Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - - Amended Agenda - 11/3/2015AMENDED 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." NOTE: CLOSED SESSION ITEM #2 ADDED immi k *'. W -,%TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2015 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 77 FAIR DRIVE CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING - 5:45 P.M. STEPHEN M. MENSINGER Mayor JAMES M. RIGHEIMER GARY MONAHAN Mayor Pro Tem.., - _ Council Member SANDRA GENIS KATRINA FOLEY Council Member Council Member City Attorney A AL Thomas Duarte - Chief Executive Officer Thomas R. Hatch Note regarding agenda -related documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the City Council agenda packet (GC §54957.5): Anv related 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 lobbv. In addition. such documents may be Dosted—whenever Dossible on the city's website at www. costa mesaca.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 — November 3, 2015 — PAGE 1 v.2,10/30/15 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 — November 3, 2015 — PAGE 2 v.2, 10/30/15 CLOSED SESSION — 5:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS Members of the public are welcome to address the City Council only on those items on the Closed Session agenda. Each member of the public will be given three minutes to speak. 1. Conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) for one potential case. 2. Conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) for one potential case. The City Council and Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency will recess to Conference Room 5A for Closed Session at the conclusion of public comments. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY — 5:45 P.M. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor 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.] Principal Caleb McFerran, Christ Lutheran Church & School, 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 — Heidi Beth and Donna Swift AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — November 3, 2015 — PAGE 3 v.2, 10/30/15 PUBLIC COMMENTS — MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: If you wish to address the City Council on a matter not on the agenda, please complete and submit a yellow speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards must be submitted to the City Clerk during the Public Comment period for non -agenda items, up to 6:40 p.m. or prior to the last speaker, whichever is earlier. Any speakers on non -agenda items not heard prior to 6:40 p.m. will be allowed to speak at the end of the meeting. Members of the public shall only address the City Council one time at any given meeting for non -agenda items. Speakers may only complete one card per person. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. The three minute per speaker time limit may be extended for good cause by the Mayor or by a majority vote of City Council. Questions and comments made by public speakers may be addressed by the City Council during Council Comments or by the Chief Executive Officer during the CEO's Report. COUNCIL MEMBERS' REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS 1. Mayor Mensinger 2. Council Member Foley 3. Council Member Genis 4. Council Member Monahan 5. Mayor Pro Tem 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. AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — November 3, 2015 — PAGE 4 v.2,10/30/15 2. READING FOLDER a. Claims received by the City Clerk: Justin Craft and Amy Nield RECOMMENDATION: City Council receive and file. 3. WARRANT RESOLUTION NO. 2545 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, INCLUDING PAYROLL REGISTER NOS. 15-21 "A" FOR $0.00; AND 15-22 FOR $2,189,295.44, AND CITY OPERATING EXPENSES FOR $1,724,756.48; AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID — Finance Department RECOMMENDATION: Approve Warrant Resolution No. 2545, to be read by the title only, and waive further reading. 4. CLEARBROOK LANE ALLEY (ALLEY NO. 46). FLOWER STREET ALLEY (ALLEY NO. 81), BROADWAY ALLEY (ALLEY NO. 89), AND MAGNOLIA STREET ALLEYS (ALLEY NO. 91, ALLEY NO. 93, AND ALLEY NO. 94) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT — CITY PROJECT NO. 15-13 — Public Services Department/Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the Clearbrook Lane Alley (Alley No. 46), Flower Street Alley (Alley No. 81), Broadway Alley (Alley No. 89), and Magnolia Street Alleys (Alley No. 91, Alley No. 93, and Alley No. 94) Improvement Project — City Project No. 15-13; and 2. City Council award a construction contract to Black Rock Construction Company, 615 N. Berry Street, Unit G, Brea, CA 92821, in the amount of $848,500.00; and 3. City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. 5. MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF OCTOBER 20, 2015 — Chief Executive Officer's Department/ City Clerk's Office RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the minutes. AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — November 3, 2015 — PAGE 5 v.2,10/30/15 6. FINAL MAP FOR TRACT NO. 17848 FOR A 24 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 650 HAMILTON STREET, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA — Public Services Department/Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the Final Map for Tract No. 17848 and authorize the signing of the Map by the City Clerk and the City Engineer. 7. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO PROVIDE AS -NEEDED STAFF SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS — Public Services Department/Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council award a contract to Civil Source, Inc., 9890 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, California 92618, in an amount not to exceed $940,000 to provide Project/Construction Management staff support as -needed for various Council -approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement; and 2. City Council approve Budget Transfer No. 16-123 in the amount of $450,000. 8. INDUSTRIAL WAY WATER QUALITY AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 14-08 — Public Services Department/Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council approve Change Order Number 3 in the amount of $216,266.32; and 2. City Council accept work performed by Lonerock, Inc. and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion; and 3. City Council release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after the filing date; and release the retention monies 35 days after the Notice of Completion filing date. ----------------------------------- END OF CONSENT CALENDAR ----------------------------------- AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — November 3, 2015 — PAGE 6 v.2,10/30/15 PUBLIC HEARINGS — 7:00 p.m. (Resolution No. 05-55): 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-04/REZONE R-14-04/ ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CO-14-02/AND MASTER PLAN PA -14-27 FOR COSTA MESA APARTMENTS AT 2277 HARBOR BOULEVARD — Planning Division/ Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council approve Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 by adoption of Resolution No. 15 -XX, to be read by title only, and further reading waived; and 2. City Council give first reading to Ordinance No. 15 -XX, to be read by title only, and further reading waived, approving Rezone R-14-04; and 3. City Council give first reading to Ordinance No. 15 -XX, to be read by title only, and further reading waived, for Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02; and 4. City Council approve Planning Application PA -14-27 by adoption of Resolution No. 15 -XX, to be read by title only, and further reading waived. 2. CODE AMENDMENT CO -15-04 TO AMEND. REPEAL. AND ADD SECTIONS TO TITLE 13 (PLANNING, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT), RELATING TO GROUP HOMES, SOBER LIVING HOMES, BOARDING HOUSES, AND RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES OF THE COSA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE — Planning Division/ Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council approve and give first reading to Ordinance No. 15 -XX, to be read by title only, and further reading waived, revising Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code with regard to group homes, state licensed facilities and boardinghouses in the Multiple -Family Residential (MFR) zones and Planned Development zones ("MFR Group Home Ordinance"); and 2. City Council approve and give first reading to Ordinance No. 15 -XX, to be read by title only, and further reading waived, revising Title 9 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code with regard to operator's permits for group homes in the MFR zones. AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — November 3, 2015 — PAGE 7 v.2,10/30/15 3. PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 —CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP FOR NET DEVELOPMENT CO. AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE — Planning Division/Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve the helistop by adoption of City Council Resolution No. 15 - XX, to be read by title only, and further reading waived, subject to conditions of approval. 4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE EASEMENT AT 580 ANTON BOULEVARD — Public Services Department/Engineering Division RECOMMENDATION: 1. City Council adopt Resolution No. 15 -XX, to be read by title only, and further reading waived, ordering the vacation of a portion of Sidewalk and Landscape Easement at 580 Anton Boulevard; and 2. City Council authorize execution of the Quitclaim Deed by the Mayor and the City Clerk. OLD BUSINESS: 1. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-12 FOR SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA -00-02 (SEGERSTROM TOWN CENTER) — Planning Division/Development Services Department RECOMMENDATION: City Council give second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 15-12, to be read by title only, and waive further reading. NEW BUSINESS: NONE ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR REPORT — CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT AGENDA — REGULAR MEETING — November 3, 2015 — PAGE 8 v.2,10/30/15 UPCOMING COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES, EVENTS AND MEETINGS • October 15, 2015 - November 29, 2015, KURIOUS - Cabinet Curiosities, Cirque do Soleil, OC Fair and Events Center, for more information, please visit www.cirguedusoleil.com • Thursday, November 5, 2015 - YES's 45TH Anniversary `An Evening of Excellence'. Radisson Hotel 4545 MacArthur Blvd. Newport Beach, 92660. For more information visit: http://Vesworks.org/an-evening-of-excellence/ • Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 7:30 p.m., Ina Garten, Emmy Award-winning host from Food Network - Segerstrom Center for the Arts, 600 Town Center Drive. For more information visit: http://www.travelcostamesa.com/event/ina-garten-costa- mesa/ • Friday, November 6, 2015 through Sunday, November, 8, 2015 - The 40th Annual `The Christmas Company', OC Fair and Events Center, 88 Fair Drive. For more information visit: http://ns.ocfair.com/ocf2/Calendar/ViewEvent.asp?Eventld=3622 • Friday, November 6, 2015 from 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. - Dinner & Movie Night at the Costa Mesa Senior Center - 695 w. 19th Street. $5 per person and space is limited, contact the Senior Center to register early. • Tuesday, November 10, 2015 through Sunday, November, 22, 2015 - 42nd Street, Segerstrom Center for the Arts, 600 Town Center Drive. For more information visit: http://www.traveIcostamesa.com/event/42nd-street-costa-mesa/ • Wednesday, November 11, 2015, 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., 5th Annual Tri-City Business Expo - Santa Ana Elks Lodge, 212 S. Elk Lane, Santa Ana. For more information visit: http://www. costamesachamber.com/event/2015-11-11/2015-tri-city-business- expo-includes-costa-mesa-santa-ana-tustin-chambers • Wednesday, November 11, 2015 - Veteran's Day - City Hall will be closed • Friday, November 13th through Sunday, November, 15th, 2015 - ARTventure Event South Coast Collection, SOCO, 3303 Hyland Ave, Costa Mesa. For a detailed schedule of events please visit: http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=1884 • Friday, November 20, 2015 from 5:30 a.m. — 7:30 a.m. — Walk with the Mayor — Estancia High School Parking Lot — 2323 Placentia Avenue, Costa Mesa. • Thursday and Friday, November 26, 2015 — November 27, 2015 — Thanksgiving Holiday — City Hall will be closed. AGENDA - REGULAR MEETING - November 3, 2015 - PAGE 9 v.2, 10/30/15 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: November 3, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC -3 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF WARRANT RESOLUTION DATE: October 26, 2015 FROM: Department of Finance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Dunivent at 714-754-5243 RECOMMENDATION: City Council adopt Warrant Resolution No. 2545 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 Nos. 15-21 "A"for $0.00; and 15-22 for $2,189,295.44; and City operating expenses for $1,724,756.48. STEPHEN DUNIVENT Interim Finance Director 1 Report ID: CCM20010 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 CCM OVERFLOW CHECK LISTING Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 11:39:58 AM C cle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To 0192278 10/16/15 O Southern California Edison Company Line Description.: Overflow 0192351 10/16/15 O Keystone Uniforms OC Line Description.: Overflow L 5t-rron't t cey P�`5e �7Uq, 5110, `fb End of Report Remit ID 0000004088 Payment Amt 0.00 0000022280 0.00 TOTAL ().nn Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CIN Run Time 11:39:47 AM Cycle, Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192271 10/16/15 P Civil Source 0000017030 16,112.50 Line Description: Staff Support Ind Way -Aug 15 Pk Proj Staff Support -Aug 15 0192272 10/16/15 P Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau 0000010346 233,007.31 Line Description: BIA Receipts for August 2015 0192273 10/16/15 P Data Ticket Inc 0000010929 21,893.84 Line Description: Casio IT 9000 Handheld Ticket Training & Installation License Fee per Unit Sales Tax (8.00%) Docking Cradles Estimated Shipping & Handling Extra AC Adapter & Power Cord Prkng Citation Procesng Support Contract 0192274 10/16/15 P Jones & Mayer 0000014653 25.163.24 Line Description: 74686-Dadey 74687 -Yellowstone 0192275 10/16/15 P Newport Mesa Unified School District 0000003339 83,166.16 Line Description: Developer Fees for August 2015 Developer Fees for Sept 2015 0192276 10/16/15 P PTM General Engineering Services Inc 0000020179 44,402.32 Line Description: City Prot No. 13-13 Traffic Si Retentions Payable Proj #13-13 0192277 10/16/15 P Southern California Edison Company 0000004088 104,611.87 Line Description: 734 James 9/8-10/7/15 2eport ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 2 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 11:39:47 AN Cycle AWKI v Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: 1587 Sunflower 919-1018115 Shalimar Park 919-10/8/15 567 W 18th 9/8-10/7/15 BCC 9/8-10/7/15 350 Bristol 9110-10/9/15 707 W 18th 9/8-1017/15 3192 Red Hill 919-10/8/15 745 W 18th 9/8-1017/15 744 James 9/8-10/7115 3191 Red Hill 9110-1019/15 St Lts 8/28-9/29/15 740 James St 9/8-1017/15 711 W 18th St Hm 9/3-10/7/15 Joann St Bike Trail 9/1-1011 NCC 8128-9129115 2293 Canyon Dr 918-1 01711 5 Park Maint 9/1-1017/15 19th/Newport Blvd 9/1-1011/15 Baker/Royal Palm 911-10/1/15 Sunflower/Plaza 9/1-1011/15 Medians 9/4-1017/15 Signals 9/8-10/7/15 Nprt Fwy/Baker 9/1-10/1/15 SD Fwy On/Off 9/1/15-10/1/15 0192279 10/16/15 P AFLAC Line Description: Cancer Ins Premium -Sept 15 STD Premium -Sept 15 Group Accident Ins -Sept 15 0192280 10/16/15 P AT & T Line Description: Firewall -Fire Sta#2 9/4-10/3 PD Emergency Line 914-10/3/15 DRC Alarm 9/4-10/3/15 Outgoing Trunk Line 9/4-10/3 Outgoing Trunk Line 9/4-10/3 IT Network Firewall 913-10/2 0000012253 0000001107 Payment Amt 10,317.35 2,687.73 sportID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,20' ink: CITY Run Time 11:39:47 F role: AWKI—Y Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: Broadband Modem 9/3-10/2/15 Estancia Park 9/3-1012/15 RMATS-Fire Sta#2 914-10/3/15 Firewall Fire Sta#3 Smallwood Park 9/6-1015/15 Cable TV DSL Line 9/4-10/3/15 WSS Alarm 8/27-9/26/15 City Internet Router Sept 2015 DID Trunk Line 9/4-10/3/15 0192281 10/16/15 P AT & T Mobility 0000001107 5,123.86 Line Description: DS Cell Phone Chrgs 8/12-9/11 Fire Cell Phone Chrgs8/12-9/11 DS Cell Phone Chrgs 6/12-7/11 DS Cell Phone Chrgs 7/12-8111 0192282 10/16/15 P Aardvark Tactical Foundation 0000021271 400.00 Line Description: SWAT Competition 0192283 10/16/15 P Accountemps 0000006816 1,089.60 Line Description: Temp Svs-Treasury w/e 10/2/15 0192284 10/16/15 P All City Management Services Inc 0000009480 3,135.11 Line Description: All City Management Services 0192285 10/16/15 P All State Police Equipment Co Inc 0000006456 3,342.61 Line Description: DTC #1032, Tri Chamber Grenade DTC #1016, Pocket Tactical Gre DTC #1083, Max Smoke Military Sales Tax (8.00%) DTC #1082, Riot Control Grenad DTC #1292, 40mm Ferret, Cs Pow DTC #1262, 40mm Ferret, Cs Liq Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 4 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 11:39:47 AM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192286 10/16/15 P Allstar Fire Equipment Inc 0000000986 994.46 Line Description: Leather Gloves/Fire Hood 0192287 10/16/15 P American Alarm Systems Inc 0000008900 510.00 Line Description: Security/Fire Arlin Nov -Jan 0192288 10/16/15 P Amtech Elevator Services 0000013616 3,741.18 Line Description: Maintenance & Repair Agreement Maintenance & Repair Agreement 0192289 10/16/15 P Amy Hooper 0000023996 100.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002232.002 0192290 10/16/15 P Ariel Supply Inc 0000006035 707.52 Line Description: Toner Cartridges Printer Cartridges Printer Cartridges Printer Cartridges 0192291 10/16/15 P Arlis Reynolds 0000023997 48.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002247.002 0192292 10/16/15 P Arrow International Inc 0000023149 4,763.03 Line Description: Paramedic Supplies 0192293 10/16/15 P Astra Builders 0000024004 2,607.65 Line Description: Refund Permit #PS15-00460 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 5 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 11:39:47 AM cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192294 10/16/15 P AutoZone 0000019364 418.51 Line Description: Motor Oil Anti Freeze Cr Windshield Reapri Kit PS Pump/Air Filter C -Air Filter/PS Pump Cr Door Lock Actuator 0192295 10/16/15 P Baker Equipment Rental 0000001164 60.00 Line Description: Dehumidifier Rental 4 FS #4 0192296 10/16/15 P Barbara Bonney Marquez 0000023998 100.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002252.002 0192297 10/16/15 P Battery Specialties 0000001214 1,561.42 Line Description: Warehouse Floor Stock 0192298 10/16/15 P Bishop Company 0000001278 1,447.64 Line Description: Maintenance Sup & Tool Tools For Park Staff Books for Arborists 0192299 10/16/15 P Bound Tree Medical LLC 0000011695 51.10 Line Description: Paramedic Supplies 0192300 10/16/15 P Bruce Kholooci 0000023999 1,000.00 Line Description: Refund Permit #BC15-00469 0192301 10/16/15 P Bruce Radomski 0000003742 404.80 Line Description: Criminal Subpoena Exp Reimb Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 6 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 11:39:47 AM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192302 10/16/15 P CDW Government Inc 0000005402 3,860.91 Line Description: Sales Tax (8.00%) Apple iMac 27" Recycling Fee Apple USB Superdrive Sales Tax (8.00%) Color Printer 4 BCC Surge Pro 4 WSS 0192303 10/16/15 P CPOA 0000001508 125.00 Line Description: 2016 Mbrshp for Bryan Glass 0192304 10/16/15 P CPRS Aging Section 0000005095 80.00 Line Description: Reg 4 Sr Symposium-YA/MP 0192305 10/16/15 P CSG Consultants Inc 0000001887 1,460.05 Line Description: Building Plan Review -Aug 15 0192306 10/16/15 P CalPERS 0000008887 798.00 Line Description: 2015 CalPERS Ed Forum -RT 2015 CalPERS Ed Forum -IC 0192307 10/16/15 P California Building Standards Commission 0000020577 1,075.00 Line Description: Bldg Standard Fees Jul-Sep2015 0192308 10/16/15 P Carol Baker 0000024000 200.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002253.002 0192309 10/16/15 P Carol Keller 0000022510 100.00 Line Description.: Refund Rec Receipt 2002257.002 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 7 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 11:39:47 AM Cycle, Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192310 10/16/15 P Central United Life Insurance Cc 0000010626 148.10 Line Description: Cancer Insurance Premium-Oct15 0192311 10/16/15 P Chace Johnson 0000024005 134.92 Line Description: Settlement-Prprty Damage Claim 0192312 10/16/15 P Commercial Aquatic Services Inc 0000003018 408,29 Line Description: DRC Pool Chemicals DRC Pool Chemicals DRC Pool Chemicals 0192313 10/16/15 P Connell Chevrolet 0000001763 18.92 Line Descnption: Hose 0192314 10/16/15 P CoreLogic Information Solutions Inc 0000004774 477.25 Line Description: RealQuest Subscription -Sept 15 RealQuest Subscription -Jun 15 0192315 10/16/15 P Costa Mesa Auto Glass 0000010001 90.00 Line Description: Window Tnt Unit 739 0192316 10/16/15 P Costa Mesa United 0000015258 4,500.00 Line Description: Athletic Fac Imp -Estancia 0192317 10/16/15 P DF Polygraph 0000021328 500.00 Line Description: Polygraph Exam 9/14/15 0192318 10/16/15 P Daniels Tire Service 0000001922 1,215.38 Line Description: Credit Adjustment Tires Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 8 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CIN Run Time 11:39:47 AM Cycle' Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192319 10/16/15 P Dave's Body & Frame 0000021567 1.248.00 Line Description: Repair Damaged Unit -#721 0192320 10/16/15 P Davinda Wijemanne 0000024006 43.50 Line Description: Refund Citation CM40001180 0192321 10/16/15 P Davis Farr LLP 0000023871 12,000.00 Line Description: Transient Occupancy Tax Audit 0192322 10/16/15 P Deaver Spring Inc 0000011318 258.36 Line Description: Sppring Repair -4520 0192323 10/16/15 P Department of Conservation 0000001530 3,967.14 Line Description: SMIP Fees Collected Jul-Sep16 0192324 10/16/15 P Department of Motor Vehicles 0000001542 25.00 Line Description: Sr Cntr Donated Car Reg 0192325 10/16/15 P Dion & Sons Inc 0000023685 1,182.80 Line Description: Fuel -FS #3 0192326 10/16/15 P Discovery Benefits 0000021353 450.80 Line Description: FSA Admin Fee -Sept 15 0192327 10/16/15 P Elisa Sakaske 0000022648 100.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002246.002 Dirt ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. k; CITY SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2 Is: Run Time 11:39:47 Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192328 10/16/15 P Enterprise FM Trust 0000023151 4,274.03 Line Description: PD Monthly Lease -Oct 15 0192329 10/16/15 P Ewing Irrigation Products 0000005063 185.92 Line Description: Irrigation Supplies Irrigation Supplies 0192330 10/16/15 P FTOG Inc 0000021401 3,078.13 Line Description: Special Prof Costing 9/28-10/8 0192331 10/16/15 P Fed Ex Corp 0000002190 32.09 Line Description: Shipping Fees Shipping Fees 0192332 10/16/15 P Ferguson Enterprises Inc 0000007785 8T78 Line Description: Sr Cntr Drain Sr Cntr Drain 0192333 10/16/15 P Filarsky & Watt LLP 0000002206 4,928.00 Line Description: Legal Svs-Aug 2015 0192334 10/16/15 P Francisca Granados Bernal 0000024001 100.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002256.002 0192335 10/16/15 P Fun Flicks 0000023780 1,184.00 Line Description: Delivery and Handling Fee Epic 40' Movie Screen Rental t 0192336 10/16/15 P G & W Towing 0000002289 600.00 Line Description: Towing Svs-Unit #524 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 10 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 11:39:47 AM Cycle' Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0192337 10/16/15 P GCR Marketing Network Line Description: Space Available Rpt May -Aug 15 0192338 10/16/15 P GIT Satellite LLC Line Description: Satellite Phone 8120-9119/15 0192339 10/16/15 P Getty Images US Inc Line Description: Image Subscrptn Renwl 0192340 10/16/15 P Government Staffing Services Inc Line Description: Tem Svs-HR We 10/4/15 Temp Svs-FD Admin w/e 10/4115 Temp Svs-Prof Mgt w/e 1014/15 0192341 10/16/15 P Hua Yang Line Description: 2015 CEO Leadership Award 0192342 10/16/15 P Huntington Beach Honda Line Description: Heated Grips -#625 Motorcycle Parts Motorcycle Servic"635 Motorcycle Key Motorcycle Repair -#632 0192343 10/16/15 P IDS Group Inc Line Description: FS #4 Renovation -9/18/15 0192344 10/16/15 P Interstate Batteries of California Coast Line Description: Battery Remit ID Payment Amt 0000022572 1,667.00 0000019742 57.95 0000003307 2,221.00 0000022422 9,749.00 0000009182 250.00 0000019158 4,200.87 0000022643 1,766.00 0000002700 97.55 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 11 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CIN Run Time 11:39:47 AM C cle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To 0192345 10/16/15 P Izadora Jacinto Line Description: Refund Citation K137966 0192346 10/16/15 P John Deere Landscapes Inc Line Description: Irrigation Equipment 0192347 10/16/15 P Kathie Curtiss Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002259.002 0192348 10/16/15 P Kearston Warrick Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002233.002 0192349 10/16/15 P Kellys Pool Service Line Description: DRC Pool Cleaning Svs-Sept15 0192350 10/16/15 P Keystone Uniforms OC Line Description: Uniform -Torres Uniform -Pacheco Uniform-Tranbarger Uniform-Casarez Uniform -Foster Uniform -Hernandez Uniform-Gallardo Uniform -Scott Uniform -Scott Uniform-McMorns Uniform -Macias Uniform -Reyes Uniform -Gomez Uniform-Bames Uniform -Peters Uniform -Bao Remit ID CQ1DUPYk911301 0000016331 0000012527 0000024003 0000013443 0000022280 Payment Amt 3.00 270.00 25.00 100.00 150.00 5,005.45 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 12 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CIN Run Time 11:39:47 AM Cycle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Uniform-Hildeman Uniform -Webb Unforms-Brown Uniforms-Cernosek Uniforms -Brenneman Uniform -Reynolds UniformTrevino 0192352 10/16/15 P Kimball Midwest Line Description: Shop Supplies 0192353 10/16/15 P LINA Line Description: Admin Fee for Sept 2015 0192354 10/16/15 P Larrys Building Materials Line Description: Materials 4 Bark Pk ImprovePrj Sand 4 Emergency Sandbag Frog Sand 4 Emergency Sandbag Frog Materials 4 Bark Pk ImprovePrj Sand 4 Emergency Sandbag Frog 0192355 10/16/15 P Leo Arnold Line Description: Pre -Employment Background Svcs 0192356 10/16/15 P Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Line Description: Legal -2014 Fire Negotiations 0192357 10/16/15 P Loomis Line Description: Armored Car Services -Sept 2015 0192358 10/16/15 P Mackay Builders Inc Line Description: Fuel Tank DOS for Aug 2015 Remit ID 0000006819 0000015623 0000002912 0000022194 0000002960 [�PPDA➢GDIY� 0000023723 Payment Amt 494.38 75.00 1,169.91 360.00 390.00 947.99 1,060.06 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 13 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 11:39:47 AM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: Fuel Tank Repairs 0192359 10/16/15 P Mesa Consolidated Water District 0000003144 1,001.30 Line Description: 1800 Newport 8/10-10/6/15 140 112 E 17th 8/4-1015115 234 1/2 E 17th 8/4-10/5/15 402 1/2 Broadway 8/11-10/6115 1341/2 E 19th 8110-1017/15 195 112 Broadway 8110-1016/15 0192360 10/16/15 P Metro Car Wash 0000003155 1,108.75 Line Description Car Washes & Special Svcs -PD Car Washes & Special Svcs -City 0192361 10/16/15 P Michael Balliet 0000008858 3,825.00 Line Description: SRRE Administrative Svs 0192362 10/16/15 P Michael T Donohoe 0000023629 50.00 Line Description: Entertainment for Oct Car Show 0192363 10/16/15 P Michelle Lee 0000023989 100.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002255.002 0192364 10/16/15 P Napa Auto & Truck Parts 0000012968 2,263.50 Line Description: Auto Parts & Supplies 0192365 10/16/15 P National Safety Compliance Inc 0000020714 439.73 Line Description: Qrtly Random Drug Testing 0192366 10/16/15 P New Horizons Computer Learning Center 0000003319 1,785.00 Line Description: 20411 ADMINISTERING WINDOWS SE Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 14 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CIN Run Time 11:39:47 AM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0192367 10/16/15 P Noack Trophy & Engraving Company Line Description: Name Badges 0192368 10/16/15 P Nun Wang Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002241.002 0192369 10/16/15 P O Neil Storage Line Description: HR Record Storage Sept 2015 0192370 10/16/15 P OHO Inc Line Description: Qfit Annual Calibration 4 Fire 0192371 10/16/15 P Orange Coast Trailer Supply Inc Line Description: Propane Fuel for Unit #311 Propane Fuel for Unit #189 Propane Fuel for Unit #311 Propane Fuel for Unit #340 Propane Fuel for Unit #311 Propane Fuel for Unit #189 Propane Fuel for Unit #189 0192372 10/16/15 P PAPA Pesticide Applicators Professional Line Description: 2016 Mbrshp for George Cortez 0192373 10/16/15 P PR Diamond Products Inc Line Description: Saw Blade for Concrete Saw 0192374 10/16/15 P Petty Cash Fund No. 1 Line Description: Reimbursements to Petty Cash APA Trng 4 Attached Planners Remit ID 0000003360 0000023990 0000018395 0000021884 0000003464 0000003546 0000010988 PDAI1DI1111.9 ! Payment Amt 84.24 .M 76.94 760.00 780.84 45.00 fI/LQS 2,917.87 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 15 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 11:39:47 AM C cle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: Sexual Assault Investigatn-BL - Drivers License Tests 4 Staff Taser Instructor Recert-JJ H & K Armorer Trng-JC Firearms Instructor Course -JC ManagingGeneratnl Diff Trng-PW ManagingGeneratnl Diff Trng-KG ICI Vehicle Theft Tmg-MP ICI Burglary/Theft Course -MP Bicycle Patrol Trng-SA 0192375 10/16/15 P Porterfield Enterprises LTD 0000003662 185.25 Line Description: Brake Pads 0192376 10/16/15 P Ready Refresh 0000023960 78.23 Line Description: Water for City Council 0192377 10/16/15 P Ricoh USA Inc 0000007311 10.29 Line Description: CEO Copier Addtllmages Sep2015 0192378 10/16/15 P Rincon Truck Center Inc 0000013236 1,697.50 Line Description: Wiper Blades Ambulance Sway Bar, Axle Plate Exhaust Tip 0192379 10/16/15 P Roto Rooter Service & Plumbing Company 0000003863 188.56 Line Description: Toilet Repairs -711 W 18th AptC 0192380 10/16/15 P Santa Ana College 0000003752 1,030.40 Line Description: Fall 2015 Post Trng 9114-9125 0192381 10/16/15 P Scientia Consulting Group Inc 0000021410 6,192.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 16 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 11:39:47 AM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt Line Description: Onsite Tech Support 9/6-9/19 0192382 10/16/15 P Shannon Garcell 0000004421 55.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002239.002 0192383 10/16/15 P Smart & Final 0000004044 134.19 Line Description: Utensils for Fire Stations 0192384 10/16/15 P Snap On Industrial 0000012101 433.16 Line Description: Shop Tools 0192385 -10/16/15 P Sparkletts 0000015725 51.71 Line Description: Water for Finance 0192386 10/16/15 P Spectrum Gas Products 0000012653 280.80 Line Description: Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#4 Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#5 Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#3 Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS42 Oxygen Cylinder Rental-FS#1 0192387 10/16/15 P Spina Bifida Association of America 0000023991 200.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002258.002 0192388 10/16/15 P Stacey Fitzpatrick 0000023992 96.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002249.002 Refund Rec Receipt 2002248.002 0192389 10/16/15 P State of California Dept of Justice 0000001534 13,443.00 Line Description: Fingerprint Apps for Sept 2015 Fingerprint Apps for Sept 2015 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 17 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 11:39:47 AM C Cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192390 10/16/15 P The Bank of New York Mellon 0000005664 1,982.20 Line Description: Admin Fee -2003 Tax Alct Rfnd 0192391 10/16/15 P Theodore Robins Ford 0000004245 53.97 Line Description: Brake Kit for Unit 4712 0192392 10/16/15 P Time Warner Cable 0000011202 2,422.42 Line Description: Internet Services 10/17-11/16 Internet Services 10/17-11/16 Equipment Fees 9/29-10/28115 0192393 10/16/15 P Titan Tire Recycling Inc 0000023339 177.00 Line Description : For Warehouse Automotive Stock 0192394 10/16/15 P Tracy Hall 0000023993 100.00 Line Description: Refund Rec Receipt 2002254.002 0192395 10/16/15 P Traveltech Enterprises 0000022894 100.00 Line Description: SrCntrTravel-2/4116 GriffithOb 0192396 10/16/15 P Vitec Videocom Inc 0000023995 653.69 Line Description: Prof Tripod Repair Service 0192397 10/16/15 P Vulcan Materials Company 0000007403 489.46 Line Description: Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 18 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 15,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 11:39:47 AM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0192398 10/16/15 P Ward Diesel Filter Systems Inc Line Description: Exhaust Filter Parts -Unit #514 0192399 10/16/15 P Wayne Electric Company Inc Line Description: Pump Motor Starter -Auto Part 0192400 10/16/15 P West Coast Fence Co Line Description: REMOVAL & INSTALLATION OF FENC 0192401 10/16/15 P Westates One Description: Costa Mesa City Seal Stamps 0192402 10/16/15 P Williams Data Management Line Description: IT Data Storage Swcs-Sep 2015 0192403 10/16/15 P Zoll Medical Corporation Line Description: ECG Electrodes ECG Electrodes Part # 8889-8701 AutoPulse 1 Y End of Report Remit ID 0000007843 0000004482 0000021495 0000004505 0000018803 0000021290 Payment Amt 570.46 496.82 2,486.00 73.64 362.50 8,030.70 TOTAL $709,516.46 Report ID: CCM2001V City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 CCM VOID CHECK LISTING Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:51:58 PM C cle: MAW V Payment Ref Cancel Date Status Remit To 0192157 10/22/2015 V CPS Electronics & Consulting Line Description: Check returned due to damage by post office. 0•"' 6,i30.00 - oil f:J ;02.,: End of Report 0000016267 Payment Date 10/09/15 Payment Amt (6,130.00) TOTAL ($6,130.00) Report ID: CCM2001 Bank: COM1 -Cycle: Payment Ref Date 000976 10/23/15 000977 10/23/15 000978 10/23/15 000979 10/23/15 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Status Remit To P Apple One Employment Services Line Description: Administrative Support Clerical Support P Ariel Supply Inc Line Description: Toner Cartridges Toner Cartridges P Hub Auto Supply Line Description: Auto Parts -Sept 2015 P Ware Disposal Inc Line Description: WasteCollectnSvc 734 W James WasteCollectnSvc 745 W 18th St WasteCollectnSvc 707-711 W1 8th Solid Waste Collection Service WasteCollectnSvc 740-744 James Solid Waste Collection Service End of Report Remit ID 0000001055 0000006035 0000002584 0000000255 Page No. 1 Run Date Oct 22,2015 Run Time 2:15:55 PM Payment Amt 2,041.50 1,323.68 tt:14:P.1 11,693.70 TOTAL $15,957.54 art ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. k: DDP1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2 le: ABIRBP Run Time 2:20:10 Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 004291 10/23/15 P Costa Mesa Employees Association 0000006284 3,996.25 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1522 004292 10/23/15 P Costa Mesa Executive Club 0000006286 240.00 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1522 004293 10/23/15 P Costa Mesa Firefighters Association 0000001812 5,556.80 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1522 004294 10/23/15 P Costa Mesa Police Association 0000001819 6.120.00 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1522 004295 10/23/15 P Costa Mesa Police Management Assn 0000005082 200.00 Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1522 TOTAL $16,113.05 End of Report Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:51:22 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0192404 10/23/15 P Arthur J Gallagher & Co Line Description: Annual Fee -Insurance Broker Sv 0192405 10/23/15 P G4S Secure Solutions Inc Line Description: Jail Svs-Aug 2015 0192406 10/23/15 P Horizons Construction Cc Intl Inc Line Description: Construction Contract -CM Gatew Retentions Payable Proj #13-06 0192407 10/23/15 P Siemens Industry Inc Line Description: Traffic Signal Maint-Sep 2015 Traffic Signal Call Outs-Sep15 0192408 10/23/15 P Southern California Edison Company Line Description: 401 Broadway 9/16-10/16/15 199 Broadway 9/16-10/16/15 360 Ogle St 9/11-10/13/15 Fac & Equip 8/17-9/29/15 0192409 10/23/15 P WLC Architects Inc Line Description: FS #1 Architectural Design Ser 0192410 10/23/15 P White Nelson Diehl Evans LLP Line Description: Audit Services for EY 2014-201 0192411 10/23/15 P Zoll Medical Corporation Line Description: Model # 8000-002005-01 Cable S Model # 8000-0341 SpO2/SpCO/Sp Model # 8300-0250-01 Sure Powe Model # 8300-0520-01 Filterlin Remit ID 0000022226 0000022480 0000022423 0000002904 0000004088 0000023955 0000004228 0000021290 Payment Amt 50,000.00 63,232.80 118,830.57 18,023.00 50,361.80 70,778.06 17,500.00 418,005.36 Report ID: CCM2001 - City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 2 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CIN Run Time 3:51:22 PM C cle: Payment Ret Date 0192412 10/23/15 0192413 10/23/15 0192414 10/23/15 0192415 10/23/15 Status Remit To Line Description: Model # 8300-0524-01 Smart Cap Model It 8778-0107 4 Year Exten Model # REUSE-09-1MQ Welch Aly Model # REUSE-12-2MQ Welch All Sales Tax (8.00%) Model # 8000-0339 SpO21SpC0/Sp Sales Tax (8.00%) Model # 8000-000901-01 ECG Pla Model # 8000-000371 SpO2/SpCO/ Model # 601-2231011-01 X Serie Model # 5001-9928 Zoll E Serie Model It 8000-0580-01 Six hour Sales Tax (8.00%) Model# 8000-0339 SpO2/SpCO/Sp P ARCO Business Solutions Line Description: Fuel 1011-10115115 P AT&T Line Description: TeWinkle Park 917-10/6/15 RMATS-Fire Sta#1 917-10/6/15 IT Computer Room 917-10/6/15 Cool Line for PD 917-10/6/15 Firewall -Fire Sta#1 9/10-10/9 Wakeham Park 9/10-1019/15 P AT&T Line Description: Senior Center 10/10-11/9/15 911 Cama Trunks 10114-11113115 P AY Nursery Line Description: Brisane Box Delivery Sales Tax (8.00%) Little John Dwarf bottlebrush Remit ID 0000018562 0000001107 nnnnnny`ur 0000001142 Payment Amt 256.81 204.69 272.34 1,245.24 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 3 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:51:22 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Crape Myrtle "Tuscarora" Bradford Pear'Redspire" Crape Myrtle "Twilight' Southern Magnolia Tree 0192416 10/23/15 P Access Display Group Inc Line Description: Product ID #LSIDMC-VA-1824-L-W Product ID #LSD2D-4040-WG Outd Sales & Use Tax Payable Sales Tax (8.00%) Shipping Charges 0192417 10/23/15 P Accountemps Line Description: Temp Svs-Treasury w/e 10/9/15 0192418 10/23/15 P Allied Electronics Inc Line Description: Estimated Freight/Shipping Fee American Power Conversion Smar Sales Tax (8.00%) 0192419 10/23/15 P Allstar Fire Equipment Inc Line Description: Uniforms, Clothing 0192420 10/23/15 P Anita Chapanond Line Description: Food for Interview Panel 0192421 10/23/15 P Arnold Alegado Line Description: Mileage & Meals -SWAT Trng 0192422 10/23/15 P Athletic Field Specialists Line Description: Spray Svs-June 15 Remit ID 0000023842 0000000982 0000023876 0000022089 0000023215 Payment Amt 1,688.08 1,089.60 1,480.04 267.96 EYY=x:'I'7 708.15 2,640.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 4 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:51:22 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192423 10/23/15 P Barr & Clark Environmental 0000009300 3,900.00 Line Description: LBP Insptn-1750 Whittier #41 LBP Insptn-1750 Whittier#35 LBP Insptn-1845 Monrovia #16 LBP Insptn=903 W 17th #98 LBP Insptn-903 W 87th #73 LBP Insptn-1845 Monrovia #5 LBP Insptn-1973 Newport #40 LBP Insptn-903 W 17th #83 LBP Insptn-1973 Newport #41 LBP Insptn-1845 Monrovia #49 0192424 10/23/15 P CPS Electronics & Consulting 0000016267 6,130.00 Line Description: Software Renewal Software Renewal 0192425 10/23/15 P CPS HR Consulting 0000014387 2,019.50 Line Description: Credit Memo,Maint Worker Exams Clerical Tests 0192426 10/23/15 P CSULB Foundation 0000009724 692.00 Line Description: Field Evidence Tech 1112-11/13 0192427 10/23/15 P California Auto Refrigeration 0000017147 1,596.55 Line Description: A/C Parts -#749 A/C Parts A/C Parts -#523 0192428 10/23/15 P California Park & Recreation Society 0000005095 766.52 Line Description: 2015-16 Mbrshp-City/12 Empls ort ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. k: CITY SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,: le: A1NKI Y Run Time 3:51:2: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192429 10/23/15 P Carl Warren & Company 0000001578 9,750.00 Line Description: Wkrs Comp Admin Fee -Sep 15 Wkrs Comp Admin Fee -Jul 15 Wkrs Comp Admin Fee -Aug 15 0192430 10/23/15 P Commercial Aquatic Services Inc 0000003018 178.20 Line Description: DRC Pool Chemicals 0192431 10/23/15 P Craig Hanks 0000011102 100.00 Line Description: Basketball Ref 0192432 10/23/15 P Crop Production Services Inc 0000020562 4,766.58 Line Description: Herbicides Cr 4 Dupl Invoice #28219107 Fertilizers 4 Sports Fields 0192433 10/23/15 P Culver Newlin Inc 0000021554 720.36 Line Description: Furniture 0192434 10/23/15 P DF Polygraph 0000021328 750.00 Line Description: Polygraph Exam 9/14/15 0192435 10/23/15 P Daniels Tire Service 0000001922 1,530.58 Line Description: Tires 0192436 10/23/15 P Dell Marketing LP 0000001963 5,167.30 Line Description: Sales Tax (8.00%) Power Edge R730 Server 0192437 10/23/15 P Dion & Sons Inc 0000023685 13,026.64 art ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2 leCITY: o�nnti v Run Time 3:51:22 le Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Unleaded Fuel for PD 0192438 10/23/15 P Dunn Edwards Corp Line Description: Graffiti Supplies 0192439 10/23/15 P Eric McVey Line Description: Paramedic License Recertfictn 0192440 10/23/15 P File Keepers LLC Line Description: Records Destruction -Sept 15 0192441 10/23/15 P Franklin White Line Description: Refund Citation CM30001039 0192442 10/23/15 P Ganahl Lumber Co Line Description: Window Gasket -CH Prtl Ordr Window Gasket CH Prtl Ordr 0192443 10/23/15 P Grainger Line Description: Toilet Cover Dispenser@BCC 0192444 10/23/15 P Hanks Electrical Supplies Line Description: Fuses 4 Days Fid Bster Pmp 0192445 10/23/15 P Hitch Crafters Line Description: Trailer Hitch 0192446 10/23/15 P Huntington Beach Honda Line Description: Tire Install -#623 Remit ID 0000002058 0000007918 0000022380 0000024013 0000005246 0000002393 0000002445 0000017053 0000019158 Payment Amt 21.35 200.00 &S1fmt 65141(. 1,152.60 81.01 109.71 231.82 31.50 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 7 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:51:22 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0192447 10/23/15 P Hyatt Legal Plans Inc Line Description: Legal Plan -Oct 2015 0192448 10/23/15 P Industrial Shoe Company Line Description_ Safety Boots -J Gonzalez 0192449 10/23/15 P Interstate Batteries of California Coast Line Description: Credit Adjustment Batteries Batteries 0192450 10/23/15 P Interwest Consulting Group Inc Line Description: Senior Building Inspector Hour 0192451 10/23/15 P Irvine Ranch Water District Line Description: 258 Brentwood St 917-10/8/15 261 Monte Vista Ave917-10/8/15 170 Del Mar Ave 9/8-10/8/15 2603 Elden Ave 917-10/8/15 220 23rd St 9/7-10/8/15 0192452 10/23/15 P JD Lock & Key Line Description: Lock & Key 0192453 10/23/15 P Jamal Razavi Line Description: Refund Receipt 001-00276730 0192454 10/23/15 P Josef Saar Line Description: Mileage&Meals-Drug Abuse Tmg Remit ID 0000022383 0000008272 0000002700 0000021505 0000005112 0000005930 0000024014 0000024012 Payment Amt 1,833.00 fICSIKI 2,346.25 ffiM111i 497.80 36.00 93.69 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 8 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:51:22 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192455 10/23/15 P KME Fire Apparatus 0000002849 19.89 Line Description: Cr 4 Invoice #523448 Wheel Choc Bracket -#514 0192456 10/23/15 P Keystone Uniforms OC 0000022280 2,360.79 Line Description: Cr 4 Uniform-Tranbarger Uniform -Nguyen Uniform-Zangger Uniform-Hildeman Uniform -Steck Uniform -Martinez Uniform -Peters Uniforms-Chamness Uniforms -Christianson Uniforms -Manley Uniforms-Tanchuaco Uniforms -Bates Uniforms -Gutierrez Safety vest -Brunt Uniforms-Shetlin Uniform -Recruit J Santos 0192457 10/23/15 P Knorr Systems Inc 0000005036 2,403.76 Line Description: DRC Pool Maint DRC Pool Maint DRC Pool Service/Pm DRC Pool Maint 0192458 10/23/15 P La Opinion 0000002882 181.97 Line Description: Subscription Renewal Jail 0192459 10/23/15 P Leica Geosystems Inc 0000003452 113.35 Line Description: Orange Spray Paint & Steel Tap Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 9 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CIN Run Time 3:51:22 PM Cycle: MAW Y Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192460 10/23/15 P Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 0000002960 818.00 Line Description: Legal -2014 POA Negotiations Legal 0192461 10/23/15 P Lloyd Pest Control 0000002981 1,734.00 Line Description: Monthly Maint for Fire Sta#3 Monthly Maint for Fire Sta#2 Monthly Maint for Fire Sta#1 Monthly Maint for DRC Monthly Maint for BCC Monthly Maint for NCC Monthly Maint for Fire Sta#4 Monthly Maint for PD Comm Monthly Maint for PD Monthly Maint for PD Comm Monthly Maint for City Hall Monthly Maint for Fire Sta#5 Monthly Maint for Fire Sta#6 Monthly Maint for WSS Monthly Maint for C/Y Bldg A&B Monthly Maint for Sr Center 0192462 10/23/15 P Los Angeles Times 0000003000 - 1,595.98 Line Description: Ads for Planning Division Legal -DP Notices for Planning Legal Notices 4 City Clerk Ad 4 Activity in 100YrFloodp 0192463 10/23/15 P Matthew Selinske 0000006063 196.20 Line Description: Mileage&Meals-Suprvisory Crse 0192464 10/23/15 P McMaster Carr Supply Company 0000003118 457.91 Line Description: Shop Supplies -O Rings Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 10 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:51:22 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Line Description: Shop Supplies-Locknuts Shop Supplies -O Rings 0192465 10/23/15 P Mike Linares Inc Line Description: CDBG/HOME Coordinator Services 0192466 10/23/15 P Mike Raahauges Shooting Enterprises Line Description: Range Fees for SWAT 0192467 10/23/15 P Mitchell Line Description: Online Vehicle Repair Database 0192468 10/23/15 P Municipal Code Corporation Line Description: Update & Hosting of Municipa 0192469 10/23/15 P Myriam Singer Line Description: Refund Permit #BX15-00576 0192470 10/23/15 P NetMotion Wireless Inc Line Description: Software Maint Renewal 9/30/16 0192471 10/23/15 P Norman A Traub Associates Inc Line Description: Legal Services -August 2015 0192472 10/23/15 P Nxtec USA LLC Line Description: Small Tools for Shop 0192473 10/23/15 P Occu Med Line Description: QA Services for October 2015 Remit ID 0000002969 0300006853 0000011596 0000003257 0000024010 0000015484 0000013815 0000020180 0000003388 Payment Amt 3,42650 20.00 1,608.00 412.46 125.25 5,375.00 2,907.66 110.70 2,279.00 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 11 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:51:22 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192474 10/23/15 P Office Max Incorporated 0000020710 3,766.73 Line Description: Office Supplies -Bldg Safety Office Supplies -PD Records Office Supplies -Fire Admin Office Supplies -City Clerk Office Supplies-Rec. BCC Office Supplies -CEO Office Supplies-Rec Day Camp Office Supplies -Senior Center Office Supplies-Recreatn Admin Office Supplies-Rec YouthSprts Office Supplies-Rec PlygrndPrg Office Supplies -Central Swcs Office Supplies -Finance Admin Office Supplies -CEO Comms&Mark Office Supplies-Dev Svcs Admin Office Supplies -PD Investigtns Office Supplies-Rec EarlyChild 0192475 10/23/15 P Orange County Probation Department 0000003491 2,242.50 Line Descnption: Juve Crt Work Prog Jul/Aug2015 0192476 10/23/15 P Orange County Vector Control District 0000021750 574.52 Line Description: FairviewPkWetlands VectorCntrl 0192477 10/23/15 P Parking Lot Lighting Inc 0000022121 1,015.93 Line Description: Perimeter Lighting Poles Sales Tax (8.00%) 0192478 10123/15 P Phone Supplements Inc 0000003625 150.43 Line Description: Headsets for PD Communications Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 12 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:51:22 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To Remit ID Payment Amt 0192479 10/23/15 P Porterfield Enterprises LTD 0000003662 247.00 Line Description: Brake Parts 0192480 10/23/15 P ProCare Work Injury Center 0000022662 318.74 Line Description: Industrial Medical Clinic Sew Industrial Medical Clinic Sew Industrial Medical Clinic Sew 0192481 10/23/15 P Protection One 0000006543 56.23 Line Description: Historical See Bldg Alarm Svcs 0192482 10/23/15 P Public Safety Center Inc 0000013162 126.37 Line Description: Sales Tax (8.00%) Opiates REagent, #For922 0192483 10/23/15 P R & R Controls Inc 0000023885 3,415.49 Line Description: Emrgncy AC Control Repairs -NCC 0192484 10/23/15 P Rincon Truck Center Inc 0000013236 395.00 Line Description: Bake Cleaning -Shop Supplies 0192485 10/23/15 P Robert Newman 0000018053 100.00 Line Description: Basketball Referee 10/12/15 0192486 10/23/15 P Robert Pignone 0000003634 200.00 Line Description: Paramedic License Recertifctn 0192487 10/23/15 P Robertos Auto Trim Shop 0000003837 510.20 Line Description: Seat Repairs -2003 Ford F-150 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 13 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CIN Run Time 3:51:22 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0192488 10/23/15 P Rotational Molding Inc Line Description: Shipping Fee PLR Liner Sales Tax (8.00°/x) Trash Receptacles 0192489 10/23/15 P Roto Rooter Service & Plumbing Company Line Description: Main Line Cleared -Sr Center 0192490 10/23/15 P SCAN Line Description: Mbrshp Renewal 7/1/15-6/30/16 Mbrshp Renewal 7/1/15-6/30/16 0192491 10/23/15 P Safe Moves Line Description: Bicycle Education Services 0192492 10/23/15 P Santa Margarita Ford Line Description: Labor Sales Tax (8.00%) Engine Replacement for Vehicle 0192493 10/23/15 P Shaw HR Consulting Inc Line Description: Consulting Svcs Empl/Nonlndust 0192494 10/23/15 P Solar Service Center Line Description: Refund Permit #BX15-00370 0192495 10/23/15 P SolarCity Corporation Line Description: Solar Energy @ NCC Sep 2015 Remit ID 0000021537 0000003863 0000004739 :�I�PPYYRPFI9 0000022708 0000021706 0000024011 0000004629 Payment Amt 2,312.48 28697 160.00 8,235.00 6,830.00 1,260.00 parc:1a 2,444.27 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 14 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:51:22 PM C cle: Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0192496 10/23/15 P South Coast Emergency Vehicle Services Line Description: Engine Repairs to Unit #517 0192497 10/23/15 P South Coast Toyota Line Description: Gasket & Thermostat -#797 0192498 10/23/15 P Southern California Gas Company Line Description: CNG Fuel -Old CY Sept 15 CNG Fuel @ New CY-Sept 15 0192499 10/23/15 P Sparkletts Line Description: Water for Civic Center Water for Fire 0192500 10/23/15 P State of California Dept of Line Description: Irrigation of Soccer Flds @FDC 0192501 10/23/15 P Susan Saxe Clifford PHD Line Description: Psych Evaluation for PD Comm 0192502 10/23/15 P Target Specialty Products Inc Line Description: Fertilizer 4 City Sport Fields 0192503 10/23/15 P Thales Consulting Inc Line Description: Prep FY14/15 City's Street Rpt 0192504 10/23/15 P The Home Depot Credit Services Line Description: Misc Purchases for Sept 2015 Remit ID 0000003643 0000004740 0000004092 0000015725 0000023232 0000003932 0000004218 0000010332 0000002560 Payment Amt 8,935.49 20.17 148.73 145.36 4,492.33 450.00 382.26 1,400.00 4,990.22 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 15 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:57:22 PM C cle: 'ayment Ref Date Status Remit To 0192505 10/23/15 P Theodore Robins Ford Line Description: Link, Nuts for Unit #711 EGR Valve for Unit #706 Handle Assembly/Rod-Unit#415 0192506 10/23/15 P Time Warner Cable Line Description: Internet Services 10/18-11/17 Equipment Fees 10/16-11/15/15 Internet Services 10/18-11/17 0192507 10/23/15 P Turnout Maintenance Company LLC Line Description: Turnout Clean & Repairs -3 Empl Turnout Clean & Repairs -4 Empl Turnout Clean & Repairs -5 Empl Turnout Clean & Repairs -7 Empl Turnout Clean & Repairs -7 Empl 0192508 10/23/15 P United Site Services of California Inc Line Description: Porta Potty Svc-DeIMarCommGard Porta Potty Svc-HamiltonComm Porta Potty Svc -FDC Trailer 0192509 10/23/15 P ValueOptions of California Inc Line Description: EAP Services for Oct 2015 0192510 10/23/15 P Verizon Wireless Line Description: Broadband Swes 8124-9/23/15 PD Cell Phone Usage 8/16-9/15 0192511 10/23/15 P Violation Management Services Line Description: Refund Citation K132571 Remit ID :111I111I1I419Z1.1 1AAIrDYfifrZrY] :�IRrDPY�r➢E:Y] 0000015552 0000020327 IIPUDIQrRIrill 0000024015 Payment Amt 503.56 1,061.99 2,240.10 356.27 878.67 5,842.02 116.50 Report ID: CGM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 16 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 3:51:22 PM Cycle: Payment Ref Date 0192512 10/23/15 0192513 10/23/15 0192514 10/23/15 Status Remit To P Vulcan Materials Company Line Description: Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes Asphalt for Patching Potholes P Waxie Sanitary Supply Line Description: For Warehouse Floor Stock P West Coast Fence Cc Line Description: Install Security Gate Latch Repair&Replace Damaged Fence End of Report Remit ID 0000007403 0000004480 0000021495 Payment Amt 430.54 6,643.49 I!1111P1 TOTAL $987,286.06 Report ID: CCM2001 City of Costa Mesa Accounts Payable Page No. 1 SUMMARY CHECK REGISTER Run Date Oct 22,2015 Bank: CITY Run Time 4:00:38 PM C cle: APAY Payment Ref Date Status Remit To 0192515 10/23/15 P CalPERS Long -Term Care Program Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1522 0192516 10/23/15 P Community Health Charities Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1522 0192517 10/23/15 P State of California Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1522 0192518 10/23/15 P State of California Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1522 0192519 10/23/15 P Tamra Williams Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1522 0192520 10/23/15 P United States Treasury Line Description: Payroll Deduction Check 1522 End of Report Remit ID 0000006287 0000008015 0000001546 0000001546 0000002941 Payment Amt 228.07 10.00 85.00 254.00 1,350.92 0000015556 85.38 TOTAL $2,013.37 WARRANT RESOLUTION NO. 2545 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, INCLUDING PAYROLL REGISTER NOS. 15-21 "A" FOR $0.00; AND 15-22 FOR $2,189,295.44; AND CITY OPERATING EXPENSES FOR $1,724,756.48, 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 3rd day of November, ATTEST: BRENDA GREEN)S M. MENSINGER CITY CLERK MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA 1 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. 2545 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of November, 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 4`h day of November, 2015. BRENDA GREEN�JCITY CLERK CC -3 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WARRANT INFORMATION Payment Date Remittance to: Remittance ID: Payment Explanation of payment Ref. Amount 0192284 10/16/15 All City Management Services 0000009480 $3,135.11 What do they do for us? What is this for? School Crossing Guard Services 0192467 10/23/15 Mitchell 1 0000011596 $1,609.00 Online Vehicle Repair Database — What is this fo r? Online Vehicle Repair Tracking Software 0192488 10/23/15 Rotational Molding Inc. 0000021537 $2,312.48 What is this for? Recycled Trash Receptacles for Bark Park Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC -4 SUBJECT: CLEARBROOK LANE ALLEY (ALLEY NO. 46), FLOWER STREET ALLEY (ALLEY NO. 81), BROADWAY ALLEY (ALLEY NO. 89), AND MAGNOLIA STREET ALLEYS (ALLEY NO. 91, ALLEY NO. 93 AND ALLEY NO. 94) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - CITY PROJECT NO. 15-13 DATE: OCTOBER 22, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER, (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt plans, specifications, and working details for the Clearbrook Lane Alley (Alley No. 46), Flower Street Alley (Alley No. 81), Broadway Alley (Alley No. 89), and Magnolia Street Alleys (Alley No. 91, Alley No. 93 and Alley No. 94) Improvement Project - City Project No. 15-13. 2. Award a construction contract to Black Rock Construction Company, 615 N. Berry Street, Unit G, Brea, CA 92821, in the amount of $848,500.00. 3. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. BACKGROUND: The City owns and maintains 129 alleys. In November 20, 2007, a Citywide Alley Improvement Report was presented to the City Council. At that meeting, Council approved a City Alley Improvement Priority List to address the City's alley system beginning with those alleys most in need of improvements. This project will include rehabilitation of the following alleys (Attachment 1): 1. Clearbrook Lane Alley (Alley No. 46) located between Civic Center Park, Clearbrook Lane, and west of Vanguard Way. 2. Flower Street Alley (Alley No. 81) located between Flower Street, Broadway, Tustin Avenue, and Irvine Avenue. 3. Broadway Alley (Alley No. 89) located between Broadway, Magnolia Street, Tustin Avenue, and Irvine Avenue. 4. Magnolia Street Alley (Alley No. 91) located betweer Fullerton Avenue, and Orange Avenue. 5. Magnolia Street Alley (Alley No. 93) located betweer Westminster Avenue, and Santa Ana Avenue. 6. Magnolia Street Alley (Alley No. 94) located betweer Tustin Avenue, and Irvine Avenue. Magnolia Street, E. 18th Street, Magnolia Street, E. 18th Street, Magnolia Street, E. 18th Street, ANALYSIS: The pavement rehabilitation process for the Clearbrook Lane Alley, Flower Street Alley, Broadway Alley, and Magnolia Street Alleys consists of removal of the existing asphalt concrete alley sections and construction of new Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement sections, and other incidental work needed to complete the project in accordance with the contract documents. The City Clerk received and opened nine (9) bids for this project on September 8, 2015. Black Rock Construction was the apparent low bidder with a bid proposal of $848,500.00. The Engineer's estimate was $996,095.00; and the average of the nine (9) bids received amounted to $994,125.89. An analysis of the bids indicates that this apparent low bidder submitted a bid proposal that is 14.8% lower than the Engineer's estimate. The variance between the low bidder and the Engineer's estimate may be attributed to the highly competitive conditions prevalent in the construction industry at this time. The Bid Abstract is included as Attachment 2. The license and references of Black Rock Construction Company were checked and staff has found them to be in good standing. Black Rock Construction Company has successfully completed other City projects, including most recently, rehabilitation of Alley No. 5 (located north of 16th Street), Alley No. 28 (located south of Baker Street), Alley No. 29 (located west of Harbor Boulevard), Alley No. 30 (located north of Ponderosa Street), Alley No. 47 (located north of Baker Street), Alley No. 51 (located south of Baker Street), Alley No. 71 (located north of Flower Street), the northerly portion of Alley No. 75 (located south of Flower Street), Alley No. 76 (located south of Flower Street), Alley No. 92 (located south of Magnolia Street), Alley No. 116 (located north of 23rd Street), Alley No. 119 (located north of EI Camino Drive), Alley No. 124 (located north of W. 19th Street), and Alley No. 125 (located north of Sonora Road). ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The alternative to this Council action would be to reject all the bids. If all the bids are rejected, the City would need to readvertise or cancel the project. Staff believes that readvertising the project will not result in lower bids. FISCAL REVIEW: Funding for this project has been budgeted in Fiscal Year 2014-2015 from Gas Tax and Capital Improvement Funds. LEGAL REVIEW: Black Rock Construction has furnished the necessary bonds and insurance, which were approved as to form by the City Attorney. After the award and subsequent execution of the contract, a "Notice to Proceed" will be issued. 2 CONCLUSION: The advertisement and bid opening for the Clearbrook Lane Alley (Alley No. 46), Flower Street Alley (Alley No. 81), Broadway Alley (Alley No. 89), and Magnolia Street Alleys (Alley No. 91, Alley No. 93, and Alley No. 94) Improvement Project, City Project No. 15-13, has been completed. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the plans, specifications, and working details for said project; award the contract to the apparent low bidder, Black Rock Construction, in the amount of $848,500.00; and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Public Works Agreement. ERNESTO MUNOZ FARIBA FAZELI Public Services Director City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1 - Location of Alleys 2- Bid Abstract DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer City Attorney City Clerk Staff File 3 ATTACHMENT 1 19iis Camn,unbyG,wth ' Ps/ � ALLEY 89 Pa` �c Fie/h � 5 s, 1, 0 14 s, ,cP ALLEY 94 RaSpka FJlfi; Ndrpn Prk Gym Rules �O! Fair Dr Y 'Costa _ Police [7a �lARCO 1 Civic Center Park ALLEY 46 Clearbrook Ln Fa rwinds C Morristown r.+, a J Q);_ -q0rktcwt, s� i Bid �a 9�h qp p� S .r� r `s� .St Al 81 �e �e.,nr,rraiee�.,rk v� .sok �,,ari,icri rare T Elm" . fkmmlary Sepool ALLEY91 l A, c. r n �i w ALLE�/`93r�fhs� CITY OF COSTA MESA ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS ALLEY NOS: 46, 81, 89, 91, 93 & 94 CITY PROJECT NO. 15-13 LOCATION MAPS 4 ATTACHMENT CITY OF COSTA MESA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES REHABILITATION OF ALLEY NOS. 46, 81, 89, 91, 93, AND 94 CITY PROJECT NO. 15-13 BID OPENING RESULTS: SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 Bidder city Total Bid 1. BLACK ROCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BREA $848,500.00 2. NOBEST INCORPORATED 3. EBS GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC GARDEN GROVE CORONA $895,005.00 $939,870.00 $943,718.00 $975,905.00 $1,046,295.00 $1,092,290.00 $1,095,000.00 $1,110,550.00 4. ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT CORONA PLACENTIA 5. GOLDEN STATE CONSTRUCTORS, INC 6. KALBAN, INC. 7. SULLY -MILLER CONTRACTING COMPANY 8. HARDY & HARPER, INC SANTA CLARITA BREA SANTA ANA 9. VIDO SAMARZICH, INC ALTA LOMA Average $994,125.89 Engineer Estimate: $996,095.00 CC -5 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY — 5:45 P.M. October 20, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The Special Closed Session meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 5:00 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 Tem Righeimer, and Council Member Genis (Arrived at 5:10 p.m.), Council Member Foley, Council Member Monahan Council Members Absent: None PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS — NONE CLOSED SESSION The City Council recessed into Closed Session at 5:04 p.m. to consider the following item: 1. Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation: Solid Landings Behavioral Health, Inc.; and Sure Haven, Inc. in its own name and dba Rock Solid Recovery; FPS, LLC: Stephen Fennelly; and Elizabeth Perry v. City of Costa Mesa, District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:14-cv-01838-JVS- JCG, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2). 2. Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation: Timothy Dadey, et al. v. City of Costa Mesa, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30- 2014-00757962-CU-CR-CJC, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2). 3. Conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2), and California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) for one potential case. The City Council reconvened at 5:44 p.m. CALL TO ORDER (00:00:06) The meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 5:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (00:00:15) — Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer Minutes — Regular Meeting — October 20, 2015 - Page 1 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MOMENT OF SOLEMN EXPRESSION (00:00:42) Father Mike Hanifin, St. Joachim Catholic Church, Costa Mesa ROLL CALL (00:02:45) Present: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer, Mayor Mensinger Absent: None Officials Present: Chief Executive Officer Tom Hatch, City Attorney Thomas Duarte, Assistant Chief Executive Officer Rick Francis, Assistant Chief Executive Tamara Letourneau, Economic and Development Services Director Gary Armstrong, Public Services Director Ernesto Munoz, and City Clerk Brenda Green. CITY ATTORNEY CLOSED SESSION REPORT (00:02:57) — NONE • COIN: Council Members Ex Parte Communications pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2-238(b) ANNOUNCEMENTS (00:03:10) "Costa Mesa Minute" was played featuring upcoming events and activities in the community. PRESENTATIONS (00:04:54) 1. Mayor's Award: Knots of Love (00:04:56) Christine Fabiani, Founder and Executive Director of "Knots of Love", accepted the Mayor's Award. PUBLIC COMMENTS (00:15:15) Ralph Taboada, Costa Mesa, spoke on the adopted City Budget and requested reducing the funding for sports fields and apply to other areas. (00:16:05) Gay Royer, Costa Mesa, requested the signal timing at Wilson and Pomona be inspected; and spoke on the wall closures on Victoria. (00:19:23) Reggie Mundekis, Costa Mesa, spoke on the Arlington Drive bio-swale and bike trail project. (00:21:24) Beth Rafakes, Costa Mesa, spoke on the collection of candy for the Trunk or Treat event; and the funding for the Fire Stations. (00:22:06) Minutes — Regular Meeting — October 20, 2015 - Page 2 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Speaker, Costa Mesa, requested refund of appeal fees. (00:23:57) Cindy Black, Costa Mesa, spoke on special caps for cancer patients. (00:26:50) Dr. Reich, Costa Mesa, expressed support of the new State Law SB 331; spoke on the rally at the Costa Mesa Motor Inn; and spoke on the removal of bus benches and shelters. (00:28:08) Chuck Perry, Costa Mesa, spoke on the improvement of new housing in the City; spoke on the widening of Irvine Blvd.; and traffic at In -N -Out. (00:31:19) Wendy Leece, Costa Mesa, spoke on free speech, the Freedom of Information Act; spoke on fire safety response times; spoke on Council Member remodeling projects; and Council Member comments. (00:33:50) Steve White, Costa Mesa, spoke on 9/11; and spoke on Medical Marijuana and uses of hemp. (00:36:55) COUNCIL MEMBER' REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND SUGGESTIONS (00:40:09) Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer requested Staff to review the Victoria St. closure; spoke on the budget and funding for sports fields, fire stations and maintaining roads; spoke on new houses and improvements on the Westside. (00:40:10) Mayor Mensinger spoke on the Walk with the Mayor; the light signal at Wilson; and requested the Police Chief to report on the crime mapping results. (00:45:10) Council Member Foley spoke on comments made by Mayor Mensinger on Housing; requested an update on St. Claire speed bumps; requested a report on the Victoria entrance closure and the survey; spoke on the Arlington trail bioswale project public meeting; requested a report on RINA numbers; spoke on the Fire Department requests; and requested all communication between Mayor Mensinger and Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer and developers on affordable housing. (00:47:58) Council Member Genis thanked the community for the Halecrest Chili Cook -off; spoke on the Scarecrow Festival; requested additional information on Consent Calendar Item #4 — Fairview Park Cattail Project and Consent Calendar Item #6 — Harbor Medians Project; spoke on the Arlington Drive bio-swale and bike trail project Meeting; spoke on the cancellation of the Library Study Session Meeting; spoke on the sustainability of the roadway system; and requested a report on housing to include affordable housing units for low income and very low income. (00:57:16) Council Member Monahan spoke on the St. Joachim Catholic Church Harvest Festival and fundraiser at Monahan's for Newport Harbor Dance Club. (01:07:09) REPORT — CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) (01:09:03) — NONE Minutes — Regular Meeting — October 20, 2015 - Page 3 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED CONSENT CALENDAR (01:09:15) MOTION: Approve recommended actions for Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 9 except for 4, 5, 6 and 7. MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motions carried: 5-0 1. PROCEDURAL WAIVER: MOTION TO APPROVE THE READING BY TITLE ONLY OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SAID ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS THAT APPEAR ON THE PUBLIC AGENDA SHALL BE READ BY TITLE ONLY AND FURTHER READING WAIVED ACTION: City Council adopted and approved Ordinances and Resolutions by reading title only, and further reading waived. 2. READING FOLDER a. Claims received by the City Clerk: Patrick Almaguer, Donna Casey, and Ramon Gutierrez. ACTION: City Council received and file. 3. WARRANT RESOLUTION NO. 2544 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, INCLUDING PAYROLL REGISTER NOS. 15-21 FOR $2,109,250.50; AND CITY OPERATING EXPENSES FOR $1,631,635.95; AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME ARE TO BE PAID ACTION: Approved Warrant Resolution No. 2544, to be read by the title only, and waived further reading. Minutes — Regular Meeting — October 20, 2015 - Page 4 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 8. BUDGET ADJUSTMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FROM HOAG FOR MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM ACTION: City Council authorized a budget adjustment in the amount of $100,000 to accept a grant from Hoag for the Medical Transportation Program through the Costa Mesa Senior Center. 9. A RESOLUTION 2015 -XX CONSENTING TO THE INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO JOIN THE CALIFORNIAFIRST PROGRAM ACTION: City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-57, to be read by title only, and further reading waived, consenting the inclusion of properties within the City's Jurisdiction into the CaliforniaFIRST Program. ----------------------------------- END OF CONSENT CALENDAR ----------------------------------- ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 4. FAIRVIEW PARK CATTAIL REMOVAL — CITY PROJECT NO. 15-14 (01:10:24) Council Member Foley spoke on the communication received regarding mosquitoes and no-see-ums from residents on Swan Drive. (01:10:29) Mr. Munoz spoke on the meeting with neighbors on Swan Drive and the Vector Control District; and testing and remediation efforts. (01:12:42) Council Member Genis spoke on insects at Fairview Park such as no-see-ums; and the benefits of removal of the cattails. (01:52:58) Public Comments: Mary Hannah, Costa Mesa, spoke on the mosquito problem on Swan Drive and at Fairview Park. (01:21:09) Mayor Mensinger spoke on maintenance at Fairview Park; and providing additional information to residents. (01:24:18) Discussion ensued on the pumps and maintenance staff at Fairview Park. (01:24:47) Minutes — Regular Meeting — October 20, 2015 - Page 5 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Foley/Mayor Mensinger The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: 1. City Council adopted plans, specifications, and working details for the Fairview Park Cattail Removal Project, City Project No. 15-14; and 2. City Council awarded a contract to McNabb Construction, Inc. in the amount of $215,460.00; and 3. City Council approved the Budget Transfer No. 16-124 in the amount of $232,000.00; and 4. City Council authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. PUBLIC HEARINGS — 7:00 p.m. (Resolution No. 05-55): (01:31:55) 1. AN ORDINANCE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA -00-02 (DA -15-02) AND RESOLUTION TO ADOPT NORTH COSTA MESA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT SP -15-01 FOR THE SEGERSTROM TOWN CENTER SUBAREA AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BRISTOL/SUNFLOWER — (01:31:59) Staff report, including a PowerPoint presentation presented by Assistant Planner, Stephanie Roxas. (01:32:41) Public Comments: None (01:34:17) MOVED/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer/Mayor Mensinger MOTION: (1) City Council adopt Resolution No. 15-56, to be read by title only and further reading waived, for SP -15-01 North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Amendment and (2) City Council give first reading to Ordinance No. 15-12, to be read by title only, and further reading waived to approve a Second Amendment to Development Agreement No. DA -00-02 for Segerstrom Town Center including: 2a) Extending the term of the development agreement (originally executed in 2001) for an additional 20 years to the year 2035, except as otherwise described in 2b; and (2b) For the properties located at 3400 and 3420 Bristol Street within Segerstrom Town Center Sub -Area 3, the term of the development agreement shall be 10 years, to the year 2025. However, the Development Services Department may automatically grant a 5 -year extension, to the year 2030, at a staff level provided that construction started on at least 30% of the projects on Minutes — Regular Meeting — October 20, 2015 - Page 6 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED these specified parcels; and (2c) Amend the development agreement to incorporate entitlements approved on January 16, 2007 by General Plan Amendment (GP -06-02), as described in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. (01:34:22) Justin McCluster, CJ Segerstrom and Sons; spoke on the Master Plan and term of the Agreement. (01:37:43) Discussion ensued on the term of the agreement, future agreements and setting a precedence. (01:38:49) SUBSTITUTION MOTION/SECOND: Council Member Foley/Council Member Genis SUBSTITUTE MOTION: City Council adopt Resolution No. 15-56, to be read by title only, and further reading waived, for SP -15-01 North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Amendment; and City Council give first reading to Ordinance No. 15-12, to be read by title only, and further reading waived, to approve the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement DA -00-02 for Segerstrom Town Center (staff recommendation). The motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, and Council Member Genis Nays: Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Absent: None Motion failed: 2-3 ORIGINAL MOTION/SECOND: Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer/Mayor Mensinger The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: (1) City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-56, to be read by title only and further reading waived, for SP -15-01 North Costa Mesa Specific Plan Amendment; and (2) City Council gave first reading to Ordinance No. 15-12, to be read by title only, and further reading waived to approve a Second Amendment to Development Agreement No. DA -00-02 for Segerstrom Town Center including: 2a) Extending the term of the development agreement (originally executed in 2001) for an additional 20 years to the year 2035, except as otherwise described in 2b; and Minutes — Regular Meeting — October 20, 2015 - Page 7 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED (2b) For the properties located at 3400 and 3420 Bristol Street within Segerstrom Town Center Sub -Area 3, the term of the development agreement shall be 10 years, to the year 2025. However, the Development Services Department may automatically grant a 5 -year extension, to the year 2030, at a staff level provided that construction started on at least 30% of the projects on these specified parcels; and (2c) Amend the development agreement to incorporate entitlements approved on January 16, 2007 by General Plan Amendment (GP -06-02), as described in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. (01:34:22) 2. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 752 WEST 19TH STREET — (01:45:13) Staff report, presented by Director of Public Services, Ernesto Munoz. (01:45:25) Public Comments: Teresa Drain, Costa Mesa, spoke on the use of right-of-way to enhance the bikeability and walkability of the area. (01:46:42) Ralph Taboada, Costa Mesa, spoke on the use of right-of-way to enhance the bikeability and walkability of the area; encouraged more people to bike and walk; and requested a deferral on the item. (01:48:34) Robert Gibson, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of the vacation and spoke on the unfeasibility of a bike path due to surrounding properties. (01:50:48) Council Member Foley spoke in opposition of the project and spoke on 19th Street as a highly used bike community. (01:52:50) Council Member Genis spoke in opposition to the project and requested a deferral of project. (01:53:25) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer, and Mayor Mensinger Nays: Council Member Foley, and Council Member Genis Absent: None Motion carried: 3-2 ACTION: 1. City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-55, to be read by title only, and further reading waived, ordering the vacation of excess Right -Of -Way at 752 West 19th Street; and Minutes — Regular Meeting — October 20, 2015 - Page 8 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 2. City Council authorized the execution of the Quitclaim Deed by the Mayor and the City Clerk. OLD BUSINESS: NONE NEW BUSINESS: 1. DISCUSSION OF CITY'S APPEAL FEES AND PROCEDURES — WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (01:55:02) 5. MINUTES (01:55:16) Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer requested that Attachment 1 (Map) further clarify the lots pertaining to Council Member Monahan's property and conflict of interest. (01:55:19) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Mensinger The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: City Council approved the minutes of the City Council and Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of October 6, 2015 6. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF THE HARBOR BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS (01:56:24) Public Comments: Wendy Leece, Costa Mesa, spoke on the concern of small businesses going out of business due to traffic median obstacles. (01:56:47) Discussion ensued on community meetings; and installation of sidewalks. (01:59:08) Council Member Genis requested a traffic study. (02:00:45) Minutes — Regular Meeting — October 20, 2015 - Page 9 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Foley, Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: None Absent: None Motion carried: 5-0 ACTION: 1. City Council awarded a Professional Services Agreement for the design of the Harbor Boulevard Improvements to Civil Source, Inc., 9930 Research Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618, in the amount of $139,850; and 2. City Council authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. 7. RESOLUTION FOR COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROGRAM APPLICATIONS (02:02:08) Public Comments: Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa, spoke in support of obtaining grants; and requested clarification on adding a lane at Newport and Superior. (02:02:25) Cindy Black, Costa Mesa, spoke on the right turn lane into Triangle Square and eminent domain. (02:04:25) MOVED/SECOND: Council Member Monahan/Mayor Mensinger The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Genis, Council Member Monahan, Mayor Pro Tem Righeimer and Mayor Mensinger Nays: Council Member Foley Absent: None Motion carried: 4-1 ACTION: City Council adopted Resolution 15-54, to be read by title only, and further reading waived, approving the submittal of grant applications for transportation improvement projects under the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program (CTFP) for Fiscal Years 2016-17 through 2018-19. REPORT — CITY ATTORNEY — NONE (02:05:50) ADJOURNMENT (02:06:00) Minutes — Regular Meeting — October 20, 2015 - Page 10 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED The Mayor and City Council adjourned at 7:54 p.m. Minutes adopted on this 3rd day of November, 2015. Stephen M. Mensinger, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Green, City Clerk Minutes — Regular Meeting — October 20, 2015 - Page 11 Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC -6 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP FOR TRACT NO. 17848 FOR A 24 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 650 HAMILTON STREET, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA DATE: OCTOBER 22, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR BY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER, AT 714-754-5335 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Final Map for Tract No. 17848 and authorize signing of the Map by the City Clerk and the City Engineer. BACKGROUND: The Vesting Tentative Map for Tract No. 17848 and Conditions of Approval were approved by the Planning Commission on April 27, 2015. The Map consists of a subdivision for 24 two-story units for common interest development on a 2 acre lot. ANALYSIS: All Conditions of Approval imposed by the Planning Commission have been complied with and the Final Map is in substantial conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map approved by the Planning Commission. The Tract Map has been checked and found to be technically correct, and includes the release and relinquishment of access rights to Hamilton Street and an easement for emergency and public security vehicle purposes to be accepted by the City. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: No alternatives were considered. FISCAL REVIEW: All Tract Map filing fees have been paid. 1 LEGAL REVIEW: There is no legal review required relative to this item. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Final Map and authorize the City Clerk and the City Engineer to sign the Map. ERNESTO MUNOZ FARIBA FAZELI Public Services Director City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1 — Final Tract Ma 2 — Letter of Conditions DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer Assistant CEO City Attorney Economic & Dev. Director/Deputy CEO City Clerk 2 SHEET 1 OF 3 SHEETS NUMBERED LOTS: 5 LETTERED LOTS: 6 GROSS AREA: 2.115 AC. NET AREA: 2.048 AC. DATE OF SURVEY: JANUARY, 2015 ALL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17848 OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE: TRACT NO. 17848 IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 38 IN TRACT NO.9 AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 9, PAGE 9, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES JERRY L. USELTON, L.S. 5347 FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING ALL PARTIES HAVING ANY RECORD TITLE INTEREST IN THE LAND COVERED BY THIS MAP, DO HEREBY CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND RECORDATION OF SAID MAP, AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE. WE HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AN EASEMENT FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES: HAMILTON STREET. WE ALSO HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA: 1. THE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR EMERGENCY AND PUBLIC SECURITY VEHICLE PURPOSES ONLY, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP WE ALSO HEREBY RELEASE AND RELINQUISH TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA: 1. ALL VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS TO HAMILTON STREET EXCEPT AT APPROVED ACCESS LOCATIONS. SHEA HOMES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY: BY: NAME: NAME: TITLE: TITLE: NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT: A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF 1 ON . BEFORE SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: ACCEPTED AND FILED AT THE REQUEST OF ' FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY DATE TIME FEE$ INSTRUMENT NO. BOOK PAGE HUGH NGUYEN COUNTY CLERK—RECORDER BY: DEPUTY THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF SHEA HOMES, IN JANUARY 2015.1 HEREBY STATE THAT ALL MONUMENTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE POSITIONS INDICATED, OR THAT THEY WILL BE SET IN SUCH POSITIONS WITHIN 365 DAYS OF ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS; AND THAT SUCH MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. 1 HEREBY STATE THAT THIS FINAL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP. �c�l�A LAND s�` JERRY L. USELTON, L.S. 5347 DATE: rq JS 534 OF DSL\E�� CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT: I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP AND HAVE FOUND IT TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE TENTATIVE MAP, IF REQUIRED, AS FILED WITH AMENDED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND CITY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. DATED THIS DAY OF 2015 QftOFESSp�� FARIBA FAZED, CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF COSTA MESA R.C.E. NO. 51480 514 EXPIRATION DATE: 6/30/16 * DR 6� %16 OIVIL OF COUNTY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP AND HAVE FOUND THAT ALL MAPPING PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND I AM SATISFIED SAID MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT. DATED THIS DAY OF 2015 KEVIN R. HILLS, COUNTY SURVEYOR L.S. 6617, EXPIRATION DATE: 12-31-15 A NOTARY PUBLIC, BY: CRAIG S. WEHRMAN, CHIEF DEPUT7_SU7VEM PERSONALLY APPEARED WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT. WITNESS MY HAND: MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE IS IN COUNTY (PRINT NAME) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT: A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS, ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS COUNTY OF 1 ON BEFORE ME, . A NOTARY PUBLIC, PERSONALLY APPEARED WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S)IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(IES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT. WITNESS MY HAND: MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE IS IN COUNTY (PRINT NAME) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SIGNATURE OMISSIONS: PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 66436 (o)(3)(A) OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES HAVE BEEN OMITTED: FAIRVIEW FARMS WATER COMPANY, HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED APRIL 20, 1916 IN BOOK 282, PAGE 86 OF DEEDS. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED AUGUST 31, 1955 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 107543, IN BOOK 3195, PAGE 145 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND PARTIALLY QUITCLAIMED EASEMENT PER DOCUMENT RECORDED JUNE 8, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2014000240250 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF COSTA MESA) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP WAS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE DAY OF . 2015 AND THAT THEREUPON SAID COUNCIL DID, BY AN ORDER DULY PASSED AND ENTERED, APPROVE SAID MAP AND DID ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENTS, THE DEDICATION FOR STREET PURPOSES OF: HAMILTON STREET. AND DID ALSO ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA: 1. THE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR EMERGENCY AND PUBLIC SECURITY VEHICLE PURPOSES ONLY, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP 2. ALL VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS TO HAMILTON STREET EXCEPT AT APPROVED LOCATIONS. AND DID ALSO APPROVE SUBJECT MAP PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 66436(o)(3)(A) OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND AFFIXED THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA. DATED THIS DAY OF 2015 BRENDA GREEN CITY CLERK OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA COUNTY TREASURER -TAX COLLECTOR'S CERTIFICATE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS OF MY OFFICE, THERE ARE NO LIENS AGAINST THE LAND COVERED BY THIS MAP OR ANY PART THEREOF FOR UNPAID STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES, EXCEPT TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES NOT YET PAYABLE. AND DO CERTIFY TO THE RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH REGARDING DEPOSITS TO SECURE PAYMENT OF TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES ON THE LAND COVERED BY THIS MAP. DATED THIS DAY OF SHARI L. FRFIDFNRICH COUNTY TREASURER—TAX COLLECTOR 2015 BY TREASURER—TAX COLLECTOR a P* ts% 3 CD SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS NUMBERED LOTS: 5 LETTERED LOTS: 6 GROSS AREA: 2.115 AC. NET AREA: 2.048 AC. DATE OF SURVEY: JANUARY, 2015 ALL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17848 BASIS OF BEARINGS: TRACT NO. 17848 IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES JERRY L. USELTON, L.S. 5347 FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. BOUNDARY ESTABLISHMENT BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE BEARING BETWEEN O.C.S. HORIZONTAL CONTROL STATION GPS NO. 6204R1 AND STATION CPS NO. 6197R2 BEING NORTH 63'03'59" WEST PER RECORDS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR. DATUM STATEMENT: COORDINATES SHOWN ARE BASED UPON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM (CCS83) ZONE VI, 1983 NAD, (2007.0 EPOCH OCS GPS ADJUSTMENT). ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE GROUND, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. TO OBTAIN GRID DISTANCES MULTIPLY GROUND DISTANCES BY 0.99997119 (SCALING POINT OF ORIGIN N=2184736, E=6051463) RECORD DATA REFERENCES/LEGEND: R1 INDICATES PARCEL MAP PMB 44/ 44 R2 INDICATES TRACT NO. 9. MM 9 / 9 R3 INDICATES RESOLUTION NO. PC -78-29, APPROVING LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT S-78-27, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1978 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 10692, IN BOOK 12834, PAGE 1656, OFFICIAL RECORDS. R4 INDICATES TRACT NO. 10927, MM 472 / 44-45 R5 INDICATES TRACT NO. 13205, MM 621 / 29-30 R6 INDICATES JACK S. RAUB SURVEY NOTES ON FILE WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE (UNRECORDED -DATED NOV. 20, 1957, REV. MAR. 4, 1958 -JOB NOS. 5624, 5724) R7 INDICATES TRACT NO. 17435, MM 920 / 48-4 R8 INDICATES CORNER RECORD 2008-1496 R9 INDICATES CORNER RECORD 2008-2173B R10 INDICATES MAP OF FAIRVIEW FARMS, MM 8 / 71 CF CALCULATED FROM NOTE: SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 FOR EASEMENT NOTES, LAND USE NOTE, LOT DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS "A" AND "B'. Lu QI 2 WILSON ST. N W Z yA?y \3 GROU'1'O Ja'fly� \(44 I \ 1J MONUMENT NOTES: A - INDICATES FOUND O.C.S. GPS CONTROL STATION MONUMENT PER RECORDS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR. • - FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED 0- INDICATES 2" LP TAGGED "LS 5347', OR SPIKE AND WASHER STAMPED "LS 5347" OR LEAD, TACK AND TAG 'LS 5347" TO BE SET AT EXTERIOR PARCEL MAP BOUNDARY CORNERS AS NOTED. ❑ - INDICATES 1" I.P. TAGGED "LS 5347", OR SPIKE AND WASHER STAMPED "LS 5347" OR LEAD, TACK AND TAG 'LS 5347" TO BE SET AT INTERIOR PARCEL CORNERS AS NOTED. ALL MONUMENTS TO BE SET WITHIN 365 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS 1❑ FD. GEAR SPIKE AND WASHER "LS 5411", OCS GPS III 6204Ri, PER CR 2008-2174B AND R7, FITS TIES PER CR 2008-21748, FLUSH. ACCEPTED AS CL INT. HARBOR BLVD./HAMILTON ST. N=2184472.37 E-6053753.97 (2007.0 EPOCH) ❑2 FD. GEAR SPIKE AND WASHER "LS 6970", OCS GPS III 6197R2, PER CR 2005-02058, FLUSH N®2186477.69 E-6049807.00 (2007.0 EPOCH) ❑3 CL INT. POMONA AVE./HAMILTON ST. EST, FROM FD, NOTCHES ON MANHOLE RIM PER CITY OF COSTA MESA TIE BOOK 16-5, R1, R4, R5 AND R6. NOTE: THE LOCATION OF OCS GPS# 6203R2 (NOT FOUND) EST. PER 4-17D. TIES SHOWN ON R8 IS SOUTH 86'32'25" WEST 1.22' .FROM CL INT. POMONA/HAMILTON. SEE DETAIL "A" SHEET 3 OF 3. ❑4 FD. GEAR SPIKE SHANK DOWN 0.3'. NO REFERENCE, ACC. AS CL INT. VICTORIA ST./POMONA AVE. NO TIES FOUND. REPLACED WITH SPIKE & WASHER "LS 5347 ❑5 SFN, EST. CL INT. VICTORIA ST./HARBOR BLVD. FROM TIES PER CR 2008-2173B AS SHOWN HEREON. �6 FD. 1" I.P. TAGGED "LS 2681" NO REF., DOWN 0.75'. (NOTE: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IN R3 PREPARED BY LS 2681). ❑7 FD. LEAD & TACK & TAG 'LS 2681' NO REF., FLUSH. S00'20'10"W 1.14' OF EST. LOT CORNER (NOTE: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IN R3 PREPARED BY LS 2681). �8 FD. 3/4' I.P. W/ SHANK, NO TAG. NO REF. FLUSH. S39 -03-59"E 0.29' OF EST, LOT CORNER SF SEARCHED FOUND NOTHING BOUNDARY ESTABLISHMENT NOTES: EST. 1 ESTABLISHED BY PRORATION PER R2 AND R10. EST. 2 S.E. CORNER LOT 38 OF R2. T. 3 ESTABLISHED AT RECORD DISTANCE (169.78') FROM S.E. CORNER LOT 38 OF R2 PER R3. ® ESTABLISHED PARALLEL WITH E. LINE OF LOT 38 OF R2 PER R3. © ESTABLISHED PARALLEL WITH S. UNE LOT 38 OF R2 PER R3. ® ESTABLISHED AS THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE W. LINE OF THE E. 155.00 FEET OF THE N. HALF OF LOT 38 OF R2 PER R3. EST. 7 ESTABLISHED N. LINE OF THE S. HALF OF LOT 38 OF R2 BY PRORATION PER R1 AND R3. EST. 8 ESTABLISHED E. LINE OF THE S.W. QUARTER OF LOT 38 OF R2 BY PRORATION PER Rt. EST. 9 ESTABLISHED N.E. CORNER PARCEL 4 OF Rt 132.00 FEET W'LY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE E. LINE OF THE S.W. QUARTER OF LOT 38 OF R2. EST. 10 ESTABLISHED E'LY LINE OF Ri AND IT'S S'LY PROD 132.00 FEET W'LY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE E. LINE OF THE S.W. QUARTER OF LOT 38 OF R2. EST.. 11 ESTABLISHED S'LY LINE OF LOT 38 OF R2 20.00 FEET N'LY OF AND PARALLEL WITH CL HAMILTON. EST. 1 ESTABLISHED N'LY LINE OF LOT 38 OF R2 25.00 FEET S'LY OF AND PARALLEL WITH CL VICTORIA. 4 _ _ _ VICTORIA N89'39'23'W 2641.07' (2640' CF R7\641.07' R4, 2641.00' R5) STREET qN 660.26' (660' R2 & RIO, 660.23' R1) \ -N - N89'39'23 "W 660.25' (660' R2 & R10) �lo M M ��pcy IJV n10(� g 0 LOT 30 0� n Wo^ \ \ � pW ;7 N SFS Z EST. 9 1 uj > 1O 30.00' 168.10' (168.08' R7) o in p0ARCEL� 8 K � v o o �pRCEL s c d^ ¢I b I QW Z m M 9 PARCEd sl G = M ON Z \ 3�' pARCEL 9 I a i sF _ 198.06 10.00' 20.00' 3 798.06' 20.00' N89'39'03"W 660.19' (660.15' R1) 307.09' (307.07' R3) 132.00'175.09' M & (Ri) 330.09' EST. 8 ^o N89'38'45"W \ 14.78' M & (R3) pW ;7 N A 81 (EST, 4) N89 -38-45"W 1 I Ull 292.28' (292.26' 660.12' (660.08' R1, 660' R10) SEE DETAIL "N' HAMILTON N8938'45"W 2640.49' (2040.32' R4, 2640.49' R5, 2640' CF R10) SHEET 3 OF 3 \2 O'cP I� 3 mi T) n n 8 \ 10 10 155.00' M & (R3) 0 (330.07' R1) \ I W e m N � K N W O \ I p O� Z mr. EST. 5 p� M A � N N n v v � � N �r EST. 11 N � O z I o M -T f STREET 39 FD. LEAD & TACK & s TAG "LS 5411" PER R9 (4 PLACES) 1980.81' (1980' CF R10) nC a 1"=60' I \ I - (1980' CF R10)� „ 1980.37_ 1 SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEETS NUMBERED LOTS: 5 LETTERED LOTS: 6 GROSS AREA: 2.115 AC. NET AREA: 2.048 AC. DATE OF SURVEY: JANUARY, 2015 ALL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17848 TRACT NO. 17848 IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES JERRY L. USELTON, L.S. 5347 FUSCOE ENGINEERING, INC. MONUMENT NOTES: A - INDICATES FOUND O.C.S. GPS CONTROL STATION MONUMENT PER RECORDS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR. 0- FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED 0- INDICATES 2• LP TAGGED 'LS 5347", OR SPIKE AND WASHER STAMPED "LS 5347" OR LEAD, TACK AND TAG "LS 5347" TO BE SET AT EXTERIOR PARCEL MAP BOUNDARY CORNERS AS NOTED. ❑ - INDICATES 1" I.P. TAGGED "LS 5347", OR SPIKE AND WASHER STAMPED "LS 5347' OR LEAD, TACK AND TAG "LS 5347" TO BE SET AT INTERIOR PARCEL CORNERS AS NOTED. ALL MONUMENTS TO BE SET WITHIN 365 DAYS AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS NOTE: SEE SHEET 2 OF 3 FOR BOUNDARY ESTABLISHMENT, MONUMENT AND ESTABLISHMENT NOTES, BASIS OF BEARINGS, DATUM STATEMENT AND RECORD DATA REFERENCES. LAND USE NOTE: LOTS A AND B ARE FOR PRIVATE STREET, DRAINAGE AND PARKING PURPOSES TO BENEFIT LOTS 1-5 LOT C IS FOR PRIVATE STREET AND DRAINAGE PURPOSES TO BENEFIT LOTS 1-5 LOTS D THROUGH F ARE FOR LANDSCAPE AND DRAINAGE PURPOSES TO BENEFIT LOTS 1-5 pw 30' 0' 10' 20' 30' 60' GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 30' 54.63' T 21 EASEMENT NOTES: O7 INDICATES A 6.00 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, PER DOCUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 31, 1955 IN BOOK 3195 PAGE 145, AND PARTIALLY QUITCLAIMED PER DOCUMENT RECORDED JUNE 18, 2014 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2014000240250, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. O2 INDICATES EASEMENT TO CITY OF COSTA MESA FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES AS DEDICATED HEREON. O3 INDICATES EASEMENT TO CITY OF COSTA MESA FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR EMERGENCY AND PUBLIC SECURITY VEHICLE PURPOSES ONLY AS DEDICATED HEREON. ® INDICATES ALL VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS TO HAMILTON STREET EXCEPT AT APPROVED ACCESS LOCATIONS AS RELEASED AND RELINQUISHED TO THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREON THE LOCATION OF AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, IN FAVOR OF FAIRVIEW FARMS WATER COMPANY, RECORDED APRIL 20, 1916, IN BOOK 282, PAGE 86, OF DEEDS, CANNOT BE DETERMINED FROM THE RECORD INFORMATION. 231 1 - - - - T - Lu ;--- I z uj FD. LEAD &TACK do TAG "OCs TIE" PER RB Q FD. LEAD &TACK PER G "LS 7707" ___ EST.B ------ I � ------ 3 4 E F p I w) HAMILTON I N8938'45"w 2az.2B POSITION ESTABLISHED /� STREET I I z M o 0 132.00' ;80,28' STREET g _�.�� - - - HAMILTON t 6' o 0 1 FROM TIE NOTES PER R8 FALLS S86.32'25"W S� 3 I 1 N89'38'45"W 292.28' 1 ^ = 1.22' FROM CL INT. �s>'.'�:?� I I Tg- 2 _ HAMILTON 2 STREET N; _I POMONA/HAMILTON i 3g Rg ��di_ _ _ N8938'45"W 292.28' _ _ �'•�� I- --------------------------1 I ninh .- FD. LEAD &TACK &� DETAIL B TAG "OCS TIE" PER RB � SCALE 1" = 30' ( 0 � FD. LEAD k TACK de TAG T - - - "LS 7707" PER RB - - - - DETAIL A SCALE 1" = 20' o Ni 5 s� = ryh� r; A-551'21~ j A=90'00'00" ' .0®5'51'21' L=11.00' L=10.22' R®7.00' 72,��L R=100.00' o C4 A-64.37'23" N89.40'22"W 105.91' N89'40'22'W 88.81' L=7.90' R®7.00' .37 A-2522'37" N83'49'01"W L=3.10' 3 10 R=7.00' B ui "� 3 N89'40'22'W 86.45' ni N8 ' 0'22"W 134.00' o; X90'00'00" L®11.00' w p 54.50' 54.50' 25.00' R®7.00' c y� 0 A z z 1 o� to�.' N3 N89'38'45'W N w to 14.78' M b r 8 g C 4 N W a Inc! m o g aq 2 vqw 3 'W^ w = W Im 0 = r _ z o = w t!f rn ^ 3 3 ^ w 0 w 0 w w g rnS g 1O N89'40'22"W N89'40'22"W iO c S m N81"4 -2 ,op r z 1 .50' 16.5 ' _ = 18.50' N89'40'22"W g 38.15' 38.00• 38.00' 29.50' 49.14' 189'40'22"W D m 4 m ° N89'40'2 W 76.00' N F N8940'22"W 4 E 4 54.65' 25.00' log no, 25.00' 78.63' 0.00. HAMILTON sEEOETn1Lre t I �8, N89'38'45"W 292.28' o STREET to.00' BELOW R OHT - N89.38'45"W 292.28' 1 2 2 g N I N89'36'45'W 292_28' _ HAMILTON STREET 1 - - - - T - Lu ;--- I z uj FD. LEAD &TACK do TAG "OCs TIE" PER RB Q FD. LEAD &TACK PER G "LS 7707" ___ EST.B ------ I � ------ 3 4 E F p I w) HAMILTON I N8938'45"w 2az.2B POSITION ESTABLISHED /� STREET I I z M o 0 132.00' ;80,28' STREET g _�.�� - - - HAMILTON t 6' o 0 1 FROM TIE NOTES PER R8 FALLS S86.32'25"W S� 3 I 1 N89'38'45"W 292.28' 1 ^ = 1.22' FROM CL INT. �s>'.'�:?� I I Tg- 2 _ HAMILTON 2 STREET N; _I POMONA/HAMILTON i 3g Rg ��di_ _ _ N8938'45"W 292.28' _ _ �'•�� I- --------------------------1 I ninh .- FD. LEAD &TACK &� DETAIL B TAG "OCS TIE" PER RB � SCALE 1" = 30' ( 0 � FD. LEAD k TACK de TAG T - - - "LS 7707" PER RB - - - - DETAIL A SCALE 1" = 20' April 17, 2015 Attachment 2 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING DIVISION Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 SUBJECT: Vesting Tract No. 17848 LOCATION: 650 Hamilton Street Dear Commissioners: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 17848, as furnished by the Planning Division for review by the Public Services Department consists of a subdivision to construct a 24 -unit, two-story, detached, common interest development. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 17848 meets with the approval of the Public Services Department, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Tract shall be developed in full compliance with the State Map Act and the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code (C.C.M.M.C.), except as authorized by the Costa Mesa City Council and/or Planning Commission. The attention of the Subdivider and his engineer is directed to Sections 13-208 through 13-261 inclusive, of the Municipal Code. 2. The Subdivider shall conduct soil investigations and provide the results to the City of Costa Mesa Engineering and Building Divisions pursuant to Ordinance 97-11. 3. Two copies of the Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for checking. The map check fee shall be paid per C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-231. 4. A current copy of the title search shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. 5. Dedicate an ingress/egress easement to the City for emergency and public security vehicles purposes only. Maintenance of the easement shall be the sole responsibility of a Homeowners Association formed to conform to Section 13-41 (e) of the C.C.M.M.C. 6. Vehicular and pedestrian access rights to Hamilton Street shall be released and relinquished to the City of Costa Mesa except at approved access locations. 7. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk. PHONE: (714) 7545343 FAX (714) 7545028 TDD: (714) 754-5244 www.d.costa-mesa.cams i Planning Commission 2015 8. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the tme of development and then construct driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Locafion and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. 9. Applicant/Developer is hereby advised that no removal of trees from the public right -of -ray will be permitted without specific approval from the Parks and Recreation Commission and compliance with mitigation measures as. determined by the Commission to relocate the trees. and/or to compensate the City for the loss of trees from the public right-af-way. Conditions of the Commission must be incorporated onto the plans prior to plan approval. The approval process may take up to three months, therefore, the applicant/devebper is advised to identify all trees affected by the proposed project and make timely application to the Parks and Recreation Commission to avoid possible delays. 10. The Subdivider shall submit a cash deposit of $980 for street sweeping at the time of issuance of a Construction Access permit. The full amount of the deposit shat) be maintained on a monthly basis prior to and during construction until completion of the project. 11. Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to Approval of Final Map. 12. The Subdivider's engineers shall furnish the Engineering Division a storm runoff study showing existing and proposed facilities and the method of draining this area and tributary areas without exceeding the capacity of any street or drainage facility on-site or off-site. This study is to be furnished with the first submittal of the Final Tract Map. Cross lot drainage shall not occur. 13. The Subdivider's engineers shall furnish to the Engineering Division a storm drain plan showing the extension of the existing storm drain main line on Hamilton Street; and obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct the new storm drain line. 14. In order to comply with the 2003 DAMP, the proposed Project shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan conforming to the Current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Model WQMP, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. • A WQMP (Priority or Non -Priority) shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. • Location of BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 15. Ownership and maintenance of the private on-site drainage facilities and parkway culverts and other common areas shall be transferred by the owner to the Homeowners Association to be formed pursuant to C.C.M.M.C. Section 13-41 (e) and said association shall indemnify and hold harmless the City for any liability arising out of or in any way associated with the connection of the private drainage system with the City's drainage system and shall execute and deliver to the City the standard (indemnity) Hold Harmless Agreement required for such conditions prior to issuance of permits. 2 Planning Commission 2015 17. Sewer improvements shall meet the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District; call (949) 631-1731 for information. 18. Water system improvements shall meet the approval of Mesa Consolidated Water District; call (949) 631-1200 for information. 19. Dedicate easements as needed for public utilities. 20. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 21. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital -graphics file of said map in a manner described in Subarticle 12, Section 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code. 22. Survey monuments shall be preserved and referenced before construction and replaced after construction, pursuant to Section 8771 of the Business and Profession Code. 23. The elevations shown on all plans shall be on Orange County benchmark datum. 24. Prior to recordation of a Final Tract Map, submit required cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee monumentation. The deposit amount is to be determined by the City Engineer. 25. Prior to occupancy on the Tract, the surveyor/engineer shall submit to the City Engineer a digital -graphics file, a reproducible mylar of the recorded Tract Map, an approved off-site plan and nine copies of the recorded Tract Map. nc I , Fariba Fazeli, P. E. City Engineer (Engr. 2015/Planning Commission Tract 17848). 3 Cl T Y COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC -7 SUBJECT: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO PROVIDE AS -NEEDED STAFF SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS DATE: OCTOBER 22, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER, (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award a contract to Civil Source, Inc., 9890 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, California 92618, in an amount not to exceed $940,000 to provide Project/Construction Management staff support as -needed for various Council -approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement (Attachment 1). 2. Approve Budget Transfer No. 16-123 in the amount of $450,000 (Attachment 2). BACKGROUND: In Fiscal Year 2015-2016, City Council allocated approximately $25.7 million to fund the City's Capital Improvement Program. A total of 43 projects were approved for funding by the City Council. The majority of the Council -approved FY's 2014-2015 CIP projects are now beginning the construction phase. Attachment 3 provides a list of CIP projects the Engineering Division of the Public Services Department is currently undertaking and their status. Currently, there are six vacancies in the Engineering Division of the Public Services Department. Four of the vacant positions consisting of one Senior Engineer, two Assistant Engineers, and one Engineering Technician are responsible for and considered vital positions to oversee the engineering and construction phases of the City's CIP projects. ANALYSIS: It is estimated to take nine to twelve months to fill the aforementioned four engineering vacancies. In the interim, in order to move forward with the CIP projects, one Project/Construction Manager, two Project Engineers and one Engineering Technician are needed to oversee the completion of all the Council -approved CIP projects. Therefore, staff advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP's) for these engineering services and received two proposals (eight resumes of qualifying professional engineers) on August 24, 2015. All resumes were carefully reviewed and the candidates were evaluated based on project understanding, depth of experience, technical expertise, ability to meet the schedule, and associated factors. The scope of work for this contract requires the consultant to provide a team of Professional Engineers to prepare the construction documents for the following CIP projects: 1. Jack Hammett Sports Field Improvements (Construction cost is estimated at $2,000,000 and the engineering is $200,000) 2. Newport Boulevard Landscape Improvements (Construction cost is estimated at $1,300,000 and the engineering is $100,000) 3. Citywide Alley Improvements (Construction cost is estimated at $700,000 and the engineering is $40,000) 4. Citywide Street Improvements (Construction cost is estimated at $5,000,000 and engineering is $350,000) In addition, the consultant will provide construction management services for the construction of the following Council -approved CIP projects: 1. Harbor Boulevard Bike Trail (Construction cost is estimated at $900,000, construction management and inspection is $60,000) 2. Tewinkle Park ADA Improvements (Construction cost is estimated at $252,000, construction management and inspection is $10,000) 3. Smallwood Park Improvement (Construction cost is estimated at $300,000, construction management and inspection is $20,000) 4. Citywide Parkway Improvements (Construction cost estimated at $1,000,000, construction management and inspection is $70,000) 5. Parking Lot Rehabilitation at various City facilities (Construction cost is estimated at $590,000, construction management and inspection is $40,000) After interviewing the top candidates, staff has selected Civil Source as the most qualified, providing staff members with relevant experience to perform the needed work. Staff has determined the proposed hourly rates to be reasonable for meeting the City's requirements and expectations for various levels of qualification. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: The alternative to this Council action would be to not award the contracts for the stated Project Engineering/Construction Management and Inspection Services. Due to the volume of work and the large number of projects currently being handled by the Engineering Division, a significant lack of supervision/implementation of current CIP projects would be experienced. FISCAL REVIEW: Partial funding in the amount of $490,000 for this contract is proposed to come from Fiscal Year 2015-2016 allocations for various CIP projects from Gas Tax funds, Community Development Block Grant, Measure M2 revenues for the Citywide Street Improvement Project, and from the Capital Expenditures Fund allocated for the Costa Mesa Bark Park Renovation, Jack Hammett Sports Field Improvements, and Newport Boulevard Landscape Improvements. The combined allocations for the previously -mentioned projects amount to $10,393,296. The balance, $450,000, will be funded from salary savings realized from vacancies in the Engineering Division currently budgeted in Fiscal Year 2015-2016. Budget Transfer No. 16-123 (Attachment 2) will recognize the salary savings in the amount of $450,000. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the attached Professional Services Agreements as to content and form. K CONCLUSION: Staff reviewed two proposals from qualified engineering firms to provide, on an as -needed basis, Project/Construction Management and Public Works Inspection services for various Council - approved CIP projects. It is recommended that the City Council award a Professional Services Agreement to Civil Source, Inc., 9890 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, California 92618, in an amount not to exceed $940,000, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Professional Services Agreement. It is also recommended that the City Council approve Budget Transfer No. 16-123 in the amount of $450,000 from salary savings to provide for a portion of the funding for this contract. ERNESTO MUNOZ, Public Services Director Attachments: 1 2 3 FARIBA FAZELI City Engineer Professional Services Agreement with Civil Source Budget Transfer No. 16-123 List of CIP projects and their current status Distribution: Chief Executive Officer Assistant CEO City Attorney Director of Finance 3 Attachment 1 CITY OF COSTA MESA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CIVILSOURCE, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 4th day of November, 2015 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF COSTA MESA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and CivilSource, Inc., a California Corporation ("Consultant"). WITNESSETH: A. WHEREAS, City proposes to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide staff support for various park projects, the City's Water Quality Program, and Private Development Reviews, as more fully described herein; and B. WHEREAS, Consultant represents that it has that degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code Section 37103, and holds all necessary licenses to practice and perform the services herein contemplated; and C. WHEREAS, City and Consultant desire to contract for the specific services described in Exhibit "A" (the "Project") and desire to set forth their rights, duties and liabilities in connection with the services to be performed; and D. WHEREAS, no official or employee of City has a financial interest, within the provisions of Sections 1090-1092 of the California Government Code, in the subject matter of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1.0. SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONSULTANT 1.1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall provide the professional services described in the City's Request for Proposal ("RFP"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and Consultant's Response to City's RFP (the "Response") attached hereto as Exhibit "B," both incorporated herein by this reference. 