, IN BOOK 310, PACE 183, OF DEEDS. THISEASFM00 CS HN LGCATE0 OF Rk$DRD. ITEMS EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FOR PV&SK UTILITT' P1AB'OSESRBCOLDEDGSTOBER25, 19" AS INSTRUMENT NO, 19990745B06, OYF M" RECRO} ANb SCTGBER L5,1494 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19990745807, OFFICIAL RECORDS THIS EASEMENT IS ROTTED HEREON LEGEND: AC ASPHALTICCONCRETE EX EXISTING PH FIRE HYDRANT F5 FINISHED SURFACE ST LT STREETLIGHT SF SQUARE FEET TC TOP OF CURB - — CENTERLINE CURB & 6UTTER f - - - — DRAINA&E 5WALE - - — PROPERTYLINE ��5� SE1KR TRACT BOUNDARY WATER MAIN O WATER METER NOTES: ..III ACRES GROSS/NET (25 OBB 5F) LAND NOT SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OR OVERFLOW. NO LAND OR PARKS TO BE DEDICATED PROPOSED LAND USE: Id ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: — (+71w - SETBA% REQUIREMENTS: FW SIDES 5' REAR 13' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: G$1"dS4TAFICCFTGASFIIO 553, GIBSON HOME ACRES, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF OUNCE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 20 PACE 4 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. T06ET14ER WITH TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF AN UNNAMED ALLEY AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT, LYIN& SOUTHERLY OF SAID LOTS M5I5 OF BEARINGS: THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE BEARING BETWEEN HORIZONTAL CONTROL STATION &PS N0. 6204 Rl AND STATION CPS NO 1533 BEND N 06° 50' 09' W. PER RECORDS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY SURVEYOR OWNER/SUBDIVIDER: s�Twz_ NE QUAILSTREET NEWPORT BEACH, [A 92660 SITE ADDRESS: 527527-531BERNARD COSTA MESA, CA 92626 FLOOD ZONE: ZONE X, OUTSIDE THE 500 YEAR ROOD BOUNDARIES. ESTIMATED GRADING QUANTITIES: RA RAW PILL: 200 CY IMPORT: 260 CY B. HAMERS & ASSOC., INC. I TENTATIVE TRACT NO.17921 I I17 I ST RS ,7TH CALW sT A R5} S PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN uESA, cu1TDRrmA Ra6a? "-T102 527-531 BERNARD 6/5/15 I COSTA MESA, CA 92626 � D71 SITE SUMMARY 0.58AC - APPROX 25,081 SF ZONING - R2-HD - MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (HIGH DENSITY) PLAN1 - 1654SF - 2BDR+OFFICE, 3STORY SLO, 2 GARAGE PLAN2 - 1661 SF - 313DR, 2-STORY SLO, 2 GARAGE TOTAL UNITS ' I (20) GARAGES 16 GUEST SPACES (36) TOTAL PARKING (3.6:1) OPEN AREA= PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 7,878 SF (31.4%) 200 SF MIN. PER UNIT (SHOWN HATCHED) - Iq- ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN -- COSTA MESA, CA KTGY # 2014-0123 DIS-00s Jurisdiction # 0 5 10 20 AO-0 I KTGY Group, Inc. Architecture+Planning 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com LL LL U, PLANT SCHEDULE 13 BOTANICALNAME COMMONNAME SIZE ACACIA BAILEYANA'PURPUREA' PURPLE -LEAF ACACIA 24'BOX ACER PALMATUM' AOYAGI AOYAGI JAPANESE MAPLE 15 GAL ACER PALMATUM'BURGUNDY LACE' BURGUNDY LACE JAPANESE MAPLE 15 GAL ACER PALMATUM'FIREGLOW' FIREGLOW JAPANESE MAPLE 15 GAL ACER PALMATUM'OSHIO-BENI OSHIQ-BENI JAPANESE MAPLE 16 GAL ACER PALMATUM 'SANGO KAKU' CORAL BARK MAPLE 15 GAL ACER PALMATUM'SHAINA' SWII4AJAPA74rMFL MAA E 15 GAL CERCIDIUM FLORIDUM BLUE PALO VERDE 36"BOX SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANA QUEEN PALM EXISTING TECOMA STANS YELLOW BELLS 15 GAL Conceptual Landscape Plan Bernard St, Costa Mesa, Ca. PLANET HOME LIVING 0612PJ2015 SHRUBS SOTANICALNAME COMMON NAME SIZE ANIGOZANTHOS FLAVIDUS KANGAROO PAW 6GAL .RASS.LA AR.ENTEA JADE PLANT 5GAL DANIELLIA TASMANICA' VARIEGATA' VARIGATED FLAX LILY 1GAL VINEIESPALIER BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE CLYTOSTOMA CALLISTEGIOIDES VIOLET TRUMPETVINE 15 GAL GROUND COVERS BOTANICALNAME COMMON NAME SIZE ® DIANELLA CAERULEA'CASSABLUE' GASSABLUE FLAX LILY 1GAL LOMANDRA LONGIFOUA' BREEZE' DWARF ALIT RUSH 1 GAL ■ MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS PINK MU.- 5 GAL SENECIO MANDRAUSCAE'BLUE CHALK STICKS SENECIO 1GAL ■ DYMONDIA MARGARETAE _20- PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL PARTIAL LIST r1w fit"" LEGEND PERMEABLE CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS (T.B.D) SIDE YARD GATE TYR POURED IN PLACE CONCRETE STEPPERS MASONRY & HORIZONTAL WOOD COMBINATION PROPERTY LINE FENCE TYR [ 5 "GREEN SCREEN" PANELS WITH FLOWERING VINES 0 B 16 24 32 feet DESIGN GROUP Landscape Architecture Planning Urban Design 3185 C Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Inlo.bgb-inc.com 0: 714 545 2878 F: 714 545 2898 www.bgb-Inc.com COSTA MESA `Planet Home Living 1451 Quail St., Suite 204 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-208-7248 planet home living 21 ._.,.. ALLEY PERSPECTIVE = COSTA MESA, CA KTGY # 7014-0773 7015-06-74 Jurisdinion # KTGY Group, Inc. Architecture+Planning 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com fF� Al-01 ■ AN COSTA MESA Planet Home Living 1451 Quail St., Suite 204 CIF Newport Beach, CA 92660 h� 949-208-7248 iolanet home living; PLAN 2 ENLARGED PERSPECTIVE COSTA MESA, CA KTGY Group, Inc. KTGY # 2014-0713 1015.06.14 Architecture+Planning Jurisdiction # 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com Al-02 ■ 1 01 a �N RIGHT ELEVATION I [71 F F7 Ir I F LEFT ELEVATION COSTA MESA Planet Home Living 1451 Quail St., Suite 204 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-208-7248 (planet home living, 3 REAR ELEVATION n --23- FRONT ELEVATION PLAN I ELEVATIONS COSTA MESA, CA NTGY # 2014-0723 2015-06-24 Jurisdiction # MATERIAL LEGEND I. FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 2. STUCCO, LIGHT SAND FINISH 3. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF 4. VINYL GLAZING 5. FIBERGLASS ENTRY DOOR 6. DECORATIVE EXTERIOR LIGHT 1. FLAT -BAR METAL RAILING 8. METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR 0 2 4 8 Al-03 KTGY Group, Inc. Architecture+Planning 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ' I ktgy.com � RIGHT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION COSTA MESA Planet Home Living 1451 Quail St., Suite 204 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-208-7248 (planet home living J. 4 I I r i REAR ELEVATION -_2%I _ PLAN 2 ELEVATIONS COSTA MESA, CA HTGY # 2014-0723 2015-06-24 Jurisdiction # MATERIAL LEGEND I. FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 2. STUCCO, LIGHT SAND FINISH 3. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF 4. VINYL GLAZING 5. FIBERGLASS ENTRY DOOR 6. DECORATIVE EXTERIOR LIGHT 1. FLAT -BAR METAL RAILING 8. METAL SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR 9. PRIVACY GATE KTGY Group, Inc. Architecture+Planning 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com 0 2 4 a I ] I I Al-04 ROOF PLAN 8:12 PITCH, U.N.O. COSTA M E SA Planet Home Living 1451 Quail St, Suite 204 I�f�y Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-208-7248 planet home living THIRD FLOOR DECK s:h fi Il,ao xs•10 KITCHEN i1 ti I !1 30 � a 1 1 o , �E Fr GREAT ROOM 14'-11 X 1911r 0 SECOND FLOOR _25_ I. I'LiWD! I i I I 2 CAR rkFtp,4;E I :v-rk3ErJ¢ III '4 ENTRY r rlDIMENSION QD, TRANSLUCENT SLIDING PARITION \\ ,�,/ DEN si13.10" X 12'-10" III FEATURE WALL ,1K BACK VFWFA Yra�z ea,Fr f a4:+r FIRST FLOOR PLAN I FLOOR PLANS COSTA MESA, CA NTGY # 2014-0723 2015.06-24 Jurisdidian # KTGY Group, Inc. Architecture+Plan ning 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com SQ R 11M '62SQ.FL PION 50 SQ FL DWRUNG WSQ-Ff. t44,P. 0 2 4 8 r i � A2-01 ROOF PLAN 8:12 PITCH, U.N.O. COSTA MESA Planet Home Living 1-6 1451 Quail St., Suite 204 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-208-7248 planet home living SECOND FLOOR - 2 (p_ 7£ 1T'•A FIRST FLOOR PLAN 2 FLOOR PLANS COSTA MESA, CA KTGY # 2014 0723 2015 06 24 Jurisdiction # PATIO MIN 10 DIMENSION MIN 20O SF DIMS VARY PER LOT, SEE CIVIL DMS 3, i 9'-5 112" 11'-8 1/2' R 2I'2 KTGY Group, Inc. Arch itecture+planning 17922 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com Y1.FLOOR 3,"I Ff. EI-N " 93@L4.R. G 61 SQ, Fr. r¢n 0 2 4 a A2-02 ■ Cl T Y COUNCIL A GEV DA REPORT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: NB-2 SUBJECT: COUNCIL DIRECTION FOR ALLOCATION OF FIELD USE FEES DATE: JULY 24, 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 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: NB-3 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REFUND OF APPEAL FEE FOR ZA-15-01 DATE: July 27, 2015 FROM: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S OFFICE PRESENTATION BY: COUNCIL MEMBER SANDRA GENIS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Green, City Clerk, (714) 754-5221 Richard Francis, Assistant CEO, (714) 754-5688 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: Provide direction responsive to the request for a refund of the appeal fee in the amount of $690.00 to Ms. Ann Parker. BACKGROUND: On April 23, 2015, ZA-15-01 was approved by the Zoning Administrator, subject to compliance with conditions of approval. On April 20, 2015, Ms. Ann Parker filed an appeal and paid the $690 fee. 