1.2. Professional Practices. All professional services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by professional consultants in similar fields and circumstances in accordance with sound professional practices. Consultant also warrants that it is familiar with all laws that may affect its performance of this Agreement and shall advise City of any changes in any laws that may affect Consultant's performance of this Agreement. 1.3. Performance to Satisfaction of City. Consultant agrees to perform all the work to the complete satisfaction of the City and within the hereinafter specified. Evaluations of the work will be done by the City's Chief Executive Officer ("City CEO") or his or her designee. If the quality of work is not satisfactory, City in its discretion has the right to: (a) Meet with Consultant to review the quality of the work and resolve the matters of concern; (b) Require Consultant to repeat the work at no additional fee until it is satisfactory; and/or (c) Terminate the Agreement as hereinafter set forth. 1.4. Warranty. Consultant warrants that it shall perform the services required by this Agreement in compliance with all applicable Federal and California employment laws, including, but not limited to, those laws related to minimum hours and wages; occupational health and safety; fair employment and employment practices; workers' compensation insurance and safety in employment; and all other Federal, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings, and judgments of every nature and description including attorneys' fees and costs, presented, brought, or recovered against City for, or on account of any liability under any of the above-mentioned laws, which may be incurred by reason of Consultant's performance under this Agreement. 1.5. Non-discrimination. In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sexual gender or sexual orientation, except as permitted pursuant to Section 12940 of the Government Code. 1.6. Non -Exclusive Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that City may enter into agreements with other consultants for services similar to the services that are subject to this Agreement or may have its own employees perform services similar to those services contemplated by this Agreement. 1.7. Delegation and Assignment. This is a personal service contract, and the duties set forth herein shall not be delegated or assigned to any person or entity without the prior written consent of City. Consultant may engage a subcontractor(s) as permitted by law and may employ other personnel to perform services contemplated by this Agreement at Consultant's sole cost and expense. 1.8. Confidentiality. Employees of Consultant in the course of their duties may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of private individuals and employees of City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 2.0. COMPENSATION AND BILLING 2.1. Compensation. Consultant shall be paid in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement (the "Fee Schedule"). Consultant's total compensation shall not exceed Nine Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($940,000.00). 2.2. Additional Services. Consultant shall not receive compensation for any services provided outside the scope of services specified in the Consultant's Proposal unless the City or 2 CivilSource PSA 15 the Project Manager for this Project, prior to Consultant performing the additional services, approves such additional services in writing. It is specifically understood that oral requests and/or approvals of such additional services or additional compensation shall be barred and are unenforceable. 2.3. Method of Billing. Consultant may submit invoices to the City for approval on a progress basis, but no more often than two times a month. Said invoice shall be based on the total of all Consultant's services which have been completed to City's sole satisfaction. City shall pay Consultant's invoice within forty-five (45) days from the date City receives said invoice. Each invoice shall describe in detail, the services performed, the date of performance, and the associated time for completion. Any additional services approved and performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be designated as "Additional Services" and shall identify the number of the authorized change order, where applicable, on all invoices. 2.4. Records and Audits. Records of Consultant's services relating to this Agreement shall be maintained in accordance with generally recognized accounting principles and shall be made available to City or its Project Manager for inspection and/or audit at mutually convenient times for a period of three (3) years from the Effective Date. 3.0. TIME OF PERFORMANCE 3.1. Commencement and Completion of Work. The professional services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall commence within five (5) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Said services shall be performed in strict compliance with the Project Schedule approved by City as set forth in Exhibit "D," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Project Schedule may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Failure to commence work in a timely manner and/or diligently pursue work to completion may be grounds for termination of this Agreement. 3.2. Excusable Delays. Neither party shall be responsible for delays or lack of performance resulting from acts beyond the reasonable control of the party or parties. Such acts shall include, but not be limited to, acts of God, fire, strikes, material shortages, compliance with laws or regulations, riots, acts of war, or any other conditions beyond the reasonable control of a party. 4.0. TERM AND TERMINATION 4.1. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and continue for a period of Three (3) years, ending on November 4, 2018, unless previously terminated as provided herein or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the parties. 4.2.. Notice of Termination. The City reserves and has the right and privilege of canceling, suspending or abandoning the execution of all or any part of the work contemplated by this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time, by providing written notice to Consultant. The termination of this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon receipt of the notice of termination. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall immediately stop rendering services under this Agreement unless directed otherwise by the City. 4.3. Compensation. In the event of termination, City shall pay Consultant for reasonable costs incurred and professional services satisfactorily performed up to and including the date of City's written notice of termination. Compensation for work in progress shall be prorated based on the percentage of work completed as of the effective date of termination in accordance with the fees set forth herein. In ascertaining the professional services actually 3 CivilSource PSA 15 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. 5.2. Endorsements. The commercial general liability insurance policy and business automobile liability policy shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions: 4 CivilSource PSA 15 n (a) Additional insureds: "The City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers are additional insureds with respect to: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant pursuant to its contract with the City; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Consultant." (b) Notice: "Said policy shall not terminate, be suspended, or voided, nor shall it be cancelled, nor the coverage or limits reduced, until thirty (30) days after written notice is given to City. (c) Other insurance: "The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. Any other insurance maintained by the City of Costa Mesa shall be excess and not contributing with the insurance provided by this policy." (d) Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Costa Mesa, its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers. (e) The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5.3. Deductible or Self Insured Retention. If any of such policies provide for a deductible or self-insured retention to provide such coverage, the amount of such deductible or self-insured retention shall be approved in advance by City. No policy of insurance issued as to which the City is an additional insured shall contain a provision which requires that no insured except the named insured can satisfy any such deductible or self-insured retention. 5.4. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide to City certificates of insurance showing the insurance coverages and required endorsements described above, in a form and content approved by City, prior to performing any services under this Agreement. The certificates of insurance shall be attached hereto as Exhibit "E° and incorporated herein by this reference. 5.5. Non -limiting. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property. 6.0. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to any matter referenced herein and supersedes any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations. This Agreement may be modified only in writing, and signed by the parties in interest at the time of such modification. The terms of this Agreement shall prevail over any inconsistent provision in any other contract document appurtenant hereto, including exhibits to this Agreement. cJ CivilSource PSA 15 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. Proiect Managers. City shall designate a Project Manager to work directly with Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a Project Manager who shall represent it and be its agent in all consultations with City during the term of this Agreement. Consultant or its Project Manager shall attend and assist in all coordination meetings called by City. 6.4. Notices. Any notices, documents, correspondence or other communications concerning this Agreement or the work hereunder may be provided by personal delivery, facsimile or mail and shall be addressed as set forth below. Such communication shall be deemed served or delivered: a) at the time of delivery if such communication is sent by personal delivery; b) at the time of transmission if such communication is sent by facsimile; and c) 48 hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail as reflected by the official U.S. postmark if such communication is sent through regular United States mail. IF TO CONSULTANT: CivilSource, Inc. 9890 Irvine Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92618 Tel: (949) 585-0477 Fax: (949) 585-0433 Attn: Amy Amirani, PE IF TO CITY: City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (714) 754-5378 Fax: (714) 754-5028 Attn: Fariba Fazeli 6.5. Druq-free Workplace Policy. Consultant shall provide a drug-free workplace by complying with all provisions set forth in City's Council Policy 100-5, attached hereto as Exhibit "F" and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's failure to conform to the requirements set forth in Council Policy 100-5 shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and shall be cause for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. 6.6. Attorneys' Fees. In the event that litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof. 6.7. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Orange County, California. 6.8. Assignment. Consultant shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign, 6 CivilSource PSA 15 transfer, sublet or encumber all or any part of Consultant's interest in this Agreement without City's prior written consent. Any attempted assignment, transfer, subletting or encumbrance shall be void and shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and cause for termination of this Agreement. Regardless of City's consent, no subletting or assignment shall release Consultant of Consultant's obligation to perform all other obligations to be performed by Consultant hereunder for the term of this Agreement. 6.9. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, hold free and harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees, at Consultant's sole expense, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits or other legal proceedings brought against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees arising out of the performance of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, of the work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. The defense obligation provided for hereunder shall apply without any advance showing of negligence or wrongdoing by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, but shall be required whenever any claim, action, complaint, or suit asserts as its basis the negligence, errors, omissions or misconduct of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, and/or whenever any claim, action, complaint or suit asserts liability against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees based upon the work performed by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors under this Agreement, whether or not the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors are specifically named or otherwise asserted to be liable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Consultant shall not be liable for the defense or indemnification of the City for claims, actions, complaints or suits arising out of the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This provision shall supersede and replace all other indemnity provisions contained either in the City's specifications or Consultant's Proposal, which shall be of no force and effect. 6.10. Independent Contractor. Consultant is and shall be acting at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of City. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. Consultant shall secure, at its sole expense, and be responsible for any and all payment of Income Tax, Social Security, State Disability Insurance Compensation, Unemployment Compensation, and other payroll deductions for Consultant and its officers, agents, and employees, and all business licenses, if any are required, in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Consultant shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with the applicable worker's compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this paragraph. 6.11. PERS Eligibility Indemnification. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement claims or is 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 7 CivilSource PSA 15 subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City. Notwithstanding any other agency, state or federal policy, rule, regulation, law or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing service under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in PERS as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contribution and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 6.12. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant's performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation which City might require. 6.13. Ownership of Documents. All findings, reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, computer tapes or discs, files and tapes furnished or prepared by Consultant or any of its subcontractors in the course of performance of this Agreement, shall be and remain the sole property of City. Consultant agrees that any such documents or information shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior consent of City. Any use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement, and any use of incomplete documents, shall be at the sole risk of City and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. City shall indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from City's use of such documents for other projects not contemplated by this Agreement or use of incomplete documents furnished by Consultant. Consultant shall deliver to City any findings, reports, documents, information, data, in any form, including but not limited to, computer tapes, discs, files audio tapes or any other Project related items as requested by City or its authorized representative, at no additional cost to the City. 6.14. Public Records Act Disclosure. Consultant has been advised and is aware that this Agreement and all reports, documents, information and data, including, but not limited to, computer tapes, discs or files furnished or prepared by Consultant, or any of its subcontractors, pursuant to this Agreement and provided to City may be subject to public disclosure as required by the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). Exceptions to public disclosure may be those documents or information that qualify as trade secrets, as that term is defined in the California Government Code Section 6254.7, and of which Consultant informs City of such trade secret. The City will endeavor to maintain as confidential all information obtained by it that is designated as a trade secret. The City shall not, in any way, be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any trade secret including, without limitation, those records so marked if disclosure is deemed to be required by law or by order of the Court. 6.15. Conflict of Interest. Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants, if any, will comply with all conflict of interest statutes of the State of California applicable to Consultant's services under this agreement, including, but not limited to, the Political Reform Act (Government Code Sections 81000, et seq.) and Government Code Section 1090. During the term of this Agreement, Consultant and its officers, employees, associates and subconsultants shall not, without the prior written approval of the 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. CivilSource PSA 15 6.16. Responsibility for Errors. Consultant shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. Consultant, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the City's representative, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement at no additional cost to City. In the event that an error or omission attributable to Consultant occurs, then Consultant shall, at no cost to City, provide all necessary design drawings, estimates and other Consultant professional services necessary to rectify and correct the matter to the sole satisfaction of City and to participate in any meeting required with regard to the correction. 6.17. Prohibited Employment. Consultant will not employ any regular employee of City while this Agreement is in effect. 6.18. Order of Precedence. In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibits, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. If, and to the extent this Agreement incorporates by reference any provision of any document, such provision shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. Nevertheless, if there is any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those of any such provision or provisions so incorporated by reference, this Agreement shall govern over the document referenced. 6.19. Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees incurred in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and in the performance of its obligations hereunder except as expressly provided herein. 6.20. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights. This Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of City and Consultant and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under or to this Agreement. 6.21. Headings: Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 6.22. Construction. The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Agreement. 6.23. Amendments. Only a writing executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and assigns may amend this Agreement. 6.24. Waiver. The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or compliance by the other of any of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized 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 9 Civifturce PSA 15 competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable in any circumstance, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or of the offending provision in any other circumstance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the value of this Agreement, based upon the substantial benefit of the bargain for any party, is materially impaired, which determination made by the presiding court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction shall be binding, then both parties agree to substitute such provision(s) through good faith negotiations. 6.26. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement. 6.27. Corporate Authority. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by and through their respective authorized officers, as of the date first above written. CITY OF COSTA MESA, A municipal corporation Date: Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa CONSULTANT Date: Signature Name and Title Social Security or Taxpayer ID Number ATTEST: City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa 10 CivilSource PSA 15 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Date: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE: Date: Risk Management APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Date: Project Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL Date: Ernesto Munoz, Director of Public Services Date: Stephen Dunivent Interim Finance Director 11 CivilSource PSA 15 EXHIBIT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 12 CivilSource PSA 15 July 13, 2015 CITY OF COSTA MESA P.O. BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP's) FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE STAFF SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS PARKS PROJECTS, WATER QUALITY PROGRAM, AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Dear Consultant: The City of Costa Mesa is requesting a proposal from your firm to submit resumes of candidates to provide on site project/construction management services for various Parks' Capital Improvement Projects, as well as Water Quality Program and Development Review. The schedule is as follows: ENGINEERING SCHEDULE DATE 1. Proposal Received by the City 2. Interviews with selected candidates 3. Award Professional Services Agreement 4. Start work 8/7/15 8/12/15 to 8/13/15 9/15/15 9/16/15 Enclosed is a Request for Proposals (RFP's) to provide professional services. The proposal requirements and the necessary professional services required by the City are stated within the RFP's. The consultant shall provide all services as requested in the RFP's and stated in the submitted proposal. CITY OF COSTA MESA CONTACT PERSON The City of Costa Mesa contact person is Fariba Fazeli, at (714) 754-5378. Please do not contact other staff members in reference to this RFP's prior to the announcement of the award. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Please submit three (3) copies of each candidates (up to five candidates) with their respective hourly rates no later than 3:00 p.m., on Friday, August 7, 2015. All proposals shall be delivered or mail to: In ely, i Fari Fazeli, P. E. City Engineer Fariba Fazeli, P. E. City of Costa Mesa Public Services/Engineering 77 Fair Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1200, Costa Mesa, Ca 92628-4193 PHONE: (714) 754-5343 FAX: (714754-5028 TDD: (714) 754-5244 www.d.costa-mesa.ca.us REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP's) FOR STAFF SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS PARKS AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW I. INTRODUCTION R PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE PROJECTS, WATER QUALITY PROGRAM, The City is interested in the services of an individual Professional Civil Engineer to help the Engineering Division with Parks' Capital Improvement Projects, the review and condition of private Development Projects and overseeing the City's Water Quality Program. The scope of work for this contract requires the consultant to provide a Professional Engineer The consultant's candidates must have at least ten (10) years prior experience in the design and preparation of construction documents for Park's Projects as well as review/approval of Subdivision/Private Development projects, and WQMP for private and public projects. In addition, the candidates must have at least five (5) years prior experience in preparation of the Annual Program Effectiveness Assessment (PEA) Report and knowledge of MS4 permit. All candidates will be evaluated on the basis of their expertise, prior experience on similar projects, demonstrated competence, timely performance, ability to meet the project schedule, and an understanding of the project. 2. CONTENT OF PROPOSAL To maintain uniformity, your proposal must be limited to five candidates (include each candidate's resume and hourly rate. 3. CONSULTANT SELECTION COMMITTEE The Public Services Department of the City of Costa Mesa has established a Consultant Selection Committee consisting of at least four (4) members from this department who have acted in the capacity of Project Manager or Project Engineer for the City on previous similar projects. The evaluation of each candidate will be based on the technical information and qualifications presented in the resume, reference checks, and other information, which will be gathered independently. 6. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT City of Costa Mesa has a sample of the Professional Services Agreement, which is available at the City for your review. The RFP's and the consultant's proposal will be attached to and become part of the executed agreement as exhibits. The City will not permit reduction in the City's "Scope of Consultant Services" without written approval. 7. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS General Liability: $1,000,000 Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 Workers Compensation and Employers' Liability: $1,000,000 Professional Liability: $1,000,000 Additional and primary Insurance endorsements shall include City of Costa Mesa 2 8. SUMMARY The City appreciates participation, and the intent of this RFP is to establish the minimum consultant services required. Prior to awarding a contract, all insurance documents must be submitted and approved. 3 EXHIBIT B CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL 13 CivilSource PSA 15 August 7, 2015 Fariba Fazeli, PE City of Costa Mesa Public Services/Engineering 77 Fair Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: Proposal to Provide Staff Support for Various Parks Projects, Water Quality Program, and Private Development Review Dear Ms. Fazeli, We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide Staff Support Services for the City of Costa Mesa (City). The CivilSource team has extensive experience providing staff augmentation services for municipal agencies throughout Southern California and we are eager to aggressively respond to the wide-ranging services the City requires. We have the staff, qualifications, and experience to support the City for the following reasons: Key Personnel It is our understanding that the City is seeking a professional firm to provide staff support in order to help the Engineering Division with Park Capital Improvement Projects, the review and condition of private Development Projects and overseeing the City's Water Quality Program. Our proposed team members all have at least 10 years of relevant experience and are registered PE's with the State of California. Full resumes for our proposed personnel are attached. Key Personnel Registration/Education % Years of Safa Kamangar, PE, Availability CA Civil Engineer, #70118 100% Experience 15+ QSP/QSD M.S., Civil Engineering B.S., Civil Engineering NPDES Storm Water Quality Training for Construction Site Activities AEI-CASC Engineering's Storm Water Management Department Tim Shaw, RLA, ASLA M.S., Landscape Architecture 100% 10+ B.S., Geography Sean Razmy, PE CA Civil Engineer, #42827 100% 30+ M.S., Civil Engineering B.S., Civil Engineering Qualified SWPPP Practitioner, Cert. No. 22568 Michael Girgis, PE CA Civil Engineer, #36483 100% 40+ B.S., Civil Engineering Nabil Toma, PE CA Civil Engineer, #51891 100% 30+ B.S., Civil Engineering Working together with the chosen Engineer, CivilSource's Principal -in -Charge and QA/QC Manager, Ms. Amy Amirani, PE, QSP/QSD will be responsible for dedicating our staff identified and oversight of meeting our high expectations of quality assurance and quality control, responsiveness, documentation, communication, and coordination. 9890 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92618 1 P: 949-585-0477 1 F: 949-585-0433 1 www.civil-source.com Page 2 of 2 Experience We are uniquely qualified to provide staff support services to the City because of our team's clear understanding of municipal procedures and our familiarity with the needs, policies, and procedures of the City. Cities, and often consultants, are challenged with finding individuals who have all of the necessary qualities to successfully provide staff augmentation services in a municipal setting. Because we exclusively serve municipal agencies and have several years of experience working directly for municipal agencies, we are confident that the proposed individuals encompass all of the qualities required to successfully serve as part of City staff. References In addition to the professional services we have provided to the City of Costa Mesa, the CivilSource team has extensive experience providing professional engineering services for municipal agencies throughout southern California. A list of professional references is available upon request, and we encourage the City to contact our references to confirm our successful track record. Competitive Rates We understand that the City is often faced with budget constraints. CivilSource has a history of successfully delivering projects with very limited budgets. We are committed to working with the City and the rates provided herein are negotiable. By selecting CivilSource, the City will benefit from a network of professionals with varied and extensive public works experience and the ability to support all the projects and project types the City may undertake. We look forward to working with the City and providing our professional consulting services in order to help you meet your goals. On behalf of the CivilSource team, we thank you for the opportunity to serve as a part of your team. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (949) 585- 0477 or amy@civil-source.com. Respectfully submitted, CIVILSOURCE, INC. Q7i1. 0' �i'f'1 Gt lx-t� Amy Amirani, PE Principal Enclosures: • Resume — Safa Kamangar, PE, QSP, QSD • Resume — Tim Shaw, RLA, ASLA • Resume — Sean Razmy, PE, QSP • Resume — Michael Girgis, PE • Resume — Nabil Toma, PE • CivilSource Qualified SWPP Practitioner/Developer Certificates 9890 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92618 1 P: 949-585-0477 1 F: 949-585-0433 1 www.civil-source.com SAFA KAMANGAR, PE, QSP/QSD PROJECT MANAGER, CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN EDUCATION M.S., Civil Engineering B.S., Civil Engineering NPDES Storm Water Quality Training for Construction Site Activities AEI-CASC Engineering's Storm Water Management Department, 2005 REGISTRATION Civil Engineer, California #70118 Mr. Kamangar is a California Registered Civil Engineer and a Project Manager/Resident Engineer at CivilSource, Inc. with 18 years of experience in construction, construction management and engineering in both the private and public sectors. His experience includes the management of over $70 million in construction related activities. His roles included construction management, resident engineering, field inspection, and design engineering. As a design engineer Mr. Kamangar has performed hydraulic studies, detailed design drawings, development of specifications, site work, and field calculations. As a Construction Manager, he has been responsible for construction oversight, schedule management, budget tracking, and contractor negotiations. He has gained considerable knowledge while providing extensive coordination between various engineering disciplines and public agencies. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Broadway Improvements, City of Costa Mesa: $1.5M SRTS improvement project to narrow roadways with the installation of medians and chokers. Services also included preparation of PES and E76 documents. Alley No. 109 Rehabilitation, City of Costa Mesa: Design Manager responsible for the development of plans, specifications and estimates for the rehabilitation of residential Alley No. 109 in the City of Costa Mesa. La Bonita Park Pump Station, City of La Habra: Project Manager. Design -build of a water facility that also included the demolition and reconstruction of a roller hockey rink, restroom/storage facility and parking areas. Professional services included the design and construction management of a new pre -stressed concrete reservoir, a new 11.5MGD pump station including new electrical and control facilities, intake and discharge piping, flow control facility, discharge metering vault, 2 miles of 24" cement mortar lined and coated pipe, and associated site improvements; construction oversight of traffic control, excavation and shoring, dewatering, relocation of existing sewer main, street improvements and pavement repairs, protection of all existing utilities and facilities; and facility start up and testing. Antonio Parkway Forcemain Alignment, Santa Margarita Water District: Project Director for the preparation of a Preliminary Design Report. The PDR addressed the realignment of a 24" ductile iron forcemain in the City of Rancho Santa Margarita. The alignment being studied consisted of adding several thousand feet of length to the forcemain that would be routed across a bridge, along an existing park (baseball fields, skate park and dog park), to a point of connection to an existing 24" forcemain on the eastern side of a creek. Services included developing a revised system curve/pump curve analysis, identifying changes to pumping head due to increased forcemain length, address forcemain diameter, preparation of a preliminary cost estimate and conceptual construction drawings, and preparation of a technical memorandum summarizing the engineering evaluation of the forcemain realignment. Colinas Bridge Waterline Relocation, Moulton Niguel Water District: Project Manager for the preliminary and final design of waterline relocations at the Paseo de Colinas Bridge in the City of Laguna Niguel. Work consisted of investigating and preparing plans, specifications, and cost estimate (PS&E) for relocating the District's existing 20 -inch gravity outfall and existing 12 -inch waterline including relocation of existing electrical conduits, control panel, and existing vault sump pump discharge lines into the existing sewer system. The two waterlines were in conflict with the seismic retrofit of the Paseo de Colinas Bridge. Portola Park Well, City of La Habra: Project Manager for the design -build of a well for the City of La Habra. The 150 -hp well pump and motor was designed be 350 -ft deep and capable of producing 1100-gpm of groundwater which will be conveyed through a 12 -in PVC -C900 pipeline into the City's La Bonita Park blending reservoir. The station will be connected to City's SCADA system for fully automatic operation. Culver Drive and Walnut Avenue Widening and Improvements, City of Irvine: $2.5M roadway widening and improvements project. University Drive Improvements, City of Irvine: $1.7M roadway improvements project which required coordination of work with the Irvine Companies, Caltrans and multiple utility agencies; an arboricultural evaluation; and construction engineering support. Safa Kamangar, Page 2 Stage Road Rehabilitation, City of Buena Park: $1.1M roadway rehabilitation project. Improvements included total pavement reconstruction and redesign of existing cross sections as needed to improve drainage and drivability. Yorba Linda Boulevard Rehabilitation, City of Yorba Linda: 2 mile primary arterial highway rehabilitation project. Services also required coordination with Caltrans. North Laguna Alley Rehabilitation, City of Laguna Beach: Project Manager responsible for the development of plans, specifications and estimates for 13 alleys in North Laguna Beach. Sawtelle Boulevard Rehabilitation, City of Culver City: $1M street rehabilitation and oversight of construction inspection servjces. Improvements included total pavement reconstruction, redesign of existing cross-sections as needed to improve drainage and drivability, and repair of damaged sections of the asphalt. Citywide Street Assessment and Rehabilitation, City of Yorba Linda: Design Engineer responsible for the field inspection and assessment of three zones within the City to determine locations for removal and replacement of asphalt, slurry seal or rehabilitation. Leahy Avenue Well Drilling and Equipping, Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company: Engineering and hydrogeological services for the preliminary design, final design, construction support and inspection for the abandonment of an existing well, and drilling and equipping of a new high capacity groundwater well. Well 11A & Well 31, City of Corona: Selected new well locations, and designed and developed plans and specifications for drilling and developing, and equipping of a new well replacing the existing Well 11 and the City's new Well 31. Ontario Booster Pump Station: Designed and provided engineering calculations for a 25 -MGD booster pump station facility, Nitrate blending facility and piping. Western Avenue Sewer Improvements, City of Stanton: The project included the replacement of approximately 1,400 linear feet of existing 12 -inch diameter VCP gravity sewer with hydraulic deficiencies and structural defects. The sewer was replaced with a 15 -inch diameter VCP gravity pipe. Citywide Sewer Improvements, City of Villa Park: The project entailed design services to update the City's Sewer Master Plan, implement the recommended improvements, and provide construction management and inspection services during construction. Portola Hills Lift Station Abandonment, Irvine Ranch Water District: This project consisted of abandoning the PHSLS, which is located near the intersection of Glenn Ranch Road and Saddleback Ranch Road. As part of the abandonment of the PHSLS, this project included installing approximately 4,000 linear feet of new 12 -inch diameter gravity sewer, and increasing capacity of 1,300 linear feet of existing 8 -inch sewer. Strom Drain Pump Station SD 03 Upgrades, City of Long Beach: Project Manager in charge of design and developing plans and specifications for replacing existing pumps with three new 70-cfs Vertical Turbine pumps, and upgrading pump station mechanical and electrical components. Storm Drain Improvements on Corak Street, City of Baldwin Park: Installation of 2,500 feet of new storm drain pipes on Ramona Boulevard between Earl Avenue and Francisquito Avenue, and along a drainage easement between Corak Street and Francisquito Avenue. The storm drains consist of reinforced concrete pipe ranging in size from 24 -inches to 42 -inches in diameter. Hamilton Street and Plumer Street Roadway and Storm Drain Improvements, City of Costa Mesa: 3000 LF of street and storm drain improvements. Industrial Way Water Quality and Storm Drain Improvements, City of Costa Mesa: Installation of an underground detention/infiltration facility and construction of a storm drain facility consisting of 1,000 lineal ft. of loft. by 3 ft. RCB. TIM SHAW, RLA, ASLA - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECHT EDUCATION M.S., Landscape Architecture B.S., Geography CERTIFICATE/AFFILIATIONS Board Member, Friends of San Clemente Beaches, Parks & Recreation Foundation Chair, Orange County Regional Recreational Trail Advisory Committee Member CPRS — California Parks and Recreation Society Mr. Shaw has over 10 years of excellent project management experience on diverse recreational, residential, and commercial projects. He has managed several parks and parkway landscaping/irrigation projects. His passion to provide environmentally accountable spaces for all, keeps both the project team and the public on track throughout all phases of the projects. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Vista Hermosa Sports Park & San Clemente Aquatics Center: Project Manager for $31.5million, 45 -acre, municipal sports park in San Clemente, CA Pier Bowl Lighting & Landscape Project: Project Manager for $1.7 million renovation project San Gorgonio Park Renovation: Project Manager for $1.5 million Baseball Diamond renovation project Steed Park Renovation: Project Manager for $1.3 million Softball Complex & Concession Building renovation project The Marine Monument & Park Semper Fi: Construction Manager Landscape Architect, City of San Clemente, Beaches, Parks & Recreation Department • Managed multiple Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) • Facilitated Plan Review and Responses for Park CIP Projects • Created San Clemente Trails Map using ArcMap • Map received Outstanding Achievement Award, 2010 • Developed and managed CIP Project & Park Planning budgets • Presented project status updates to City Council and at Public Meetings Senior Park Planner, Indy Parks, City of Indianapolis — Parks & Recreation Department • Project Manager on multiple CIP projects • Developed Project Management Handbook • Produced GIS based maps, charts and data using ArcView and ArcMap for Indy Parks Master Plan Update SEAN PAZMY, PE, QSP PROJECT MANAGER EDUCATION M.S., Civil Engineering B.S., Civil Engineering Qualified SWPPP Practitioner, Certificate No. 22568 REGISTRATION Civil Engineer, California #42827 Mr. Razmy has over 30 years of experience in construction management, contract administration, and inspection of Public Works Improvements projects. He is familiar with Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Caltrans Standard Specifications, California Public Contract Code, and State/Federal Labor Compliance requirements. Mr. Razmy's project experience includes roadway construction, construction of sewer and storm drain system, traffic signal improvements, street lighting installation, and landscape improvements. His construction management skills include, contract administration and construction inspection. Mr. Razmy is also experienced in project documentation, quality assurance, construction safety, constructability review, project submittal/shop drawing review, RFI review and response, negotiation of change orders, WPCP and SWPPP monitoring, claims analysis and negotiation, multi -agency project coordination, and public relations. PROJECT EXPERIENCE City of Anaheim, Brookhurst Street Widening ($9 million): Construction manager for widening 4,900 feet of roadway that included paving; sound walls; green belt area with earthen bio-swale; decomposed granite pathways; raised medians with stamped concrete and synthetic turf, sewer and drainage improvements; bus pad, sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway approach, curb ramp, cross gutter, spandrel and parkway drain improvements; traffic signal modifications; street lighting; landscape and irrigation; signing; and striping. Responsibilities included constructability review; conducting pre - construction meeting; review, log and processing project submittals; review, log and responding to RFIs; construction inspection for conformity to project documents; construction quality control; coordination and scheduling materials testing; project documentation including daily reports and working day statements; scheduling and chairing project meetings; ensuring construction/public safety, monitoring traffic control; enforcing project site maintenance and clean up requirements; monitoring SWPPP requirements; reviewing certified payrolls and conducting employee interviews for labor compliance; change order negotiations; and public relations. City of Anaheim, Katella Avenue Street Improvements ($7.5 million): Construction Manager for widening 3,000 feet of roadway that included utility relocations such as power, water, and fiber optic; storm drain improvements; hardscape improvements; raised median; pavement construction; traffic signal modifications; installation of street lighting system; installation of irrigation system; landscape improvements; traffic signing and striping. Responsibilities included constructability review; pre -construction meeting; review, log and processing project submittal; review, log and responding to RFIs; construction inspection for conformity to project documents; construction quality control; coordination and scheduling materials testing; project documentation including daily reports and working day statements; coordinating and chairing project meetings; monitoring construction/public safety and traffic control; enforcing project site maintenance and clean up requirements; monitoring SWPPP requirements. City of Anaheim, Sanitary Sewer Improvements on Romneya Drive, Carl Karcher Way, Anaheim Boulevard and Commercial Street ($4 million): Construction management and inspection oversight for the installation of 9,650 LF of sewer line that included open excavation, shoring, sewer bypass, dewatering, removal of existing sewer lines, installation of new VCP sewer pipes, construction of sewer system structures, trench backfill/compaction, roadway paving, and traffic stripping. Responsibilities included chairing pre -construction meeting, review of project submittal, response to RFIs, daily oversight of field activities, resolution of field issues, change order negotiations, review and approval of progress payments, and public relations. Sean Razmy, Page 2 City of Anaheim: As Principal Civil Engineer, managed the Construction Inspection Section of Public Works Department consisting of seven senior construction inspectors. In addition, managed consultants that provided construction inspection and construction management services. Responsible for assigning projects to inspection staff and monitoring their work and performance, providing technical and administrative support to inspection staff, performing constructability and plan check reviews, scheduling and chairing pre -construction and project meetings, issuing notice to proceed, conducting regularly scheduled staff meetings, general oversight of construction activities with field visits, review and approval of pay applications, response to citizen complaints and inquiries related to construction activities, review and processing of project submittals, review and response to RFIs, review and negotiation of change orders, claims analysis and negotiations, coordination of construction activities with other agencies. City of Costa Mesa: As Contract Administrator, administered the construction of Public Works Capital Improvement projects. Responsible for preparation of bid documents, project advertisement, issuance of addendums, bid openings, review of bid documents for accuracy and preparation of bid tabs, review and processing of required bonds and insurance, preparation of contract agreement, preparation of staff report to City Council for the award of contract, conducting pre - construction meeting, review and processing of progress payment, change order negotiations, claim analysis and negotiations, negotiation of disputed work, monitoring labor compliance, processing stop payment notices, negotiating with bonding companies for taking over projects due to contractor default, preparation of staff report for project close out, and filling notice of completion. County of Los Angeles: As Senior Construction Inspector, inspected the construction of Flood Control Facilities. Responsible for review of plans and specifications prior to start of construction, job walk and photo documentation of existing conditions prior to construction, construction inspection for conformance with project requirements, monitoring construction work for proper workmanship, notifying the contractor of any deviations from project documents or non- conforming work, notifying the project manager of any unforeseen or changed condition, notifying the project manager of any potential claims, maintaining as -built plans, preparing daily diary and reports, recording men and equipment, coordinating and scheduling materials testing, measuring constructed quantities, preparing progress payment estimates, monitoring traffic control for compliance and safety, monitoring pedestrian access and safety through construction zone, and conducting regular safety reviews to ensure CAL/OSHA compliance. MICHAEL GIRGIS, PE PROJECT MANAGER EDUCATION B.S., Civil Engineering REGISTRATION Civil Engineer, California #36483 CERTIFICATIONS Local Agency Resident Engineer Academy. Traffic Signal Design Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering. Pavement Management System. Urban Street Design Street and Highway Drainage. Contract Documents and Specifications for Public Works Construction. AFFILIATIONS Member, American Public Works Association. Member, American Society of Civil Engineers. Mr. Girgis has over 40 years of experience providing project engineering service to cities throughout southern California. Mr. Girgis served as an Associate Civil Engineer and was promoted to the Senior Civil Engineer in the City of Santa Ana where he worked from 1987-2011. While with the City, Mr. Girgis Supervised a team of engineers in the Design and Construction divisions. He is well versed in all aspects and public works projects including facilities, streets and drainage. He has prepared numerous construction documents for major CIP projects. Since 2014 he was responsible for delivery of City of San Juan Capistrano's critical CIP projects including the Del Obispo Street Bridge widening and several street pavement rehabilitation with complex traffic control plans. Mr. Girgis has managed Federal and State funded projects for successful reimbursement and audits, as well as several projects designed by consultants. He has demonstrated ability in delivery of record number of quality municipal projects with minimum amount of change orders. He has interfaced extensively with government agencies including Caltrans, government associations, RWQCB, and other permitting agencies. He has expertise in securing and managing Federal/State/Regional funding sources. PROJECT EXPERIENCE Project Manager, Public Works Department, City of San Juan Capistrano: Responsible for delivery of City's critical CIP projects including the Del Obispo Street Bridge widening and several street pavement rehabilitation with complex traffic control plans. Management of Federal and State funded projects for successful reimbursement and audits. Management of several projects designed by consultants. Senior Civil Engineer, Construction Engineering Section, Public Works Agency, City of Santa Ana: Supervised and evaluated professional and technical staff of the contract administration group; managed construction of various capital improvement and maintenance projects; reviewed plans and specifications for constructability street, storm drain, water, sewer, water, parks, traffic signal improvement plans; prepared RFP; evaluated proposals and managed consultants contract for materials testing and construction management; managed the construction of the Regional Transportation Center parking structure, First Street bridge widening over the Santa Ana River and two -five million gallon water tanks at the John Garthe Reservoir site; applied and obtained federal, state and county grants for construction projects; acted as departmental head in the absence of the Construction Manager. Associate Civil Engineer, Design Engineering Section, Public Works Agency, City of Santa Ana: Managed, supervised, evaluated and trained professional and technical staff in budgeting, scheduling and designing of variety of capital improvement and maintenance projects; coordinated with developers, consultants, other agencies and public entities for the design, the properties acquisition and the construction of joint projects; prepared RFP, evaluated proposals and managed consultants contract for design and properties acquisition; managed the City's Pavement Management System program; conducted special studies and analysis; prepared reports and recommendations; managed staff and consultants in the design and the acquisition of properties of the Bristol Street Widening project between St. Andrew Place and McFadden Avenue, a $37 million project; acted as departmental head in the absence of the Design Manager. Associate Engineer, Willdan Associates, City of Industry: Supervised technical staff in managing, designing and coordinating street and storm drain projects; represented several governmental agencies in the preparation of plans, specifications and cost estimates; performed plan check and participated in preparation of Capital Improvements Program for client cities. Assistant Engineer, Department of Public Works, City of Westminster: Prepared reports and presented it to the City Council appointed Traffic Commission; communicated with the public, consultants, contractors, developers and other governmental agencies; designed and prepared plans, specifications and cost estimates for capital improvements and maintenance projects. Civil Engineer, Roads Division, RDMD, County of Orange: Prepared hydrology and hydraulics calculations; performed design; prepared plans, specifications and cost estimates for street, storm drain, striping and signing projects. Construction Project Engineer, Endeco Company, Jiddah, Saudi Arabia: Supervised inspection staff, managed construction, and prepared cost estimates for street improvement projects. NABIL TOMA, PE - PROJECT MANAGER EDUCATION B.S., Civil Engineering REGISTRATION Civil Engineer, California #51891 Mr. Toma possesses more than 30 years of civil engineering and transportation management experience in the public sector and is a registered civil engineer in the State of California. He has served as Principal Civil Engineer for the City of San Clemente and Associate Civil Engineer for the City of Martinez. Mr. Toma's experience includes developing and implementing capital improvement projects and street and sidewalk maintenance programs; development of plans, specifications and estimates; and construction management. Mr. Toma possesses excellent communication skills and refined negotiating abilities. PROJECT EXPERIENCE City of San Clemente/Principal Civil Engineer Responsibilities included: • Project Management from inception to completion of construction. Review of plans, specifications, and estimates. Oversee field inspections for construction work for contractors and developers. • Management of various projects that included approximately 4000 residential units, about 1 million square feet of commercial properties and 1.5 million cubic yards of earth movement and grading operation. • Supervise staff of five to support development projects including engineering, field inspection and administrative personnel. • Oversee contract plan checkers reviewing final maps, improvement plans and grading plans to ensure maps and plans are in compliance with approved entitlements, engineering standards, City Codes and requirements. • Plan check and review tentative and final maps, improvement, site and grading plans to ensure sure plans are in compliance with the required engineering standards and City Codes. Also ensure final maps are consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and City subdivision ordinance. • Oversee contractors' construction work in the field to make sure that all work is in compliance with the approved engineering plans and contract documents. • Coordinate with contractors to address conflicts between plans and field conditions. Address the conflicts with creative solutions to avoid delays, change orders and additional expense to the projects. • Prepare bid documents, technical specifications and cost estimates to award new projects. Also participate in the review and award of the contracts. • Prepare Request for Proposals for design projects. Review the various submittals and participate in the consultant selection process. • Coordinate with the Planning Division to review preliminary plans for projects to ensure they meet the engineering technical standards and the City Codes and requirements. • Once projects are approved and permits are issued, coordinate with the Building Division to oversee field work to ensure that contractors are complying with engineering plans, specification, safety and environmental requirements and water quality/erosion control measures. • Review construction schedules and approve progress payments for contractors. Review shop drawings as needed to make sure they meet the required specification. • Review environmental impact reports (EIR's) for various projects. Provide input and support to the Planning Division and make recommendations concerning the EIR report findings. • Address and resolve various critical environmental issues between the City, the developers and the regulators. Provide technical reviews of the environmental reports submitted by the developers and ensure they meet the regulatory requirements. Projects included. • The construction of Avenida Vista Hermosa street improvement project between Vera Cruz and Avenida LaPata. Four lanes arterial complete with storm drains, sidewalks, traffic signal and median islands. • The construction of Avenida LaPata street improvement project between Calle Saluda and Via Onda. Four lanes arterial complete with storm drains, sidewalks, traffic signals, water, sewer and median islands. • The construction of Avenida Talega between Calle Saluda and Camino Tierra Grande. Four lanes arterial complete with storm drains, sidewalks, traffic signals, water, sewer and median islands. • The construction of Avenida Vista Hermosa, Calle Saluda and Avenida Talega Bridges over the canyons to connect the development streets and to avoid grading within sensitive habitat areas. • Installation of three major water quality basins to serve as the main storm water purification system for the development. • The construction of multiple residential streets complete with sidewalks, street lights and utilities to serve future developments. • Principal Civil Engineer in charge of the repair and replacement of the damaged sidewalks and driveway approaches within the entire City. City of Martinez/Associate Civil Engineer Responsibilities included. • Manage projects from inception to construction completion. Review plans prepared by engineers to make sure that they comply with the requirements and specification. Conduct field inspections and supervise the contractors' construction work for various projects including multiple residential and commercial properties. • Plan check and review tentative and final maps, improvement, site and grading plans. Make sure that the plans are in compliance with the required engineering standards and City Codes. Also ensure final maps are consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and City subdivision ordinance. • Oversee the construction work of the contractors in the field to make sure that work is in compliance with the approved plans, specification and contract documents. • Coordinate with the contractors in the field to address conflicts between the engineering plans and field conditions. Make sure to address these conflicts with creative solutions to avoid delays, change orders and additional expense to the projects under construction. • Prepare specification, bid documents and cost estimates to award new projects and participate in the contract award process. • Prepare Request for Proposals for design projects. Review the various submittals by the engineers and participate in the consultant selection process for the most qualified engineer to design the project. • Coordinate with the Planning Division to review the preliminary plans for projects to ensure that they meet all the engineering requirements, technical standards and City Codes. • Review and approve the construction schedules and progress payments for the project contractors. • Prepare staff reports for the City Council to approve various projects and multiple contractual issues. EXHIBIT C FEE SCHEDULE 14 CivilSource PSA 15 FEE SCHEDULE FOR AS NEEDED STAFF SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS The scope of work for this contract requires the consultant to provide a team of Professional Engineers to prepare the construction documents for the following CIP projects: 1. Costa Mesa Bark Park Renovation: Engineering fee is $50,000 2. Jack Hammett Sports Field Improvements: Engineering fee is $200,000 3. Newport Boulevard Landscape Improvements: Engineering fee is $100,000 4. Citywide Alley Improvements: Engineering fee is $40,000 5. Citywide Street Improvements: Engineering and Construction Support fee is $350,000 In addition, the consultant will provide a team of Professional Engineers to oversee construction of the following CIP projects: 1. Harbor Boulevard Bike Trail: Construction management and inspection fee is $60,000 2. Tewinkle Park ADA Improvements: Construction management and inspection fee is $10,000 3. Smallwood Park Improvement: Construction management and inspection fee is $20,000 4. Citywide Parkway Improvements: Construction management and inspection is $70,000 5. Parking Lot Rehabilitation at various City facilities Construction management and inspection fee is $40,000 August 7, 2015 Fariba Fazeli, PE City of Costa Mesa Public Services/Engineering 77 Fair Drive, 4't' Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: FEE PROPOSAL to Provide Staff Support for Various Parks Projects, Water Quality Program, and Private Development Review Dear Ms. Fazeli, We are pleased to submit this fee proposal to provide Staff Support Services for the City of Costa Mesa (City). We propose to provide hourly services at the rates shown below: Key Personnel Hourly Safa Kamangar, PE, QSP/QSD Rate $130 Tim Shaw, RLA, ASLA $120 Sean Razmy, PE $120 Michael Girgis, PE $130 Nabil Toma, PE $130 On behalf of the CivilSource team, we thank you for the opportunity to serve as a part of your team. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (949) 585- 0477 or amy@civil-source.com. Respectfully submitted, CIVILSOURCE, INC. C�L7Y * dw Lt Amy Amirani, PE Principal 9890 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92618 1 P: 949-585-0477 1 F: 949-585-0433 1 www.civil-source.com A7:1I-- A PROJECT SCHEDULE 15 CivilSource PSA 15 SCHEDULE FOR AS NEEDED STAFF SUPPORT FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS TASK DATE 1. Proposal Received by the City 8/07/15 2. City Council Award 11/03/15 3. Projects Kick-off Meeting 11/04/15 4. 100% Design Submittal (PS&E) 8/04/16 5. Construction Contract Advertisement and Award 11/04/16 6. Construction Management and Inspection Services From 1/1/16 to 11/04/18 EXHIBIT E CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE 16 CivilSource PSA 15 ACCOR " 0CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 9»2Q ""�Y' 15 - THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s), PRODUCER Dealey, Renton & Associates P. O. Bax 10550CAa Santa Ana, CA 92711-0550 COANE CT Sandy Peters PHONE 626 8443070 FAx . 626 844-3074 DDRE . speters@dealeyrenton.com INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC 9 License #0020739 INSURERA:Travelers Indemnity Co. Of COnnecti 25682 680281OL768 INSURED CIVILSOUR INSURER6:Travelers Property Casualty Co of 25674 CivilSource, Inc. INSURERC:Travelers Casualty&Surety Co of Ame 31194 9890 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 INSURER D: 949 585-0477 INSURER 6: INSURER F: COVFRAGFS CFRTIFICATF NtfMRFR- 299300608 RFVISIr)N N1IMRFR- THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. 1NSR L TYPEOFINSURANCE INSD WVD POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MMIOD POLICY EXP MWDD LIMITS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Y Y 680281OL768 7/20/2015 7/20/2016 EACH OCCURRENCE $2,000,000 CLAIMS -MADE FOOCCUR PREMIDAMASES( aoccurrence) $1,000,000 MED EXP (Any one arson) $10,000 X Contractual Liab X XCU Included PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $2,0D0.000 GEHL AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $4,000,000 POLICY a jE 0 F-1 LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $4 000,000 $ OTHER: B AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Y BA4592L377 7/20/2015 7/20/2016 COMB MI $ Ea accident 1,000,000 BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ ANY AUTO AUTOS�Eo AUTOSUL� NON-OWNX HIRED AUTOS X AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ P er accid�t $ B X UMBRELLA UAB X OCCUR Y Y CUP8772Y251 7/20/2015 7/20/2016 EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 AGGREGATE $1,000,000 EXCESS LAB CLAIMS -MADE DED I X I RETENTION 0 $ B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY YIN ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNERIEXECUTIVE Y UB6771Y518 7/20/2015 7/20/2016 X PER OTH- STATUTE ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $1,0.00,000 OFFICERIMEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ NIA DISEASE -EA EMPLOYE $1,000,000 (Mandatory in NH) If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below _EL- E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $1,000,000 C Professional Liability 105968526 7/20/2015 7/20/2016 $2,000,000 Per Claim Claims Made $2,000,000 Annual Aggregate DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/ LOCATIONS I VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, maybe attached If more space Is required) *General Liability policy excludes claims arising out of the performance of professional services.* **Umbrella policy Is a follow -form to underlying General Liability/Hired&Non-Owned Auto Liability/Employers Liability.** RE: Staff Support for Various Paries Projects, Water Quality Program, and Private Development Review — City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers are named as additional insured as respects general and hired/non-awned auto liability for claims arising from the operations of the named insured as required per written contract or agreement. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION 30 Dav NOC110 Dav for NonPav of Prem SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN City of Costa Mesa; Public ServicesiEngineering ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. Attn: Fariba Fazeli, PE 77 Fair Drive, 4th Floor AUIRDRIZED REPRESENTATIVE Costa Mesa CA 92628 ©1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2014101) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD TUIC l+COTICl/+ATC 01 IDCOCCRCC DOC B -I 101 V 0001 ICR /`COTICIl�ATC POLICY NUMBER: 680281OL758 COMMERICAL GENERAL LIABILITY ISSUE DATE:9/22/2015 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY, ADDITIONAL INSURED (ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL. LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ORGANIZATION(S): City of Costa Mesa; Public Services/Engineering Attn: Fariba Fazeli, PE 77 Fair Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa CA 92628 PROJECT/LOCATION OF COVERED OPERATIONS: RE: Staff Support for Various Parks Projects, Water Quality Program, and Private Development Review -- City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers PROVISIONS A. The following is added to WHO IS AN INSURED (Section I1): The person or organization shown in the Sched- ule above is an additional insured on this Cover- age Part, but only with respect to liability for bod- ily injury", 'property damage" or 'personal Injury caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omis- sions or the acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf: a. In the performance of your ongoing oper- ations; b. In connection with premises owned by or rented to you; or C. In connection with your work and included within the "products -completed operations hazard." Such person or organization does not qualify as an additional insured for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal injury' for which that person or organization has assumed liability in a contract or agreement. The Insurance provided to . such additional insured is limited as follows: d. This insurance does not apply to the render- ing of or failure to render any "professional services". e. The limits of insurance afforded to the add€- tional insured shall be the limits which you agreed in that 'contract or agreement requir- ing insurance" to provide for that additional insured, or the limits shown in the Declarations for this Coverage Part, whichever are less. This endorsement does not increase the limits of insurance stated in the LIMITS OF INSURANCE (Section 111) for this Coverage Part. B. The following is added to Paragraph a. of 4. Other Insurance in COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS (Section IV): However, if you specifically agree in a contract or agreement requiring insurance that, for the addi- tional insured shown in the Schedule, the insur- ance provided to that additional insured under this CG D3 82 09 07 Page 1 OO 2007 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office Inc., with its permission COMMERICAL GENERAL LIABILITY Coverage Part must apply on a primary basis, or a primary and non-contributory basis, this insurance is primary to other insurance that is available to such additional insured which covers such additional insured as a named insured, and we will not share with the other insurance, provided that: (1) The "bodily injury" or "property damage" for which coverage is sought occurs; and (2) The "personal injury" for which coverage is sought arises out of an offense committed; after you have entered into that "contract or agreement requiring insurance" for such additional insured. But this insurance still is excess over valid and collectible other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the additional insured when the additional insured is also an additional insured under any other insurance. C. The following is added to Paragraph 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us in COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS (Section IV): We waive any rights of recovery we may have against the additional insured shown in the Schedule above because of payments we make for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal CG D3 82 09 07 injury" arising out of "your work" on or for the project, or at the location, shown in the Schedule above, performed by you, or on your behalf, under a "contract or agreement requiring insurance" with that additional insured. We waive these rights only where you have agreed to do so as part of the "contract or agreement requiring insurance" with that additional insured entered into by you before, and in effect when, the- "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs, or the "personal injury" offense is committed. D. The following definition is added to DEFINITIONS (Section V): "Contract or agreement requiring insurance" means that part of any contract or agreement under which you are required to include the person or organization shown in the Schedule as an additional insured on this Coverage Part, provided that the "bodily injury" and "property damage" occurs, and the "personal injury" is caused by an offense committed: a. After you have entered into that contract or agreement; b. While that part of the contract or agreement is in effect, and c. Before the end of the policy period. 0 2007 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office Inc., with its permission Page 2 POLICY #: BA4592L377 COMMERCIAL AUTO CA 20 48 02 99 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. DESIGNATED INSURED This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM GARAGE COVERAGE FORM MOTOR CARRIER COVERAGE FORM TRUCKERS COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions ofthe Coverage Form apply unless modi- fied by this endorsement. This endorsement identifies person(s) or organization(s) who are "insureds" under the Who Is An Insured Provi- sion of the Coverage Form. This endorsement does not after coverage provided in the Coverage Form. This endorsement changes the policy effective on the inception date of the policy unless another date is indicated below. Endorsement Effective: 9/22/2015 Countersigned By: Named Insured: CivilSource, Inc. Authorized Representative) SCHEDULE Name of Person(s) or Organization(s): RE: Staff Support for Various Parks Projects, water Quality Program, and Private Development Review -- City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to the endorsement.) Each person or organization shown in. the Schedule is an "insured" for Liability Coverage, but only to the extent that person or organization qualifies as an "insured" under. the Who Is An Insured Provision contained in Section 11 of the Coverage Form. CA 20 48 02 99 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1998 Agbk 7 RAVELER WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY POLICY ENDORSEMENT WC 99 03 76(00) — 001 POLICY NUMBER: U136771Y518 WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT CALIFORNIA (BLANKET WAIVER) We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. You must maintain payroll records accurately segregating the remuneration of your employees while engaged in the work described in the Schedule. The additional premium for this endorsement shall be 3.00 % of the California workers' compensation premium otherwise due on such remuneration. Schedule Person or Organization Job Description City of Costa Mesa; Public RE: Staff Support for Various Parks Services/Engineering Projects, Water Quality Program, and Attn: Fariba Fazeli, PE Private Development Review --- City of 77 Fair Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed Costa Mesa CA 92628 boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers DATE OFISSUE:9/22/2015 ST ASSIGN: CA 017106 ACORD® CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) 10/6/2015 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER Dealey, Renton &Associates P. O. Box 10550 Santa Ana, CA 92711-0550 CONTACT Sand Peters NAME: PHONE . 626 844-3070 F°x . 626 844-3074 E-MAIL . speters@dealeyrenton.com INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # License #0020739 INSURERA:Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecti 25682 680281 OL758 INSURED CIVILSOUR INSURERB:Traveler$ Property Casualty Co of 25674 CivilSource, Inc. INSURER c :Travelers Casualty&Surety Co of Ame 31194 9890 Irvine Center Drive Irvine, CA 92618 INSURER D: 949 585-0477 INSURER E: INSURER F COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 409202176 REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDLSUBR INSD WVD POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MM/DD/YYYY POLICY EXP MM/DD/YYYY LIMITS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Y Y 680281 OL758 7/20/2015 7/20/2016 EACH OCCURRENCE $2,000,000 CLAIMS -MADE X� OCCUR DAMAGES (RENTED PREMISES Ea occurrence) $1,000,000 MED EXP (Any one person) $10,000 X Contractual Liab X XCU Included PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $4,000,000 POLICY � JE� F LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $4,000,000 1 $ OTHER: B AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Y BA45921_377 7/20/2015 7/20/2016 Ea accident S'NGLE LIMIT $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ ANY AUTO ALL OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ X NON -OWNED HIRED AUTOS X AUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE $ Per accident B X UMBRELLA LIAB X OCCUR Y Y CUP6772Y251 7/20/2015 7/20/2016 EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 AGGREGATE $1,000,000 EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS -MADE DED X RETENTION$0 $ B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE Y UB6771Y518 7/20/2015 7/20/2016 X STATUTE ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $1,000,000 OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ NIA E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $1,000,000 (Mandatory in NH) If es, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT $1,000,000 C Professional Liability 105968526 7/20/2015 7/20/2016 $2,000,000 Per Claim Claims Made $2,000,000 Annual Aggregate DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached H more space is required) *General Liability policy excludes claims arising out of the performance of professional services.* **Umbrella policy is a follow -form to underlying General Liability/Hired&Non-Owned Auto Liability/Employers Liability.** Re: City Wide Staff Augmentation -- City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers are named as additional insured as respects general and hired/non-owned auto liability for claims arising from the operations of the named insured as required per written contract. Insurance coverage includes waiver of subrogation per the attached endorsement(s). CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION ou uay IvuL,rlu uay Tor Ivonray oT rrem City of Costa Mesa, Public Services/Engineering Attn: Fariba Fazeli 77 Fair Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa CA 92628 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUMPRIZED ©1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 26 (2014/01) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD POLICY NUMBER: 680281OL758 COMMERICAL GENERAL LIABILITY ISSUE DATE: 10/6/2015 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED (ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ORGANIZATION(S): City of Costa Mesa, Public Services/Engineering Attn: Fariba Fazeli 77 Fair Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa CA 92628 PROJECT/LOCATION OF COVERED OPERATIONS: Re: City Wide Staff Augmentation -- City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers PROVISIONS A The following is added to WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II): The person or organization shown in the Sched- ule above is an additional insured on this Cover- age Part, but only with respect to liability for bod- ily injury", 'property damage" or 'personal injury caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omis- sions or the acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf: a. In the performance of your ongoing oper- ations; In connection with premises owned by or rented to you; or C. In connection with your work and included within the "products -completed operations hazard." Such person or organization does not qualify as an additional insured for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal injury' for which that person or organization has assumed liability in a contract or agreement. The insurance provided to such additional insured is limited as follows: d. This insurance does not apply to the render- ing of or failure to render any "professional services". The limits of insurance afforded to the addi- tional insured shall be the limits which you agreed in that 'contract or agreement requir- ing insurance" to provide for that additional insured, or the limits shown in the Declarations for this Coverage Part, whichever are less. This endorsement does not increase the limits of insurance stated in the LIMITS OF INSURANCE (Section III) for this Coverage Part. B. The following is added to Paragraph a. of 4. Other Insurance in COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS (Section IV): However, if you specifically agree in a contract or agreement requiring insurance that, for the addi- tional insured shown in the Schedule, the insur- ance provided to that additional insured under this CG D3 82 09 07 Page 1 C 2007 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office Inc., with its permission COMMERICAL GENERAL LIABILITY Coverage Part must apply on a primary basis, or a primary and non-contributory basis, this insurance is primary to other insurance that is available to such additional insured which covers such additional insured as a named insured, and we will not share with the other insurance, provided that: (1) The "bodily injury" or "property damage" for which coverage is sought occurs; and (2) The "personal injury" for which coverage is sought arises out of an offense committed; after you have entered into that "contract or agreement requiring insurance" for such additional insured. But this insurance still is excess over valid and collectible other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the additional insured when the additional insured is also an additional insured under any other insurance. C. The following is added to Paragraph 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us in COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS (Section IV): We waive any rights of recovery we may have against the additional insured shown in the Schedule above because of payments we make for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal injury" arising out of "your work" on or for the project, or at the location, shown in the Schedule above, performed by you, or on your behalf, under a "contract or agreement requiring insurance" with that additional insured. We waive these rights only where you have agreed to do so as part of the "contract or agreement requiring insurance" with that additional insured entered into by you before, and in effect when, the "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs, or the "personal injury" offense is committed. D. The following definition is added to DEFINITIONS (Section V): "Contract or agreement requiring insurance" means that part of any contract or agreement under which you are required to include the person or organization shown in the Schedule as an additional insured on this Coverage Part, provided that the "bodily injury" and "property damage" occurs, and the "personal injury" is caused by an offense committed: a. After you have entered into that contract or agreement; b. While that part of the contract or agreement is in effect; and c. Before the end of the policy period. CG D3 82 09 07 Page 2 © 2007 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office Inc., with its permission POLICY #: BA4592L377 COMMERCIAL AUTO CA 20 48 02 99 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. DESIGNATED INSURED This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM GARAGE COVERAGE FORM MOTOR CARRIER COVERAGE FORM TRUCKERS COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions ofthe Coverage Form apply unless modi- fied by this endorsement. This endorsement identifies person(s) or organization(s) who are "insureds" under the Who Is An Insured Provi- sion of the Coverage Form. This endorsement does not alter coverage provided in the Coverage Form. This endorsement changes the policy effective on the inception date of the policy unless another date is indicated below. Endorsement Effective: 10/6/2015 Countersigned By: Named Insured: CivilSource, Inc. Authorized Representative) SCHEDULE Name of Person(s) or Organization(s): Re: City wide Staff Augmentation -- City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to the endorsement.) Each person or organization shown in the Schedule is an "insured" for Liability Coverage, but only to the extent that person or organization qualifies as an "insured" under the Who Is An Insured Provision contained in Section II of the Coverage Form. CA 20 48 02 99 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1998 Awh TRAVELERS WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY POLICY ENDORSEMENT WC 99 03 76(00) — 001 POLICY NUMBER: UB6771Y518 WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT CALIFORNIA (BLANKET WAIVER) We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. You must maintain payroll records accurately segregating the remuneration of your employees while engaged in the work described in the Schedule. The additional premium for this endorsement shall be 3.00 % of the California workers' compensation premium otherwise due on such remuneration. Person or Organization City of Costa Mesa, Public Services/Engineering Attn: Fariba Fazeli 77 Fair Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa CA 92628 DATE OF ISSUE: 10/6/2015 017106 Schedule Job Description Re: City Wide Staff Augmentation -- City of Costa Mesa and its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers ST ASSIGN: CA EXHIBIT F CITY COUNCIL POLICY 100-5 17 CivilSource PSA 15 SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 1 of 3 BACKGROUND Under the Federal Drug -Free Workplace Act of 1988, passed as part of omnibus drug legislation enacted November 18, 1988, contractors and grantees of Federal funds must certify that they will provide drug-free workplaces. At the present time, the City of Costa Mesa, as a sub -grantee of Federal funds under a variety of programs, is required to abide by this Act. The City Council has expressed its support of the national effort to eradicate drug abuse through the creation of a Substance Abuse Committee, institution of a City-wide D.A.R.E. program in all local schools and other activities in support of a drug-free community. This policy is intended to extend that effort to contractors and grantees of the City of Costa Mesa in the elimination of dangerous drugs in the workplace. PURPOSE It is the purpose of this Policy to: 1. Clearly state the City of Costa Mesa's commitment to a drug-free society. 2. Set forth guidelines to ensure that public, private, and nonprofit organizations receiving funds from the City of Costa Mesa share the commitment to a drug-free workplace. POLICY The City Manager, under direction by the City Council, shall take the necessary steps to see that the following provisions are included in all contracts and agreements entered into by the City of Costa Mesa involving the disbursement of funds. 1. Contractor or Sub -grantee hereby certifies that it will provide a drug-free workplace by: a. Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's workplace, specifically the job site or location included in this contract, and specifying the actions that will be taken against the employees for violation of such prohibition; 18 CivilSource PSA 15 SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 2 of 3 D. tstamisning a urug-Tree Awareness Nrogram to mtorm employees about: 1. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; 2. Contractor's and/or sub -grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; 3. Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and 4. The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; c. Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the contract be given a copy of the statement required by subparagraph A; d. Notifying the employee in the statement required by subparagraph 1 A that, as a condition of employment under the contract, the employee will: 1. Abide by the terms of the statement; and 2. Notify the employer of any criminal drug statute conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five (5) days after such conviction; e. Notifying the City of Costa Mesa within ten (10) days after receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 from an employee or otherwise receiving the actual notice of such conviction; f. Taking one of the following actions within thirty (30) days of receiving notice under subparagraph 1 D 2 with respect to an employee who is so convicted: 1. Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or 2. Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health agency, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; 19 CivilSource PSA 15 SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE NUMBER DATE DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE 100-5 8-8-89 3 of 3 g. Making a good faith effort to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 F, inclusive. 2. Contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be deemed to be in violation of this Policy if the City of Costa Mesa determines that: a. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has made a false certification under paragraph 1 above; b. Contractor and/or sub -grantee has violated the certification by failing to carry out the requirements of subparagraphs 1 A through 1 G above; c. Such number of employees of Contractor and/or sub -grantee have been convicted of violations of criminal drug statutes for violations occurring in the workplace as to indicate that the contractor and/or sub -grantee has failed to make a good faith effort to provide a drug-free workplace. 3. Should any contractor and/or sub -grantee be deemed to be in violation of this Policy pursuant to the provisions of 2 A, B, and C, a suspension, termination or debarment proceeding subject to applicable Federal, State, and local laws shall be conducted. Upon issuance of any final decision under this section requiring debarment of a contractor and/or- sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be ineligible for award of any contract, agreement or grant from the City of Costa Mesa for a period specified in the decision, not to exceed five (5) years. Upon issuance of any final decision recommending against debarment of the contractor and/or sub -grantee, the contractor and/or sub -grantee shall be eligible for compensation as provided by law. 20 CivilSource PSA 15 Z O FZN O uj LL Z uj V 2 m ATTACHMENT N O a� O c� L �. O N 0 C 0001 OOf to W Q OOf U) O Lt O d > 20 •� NIA Q Q. . co c V N r R 0 6641, V} a. E Vk E �o Z N N N rN o M O.0O .Q E� 'rN-� d > 0 (D a Q, m Z 0 mED v= 0 R R � y N Rm te t0 R' FNU c L .(D am c C N C41 O 1-f6 N O >_ c 0 m U U N fl. o c cl W LC C a Q' a m m CL CL L U a% L L CL CL :07 CL CL Q Q W ❑ o d cr a) E N L C m V O a CL (D co �. d O m 0) C �X W E 2 ❑ O cn � V ATTACHMENT N O M O co �. O O 0 0001 OOf to 0� OOf U) O Lt O NIA 0 6641, V} tNA Vk V► M N N � 0 (D c ; y o a cr a) O. �. d O ❑ 0 _ Q (D 0 > c o c m w > a a i,. ° w a Q > o ® O a v = m _T 1 p U L n c E N .0. r r cd o 0 0 c4 c4 N o An c❑ r a r r O Op O O N r M r M r M= w+ 0 V' •1' 10) O w >0 c LLa m > o CL w w 0 a N V Q V El o N w m 0 Ni 0 NE O O N 1 O 04 0 T CD � Im O O t6 Q. 0 fl. n ,o O ! O O N N N m a)tL w C ca w L Y a) c c C c N 3 y c.0 m a z Z z Z vM N 1 i i A N N m C co R R 3 N R E R 8 R 3 i m m m m 3 mCO) m d N im L N 0 N W E � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nw L a O O o a; 0 0 0 0 �, 0 ' m v o o O o 0 +0-+ CL Z Q Ip Ip IO fn N IA fO h N L O ++ C Q Elm ca } }} }} yy }} }} R cm m O U V V V U U V U U D m IL- m N m E C. m N c aRi o n I I I I I co CO W N N co It N two I C Go w N M C N O a` N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O r r r r O r O T tT O O O r r Pr O P O p O O O O O O O O O O O a N O N M M M C O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O •C N N N N N N N N N N N . I e . I . . I . . I R Ot P Of P 01 r OI T Ot T W r 07 r 01 T O T W P 01 r 21 O m rT O O P O r O T O T O P O r O T O T O T O NN N P r r r r N N r LL E E I I . I . . . . . R Z Z Z m m 0 R m •' 'a R-' a am rn m w at N m N m p C C C C y R .L V R •` w w r � �/ � � �R.. � m w N mmctl0 0 0000 120 0:0 U U U 1U 1U O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 Oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p N r MP to to N r M b r N N O N o N 0 N O O Q b N to N N H to N to to to ATTACHMENT 3 PROJ. CIP PROJECT NAME AND STATUS NO. 1 BRISTOL (1-405 TO RANDOLPH) AND BEAR (WAKEHAM TO 1-405) STREET (APM), FED PROD NO. STPL-5312 (100) REHABILITATION PROJECT: This project consists of reconstruction of damaged curb & gutter, sidewalks, driveways, cross gutters and mill and AC overlay. • Complete the construction documents and advertised for construction by July 2016. • Begin construction in January 2017. 2 ARLINGTON DRIVE BIOSWALE AND DRY WEATHER DIVERSION PROJECT: This project consists of removing approximately 70,000 sq. ft. of asphalt and construction of vegetated bioswale and decomposed granite multi-purpose trail. • Complete the construction documents and advertised for construction by July 2016. • Begin construction in October 2016. 3 2014-2015 CITYWIDE STREET REHABILITATION: This project consists of mill & AC overlay and/or slurry seal application on residential neighborhoods. • This project is scheduled to start construction in January 2016. 4 2015-2016 CITYWIDE STREET REHABILITATION: This project consists of mill & AC overlay and/or slurry seal application on residential neighborhoods. • Complete the construction documents by June 2016 • Be in construction in January 2017. 5 2014-2015 CITYWIDE PARKWAY REPAIR AND NEW SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION: This project consists of citywide removal and construction of damaged curb & gutter, sidewalks, driveways and cross gutters • This project is under construction. 6 2015-2016 CITYWIDE PARKWAY REPAIR AND NEW SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION: This project consists of citywide removal and construction of damaged curb & gutter, sidewalks, driveways and cross gutters • Complete the construction documents by March 2016 • Be in construction in June 2016. 7 2014-2015 CITYWIDE UNIMPROVED ALLEYS: This project consists of removal of the existing pavement and construction of concrete pavement of several alleys with concrete pavement. • This project is scheduled to start construction in December 2015. 8 2015-2016 CITYWIDE UNIMPROVED ALLEYS: This project consists of removal of the existing pavement and construction of concrete pavement of several alleys with concrete pavement. • Complete the construction documents by March 2016 • Be in construction in June 2016. 9 2015-2016 CDBG STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: This project consists of reconstruction of damaged curb & gutter, sidewalks, driveways, cross gutters and mill and AC overlay of Bay street. • Complete the construction documents by February 2016 0 Begin construction in May 2016. ATTACHMENT 3 PROD. CIP PROJECT NAME AND STATUS NO. 10 DESIGN OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING MEDIANS AND ENTRY MONUMENT SIGNS: This project consists of preparation of construction documents for California Avenue median, Gisler Avenue parkway improvements, Mesa Verde Drive median improvements, and construction of a City entry monument sign at Newport Frontage Road and Industrial Way. • Complete the construction documents by January 2016 • Begin construction in April 2016. 11 FIRE STATION NO. 1: This project consists of the demolition and reconstruction of Fire Station No. 1 located at 2803 Royal Palm Drive. • Complete the construction documents by September 2016 • Begin construction in January 2017. 12 FIRE STATION NO. 4: This project consists of extending the existing Apparatus Room at Fire Station No. 4, and adding a detached vehicle storage building to the site. The existing bathroom will be upgraded to comply with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. New ADA accessible parking stalls and an accessible path of travel will also be part of the scope of this work. • This project is under construction 13 PARKING LOT REHABILITATION PROJECT: This project consists of rehabilitation of the following parking lots: 1. City Hall parking lot 2. Fire Station No.2 parking Lot 3. Fire Station No. 4 parking lot 4. Tewinkle Park parking lot • Complete the construction documents by January 2016 • Begin construction in April 2016. 14 DEL MAR AVENUE MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS: This project consists of construction of a raised landscaped median on Del Mar Avenue just east of Newport Boulevard. • This project is under construction 15 CITY HALL FIRST FLOOR IMPROVEMENTS: This project consists of the remodel of the Council Chambers, Audio Visual Control Room, 1st Floor Restrooms, Conf. Room 1A, Employee/Community Lounge, City Hall Community meeting room and the creation of an Outdoor Public Meeting space. • Complete the construction documents by April 2016 • Begin construction in July 2016. 16 DOWNTOWN COSTA MESA GATEWAY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT: This project consists of construction of a monument sign at the end of SR 55 FWY near 191h street and landscape improvement at the median and the east side of the freeway. • This project is under construction. 17 TEWINKLE PARK ADA IMPROVEMENTS This project consists of repairing, replacing and remodeling the existing path of travel, facilities and buildings to bring them to current ADA standards. • Complete the construction documents by April 2016 0 Begin construction in July 2016. ATTACHMENT 3 PROJ. CIP PROJECT NAME AND STATUS NO. 18 PARK SECURITY LIGHTING PROGRAM: This project consists of replacing and/or upgrading the security lights at various City Parks. Phase I includes design for four (4) City Parks: TeWinkle Park, Shiffer Park, Wakeham Park, and Heller Park and construction of improvements at TeWinkle Park. • Complete the construction documents by January 2016 • Begin construction in April 2016. 19 POLICE FACILITY - EMERGENCY GENERATOR REPLACEMENT This project consists of replacing the emergency generator currently located inside the Police Facility with an above ground generator and fuel tank, located outside of the building; abandon underground fuel tank in place. The new generator system would fully power this essential facility during power outages or natural disasters. • Complete the construction documents by February 2016 • Begin construction in May 2016 20 INSTALLATION OF SECURITY CAMERAS AT VARIOUS LOCATION This project consists of installing new cameras at Skate Park, Senior Center, Joann Bike Trail and Wilson Park. These location are experiencing increased levels of vandalism, loitering and illegal activities and these cameras will provide much needed coverage that will assist law enforcement eliminate the illegal use of the facilities. • Complete the construction documents by February 2016 • Begin construction in May 2016 21 SMALLWOOD PARK The City is upgrading elements of the park in phases as funds become available. Phase I, which included the remodeling and upgrade of the existing restroom building and replacement of concrete walkways, has been completed. Phase II, includes the replacement of the existing 2-5 years (pre -K) play area and adjacent pathways. • Complete the construction documents by December 2015 • Begin construction in March 2016 22 HARBOR BOULEVARD BIKE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS The Harbor Boulevard Bike Trail is located in the west parkway of Harbor Boulevard between Fair Drive and Merrimac Way. The work includes the installation of pedestrian safety lighting as well as landscape lighting; and replacement of the existing sidewalk adjacent to the curb lane with drought -tolerant landscape. The proposed low-level lighting will be similar to the one utilized at the Joann Bike Trail to maintain uniformity, increase safety, and beautify this very important corridor_ • Complete the construction documents by December 2015 • Begin construction in March 2016 23 COSTA MESA BARK PARK RENOVATION This project consists of the design of improvements to incorporate the expanded areas of the park, improve the current layout and beautify the frontages along Newport Boulevard and Arlington Drive. • Complete the construction documents by June 2016 • Be in construction in September 2016 24 JACK HAMMETT SPORTS FIELDS IMPROVEMENTS This project consists of upgrading the existing natural turf fields (Fields 1 and 2) to synthetic turf. The work also includes a new underground drainage system, fencing and bleachers. • Complete the construction documents by April 2016 9 Begin construction in July 2016 ATTACHMENT 3 PROD. CIP PROJECT NAME AND STATUS NO. 25 NEWPORT BOULEVARD LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS This project consists of the design of landscape improvements for the northbound and southbound Newport Boulevard frontage roads from 19th Street to Bristol Street. • Complete the construction documents by June 2016 • Begin construction in September 2016 26 SKATE PARK II This project consists of feasibility studies and conceptual design phase for a new skate park that not only fulfills the needs of the community but also provides a good platform for additional recreational opportunities and programming. • Complete the conceptual design phase by June 2016 • Begin design phase in September 2016 27 ESAT 19TH STREET TRAFFIC CALMING This project consists of construction of bulb -outs, ADA ramps, raised median Islands, monument signs and landscaping on 19th Street from Newport Blvd. to Irvine Ave. • Completed the design phase • Be in construction phase in January 2016 28 LANDSCAPED MEDIANS ON BRISTOL STREET This project consists of landscaped raised medians on Bristol Street from Newport (Southbound) to Baker Street). • Completed the design phase • Begin construction phase in January 2016 29 LANDSCAPED MEDIANS ON PLACENTIA AVENUE This project consists of landscaped raised medians on Placentia Avenue from Wilson Street to Adams Avenue. • Completed the design phase • Begin construction phase in January 2016 Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: CC -8 SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL WAY WATER QUALITY AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 14-08 DATE: OCTOBER 22, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR BY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER, (714) 754-5335 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve Change Order Number 3 (Attachment 1) in the amount of $216,266.32; 2. Accept the work performed by Lonerock, Inc. and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion; 3. Release the Faithful Performance Bond one (1) year after the filing date; and release the retention monies 35 days after the Notice of Completion filing date. BACKGROUND: The Industrial Way Water Quality and Storm Drain Improvements project consisted of the construction of a detention/infiltration basin at Lions Park within the open space area adjacent to Anaheim Avenue, located between the Historical Society (HS) and the Downtown Recreation Center (DRC), and a parallel reinforced concrete box drain system on Anaheim Avenue between Plumer Street and 18th Street; and all other tasks necessary to perform and complete the work as required by the contract documents. This project provides additional flood protection to the City's Westside by diverting and storing approximately 1.2 million gallons of storm runoff during a typical rain storm. The system detains and infiltrates runoff, thereby increasing the capacity of the Westside watershed storm drain system. This project also provides significant environmental benefits by removing pollutants and debris from the City's storm drain system, by preventing them from reaching the coastal waters and beaches, and by naturally treating dry weather runoff and rain's "first flush". On June 17, 2014, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Lonerock, Inc., 70 Domani, Irvine, CA 92618, in the amount of $2,553,940.00 for the construction of the Industrial Way Water Quality and Storm Drain Improvements project. ANALYSIS: The overall scope of work for the Industrial Way Water Quality and Storm Drain Improvement Project has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition to the construction of the detention/infiltration basin, and the construction of a parallel storm drain system, the work included pavement resurfacing of Anaheim Avenue along with the Lions Park complex impacted parking lot areas, and the complete relandscaping of the basin area with a colorful drought tolerant plant palette design. Rain water storage system being installed Completed project with new drought - tolerant landscape Pursuant to Council Policy No. 700-1, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) approval is required for contract change orders up to $50,000, or 5% of the original contract price, whichever is greater. Therefore, Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $47,333.88 was approved by the CEO on January 7, 2015 (Attachment 2). City Council Policy No. 700-1 also restricts the total Change Orders approved by the CEO to 10% of the original contract amount. In accordance with this policy, Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $397,952.00 was approved at the May 5, 2015 regular Council meeting (Attachment 3). Therefore, Change Order No. 3 (Attachment 1), in the amount of $216,266.32 is being requested for Council approval with this project acceptance. Change Order No. 3 compensates Lonerock, Inc., for all cost of unforeseen work performed during the construction of the Industrial Way Water Quality and Storm Drain Improvements project resulting in extra cost beyond the original contract scope of work, and includes all work which was not included with Change Orders No. 1 and No. 2. During the close-out phase of the project, the contractor submitted the following claims for extra work performed in the amount of $216,266.32: • Additional costs for which documentation was not available with the original time and materials tickets for work completed with prior change orders in the amount of $79,650.54. This work entailed the removal of an abandoned swimming pool at the project site, and the utility conflicts that were encountered during the placement of the 12 foot diameter pipe. This cost include equipment and labor. The balance of $136,615.78 compensates the contractor for increased overhead required during the overall duration of the project. Overhead costs were incurred by the contractor during additional contract days the contractor was directed to perform work related to the unforeseen utility conflicts and removal of the abandoned swimming pool. The costs include additional office staffing, office equipment, rental of security fencing, and secured storage facilities. With approval of Change Order No. 3 the cumulative total of change orders to date will increase the original contract amount to $3,215,492.20 or an increase of 25.9% over the original contract price. A report of the final cost summary is included herein as Attachment "4." A summary of the project costs is as follows: Original Contract Cost: $2,553,940.00 Change Order No. 1: $ 47,333.88 Change Order No. 2: $ 397,952.00 Change Order No. 3: $ 216,266.32 Final Contract Cost: $3,215,492.20 Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $47,333.88 (Attachment 2) was for unforeseen utility work that was encountered while installing the reinforced concrete box along Anaheim Street. 0 Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $397,952.00 (Attachment 3) was for the removal of a buried swimming pool, additional asphalt quantities to restore the parking lot; additional quantities to provide handicap ramps and ADA paths of travel, and the installation of drought tolerant landscaping to replace grass. Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $216,266.32 (Attachment 1), compensates the contractor for time and materials costs associated with additional work as described above, and required to complete the project. As of this date, there are no Stop Notices filed against the monies due to Lonerock, Inc. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: No alternatives are being considered for this item. FISCAL REVIEW: The Engineering Division of the Public Services Department captured grant funding from the Measure M2 Environmental Cleanup Program (ECP), Tier 2 for this project. The grant will cover 60 percent of the total project cost up to $2.8 million. The City allocated its funding match from available Drainage Fee revenues and in-kind services performed by Engineering Division staff. City Council has recognized the grant and allocated $3,371,600 for this project in Fiscal Year 2013-2014. The original construction contract in the amount of $2,553,940 was approximately $817,660 under budget. Thus, sufficient funding is currently available for this project to cover all change orders and no additional appropriations are needed at this time. LEGAL REVIEW: There is no legal review required for this item. CONCLUSION: The overall scope of work for the Industrial Way Water Quality and Storm Drain Improvement Project has been completed. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $216,266.32; authorize staff to file the Notice of Completion; release the remaining retention monies 35 days after the Notice of Completion filing date; and release the bonds accordingly. ERNESTO MUNOZ FARIBA FAZELI Public Services Director City Engineer 3 ATTACHMENTS: 1 — Change Order No. 3 for $216,266.32 2 — Change Order No. 1 for $47,333.88 3 — Change Order No. 2 for $397,952.00 4 — Cost Summary DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer City Attorney City Clerk Staff File ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF COSTA MESA PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 SUPPL NO. REV. PROJECT Industrial Way Water Quality and Storm Drain Improvements SHEET 1 OF 1 FEDERAL NO.(S) CITY SPECIFICATION NO. 14-08 To Lonerock Inc. Contractor You are hereby directed to make the herein described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications on this contract. NOTE: This change order is not effective until approved in accordance with Council Policy No. 700-1 Description of work to be done, estimate of quantities, and prices to be paid. Segregate between additional work at contract price, agreed price and force account. Unless otherwise stated, rates for rental of equipment cover only such time as equipment is actually used and no allowance will be made for idle time. Change Requested by: CONTRACTOR The last percentage shown is the net accumulated increase or decrease from the original quantity in the Bid Proposal. DESCRIPTION OF EXTRA WORK: Item A - $79,650.54 - for the unforeseen work that was covered/compensated for by Change Orders No. 1 and 2, related to the removal of the abandoned swimming pool and the utility conflicts that were encountered during the placement of the 12 foot diameter pipe. The costs include equipment and labor. Item B - $136,615.78 was to compensate the contractor for increased overhead required during overall duration of the project. During the 85 additional days that the contractor performed work related to the unforeseen utility conflicts and removal of the abandoned swimming pool, there was an additional cost to provide office staffing, office equipment, security fencing and secure storage facilities. This costs compensates the contractor for expenditures made during this time period. The contractor acknowledges that this change order shall be final and full payment for all work performed for this project. NO other compensation shall be allowed. The negotiated price for the above includes all mark-ups allowed by the contract documents. This change order was submitted to the City Council for approval in conformance with Council Policy 700-1 at the November 3, 2015 council meeting. COST INCREASE/DECREASE $ 216,266.32 By reason of this order the time of completion will be adjusted as follows: None Prepared by: _ _ Date: Submitted by: Date: Approval Recommended: Date: Approved: Date: We, the undersigned contractor, have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefor the prices shown above. Accepted, Date Contractor By Title If the Contractor did not sign acceptance of this order, his attention is directed to the requirements of the specifications as to proceeding with the ordered work and filing a written protest within the time therein specified. ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF COSTA MESA PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 001 SUPPL NO. REIT. PROJECT Industrial Way Water Quality and Stormdrain Improvements, SHEET 1 OF 1 FEDERAL NO.�S) CITY SPECIFICATION NO. 14-08 To -- - --- Lonerock, Inc, Contractor You are hereby directed -to make the herein described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications on this contract. NOTE: This change order is not: effective until approved: in accordance with Council Policy No. 70{}_1 Description of work to be done, estimate of quantities, and prices to be paid. Segregate between additional work at contract price, agreed price and force account. Unless otherwise stated, rates for rental of equipment cover only such time as equipment is actually used and no allowance will be made for idle time. Change Requested by: CONTRACTOR The last percentage shown is the net accumulated increase or decrease from the original quantity in the Bid Proposal, 1. BRIEF WORK DESCRIPTION Perform additional potholing for existing 5° water line. Encountered utility lines not shown per plan including some slurry - encased areas requiring additional potholing and identification. Load and dispose of concrete from 8'° siphon trench. Itemized cost breakdowns for tabor, Material, and Equipment attached herein. Costs include all applicable markups as permitted in the Project Specifications. The net accumulated increase in total contract price from the original Bid Proposal is: 147,333.88 / $2.553,940.04 or 1.9%. The City will get reimbursed by Mesa Water District for this change order. COST INCREASEIDECREASE 47 333.88 By reason of this order the time of completion will be adjusted as follows: 0 calendar days Prepared by: Bronswic Date: 12122/2014 r t Submitted by: Date: Approval Recommended: Date: . • i� Approved: Date: We, the undersigned contractor, have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefor the prices shown above. Ace 3 © Contractor 1 C7� iJ By G{� t Titlethj!; docilml Z- If the Contractor did not sign accept nce of this order, his attention is directed to ther r o r proceeding with the ordered work and filing a written protest within the time therein sp�'�ngtnal on fil �� office. ATTEST: DATED: 3 4-15 City Clerk, City of C to Mesa, County of Orange, Ca#iforn ATTACHMENT CITY OF COSTA MESA PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 SUPPL NO. REV. PROJECT Industrial Way Water Quality and Storm Drain Improvements SHEET 1 OF__L FEDERAL NO.(S) CITY SPECIFICATION NO. 14-08 To Lonerock Inc. Contractor You are hereby directed to make the herein described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications on this contract. NOTE: This change order is not effective until approved in accordance with Council Policy No. 700-1 Description of work to be done, estimate of quantities, and prices to be paid. Segregate between additional work at contract price, agreed price and force account. Unless otherwise stated, rates for rental of equipment cover only such time as equipment is actually used and no allowance will be made for idle time. Change Requested by: CONTRACTOR The last percentage shown is the net accumulated increase or decrease from the original quantity in the Bid Proposal. DESCRIPTION OF EXTRA WORK: Item A — Furnish and install drought tolerant landscaping and drip system in the open space where the detention basin was installed between Anaheim Avenue, the Historical Society Building, the Library Building and the Downtown Recreation Facility Building, in the amount of $188,700. Item B — Additional work items for unforeseen conditions and extra work beyond the original scope of the contract as follows: removal of swimming pool abandoned below grade, building foundation from the old "Boy's Club" building, unmarked and abandoned utilities to be removed from detention system, additional asphalt concrete quantities for the parking lot, new handicap ramps and ADA path of travel, in the amount of $209,252.00. The negotiated price for the above includes all mark-ups allowed by the contract documents. This change order was submitted to the City Council for approval in conformance with Council Policy 700 at the May 5, 2015 council meeting. COST INCREASE/DECREASE $ 397,952 By reason of this order the time of completion will be adjusted as follows: None Prepared by: Date: Submitted by: Date: Approval Recommended: Date: Approved: Date: We, the undersigned contractor, have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved, that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefor the prices shown above. Accepted, Date Contractor By Title If the Contractor did not sign acceptance of this order, his attention is directed to the requirements of the specifications as to proceeding with the ordered work and filing a written protest within the time therein specified. a w F CO) O U LL O 0 R C LL F c U R r LLIw a \if O 0 O o 0 0 OO 00. 00 00 o p O o O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 V W o O o to O n 0 O 0 O 00 O 0 O O 0 N 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 O 06 u) w O to O t() L) U 0 0 O O 0 0 O N O N to N N (C N N N F a Nu) m N O to N 0 (7 � O M n C9 N3 H3 M W. N K3 O M p f9 O fiN9 (NO 4A (!3 E9 d3 P U f9 N 0op O O N o O 0 O 0o O p O O o o 0 O Oo0 O O O 0 O 0 O 00 O 0 O N W o 0 o n 0 oD o O 0 o 0 o 0 0 (9 o 0 N 0 o 0 D 0 0 o o 0 O 0 N 0 O o n o Q a (- ° 0 tri 0 N tq Co O 1fJ o O p O N EA O O Oto N O sf N M o F OD b'3 61) n CD (9 Cl) 6% tq N_ c7 f9 Cl) toco 69 (9 C9 CD (o 00 (o O (H CO W N O O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O f9 o O O O �- W O FA O O f9 69 O 6% O 6% . O 6% O O (A C9 O b9 O (9 O 69 O O &i W. O Vf o f9 0 K3 0 O fA M O N Q I=- 0 O 0 0 p N o p O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 N W F O Z O O O n O M o o O O O O O o ER O O N O O 00 O O O O O O p N 00 o n 0 0o O O cL O N c O O O N O O t0 N N O VI N M >f I Q u) f9 e9 r (o N (9 M N N N r Mo M_ N (9 d3 M 64 0 69 O Mto (9 � N N > ~ e o J o o o o o o j C F W z F O° OO Op N t0 O O N O O N O O O{ J O NO Cl)O N co 0 O F o o j o o o o o o fqy J W W g aW o o 0 0 o o 0 O o o 0 o 0 O o 0 0 a a F O F 0 o J J (n ? D 1- j zz LLl O � O N N O p p N O O N O O M N O{ M � a O O O po O o O O O O o O O O 0 0 O O o o 0 O 0 O o 0 o O a p o O o o 0 O 0 D 0 ui o n o o 0 o 0 O 0 o O O o to o O o o o 0 O O o O u) M o 69 0 0 f V Z o N o w N O N O N o L6 O N O N N O On N N N 69 N CO 61), to M O aoD 6%6",N f9 M i9 69 69 6% 69 69 a l0 co M U o) c io M a Y - •C o. c c C _ n m a)° a o ° v °o .5cN U N W 0) c J O d > (D N Z O O U vi c X M o V 5 p_ C 'O L In N o O. i0 a N U U N a a N O O) z C C N cV W V C m i N C (� O N N N N C E 2 a M U U w c O R N rnN M W O J Z5 N to NN N C O D ..L.. G 3 U a N C U N O S M Y U N N? N O0.'f 00 Nam aw oIIM R Nw°6(MO-a a•—pc (O c 0 o CL o5cn D-6 N N 06M n.2 c o ?: U 2 CO — U C .v N N c Ca U c R a N (n v N R `- r U c a r a c 'O 5 c +� o ;?s - o M v) o O. R c� cm D M c"'y a Ry cg N D co - E2 , I U a)a33Nc O w a)U) d c R�.- a) U o c G) d �R - m •yam Lam c R v.:C�:�.0 CU y o a c(0d TUU :3 a`�Y O� m N NSU R� C cL!�� C O R(n�d N�� R a) as Nna cl of uXia�fl.2 ouai c ° d �d ornQii > C-4 o�UU m cw mj 'o E c Z5 Ma x 6 m(( c `m rn= rn o _ U oU� f P a O= _m a O crno '12in 5(DEo to R U ` °. VJ cif () M R T O m (n K ci O .-- fq oiS X 'X - m O_ U •N j y O •N N C O) c C U) m c O) w N :R, N O (D O) a' N - , _ D) c.i N .a O •cm O x Q C O 7 (� �1 R C 0> N> V R R 'O � O a) R O G O L U c O :2 ca G m= .R R UL N m U.Ct (>D `.t°.. ` c6 Nojf c C.O N0.iF-ad U N r N t" U O O y 3 N C C O V U N 3 C C° 6 U) 5(Jca V�� O d 0> N O R O Lln N N .`.. N m O R a A (D cc cc y c C-)CRS-)U'O Ua a'Cn (n C U'O QQ Ktn to (�(n o-°) w w - Q Q fn w q fn fn Q (n (n 4 LL LL Q J J J I)J l!J J J LL) J _j lL J J iu J (n t1J D P m z N 7 O r n r N r N 0 q) M M � O F z d N \if F U O Z H U W O w }a F U H 2 W 2 uiO Ix CL 2 O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 o 0 0 0 O q06 0 O O O O p p 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O N O M O N V 0 0 0 0 0 w O O t0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 00 (h N 0 Cl W V 00, OO O OO(D N N N NM O I� M O b NCO O O O O O to O O O O O O c 0 O 0 t0 O N O O M M t0 M (AN O) F C 2 a N 00 V' O O O ... N N (D ..... M O V N t0 N t0 O t0 r. co to O O O 00 N (D O r V' I- (D O N U ... . . .. . . ... . M N N .. M w O t () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o O O O O o o co Lo o N O O V• 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 o O O O o O O O O (D o co t ) O M N W J FOO.O O OC]OO O. to D) Oto 0(D 000 O 00. COO O 00 o O O O O OO 00 OO V o (h ON(D MO(O(D 04 O) Q Q D t0 O N O O (D M V' . t0 V' t0 V' t0 . O O O O to O O O O O o M O O N O Cl) I- .. . 61O (O O to O t0 O O ") N h d• T r H.. . . .. . . . .. .. ..MN .. N M w 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O O o O 0 0 p o O to O N O 00000 0000 00 O O O O O O 00 N O O t0 pM (+�j W...... O 00000 0000 co 00 .6363..0 o 00 o 6% O M, O . 00 .. 00 N. O O .O N(D u) ED Oi M O y c M O D) N N O b n (O O oo c') c14 h0. .. w 000000 O V'0.000 000000 000000 OOO O OOO O O O O O OO OO OO OO 0000 DD OOO (y O 0) F 7 Z O 0 (O O O . O O O O. 0 W O to O O O O O o O O O O o O . O. o 0 O O O 0 o 0 O o N O O 0 0 M. 0 0 69 69 N N O O to O O O v L V' V' w p O O O O o IS O M O WO g N o0 n O 613-61) M t0 . . . tC) O t0 O t0 t0 t0 M N. O I- 'e M o. Q 6969 (n i» (n W. is i» in . is A v N w Z Q (0J -j Q (q Q Q lJt t110 0 o LL o 0 0 0 o Oo 0 0 0 0 F wP(AOIJi ~ O Do M O r O o M M M ;; V'N O O o r O O O 00 v 0000 ~ O V, O O O r O O O O t0 r o O r O O O O r v F o dD V 0 W O Ir a QO� ¢ �� QQ V) WLL1Wo ¢¢¢¢ 0 0 o 0 00 o Oo 0 o a o OW� Qy O O O O o o O O O O O o o O r O o O O O V' o O O O O O O W W O O O S F. o tC) N W CJ j(J,Jy W Wo 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Qo 0 0 0 0 YOzyP 1- O )=OMO V'O O M M er N O 000 O O O 00 (O0 O O W2Q NV' M M O O p O O O c-:) 0 0 r 0 r O IL Q co v Oto00000 Or O 0000 00 000 o 0 000 00 000 000 o o O O O O 00 00 o o W t00 O t00 N M OOh h.0 0 O N_t0 N t0Ot00 O 0 O .0)O O O 000 O 000 O O Cl O O O ON 0I- O O Cl) O M OO N t0 (D F W 60 6%(0 w. 69 69 (O . . M N ..ON O t0 0 C 0 0 o O O. C M O D) N 7 a to OO . OD O til O N N O tnrO d• W 6969. . 69 Q9 . W. 6969 M N . . N a a a a U c c c c = • 3 N (0pp (00 > {Op (opp m Oa 0:60-a0a•- J 6 U w D Z Z Z OE) OE) �Ei OE) C N C N C N G N 'moi O N J J N J -I N V1 C O 1%W W 2 W a W Vi 2 -' @ -' H W c t0 U> U a -�' E- E E E Ns p U a'3 3 >0U U w Ho eD o 0o m ,� co 'o R: oan. a 0ti �m 2> �m 2> 'm-6 2> 2>..a 2f0 @ - m o °' Fi G U y N Oi$ eS 0if u 0(j C U 2 N!5 2 2 4) (D O (.iQ O UQUQUQ O O V O J N a J N °� U O a E O j O O ca Of o6 4'3 0�l C p �p L U> Q@ U y 02f U 02S U 4S ,0)O C C --C-O W J 3 C -,C-O J C J O C '-C-O J C 'WO O O W N fq @ U C c C C W@ = •� W X U S W a' O U W x W n`W-. •`W.. W Q 2 O W @$ c@ (n >@ y @@ rn @ m W y o C@ W NYH 0b W W W O �a y W > �> �� NNQ F @t o'xLijc >o000 _> aEi ma �a CL cc 2 Y Yo E= w cE0Ei in�o 0 3 W (V W a' 0Ei a' 0Ei=��Oa@ a' cl n O C X_ ,m X .in X ,nY X _ C E -6 ai C O 0tf C w @@ •- C J O W O W O W O ,� W O N " O m C N U W O V U~ U m 6 c p a p m p U p p N t0 c N N 3-cE333�03??. N U a) _o WF E:9 E:9E 9ESEc:° ,YO- L vS0m @ O v1UUW O W@@ (n Cl) @ y @'O S(0<aflQ) 'C ..C. - W W i -Ha KO W W �0 W W �OKO�U W W N O N 'O @ QU�u. c C > O(pOW w J JW�LL1W J J _j J J J JO J JJJJ FZ O m Q O cLD Oo� rcD r ui(NO0N LDD 'tnN�r z z W Z N N N N N N M M M M co M M M O Q O O N N N N M CO W Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH -1 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -14-04/ REZONE R-14-04/ ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CO -14-02/ AND MASTER PLAN PA -14-27 FOR COSTA MESA APARTMENTS AT 2277 HARBOR BOULEVARD FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RYAN LOOMIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RYAN LOOMIS (714) 754-5608 ryan.loomis@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Approve Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 by adoption of resolution: a. The IS/MND document analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. None of the impacts analyzed were determined to be significant. (Resolution attached). b. The project proposes a change in land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Per the applicant's request, the proposed base density is 166 units (40 du/acre) with a development incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households; and (b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Therefore, for the 4.15 -acre project site the General Plan Amendment would specify an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre for the proposed 224 -unit apartment complex and a site-specific building height of 60 feet for the 5 -level parking structure. 2. Give first reading to the ordinance for Rezone R-14-04: An ordinance to rezone a 4.15 -acre site from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). (Ordinance attached). 3. Give first reading to the ordinance for Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02: A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to make specific references to the parcel, where appropriate, including the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone and any other related changes. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. (Ordinance attached). 4. Approve Planning Application PA -14-27 by adoption of resolution: A Master Plan application for the 224 -unit apartment project. The proposal involves demolition of the existing Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel and the construction of a four-story, 224 - unit apartment project, inclusive of twenty affordable units for moderate -income households. Parking onsite would be accommodated within a proposed five level parking structure containing 503 parking spaces. APPI IrANT Diamond Star Associates, Inc. is the authorized agent for Miracle Mile Properties, the property owner. PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location: 2277 Harbor Boulevard APN: 422-163-31 Application Number: C2 General Business District (retail); I&R GPA-14-04/R-14-04/CO-14-02/PA-14-27 Request: Design Review for new 4 -story apartment building and multi-level parking structure SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: C1 (Current); PDR -HD (Proposed) North: C2 General Business District (retail); I&R 180,795 SF 4.15 ac Density: Institutional and Recreational District(golf course General GC (Current); HDR (Proposed) South: C2 General Business District (retail); R3 Multiple Plan: Maximum Site Coverage Overall Project Family Residential District (apartments) Lot 600 FT x 323 FT East: (across C1 -S Shopping Center District (Harbor Center) Dimensions: 75,964 SF— 42% (incl. upper level decks/ min 100 SF Harbor) 20 feet abutting all public ROW Lot Area: 180,795 SF (4.15 ac) 100 SF/Min. 5 FT dimension R2 -MD Multi -Family Residential- Med. Density Landscape Parkway No less than 3FT 3FT along southerly PL (apartments) Existing Development: Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel, which includes a 236 suite motel and surface parking UCV CLVrIVIr_N 1 J 11KNUMMIJ %IWMI-MMIOUN Standard 1CdbVU VII rU1C-P7U LUIH11 Required/Allowed PDR-HDDevelopment zone 43,560 SF 1.0 ac j d11U IIGI %,I LVI11119) Proposed/Provided Lot Area 180,795 SF 4.15 ac Density: General Plan — HDR (High Density Residential Land Use) Zone — PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential, High Density Max. 20 du/ac (83 Units Max) [Base density of 40 du/acre] With development incentive: 54 du/ac' (224 Units Proposed) Maximum Site Coverage Overall Project : Buildings NA NA Open space 42% (75,933 SF) of total lot area 75,964 SF— 42% (incl. upper level decks/ min 100 SF Perimeter Open Space 20 feet abutting all public ROW 20 feet (Harbor Blvd) 20 feet Bike Trail Min. Private Open Space Units with Large Balcony) 100 SF/Min. 5 FT dimension 64 balconies total 3 100 SF/Min. 5 FT dimension Landscape Parkway No less than 3FT 3FT along southerly PL Building Height N/A 4 -stories/ 5 -levels / 60 FTz Building Setbacks Overall Project): Front Harbor Blvd 20 FT 20 FT Side North side- bike trail 20 FT 20 FT Side South side NA 35 FT Rear West side NA 20 ft. On -Site Parking: 503 spaces 503 spaces Driveway Width 16 FT 28 FT Back up Distance 25 FT 25 FT NA = Not Applicable or No Requirement. (1) Site specific density requires General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment (see staff report discussion). (2) Site specific building height requires General Plan Amendment (see staff report discussion). 3 Code allows thesespecified large balconies to be counted towards the open sace required. CEQA Status Initial Study- Mitigated Negative Declaration IS -MND #2015091026 Final Action City Council BACKGROUND Project Site/Environs The project site is located close to the northwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Wilson Street. The project site is approximately 4.15 acres in size (180,795 square feet), and is currently occupied by the 94,500 square -foot 236 -room Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel constructed in 1974, a surface parking lot, signage, and landscaped areas within the parking area and around the perimeter of the site. The property is currently zoned C1 (Local Business District) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial (GC). Surrounding land uses generally consist of residential, recreational, and commercial uses. Land uses immediately adjacent to the project site consist of the following: Direction Zone Use North I&R (Institutional and Recreational) Public Bike Trail, Costa Mesa Golf Course C2 (General Business District) Pal's Vacuum Cleaner South R3 (Multiple -Family Residential District) Multi -family Residential Units C2 (General Business District) Avis car rental, AAMCO auto repair East (across C1 -S (Shopping Center District) Harbor Center Harbor Blvd West R2 -MD (Multiple- Family Residential Multi -family Residential Units District, Medium Density) General Plan Screening GPS -14-02 On May 20, 2014, City Council considered General Plan screening request GPS -14-02 for a site-specific density of 59 dwelling units per acre. The original proposal involved demolition of the 236 motel units and construction of up to 236 apartment units (59 du/acre). Council accepted the General Plan amendment request for processing an amendment to the land use designation from General Commercial to Planned Development Residential for the development of a 236 -unit apartment complex project. A copy of the May 20, 2014, City Council meeting minutes is found at following link: (Link: http://www.costamesaca.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=15043) Original Proposal before General Plan Screening Current Proposal after General Plan Screening Density 59 du/acre 54 du/acre Number of Units 236 224 Planning Commission Action On October 12, 2015, Planning Commission voted 5-0, recommending the City Council approve the IS/MND and Adopt General Plan Amendment GPA -14-04; approve/give first reading to the Ordinances for Rezone R-14-04 and Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02; and approve Master Plan PA -14-27, subject to conditions of approval and mitigation measures contained in the IS/MND. A link to the Planning Commission staff report can be found on the City's website here: http://www.costamesaca.gov/ftp/planninqcommission/agenda/2015/2015-10-12/PH-3.pdf The excerpt of the Planning Commission meeting minutes for the item (unofficial) are provided as Attachment 13. ANALYSIS Project Description The proposed project involves replacing the existing motel building and surface parking areas with an apartment building and parking structure as described above. The apartment units are comprised of one -bedroom; one -bedroom with den; two-bedroom; and two-bedroom with den. A breakdown of the unit types are summarized in the table below: Type of Description SF Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total Percentage Unit Units Units Units Units Units of Total Units Unit Al 1 bed/1 bath +/-750 SF 21 24 24 24 93 41% Unit A2 1 bed/1 bath +/-730 SF 7 8 8 8 31 14% Unit A3 1 bed/1 bath/ +/-780 SF 4 4 4 4 16 7% 1 den Unit B1, 2 bed/2bath +/-1,050 SF 17 17 21 21 76 34% B2, B3 Unit B4 2 bed/2 bath/ +/-1,200 SF 2 2 2 2 8 4% 1 den Total 51 55 59 59 224 100% Project Timeline According to the applicant, and as discussed in the Long -Term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan, the property owner intends to close the Costa Mesa Motor Inn on Monday, August 1, 2016, and demolition and construction would commence thereafter. On June 1, 2016, the property owner will provide a 60 day advance "Notice of Motel Closure/Lease Termination" to all long-term occupants and provide relocation assistance, as described in the Long -Term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan (attached as Attachment 4). As discussed further below, this Long -Term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan is required for the project as a condition of approval. Long -Term Occupant Impact As discussed by the applicant and property owner at Planning Commission, the motel currently is approximately 50% occupied by both long-term occupants (more than 28 day stay) and short-term (less than 28 day stay) occupants. This equates to approximately 150 to 160 rooms (out of 236 rooms) currently being occupied. Based on the Transient Occupancy Tax Exemption Certificate records provided by the property owner to the City, there are 49 rooms occupied by approximately 66 long-term residents. As mentioned by the applicant, only 17% of these long-term residents have a driver's license with a Costa Mesa address; the remaining balance are from outside city. The property owner's Chief Operating Officer (COO), Lionel Levy, provided current long-term rental rates for the Costa Mesa Motor Inn at Planning Commission. According to Mr. Levy, the long-term rental rates at the motel, as of June 1, 2015, range between $1,213 and $1,334 for the 300 square -foot rooms. These rooms are similar to a studio type apartment. According to a citywide apartment survey conducted in 2012, as part of the Costa Mesa Housing Element update, rental rates for apartments in Costa Mesa range from $955 a month for a studio, to $1,855 a month for a two-bedroom/one-bath apartment. Table HOU-25 from the 2013-2021 Housing Element, as shown below, provides the rental ranges. In comparison to average rental rates in Costa Mesa, the Costa Mesa Motor Inn long-term rental rates are higher than average rent for a studio in Costa Mesa (approximately 30% higher). Table HOU-25: Apartment Ruts (2412) Unit Size Average Rent Rent Range Studio $956 5550-S 1,360 Dine -Bed roomiOne-Bathroom 51,250 5800-$1,609 Tao-BedroomlDne-Bathroom 51,634 $1,156-5-I365 TOTAL 51,590 5550-$3,150 Source: dogle-Ireland, Inc. 2012: rased on an online survey of units available for rent in the City. reviewed. A Lotal of 75 complexes were The applicant proposed a Long -Term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan to provide financial assistance to long-term residents, as described in the October 12, 2015 communication (attached as Attachment 4). Planning Commission added a condition of approval requiring the applicant implement the Long -Term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan prior to issuance of building permits, as described below. PC CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 27: The applicant shall implement the Long -Term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan, as described in the October 12, 2015 communication (attached as Exhibit 131), prior to issuance of building permit. An action report, indicating the relocation of long-term occupants, shall be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Neighboring Uses Impacts The public comments received during Planning Commission's hearing addressed concerns related to the project's 60 -foot height structure interfering with neighboring cellular reception, drainage, traffic, and parking. As discussed by Planning Commission, the concerns regarding interfering with neighboring cellular reception from the cellular towers is civil issue between the two property owners, and not part of City's jurisdiction. Concerns related to drainage will be addressed by conditions and requirement imposed by the City's Public Services Division to ensure the project provides proper drainage. Regarding traffic and parking, the proposed project provides adequate parking per Zoning Code requirements (503 parking spaces required and provided within a five - level parking structure). The parking structure includes 69 guest spaces with the remaining 434 spaces for the residents; 12 guest spaces and the remaining 434 proposed residential spaces will be provided behind security gates. Regarding traffic concerns, the IS/MND has determined that traffic impacts will be less than significant. The Level of Service at the nearby intersections will continue to operate at LOS B or better, which is considered acceptable. The Transportation Services Division has also required conditions of approval to mediate traffic concerns, including median modifications along Harbor Boulevard to restrict left -turn in and out of the project site, median modifications at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Harbor Center to provide a U-turn lane in the northbound direction, and signal modification at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Harbor Center to provide a U-turn phase. General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 for Site -Specific Density and Height The proposed project involves an amendment to the City's General Plan to facilitate the change of the existing land use designation from General Commercial to High -Density Residential (HDR). The HDR designation would allow a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre, or 83 units. Per the applicant's request, the proposed base density would be 166 units (40 du/acre) with a development incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households; and (b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Therefore, the proposed general plan amendment is requesting a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. In addition, the project is requesting a site-specific building height of 60 feet for the 5 -level parking structure (maximum 4 stories south of the San Diego [1-405] Freeway). Site -Specific Density Proposed by Applicant As discussed, the applicant's request for a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre is contingent on providing 20 affordable units for moderate -income individuals. This site specific density request is not related to a density bonus allowance per State Government Code Section 65915 et. seq. regarding Density Bonuses and Other Incentives; as such, the project is not requesting the City provide incentives or concessions. The public comments received during Planning Commission hearing addressed concerns related to a significant loss of existing, low-income units with the demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn, and the lack of new low-income units proposed by the project. The current 2013-2021 Housing Element does not include the Costa Mesa Motor Inn, or any other motels, as required to meet the RHNA obligation for providing affordable housing. Also, as discussed earlier, the current long-term rents at the Costa Mesa Motor Inn are not considered affordable, as rents range between $1,213 and $1,334 for a 300 square -foot room. Such rental rates are approximately 30% higher than the rent for an average studio. Site -Specific Height Proposed by Applicant The Zoning Code does not specify a maximum building height for the PDR -HD zone; however, the General Plan limits building height to a maximum four stories for buildings south of the San Diego (1-405) Freeway, which is established as an objective and a policy in the General Plan Land Use Element (Objective LU -1C and Policy LU -11C.2). Because the subject property for the proposed development is south of the 1-405 Freeway, the four-story maximum height would apply to the project. Although the parking structure is technically four stories high and equivalent in height to the proposed 4 -story apartment buildings, Code defines that the fifth level of the four-story parking structure be counted as a "story" for zoning purposes. The site specific building height is only applicable to the garage structure, which is wrapped by the four-story apartment building on three sides. The side visible to Harbor Boulevard is in keeping with the overall height of the building and is not an increase in the overall building height. The fifth level is needed to meet the parking requirements without undergrounding a full level. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Costa Mesa received a 2 -unit RHNA allocation. For the 2013-2021 RHNA period, the City of Costa Mesa has been allocated a total of two RHNA units: one unit for low-income households and one unit for very -low income households. For reference purposes, the following table identifies the RHNA allocation of select nearby cities. RHNA Allocation of Select Cities in Orange County City Costa Mesa . Allocation 2 units Newport Beach 5 units Santa Ana 204 units Fullerton 358 units Fountain Valley 358 units Orange 363 units Huntington Beach 1,353 units Irvine 12,149 units The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for the allocation of the state -determined regional housing needs among all jurisdictions in the SCAG region. SCAG and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) officially started the consultation process to determine the total housing need for the SCAG region in June 2011. Housing Element complies with State law. The 2013-2021 Housing Element has been certified by the City Council. It should be noted that the RHNA allocation is a planning goal and not a housing production requirement. The Housing Element complies with State law by describing all necessary actions to encourage, promote, and facilitate the development of housing to accommodate the two -unit RHNA allocation. State law recognizes, however, that future housing production may not equal the regional housing need established for planning purposes. Housing Element does not mandate an Inclusionary Housing requirement. The 2013-2021 Housing Element does not contain goals, policies, or objectives that encourage the retention of motels to serve as housing for low-income persons. With specific regard to the RHNA allocation, the Housing Element does not apply motels to the 2 -unit allocation. Project represents a private proposal for 20 moderate -income units. The project applicant is proposing the inclusion of 20 affordable units to moderate - income households as part of the development project to justify the site-specific density request. This is a private initiative from the applicant and is not related to the State Law density bonus program. Rezone R-14-04 A rezone of the zoning classification of the 4.15 -acre development site from Local Business District (C1) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD) is proposed. The rezone to PDR -HD would be consistent with the High Density Residential General Plan designation proposed for the project site. Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02 A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre would be required. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to make reference to the site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project (pursuant to the approval of the General Plan Amendment). Conformance with the City of Costa Mesa General Plan Future development of all land within the City of Costa Mesa is guided by the General Plan adopted in 2002. The Land Use Element of the General Plan directs long-range development in the City by indicating the location and extent of development to be allowed. The General Plan sets forth land use goals, policies, and objectives that guide new development. The following analysis evaluates the proposed project's consistency with specific goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. • Policy LU -1F.4: Ensure that residential densities can be supported by the infrastructure and that high-density residential areas are not permitted in areas, which cause incompatibility with existing single-family areas. Consistency: As discussed in the IS/MND, the proposed project has a less than significant impact, and can be supported by the existing infrastructure, including water conveyance systems, wastewater conveyance systems, and local transportation networks. The two key intersections along Harbor Boulevard near the project site, including Harbor Blvd/Harbor Center and Harbor Blvd/Wilson Street, are expected to maintain acceptable levels of service (LOS). In addition, the proposed project is located near several OCTA bus stops and bus routes located within walking distance of the project site. • Policy LU -2A.8: Encourage increased private market investment in declining or deteriorating neighborhoods. Consistency: The project proposed project is designed as a high-quality apartment development. The existing Costa Mesa Motor Inn provides for transient residential uses that has historically been a source of criminal activity and public nuisance to the area. The proposed project will provide and encourage redevelopment in an area with buildings considered outdated and deteriorating. On July 14, 2014, the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission voted 5-0 to revoke Conditional Use Permit PA -98-31 to discontinue allowing long-term occupancies due to numerous violations of the Conditional Use Permit, as well as a variety of public nuisance findings. In addition, the motel has historically been a source of criminal activity and public nuisance. As such, the proposed project is consistent with the City's desire to encourage private investment in declining and deteriorating neighborhoods. • Policy HOU-1.8: Encourage the development of housing that fulfills specialized needs. Consistency: The proposed development of high-density residential uses will improve the City's share of housing opportunities. The project proposes 20 affordable units for moderate -income households. In addition, the project provides housing within proximity to bus transit service and commercial uses. The nearest bus route to the project site is located along Harbor Boulevard, 141 feet east of the project site. The expansive Harbor Center commercial center is located across Harbor Boulevard, providing future residents' direct access to a variety of retail businesses. • Policy HOU-1.1: Develop standards and/or guidelines for new development with emphasis on site (including minimum site security lighting) and building design to minimize vulnerability to criminal activity. Consistency: The project proposed project is designed as a high-quality apartment development with multiple on-site amenities for future residents. The project site includes private courtyards with landscaping, indoor gym, pool/spa, and both passive and active recreational opportunities within the gated property. In addition, the project provides for an enclosed and well -lit parking structure, which will provide access to each individual floor of the apartment complex. • Policy HOU-1.1: Encourage the conversion of existing marginal or vacant commercial and/or industrial land to residential, where feasible and consistent with environmental conditions that are suitable for new residential development. Consistency: The project proposed project includes the complete demolition of the outdated Costa Mesa Motor Inn. The motel was built in the early 1970's, and includes non -conforming long-term residential uses within a commercial zone. As such, the proposed project is consistent with the City's desire to convert marginal commercial land for residential uses. The project includes twenty affordable housing units for moderate -income households. Per the applicant's request, these affordable units are intended to justify the increased density to 54 du/acre (from the base density of 40 du/acre). A condition of approval requires that an Affordable Housing Agreement be finalized and recorded on the property prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. JUSTIFICATIONS FOR APPROVAL Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29, Planning Application Review Process, 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 the following assessment of facts and findings which are also reflected in the draft resolution. Rezone R-14-04 The following are justifications for approval of the rezone request per Title 13, Section 13-29 (g)(11): Rezone to Planned Development Residential — High Density PDR -HD) is consistent with the proposed General Plan. The HDR General Plan land use designation anticipates development on the subject site at 20 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is seeking a proposed base density of 40 du/acre (166 units), with a development incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households and (b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn (236 motel rooms), and redevelopment to an upscale apartment building with security, structured parking, and significant amenities. The rezone will reflect the site-specific density for this property. • Rezone of property is within General Plan development capacity. Since the master plan proposes a site specific density of 54 du/ac, the project traffic conditions are proposed to be comparatively higher to existing conditions. According to the IS/MND, the existing 236 room motel at full capacity generates approximately 1,258 daily trips, which include approximately 66 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 118 p.m. peak hour trips. The proposed 224 -unit apartment project forecasts approximately 1,490 daily trips, which include approximately 114 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 139 p.m. peak hour trips. This is an increase of 232 additional daily trips, including 48 additional a.m. peak hour trips and an additional 21 p.m. peak hour trips. The City of Costa Mesa considers a significant traffic impact when project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (Level of Service A, B, C, or D) to deficient operation (LOS E or F). Currently the Harbor Boulevard/Harbor Center intersection is operating at LOS A during both the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour, and is forecast to continue to operate at LOS A during both peak hours with the addition of project trips. The Harbor Boulevard/Wilson Street intersection is operating at LOS A during the a.m. peak hour and LOS B during p.m. peak hour. This intersection is forecast to continue to operate at LOS A during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS B during p.m. peak hour with the proposed project. Therefore, the two key study intersections would continue to operate under acceptable LOS for both a.m. and p.m. hours. Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02 The Code Amendment is consistent with the PDR -HD zoning district, as amended per GP -14-04 and R-14-04. The applicant is seeking a proposed base density of 40 du/acre (166 units), with a development incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households and (b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn (236 motel rooms), and redevelopment to an upscale apartment building with security, structured parking, and significant amenities. Once established, the site specific density and building height for the five -level parking structure will be reflected in the Zoning Code. Note: The City is currently undergoing a General Plan Update, which has highlighted strategic locations along Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard to allow new high-density residential uses of up to 40 du/acre. The proposed "Residential Incentive Overlay Zone" includes the Costa Mesa Motor Inn property. Master Plan PA -14-27 The following are justifications for approval of the Master Plan request per Title 13, Section 13-29 (g)(5): • The project features quality construction and materials and meets broader goals of the General Plan and Zoninq Code. GOAL CD -6 Enhance opportunities for new development and redevelopment to contribute to a positive visual image for the City of Costa Mesa. OBJECTIVE LU -2A. Encourage new development and redevelopment to improve and maintain the quality of the environment. As noted earlier, the building design and roof elements reflect a modern style, i.e., characterized by simplified square and rectangular building forms with a variety of flat planes, projections, and recesses. The exterior consists of alternating white smooth stucco finish, limestone finish, metal finish, and clear glass windows. Additional accents include metal finish balcony rails, welded wire mesh grid systems that support the growth of landscape vines, and woven metal wire cloth used for screening the 5 -level parking structure, as shown below. The developer will also be required to replace the existing block wall and razor wire fence along the westerly and southerly property line with a decorative 6 -foot block wall. p 6 � 4 - a ® - o MAIN ENTRYALONG HARBOR ER]DLEYARU PARKING STRUCTURE ALONG SECONDARY ENERY QI CLE0.RGL0.3S p METAL FINISH Qq uMQ3 FINIm QS LSMomrnsimcm Nxfsx METAL FENCE a METALWIRE- �sL Q-ENMQIALWIRECLUTI EXTERIOR FINISH MATFRIALS An alternative design for the apartment project was discussed at Planning Commission, such as traditional Mediterranean style. City Council may decide to require the project provide a more traditional architectural style. Landscaping throughout the proposed project will include drought tolerant landscape materials. The landscaping will planted using the practice of hydrozoning, or grouping of plants with similar water requirements. Irrigation will be provided using water efficient irrigation equipment, including matched precipitation heads, drip lines, separate valves for turf and ground cover areas, and rain shut-off devices. Conditions confirming these improvements are provided and include the following: CONDITION OF APPROVAL No. 6: No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. These include fiber reinforced cement siding, limestone finishes, metalwork accents, and woven metal wire cloth. CONDITION OF APPROVAL No. 16: Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall demolish existing block wall with razor fencing along the south and west property lines, as well as any existing wall/fencing along the neighboring commercial property abutting the northeasterly portion of the development lot, and replace with a 6 -foot high decorative block wall under the direction of Planning staff. Metal fencing is permitted along the north and east perimeter of development lot abutting the existing bike trail and Harbor Boulevard only. • The proposal provides on-site amenities comparable with quality residential projects of this size and density. The proposed project is designed as a high-quality apartment development with multiple amenities. The proposed residential amenities include a two-story fitness center gym and recreation room, business center and computer library center, internet cafe, multi-purpose room with surround sound theater, and indoor/outdoor lounge and fireplace. INTERIOR VIEW ATTHE GYM LOOKING INTO THE POOL AND COURTYARD Outside the gym is an enclosed 1,144 square feet courtyard with a pool, spa and two 64 square -foot cabanas. Beyond, and to the north of the pool and spa courtyard, is a passive dry creek linear park. The dry creek linear park is located along the 20 -foot wide setback running along the northern and western property line. This linear park includes a dry creek bed of rock, boulders, and gravel as the thematic element of the park. The park will provide a variety of features, including a 4 -foot decomposed granite pathway for walking, benches along the pathway for sitting, exercise stations, and dog waste stations for dog -walkers. These features are located all within a natural landscape of native and drought tolerant trees, shrubs and grasses. The dry creek will also function as part of the stormwater treatment system for the project. In addition, filtration planters will be located throughout the project site along the building to treat rainwater from the roof above before discharge into the stormwater system. z rF A - '-4 ... FY I L i ► �..J ♦r FMENN 1111, 04 In addition to dry creek linear park and pool/spa courtyard, the proposed project includes four additional open space courtyards. A main entry court is located at the terminus of the long entry driveway. The entry court includes a curvilinear paved roundabout to facilitate vehicular travel, a covered turf area behind bollards, which will also act as a hammerhead turnaround for emergency vehicles, a dog run, and decorative hardscape and landscaping. A second open space courtyard is on the northwestern corner of the property, and includes passive and active amenities, including a yoga deck, BBQ facilities, banquette seating, a firepit, fountains, and dining niches. A third open space courtyard is locate along the southwestern portion of the project site, and contains both active and passive amenities, including paved turf block area behind retractable bollards for active recreation (also to be used as a turnaround area for emergency vehicles), a fountain, wood benches, citrus groves, and other drought tolerant landscaping. A fourth open space courtyard will be provided along the eastern portion of the project site (adjacent to Harbor Boulevard), and provides passive amenities, including elongated fountain, large trees and grasses along a walkway, and bench seating. • The proposed project meets the parking requirements per the Zoning Code. The project proposes a new 5 -level parking structure containing 503 covered parking spaces. A total of 503 spaces are required per Table 13-85 of the City's residential parking standards, including a ratio of 1.75 cars per 1 -bedroom unit (140 units), 2.25 cars per 2 -bedroom unit (84 units), and guest parking at a rate of 0.5 spaces per unit for the first 50 units, and 0.25 spaces for each unit above 50 units for the remaining 174 units. The parking structure provides for subterranean parking for a portion of guest spaces, and includes privacy gates for added security. The 5 -level structure will be wrapped around on three sides (excluding south elevation) by the proposed apartment building. As discussed earlier, a welded wire mesh grid system that supports the growth of landscape vines, and woven metal wire cloth will be used for screening the 5 -level parking structure (see below). i LILL a - N PARKING 5TRUCTURE 5E.9 NWLRP PAR KING 5TR LIC ill RIE ENTRANCE The following condition is proposed to help facilitate how the parking is used: CONDITION OF APPROVAL No. 5: A parking management plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Director and the Transportation Services Manager prior to final occupancy of the building. The parking management plan shall denote the following: a. Method of allocation of assigned parking. b. Method of allocation of assigned parking. c. Location of visitor parking, including appropriate signage. d. Location of employee parking. e. Provide proof of a contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations if parking problems arise. • The aroiect has been desianed to be comaatible with the surroundina uses in the area. The project has been designed as a self-contained residential community with on-site amenities as discussed above. The architectural style of the building, with its clean modern lines, glass, wood and metal accents, is visually compatible with the architecture of the surrounding commercial area, including the modern style architecture found at Harbor Center. The appropriate justification can be made for the requested deviations. • Deviation for building levels/stories would help remediate the project from the strict application of development standards and does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity. According to the General Plan, structures with a maximum of four stories above grade are permitted in areas south of 1-405. The deviation request would allow for a five level parking structure. The structure is considered 5 -levels due to allowance of parking on the roof of the parking structure. As shown in the plans (See Attachment 12), the five level parking structure (approx. 50 feet overall height) would not exceed the height of the proposed of a four- story 224 -unit residential apartment building (60 feet overall height) that wraps around a five -level parking structure. Although 5 levels high, the parking structure will be lower than the proposed apartment building, and therefore will not be visible above the apartments. Recently, the City of Costa Mesa approved 125 East Baker Street project (PA -13-11), which allowed for a five -story (63 feet overall height) 240 -unit residential apartment building that wraps around a six -level (57 feet overall height) parking structure in the PDR -HD zone. The proposed project is requesting one less "story" and "level", as well as reduced building height, compared to the 125 East Baker project. • Deviation for building levels/stories does not create a use, density, or intensity that is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. The proposed project proposes a High Density Residential General Plan land use designation, which allows a density up to 20 units per acre. As mentioned, the General Plan allows a maximum of four stories above grade for areas south of 1-405. Although 5 levels high, the parking structure will be lower than the proposed apartment building, and therefore will not be visible above the apartments. Therefore, granting the deviation will not allow a use, density, or intensity which is not in accordance with the general plan designation for the property. • The proposed development incentive is justified by the inclusion of twenty affordable housing units for moderate -income households, the demolition of the existing structures, and the construction of 224 units of housing. The density increase from a base density of 40 dwelling units/acre to 54 dwelling units/acre provides the property owner with a reasonable incentive to invest in a comprehensive redevelopment of the project site. The development incentive is necessary to enable physical construction of the 224 -unit apartment project, which will replace an aging, 236 -unit motel that includes non -conforming long-term residential uses within a commercial zone, and for it to be financially feasible. In addition to demolishing the existing structures and replacing them with a modern, high-quality apartment project, the property owner is designating 20 units as affordable housing for moderate -income households. This incentive is necessary to build a well-designed and highly amenitized residential development that will provide livable market -rate and affordable dwelling units of sizes that are marketable and desirable to the community. • The proposed project provides a public benefit by replacing a non -conforming use that has served as a long-time nuisance property with a modern, high-quality residential apartment building including a portion reserved for affordable housing. The proposed project replaces an aging 236 -unit motel that includes non -conforming long-term residential uses within a commercial zone. Over the past _ years, the motel has generated calls for Police and Fire Service between 20_ and 20_, resulting in a disproportionate amount of city resources dedicated to resolving public safety issues at this single property. The proposed project replaces the functionally obsolete building with 224 apartment units, including 20 units of dedicated affordable housing for moderate income households, which will provide the City with new, amenity -rich housing stock to satisfy the significant market demand. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study -Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS -MND) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for a 30 -day public review and comment period beginning on September 11, 2015, and remained available for comment until October 10, 2015. The IS/MND found that the environmental effects from the project would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures, standard conditions of approval and compliance with the Code requirements. The Mitigated Negative Declaration document can be found on the City's website at the below link: http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=151 Electronic copies can also be obtained on CD's from the Planning Division at no charge. Hardcopies are also available for review at the following locations: City of Costa Mesa Planning Division/Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 The Costa Mesa/Donald Dungan Library 1855 Park Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Mesa Verde Library 2969 Mesa Verde Drive East Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Brief Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Under CEQA, a "significant impact" represents a substantial or potentially substantial adverse physical change to the environment. In evaluating specific effects of the project on the environment, the IS/MND identifies thresholds of significance for each effect, evaluates the potential environmental change associated with each effect, and then characterizes the effects as impacts. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels, as briefly summarized in the table below: 111A11.. Potentially Significant Level of Significance After Environmental Effects Mitigation Measure Summary (1) Mitigation Air Quality • Maintain equipment during construction Less than significant • Paint and building coatings to comply with air quality standards Hazards and Hazardous • Confirm regulatory status of the Chevron Less than significant Materials site and provide appropriate documentation to City. Noise • Minimize noise impacts during Less than significant construction (1) Refer to the IS/MND document for detailed descriptions of each mitigation measure. 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. Pubic Correspondence/ Response to Comments As of October 23, 2015, there have been 12 comment letters, including 9 regarding the IS/MND and 3 public hearing comments. All comments received are provided as Attachment 11 in chronological order received. Regarding the letters received commenting on the IS/MND, a "Response to Comments" will be provided in future Supplemental Memo. LEGAL REVIEW The IS/MND and draft resolutions have been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. CONCLUSION With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood. The project features quality construction and materials. The proposal provides on-site amenities expected of quality residential developments of this type. The proposed 5 -level parking structure will provide for adequate parking spaces required per Table 13-85 of the City's residential parking standards. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and approval of the project subject to Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ALTERNATIVES The City Council has the following alternatives: Recommend approval of the project with modifications. The City Council may suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any of the additional requested changes are substantial, the item 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 City Council choose to do so, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. Recommend denial of the project. If the City Council believes that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, City Council must deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in the attached draft resolution for denial. If the project were denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. RYAN LOOMIS GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Associate Planner Economic Development & Development Services Director/ Deputy CEO Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map, Zoning Map and 500' Radius Map 2. Existing Color Site Photos 3. Applicant's Project Description 4. Long -Term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan 5. Draft Citv Council Resolution for General Plan Amendment and IS/MND 6. Draft City Council Ordinance for Rezone 7. Draft City Council Ordinance for Zoning Code Amendment 8. Draft City Council Resolution for Master Plan 9. Draft City Council Resolution for Denial 10. IS/MND Response to Comments 11.Public Correspond ence/EmaiIs 12.Plans and Color Elevations/Renderinas 13.Planning Commission meeting minutes (unofficial) 14. IS/MND (Provided separately) Also Available on the City Website at http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?paw 15.Signed Planning Commission Resolutions 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) Distribution List — Agencies and Persons Who Provided Comment on the IS/MND Diamond Star Associates, Inc. Attn: Don Lamm, Managing Principal 4100 MacArthur Blvd, #330 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Century Quality Management Attn: Lionel Levy, Chief Operations Officer 4221 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 480 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Baker St 97 a M - � �� v �•� � it m� � � � - f..— ' �" '✓ a -r 4 4' Pj + rr I3 _ • i • Tai er r rli # n br; Ss .Farr Or t for n l v r _ _ � ,��t � w ._ yam_ .�, �.'..}}.;�, r -. i•1!Q '3 ��1 �Y �� y�',, �'. _ y�aM 3� .7iv v�.Y*•�rrr �t";• � . :i ' �Y Ft � r.,` � �. � � 'r '�: 9 4 is rl�I�y�#. a,�e` 'i i'd, s ' �" �•p � �� � 1.."S�` •"','] �3k.- Hamilton St"d.-:.��3:•A d i'4 r ,may ' - :•. / 'r:Tj. - a I r r . Fn 151 _ ' fff F _ , - IB :1.'f source: cavy or uosia mesa. Existing Zoning Map: Local Business District (C3) G Proposed Zoning Map: Planned Development Residential -High Density (PDR -HD) i it T7 _ .+aAW IT . wra�ar ■s yysYM .. i ;ci AW :w.;._t_Vv I Zoning flap CITY OF COSTA MESA • 2277 HARBOR BOULEVARD Proposed General Plan Land Use Map: High Density Residential (HDR) - r l x. 4 �•3 '..e..r rah.`..ML Existing General Plan Land Use Map: General Commercial (GC) II _ �aariwsr .� l iMt Source: City of Costa Mesa. General Plan Land Use Map CITY OF COSTA MESA , 2277 HARBOR BOULEVARD � � � '` '�• �� , �� DC7# i Oi o iP O i w R �O W aD Q ti In 2 00 I Zr v v Q PIz A Oticc_I'F . I IQJ � 2 CV a $ O ^ IIS, o ti a ti a n Y Q u OQ a r V,K'I9 p v 4 rn ►DLn 'a y o .91'Y6o V tGt,�''at" C.1 Q l^^ ` •u L� I r W i6 G O ci Q _9rpkr ♦er � .59 I'tir _ e' 6 rni Gy VA 7no8 (3nN31, d M3I AHI D'31 8098VH w 1 4 n ► t� �a §10++ a I r, """��I� is T c p� c=O iO ti� •4✓'� i j9 ti l "✓*s O es, O O O iia � ••' - a s � "� r y 133415 Z _ /.€ 0 co F (DI O O O O (.J 4� t 6 1. � � � '` '�• �� , �� DC7# i Oi L' lowK,l Costa Mesa MOTOR INN 1* 40 w� 11 9V o, A � t .ice ; • _ �-_ V4 $IMF wmwm�� - t Y�&Z �14 "-- r .I_ L" a ", . 1 "..-0 All $,a. !r .asp.. �;�� �- � �� „�• - _ • �-" `�� �y IL ,rte •_ .fib{ 6= r U� Awl 44, s ,%JW �.--� x �� x y _. �„ 0 I ,o, r u dill iauni''auuu� r _ _ .. 27 41 M.r* tons v C6 A I. Ammar i -0' _ a A�l36 ' + F mill w .: �a AAA, I ISO —0,%bb-cWU I Z;, fA.� •• .. A y low 00 Ir_�. fes. � f►"" .. i Y- Diamond �Star ASSOCIATES July 6, 2015 Chairman Robert L. Dixon, Jr.; and, Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF COSTA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Subject: Costa Mesa Motor Inn- New Apartments 2277 Harbor Boulevard Honorable Chairman and Commissioners: ATTACHMENT3 On behalf of the property owner, we are pleased propose replacement of the aging 236 rooms Costa Mesa Motor Inn with a new 224 unit "luxury apartment" building at 2277 Harbor Boulevard. Specifically, the property owner Miracle Mile Properties would be completely demolishing all existing buildings and construct a new building with full security, structured parking, and significant amenities. While the property is located along the Harbor Blvd. commercial corridor, the four acre site adjoins the Costa Mesa Country Club and City's regional bicycle trail. Secured trail access for residents, sweeping views of the golf course, and pedestrian connectivity to Harbor Center shopping, make this property an excellent candidate for reuse. The Project: The project as designed is simply replacing 236 hotel units with 224 apartment units, which would be a mix of primarily one and two bedroom units, with a few three bedrooms. Designed in accordance with the City's apartment standards, tenant and guest parking would comply with the zoning code, structural design standards would be met, and the architecture would be high quality matching modern apartment buildings in coastal Orange County. In summary, the City has not been pleased with the aging hotel, and therefore, has strongly encouraged replacement. Proposed Amenities: Swimming pool and Jacuzzi spa with lounge and fire pit • Fully landscaped sun decks • Outdoor kitchen and barbeques • Freestanding clubhouse • Fitness center with recreation room and gym 4100 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 330 ♦ Newport Beach, CA 92660 ♦ 949-838-7038 —Z� — • Business and computer center • I nternet Wi-Fi cafe • Indoor lounge with fireplace • Surround sound theater and media room • Resident concierge service • Washer and dryer in every unit • Bicycle storage area • Gated access to the Costa Mesa Country Club regional bicycle trail and Fairview Regional Park Existing General Plan and Zoning: The property is commercially zoned reflecting the early days of Harbor Boulevard's dominance as a retail corridor. Before the 1-405 freeway and South Coast Plaza were opened, Harbor and Newport Boulevards were the primary north -south routes to the coast. To attract tourism, a considerable number of "motels" were built along Newport and Harbor Boulevards. Prior to the SR -55 freeway's construction, that corridor was once the "Red Car' rail corridor to Balboa Peninsula. The Costa Mesa Motor Inn was originally a "motel" which is specifically different than a "hotel". Motels were created as lower priced short -stay accommodations for automobile travelers, with parking adjacent to their rooms. "Hotels" have now replaced "motels" with a greater focus on business travelers, higher levels of amenities, and upscale decor. Market Demand Study: To identify the apartment "market demand", property ownership retained the services of Annie Gerard, Principal of APT Market Research, who prepared a comprehensive study to identify the mix of apartment sizes, total number, and probable rents which could be economically supported on the Harbor Boulevard corridor. Her research focused on local housing demand, competing properties, and economic viability for projected rent rates. In summary, APT Market Research ranks the property very high for its excellent proximity to retail stores, employment, higher education, public transportation, view, and desirability to attract future tenants. As stated in the Study, Costa Mesa's apartment "occupancy citywide in 3Q 2013 was 95.3% with the majority of existing apartment stock being pre -1980 construction. The new trend in Orange County apartment construction is at densities greater than 45 units per acre. In fact, the medium density of brand new and under construction apartment projects in Orange County is 61 units per acre." As such, a replacement apartment complex at 224 units would bring an infusion of approximately 300 replacement residents with anticipated annual household incomes of $48,000+. Proposed General Plan Amendment -Zoning- Apartment Building: While the commercial General Plan land use designation and zoning allow motels/hotels, neither allows apartments. But, in the past, 41 % of Costa Mesa Motor Inn rooms were approved for "extended -stay occupancy" which exceeded 30 days. Therefore, our City Council General Plan screening request was for a "site specific" General Plan amendment to "High Density Residential- 60 units per acre", and a zone change to "Planned Development Residential -High Density- 60 units per acre." While that density is greater than allowed in the R-3 zone, this location would not adversely impact neighboring residential properties. Subsequent to the City Council General Plan screening, the property owner submits this application for a total of 224 apartments to replace 236 hotel units. The specific request is as follows: • 40 dwelling units per acre x 4.1505 acres= 166 units • 35% "density bonus" comprised of: 0 20 moderate income restricted affordable units 0 38 market rate units • Total units = 224 Would 224 apartments have impacts on the community? • These apartments would be larger than hotel rooms and have a stable population with less transient occupancy. • Fewer calls for service by Costa Mesa Police and Fire services. • Increased customer trade in neighboring retail shopping centers. • The provision of clean, new, fully secured housing to serve increasing student needs at Orange Coast College and Vanguard University. • More housing as dictated by the State of California and implemented through the City's Housing Element. Conclusion: We realize the Costa Mesa Motor Inn is functionally obsolete, the structure is over 40 years old, and both the community and property owner would mutually benefit from the Commission and Council's approvals. On behalf of the property owner, we would appreciate your favorable consideration of this proposal to build a new apartment complex to replace the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Sincerely, Donald D. Lam Managing Principal; and, Authorized Agent for Miracle Mile Properties Costa Mesa Luxury Apartments 2277 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Miracle Mile Properties, Owner PLANNING APPLICATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Area: 4.1505 acres Project Description: Demolish existing 236 units Costa Mesa Motor Inn hotel and replace with a new 4 story apartment building consisting of 224 apartment units with an interior multi-level parking structure and high quality amenities. This comprehensive application includes the following requests: • General Plan Amendment: A site specific amendment to the City's General Plan -Land Use Element changing the property's current designation of General Commercial to "High Density Residential." In addition to amending the Land Use Element, text amendments may be needed to the General Plan reflecting a site specific base density of 40 dwelling units per acre. Zoning Code Amendment: If needed, an ordinance to amend the City's Municipal Code, Title 13 "Zoning Code", for a site specific base density of 40 dwelling units per acre and a site specific zone designation of "Planned Development Residential -High Density." Rezone: Change the property's zoning from C1 "Local Business District" to PDR -HD "Planned Development Residential -High Density", with a site specific base density of 40 dwelling units per acre. Create a Costa Mesa Density Bonus Program: Approval of a 35% increase in the base density of 40 dwelling units per acre, through approval of a "Costa Mesa Density Bonus Program" agreement between the City and property ownership, with 35% of the bonus units reserved for "moderate income qualifying" tenants: 0 40 dua x 4.1505 acres = 166 base units 0 35% "density bonus" comprised of: ■ 20 "moderate income qualifying" affordable units ■ 38 market rate units o Total apartment units = 224 • Master Plan- Planning Action: Approval of a "master development plan" allowing construction of 224 apartment units, in a 4 story building, which would comply with the "Planned Development Residential- High Density" zone development standards. Why grant a density bonus for this project? In this instance, the City seeks major renovation or complete demolition of the existing Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Having become functionally obsolete and over 40 years old, the demand is now declining for nightly transient hotel rooms. Few tourists choose to stay in the Costa Mesa Motor Inn while vacationing in the area, so the majority of short-term occupancy is based on temporary employment in the area, those between employment, one semester students at Orange Coast College, or retired individuals not wishing to pay apartment rents but seek linen laundry services. Summary of proposal: 0 40 dua x 4.1505 acres = 166 base units 0 35% increase in the base density of 40 dwelling units per acre through approval of a "Costa Mesa Density Bonus Program" agreement, with 35% of the bonus units reserved for "moderate income qualifying" tenants. 0 35% "density bonus" comprised of: iff 20 "moderate income qualifying" affordable units • 38 market rate units o Total apartment units = 224 Hotel room rates are not necessarily "affordable" as some people may believe. At $250 weekly or $1,000+ monthly for a small studio room with bathroom, on a cost per square foot basis for a 350-400 sf hotel room a 900sf two bedroom apartment would cost $2,250. In fact, the new replacement apartments should cost less per square foot to rent than a 40 year old hotel room. However, what makes the hotel "affordable" to the transient population is not requiring annual leases, good credit, first month's rent, and a security deposit. So why grant the density bonus? A density bonus incentive makes this project financially feasible. Basically, there is not any motivation for the property owner to completely discard an income generating hotel unless greater income can be derived after new apartment construction. To build a new four story building with 224 apartments will be expensive, but it requires the income from 224 apartments to justify demolishing the hotel, losing hotel income for a year, building the new building and paying debt service on that new construction loan, and needing two years to fully lease up the new building. The property owner is not seeking any government financial assistance such as that received by nearly every affordable housing project built in Orange County. Affordable housing is built based on government financial assistance (subsidies) and usually requires a non-profit owner/sponsor status for qualification. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for years issued grants for affordable housing projects (Bethal Towers for example is a 100% affordable project underwritten by HUD and owned by a non-profit church foundation). Today, HUD grants are minimal and difficult to obtain, California abolished redevelopment affordable housing funding in 2011, so Costa Mesa does not have any financial ability to subsidize affordable housing on this property. But, the owner is at least proposing 20 affordable Costa Mesa Luxury Apartments 2277 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Miracle Mile Properties, Owner COSTA MESA DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM Proposal- Create a Costa Mesa Density Bonus Program The State of California requires cities to grant increases in residential development density (bonuses) in return for provision of affordable rental housing. This law, Government Code Section 65915, has been in effect for decades requiring cities to provide incentives in return for construction of affordable housing. While the law has been amended several times, and in 2004 by SB 1818, the law is essentially the same over the years. In return for building apartments rented at monthly rates affordable to those qualifying as moderate, low, or very low incomes, the City must grant bonuses in density up to a maximum of 35% "and" grant concessions in development standards such as reductions in required parking. The parking reduction found in AB 1818 limits a city to requiring only one parking space for a one bedroom apartment, two spaces for a two bedroom including guest or other open parking, tandem spaces are permitted, and parking does not need to be in a carport or garage. Therefore, a city cannot prohibit tandem parking spaces or require any parking in excess of the State standard. The Costa Mesa Luxury Apartment project "DOES NOT" seep any concessions in development standards required by Costa Mesa. All zoning code parking requirements would be met, without any parking variance, and tandem parking spaces are not proposed, Additionally, this project proposes high-end amenities for recreation, personal laundry washers and dryers in every apartment, and fully secured/covered parking in the parking garage structure. While some "moderate rent" affordable units are being proposed, this project is planned to be high quality and not low budget construction to offset the cost to provide a significant number of below market rent apartments. What is the Costa Mesa "Density Bonus Program" proposal? While State law "mandates" you grant a density bonus in return for affordable housing, State law does not preclude you from granting bonuses based on the City's own criteria if concessions are not being sought. Specifically, since this applicant is not seeking any concessions, and therefore, the City is not mandated to grant a density bonus, the City "may" still grant a density bonus on a site specific basis if Council believes the density bonus benefits the community. units in exchange for an overall density similar to most other large apartment projects in Costa Mesa which do not include affordable units. However, the most significant reason to grant the density bonus is to facilitate complete demolition of this hotel and replace with a high quality apartment project. There needs to be an incentive for the property owner to justify doing this, and that incentive is approving 224 apartments to replace 236 hotel rooms. Therefore, the property owner respectfully seeks City Council unanimous support to approve this project at no cost to the taxpayers. The City will increase its supply of "quality" rental housing which is needed in this "jobs rich" city, public safety will appreciate the permanent reduction in calls for service, Harbor Center shopping center will appreciate 300+ stable residents with spendable income, and overall, the new building should be an architectural improvement along Harbor Blvd. ATTACHMENT 4 Costa Mesa Motor Inn 2270 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa Long-term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan October 12, 2015 Upon approval of the "apartment project" by Costa Mesa City Council, the Property Owner has one year in which to commence construction of the new apartments, or seek a one year extension for a total of two years. As of this Relocation Assistance Plan date, the Property Owner intends to close the Motel on Monday, August 1, 2016, and construction would commence thereafter. However, on June 1, 2016, the Owner will provide a sixty (60) day advance "Notice of Motel Closure/Lease Termination" to all Long-term Occupants and provide the following relocation assistance: Definition of Terms: Long-term Occupants - all motel guests who are current in paying rent and occupying rooms for thirty (30) or more consecutive days on the date the "Notice of Motel Closure/Lease Termination" is issued. 0 Short-term Occupants - all motel guests occupying rooms for less than thirty (30) consecutive days on the day the "Notice of Motel Closure/Lease Termination" is issued. Property Owner- Miracle Mile Properties Notice of Motel Closure/Lease Termination- legally required written notice delivered to "Long-term Occupants" by the property owner sixty (60) days in advance of the Motel Closure date. Delivery of the notice may occur in person or be placed inside the Motel room. Motel- Costa Mesa Motor Inn Long-term Room Occupants Cash Relocation Assistance: Long-term room occupant's cash relocation assistance for rooms vacated on the closure date of August 1, 2016, would range from $4,000 to $5,500 per Motel room. All Long-term Room Occupants vacating their premises and handing over their keys on the Closure Date of August 1, 2016 will be refunded all rent monies paid for their rooms (not including amenities) in the last 90 days plus an additional $1,500. All long term room occupants remaining after the closure date of August 1, 2016, but vacating the premises and handing over their keys by August 31, 2016, will forfeit the additional $1500 in relocation assistance, but will be refunded all rent monies paid for their rooms (not amenities) in the last 90 days minus the rent for each day past August 1, 2016. All long term room occupants remaining after August 31, 2016 will forfeit all relocation assistance and be subject to normal eviction process. Occupants must give landlord a minimum 10 day notice of their intended move out so that a check may be prepared and delivered to the property on time for their move out. Occupants who do not give the minimum 10 day notice may elect to have a check mailed to them within 10 days, or may pick up their check from the LA office or at the motel no later than 10 days after notice has been given. All occupants must vacate their rooms by removing all personal belongings leaving the room and property undamaged besides usual wear and tear. Upon receipt of payment from Property Owner, Long-term Occupant/s will have been fully compensated for relocating to equal or better housing and will not hold property owner responsible for any further financial assistance. ATTACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION NO.15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA (1) APPROVING THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND (2) APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -14-04 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HDR, AND FOR SITE-SPECIFIC DENSITY AND SITE-SPECIFIC BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2277 HARBOR BLVD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Diamond Star Associates, Inc., on behalf of owner of real properties located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) (State Clearinghouse #2015091026). Adoption of the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS - MND) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -14-04. Change the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Per the applicant's request, the proposed base density is 166 units (40 du/acre) with a development incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households and (b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Therefore, for the 4.15 -acre project site the General Plan Amendment would specify an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre for the proposed 224 -unit apartment complex and a site-specific building height for the 5 -level parking structure. 3. Rezone R-14-04. A rezone to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to make specific references to the parcel, where appropriate, including the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone and any other related changes. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13 58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Planning Application PA -14-27. A Master Plan application for the 224 -unit apartment project; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2000 General Plan on January 22, 2002; WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of Costa Mesa; WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan needs to be updated and refined to account for current and future community needs; WHEREAS, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is proposed to allow for an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre for the proposed 224 -unit apartment complex (83 units as allowed in the High Density Residential Land Use designation; 224 units proposed); WHEREAS, text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site- specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of four stories and five levels is proposed for the project site. WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment involves an amendment to the Land Use Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit A) and a text amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (Exhibit B); WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2015 with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 3, 2015 with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated from September 11, 2015 to October 10, 2015 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa received written and verbal comments from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties during the public review period; WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and identified potentially significant impacts related to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise; WHEREAS, the IS/MND identified appropriate measures that will mitigate the identified impacts to a level that is less than significant; WHEREAS the Planning Commission has reviewed the IS/MND and has found that the proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; WHEREAS the City Council finds that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by a 5-0 vote, recommended that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 14-04, Zoning Code Amendment CO - 14 -02, Rezone R-14-04, and Master Plan PA -14-27, by separate resolutions; WHEREAS, City Council approval of Rezone R-14-04/ Ordinance No. 15- was made by separate action; WHEREAS, City Council approval of Code Amendment CO -14-02/ Ordinance No. 15-_ was made by separate action; WHEREAS, City Council approval of Master Plan PA -14-27/ Resolution No. 15 - was made by separate action; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY APPROVES the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment GPA -14-04 which amends the General Plan Land Use Map as set forth in Exhibit "A" and Land Use Element as set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to this resolution with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 2015. STEPHEN M. MESSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA -1557- 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 3rd day of November, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 31d day of November, 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" Map Amendment to the Land Use Map Change the land use designation of the 4.15 -acre development site at 2277 Harbor Blvd from General Commercial (GC) to High Density Residential (HDR) EXHIBIT "B" Text Amendment to Land Use Element The proposed General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 would amend the following sections of the Land Use Element as underlined and italicized below: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS High -Density Residential In 2015, General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 was approved for a 224 -unit apartment proiect on a 4.15 -acre site at 2277 ,Harbor Boulevard. A base density of 40 du/acre was approved with a development incentive allowing increased density to 54 dulacre due to the provision of twenty on-site affordable units for moderate -income households and the complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. The overall site-specific maximum density is 54 unitslacre and site-specific maximum building height is four storiesl60 feet for the apartment buildings and five Ievelsl50 feet for the five -level parking structure. Based on the average household size of 2.5 persons per unit, the projected population density would be 135 persons per acre. " Building Height The proposed revision to the General Plan objective/policy language is underlined and italicized below: Objective LU -1C Promote land use patterns and development, which contribute to community and neighborhood identity. Policy LUAC.2 Limit building height to four stories above grade south of the 1-405 Freeway, except for special purpose housing, such as elderly, affordable, or student housing. An exception is for the Newport Plaza property at 1901 Newport Boulevard where a six -level parking structure is allowed, the property at 125 East Baker Street where a five - story, 240 -unit apartment building and six -story parking structure are allowed, and therope 2277 Harbor Boulevard where a four-story, 224 - unit apartment building and five -level parking structure are allowed (GP -14-04). Costa Mesa Gen" Plaii TABLE LU -1: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 120051 Land Use • Acres Undeveloped Total % of Acres city Residential Floor Acres ..•. (1999) Low -Density <8 Same as 2,143.4 1.8 2,145.2 26.6% Residential - Neighborhood Commercial Medium -Density < 12 Same as 777,3 30.7 808.0 10.0% Res{dentia)e - Neighborhood Commercial High -Density <20 2 Same as 8241 -996-x- �96- Residential s Neighborhood Commercial c6 46.2 870.3 1 10.8% Commercial- 0.20/1-ligh Traffic Residential <_17A 0.30/Moderate Traffic 42.6 0.9 43.5 0.5% 0.40/Low Traffic 0.15/High Traffic Neighborhood 0.25iModerate Traffic 42.4 2.5 44.9 0.6% Commercials 0.35/Low Traffic 0.75iVery Low Traffic 0.20/High Trafflc General s <20 0.30/Moderate Traffic __ 20 8 -� 7.7% Commercial - 0.40 Low Traffic 0.75/Vary Low Traffic 600.9 621.7 <20 0.25iHigh Traffic <40 site- 0.35/rvloderate Traffic Commercial specific 0.45 Low Traffic 29 4 63.3 92.7 1.1% Center density for 0.75Nery Low Traffic 1901 Newport 0.70 Site -Specific FAR for Blvd' 1901 Nlavmort Blvd RegComlmerlcial <20 0.652/0.89° 114.7 0.0 114.7 1.4% <20 <100 Site- 0.50 Retail Urban Center Specific 0.60 Office Commercial Density for 0.79 Site -Specific FAR for 134.2 26.2 160.4 2.0% South Coast South Coast Metro Center' Metro Center 5 Cultural Arts Canter Varies' 1.77' 49.0 50 54.0 0.7% 0.20/High Traffic Industrial Park <20 0.30iModerate Traffic 6965 17.7 714.2 8.8% - 0.4011 -ow Traffic 0.75iVery Low Traffic 0.15iHigh Traffic Light Industry' <P0 0.25/Moderate Traffic 375.5 6.6 382.1 4.7% - 0.35iLow Traffic 0.75iVery Low Traffic Public/ - 0.25 1,281.3 0.5 1,281.8 15.9% Institutional Golf Course <0.01 560.1 0.0 560.1 6.9% Fair rounds <0 10 146.4 0.0 146.4 1.8% Total 7,822.0 218.0 8,040.0 100.% 1. Within the Medium- and High -Density Residential designation, existing residential units legally built in excess of the dwelling units per acre standard may be rebuilt at the same nigher density subject to other zoning code standards. The allowable density or number of units to be redeveloped would be limited to the 1990 General Plan density with a 25% incentive bonus for Medium -Density or a 50% incentive bonus for High. Density: or the axisting number of units, whicnever is less. 2. See High -Density Residential text regarding areas in North Costa Mesa where the density allowance exceeds 20 units per acre. 3. See Commercial Center ;ext. 4. Sea Regional Commercial text. 5 See Urban Canter Commercial text. a. See text For Nixed -Use Development provisions. 7. See Cultural Arts Canter text for additional discussion. LAND USE ELEMENT • PAGE LU -5 �� I ATTACHMENT 6 ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA ADOPTING REZONE R-14-04 FOR A REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 4.15 -ACRE PARCEL FROM C1 (LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO PDR -HD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL — HIGH DENSITY) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2277 HARBOR BLVD. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Diamond Star Associates, Inc., on behalf of owner of real properties located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) (State Clearinghouse #2015091026). Adoption of the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS - MND) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -14-04. Change the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Per the applicant's request, the proposed base density is 166 units (40 du/acre) with a development incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households and (b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Therefore, for the 4.15 -acre project site the General Plan Amendment would specify an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre for the proposed 224 -unit apartment complex and a site-specific building height for the 5 -level parking structure. 3. Rezone R-14-04. A rezone to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to make specific references to the parcel, where appropriate, including the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone and any other related changes. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13 58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Planning Application PA -14-27. A Master Plan application for the 224 -unit apartment project; WHEREAS, City Council approved the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 by separate resolution to change the land use designation of the 4.15 -acre property at 2277 Harbor Boulevard from General Commercial to High Density Residential; WHEREAS, Rezone R-14-04 involves a change in the zoning district of real property located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard from C-1 (Local Business District) to PDR - HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density); WHEREAS, Rezone R-14-04 is consistent with the 2000 General Plan adopted in January, 2002 as amended by GP -14-04; WHEREAS, Rezone R-14-04 will allow residential development at a maximum density of 54 du/ac, as allowed by the General Plan; WHEREAS, the PDR -HD zone is a consistent zone in the High Density Residential land use designation; WHEREAS, Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02 will amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to make specific references to the parcel, where appropriate, including the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone and any other related changes. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. WHEREAS, A Master Plan application PA -14-27 is for the proposed development of a four-story 224 -unit residential apartment development. SECTION 1. REZONE. The City of Costa Mesa Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows: a. There is hereby placed and included in the PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) zoning district a 4.15 -acre parcel, identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers 422-163-31 and as shown in attached Exhibit 2A, situated in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California. b. 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 in subsection a hereof and in the respective Exhibit 2A. A copy of the Official Zoning Map is on file in the office of the Planning Division. Based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY GRANTS APPROVAL TO ADOPT R-14-04, which amends the Zoning Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit 2A) with respect to the property described above. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. The proposed rezone was processed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated from September 11, 2015 to October 10, 2015. The City Council found that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. SECTION 3. 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 no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. 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. SECTION 5. 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 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 of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 2015. ATTEST: STEPHEN M. MESSINGER 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 3rd day of November, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 3rd day of November, 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 A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: Finding: A compatible and harmonious relationship exists between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhoods. Facts in Support of Findings: With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND for the proposed project, all potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood. The project features quality construction and materials. The proposal provides on-site amenities comparable with quality residential units. The proposed parking is adequate to meet the demand for this project. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed on-site parking will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed mix of units within this project. The standard conditions indicate payment of traffic impact fees to mitigate project -generated traffic impacts. The project will provide adequate sight distance for vehicles at all project drive approaches. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the project shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study. The project has been conditioned to comply with these conditions; as a result, the safety and compatibility of the project has been insured. Finding: The use is consistent with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The project proposes a rezone of the property to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD) and a Zoning Code Text Amendment to the maximum density of 54 dwelling units per acre. Subject to approval of the proposed rezone and text amendment, the project complies with the City's Zoning Code as it pertains to building height, setbacks, open space, as well as on-site parking as it pertains to on-site parking spaces and overall project density. Finding: The cumulative effect of all the planning applications have been considered. Facts in Support of Findings: The cumulative effects of General Plan Amendment GP -14-04, Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02, Rezone R-14- " 04, and Master Plan PA -14-27 have all been considered for this project and no significant impacts were identified. B. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (g)(11) because: Finding: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The HDR General Plan land use designation anticipates development on the subject site at 20 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is seeking a proposed base density of 40 du/acre (166 units), with a development incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households and (b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn (236 motel rooms), and redevelopment to an upscale apartment building with security, structured parking, and significant amenities. The rezone will reflect the site-specific density for this property. Rezone of property is within General Plan development capacity. Since the master plan proposes a site specific density of 54 du/ac, the project traffic conditions are proposed to be comparatively higher to existing conditions. According to the IS/MND, the existing 236 room motel at full capacity generates approximately 1,258 daily trips, which include approximately 66 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 118 p.m. peak hour trips. The proposed 224 -unit apartment project forecasts approximately 1,490 daily trips, which include approximately 114 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 139 p.m. peak hour trips. This is an increase of 232 additional daily trips, including 48 additional a.m. peak hour trips and an additional 21 p.m. peak hour trips. The City of Costa Mesa considers a significant traffic impact when project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (Level of Service A, B, C, or D) to deficient operation (LOS E or F). Currently the Harbor Boulevard/Harbor Center intersection is operating at LOS A during both the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour, and is forecast to continue to operate at LOS A during both peak hours with the addition of project trips. The Harbor Boulevard/Wilson Street intersection is operating at LOS A during the a.m. peak hour and LOS B during p.m. peak hour. This intersection is forecast to continue to operate at LOS A during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS B during p.m. peak hour with the proposed project. Therefore, the two key study intersections would continue to operate under acceptable LOS for both a.m. and p.m. hours. C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval that reduce impacts to the fullest extent reasonable and practicable. ON: 11-111 Will Amendment to the Zoning Map Change the zoning designation of the 4.15 -acre development site at 2277 Harbor Boulevard from Local Commercial District (Cl) to Planned Development Residential- High Density (PDR -HD) Gv6._ ATTACHMENT 7 ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA ADOPTING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CO -14-02 TO AMEND COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 13 FOR A SITE-SPECIFIC DENSITY OF 54 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND SITE-SPECIFIC BUILDING HEIGHT AT 2277 HARBOR BOULEVARD IN THE PDR -HD ZONE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Diamond Star Associates, Inc., on behalf of owner of real properties located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) (State Clearinghouse #2015091026). Adoption of the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS - MND) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -14-04. Change the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Per the applicant's request, the proposed base density is 166 units (40 du/acre) with a development incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households and (b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Therefore, for the 4.15 -acre project site the General Plan Amendment would specify an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre for the proposed 224 -unit apartment complex and a site-specific building height for the 5 -level parking structure. 3. Rezone R-14-04. A rezone to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to make specific references to the parcel, where appropriate, including the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone and any other related changes. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13 58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Planning Application PA -14-27. A Master Plan application for the 224 -unit apartment project; WHEREAS, City Council approved the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 by separate resolution to change the land use designation of the 4.15 -acre property at 2277 Harbor Boulevard from General Commercial to High Density Residential; WHEREAS, Rezone R-14-04 involves a change in the zoning district of real property located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard from C-1 (Local Business District) to PDR - HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density); WHEREAS, Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02 will amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to make specific references to the parcel, where appropriate, including the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone and any other related changes. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. WHEREAS, a Master Plan application PA -14-27 is for the proposed development of a four-story 224 -unit residential apartment. SECTION 1. CODE AMENDMENT. The revised Table 13-58 is presented with changes as underlined and italicized below: Revised Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) Development PDR -LD PDR -MD PDR -HD PDR -NCM PDCi PDI Standard Maximum Density 8 12 20 35 20 per Section 13-59 MAXIMUM Note: See North Note: The maximum DENSITY Costa Mesa Specific density for 1901 Newport CRITERIA. Plan for exceptions. Boulevard is 40 dwelling Note: The maximum units per acre. See North (dwelling units per density for 125 East Costa Mesa Specific Plan acre) Baker Street is for exceptions. 58 dwelling units per acre (CO -13-02). Note: The maximum density for 2277 Harbor Boulevard is 54 dwel incl units per acre (GO -14-0Q. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. The proposed rezone was processed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated from September 11, 2015 to October 10, 2015. The City Council found that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. SECTION 3. 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 no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. 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. SECTION 5. 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 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 of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 2015. ATTEST: STEPHEN M. MESSINGER 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 3rd day of November, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 3rd day of November, 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 ATTACHMENT 8 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING MASTER PLAN PA -14-27 FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FOUR-STORY 224 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING (60 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT) WITH A FIVE -LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE (50 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT) AND SITE-SPECIFIC DENSITY OF 54 DU/ACRE LOCATED AT 2277 HARBOR BOULEVARD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Diamond Star Associates, Inc., on behalf of owner of real properties located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) (State Clearinghouse #2015091026). Adoption of the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS - MND) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -14-04. Change the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Per the applicant's request, the proposed base density is 166 units (40 du/acre) with a development incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) Provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households and (b) Complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Therefore, for the 4.15 -acre project site the General Plan Amendment would specify an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre for the proposed 224 -unit apartment complex and a site-specific building height for the 5 -level parking structure. 3. Rezone R-14-04. A rezone to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to make specific references to the parcel, where appropriate, including the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone and any other related changes. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13 58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Planning Application PA -14-27. A Master Plan application for the 224 -unit apartment project; WHEREAS, a Master Plan application PA -14-27 is for a four-story, 224 -unit apartment complex (60 -foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 54 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a five -level parking structure (50 -foot maximum height proposed) with 503 parking spaces; WHEREAS, City Council approved the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 by separate resolution to change the land use designation of the 4.15 -acre property at 2277 Harbor Boulevard from General Commercial to High Density Residential; WHEREAS, Rezone R-14-04 involves a change in the zoning district of real property located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard from C-1 (Local Business District) to PDR - HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density); WHEREAS, Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02 will amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to make specific references to the parcel, where appropriate, including the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone and any other related changes. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13 58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2015, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 3, 2015 with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated from September 11, 2015 to October 10, 2015 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa received written and verbal comments from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties during the public review period; WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and identified potentially significant impacts related to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise; WHEREAS, the IS/MND identified appropriate measures that will mitigate the identified impacts to a level that is less than significant; WHEREAS the Planning Commission has reviewed the IS/MND and has found that the proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; WHEREAS the City Council finds that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by a 5-0 vote, recommended that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 14-04, Zoning Code Amendment CO - 14 -02, Rezone R-14-04, and Master Plan PA -14-27, by separate resolutions; 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 in Exhibit B, and all the mitigation measures indicated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained within Exhibit C, respectively, as well as with compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws, the CITY COUNCIL APPROVES PA -14-27 with respect to the property described above. ATTEST: PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 2015. STEPHEN M. MESSINGER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA —1 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 3rd day of November, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 31d day of November, 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 4 EXHIBIT A FINniNC.S A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: Finding: A compatible and harmonious relationship exists between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhoods. Facts in Support of Findings: With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND for the proposed project, all potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood. The project features quality construction and materials. The proposal provides on-site amenities comparable with quality residential units. The proposed parking is adequate to meet the demand for this project. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed on-site parking will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed mix of units within this project. The standard conditions indicate payment of traffic impact fees to mitigate project -generated traffic impacts. The project will provide adequate sight distance for vehicles at all project drive approaches. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the project shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study. The project has been conditioned to comply with these conditions; as a result, the safety and compatibility of the project has been insured. Finding: The use is consistent with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The project proposes a rezone of the property to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD) and a Zoning Code Text Amendment to the maximum density of 54 dwelling units per acre. Subject to approval of the proposed rezone and text amendment, the project complies with the City's Zoning Code as it pertains to building height, setbacks, open space, as well as on-site parking as it pertains to on-site parking spaces and overall project density. Finding: The cumulative effect of all the planning applications have been considered. Facts in Support of Findings: The cumulative effects of General Plan Amendment GP -14-04, Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02, Rezone R-14- 04, and Master Plan PA -14-27 have all been considered for this project and no significant impacts were identified. R The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(5) because: Finding: The Master Plan meets the broader goals of the General Plan and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, and integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. Facts in Support of Findings: The Master Plan application is for the proposed development of a four-story 224 -unit residential apartment building (60 feet overall height) that wraps around a five -level parking structure (50 feet overall height) with 503 parking spaces in the parking structure with a deviation to allow a five -level parking structure (maximum 4 levels allowed). With regard to the master plan, the following is noted: The proiect features quality construction and materials. The building design and roof elements reflect a modern style, i.e., characterized by simplified square and rectangular building forms with a variety of flat planes, projections, and recesses. The exterior consists of alternating finishes, including white smooth stucco finish, limestone finish, metal finish, and clear glass windows. Additional accents will be provided along building elevations, and replacement of the existing block wall/razor wire fence will be provided with a decorative 6 - foot block wall along the west and south property lines. Landscaping throughout the proposed project will include drought tolerant landscape materials. The proposal ,provides on-site amenities comparable withguafity residential developments. The proposed project is designed as a high-quality apartment development with multiple amenities. The proposed residential amenities include a two-story fitness center gym and recreation room, business center and computer library center, internet cafe, multi-purpose room with surround sound theater, and indoor/outdoor lounge and fireplace. Also provided will be four passive and active courtyards, including one with a pool and spa. A passive dry creek linear park is proposed along the 20 -foot wide setback running along the north and west property lines. The park will provide a variety of features, including a 4 -foot decomposed granite pathway for walking, benches along the pathway for sitting, exercise stations, and dog waste stations for dog -walkers. The proposed protect meets the parking requirements per the Zoning Code. The project proposes a new 5 -level parking structure for 503 covered parking spaces. The parking structure provides for subterranean parking for a portion of guest spaces, and includes privacy gates for added security. The 5 -level structure will be wrapped around on three sides (excluding south elevation) by the proposed apartment building, and a welded wire mesh grid system that supports the growth of landscape vines, and woven metal wire cloth will be used for screening the 5 -level parking structure. The proiect has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding uses in the area and future apartment tenants will be notified of the existing uses in the vicinity of this project. The project has been designed as a self-contained residential community with on-site amenities as discussed above. The architectural style of the building, with its clean modern lines, glass, wood and metal accents, is visually compatible with the architecture of the surrounding commercial area. The proposed development incentive is justified by the inclusion of twenty affordable housing units for moderate -income households, the demolition of the existing structures, and the construction of 224 units of housing. According to the applicant, the density increase from a base density of 40 dwelling units/acre to 54 dwelling units/acre will make it financially feasible for the owner to redevelop the site. The development incentive is necessary to enable physical construction of the 224 -unit apartment project, which will replace an aging, 236 -unit motel that includes non -conforming long-term residential uses within a commercial zone. In addition to demolishing the existing structures and replacing them with a modern, high-quality apartment project, the property owner is designating 20 moderate -income household units that will provide livable market -rate and affordable units that will accommodate long term residency. The proposed project provides a public benefit by replacing a non -conforming use that has served as a long-time nuisance property with a modern, Ngh- quality residential apartment building including a portion reserved for affordable housing. The proposed project replaces an aging 236 -unit motel that includes non -conforming long-term residential uses within a commercial zone. Over the past _ years, the motel has generated calls for Police and Fire Service between 20— and 20_, resulting in a disproportionate amount of city resources dedicated to resolving public safety issues at this single property. The proposed project replaces the functionally obsolete building with 224 apartment units, including 20 units of dedicated affordable housing for moderate income households, which will provide the City with new, amenity -rich housing stock to satisfy the significant market demand. C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval that reduce impacts to the fullest extent reasonable and practicable. D. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that the development project's traffic impacts will be mitigated by the payment of traffic impact fees. E. The rear building of this development is at an excessive distance from the street, but the plan does not lend itself to fire apparatus access or placement of an on-site fire hydrant. Problems associated with the depth of buildings on the property can be somewhat reduced by installation of a standpipe system and a residential sprinkler system. EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PA -14-27 Ping. 1. The approval of Master Plan PA -14-27 shall be contingent upon City Council's final approval of General Plan Amendment GP -14-04, Rezone R-14-04, and Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02. 2. Final Master Plan PA -14-27 shall comply with the conditions of approval, code requirements, special district requirements, and mitigation measures of the IS/MND for this project and as listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit C). 3. Mitigation measures from the IS/MND for this project have been included as Exhibit C. If any of these conditions are removed, the City Council must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. 4. The conditions of approval including Mitigation Measures incorporated by reference in these Conditions of Approval as Exhibit C, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA -14-27 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package 5. A parking management plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Director and the Transportation Services Manager prior to final occupancy of the building. The parking management plan shall denote the following: a. Method of allocation of assigned parking. b. Location of visitor parking, including appropriate signage. c. Location of security gates, if any, and how gates will be operated. d. Location of employee parking. e. Provide proof of a contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations if parking problems arise. & No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. This includes use of exterior finish materials, as shown Sheet A3.00 of Attachment 12. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process such as a minor design review or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 7. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 30 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional fill dirt is needed to provide acceptable on- site storm water flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may include subsurface tie-in to public storm water facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical —#-;�— pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. Applicant is advised that recordation of a drainage easement across the private street may be required to fulfill this requirement. 8. The developer shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy. This inspection is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 9. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of individual units, suites, buildings, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 10. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall contact the U.S. Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 11. The project shall incorporate green building design and construction techniques where feasible; CAL Green Code or higher as determined by applicant. The applicant may contact the Building Safety Division at (714) 754-5273 for additional information. 12. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter system which is painted to match the building would comply with the condition. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 13. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. Freestanding signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division/Development Services Director to ensure compatibility in terms of size, height, and location with the proposed/existing development, and existing freestanding signs in the vicinity. 14. All proposed signage must conform to residential sign regulations per Zoning Code. 15. Demolition permits for existing structures shall be obtained and all work and inspections completed prior to final building inspections. Developer is notified that written notice to the Air Quality Management District may be required ten (10) days prior to demolition. 16. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall demolish existing block wall with razor fencing along the south and west property lines, as well as any existing wall/fencing along the neighboring commercial property abutting the northeasterly portion of the development lot, and replace with a 6 -foot high decorative block wall under the direction of Planning staff. Metal —%-L' fencing is permitted along north and east perimeter of development lot that abuts the existing bike trail and Harbor Boulevard only. Where walls on adjacent properties already exist, the applicant shall work with the adjacent property owner(s) to prevent side-by-side walls with gaps in between them and/or provide adequate privacy screening by trees and landscaping. 17. Developer shall submit a detailed Landscape Plan for the public and private open spaces, for review and approval by the Development Services Department, prior to any construction landscape improvements. The plan shall include all decorative hardscape and landscape improvements as shown on the conceptual plans to provide visual relief for the project from the street. Final materials shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 18. Perimeter landscaping shall be planted with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits and shall contain additional 24 -inch box trees above the minimum Code requirements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller sized trees to 24 -inch box trees or providing additional 24 -inch box trees. Existing mature trees shall be retained wherever possible. Should it be necessary to remove existing trees, the applicant shall submit a written request and justification to the Planning Division. A report from a California licensed arborist may be required as part of the justification. Replacement trees shall be of a size consistent with trees to be removed and may be required on a 1:1 basis, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. This requirement shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 19. Prior to issuance of first certificate of occupancy for the first unit, an Affordable Housing Agreement for the twenty affordable units for moderate -income households shall be finalized, executed, and recorded against the property. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be in form and substance as approved by the City Attorney's office to specifically address the terms, conditions, and covenants on the affordable housing units. 20. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall identify to the Development Services Director a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site activity, including resolution of issues related to dust generation from grading/paving activities. 21. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan features methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring uses to the fullest extent that is reasonable and practicable. The plan shall include construction parking and vehicle access and specifying staging areas and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan should mitigate disruption to businesses during construction. The truck route plan shall preclude truck routes through residential areas and major truck traffic during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200 trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or PC WIA 23 Pte! 25 26, 27 Parks/ 28. Pkwys Transportation Services Manager. Prior to issuance of building permits, the building plans shall demonstrate that all units are equipped with a mechanical ventilation system that will properly filter the indoor air. The ventilation system can be a component of the air conditioning system with the distinction being that clean, ventilated air flow does not necessarily need coolant. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading as well as the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Building official prior to issuance of grading permits. Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of (1) City's approval of the project, including but not limited to any proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. A "Notice to Tenants" shall disclose the surrounding commercial uses in the area, including but not limited to, the existing communication towers adjacent to the development lot, and operational characteristics, such as hours of operation, delivery schedules, outdoor activities, noise, and odor generation of neighboring businesses. The Tenant Notice shall be reviewed/approved by the City Attorney's office and Development Services Director prior to issuance of building permits and shall be included as a reference document in the Tenants' Lease Agreement. The Tenant's Notice shall serve as written notice of the existing communication towers, noise environment and any odor -generating uses within the vicinity of the project. If the project is constructed in phases, perimeter fences/walls, landscaping along the frontages, and irrigation shall be installed prior to completion of the first phase. The applicant shall implement the Long -Term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan, as described in the October 12, 2015 communication (attached as Exhibit 131), prior to issuance of building permit. An action report, indicating the relocation of long-term occupants, shall be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director Provide street tree for Harbor Blvd including Crape myrtle, Lagerstroemia fauriei, (color to be determined by applicant) in a varietals including Muskogee, Tuscarora or Natchez Street is jacaranda mimosifolia. As alternate Queen Palms would be allowed. Eng. 29. Maintain the public right-of-way in a "wet -down" condition to prevent excessive dust and promptly remove any spillage from the public right-of- way by sweeping or sprinkling. 30. Protect wrought iron fence and landscaping on the north side of the property within the City's bike trail. 31. A "Hold Harmless Agreement" to tie to the City storm drain system will be required prior to obtaining a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division. 32. Submit a request to the City of Costa Mesa Public Services Department to vacate the 12 foot alley on the north side of the property and maintain utility easements. 33. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct a 6 -foot P.C.C. sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards adjacent to the property line as shown on the Offsite Plan, including four (4) feet clear around obstructions in the sidewalk. The parkway between the curb and sidewalk shall be landscaped per City of Costa Mesa Public Services direction. CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR PA -14-27 The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping. 1. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 2. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 3. Development shall comply with all requirements of Article 1, Chapter 5, and Article 9, Chapter 5 of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relating to development standards for multi -family residential projects. 4. Developer shall pay any applicable park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. As of November 30, 2015, the new park impact fee is calculated at $5,000 per new multi- family dwelling unit. 5. Street address shall be visible from the public street and shall be displayed on the complex identification sign. If there is no complex identification sign, the street address may be displayed on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or on another prominent location. Street address numerals shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height with not less than one -half-inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Identification of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with not less than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 6. Parking stalls shall be double -striped in accordance with City standards. 7. Driveway ramp slope shall comply with the standards contained in the City's parking ordinance. 8. All new on-site utility services shall be installed underground. 9. Installation of all new utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure the installation from view from any place on or off the property. The installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the public utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box under the direction of the Planning Division. 10. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 11. The project shall be subject to the submission of legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of all common open space and other facilities provided in the final development plan. 12. All landscaped areas shall be separated from paved vehicular areas by 6 - inch high continuous Portland Cement Concrete curbing. 13. The parking structure shall be landscaped per the provisions of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-105(4) - Parking Structure Landscape Requirements. 14. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. The two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 15. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 16. Trash enclosure(s) or other acceptable means of trash disposal shall be provided. Design of trash enclosure(s) shall conform to City standards. Standard drawings are available from the Planning Division. 17. If present and/or projected exterior noise exceeds 60 CNEL, California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL for residential structures. If required interior noise levels are achieved by requiring that windows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. 18. In compliance with the City's mitigation monitoring program, the applicant shall submit a compliance report to the Planning Division along with plans for plan check or prior to commencement of the project's activity if no construction is involved, that lists each mitigation measure and states _�J when and how the mitigation measures are to be met. Bldg. 19. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. 20. This project shall comply with the in -Building Public Safety Radio System Coverage per Section 5-130 to 5-137 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. At plan check submittal 6 copies of an in -building Public Safety Radio System Coverage report (Radio System Report) shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division. The Radio System Report shall be certified by an FCC licensed radio technician as provided by the property owner/applicant. The technician is required by Section 5-133 to conduct initial tests and shall be employed by the owner, the engineer or architect of record, or agent of the owner, but not by the contractor or any other person responsible for the work. 21. The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. CBC 1803.3., unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and allowed by the soils engineer. 22. Projections, including eaves, shall be one-hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into a 5 -foot setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3 -foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1(1) and R302.1(2). 23. Submit a soils report for this project. Soil's Report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and the precise grading plans. If applicable to this project the soil's report shall address how the new slop shall be maintained to avoid any future failure. 24. Show compliance with Chapter 11A and 11B of the 2013 California Building Code. 25. On graded sites the top of exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved discharge device a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent. 2010 California Residential Code Section R403.1.7.3. 2013 California Building Code CBC 1808.7, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 26. Submit a precise grading plans, an erosion control plan and a hydrology study. 27. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of plans for plan check, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation for compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality Order 99- 08-DWQ; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) _�J 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 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying and detailing the implementation of the applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs). Eng. 28. For demolition, grading, or building permits involving projects with a valuation of $10,000 or more, the contractor shall use a City -permitted hauler(s) to haul any debris or solid waste from the job site (refer to Section 8-83(h), Regulations, of Title 8 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code). Use of a City -permitted hauler for such projects is the responsibility of the designated contractor. Non-compliance is subject to an administrative penalty as follows: $1,000 or 3% of the total project value, whichever is greater. 29. At the time of development submit for approval an Offsite Plan to the Engineering Division and Grading Plan to the Building Division that shows Sewer, Water, Existing Parkway Improvements and the limits of work on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or Architect. Construction Access approval must be obtained prior to Building or Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. Pay Offsite Plan Check fee per Section 13-231 of the C.C.M.M.C. and an approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering Permits being issued by the Cit of Costa Mesa. 30. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. ADA compliance required for all new driveway approaches. 31. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk at applicants expense. 32. Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of plans. 33. The storm runoff study shall show existing and proposed facilities draining directly to the flood control channel adjacent to the property. 34. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division for any work in the City public right-of-way. Pay required permit fee & cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee construction of off-site street improvements at time of permit per section 15-31 & 15-32, C.C.M.M.C. as approved by City Engineer. Cash deposit or surety bond amount to be determined by City Engineer. In order to comply with the 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the proposed Project shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan conforming to the Current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Model WQMP, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and Trans Fire approval. a) A WQMP (Priority or Non -Priority) shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. b) Location of BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 35. Fulfill mitigation of off-site traffic impacts at the time of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy by submitting to the Transportation Division the required Traffic Impact Fee pursuant to the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council. The Traffic Impact Fee is calculated based upon the average daily trip generation 232 net trip ends for the proposed project and includes a credit for any previously existing use. At the current rate the Traffic Impact Fee is estimated at: $41,992.00. NOTE: The Traffic Impact Fee will be recalculated at the time of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy based upon any changes in the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council and in effect at that time. 36. Developer will be fully responsible for the design and implementation (construction) of median modifications along Harbor Boulevard to restrict left -turn in and out of the project site. The modification shall include the construction of a raised median diverter. The median modifications will include addition and removal of landscaping where applicable. 37. Developer will be fully responsible for the design and construction of median modification at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Harbor Center to provide a U-turn lane in the northbound direction. 38. Developer will be fully responsible for the design and construction of signal modification at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Harbor Center to accommodate the U-turn phase. 39. Submit a fully dimensioned parking structure plan. Plan must include parking stall dimensions and aisle widths per City Parking Standards. All ramps must comply with the City Ramp Slope Standards. A preliminary parking structure plan must be reviewed by Transportation Services PRIOR to building plan check submittal. 40. Close unused drive approaches with full height curb and gutter per City Standards. 41. Construct commercial driveway approach(es) at location(s) specified on submitted site plan off Harbor Blvd. 42. Provide Emergency responder radio coverage complying with In - Building Public Radio System, CMMC and 510, California Fire Code, 2013. Show location of radio system control panel. 43. Project construction shall comply with Chapter 33, California Fire Code, 2013. 44. Provide minimum 12 -inch (Building) and 4 -inch (Unit) address. Addresses shall contrast with their background. Show building address on plan. 45. Provide Class I Wet Standpipes in all stairs. 46. Provide 2 -hour fire -rated stair enclosures. 47. Provide Fire Alarm System per CFC, 2010. 48, Provide Automatic Fire Sprinkler System per NFPA 13 49. Provide on-site Fire Hydrants and Access per approved Fire Master Plan. 50. Provide one (1) Public Fire Hydrant and Fire Department Connection located between drive along Harbor Boulevard at direction of Fire Department. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR PA -14-27 The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani 1. It is recommended that the developer contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to obtain Sanitary District requirements. AQMD 2. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (800) 288- 7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by the district. School 3. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 4. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants (RIFA) exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Water 5. Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District — Engineering Desk and submit an application and plans for project review. Customer must obtain a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water District. EXHIBIT B1 Costa Mesa Motor Inn 2270 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa Long-term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan October 12, 2015 Upon approval of the 'apartment project" by Costa Mesa City Council, the Property Owner has one year in which to commence construction of the new apartments, or seek a one year extension for a total of two years. As of this Relocation Assistance Plan date, the Property Owner intends to close the Motel on Monday, August 1, 2016, and construction would commence thereafter. However, on June 1, 2016, the Owner will provide a sixty (60) day advance "Notice of Motel Closure/Lease Termination" to all Long-term Occupants and provide the following relocation assistance: Definition of Terms: 7 Long-term Occupants - all motel guests who are current in paying rent and occupying rooms for thirty (30) or more consecutive days on the date the "Notice of Motel Closure/Lease Termination" is issued. Short-term Occupants - all motel guests occupying rooms for less than thirty (30) consecutive days on the day the "Notice of Motel Closure/Lease Termination" is issued. Property Owner- Miracle Mile Properties Notice of Motel Closure/Lease Termination- legally required written notice delivered to "Long-term Occupants" by the property owner sixty (60) days in advance of the Motel Closure date. Delivery of the notice may occur in person or be placed inside the Motel room. Motel- Costa Mesa Motor Inn Long-term Room Occupants Cash Relocation Assistance: Long-term room occupant's cash relocation assistance for rooms vacated on the closure date of August 1, 2016, would range from $4,000 to $5,500 per Motel room. All Long -terra Room Occupants vacating their premises and handing over their keys on the Closure Date of August 1, 2016 will be refunded all rent monies paid for their rooms (not including amenities) in the last 90 days plus an additional $1,500. All long term room occupants remaining after the closure date of August 1, 2016, but vacating the premises and handing over their keys by August 31, 2016, will forfeit the additional $1500 in relocation assistance, but will be refunded all rent monies paid for their rooms (not amenities) in the last 90 days minus the rent for each day past August 1, 2016. All long term room occupants remaining after August 31, 2016 will forfeit all relocation assistance and be subject to normal eviction process. Occupants must give landlord a minimum 10 day notice of their intended move out so that a check may be prepared and delivered to the property on time for their move out. Occupants who do not give the minimum 10 day notice may elect to have a check mailed to them within 10 days, or may pick up their check from the LA office or at the motel no later than 10 days after notice has been given. All occupants must vacate their rooms by removing all personal belongings leaving the room and property undamaged besides usual wear and tear. Upon receipt of payment from Property Owner, Long-term Occupant/s will have been fully compensated for relocating to equal or better housing and will not hold property owner responsible for any further financial assistance, A� li U LU �0 c � t a O Q Q O L) 13 LU CO �J O W0 co 00 � m O Q ti N rl- c v E E c O O u m u w as u„ C (0 � Q Q E O u �o 'c CO V �+ > L v m � o ¢ L CL Q +J Y c c c c�� a¢ o� v v c E II E E v u a E u u° v on O i .0. .O. �` c m fl ,� > p 0 Cm N aaJ CCO L W U V7 G m ei N M 3 C N (r1 C u v ¢ c v O CL m v c v a E z E o v v � M E o 0 'a u C GJ aJ C O c Ln Q'p x 3 C ` O O Ln CL am i v m o`n a; (ca o.0 C— o p �; a; c ,°, r on .o c O L �+ - O C QJ 'o �, O C L C '�, O aJ Y 'C u - m o o L v m -C 'o c a 0 m 3 m (o m c m o c F- c c, > v u oo -° w �_ '= u a > v v w ,n O (O a+ L vi 'm O v r.+ m —_ `J 2 ` , �+ U m a1 aJ vi Y aJ m UlUl ` a m u v, C O u '(a aJ c v (V > (v N O Cv m u v v o «: v v a v a >. vi c u to aLn C aJ L 0 v �. m aJ O O C C o $; °- o c 3 a�J o c v '� Y o C v .� c On c o v a `^ aJ 3 " °-0 o m 3 c u .S ,; •c :a 'o �. E 3: vi.fE a := o: 'm D o v a`J -O a`J �; c o '� a; o s a o u E v 0 u c o --D o. a J T> > �, a c m �. c o m ms O c E 0 0. A �o U N o v x v m m w L E 3 «� Ln a m aJ > c y-- t aJ U a aJ L a1 a Y >i aJ 3 v L aJ N m 3 I p a aJ aJ E O C (O ,C C O «+ U L in aJ Y ut QJ m «J � rl- RU �LU °1 C O� 0 d O e. p a CR U�j (aa U a� MO c 0 0 ap m � U-0< L: (C w CO O� _ 6. O W O co C � O m O Q R = C1 I` ti N N m c a, E c c o u m u C: v u w C A C CL E 0 u m 'c c U u y T = u L as c war at m Q c V)(V L a tw ++ Q O u c ,r U- tko = m a, � a, E•a�aE a' E o 0 o c 0 c o c > a a o o v v v o v W D U Ci N M N M T u l Ul` u m Q C aj CL =E aj CU v a' E E o as a > a aj u O W L aJ C = Y O N O 4+ C C O Ura (U 4; u c Q O O" " > > M -0u v E c�9 O t in O` (U C a u U w CL 5 u C Y L `_^ a) -0 C o v u — 3 °�' c o o Wc m 0o c +' CL a 0 ra ,r O — Y O C i L t v� a ra aj O. T L ` ` ` u a v O v N z N w L > O j 7 — > N •+� al 00 '^ W O uC � m �U a 3 MQ c � O Q Q U�< w CO = 0 co SO w C N 00 m C � c= = O) I` t+ j� N N 0 c aJ E E C O o •Y u u a! u v C � f0 Q CL E a u m 'c 0 u � W u C O c,u O m v 04V1 c a, L a ao > c e4 ad o a a) c c E L a «, f° c *J c E v a E o C c a > n. p p_ a aJ G W G U d m v rl N M ,Vl O z V a! aJ U a, a > a c a`, N O V) o « v CL c y E E a, a E O i � NN a > a 0 r) c no •� m e W +fC' C m L«J y vn L�, �O+ L, C U + •�> pLn ^ v O O O O / O 0 -M o u cO c va ca, a,0 v v cm cu 'St `! W p O' a E io iv o — ro Ia) 0 C O u C w +-' a LE = M L Ul'0 Ln c _'' t CA O of p '� aJ C C n °° 'u y W cu y.0 c U y O C u• O O O a E 3 0 v v n •o O .N m m u 'o c^ Y a, u W u u u 3 u u w a v � c E a) u o u�� c 'w E of 0i c _a C • p c p o o E o .- ` C a c- W v C ou C a E aj u> v u u m u w o m° o }. o .c c c 'c p c ._ c o c ar E y c v m Ul ,S _ m e U C= a u> u� 'o a �, N cv c u •u v v v pp a! 7 aJ f7 L �• ` O C CA O *J ,.. a! aL-. aJ 7 p L L C a N a v � _- v E a, u s o o � v E c �, c y �, c E E m �+ c c *, v o �•••� +, a1 L O 7 aJ U 6 C a1 u L O u u N L C O u +-� aJ C O � +-' — i m a u� •�+ 41 tC O u M aJ a! Q, Za u U L N – L L C C L 0 X �' c O In C Q 0 L N +, m E- m v 3 c w a H- = +moi �, a, a u aj w a a w L O ,� c -0 a E �' .E 0 T +J 7 cf L Q C a E a CL aj m v u > aj n c a, E CL 0 v > y C 41 O aJ ryi L 00 L QJ +O_+ aj >n v v v CL y oca c on 3 0 O c c aJ Y _ u u > u o c o. ° � ° o v 0 0 aJ n au a! vi U U O fa p aui LU - ai •Y ._ O ra .E O U u aJ v1 7 C CL v c c a00, -0 O c = o L c aj O > vi > in «. Y > CU oa o 00 C ul ul OL a U L p C acu CL U p Y m }, ' O L T w rr- u C ra ., � L O a) u *J ` u `J -0 C L 7 O c a v v a m O U n ra a) U C 0 C C S > 'C m C c C O U a1 O a, T a1 O v E o Y E a, o a, a c 00 o 00 0 QJ p O u1 vii u L v+ a O LrCa 3 vYi c u u c O ra u v v, axi '> o Y N v ,'^„ is ra v m `o U v < _ a0 E CL L L u �o L m v= a! C a a ° E ° M C co L 00 Y v �+ o u ra c Y L W Y u— • 00 'M L� L s a Y — Q V1 M an in L a1 'Q (Ya U 0 O0 c-- 0> Y Y L v ?� O o an v) Q) o C L a L u U w O OD cu — L 0O �' w YO w a L L ,d0 O •— L O in `1 E u,� ~ O rn o OO L C L 7° C U O L w..O '^ O N O vi u ra N L j v Y al La1 Y , �� � v� L a c c •� VX„ r0 O O0 V1 a) ma Y OO C C +_ t u C Y aJ c c > .E a .� • � U a 3 Y ra a1 E c Loo w Y C L G E 3 _N OD O- Y _ w 00 w L OU = O. -0 p E o c w w c - c¢ a, a > L aJ L= x 00CO M U j 3 F- O ¢ w u (7 n p ra L o v c > v a Q LL v o M LA u tA C? /:,— Ln 7 7 Q T O .N L c a a ra u L E 3 a, o 0 ai c ai .5 c .� E c c `L° L L O aj 00 ° a, > ao C Ln y U CL T CA ra ra O L a O Y CL T aJ > T EC C p U a '� L O 'Y v U o c c O c c N > a1 -0 > u `! Y o CLai O u C > V aj a > L w C C L cY6 L a W CL `u a 3 � o > L o u °; a1 a 6 V1 y7 CO L L v7 'u aJ 3 Y C vi oc0 ate+ a U > c E -0 L° U C �; j° c v °u ° p O a ° Y L Y Ln u E OO Vf O aJ > C T ro p E N" n o o L > on O — p o_ a) � a-0 — V v v v ovi 0 a, aE, u c U EO L Q 'ra L Y a% L O ai u, O U 3 O a O a Y o v c v W m C> Q_ ° C L 3 ° 0 Y C Q Ou -0 N aj C aul J Y a! U a c L .0 T 6La a� w aci Q 3 v > > v O c C '^ ul u1 O j O ra C C rl Y t p C ap rYa aJ � C L L C L •�, 4J L +' •a v y N° 00 a U° c v° OL v U 0 ' p 0 w a O L '«+ 3 aj to aJ L � Y o E o L o °� V1 7 a« > � L ai u C o •" > ul 41 C Ou Ul aJ ra o= o L o Ulm a U E u°° v 0+ N t 3 aUl 'O �, N a 'E ` N Y 61 Y C E a V1 > a) o a s ra a a p a o Ln � < rq / - m f _ 4 m A (A vi k � Ln \ � 0 aj cr � 3 d J (A \ \ ± m ) = 2 \ CL CL 2 aj Ln \ \ a \ _� \ CL 2Ln \ E 0 / 2 f o ƒ 0 ] ) 2 _ k \ § k / 7 % { / a k 2 � \ § \ 2 \ [ ' 2 ul / k ( @ >.) ' o f ƒ © 0 Q) @ 0 CL ® x x CL (31 / u \ g 2 \ m ƒ = o = u 7 2 \ 2 \ > k/ § \ k CL u @ 7 \ / • m g i \75 _ _ j t 2 @ ¢ u ® . / 8 / d 5 ¥ 6 = \ u § _ # I § /} 0) @/ / ° 2 = E ! c _ r_ §04 § 2E % / /E a t / / 2/ j' e\ ] 7 2 $ § / / 7 35 m no ® # / } \\ % g aR s 3 k m CL \crE / uQj / $ / / $ a ) t ® m a ® u o\ W CL 2 aj § \ / \ j u _ o ® > f m ) _ a o = 2 'E \ E C ! / ) u 2 \ / o J on _ ® aj \ ° ul 0 l / U § j ; a / aj v)o c= ] E a_ 2 . CL \� k 'E G CL 0 . -C\ / \ \ \ \ / m f _ 4 m A (A vi k � Ln \ � 0 aj cr � 3 d J (A \ \ ± m ti v c w ocu - _ .[] - M L C O M O O 7 u0C fO aJ m (O a U c w O - > L > .' Y u C L ut 0 'O C +L••' '' n O CJ u C 7 aJ O N ns U a Cfl p j 'C U �i cl 7 O O E C vi E N U aJ o C V1 T +' o (r L •� a! O ` C CU aJ w a) u +J U L aJ O E N '++ w L CO F-• '+>+ u N y '�+ U OD C O v +' O u C O C m N LU v +' V1 L O > a Z O L U M a1 Vt al C U 41 C •ro O �+ -p N C L aJ tA OO aj Q1 L O .M U E m O O m w E O +� aj C u 0" a E ra + O w y U U } L W o O ut u C E C Ln w .E C aJ ` C to i9 O vi O 7 C m C O u} C p +-' O L C a� C U U �, ++ C p c O� O OD C ` v CL a; E v c 'o `° ca ca � � C °1 'X V, -0 N 3 v L aj CC 07 " al ,L v o v o v v a L w m e U C w V1 oD V1 a �O +L+ t E E a 3 U L E O 'C ns m aJ ++ ` al O W U T in `p u j O aJ 0 O v v L vi O. O w �' U O U ca w m m a, c c v v C C OD p C " 3 a1 L D J L C m U c vi w ry C OD 41 0 _ O .� L O a1 rn w U C N Y C C a1 m L CJ u _. J > O — ca vi a) O `O W U m w w m m m w OD ° M C >O -C oC w= +�•' �, j L !— O O c0 aJ ` }' tea, p w -6 v Q "' a Q >' c Y o _T v v E v o a a' C>_ o a, L c -0 a 'o oD V, �a E >, v v, o00 a' L 0 0 c u° O C c m L`° +� w ocn u E aj _ (U ul a c O 3 O Y a L C m C 00 v a� O 4J E E L a0 u CL .0 L > o aJ p �' a O ocD o v ,cu c E 0- E o a m v^ m M o (IjO — l7 _T - L OD a O_ aJ L � v° °j u° 'c ° ° v c° v = O U °a o .� o w •° o c E ,o o �+ CL v p o T �n v +J v «� w- a_ m u a E u v O «, p a aJ co C— C 4r o N m m M 7— U p 7 +� M .r u v1 a aj u v CL u ` cCL `, C u, m v ^ o_ c o_ 7 O a, O' a E 6 Q w o +� w, O n C ¢ «, OD C O u 0 7 V, o Ln aJ :W `-- CL c c v c a! o In N p_ U p w :� C Q Q` a a O j ra p a1 E c -a m OD o .O 15 � ra fO O �+ `^ a) � a nz L E v o W c U a o0 0_ L aj 3` M c a, p a; O E U a m v v C c v L c L'Ic°', ° o U v u u E .E � ��a v o m v •� __ •� •C a p ca l oD Y ` L `J V1 3 CL d ` Q_ 3 O ul O_ .*'' .0 N L L E L m . � m O 'c E .o O 3 +p+ v o E E� u o v u v c U -" m y a, z O p w «� L o w v a o V, E a c V, 7o u °j E 3 .> e a, aj a, " �, y O U.Eb ate+ (D gyp,, a/ +� — M p m � = (0 OD C L al O Q C O u7 E C •E L 'C U ++ L c0 V1 O O 7A v u c w z v CJ c a is U o a W E c a CL -0o -0 (u a_` a, c L -" N L, a) s w m E ca a E L o 0 f 0 aj E c E ^ u v c ° n o Y L u c- o T ¢ ai U .� c v CL �+ coo a, v, v, c 2 o v° o o c v p o g o° a m c CU c o c U o> u U V, a, L •U C O W CL -70 U O C E L ffl U z a .` u ~ N O u ul C CL OCD .� o_ v 11�\ u ° E 0 «• In ¢ E E a L O O al V p _ ut _ ar aJ L o ++ m o •— O p L 15 C ate+ O. `~' U E= L C 3 'Q W NN U vpi U ui CL w O .+ CO U H aJ OD L V) C f9 N M 0 eel N M V1 'A lO lD lO R 0 H H H (A ti u v v m ra 00 t ~ CL v p i CO N a (A O L C -0 C — L i 0 O 2 r0 u L C O m v u Q C Y OJ Q. U unL o a C O c m u c v tw c 'u 3 ra O aJ Q 0 7 0 no v s E a c v v Ul L J v 'U v E cu Cr v a a 4; u° Oa E o O o E o u a m C E o M O ++ rd 00 .0 C C v Oc O E O E v u m + '� O — `J (U c i m r0 L v 0 3 O Ul O. -0 a °co CL � C c O L •C M c rn ° o '3 E v=i QJ al aJ o L ) � � L 3 O C aJ cu (AU 3 c U o 0 v v a E o L Z C a E v a ?� v a — c p ,O c CL ra M m u ocn +J _ O c v v cu O +J -0 7 U v; E u w c v m c c O C = +L+ 00 .° LJ O > O O c v " = u m v v c w v C L CL ° C OL v c L a CL r-+ C 3 L M w. r0 C O u° aJ v ,} aJ v O L '+••� 7 t +•+ L O u= c 'pp �•, n 'in O 00 C O +, — c c ,_ a •3 O w O ,� c ul CL z > s E CL m c v c E uv 3 c v a o ° L v v m E° a a aJ U C O E a o U m L c v L v vi rc m v i v >O > N L L va v v m a *� C7 —_ u E a a m c f0 c o c a .0 �, C L C E �, L v O O Y C m W•u N 7 (C N C L v' C a m C aU v u ° m a `° a O L u - o u a o U aJ O Q W L oD c r� L aJ C r9 d0 C v u c ra C v c E a m W L C c N O CL ''Z 2 m m v u u N yv a o O E Q ' CL a v v v a 00 L+ a L O 'O N U E v CL r0 — L C Q0L m o ° 3 o a v o v u L jo C C O c O. CN o ° C v cfO _y c 0 E +L+ O. L c v +• a `U o aJ ,°� O. w � N M 00 00 00 � Q � u u u H v1 rn v 00 t ~ C aJ .O 2 3 C v u C ` > O V C O O _ aJ O. O Y Q 0 '�+ cl Y ca ra O aJ 7 ° v 7 3 aJ v 'U a 'D u° = o v 3 o u a m c c Cr aJu U '° c0 -r-u (U c u CL «- > o O. -0 a °co CL � c O 3 ~ aj va ° Y ° O u y o o° -Fu cua m 3 m ° v (AU 3 c U -M,�0 v .v v p aJ O O °0 v v .>w 0 CU w U v; E u ° C = m 00 C O. 00 •— L m C v m v v c w c c E O v E-0 • 0 4; o u M 4-- O OD u v ,ai a s - v UD ,� c ul CL s E CL m c aj E 3 c a• v a v L v o p ` E O E a ` E m L c C v> 6 v v i a' v 'a aJ b E a v L «, C v +'++ U u v v L v is L L v L C ° � O o L �, C L C E �, L v O pC N N •3 aJ •O •� O }= 3 aJ a a o L a O L a— a p E v E ^ p L E ^ m p j ul c ^ O L 7 m O 3 N ra *•' ,Ln O M,Ln Q L X E 'i L v LnX a v v WM C •L ` L m O O O E C L00 c 3 E U 3= o O C M (LO = v >. <u ,n •= 0 p aJ C O aJ m L y c O j .` c .E v a) O +� > > o cn m a -0 > c, v u a +° > u aa) u O +J ro v c L y o E .� c v o o m V1 uj L ++ 'C aJ r0 - v C ai 3.O C +..1 = C r0 .E O` O rca += O O Q Q u L 3 m0- o M -0 a aj 0D = vi u (D CO Q O u O N L J= v o 0 3 v v o }= 3 O -0 L m C vLm ° v E N o E "' -0 v E vr, O �' c v� -0 o O c -0 -0 c v O .0 c v U L v '> C .O oC .O 0 aJ o ` m ° c) o u a o> o u a Y a E u a rn U a rn aX , o � N M 00 00 00 � Q � u u u H v1 rn l� 00 L a Q aD 0 L 3 a _C O O u a L a u c O > O C a O c O O E a C 0 on U, a > C 0 0 a 4T 00 u H ro a f0 a L E O u 7 CL a L C a Y LO 3 OD c 3 O E a L C n3 C E c O u a u a CL 3 a L 0 T •U a L C Y 0 3 O. O T Q) a a E E c a E fU CL a 0 a M m a ra O U C ca N a c C w T u a L w 0 Z U, a c Z u � v a E 0 C Y CL T O a C C >o E L1 'Z+ a � _c o E v � W 0 CL Y L � U O m ul3: Eami E Y O O E c o a cO a L c c M .� -,I-- m m L V E z L c 0 3 0 a Ul M c a a U v a ,c OD CL r- 0 O w L }, Q M V L E a NC O O C O_ w 2 L a o 0 L a c O LC OD CL c a a w u C > a a U g E Q m Ln � c v p m u O w N a �_ > L O � Y � a W a CL ca a Q L E O -0 ul u c O M N a E 'o aaj L a c v v a, u IM.— > 0 0_ O. C �a 3 a v L O v u v Ln lei o 0 c 0 c L Q CL (3j L } c O C u OD o .c a CLcu L a o aj NC E E E a aj as OD L w c ° O a Q' a F v C a Ul 00 W 0 L E a } T � Z O a Ln E v v ra Q L Or9 c +� U a E ro v a ra O u a w a O o L o 0 o. C C O a a o E L �' o a 'c o a 76 c 0 i m L CYa 7 CL L1 Ln o. u a s a Y `C ' N M N > OCD n a O ` c H ° a -0 a O E v a vai v a a L a c fO a c v o ^ c J1 E o . o Y c a L Q 1J )V 'A V i .0 Ln Y m u N a T a c a E CL° L 0_ O o O. OO c - -0 a a c m a C +L+ C C � — 0 v v v � Y 3 o 3 W m O r= +� OD L CL L O'Y 0. i c a u c C a O a E L O X a C 7 O C L a a. a _ L L C CL s E c 0 a CL O to ro a `^ v o 3 a > H- H 7 = Q d lei -161- C C C a) v Ov Y - W - .3 •- v 3 m .o 00 c U Mc W > v -a io v L L v O L v Cv }' Ln CL in C Y O CL m a o CL o C L u C O Nv0 (U L O v Y L W w = m O O 4- V; vi > i O C ` Y a O v O (9 C Y U E ° «� O m u v O .v) v c v X Y O •� v O u 0 o 'a n. c a u OOa 0 C > OD _C -0 aj a O v 0 C CL u O O W C C L a — O a 3 c - O O w -0 •Y 0'aj u Y a u i I oz— a L QJ — aJ +, c m N 3 a 0 — u a a n7 •� ry a, o v v v o a 'a — .o E a a N O U — R7 a > —_ in a (r'1 O u aJ E > Ln o o QO _v LL, O` CoLn �_ Ea C - c —�°� m s E ° > Xaj v m 'D Mr- MCL' L C (V E u >, R7 iYi, vii °' CU o (31 ° L a a co u c a aJ U L Y > L �; U `J •C -O aj cu u to av a O a CL V)CS O p L n Y E fD E Y v- `1 aj '7 'Y Y a V, a a) C a ` '7 d c c m 3 0 uj w w u . Ln r0 a a O a p O LA `� O C +•' a cu in O O -o v m N n cai O c � L C a E a 15 u ° O C 7 CL C !U o a a � O .Y L Y ca _E C aJ fa f L SOL V) Y •� ai ` > aE Y C L1 L i v L `O 1 E �v > E f° c c li ° 3 a co v v ` _ C (a aJ N u Y Ou L �'' ut -O c L i Q•, O L 4— v O O vOi u m a) +- F W = _° v O u a v 3 T E o u a v U C w L Rs N m a O E w e U O 7 CLO 4- > a O Y i i C O 0LJ LJ O u v R7 S f9 Y 'X ut aJ L a1 CID C U C L 0 L rt7 ut a Ln Ln o f 5 a «� E �; ° 'a v o a c O u O vY 00 O RS i m — a° u Q C C a a) RI 00 a Ln Z RS °CD ; a E 'X O Y T a n v u 3 a E a c a Ln 16 u �_ In (A L O a O Y a Rs a u C o E a ° u Y _E �, a y �, °v= E L a a c a a >• m (0 a -0 O E OD Rs C L Z +J ,_ E o a Y m Lnv p u! ` 7 > D C9 u OCD y E L v a L O L +ua a1 'L' ca N CJ C L L Y C O E u OD '� O 1 d! w ° E a N L c-I cu Y L in 7 U C cu a) E a 0 c -0 O L Q > E O 0 -o a in a E R a L 2 Y _ -0 C aJ (C9 E v1 in N 7 R3 v, E > C Y R7 C O C C CL R t ? E c �' — a ° 0 U° Ln o w _ °- ',C 3 V, C O _c RS a L aJ > R7 x 7 'D,+Y+ 00 U a) a a O aJ > aJ a1 v Z E 'C •5 � L E R u ° c �+ a > a a a a v> c �, 4-. O a u a •a CL oD fo v a a a a v ° a C a cr ° E ° o o N o o E �' a u° oan E c p �0 0 o a o 0 0 p C °; a E E° m L a L L a L -0 a a a fa °a 4- C `c Ln a Ul� Y a a E L to a t c` v 0 .Ln 'A R] 5" u L Vt L ut ` V, s F" O a s° c R7 F+ E c f° u u a u v1 u _ a L L oD v a a E O N c w w aJ a_ ` ul J [r R] mc J LL ° u Y cy C Y 5 O O O O O O C 3 a °; ni w a u `O a a o0 a a c }' 3 • . 0 0 . • f1 w C1 Ln L W I— al > -C 4L- w L H L H ut Q m a CO — 2 u 00 01 H VV1 vi N Vu1 Vu1 (A (A VV1 I oz— u v 0 0 ° v ° «J °A V aT m -L oo o_ aj a ar a' c *' a E CL o E oo c mo a, > v a o w m o v o a,CL E aj > a) w E a) a, Z o - L t`a p H cC 00 v CL +� 0 3 � O j '� v u u a - u aj O a aj aj m O CL o 0 o u a) o (0 U N m T 4•-• ° c L +' ) aJ > O. L O u c 3 S u w > 0 '� O 6m ,� > a' a, c a v a c ° ar v °1 (U a +_ m o_ u E N O N a v+ N 0 0 0 u a/ ` al L C L +. a+ 0 0 � 0 L CLo •S m a v a v a 0 ° m' v v E CL > v o ro ELU c ° 3 «J c w ° v 3 (0 Q L`,� U L t0u CL CL �' o m u E U a �+ o w CL '— a (U X w - u > C O Q) +_• N 0 O L'n o m N O. C E c °c° CL ,� u m v U c y o Ul f6 M Q) L 0vi u C O L 41 aJ Q O O C v ro Cu a.+ O` C '^ u CL U C- u CL m w ` aJ m 0 of m a m" •— T U> c p n O o ° y Q ^ aJ T m s a a c u a ° a, v E aj co aj 0 c > c s V; , - Ul > +� y O > ° '+� ° 'a +r v m i m CL U L u O_ aj CL aJ Q m In aj .E u _o 00 c O '^ N a1 .� > v u E 3 Y CL on a p o M = o. a v a w c c v c a' c u m ° 3 0 v N •E ar u O u -0 +-' U 0 ° U v 3 L ++ 0 4j m a Ln 18 E ° '� v 0 u o m a, o a, CL u0 ° cua ° a � " v a u° to m° a — E a? a m o o c vi a 'E v c 0 v y Y ca c OU 'U E Q c - E 6 ,- O Q �n cr m CU o 0 v a °� Ul v, a, o 00 m c �_ E Ln c o` u Q +� n° ° a` -0 a Lnu v s 3 m ? m 3° Ln o v T a c a '0 • CL v u u c C O. ra ¢ a a u c CL a` f° a a c a, > a^ a o o u s v a r c a s O v1 f° m � c o CL NN � M u, c v v v a v v, F- runvvi D vvi vi vvi vvi cvn N Tl- ATTACHMENT 9 DENIAL RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -14-04 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF A 4.15 ACRE SITE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR); REZONE R-14-04 FOR A REZONE (OR CHANGE) OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SAME DEVELOPMENT SITE FROM C1 (LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY (PDR -HD), AND MASTER PLAN PA -14-27 FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FOUR-STORY 224 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING (60 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT) THAT WRAPS AROUND A FIVE -LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE (50 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT) WITH 503 PARKING SPACES IN THE STRUCTURE WITH A SITE-SPECIFIC BUILDING HEIGHT DEVIATION TO ALLOW A FIVE LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE (MAXIMUM 4 LEVELS ALLOWED) LOCATED AT 2277 HARBOR BOULEVARD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Diamond Star Associates, Inc., on behalf of owner of real properties located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) (State Clearinghouse #2015091026). Adoption of the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS - MND) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -14-04. Change the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Per the applicant's request, the proposed base density is 166 units (40 du/acre) with a development incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households; and (b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Therefore, for the 4.15 -acre project site the General Plan Amendment would specify an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre for the proposed 224 -unit apartment complex and a site-specific building height for the 5 -level parking structure. — /M — 3. Rezone R-14-04. A rezone to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to make specific references to the parcel, where appropriate, including the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone and any other related changes. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13 58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Planning Application PA -14-27. A Master Plan application for the 224 -unit apartment; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2015, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 3, 2015 with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the CITY COUNCIL HEREBY DENIES General Plan Amendment GP -14-04, Rezone R-14-04, Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02, and Planning Application PA -14-27. ATTEST: PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 2015. STEPHEN M. MESSINGER 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 3rd day of November, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 3rd day of November, 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 rezone is not consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. B. The proposed project does not comply with Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(5), Master Plan, of the Municipal Code due to the following: The master plan does not meet the broader goals of the General Plan and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. C. The subdivision of the property for a residential common interest development is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. D. The Costa Mesa City Council has denied General Plan Amendment GP -14-04, Rezone R-14-04, Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02, and Planning Application PA -14-27. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) (5) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) CEQA does not apply to this project because it has been rejected and will not be carried out. E. The project is exempt from Chapter IX, Article 11, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. ATTACHMENT 10 FirstCarbon Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California Prepared for: City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.754.5000 Contacts: Ryan Loomis Willa Bouwens-Killeen Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 250 Commerce, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contacts: Christine Jacobs -Donoghue Liz Westmoreland Date: October 27, 2015 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - l Oq1 r City of Costa Mesa — 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents Table of Contents Section1: Introduction and Background........................................................................................ I Section2: Response to Comments................................................................................................. 3 2.1- Mesa Water District........................................................................................................... 3 Response to Comment A-1.................................................................................... 3 Response to Comment A-2.................................................................................... 3 Response to Comment A-3.................................................................................... 3 Response to Comment A-4.................................................................................... 3 2.2 - City of Irvine, Community Development Department ...... ................. ,............................. . 3 Response to Comment B-1.................................................................................... 3 2.3 - SoCal Gas Company........................................................................................................... 4 Response to Comment C-1.................................................................................... 4 2.4 - Public Law Center.............................................................................................................. 4 Response to Comment D-1.................................................................................... 4 Response to Comment D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5............................................................. 4 2.5 - Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition......................................................................... 5 Response to Comment E-1 through E-6................................................................. 5 2.6 - Department of Transportation .............................. ............... ......... --- ....... ................. ...... 5 Response to Comment F-1..................................................................................... 5 2.7 - Orange County Airport Land Use Commission.................................................................. 5 Response to Comment G-1.................................................................................... 5 Response to Comment G-2.................................................................................... 5 Response to Comment G-3.................................................................................... 6 2.8 - State Clearinghouse........................................................................................................... 6 Response to Comment H-1.................................................................................... 6 2.9 - State Clearinghouse........................................................................................................... 7 Response to Comment 1-1...................................................................................... 7 Response to Comment 1-2...................................................................................... 7 2.10 - Rick Huffman................................................................................................................... 7 Response to Comment J-1..................................................................................... 7 Response to Comment J-2..................................................................................... 8 2.11- Phil Luchesi and Luchesi Enterprises............................................................................... 8 Response to Comment K-1.................................................................................... 8 Response to Comment K-2.................................................................................... 8 Responseto Comment K-3.................................................................................... 8 Response to Comment K-4................................................................................. 9 Section 3: Changes to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ....................................... 1I 3.1 - Changes in Response to Specific Comments................................................................... 11 Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................ 11 Page86, Impact b) ..................................... .................................................-.. 11 Appendix A: Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2277 Harbor Blvd. Project FirstCarbon Solutions hi H:\Client (PN-1N)\0080\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC dou THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Costa Mesa — 2177 Harbor Boulevard Project Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction and Background On September 11, 2015, the City of Costa Mesa (City) circulated an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the 2277 Harbor Blvd. project. The City received various comments during the public review period (September 11, 2015 through October 10, 2014). CEQA does not require a lead agency to prepare written responses to comments received on an MND; however, the City has reviewed the comments received and prepared the following responses, in an effort to provide full information to the decision -makers and the public. In addition, this document also includes responses to late comments received beyond the public review period. The 4.15 -acre project site is currently occupied by the 236 -room (94,500 square foot) Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, which is designated General Commercial under the City's General Plan and zoned C1 (Local Business District). The proposal involves demolition of the existing motel and the construction of a four-story, 224 -unit luxury apartment project, inclusive of twenty affordable units for moderate -income households. Parking onsite would be accommodated within a proposed five level parking structure containing 503 parking spaces. The proposed project consists of the following discretionary requests: 1. General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 to change the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Per the applicant's request, the proposed base density is 166 units (40 du/acre) with a density incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households; and (b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Therefore, for the 4.15 -acre project site, the General Plan Amendment would specify an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre for the proposed 224 -unit apartment complex, and a site-specific building height for the 5 - level parking structure. 2. Rezone R-14-04 from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 3. Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02 to make specific reference to the parcel, where appropriate, and the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone in Title 13 (Zoning Code) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, as well as any other related changes. 4. Planning Application PA -14-27, a Master Plan for the 224 -unit apartment project with specified deviations from the PDR -HD development standards, including the following: i. Variance to allow deviation from required Open Space and Private Open Space requirements; ii. Variance from building height to allow a five level parking structure (a maximum of four levels is permitted as of right; five levels are proposed); iii. Administrative Adjustment for encroachment of ground floor private patios into required perimeter open space area (20 feet are required; 15 feet are proposed). FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-JN)\0090\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC docs Introduction and Background City of Costa Mesa —1177 Harbor Boulevard Project Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The City received a total of four comment letters in response to circulation of the IS/MND during the official comment period from the following agencies: Mesa Water District; City of Irvine Community Development Department; Public Law Center; and the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition. Six additional comment letters were received after the close of the official comment period from the State Clearinghouse (2); Department of Transportation (Caltrans); SoCal Gas Company; Phil Luchesi (and Luchesi Enterprises); Rick Huffman; and the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. Each individual comment within each letter has been assigned a code (i.e., A-1, A-2, A-3, etc.) to cross- reference comments with responses. The comment letters and/or text of correspondence are reprinted in Attachment A to this letter. Responses to Comments are provided in Section 2.0 and Changes to the IS/MND are provided in Section 3.0 of this document. FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Cllent (PN-1N)\0080\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC dou City of Costa Mesa —1177 Harbor Boulevard Project Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments 2.1- Mesa Water District Response to Comment A-1 The commenter states that data regarding Mesa Water's supply capacity is outdated, and provided the correct statistics. The project's potential to deplete groundwater supplies is analyzed in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality of the IS/MND, under Impact Question b). Additionally, a corresponding update to the IS/MND text is included in Section 3 below. Response to Comment A-2 The commenter outlines the plan check process. The comment also states that page 143 of the IS/MND should state whether or not the project may require new or modified water facilities, including potential offsite improvements. The commenter requests consultation with Water District staff and asks that the analysis consider the total water demand versus the incremental demand. Section 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems section of the IS/MND, Impact Question b) analyzes the project's potential to require new or modified water facilities including offsite improvements. As stated on page 143 of the IS/MND, the Applicant would be responsible for constructing all conveyance facilities pursuant to Water Division criteria and standard regulations (i.e. Uniform Codes, City Ordinances, etc.). Additionally, Impact Question d) addresses the potential for the project to impact water supplies. As discussed in the IS/MND on page 146, the District tentatively confirmed service on May 21, 2015, contingent upon the required District Plan check and consultation with the district. Furthermore, the Applicant is also required to provide a will -serve letter from the District. Thus, the IS/MND currently includes requirements to ensure the Water District can provide service, and no further response is warranted. Response to Comment A-3 The commenter provides additional requirements for the Applicant related to water metering, including the need for a dedicated sole easement to Mesa Water. This comment has been noted. Additionally, the commenter provides irrigation requirements. These requirements would be incorporated into the site plans and verified during the District plan check process. Response to Comment A-4 The commenter provides further requirements for the Applicant related to water conservation and landscape irrigation. Refer to Response to Comment A-3, above. 2.2 - City of Irvine, Community Development Department Response to Comment B-1 The commenter acknowledges receipt of the Notice of Intent and Initial Study for the project, and states that they have no comments at this time. No further response is warranted. FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-1N\0060\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC docx City of Costa Mesa —1277 Harbor Boulevard Project Response to Comments Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.3 - SoCal Gas Company Response to Comment C-1 The commenter acknowledges receipt of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The commenter requests that So Cal Gas Transmission also be notified of work being conducted for the project, pursuant to California Public Utility Commission rules. No further response is warranted. 2.4 - Public Law Center Response to Comment D-1 The commenter states that the letter is written on behalf of the Costa Mesa Motel Resident Association (CMMRA). The commenter asserts that members of the CMMRA and other residents staying at the motel are considered low to extremely low income, veterans, and people with disabilities. The comment has been noted and no further response is warranted. Response to Comment D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5 The commenter states that a negative declaration is not appropriate due to adverse social and economic effects on the people of Costa Mesa, that a substantial displacement would occur, and that low-income units should be included in the project. The commenter also asserts that significant low-income housing units specifically would be lost. The Initial Study discusses the potential for displacing housing and individuals in Section 4.13 Population and Housing. Although the Costa Mesa Motor Inn is considered a commercial use, and is not recognized as housing in the City's General Plan Housing Element, the IS/MND provided a conservative analysis, evaluating 50 units as housing since they are used on a longer-term basis. Furthermore, the Applicant has volunteered to provide housing relocation assistance to existing occupants in the form of a housing relocation consultant (refer to Standard Condition 4.131). The Applicant has also volunteered to provide financial assistance to residents. Nonetheless these 50 motel units are not considered permanent housing, are not included within the City's housing allocation, are not considered housing in the City's Housing Element, and do not directly contribute to the City's population. Therefore, the IS/MND provides a conservative analysis of the project's potential to displace individuals and housing, and impacts are less than significant. Furthermore, CEQA only requires the analysis of physical changes in the environment. As such, analysis of socio-economic impacts from the elimination of a motel use is not required under CEQA, particularly where the motel use will be replaced with a new development and will not result in physical impacts from a vacant building such as blight. (See CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e); 15382) Additionally, the City's current housing element indicates the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations as two units (one low and one very low income), and motels are not 4 FirstCarbon Solutions H:\[Ilan[ (PN-1N)\0080\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC docx City of Costa Mesa — 2177 Harbor Boulevard Project Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments required to satisfy the current RHNA allocation. Thus, impacts are less than significant and no further response is warranted. 2.5 - Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition The commenter states that the initial Study is incorrect in stating the project will have a less than significant impact concerning displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing, and that removal of the current motel would adversely impact existing housing in the City because low- income units are not included in the proposed project. The commenter states that no relocation plan has been provided, and that there is no existing low-income housing for the current occupants of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn (CMMI). The commenter provides general comments regarding the City's housing availability and variety. Response to Comment E-1 through E-6 Refer to Response to Comment 2.4 (D-2 through D-5) above. The City's current housing obligation includes the allocation of one low-income unit and one very low-income unit, and motels are not intended to satisfy the current RHNA allocation. Additionally, the project would provide 20 affordable units, thereby contributing to the City's stock of affordable units. As previously discussed, the Applicant is also volunteering to provide relocation assistance and has provided a Relocation Plan that includes financial support for existing customers at the motel. Only 50 units are utilized on a longer-term basis. All reasonable efforts will be made to give existing motel occupants enough time to vacate and find a new form of temporary or permanent housing. The financial contribution of the Applicant and assistance of the Relocation Consultant would aid existing residents in their efforts to find a new place to stay. Impacts remain less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required. No further response is warranted. 2.6 - Department of Transportation Response to Comment F-1 The commenter acknowledges receipt of the IS/MND and provides a project description. The commenter states that they do not have any comments at this time, but that if any activities should occur within Caltrans' right-of-way, then an encroachment permit would be required. No changes to the circulated site plan have been made, thus an encroachment permit is not required. No further response is warranted. 2.7 - Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Response to Comment G-1 The commenter acknowledges receipt of the IS/MND, and provides a brief project description. No response is warranted. Response to Comment G-2 The commenter refers to the IS/MND's Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials discussion regarding airport and airport land use plan (ALUP) hazards. The commenter suggests that the FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Cli,n[ (PN-1N)\0080\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC docx s City of Costa Mesa — 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Response to Comments Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IS/MND discuss the height at which notification is required versus the height of the proposed buildings. The commenter also requests the IS -MND include a discussion of the project's location within the FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for the John Wayne Airport (JWA). As discussed in Impact e) of Section 4.8 of the IS -MND, the project site is located approximately 5 miles southwest of John Wayne Airport and outside of the Airport Impact zones and Airport Safety Zones. The proposed building height is restricted, due to its location within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Height Restriction Zone. The project currently proposes buildings of no greater than 50 feet in height. As acknowledged by the commenter and the IS/MND, the Applicant is required to notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for project review. Furthermore, according to Section 4.11 of the JWA AELUP, should the project be found inconsistent with the AELUP, the commission shall promptly notify the affected local agency. The agency may then modify the submitted project so as to be consistent with the AELUP, and resubmit the project to the Commission for a determination of consistency, or the local agency may choose to overrule the Commission by following the procedure established in California Public Utilities Code Sections 21676 and 21676.5. Thus, notification and review by the ALUC would ensure that impacts are less than significant. Response to Comment G-3 The commenter states that a referral by the City to the ALUC may be required due to the location of the project, due to the City approvals that are required. Additional suggestions regarding time frame for submission of the aforementioned referral are included. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) provided comments on the IS/MND on October 15, 2015, several days past the close of the public review period. Additionally, the commenter suggests that the ALUC determination be made prior to the City Council hearing. However, the City Council hearing is scheduled for November 4, 2015, making a prior decision by the ALUC infeasible. Therefore, as discussed in the IS/MND (p. 84) and Response to Comment G-2, notification to the FAA and a review are required, which would ensure that impacts related to airport and airport land use plans are less than significant. No further response is warranted. 2.8 - State Clearinghouse Response to Comment H-1 The commenter states that the State Clearinghouse (SCH) has submitted the IS/MND to State agencies for review, and as of the date the comment period ended no state agencies had submitted comments. The commenter acknowledges that the City has complied with the SCH review requirements pursuant to CEQA. The comment has been noted, and no further response is warranted. FirstCarbon Solutions H:\[I1eo.(PN-1N)\0080\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor BWd RTC dock City of Costa Mesa — 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments 2.9 - State Clearinghouse Response to Comment 1-1 The commenter states that one letter was received after the end of the comment period and that Lead Agencies are not required to respond. However, the commenter encourages Lead Agencies to take all comments into consideration prior to taking final action on the project. Response to Comment 1-2 The commenter forwarded the comment from the Department of Transportation. The comment was identical to the comment discussed in Section 2.6. No further response is warranted. 2.10 - Rick Huffman Response to Comment J-1 The commenter expresses concern regarding the overall vision of the City. The commenter discusses the height and character of the project, including concerns regarding the density of other projects in the area. The commenter states that the project appears to be a spot zone change. The commenter does not provide any comments specifically addressing the IS/MND. As discussed in Section 4.1 Aesthetics, the project would be in keeping with the modern architectural style of the nearby shopping area. The adjacent uses are also considered residential and open space uses, thus the project would convert a commercial use to a compatible residential use. Zoning and density are discussed in Section 4.10 Land Use Planning, and impacts were found to be less than significant. In the event that the General Plan Amendment (from General Commercial to High Density Residential) and rezone (from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density) are approved as part of the project, this would not constitute "spot zoning." The legislative body of a City may amend all or part of a General Plan, subject only to the limitation that a mandatory element of a General Plan may not be amended more than four times per each calendar year (See Cal. Govt. Code § 65358(b)). A General Plan is not intended to be a static document that is not subject to change, because a city's needs and vision may change due to growth or other factors. Amending a General Plan in connection with a particular development project does not constitute "spot zoning." Rather, the essence of spot zoning is "irrational discrimination", as explained in Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1526, 1536 [129 Cal.Rptr.3d 369]: "Spot zoning occurs where a small parcel is restricted and given lesser rights than the surrounding property, as where a lot in the center of a business or commercial district is limited to uses for residential purposes thereby creating an "island" in the middle of a larger area devoted to other uses" (Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201 Cal. App. 4th 1256; emphasis added). The project's request for a General Plan Amendment and zone change, if approved, will not result in any discriminatory zoning. In addition, project applicants are permitted to seek amendment of the General Plan and changes to the zoning designation of their property pursuant to Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Cli.nt JPN-JN)\0090\00800025\RTC\00600025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC.d— City of Costa Mesa — 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Response to Comments Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comment J-2 The commenter expresses concern that the project is out of character for the City, and does not provide community benefits. The primary benefit and purpose of the project is the provision of housing, including affordable apartment units. The commenter provides suggestions for building guidelines. Refer to Comment J-1 for discussion regarding community character. No further response is warranted. 2.11- Phil Luchesi and Luchesi Enterprises Response to Comment K-1 The commenter, Rutan & Tucker LLP is writing on behalf of his clients, the adjacent property owner and his company Luchesi Enterprises. The commenter expresses general support for the project, with the exception of some concerns. The comment has been noted and no further response is warranted. Response to Comment K-2 The commenter provides an outline of the proposed project, and states that the project exceeds height limits. Thus, the commenter is concerned that the proposed project may interfere with cellular reception provided by the mobile service providers on his property. The commenter discusses their concerns regarding interference and potential impacts to the new residents of the project site, requesting that an additional study be conducted analyzing potential impacts. The comments do not directly address the IS/MND. Cellular tower sites are under the exclusive authority of the Federal Communications Commission, which generally preempts local land use authority regarding the placement of, or potential interference with cellular communications. Additionally, the commenter incorrectly states that the proposed building height is 60 feet, whereas the existing plans available for public review show buildings up to 50 feet, with the parking structure at approximately 46 feet, including the average car height. Potential solar panels would not exceed the height of the buildings at 50 feet. Response to Comment K-3 The commenter expresses concern regarding other potential impacts to private property such as traffic, drainage, and parking. The commenter is concerned that guests at the proposed apartment complex would park at his business. As discussed in Section 4.16 Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND, 503 parking spaces would be provided to serve the proposed project, including the provision of guest spaces in accordance with the City of Costa Mesa's parking code. The Applicant is not requesting any variances with regard to parking, and the project would require adequate parking for all residents and visitors to avoid the need for any "overflow" parking on adjacent streets or private property. Additionally, the project would not include any features that would impede customers from traveling to the private property. FirstCarbon Solutions HACRent(PN-1N)\0080\00800025\RTC\008000252777 Harbor Blvd RTC docx City of Costa Mesa —1277 Harbor Boulevard Project Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments As discussed in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, Standard Condition 4.6-3 would require the preparation of a detailed Hydrology Study. As discussed in Impact Questions c), d), and e), the existing drainage course would remain essentially the same, with additional BMPs implemented to improve water quality. Thus, the proposed project would not be expected to create any drainage issues for the adjacent property owner. Response to Comment K-4 The commenter presents concerns regarding potential challenges to the project and environmental documentation. The commenter suggests that the project entitlements would be inconsistent with the City's General Plan; that the project may be subject to a spot -zoning challenge; and that the project proposes a density bonus that is greater than allowed by state and local law. The commenter does not identify any other specific inconsistencies with the General Plan to allow for a detailed response; however, a General Plan amendment would resolve any inconsistencies with the City's General Plan. In addition, the City is the local land use authority that governs the nature and density of uses within the City of Costa Mesa, consistent with State law (Gov't Code §§ 65915, et seq.). State density bonus laws provide mandatory concessions (e.g. increased density, parking requirement waivers) in exchange for the provision of affordable housing. The proposed project is based on a specific development application and does not have any relationship to, or conflict with State density bonus laws. Rather, the project would require discretionary approval of the proposed entitlements in order to be developed. With regard to the concerns related to potential "spot zoning," please refer to Response to Comment J-1, above. FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client(PN-1N)\OOBO\OOB00025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC docx -12o--- 9 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - I21' City of Costa Mesa — 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Changes to the Initial Study/ Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigated Negative Declaration The following changes and additions to the IS/MND have been made and are detailed below. These revisions do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the IS/MND. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined and bold and all deletions from the text are stricken. 3.1- Changes in Response to Specific Comments Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Page 86, Impact b) According to General Plan El Exhibit 4.8-2, Water Supply Agency Boundaries, Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa Water) supplies water to the project site. In compliance with legislative requirements, Mesa Water has prepared their 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP provides information on the present and future water resources and demands, and assesses Mesa Water's water resource needs. According to the UWMP, Mesa Water's main sources of water supply are groundwater pumped from wells within the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin (Orange County Basin) and imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California through Municipal Water District of Orange County. Mesa Felmes o a*a(,. 15,909 afeet Of gFlGilblndwa�eF fmm the Orange GewFity Basin eaeh year, ThIS IOC -al SGUIFEe ef supply meets 92 p nt E) f Melia s t.-.+-,(af;ff;u( The water supply capacity of Mesa Water is approximately 64.8 million gallons per day (mgd)• The total water supply capacity consists of 14.1 mgd from clear well groundwater pumping, 8.6 mgd from the Mesa Water Reliability Facility, and 42.1 mRd from imported water'. ' Data provided by Mesa Water District in their comments on the public draft IS -MND dated 9.21.15. FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-1N)\0000\00800025\RTC\00800025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC,d- 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Costa Mesa — 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration FirstCarbon Solutions H:\Client (PN-1N)\0090\00600025\RTC\00600025 2777 Harbor Blvd RTC.d- 124 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK AXU MesaWater DISTRICT Dedicated to Satisfying our Community's Water Needs BOARD OF DIRECTORS Shawn Dewane President Division V Ethan Temianka Vice President Division III Jim Atkinson Director Division IV Fred R. Bockmiller, Jr., P.E. Director Division I James R. Fisler Director Division II Paul E. Shoenberger, P.E. General Manager Phil Lauri, P.E. Assistant General Manager Coleen L. Monteleone Assistant General Manager District Secretary Andrew N. Hamilton District Treasurer Bowie, Arneson, Wiles & Giannone Legal Counsel 1965 Placentia Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Lel 949.631.1200 Fax 949.574.1036 info@MesaWater.org MesaWater.org LETTER A page 1 of 2 September 21, 2015 City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 To Whom It May Concern, Re: 2277 Harbor Boulevard Mitigated Negative Declaration Review Comments Mesa Water® appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the subject project Mitigated Negative Declaration. A review and comments of the 2277 Harbor Boulevard Development (Proposed Project) Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration document as it pertains to Mesa Water@ are provided as follows: 1. Water Supplies and Demand: Information is outdated or incorrect. The water supply capacity of Mesa Water@ is approximately 64.8 million gallons per day (mgd). The total water supply capacity consists of 14.1 mgd from clear well groundwater pumping, 8.6 mgd from the Mesa Water@ Reliability Facility, and 42.1 mgd from imported water. 2. Infrastructure Impacts: In order to determine if the Proposed Project would require expansion of existing facilities, a hydraulic model analysis will be required. Through the plan check process the residential, business, irrigation, and fire sprinkler demands will be used to model the effects of the additional demands on the system and determine if upgrades are required. Mesa Water@ Standard Specifications shall be used to calculate residential demand requirements based upon floor plans and the number of fixtures. The discussion on page 143 should clearly state whether or not the proposed project may require new or modified water facilities, including any potential offsite improvements. This evaluation should include consultation with District staff, and must consider the total water demand for the site, not just the incremental demand from this proposed project, per CEQA and District policy. As noted in Comment 4 below, the MND should at minimum acknowledge the potential for typical appurtenant utilities, such as new or modified hydrants, meters, vaults and valves, in order to provide water service to the project. 3. Single Meter Policy: Mesa Water's Single Meter Policy for individually owned units will be enforced and require the developer to provide a dedicated and sole easement to Mesa Water@. 4. Water Conservation & Irrigation: Dedicated irrigation metering for landscaped areas greater than 2,500 square feet shall be required. All landscaping shall be in accordance with the City of Costa Mesa Landscape Ordinance, irrigation fixtures shall be drip -irrigation type, and shall be a Water -Sense certified irrigation controller. 2 3 LETTER A page 2 of 2 5. Operating Pressure: The Developer/Home Owners Association (HOA) shall be responsible for providing the necessary pressure increase beyond the meter above the minimum required (40 psi) by the Division of Drinking Water Standards to ensure proper functioning of all fixture units and fire protection systems. 6. Site Access: Private gates shall be prohibited where Mesa Water® facilities are blocked from access, including valves, backflow devices, service laterals, and meters. Exclusion of gates shall be incorporated into the dedicated Mesa Water® easements. 7. Other Requirements: All development work shall comply with Mesa Water® Rules and Regulations for Water Service and Mesa Water® Standard Specification and Standard Drawings. Both documents are available online at www.MesaWater.org. Please contact Tim Beaman of my staff at (949) 207-5483 with any questions. Regards, P-11 "-- I Phil Lauri, P.E. District Engineer �-12-7-�- 4 Community Development LETTER B cltyofirvine.org 1. City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623-9575 (949) 721-6000 September 28, 2015 Mr. Ryan Loomis Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 10a Subject: Notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Initial Study for a 224 unit Apartment Project Dear Mr. Loomis: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Intent to adopt a MND and Initial Study for the 22.4 unit apartment project located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard. City of Irvine staff has reviewed the submittal and has no comments at this time. If you have any questions, please contact me at 949-724-6314 or by email at dlaw cit ofinvine.Qr . Sincerely, plaw— David R. Law, AICP Senior Planner cc: Barry Curtis, Manager of Planning Services (via email) Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner (via email) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 LETTER C Frorn: Lopez, Ryan[mai Ito: liLopcz2rc.-.SC111JN'iutilitics.Coll 11 Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 1:49 PNI To: PLANNING COMMISSION<PLANNINGCOMMISSIONLvci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel (a 2277 Harbor Bled. Hello: Your notification to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Report has been received by So Cal Gas Distribution. Be aware for your reference: It may take 30 business days for a response. California Public Utility Commission Rules require notification of both SoCal Gas Transmission and SoCal Gas Distribution of all work being conducted. You will need to send a copy of your request and plans to: Rosalyn Squires So Cal Gas Transmission 9400 Oakdale Ave Chatsworth, CA 91311 818-701-4546 RSquiresPsempra uti lities.com Thank you for your patience and cooperation. Ryan Lopez SoCalGas Southeast Region - Anaheim HQ Gas Operations - Planning & Engineering Maps & Letters Desk 1919 S. State College Blvd Anaheim, CA 92806 (714) 634-5067 (714)634-7287 Fax r1opez20)sernl2ra utilities. com THIS MESSAGE I5 INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRE55ED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT I5 PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAWS. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, and delete the original message immediately. Thank you. LETTER D PUBLIC LAW C E N T E R page 1 of 3 PROVIDING ACCESS TO JUSTICE October 9, 2015 FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S LOW INCOME RESIDENTS Robert I,. Dickson Jr. Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 RE: Comment on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2277 IIarbor Boulevard Project Dear Commissioner Robert L. Dickson Jr.: This letter is a comment to the September 10, 2015, Initial, tIudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2277 Harbor Boulevard Prqlect, Cily of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California ("Initial Study"). This letter is written on behalf of' the Costa Mesa Motel Resident Association ("CMMRA"). CMMRA consists of short- and long-term residents who consider the motels in Costa Mesa home. A majority of the members of CMMRA currently reside at Costa Mesa Motor Inn ("CMMI), the location of the proposed project. In general, the members of CMMRA and the other residents of the motel are low-, very -low-, and extremely -low-income families, veterans, and other residents, many of whom are disabled. A negative declaration under CIQA is inappropriate. The conversion of CMMI is likely to have a significant impact due to the adverse social and economic effects on the people of Costa Mesa. CMMRA urges its City's Planning Commission to reject the current proposal for a luxury apartment project at the Costa Mesa Motor Inri ("CMMI"). This project will cause a substantial displacement for the neediest and most vulnerable residents of Costa Mesa. CMMI has at least 63 units that are set aside for long-term occupancy and a similar amount of low-income units should be included in the new project. The Planning Commission should reject the current proposal of converting CMMI into luxury apartments for a number of reasons, including: a) the plan lacks any requirement for providing low- income units; b) the inducement for substantial population growth will completely displace the current residents; c) there will be a significant loss of existing, low-income housing units; and d) there is a lack of alternative housing for Costa Mesa residents. The Planning Commission must require that a portion of the redevelopment project will include low-income units. Plan Lacks Requirement for Providing Low-income Units The current plan for redeveloping the CMMI does not include any low-income units, even though a substantial number of low-income people will be displaced by the demolition of the CMMI. The owner's about-face to create luxury apartments when the same owner has been operating a motel for low-income residents should not be encouraged. This owner for years has relied on the income of low-income residents and advocated on their behalf when City Council members from Costa Mesa targeted the CMMI for its poor operation. Yet now they do not want to work with low-income residents. It is this City's obligation to ensure that redevelopment occurs in a sensible way that meets the needs of all of its residents, without exclusion of is lowest income residents. ,-Oo_�_ 601 Civic Center Drive West - Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 - (714) 541-1010 - Fax (714) 541-5157 E LETTER D page 2 of 3 Complete Displacement of Current Motel Residents This project will displace current residents and does not consider appropriate affordable replacement housing. The analysis of the population and housing impact is flawed as the Initial Study does not take into account that the inducement for population growth is for an altogether different demographic. The Initial Study fails to recognize the adverse impact of the project because it fails to recognize that the people that currently live and stay at the CMMI are low-income and unable to afford the luxury apartments proposed for this location. This displacement will have an adverse impact. Contrary to the Initial Study's conclusion, the displacement of the low-income residents of CMMI will have a significant impact and require the construction of replacement housing. While the Initial Sludy references affordable housing constructed between the years of 2008-2011, the Initial Study makes no reference to the number of currently available affordable units in Costa Mesa. In fact, the Initial Study entirely omits any data on current, available resources for low-income residents. This quite simply is because there is a major shortage of available affordable housing in Costa Mesa, which is why the City has relied on motels to shelter its low-income residents. Additionally, as recently as February 2015, Orange County Housing Authority reported that because the demand for affordable housing in Costa Mesa is so great, most of the affordable housing units currently have multiple -year waiting lists. Because of this lack of affordable housing, many residents displaced by the project will become homeless. Any project that increases homelessness is a significant adverse impact on the greater Costa Mesa community. 2 CONT What affordable units are actually available at present in Costa Mesa? What services will be provided and measures will be taken to prevent any current residents of CMMI from becoming homeless? What specific assistance will a relocation consultant provide? With a lack of available 3 affordable housing, replacement housing is necessary and any new construction at 2277 Harbor Boulevard should contain low-income units. Loss of Low-income Housing Units The Initial ,Study errs in claiming that the "existing use only provides temporary housing." The CMMI has been used as long-term housing for low-income residents for over a decade. As recently as October of 2014, CMMI reported to Costa Mesa that approximately 89 people currently live at CMMI in a long-term capacity. Even though Costa Mesa has attempted to eliminate long-term occupancy at motels, convert motels to only temporary housing, and updated its Housing Element to no longer rely on motels for affordable housing, these 89 residents are able to maintain their status as long-term residents under the grandfather clause of Costa Mesa's ordinance and the preliminary injunction granted in the case of I?adeti. et al. v. City of Costa Mesa, No 30-2014--00757962-CtJ- CR-CJC. Additionally, as stated in its 2008-2014 Housing Element, Costa Mesa has relied on motels, including CMMI, to provide affordable housing to Costa Mesa residents. CMMI has historically been allowed to use as much as 40 percent of its rooms to provide long-term housing. To the extent that the Initial Study claims CMMI only offers "limited stay options, and does not represent a permanent housing use," while at the same time recognizing that at least 50 units are in fact used on a long-term basis, it is inconsistent. Additionally, there is no data in support of this number. �131 1--- 601 Civic Center Drive West - Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 - Fax (714) 541-5157 4 LETTER D page 3of3 What data has the Initial Study relied on in claiming that the current use provides only temporary housing? This conclusion is not based on any evidence, is in fact contrary to the actual use, and is 4 inconsistent with the Initial Study. What data does the Initial Study rely on for calculating the present CONT number of units used as long-term housing? Lack of Housing for Costa Mesa Residents While the Initial Study makes note of resources to assist low-income residents in need of housing, it makes no reference of their present availability. As but one example of scant resources available to low-income residents, while hundreds of Orange County residents are receiving Housing Choice Vouchers, currently Orange CoLmty I lousing Authority is not accepting any new applicants for these vouchers. What vouchers and other housing assistance are currently available to low-income residents of Costa Mesa? What capacity in Costa Mesa do these resources have to provide for additional residents? Even if such resources were presently available, displacing a minimum of 89 residents would cause a major strain on these resources. Such an impact would adversely affect all those who presently rely on those resources and such a social and economic effect would be significant. Most of the long-term residents of CMMI have built their lives around living at CMMI. They are near their jobs, their doctors, and their children's schools. Many residents at CMMI do not have personal transportation and rely on CMMI's location for its convenient access to shopping centers and all of life's basic necessities. Such convenience is especially critical to the disabled residents of CMMI. What support is there for the claim that the majority of residents will leave by attrition? What support is there for the claim that residents may not even stay in Costa Mesa when these residents have built their lives around living in Costa Mesa? The conclusion that these residents will leave by attrition or not stay in Costa Mesa is not based on any credible evidence and is just self-serving speculation. Instead of providing for its residents, including its most needy, the City is turning its back on their needs in exchange for just profit. Sincerely, Lill Graham Richard Walker Public Law Center Attorneys on Behalf of CMMRA --i32- 601 Civic Center Drive West - Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 - (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 5 LETTER E page 1 of 6 Costa ilesa aiiordable Housing Coalition October 10, 2015 Chair Robert L. Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commissioner Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration- 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Dear Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members: On behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition), I am writing to express our concerns about serious inadequacies in the Initial Study," Mitigated Negative Declaration (Initial Study) regarding the 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project (the project). We are particularly disturbed the Initial Study mischaracterizes the effect that closure of the Costa Mesa NVlotor Inn (CMMI) will have on the city's housing stock available for lower income residents. The Initial Study is wrong in stating the project will have "less than significant impact" in regard to displacing "substantial numbers of existing housing" and that, as a result, there is no need for "construction of replacement housing elsewhere." (Initial Study, p. 12 L) As our Coalition has explained to the Planning Commission at numerous public hearings, the CMMI has for years served as last resort housing for Costa Mesa's poor. Until 2014, when the City began aggressively pushing the owner of the CMMI to change the property's use to upscale, high density residential, the motel's 236 rooms, 40% of which were used for "long term stays," were consistently full, providing housing for hundreds of lower income residents, including families with children, disabled people, and seniors who could find no alternative affordable housing in Costa Mesa. Consequently, the closure of the CMMI to make way for luxury apartments that include zero units affordable to these lower income households will result in a significant adverse impact on "existing housing" in our City. 236 rooms of last resort housing will be lost. CMNII's existing tenants will be priced out of the new apartments, displaced without effective relocation benefits/assistance and at risk of becoming homeless. The Coalition is very concerned the proposed development will not only effectively remove existing "affordable homes" from the City's housing stock, but it will very likely increase Costa Mesa's existing homeless problem. Obviously, the Coalition has serious concerns about the project. The Coalition believes the success of the project will depend on the City's leadership in thoroughly analyzing and addressing the project's environmental impacts. The Coalition urges the City to take the following recommendations into consideration: -133- LETTER E page 2 of 6 Place this agenda item on hold and not vote on it. The project has the potential to impose a negative impact on our community. The timeline for the project is being rushed throuc,h and the concerns of the community have not been thoroughly addressed. The Coalition has outreached to the developer and its local representatives over the past couple of months to discuss our concerns on the project. To -date, we have not received any response from them. There needs to be meaningful community outreach and the incorporation of public input that reflects the decision-making and planning process for the project. The City has the ability to slow down the process to ensure the needs of the community are addressed. The Coalition requests the City to place this agenda item on hold and help facilitate a meeting that will include the developer, city staff, the Coalition and the community to further discuss the concerns on the project. 2. Under the Population/ Housing environmental factor, re-classify the displacement of existing housing and residents from "less than significant impact" to "potentially Significant impact" necessitating the construction of replacement housing. The Initial Study did not thoroughly evaluate and analyze the potential impacts the proposed project would have on the displacement of current tenants at the Ck1MI. There is no specific relocation plan in place to ensure the tenants, especially the long term tenants, have affordable housing options that are readily available near transit and job centers in the City. At the last City Council meeting on October 6, Mayor Mensinger stated that over 150 tenants are currently living at the CMN1I. Significantly, according to the Initial Study, there are long-term tenants in 50 units of the CMMI. I Because the project includes zero units affordable to the lower income tenants who currently live in the CMMI, all these existing tenants will be displaced, including the long-term tenants living in 50 of the units. While the developer will hire a relocation consultant to provide at least one on-site visit and offer relocation services to assist tenants in finding replacement housing,2 these services would not be enough to realistically help tenants relocate and fund housing in the City. The chances of funding existing housing that are affordable to lower income families in the City or anywhere else in the County is extremely low. In the City's 2008-2011 Housing Element planning period, only one low-income home was constructed in the City3 and there are currently no other proposed affordable home developments for lower income families in the City's development pipeline. With the serious lack of affordable homes, the housing crisis in the City is exacerbated with the rising and out -of --reach rents in the City. The average asking rent in the City is $1,840 and that is a 6.3% increase from the year before. While the term "affordable" is defined as a household that spends less Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 11arhor Boulevard Pro ,jcct, City of Costa I.lesa. p. 121. September 10, 2015. Initial Study' Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 122. September 10, 2015- I 5.I lousing Element For the Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of(, osta Mesa, p. 10,.1anuary 21, 2014, Feeling the Pinch? Local Rent Prices flit A Record High, Tlie Orange County Register. January 16, 2013. �� 1 2 CONT S LETTER E page 3of6 than 30 percent of their household income on housing costS,5 many renters are paying more. In the City, many renters overpaid and spent approximately 44% of their income towards rent.b In addition, a substantial amount of households in the City are lower income families. Approximately 39 percent of households earned less than $50,000 per 7 year. According to the report, "...even if localized displacement occurred, it would not occur in substantial amounts as to warrant the need for replacement housing that would have a significant effect on the environment." s We believe this is a wildly misleading statement. The amount of tenants being displaced will be much larger than the report indicates. The reason the report says localized displacement will not occur in "substantial amounts" is because it is not going to happen all at once. Instead, localized displacement at the CMMI is already happening, discreetly, in preparation for the project. Once the current tenants vacate the units, none of the newly vacant units are -'advertised as vacant."9 Since 2014, the CMMI has been systematically displacing potential tenants by intentionally not allowing them to rent these vacant rooms. Thispractice has negative impacts on the community as more and more individuals and families who are at -risk of being homeless will have not where else to go. They may end up on homeless on the streets. Because this displacement is happening discreetly at a slower rate, it is not being analyzed and quantified. Re -analyze and re -confirm the correct number of affordable units constructed in the City. The Initial Study states: "Between 2008-201 1, a total of 618 affordable units were constructed."10 However, in the City's 2014-2021 Housing Element, the report identifies only one low-income home was constructed in the City during the 2006-2014 Housing Element planning period. I' Where in the city were these "618 affordable units" constructed? Are these units affordable to lower income working families or are the units affordable to moderate and above moderate income households? Also, are these units deed -restricted? 4. Not exclude affordable homes from detailed analysis in the Initial Study. With high housing costs and significant lack of affordable homes, many workers and families, especially those who earn lower wages, struggle financially to live close to where they work. Compared to other cities in Orange County, housing costs are significantly higher in Costa Mesa and simply out of reach for extremely low-, very low- and low-income families. These impacts not only hurt workers and families, but may also have negative environmental impacts to the City. With the lack of vacant land in the City, the project at the CMMI provides a great opportunity for the development of homes to be set-aside as affordable to lower income Flo using E, lenient For Elie Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City ol'Costa Nlesa, p. 3 L January 2 1. 2014 Lower Rents Might Cost You More: Fligh Cost of Flousing Chips Deeply into Low-wage Eamers Pay, The O.C. Register, April 13, 2015 Profile of the C ity ofCosta Mesa Local Profiles Report 2015, SCAG, p.10, May 2015 Initial study- Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Flatbor Boulevard Project. City of Costa Mesa p. 122. September 10. 2015 - Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 2377 Harbor Boulevard Project, City orCosta Mesa, p. 122, September 10, 2015 Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, C ity orCosta Mesa, p. 121. September 10, 2015 Housing Element For [lie Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of CostaMesa, p. 10, January 21, 2014 3 CONT ld LETTER E page 4 of 6 working families. By living in an affordable home development that's near transit services, such as the frequent OCTA buses servicing Harbor Boulevard, many residents, especially lower income working residents, can rely on the bus for their commute to and from work and to other destinations. Residents and workers who take transit become less dependent on driving their automobiles and can help decrease the environmental impacts of traffic congestion, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, lower wage employees working at the Harbor Center across the street from the CMMI can also greatly benefit from living in close proximity to where they work. The employees would only have to walk across the street to their job site without needing to drive. Not only will the development of affordable homes help reduce VMT and GHG emissions, the proximity of the affordable homes to jobs will create a more walkable and healthier Costa Mesa. The environmental impacts of a development are especially less drastic when people can afford to live and spend their money in the same community in which they work. With low wages and high housing costs, many workers live in other cities and become dependent on "their automobile to commute to and from work and other destinations. These trips may increase traffic congestion and air pollutants that not only negatively impact the environment but also the quality of life for residents in the City. Addressing these envirommental impacts will also align with the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and help the City implement and comply with the regional goals of SB 375. 5. Only approve the Initial Study in exchange for community benefits where the developer commits to dedicating at least 20% of homes affordable to families at extremely low-, very low- and low-income levels at the project. Given the City's high housing costs and serious lack of affordable homes, many individuals and families have turned to motels such as the CMMI as their last resort housing. With the proposed residential development, nearly all of the motel's existing tenants will be priced out, displaced, and may be at -risk of becoming homeless. One of most effective solutions to homelessness is the development of permanent affordable homes. The proposed project will effectively take out existing ``affordable" homes from the City's housing stock. The City has control over land use decisions and should take this great opportunity to request for community benefits that addresses the existing housing needs of the City. By changing the land use designations and up -zoning the existing property, the City has created additional value on the property and would be giving away these tremendous benefits to the developer. While these giveaways provide significant windfalls and increases the property values of the proposed development, what community benefits does Costa Mesa get in return? With the lack of vacant land and funding for the development of affordable homes, the City should capitalize on this great opportunity by recapturing the increased value through community benefits. New proposed developments requesting additional development standards should only be approved in exchange for community benefits such as a set-aside of affordable homes for lower income families. —)"340— 4 CONT 5 LETTER E page 5 of 6 Other jurisdictions in Orange County have taken a stand for their residents and have requested new residential developments provide community benefits to the City. In the City of Santa Ana, the Housing Opportunities Ordinance applies to residential developments that request a discretionary approval (e.g., change in land use designation, zoning, density etc.). The Ordinance requires 15 percent of new homes to be affordable for low and very low-income households. In the City of Laguna Niguel, the City's Gateway Specific Plan allow increases in density in exchange for the provision of important community benefits such as the development of affordable homes. Laguna Niguel has two market rate rental developments that have set-aside homes that are affordable to lower income families. 6. Reinstate extended stay units/ long term stays at motels in the City. As stated throughout this letter, the CMMI provides last resort housing for hundreds of low income individuals and families. Currently, the CMMI has at least 50 units that are occupied by long-term tenants. Until 2014, the CMMI had a Conditional Use Permit that allowed up to 90 rooms (40 percent of all rooms) to be rented out as long-term stay units. In 2014, however, the City adopted an ordinance effectively outlawing long-term stays at the motels, including the CMMI, that provide last resort housing to the City's poor. Without long term stays at the motels, individuals and families are only allowed to stay 28 days before they are kicked out the motel. Without any other viable housing options, many individuals and families are subjected to moving from motel to motel. In the years before it adopted that ordinance, the City specifically identified motels as an alternative option for affordable housing. In the City's 2008-2014 Housing Element, it specifically states:. "the City recognizes a need to use motel/hotel rooms as a housing alternative for extended stay... extended stay units provide alternative affordable housing choices." Since that planning period, the City has not added any affordable housing for lower income households. Consequently, motels are still needed in the City to `provide alternative affordable housing choices." In light of this recognition, the City should reinstate its policies regarding extended stay units/long term stays at motels. 7. Be consistent with the General Plan goals, objectives and policies. The Initial Study states the project is consistent with the General Plan goals, objectives and policies; however, it is actually not consistent in that it is failing to meet the expectations of the following: a. Goal Lu- 1, Land Use: "*... to provide its citizens with a balanced community of residential uses... to satisfy the needs of the social and economic segments of the population"t2 and; b. General Plan Land Use Objective LU-IAt: "to provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities... in consideration of the needs of the business and residential segment of the community."' 3 Initial Study Mitigated Negative Dec lnration 2277 1larbor Boulevard Project, City or Costa Mesa, p. 100, September 10, 2015. Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 3377 Harbor Boulevard Project, City orCosta Mesa, p. 100, September 10, 3015, 5 CONT L LETTER E page 6 of 6 The City has not expanded housing choices for lower income residents living near transit and job opportunities. In the City's Housing Element 2008-2014 planning period, while 1,047 moderate and above moderate income homes were constructed, only one low- income home was constructed in the City. 14 In the City's Urban Master Plan, 501 units are entitled, under -construction or completed. 15 Not one of these units are affordable to lower income working families. The City has only prioritized it's efforts to building homes that are affordable to moderate- and above moderate -income households. 8. Provide a detailed jobs -housing "fit" analysis. Different from jobs -housing balance, which evaluates the number of jobs to the number of homes in a specific geographic location, the jobs -housing fit provides a more detailed analysis. The jobs -housing tit analyzes the discrepancies between the types of jobs and wages (especially for low-wage jobs) that are available in a City and the housing costs and opportunities that are available in the City. Locating homes, especially affordable homes, near job centers (i.e. Harbor Center), mass transit and neighborhood amenities will create a more walkable, healthier and sustainable Costa Nlesa. As the City evaluates and addresses the potential environmental effects of the project at the CMMI, the Coalition strongly urges the City to prioritize the development of homes affordable to lower income working families as an effective strategy to decrease negative environmental impacts. The Coalition looks forward to hearing the City's response to our concerns. We hope that the City and the CMMI developer/ owner will be a community partner in helping facilitate the development of affordable homes for lower income families. Not only will affordable homes help mitigate negative environmental impacts by decreasing VMT and GHG emissions, it will also make Costa Mesa a better place to live in. Please keep us informed of any upcoming meetings and proposed changes regarding the proposed project. if you have any questions, please free to contact Kathy Esfahani at kmesfahanigatt.net. Sincerely, �a d� Vidal air/ Kathy Esfahani For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition '' Housing Flei nent For The Costa iAIesa General Plan 2013-2021, City orCostn Mesa, p. 10. January 21, 2014 15 City orCosta Mesa Urban blaster Plan Developments Attachement 2, City Council Plannin,g Cominission Joint Study Session, Proposed Urban Plan Amendment to Amend the SOQFCA and Westside Urban Plans, p. 9, September 3, 2015. 6 CONT ti I A 11. _r)I CA1 LLQ1(N A—_'A1 11-4.1_I M A STA U I li. N!M1f 1R.TAT1h ?N AoPi_1+L Y E D4111ND G BROWN L . Geiwnjur DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612-8894 Serious ought PHONE (949) 724-2000 Serous drought. FAX (949) 724-2019 ifelp save water! "TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov LETTER F October 12, 2015 Mr. Ryan Loomis File: IGR/CEQA City Of Costa Mesa SCH#: 2015091026 77 Fair Drive IGR Log #: 4495 P.O. BOX 1200 SR -55 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Dear Mr. Loomis: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) the Costa Mesa Motor Inn Motel. The 4.15 -acre project site is currently occupied by the 236 -room (94,500 sf) Costa !Mesa Motor Inn motel at 2277 Harbor Boulevard in the General Commercial land use designation and C1 zone (Local Business District). The proposal involves demolishing the existing motel and construction of a four-story, 224 -unit luxury apartment project. The project requests a base density of 40 du/acre, and a density incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) Provision of a 20 affordable units for moderate -income households, and (b) Complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Parking will be provided on a five level parking structure containing 503 parking spaces. The project site is located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard in the in the City of Costa Mesa and the nearest state facility is SR -55. Caltrans is a commenting agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right of way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2241. Sincerely, JuJ MAURE .I EL HARAKE Branch Chief, Regional -Community -Transit Planning District 12 "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" 13�1J LETTER G page 1 of 2 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ORANGE COUNTY FOR ORANGE COUNTY �* 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 October 9, 2015 15 Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Subject: 2277 Harbor Boulevard 224-iJnit Apartment Project Dear Mr. Loomis: "Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study for the proposed residential development project located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa, in the context of the Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use flan for John Wayne ,41ir port (JIG'A AEL UP). The proposed project involves the development of 224 apartment units on a 4.15 acre site. The proposed project would also require an amendment to the City's General Plan in order to change the existing land use designation from General Commercial to High -Density Residential. We wish to offer the following comments and respectfully request consideration of these comments as you proceed with preparation of your Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). As discussed in the initial study, the proposed project is located within the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. We suggest that the MND discuss the height at which the notification surface would be penetrated compared to the proposed building heights. The initial study states that notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required. We also recommend that the MND include a discussion of the proposed project's location within the FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA. As noted in the initial study the proposed project is not located within the Airport Impact Zones or Airport Safety Zones for JWA. A referral by the City to the ALUC may be required for this project due to the location of the proposal within a JWA AF,L.UP Planning Area and due to the nature of the required City approvals (i.e., General Plan Amendment and "Zone Change) under PUC Section 21676(b). In this regard, please note that the Commission suggests such referrals be submitted to the ALUC for a determination, between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC meets on the third "Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing. 2 3 ALUC Comments -2277 Harbor Blvd. 224 -Unit Apartment Project October 9, 2015 Page 2 LETTER G page 2 of 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this initial study. Please contact Lea 3 Choum at (949) 252-5123 or via email at Ichcn.dtn'(+ caC',Jr.00M if you need any additional CONT details or information regarding the future referral of your project. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer -191- M1 r uY n Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor T STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research October t3,2015 State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Ryan Loomis City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject; 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project SCH#; 2015091026 Dear Ryan Loomis. �e,��Essa rrnr�,yao ��4fE. QF RA5]i�4'�i, Ken Alex Director LETTER H The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review, The review period closed on October 12, 2015, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, F Scott I 'gall Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TNNTII STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 96812-3044 TEL (916) 446-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov -1Z fl a�.y�nf fY, situ` r Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research October 16, 2015 State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Ryan Loomis City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project SCH#: 2015091026 Dear Ryan Loomis: vtn i14414� 9f V I.+WN�k �w 'If 61; 3M.11101 Ken Alex Director The enclosed comment (s) on your Mitigated Negative Declaration was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period, which closed on October 12, 2015. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (2015091026) when contacting this office. Sincerely, Scotl Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov -193- LETTER I page 1 of 2 1 ,TLFlY1s C_ C JJFC11tLin—Cni,�htsks DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 NUCI•IELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE., CA 92612-8894 PHONE, (949) 724-2000 FAX (949) 724-2019 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov October 12, 2015 Mr. Ryan Loomis City Of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive P.Q. BOX 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Dear Mr. Loomis: REO —NEN OGT 1 4 2015 S -TATE CLEARING HOUSE File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2015091026 IGR Log #: 4495 SR -55 Serious Drought. Serious drought, Help save wafer! Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISIMND) the Costa Mesa Motor Inn Motel. The -4.15 -acre project site is currently occupied by the 236 -room (94,500 sf) Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel at 2277 Harbor Boulevard in the General Commercial land use designation and C1 zone (Local Business District). The proposal involves demolishing the existing motel and construction of a four-story, 224 -unit luxury apartment project. The project requests a base density of 40 du/acre, and a density incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) Provision of a 20 affordable units for moderate -income households, and (b) Complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Parking will be provided on a five level parking structure containing 503 parking spaces. The project site is located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard in the in the City of Costa Mesa and the nearest state facility is SR -55. Caltrans is a commenting agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right of way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Morvan Molavi at (949) 724-2241. Sincerely, MAURF. 1, EL HAREIKE Branch Chief, Regional -Community -Transit Planning District 12 "Provide a safe, sustatnahle, iniegraWd and afficlarrf fransportaflon sysiem to enhance Cul{Iornlu "s economy and livability" _ice._ LETTER I page 2 of 2 2 ROSALES, MARTHA Subject: FW: Planning Commission report item #PH3 -----Original Message ----- From: Rick Huffman [mailto:huffmanrj@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:49 PM To: FLYNN, CLAIRE <CLAIRE. FLYNN@costamesaca.gov>; ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.ARM5TRONG@costamesaca.gov>; rdickson.cmpc@gmail.com Subject: Planning Commission report item #PH3 Dear Commission Members, I want to talk about the developer's vision for the future of Costa Mesa. For Harbor Bid, they want to go up, up, up, ,_�H-3 LETTER J Harbor Bid, of Cars will also be known as Apartment Row. Think a scaled down version of Wilshire Bid. in L.A. for Costa Mesa. One overlay plan being proposed calls for changing commercial to mixed use high density residential on 6 sites totaling 24.6 acres at 20 units per acre, 4 stories, 60' high. That is at least 492 units and even more for density bonuses, An additional plan calls for changing commercial to super high density on 6 sites totaling 27.4 acres at 40 units per acre, 4 stories, 60' high and 5 or 6 level parking structures. That is at least 1096 units and even more with bonuses. Costa Mesa Luxury Apartments is part of this overlay proposal although it seems to be just a spot zone change at the moment. Similar zoning changes are in the works for Newport Bid. and SOBECA with similar 40 unit per acre zoning. Add to that Home Ranch proposals for 1.2 million sq, ft. of office space. There is more in other areas but I'm running out of space. I want to replace blighted areas too. But not by building a hodge podge of apartment buildings that are totally out of character with our city. Let's start listening to the residents! These zoning changes provide no proposals for parks, open space, village centers with plazas and sidewalk shops. How about some lower density, lower height, bigger set backs? How about bike -ways and walkways for safe active transportation? Let's start embracing the principles of smart growth so we don't get overwhelmed by growth for the sole benefit of the growth machine. Sincerely, Rick Huffman 2 RUTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP October 12, 2015 VIA MESSENGER AND E-MAIL 140norable Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair, and Members of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Mark J. Austin Direct Dial: (714) 662-4677 E-mail: maustin©rutan.com LETTER K page 1 of 3 Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item for October 12, 2015, Public Hearing No. 3, re: 224 -Unit Luxury Apartment Complex at 2277 Harbor Blvd. Dear Chair Dickson and Members of the Planning Commission: We are writing on behalf of our clients, Phil Luchesi and his company, Luchesi Enterprises. Luchesi Enterprises owns Pals Vacuum Sewing Center, and Mr. Luchesi owns the underlying property on which this business is operated, located at 2299 Harbor Boulevard. Mr. Luchesi's property is located immediately adjacent to the proposed 224 -unit luxury -apartment project that is on the Planning Commission's agenda for its meeting of October 12, 2015, as item PH -3 (the "Project"). While our client is generally supportive of the Project, he does have concerns that he would like to see addressed before the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the Project to the City Council. As you know, the Project proposes a General Plan amendment and a rezoning of the 4.15 - acre Project site to accommodate 224 multi -family residential units. The Project would be built at a density of over 2.5 times that specified for high-density residential development in the City's current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance ("ZO"). It would also be built to a height of 60 feet, including a 5 -story garage, which is taller than the 4 -story height -limit currently imposed by the General Plan. By comparison, Pals Vacuum Sewing Center, a long-time City business, is a small, single -story building, approximately 2,500 -square -feet in size, located on an approximately 11,000 -square -foot lot. Mr. Luchesi leases portions of his property to five mobile -service providers, each of which has erected a separate cellular tower—approximately 60 -feet in height—near the common boundary with the Project site. Mr. Luchesi is legitimately concerned that the proposed Project— with rojectwith a building height of up to 60 feet (which is twice the height allowed under the site's current zoning designation)—could interfere with cellular reception and thereby compromise the substantial private and public value associated with the cellular towers. Mr. Luchesi thus respectfully asks the Planning Commission to impose certain conditions on the Project to address his concerns. 611 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1950 1 714.641.5100 1 Fax 714.546.9035 9A071 Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 69337793309999903a10/12115 2 LETTER K page 2 of 3 RUTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP Honorable Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission Page 2 First, prior to any approval of the Project, a qualified consultant should prepare a report analyzing the potential impacts of the Project on the adjacent cellular antennas, and the Project buildings should be modified as needed to eliminate any actual or potential risk of interference with the equipment demonstrated by this report. Second, the Project proponent should be required to indemnify Mr. Luchesi and his tenants, and their collective successors, against any damage or interference to the cellular equipment that is directly or indirectly attributable to the Project. Third, the developer should be required to provide appropriate notices to new residents informing them of the nearby cellular equipment, and should require the Project's residents (on behalf of themselves and their successors) to release Mr. Luchesi and his lessees, and their successors, from any claim of damages related to the cellular equipment. We would also like to ensure that the Project will not result in any other adverse impacts to Mr. Luchesi's property, particularly with respect to drainage, traffic, and parking. Please ensure that adequate conditions are imposed to ensure that the Project runoff does not discharge onto neighboring properties, and that the proposed off-site median and related traffic improvements do not adversely impact access to our client's property. The traffic study suggests that the Project will only provide 13 guest parking spaces. Our client does not believe that this number of spaces is sufficient for 224 residential units and is concerned that guests will end up parking on his property as a result. Please require the developer to provide the number of guest spaces required by the City Code. Mr. Luchesi would also like the opportunity to review and comment on the design and height of the proposed block wall to be installed by the Project proponent between the two sites. We think the above requests are reasonable and can be validly imposed as conditions on the Project, especially given that new development in the City must be designed so as to "not adversely impact surrounding developments," as well as to protect the "integrity of neighboring development." (General Plan, Policy LU -1C.1; ZO § 13-29(g)(5).)i Please note that we do have additional concerns regarding the City's proposed approval of the Project entitlements. Amongst other issues, we believe the Project (i) could be subject to a spot - zoning challenge, (ii) likely involves inconsistencies with the City's General Plan, (iii) proposes a density bonus that is greater than allowed by state and local law, and (iv) is based on a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") that contains various inconsistencies and shortcomings in the analysis of the Project's impacts. That said, depending upon the resolution of our client's primary concerns set forth above, we reserve the right to raise these additional objections in a separate detailed letter to the City prior to final action on the Project. 1 See also, General Plan Policy LU-IF.5 (requiring compatibility between new uses and existing uses); accord Policy HOU-3.2 and ZO § 13-29(e)(1). 2696/099999-0071 8937930.3 a[W12115 — H 2 CONT 3 M LETTER K RUTAN page 3 of 3 RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP Honorable Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission Page 3 Please include this latter as part of the materials considered by the Planning Commission at i tonight's hearing on this item. We thank you for your consideration of our clients' views on these 4 important matters. Although neither I nor my client will likely be able to attend the meeting this CONI evening, we look forward to hearing from the City in the near future. In that regard, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this correspondence at any time. MJA cc: Ryan Loomis Brenda Green Tom Duarte, Esq. 26961099999-0071 9937930.3 a10/12/15 Very truly yours, RUT PUYKLPrk J. -144 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Mq, 11111 MesaWater DISTRICT Dedicated to Satisfying our Community's Water Needs BOARD OF DIRECTORS Shawn Dewane President Division V Ethan Temianka Vice President Division III Jim Atkinson Director Division IV Fred R. Bockmiller, Jr., P.E. Director Division I James R. Fisler Director Division 11 Paul E. Shoenberger, P.E General Manager Phil Lauri, P,E. Assistant General Manager Coleen L. Monteleone Assistant General Manager District Secretary Andrew N. Hamilton District Treasurer Bowie, Arneson, Wiles & Giannone Legal Counsel 1965 Placentia Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 _7�! 949,631.1200 r -i < 949.574,1036 info(qbMesaWatenorg Mesa'.Alater.org ATTACHMENT 11 September 21, 2015 City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 To Whom It May Concern, Re: 2277 Harbor Boulevard Mitigated Negative Declaration Review Comments Mesa Water@ appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the subject project Mitigated Negative Declaration. A review and comments of the 2277 Harbor Boulevard Development (Proposed Project) Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration document as it pertains to Mesa Water@ are provided as follows: 1. Water Supplies and Demand: Information is outdated or incorrect. The water supply capacity of Mesa Water@ is approximately 64.8 million gallons per day (mgd). The total water supply capacity consists of 14.1 mgd from clear well groundwater pumping, 8.6 mgd from the Mesa Water@ Reliability Facility, and 42.1 mgd from imported water. 2. Infrastructure Impacts: In order to determine if the Proposed Project would require expansion of existing facilities, a hydraulic model analysis will be required. Through the plan check process the residential, business, irrigation, and fire sprinkler demands will be used to model the effects of the additional demands on the system and determine if upgrades are required. Mesa Water@ Standard Specifications shall be used to calculate residential demand requirements based upon floor plans and the number of fixtures. The discussion on page 143 should clearly state whether or not the proposed project may require new or modified water facilities, including any potential offsite improvements. This evaluation should include consultation with District staff, and must consider the total water demand for the site, not just the incremental demand from this proposed project, per CEQA and District policy. As noted in Comment 4 below, the MND should at minimum acknowledge the potential for typical appurtenant utilities, such as new or modified hydrants, meters, vaults and valves, in order to provide water service to the project. 3. Single Meter Policy: Mesa Water's Single Meter Policy for individually owned units will be enforced and require the developer to provide a dedicated and sole easement to Mesa Water@. 4. Water Conservation & Irrigation: Dedicated irrigation metering for landscaped areas greater than 2,500 square feet shall be required. All landscaping shall be in accordance with the City of Costa Mesa Landscape Ordinance, irrigation fixtures shall be drip -irrigation type, and shall be a Water -Sense certified irrigation controller. 5. Operating Pressure: The Developer/Home Owners Association (HOA) shall be responsible for providing the necessary pressure increase beyond the meter above the minimum required (40 psi) by the Division of Drinking Water Standards to ensure proper functioning of all fixture units and fire protection systems. 6. Site Access: Private gates shall be prohibited where Mesa Water® facilities are blocked from access, including valves, backflow devices, service laterals, and meters. Exclusion of gates shall be incorporated into the dedicated Mesa Water® easements. 7. Other Requirements: All development work shall comply with Mesa WaterO Rules and Regulations for Water Service and Mesa Water® Standard Specification and Standard Drawings. Both documents are available online at www.MesaWater.org. Please contact Tim Beaman of my staff at (949) 207-5483 with any questions. Regards, Phil Lauri, P.E. District Engineer 0 F 'R � Community Development cityorirrne org City or Iriine, One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Ir,,•ine, California 92623-9575 (949) 724-6000 September 28, 2015 Mr. Ryan Loomis Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Initial Study for a 224 unit Apartment Project Dear Mr. Loomis: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Intent to adopt a MND and Initial Study for the 224 unit apartment project located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard. City of Irvine staff has reviewed the submittal and has no comments at this time. If you have any questions, please contact me at 949-724-6314 or by email at dlaw(a).cityofirvine.org. Sincerely, David R. Law, AICP Senior Planner cc: Barry Curtis, Manager of Planning Services (via email) Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner (via email) ?RIiN7ED ON RECYCLED PAPER LOOMIS, RYAN Subject: FW: Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel @ 2277 Harbor Blvd. From: Lopez, Ryan[mailto:RLopez2@semprautilities.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 1:49 PM To: PLANNING COMMISSION <PLANNINGCOMMI5SION ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel @ 2277 Harbor Blvd. Hello: Your notification to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Report has been received by So Cal Gas Distribution. Be aware for your reference: It may take 30 business days for a response. California Public Utility Commission Rules require notification of both SoCal Gas Transmission and SoCal Gas Distribution of all work being conducted. You will need to send a copy of your request and plans to: Rosalyn Squires So Cal Gas Transmission 9400 Oakdale Ave Chatsworth, CA 91311 818-701-4546 RSquires@semprautilities.com Thank you for your patience and cooperation. Ryan Lopez SoCalGas Southeast Region - Anaheim HQ Gas Operations - Planning & Engineering Maps & Letters Desk 1919 S. State College Blvd Anaheim, CA 92806 (714) 634-5067 (714) 634-7287 Fax rlgpez2@semgrautilities.com SoCa[Gas A *5empla Lnergy wtuly THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAWS. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, and delete the original message immediately. Thank you. ORANGE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.2S2.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 October 9, 2015 GJ oc-� 1 �c�D Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Subject: 2277 Harbor Boulevard 224 -Unit Apartment Project Dear Mr. Loomis: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study for the proposed residential development project located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa, in,th.e context of the Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Lune Use Flan Jor John Wayne Airport (JWA AELUP). The proposed project involves the development d224 apartment units on a 4.15 Are site. The proposed project would also require an amendment to the City's General Plan in:order to change the existing land use designation from General Commercial to High -Density Residential. We wish to offer tl &, following comments and respectfully request consideration of these comments as you proceed with preparation of your Mitigated Negative Declaration (MN'D). As discussed in the initial study, the proposed project is iocated within the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. We suggest that the MND discuss the height at which the notification surface would be penetrated compared to the proposed building heights. The initial study states that notice to;the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required. We also recommend that the MND include a discussion of the proposed project's location within the FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA. As noted in the initial study the proposed project is not located within the Airport Impact Zones or Airport Safety Zones for JWA.. A referral by the City to the ALUC may be required for this project due to the location of the proposal within a JWA AELUP Planning Area and due to the nature of the required City approvals (i.e., General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) under PUC Section 21676(b). In this regard, please note that the Commission suggests such referrals be submitted to the ALUC for a determination, between the Local Agency's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Since the ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing. ALUC Comments -2277 Harbor Blvd. 224 -Unit Apartment Project October 9, 2015 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this initial study. Please contact Lea Choum at (949) 252-5123 or via email at [chotrm(i)ocair.com if you need any additional details or information regarding the future referral of your project. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer PUBLIC LAW CENTER PROVIDINC ACCESS TO JUSTICE October 9, 2015 FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S !OW INCOME RESIDENTS Rvan Loomis Associate Planner, Department Services City of Costa Mesa 77 fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 RE: Comment on Initial Study,/Mitigatcd Negative Declaration, 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Dear M-. Ryan Loomis: This, letter is a comment to the September 10, 2015, Initial .Studyl1litigated Negative Declaration, 2277 Harbor Boulevard Prafect, Cit,}, vf'Costa Mesa, Orange County, Califbrrua ("'Initial .Study"). This letter is written on behalf of the Costa Mesa Motel Resident Association ("CMMRA"). CMMRA consists of short- and long -terra residents who consider the motets in Costa Mesa home. A majority of the members of CMMRA currently reside at Costa Mesa Motor Inn ("CMMI"), the location of the proposed project. In general, the members of CMMRA and the other residents of the motel are low-, very -low-, and extremely -low-income families, veterans, and other residents, many of whom are disabled. A negative declaration under CEQA is inappropriate. The conversion of CMMI is likely to have a significant impact due to the adverse social kind economic effects on the people of Costa Mesa. CWrR . urges its City's Planning Commission to reject the current proposal for a luxury apartment project at the Costa Mesa Motor Inn ("CMMI"). This project will cause a substantial displacement for the neediest and most vulnerable residents of Costa Mesa. CMMI has at least 63 units that are set aside for long-term occupancy and a similar amount of low-income units should be included in the new projcet. The Planning Commission should reject the current proposal of converting CMMI into luxury apartments for a number of reasons, including: a) the plan lacks any requirement for providing low- income units; b) the inducement for substantial population growth will completely displace the current residents; c) there will be a significant loss of existing, low-income housing units; and d) there is a lack of alternative housing for Costa Mesa residents. The Planning Commission must require that a portion of the redevelopment project will include low-income units. Plan Lacks Requirement for Providing Low-income Units The current plan for redeveloping the CMMI does not include any low-income units, even though a substantial number of love -income people will be displaced by the demolition of the CMMI. The owner's about-face to create luxury apartments when the same owner has been operating a motel for low-income residents should not be encouraged. This owner for years has relied on the income of low-income residents and advocated on their behalf when City Council members from Costa Mesa targeted the CMMI for its poor operation. Yet now they do not want to work with low-income residents. It is this City's obligation to ensure that redevelopment occurs in a sensible way that meets the needs of all of its residents, without exclusion of is lowest income residents. 157i 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 Complete Displacement of Current Motel Residents This project will displace current residents and does not consider appropriate affordable replacement housing. The analysis of the population and housing impact is flawed as the Initial Study does not take into account that the inducement for population growth is for an altogether different demographic. The Inilial Study fails to recognize the adverse impact of the project because it fails to recognize that the people that currently live and stay at the CMMI are low-income and unable to afford the luxury apartments proposed for this location. This displacement will have an adverse impact. Contrary to the Inilial Study's conclusion, the displacement of the low-income residents of CN1MI will have a significant impact and require the construction of replacement housing. While the Initial Study references affordable housing constructed between the years of 2008-2011, the Initial Sludv makes no reference to the number of currently available affordable units in Costa Mesa. In fact, the Inilial Study entirely omits any data on current, available resources for low-income residents. This quite simply is because there is a major shortage of available affordable housing in Costa Mesa, which is why the City has relied on motels to shelter its low-income residents. Additionally; as recently as February 2015, Orange County Housing Authority reported that because the demand for affordable housing in Costa Mesa is so great, most of the affordable housing units currently have multiple -year waiting lists. Because of this lack of affordable housing, many residents displaced by the project will become homeless. Any project that increases homelessness is a significant adverse impact on the greater Costa Mesa community. VVIiat affordable units are actually available at present in Costa Nlesa? What services will be provided and measures will be taken to prevent any current residents of CMMI from becoming homeless? What specific assistance will a relocation consultant provide? With a lack of available affordable housing, replacement housing is necessary and any new construction at 2277 Harbor Boulevard should contain low-income units. Loss of Low-income Housing Units The Initial Study errs in claiming that the "existing use only provides temporary housing." The C,IMMI has been used as long-term housing for low-income residents for over a decade. As recently as October of 2014, CMMI reported to Costa Mesa that approximately 81) people currently live at CNIMI in a long-term capacity. Even though Costa Mesa has attempted to eliminate long-term occupancy at motels, convert motels to only temporary housing, and updated its Housing Element to no longer rely on motels for affordable housing, these 89 residents are able to maintain their status as long-term residents under the grandfather clause of Costa Mesa's ordinance and the preliminary injunction granted in the case of Dadev. ct aI. v. City of Costa Mesa, No. 30-2014-00_757962-CU- CR-CJC. :Additionally, as stated in its 2008-2014 Housing Element, Costa N/lesa has relied on motels, includtug C.NIMI, to provide affordable housing to Costa Mesa residents. CMMI has historically been allowed to use as MUCK as 40 percent of its rooms to provide long-term housing. To the extent that the Initial Stwlf.- claims CMMI only offers "limited stay options, and does not represer..t a permanent housing use," while at the same time reco<gnizin; that at least 50 units are in Fact used on a long-term basis, it is inconsistent. Additionally, there is no data in support of this number. 601 Civic Center Drive West •- Santa Ana, CA 927014002 � (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 What data has the Initial Stwc y relied on in claiming that the current use provides only temporary housing? This conclusion is not based on any evidence, is in fact contrary to the actual use, and is inconsistent with the Initial .S7wiv. What data does the lnitial Stately rely on For calculating the present number of units used as long-term housing? Lack of Housing for Costa Mesa Residents While the Initial Bluely makes note of resources to assist low-income residents in need of housing, it makes no reference of their present availability. As but one example of scant resources available to low-income residents, while hundreds of Orange County residents are receiving Housing Choice Vouchers, currently Orange County Housing Authority is not accepting any new applicants for these vouchers. What vouchers and other housinc assistance are currently available to low-income residents of Costa Nlesa? What capacity in Costa Mesa do these resources have to provide for additional residcnts? Even if such resources were presently available, displacing a minimum of 89 residents would cause a major strain on these resources. Such an impact would adversely affect all those who presently rely on those resources and such a social and economic effect would be significant. Most of the long-term residents of CMMI have built their lives around living at CM -L\111. They are near their jobs, their doctors, and their children's schools. Many residents at CMMI do not have personal transportation and rely on CMMI's location for its convenient access to shopping; centers and all of life's basic necessities. Such convenience is especially critical to the disabled residents of CMMI. What support is there for the claim that the majority of residents will leave by attrition'? What support is there for the claim that residents may not even stay in Costa Mesa when these residents have built their lives around living in Costa Mesa? The conclusion that these residents will leave by attrition or not stay in Costa Mesa is not based on any credible evidence and is just self-serving speculation. Instead of providing for its residents, including its most needy, the City is turning its back on their needs in exchange for just profit. Sincerely_ Lill' Graham Richard Walker Public Law Center Attorneys on Behalf of CMMRA 601 Civic Center Drive West -Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 Costal Mesa Affordable Housing Coa<liitioll October 10, 2015 Chair Robert L. Dickson, Jr. and Planning Commissioner Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration- 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Dear Chair Dickson and Planning Commission Members: On behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition), I am writing to express our concerns about serious inadequacies in the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (Initial Study) regarding the 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project (the project). We are particularly disturbed the Initial Study mischaracterizes the effect that closure of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn (CMMI) will have on the city's housing stock available for lower income residents. The Initial Study is wrong in stating the project will have "less than significant impact" in regard to displacing "substantial numbers of existing housing" and that, as a result, there is no need for "construction of replacement housing elsewhere." (Initial Study, p. 121.) As our Coalition has explained to the Planning Commission at numerous public hearings, the CMMI has for years served as last resort housing for Costa Mesa's poor. Until 2014, when the City began aggressively pushing the owner of the CMMI to change the property's use to upscale, high density residential, the motel's 236 rooms, 40% of which were used for "long term stays," were consistently full, providing housing for hundreds of lower income residents, including families with children, disabled people, and seniors who could find no alternative affordable housing in Costa Mesa. Consequently, the closure of the CMMI to make way for luxury apartments that include zero units affordable to these lower income households will result in a significant adverse impact on "existing housing" in our City. 236 rooms of last resort housing will be lost. CMMI's existing tenants will be priced out of the new apartments, displaced without effective relocation benefits/assistance and at risk of becoming homeless. The Coalition is very concerned the proposed development will not only effectively remove existing "affordable homes" from the City's housing stock, but it will very likely increase Costa Mesa's existing homeless problem. Obviously, the Coalition has serious concerns about the project. The Coalition believes the success of the project will depend on the City's leadership in thoroughly analyzing and addressing the project's environmental impacts. The Coalition urges the City to take the following recommendations into consideration: 1. Place this agenda item on hold and not vote on it. The project has the potential to impose a negative impact on our community. The timeline for the project is being rushed through and the concerns of the community have not been thoroughly addressed. The Coalition has outreached to the developer and its local representatives over the past couple of months to discuss our concerns on the project. To -date, we have not received any response from them. There needs to be meaningful community outreach and the incorporation of public input that reflects the decision-making and planning process for the project. The City has the ability to slow down the process to ensure the needs of the community are addressed. The Coalition requests the City to place this agenda item on hold and help facilitate a meeting that will include the developer, city staff, the Coalition and the community to further discuss the concerns on the project. 2. Under the Population/ Housing environmental factor, re-classify the displacement of existing housing and residents from "less than significant impact" to "potentially significant impact" necessitating the construction of replacement housing. The Initial Study did not thoroughly evaluate and analyze the potential impacts the proposed project would have on the displacement of current tenants at the CMMI. There is no specific relocation plan in place to ensure the tenants, especially the long term tenants, have affordable housing options that are readily available near transit and job centers in the City. At the last City Council meeting on October 6, Mayor Mensinger stated that over 150 tenants are currently living at the CMMI. Significantly, according to the Initial Study, there are long-term tenants in 50 units of the CMMI.1 Because the project includes zero units affordable to the lower income tenants who currently live in the CMMI, all these existing tenants will be displaced, including the long-term tenants living in 50 of the units. While the developer will hire a relocation consultant to provide at least one on-site visit and offer relocation services to assist tenants in finding replacement housing,2 these services would not be enough to realistically help tenants relocate and find housing in the City. The chances of finding existing housing that are affordable to lower income families in the City or anywhere else in the County is extremely low. In the City's 2008-2014 Housing Element planning period, only one low-income home was constructed in the City3 and there are currently no other proposed affordable home developments for lower income families in the City's development pipeline. With the serious lack of affordable homes, the housing crisis in the City is exacerbated with the rising and out -of -reach rents in the City. The average asking rent in the City is $1,840 and that is a 6.3% increase from the year before.4 While the term "affordable" is defined as a household that spends less Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p, 121, September 10, 2015. z [nitial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 122, September 10, 2015. 'Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p 10, January 21, 2014. 4 Feeling the Pinch? Local Rent Prices Hit A Record High, The Orange County Register, January 16, 2015. than 30 percent of their household income on housing costs,5 many renters are paying more. In the City, many renters overpaid and spent approximately 44% of their income towards rent.6 In addition, a substantial amount of households in the City are lower income families. Approximately 39 percent of households earned less than $50,000 per year.7 According to the report, "...even if localized displacement occurred, it would not occur in substantial amounts as to warrant the need for replacement housing that would have a significant effect on the environment."8 We believe this is a wildly misleading statement. The amount of tenants being displaced will be much larger than the report indicates. The reason the report says localized displacement will not occur in "substantial amounts" is because it is not going to happen all at once. Instead, localized displacement at the CMMI is already happening, discreetly, in preparation for the project. Once the current tenants vacate the units, none of the newly vacant units are "advertised as vacant.s9 Since 2014, the CMMI has been systematically displacing potential tenants by intentionally not allowing them to rent these vacant rooms. This practice has negative impacts on the community as more and more individuals and families who are at -risk of being homeless will have not where else to go. They may end up on homeless on the streets. Because this displacement is happening discreetly at a slower rate, it is not being analyzed and quantified. 3. Re -analyze and re -confirm the correct number of affordable units constructed in the City. The Initial Study states: "Between 2008-2011, a total of 618 affordable units were constructed." 10 However, in the City's 2014-2021 Housing Element, the report identifies only one low-income home was constructed in the City during the 2006-2014 Housing Element planning period." Wherein the city were these `'618 affordable units" constructed? Are these units affordable to lower income working families or are the units affordable to moderate and above moderate income households? Also, are these units deed -restricted? 4. Not exclude affordable homes from detailed analysis in the Initial Study. With high housing costs and significant lack of affordable homes, many workers and families, especially those who earn lower wages, struggle financially to live close to where they work. Compared to other cities in Orange County, housing costs are significantly higher in Costa Mesa and simply out of reach for extremely low-, very low- and low-income families. These impacts not only hurt workers and families, but may also have negative environmental impacts to the City. With the lack of vacant land in the City, the project at the CMMI provides a great opportunity for the development of homes to be set-aside as affordable to lower income 'Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p. 31, January 21, 2014. a Lower [lents Might Cost You More: High Cost of Housing Chips Deeply into Low -Wage Earners Pay, The O.C. Register, April 18, 2015.. ' Profile of the City of Costa Mesa Local Profiles Report 2015, SCAG, p.10, May 2015. a Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 122, September 10, 2015. Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 122, September 10, 2015. 10 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 121, September 10, 2015. Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p. 10, January 21, 2014. working families. By living in an affordable home development that's near transit services, such as the frequent OCTA buses servicing Harbor Boulevard, many residents, especially lower income working residents, can rely on the bus for their commute to and from work and to other destinations. Residents and workers who take transit become less dependent on driving their automobiles and can help decrease the environmental impacts of traffic congestion, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, lower wage employees working at the Harbor Center across the street from the CMMI can also greatly benefit from living in close proximity to where they work. The employees would only have to walk across the street to their job site without needing to drive. Not only will the development of affordable homes help reduce VMT and GHG emissions, the proximity of the affordable homes to jobs will create a more walkable and healthier Costa Mesa. The environmental impacts of a development are especially less drastic when people can afford to live and spend their money in the same community in which they work. With low wages and high housing costs, many workers live in other cities and become dependent on their automobile to commute to and from work and other destinations. These trips may increase traffic congestion and air pollutants that not only negatively impact the environment but also the quality of life for residents in the City. Addressing these environmental impacts will also align with the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and help the City implement and comply with the regional goals of SB 375. 5. Only approve the Initial Study in exchange for community benefits where the developer commits to dedicating at least 20% of homes affordable to families at extremely low-, very low- and low-income levels at the project. Given the City's high housing costs and serious lack of affordable homes, many individuals and families have turned to motels such as the CMMI as their last resort housing. With the proposed residential development, nearly all of the motel's existing tenants will be priced out, displaced, and may be at -risk of becoming homeless. One of most effective solutions to homelessness is the development of permanent affordable homes. The proposed project will effectively take out existing "affordable" homes from the City's housing stock. The City has control over land use decisions and should take this great opportunity to request for community benefits that addresses the existing housing needs of the City. By changing the land use designations and up -zoning the existing property, the City has created additional value on the property and would be giving away these tremendous benefits to the developer. While these giveaways provide significant windfalls and increases the property values of the proposed development, what community benefits does Costa Mesa get in return? With the lack of vacant land and funding for the development of affordable homes, the City should capitalize on this great opportunity by recapturing the increased value through community benefits. New proposed developments requesting additional development standards should only be approved in exchange for community benefits such as a set-aside of affordable homes for lower income families. Other jurisdictions in Orange County have taken a stand for their residents and have requested new residential developments provide community benefits to the City. In the City of Santa Ana, the Housing Opportunities Ordinance applies to residential developments that request a discretionary approval (e.g., change in land use designation, zoning, density etc.). The Ordinance requires 15 percent of new homes to be affordable for low and very low-income households. In the City of Laguna Niguel, the City's Gateway Specific Plan allow increases in density in exchange for the provision of important community benefits such as the development of affordable homes. Laguna Niguel has two market rate rental developments that have set-aside homes that are affordable to lower income families. 6. Reinstate extended stay units/ long term stays at motels in the City. As stated throughout this letter, the CMMI provides last resort housing for hundreds of low income individuals and families. Currently, the CMMI has at least 50 units that are occupied by long-term tenants. Until 2014, the CMMI had a Conditional Use Permit that allowed up to 90 rooms (40 percent of all rooms) to be rented out as long-term stay units. In 2014, however, the City adopted an ordinance effectively outlawing long-term stays at the motels, including the CMMI, that provide last resort housing to the City's poor. Without long term stays at the motels, individuals and families are only allowed to stay 28 days before they are kicked out the motel. Without any other viable housing options, many individuals and families are subjected to moving from motel to motel. In the years before it adopted that ordinance, the City specifically identified motels as an alternative option for affordable housing. In the City's 2008-2014 Housing Element, it specifically states: "the City recognizes a need to use motel/hotel rooms as a housing alternative for extended stay... extended stay units provide alternative affordable housing choices." Since that planning period, the City has not added any affordable housing for lower income households. Consequently, motels are still needed in the City to "provide alternative affordable housing choices." In light of this recognition, the City should reinstate its policies regarding extended stay units/long term stays at motels. 7. Be consistent with the General Plan goals, objectives and policies. The Initial Study states the project is consistent with the General Plan goals, objectives and policies; however, it is actually not consistent in that it is failing to meet the expectations of the following: a. Goal Lu -1, Land Use: "...to provide its citizens with a balanced community of residential uses... to satisfy the needs of the social and economic segments of the population"' 2 and; b. General Plan Land Use Objective LU -1A1: "to provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities... in consideration of the needs of the business and residential segment of the community."13 'Z Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 100, September 10, 2015. " Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 100, September 10, 2015. The City has not expanded housing choices for lower income residents living near transit and job opportunities. In the City's Housing Element 2008-2014 planning period, while 1,047 moderate and above moderate income homes were constructed, only one low- income home was constructed in the City.14 In the City's Urban Master Plan, 501 units are entitled, under -construction or completed. 15 Not one of these units are affordable to lower income working families. The City has only prioritized it's efforts to building homes that are affordable to moderate- and above moderate -income households. 8. Provide a detailed jobs -housing "fit" analysis. Different from jobs -housing balance, which evaluates the number of jobs to the number of homes in a specific geographic location, the jobs -housing fit provides a more detailed analysis. The jobs -housing fit analyzes the discrepancies between the types of jobs and wages (especially for low-wage jobs) that are available in a City and the housing costs and opportunities that are available in the City. Locating homes, especially affordable homes, near job centers (i.e. Harbor Center), mass transit and neighborhood amenities will create a more walkable, healthier and sustainable Costa Mesa. As the City evaluates and addresses the potential environmental effects of the project at the CMMI, the Coalition strongly urges the City to prioritize the development of homes affordable to lower income working families as an effective strategy to decrease negative environmental impacts. The Coalition looks forward to hearing the City's response to our concerns. We hope that the City and the CMMI developer/ owner will be a community partner in helping facilitate the development of affordable homes for lower income families. Not only will affordable homes help mitigate negative environmental impacts by decreasing VMT and GHG emissions, it will also make Costa Mesa a better place to live in. Please keep us informed of any upcoming meetings and proposed changes regarding the proposed project. If you have any questions, please free to contact Kathy Esfahani at kmesfahani@att.net. Sincerely, Kathy Esfahani For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition a Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p. 10, January 21, 2014. City of Costa Mesa Urban Master Plan Developments Attachement 2, City Council/ Planning Commission Joint Study Session, Proposed Urban Plan Amendment to Amend the SOBECA and Westside Urban Plans, p. 9, September 8, 2015. j I %W(it: I1t.%K,4rtiRTATri ry .l_ LVLY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 L1ICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612-8894 PHONE (949) 724-2000 FAX (949) 724-2019 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov October 12, 2015 Mr. Ryan Loomis City Of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive P.O. BOX 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Dear Mr. Loomis: File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2015091026 IGR Log #: 4495 SR -55 EDMUND 6 13R W—W h- Qat n of 0 Serious Drought. Serious drought. Help save water. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) the Costa Mesa Motor Inn Motel. The 4.15 -acre project site is currently occupied by the 236 -room (94,500 sf) Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel at 2277 Harbor Boulevard in the General Commercial land use designation and C1 zone (Local Business District). The proposal involves demolishing the existing motel and construction of a four-story, 224 -unit luxury apartment project. The project requests a base density of 40 du/acre, and a density incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) Provision of a 20 affordable units for moderate -income households, and (b) Complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Parking will be provided on a five level parking structure containing 503 parking spaces. The project site is located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard in the in the City of Costa Mesa and the nearest state facility is SR -55. Caltrans is a commenting agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right of way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any fixture developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2241. Sincerely, MAURELIYN EL HARAKE Branch Chief, Regional -Community -Transit Planning District 12 —140, -.11 "Provide a safe, sustainable, integruled and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" "+"T 5 q RUTAN PU AN4 & TUCKER, LL October 12, 2015 VIA MESSENGER AND E-MAIL Honorable Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair, and Members of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Marl<.r. Austin Direct Dial: (714) 662-4677 E-mail: maustin,rutan.com Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item for October 12, 2015, Public Hearing No. 3, re: 224 -Unit Luxury Apartment Complex at 2277 Harbor Blvd. - Dear Chair Dickson and Members of the Planning Commission: We are writing on behalf of our clients, Phil Luchesi and his company, Luchesi Enterprises, Luchesi Enterprises owns Pals Vacuum Sewing Center, and Mr. Luchesi owns the underlying pr,,perty on which this business is operated, located at 2299 harbor Boulevard. Mr. Luchesi's property is located immediately adjacent to the proposed 224 -unit luxury -apartment project that is on the Planning Commission's agenda for its meeting of October 12, 2015, as item P1I-3 (the `'Project"). While our client is generally supportive of the Project, he does have concerns that he would Iike to see addressed before the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the Project to the City Council. ria . As you know, the Project proposes a General Plan amendment and a rezoning of the 4.15 - acre Project site to accommodate 224 multi -family residential units. The Project would be built at a density of over 2.5 times that specified for high-density residential development in the City's yr , current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance ("ZO"). It would also be built to a height of 60 feet, including a 5 -story garage, which is taller than the 4 -story height -limit currently imposed by the mparison, Pals Vacuum Sewing Center, a long-time City business, is a small, General Plan. By co single-story building, approximately 2,500 -square -feet in size, located on an approximately " x 11,000 -square -foot lot. {_ Mr. Luchesi leases portions of his property to five mobile -service providers, each of which `' has erected a separate cellular towerapproximately 60 -feet in height—near the common `- boundary with the Project site. Mr. Luchesi is legitimately concerned that the proposed Project— �' with a building height of up to 60 feet (which is twice the height allowed under the site's current ,.. zoning designation)—could interfere with cellular reception and thereby compromise the substantial private and public value associated with the cellular towers. Mr, Luchesi thus Ki• respectfully asks the Planning Commission to impose certain conditions on the Project to address his concerns. 611 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 1 714.641.5100 1 Fax 714.546.9035 -69 /099999-oo'I r _ 8931930 3 a10/12/15 is Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com s S RUTAN RUTAN a TUCKER, LLP Honorable Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission Page 2 First, prior to any approval of the Project, a qualified consultant should prepare a report analyzing the potential impacts of the Project on the adjacent cellular antennas, and the Project buildings should be modified as needed to eliminate any actual or potential risk of interference with the equipment demonstrated by this report. Second, the Project proponent should be required to indemnify Mr. Luchesi and his tenants, and their collective successors, against any damage or interference to the cellular equipment that is directly or indirectly attributable to the Project. Third, the developer should be required to provide appropriate notices to new residents informing them of the nearby cellular equipment, and should require the Project's residents (on behalf of themselves and their successors) to release Mr. Luchesi and his lessees, and their successors, from any claim of damages related to the cellular equipment. We would also like to ensure that the Proj ect will not result in any other adverse impacts to Mr. Luchesi's property, particularly with respect to drainage, traffic, and parking. Please ensure that adequate conditions are imposed to ensure that the Project runoff does not discharge onto neighboring properties, and that the proposed off-site median and related traffic improvements do not adversely impact access to our client's property. The traffic study suggests that the Project will only provide 13 guest parking spaces. Our client does not believe that this number of spaces is sufficient for 224 residential units and is concerned that guests will end up parking on his property as a result. Please require the developer to provide the number of guest spaces required by the City Code. Mr. Luchesi would also like the opportunity to review and comment on the design and height of the proposed block wall to be installed by the Project proponent between the two sites. We think the above requests are reasonable and can be validly imposed as conditions on the Project, especially given that new development in the City must be designed so as to "not adversely impact surrounding developments," as well as to protect the "integrity of neighboring development." (General Plan, Policy LU -1C.1; ZO § 13-29(g)(5).)1 Please note that we do have additional concerns regarding the City's proposed approval of the Project entitlements. Amongst other issues, we believe the Project (i) could be subject to a spot - zoning challenge, (ii) likely involves inconsistencies with the City's General Plan, (iii) proposes a density bonus that is greater than allowed by state and local law, and (iv) is based on a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") that contains various inconsistencies and shortcomings in the analysis of the Project's impacts. That said, depending upon the resolution of our client's primary concerns set forth above, we reserve the right to raise these additional objections in a separate detailed letter to the City prior to final action on the Project. I See also, General Plan Policy LU-IF.5 (requiring compatibility between new uses and existing uses); accord Policy HOU-3.2 and ZO § 13-29(e)(1). 2696/099999-0071 8937930.3 al0/12115 1`iillVl RUTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP Honorable Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission Page 3 Please include this latter as part of the materials considered by the Planning Commission at tonight's hearing on this item. We thank you for your consideration of our clients' views on these important matters. Although neither I nor my client will likely be able to attend the meeting this evening, we look forward to hearing from the City in the near future. In that regard, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this correspondence at any time. MJA cc: Ryan Loomis Brenda Green Tom Duarte, Esq, 2696/099999-0071 8937930.3 a10/12/15 Very truly yours, XJ.tiUn ER, LLP ROSALES, MARTHA Subject: FW: General Plan Amendment 14-04; 2277 Harbor Boulevard From: Cynthia McDonald Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:16 PM To: FLYNN, CLAIRE <CLA: ?w.-LYNNt` a�costa mesa ca. og_v>; ARMSTRONG, GARY<GARY.AR+NISTBONG@costa mesaca.gov> Cc: Robert Dickson <rc'ckson.cmoc@amail.com>; aventrue@ca.rr.com; Stephan Andranian <sandranian@va.hoo.com>; colin<:mccar'n aF�oo.com; Tim Sesler <t,us2slerc;maif.,com> Subject: General Plan Amendment 14-04; 2277 Harbor Boulevard Commissioners: When I look at the new projects that come before the Planning Commission or City Council, I try to determine whether these developments will work toward the best interests of the city and its residents. While the existing building and business of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn no longer serves the residents in the best possible way, I believe this is a situation where its replacement, as currently proposed, will likely be worse. This aging motel has been a problem for a number of years, primarily because the owner has not maintained it. The result of the owner's inaction is that it is run-down and attracts certain types of residents and visitors, some of whom we all wish went elsewhere, but many of whom are simply impoverished and living there because there is nowhere else for them to go. Some of the later are working poor, and some are disabled and cannot work. These are individuals and families living there on a long-term basis unless they exceed the time limit imposed by the City's ordinance. When the owner evicts its remaining occupants, where will they go? Some of these poor families have been Costa Mesa residents for some time and the children are students in our schools. What provision will be made to house those with ties to the community? We need housing solutions and simply throwing these poor folks out on the street will only worsen our homeless problem. In making a decision to allow the proposed development, we need to know if the City is currently using the long-term occupancy rooms in the motel to satisfy its RHNA. If so, what will the City be doing to make certain it satisfies the RHNA now that those rooms are gone? With respect to the "affordable units" for moderate -income households, what is the justification for labeling them "affordable?" The term "affordable" should not be used if it is a unit that someone who makes more than what one-half to two-thirds of the wage earners in the County can afford to rent, because these new apartments are displacing people whose income is nowhere near that category. A density bonus should not be granted for these "affordable" units as currently defined. This large development is out of scale with the surrounding community, and should be significantly reduced in physical size and quantity of units unless modified to include low and very low income households. Part of this project will involve reworking turn lanes on Harbor to accommodate the extra flow of traffic in and out of this development. The LOS of the intersection of Harbor and Wilson is already impacted by heavy pedestrian traffic, which has been exacerbated by the widening of Harbor over the years. During the reconstruction of the turn lanes, the traffic on Harbor will undoubtedly slow. I hope provision will be made to have the construction occur during a time when traffic is at its lowest level, i.e., not during the running of the Fair. -M- After the project is completed, auto traffic will significantly increase at peak hours from what it is now. Besides altering the turn lanes, there needs to be additional mitigation of that traffic by adding and/or extending protected bike lanes on Harbor and Wilson Streets to improve bicycle connectivity in that area. Finally, I note that the project will have the sort of exterior street furniture and exercise equipment that I have seen on public trails in nearby cities during my survey of those trails for the Bikeways and Walkability Committee. It would be a shame if the owner couldn't provide this equipment as an improvement to the Joann Street Trail to which it abuts, so as to benefit the health of the entire community. Again, just because something is bad, it doesn't mean that its replacement is good. I hope the Planning Commissioners can help the owner find a way to replace the Costa Mesa Motor Inn with something that truly benefits all of Costa Mesa. Thank you for your consideration. Cynthia McDonald Costa Mesa Resident and member of the Bikeways and Walkability Committee -Mr, r/ ROSALES, MARTHA Subject: FW: Planning Commission report item #PH3 -----Original Message ----- From: Rick Huffman [mailto Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 3:49 PM To: FLYNN, CLAIRE <CLAIRE. FLYNN@costamesaca.gov>; ARMSTRONG, GARY <GARY.ARMSTRONG@ costamesaca.gov>; rdickson.cmpc@gmail.com Subject: Planning Commission report item #PH3 Dear Commission Members, I want to talk about the developer's vision for the future of Costa Mesa. For Harbor Bid. they want to go up, up, up. Harbor Bid. of Cars will also be known as Apartment Row. Think a scaled down version of Wilshire Bid. in L.A. for Costa Mesa. One overlay plan being proposed calls for changing commercial to mixed use high density residential on 6 sites totaling 24.6 acres at 20 units per acre, 4 stories, 60' high. That is at least 492 units and even more for density bonuses. An additional plan calls for changing commercial to super high density on 6 sites totaling 27.4 acres at 40 units per acre, 4 stories, 60' high and 5 or 6 level parking structures. That is at least 1096 units and even more with bonuses. Costa Mesa Luxury Apartments is part of this overlay proposal although it seems to be just a spot zone change at the moment. Similar zoning changes are in the works for Newport Bid. and SOBECA with similar 40 unit per acre zoning. Add to that Home Ranch proposals for 1.2 million sq. ft. of office space. There is more in other areas but I'm running out of space. I want to replace blighted areas too. But not by building a hodge podge of apartment buildings that are totally out of character with our city. Let's start listening to the residents! These zoning changes provide no proposals for parks, open space, village centers with plazas and sidewalk shops. How about some lower density, lower height, bigger set backs? How about bike -ways and walkways for safe active transportation? Let's start embracing the principles of smart growth so we don't get overwhelmed by growth for the sole benefit of the growth machine. Sincerely, Rick Huffman 191-- yEam r rh P �* a Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research October 13, 2015 State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Ryan Loomis City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project SCH#: 2015091026 Dear Ryan Loomis: �f�>F sr ras.sF04`�,T . Ken AJ ex Director The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on October 12, 2015, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, r" e.r�sV _ Y Scottgan Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov _).1-_-�, `s"v ra g v i1+ry x Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor �Fx4kOF Puhyy�NC 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governors Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Ken Alex Director October 16, 2015 Ryan Loomis City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project SCH#: 2015091026 Dear Ryan Loomis: The enclosed comment (s) on your Mitigated Negative Declaration was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period, which closed on October 12, 2015. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (2015091026) when contacting this office. Sincerely, Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov UATEOFCALIFCMNIA—CA.L1FOR1`fIASTAUTT?AN�f{TA'fT("lNrti['ejw�y I�piShcONi)G HFtUWNJr� Gnvcrnor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CA 92612-8894 PHONE (949) 724-2000 FAX (949) 724-2019 TTY 711 www,dotca.gov October 12, 2015 Mr. Ryan Loomis City Of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive P.O. BOX 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Dear Mr. Loomis: `OI Serious Drought. Serious drought. Help save water! OCT 14 2015 STATE CLEARING�i� E File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2015091026 IGR Log #: 4495 SR -55 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) the Costa Mesa Motor Inn Motel. The 4.15=acre project site is- currently scurrently occupied by the 236 -room (94,500 sf) Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel at 2277 Harbor Boulevard in the General Commercial land use designation and C 1 zone (Local Business District). The proposal involves demolishing the existing motel and construction of a four-story, 224 -unit luxury apartment project. The project requests a base density of 40 du/acre, and a density incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) Provision of a 20 affordable units for moderate -income households, and (b) Complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Parking will be provided on a five level parking structure containing 503 parking spaces. The project site is located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard in the in the City of Costa Mesa and the nearest state facility is SR -55. Caltrans is a commenting agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right of way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Marvain Molavi at (949) 724-2241. Sincerely, 1M J MAURE EL HARAKE Branch Chief, Regional -Community -Transit Planning District 12 "Provide a sufe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation sysiem to enhance California's economy and livability" PROJECT SUMMARY: PROJECT ADDRESS 2277 HARBOR BLVD. COSTA MESA, CA 92626 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ; REMOVE EXISTING 236 SUITE MOTEL AND REPLACE WITH PROPOSED NEW 4 STORY TYPE -VA APARTMENT BUILDING AND 4 STORY PARKING STRUCTURE TYPE -IA ASSESSOR'S PARCEL 422-163-31 LOT AREA 180795 SQ. FT. = 4,1505 ACRES DENSITY PROPOSED 224 UNITS UNIT SUMMARY SITE FAR LEVEL 1 UNIT A I UNIT A2 UNIT A3 J IBR IBA)IIBR IBA) IIBR IBA +DEN) UNIT B1, B2 & B3 12BR 2BA) UNIT B4 f2BR2BA+DEN) TOTAL LEVEL 1 21 7 4 17 2 51 LEVEL 2 24 8 4 17 2 55 LEVEL 3 24 8 4 21 2 59 LEVEL 4 24 B 4 21 2 _ 59 TOTAL 93 31 16 76 1 8 224 TOTAL% (41%) (1476) (7%) 134%) 1 (476) (100%) FAR LEVEL 1 = t 63,1 10 SF. LEVEL 2 = ±61,610SF, LEVEL 3 = t 63,110 SF. LEVEL 4 = ± 63,110 SF. TOTAL TYPE -VA CONSTRUCTION =±250,940 SF. (APPROX.) PARKING 1 BDRM UNIT 64 BALCONIES 1100 SF. 140 UNITS X 1.75 CARS = 245 CARS (SEE NOTE BELOW) 2 BDRM UNIT TWO STORY FITNESS CENTER GYM AND RECREATION ROOM 84 UNITS X 2,25 CARS = 189 CARS (SEE NOTE BELOW) GUEST PARKING INTERNET CAFE SNACK BAR 50 UNITS X .05 CARS = 25 CARS 0.25 SPACES PER PROJECTS ABOVE 50 UNITS 174 UNITS X 0.25 CARS = 44 CARS TOTAL PARKING = 503 CARS NOTE: APPLICABLE REDUCTION OF .25 SPACE PER UNIT DUE TO PROVIDING COVERED PARKING AT NEW PARKING STRUCTURE LEVEL 5 =±38,177 SF. LEVEL 4 =±38.177 SF. LEVEL 3 =±38,177 SF, LEVEL 2 =±38,177 SF. LEVEL PI/GROUND =±38,177 SF, LEVEL P2 =± 12,974 SF. TOTALTYPE-IA CONSTRUCTION =±203,859 SF, SETBACKS FRONT (HARBOR BLVD.) 20' REAR 20' SIDE 20' HEIGHT ALLOWED 60' MAXIMUM HEIGHT PROPOSED 60' MAXIMUM OPEN SPACE (TOTAL SITE AREA) x (42%) = (180,795 SF.) x (0.42) REQUIRED LINEAR CONCRETE PAVER ENTRY AUTOCOURT OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE AT GRADE PROVIDED 64 BALCONIES 1100 SF. INDOOR AMENITIES LOT COVERAGE , TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED INTERNET CAFE, LOUNGE, FITNESS CENTER, THEATER, LIBRARY, & GYM APARTMENT BUILDING AND PARKING STRUCTURE AREA PERCENTAGE = (LOT COVERAGE AREA / TOTAL SITE AREA) x 100 1100,941 SF. / 180,795 SF.) x 100% VICINITY MAP PLOT PLA - 75,933 SF. all I r. COSTA MESA COUNTRY CLUB N O = 69,564 SF. MIRACLE MILE PROPERTIES = 6,400 SF. PROJECT AMENITIES LAND USE CONSULTANT RESORT FEELING TWO STORY MAIN ENTRY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT LINEAR CONCRETE PAVER ENTRY AUTOCOURT = 75.964 SF- OVER SCALED 50 FOOT SWIMMING POOL CIVIL ENGINEER FULLY LANDSCAPED SUN DECKS / COURTYARDS FIRE LIFE SAFETY OUTDOOR BARBEQUES s 8,789 SF. TWO STORY FITNESS CENTER GYM AND RECREATION ROOM ILLUSTRATOR BUSINESS AND COMPUTER LIBRARY CENTER INTERNET CAFE SNACK BAR INDOOR LOUNGE AND FIREPLACE SURROUND SOUND THEATER MEDIA / SCREENING / MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM = 100,941 SF. RESIDENT CONCIERGE SERVICE WASHER AND DRYER IN EACH UNIT % FENCED DOG RUN & DOG WALKING = 55% COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS © Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc, (INFORNIA[ION PROVIDED !N THIS oNCEP[UAL '�AN S PRELIWIAR� N NATURE AND 5UB,ECT -0 7.AANGES AND �ODIFIC.ANONSI AND MULTILEVEL TYPE -IA PARKING STRUCTURE 51 VG OUTDOOR CAFE SEATING WITH FLAT SCREEN TV AND SHADE TRELLIS FRAMELSS GLASS POOL -SAFETY ENCLOSURE POOLCABANAS ADJACENT TO CITY BIKE PATH RAISED EXERCISE/YOGA/DANCE DECK SEMI -PRIVATE OUTDOOR DINING NICHES OUTDOOR FIRE PIT AND SEATING FEATURE AND SERENITY FOUNTAINS BADMINTON/MULTI PURPOSE GRASS COURT DRY CREEK / LINEAR PARK DECOMPOSED GRANITE EXERCISE CIRCUIT OUTDOOR CITRUS COURT CONTEMPLATION GARDEN / QUIET FOUNTAIN OUTDOOR LIVING ROOM / FIRE PIT/ FOUNTAIN SHEET NO A0.01 R DATE APRIL 28, 2015 R: SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 ATTACHMENT 12 SHEET INDEX A0.01 - PROJECT SUMMARY (R) A1.01 - SITE ANALYSIS AIM - SITECONTEXT SURVEY SHEET 1 OF 2 SURVEY SHEET 2 OF 2 C1,01 - PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE C1.02 - PRELIMINARY WET UTILITIES A1.03 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN (R) A1.04 - RENDERING A1.05 - RENDERING A1.06 - RENDERING A1.07 RENDERING A2.01 - GROUND FLOOR PLAN (R) A2.02 - SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.03 - THIRD FLOOR PLAN A2.04 FOURTH FLOOR PLAN A2.05 - ROOF PLAN A2.06 - TYPICAL UNIT PLANS A2.10 - FIRST FLOOR AMENITIES A2,11 - AMENITIES INTERIOR SPACES A3,00 - EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS (R) A3.01 - BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.02 - BUILDING ELEVATIONS A4.01 - BUILDING SECTION (R) LI.01 - SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.02 - HARDSCAPE IMAGES L1.03 - HARDSCAPE IMAGES U.04 - TREE IMAGES L1.05 - TREE IMAGES 1-1.10 - THE EXERCISE CIRCUIT' Lt.11 - THE CITRUS COURT' .1.12 - THE CONTEMPLATION GARDEN' L1.13 - THE LIVING ROOM' Lt. 14 - THE PLAY ROOM ` 61.15 - ENTRY COURT' Lt. 16 - DRY CREEK / LINEAR PARK' FIRE MASTER PLAN SHEET 1 OF 1 SHADE & SHADOW REPORT- I I SHEETS = Documents to be used as P & R contribution (R) INDICATES DRAWING WAS REVISED 9/24/15 PROJECT TEAM: OWNER MIRACLE MILE PROPERTIES ARCHITECT GMPA ARCHITECTS, INC. LAND USE CONSULTANT DIAMOND STAR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TGP,INC. TRAFFIC ENGINEER LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN CIVIL ENGINEER PSOMAS FIRE LIFE SAFETY FIRESAFE MARKET RESEARCH : APT MARKET RESEARCH ILLUSTRATOR KILOGRAPH PROJECT SUMMARY GMPA ARCHITECTS 11878 La Grange Ave, Las Angeles, CA 90025 T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 www.gmpaArchitects.com �•l.� - - - -.`.. r. _ r. lhi - .w- 7 --r �f �sC•...,L'y. 7�. r..s ''. �i -f•f.. k- :4 i e* t� ''s.. .a, .`v �+. ��.. •�pr � _ .. � req � � ' � ";�' ,. _• ,�, � _ ! '..�_, r74x,'.•. y x:, Y • Fp • a4 r _ �, _ 3- w,- �. 'i' i .r+.`".�. .,,+p• . '�.. w —_ - - Ir` GSTAd41E5RGQ FCGlIR51: µ , r - �,t�'•_ - * , 5�. "....c- '��..:•' - w - "'�`, a. '.. LOCALBUSINE55 i -4111 J iC 44 GRALERY STORES r ifs Yui 4 ' .'j _ a t IMP .41 _ RETAIL STORES a �"^ - 5. 'r w 31 ,I 1 ESITE w, ra _s I ppA AM o qr w r, �a � SITE CONTEXT SHEET No GMPA AkCH[TECTS COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS ai.o2 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE T. 310.450.0200 F, 310.450.0225 APRIL 17, 2015 +� www.gmpaArchitects.com ©Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED III THIS COIJCEPTUAL PLAM IS PRELIMINARY IIIIJATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AT ID MIODIFICATICHS) L LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, COON W ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN M A MAP FILED IN 8001( 59 PAGE I W PARCEL NAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECODER W SAID COUNTY. SURVEYOR'S NOTES THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES AND TITLE INSURANCE PURPOSES. 1 THE BOUNDARY DATA AND TITLE MATTERS AS SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FROM THE REFERENCED TIME REPORT 2. THIS S.RVEY DOES HOT INCLUDE EASETENTS EXCEPT THOSE SPECIFICALLY DELINEATED HEREON 3. IF UNDO OUNO PUBLIC UTILITIES AND ODEA SMSTINCTURES, ZONES, SET BAD( AND STREET WIDENING DATA ME SHOWN NEFt UN, IT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. HAVING BEEN OBTAINED FROM A GENERAL REDDEST AT THE LOCAL AGENCY'S PUBLIC COU NTdN NDldR'OBER SOURCES NOT CONECTO WITH THIS COMPANY. W REPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY, CURRFPICf M CdRICNE CSS OF SAID IWNWATION AND ANY USERS OP SAID INFORMATION IS URGED TO CONTACT THE UTILITY OR LOCAL AGENCY DIRECTLY TO: GTPA ARCHITECTS, ITS SUCCESSOR Aro ASSIGNS AND ORANGE COAST TITLE COIFANY: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MM M FLAT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT IS BASED WERE WADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2011 MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL WGIIRELENTS FOR ALTA/ACSM LAND TIME SURVEYS, JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS, AN INCLUDES ITEMS 2, 4, 5, 7(M )(bl ), B, 9. II(R), I1(b), IJ, 11, 16, 17, 18 AND 21 OF TABLE A THEREOF THE FIELD WORK WAS COMPLETED ON AUOUST 1. 2014. DATE: 9-22- Z-14 'al}A E ID6NlID. R"1 blWi 3RTkS Uyp D.V.S. �� 0. �� sit nW WIN � EAS^� ` las D.R.H. j EGENfI PROPERTY / WODMY LINE -�. TREET RMLINE CURB LINE (FROM"=20' UN TO 1"=200') -. LIRE ( 1"•10', 1'•8'. 1'•19') CENTER LIM1E EASEMENTS 'LINE LOT LITE / PARCEL LINE - -- - - • EASEWRO LINE (WMIDiH) CONTOUR LIE (APPROXIMATE) MILD ING FOOT PRINT LINE OVERHAND LINE FENCE LINE - - +-- L, -_,•J GUARD RAIL RETAINING WALL 'IN'"'WALL EDGE W ASPHALT PAVING CONCRETE PAVING SLR LVf:O.I. MEA GAIN CATCH BASIN W/ACCESS HOLE W • LE (SEMEN, STORM GRAIN, POWER. TEL ) POORER POLE (P P.) / TELERMOE POLE (T P ) S, j)( SIGN (ALL KINDS) STREET LICH! iF/ti i _FIC SIGNAL W/sTRFCT LIGHT VL ¢ FIA •. YARD LIGHT FIRE H DRANT 0i FOC xNSDDIWT FIRE DFPMTIEHT CORRECTION /III 'POST NDICATIXt VALVE DIRECTION OP WATER ORANAGE 1. Ru • PWIW IT A GAMMIN A / WATER VALVE P/AKL/9ALWF/ - ELEC./STREET Ll GHT/TRAFFIC/LNNRUMI PULL BOX EE IN WELL W/TRUNK DIAWEFER IFjS%• C' PLANTER GUANO POST AVIA, . . . . IMP _ APPROACH (OR I LVEWATJ UW PREVENTER 1W1 • 4y} LY CLEANOUT CIUINL IN( (FENCE/GATE) LOCATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT MEfSUREWENTS LY HIC ST ELEVATION, NO LEPDER TOPOGRAPPO BACK OF WALK ELEVATION CE EDGE OF CONCRETE EMSVATION OF COTTER F]2VATIOI LP K EDGE OF PAVEMENT ELEVATION FLOOR LINE ELEVATION IC w TOP O' CURB ELEVATION TOP 6 GRATE ELEVAT IOU TOP OP WALL ELEVAi ION WIY MANHOLE RIMA ELEVATION IMAX YIIEKXE INVERT ELLYATION AB RUIN RECORD LDT / PARCEL WICOR SITE USE OR BEING IF DIFFERENT THAN IEASUED RECOAR IMPRVEACE FE IKROVEYFNI mGE N�ICAPLM ], NOR H/EAST/SORN/WEST LOCATION OF IWPROVE- W/ RESPECT TO REFERENCE WRTH AND PROPERTY LINE. ACENT UPIE TY OWNER -ARI' •. S -T SERER (SIZE) DRAIN (SITE) . ATER (SIZE) WINE GAS LINE (SIZE) . - OI L/PETNOLELINE (SIZE) FLECTR ICAC Ll LINE . - COWWMICATIOI LINE OVENEM Ui lLltt LRE(s) EFFECT W RECON RAP REC'N IN BURIN PER PARCEL IAP IN PN0 59-I (100 00' ) IE RECORD D SUI I W UR BFI,OI W PEN RECORD OP COVEY W 2008-IY1B REO'D IN BOO( 229 PAGE B. Irr I M Z_.. ..IrAA.rr�yy''WA NIN Age i�ua mM oel a,A1N1:M` le 'Ix.. H. 1lwr�wHN ra1�P�wAYi�lar'WlviF 1AeMIW. N �' A�IW anMave.rieOar.P„ H�N Arw *� 1AApiA NM pN++IAY Y AwA A•AayAtw. a� WAO IWFeW EM IMM# ' � a1A0-.lre•YII�W �r. pn Vl+aa,aeere� - ila 11�aw�� fMwr rt �R .�iMlr•L�W �11� "� T � V sr vaAW Iq r. AM.wr �N 0.+14'. FOUND 3 3\4" OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK STAMPED 'IF -174-04', P C 0 M A S SET IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF A 4 FT. BY B FT, CONCRETE CATCH BASIN. J MONUMENT IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF TIE INTERSECTION OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND VICTORIA STREET. 77 FT SOUTHERLY OF71E CENTERLINE 555 South Flower Street, Suite 4300 Las Angeles, CA 90071 OF VICIORIA 40 41 FT, WESTERLY OF TIE CWICA-IM; OF 1 Y/AR Aaa A,9 0 FEET psomts tom (213) 223-1400 '(213) 223-1444 FMX w w. 912Z 201. - DT IN DW N., W \11111m00VSm \XNM\K\k OW 1y Upmlm BY TY ;INITY M, NOT TO SCALE Y3UEYVF LIMES WERE ESTABLISEO FROM RECOVERED CITY, COUNTY AND/OR PRIVATE SURVEY MONUNENTS WHOSE CHARACTER AND SOURCE ARE SO NOTED ON THE SURVEY LEGAL DESORIPTION FROM INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY CLIENT USUALLY A TITLE POLICY OR TIME REPORT EASEMENTS PLOTTM-E EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN! FROM AN OWNER S'JPPL I ED TITLE REPORT, MOI-PLOTTABLE ONES AN NOTED ON THE SURVEY AS HAVING 'EFFECT OF' BECAUSE OUR SERVICE IS LIMITED TO REPORTING ON EASEMENT LOCATIONS WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND LEGAL COUNSEL BE RETAINED TO REPORT ON TITLE PAPERS IN THEIR ENT WTY MILE HEI ORANGECOAST TITLE COMPANY PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT NO 150-1517738-I6 DATED JAMARY 13. 2014, OINDICATES TITLE REPORT EXCEPTION W. wm RT lE Nez 1N.D BEMiNG NORTH 0'31'15' WEST OF THE Ci NIMINE OF HARBOR BGLEVMD, AS SHOVN ON ftRML. YA> AS RECORDED IN BOOK 59 TMC M Or PARCEL LAPS, RECORD OF ORANGE COUNTY WAS LA" cs NK MASIE P" "mo TW Imu WCRRRY - AREA BASED UPON MEASLREO BEMIWS AND DISTANCES AS SHOWN HEREON THE MEA IS.. IB0795 SD. FT. = 4 1505 ACRES TOPOGRAPHY BY GROUND SURVEY METHODS AND COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS. FLOW ZONE SUBJECT PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FLOW ZONE X. AHEM DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0 A ANWAI_ CHANCE FLOOOPLAIN, AS 6HDMR M FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP COMNITY PANELS W O6DD9CO266J DATED DECEMBER J. 2009, AS PUBLISHED BY FFDERAL EMERGENCY MANACEIENT AGENCY- CONT" INTERVAL I FOOT ZONING ZUNING REPORT NOT PROVIDED. SEE SURVEYOR'S NOTE 4 BUILDING SETBACK ZONING REPORT NOT PROVIDED SEE SURVEYOR'S NOTE 4 PARKING BASED WON ON-SITE STRIPING, THE PARKING IS: STANDARD 237 HMDICM 1 �i EARTH WORX THERE IS NO OBSERVMLE EVIDENCE OP CUGRENT EARTH MOVING W'UWR, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR MALTING ADDITIONS, SITE USE THERE IS NO OB AELE EVIDENCE OF SIM USE AS A SOL 10 WASTE DUP. SUMP OR LANDFILL, STREET RIGHT OF WAY THERE IS W PROPOSED CHANGES IN STREET RIGHT Of WAY THERE IS W OBSERVED EVIDENCE OP WaW STREET M SIMMER CONSTRUCTION OR REPAIRS EFFECT OP GENERAL AND SPECIAL TA)IES AND LIEN W SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES EFFECT OF 09J) 12 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT FOR ALLEY AND IW IOENTAL PURPOSES RECORDED IN BONN 8, PAGE 71 AND PARCEL MPP RECODED IN RDOK 59, PAIS I, BOTH OF O.R. PLOTTED 1EREO4. 4 1B EFFECT W BO FOOT WIDE RIGHT W WAY IN FAVOR OF COUNTY W OUNCE FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PROPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 1365, PAGE 208, O. R. PLOTTED HEREON, 5 6 EFFECT W 10 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT IN FAVOR UF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FOR STREET AND HIONAY PURPOSES REMITTED MARGi 7, 1960 IN BOO( 5132 PAGE 331, O.R PLOTTED HEREON. EFFECT OP .. IO FOOT WIDE SDENT IN FAVOR U THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FOR STREET AND HIGWAY PURPOSES RECORDED MARCH 7, IWO IN BOO( 5132, PACE 337. 0,R PLOWED HEREON Q EFFECT OP 10 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT IN FAVOR UF THE CIN OF COSTA DESA FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY RRPOSES RECORDED OE� 20, 1962 IN BOOK M67, PACE 931, 0 MOTTO HEREON O EFFECT OF 10 FOOT WIDE IN FAVOR OF CITY OF COSTA MESA FOR STREET AND HIGHWAY PURPOSES RECORDED DECEMBER 20, 19622 IN BOOK 8387, PACE 931, O R. ROTTED HEREIN. RDE DET 10 EFFECT OF COVENANT BETWEEN ADJOINING UWOMJERS TO CONSTRUCT A 36' HIGH CONCRETE BLOCK WALL ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE PROPERTY RECORDED JANUARY 9, 1973 IN BOO( 10506, PAGE 708, O,R. I1 EFFECT OF 10 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE CITY W COSTA MESA FOR STREET AND HIGNAY PURPDSES RECORDED FEBRUARY 23, 1963 IN BOOK 10566, PAGE 591, O.R. PLOTTED HEREON 2 EFFECT OF AGREEMENT TO GRANT TO CITY W COSTA MESA A PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY MCKMTFA BUDDING FROM CATCH BASINS AND DRAIN SUMPS WCODED FEBRUARY 26, 1973 IN BOOK 10588, PACE 723, 0 R, 13 EFFECT U B FOOT WIDE CASEMENT IN FAVOR WSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR UDERGRWMI ELECTRICAL SUPPLY AND COWINICAT I ON SYSTEM PURPOSES RECORDED JUNE 19, 1973 IN BOON 10757, PACE 650 PLOTTED IEAEON 14 EFFECT OF 10 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT FOR SEMEN PURPOSES RECORDED AUGUST 13, 1971 IN BON 11218, PACE 1236, 0 R. PLOTTED HEREON, 15 EFFECT OF 12 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT FOR ALLEY PURPOSES AS DEDICATED AND DELINEATED ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 59, PAGE I PLOTTED HEREON 18 EFFECT OF _ GRANT NO RECORDED FEBRUARY 6, 2008 AS INSTRUMENT W 0838326, 0 R 17 EFFECT OP _ RIGHT DD PANTIES IN POSSESSION. 19 =Y AND DESIGN SURVEY FOR:" w AUGUST 1. 2014 GMPA ARCHITECTS `"' NO SCALE 2277 HARBOR BOULEVARD 1GMP010200 T100 I 2 L m C 00 21 °Y dd O 1614 - �a.Y M er -'" d l4if +t w MK_i c.., c - r..•A,,...,, i0rs a 1e /dfmh9w f f h°ry f 10e A rYvrr A sa 0`All d 0 4C d 1L ,°tee � ev;;', ati' M1 I# Yt$ n m�e, eye er N N a aR flt _L� iaq. f. ## ¢- r 'q'�" - °'4a�. •ygflgl .1x1 1RAi1 ./YnxM;tT'T /Yr y Of .11 ,R.UL 1, 20' 10' d 20' 40 ecc e rn BA 59 9 2r Y',2Ne- r [a,ly}-A}>d,N$# * fY�dyBu"Yd,1f,d�•1- Ni}l *YCP-�irWY�#*llad1• L i•4}•L �(dp i! +,R*F;r�:dd `diA *}.1A� A¢'*"- i AAPAf�#f'� r�"; -•t'' � _, *_' .. -„. ,• -�J -,ttr °NB9-2p744-E -�MQY` t+bG#'+ tl"T,^tY,.Ys4,-cr'��_rc4[t{ ciYqv.=4tY.-a)_'LrmrraaHsT.tAllc _ •!*}a1 15 _ Y ,frti1t'1 1 3 Y— !J<o-�*— 'nfs�btd dd r„rm_!nw'9rn. sw/„t. •r'cn.�r,e.ero,.al...' rai . eazn�lcboa yie� - AA 0; f} P dy Ay'` jYl" 10 0 f F C' f *0 0. d p PHILLIP A LUCHE rI irrx' 49Yd1f fA`a+`At,t r .,I se4 rd 9 6 944 50 FT rrbr4'•ap rd+1nn`aYws. ! 17Hdad1 aV aH4M1 * *f�d*l ,-yy`,aw`•l # —led.�,_ *{r .•'APt)a#!1' S—qct4 Paw.„�A4 Yv#”' Aq• t1,d e - ,'�•iI Y R w .r,. �'B rv..A,e9 r :wMs w zzn >.9 isnf[ivN.rfiicAiAyt.,J Li• Yt x+w vBr►m'r-A a +`.•m:'y'�/'dP`mr •9}} �ryd.r t,°_Ar* }cfgT11'gflU fyj9fl1Iq1.9.! 9Ai i 9�y ,a} 9 - �b4�d�dYriTTTdda �dA�YaP#dNifYfa,fNYir;LaDr '� A irt iY,R 4�l.r ,:, 1o+�`v;'^tlyY!.! n ','I} Y,�� +YP A „w1'*f*IdAry!f\ NPd�.fl,rNYa '5.teFbya1n�tq,phV+y 4ad,+e,'5 l•M1ryA' V , LrW -" ver d e 1as.'iIi# 'tAf1A1}a0Apd A °A�crsefJ*e1fl6s,Aa'J, .*sa6 M1 =' _t Y)hB,9d aA t+a 'cLAa_r .;.Ya.9°a,i+�d s#At�°�+*@adY7dAd*dd!I ,+# ¢ A+' fi�PW'¢d$Afi�':+W +�� yB1z.a. `)� Yi,IH .}1.'i;s�YC'}*_�:YrfF d� Aty�} A1F+t1}pY°'$vf��Pd',�_ '�A�,"}-P' P s'f')�+Y�rW.i-R'+.�ry,L.:.+:,„ix:, r. c1P1w}+r"fi#FkI�P1d'11&*.IS ? rt f f'A{p' 1$1}ty�,.dYr7rAdi"..d# ' � AA..� .#a ,*fi*-x+rb '} v*' -P_} d r'.'�d ".; d } 'pA �i .*p# -' 1 ` °�_ APr - Fd,u_a�- ar'°diq.'Yr,trnntdd'i�Ey:d,;#—.t�igrqf P''��-e _s#aA”�. t_ •d+PPs`+� .,d-}PdS'i ! '� * j iinra'.A'x,Y'"}t'�"ap,+'n •`4AF .'t~,,d i. A�• d'nir��u�o sc- y:* 1:'.l.t; }A 1,u.rra- rdf sl `i6,iy Fhs'lv- e#r ', p *rr#1fl'b 1d4�-s:i1' d e"Yo^ Y'.-Itr'♦L.Ir':�f6* + u 4} ,. f �rdd d .+0_dp u .* 1A�Fi#aqtYd{'Yd i 'i*. Y-"rI'>a!:A' d-q_A*AAY*- f aPdfeA4' a asAd ea_. # -d- Ym�A —afi RN`- 1,P r>wA. '$�_'t•+}-9.3rY . d d e. •_giytY dATs n:aYLb aapp#tv"Y,A. t�neSs.P,_ 1 ,e#ti^tab1 d4AiaroF4 t}ad 5 d l n 1t�'Fa-' P.�-+P*d A°„%,'A # dtbAdlx ,A 1 p r#'a�d•9 }.�T �rA A�'d .�°1A5W�PY�fae fid"+d .Yy� (nlo��w_S ,e •!_#pA». A �<la¢sd,+�AhF�Gtir_"#F4A}#fc1#ce f c.L 'o Lf + a Ad' °*J*,'dwYU- 1x*.FpPc## ' *\a •. , 10-I" +A*Y-• T.=FP ,Yp dt, "-+Yar1'a�#' sdybP Ai. dd �** d * d }J�b d.d'*. 1 A�nA�}YAA +�I+pd �-d#PfM d' Adrw,*Y*A'dd-' 1 irt fh# Ad �k(Pdv.*�Atgyz.*# A'_dA!+'f wp*7t AF+M �dfiI�+Y r��, ,. f� .xAF }1md1dr _�}` .A.ttsti,y`ommJi,da 'rY i AiaY,1_yA -' d +:. 4#�.Afie +'*''�} BP _l{1,h4�+5. �a .+f.Vqr.. * e Y4rn.'j Arl ed.y iTd.y}4FTtdfil-sd¢,A'$`9*,.!adii+_s0w ry t.p oe� a.r -;-■*ci.Ip+.rr P'Yh F'-� d�� LAe��A!p+ ida'1,ba,`�"kd.B• f�dM.sn hd`3��gP %#.'„Sfr�,"#-sr.t - :1 I#Ajf-d�9d•':I1`Y `�ttj'' �1�hrI AY}FPaaS, vE ,i d 1�1p+Aa ,A. i.rR #p�n *NI, $1s a--0 ia°1+yfl i 1tr4oV-_YY - r °" 1^. ... t T.4A m1t•dx. i�weflNe1PF). z r yY0hs f4 .Y�-wo?e1A/-+fA Y'3a+.�6e'�p`4:d4 p�A#.' i`'a=r.oY'AY*T� a Ae - p tio-rmeii ,°rv�. 1uiaG' nr••.A•hkaA_ �..1Apt.' +.ndl�. A`�Ldhry+�rn N.E.P+Wcd4 Yp -cktI "4 u$14 A�RrsA` sn.,cdsmq,���$m1�, F�,' �' nd �x1c'm-a ° e°,dw H�..�P�p. �,7Rr d ,ro"„aa"w~ya R _". .y . T^# }.#rr ' °a5x }�4°!�.'.Aa��.PS•.dd#AdAtN.**. 'rM1}d�A_ 4-Ps tp!:f �i�l �d1 •d {dy�F.•1t`5rtl#iA.��s.a#As". -drA¢.#iA*+1}#n'A.r I�di")rP A ?.ua�diB rmVxSf �PSP I�YsAt.,1 IL�1 ,c43 �ta Hj�Y'',fye t1T9 1h��pr.P'.+i ,�flr�Ndfl,.kryt LAY'�`a `9I # foYd#A y' �L ^cY n • ca ' F{d#+#.�p i�YR}tLd9•+1,d 'a , 47nLt'r nY4tdf*k .a.�sr•,`t��A�'5jr�''� ASAf,r , r�• �-IPss&rh+*l9r'#Atjspr {-yE dp6 II{j 1sd V �I fYn 1 yr; ¢' ;A!�P.�d5�•_rrd'T'i.) .+•Ah¢ ArAifai ,n_!P*Te_Mtiscba+ � r(Jmk_.rrlrv.:rMAFx./. l a + cr•wAnu.r:ssr.er, 01 .1# df *1 ??o sA }p.r'A{w4 d, rnP tiRn J C"731'N"L 200 28' lS RtiWAREJAME ¢ a 9 1 1 # y f t A ¢ 7+d HENDRICKSON * mr } Lt^ A 1 x Pf.Y'$ F AAy ' rda'( !a > a1°l ti#A-Art A -- d1 "r� . fl( ( 5 ".r )` Ac �7rd � p , - ` > i .$ �4 ' t#� d 'bY M11. 1 tac LO AP A `t l aza K.n1.0 # 19 4 f� d aIT z run , w &A -H -A 8"S # d L V 0t`/x r ur assrFAI.Air tj }0' 1y`qtl24' 2—Y5-0UUxI a ta}> Lto 10 It t d0+ oyddS > c NOLAN '1,06 Or fd MICHAEL EDWIN 1s MOIL A V #. M1 04- 0 fIY4 AQ adr � 1. o00 zTA- s OzTa as d AP10l, 10Art m$ #- 0, 4a 145 q,,,4.) 10Bi P*a s �11 re*Fh Pili eeAit 21111 ?; 100' ” pW GA d eTOMMY MOSES d &' A",Q A 2yd"17+"1, *dYM IQ R 4.i Od ,' A:PHAcr c Ile fa fl°yryr,ra praaoYawMa �er Y!"3%1yhiq 0 % ' y7CtlA11 dif RUSSELL it" f T 97 1e Fi d dp.�A P P. � �F *y¢ItP� tiM1 11. d d41 * hA ASPHAII 10sA-T 16 * ye** 11 d 11A7HArr 1r 11 -ALL 11 gp5Fd P Pf ° #6 A d IIh 00 d GUS F _adan [71 n * U,r. +IT rtcl d. It # Yd } was s 'savaYul•1N ami al+lta p e� d anie4ri y t •A$ of p. 1 6,+}�jit 1 c fQ� f*dS n e ITT, Bhir RAY hdi srw+r Ncco Ruwwc JI p d sr dlj' .� P' n{�i{ "p ` IL Y � F3 -. `+ - I� h� fn h `c,°re r �'r..e.rn'.r bClp FYI •g�t Ft�p�Rj^ P�dL+ i 'w 1' k�_ RONAN O'MAHONY ` LILIA HERNANDEZ ROBERT C NEWMAN [STEPAN E UZiS " w I I I w Of 20' 10' d 20' 40 1 GRAPHIC SCALE w SCALE I = 2d I -j - cw,r. q A°.e N°1aLY�N_` a er'M dei„� avu re :• : ; ow / - - WILSON STREET IOU ® •I a -a+ aca c2 K em '"74-a” ALTA ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY AND DESIGN SURVEY FOR: p DVS FOUND 3 3\4" OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK STAMPED "1F-174-04", P S O M A C AUGUST I- 2014 rn�N� IN TFE SOUIIMESTERLY GORIER OFA 9 FT BY B FT CONCRETE CATCH BASIN UMENT IS LOCATED IN TIE SOURMESTERLY CORNER OF TIE INTERSECTION OF555 Flower Street, Suile 4300 JET GMPA ARCHITECTS HARBOR BOUEVARD AND VICTORIA STREET, 77 FT SOUTHERLYOF THE CENTERLINE Sauch Los Angeles, CA 90071 OF YWf,TpitA+ Alii rl 1`1 94]MWY 0 THEA T1✓[ OF If'ABGR H9LIEVAAp (213) 223-1400 (213) 223-1444 far HARBOR BOULEVARD rli7C a aY,�o etre euuaae troasT_ wwPsomO ram 2277 a N COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS EXIST- SD 18"SD-160' q 1 I I I -)�I- PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE C; P S 0 M A► S ISHEETNO GMPAMI CHITECTS 41Y 20* 6 40 $p' 3Hutton Centre Drive Cl .01 ummommommill Suite 200 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 GRAPHIC SCALE Santa Ana, CA 92707 DATE T. 310.450.0200 F. 310,450.0225 Note: For reduced sized prints, original scale is in inches (714) 751-7373 Fax(714) 545-8883 APRIL 17, 2015 miA www. gmpaArchitects.com Who ltd ^�q r� :. 0 Imo■ ��� ■ - a N COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS EXIST- SD 18"SD-160' q 1 I I I -)�I- PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE C; P S 0 M A► S ISHEETNO GMPAMI CHITECTS 41Y 20* 6 40 $p' 3Hutton Centre Drive Cl .01 ummommommill Suite 200 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 GRAPHIC SCALE Santa Ana, CA 92707 DATE T. 310.450.0200 F. 310,450.0225 Note: For reduced sized prints, original scale is in inches (714) 751-7373 Fax(714) 545-8883 APRIL 17, 2015 miA www. gmpaArchitects.com COSTA MESA COUNTRY CLUB — — — sa — _ S — — , SD SD so s rw I t NEW FIRE l NEW FIRE Try HYDRANT EXISTING SEWER } EXISTING SEWER NEW BACKFLOW 1 c 3 HYDRANT — •MANHOLE TO MAIN NEW FIRE m TO MAIN AND FIRE DEPT � - HYDRANT CONNECTION +„ 0 �.,— 8.55 -Ss as ao R u •-. 0 Uil �. F NEW FIRE REMOVE SEWER f— w HYDRANT AND ABANDON FF=80.0 I I} u EASEMENT FF=80.0 ` -1° fI I I I DOMESTIC } WATER SERVICE _ , I EW BACKFLOW ; I - AND FIRE DEPT CONNECTION O SD. — SD — Fly F1M.�. FW _ NEW FIRE NEW FIRE HYDRANT NEW PU®LIC i r; HYDRAiJT FIRE HYDRANT j4 I PRELIMINARY WET UTILITIES P S 0 M A S SHEET NO GMPA ARCHITECTS 40, 24' 0. 44' 0' 3 Hutton Centre Drive C 1.02 COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS Suite 200 11310 LaGrange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 GRAPHIC SCALE Santa Ana, CA 92707 DATE T 310.450.0200 F 310_450.0225 Note: For reduced sized prints, original scale is in inches (714) 751-7373 Fax(714) 545-8883 APRIL 17, 2015 A a www.gmpaArchitects.com l 00 COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS © Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc INFORMATION PROVIDED IT THIS CONCEPTUAL PLATT IS PRELIMIIJARV III MATURE At ID SUBJECT TO CHANGES AHD MODIFICATIONS) BIKE Will. I i I1 I II ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN N SCALE V=40' N? air „r SHEET NO A 1.03 RmkA GMPA ARCHITECTS DATE APRIL 28, 201311876 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 T. 310.450,0200 F. 310.450.0225 R: SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 www gmpaArchitects_com VIEW LOOKING SOUTH FROM ORANGE COUNTY GOLF COURSE COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS ©Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. INFORMATIOI I PROVIDED IN THIS COIJCEPTUALPLAIH IS PRELIMINARY IN NATUREATID SUBJECT TO CHANGESAHDMODIFICATIONS M /SHEET NO A 1.04 DATE APRIL 17, 2015 RENDERING GMPA ARCH ITECTS 11878 LaGrange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 www.gmpaArchitects.com VIEW LOOKING NORTH WEST FROM HARBOR BOULEVARD COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS © Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. (TI FORMAT 1011 PROV I DED IIT THIS COIFICEPTU A L PLAN IS PRELIM IARY I N N A TUREANDSUBJECT TO CHAI•IGES At IDMODiFICATIONS) mar 195-- SHEET NO A1.05 DATE APRIL 17, 2015 RENDERING GMPA ARCH [TECTS 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 www gmpaArchitects com VIEW LOOKING WEST FROM HARBOR BOULEVARD AT MAIN ENTRANCE COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS ©Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc, IIIFORMATIOQIIPROVIDEDIIITHISCOIICEPTUALPLAFIISPRELIMIrIARYill rIATUREArlDSUBJECCTOCHATIGESAfIDMODIFICATIOFIS) 1� br SHEET NO A 1.06 DATE APRIL 17, 2015 RENDERING GMPA ARCH ITECTS 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 www. gm paArch i tects, co m INTERIOR VIEW AT THE GYM LOOKING INTO THE POOL AND COURTYARD COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS © Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. T,FOR(AA001 I PROVIDED III THu cot ICEPTUAr PLAN 1 15 PREun.unAR( u i i JATURE Al ID SUBjECTTO CH -GES Al ID niODwCATICI Is) SHEET NO A1.07 DATE APRIL 17, 2015 RENDERING GMPA ARCH ITECTS 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 www.gmpaArchitecls.com F-177 ' �_� G � + B io i>II,• B. 'e OVI'0 B — .. Gs B ° �,j 1-Llf IJ :J'I ,,, i.,l � i �III'ffff IIUUII uu 1 1 I iii1 j GUEST Y _ PARKING ny-. .... eii9'1 N 1 r � --------------- .---------------------.------------------------ --.. LOWER LEVEL PARKING FLOOR PLAN COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS ©Copyright 2015, GMPA AFChltacts, Inc. II INFORMATION PROVIDED III THIS CONCEPTU A L PLAN 15 PRELIM INA RV INN ATU RE AND SUB JECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS BIKE GROUND FLOOR PLAN / SITE PLAN N SCALE 1"=40' OB 241' 411' .._ tII1P SHEET Na A2.01 R GMPA ARCHITECTS DATE APRIL 28, 2015 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 T. 310.450.0200 F. 310,450.0225 R: SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 ' www.gmpaArchitects.com �I lT 11 lu COURTYARD - II i BELOW �-- F�m�m�� rL SECOND FLOOR PLAN N SCALE V=40' II 211' 40' IUII' SHEET NO A2.02 mki GMPAARCH[TECTS COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 APRIL 17, 2015 www.gmpaArchitects.com ©Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) RESIDENT IM"n PARKING w 11 fl G P O o t.P fMT .4. th "1 In In "I Is+ ixl lu 1+1'd fql 16+ � ISA 156 Iii 151 149 14] T 1+4 -1 4� 1 I Ir4 UP \ / SLOPE DN 111 5°65lOPE / \ 5% SLOPE 41 :� j rI I�[I rI BrlPSl Irj `jam p ''Eb 0 Ili IY9 p 1a fYi81$+ I,F Ip tl 1}i lyi IiS f.7 in rN 1VT i1- r;dl I;p�l,'gl[i11V1 16r 4W 111 11,i 114 iJl SECOND FLOOR PLAN N SCALE V=40' II 211' 40' IUII' SHEET NO A2.02 mki GMPAARCH[TECTS COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 APRIL 17, 2015 www.gmpaArchitects.com ©Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) ®1 THIRD FLOOR PLAN N SCALE V=40' On �Ir 40 SHEET NO a2.03 GMPA ARCHITECTS TA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 CO C DATE T 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 J APRIL 17, 2015 www.gmpaArchitects com (pCopyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) k' M 4I. ii, C1 r7'.., u u u u y u y u n o 1 ;rp fi RESIDENT PARKING P. nI n 0 y 6 0 .rl Y' Fg' A p 2 • rt Y�= ^K1 fl+ :1F .1! Y'0 .p d 226 x29 :30 232 23 . „ THIRD FLOOR PLAN N SCALE V=40' On �Ir 40 SHEET NO a2.03 GMPA ARCHITECTS TA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 CO C DATE T 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 J APRIL 17, 2015 www.gmpaArchitects com (pCopyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) o u m fr. 1e2 � 1d5 1e1 1131 U �+'� P, 35 Yf P. 5N W. irm ; 1. sal' ass � asY ass 1sT III, 310 1. 112', 111 ' 12131110 111 JW I. 1'�0 0 0 0 o A FOURTH FLOOR PLAN N SCALE 1"=40' O� 11 211' d(I' Ym! SHEET NO GMPA AFZCHITECTS LUXURY APARTMENTS a2.o4 11878 Le Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 COSTA MESA L U X U DATE T 310gmpaArc F.31o.450.0225 APRIL 17, 2015 NkA www,gmpaArchitects.com © Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc, (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS( '1�' c5 jtu� �19u Lei �+5� es IM.K�I�M RA ,D� I I I I E� F4 FF EN kP i F 9' E lb ii ii di ad di .——- . ROOF FLOOR PLAN N SCALE 1"=40' 0----6 ... p� l� 0 20' 40' 1''0 SHEET NO A2.05 GMPA ARCHITECTS COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS 11878 Le Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE T 310.450.0200 F 310.450.0225 , APRIL 17. 2015 ypww.gmpaArchitects.com ©Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS] +g " .Aq 4iA d1J AL` ✓N +Id dH6 4& IB1 IBJ, '4)0 176 471 473 d)R d6B 466 461 462 1 X458 156 154 151 452.. 1 Y u O o o ❑ 0 0 9 11 s0LM PANEL RESIDENT SOIPR PANEL - CPNOPY ABOVE 496 fyl: PARKING CANOPY PBG'E GNS +TI 49) I B P 0.48) 0 0 0 0 0 C a 41o ,491 d89' 485' 4B3 461 479 47P 475 473 4)1 169 467 465',— 461' 0.591 41 455 yy wO y 104 106 L 410 1120 411 416 111 12d 4x1124 426,121; Ib — 411: 131 131 epl YF' +a 0OB 0 � 0 O O Q x.14 1 A w1 E N 502 UP SLOPE DN 11 t F 5%SLOPE S% SLOPE 41 0 0 U U 0 Y 405 dW 40) III 113 .e4 411 YI'+ ♦!Y 1s2 43 I +. yll 151 til 4Y yY. s1.4 K I4; Y ROOF FLOOR PLAN N SCALE 1"=40' 0----6 ... p� l� 0 20' 40' 1''0 SHEET NO A2.05 GMPA ARCHITECTS COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS 11878 Le Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE T 310.450.0200 F 310.450.0225 , APRIL 17. 2015 ypww.gmpaArchitects.com ©Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS] CABANA POOL tll tl_ �pi IT. X11 rlI � t ± � p L— LINE OF MEZZANINEABOVE ® ®5711 I rf i M W 1a 13 t __ 2 STORY MAIN LOBBY ENTRY 13 0It `• ff AUTOCOURT !1 � I ' MAIN DRIVE EXISTING NOT A PART �'�I - . J y _ • - _ - _L I LANDSCAPED AREAS TO PROVIDE 10 1TO PATIOS & BALCONIESDRIVEWAY -1 PRIVATE SEPARATIgN QMl r r'G E �! LEASING _- - ENTRY OFFICE•. ` f:p STORAGE - — FP --- t -.— • ._.� CONF. SCREENING / MULTI-PURPOSEdFt BREAK � t s ELVATOR [ - _ l � , ii � • � i R � I LIBRARY l — a — I • Imo_ = s ; ° MAIL ROOM f I i iENTRY I i ENTRY TO ENTRY PARKING] GARAGE DRIVEWAY FIRST FLOOR AMENITIES ❑ �. �_� ❑ ❑—..-----.-. N SCALE 3/32"=V-0" O I. I,r 211' 3U' SHEETNo A2.06 GMPA ARCHITECTS A COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS )q — DATE WkA 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, C 90025 T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 APRIL 17, 2015 WWW,gmpaArchitects_com ©Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. )INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) BALCONY owma BEDROOM LIVING r ■ W. I.0 DINING BALCONY 1 ' W.I.C. 1 ) I DINING J I�r _ ■ BAIHRM xx KITCHEN I -' 25'-0" /UNIT Al (1 BEDROOM) ±750SF. ` 1,1 &AI:CO; JBEDROOM2Sf ERS LIVING DIINING KITCHEN N 36'-2" /UNIT B2 (2 BEDROOM) ± 1,050 SF mW BALCONY owma BEDROOM LIVING r ■ W. I.0 DINING., BALCONY 1 II _ JI I7ATNRAA', KITCHEN ) I DINING UNIT A2 (1 BEDROOM) ± 730 SF. BALCONY BALCONY \ BEDROOM BEDROOM 2 LIVING MASTERS LIVING BEDROOM I DINING BATHRM'++ r� DINING W I C X' ;MASTERS a 1: H V BATHRM n n rRrr, 2 KITCHEN DEN KITCHEN W I.C. UNIT A3 (1 BEDROOM + DEN) ± 780 SF. r BALCOT4*0 ` LIVING BEDROOM2 MASTERS BEOROQM `__ v DINING ' ' Bk:11 hRM 2.. MATERS • - - 'r4A7RRM -� ''Jo KITCHEN _ L, 36 -'2.. UNIT B3 (2 BEDROOM) ± 1,050 SF. UNIT BI (2 BEDROOM) ± 1,050 SF. TYPICAL UNIT PLANS (N SCALE n s• Ile ZIP SHEET NO GM PA ARCHITECTS 104- A2.07 COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS DATE 1.310 La .020Grange Ave, 10 450.022, GA s°D25 T 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 APRIL 17. 2015 www.gmpaArchitects.com ©Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. (ILI FORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAT 115 PRELIM I NARY INN A TU RE AND SUBJECT TO CHATaGESANDMODIFICATIONS) r �• KRC1 eit,FROOM2 BALCONY 1 ( 1 LIVING ) I DINING BA.rl. F'.. t. MASTERS I BEDROOM LIAl"R? /UNIT 41 —10° B4 (2 BEDROOM + DEN) ±1,200 SF. TYPICAL UNIT PLANS (N SCALE n s• Ile ZIP SHEET NO GM PA ARCHITECTS 104- A2.07 COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS DATE 1.310 La .020Grange Ave, 10 450.022, GA s°D25 T 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 APRIL 17. 2015 www.gmpaArchitects.com ©Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. (ILI FORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAT 115 PRELIM I NARY INN A TU RE AND SUBJECT TO CHATaGESANDMODIFICATIONS) MAIN ENTRY ALONG HARBOR BOULEVARD ,I I PARKING STRUCTURE ALONG SECONDARY ENTRY COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS ©COpyrlghl 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. I IN FORMAT ION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN 15 PRELIMIN A RY It NATURE A ND SUBJECT TO CHANGES A nI D MODIFICATIONSI r i I 2 L. T r, S 1� CLEAR GLASS ( z,I FIBER -REINFORCED CEMENT SIDING Ur IVIETAL FINISH rT� ® LIMESTONE FINISH O5 WHITE SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH ■ © METAL FENCE �r v O7 METAL WIRE MESH wig (a-) WOVEN METAL WIRE CLOTH EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" 0 5' III' 2l1' SHEET NO A3.00 RMAL GMPA ARCHITECTS 11878 La Orange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE APRIL 28, 2015T. 310.450.0200 F. 310-450-0225 R: SEPTEMBER 24 201J www.gmpaArchilects.com 3 �. 5 MAIN ENTRY ALONG HARBOR BOULEVARD ,I I PARKING STRUCTURE ALONG SECONDARY ENTRY COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS ©COpyrlghl 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. I IN FORMAT ION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN 15 PRELIMIN A RY It NATURE A ND SUBJECT TO CHANGES A nI D MODIFICATIONSI r i I 2 L. T r, S 1� CLEAR GLASS ( z,I FIBER -REINFORCED CEMENT SIDING Ur IVIETAL FINISH rT� ® LIMESTONE FINISH O5 WHITE SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH ■ © METAL FENCE �r v O7 METAL WIRE MESH wig (a-) WOVEN METAL WIRE CLOTH EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" 0 5' III' 2l1' SHEET NO A3.00 RMAL GMPA ARCHITECTS 11878 La Orange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE APRIL 28, 2015T. 310.450.0200 F. 310-450-0225 R: SEPTEMBER 24 201J www.gmpaArchilects.com EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION COURTYARD IV: SECONDARY CONTEMPLATION MAIN EXISTING BICYCLE GOLF COURSE DRIVEWAY GARDEN DRIVEWAY BUILDING PATH ENTRANCE ENTRANCE NOT A PART FRONTAGE ON HARBOR BLVD GOLF COURSE BICYCLE SECONDARY PATH DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS ©Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc 11 IFDRMATIOf I PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PIAIJ IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE ArID5UBJECT TO CHANGESANDMODIFICATIONSl BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHEET NO A3.01mkiL GMPA ARCHITECTS 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 APRIL 17, 2015 y wwlgmpaArchitects.com �a EXISTING BUILDING MAIN DRIVEWAY NORTH ELEVATION ENTRANCE op t i � m{f. COURTYARD III: THE EDIBLE GARDEN, FOUNTAIN & AC - SOUTH ELEVATION TIVITY LAWN AREA COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS rc: Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc III HON iATToi i r2o"^oFoiI I THIS coI ICTFTUA_ RRi i IS FRET Tni iAe" iii I i-TURFA:,DSUBECTTo -HA crs Al io r C[',Hi�.;T;-I!s) MAIN PARKING MAIN ENTRY: 2 STORY LOBBY, GYM, LOUNGE,: COURTYARD I: STRUCTURE WIFI CAFE, SCREENING / MULTI-PURPOSE, LI- ! RECREATION, CABANAS, SWIM - ENTRANCE BRARY, CONFERENCE MING POOL & OUTDOOR CAFE PARKING STRUCTURE TI Ora. SECONDARY PARKING STRUCTURE ENTRANCE SHEET NO A3.02 DATE APRIL 17, 2015 COURTYARD II: DINING AREA,YO- GA, BBQ & FIRE PIT: SECONDARY DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE BUILDING ELEVATIONS GMPA ARCH ITECTS 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 ];� i www.gmpaArchitects.com p1J �__ B'-10' 124'—A' I PL COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS (D Copyright 2015, GMPA Architects, Inc. JINFORMAiION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PIAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT ro CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) -Iq�-' BUILDING SECTIONS SCALE 1/16"=1'-0" II to, 20' 40' SHEErNOA4.01 RNLA GMPA ARCHIT'ECT'S DATE APRIL 28, 201511678 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 T 310.460.0200 F. 310.450.0225 R: SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 WWW.gmpaArchitects.com THE DRY CREEK LINEAR PARK THE LIVING ROOM Split THE EXERCISE CIRCUIT & CALIFORNIA NATIVES GARDEN THE CITRUS COURT Fir Loc I — — T-11, AD rue DI AV D—A c• - ENTRY ROAD TREES PLANTING LEGEND MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE GOLD MEDALLION TREE AFRICAN SUMAC SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME HARBOR BLVD, STREET TREES CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS ITALIAN CYPRESS PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA'BLOODGOOD' LONDON PLANE TREE HARBOR BLVD. & SETBACK TREES TRIANGLE PALM LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA ACACIA STENOPHYLLA SHOESTRING ACACIA TREES CHILOPSIS LINEARIS DESERT WILLOW CALLISTEMON CITRINUS CHFALPA TASHKENTENSIS CHITALPA EUCALYPTUS GEIJERA PARVIFLORA AUSTRAILIAN WILLOW LAURUS NOBILIS MELALEUCA NESOPHILA PINK MELALEUCA .NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE PARKINSONIA ACULEATA MEXICAN PALO VERDE LARGE TREES PROSOPIS ALBA ARGENTINE MESQUITE UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA ROBINIA PSEUDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST PALM TREES CORAL TREE OLEA EUROPAEA; FRUITLESS VARIETY / BRAHEA ARMATA PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA BLUE HESPER PALM DATE PALM QUERCUS SPECIES WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA t MEXICAN FAN PALM c• - ENTRY ROAD TREES ARBUTUS'MARINA' CASSIA LEPTOPHYLLA RHUS LANCEA MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE GOLD MEDALLION TREE AFRICAN SUMAC ACCENT TREES ARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CITRUS CULTIVARS CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS ITALIAN CYPRESS DRACAENA DRACO DRAGON TREE DYPSIS DECARYI TRIANGLE PALM LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA CRAPE MYRTLE PERIMETER TREES TREES ACER NEGUNDO'CALIFORNICUM' CALLISTEMON CITRINUS BOTTLEBRUSH EUCALYPTUS SPP EUCALYPTUS GEIJERA PARVIFLORA AUSTRALIAN WILLOW LAURUS NOBILIS SWEET BAY MFTROSIDEROS EXCELSUS .NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE PLATANUS MEXICANA MEXICAN SYCAMORE LARGE TREES SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRENS COAST REDWOOD UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA CHORISIA SPECIOSA SILK FLOSS TREE ERYTHRINA SPECIES CORAL TREE OLEA EUROPAEA; FRUITLESS VARIETY OLIVE PLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE QUERCUS SPECIES OAK TREE COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS ©COpynght 2014, GMPA Architects, Inc. INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) SMALL AND MEDIUM TREES ACCA SELLOWIANA AGONIS FLEXUOSA PINEAPPLE GUAVA PEPPERMINT WILLOW gc^�� k-� CALIFORNIA NATIVE ARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS CITRUS CULTIVARS WESTERN REDBUD CITRUS TREES COTINUS SPECIES SMOKE TREE MELALEUCA NESOPHILA PINK MELALEUCA PARKINSONIA SPECIES PALO VERDE PITTOSPORUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM WEEPING PITTOSPORUM TREES ACER NEGUNDO'CALIFORNICUM' CALIFORNIA BOX ELDER CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD CHILOPSIS LINEARIS DESERT WILLOW CHTTALPATASHKENTENSIS CHITALPA PARKINSONIA'DESERT MUSEUM' DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE PLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE QUERCUS SPECIES VALLEY AND LIVE OAK SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRENS COAST REDWOOD UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA BAY TREE ITRY DRIVE AND COURT wring Path LANDSCAPE NOTES: rt HIE4A1E41CAEE1u THE CONTEMPLATION GARDEN eEpLARIM[Nls. AAE WIp"I ANCA} WAI K BuNworawl"A Ip'R Iml, AYIAMATR;. MlgilrDH mTl u • p Of MIA MIUSilnE TREES,M R9L"INUM MOTT rt SUSMPFILTRATION PLANTERS IFP) ARE APPROXIMATE AND ILLUSTRATE INTENT ONLY A4S 4AIEPLCAT'[ YRN LLN'![IIN➢. RIANITp A IRRIGATED ACCORDING TO RDUG TLDLERN T -ANT MATERIA S; THE P: Tw IMp HYDROZ USEq NTTPLANTS -ANTMATERIALS; WATER REQUIREMENTS GOR GROUPING PLANTS WITH S AND THE WATER PEOUIREMENO TOGETHER; MINIMI MAA TURFAREAS,ANOTHEEFFICIENT UNE,5 JON OFWATERBY FD USING MATCHED PRECIPNATION NEARS, DRIP UNE, SEPAMTE VALVES FOR SW JANUUARYARY S, 1, Z WIM rw.3IAIE WAIPA Wg3l11VA1KIN4AlbA.NFr Ile SOLO SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET NO GMPA ARCHITECTS /��•; SCALE: I"= 30' Ll •0 DATE 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 APRIL 13, 2015 _Il T. 3 .gmpaArc E 310A5Q0225 0 15' 30' 60' 120' = www,gmpaArchitec[s.com THE EXERCISE CIRCUIT EXERCISE STATION THE CITRUS COURT FOUNTAIN FILTRATION PLANTER DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATHWAY IN CALIFORNIA NATIVE LANDSCAPE COBBLE BED THE CONTEMPLATION GARDEN STONE BENCH RANDOM STONE PAVING 'COMPOSITE WOOD' PLATFORM BENCHES STEPPINGSTONES IN GRAVEL BENCH WITH BACK A.A 16L LINEAR PAVERS CONTEMPORARY STEEL FENCE DOG WASTE STATION IN DOG RUN CITRUS TREES IN COURTYARD QUIET FOUNTAIN SPLITFACE CMU WALL BENCH WITH BACK 'GRASS PAVE' AT THE FIRE DEPARTMMENT TURNAROUND HARDSCAPE IMAGES SCALE: 20 SHEET NO L1.02 GMPA ARCHITECTS --2r�� "= 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE T 310.450.0200 F 310.450.0225 COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS 0 10 20 40` 80 s APRIL 13, 2015 j www gmpaArchitects com ©Copyright 2014, GMPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) THE LIVING ROOM Ta pjpI I -ezp i 4 j COMPOSITE DECKING AT THE YOGA DECK CONNECTING BRIDGE/DECK AT CREEK BANQUETTE SEATING ENTRY COURT FENCED DOG RUN LINEAR PAVERS WROUGHT IRON FENCE ALONG BIKE PATH BBQ COUNTER TOP THE PLAY ROOM INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE POOL DECK SPA -7 3 "-�w - -- f PLATFORM BENCH AT THE YOGA DECK BRIDGE OVER DRY STREAM FIREPIT GLASS POOL ENCLOSURE DRY CREEK/LINEAR PARK DRY CREEK COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS © Copyright 2014, GMPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) ACTIVE FOUNTAIN I x. ._►I t CABANAS HARDSCAPE IMAGES SHEET NO GMPA ARCHITECTS -��-'- _ 1 SCALE: 1" = 20' L1.03 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450,0225 0 10 20' 40l 80' 1 APRIL 13, 2015 www,gmpaArchilects,com d o?