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 on a 5-0 vote. Subsequently the Planning Commission decision was appealed by the applicant and the Planning Commission decision was upheld by the City Council on a 4-0 vote, with Council Member Foley absent. On June 16, 2015 Ms. Parker submitted a written request for a refund for the $690.00 fee paid to appeal ZA-15-01 (Attachment 1). Council Member Sandra Genis requested that the item be placed on the agenda. ANAI YSIR The appeal fees are intended to provide for staff time in preparing for the item to be reviewed by the respective body. The fees are also to cover the costs of required public noticing pursuant to State Law. Staff notes the fee rarely covers actual staff time and costs for the preparation. The costs are borne irrespective of the decision. In 2012 City Council authorized a refund of appeal fees in the amount of $1,220 to Mr. Morelli pertaining to the appeal of DR-99-22 A2. In 2013 City Council authorized a 1 refund in the amount of $1,220 to Catalina Shores Homeowners Association, pertaining to the appeal of PA-13-04. ALTERNATIVES City Council may consider the following alternatives: 1. Direct staff to review the amount of the appeal fees to ensure recovery of costs "reasonably borne" by the City for preparation of appeals. 2. Direct staff to review the policies and procedures relating to appeals. FISCAL REVIEW: Fiscal Review is not required for this item. LEGAL REVIEW: Legal review is not required for this item. BRENDA GREEN RICHARD FRANCIS City Clerk Assistant Chief Executive Officer Attachment 1: Written request from Ann Parker 2 Attachment 1 / t: R ^' MEETING DATE: AUGUST 4, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: NB-4 SUBJECT: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE AND VOTING DELEGATE ALTERNATE FOR 2015 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE DATE: JULY 27, 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 designates a member of the City Council as Costa Mesa's voting delegate and a voting delegate alternate for the 2015 League of California Cities Annual Conference. BACKGROUND: The League's 2015 annual conference is scheduled for September 30 — October 1 in San Jose, California, An important part of the Conference is the Annual Business Meeting. In order to vote at this meeting, the City Council must designate a voting delegate and may designate a voting delegate alternate (Attachment 1). ANALYSIS: The designation of a voting delegate will allow the City to participate in the Annual Business Meeting. It is at this meeting that the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy throughout the coming year. Consistent "with League bylaws, a city's voting delegate must be designated by the City Council. The City Clerk or Mayor must sign the attached form affirming that the names provided are those that were selected by the City Council (see Attachment 2). The voting delegate must be registered to attend the conference. The delegate must be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of the voting card in order to cast a vote. If the delegate is unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official. Council Members currently registered to attend the conference are: Mayor Mensinger, Council Member Genis and Council Member Monahan. FISCAL REVIEW No fiscal review is necessary for this item. LEGAL REVIEW No legal review is necessary for this item. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council appoint both a voting delegate and voting delegate alternate for the 2015 Annual Business Meeting of the League of California Cities. ATTACHMENT 1. League of California Cities Call for Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates 2. Voting Delegate/Alternate Form 0 Attachment 1 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 LEAGUE" Phone: 916,668.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 �- o�f CALIFORNIA www.cacities.org 1TT 4srU'zL; �_ �.J i L I E CV Council Action Advised by July 31, 2015 May 29, 201 S TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES League of California Cities Annual Conference — September 30 •- October 2, San Jose The League's 201SAnnual Conference is scheduled for September 30 — October 2 in San Jose, Ail important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (at the General Assembl)), scheduled for noon on Friday, October 2, at the San Jose Convention Center. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy, inn order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting delegate. Your city may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote in the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Please complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to the League's office no later than Friday, September 18, 2015. This will allow us time to establish voting delegate/altercate records prior to the conference. Please note the following procedures that are intended to ensure the integrity of the voting process at the Annual Business Meeting. Action by Council Required. Consistent with League bylaws, a city's voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a cold of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken or have our city clerk or nnayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that desi ating the voting delo eRate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the ma or_or city manager alone. Conference Registration Required, The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only, To register for the conference, please go to our website: www.cacities.org. In order to cast a vote, at least one voter must be present at the -over- Business Meeting and in possession of the voting delegate card. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegate Desk, This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the Business Meeting. o Transferring Voting Card to Non -Designated Individuals Not Allowed, The voting delegate card may be transferred fi•eely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official. e Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At. the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, they must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk and obtain the special sticker on their badges. The Voting Delegate Desk, located in the conference registration area of the San Jose Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, September 30, 8:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m.; Thursday, October 1, 7:00 a.rn, — 4:00 pan.; and Friday, October 2, 7:30-10:00 a.m. The Voting Delegate Desk will also be open at the Business Meeting on Friday, but will be closed during roll calls and voting. The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo. Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city's voting delegate and alternates. Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to the League office by Friday, September 18. If you have questions, please call Kayla Gibson at (916) 658.8247. Attachments: • 2015 Amoral Conference Voting Procedures • Voting Delegate/Alternate Form Annual Conference Voting Procedures 2015 Annual Conference One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy. 2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Atmual Conference, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the League Credentials Committee. 3. Registerhig with the Credentials Conmilttee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at,(lie Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk, Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and tints be admitted to the voting area at the Business Mecting, 4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city's voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Conuitittee at the Voting Delegate Desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution. 5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting cart( and be registered with the Credentials Conuiiittee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate or alternate. 6. Vothng Area at Bushness 1lfecting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Aduussion will be limited to those individuals with a special slicker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. 7. Resolving Disputes, fit case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the validity of siguatuies on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting. Attachment 2 L l n CAL AIGMRN U[A CITY: ITIES 2015 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORD? Please complete this form and return it to the League office by Friday, September 18, 2015. Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area, Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to hvo alternates. in order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting (General Assembly), voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolu(ion as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this foray affinnflng that lire designation reflects the action taken by the council Please note: Vothng delegates and alternates will be scaled in a separate area at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and altornntes) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be obtained only a( the Voting Delegate Desk. 1. VOTING DELEGATE Name: Title: 2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE Name: Title: PLEASE ATTACH COUNCIL, RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES, OR ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate(s). Name: E-mail Mayor or City Clark,_Phone: (circle one) (signature) Date: Please complete and return by Friday, September 18,201 League of California Cities FAX: (916) 658-8240 ATTN: 10yla Gibson E-mail: kgibson@cacities.org cacities.org 1,100 K Street, 41" Floor (916) 658-8247 Sacramento, CA 95814