� TURF BLOCK TURNAROUND BOULDER SEATING AT TRAIL HEAD OF EXPOSED AGGREGATE PAVING DATE PALM PAVING PATTERN WITH ORY CREEK / LINEAR PARK CONCENTRIC RINGS DRY CREEK/LINEAR PARK DRY CREEK COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS © Copyright 2014, GMPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) ACTIVE FOUNTAIN I x. ._►I t CABANAS HARDSCAPE IMAGES SHEET NO GMPA ARCHITECTS -��-'- _ 1 SCALE: 1" = 20' L1.03 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450,0225 0 10 20' 40l 80' 1 APRIL 13, 2015 www,gmpaArchilects,com HARBOR BLVD. SETBACK TREES y Ir Y^ 1II l i •2h - 0 • . ACACIA STENOPHYLLA CHILOPSIS LINEARIS CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS "SHOESTRING ACACIA" "DESERT WILLOW" I 'CHITALPA" HARBOR BLVD. STREET TREE PALM TREES PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA'BLOODGOOD' "LONDON PLANE TREE" ACCENT TREES GEIJERA PARVIFLORA "AUSTRALIAN WILLOW" MELALEUCA NESOPHILA J PARKINSONIA ACULEATA I PROSOPIS ALBA "PINK MELALEUCA" I "MEXICAN PALO VERDE" "ARGENTINE MESQUITE" FNTRY ROAD TREES I Liw Y� CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS DRAGAENA I DRAGON TREE CO I "DYPSIS TRIANGLE�M' CRAPE MYRTYI LE" INDICA ITALIAN CYPRESS" ` COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS © Copyright 2014, GMPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PIAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) ROBINIA AMBIGUA 'IDAHOENSIS' "IDAHO LOCUST" I ►x P� I >r I I BRAHEA ARMATA PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA 'BLUE NEVER PALM' "DATE PALM' "MEXICAN FAN PALM" I Liw Y� CUPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS DRAGAENA I DRAGON TREE CO I "DYPSIS TRIANGLE�M' CRAPE MYRTYI LE" INDICA ITALIAN CYPRESS" ` COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS © Copyright 2014, GMPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PIAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) ROBINIA AMBIGUA 'IDAHOENSIS' "IDAHO LOCUST" PERIMETER TREES CALLISTEMON CITRINUS 'BOTTLEBRUSH" EUCALYPTUS SPP 'EUCALYPTUS" METROSIDEROS EXCELSUS "NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE" TREE IMAGES SHEET NO Ll .04 GMPA ARCHITECTS SCALE: 1" = 20' +� �ppn 11878 La Orange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 / 1 / — DATE T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 (�(r 0 10' 20' 40' 80APRIL 13, 2015 LA www gmpaArchitecls.com I - ARBUTUS'MARINA' CASSIA LEPTOPHYLLA PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA "MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE" "GOLD MEDALLION TREE" 'DATE PALM" PERIMETER TREES CALLISTEMON CITRINUS 'BOTTLEBRUSH" EUCALYPTUS SPP 'EUCALYPTUS" METROSIDEROS EXCELSUS "NEW ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE" TREE IMAGES SHEET NO Ll .04 GMPA ARCHITECTS SCALE: 1" = 20' +� �ppn 11878 La Orange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 / 1 / — DATE T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 (�(r 0 10' 20' 40' 80APRIL 13, 2015 LA www gmpaArchitecls.com PFRIMFTFR TRFF.R I ARrF TRFFS SMALL AND MEDIl1M TREES i f I t lih b Y r "Y ACCA SELLOWIANA "PINEAPPLE GUAVA" AGONIS FLEXUOSA ARBUTUS UNEDO "PEPPERMINT WILLOW" 'STRAWBERRY TREE" CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS "REDBUD" CITRUS CULTIVARS "CITRUS TREE" COTINUS SPECIES "SMOKE TREE" PARKINSONIA SPECIES "PALO VERDE" 4e__4 0 y PLATANUS MEXICANA LAURUS NOBILIS CHORISIA SPECIOSA ERYTHRINA SPECIES OLEA EUROPAEA (FRUITLESS VARIETY) PLATANUS RACEMOSA QUERCUS SPECIES PITTOSPORUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM "MEXICAN SYCAMORE" "SWEET BAY" "SILK FLOSS TREE" "CORAL TREE" "OLIVE" "CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE" "OAK TREE" 'WEEPING PITTOSPORUM" SMALL AND MEDIl1M TREES (:AI IFnRNIA NATI\/F TRFF.q i f I Y ACCA SELLOWIANA "PINEAPPLE GUAVA" AGONIS FLEXUOSA ARBUTUS UNEDO "PEPPERMINT WILLOW" 'STRAWBERRY TREE" CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS "REDBUD" CITRUS CULTIVARS "CITRUS TREE" COTINUS SPECIES "SMOKE TREE" PARKINSONIA SPECIES "PALO VERDE" (:AI IFnRNIA NATI\/F TRFF.q COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS © Copyright 2014, GJViPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) SCALE: 1" = 20' 0 10' 20' 40' 80' TREE IMAGES SHEET NO L 1.05 DATE APRIL 13, 2015 GMPA ARCHITECTS 11878 La Orange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 T. 310.450 0200 F 310.450.0225 www pmpaArchilecls.com y ACER NEGUNDO'CALIFORNICUM' CHILOPSIS LINEARIS CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS PARKINSONIA'DESERT MUSEUM' PLATANUS RACEMOSA QUERCUS SPECIES SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRENS UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA "CALIFORNIA BOX ELDER" "DESERT WILLOW" "CHITALPA" "DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE" "CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE" "VALLEY AND LIVE OAK" I "COAST REDWOOD" "CALIFORNIA BAY TREE" COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS © Copyright 2014, GJViPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) SCALE: 1" = 20' 0 10' 20' 40' 80' TREE IMAGES SHEET NO L 1.05 DATE APRIL 13, 2015 GMPA ARCHITECTS 11878 La Orange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 T. 310.450 0200 F 310.450.0225 www pmpaArchilecls.com FILTRATION K ANTER EXERCISE STATION PLAN VIEW COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS ©Copyright 2014, GMPA Architects, Inc. INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARYIN NATUREAND SUBJECT 10 CHANGESAND MODIHCATIONS) The Exercise Circuit: The western setback area of the project is designed as a linear exercise circuit, comprised of a 4 ft. wide stabilized Decomposed Granite pathway with exercise stations along the way. There are also benches periodically for those less inclined to exercise. The exercise stations continue along the northern setback - the Dry Creek Linear Park - as well. The landscape setting will be comprised entirely of native, drought tolerant California plants, giving it a very woodsy, natural character. The rough texture of a 6 ft. ht. wall of split -faced CMU block on the property line adds to the rustic character of this open space. A dog waste station is located at the southern end of the pathway for easy access for the residents Raised planters adjacent to the building function as filtration planters (FP), treating the rainwater from the roof before it is discharged into the stormwater system. KEY PLAN x _! f� MI ! -' Il�llllFYI�YfI]I�IlI11 "- F 1gr,�F k IT THE EXERCISE CIRCUIT SCALE: 1 20' SHEET NO L 1.10 GMPA ARCHITECTS " = 11878 LaGrange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE T. 310 450 0200 F 310.450.0225 l APRIL 13, 2015 + 0 10' 20' 40" 80" 1 ►j r www.gmpaArchilecls corn FCNJWAIN COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS _-205- © Copyright 2014, GMPA Architects, Inc. QNFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) CONCRETE WALKWAY 'FRAME' AROUND TURF The Citrus Court: This space has two functions, both active and passive. The first is as a fire department turnaround which has to remain unobstructed. It will be'paved' with a turf block acceptable to the Fire Department that can be covered by grass, so it will appear as an open lawn area. The turnaround is large enough to fit a badminton court, or accommodate other active uses such as mild ball or Frisbee playing. The second function is as a passive sitting area, designed in the form of a Mediterranean 'Court of the Oranges" with citrus trees planted symmetrically around a small central fountain. Standard benches with backs provide comfort for those who wish to sit up, and flat, platform benches encourage horizontal resting. In addition to a variety of citrus trees in the Court, other fruiting trees will fill out the perimeter of the turnaround landscape. Other drought tolerant Mediterranean shrubs and ground covers will comprise the understory beneath the trees. A. TlIC1f1JFfI1tlIIlIUI�d�I— THE CITRUS COURT [-DAT1 r+EErNO GMPA ARCHITECTS SCALE: 1/16" =1'-0" 11878 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 �— T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.4500225 0 8' 16' 32' 64 APRIL 13, 2015 www.gmpaArchitects.com ' E, , — PUBLIC SIDEWALK STONE BENCH 1 RANDOMS STONE PAYING STEPPING'SrONES IN GRAVEL PLAN VIEW I.G. PATH lCHES The Contemplation Garden: This courtyard is a completely passive one, intended for quiet chats or contemplation. It is designed as a clean, contemporary space with a linear orientation to the outside of the project, similar to the other courtyards, which in this case is Harbor Blvd. Unlike the other courtyards, this one will feel softer and greener as it will be largely landscape. Large trees and grasses will soften up the rectilinear geometry of the walkways. Stone veneered benches will enhance the 'natural' look, along with random stone paving. A linear fountain with bubbling jets in the trough and water spilling into pools at both ends will create some acoustic screening of the noise from Harbor Blvd. The planting scheme of massings of different grasses and shrubs will spill out beyond the attractive, visually open fence, into the R.O.W. to create a seamless transition from public to private open space. A meandering decomposed granite pathway extends the length of the eastern side of the building, with stone veneered benches intermittently spaced along the way, bringing this thematic courtyard element out into the front yard. KEY PLAN THE CONTEMPLATION GARDEN SHEET NO GMPA AKCH ITECTS COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS SCALE: 1116"=,' L1.12 =� 11978 La Grange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 �,JJ I DATE T 310.450.0200 F 310.450.0225 0 8' 16' 32' 64' APRIL 13, 2015 j, www.gmpaArchilects corn © Copyright 2014, GMPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) COMPOSITE DECKING AT THE YOGA DECK PLATFORM BENCH AT THE YOGA DECK FIREPIT PLAN VIEW COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS ©Copyright 2014, GMPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) LINEAR PAVERS SCALE: 1116" = 1'-0" -207, / 0 8' 16' 32' 64` 1 The Living Room: This courtyard is designed as a space for'living in' - eating, lounging, exercising and partying. There are accommodations for all of these activities. There are two separate BBQ areas, each with adjacent dining niches. There is comfortable lounging on moveable furniture as well as built-in banquette seating, situated around a central firepit, with a fountain element close by. A composite wood deck, raised 18 inches above the dining/lounging portion of the courtyard, is a flexible, multi-purpose space for yoga, exercising or dancing. This ADA accessible ramp that connects the upper and lower areas, is centered in the courtyard on a north -south axis that also includes the firepit and fountain. This axis serves to orient the space to the exterior of the project - the golf course. The ramp also creates four niches - two at the lower level for the BBQ's, and two at the upper level for comfortable seating, out of the way of the active exercise space. Deciduous canopy trees in the lower portion of the space will provide some privacy screening from residents above, as well as some shade in the summer when the sun is directly overhead. A bridging deck at the north end of the space connects to the Dry Creek Linear Park with its exercise circuit. THE LIVING ROOM 'SHEET NO GM PA ARCHITECTS L1.13 11878 La Grange Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90025 +� DATE T. 310 450 0200 F. 310.450 0225 APRIL 13, 2015 www gmpaArchilects com NI1 .r I,: INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE POOL DECK SPA CITY BIKE LANE GATE TO LINEAR PARK OUTDOOR CAFE SEATING WITH TV MONITOR AND SHADE TREWS PLAN VIEW COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS @Copyright 2014, GMPA Architects, Inc. INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) BENCHES The Play Room: This is the courtyard in which residents take it easy and recreate in the pool and spa. The gymnasium opens onto this space. The pool and spa are aligned with the theater, creating another north -south axis, similar to the Living Room, visually focusing on the Dry Creek Linear Park and the adjacent 'borrowed' landscape or the golf course. A glass pool enclosure along the east -west walkway provides an open view to the pool and spa. Two 8ft x 8 ft square cabanas flank the pool entry, giving the space a resort like feeling. There is generous decking on both sides of the pool for chaise lounges, and a variety of trees in the planters adjacent to the buildings, providing some privacy for the residents as well as the pool -goers. An 8 ft. high wall behind the spa supports a cantilevered trellis that provides shade for spa users, in addition to creating an architectural focal point for the space A gate at the north end of the space leads out to the Linear Park. KEY �JLAN l I.1 16 Z -•II- �yA�y- ]lull 6 IIIUIIUiII I, THE PLAY ROOM -SHEET NO GM PA ARCHITECTS SCALE: 11,6" =,'-o" L 1.14 - — _ _ 11878 La Grange Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE T. 310 450.0200 F. 310 450.0225 0 8 16 32 64' APRIL 13, 2015 www gmpaArchlteCls Com BOULDER SEATING AT TRAIL HEAD OF DRY CREEK I LINEAR PARK CONCRETE SIDE WALK RETRACTABLE BOLLARDS COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS © Copyright 2014, GMPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONSI ENTRY SCALE: 1116" = 1'-0" 0 8' 16' 32' 64 The Entry Court: The long entry drive culminates in a Court with a circle of randomly spaced concentric rings in the pavement, the only curvilinear form in the project, highlighting its significance as the terminus of the project entry drive. Four large, Date Palms frame this form, reinforcing its symmetry and importance Adjacent to this space is a turf covered Fire Department hammerhead turnaround which is paved with a turfblock type product, providing a splash of green to the front entry. This flat green 'carpet' leads to the Dry Creek Linear Park, contrasting with its rock forms and colors, and naturalistic character. A fenced Dog Run is located at the northern corner of the building, in close proximity to the front doors for easy access by residents with pets. ENTRY COURT SHEET NO L1.15 � GMPA ARCHITECTS ' T. 310 La Orange Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90025 DATE T. 310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 APRIL 13, 2015 www.pmpaArchitecls corn DRY CREEK W1 BOULDERS RAISED DECK Wl DECK SCALE 1:10 BRIDGE SCALE 1:10 ADERS I THE TUBE STEEL FENCE enr_c n eronlu ncoc rna ccerwr_ TRAILHEADS SCALE 1:10 D.G. WALKWAY TURFBLOCK TURNAROUND The A Creek Lfnea� Paris: The 20 ft. wide setback along the entire western side of the site is proposed as a linear park with a dry creek bed of rock, boulders and gravel as the featured, thematic element of the park. It is a park because it has a variety of activities - walking, sitting, exercising - and it is'natural' with the meandering rock and boulder creek, crossed by a bridge and a deck, and completely situated within a naturalistic landscape of native and drought tolerant trees, shrubs and grasses. The park can be viewed as an extension of the adjacent open space land uses - the bike trail and the golf course. A 4 ft. wide Decomposed Granite walkway moves back and forth over the creek with both benches and exercise stations occurring along the way. A 7 ft. high, visually open, tubular steel fence separates the park from the adjacent bike path for security purposes. (Dry Creek Section) A steel Bridge behind the poollspa courtyard provides one of the crossings over the creek. A composite wood Deck with sitting opportunities, linked to the exercise deck of the Living Room courtyard, provides the second crossing over the creek bed. The D.G. pathway slopes up on both sides of the deck to reach the elevated level of the Deck, about 19" inches above grade The Tra°Iheads at each end of the park where the creek terminates, have large, flattish boulders extending out of the creek, inviting walkers to sit upon them. The Dry Creek bed itself, in addition to its role as an attractive and useable amenity, will also function as part of the stormwater treatment system for the project. During a rain, roof water will be discharged into the creek where it will be filtered by the appropriate filtration media and either allowed to infiltrate into the soil, or collected by drains and conveyed to the municipal stonnwater system, depending upon the existing soil type and depth to watertable. DRY CREEK BLDG, I (IN)FILTRATION DEVICE D.G. DRY CREEK WALKWAY PLAN VIEW SCALE 1:20 KEY PLAN r t- IIPJfiII�FMUMM'N IIl1�l'l „fir I TYPICAL DRY CREEK SECTION N.T.S. SCALE 1:100 COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS I(/qf�, @Copyright 2014, GMPA Architects, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PUN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS) �/ DRY CREEK / LINEAR PARK SCALE: V= 20' [IAT NO L1.16 GMPA ARCHITECTS 11870 La Orange Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90025 1310.450.0200 F. 310.450.0225 0 10' 20' 40 80' APRIL 13, 2015 JA i www gmpaArchitects.com OPEN SPACE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE PROVIDED AMENITIES p LOT COVERAGE J� Co 0 CoQ 2 (TOTAL SITE AREA) x (42%) = (180,795 SF.) x (0,42) OPEN SPACE AT GRADE (SEE HATCHED AREA) SECOND FLOOR (BALCONIES) = 22 UNITS x 100 SF. = 2,200 SF. THIRD FLOOR (BALCONIES)=21 UNITS x 100 SF. = 2,100 SF. FOURTH FLOOR (BALCONIES) = 21 UNITS x 100 SF. = 2,100 SF. BALCONIES SUB -TOTAL TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED GYM MEZZANINE LIBRARY THEATER FITNESS CENTER LOUNGE INTERNET CAFE TOTAL INTERIOR AREAS = 75,933 SF. = 69,564 SF. = 6,400 SF. = 75,964 SF. = 8,789 SF. APARTMENT BUILDING AND PARKING STRUCTURE AREA = 100,941 SF. PERCENTAGE = (LOT COVERAGE AREA / TOTAL SITE AREA) x 100% (100,941 SF. / 180,795 SF.) x 100% = 55% ITEMIZED OPEN SPACE N SCALE V=40' O0 20' 40' 100' SHEET NO GMPA ARCHITECTS COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS EXHIBIT 1.2 11878 La Grange Ave, Las Angeles, CA 90025 j DATE T 310.450 0200 F 310.450.0225 SEPTEMBER 24, 2015WA ..gmpaArchitects.com ©Copyright `LOIS, GMPA AfCt111 E;C15, Inc. (INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS CONCEPTUAL PUN IS PRELIMINARY IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND MODIFICAilON51 1 ATTACHMENT 13 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MINUTE EXCERPTS FROM THE OCTOBER 12, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING COSTA MESA MOTOR INN (Public Hearing No. 3 — PA -14-27) 3. Application No.: GP-14-04/R-14-04/CO-14-02/PA-14-27 Applicant: Diamond Star Associates, Inc. Site Address: 2277 Harbor Boulevard Zone: C1 Project Planner: Ryan Loomis Environmental Determination: The City of Costa Mesa proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration is available for review and comment from September 11, 2015 to October 10, 2015. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is based on the finding that, through compliance with the Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures, the Project's potential significant adverse impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The reasons to support such a finding are documented by an Initial Study prepared by the City of Costa Mesa. Description: 1. Adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND); 2. Proposed Project: The 4.15 -acre project site is currently occupied by the 236 - room (94,500 square foot) Costa Mesa Motor Inn motel at 2277 Harbor Boulevard in the General Commercial land use designation and C1 zone (Local Business District). The proposal involves demolition of the existing motel and the construction of a four-story, 224 -unit luxury apartment project, inclusive of twenty affordable units for moderate -income households. Parking onsite would be accommodated within a proposed five level parking structure containing 503 parking spaces. The proposed project consists of the following discretionary requests: a. General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 to change the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Per the applicant's request, the proposed base density is 166 units (40 du/acre) with a density incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households and (b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Therefore, for the 4.15 -acre project site, the General Plan Amendment would specify an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre for the proposed 224 - unit apartment complex and a site-specific building height for the 5 -level parking structure. b. Rezone R-14-04 from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density) with site-specific height and density. 2(Z c. Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02 to make specific reference to the parcel, where appropriate, and the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone in Title 13 (Zoning Code) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, as well as any other related changes. d. Planning Application PA -14-27, a Master Plan for the 224 -unit apartment project. Willa Bouwens-Killeen, Zoning Administrator, and Ryan Loomis, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McCarthy asked for an explanation on how the parking on the fifth floor parking structure constituted a story. Ms. Flynn responded that it is referred to as a site specific building height, why it is defined as that, and included examples where this same configuration has been approved in the past. Chair Dickson asked Yolanda Summerhill, Planning Commission Counsel, if there were any requirements for relocation assistance with this application. Ms. Summerhill responded no. Since it a private applicant, the City, under State definition, would not be displacing tenants. Commissioner Andranian stated concerns with the project's design having continuity within the area. Vice Chair Mathew asked if the City can require the applicant, a private business owner, to include low income housing units in this project. Ms. Summerhill responded they could ask for a density bonus but this project did not ask for one. PUBLIC COMMENTS Donald Lamm, applicant, has read and is in agreement with the conditions of approval. He also gave a presentation on the proposed project. Commissioners and applicant discussed the project. Kathy Esfahani, Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition, stated concerns with the Negative Declaration and that 20 percent of the units should be affordable for low and very low income families. Addison Stansfield, Costa Mesa business owner, spoke in support of the project. Greg Sullivan, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in support of the project. Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with the building height exemption, potential service calls, traffic impact, parking and affordable housing issue. Linda Tang, Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition and The Kennedy Commission, stated concerns with the project and the relocation of the tenants. Mick Meldrom, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in support of the project. Richard Walker, attorney from the Public Law Center representing the Costa Mesa Motel Resident Association, asked Planning Commission not to recommend adoption of the Initial Study Negative Mitigated Declaration and stated concerns with the lack of affordable housing within the City. Mark Austin, representing a client from Phil Luchesi and Luchesi Enterprises, stated concerns that the project would potentially interfere with his client's cell towers located on the adjacent property. Richard Huffman spoke in opposition of the project. A Costa Mesa resident gave a website address to read about the history of Costa Mesa's campaign against the motels and stated issues with the project. Christina Bogner Costa Mesa resident, spoke in support of the project. Richard Russell, Costa Mesa resident, spoke in support of the project. Mr. Lamm responded to the public comments. Lionel Levy, chief operator officer for owner Miracle Mile Properties, responded to the public comments. Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner McCarthy asked for clarification regarding the public comment about the Initial Study Negative Mitigated Declaration's lack of discussion regarding environmental impacts based on the large amount of people that will be displaced with the demolition of the motel. Christine Donoghue, First Carbon Solutions Consultant, and Ms. Summerhill responded. Commissioners discussed the project in length, the public comments and whether to condition the relocation financial assistance offer made by the applicant. MOTION: Hereby move that based on the evidence in the record that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the IS/MND and adopt General Plan Amendment GPA -14-04, approve/give first reading to the Ordinances for Rezone R-14-04 and Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02, approve Master Plan PA -14-27, subject to conditions of approval (Exhibit B) and mitigation measures contained in the IS/MND with the following modification: Adding Condition of Approval No. 27 to read: "The applicant shall implement the Long -Term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan, as described in the October 12, 2015 communication (attached as Exhibit 131), prior to issuance of building permits. An action report, indicating that the relocation of long- term occupants, shall be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director". First moved by Chair Dickson, seconded by Vice Chair Mathews. The motion was withdrawn and a substituted motion occurred; moved by Commissioner McCarthy, seconded by Commissioner Andranian. RESOLUTION 15-58 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL (1) ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, (2) ADOPT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -14-04 FOR THE 224 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 2277 HARBOR BLVD (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2015091026) RESOLUTION 15-59 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA: (1) APPROVE AND GIVE FIRST READING TO REZONE ORDINANCE R-14-04 AND (2) ADOPT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CO -14-02 TO AMEND COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 13 FOR A SITE- SPECIFIC DENSITY OF 54 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND SITE SPECIFIC BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE 2277 HARBOR BOULEVARD APARTMENT PROJECT. RESOLUTION 15-60 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA ADOPT MASTER PLAN PA -14-27 FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FOUR-STORY 224 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING (60 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT) THAT WRAPS AROUND A FIVE -LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE (50 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT) WITH 503 PARKING SPACES IN THE STRUCTURE WITH A SITE- SPECIFIC BUILDING HEIGHT DEVIATION TO ALLOW A FIVE LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE (MAXIMUM 4 LEVELS ALLOWED) The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None -2 )a-- ATTACHMENT 14 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Provided under separate cover Also available on the City Website at: http:/www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=151 ATTACHMENT 15 RESOLUTION NO. PC -15-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL (1) ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, (2) ADOPT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -14-04 FOR THE 224 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 2277 HARBOR BLVD (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2015091026) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Diamond Star Associates, Inc., on behalf of owner of real properties located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, requesting approval of the following: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) (State Clearinghouse #2015091026). Adoption of the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS - MND) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -14-04. Change the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Per the applicant's request, the proposed base density is 166 units (40 du/acre) with a density incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households and (b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Therefore, for the 4.15 -acre project site the General Plan Amendment would specify an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre for the proposed 224 -unit apartment complex and a site-specific building height for the 5 -level parking structure. 3. Rezone R-14-04. A rezone to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to make specific references to the parcel, where appropriate, including the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone and any other related changes. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13 58 (Planned Development ... �2)-7-_ Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Planning Application PA -14-27. A Master Plan application for the 224 -unit apartment project; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2000 General Plan on January 22; 2002; WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of Costa Mesa; WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan needs to be updated and refined to account for current and future community needs; WHEREAS, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is proposed to allow for an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre for the proposed 224 -unit apartment complex (83 units as allowed in the High Density Residential Land Use designation; 224 units proposed); WHEREAS, text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of four stories and five levels is proposed for the project site. WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment involves an amendment to the Land Use Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit A) and a text amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (Exhibit B); WHEREAS, approval of the project is pending adoption of Ordinance No. 15-_ for Rezone R-14-04; WHEREAS, approval of the project is pending adoption of Ordinance No. 15-_ for Code Amendment CO -14-02; WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2015 with all persons provided an opportunity to speak for and against the proposed project; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated from September 11, 2015 to October 10, 2015 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and identified potentially significant impacts related to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise; WHEREAS, the IS/MND identified appropriate measures that will mitigate the identified impacts to a level that is less than significant; WHEREAS the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment, Code Amendment, and Planning Application and by separate resolution; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and ADOPTION of General Plan Amendment GPA -14-04 which amends the General Plan Land Use Map as set forth in Exhibit "A" and Land Use Element as set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to this resolution with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day ofober, 201 a Robert L. Dickson Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission CI� 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 October 12th, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission EXHIBIT "A" Map Amendment to the Land Use Map Change the land use designation of the 4.15 -acre development site at 2277 Harbor Blvd from General Commercial (GC) to High Density Residential (HDR) ---�7)' EXHIBIT "B" Text Amendment to Land Use Element The proposed General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 would amend the following sections of the Land Use Element as underlined and italicized below: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS High -Density Residential In 2015, General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 was approved for a 224 -unit apartment pry}ect on a 4.15 -acre site at 2277 Harbor Boulevard. A base density of 40 dulacre was approved with a development incentive allowing increased density to 54 du/acre due to the rovision of twenty on-site affordable units for moderate -income households and the complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. The overall site-specific maximum density is 54 units/acre and site-specific maximum building he4ght -is four stories/60 feet for the apartment buildings and five levels/50 feet for the five -level parking structure. Based on the average household size of 2.5 persons per unit, the projected population density would be 135 persons per acre. " Building Height The proposed revision to the General Plan objective/policy language is underlined and italicized below: Objective LUAC Promote land use patterns and development, which contribute to community and neighborhood identity. Policy LU -1C.2 Limit building height to four stories above grade south of the 1-405 Freeway, except for special purpose housing, such as elderly, affordable, or student housing. An exception is for the Newport Plaza property at 1901 Newport Boulevard where a six -level parking structure is allowed, the property at 125 East Baker Street where a five - story, 240 -unit apartment building and six -story parking structure are allowed, and the property at 2277 Harbor Boulevard where a four-stoM 224- unit apartment building and five -level parking structure are allowed (GP -14-04). �L- Costar Mesa :xx" Ran TABLE LU -1: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 520051 LAND USE ELEMENT • PAGE LU -5 Land _Residential Acres Total % of D- ..Undeveloped D- ..•. DU/Acre' (1999) Low -Density Same as 2,143.4 1.8 2,145.2 26.6% Residential <8 Neighborhood Commercial Medium -Density LA < 12 Same as 777.8 30.7 808.0 10.0% Residential - Neighborhood Commercial High -Density Same as 8241� -96&4-% Residential" <202 - Neighborhood Commercial - 46.2 870.3 10.8% Commercial- 0.20/High Traffic Residential <17.4 - 0.30/Moderate Traffic 42.6 0.9 43.5 0.5% 0.40/1 -ow Traffic 0.15/High Traffic Neighborhood 0.25/Moderate Traffic 42.4 2.5 44.9 0.6% Commercial 0.35/Low Traffic 0.75Nery Low Traffic 0.20/High Trafflc General 0.30/Moderate Traffic _�_ 20.8 -625-9, 7.7% Commerciale 520 0.40 Low Traffic 0.75Nery Low Traffic 600.9 621.7 <20 0.25/High Traffic <40 site- 0.35/Moderate Traffic Commercial specific 0.45 Low Traffic 29.4 63.3 92.7 1.1% Centers density for 0.75Nery Low Traffic Newport 1901Blvd' 0.70 Site -Specific FAR for 1901 Newport Blvd" Regional <20 0.652/0.89° 114.7 0.0 114.7 1.4% Commercial <20' <100 Site- 0.50 Retail Urban Center Specific 0.60 Office 134.2 26.2 160.4 2.0% Commercial Density for 0.79 Site -Specific FAR for South Coast South Coast Metro Centers Metro Center s Cultural Arts Center Varies' 1 77' 49.0 5.0 54.0 0.7% 0.20/High Traffic Industrial Park <20 0.30/Moderate Traffic 696.5 177 714.2 8.8% - 0.40/Low Traffic 0.75Nery Low Traffic 0.15iHigh Traffic Light Industry" <P0 0.25/Moderate Traffic 375.5 6.6 382.1 4.7% - 0.35/1 -ow Traffic 0.75Nery Low Traffic Public/ 0.25 1,281.3 0.5 1,281.8 15.9% Institutional Golf Course <0.01 560.1 0.0 560.1 6.9% Fair rounds <0.10 146.4 D.0 146.4 1.8% Total 7,622.0 218.0 6,040.0 100.% 1. Within the Medium- and High -Density Residential designation, existing residential units legally built in excess of the dwelling units per acre standard may be rebuilt at the same higher density subject to other zoning code standards. The allowaole density or number of units to be redeveloped would be limited to the WRO General Plan density with a 2536 Incentive bonus for madium-Density or a 50% incentive bonus for High - Density; or the existing number of units, whichever is less. 2. See High -Density Residential text regarding areas in North Costa Mesa where the density allowance exceeds 20 units per acre. 3. See Commercial Center text. 4. See Regional Commercial text. 5. See Urban Center Commercial text. o^ See text for Mixed -Use Development provisions. 7 See Cultural Arts Center text for additional discussion. LAND USE ELEMENT • PAGE LU -5 RESOLUTION NO. PC -15-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA: (1) APPROVE AND GIVE FIRST READING TO REZONE ORDINANCE R-14-04 AND (2) ADOPT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CO -14-02 TO AMEND COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 13 FOR A SITE-SPECIFIC DENSITY OF 54 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND SITE SPECIFIC BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE 2277 HARBOR BOULEVARD APARTMENT PROJECT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The proposed project is a four-story, 224 -unit apartment complex (60 - foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 54 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a five -level parking structure (50 -foot maximum height proposed) with 503 parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) (State Clearinghouse #2015091026). Adoption of the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS - MND) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -14-04. Change the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Per the applicant's request, the proposed base density is 166 units (40 du/acre) with a density incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households; and (b) complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Therefore, for the 4.15 -acre project site the General Plan Amendment would specify an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre for the proposed 224 -unit apartment complex and a site-specific building height for the 5 -level parking structure. 3. Rezone R-14-04. A rezone to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to make specific references to the parcel, where appropriate, including the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone and any other related changes. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Planning Application PA -14-27. A Master Plan application for the 224 -unit apartment project; WHEREAS, Rezone R-14-04 will amend the zoning district from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential, High Density); WHEREAS, a site specific amendment to the Zoning Code is proposed for a site- specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre and a site-specific height of four stories/5 levels for the development of the project as described above. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2015, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated from September 11, 2015 to October 10, 2015 for public review and comment; WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and identified potentially significant impacts related to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise; WHEREAS, the IS/MND identified appropriate measures that will mitigate the identified impacts to a level that is less than significant; WHEREAS the Costa Mesa Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council approve General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 and Master Plan PA -14-27, by separate resolutions; BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND GIVE FIRST READING TO REZONE R-14-04 (EXHIBIT 1) ADOPT CO -14-02 (EXHIBIT 2) which amends the Zoning Code with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of Ocf'©ber, 2015. Robert L. Dickson Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on October 12th, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission EXHIBIT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, TO REZONE A 4.15 - ACRE PARCEL FROM C1 (LOCAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) TO PDR -HD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL — HIGH DENSITY) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2277 HARBOR BLVD. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, City Council approved the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopted General Plan Amendment GP -14-04 by separate resolution to change the land use designation of the 4.15 -acre property at 2277 Harbor Boulevard from General Commercial to High Density Residential; WHEREAS, Rezone R-14-04 involves a change in the zoning district of real property located at 2277 Harbor Boulevard from C-1 (Local Business District) to PDR - HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density); WHEREAS, Rezone R-14-04 is consistent with the 2000 General Plan adopted in January, 2002 as amended by GP -14-04; WHEREAS, Rezone R-14-04 will allow residential development at a maximum density of 54 du/ac, as allowed by the General Plan; WHEREAS, the PDR -HD zone is a consistent zone in the High Density Residential land use designation; WHEREAS, Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02 will amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to make specific references to the parcel, where appropriate, including the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone and any other related changes. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. SECTION 1. REZONE. The City of Costa Mesa Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows: 22R�_ a. There is hereby placed and included in the PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) zoning district a 4.15 -acre parcel, identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers 422-163-31 and as shown in attached Exhibit "1," situated in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California. b. 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 in subsection a hereof and in the respective Exhibit "W'. A copy of the Official Zoning Map is on file in the office of the Planning Division. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. The proposed rezone was processed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and circulated from September 11, 2015 to October 10, 2015. The City Council found that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. SECTION 3. 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 no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. 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. SECTION 5. 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 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 of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: 2015. Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa City Attorney EXHIBIT 1A Amendment to the Zoning Map Change the zoning designation of the 4.15 -acre development site at 2277 Harbor Boulevard from Local Commercial District (Cl) to Planned Development Residential- High Density (PDR -HD) -23�- EXHIBIT 2 The revised Table 13-58 is presented with changes as underlined and italicized below: Revised Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) Development PDR -LD PDR -MD PDR -HD PDR -NCM PDC PDI Standard y Maximum Density 8 12 20 35 20 per Section 13-59 Note: See North Note: The maximum MAXIMUM Costa Mesa Specific density for 1901 Newport DENSITY Plan for exceptions. Boulevard is 40 dwelling CRITERIA. units per acre. See North (dwelling units per Note: The maximum Costa Mesa Specific Plan acre) density for 125 East for exceptions. Baker Street is 58 dwelling units per acre (CO -13-02). Note: The maximum density for 2277 Harbor Boulevard is 54 dwelling units per acre (CO -14-02). RESOLUTION NO. PC -15-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA ADOPT MASTER PLAN PA -14-27 FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FOUR-STORY 224 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING (60 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT) THAT WRAPS AROUND A FIVE - LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE (50 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT) WITH 503 PARKING SPACES IN THE STRUCTURE WITH A SITE-SPECIFIC BUILDING HEIGHT DEVIATION TO ALLOW A FIVE LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE (MAXIMUM 4 LEVELS ALLOWED) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The proposed project is a four-story, 224 -unit apartment complex (60 - foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 54 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a five -level parking structure (50 -foot maximum height proposed) with 503 parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: the following: 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) (State Clearinghouse #2015091026). Adoption of the Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS - MND) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -14-04. Change the land use designation from General Commercial to High Density Residential. Per the applicant's request, the proposed base density is 166 units (40 du/acre) with a density incentive for an additional 58 dwelling units to be justified by (a) Provision of 20 affordable units for moderate -income households and (b) Complete demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Therefore, for the 4.15 -acre project site the General Plan Amendment would specify an overall site-specific density of 54 du/acre for the proposed 224 -unit apartment complex and a site-specific building height for the 5 -level parking structure. 3. Rezone R-14-04. A rezone to change the zoning classification from C1 (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to make specific references to the parcel, where appropriate, including the site-specific height and density for the development site in the PDR -HD zone and any other related changes. The proposed 224 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13 58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 54 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Planning Application PA -14-27. A Master Plan application for the 224 -unit apartment project; WHEREAS, A Master Plan application for the proposed development of a four- story 224 -unit residential apartment building for the development of the project as described above. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 12, 2015, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated from September 11, 2015 to October 10, 2015 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and identified potentially significant impacts related to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise; WHEREAS, the IS/MND identified appropriate measures that will mitigate the identified impacts to a level that is less than significant; WHEREAS the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council find that proposed residential project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council approve General Plan Amendment GP -14-04, Rezone R-14-04, and Master Plan PA -14-27, by separate resolutions; 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 in Exhibit B, and all the mitigation measures indicated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained within Exhibit C, respectively, as well as with compliance of all applicable federal, state, and local laws, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PA -14-27 with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th daoi of October Robert L. Dickson Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Claire Flynn, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on October 12th, 2015 by the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None �I Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission -z3,;3r- EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: Finding: A compatible and harmonious relationship exists between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhoods. Facts in Support of Findings: With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND for the proposed project, all potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood. The project features quality construction and materials. The proposal provides on-site amenities comparable with quality residential units. The proposed parking is adequate to meet the demand for this project. Finding: 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. Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed on-site parking will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed mix of units within this project. The standard conditions indicate payment of traffic impact fees to mitigate project -generated traffic impacts. The project will provide adequate sight distance for vehicles at all project drive approaches. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the project shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study. The project has been conditioned to comply with these conditions, as a result, the safety and compatibility of the project has been insured. Finding: The use is consistent with the General Plan. Facts in Support of Findings: The project proposes a rezone of the property to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD) and a Zoning Code Text Amendment to the maximum density of 54 dwelling units per acre. Subject to approval of the proposed rezone and text amendment, the project complies with the City's Zoning Code as it pertains to building height, setbacks, open space, as well as on-site parking as it pertains to on-site parking spaces and overall project density. Finding: The cumulative effect of all the planning applications have been considered. Facts in Support of Findings: The cumulative effects of General Plan 2;p- Amendment GP -14-04, Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02, Rezone R-14- 04, and Master Plan PA -14-27 have all been considered for this project and no significant impacts were identified. B. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(5) because: Finding: The Master Plan meets the broader goals of the General Plan and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, and integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. Facts in Support of Findings: The Master Plan application is for the proposed development of a four-story 224 -unit residential apartment building (60 feet overall height) that wraps around a five -level parking structure (50 feet overall height) with 503 parking spaces in the parking structure with a deviation to allow a five -level parking structure (maximum 4 levels allowed). With regard to the master plan, the following is noted: The project features quality construction and materials. The building design and roof elements reflect a modern style, i.e., characterized by simplified square and rectangular building forms with a variety of flat planes, projections, and recesses. The exterior consists of alternating finishes, including white smooth stucco finish, limestone finish, metal finish, and clear glass windows. Additional accents will be provided along building elevations, and replacement of the existing block wall/razor wire fence will be provided with a decorative 6 - foot block wall along the west and south property lines. Landscaping throughout the proposed project will include drought tolerant landscape materials. The proposal provides on-site amenities comparable with guality residential developments. The proposed project is designed as a high-quality luxury apartment development with multiple amenities. The proposed residential amenities include a two-story fitness center gym and recreation room, business center and computer library center, internet cafe, multi-purpose room with surround sound theater, and indoor/outdoor lounge and fireplace. Also provided will be four passive and active courtyards, including one with a pool and spa. A passive dry creek linear park is proposed along the 20 -foot wide setback running along the north and west property lines. The park will provide a variety of features, including a 4 -foot decomposed granite pathway for walking, benches along the pathway for sitting, exercise stations, and dog waste stations for dog -walkers. The Proposed PLoject meets the parking requirements- per the Zoning Code. The project proposes a new 5 -level parking structure for 503 covered parking spaces. The parking structure provides for subterranean parking for a portion of guest spaces, and includes privacy gates for added security. The 5 -level structure will be wrapped around on three sides (excluding south elevation) by the proposed apartment building, and a welded wire mesh grid system that supports the growth of landscape vines, and woven metal wire cloth will be used for screening the 5 -level parking structure. The project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding uses in the area and future apartment tenants will be notified of the existing uses in the vicinity of this proleet. The project has been designed as a self-contained residential community with on-site amenities as discussed above. The architectural style of the building, with its clean modern lines, glass, wood and metal accents, is visually compatible with the architecture of the surrounding commercial area. C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval that reduce impacts to the fullest extent reasonable and practicable. D. Mitigation Measures from the IS/MND have been included as conditions of approval (Exhibit C). If any of these conditions are removed, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the condition(s) are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. E. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that the development project's traffic impacts will be mitigated by the payment of traffic impact fees. F. The rear building of this development is at an excessive distance from the street, but the plan does not lend itself to fire apparatus access or placement of an on-site fire hydrant. Problems associated with the depth of buildings on the property can be somewhat reduced by installation of a standpipe system and a residential sprinkler system. EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PA -14-27 Ping. 1. The approval of Master Plan PA -14-27 shall be contingent upon City Council's final approval of General Plan Amendment GP -14-04, Rezone R-14-04, and Zoning Code Amendment CO -14-02. 2. Final Master Plan PA -14-27 shall comply with the conditions of approval, code requirements, special district requirements, and mitigation measures of the IS/MND for this project and as listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit C). 3. Mitigation measures from the IS/MND for this project have been included as Exhibit C. If any of these conditions are removed, the City Council must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. 4. The conditions of approval including Mitigation Measures incorporated by reference in these Conditions of Approval as Exhibit C, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA -14-27 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package 5. A parking management plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Director and the Transportation Services Manager prior to final occupancy of the building. The parking management plan shall denote the following: a. Method of allocation of assigned parking. b. Location of visitor parking, including appropriate signage. c. Location of security gates, if any, and how gates will be operated. d. Location of employee parking. e. Provide proof of a contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations if parking problems arise. 6. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. This includes use of exterior finish materials, as shown Sheet A3.00 of Attachment 8. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process such as a minor design review or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 7. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised in excess of 30 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property. If additional fill dirt is needed to provide acceptable on- site storm water flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may include subsurface tie-in to public storm water facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. Applicant is advised that recordation of a drainage easement across the private street may be required to fulfill this requirement. 8. The developer shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy. This inspection is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 9. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of individual units, suites, buildings, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 10. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall contact the U.S. Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 11. The project shall incorporate green building design and construction techniques where feasible; CAL Green Code or higher as determined by applicant. The applicant may contact the Building Safety Division at (714) 754-5273 for additional information. 12. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter system which is painted to match the building would comply with the condition. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 13. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. Freestanding signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division/Development Services Director to ensure compatibility in terms of size, height, and location with the proposed/existing development, and existing freestanding signs in the vicinity. 14. All proposed signage must conform to residential sign regulations per Zoning Code. 15. Demolition permits for existing structures shall be obtained and all work and inspections completed prior to final building inspections. Developer is notified that written notice to the Air Quality Management District may be required ten (10) days prior to demolition. 16. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall demolish existing block wall with razor fencing along the south and west property lines, as well as any existing wall/fencing along the neighboring commercial property abutting the northeasterly portion of the development lot, and replace with a 6 -foot high decorative block wall under the direction of Planning staff. Metal ,ZA I, fencing is permitted along north and east perimeter of development lot that abuts the existing bike trail and Harbor Boulevard only. Where walls on adjacent properties already exist, the applicant shall work with the adjacent property owner(s) to prevent side-by-side walls with gaps in between them and/or provide adequate privacy screening by trees and landscaping. 17. Developer shall submit a detailed Landscape Plan for the public and private open spaces, for review and approval by the Development Services Department, prior to any construction landscape improvements. The plan shall include all decorative hardscape and landscape improvements as shown on the conceptual plans to provide visual relief for the project from the street. Final materials shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 18. Perimeter landscaping shall be planted with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits and shall contain additional 24 -inch box trees above the minimum Code requirements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller sized trees to 24 -inch box trees or providing additional 24 -inch box trees. Existing mature trees shall be retained wherever possible. Should it be necessary to remove existing trees, the applicant shall submit a written request and justification to the Planning Division. A report from a California licensed arborist may be required as part of the justification. Replacement trees shall be of a size consistent with trees to be removed and may be required on a 1:1 basis, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. This requirement shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 19. Prior to issuance of first certificate of occupancy for the first unit, an Affordable Housing Agreement for the twenty affordable units for moderate -income households shall be finalized, executed, and recorded against the property. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be in form and substance as approved by the City Attorney's office to specifically address the terms, conditions, and covenants on the affordable housing units. 20. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall identify to the Development Services Director a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site activity, including resolution of issues related to dust generation from grading/paving activities. 21. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan features methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring uses to the fullest extent that is reasonable and practicable. The plan shall include construction parking and vehicle access and specifying staging areas and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan should mitigate disruption to businesses during construction. The truck route plan shall preclude truck routes through residential areas and major truck traffic during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200 trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or r 4- Transportation Services Manager. 22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the building plans shall demonstrate that all units are equipped with a mechanical ventilation system that will properly filter the indoor air. The ventilation system can be a component of the air conditioning system with the distinction being that clean, ventilated air flow does not necessarily need coolant. 23. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading as well as the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Building official prior to issuance of grading permits. 24. Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of (1) City's approval of the project, including but not limited to any proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. 25. A "Notice to Tenants" shall disclose the surrounding commercial uses in the area, including but not limited to, the existing communication towers adjacent to the development lot, and operational characteristics, such as hours of operation, delivery schedules, outdoor activities, noise, and odor generation of neighboring businesses. The Tenant Notice shall be reviewed/approved by the City Attorney's office and Development Services Director prior to issuance of building permits and shall be included as a reference document in the Tenants' Lease Agreement. The Tenant's Notice shall serve as written notice of the existing communication towers, noise environment and any odor -generating uses within the vicinity of the project. 26. If the project is constructed in phases, perimeter fences/walls, landscaping along the frontages, and irrigation shall be installed prior to completion of the first phase. PC 27. The applicant shall implement the Long -Term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan, as described in the October 12, 2015 communication (attached as Exhibit 131), prior to issuance of building permit. An action report, indicating that the relocation of long-term occupants, shall be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director Parks/ 28. Provide street tree for Harbor Blvd including Crape myrtle, Lagerstroemia Pkwys fauriei, (color to be determined by applicant) in a varietals including Muskogee, Tuscarora or Natchez Street is jacaranda mimosifolia. As alternate Queen Palms would be allowed. Eng. 29. Maintain the public right-of-way in a "wet -down" condition to prevent excessive dust and promptly remove any spillage from the public right-of- way by sweeping or sprinkling. 30. Protect wrought iron fence and landscaping on the north side of the property within the City's bike trail. 31. A "Hold Harmless Agreement" to tie to the City storm drain system will be required prior to obtaining a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division. 32. Submit a request to the City of Costa Mesa Public Services Department to vacate the 12 foot alley on the north side of the property and maintain utility easements. 33. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct a 6 -foot P.C.C. sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards adjacent to the property line as shown on the Offsite Plan, including four (4) feet clear around obstructions in the sidewalk. The parkway between the curb and sidewalk shall be landscaped per City of Costa Mesa Public Services direction. CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR PA -14-27 The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping. 1- All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 2. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 3. Development shall comply with all requirements of Article 1, Chapter 5, and Article 9, Chapter 5 of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relating to development standards for multi -family residential projects. 4. Developer shall pay any applicable park impact fee or dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. As of November 30, 2015, the new park impact fee is calculated at $5,000 per new multi- family dwelling unit. 5. Street address shall be visible from the public street and shall be displayed on the complex identification sign. If there is no complex identification sign, the street address may be displayed on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or on another prominent location. Street address numerals shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height with not less than one -half-inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Identification of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with not less than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 6. Parking stalls shall be double -striped in accordance with City standards. 7. Driveway ramp slope shall comply with the standards contained in the City's parking ordinance. 8. All new on-site utility services shall be installed underground. 9. Installation of all new utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure the installation from view from any place on or off the property. The installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the public utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box under the direction of the Planning Division. 10. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 11. The project shall be subject to the submission of legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of all common open space and other facilities provided in the final development plan. 12. All landscaped areas shall be separated from paved vehicular areas by 6 - inch high continuous Portland Cement Concrete curbing. 13. The parking structure shall be landscaped per the provisions of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-105(4) - Parking Structure Landscape Requirements. 14. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108 and the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. The two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 15. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 16. Trash enclosure(s) or other acceptable means of trash disposal shall be provided. Design of trash enclosure(s) shall conform to City standards. Standard drawings are available from the Planning Division. 17. If present and/or projected exterior noise exceeds 60 CNEL, California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL for residential structures. If required interior noise levels are achieved by requiring that windows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. 18. In compliance with the City's mitigation monitoring program, the applicant shall submit a compliance report to the Planning Division along with plans �-M for plan check or prior to commencement of the project's activity if no construction is involved, that lists each mitigation measure and states -241 - when and how the mitigation measures are to be met. Bldg. 19. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. 20. This project shall comply with the in -Building Public Safety Radio System Coverage per Section 5-130 to 5-137 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. At plan check submittal 6 copies of an in -building Public Safety Radio System Coverage report (Radio System Report) shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division. The Radio System Report shall be certified by an FCC licensed radio technician as provided by the property owner/applicant. The technician is required by Section 5-133 to conduct initial tests and shall be employed by the owner, the engineer or architect of record, or agent of the owner, but not by the contractor or any other person responsible for the work. 21. The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. CBC 1803.3., unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and allowed by the soils engineer. 22. Projections, including eaves, shall be one-hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into a 5 -foot setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3 -foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1(1) and R302.1(2). 23. Submit a soils report for this project. Soil's Report recommendations shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and the precise grading plans. If applicable to this project the soil's report shall address how the new slop shall be maintained to avoid any future failure. 24. Show compliance with Chapter 11A and 11B of the 2013 California Building Code. 25. On graded sites the top of exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved discharge device a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent. 2010 California Residential Code Section R403.1.7.3. 2013 California Building Code CBC 1808.7, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 26. Submit a precise grading plans, an erosion control plan and a hydrology study. 27. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of plans for plan check, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation for compliance with the State Water Resources* Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality Order 99- 08-DWQ; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) -241 - 24T 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 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying and detailing the implementation of the applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs). Eng. 28. For demolition, grading, or building permits involving projects with a valuation of $10,000 or more, the contractor shall use a City -permitted hauler(s) to haul any debris or solid waste from the job site (refer to Section 8-83(h), Regulations, of Title 8 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code). Use of a City -permitted hauler for such projects is the responsibility of the designated contractor. Non-compliance is subject to an administrative penalty as follows: $1,000 or 3% of the total project value, whichever is greater. 29. At the time of development submit for approval an Offsite Plan to the Engineering Division and Grading Plan to the Building Division that shows Sewer, Water, Existing Parkway Improvements and the limits of work on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or Architect. Construction Access approval must be obtained prior to Building or Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. Pay Offsite Plan Check fee per Section 13-231 of the C.C.M.M.C. and an approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering Permits being issued by the Cit of Costa Mesa. 30. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. ADA compliance required for all new driveway approaches. 31. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk at applicants expense. 32. Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of plans. 33. The storm runoff study shall show existing and proposed facilities draining directly to the flood control channel adjacent to the property. 34. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Engineering Division for any work in the City public right-of-way. Pay required permit fee & cash deposit or surety bond to guarantee construction of off-site street improvements at time of permit per section 15-31 & 15-32, C.C.M.M.C. as approved by City Engineer. Cash deposit or surety bond amount to be determined by City Engineer. In order to comply with the 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the proposed Project shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan conforming to the Current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Model WQMP, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer, which shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and 24T Trans Fire approval. a) A WQMP (Priority or Non -Priority) shall be maintained and updated as needed to satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program. The plan shall ensure that the existing water quality measures for all improved phases of the project are adhered to. b) Location of BMPs shall not be within the public right-of-way. 35. Fulfill mitigation of off-site traffic impacts at the time of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy by submitting to the Transportation Division the required Traffic Impact Fee pursuant to the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council. The Traffic Impact Fee is calculated based upon the average daily trip generation 232 net trip ends for the proposed project and includes a credit for any previously existing use. At the current rate the Traffic Impact Fee is estimated at: $41,992.00. NOTE: The Traffic Impact Fee will be recalculated at the time of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy based upon any changes in the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council and in effect at that time. 36. Developer will be fully responsible for the design and implementation (construction) of median modifications along Harbor Boulevard to restrict left -turn in and out of the project site. The modification shall include the construction of a raised median diverter. The median modifications will include addition and removal of landscaping where applicable. 37. Developer will be fully responsible for the design and construction of median modification at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Harbor Center to provide a U-turn lane in the northbound direction. 38. Developer will be fully responsible for the design and construction of signal modification at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard/Harbor Center to accommodate the U-turn phase. 39. Submit a fully dimensioned parking structure plan. Plan must include parking stall dimensions and aisle widths per City Parking Standards. All ramps must comply with the City Ramp Slope Standards. A preliminary parking structure plan must be reviewed by Transportation Services PRIOR to building plan check submittal. 40. Close unused drive approaches with full height curb and gutter per City Standards. 41. Construct commercial driveway approach(es) at location(s) specified on submitted site plan off Harbor Blvd. 42. Provide Emergency responder radio coverage complying with In - Building Public Radio System, CMMC and 510, California Fire Code, 2013. Show location of radio system control panel. 43. Project construction shall comply with Chapter 33, California Fire Code, 2013. 44. Provide minimum 12 -inch (Building) and 4 -inch (Unit) address. Addresses shall contrast with their background. Show building address on plan. 45. Provide Class I Wet Standpipes in all stairs. 46. Provide 2 -hour fire -rated stair enclosures. 47. Provide Fire Alarm System per CFC, 2010. 48. Provide Automatic Fire Sprinkler System per NFPA 13 —24�- 49. Provide on-site Fire Hydrants and Access per approved Fire Master Plan. 50. Provide one (1) Public Fire Hydrant and Fire Department Connection located between drive along Harbor Boulevard at direction of Fire Department. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR PA -14-27 The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani 1. It is recommended that the developer contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to obtain Sanitary District requirements. AQMD 2. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (800) 288- 7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by the district. School 3. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 4. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants (RIFA) exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Water 5, Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District — Engineering Desk and submit an application and plans for project review. Customer must obtain a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water District. __24q— EXHIBIT 131 Costa Mesa Motor Inn 2270 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa Long-term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan October 12, 2015 Upon approval of the "apartment project" by Costa Mesa City Council, the Property Owner has one year in which to commence construction of the new apartments, or seek a one year extension for a total of two years. As of this Relocation Assistance Plan date, the Property Owner intends to close the Motel on Monday, August 1, 2016, and construction would commence thereafter. However, on June 1, 2016, the Owner will provide a sixty (60) day advance "Notice of Motel Closure/Lease Termination" to all Long-term Occupants and provide the following relocation assistance: Definition of Terms: I Long-term Occupants - all motel guests who are current in paying rent and occupying rooms for thirty (30) or more consecutive days on the date the "Notice of Motel Closure/Lease Termination" is issued. Short-term Occupants - all motel guests occupying rooms for less than thirty (30) consecutive days on the day the "Notice of Motel Closure/Lease Termination" is issued. u Property Owner- Miracle Mile Properties El Notice of Motel Closure/Lease Termination- legally required written notice delivered to "Long-term Occupants" by the property owner sixty (60) days in advance of the Motel Closure date. Delivery of the notice may occur in person or be placed inside the Motel room. Motel- Costa Mesa Motor Inn Long-term Room Occupants Cash Relocation Assistance: Long-term room occupant's cash relocation assistance for rooms vacated on the closure date of August 1, 2016, would range from $4,000 to $5,500 per Motel room. All Long-term Room Occupants vacating their premises and handing over their keys on the Closure Date of August 1, 2016 will be refunded all rent monies paid for their rooms (not including amenities) in the last 90 days plus an additional $1,500. All long term room occupants remaining after the closure date of August 1, 2016, but vacating the premises and handing over their keys by August 31, 2016, will forfeit the additional $1500 in relocation assistance, but will be refunded all rent monies paid for their rooms (not amenities) in the last 90 days minus the rent for each day past August 1, 2016. All long term room occupants remaining after August 31, 2016 will forfeit all relocation assistance and be subject to normal eviction process. Occupants must give landlord a minimum 10 day notice of their intended move out so that a check may be prepared and delivered to the property on time for their move out. Occupants who do not give the minimum 10 day notice may elect to have a check mailed to them within 10 days, or may pick up their check from the LA office or at the motel no later than 10 days after notice has been given. All occupants must vacate their rooms by removing all personal belongings leaving the room and property undamaged besides usual wear and tear. Upon receipt of payment from Property Owner, Long-term Occupant/s will have been fully compensated for relocating to equal or better housing and will not hold property owner responsible for any further financial assistance. �U aw � 3 c O O a Q U (C w CO �J _'� 0 0 co w C cL 0 �m oQ r = VI 1 Y � N Tl- c aJ E c o O Y u w aJ � a1 C M CL E O V m •C V) Y a) m .� u a C L �_ > L M Q 0 Vi <= CL ,.fir Y Q C m e O v c C E 'C v aa) n E O •a0+ ` � L � ro a O w O O O O CL v a) W C C - . U Vol R ei fV M O cr rl N !Y1 aj a! U 0 c a, o C o 4� m v c aci a E E p L ai CQ C 0 0 u C aJ N 0 p p . C Q. 0 E X E .� •3 ° p ° 00 u 0 w u ca U v v m bn v On C -p O C i O p u> vi j ai C W L }' c •� t7 C O aj > Y O O C O C— C 7, 3 O as + O m u co C io O �+ L L C a1 ca L N C C p p o O-0 w W a- cu a O- 4+ > C O O � C~ j J ca D. W U D. 13 �-' Y U N L1 ,N +w+ Y a L1 .� vi y al U O ,�.. A 7 7> u `- s v C O 'a N m C N 4Z N 'ca O a/ t0 3 uj aJ tC O �+ x a, O_ C CL Ln C u °0 `n ?: O. -p n W c O v° v °+ t `° o° rca cco v aj«,' 7 4.1C Ln M L L ++ U C m a p. OO _ 7 m O�O C w O OL E Ou w^ E a; '� 3 3" CL v vii L Y v ° a u° v N t .E v a Y 3 v o^ L cca v fO v 3 °� v v E L cu o°Jc �° .= �. L O a+ U L o o w Y vn w O L c -i d g0 Tl- mU FL 3 Mo S AOA CL Q d U�j RU �c O L ^O C a Q 1.f. U�j W CO �J _ .S p W 0 co O Zoo C Q c"a = N N co c a, E E c O O m u w a1 u G! C f0 M .Q 0 E O V io C C O � u u c ar w u �+ c �, aj m w Q L IL a .• Q � C Y Y d0 C i1 a1 cc r C O_ E E OO C O Y *' L L CO O '� O W v aJ v O u W 0 eel N M c -I N N1 u u N U aJ Q ` 2 C CU L O V) C t+ YLL CL 'j C v c (D E v a, E E o g a > LA a in u 0 — � u t v Y C V L 0 C O O u — a) L ul ,U C O •�CL }O`+ C Q (D YE O 0 C L L Y > Y C H u u C> m u w E p aN C a uu u `° CL O W= 0 u a O Ov c o 3 °� m o W C pp 0 CL a O 0 L L L V1 � Y a) Q L O Y d a1 41 Y > m Y aJ `1 LA j O tm - Q u L cu = Y Y C L m L W Y 0_ lJ �2—:3-- co mU aw 01� L A O I L Q Q of U�< w CO �J EE. .L. c 0 co N0 Li E Of Op 0O of 0Q (C N N FRI ON c v E E c O O V r to u w ar u aJ C f0 � 0 CL E 0 U f0 r S O u N O u > v0Ji C OJ C Ou m Baa a v� L oa en cas p Q n 'Y cu c •� C E 'C a U C Y C E a) a E Y Q: CU QJ M C O C c '0 a L a> a O '— O W� O a U d m... O aJ v � D ar M rl N M O Z c -I N f/1 V U tw v a > a, N O V) O cL 4' a! C W vE a, a E E o 0/ra a > a al E 0 m > Y V EY d Up p p "j, O Y Y 0 0 O �'D`� c 7 L a) O` 7 -0 O -0 u `L° c 'M c aJ 7 a) U a! v v c E a c c c :, rce L c Ln ul u L Z ,o v O 3 C v E O �, u m " m o v cu m N 0 CY a ry �a E� is O to p" C u C a- ra C c Y a1 L C L C L u `�' L � L! � C w in L V i = m �n O �^ al a1 m p d0 cLn a u Ln M (V u. o p •' '� •,., Cu a c o C o L Ln a, o a s u y v a, o v� L c IC O U ',= u a; u u E 3 �, E° ,Vf °� > pc v m � y .o C L m >- a m x m O 0, (V Y c •L:• U M w a`Di L Q ,C E •OO M E E aJ c C C— p C 0 C C �_ a C O " O c �J y � b0 CU L A 0' E Ou Ou > cr V ++ Ou w 00 Ou to o CD C aJ a �' Ou c •m Y a C c i 0 c c o `� aJ O •gyp L E Ul w in a+ E O O p O ,E .E O in L }, E a1 p c p ;a a1 tv C u C— u u ad o 'o in t E Ln " M c u Y co 00 Y L _a C i a1 O C (A p +,, L Y a1 3 7 L t c +j O cx Y E a) aJ i. Y .� v' a) i Y ` E .Y u L a1 o Y in Y 'n Y a1 Y c h �.. E c .a C C �"' f9 cu 0 rl ` L o Q C L L o u c L u v O vi .`, " Q v O p y N O. 'oa o0 o 'E ^ = c� 'E E v u 3 p a U }, aj s L— c a� L c C C i v L cr X Y p C m 6 m E v L U Z .91 V m m w ?i p w 7 w a a V1 a) Q u 0) w a a w L Y O Y -0 41 �. g a FRI ON T 7 cr Q 14 v c 0 v a, Y N o T p ItT � 00 L ci al >0 75 v ac v CL a m " Q 0 m L C o0 3 0 o c v +� cu > V O O m O. 3 ° � t � E CL w 7 +'0.aj v O U Ln O U _U a) V1 7 C OD O_ C C -0 O a) 0 C O L N c ad C U L O O •OD D L p j in Oa Q O a) L VI LL } C c a7 < L u O N ECLul L O ^ v Ln c > m c E o a +� u cO '+� a) O aJ T E OL ++ OD Y 0 `�.' OOo OD r -Io Un u C pi CL ate) u . oc w 3 x aj c s > a, v ns *= > +�a) � m ro v 0 Ln Ln o U L; cr N< �_ oa E L v L C vi a1 C N Q N CL V) N E O U m OD ,�,, L v +� U r •3 OD m aL.+ L Q m O _ — O v1 M OA m Y O OO O >a) +� a) E c 3 U U o O i OA 4! — L >' w m aJ �n O — L rd tw -p O_ p '— L L O O n w 0 O N E O dO L C L ~' O '3 u N 7 O L O n cr = O U u o > > a) m — a L U u L cu N NoCU OD 43-. OD' '� L-0 X C C T L a) L a) C w. U M �' ro �O OOvi E M a) CLE L c � E c to 0 •— CL a) = a, on a) r u — O_ -0 O al a) C 'n C Q a) O > a) L WL— X m Cp j 3 u � Q) 1+ U C > w) co ! • • • • OU OO i7 c Q 1cu OU r4 M u _U, Lnc _T N O Q`1 in O_ M Vf Ln O N c v m 3 caj �+ L > °0 3 o OO C •++ fTO � d T aJ E L O C aJ u 3 L ++ O c O C � a) T � N d > a) w C C c V, fO L M Y C O 3 a v n O U ns vi v M i � � c ai c C L M 'L In 'O L > O 'C m °J '3n o E v c o C 'N m O L ° °a E v v+' a) -Fu C N O L L L a+ cam.) O .� '3 c t U C (O (cO p i aj c a)f+ U u _0 v L .0 ` v O Z! N u >- +' > +- in =- L Vi OQ O "O j = m C V1 O a) L O t3o L O v -0 U .0 MO 0 -0O a w Ln vUl) vOf 7 Eca O Z a+' a1 O .E a ns N > O = O n v M u 0. E u O u ^ O N Ln L U, T L a) aJ ECL n m m m E a,¢ V33: a) O E a) O �v 3 m a) a m , O :L- V) _V) C U U •� M o m L O Y O U L v L p L) Q CL > v v '' C I- O O E L O v O Y Y L L vi O i O co Y c O v =_ V1 o E o ,) v u C C c v m L a Y � � Y ET v O Q � Y L 0 C 0 O — u c � C v v� O L a) `°Ln c m O E L 12 � L � 0 3 i v O vkn aO O i LCL U O c m -0a m0 mo a O E 3 c c •,c o -0m - v sU '� v v w U t mon +' Q0 C O- O N O L U — O O aai Y vi L i m v Y Y � L Y C lH Q. 0 C E a v L L 3 O C O O m T Y C C u vm a) C m c o m U CU v O' L 7 L 0. F- ¢ M M u E c O v aL+ L 3 Y OO -o C _C "O Y L o .v V)L 'n 0 M v d M � L C � m CL w y c 0 , O 0 m O Y V, u O u Ul Q. C O O C O O U -0 m C C � O O � C m 6 Y C v O o C- a v L N w E w E 0 00 T N � O 00 Q CL C cuu ¢ U u Y c '^ � cCo c ¢ v v v c E L on m 'a m c E Y v _v m � > E O ¢ ao v v L mc Y c v u O v m +' U YV1 C O m L—_ M 0 m LVi O `n L YY CU cCa c U � = ECL CL u m O. O C un v aj > 41 L v v L H H O aJ U_ Q Lf 1 4A M M � a O vvi (A m v Y L O O. E v w u O Ln v w f0 7 U rl M u R L c o L c 0 O L C 41 4J v O O u n M CU Uj, C o o i •� o +L+ (c6 m o U c ';--N cu �a o C v R) +� O O - -C +•' a c u L E O c O R) s +� U 4J T L u a +� U VI +� w- O v+� O a� c O L O UiE Q *' i+ w L u 41 (V V) L O R) ++ > p — C! a L W C L a O C ` R) — � R) Z w O O •y,, RS R)O 4 .� U X Ln N = c -_ m C U �n c U L L in OD G1 r -a a) -C- .O a) Q , R) c Ln Q) u •c C O V) T w -0 C E w R C O c C E c R) C �+ C LU V) L M I CL C v E E L CL 3 O c c C 3 a N c L p 0 Ln U a) =_ CL ar a) ++ E p Ou 'v a Vi C RS N 16 V) L a) L N c O w N m Q! r CL w O R «� u •p L N p c +_ E — R) "Q c Q L U O 2 O Ln •L L 4J U T ,� v1 Q N U j, w Q +_. 0 aj urts U i `~ Rs U R O E U O L m M w L L c OD 'n U R) 7 UV) in RS v Q) E v E O p -C Q v O +' .n N Z L O � Y c u �. L > O C n L o ^ C O C w v u U'^ v E o ocn v .� -0N ra v c Ou a VI C c w > ria > a) 'Ci L c C u a O L C O O (U at a) L 'a 3 CL n o a c C7 ° T `6 )a M" �, 0 v R) C c L c c z rcc a u o c 'n O L a }, E Q O o L n R) O L o U oU m E u M V 3 Cvi O L •- M Y o R) +L+ CC R u O i U N J Q Ct L 00 R) U Q .c V, L > O a) ocn o a) v �, o E o «' IS O E p Q O O Q) O 41 =-0 L CLL Q Q M OD+� O -0 'ul n Qj L "p 'Q Y U 0 0 C v _v rr M Q>, w O _c Q. Ln L O — C U ` c L1 Q R7 N fL0 C +L+ n v C Q' c > V1 = c u •� O N d Ul c C ` v a Q- O OD +- O L w Y -0`�° a— E O L o C Ql aa) N '-,— W O j ra �= p L N E > E O c L Cf Q R] 4-. Q1 E EO O O CL N' u O M O C ,� 'E u p-0 C Ul R) L c C7 O ',� O � +_ d0 L c U OM E y a E ar T U Ul - w 7 O OBD •N c�9 C N 3= R3 E Q O LJ C fl_ :E N ,x >> GJ .0 �, o v o E RS E 'o E N E t �+ `J 4! Qt L M cu O J O_ ►L+ U a.+ RS a v E 3 Ul t '� CL c -m E a L N *' 3 O a) E •- c O c U c N~ v > p� — 4J C N U Q Z N U .� 7 O p N u w 4= CL L 2-0 E a L O a E L C O C Q C O O p Rmo u O L Ln w O L Z m u CL m LN M c O Ln (V a to � aJ to L N L R] L R7 6 'R7 w al E V) L UE 'a+ E L Q +.+ C >' Oo a O L p C N C M O C Uu > M �O c U a N M YO Cl Q) E > w L ry a O c v w pc a v E i s 3 N C m N M ' u1 u1 _O tp O aJ N M tD l0 Vu1 N ti N L c 0 R) C 3 N CL C •� o O m o U c cu �a o C v Ln +� O O O -C +•' a c u L E E c O R) s +� U 4J T L u a +� U VI +� w- O v+� L w L p V) L O R) ++ N a) — C! a L W C L a O R) O U O U co v Ea O O CL O R)O v -O � O �+ u v 7 c -_ m C G.0 U U M M C p cr o O C CU `D c E 'X -0 R) a) C Y Q) U C LU V) V1 M I CL ++ t v E E L CL 3 c c L o 3 E E N c O cCL Ou Rs a s N p O N N N m m cN C • C w m `J aj (0 u% E N C R) C M L R) p�j — R) "Q o o" 2 N •L L V� /v V u L u C M N i `~ , U 'E O c Ul O m M w L T c U R) Lp UV) Y �_ is� v Q) E v E .� ro p O C Q v ai -0 oD .n Y v � c M U L O O E o C m �+ v o w v OD v U'^ v E o ocn O o -0N CL X-- Ou v9 CO Y > a) C C O O "o T 3 a -0O m` C7 T `6 )a M" v 0 ami R) C L c L C in 4J of'� C u 4J a) = 'n O L C }, E Q O o L 'A O p L o M oU m E u w Q Q U •- M 5 to = M U 0 d +L+ a •M u V) i U N Q Ct L u R) a1 v) Q 00 O O O a) in CL O pc u c u a Ln p Q O V O O 41 =-0 CLL Q Q M OD+� O -0 n Qj 0 U 'Q CU o_ 0 C v _v R1 M a) Q✓ nn c _c L L O — C U ` c N Q R7 c w - _ to CL O 3 Q 3+ ` U +� O OD QJ L w Y -0`�° a— E L o C Ql aa) N '-,— W O pL ra �= OQ N w O O C U Rs C+ L Rs N O O � N' u O M O C ,� 'E n O p-0 C Ul R) L c C7 O ',� R) � +_ d0 L c U OM O y a E ar T U Ul - w a+ •N -0 Ul "O •N Q u OLD C -0 N ,x >> GJ .0 �, o ." E RS W E N E t O ccv M cu O O_ U a.+ RS u U N CL C � Ul Y vi C O O C O v ~ R3 — O C O U c Q N O '^ a+ CL CA U t w o +' U 7 C Q Q .0 c R E o O p Rmo u o f � U m m LN M c Ln U vi a to � D N M tD l0 Vu1 N ti Y u a) O CL CU L Y Y CL bD _c A OD (V V) u (1) E U T C E U. O (V u c m c a) L O o` a c do Q Z Y c a) C O a) U O z E a`) a L a) c () 0 C O U c C O u m u V) v c a) a) m L O z a) L (YO L bA c T u c v ra m a`) L Z O a, v m `o m L Y C m u .a CL m ar L a) CL w c 0 m m O a, u c 7 a) L O `o a d CL a c m CL c O aJ v L d c O 0 CL v a E 0 Ln a, L a C O 'Y U c c 0 U OO c .3 O O a1 L E c E .E m rYa al O u .c 3 c m E N a v c d C7 O U 7 V, C O U (U L L 3 _v CL E O u t a CL CL Ul m a, m CL a) CL �o C a) O a c m V m m 7 0 CL C a) E a) c 0 c C O 0 v c m c v E a) O O C O u O a, m U a) O a v L O Qj a) c c m Q a m L Y Q1 c 0 u O U a, O CL a) L Y 0 a m C 0 U c L c O u O CL ar u V) 0 ca G m N U Q) .O CL a) -r- LO ,Q E m to O U_ a) u c m c v c E a) L c a x LU • a • a c O V n > c v Y a m O 41 0 3 00 T u s a w U a v U m a, oY a mtloL c ,� 3 4O O U u 3 a) OD U O c ao c v C 0 Y O -0 ++ v- QJ 4! Ln O } O Y O Q c a 0 v E a) O c o' a v m 4J C Lm +J °A E c L 'c 0 +J — >. c �a CL o r- E E vlN O +O U = v m O CLL x v ` L v V Y Y O O E c O � � O a, m a x v X 0 m c v E m � m OD o c � O a a u mU_ OO m C L J ° 3 Y m O N v E O a)Lnto Y ° c o °o ccu a) M oq Iq u 0 v L Y � � L 3 cu 0 ° o +� v Y a a ° Y m " m m *� to 3 �' C L L ou Y -0 c O v 3 c c a• a) u m Y a) m +L+ U fU`O C c oT — m a-0 L m CL v L C C ° w (2)O Y U v� OCL L O U CL v u 3 c Fo a') -0 a, v O 0 w O C Y O (Ij to CU E U °-0 0 c — is m oo c a O m n O C C H O E •0 v0 U m C O c r= v E on c Cr a Y aJ >. L m C m VI � `- ° E 'C T L Q a) m .Q a) L > +m•� CU a) y U aJ a) L ou N ° Y C 00 of v 'O o V)i 0 u Q) aE 3 Y Q_ CL ° L aJ m = m E O OU O L vUi a) O Y c— N 7 Om C �9 L 7 C C E -0 m — e 0 Q a`) i a) f�O E m L Y i V v m O 3 t E O .0 � C -0 Q)m o E 76 to c^ > a ;a v U x xc a O E X C O v Q)¢ 0 c m 0 aJ L +-' C C cu Q) n +_ L E > Y ° 0 O � a m m "O a ,W d4 L vi *O' 0 O C u O ++ Y 'u a) a ° j a) co - += ' -0 E o aj Ln� v E c O o .L c y o c ° 0 f0 .°m a ^ > a) S U a v E u° O V)i 2 O: (C '6 ai N L OR a, N a c O V n > c v Y a m O 41 0 3 00 T u s a w U a v U m a, oY a mtloL c ,� 3 4O O U u 3 a) OD U O c ao c v C 0 Y O -0 ++ v- QJ 4! Ln O } O Y O Q c a 0 v E a) O c o' a v m 4J C Lm +J °A E c L 'c 0 +J — >. c �a CL o r- E E vlN O +O U = v m O CLL x v ` L v V Y Y O O E c O � � O a, m a x v X 0 m c v E m � m OD o c � O a a u mU_ OO m C L J ° 3 Y m O N v E O a)Lnto Y ° c o °o ccu a) M oq Iq u 0 RT 06 u m c 3 a v O u a c`v 0 E L U V) a CL ° 3 (B LA w � L O C O c u 3 a O L C y Y V1 C m a 00 m c E 0 O In to a ++ Vt m � 3 00 C 3 O N a M U L 3 > co O > cuU L O Vl > O 0 L O a y u M C CL L E y 4-- ` O O u M M Q, ` a y m c L O u O a ( Y c O U aC CL O (A U •E 3 C � O 06 u H C a E CL Q) a LL a ra y O U � o c LM N 3 Q) c c C � w � U � a a L � +� > a }, 3 O u Z V) U.1 D a c Z u m a E 3 O V) w } �> O aci c c >0 E v } a � c_ o E v LUQJ D a i° a u y E t! o O E 0 �+ Ln C O a CL CL _ C C � fE .� tLi1 U_ E Z L `c 3 O a y L N L a r3 a U LJ a C O Q A C W v O Q to C L V1 E L E E C U 4O O a L o c CL w CLL a 0 V7 L CL Q) O a cn c a d w L — a a U W N m UDc m c a p co u O � � N � � •io L L 3 � y � a ? +a+ a a v E a V OC C O M a a cuE L -0 a O 3: Q c v v on u " 2. A-- m O Q a C 3 a .5 L 0 v U a Ln 7-2 r- 0 c 0 c 'y 3 L c0 L — fD CL *a 3 O 00 c co o .5 a CL +j ` a `0 3 c a E a m o O 0 L CL ac, Vim+ 0o w 0 E CL a Ln z a O C a C L a L y O aT+ a m v V E a m ` a w- ua v O O C a 3 yCL a a ro E L a_ . C v _ y o 0 _ E N 3 o- Ln a U d a L L a U y > a MN N > 0 CL C a H +-. L CL a O ,E a c a c a a o � o° y c a u u 'n` a CO +, L a m a > ac OU C E a y 41 ua a OCD '` 3 3 C L 3 � O' ` `° 4- 3 c aj a; o m 3 r9 ` O O 3 w a y c ocn CL c 0 u m E .Y 0 S y U V1 3 L X v y C a' � c 0 O L N y a+ 2 O u — a L '- 0 a `° `i �! v 7 = Q a 7-2 00 c Ln 0 C m c 0 f0 Q 0 CL Y c C a) u Y Y_ — L O C _u L u 3 Q) v 'o c U •� C C 7 v > v "6 a1 L ut 'r '^ O i ar v Y O. v a C O C 7 cv O. O O O p L u Y C O Y c (ij o v s X +- LOD Y LU w C co O O "' vi > L O c 'L Y VI co O L '� C Y u E O u O m u a1 OCD O ut aJ ILIo • "O xYO O u L o Q a a Lm — van c mu M OU OD c 'O vO, m cco a) O y vi C u O CL y O > vI C c0 O Y 9 3 C pN N m Y 3 a U Y Ln Y L U `J ut O c ro u O O- M ` U V1 w O c O C O O u L �' a1 O > L OD W C 0 u m c 3 v) O u L M 0 3 E U u C IL– C vOi +L+ O_ V) aJ u L V) u 7 vi a 0 o C Y � v >, (6 L a, v V) c O — L O V) C M v � E O Q. aJ c^O V)L Q- O a, O 7 O c p lD cr w C E -0 T L f0 L! c c0 E CN C N a'O E 42 O aj ca U 3 v °: O �, o O o U -0 tD C 01 L w OD O O w c T u O Z Y p L > U Q y O Y L 7 O aJ >, ut U C L E d EOD O a1 U N O C O O Y L O t C L •r O Y u - al L p ? r4 to ,} cu U1 cV �+- O ti4 C C .� O C O `� Y c o2 o T UD E u E v a LU v :c a m .0 EO E Ui C ro c YO — v W n3 vYi O c O U t u U w O T U o cu lao o c (L9 L O b-, Y T > T U v 7 Q CL OL -0 O c C Q _g_- a1 Q W m > L OD u p w vi c >Z -0 Q .0 > 75 � 2 O c O U Y Q C— OD c E E V) 7 O C Q >, vi OD _O CL U C vi O O OA p Y 'u L Y W OD u a! ` OD Y > C C 'V, C r0 •� Y '�-+ O a E 'L L CO E L u 0 E E vi fO cL ut Y I� c0 U c9 vi v, w V w C (D O c — — O U U vi L OD 7 c 0 c m,OD ca OD L O- c o Z L O p L QOJ co CL co C c +� aui aJ C O O O OD aJ • • • a d, v O O V) ` L L v a a Z a r'1 N 01 M � N 01 01 � VV1 to H Z (A 00 c Ln 0 C m c 0 f0 Q 0 CL Y c C a) u Y Y_ — L O C _u L u 3 Q) v 'o c U •� C C 7 v > v "6 a1 L ut 'r '^ O i ar v Y O. v a C O C 7 cv O. O O O p L u Y C O Y c (ij o v s X +- LOD Y LU w C co O O "' vi > L O c 'L Y VI co O L '� C Y u E O u O m u a1 OCD O ut aJ ILIo • "O xYO O u L o Q a a Lm — van c mu M OU OD c 'O vO, m cco a) O y vi C u O CL y O > vI C c0 O Y 9 3 C pN N m Y 3 a U Y Ln Y L U `J ut O c ro u O O- M ` U V1 w O c O C O O u L �' a1 O > L OD W C 0 u m c 3 v) O u L M 0 3 E U u C IL– C vOi +L+ O_ V) aJ u L V) u 7 vi a 0 v L aJ C LL u H aJ C YO u N a1 Ui (u '� (a Nv a) Y v > O >- O ^ O U io L v� L a1 m L CC U aj E> (A «J O a) C +•' w �L O C a! C C L a w C > i aj U in � O � x ar a ) tw (o c Ul CL C 16 U Q1 E U 'L"' cLoaj v p aJ 3 +' v � > v v u v a) L U L +L j `) `J , >O '� cv aJ `1 _U d C C Q O_ ]z d 6 w -0 C O C ra L O O Ln c c m 3 � w u '� a C L O v u1 p C v O p O Ln O v (o N C a) U O O u O > 0 C aj C T 7 L p a' > `o c 3 E a c s rD �O a) aj w O L cD '� L U (o L +_ In E L u 3 o E o C (0 aJ U L a C > L v 1 a1 LL U >• C > O_ `° r-+ ,n U c O *= CL +� -O (n C E ns c 3 .E v v O V- O Oin u ra aJ E y [ O O u O u aJ E o U ) p a U w L (� i N O aJ •> O E w C u 7 7 •� 1- V) a O +� C L C � E `n O O v v O u C a [ M x "O a! OD L aJ aa) M L r -(U C n C vi _ + ar o O E >O v o p (tea v c O O. O U al Q E E CL Ln a) m CL 4 (o +� u — a a1 aj X O n (v E _> Ln C 41 (C U L CL C "6 o U 'A O L > i m a) L U d Ln L �O _E CV) O V E v O o m u � i E r a, U �_ v m a >+ cu L t6 O a+ 00 U E O a1 E t+ v (C n L m ra o v v E 'n — 76E v a 1 ai CL u m >, t- L O C aj cuL L C a1 CO U C L i fI L ~ O a1 '� v U aj w C E aJ i aJ i <U 3 C aJ L i R soO C +� O L Q > E +' o -O O_ E (u v a c _ � E N ,, � �, O `a n o> v `^ �0 E c - L o E c o E O_ C L �° Q✓ N N U VI d _c 3 B v O a 'O w (o �_ ou v a� ai k �_ L Q x E c u O L v O v > al a (V C p w E R O U `^ CL N `O a (U ? w -07'A V) O u W C °° fE >-0 CL cv *' m E (A c a) a o •v�Q m L L a) a, a, m aj v a, v c CL 4- E o o o � E ao O u O _> O > O >> v OD U o a a a a E 0 c >o a Q � c-0a 'f0 U Ln of H (O �; i to to cu L cr a: E aJ N W L N �a Eto r�o aJ aJ a! ` C oC (C O 4J �+ •0 C O O '� O O O 0 L U v C14 ` 4-- co a a a a r- V) _C 3 • • •: QJ 0 o d w rn a un p > H H w H Q (C a M 00 01 rl � rl rl d rl r1 ami � Vu1 VA N VVI to VV1 Ln vi VV1 u U w 0 � o0 a) o +, V, V; 0 a`, mc T asCL v 0_ o E on c m > va o LU o o aJ u V ^ L a cu Y E r= v >_ T E aj on F- m c ca -0 0� 0 f+ T LnaJ C C1 m v U UE u v L aj CO O Q O CL L CL ate+ O u �' w c t O M u v N > m O_ T L Y O p *' ate., c E o C ro u _U >U O (O i C v 'E «�aj > a ul 0 E >ai w v,, a aJ a Y Q m C a a! u E N 'O m V) a) O C p 0 L a) m L aJ � N L ++ ++ O (AL t O Ln 0 OL o C Q v Q C CL Ln(6 aj i aj "° C w L CL 0 CL aj E a) CLO ccv r u v 3 E w c > CL a v >.CL O_ `J 3 c +J E O m y U E _ u a c 0 Q v (C +� O U C` = 0 L O O aJ aj0a1 O co V) O_ C E L tao u a. vii to Otn°u d - ul a Y a! W C ON cu -0L m m C 0 �., O u — .� Ln — C m al of m u (a 0 , U a d 7 u �= U 7a U 4-- O_ .— m w 't U > OL fC +�, C V7 D m v1 T - ° ° v Ul >• aj o_ i O. u c I— c ar cu a) E m v s U H C — is a! m 0 m L 4— O ++ p ro L V7 L + p O > c fa V) T }' a) p U > L O_ V1 v c' a, v ° _ E E E 0 O = a S V) O E V, a' u a) a) L° +� m C O ++ }' C v L aj , L > v ;,, U a E — OC cr ai p O `� U CL N (U �+ . _c v O aj C L N v U 3 } L ++ O 'N .E C L-1 '0 u O-0 0 O 0 U �., L ��,, C 7 3 u 4-;m C 'C E w h o O"u E � a c 3 w c v ° `O v a O 0 u �' ` O u Vi al 2 L O_ u C O CS. u u Vii to C Cl m Cl -0E U M N C OC O p �O �U O _C 7 Vi u v C U Q_ E .E v C O O _v L ami _v O 7 mL w C` Q Q Ln +, Oy O M u v- 7 L O— aJ C — Q `1 C �• U O. U C m+0+ v O 0 O m Q N c V Q N °L .+ N E Ln L u cu ++ �+ C m CL 0 Q (0 u O L N 3 m u V,u 3 LA al OC ++ -CCL ? C N u a a a • a v u u — Q Q m 0 = p O O O U O CL a f° a ` c aa, > CL ^ ¢ o ° u -C s r a .p c ¢ CL O t/1 m t o N V) N m V1 N m LA 4- rq r, v a 4 v V1 N E VV1 VV1 VV1 VV) VV1 VV1 N ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -1 These are my comments for the council meeting of 11-3-15 to be entered into the official record of the meeting. I am writing concerning the decision to re -zone the area of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn to high density residential without providing permanent sustainable housing such as provided by Mercy House. I believe that the city must allow an entity such as Mercy House to establish permanent sustainable housing prior to re -zoning the motel. Because many Costa Mesa Motor Inn residents do have jobs in Costa Mesa and their children attend school in the Newport Mesa district, I request a report from city staff as to where in Costa Mesa could these families rent with the $5,000. reportedly planned to be given to the displaced residents by the motel owners. The staff report should identify the costs for renting a one (1) bedroom apartment to include the application fee, security deposit and the first and last month rent and then the number of months rent left in that $5,000. We will find that $5000. Is not a substitute for a process of learning to save and enabling a family to be ready for independent living through the programs of permanent , sustainable housing. Margaret Mooney Costa Mesa resident ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PH -1 MEJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Don't forget, get rid of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn! From: Jami JoAnne Russell Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 6:26 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<CITYCOUNCI L@ci.costa -mesa.ca. us> Subject: Don't forget, get rid of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn! The place is a dangerous slum. You don't have 500+ 911 calls a year because you're safe. You don't have Yelp reviews mentioning RAPE and uncaring clerks because you're safe. It's a drug and prostitute infested dump filled with bedbugs, fleas, scabies, broken wiring, non -working smoke detectors. There are cheaper places to live right around the corner with kitchens people can use that $5,000 to rent. Children deserve to grow up in a place with a kitchen where they can have a pet and their own room. Not J 00 square feet with no privacy and a mattress filled with used heroin needles. Tear it down! Make Costa Mesa a little bit safer by forcing the drug addicts and hookers to move on. Jami JoAnne Russell— ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -1 M EJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW; ATT City Clerk..... Please include in Council Packets From: Lysa Ray Sent: Monday, Novem er 02, 2015 6:47 PM To: CITY COUNCILECITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: ATT City Clerk..... Please include in Council Packets Dear Mayor Mensinger, Mayor Pro -Tem Righeimer and Councilmembers Monahan, Lecce and Gems: I am writing to express my emphatic support for Public hearing item #I, November 3, 2015 council meeting: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -14-04/ REZONE R-14-04/ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CO -14-02/ AND MASTER PLAN PA -14-27 FOR COSTA MESA APARTMENTS AT 2277 HARBOR 1:101816�1i1.\7� Costa Mesa Motor Inn Zone Amendment & Master Plan ... Group Home Multiple Family Zone Ordinance This rezoning is crucial to not only rid our City of this blighted, outdated and problem motel but integral in helping the homeless families that are staying in this motel a chance to find true affordable housing with the help of the owners $5000 relocation funds. Please I urge your support on this important issue] I thank you in advance, Lysa Ray 47 year resident of Costa Mesa ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -1 M EJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Attn: City Clerk: please place on Council Packet From: Louise Rose Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:00 PM To: CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Attn: City Clerk: please place on Council Packet Dear Council Members, My name is Louise Rose, I live in CM. I have been a resident since 1969. I am writing regarding my concerns about the rezoning of the CMMI property. My husband and I are 100% in favor of rezoning. We ask all 5 of you to please vote in favor of rezoning. CMMI is no longer being used as a Motel and hasn't been for some time. Many of it's residents are in danger living there. There are many drug abusers and people that commit crimes living there. I do feel for the families as wells as the seniors, disabled and veterans that are living there. It is my compassion for them that influences my decision to see the business closed. These people are living in roach and crime infested rooms. That is not a good situation. I personally know families and single residents. Some need to get out but haven't had the means. I also know of a couple of them that are complacent. They have the means but have become comfortable and fear change. As I said, I know them personally and believe the closing CMMI will be the best thing for many of the residents. It will force them take that next step they so desperately need. I have so much more to say, but understand your time is limited. Thank you, Louise Rose ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -1 MEJ1A, JESSICA Subject: FW: Costa Mesa Motor Inn -----Original Messa a ----- From: Diana Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:06 PM To: CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Costa Mesa Motor Inn > Attention City Clerk: > Although I will not be able to attend the council meeting, please include my comments in the packet to the council. > > As a long term resident of Costa Mesa (over 40 years), I want to voice my support for the demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Shopping on Harbor Blvd. nearby has become increasingly difficult due to the drug addicts that frequent the area. > The city I love is becoming inundated with a criminal element that frequents these old hotels where they can pay weekly from the fruits of their thefts or begging. > I hope after this hotel, the hotels on Newport Blvd. are addressed as well. > Thank you, > Diana Olson > I ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PH -1 CITY OF COSTA MESA AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING NAME CITY ADDRESS ZIP TYPE OF UNITS *UNITS TOTAL # OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Camden Costa Mesa 2855 Pinecreek 92626 Family Studio, 1 & 2 144 714 Martinique Bedroom Camden Sea Palms Costa Mesa 1850 Whittier Ave. 92627 Family 1 & 2 28 138 Apartments Bedroom Canyon Crest Townhomes Costa Mesa 2178 Canyon Dr. 92627 Family 2 & 3 4 17 Bedroom Canyon Palms Costa Mesa 2230 Canyon Dr. 92627 Family 2 7 2 Bedroom Casa Bella Costa Mesa 1844 Park Ave. 92627 Senior 62+ & Mobility 75 75 Impaired 1 -Bedroom Civic Center Barrio Costa Mesa Multiple Locations 92627 Family 1 & 2 30 30 Housing 721,717, 734, 740, & 744 Bedroom James St. 745 W. 18th St. 707 & 711 W. 18th St. Costa Mesa Family Village Costa Mesa 1981 Wallace Ave. 92627 Family 2 & 3 72 72 1924 Wallace Ave. Bedroom 2015 Pomona Ave. Costa Mesa Village Costa Mesa 2460 Newport Blvd. 92627 Studios 96 96 Hamilton Park Costa Mesa 419-423 Hamilton St. 92627 Family 2 & 3 3 9 Bedroom Hamilton Terrace Costa Mesa 439 Hamilton St. 92627 Family 2 & 3 3 9 Bedroom Mesa Breeze Apartments Costa Mesa 867 W. 19th St. 92627 Family 15 62 10 - 1 Bedroom 5 - 2 Bedroom Park Place Village Costa Mesa 1662 Newport Blvd. 92627 SRO Studios 60 60 Pomona Costa Mesa 1985 Pomona Ave. 92627 Family 1, 2 & 3 4 22 Townhome Bedroom Apartments South Court Apartments Costa Mesa 736 Baker St. 92627 Family 5 24 2 Bedroom South Coast Paularino Costa Mesa 801 Paularino Ave. 92626 Family 1 & 2 10 46 Bedroom St. John's Manor Costa Mesa 2031 Orange Ave. 92627 Senior 62+ & Mobility 36 36 Impaired 1 Bedroom The Tower on 19th Costa Mesa 678 W. 19th St. 92627 Senior 2+ 270 270 Studio, 1 & 2 Bedroom NAME CITY ADDRESS ZIP TYPE OF UNITS #UNITS TOTAL # OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Wallace Court Costa Mesa 1955 Wallace Ave. 92627 Family 2 & 3 Bedroom 5 22 No Name Provided Costa Mesa 863 Center St. 92627 Family Studio 1 & 2 Bedroom 2 18 No Name Provided Costa Mesa 2038 Maple St. 92627 Family 2 Bedroom 1 No Name Provided Costa Mesa 2241 Pomona Ave. 92627 Family 1 & 2 Bedroom 2 9 No Name Provided Costa Mesa 650 W. 18th St. 92627 Family 2 Bedroom 2 8 No Name Provided Costa Mesa 685 W. 18th St. 92627 Family 1 Bedroom 5 5 No Name Provided Costa Mesa 2278 Newport 92627 Studios 7 11 No Name Provided Costa Mesa 1980 - 1984 Anaheim 92627 1 Bedroom 1 10 No Name Provided Costa Mesa 1301 Baker 92626 1 Bedroom 1 8 Bernard Apartments Costa Mesa 514 Bernard 92627 2 Bedroom 3 14 No Name Provided Costa Mesa 2225 Canyon 92627 2 Bedroom 2 6 No Name Provided Costa Mesa 394 - 396 Hamilton 92627 2 Bedroom 1 6 No Name Provided Costa Mesa 580 Hamilton 92627 2 & 3 Bedroom 3 9 No Name Provided Costa Mesa 584 Hamilton 92627 2 & 3 Bedroom 3 9 Hamilton Court Costa Mesa 690 Hamilton 92627 2 Bedroom 6 6 Silverado Pines Costa Mesa 2567 Orange 92627 3 Bedroom 3 9 South Coast Fountains Costa Mesa 739 Paularino 92626 1 & 2 Bedroom 10 50 Victoria Oaks Costa Mesa 817 Victoria 92627 2 Bedroom 4 16 No Name Provided Costa Mesa 2175 Maple/596 Victoria 92627 2 Bedroom 4 20 Newport Senior Village Costa Mesa 2080 Newport 92627 Studios 71 91 - 2 - NAME CITY ADDRESS ZIP TYPE OF UNITS #UNITS TOTAL # OF AFFORDABLE UNITS Harbor Village Costa Mesa 2051 Harbor BI. 92626 Unknown 550 550 Updated 11.3.15 - 3 - ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -1 M EAA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Att City Clerk, please include in the Council Packet From: dan hartloff [mailto Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 11:49 AM To: CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Att City Clerk, please include in the Council Packet Dear Costa Mesa City Council: I support the rezoning of the property where currently the Costa Mesa Motor Inn is operating and replacing with new apartments or other facilities that improve our city. Regards - Dan Hartloff Costa Mesa, 92626 City of Costa Mesa Inter Office Memorandum TO: Tom Hatch, CEO FROM: Gary Armstrong, Economic and Development Services Director / Deputy CEO DATE: November 3, 2015 SUBJECT: Labor Force, Housing, and Jobs The information provided below was gathered from the American Community Survey (2002 -2014) and Inside Prospects Inc. (2013). The total labor force trends upward and the percent of the labor force which is unemployed is decreasing post for the Great Recession. While we have over 65,000 jobs within the City and over 62,000 employed residents the percent that work and live within the City have hovered between 33% and 27% in the last 10 years. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Total In Labor 59495 57229 65611 67689 67004 Force Percent 5.2 5.1 11.2 9.4 7.1 Unemployment While we have over 65,000 jobs within the City and over 62,000 employed residents the percent that work and live within the City have hovered between 33% and 27% in the last 10 years. This relationship is further confirmed if we look at the percent of residents which commute less than 15 minutes to work. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Percent of 30.4 33.1 31.1 32.9 27.2 Workers who Live in Costa Mesa This relationship is further confirmed if we look at the percent of residents which commute less than 15 minutes to work. 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Percent of 34.6 32.5 36.9 32.1 29.5 residents who have less than a 15 minute commute to work. The educational attainment within the City of Costa Mesa for the population between the ages of 25 and 64 consists of more than 37% having a bachelor's degree and 17% with less than a high school degree. This proportion is consistent with the Orange County percentage for educational attainment. Industries where the City has found growth in the absolute number of residents employed as well as the percent share of residents employed within these industries are; manufacturing (2% share growth), professional, scientific, management, administrative (5% share growth), arts, entertainment, accommodation, recreation, and food service (2% share growth). Retail; finance and real estate; educational services, health care, and social assistance, are all industries with a 10% share or more of the civilian residents labor force within the City. Housing Housing market in Costa Mesa as well as Orange County has insufficient supply across all housing types and cost points to fill demand. The percent vacancy is less than 2% for apartments throughout the City. Heavy state regulation, lack of open space for new construction, additional costs for in -fill development all create a smaller margin of profit for a developer relative to national comparisons. However, location of the City and a variety of existing assets assist in stimulating residential development. The City still has considerably more rental units in comparison to ownership units within the City. Type Total Percent Owner Occupied 14,843 38.5% Renter Occupied 23,667 61.5% Total 38,510 2949 Jobs According to Inside Prospects Inc. the total number of jobs within the City is just over 65,000. These jobs come from 4,247 firms which operate within the City. Major Business Groups Employment Percent Agriculture 654 1 Construction 2949 4.5 Manufacturing 7246 11.1 Transport 1407 2.1 Wholesale Trade 7075 10.8 Retail Trade 16231 24.9 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 4989 7.6 Services: Personal, Business 13647 20.9 Medical, other Health 5576 8.5 Legal, Law Offices 2125 3.2 Engineers, Accounting, R&D 3185 4.8 Total 65084 Conclusion Costa Mesa has an excellent jobs to housing balance. The contiguous nature of cities in suburban Orange County make it difficult to separate area -wide jobs and City-wide jobs to housing. The proximity and accessibility from one municipality to another erases the geopolitical boundaries of cities for most job seekers and minimizes variation for home buyers. While total population in Costa Mesa is 112,793, after you remove those who are too young to work, too old to work, and those who are not seeking work the labor force population is approximately 67,004. Within this population are also students who reside locally while they attend one of our 5 higher educational institutions within the City. While not all residents work within the City the percent that do is 3 percent higher than the County average. RUTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP November 3, 2015 VIA MESSENGER AND E-MAIL Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the Costa Mesa City Council c/o City Clerk's Office City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 Mark J. Austin Direct Dial: (714) 662-4677 E-mail: maustin@rutan.com Re: City Council Agenda Item for November 3, 2015, Public Hearing No. 1, re: 224 -Unit Luxury Apartment Complex at 2277 Harbor Blvd. Dear Mayor Mensinger and Members of the City Council: We are writing on behalf of our clients, Phil Luchesi and his company, Luchesi Enterprises. Luchesi Enterprises owns Pals Vacuum Sewing Center, and Mr. Luchesi owns the underlying property on which this business is operated, located at 2299 Harbor Boulevard. Mr. Lachesi's property is located immediately adjacent to the proposed 224 -unit luxury -apartment project that is on the City Council's agenda for its meeting of November 3, 2015, as item PH -1 (the "Project"). While Mr. Luchesi is generally supportive of the Project, he did raise valid concerns regarding the potential impact of the Project on cellular towers located on his property. (A copy of our October 12, 2015 letter to the Planning Commission on his behalf is attached hereto as Exhibit A.) Because those concerns were not addressed by the Commission, we are writing to reiterate them here, and to also outline the myriad legal infirmities associated with the City's approval of the Project. As you know, the Project proposes a General Plan amendment and a rezoning of the 4.15 - acre Project site to accommodate 224 multi -family residential units. The Project would be built at a density of over 2.5 times that specified for high-density residential development in the City's current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance ("ZO"). It would also be built to a height of 60 feet, including a 5 -story garage, which is taller than the 4 -story height -limit currently imposed by the General Plan. By comparison, Pals Vacuum Sewing Center, a long-time City business, is a small, single -story building, approximately 2,500 -square -feet in size, located on an approximately 11,000 -square -foot lot. Mr. Luchesi leases portions of his property to five mobile -service providers, each of which has erected a separate cellular tower—approximately 60 feet in height—near the common boundary with the Project site. Mr. Luchesi is legitimately concerned that the proposed Project with a building height of up to 60 feet (which is twice the height allowed under the site's current zoning designation)—could interfere with cellular reception and thereby compromise the 611 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 1 714.641.5100 1 Fax 714.546.9035 972/032682-0001 9019012.1 all/03/15 Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com RUTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 2 substantial private and public value associated with the cellular towers. The City staff and Planning Commission dismissed these concerns as a private matter not within the City's jurisdiction. See October 23, 2015 City Council Agenda Report for the Project (hereinafter referred to as the "Staff Report"). However, the entitlements granted by the City are the cause of the concern and potential impact. Indeed, a qualified consultant has given his preliminary opinion that the Project buildings may adversely impact cellular transmission by as much as 30 percent or more. 1 Thus, this is a City matter, and Mr. Luchesi respectfully asks the City Council to impose certain conditions on the Project to address his concerns. First, prior to any approval of the Project, a qualified consultant should prepare a report analyzing the potential impacts of the Project on the adjacent cellular antennas, and the Project buildings should be modified as needed to eliminate any actual or potential risk of interference with the equipment demonstrated by this report. Second, the Project proponent should be required to indemnify Mr. Luchesi and his tenants, and their collective successors, against any damage to, or interference with, to the cellular equipment or their signals that is directly or indirectly attributable to the Project. Third, the developer should be required to provide appropriate notices to new residents informing them of the nearby cellular equipment, and should require the Project's residents (on behalf of themselves and their successors) to release Mr. Luchesi and his lessees, and their successors, from any claim of damages related to the cellular equipment. We would also like to ensure that the Project will not result in any other adverse impacts to Mr. Luchesi's property, particularly with respect to drainage, traffic, and parking. Please ensure that adequate conditions are imposed to ensure that the Project runoff does not discharge onto neighboring properties, and that the proposed off-site median and related traffic improvements do not adversely impact access to our clients' property. The traffic study suggests that the Project will only provide 13 guest parking spaces. Our clients do not believe that this number of spaces is sufficient for 224 residential units and is concerned that guests will end up parking on his property as a result. Please require the developer to provide the number of guest spaces required by the City Code. Mr. Luchesi would also like the opportunity to review and comment on the design and height of the proposed block wall to be installed by the Project proponent between the two sites. I As a result of this intereference, the City's approval of the Project may be preempted by federal law. The Response to Comments ("RTC") for the Project correctly notes that federal law "generally preempts local land use authority regarding the placement of, or potential interference with cellular communications." (RTC, p. 8; 42 U.S.C. §§ 253(a), 332(c)(7)). In other words, the City lacks authority under its police powers to approve a project that would potentially interfere with cellular communications. To the extent the City acts in disregard of this limit, it would be acting contrary to federal law. 972/032682-0001 9019012.1 al 1103/15 RUTAN RUTAN d TUCKER LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger; Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 3 We think the above requests are reasonable and can be validly imposed as conditions on the Project, especially given that new development in the City must be designed so as to "not adversely impact surrounding developments," as well as to protect the "integrity of neighboring development." (General Plan, Policy LU -1C.1; ZO § 13-29(g)(5 ).)2 In our October 12, 2015 letter to the Planning Commission, we noted that we had additional concerns regarding the City's proposed approval of the Project entitlements that we would raise in a separate detailed letter to the City. Because our clients' concerns have not been addressed, we write now to outline the numerous legal infirmities associated with the Project. In summary, we believe that the Project cannot legally be approved by the City because it (1) constitutes impermissible spot zoning, (2) conflicts with State and local laws regarding density bonuses, (3) is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, (4) is not supported by the findings and/or substantial evidence, (5) is based on a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") that fails to comply with CEQA, and (6) would result in the deprivation of numerous constitutional rights, including the taking of private property without the payment of just compensation. That said, depending upon the resolution of our clients' primary concerns set forth above, our clients are prepared to refrain from bringing any legal challenge against the Project. 1. Approval of the Project would constitute impermissible spot zoning. By allowing the Project to have a density of 54 units per acre (over 2.5 times the City's density limit of 20 units per acre) and a height of five stories (when General Plan Policy LU -1C.2 plainly limits heights to four stories), the City is impermissibly spot zoning the Project site.3 While such zoning may be allowed in extraordinary cases to achieve an important public interest," there is nothing that would justify such preferential zoning treatment here. Moreover, such zoning would violate the uniformity requirement of the Planning & Zoning Law. (Gov. Code § 65852 [requiring zoning regulations to be "uniform for each class or kind of building or use of land throughout each zone ...."]; Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne (2007) 157 Cal.AppAth 997 [struck down agency's granting of ad hoc exception to zoning regulations benefitting single property owner].) 2 See also, General Plan Policy LU-IF.5 (requiring compatibility between new uses and existing uses); accord Policy HOU-3.2 and ZO § 13-29(e)(1). 3 The proposed resolution approving the General Plan amendment for the Project acknowledges that it provides "site-specific height and density for the development site ...." (Attachment 5 to the Staff Report.) " For instance, in Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.AppAth 1302, the Court of Appeal found that the County's application of a new senior residential housing zone to a project site was not impermissible spot zoning in light of a demonstrated need for additional senior housing units. 972/032652-0001 9019012.1 a) 1/03/15 RUTAN RUTAN s TUCKER. LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 4 In Foothill Communities Coalition, supra, the Fourth District Court of Appeal expressly rejected the claim made in the Response to Comments on the MND document ("RTC") that spot zoning occurs only where a parcel is subject to more restrictive zoning than surrounding properties. (RTC, p. 7.) In Foothill Communities Coalition, the court held that "the creation of an island of property with less restrictive zoning in the middle of properties with more restrictive zoning is spot zoning." (222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1314 [emphasis added].)' The court further noted that "where spot zoning favors the owner of the spot by loosening the zoning restrictions that continue to apply to the surrounding property owners, those surrounding property owners have standing to challenge the zoning change." (222 Cal.AppAth at p. 1312, fn. 5.) 2. The proposed density bonus is not consistent with State or local law. Under California law, a project that proposes to provide units affordable to moderate - income households cannot qualify for a density bonus unless the units in the project consist of for - sale housing. (Gov. Code § 65915(b)(1)(D).) While the Project proposes to set aside 20 units for moderate -income households, because it is a rental -only project, it does not qualify for any density bonus at all. Moreover, even assuming it did qualify for a bonus, based on the number of moderate -income units proposed, it would be entitled, at most, to only a five percent bonus above that allowed under current zoning. (Gov. Code § 65915(f).) In this regard, the City's Planned Development High Density Residential zoning district (to which the City proposed to re -zone the property) would allow a maximum of only 20 units per acre, or 83 units on the site, and the ZO indicates that a density bonus can be granted only up to this maximum amount. (ZO, Table 13-58; ZO § 13-58(b).) Thus, even assuming the density bonus applies to the all -rental Project, and the developer could get more than 83 units, at most, the Project would qualifyfor only our additional units. (Gov. Code § 65915(1).) However, the Project actually proposes 141 additional units, or a density bonus of 170 percent. In light of this proposed density bonus, the City should ask what community or public benefits justify it, as well as what precedent it establishes for future City action.6 From our view, the Project consists of Accord, Foothill Communities Coalition, 222 Cal.AppAth at p. 1307 ("spot zoning may occur whether a small parcel of property is subject to more or less restrictive zoning than the surrounding properties.") (emphasis in the original). 6 As you know, the City is currently in the process of updating its General Plan. Under the proposed Residential Overlay designation, densities above 20 units per acre, to a maximum of 40 units per acre, can only be attained with the provision of significant community benefits or amenities. 972/032682-0001 9019012.1 all/03/15 RUTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER. LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 5 luxury apartments with few, if any, public benefits. Moreover, it would displace affordable housing for at least 66 long-term residents and possibly many others.7 The City claims it is somehow not providing a "density bonus" to the developer, but the facts show otherwise. Under the current General Plan and ZO, only 83 units would be allowed on the site, or 20 units per acre. However, the Project proposes 224 units, or 54 units per acre. Meanwhile, the developer itself describes the added density as a "bonus," references the State Density Bonus Law, and claims that the units affordable to moderate -income households justify the increased density to 54 units per acre. (July 6, 2015 letter from Donald Lamm to the Planning Commission.) City staff refers to this increased density as a "development incentive" and claims that the increased density is needed to make the Project financially feasible. The reality is that the increased density is a density bonus that fails to comply with either State or local law. 3. The Project, including its height and density, is inconsistent with the General Plan. The City cannot lawfully approve a project that is inconsistent with its General Plan. (Gov. Code § 65860(a); Lesher Communications v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531.) The Project is inconsistent with certain key elements of the City's General Plan. First, the General Plan Land Use Element limits residential density for the proposed land use designation (High Density Residential) to 20 units per acre.$ (Table LU -1; General Plan, p. LU -26.) However, the Project proposes a density of 54 units per acre. Second, General Plan Policy LU -1 C.2 limits building height on the site and surrounding area to 4 stories. However, the Project proposes a 5 -story parking structure to accommodate the proposed Project density and avoid the cost of undergrounding a level of parking. Third, other policies in the General Plan stress the need for residential development to be compatible in scale and character with existing buildings and neighborhoods. (General Plan Policies CD -7A.1 and CD -7A.2.9) However, here the scale and character of the Project is not compatible with the scale of nearby residential and commercial uses, which consist entirely of low-density, one-story and two-story developments. As noted by Cynthia For instance, in its October 10, 2015 letter to the City, the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition notes that over 150 people currently live on the site. The developer itself acknowledges that the current use is affordable, as it does not require annual leases, good credit, first month's rent, or a security deposit. (July 6, 2015 letter from Donald Lamm to the Planning Commission, provided as Attachment 3 to the Staff Report.) 8 The only way to exceed this density is through a specific plan. (ZO § 13-20(p).) However, the proposed Project entitlements do not include a specific plan. 9 Accord, ZO §§ 13-29(e), 13-31(d). Even the MND admits the Project would be "dissimilar in scale to the site's surroundings." (MND, p. 39.) 972/032682-0001 9019012.1 a11/03/15 RUTAN RUTH 6 TUCKER, LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 6 McDonald, Vice Chair of the City's Bikeway and Walkability Committee, in her October 12, 2015 e-mail to City staff, the Project "is out of scale with the surrounding community, and should be significantly reduced in physical size and quantity of units ...." The General Plan also stresses the need for a balance of land uses, emphasizing the necessity of preserving commercial lands while providing low-density, owner -occupied housing. (General Plan, Goal LU -1; Objectives LU -IA LU -1B; and Policies LU -IA. 1, LU -1A.4, LU -1B.1, GM- IA.1.) The Plan also notes the need to provide a range of housing choices for all social and economic segments of the community. (Goals HOU-2 and HOU-3.) The Project site is located in the Harbor Boulevard commercial district—a district that encompasses almost one-third of the City's commercial land and is responsible for approximately 40 percent of the City's retail sales. (General Plan, p. LU -7.) Thus, in contravention of the above goals and policies, the Project would displace affordable housing with a self -described luxury apartment complex and permanently remove a valuable piece of commercially -zoned property from an important retail corridor. Moreover, if approved prior to November 30, 2015, the Project proponent will pay zero fees to offset the increased impact on parks caused by the estimated additional 587 residents. (MND, pp. 120, 128.) If approved on or after that date, the Project proponent would pay approximately $1.1 million in park -impact fees. Also, because the traffic fees were only calculated on the supposed net trips generated by the Project, the Project proponent will only pay $41,992 in traffic fees instead of approximately $270,000, which would have been the fee had it been imposed on all trips associated with the Project. Such fee waivers conflict with key policies of the City's General Plan (e.g., General Plan, Policies OSR-lA.1, CD -5.5, CIR-2D.3) and may well subject the Project to prevailing wages and/or constitute an improper gift of public funds, ° 4. The City has failed to make necessary findings. and the findings it does purport to make are not supported by substantial evidence. The City has not considered all of the applicable review criteria specified in the ZO or made all of the necessary findings to support approval of the Project. (ZO § 13-29(e), (g); ZO § 13- 55.) For instance, the proposed findings do not address consistency with the density bonus law, affordable multi -family housing developments, or the potential precedent -setting nature of the Project. (ZO § 13-29(e)(5); ZO § 13-29(g)(3), (5).) The findings likewise do not address the findings necessary for a rezoning, variance, or common interest development conversion, all of which are implicated by the Project. (ZO §§ 13-29(g)(1), (10), (11).) 10 See, e.g., Labor Code § 1771 and Blue Diamond Agricultural Processing Facility, City of Turlock (Public Works Case 2011-033); see also, Cal. Con., art. XVI, sec. 6; Allen v Hussey (1950) 101 CA2d 457, 473; and County of Alameda v Janssen (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 276, 281. 972MM82-0001 9019012.1 a]1/03/15 RUTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 7 Meanwhile, the findings the City does purport to make are not supported by substantial evidence, as required. (Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.) As noted above, the Project is not consistent with the General Plan goals and policies, and conflicts with the density bonus law. Moreover, the findings claim that the Project "will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood," and "protect[] the integrity of neighboring development." Those statements are not supported by any evidence, and are belied by the above -referenced fact that the Project could substantially interfere with the cellular equipment on Mr. Luchesi's property. The findings also claim that the proposed 170 -percent density bonus is needed in order to "make it financially feasible for the owner to redevelop the site." However, the only purported "evidence" to support this finding is the developer's statement to that effect. There is no economic study or other evidence showing that allowing density and height far in excess of that permitted by the General Plan and ZO is needed to provide a financially feasible project. Indeed, by assuming full occupancy in its analysis of key environmental topics, the City's MND for the Project implicitly recognizes that the current motel use is a financially viable use of the property. The findings further state that the Project provides a public benefit by replacing a non- conforming use that has served as a long-time nuisance property with a modern, high-quality residential apartment building. However, while the use of motel rooms for long-term residential use may be a non -conforming use, the motel use itself is not. (ZO, Table 13-30.) Moreover, the number of calls for police and fire service is not provided, nor is there any indication of how this number of calls relates to the number of calls citywide for comparable uses. The findings also note that the "cumulative effect of all the planning applications has been considered." However, as explained more fully in Section 5 below, the MND contains no analysis of cumulative impacts other than a cursory analysis of 2018 traffic impacts. The findings claim that the Project meets the parking requirements of the Code, but there is no table or chart demonstrating compliance with the ZO. Contrary to ZO Table 13-85, the Project would only provide 13 guest spaces for the 224 units.) 1 Further, and contrary to the findings and CEQA, mitigation measures have not been imposed to avoid or lessen impacts to the extent feasible. 12 11 Table 12-1 of the Traffic Study indicates the need for 69 guest spaces per Code and a credit of 56 spaces for covered spaces. This credit is not explained in this table, which is buried in Appendix G to the MND. 12 The findings indicate that such measures have been imposed to reduce impacts to the "fullest extent reasonable and practicable." However, CEQA plainly requires that mitigation measures be imposed to lessen significant impacts to the extent feasible—i. e., to the extent capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. (Public Resources Code ["PRC"] §§ 972/032682-0001 9019012.1 .11/0 3/15 RUTAN RUTAN ITUC KER, LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 8 5. The MND fails to comply with CEQA. The MND does not thoroughly or adequately address the Project's significant environmental impacts and accordingly fails to provide substantial evidence to support a finding that all impacts have been reduced to a less -than -significant level. (PRC § 21064.5.) First, the Project is inconsistently described throughout the MND, making the resulting analysis flawed and inadequate. (County oflnyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App,3d 185, 192.) For instance, the MND incorrectly specifies the maximum building height as 50 feet instead of 60 feet. (MND, pp. 1, 8.)13 It also states that construction activities will take approximately two years, but then later claims construction will be completed in as little as 9 months. (MND, pp. 10, 58.) In the analysis of hazards and noise impacts, the MND inconsistently reports the distance between the Project site and John Wayne Airport. (MND, pp. 84, 119.) It also reports varying amounts of Project open -space and landscaping features, thereby potentially skewing the storm water analysis. (MND, pp. 87, 128, 130.) The traffic analysis likewise contains inconsistent information regarding the amount of average daily trips. (MND, pp. 133, 137.) In terms of aesthetics, the MND claims that Mr. Luchesi's property (the Pals Vacuum and Sewing site) will be subject to increased shade/shadow due to the Project, but fails to apply a threshold to determine whether this is significant. Instead, the MND simply asserts that this impact is "negligible" on the ground that it impacts only a small corner of the property's parking lot during the summer solstice. (MND, p. 40; MND, Appendix A, p. 1.) However, the MND neglects to mention the rather substantial increase in shade/shadow on the Pals site during the winter solstice. (See MND, Appendix A, Sheets SR.06, SR.08, and SR.09.) The MND itself thus provides substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact, but fails to acknowledge or address that impact. An environmental impact report ("EIR") must accordingly be prepared. (PRC § 21080(d); Friends of Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988.) In regard to air quality, although the high-density residential Project is inconsistent with the regional Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP") (which assumed a low density commercial use on the site), the MND nonetheless claims that the Project is consistent with the AQMP. Compared to a shopping center with 8.9 -million annual vehicle miles traveled ("VMT"), the MND claims that the Project's 5 -million annual VMT is substantially less. (MND, p. 47.) The problem with that 21002, 21061.1.) In the context of a MND, such measures must avoid or mitigate effects to a point "where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur ...." (PRC § 21064.5.) As explained below, the Project MND falls far short of those legal marks. 13 While the Staff Report is replete with references to the Project's proposed 60 foot height, the RTC persists in incorrectly claiming that the Project is only 46-50 feet in height. (RTC, pp. 6, 8.) 972/032682-0001 9019012.1 a] 1/03/15 RUTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER. LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 9 conclusion is that there is no shopping center on the site. The Project's VMT needs to be compared to actual, on -the -ground conditions and not some theoretical plan condition. (Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350.) In addition, the MND does not contain a health -risk assessment to verify that construction emissions will not result in any significant adverse health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Furthermore, the MND's analysis of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions contains no discussion of the Project's consistency with the State's goal of reducing GHG levels by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Moreover, construction emissions will not be amortized over 30 years as stated. (MND, p. 77.) Instead, per the MND, they will occur over, at most, a two-year period. The MND claims the Project "will contribute to achieving SB 375 regional targets," but fails to specify how or why this is the case. (MND, p. 79.) The MND notes that the Project site is located within Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for John Wayne Airport, and within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan Height Restriction Zone. (MND, p. 84.) The MND explains that this notification allows the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") to "identify potential aeronautical hazards in advance to prevent or minimize the adverse impacts to the safe and efficient use of navigable air space," and that the Project proponent would be required to contact the FAA for project review. (Id.) However, no condition has been imposed to require this consultation. More fundamentally, any such consultation would only occur after the City has already approved the Project at is proposed maximum height of 60 feet. f4 As noted by the Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") in its comment letter on the MND, however, FAA review should occur before the City acts on the Project. In fact, review by theALUCprior to approval of the Project is actually required by law. 15 The RTC nonetheless states that "the City Council hearing is scheduled for November 4, 2015 (sic), making a prior decision by the ALUC infeasible." (RTC, p. 6.) The reality is that there is nothing about the proposed hearing schedule that makes prior referral to the ALUC and FAA infeasible. The City should take no further action on the Project until it has received feedback from these entities as required by law. 14 Thus, the MND is wrong in stating that "[u]pon approval, project implementation would not result in an airport -related safety hazard for people residing or working at the proposed residential development." (MND, p. 84.) This statement is not known and cannot be known until the ALUC and the FAA review and approve the Project. 15 See Public Utilities Code § 21676(b) ("Prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan, or the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation within the planning boundary established by the airport land use commission ... the local agency shall first refer the proposed action to the [ALUC].") (emphasis added). 972/072682-0001 9019012.1 a] 1/03/15 RUTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER. LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 10 As to land use, the MND contains no analysis of the Project's consistency with plan policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating significant environmental impacts, as required by CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section X(b); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 903.) Instead, the MND only considers a smaller subset of land -use -related goals and objectives. (MND, pp. 100, 103.) It also references traffic volumes of an entirely different project. (See MND, p. 103 ["The proposed residential project would reduce traffic volumes on Victoria Avenue as compared with the existing commercial office use ...."].) In addition, the MND claims that construction noise impacts will be reduced to a less -than - significant level through adherence to specified construction hours and the taking of certain minimally required actions to reduce construction noise. (MND, pp. 108-113.) However, there is no evidence, let alone substantial evidence (as is required), that these measures will reduce construction noise levels (estimated to be as higher than 90 dBA) to at or less than the City's 55 dBA standard for residential uses. The MND also references and relies on a noise table (Table 14) that is not provided. (MND, p. 118.) Commenters have raised substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may result in significant impacts in regards to population and housing. For instance, in its comment letter, the Public Law Center observes that the displacement of low-income residents by the Project will have a significant impact that requires the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition likewise states that the Project will displace substantial numbers of existing housing and persons. Along those lines, it notes that over 150 people currently live on the site, and that the proposed Project includes zero units affordable to those residents. Instead of analyzing the potential impacts of replacement housing, as required, the RTC argues that the units are not really housing and are not needed in light of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. (RTC, p. 4.)16 This does not represent an honest or forthright analysis of environmental impacts as required by CEQA. Notably, while the existing motel appears to have been two-thirds occupied when traffic counts were conducted in March 2015, the MND nonetheless assumed that it was fully occupied. (MND, pp. 132-133.) This is not an accurate reflection of the existing, on -the ground physical conditions, as required by CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125; Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 CalAth 310.) Moreover, due to the motel's fluctuating occupancy, the MND should have considered a range of recent historical occupancies to provide a more accurate picture of existing environment conditions. (See, e.g., County ofAmador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.AppAth 931 and Save 16 While Standard Condition ("SC") 4.13-1 requires the hiring of a relocation consultant, the RTC nonetheless contends that the applicant has "volunteered" to provide this assistance. (RTC, p. 4.) 972/032682-0001 9019012.1 all/03/15 RUTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page I 1 Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99.) By assuming trips that do not currently exist, the resulting environmental analysis is flawed. This significant defect permeates the MND, skewing all of the ensuing analysis, including traffic, air quality, GHG emissions, water supply, and noise. In regard to traffic specifically, the MND only examines two intersections located in close proximity to the Project site. No explanation is provided as to why a normal range of intersections was not studied, especially for a project of this size, nor is any rationale given for ignoring roadway and freeway segments. A more comprehensive effort should have been made to analyze this key topic, especially given that the Project consists of 224 units with nearly 1,500 average daily trips. The EIR also fails to analyze the significant impacts of traffic intrusion on neighborhood streets or to impose mitigation (such as traffic calming measures) to address those impacts. Furthermore, the MND's conclusion that there are sufficient supplies to meet the Project's water demand is based on Mesa Water's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan ("UWMP"). (MND, pp. 91, 142-143.) However, the UWMP was prepared prior to the current severe drought and assumed a low-density commercial development on the site, not the proposed high-density residential use. In fact, Mesa Water itself submitted a comment letter indicating that the MND's information regarding water supplies and demands was "outdated or incorrect." The comment letter also stressed the need for a hydraulic study to determine whether the Project necessitates the expansion of existing facilities. That analysis must be done now, not later (as is proposed by SC 4.9-2 and SC 4.9-4), so that the impacts of any needed improvements are not impermissibly segmented, and mitigation measures are not impermissibly deferred. 17 Moreover, the comments regarding water supply infrastructure apply with equal force to the need for additional sewer infrastructure. The MND notes that the existing sewer main does not have the capacity to handle unplanned flows, and that a sewer study should be done to assess necessary improvements. (MND, pp. 141, 143-144.) The failure to study this topic now constitutes improper segmentation of Project impacts and improper deferral of mitigation. (See, e.g., MND, p. 144 [identifying the impact as significant, but imposing no mitigation measures to ensure that it is reduced to a less than significant level].) The analysis must be done now and included in a environmental document circulated for public review and comment before the City can lawfully take action on the Project. In addition, contrary to the requirements of CEQA, the MND contains no analysis of cumulative impacts other than a cursory analysis of 2018 traffic impacts. Despite the lack of 17 The MND's conclusion that the Project will not be subject to any significant flooding risk appears to be based on a flood -improvement project known as the Santa Ana River Mainstream project, which has not yet completed construction. (MND, p. 94.) 972/032682-0001 9019012.1 all/03/15 RUTAN HUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 12 analysis, the MND claims that "the project would not result in any significant impacts that would substantially combine with impacts of other current or probable future impacts." (MND, p. 150.)18 The MND's conclusion in this regard is devoid of any analysis and is not supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, the MND improperly defers consideration of mitigation for impacts to the future without any clear commitment to mitigate or standards to guide mitigation of the impacts, as required by CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 and supporting case law. 19 Examples of measures deferring mitigation include: SC 4.1-1, 4.4-1, 4.6-2, 4.6-3, 4.6-4, 4.9-1, 4.9-2. SC 4.9-4, SC 4.16-2, SC 4.17-1 et seq.20 Meanwhile, other measures are not really mitigation measures at all since they do not constitute binding commitments to avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts to less than significant levels. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2).) Examples of such measures include: MM AQ -2, MM HAZ-1, MM NOI-1. Finally, as documented above, the RTC does not reflect an accurate or good faith effort to respond to comments received on the MND. Comments by Mr. Luchesi and other interested parties, including the ALUC, the Mesa Water District, and affordable housing organizations, are largely ignored or dismissed. This is evident by the fact that despite the submission of 30 separate comments, the RTC proposes changing a mere two sentences of text in the MND. As a result of the flawed MND analysis (including the RTC), the proposed finding that the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts is not supported by substantial evidence. 6. Approval of the Project would result in a compensable taking of Mr. Luchesi's property. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." Article I, section 19 of the California Constitution also provides that "[p]rivate property may be taken or 18 This statement is belied by the previous page of the MND, wherein the box is checked indicating that cumulative impacts would only be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 19 See, e.g., Sacramento Old CityAss'n v. City Council (1991) 229 Ca1.App.3d 1011; Defend the Bay v. City oflrvine (2004) 119 Cal.AppAth 1261; and Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.AppAth 777. 20 Because these standard conditions were relied upon for the MND's conclusion that impacts would be less than significant, the same prohibition on deferral of mitigation would apply to them. 972/032682-0001 9019012.1 z11/03/15 RUTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 13 damaged for public use only when just compensation ... has first been paid to ... the owner." A land use regulation effects an impermissible taking of property if it deprives an owner of all economically beneficial or productive use of his land (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 505 U.S. 1003) or conflicts with an owners distinct investment -backed expectations (Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104); causes the owner to suffer a permanent physical invasion of his property (Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) 458 U.S. 419); or imposes an exaction in violation of the "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards respectfully set forth in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825 and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374. A land -use regulation that deprives the owner of substantially all economically beneficial or productive use of his land constitutes a taking. (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, supra [property owner entitled to compensation for regulations precluding development of two beachfront lots, thereby depriving owner of all economic use of his property].) In addition, courts have recognized that land -use regulations that take all economically viable use of only a portion of private property can also constitute a taking. (Twain Harte Associates, Ltd. v. County of Tuolumne (1990) 217 Ca1.App.3d 71; Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC v. City oflndio (2015) 236 Cal.AppAth 1175.) It appears that the Project would substantially interfere with the cellular antennas located on Mr. Luchesi's property, thus denying Mr. Luchesi all economically viable use of that portion of his land. The City would thus have to pay just compensation (i. e., the fair market value of the property based on its current use) to Mr. Luchesi if it were to approve the Project. A regulation may affect a taking even though it leaves the property owner some economically beneficial use of his property. (Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board (1997) 16 CalAth 761, 774.) In order to determine whether a taking has occurred when the economic impact is less than total, a reviewing court looks to three factors in particular: (i) the economic impact of the regulation on the owner, (ii) the extent to which the regulation interferes with the property owner's distinct investment -backed expectations as to the use of its property, and (iii) the character of the governmental action. (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 124.) In Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) 533 U.S. 606, 618, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that the above factors are to be considered and applied in light of the "purpose of the Takings Clause, which is to prevent the Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." As explained above, the Project would likely deny all economically viable use of the portion of Mr. Luchesi's property devoted to the cellular antennas and equipment. Moreover, even assuming some economic use of this portion of the property remained, it would not be sufficient to shield the City from takings liability based upon the Penn Central factors. At the very least, if 972/032682-0001 9019012.1 all/03/15 RUTAN RUTAN 6 TUCKER, LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 14 approved, the Project would likely substantially diminish the economic value of this property. Thus, the economic impact of the Project is great. As to Mr. Luchesi's investment -backed expectations, he purchased the property for fair market value based on the height and density limits controlling his and the neighboring land. Based on these limits, he entered into leases with mobile carriers who improved the land with the cellular antennas and equipment that provide a substantial source of income to Mr. Luchesi. The Project would substantially burden use of the property for this economically viable use and thus annihilate Mr. Luchesi's investment -backed expectations with respect to the use of his land. Finally, the City's assertion that allowing building heights that are twice that allowed by the ZO and exceed the number of stories allowed by the General Plan are somehow beyond its jurisdiction would also favor a takings claim here. Thus, all three Penn Central factors weigh in favor of Mr. Luchesi and would subject the City to takings liability if it were to approve the Project without consideration of his important property rights. Approval of the Project would violate Mr. Luchesi's and others substantive due process rights. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (See also, Cal. Con., art. I, sec. 7.) The touchstone of substantive due process is the protection of the individual against arbitrary government action; the due process clause was intended to prevent government officials from abusing their power or employing it as an instrument of oppression. Wolffv. McDonnell (1974) 418 U.S. 539, 558; Collins v. City of Harker Heights (1992) 503 U.S. 115, 126. Thus, a violation of substantive due process rights occurs if a government agency's actions are (1) irrational or arbitrary or (2) not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The test is disjunctive. Thus, a property owner need only demonstrate facts to support one of the two bases in order to state a viable due process claim. If the City were to approve the Project without affording protection to Mr. Luchesi's property rights, the City's actions would be arbitrary and irrational, and constitute an abuse of power, subjecting it to liability under the due process clause. See Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 330, 337 (enactment of initiative downzoning ordinance was arbitrary and discriminatory where enacted without considering appropriate planning criteria and for sole and specific purpose of defeating a single development); see also, Herrington v. County of Sonoma (9th Cir. 1987) 834 F.2d 1488 (denial of subdivision and subsequent downzoning of property violated property owner's due process rights given evidence that county's general plan/subdivision inconsistency determination was irrational and arbitrary and aimed at defeating particular development project); and Del Monte Dunes, Ltd. v. City of Monterey (9th Cir. 1990) 920 F.2d 1496, 1508 (allegations that city council approved a 190 -unit project with conditions that had been substantially met, then same council members abruptly changed course and rejected the 972/032682-0001 9019012.1 a] 1/03/15 RUTAN RATAN 6 TUCKER. LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 15 project motivated not by legitimate regulatory concerns, but by political pressure from neighbors to preserve property as open space, could constitute arbitrary and irrational conduct). Approval of the Project without consideration and treatment of impacts on neighboring properties constitutes irrational and arbitrary conduct not based on appropriate planning criteria and for the sole and specific purpose of benefiting another property owner. This does not comport with principles of due process. 8. By approving the Project, the City would be failing to treat similarly situated property owners fairly and equally. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (See also, Cal. Con., art. I, sec. 7.) The concept of equal protection has been defined to mean that no person or class of persons may be denied the same protection of law that is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances. (Hawn v. County of Ventura (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1018.) A claimant must show that the state "has adopted a classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner." (Walgreen Co. v. City & County of San Francisco (2010) 185 Cal.AppAth 424, 434.) An equal protection challenge to a regulation that does not involve a suspect class or fundamental right must nevertheless bear a reasonable relationship to a legitimate state interest. (Young v. American Mini Theaters (1976) 427 U.S. 50). "[A] deliberate, irrational discrimination, even if it is against one person (or other entity) rather than a group, is actionable under the equal protection clause." (World Outreach Conference Center v. City of Chicago (7th Cir. 2009) 591 F.3d 531, 538.) In Village of Willowbrook v. Olech (2000) 528 U.S. 562, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff stated a viable equal -protection claim based on allegations that a municipality required a 33 -foot easement from her as a condition of connecting her property to the municipal water supply, when it had only required a 15 foot easement from other similarly situated property owners. The Ninth Circuit has likewise upheld equal protection claims brought by property owners that were discriminated against or treated unfairly by local agencies as part of the land use approval process. (See, e.g., Herrington, supra [denial of proposed subdivision and subsequent downzoning violated property owner's equal protection rights where there was evidence that county had approved sizable residential development projects on three other agricultural properties shortly after it rejected the owner's proposal] and Del Monte Dunes, Ltd., supra [allegation that city arbitrarily and unreasonably limited use and development of property and set aside open space for public use, whereas owners of comparable properties were not subject to these conditions and restrictions states viable equal protection claim].) 972/032682-0001 9019012.1 all/03/15 RUTAN RUTNN 6 TUCKER, LLP Honorable Stephen Mensinger, Mayor, and Members of the City Council Page 16 As explained above, the Project would receive special benefits in terms of height, density, and exemptions from impact fees that are not enjoyed by other similarly situated properties or developments. As such, approval of the Project would violate the equal -protection rights of the other similarly situated property owners. Thank you for your consideration of our clients' views on these important matters. Mr. Luchesi and I will be in attendance at your hearing this evening. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this correspondence. Very truly yours, A CKER,LLP MJA cc: Phil Luchesi Willa Bouwens-Killeen Ryan Loomis Tom Duarte, Esq. 972/032682-0001 9019012.1 a] 1/03/15 RUTAN ill TAN & TUCKER, LLP October 12, 2015 VIA MESSENGER AND E-MAIL Honorable Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair, and Members of the Costa Mesa Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Marls J. Austin Direct Dial: (714) 662-4677 E-mail: maustini,rutan.com Re: Planning Commission Agenda Item for October 12, 2015, Public Bearing No. 3, re: 224 -Unit Luxury Apartment Complex at 2277 Harbor Blvd. Dear Chair Dickson and Members of the Planning Commission: We are writing on behalf of our clients, Phil Luchesi and his company, Luchesi Enterprises. Luchesi Enterprises owns Pals Vacuum Sewing Center, and Mr. Luchesi owns the underlying property on which this business is operated, located at 2299 Harbor Boulevard, Mr, Luchesi's property is located immediately adjacent to the proposed 224 -unit luxury -apartment project that is on the Planning Conunission's agenda for its meeting of October 12, 2015, as item PH -3 (the "Project'), While our client is generally supportive of the. Project, he does have concerns that he would like to see addressed before the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the Project to the City Council. As you know, the Project proposes a General Plan amendment and a rezoning of the 4.15 - acre Project site to accommodate 224 multi -family residential units. The Project would be built at a density of over 2.5 times that specified for high-density residential development in the City's current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance ("ZO"). It would also be built to a height of 60 feet, including a 5 -story garage, which is taller than the 4 -story height -limit currently imposed by the General Plan. By comparison, Pals Vacuum Sewing Center, a long-time City business, is a small, single -story building, approximately 2,500 -square -feet in size, located on an approximately 11,000 -square -foot lot. Mr. Luchesi leases portions of his property to five mobile -service providers, each of which has erected a separate cellular tower approximately 60 -feet in height—near the common boundary with the Project site. Mr. Luchesi is legitimately concerned that the proposed. Project— with a building height of up to 60 feet (which is twice the height allowed under the site's current zoning designation)—could interfere with cellular reception and thereby compromise the substantial private and public value associated with the cellular towers. Mr. Luchesi thus respectfully asks the Planning Commission to impose certain conditions on the Project to address his concerns. 611 Anton Blvd., Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 1 714.641.5100 1 Fax 714.546.9035 2696/099999-0071 8937930.3 at0/12/15 Orange County I Palo Alto I www.ru[an.com RUTAN ZTHN F TVCKFR, LLP Honorable Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission Page 2 First, prior to any approval of the Project, a qualified consultant should prepare a report analyzing the potential impacts of the Project on the adjacent cellular antennas, and the Project buildings should be modified as needed to eliminate any actual or potential risk of interference with the equipment demonstrated by this report. Second, the Project proponent should be required to indemnify Mr. Luchesi and his tenants, and their collective successors, against any damage or interference to the cellular equipment that is directly or indirectly attributable to the Project. Third, the developer should be required to provide appropriate notices to new residents informing them of the nearby cellular equipment, and should require the Project's residents (on behalf of themselves and their successors) to release Mr. Luchesi and his lessees, and their successors, from any claim of damages related to the cellular equipment. We would also like to ensure that the Project will not result in any other adverse impacts to Mr. Luchesi's property, particularly with respect to drainage, traffic, and parking. Please ensure that adequate conditions are imposed to ensure that the Project runoff does not discharge onto neighboring properties, and that the proposed off-site median and related traffic improvements do not adversely impact access to our client's property. The traffic study suggests that the Project will only provide 13 guest parking spaces. Our client does not believe that this number of spaces is sufficient for 224 residential units and is concerned that guests will end up parking on his property as a result. Please require the developer to provide the number of guest spaces required by the City Code. Mr. Luchesi would also like the opportunity to review and comment on the design and height of the proposed block wall to be installed by the Project proponent between the two sites. We think the above requests are reasonable and can be validly imposed as conditions on the Project, especially given that new development in the City must be designed so as to "not adversely impact surrounding developments," as well as to protect the "integrity of neighboring development." (General Plan, Policy LU -1C.1; ZO § 13-29(g)(5).)1 Please note that we do have additional concerns regarding the City's proposed approval of the Project entitlements. Amongst other issues, we believe the Project (i) could be subject to a spot - zoning challenge, (ii) likely involves inconsistencies with the City's General Plan, (iii) proposes a density bonus that is greater than allowed by state and local law, and (iv) is based on a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") that contains various inconsistencies and shortcomings in the analysis of the Project's impacts. That said, depending upon the resolution of our client's primary concerns set, forth above, we reserve the right to raise these additional objections in a separate detailed letter to the City prior to final action on the Project. 1 See also, General 'Plan Policy LU-IF.5 (requiring compatibility between new uses and existing uses); accord Policy HOU-3.2 and ZO § 13-29(e)(1). 2696/099999-007t 8937930.3 x10/12/15 TAN RVTAN &'FUCKER. LLP Honorable Robert L. Dickson, Jr., Chair, and Members of the Planning Commission Page 3 Please include this latter as part of the materials considered by the Planning Commission at tonight's hearing on this item. We thank you for your consideration of our clients' views on these important matters. Although neither I nor my client will likely be able to attend the meeting this evening, we look forward to hearing from the City in the near future. In that regard, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this correspondence at any time. Very truly yours, RUT U KER,LLP J. fitin MJA cc: Ryan Loomis Brenda Green Tom Duarte, Esq. 2696/099999-0071 8937930.3 F10/12/15 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -1 MEJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Costa Mesa Motor Inn - Tonight's Agenda From: McCARTHY, KERRY Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 1:O9 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Costa Mesa Motor Inn - Tonight's Agenda Dear City Council Members, I fully support the conversion of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. I see this as a significant improvement for Costa Mesa residents. It is a fair plan that balances the interests of the owner, residents and current tenants. I encourage the Council to listen to the residents who have been complaining about this property for years and approve the proposed conversion plan. Thank you for your time. Kerry McCarthy Costa Mesa Resident ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -1 PUBLIC LAW CENTER PROVIDING ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S LOW INCOME RESIDENTS November 3, 2015 Mayor Stephen Messinger City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 RE: Comment on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Dear Mayor Messinger and City Council members: Public Law Center is writing on behalf of our client, the Costa Mesa Motel Residents Association ("CMMRA"). CMMRA consists of short- and long-term residents who consider the motels in Costa Mesa home. A majority of the members of CMMRA currently reside at Costa Mesa Motor Inn ("CMMI"), the location of the proposed project. Costa Mesa City Council should not adopt the Negative Declaration for the 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project. This City Council should apply the tools provided by the State of California to replace low-income units into the redevelopment plans of CMMI. The Initial Study fails to recognize the use of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn as long-term, permanent housing for low-income residents. While the report recognizes that some of the units are occupied for the purposes of permanent housing, it fails to recognize the significance of the demographics of these residents. In general, the residents of CMMI are low-, very -low-, and extremely -low-income families, veterans, and other residents, many of whom are disabled. The project contains no plans to mitigate the displacement of the low-income Costa Mesan residents. The adverse effect this project has on the low-income residents of the City is a significant impact and a negative declaration is inappropriate. This City is violating its obligation to use California's Density Bonus Laws that allows City to provide incentives to the Developer and requires the Developer in return to build very low- and low-income units. As stated in the Planning Department's City Council Agenda report, Miracle 601 Civic Center Drive West - Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 - (714) 541-1010 - Fax (714) 541-5157 Mile Properties has requested a density bonus that would allow for it to build 54 units per acre. In return, the developer proposes to build 20 moderate units and to demolish the Costa Mesa Motor Inn in its entirety. Granting that bonus contravenes state law. Specifically, Government Code 65917 states that"[i]n the absence of an agreement by a developer in accordance with Section 65915, a locality shall not offer a density bonus or any other incentive that would undermine the intent of this chapter." In order to qualify for a density bonus in a rental -only property, units must be set aside for very -low- or low-income families, or seniors -only, which this proposal does not purport to do. Gov't. Code 65915(b)(1). Twenty moderate -income rental units do not qualify for a bonus. By granting a density bonus for a project which will not include housing affordable to very -low- or low-income families, Costa Mesa will create a disincentive for building affordable housing and will illegally undermine the intent of the Density Bonus Law. Moreover, if Costa Mesa provides a density bonus to Miracle Mile Properties for the redevelopment of 2277 Harbor Boulevard, it must replace every unit occupied by low- and very - low -income families. Pages five to six of the Planning Department's report state that 49 rooms at the Costa Mesa Motor Inn are currently occupied by long-term occupants. In 2014, when long-term occupants were forced to register with the City, there were 63. The majority, if not all, of these long-term occupants have low incomes or less. Government Code 65915(c)(3) states that an applicant is ineligible for a density bonus or other incentive "if the housing development is proposed on any property that includes a parcel ... on which rental dwelling units are or, if the dwelling units have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the application, have been ... occupied by lower or very low income households, unless the proposed housing development replaces those units." In addition to replacing those units, the developer must still provide affordable units at the percentages required by the Density Bonus Law in order to ensure no net loss of affordable units. Id. Costa Mesa has long acknowledged that low- and very -low- income families reside at the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. In granting Miracle Mile Properties a density of 54 units per acre, it must require that the development include replacement affordable housing. In addition, as required by state law, the proposed plan should undergo an EIR under a CEQA in accordance with California Public Resources Code § 21080. The Planning Commission and the City Council cannot ignore the fact that there will be a significant environmental effect with the loss of so many low-income units in Costa Mesa. Currently, the demolition of CMMI will displace at least 49 households without any alternative low-income units for the residents to move to. Attached is PLC's comment to the Planning Commission including questions left unanswered by the Planning Commission and issues raised regarding the proposed project that have not been sufficiently addressed by the Developer. In light of the legal issues and lack of low-income 601 Civic Center Drive West - Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 - (714) 541-1010 - Fax (714) 541-5157 housing alternatives in Costa Mesa, this City Council should vote against this proposed project and require the developer to include low-income units. Sincerely, l rrr -Y� Lili Graham Richard Walker Attorneys for CMMRA Public Law Center 601 Civic Center Drive West • Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 • (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-5157 PUBLICI;ItLAWCENTER PROVIDING ACCESS TO JUSTICE October 9, 2015 FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S LOW INCOME. RESIDENTS Robert L. Dickson Jr. Planning Commission City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair IArive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 RE: Comment on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, 2277 I larbor Boulevard Project Dear Commissioner Robert I.. Dickson Jr.: This letter is a comment to the September 10, 2015, Initial StudylMiligated Negative Declurallon, 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of'Costa Mena, Orange County, California ("Initial Study"). This letter is written on behalf of the Costa Mesa Motel Resident Association ("CMMRA"). CMMRA consists of short- and long term residents who consider the motels in Costa Mesa home. A majority of the members of CMMRA currently reside at Costa Mesa Motor Inn ("CMMI'), the Iocation of the proposed project. In general, the members of CMNfRA and the other residents of the motel are low-, very -low-, and extremely -low-income families, veterans, and other residents, many of whom are disabled. A negative declaration under CRQA is inappropriate. The conversion of CMMI is likely to have a significant impact due to the adverse social and economic effects on the people of Costa Mesa. CMMRA urges its City's Planning Commission to reject the current proposal for a luxury apartment project at the Costa Mesa Motor Inn ('`CMMI"). This project will cause a substantial displacement for the neediest and most vulnerable residents of Costa Mesa. CMMI has at least 63 units that are set aside for long-term occupancy and a similar amount of low-income units should be included in the new project. 'Me Planning Commission should reject the current proposal of converting CMMI into luxury apartments for a number of reasons, including: a) the plan lacks any requirement for providing low- income units; b) the inducement for substantial population growth will completely displace the current residents; c) there will be a significant loss of existing, low-income housing units; and d) there is a lack of alternative housing for Costa Mesa residents. The Planning Commission must require that a portion of the redevelopment project will include low-income units. Plan Lacks Requirement for Providing Low-income Units The current plan for redeveloping, the CMMI does not include any low-income units, even though a substantial number of low-income people will be displaced by the demolition of the CMMI. The owner's about-face to create luxury apartments when the same owner has been operating a motel for low-income residents should not be encouraged. This owner for years has relied on the income of low -.income residents and advocated on their behalf when City Council members from Costa Mesa targeted the CMMI for its poor operation. Yet now they do not want to work with low-income residents. It is this City's obligation to ensure that redevelopment occurs in a sensible way that meets the needs of all of its residents, without exclusion of is lowest income residents. 601 Civic Center Drive West - Santa Ana, CA 82701-4002 - (714) 5414010 - Fax (714) 541-5157 Complete Displacement of Current Motel Residents This project will displace current residents and does not consider appropriate affordable replacement housing. The analysis of the population and housing impact is flawed as the Initial Study does not take into account that the inducement for population growth is for an altogether different demographic. The Initial Study fails to recognize the adverse impact of the project because it fails to recognize that the people that currently live and stay at the CMMI are low-income and unable to afford the luxury apartments proposed for this location. This displacement will have an adverse impact. Contrary to the Initial Stiuly's conclusion, the displacement of the low-income residents of CMMI will have a significant impact and require the construction of replacement housing. While the Initial Study references affordable housing constructed between the years of 2008-2011, the Initial Study makes no reference to the number of currently available affordable units in Costa Mesa. In fact, the Initial Study entirely omits any data on current, available resources for low-income residents. This quite simply is because there is a major shortage of available affordable housing in Costa Mesa, which is why the City has relied on motels to shelter its low-income residents. Additionally, as recently as February 2015, Orange County Housing Authority reported that because the demand for affordable housing in Costa Mesa is so great, most of the affordable housing units currently have multiple -year waiting lists. Because of this lack of affordable housing, many residents displaced by the project will become homeless. Any project that increases homelessness is a significant adverse impact on the greater Costa Mesa community. What affordable units are actually available at present in Costa .Mesa? What services will be provided and measures will be taken to prevent any current residents of CMMI from becoming homeless? What specific assistance will a relocation consultant provide? With a lack of available affordable housing, replacement housing is necessary and any new construction at 2277 Harbor Boulevard should contain low-income units. Loss of Low-income Housing Units The Initial Study errs in claiming that the "existing use only provides temporary housing." The CMMI has been used as long-term housing for low-income residents for over a decade. As recently as October of 2014, CMMI reported to Costa Mesa that approxunately 89 people currently live at CMMI in a long-term capacity. Even though Costa Mesa has attempted to eliminate long-term occupancy at motels, convert motels to only temporary housing, and updated its Housing Element to no longer rely on motels for affordable housing, these 89 residents are able to maintain their status as long-term residents under the grandfather clause of Costa Mesa's ordinance and the preliminary injunction granted in the case of Dadey, et al. v. City of Costa Mesa, No. 30-2014-00757462-CU- CR-CJC. Additionally, as stated in its 2008-2014 housing Element, Costa Mesa has relied on motels, including CMMl, to provide atTordable housing to Costa Mesa residents. CMMI has historically been allowed to use as much as 40 percent of its rooms to provide long-term housing. To the extent that the Initial Study claims CMMI only offers "limited stay options, and does not represent a permanent housing use," while at the same time recognizing that at least 50 units are in fact used on a long-term basis, it is inconsistent. Additionally, there is no data in support of this number. 601 Civic Center Drive West - Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 - (714) 541-1010 • Fax (714) 541-3157 What data has the Initial Study relied on in claiming that the current use provides only temporary housing? This conclusion is not based on any evidence, is in fact contrary to the actual use, and is inconsistent with the Initial Study. What data does the Initial Study rely on for calculating the present number of units used as long-term housing? Lack of Housing for Costa Mesa Residents While the Initial .Study makes note of resources to assist low-income residents in need of housing, it snakes no reference of their present availability. As but one example of scant resources available to low-income residents, while hundreds of Orange County residents are receiving Housing Choice Vouchers, currently Orange County Housing Autbority is not accepting any new applicants for these vouchers. What vouchers and other housing assistance are currently available to low-income residents of Costa Mesa? What capacity in Costa Mesa do these resources have to provide for additional residents? Even if such resources were presently available, displacing a minimum ,af 89 residents would cause a major strain on these resources. Such an impact would adversely affect all those who presently rely on those resources and such a social and economic effect would be signi hcaut. Most of the long-tenn residents of CMMI have built their lives around living at CMMI. They are near their jobs, their doctors, and their children's schools. Many residents at CMMI do not have personal transportation and rely on CMMI's location for its convenient access to shopping centers and all of life's basic necessities. Such convenience is especially critical to the disabled residents of CMMI. What support is there for the claim that the majority of residents will leave by attrition? What support is there for the claim that residents may not even stay in Costa Mesa when these residents have built their lives around living in Costa Mesa? The conclusion that these residents will leave by attrition or not stay in Costa Mesa is not based on any credible evidence and is just self-serving speculation. Instead of providing for its residents, including its most needy, the City is turning its back on their needs in exchange for just profit. Sincerely,, A , Lili Graham Richard Walker Public Law Center Attorneys on Behalf of CMMRA 601 Civic Center Drive West - Santa Ana, CA 92701-4002 - (714) 541-1010 - Fax (714) 541-5157 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -1 MEDIA. JESSICA Subject: FW: ATT City Clerk - Put in Council packets -----Original Message -----From: Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:15 PM To: CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: ATT City Clerk - Put in Council packets City Council, I support the demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn with replacement of new residential units on tonight's agenda. Thank you, Cheryl DeFrenza Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Sent from my iPhone ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -1 MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: City Clerk - put in Council packets -----Original Message ----- From: Dawn Finicum [mailto Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: ATT: City Clerk - put in Council packets Put in Council packets! I support the action of the demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn and want to be heard at tonight's city council meeting. I am a long time homeowner/resident in Mesa Verde and I want this motel and all of its problems gone! Thank you, Dawn Finicum Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -1 MEJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Meeting tonight Importance: High From: Gary Tarkington [ Sent: Tuesday, November PM To: CITY COUNCIL<CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Meeting tonight Importance: High would like to express my feelings concerning the motels here in Costa Mesa. They NEED TO BE gone ... like in torn down. The sooner the better! Thank you, Ann Tarkington ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PH -1 M EJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Request from Council Member Foley From: HATCH, THOMAS Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:44 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brend a.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Request from Council Member Foley Council Member Foley had requested the number of Newport -Mesa School District students that live at the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. The District reports that 45 students live at the address for the Costa Mesa Motor Inn. Please provide this in the red folders. Thanks. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -1 MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Comments on Proposed Costa Mesa Motor Inn Development Attachments: CM affordable housing coalition letter re neg dec on cmmi.pdf, Ltr_IS MD CMMI CC_ 15.11.3.pdf From: linda tang Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:35 PM To: GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Cc: Cesar Covarrubias _ Kathy Esfahani Lill Vo Graham Subject: RE: Comments on Proposed Costa Mesa Motor Inn Development Dear City Clerk Green, Please find attached a comment letter from the Kennedy Commission and a comment letter from the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition regarding today's City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #1 - General Plan Amendment/ Rezone/ Zoning Code Amendment and Master Plan for Costa Mesa Apartments at 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project. Since it's past 3 p.m., we will provide 10 copies of each letter for distribution at the Council hearing today. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Linda Tang The Kennedy Commission 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 p: (949) 250-0909 f. (949) 263-0647 www.kennedycommission.org Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition November 3, 2015 Mayor Stephen Mensinger and City Council Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: General Plan Amendment/ Rezone/ Zoning Code Amendment and Master Plan for Costa Mesa Apartments at 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Dear Mayor Mensinger and City Council Members On behalf of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition (the Coalition), I am writing to express our concerns about serious inadequacies in the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (Initial Study) regarding the 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project (the project). We are particularly disturbed the Initial Study mischaracterizes the effect that closure of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn (CMMI) will have on the city's housing stock available for lower income residents. The Initial Study is wrong in stating the project will have "less than significant impact" in regard to displacing "substantial numbers of existing housing" and that, as a result, there is no need for "construction of replacement housing elsewhere."I As our Coalition has explained to the City Council at numerous public hearings, the CMMI has for years served as last resort housing for Costa Mesa's poor. Until 2014, when the City began aggressively pushing the owner of the CMMI to change the property's use to upscale, high density residential, the motel's 236 rooms, 40% of which were used for "long term stays," were consistently full, providing housing for hundreds of lower income residents, including families with children, disabled people, and seniors who could find no alternative affordable housing in Costa Mesa. Consequently, the closure of the CMMI to make way for luxury apartments that include zero units affordable to these lower income households will result in a significant adverse impact on "existing housing" in our City. 236 rooms of last resort housing will be lost. CMMI's existing tenants will be priced out of the new apartments, displaced without replacement housing and at risk of becoming homeless. The Coalition is very concerned the proposed development will not only effectively remove existing "affordable homes" from the City's housing stock, but it will very likely increase Costa Mesa's existing homeless problem. Obviously, the Coalition has serious concerns about the project. The Coalition believes the success of the project will depend on the City's leadership in thoroughly analyzing and I Initial Smdy/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 121, September 10, 2015, Page 1 of 6 addressing the project's environmental impacts. The Coalition urges the City to take the following recommendations into consideration: Place this agenda item on hold and not vote on it. The project has the potential to impose a negative impact on our community. The timeline for the project is being rushed through and the concerns of the community have not been thoroughly addressed. There needs to be meaningful community outreach and the incorporation of public input that reflects the decision-making and planning process for the project. The City has the ability to slow down the process to ensure the needs of the community are addressed. The Coalition requests the City to place this agenda item on hold and help facilitate a meeting that will include the developer, city staff, the Coalition and the community to further discuss the concerns on the project. 2. Under the Population/ Housing environmental factor, re-classify the displacement of existing housing and residents from "less than significant impact" to "potentially significant impact' necessitating the construction of replacement housing. The Initial Study did not thoroughly evaluate and analyze the potential impacts the proposed project would have on the displacement of current tenants at the CMMI. There is no replacement housing plan in place to ensure the tenants, especially the long term tenants, have affordable housing options that are readily available near transit and job centers in the City. Currently, there are approximately 160 occupied rooms at the CMMI and of that, 49 rooms are occupied by 66 long-term residents.' Because the project includes zero units affordable to the lower income tenants who currently live in the CMMI, all these existing tenants will be displaced, including the long-term tenants living in 49 of the units. The developer will provide relocation assistance ranging from $4,000 to $5,500 to long-term occupants' and hire a relocation consultant to provide at least one on-site visit and offer relocation services to assist tenants in finding replacement housing.' However, the cash relocation assistance and relocation consulting are short term solutions and would not be enough to realistically help tenants relocate and find affordable housing in the City. The chances of finding existing housing that are affordable to lower income families in the City or anywhere else in the County is extremely low. In the City's 2008-2014 Housing Element planning period, only one low-income home was constructed in the City' and there are currently no other proposed affordable home developments for lower income families in the City's development pipeline. With the serious lack of affordable homes, the housing crisis in the City is exacerbated with the rising and out -of -reach rents in the City. The average asking rent in the City is $1,840 and that is a 6.3% increase from the year before.6 While the term "affordable" is defined as a household that spends less than 30 percent of their household income on housing costs,7 many renters are paying 2 City Council Agenda Report: General Plan amendment GP -14-04/ Rezone R-14-04/ Zoning Cede Amendment CO -14-02/ And Master Plan PA - 14 -27 For Costa Mesa Apartments at 2277 Harbor Boulevard, City of costa Mesa, p. 5, November 3, 2015. 3 Costa Mesa Motor Inn 2270 Harbor Boulevard Long-term Occupant Relocation Assistance Plan, October 12, 2015, 4 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 122, September 10, 2015. ' Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p. 10, January 21, 2014. 6 Feeling the Pinch? Local Rent Prices Hit A Record high, The Orange County Register, January 16, 2015. 7 Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p. 31, January 21, 2014. Page 2 of 6 more. In the City, many renters overpaid and spent approximately 44% of their income towards rent.8 In addition, a substantial amount of households in the City are lower income families. Approximately 39 percent of households earned less than $50,000 per year.9 According to the report, "...even if localized displacement occurred, it would not occur in substantial amounts as to warrant the need for replacement housing that would have a significant effect on the environment."10 We believe this is a wildly misleading statement. The amount of tenants being displaced will be much larger than the report indicates. The reason the report says localized displacement will not occur in "substantial amounts" is because it is not going to happen all at once. Instead, localized displacement at the CMMI is already happening, discreetly, in preparation for the project. Once the current tenants vacate the units, none of the newly vacant units are "advertised as vacant."11 Since 2014, the CMMI has been systematically displacing potential tenants by intentionally not allowing them to rent these vacant rooms. This practice has negative impacts on the community as more and more individuals and families who are at -risk of being homeless will have not where else to go. They may end up on homeless on the streets. Because this displacement is happening discreetly at a slower rate, it is not being analyzed and quantified. 3. Re -analyze and re -confirm the correct number of affordable units constructed in the City. The Initial Study states: "Between 2008-2011, a total of 618 affordable units were constructed .,,12 However, in the City's 2014-2021 Housing Element, the report identifies only one low-income home was constructed in the City during the 2006-2014 Housing Element planning period." Where in the city were these "618 affordable units" constructed? Are these units affordable to lower income working families or are the units affordable to moderate and above moderate income households? Also, are these units deed -restricted? 4. Not exclude affordable homes from detailed analysis in the Initial Study. With high housing costs and significant lack of affordable homes, many workers and families, especially those who earn lower wages, struggle financially to live close to where they work. Compared to other cities in Orange County, housing costs are significantly higher in Costa Mesa and simply out of reach for extremely low-, very low- and low-income families. These impacts not only hurt workers and families, but may also have negative environmental impacts to the City. With the lack of vacant land in the City, the project at the CMMI provides a great opportunity for the development of homes to be set-aside as affordable to lower income working families. By living in an affordable home development that's near transit services, such as the frequent OCTA buses servicing Harbor Boulevard, many residents, B Lower Rents Might Cost You More: High Cost of Housing Chips Deeply into Low -Wage Earners Pay, The O.C. Register, April 18, 2015. v Profile of the City of Costa Mesa Local Profiles Report 2015, SCAG, p.10, May 2015. 10 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, It. 122, September 10, 2015. t ' Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p, 122, September 10, 2015. 12 initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 121, September 10, 2015. 13 Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p. 10,.lanuary 21, 2014. Page 3 of 6 especially lower income working residents, can rely on the bus for their commute to and from work and to other destinations. Residents and workers who take transit become less dependent on driving their automobiles and can help decrease the environmental impacts of traffic congestion, vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In addition, lower wage employees working at the Harbor Center across the street from the CMMI can also greatly benefit from living in close proximity to where they work. The employees would only have to walk across the street to their job site without needing to drive. Not only will the development of affordable homes help reduce VMT and GHG emissions, the proximity of the affordable homes to jobs will create a more walkable and healthier Costa Mesa. The environmental impacts of a development are especially less drastic when people can afford to live and spend their money in the same community in which they work. With low wages and high housing costs, many workers live in other cities and become dependent on their automobile to commute to and from work and other destinations. These trips may increase traffic congestion and air pollutants that not only negatively impact the environment but also the quality of life for residents in the City. Addressing these environmental impacts will also align with the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) and help the City implement and comply with the regional goals of SB 375. 5. Only approve the Initial Study in exchange for community benefits where the developer commits to dedicating at least 20% of homes affordable to families at extremely low-, very low- and low-income levels at the project. Given the City's high housing costs and serious lack of affordable homes, many individuals and families have turned to motels such as the CMMI as their last resort housing. With the proposed residential development, nearly all of the motel's existing tenants will be priced out, displaced, and may be at -risk of becoming homeless. One of most effective solutions to homelessness is the development of permanent affordable homes. The proposed project will effectively take out existing "affordable" homes from the City's housing stock. The City has control over land use decisions and should take this great opportunity to request for community benefits that addresses the existing housing needs of the City. By changing the land use designations and up -zoning the existing property, the City has created additional value on the property and would be giving away these tremendous benefits to the developer. While these giveaways provide significant windfalls and increases the property values of the proposed development, what community benefits does Costa Mesa get in return? With the lack of vacant land and funding for the development of affordable homes, the City should capitalize on this great opportunity by recapturing the increased value through community benefits. New proposed developments requesting additional development standards should only be approved in exchange for community benefits such as a set-aside of affordable homes for lower income families. In addition, by increasing the existing base density, the City is effectively circumventing the use of a Page 4 of 6 density bonus (SB 1818) for proposed projects, which would have facilitated the development of new affordable homes for lower income households in the City. Other jurisdictions in Orange County have taken a stand for their residents and have requested new residential developments provide community benefits to the City. In the City of Santa Ana, the Housing Opportunities Ordinance applies to residential developments that request a discretionary approval (e.g., change in land use designation, zoning, density etc.). The Ordinance requires 15 percent of new homes to be affordable for low and very low-income households. In the City of Laguna Niguel, the City's Gateway Specific Plan allow increases in density in exchange for the provision of important community benefits such as the development of affordable homes. Laguna Niguel has two market rate rental developments that have set-aside homes that are affordable to lower income families. 6. Reinstate extended stay units/ long term stays at motels in the City. As stated throughout this letter, the CMMI provides last resort housing for hundreds of low income individuals and families. Currently, the CMMI has at least 50 units that are occupied by long -terns tenants. Until 2014, the CMMI had a Conditional Use Permit that allowed up to 90 rooms (40 percent of all rooms) to be rented out as long-term stay units. In 2014, however, the City adopted an ordinance effectively outlawing long-term stays at the motels, including the CMMI, that provide last resort housing to the City's poor. Without long term stays at the motels, individuals and families are only allowed to stay 28 days before they are kicked out the motel. Without any other viable housing options, many individuals and families are subjected to moving from motel to motel. In the years before it adopted that ordinance, the City specifically identified motels as an alternative option for affordable housing. In the City's 2008-2014 Housing Element, it specifically states: "the City recognizes a need to use motel/hotel rooms as a housing alternative for extended stay... extended stay units provide alternative affordable housing choices." Since that planning period, the City has not added any affordable housing for lower income households. Consequently, motels are still needed in the City to "provide alternative affordable housing choices." In light of this recognition, the City should reinstate its policies regarding extended stay units/long term stays at motels. Be consistent with the General Plan goals, objectives and policies. The Initial Study states the project is consistent with the General Plan goals, objectives and policies; however, it is actually not consistent in that it is failing to meet the expectations of the following: a. Goal Lu -1, Land Use: "...to provide its citizens with a balanced community of residential uses... to satisfy the needs of the social and economic segments of the populations 14 and; b. General Plan Land Use Objective LU-IAI: "to provide for the development of mix and balance of housing opportunities... in consideration of the needs of the business and residential segment of the community."" 14 Giitial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 1tubor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 100, September 10, 2015. Page 5of6 The City has not expanded housing choices for lower income residents living near transit and job opportunities. In the City's Housing Element 2008-2014 planning period, while 1,047 moderate and above moderate income homes were constructed, only one low- income home was constructed in the City.16 In the City's Urban Master Plan, 501 units are entitled, under -construction or completed.17 Not one of these units are affordable to lower income working families. The City has only prioritized it's efforts to building homes that are affordable to moderate- and above moderate -income households. 8. Provide a detailed jobs -housing "fit" analysis. Different from jobs -housing balance, which evaluates the number of jobs to the number of homes in a specific geographic location, the jobs -housing fit provides a more detailed analysis. The jobs -housing fit analyzes the discrepancies between the types of jobs and wages (especially for low-wage jobs) that are available in a City and the housing costs and opportunities that are available in the City. Locating homes, especially affordable homes, near job centers (i.e. Harbor Center), mass transit and neighborhood amenities will create a more walkable, healthier and sustainable Costa Mesa. As the City evaluates and addresses the potential environmental effects of the project at the CMMI, the Coalition strongly urges the City to prioritize the development of homes affordable to lower income working families as an effective strategy to decrease negative environmental impacts. The Coalition looks forward to hearing the City's response to our concerns. We hope that the City and the CMMI developer/ owner will be a community partner in helping facilitate the development of affordable homes for lower income families. Please keep us informed of any upcoming meetings and proposed changes regarding the proposed project. If you have any questions, please free to contact Kathy Esfahani at kmesfahani@att.net. Sincerely, �aei 4 ZeyaiRK/ Kathy Esfahan For The Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition 15 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project, City of Costa Mesa, p. 100, September 10, 2015. 16 Housing Element For The Costa Mesa General Plan 2013-2021, City of Costa Mesa, p. 10, January 21, 2014. "City of Costa Mesa Urban Master Plan Developments Attachement 2, City Council/ Planning Commission Joint Study Session, Proposed Urban Plan Amendment to Amend the SOBECA and Westside Urban Plans, p. 9, September 8, 2015. Page 6 of 6 www.keiinedyco�ninission.org November 3, 2015 17701 Cowan Ave., Suhe 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949 250 0909 Fax 949 263 0647 Mayor Stephen Mensinger and City Council Members City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: General Plan Amendment/ Rezone/ Zoning Code Amendment and Master Plan for Costa Mesa Apartments at 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project Dear Mayor Mensinger and City Council Members: The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $20,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with jurisdictions in Orange County to create effective policies that has led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower income working families. The Commission submitting this letter in support of the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition's letter dated November 3, 2015 in regards to the General Plan Amendment/ Rezone/ Zoning Code Amendment and Master Plan for Costa Mesa Apartments at 2277 Harbor Boulevard Project. The Costa Mesa Motor Inn (CMMI) provides last resort affordable housing for many lower income households and the CMMI will displace many at -risk families and lead them to homelessness. The Commission urges the City to consider the following: L Incorporate and implement the reconnnendations outlined in the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition's letter dated October 10, 2015. 2. Allow a General Plan Amendment (to change land use designation from General Counnercial to High Density Residential), Rezone (to change zoning classification fi•om Cl (Local Business District) to PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential — High Density)) and Zoning Code Amendment (to amend the Costa Mesa Municipal code to include the proposed development's site specific height of 60 feet and site-specific density of 54 du/ac in the PDR -HD zone) ONLY IF at least 20 percent of the proposed development is affordable to lower income working households. By increasing the existing base density, the City is effectively circumventing the use of a density bonus (SB 1818) for proposed projects, which would have facilitated the development of new affordable homes for lower income households in the City. Provide replacement housing that is readily available and affordable in the City for tenants, especially for all the long -tern occupants. While the proposed development is a private development, the proposed development is seeking for development incentives Iworking for systemic change resulting in the production of homes affordable to Orange County's extremely low-income households Mayor Mensinger and City Council Members November 3, 2015 Page 2 of 2 (i.e., General Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment and rezone) that developers were previously not entitled to. These development incentives should be considered as a form of a public Subsidy. The development incentives that the City is approving and giving away to the developer has significant value to it that should be quantified and be accounted for. Because the developer is utilizing a public subsidy, the relocation assistance should be re-evaluated and replacement housing for displaced tenants at the CMMI should be provided. The Commission looks forward to working in partnership with the City to create and hnplement effective policies and programs that will incentivize the development of homes affordable to lower income working families. Please keep us updated on the City's responses to the Costa Mesa Affordable Housing Coalition's recommendations and on any updates regarding the CMMI. If you have any questions, please free to contact Cesar Covarrubias at (949) 250-0909 or cesare nikennedycommission.org. Sincerely, Cesar Covarru Executive Director ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -1 M EJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: ATT City Clerk - Put in CounciP packets From: Cheryl DeFrenza Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:53 PM To: KATRINA FOLEY <foley4costamesaPgmail.com> Cc: CITY COUNCIL<CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject:. Re: ATT City Clerk - Put in Council packets Katrina, I understand the owner is providing a transition amount to those that stay to the end. I don't think any units should be used for "affordable hosing units". If people can't afford to live in Costa Mesa they should move up the street. As you know I used to live in a large, beautiful home in the inner loop section of Mesa Verde, but when my husband's architecture business failed in the recession and he filed bankruptcy, then we got divorced we couldn't afford to live in that area any longer. I had been a stay at home mom for several years and needed to work again. It took me over 2 years to find a job during the recession. I moved in with my mom in Orange, but when I was employed I found a nice landlord that would rent to me even though I had all those strikes against me. I NEVER looked for a hand out nor expected someone else to take care of me. And nobody gave me $5,000 to get started. I've been in my apartment in the spice streets for 5 years now. I live in 1100 square feet for only a couple hundred dollars more per month than the people are paying to live in 300 square feet. Even the teenager that lives there was quoted as saying she doesn't want that life for her future family. Those people need to stop depending on everyone else to help them. They need to help themselves. Sent from my Whone On Nov 3, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Katrina Foley -Costa Mesa City Councilmember <fole 4costamesa r ail.com> wrote: Cheryl: Thanks for your email. It's not really a question of removal, but of whether the property owner should include some affordable units as part of the windfall for the additional development, or at least provide some private relocation plan. The windfall of additional units beyond the allowable build amounts to more than $1.9 million per year indefinitely to this owner who has allowed the property to become what it is in the first place. Seems not right to me. Some people have lived there 5-20 years. Some NMUSID families live here. They have no place to move to. Seems he should help provide a transition given all the benefit he is receiving from the extra allowed density. That's my focus. Thanks, Katrina Foley Costa Mesa City Council www.costamesaca.gov www.katrinafoley.com @katrinafoley Sent from my iPhone On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Cheryl DeFrenza City Council, wrote: I support the demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn with replacement of new residential units on tonight's agenda. Thank you, Cheryl DeFrenza Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Sent from my iPhone ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -1 Building Address Avg Asking/Unit _ 1947 1955, 1965 Pomona Ave 1200 291-293 Avocado St 969 354 Avocado St 1500 366 Avocado St 1469 387 W Bay St 1595 2881 Bear St 1173 897 Center St 1135 2117 Elden Ave 1300 393 Hamilton St 1382 1959-1961 Maple Ave 1250 2500 Merrimac W_ ay 1703 1621 Mesa Dr 1196 2080 Newort Blvd 1090 2450 Newport Blvd^ 820 2163 Pacific Ave 1180 801 Paularino Ave 1335 1846 Placentia Ave 1087 1945-1965 Pomona Ave 1248 2250 Vanguard way _ 1417 352 E Victoria St 1088 1800 Wallace Ave 1257 1919 Wallace Ave 1248 530 Wilson St E 1351 CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2015 ITEM NUMBER PH -1 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -14-04/ REZONE R-14-04/ ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CO -14-02/ AND MASTER PLAN PA -14-27 FOR COSTA MESA LUXURY APARTMENTS AT 2277 HARBOR BOULEVARD DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2015 FROM: WILLA BOUWENS-KILLEEN, AICP, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RYAN LOOMIS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RYAN LOOMIS (714) 754-5606 ryan.loomis@costamesaca.gov The objective of this memo is to provide the Police and Fire Departments' calls for service to Costa Mesa Motor Inn over the last three years. The following text has been added to the fifth paragraph of page 18 of the Agenda Report, and the third paragraph of page 79 of Exhibit A of the Resolution: "Over the past 3 years, the motel has generated 372 calls for Fire service between 2012 and 2014; including 126 calls in 2012; 151 calls in 2013; and 95 calls in 2014. For Police services, the motel has generated 1,508 calls between 2012 and 2014, including 560 calls in 2012; 550 calls in 2013; and 398 calls in 2014. To date for 2015, there have been 264 Police service calls. This has resulted in a disproportionate amount.... " Distribution: 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) Diamond Star Associates, Inc. Attn: Don Lamm, Managing Principal 4100 MacArthur Blvd, #330 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Miracle Mile Properties Attn: Lionel Levy, Chief Operations Officer 4221 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 480 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH -2 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT CO -15-04 TO AMEND, REPEAL AND ADD SECTIONS TO TITLE 13 (PLANNING, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT), RELATING TO GROUP HOMES, SOBER LIVING HOMES, BOARDING HOUSES, AND RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions with regard to the proposed ordinance revising Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code with regard to group homes, state licensed facilities and boardinghouses in the Multiple -Family Residential (MFR) zones and Planned Development zones ("MFR Group Home Ordinance"), and Title 9 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code with regard to operator's permits for group homes in the MFR zones: • That City Council find that the proposed ordinance is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) of CEQA because there is no possibility that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code will have a significant effect on the environment. • That City Council approve and give first reading to the proposed ordinances. BACKGROUND On October 7, 2014, City Council gave first reading to an ordinance amending Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code with regard to group homes, state licensed facilities and boardinghouses in the R1 (Single -Family Residential) zones, including requiring facilities with 6 or fewer residents to obtain a Special Use Permit ("SUP") and to maintain a 650 -foot separation between facilities. The ordinance was formally adopted by the City council on October 21, 2014. The proposed regulation will apply to the following multiple -family residentially zoned properties (MFR), including the following: • R2 -MD — Multiple -Family Residential District • R2 -HD — Multiple -Family Residential District • R3 - Multiple -Family Residential District • PDR -LD Planned Development - Low Density (up to 8 DU's/Acre) • PDR -MD Planned Development - Medium Density (up to 12 DU's/Acre) • PDR -HD Planned Development - High Density (up to 20 DU's/Acre) • PDR -NCM Planned Development - North Costa Mesa (up to 25-35 DU's/Acre) • PDC Planned Development Commercial • PDI planned Development Industrial • I&R Institutional and Recreational District GROUP HOME REGULATION Group homes serving six or fewer residents. The ordinance would permit group homes, inclusive of sober living homes, serving six or fewer residents to locate in the specified zones. Group homes of six or fewer would be required to obtain a Special Use Permit ("SUP") pursuant to the existing provisions of Chapter XV with a few modifications. State licensed alcohol and drug abuse treatment facilities serving six or fewer residents are exempt from Chapter XV and do not need a SUP. Group homes serving seven or more residents Group homes serving seven or more residents would be required to obtain a CUP in order to locate in the specified multi -family residential zones. In addition, group homes would be required to obtain an operator's permit in order to operate in the MFR zones. The requirements for issuance of an operator's permit are set forth in a separate ordinance that amends Title 9 (see Attachment 2). These requirements are similar to the requirements for a SUP. City Council will be considering this Ordinance with regard to changes in Title 9. State licensed facilities serving seven or more residents State licensed facilities would be required to obtain a CUP in order to locate in the MFR zones. These facilities, as they are regulated by the state, would not be required to obtain an operator's permit to operate in the specified multi -family residential zones. Reasonable Accommodation An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of the provisions of the ordinance by submitting an application to the Director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to the existing provisions of section 13-200.60 et seq. Summary of October 12, 2015 Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 12, 2015, which included presentation of the staff report. In addition, public comments both in favor of and opposed to the request were received by the Planning Commission. Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the ordinance to the City Council by a 5-0 vote. Additionally, Planning Commission recommended the following: • Planning Commission made an important change to the Ordinance by indicating that a sober living home could not be within 650 feet of another similar use, regardless of zone. They added language that clarified "similar use" to be considered as including another group home, sober living home or State licensed facility. The concern was that the term "similar use" was subject to interpretation, and therefore a State licensed facility might not be interpreted as a "similar use" (and therefore) not subject to the 650 -foot buffer requirement. • Planning Commission suggested provisions requiring residents who drop out or relapse under the program of a sober living home to be relocated, at the operator's expense, to prevent former residents from ending up homeless within the surrounding neighborhoods. o Staff has added a provision to both the operator's permit requirements of Title 9 for group homes serving 7 or more and the Special Use Permit requirements for group homes serving 6 or fewer occupants to address this situation. The proposed revisions require operators to provide transportation to occupants that are ejected or evicted from the group home back to their residence. • Minor typos in the ordinance have been corrected. • Planning Commission requested more information regarding how the Ordinance would be enforced and the staffing provided to maintain enforcement. o Code enforcement will be re -assigning two officers into open position dedicated to group home enforcement, and will be seeking authorization to hire two additional part time code enforcement positions, in addition to hiring a part time management analyst to help with processing applications. • The Commission also asked if the State has any enforcement mechanisms or resources in place that City staff can utilize. o Code enforcement staff have been reporting observed violations of state licensed facilities to the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). In addition, following the Planning Commission meeting, staff identified a discrepancy between the text of Table 13-30 (Land Use Matrix) of section 13-30, footnote 5, and section 13-311(a)(10)(i) to which footnote 5 refers. Staff recommends deletion of the language "in the R1 zone" from footnote 5 in order to clarify the intent of both Chapter XV and XVI. ANALYSIS A detailed discussion and analysis of the purpose for the ordinance, legal background and description of the proposed ordinance is provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report attached. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment will provide the regulatory framework to limit the number of people in a group home and to prevent the overconcentration of residential care facilities, group homes and sober living homes in multiple -family residential and planned residential neighborhoods. The regulations require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as well as an operator's permit to operate large group homes and sober living homes, and a CUP to operate large state licensed facilities in the Multiple -Family Residential and Planned Development Residential Districts. The CUP will allow the City to review the proposed use on an individual basis, track the location of sober living homes in the effected zones and establish reasonable operating standards through Conditions of Approval on these uses to ensure that they do not generate the type of secondary impact that would be out of character for the neighborhood; while still furthering the purpose of the FEHA, the FHAA and the Lanterman Act, by allowing special accommodation and/or additional accommodation for the handicapped. MEL LEE, AICP Senior Planner GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Director of Economic & Development Services/ Deputy CEO Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance (Title 13). Strike-Thru and Final Conies 2. Draft Ordinance (Title 9), Strike-Thru and Final Copies 3. October 12, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minute Excerpts 4. October 12, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report and Related Fxhihitc cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr. City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO AMEND TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER XVI (GROUP HOMES, SOBER LIVING HOMES, AND RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES) IN THE R2 -MD, R2 - HD AND R3 RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND THE PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONES) OF TITLE 13 AND AMENDING SECTION 13-6 (DEFINITIONS) OF ARTICLE 2 (DEFINITIONS) OF CHAPTER I (GENERAL) AND SECTION 13-30 TABLE 13-30 (LAND USE MATRIX) OF CHAPTER IV OF ARTICLE 1 OF CHAPTER V OF TITLE 13 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE: WHEREAS, under the California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, the City has been granted broad police powers to preserve the residential characteristics of its R2MD, R2HD, and R3 zones; and planned development residential zones, which powers have been recognized by both the California Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court, the latter of which has stated that, "it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled"; and WHEREAS, the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments ("FHAA") and the California Fair Employment Housing Act ("FEHA") prohibit enforcement of zoning ordinances which would on theirface or have the effect of discriminating against equal housing opportunities for the handicapped; and WHEREAS, a core purpose of the FHAA, FEHA and California's Lanterman Act is to provide a broader range of housing opportunities to the handicapped; to free the handicapped, to the extent possible, from institutional style living; and to ensure that handicapped persons have the opportunity to live in normal residential surroundings and use and enjoy a dwelling in a manner similar to the way a dwelling is enjoyed by the non -handicapped; and WHEREAS, to fulfill this purpose the FHAA and FEHA also require that the City provide reasonable accommodations to its zoning ordinances if such accommodation is necessary to afford a handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and Strike — Thru Version Ws WHEREAS, the Lanterman Act fulfills this purpose in part by requiring cities to treat state licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer as a residential use; and WHEREAS, in enacting this Ordinance the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa is attempting to strike a balance between the City's and residents' interests of preserving the characteristics of residential neighborhoods and to provide opportunities for the handicapped to reside in such neighborhoods that are enjoyed by the non -handicapped; and WHEREAS, over the past several years the City, County and State have seen a significant increase in the number of single- and multi -family homes being utilized as alcohol and drug recovery facilities for large numbers of individuals (hereafter, "sober living homes"); and WHEREAS, the increase appears to be driven in part by the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (hereafter, "the Act") adopted by California voters which provides that specified first-time drug and alcohol offenders are to be afforded the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment rather than incarceration; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Care Act has significantly expanded the availability of health care coverage for substance abuse treatment; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has seen a sharp increase in the number of sober living homes, which has generated secondary impacts including, but not limited to neighborhood parking shortfalls, overcrowding, inordinate amounts of second-hand smoke, and noise; and the clustering of sober living facilities in close proximity to each other creating near neighborhoods of sober living homes; and WHEREAS, over the past 20 months from January 2014 to September 2015 the City experienced an increase of 25.4% in the number of sober living facilities and residential care facilities in the multiple -family residential zones. Those new facilities resulted in an increase of 142 -beds, which is a 20.6% increase in beds since January of 2014. As of September 2015 the City had a total of 84 residential facilities, with 831 -beds to treat drug and alcohol addiction located in its multiple -family residential districts; and WHEREAS, currently, in all zones, it is estimated that the City of Costa Mesa is home to 1586 alcohol and drug recovery beds, divided as follows: 44 licensed residential facilities/certified alcohol and drug programs in residential zones, providing 411 beds; 107 unlicensed sober living homes in residential zones, providing 600 beds; Included in those 107 homes are 41 homes who have submitted applications per the R1 Ordinance providing 252 beds; and 1 State Licensed Facility on two separate parcels, providing 76 beds in a non-residential zone; and 40 nonresidential services facilities, providing support services such as administrative offices, therapy etc. WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is currently home to almost 28.9% of the state licensed residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities in Orange County, while the City holds 3.6% of the County's population, thus it is reasonable to infer that unlicensed sober living homes are locating in the City at a higher concentration than in nearby communities; and WHEREAS, over the last decade the number of sober living homes in the City of Costa Mesa is rapidly increasing, leading to an overconcentration of sober living homes in certain of the City's residential neighborhoods, which is both deleterious to the residential character of these neighborhoods and may also lead to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the number of sober living homes has not increased to the point of overconcentration in certain Planned Development zones; and WHEREAS, the purpose of sober living homes is to provide a comfortable living environment for persons with drug or alcohol addictions in which they remain clean and sober and can participate in a recovery program in a residential, community environment, and so that they have the opportunity to reside in the residential neighborhood of their choice; and WHEREAS, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, who are not currently using alcohol or drugs, are considered handicapped under both the FHAA and FEHA; and WHEREAS, in 2008, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services projected spending on substance abuse recovery to be $35 billion annually by 2014 (source: Projections of National Expenditures for Mental Health Services and Substance Abuse Treatment 2004-2014, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Katharine R. Levit et al., 2008); and WHEREAS, based on the City's experience it has become clear that at least some operators of sober living homes are driven more by a motivation to profit rather than to provide a comfortable living environment in which recovering addicts have a realistic potential of recovery, or to provide a living environment which remotely resembles the manner in which the non -disabled use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS, establishing distance requirements for sober living homes is reasonable and non-discriminatory and not only helps preserve the residential character of the R2MD, R2HD, and R3 zones; as well as the planned development residential neighborhoods, but also furthers the interest of ensuring that the handicapped are not living in overcrowded environments that are counterproductive to their well-being and recover; and a.9-.1 WHEREAS, sober living homes do not function as a single housekeeping unit for the following reasons: (1) they house extremely transient populations (programs are generally about 90 days and as noted, the 2008 UCLA study found that 65-70% of recovering addicts don't finish their recovery programs); (2) the residents generally have no established ties to each other when they move in and typically do not mingle with other neighbors; (3) neighbors generally do not know who or who does not reside in the home; (4) the residents have little to no say about who lives or doesn't live in the home; (5) the residents do not generally share expenses; (6) the residents are often responsible for their own food, laundry and phone; (7) when residents disobey house rules they are often just kicked out of the house; (8) the residents generally do not share the same acquaintances; and (9) residents often pay significantly above - market rate rents; and WHEREAS, the size and makeup of the households in sober living homes, even those allowed as a matter of right under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, is dissimilar and larger than the norm, creating impacts on water, sewer, roads, parking and other City services that are far greater than the average household, in that the average number of persons per California household is 2.90 (2.68 persons per household according to the City's General Plan), while a sober living facility allowed as a matter of right would house six, which is in the top 5% of households in Orange County according to the most recent U.S. federal census data; and WHEREAS, all the individuals residing in a sober living facility are generally over the age of 18, while the average household has just 2.2 individuals over the age of 18 according to the most recent federal census data; and WHEREAS, the City and public utility providers utilize federal census data and other information relating to the characteristics of residential neighborhoods to, among other things: (1) determine the design of residential homes, residential neighborhoods, park systems, library systems, transportation systems; (2) determine parking and garage requirements of various (bedroom) sizes and density of units; (3) develop its General Plan and zoning ordinances; (4) determine police and fire staffing; (5) determine impacts to water, sewer and other services; and (5) establish impacts fees that fairly and proportionally fund facilities for traffic, parks, libraries, police and fire; and WHEREAS, because of their extremely transient populations, above -normal numbers of individuals/adults residing in a single dwelling and the lack of regulations, sober living facilities present problems not typically associated with more traditional residential uses, including but not limited to: the housing of large numbers of unrelated adult who may or may not be supervised; disproportionate numbers of cars associated with a single housing unit, which causes disproportionate traffic and utilization of on -street parking; excessive noise and outdoor smoking, which interferes with the use and enjoyment of neighbors' use of their property; neighbors who have little to no idea who does and does not reside in the home; little to no participation in community activities that form and strengthen neighborhood cohesion; a history of opening facilities in complete disregard of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and with little regard for impacts to the neighborhood; disproportional impacts from the average dwelling unit to nearly all public services including sewer, water, parks, libraries, transportation infrastructure, fire and police; a history of congregating in the same general area; and the potential influx of individuals with a criminal record; and WHEREAS, a variable separation requirement will still allow for a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of sober living homes within the City and still result in preferential treatment for sober living homes in that non -handicapped individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse -style residences) have fewer housing opportunities than the handicapped; and WHEREAS, housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide the handicapped with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings," but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide relief from for the handicapped, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life in a normal residential surrounding; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the above, the City Council recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, that when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing the handicapped the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions, and that therefore providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including sober living homes, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, without some regulation there is no way of ensuring that the individuals entering into a group home are handicapped individuals and entitled to reasonable accommodation under local and state law; that a group home is operated professionally to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhood; and that the secondary impacts from over concentration of both group homes in a neighborhood and large numbers of unrelated adults residing in a single facility in an individual home are lessened; and WHEREAS, in addition to group homes locating in residential neighborhoods other state -licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons who are mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped or supervised, are also taking up residence in these neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the purpose of group homes for the handicapped is to provide the handicapped an equal opportunity to comfortably reside in the residential neighborhood of their choice; and �Q� WHEREAS, no residential developments of any kind are permitted in the I&R (Institutional and Recreation) zone, and no group homes exit in this zone at the time of the adoption of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance 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 pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the passage of this Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The following definition in Section 13-6 (Definitions) of Article 2 (Definitions) of Chapter I (General) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: Boardinghouse. A residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein rooms are rented under two (2) or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental manager resides within the residence. Boardinghouse, small means two (2) or fewer rooms being rented. Boardinghouse, large means three (3) to six (6) rooms being rented. Boardinghouses renting more than 6 rooms are prohibited. Section 2: Chapter XVI (Group homes and residential care facilities in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby added as follows: 13-320.- Purpose. This chapter is intended to preserve the residential character the City of Costa Mesa's residential neighborhoods and to further the purposes of the FEHA, the FHAA and the Lanterman Act by, among other things: (1) ensuring that group homes are actually entitled to the special accommodation and/or additional accommodation provided under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and not simply skirting the City's boarding house regulations; (2) limiting the secondary impacts of group homes by reducing noise and traffic, preserving safety and providing adequate off-street parking; (3) providing an accommodation for the handicapped that is reasonable and actually bears some resemblance to the opportunities afforded non -handicapped individuals to use and enjoy a dwelling unit in a residential neighborhood; and (4) to provide comfortable living environments that will enhance the opportunity for the handicapped, including recovering addicts to be successful in their programs. 13-321.- Definitions. Property. For purposes of this chapter, property is defined as any single development lot that has been subdivided bearing its own assessor's parcel number or with an approved subdivision map or condominium map. 13-322.- Group Homes in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones with Six or Fewer Occupants. (a) A special use permit shall be required for and may be granted to permit the operation of a group home including a sober living home with six or fewer occupants in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones) zones subject to the following conditions: (1) The application complies with subsections (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(4) through (a)(109) of Section 13-311. (2) The application includes a live scan of the house manager and/or operator of the group home. (3) The group home or sober living home is at least 650 feet from any other property, as defined in Section 13-321, that contains a group home, sober living home or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as measured from the property line. (4) Upon eviction from or involuntary termination of residency in a group home, the operator of the group home shall make available to the occupant transportation to the address listed on the occupant's driver license, state issued identification card, or the permanent address identified in the occupant's application or referral to the group home. The group home operator may not satisfy this obligation by providing remuneration to the occupant for the cost of transportation. (b) An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of this section by submitting an application to the director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to section 13-200.62. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of section 13-3119(b) to the contrary, the Development Services Director may revoke or deny a special use permit for a group home subject to this chapter following the director's determination that any of the circumstances set forth in ,Section 13- 311(b)(1) through (7) exist. 13-323.- Conditional Use Permit Required for Group Homes, Residential Care Facilities and Drug and Alcohol Treatment Facilities in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) with 7 or More Occupants. A conditional use permit shall be required for and may be granted to allow the operation of a group home, state licensed residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility with seven (7) or more occupants in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) zones subject to the following conditions: (a) The requirements of Chapter III PLANNING APPLICATIONS have been met. (b) The group home, residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is at least six -hundred fifty feet from any property, as defined in Section 13-321, that contains a group home, sober living home or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as measured from the property line. (c) The applicant obtains an operator's permit as required by Article 23, Chapter 2 of Title 9 except that this requirement shall not apply to any state licensed residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility. (d) The findings for granting a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 13-29(g) are met. 13-324.- Compliance. (a) Group homes in the in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones with six (6) or fewer occupants that are in existence upon the effective date of this ordinance may continue to operate subject to the following: 1. A complete application for a special use permit is filed within 90 days of the effective date of this ordinance; and 2. The group home is in full compliance with all of the conditions of this ordinance within one (1) year of its effective date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, existing group homes obligated by a written lease exceeding one (1) year from the effective date of the ordinance, or whose activity involves investment of money in leasehold or improvements such that a longer period is necessary to prevent undue financial hardship, are —11�� eligible for up to one (1) additional years grace period pursuant to planning division approval. (b) Group homes, state licensed residential care facilities and state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) with seven (7) or more occupants that are in existence upon the effective date of this ordinance may continue to operate subject to the following: 1. The operator of a group home obtains an operator's permit pursuant to section 9-445 et seq. within 120 days from the effective date of this ordinance; and 2. The group home, state licensed residential care facility and/or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is in full compliance with all conditions of this ordinance, including obtaining a conditional use permit, within one (1) year from the effective date of this ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an existing group home, state licensed residential care facility and/or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility obligated by a written lease exceeding one (1) year from the effective date of the ordinance, or whose activity involves investment of money in leasehold or improvements such that a longer period is necessary to prevent undue financial hardship, are eligible for up to one (1) additional years grace period pursuant to planning division approval. 13-325.- Severability. Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this chapter for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. This Ordinance shall be prospective in application from its effective date. Section 3: Subdivisions (4) through (10) of Section 13-30 Table 13-30 of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: See Attachment A. Section 4; F=eetRGte 4 te Table 13 30 (Land Use Matrix) Gf SeGtOGR 13-30 (Purpese) lle—p—e—, is hereby repealed and replaced with the fGIIG iinrv• .. ...WEVU Section 4: Footnote 5 to Table 13-30 (Land Use Matrix) of Section 13-30 (Purpose) of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby amended to read as follows: 5 650 foot separation required between sober living homes, or from state licensed alcohol or,eses drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities. CMMC 13- the 311(a)(10)(i).Fe; -purpeef tchms to the sYR4bols shall haava� ' I PeFm;t; P Perrnm#e`�; . Drehihite� eniocrul Use PeR;44-. Sest a n4 -.Section 5: Footnotes 6L -ate --7 and 8 to Table 13-30 (Land Use Matrix) of Section 13-30 (Purpose) of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby added as follows: 6 Subject to the separation requirements set forth in Section 13-322(a)(3). Small boardinghouses shall locate at least 650 feet from any other small boardinghouse. Large boardinghouses shall be located at least 1,000 feet from any other boardinghouse. 8_ Uses$ Uses prohibited in the base zoning district of a Mixed -Use Overlay Zone shall also be prohibited in the Overlay Zone. �__+, cl:Section 6: 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 no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. erair R !n:Section 7: Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, state, or federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors. Section 4: Footnote 5 to Table 13-30 (Land Use Matrix) of Section 13-30 (Purpose) of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby amended to read as follows: 5 650 foot separation required between sober living homes, or from state licensed alcohol or,eses drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities. CMMC 13- the 311(a)(10)(i).Fe; -purpeef tchms to the sYR4bols shall haava� ' I PeFm;t; P Perrnm#e`�; . Drehihite� eniocrul Use PeR;44-. Sest a n4 -.Section 5: Footnotes 6L -ate --7 and 8 to Table 13-30 (Land Use Matrix) of Section 13-30 (Purpose) of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby added as follows: 6 Subject to the separation requirements set forth in Section 13-322(a)(3). Small boardinghouses shall locate at least 650 feet from any other small boardinghouse. Large boardinghouses shall be located at least 1,000 feet from any other boardinghouse. 8_ Uses$ Uses prohibited in the base zoning district of a Mixed -Use Overlay Zone shall also be prohibited in the Overlay Zone. �__+, cl:Section 6: 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 no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. erair R !n:Section 7: Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, state, or federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors. Section 8: 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. Adopted this day of , 2015 Stephen Mensinger, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF COSTA MESA CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter at the regular meeting of said City Council duly held on the day of , 2015, was duly passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa m X cc � N � O O � u v W C C y J y y d NOO p Y d a a0A° UoOa n. Ym N N r Ra C � C g U O us o 0o m '0 c N `o Cf .0`o 9 N A O y R L w a r 'M. •0� m C u> N i{ a C T y O m U o c�� U ODMg a rn c c a o • ' ° t C m O 4y � U C Oarp y @ 7E 'O m 79 wa'�C m c O N CO C U CD U E- n y y U EO ..Y' U w �C N U LI C �0tm �p d ri U N N S C — �O_,ty .O 20116 y o $ j y y 0. Z`ayia L 000 O s: ,Y 0 N O I C C N y In0 O L= ? y C m) O N L. 0. y N e C. ovOcQ) am -a o N v p O X51-�-u_a`mri. tfE.Gi a a a. • U a. U n. I1 rias U U _q 0 . t`Ge�..... .. a o a UaUa rig slxUUv . 6t a a CL U a U a :,I al U U ti v mLG�� a as UaU0- rix UUiiv mL ae . cyr� a d a . U a . a ri x . •�^: • • • • • • • • • • • • • s N 0 • d d • • • • • • • • • • • p� W �p l YrR • • • • • • • • • • • • • • :w% • • • • • • • s • • • • • U cw s(W.0 • • • • • • • 0• • • • • t OGti i ,; a as aUa0a :aa i2L o. o. a a U o. U a ri :. rI a • • • • • • a cn vl • • • • 04 y 3 y N N Cl) N1 "v w 0 uS co w N 3 o m n O O n U 0 C OI -a O @ 01 •V•V E Z5 N (D j C CL �� to 0 2 0 N cc E c N t@ O C @ O C o t Co > O> ' 01 Y .= C " O "0 U) 7 D .= w E . CU (j) m m C N UO O N t N N N d N N M '4 t0 CO ct @ n n 00 CA (M N .@ m X cc � N � O O � u v W C C y J y y d NOO p Y d a a0A° UoOa n. Ym N N r Ra C � C g U O us o 0o m '0 c N `o Cf .0`o 9 N A O y R L w a r 'M. •0� m C u> N i{ a C T y O m U o c�� U ODMg a rn c c a o • ' ° t C m O 4y � U C Oarp y @ 7E 'O m 79 wa'�C m c O N CO C U CD U E- n y y U EO ..Y' U w �C N U LI C �0tm �p d ri U N N S C — �O_,ty .O 20116 y o $ j y y 0. Z`ayia L 000 O s: ,Y 0 N O I C C N y In0 O L= ? y C m) O N L. 0. y N e C. ovOcQ) am -a o N v p O X51-�-u_a`mri. ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO AMEND TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER XVI (GROUP HOMES, SOBER LIVING HOMES, AND RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES) IN THE R2 -MD, R2 - HD AND R3 RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND THE PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONES) OF TITLE 13 AND AMENDING SECTION 13-6 (DEFINITIONS) OF ARTICLE 2 (DEFINITIONS) OF CHAPTER I (GENERAL) AND SECTION 13-30 TABLE 13-30 (LAND USE MATRIX) OF CHAPTER IV OF ARTICLE 1 OF CHAPTER V OF TITLE 13 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE .CITY OF COSTA MESA MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE: WHEREAS, under the California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, the City has been granted broad police powers to preserve the residential characteristics of its R2MD, R2HD, and R3 zones; and planned development residential zones, which powers have been recognized by both the California Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court, the latter of which has stated that, "It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled"; and WHEREAS, the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments ("FHAA") and the California Fair Employment Housing Act ("FEHA") prohibit enforcement of zoning ordinances which would on theirface or have the effect of discriminating against equal housing opportunities for the handicapped; and WHEREAS, a core purpose of the FHAA, FEHA and California's Lanterman Act is to provide a broader range of housing opportunities to the handicapped; to free the handicapped, to the extent possible, from institutional style living; and to ensure that handicapped persons have the opportunity to live in normal residential surroundings and use and enjoy a dwelling in a manner similar to the way a dwelling is enjoyed by the non -handicapped; and WHEREAS, to fulfill this purpose the FHAA and FEHA also require that the City provide reasonable accommodations to its zoning ordinances if such accommodation is necessary to afford a handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and [Clean Version] M WHEREAS, the Lanterman Act fulfills this purpose in part by requiring cities to treat state licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer as a residential use; and WHEREAS, in enacting this Ordinance the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa is attempting to strike a balance between the City's and residents' interests of preserving the characteristics of residential neighborhoods and to provide opportunities for the handicapped to reside in such neighborhoods that are enjoyed by the non -handicapped; and WHEREAS, over the past several years the City, County and State have seen a significant increase in the number of single- and multi -family homes being utilized as alcohol and drug recovery facilities for large numbers of individuals (hereafter, "sober living homes"); and WHEREAS, the increase appears to be driven in part by the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (hereafter, "the Act") adopted by California voters which provides that specified first-time drug and alcohol offenders are to be afforded the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment rather than incarceration; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Care Act has significantly expanded the availability of health care coverage for substance abuse treatment; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has seen a sharp increase in the number of sober living homes, which has generated secondary impacts including, but not limited to neighborhood parking shortfalls, overcrowding, inordinate amounts of second-hand smoke, and noise; and the clustering of sober living facilities in close proximity to each other creating near neighborhoods of sober living homes; and WHEREAS, over the past 20 months from January 2014 to September 2015 the City experienced an increase of 25.4% in the number of sober living facilities and residential care facilities in the multiple -family residential zones. Those new facilities resulted in an increase of 142 -beds, which is a 20.6% increase in beds since January of 2014. As of September 2015 the City had a total of 84 residential facilities, with 831 -beds to treat drug and alcohol addiction located in its multiple -family residential districts; and WHEREAS, currently, in all zones, it is estimated that the City of Costa Mesa is home to 1586 alcohol and drug recovery beds, divided as follows: 44 licensed residential facilities/certified alcohol and drug programs in residential zones, providing 411 beds; 107 unlicensed sober living homes in residential zones, providing 600 beds; Included in those 107 homes are 41 homes who have submitted applications per the R1 Ordinance providing 252 beds; and 1 State Licensed Facility on two separate parcels, providing 76 beds in a non-residential zone; and 40 nonresidential services facilities, providing support services such as administrative offices, therapy etc. WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is currently home to almost 28.9% of the state licensed residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities in Orange County, while the City holds 3.6% of the County's population, thus it is reasonable to infer that unlicensed sober living homes are locating in the City at a higher concentration than in nearby communities; and WHEREAS, over the last decade the number of sober living homes in the City of Costa Mesa is rapidly increasing, leading to an overconcentration of sober living homes in certain of the City's residential neighborhoods, which is both deleterious to the residential character of these neighborhoods and may also lead to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the number of sober living homes has not increased to the point of overconcentration in certain Planned Development zones; and WHEREAS, the purpose of sober living homes is to provide a comfortable living environment for persons with drug or alcohol addictions in which they remain clean and sober and can participate in a recovery program in a residential, community environment, and so that they have the opportunity to reside in the residential neighborhood of their choice; and WHEREAS, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, who are not currently using alcohol or drugs, are considered handicapped under both the FHAA and FEHA; and WHEREAS, in 2008, the U.S. Department* of Health and Human Services projected spending on substance abuse recovery to be $35 billion annually by 2014 (source: Projections of National Expenditures for Mental Health Services and Substance Abuse Treatment 2004-2014, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Katharine R. Levit et al., 2008); and WHEREAS, based on the City's experience it has become clear that at least some operators of sober living homes are driven more by a motivation to profit rather than to provide a comfortable living environment in which recovering addicts have a realistic potential of recovery, or to provide a living environment which remotely resembles the manner in which the non -disabled use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS, establishing distance requirements for sober living homes is reasonable and non-discriminatory and not only helps preserve the residential character of the R21VID, R2HD, and R3 zones; as well as the planned development residential neighborhoods, but also furthers the interest of ensuring that the handicapped are not living in overcrowded environments that are counterproductive to their well-being and recover; and -Iq® WHEREAS, sober living homes do not function as a single housekeeping unit for the following reasons: (1) they house extremely transient populations (programs are generally about 90 days and as noted, the 2008 UCLA study found that 65-70% of recovering addicts don't finish their recovery programs); (2) the residents generally have no established ties to each other when they move in and typically do not mingle with other neighbors; (3) neighbors generally do not know who or who does not reside in the home; (4) the residents have little to no say about who lives or doesn't live in the home; (5) the residents do not generally share expenses; (6) the residents are often responsible for their own food, laundry and phone; (7) when residents disobey house rules they are often just kicked out of the house; (8) the residents generally do not share the same acquaintances; and (9) residents often pay significantly above - market rate rents; and WHEREAS, the size and makeup of the households in sober living homes, even those allowed as a matter of right under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, is dissimilar and larger than the norm, creating impacts on water, sewer, roads, parking and other City services that are far greater than the average household, in that the average number of persons per California household is 2.90 (2.68 persons per household according to the City's General Plan), while a sober living facility allowed as a matter of right would house six, which is in the top 5% of households in Orange County according to the most recent U.S. federal census data; and WHEREAS, all the individuals residing in a sober living facility are generally over the age of 18, while the average household has just 2.2 individuals over the age of 18 according to the most recent federal census data; and WHEREAS, the City and public utility providers utilize federal census data and other information relating to the characteristics of residential neighborhoods to, among other things: (1) determine the design of residential homes, residential neighborhoods, park systems, library systems, transportation systems; (2) determine parking and garage requirements of various (bedroom) sizes and density of units; (3) develop its General Plan and zoning ordinances; (4) determine police and fire staffing; (5) determine impacts to water, sewer and other services; and (5) establish impacts fees that fairly and proportionally fund facilities for traffic, parks, libraries, police and fire; and WHEREAS, because of their extremely transient populations, above -normal numbers of individuals/adults residing in a single dwelling and the lack of regulations, sober living facilities present problems not typically associated with more traditional residential uses, including but not limited to: the housing of large numbers of unrelated adult who may or may not be supervised; disproportionate numbers of cars associated with a single housing unit, which causes disproportionate traffic and utilization of on -street parking; excessive noise and outdoor smoking, which interferes with the use and enjoyment of neighbors' use of their property; neighbors who have little to no idea who does and does not reside in the home; little to no participation in community activities that form and strengthen neighborhood cohesion; a history of opening facilities in complete disregard of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and with little regard for impacts to the neighborhood; disproportional impacts from the average dwelling unit to nearly all public services including sewer, water, parks, libraries, transportation infrastructure, fire and police; a history of congregating in the same general area; and the potential influx of individuals with a criminal record; and WHEREAS, a variable separation requirement will still allow for a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of sober living homes within the City and still result in preferential treatment for sober living homes in that non -handicapped individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse -style residences) have fewer housing opportunities than the handicapped; and WHEREAS, housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide the handicapped with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings," but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide relief from for the handicapped, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life in a normal residential surrounding; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the above, the City Council recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, that when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing the handicapped the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions, and that therefore providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including sober living homes, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, without some regulation there is no way of ensuring that the individuals entering into a group home are handicapped individuals and entitled to reasonable accommodation under local and state law; that a group home is operated professionally to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhood; and that the secondary impacts from over concentration of both group homes in a neighborhood and large numbers of unrelated adults residing in a single facility in an individual home are lessened; and WHEREAS, in addition to group homes locating in residential neighborhoods other state -licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons who are mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped or supervised, are also taking up residence in these neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the purpose of group homes for the handicapped is to provide the handicapped an equal opportunity to comfortably reside in the residential neighborhood of their choice; and MCAI WHEREAS, no residential developments of any kind are permitted in the I&R (Institutional and Recreation) zone, and no group homes exit in this zone at the time of the adoption of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance 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 pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the passage of this Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The following definition in Section 13-6 (Definitions) of Article 2 (Definitions) of Chapter I (General) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: Boardinghouse. A residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein rooms are rented under two (2) or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental manager resides within the residence. Boardinghouse, small means two (2) or fewer rooms being rented. Boardinghouse, large means three (3) to six (6) rooms being rented. Boardinghouses renting more than 6 rooms are prohibited. Section 2: Chapter XVI (Group homes and residential care facilities in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby added as follows: 13-320.- Purpose. This chapter is intended to preserve the residential character the City of Costa Mesa's residential neighborhoods and to further the purposes of the FEHA, the FHAA and the Lanterman Act by, among other things: (1) ensuring that group homes are actually entitled to the special accommodation and/or additional accommodation provided under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and not simply skirting the City's boarding house regulations; (2) limiting the secondary impacts of group homes by reducing noise and traffic, preserving safety and providing adequate off-street parking; (3) providing an accommodation for the handicapped that is reasonable and actually bears some resemblance to the opportunities afforded non -handicapped individuals to use and enjoy a dwelling unit in a residential neighborhood; and (4) to provide _Q;�_ comfortable living environments that will enhance the opportunity for the handicapped, including recovering addicts to be successful in their programs. 13-321.- Definitions. Property. For purposes of this chapter, property is defined as any single development lot that has been subdivided bearing its own assessor's parcel number or with an approved subdivision map or condominium map. J 13-322.- Group Homes in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones with Six or Fewer Occupants. (a) A special use permit shall be required for and may be granted to permit the operation of a group home including a sober living home with six or fewer occupants in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones) zones subject to the following conditions: (1) The application complies with subsections (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(4) through (a)(10) of Section 13-311. (2) The application includes a live scan of the house manager and/or operator of the group home. (3) The group home or sober living home is at least 650 feet from any other property, as defined in Section 13-321, that contains a group home, sober living home or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as measured from the property line. (4) Upon eviction from or involuntary termination of residency in a group home, the operator of the group home shall make available to the occupant transportation to the address listed on the occupant's driver license, state issued identification card, or the permanent address identified in the occupant's application or referral to the group home. The group home operator may not satisfy this obligation by providing remuneration to the occupant for the cost of transportation. (b) An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of this section by submitting an application to the director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to section 13-200.62. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of section 13-3119(b) to the contrary, the Development Services Director may revoke or deny a special use permit for a group home subject to this chapter following the director's determination that any of the circumstances set forth in Section 13- 311(b)(1) through (7) exist. 13-323.- Conditional Use Permit Required for Group Homes, Residential Care Facilities and Drug and Alcohol Treatment Facilities in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) with 7 or More Occupants. A conditional use permit shall be required for and may be granted to allow the operation of a group home, state licensed residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility with seven (7) or more occupants in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) zones subject to the following conditions: (a) The requirements of Chapter III PLANNING APPLICATIONS have been met. (b) The group home, residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is at least six -hundred fifty feet from any property, as defined in Section 13-321, that contains a group home, sober living home or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as measured from the property line. (c) The applicant obtains an operator's permit as required by Article 23, Chapter 2 of Title 9 except that this requirement shall not apply to any state licensed, residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility. (d) The findings for granting a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 13-29(g) are met. 13-324.- Compliance. (a) Group homes in the in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones with six (6) or fewer occupants that are in existence upon the effective date of this ordinance may continue to operate subject to the following: 1. A complete application for a special use permit is filed within 90 days of the effective date of this ordinance; and 2. The group home is in full compliance with all of the conditions of this ordinance within one (1) year of its effective date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, existing group homes obligated by a written lease exceeding one (1) year from the effective date of the ordinance, or whose activity involves investment of money in leasehold or improvements such that a longer period is necessary to prevent undue financial hardship, are eligible for up to one (1) additional years grace period pursuant to planning division approval. (b) Group homes, state licensed residential care facilities and state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) with seven (7) or more occupants that are in existence upon the effective date of this ordinance may continue to operate subject to the following: 1. The operator of a group home obtains an operator's permit pursuant to section 9-445 et seq. within 120 days from the effective date of this ordinance; and 2. The group home, state licensed residential care facility and/or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is in full compliance with all conditions of this ordinance, including obtaining a conditional use permit, within one (1) year from the effective date of this ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an existing group home, state licensed residential care facility and/or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility obligated by a written lease exceeding one (1) year from the effective date of the ordinance, or whose activity involves investment of money in leasehold or improvements such that a longer period is necessary to prevent undue financial hardship, are eligible for up to one (1) additional years grace period pursuant to planning division approval. 13-325.- Severability. Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this chapter for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. This Ordinance shall be prospective in application from its effective date. Section 3: Subdivisions (4) through (10) of Section 13-30 Table 13-30 of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: See Attachment A. Section 4: Footnote 5 to Table 13-30 (Land Use Matrix) of Section 13-30 (Purpose) of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby amended to read as follows: �-M 5 650 foot separation required between sober living homes, or from state licensed alcohol or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities. CMMC 13- 311(a)(10)(i). Section 5: Footnotes 6, 7 and 8 to Table 13-30 (Land Use Matrix) of Section 13- 30 (Purpose) of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby added as follows: 6 Subject to the separation requirements set forth in Section 13-322(a)(3). Small boardinghouses shall locate at least 650 feet from any other small boardinghouse. Large boardinghouses shall be located at least 1,000 feet from any other boardinghouse. 8 Uses prohibited in the base zoning district of a Mixed -Use Overlay Zone shall also be prohibited in the Overlay Zone. Section 6: 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 no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 7: Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, state, or federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors. Section 8: 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. Adopted this day of , 2015 Stephen Mensinger, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF COSTA MESA ) CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter at the regular meeting of said City Council duly held on the day of , 2015, was duly passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa • 1 •1 • 1 •1 •1 •1 •1 • 1 •1 *1 •1 •1 •1 • • 1 •I • 1 •1 •1 •1 •1 • 1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 • 7 V V •Q C C �p J D N C, 4) O Cn o_ 1 c N �sm�smm O 0 ��oN o v cO`mo ` D 'O M L O O E U E c m N N ai w vr.0 O N N w O � N �o� cr)E c cz Od,w OD d N C m V O M C E _O y N N GE LO _N D c U m a LO N U) o o N N p N :^ cyca �� N Co CO a) 0ti N O• CU `o ` U M 0 0O J y Op O y 0 N a C U O f6 (U o �_ 0 — 3 4? c n N 'd N C4 0) f0 E 1• j _� .O ,. E O N cTi EU c CL ENS (6 U 3 CO L(D O V 'ON( (n 0 i O O N VID O E N E> O U N 0) V_ 'O .fl f0 � N M Lco � O O N p to O v0- O O U N N a• UID N v_ f6 "p Q co 0).0 C E U tlI N L " co N UO) �I No 0) O O (n m Q 0.- nD • 1 •1 • 1 •1 •1 •1 •1 • 1 •1 *1 •1 •1 •1 • • 1 •I • 1 •1 •1 •1 •1 • 1 •1 •1 •1 •1 •1 • N OO U) 7 V V •Q C C �p J D N C, 4) O Cn o_ 1 c N d j C V CN > a O 0 ��oN o v cO`mo ` D 'O M L O O E U E c m N N ai w vr.0 O N N w O � N �o� cr)E c cz Od,w OD d N C m V O M C E _O y N N GE LO _N D c U m a LO N U) o o N N p N :^ cyca �� N Co CO a) 0ti N O• CU `o ` U M 0 0O J y Op O y 0 N a C U O f6 (U o �_ 0 — 3 4? c n N 'd N C4 0) f0 E 1• j _� .O ,. E O N cTi EU c CL ENS (6 U 3 CO L(D O V 'ON( (n 0 i O O N VID O E N E> O U N 0) V_ 'O .fl f0 � N M Lco � O O N p to O v0- O O U N N a• UID N v_ f6 "p Q co 0).0 C E U tlI N L " co N UO) �I No 0) O O (n m Q 0.- nD >+ 7-0 cn o o D -2..602 CL .0 CV E 7 0 7 0 U— cg m E CA '� U cv E U v - •Coo - ° O O OC C) 0 C: C O .? i O> = C •� (6 cv=-0'a-0 C C L �� L o �� E 5�:-. O O O E= O O E O O O N o U) CO O O N �cngUg��mm�cnC� O L �(���•:_ L r N N OCL r- � V N N N CO d LO CO r ti CO M 4O N OO U) 7 V V •Q C C �p J D N C, 4) O Cn o_ 1 c N d j C V CN > a O 0 ��oN o v cO`mo =°Co D 'O M O O E U E c m N N ai w vr.0 O N N w O p� _ co E N �o� m e Co n- c cz Od,w OD d N C m V O M C E _O y N N GE _Cu N C U _N D c U m a o N� NCD o o N N 4) :^ cyca �� N Co O N O• M E7I cD N M o cu C 0O J m o. O O E O ;p :� V O y 0 N a C U O f6 (U o L O a O 0 cc o a C oN U 'c- (6 c n N 'd N C4 0) f0 a� L V.3•�M N O L f0 0I E > ,. E O N cTi EU c CL ENS (6 U 3 O M (n9 C 0c) C > O V 'ON( O W N i O O N VID O E N E> O N w- N U N 0) V_ 'O .fl f0 � N '�_ •C O ca — � j •LN.. � � O O N p D yC13 U U 'O O N .Q O C UTi oa)N oLN, m cmc N N a• UID N v_ f6 C, L u C E U tlI N O C. o C L_ 7 7 N N UO) �I No 0) O O (n m Q 0.- f6 C ..N. o a D -O N O a cn o o D -2..602 CL O (� D a 'O O U) = o N LLa-(DU)cn=) C[) 7 E U) CV M d' Cq CO I� 06 ATTACHMENT 2 [DRAFT] ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO AMEND TITLE 9 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9-116 (ISSUING OFFICER) AND 9-125 (BUSINESSES ETC. REQUIRING PERMIT) OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 9 AND TO ADD SECTION 131 (BUSINESSES WHERE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR MAY ISSUE PERMIT) OF ARTICLE 1 OF CHAPTER II OF TITLE 9 AND ARTICLE XXIII (GROUP HOMES) OF CHAPTER II OF TITLE 9 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE: WHEREAS, in enacting this Ordinance the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa is attempting to strike a balance between the City's and residents' interests of preserving the characteristics of residential neighborhoods and to provide opportunities for the handicapped to reside in such neighborhoods that are enjoyed by the non -handicapped; and WHEREAS, over the past several years the City, County and State have seen a significant increase in the number of single- and multi -family homes being utilized as alcohol and drug recovery facilities for large numbers of individuals (hereafter, "sober living homes"); and WHEREAS, the increase appears to be driven in part by the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (hereafter, "the Act") adopted by California voters which provides that specified first-time drug and alcohol offenders are to be afforded the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment rather than incarceration: and WHEREAS, the Affordable Care Act has significantly expanded the availability of health care coverage for substance abuse treatment; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has seen a sharp increase in the number of sober living homes, which has generated secondary impacts including, but not limited to neighborhood parking shortfalls, overcrowding, inordinate amounts of second-hand smoke, and noise; and the clustering of sober living facilities in close proximity to each other creating near neighborhoods of sober living homes; and [Strike-Thru Version] WHEREAS, over the past 20 months from January 2014 to September 2015 the City experienced an increase of 25.4% in the number of sober living facilities and residential care facilities in the multiple -family residential zones. Those new facilities resulted in an increase of 142 -beds which is a 20.6% increase in beds since January of 2014. As of September 2015 the City had a total of 84 residential facilities, with 831 -beds to treat drug and alcohol addiction located in its multiple -family residential districts; and WHEREAS, currently, in all zones, it is estimated that the City of Costa Mesa is home to 1586 alcohol and drug recovery beds, divided as follows: 44 licensed residential facilities/certified alcohol and drug programs in residential zones, providing 411 beds; 107 unlicensed sober living homes in residential zones, providing 600 beds; Included in those 107 homes are 41 homes who have submitted applications per the R1 Ordinance providing 252 beds; and 1 State Licensed Facility on two separate parcels, providing 76 beds in a non-residential zone; and 40 nonresidential services facilities, providing support services such as administrative offices, therapy etc. WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is currently home to almost 28.9% of the state licensed residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities in Orange County, while the City holds 3.6% of the County's population, thus it is reasonable to infer that unlicensed sober living homes are locating in the City at a higher concentration than in nearby communities; and WHEREAS, over the last decade the number of sober living homes in the City of Costa Mesa is rapidly increasing, leading to an overconcentration of sober living homes in certain of the City's residential neighborhoods, which is both deleterious to the residential character of these neighborhoods and may also lead to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the number of sober living homes has not increased to the point of overconcentration in certain Planned Development zones; and WHEREAS, the purpose of sober living homes is to provide a comfortable living environment for persons with drug or alcohol addictions in which the remain clean and sober and can participate in a recovery program in a residential, community environment, and so that they have the opportunity to reside in the residential neighborhood of their choice; and WHEREAS, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, who are not currently using alcohol or drugs, are considered handicapped under both the FHAA and FEHA; and WHEREAS, in 2008, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services projected spending on substance abuse recovery to be $35 billion annually by 2014 (source: Proiections of National Expenditures for Mental Health Services 3c),-- and Substance Abuse Treatment 2004-2094, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Katharine R. Levit et al., 2008); and WHEREAS, based on the City's experience it has become clear that at least some operators of sober living homes are driven more by a motivation to profit rather than to provide a comfortable living environment in which recovering addicts have a realistic potential of recovery, or to provide a living environment which remotely resembles the manner in which the non -disabled use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS, sober living homes do not function as a single housekeeping unit for the following reasons: (1) they house extremely transient populations (programs are generally about 90 days and as noted, the 2008 UCLA study found that 65-70% of recovering addicts don't finish their recovery programs); (2) the residents generally have no established ties to each other when they move in and typically do not mingle with other neighbors; (3) neighbors generally do not know who or who does not reside in the home; (4) the residents have little to no say about who lives or doesn't live in the home; U the residents do not generally share expenses; (6) the residents are often responsible for their own food, laundry and phone; (7) when residents disobey house rules they are often just kicked out of the house; (8) the residents generally do not share the same acquaintances; and (9) residents often pay significantly above -market rate rents; and WHEREAS, the size and makeup of the households in sober living homes, even those allowed as a matter of right under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, is dissimilar and larger than the norm, creating impacts on water, sewer, roads, parking and other City services that are far greater than the average household, in that the average number of persons per California household is 2.90 (2.68 persons per household according to the City's General Plan), while a sober living facility allowed as a matter of right would house six, which is in the top 5% of households in Orange County according to the most recent U.S. federal census data; and WHEREAS, all the individuals residing in a sober living facility are generally over the age of 18, while the average household has just 2.2 individuals over the age of 18 according to the most recent federal census data; and WHEREAS. notwithstandina the above. the Citv Council recoanizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, that when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing the handicapped the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions, and that therefore providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including sober living homes, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, without some regulation there is no way of ensuring that the individuals entering into a group home are handicapped individuals and entitled to reasonable accommodation under local and state law; that a group home is operated professionally to minimize both the impacts to the surrounding neighborhood as well as to the residents of the group homes; and that the secondary impacts from over concentration of both group homes in a neighborhood and large numbers of unrelated adults residing in a single facility in an individual home are lessened: and WHEREAS, regulation of the operations of larger group homes in the multi -family zones pursuant to the business license provisions of Title 9 is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City, including the residents or occupants of the group homes themselves; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance 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 pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the passage of this Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Sections 9-116 and 9-125 of Article I of Chapter II of Title 9 are amended, and Section 131 of Article I of Chapter II of Title 9 and Article XXIII of Chapter 11 of Title 9 are hereby added, to read as follows: Article I. 9-116. - Issuing officer. "Issuing officer' shall mean the city council of Costa Mesa, the director of finance, the fire chief, the chief of police, or the development services director. 9-125. - Businesses, professions, trades and occupations requiring a permit under the provisions of this chapter. (q) Group homes, as defined in section 13-6, that have seven (7) or more occupants. 9-131. - Businesses where the development services director may issue permit. The development services director may issue permits for operation of a group home located in the in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones -pursuant to the requirements of Article XXIII of this Chapter. Article XXIII GROUP HOMES 9-443. - Definitions The definitions set forth in Title 13 of this Code shall apply to the provisions of this article unless otherwise provided for herein. 9-444. - Zoning requirements. In addition to the requirements of this article, all group homes subject to this article shall comply with the requirements set forth in Chapter XVI of Title 13 of this Code. 9-445. — Operator's permit required. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate, or to permit any person to operate, a group home on any property located within the R21VID, R2HD, R3, PDRLD, PDRMD and/or PDRHD zone, without a valid permit issued for that group home pursuant to the provisions of this article. 9-446. — Exceptions. The requirements of this article shall not apply to: (a) A group home that has six (6) or fewer occupants, not counting a house manager, and that is in compliance with the applicable provisions of Chapters XV and XVI of Title 13 of this code; (b) A state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility; or (c) A state licensed residential care facility. 9-447. Requirements for issuance of operator's permit. '33 -' (a) The owner/operator shall submit an application to the director that provides the following information: (1) the name, address, phone number and driver's license number of the owner/operator; (2) the name, address, phone number and driver's license number of the house manager; (3) a copy of the group home rules and regulations; (4) written intake procedures; (5) the relapse policy; (6) an affirmation by the owner/operator that only residents (other than the house manager) who are handicapped as defined by state and federal law shall reside at the group home; (7) blank copies of all forms that all residents and potential residents are required to complete; and (8) a fee for the cost of processing of the application as set by resolution of the city council. (b) Requirements for operation of group homes. (1) The group home has a house manager who resides at the group home or any multiple of persons acting as a house manager who are present at the group home on a twenty -four-hour basis and who are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the group home. (2) All garage and driveway spaces associated with the dwelling unit shall, at all times, be available for the parking of vehicles. Residents and the house manager may each only store or park a single vehicle at the dwelling unit or on any street within five hundred (500) feet of the dwelling unit. The vehicle must be operable and currently used as a primary form of transportation for a resident of the group home. (3) Occupants must not require and operators must not provide "care and supervision" as those terms are defined by Health and Safety Code Section 1503.5 and Section 80001(c)(3) of title 22, California Code of Regulations. (4) Integral group home facilities are not permitted. Applicants shall declare, under penalty of perjury, that the group home does not operate as an integral use/facility. (5) If the group home operator is not the property owner, written approval from the property owner to operate a group home at the property. (6) Upon eviction from or involuntary termination of residency in a group home, the operator of the group home shall make available to the occupant transportation to the address listed on the occupant's driver license, state issued identification card, or the permanent address identified in the occupant's application or referral to the -group home. The group home operator may not satisfy this obligation by providing remuneration to the occupant for the cost of transportation. (7) The property must be fully in compliance with all building codes, municipal code and zoning. (8) In addition to the regulations outlined above, the following shall also apply to sober living homes: L All occupants, other than the house manager, must be actively participating in legitimate recovery programs, including, but not limited to, Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous and the sober living home must maintain current records of meeting attendance. Under the sober living home's rules and regulations, refusal to actively participate in such a program shall be cause for eviction. ii. The sober living home's rules and regulations must prohibit the use of any alcohol or any non-prescription drugs at the sober living home or by any recovering addict either on or off site. The sober living home must also have a written policy regarding the possession, use and storage of prescription medications. The facility cannot dispense medications but must make them available to the residents. The possession or use of prescription medications is prohibited except for the person to whom they are prescribed, and in the amounts/dosages prescribed. These rules and regulations shall be posted on site in a common area inside the dwelling unit. Any violation of this rule must be cause for eviction under the sober living home's rules for residency and the violator cannot be re -admitted for at least ninety (90) days. Any second violation of this rule shall result in permanent eviction. Alternatively, the sober living home must have provisions in place to remove the violator from contact with the other residents until the violation is resolved. iii. The number of occupants subject to the sex offender registration requirements of Penal Code Section 290 does not exceed the limit set forth in Penal Code Section 3003.5 and does not violate the distance provisions set forth in Penal Code Section 3003. iv. The sober living home shall have a written visitation policy that shall preclude any visitors who are under the influence of any drug or alcohol. v. The sober living home shall have a good neighbor policy that shall direct occupants to be considerate of neighbors, including refraining from engaging in excessively loud, profane or obnoxious behavior that would unduly interfere with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of their dwelling unit. The good neighbor policy shall establish a written protocol for the house manager/operator to follow when a neighbor complaint is received. vi. The sober living home shall not provide any of the following services as they are defined by Section 10501(a)(6) of Title 9, California Code of Regulations: detoxification; educational counseling; individual or group counseling sessions; and treatment or recovery planning. (c) An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of this section by submitting an application to the director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to section Article 15 of Chapter IX of Title 13 of this Code. (d) The operator's permit shall be issued by the director if the applicant is in compliance, or, where applicable, has agreed to comply, with the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) above. (e) In addition to denying an application for failing to comply, or failing to agree to comply, with subsections (a) and/or (b), an application shall be denied by the director under any of the following circumstances: (1) Any owner/operator or staff person has provided materially false or misleading information on the application or omitted any pertinent information. (2) Any owner/operator or staff person has an employment history in which he or she was terminated during the past two (2) years because of physical assault, sexual harassment, embezzlement or theft; falsifying a drug test; and selling or furnishing illegal drugs or alcohol. (3) Any owner/operator or staff person has been convicted of or pleaded nolo contendere, within the last seven (7) to ten (10) years, to any of the following offenses: i. Any sex offense for which the person is required to register as a sex offender under California Penal Code Section 290 (last ten (10) years); ii. Arson offenses—Violations of Penal Code Sections 451-455 (last seven (7) years); or iii. Violent felonies, as defined in Penal Code Section 667.5, which involve doing bodily harm to another person (last ten (10) years). iv. The unlawful sale or furnishing of any controlled substances (last seven (7) years). (4) Any owner/operator or staff person is on parole or formal probation supervision on the date of the submittal of the application or at any time thereafter. (5) The owner/operator accepts residents, other than a house manager, who are not disabled or handicapped as defined by the FHAA and FEHA. (6) An operator's permit for a sober living home shall also be denied, and if already issued shall be revoked upon a hearing by the director, under any of the following additional circumstances: L Any owner/operator or staff person of a sober living home is a recovering drug or alcohol abuser and upon the date of application or employment has had less than one (1) full year of sobriety. ii. The owner/operator of a sober living home fails to immediately take measures to remove any resident who uses alcohol or illegally uses prescription or non-prescription drugs, or who is not actively participating in a legitimate recovery program from contact with all other sober residents. iii. For any other significant and/or repeated violations of this section and/or any other applicable laws and/or regulations. 9-448. — Transfer of operator's permit. (a) An operator's permit shall not be valid for a location other than the property for which it is issued, unless and until the transfer of the permit is approved by the director pursuant to the requirements of section 9-447. (b) An operator's permit may not be transferred to any other person or entity. No operator's permit issued pursuant to this article shall be transferred or assigned or authorize any person or entity other than the person or entity named in the permit to operate the group home named therein. 9-449. - Revocation of operator's permit. An operator's permit may be revoked upon a hearing by the director pursuant to section 9-120 for failing to comply with the terms of the permit and/or for failing to comply with the applicable provisions of section 9-447. 9-450. — Reapplication after denial or revocation. (a) An applicant for an operator's permit whose application for such an operator's permit has been denied may not reapply for such an operator's ep rmit for a period of six (6) months from the date such notice of denial was issued. (b) A holder of an operator's permit that has been cancelled, revoked or otherwise invalidated may not reapply for an operator's or a user's permit for a period of six (6) months from the date that such revocation, cancellation or invalidation became final. 9-451. — Compliance. A group home that is subject to the provisions of this article that is in existence as of the effective date of this ordinance shall have 120 days to comply with the provisions of this article. 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 no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 3: Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, state, or federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors. Section 4: 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. Adopted this day of 12015 ATTEST: Stephen Mensinger, Mayor —3S--- Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF COSTA MESA ) CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter at the regular meeting of said City Council duly held on the day of , 2015, was duly passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO AMEND TITLE 9 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9-116 (ISSUING OFFICER) AND 9-125 (BUSINESSES ETC. REQUIRING PERMIT) OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 9 AND TO ADD SECTION 131 (BUSINESSES WHERE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR MAY ISSUE PERMIT) OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 9 AND ARTICLE XXIII (GROUP HOMES) OF CHAPTER II OF TITLE 9 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE: WHEREAS, in enacting this Ordinance the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa is attempting to strike a balance between the City's and residents' interests of preserving the characteristics of residential neighborhoods and to provide opportunities for the handicapped to reside in such neighborhoods that are enjoyed by the non -handicapped; and WHEREAS, over the past several years the City, County and State have seen a significant increase in the number of single- and multi -family homes being utilized as alcohol and drug recovery facilities for large numbers of individuals (hereafter, "sober living homes"); and WHEREAS, the increase appears to be driven in part by the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (hereafter, "the Act") adopted by California voters which provides that specified first-time drug and alcohol offenders are to be afforded the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment rather than incarceration; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Care Act has significantly expanded the availability of health care coverage for substance abuse treatment; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has seen a sharp increase in the number of sober living homes, which has generated secondary impacts including, but not limited to neighborhood parking shortfalls, overcrowding, inordinate amounts of second-hand smoke, and noise; and the clustering of sober living facilities in close proximity to each other creating near neighborhoods of sober living homes; and [Clean Version] WHEREAS, over the past 20 months from January 2014 to September 2015 the City experienced an increase of 25.4% in the number of sober living facilities and residential care facilities in the multiple -family residential zones. Those new facilities resulted in an increase of 142 -beds, which is a 20.6% increase in beds since January of 2014. As of September 2015 the City had a total of 84 residential facilities, with 831 -beds to treat drug and alcohol addiction located in its multiple - family residential districts; and WHEREAS, currently, in all zones, it is estimated that the City of Costa Mesa is home to 1586 alcohol and drug recovery beds, divided as follows: 44 licensed residential facilities/certified alcohol and drug programs in residential zones, providing 411 beds; 107 unlicensed sober living homes in residential zones, providing 600 beds; included in those 107 homes are 41 homes who have submitted applications per the R1 Ordinance providing 252 beds; and 1 State Licensed Facility on two separate parcels, providing 76 beds in a non-residential zone; and 40 nonresidential services facilities, providing support services such as administrative offices, therapy etc. WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is currently home to almost 28.9% of the state licensed residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities in Orange County, while the City holds 3.6% of the County's population, thus it is reasonable to infer that unlicensed sober living homes are locating in the City at a higher concentration than in nearby communities; and WHEREAS, over the last decade the number of sober living homes in the City of Costa Mesa is rapidly increasing, leading to an overconcentration of sober living homes in certain of the City's residential neighborhoods, which is both deleterious to the residential character of these neighborhoods and may also lead to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the number of sober living homes has not increased to the point of overconcentration in certain Planned Development zones; and WHEREAS, the purpose of sober living homes is to provide a comfortable living environment for persons with drug or alcohol addictions in which they remain clean and sober and can participate in a recovery program in a residential, community environment, and so that they have the opportunity to reside in the residential neighborhood of their choice; and WHEREAS, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, who are not currently using alcohol or drugs, are considered handicapped under both the FHAA and FEHA; and WHEREAS, in 2008, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services projected spending on substance abuse recovery to be $35 billion annually by 2014 (source: Projections of National Expenditures for Mental Health Services and M= Substance Abuse Treatment 2004-2014, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Katharine R. Levit et al., 2008); and WHEREAS, based on the City's experience it has become clear that at least some operators of sober living homes are driven more by a motivation to profit rather than to provide a comfortable living environment in which recovering addicts have a realistic potential of recovery, or to provide a living environment which remotely resembles the manner in which the, non -disabled use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS, sober living homes do not function as a single housekeeping unit for the following reasons: (1) they house extremely transient populations (programs are generally about 90 days and as noted, the 2008 UCLA study found that 65-70% of recovering addicts don't finish their recovery programs); (2) the residents generally have no established ties to each other when they move in and typically do not mingle with other neighbors; (3) neighbors generally do not know who or who does not reside in the home; (4) the residents have little to no say about who lives or doesn't live in the home; (5) the residents do not generally share expenses; (6) the residents are often responsible for their own food, laundry and phone; (7) when residents disobey house rules they are often just kicked out of the house; (8) the residents generally do not share the same acquaintances; and (9) residents often pay significantly above -market rate rents; and WHEREAS, the size and makeup of the households in sober living homes, even those allowed as a matter of right under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, is dissimilar and larger than the norm, creating impacts on water, sewer, roads, parking and other City services that are far greater than the average household, in that the average number of persons per California household is 2.90 (2.68 persons per household according to the City's General Plan), while a sober living facility allowed as a matter of right would house six, which is in the top 5% of households in Orange County according to the most recent U.S. federal census data; and WHEREAS, all the individuals residing in a sober living facility are generally over the age of 18, while the average household has just 2.2 individuals over the age of 18 according to the most recent federal census data; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the above, the City Council recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, that when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing the handicapped the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions, and that therefore providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including sober living homes, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, without some regulation there is no way of ensuring that the individuals entering into a group home are handicapped individuals and entitled to reasonable accommodation under local and state law; that a group home is operated professionally to minimize both the impacts to the surrounding neighborhood as well as to the residents of the group homes; and that the secondary impacts from over concentration of both group homes in a neighborhood and large numbers of unrelated adults residing in a single facility in an individual home are lessened; and WHEREAS, regulation of the operations of larger group homes in the multi- family zones pursuant to the business license provisions of Title 9 is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City, including the residents or occupants of the group homes themselves; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance 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 pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the passage of this Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Sections 9-116 and 9-125 of Article I of Chapter II of Title 9 are amended, and Section 131 of Article I of Chapter II of Title 9 and Article Mll of Chapter II of Title 9 are hereby added, to read as follows: Article I. 9-116. - Issuing officer. "Issuing officer" shall mean the city council of Costa Mesa, the director of finance, the fire chief, the chief of police, or the development services director. 9-125. - Businesses, professions, trades and occupations requiring a permit under the provisions of this chapter. (q) Group homes, as defined in section 13-6, that have seven (7) or more occupants. 9-131. - Businesses where the development services director may issue permit. _43-1 The development services director may issue permits for operation of a group home located in the in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones pursuant to the requirements of Article XXIII of this Chapter. Article XXIII GROUP HOMES 9-443. - Definitions The definitions set forth in Title 13 of this Code shall apply to the provisions of this article unless otherwise provided for herein. 9-444. - Zoning requirements. In addition to the requirements of this article, all group homes subject to this article shall comply with the requirements set forth in Chapter XVI of Title 13 of this Code. 9-445. — Operator's permit required. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate, or to permit any person to operate, a group home on any property located within the R21VID, R2HD, R3, PDRLD, PDRMD and/or PDRHD zone, without a valid permit issued for that group home pursuant to the provisions of this article. 9-446. — Exceptions. The requirements of this article shall not apply to: (a) A group home that has six (6) or fewer occupants, not counting a house manager, and that is in compliance with the applicable provisions of Chapters XV and XVI of Title 13 of this code; (b) A state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility, or (c) A state licensed residential care facility. 9-447. Requirements for issuance of operator's permit. (a) The owner/operator shall submit an application to the director that provides the following information: (1) the name, address, phone number and driver's license number of the owner/operator; (2) the name, address, phone number and driver's license number of the house manager; (3) a copy of the group home rules and regulations; (4) written intake procedures; (5) the relapse policy; (6) an affirmation by the owner/operator that only residents (other than the house manager) who are handicapped as defined by state and federal law shall reside at the group home; (7) blank copies of all forms that all residents and potential residents are required to complete; and (8) a fee for the cost of processing of the application as set by resolution of the city council. (b) Requirements for operation of group homes. (1) The group home has a house manager who resides at the group home or any multiple of persons acting as a house manager who are present at the group home on a twenty -four-hour basis and who are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the group home. (2) All garage and driveway spaces associated with the dwelling unit shall, at all times, be available for the parking of vehicles. Residents and the house manager may each only store or park a single vehicle at the dwelling unit or on any street within five hundred (500) feet of the dwelling unit. The vehicle must be operable and currently used as a primary form of transportation for a resident of the group home. (3) Occupants must not require and operators must not provide "care and supervision" as those terms are defined by Health and Safety Code Section 1503.5 and Section 80001(c)(3) of title 22, California Code of Regulations. (4) Integral group home facilities are not permitted. Applicants shall declare, under penalty of perjury, that the group home does not operate as an integral use/facility. (5) If the group home operator is not the property owner, written approval from the property owner to operate a group home at the property. (6) Upon eviction from or involuntary termination of residency in a group home, the operator of the group home shall make available to the occupant transportation to the address listed on the occupant's driver license, state issued identification card, or the permanent address identified in the occupant's application or referral to the group home. The group home operator may not satisfy this obligation by providing remuneration to the occupant for the cost of transportation. (7) The property must be fully in compliance with all building codes, municipal code and zoning. (8) In addition to the regulations outlined above, the following shall also apply to sober living homes: i. All occupants, other than the house manager, must be actively participating in legitimate recovery programs, including, but not limited to, Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous and the sober living home must maintain current records of meeting attendance. Under the sober living home's rules and regulations, refusal to actively participate in such a program shall be cause for eviction. ii. The sober living home's rules and regulations must prohibit the use of any alcohol or any non-prescription drugs at the sober living home or by any recovering addict either on or off site. The sober living home must also have a written policy regarding the possession, use and storage of prescription medications. The facility cannot dispense medications but must make them available to the residents. The possession or use of prescription medications is prohibited except for the person to whom they are prescribed, and in the amounts/dosages prescribed. These rules and regulations shall be posted on site in a common area inside the dwelling unit. Any violation of this rule must be cause for eviction under the sober living home's rules for residency and the violator cannot be re -admitted for at least ninety (90) days. Any second violation of this rule shall result in permanent eviction. Alternatively, the sober living home must have provisions in place to remove the violator from contact with the other residents until the violation is resolved. iii. The number of occupants subject to the sex offender registration requirements of Penal Code Section 290 does not exceed the limit set forth in Penal Code Section 3003.5 and does not violate the distance provisions set forth in Penal Code Section 3003. iv. The sober living home shall have a written visitation policy that shall preclude any visitors who are under the influence of any drug or alcohol. v. The sober living home shall have a good neighbor policy that shall direct occupants to be considerate of neighbors, including refraining from engaging in excessively loud, profane or obnoxious behavior that would unduly interfere with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of their dwelling unit. The good neighbor policy shall establish a written protocol for the house manager/operator to follow when a neighbor complaint is received. vi. The sober living home shall not provide any of the following services as they are defined by Section 10501(a)(6) of Title 9, California Code of Regulations: detoxification; educational counseling; individual or group counseling sessions; and treatment or recovery planning. (c) An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of this section by submitting an application to the director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to section Article 15 of Chapter IX of Title 13 of this Code. (d) The operator's permit shall be issued by the director if the applicant is in compliance, or, where applicable, has agreed to comply, with the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) above. (e) In addition to denying an application for failing to comply, or failing to agree to comply, with subsections (a) and/or (b), an application shall be denied by the director under any of the following circumstances: (1) Any owner/operator or staff person has provided materially false or misleading information on the application or omitted any pertinent information. (2) Any owner/operator or staff person has an employment history in which he or she was terminated during the past two (2) years because of physical assault, sexual harassment, embezzlement or theft; falsifying a drug test; and selling or furnishing illegal drugs or alcohol. (3) Any owner/operator or staff person has been convicted of or pleaded nolo contendere, within the last seven (7) to ten (10) years, to any of the following offenses: i. Any sex offense for which the person is required to register as a sex offender under California Penal Code Section 290 (last ten (10) years); ii. Arson offenses—Violations of Penal Code Sections 451-455 (last seven (7) years); or iii. Violent felonies, as defined in Penal Code Section 667.5, which involve doing bodily harm to another person (last ten (10) years). iv. The unlawful sale or furnishing of any controlled substances (last seven (7) years). (4) Any owner/operator or staff person is on parole or formal probation supervision on the date of the submittal of the application or at any time thereafter. (5) The owner/operator accepts residents, other than a house manager, who are not disabled or handicapped as defined by the FHAA and FEHA. (6) An operator's permit for a sober living home shall also be denied, and if already issued shall be revoked upon a hearing by the director, under any of the following additional circumstances: -49 Any owner/operator or staff person of a sober living home is a recovering drug or alcohol abuser and upon the date of application or employment has had less than one (1) full year of sobriety. i. The owner/operator of a sober living home fails to immediately take measures to remove any resident who uses alcohol or illegally uses prescription or non-prescription drugs, or who is not actively participating in a legitimate recovery program from contact with all other sober residents. iii. For any other significant and/or repeated violations of this section and/or any other applicable laws and/or regulations. 9-448. — Transfer of operator's permit. (a) An operator's permit shall not be valid for a location other than the property for which it is issued, unless and until the transfer of the permit is approved by the director pursuant to the requirements of section 9-447. (b) An operator's permit may not be transferred to any other person or entity. No operator's permit issued pursuant to this article shall be transferred or assigned or authorize any person or entity other than the person or entity named in the permit to operate the group home named therein. 9-449. - Revocation of operator's permit. An operator's permit may be revoked upon a hearing by the director pursuant to section 9-120 for failing to comply with the terms of the permit and/or for failing to comply with the applicable provisions of section 9-447. 9-450. — Reapplication after denial or revocation. (a) An applicant for an operator's permit whose application for such an operator's permit has been denied may not reapply for such an operator's permit for a period of six (6) months from the date such notice of denial was issued. (b) A holder of an operator's permit that has been cancelled, revoked or otherwise invalidated may not reapply for an operator's or a user's permit for a period of six (6) months from the date that such revocation, cancellation or invalidation became final. 9-451. — Compliance. A group home that is subject to the provisions of this article that is in existence as of the effective date of this ordinance shall have 120 days to comply with the provisions of this article. 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 no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 3: Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, state, or federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors. Section 4: 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. Adopted this day of , 2015 ATTEST: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) Stephen Mensinger, Mayor COUNTY OF COSTA MESA CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter at the regular meeting of said City Council duly held on the day of , 2015, was duly passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa ATTACHMENT 3 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MINUTE EXCERPTS FROM THE OCTOBER 12, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING THE GROUP HOME ORDINANCE (Public Hearing No. 2 — CO -15-04) 2. Application No.: CO -15-04 Applicant: City of Costa Mesa Site Address: Citywide Project Planner: Mel Lee Environmental Determination: This project is categorically exempt under Section 15061(b)(3), General Rule, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Description: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO AMEND TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER XVI (GROUP HOMES, SOBER LIVING HOMES, AND RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES) IN THE R2 -MD, R2 -HD AND R3 RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND THE PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONES) OF TITLE 13 AND AMENDING SECTION 13-6 (DEFINITIONS) OF ARTICLE 2 (DEFINITIONS) OF CHAPTER 1 (GENERAL) AND SECTION 13-30 TABLE 13-30 (LAND USE MATRIX) OF CHAPTER IV AND REPEALING SECTION 13-32.2 (REFERRAL FACILITIES) OF ARTICLE 1 OF CHAPTER V OF TITLE 13. Tarquin Preziosi, Planning Commission Counsel, presented the staff report. Commissioner Andranian, thanked staff for the detailed analysis on the effect of the character of the neighborhood the group homes have. He also asked for clarification with who would decide which group home would operate if two or more apply within 650 of each other. Mr. Preziosi responded the Planning Commission would. Mr. Andranian also asked where the information came from for the map of the group homes, attachment 5 of the staff report. Mr. Lee responded that it came from a list known to City staff and complaints from the residents. Commissioners and staff discussed the proposed Ordinance and the R1 Ordinance. PUBLIC COMMENTS Barrie Fisher, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with having state licensing group homes versus City regulated ones. .--5y- Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with the sober living homes that should not still be in operation and what goals the City should have with them. Dan Huber, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with having sober living homes as businesses in our City. A Costa Mesa resident stated the need for state regulation on group homes not city by city. Commissioner Andranian asked for clarification how the Ordinance will work with abutting R1 and R2 zone area. Mr. Preziosi responded that the homes with have to be 650 feet from each other. Michelle Clark, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with the sober living homes in our City. A Costa Mesa resident stated concerns with the sober living homes in our City. Mary -Helen Beatifacatl, Morningside Recovery, stated concerns with the Ordinance's conditions that violate the privacy rights of the individuals in recovery. Amy Phee, Costa Mesa resident, stated she would like the Ordinance to move forward, limit the amount of group homes, the need for qualified staff, be regulated like treatment centers and the affects they are having on the community. Angela Hareyu, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with the Ordinance and the over concentration of group homes in our City. Nancy Clark, Nancy Clark and Associates Inc (The Recovery Center), stated concerns with the Ordinance and what is the reason behind the group homes. Letisha Freeman, Costa Mesa resident, stated problems she is having with a group home located by her on Center Street. Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioners and staff discussed the public concerns and questions. Commissioner McCarthy talked about City of San Clemente Moratorium, what a moratorium is, reminded everyone that we are looking at a zoning ordinance, stated state wide approach is not an option right now and what the City's options are. Vice Chair Mathews asked who could originate a request for a moratorium. Claire Flynn responded City Council would direct staff to initiate a moratorium. A moratorium could be requested after the proposed Ordinance gets passed. IM Chair Dickson asked staff to bring forth a regulation included as a recommendation to Council requiring out of state residents who drop out or relapse under the program of a sober living home to be relocated, at the operator's expense, to prevent former residents from ending up homeless within the surrounding neighborhoods. He also urged the community to contact the City with any concerns or complaints of group homes that are impacting their neighborhoods and applauded staff for bringing the Ordinance forward. Commissioners and staff discussed the enforcement necessary for the group homes, the regulations with the state facilities and how the City can better locally regulate the state facilities. MOTION: Hereby approve that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council give first reading to Ordinance with the following modifications: Handwritten page 13 change: adult to adults Handwritten page 15 change: exit to exists Handwritten page 16 in section 13-322. (a)(3) to read: "The group home or sober living home is at least 650 feet from any other property, as defined in Section 13-321, that operates the same or similar home or facility including, but not limited, GH, SCF, and state licensed facilities." Handwritten page 17 in section 13-323. (b) to read: "The group home, residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is at least six -hundred fifty feet from any property, as defined in Section 13- 321, that operates such the same or similar home or facility as measured from the property line. Moved by Commissioner McCarthy, seconded by Vice Chair Mathews. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None Chair called a 5 minute break. —5B' PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Mtt i iNv DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 ITEM NUMBER:- N 2 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT CO -15-04 TO AMEND, REPEAL AND ADD SECTIONS TO TITLE 13 (PLANNING, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT), RELATING TO GROUP HOMES, SOBER. LIVING HOMES, BOARDING HOUSES, AND RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2015 FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DESCRIPTION The proposed ordinance for Planning Commission consideration proposes modification to Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Cade with regard to group homes, state licensed facilities and boardinghouses in the Multiple -Family Residential zones and Planned Development zones ("MFR Group Home Ordinance"). The additions to Title 13 would require a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") to locate a group home or a state licensed alcohol or drug abuse treatment facility that serves seven (7) or more occupants in the designated Multiple -Family Residential Zones. In addition, the ordinance requires that an operator of a group home obtain an operator's permit to operate a group home of seven (7) or more occupants in the designated MFR zones, pursuant to the procedure set forth in Title 9. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that City Council approve and give first reading to the Ordinance. BACKGROUND The City of Costa Mesa, as well as other California Cities, has seen a rapid increase in the proliferation of group homes in both single-family and multiple -family neighborhoods. In particular, the City has seen a significant increase in the number of multiple -family units being utilized as housing for large numbers of individuals recovering from alcohol and drug addiction. Those facilities that provide only residential services and are not licensed by the state are commonly referred to as sober living homes. While those facilities that are licensed by the State Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to provide residential, detoxification, and other supportive recovery services are commonly referred to as residential care facilities. Over the past 20 months from January 2014 to September 2015, the City experienced an increase of 25.4% in the number of sober living facilities and residential care facilities in the multiple -family residential zones. Those new facilities resulted in an increase of 142 -beds, which is a 20.6% increase in beds since January of 2014. As of September 2015, the City had a total of 84 residential facilities, with 831 - beds to treat drug and alcohol addiction located in its multiple -family residential districts. Currently, in all zones, it is estimated that the City of Costa Mesa is home to 1,586 alcohol and drug recovery beds, divided as follows: 44 licensed residential facilities/certified alcohol and drug programs in residential zones, providing 411 beds; 107 unlicensed sober living homes in residential zones, providing 600 beds. Included in those 107 homes are 41 homes who have submitted applications per the R1 Ordinance providing 252 beds; and 1 State Licensed Facility on two separate parcels, providing 76 beds in a non- residential zone; and 40 nonresidential services facilities, providing support services such as administrative offices, therapy etc. In addition, the City of Costa Mesa is currently home to almost 28.9% of the state licensed residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities in Orange County, while the City holds 3.6% of the County's population, thus it is reasonable to infer that unlicensed sober living homes are locating in the City at a higher concentration than in nearby communities. In addition to the number of recovery facilities in the City's multiple -family residential zones, current zoning interpretation allows up to 6 -persons per unit, without a use permit, regardless of the unit size. This has resulted in overcrowded units with 3 to 6 adults in a single bedroom. As a result of the increase in these facilities, the City is experiencing problems with overcrowded and/or over -concentrated group homes in multiple -family neighborhoods. The sharp increase in numbers of group homes has generated community outcry and complaints including overcrowding, inordinate amounts of second hand smoke and noise, increased parking demands, and the clustering of group homes in close proximity to each other that has changed the residential character of the neighborhoods to one that is far more institutional in nature. This is particularly the case with respect to sober living homes, as the numbers of these homes has increased exponentially compared to other types of group homes. The proposed regulation will require group homes and residential care facilities with seven (7) or more occupants, to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to ensure they operate in a manner consistent and compatible with the adjacent land uses and the nature of the surrounding residential neighborhoods in which they are located. The proposed regulations establish development standards for these uses including, but not limited to separation requirements between facilities and maximum occupancy limits. Strong evidence exists that a supportive living environment in a residential neighborhood provides more effective recovery than an institutional -style environment. The proposed ordinance seeks to regulate group homes in the City of Costa Mesa in general, and in particular seeks to address overconcentration and secondary effects of sober living homes. The goal of the proposed ordinance is to provide the disabled with an equal opportunity to live in the residence of their choice, and the need to maintain the residential character of existing neighborhoods. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS LEGAL BACKGROUND Pursuant to state law, the City is required to treat various state -licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer disabled residents ("Residential Care Facilities") that are located in residential zones as a single family residential use. Consistent with state law, the City of Costa Mesa's Municipal Code currently provides that residential care facilities that house six or fewer individuals are permitted by right in all residential zones. Residential Care Facilities serving seven or more persons are currently permitted by right in all Multiple -Family Residential zones and Planned Development zones, subject to the same separation requirement as sober living homes. The Health and Safety Code however, does not regulate group homes. Group home facilities include sober living homes (a subset of group homes), and provide residential services to individuals who are disabled. In the case of sober living homes, these facilities provide residential services to individuals recovering from drug and alcohol addiction. Group home facilities are allowed to locate in a residential zone as long as they are serving six or fewer disabled tenants (a recovering addict is generally considered disabled under state and federal law), and are not providing treatment. Without this interpretation, group home facilities would only be permitted to house a maximum of two individuals in a Multiple -Family Residential or Planned Development neighborhood because they would constitute a boarding house. Since group home facilities are not regulated by the state, there is no specific state law requiring the City to treat such uses as a family use. However, state and federal laws do require the City to make reasonable accommodations in its zoning laws when such accommodation is reasonably necessary to afford the disabled the opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Based on the makeup and needs of the typical group home facility, the City must make available some form of accommodation in its zoning code. Allowing the operation of group home facilities that house up to six individuals within any Residential zone provides that accommodation. GROUP HOMES Group homes are facilities that are being used as a supportive living environment for persons who are considered handicapped under state or federal law. Group homes do not include state licensed facilities ("Residential Care Facilities") and do not include single housekeeping units. SOBER LIVING HOMES A sober living home is a type of group home, which houses individuals who are recovering from an alcohol or drug addiction. During their stay, tenants of sober living homes are required to be enrolled in some type of drug rehabilitation program such as the 12 -Step Recovery, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, etc., which typically lasts 90 days or more. Tenancy in a sober living facility is transient. A study of Oxford House (Attachment 11), a nationwide sober living provider, found that the average stay for their tenant's is 256 days. A 2007 Study (Attachment 12) found that 65-70% of all persons who enter drug treatment programs do not finish. This contributes to the transient nature of the population. Often tenants that fail to complete treatment are evicted from their sober living home without an adequate transitional plan and as a result contributing to a growing homeless population in the City, requiring expensive and staff intensive assistance. Many sober living homes advertise weekly rentals, which speaks to the transient nature of the population. Sober living homes are typically run by an entity or person who does not reside in the residence, further reducing their ties to the community. The tenants of a sober living home arrive there in a number of ways. They could self - check in. They could be there as a condition of probation, with or without a reference by the County Probation Department. They may be there in lieu of incarceration; pending a court hearing; or trial. Some may be on parole and have parole officers. It is believed that the passage of Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (the "Act"), by California voters in 2000 has significantly increased demand for space in sober living homes. The Act mandated that specified first and second time non-violent drug offenders receive treatment in lieu of incarceration. The purpose behind the Act was to decrease the cost of imprisoning non-violent drug offenders and to reduce recidivism. Additionally, the Affordable Care Act has significantly expanded the availability of health care coverage of substance abuse treatment, and this is anticipated to increase the numbers of individuals in supportive housing. Tenants of sober living homes typically share chores, but do not share costs and are not responsible for any significant maintenance. In some cases it appears that tenants are responsible for their own food. The City has inspected sober living facilities with separate refrigerators, and in some cases locked bedrooms. Rents are generally set by a person or entity that does not reside in the facility. The better run sober living facilities have house rules, curfews and a no tolerance policy for any drug or alcohol use. The rules are not set by the tenants. The tenants have little to no say as to who resides at the facility or who is their roommate. The cost for residing in a sober living facility varies greatly. Prices on the Sober Living Network's website showed per tenant monthly rental fees ranging from a low of $410 at a sober living facility in Anaheim to a high of $6,500 for one in Irvine. Of the 20 -homes shown in Costa Mesa, the monthly rents ranged from $660 to $1,500. Many recovering addicts are fully employed and some sober living facilities require that their tenants be employed or at least be actively seeking employment POTENTIAL IMPACT FROM SOBER LIVING HOMES Possible impacts from sober living homes are set forth in detail in the ordinance, but in large part are similar to impacts caused by any situation in which large numbers of individual adult tenants reside in a single residential unit or series of residential units. In addition, sober living facilities create additional impacts beyond the normal overcrowding situation which are somewhat unique. Based on complaints from neighbors it appears. that such uses create an inordinate amount of second-hand smoke. This has been a common complaint here in Costa Mesa, and also in Orange and Newport Beach. Sober living homes generate secondary impacts including, but not limited to, neighborhood parking shortfalls and overcrowding, which is particularly noticeable in the multiple -family zones where, at this time, operators routinely house up to 6 persons per unit regardless of the number of bedrooms in the unit. The clustering of sober living facilities in close proximity to each other and the common practice of turning all the units in a multiple -family residential property as one large sober living facility results in neighborhoods dominated by sober living facilities. In these neighborhoods, street life is dominated by large capacity transportation vans, picking -up and dropping -offs residents and staff, serviced providers taking up much of the available on street parking, staff in scrubs carrying medical kits going from unit to unit, vans dropping off prepared meals in large numbers, and frequent Costa Mesa Fire Department deployments in response to medical aid calls. In some neighborhoods Costa Mesa Police Department deployments are a regular occurrence as a result of domestic abuse calls, burglary reports, disturbing the peace calls and parole checks at sober living facilities. Large and often frequent AA or NA meeting are held at some sober living homes. Attendees of these meetings contribute to the lack of available on street parking and neighbors report finding an unusual amount to litter and debris, including beverage containers, condoms and drug paraphernalia in the wake of these meetings. Transiency is also more pronounced in a sober living home than it is with other types of boarding house uses. The likelihood that a sober living home is housing a convicted criminal is higher than typical residential uses. It has also been the City's experience that sober living facilities often have numerous building code violations and unpermitted additions and often ignore the City's occupancy limits. City staff has spent an inordinate amount of time inspecting these properties just to get them to come into compliance with the building and zoning codes and some take the position that state and federal laws preclude the City from regulating them at all. �D( PROPOSED REGULATIONS The proposed ordinance would establishes new regulation for Boardinghouses, Group Homes, including Sober Living Homes and Residential Care Facilities in the following Zoning Districts: • R2 -MD — Multiple -Family Residential District • R2 -HD — Multiple -Family Residential District • R3 - Multiple -Family Residential District • PDR -LD Planned Development - Low Density (up to 8 DU's/Acre) • PDR -MD Planned Development - Medium Density (up to 12 DU's/Acre) • PDR -HD Planned Development - High Density (up to 20 DU's/Acre) • PDR -NCM Planned Development - North Costa Mesa (up to 25-35 DU's/Acre) • PDC Planned Development Commercial • PDI planned Development Industrial • I&R Institutional and Recreational District GROUP HOME REGULATION Group homes serving six or fewer residents. The ordinance would permit group homes, inclusive of sober living homes, serving six or fewer residents to locate in the specified zones. Group homes of six or fewer would be required to obtain a Special Use Permit ("SUP") pursuant to the existing provisions of Chapter XV with a few modifications. State licensed alcohol and drug abuse treatment facilities serving six or fewer residents are exempt from Chapter XV and do not need a SUP. Group homes serving seven or more residents Group homes serving seven or more residents would be required to obtain a CUP in order to locate in the specified multi -family residential zones. In addition, group homes would be required to obtain an operator's permit in order to operate in the MFR zones. The requirements for issuance of an operator's permit are set forth in a separate ordinance that amends Title 9 (see Attachment 2). These requirements are similar to the requirements for a SUP. City Council will be considering this Ordinance with regard to changes in Title 9. State licensed facilities serving seven or more residents State licensed facilities would be required to obtain a CUP in order to locate in the MFR zones. These facilities, as they are regulated by the state, would not be required to obtain an operator's permit to operate in the specified multi -family residential zones. Reasonable Accommodation An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of the provisions of the ordinance by submitting an application to the Director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to the existing provisions of section 13-200.60 et seq. ISSUANCE, DENIAL OR REVOCATION Conditional Use Permit The general standards for issuance of a CUP of Section 13-29(g) are applicable. In addition, the following standards apply. A CUP may be issued where the group home, residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is at least six - hundred fifty feet (650') from any property that operates such the same or similar home or facility as measured from the property line (see radius map attached showing the existing unlicensed facilities within the City — Attachment 5). An applicant for a CUP for a group home or sober living facility must also obtain an operator's permit pursuant to Title 9. The standards for revocation of a CUP are the same as for any CUP issued by the Planning Commission. Special Use Perrrrit A Special Use Permit shall be issued if the applicant is in compliance with the requirements of existing Chapter XV. A Special Use Permit may be denied, and if already issued, shall be denied or revoked, upon a determination by the director that any of the applicable provisions of Chapter XV have been violated or are not being complied with. An appeal of the director's determination shall be heard by the Planning Commission on a de novo basis. Compliance Existing group homes with seven or more occupants will have 120 days to obtain an Operator's Permit, and one year to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Existing state licensed facilities with seven or more occupants shall have one year to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Existing group homes and state licensed facilities that are obligated by a written lease exceeding one (1) year from the effective date of the ordinance, or whose activity involves investment of money in leasehold or improvements such that a longer period is necessary to prevent undue financial hardship, are eligible for up to one additional years grace period pursuant to planning division approval. Group homes with six or fewer occupants that are in existence upon the effective date of this ordinance shall have 90 days to apply for a Special Use Permit, and one year from the effective date of this ordinance to comply with its provisions relating to Special Use Permits. Existing group homes that are obligated by a written lease exceeding one year from the effective date of the ordinance, or whose activity involves investment of money in leasehold or improvements such that a longer period is necessary to prevent undue financial hardship, are eligible for up to one additional years grace period to obtain a Special Use Permit pursuant to planning division approval. PUBLIC NOTICE Code -required public notice was provided via the following methods: Publication of a display ad in the local newspaper (Daily Pilot); and Posting of the Planning Commission Agenda 72 -hours in advance of the meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The ordinance 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 pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (General Rule) of CEQA because there is no possibility that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code will have a significant effect on the environment. LEGAL REVIEW The draft ordinance has been reviewed by the City Attorney's office. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment will provide the regulatory. framework to limit the number of people in a group home and to prevent the overconcentration of residential care facilities, group homes and sober living homes in multiple -family residential and planned residential neighborhoods. The regulations require a Conditional Use Permit CUP) to operate group homes and sober living homes in the Multiple -Family Residential and Planned Development Residential Districts. The CUP will allow the City to review the proposed use on an individual basis, track the location of sober living homes in the effected zones and establish reasonable operating standards through Conditions of Approval on these uses to ensure that they do not generate the type of secondary impact that would be out of character for the neighborhood; while still furthering the purpose of the FEHA, the FHAA and the Lanterman Act, by allowing special accommodation and/or additional accommodation for the handicapped. ALTERNATIVES The City could continue to regulate group homes as it does currently. However, this has not worked well as group homes tend to go into residential neighborhoods without notification to the City and often exceed the occupancy limit of the code. There is some tendency for such facilities to locate close together and this type of clustering erodes the residential character of a neighborhood and creates an institutionalized environment that is counterproductive to recovery. With a Conditional Use Permit requirement, the City can track the location of group homes and help ensure that these homes operate in a manner that is considerate to its neighbors and enhances the chances of recovery for its tenants. The additional requirement that sober living homes and residential care facilities of 7 or more persons, maintain a discrete separation distance from any other sober living home will minimize the secondary impacts created by these facilities, while ensuring recovering addicts and alcoholics access to living in the City's multiple -family residential and planned residential neighborhoods MEL LEE, AICP GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Senior Planner Deputy CEO/Dev. Svcs. Director Distribution: Director of Economic & Development/Deputy CEO Senior Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst File (2) Attachments: 1) Draft Ordinance Proposed 2) Proposed Operator's Permit Ordinance. 3) Draft Land Use Matrix Revised (Strike-Thru) 4) Draft Land Use Matrix Revised (No Strike-Thru) 5) 650 -Foot Radius Map (Multi -Family Zones) 6) Penal Code Section 290 & 3003 & 3003.5 7) Section 10501(a)(6) of title 9, California Code of Regulations 8) U.S. Federal Fair Housing Act - Reasonable Accommodation Code Section 9) Lanterman Act a) Legislative Intent b) Licensed facilities for the developmentally Disabled 10) Health & Safety Code — Excerpts Regarding Alcohol Treatment 11) Oxford House Study 12) Drugs, Brains and Behavior: The Science of Addiction, National Institute of Drug Addiction, National Institutes of Health, NIH Pub. No. 14-5605, April 2007 (revised February 2008, August 2010, July 2014); Recovery Housing: Assessing the Evidence, Sharon Reif, Ph. D, et al., Psychiatric Services, Vol. 65 No. 3, March 2014. ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO AMEND TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER XVI (GROUP HOMES, SOBER LIVING HOMES, AND RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES) IN THE R2 -MD, R2 - HD AND R3 RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND THE PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONES) OF TITLE 13 AND AMENDING SECTION 13-6 (DEFINITIONS) OF ARTICLE 2 (DEFINITIONS) OF CHAPTER I (GENERAL) AND SECTION 13-30 TABLE 13-30 (LAND USE MATRIX) OF CHAPTER IV OF ARTICLE 1 OF CHAPTER V OF TITLE 13 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE: WHEREAS, under the California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, the City has been granted broad police powers to preserve the residential characteristics of its R2MD, R2HD, and R3 zones; and planned development residential zones, which powers have been recognized by both the California Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court, the latter of which has stated that, "It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled"; and WHEREAS, the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments ("FHAA") and the California Fair Employment Housing Act ("FEHA") prohibit enforcement of zoning ordinances which would on theirface or have the effect of discriminating against equal housing opportunities for the handicapped; and WHEREAS, a core purpose of the FHAA, FEHA and California's Lanterman Act is to provide a broader range of housing opportunities to the handicapped; to free the handicapped, to the extent possible, from institutional style living; and to ensure that handicapped persons have the opportunity to live in normal residential surroundings and use and enjoy a dwelling in a manner similar to the way a dwelling is enjoyed by the non -handicapped; and WHEREAS, to fulfill this purpose the FHAA and FEHA also require that the City provide reasonable accommodations to its zoning ordinances if such accommodation is necessary to afford a handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS, the Lanterman Act fulfills this purpose in part by requiring cities to treat state licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer as a residential use; and WHEREAS, in enacting this Ordinance the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa is attempting to strike a balance between the City's and residents' interests of preserving the characteristics of residential neighborhoods and to provide opportunities for the handicapped to reside in such neighborhoods that are enjoyed by the non -handicapped; and WHEREAS, over the past several years the City, County and State have seen a significant increase in the number of single- and multi -family homes being utilized as alcohol and drug recovery facilities for large numbers of individuals (hereafter, "sober living homes"); and WHEREAS, the increase appears to be driven in part by the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (hereafter, "the Act") adopted by California voters which provides that specified first-time drug and alcohol offenders are to be afforded the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment rather than incarceration; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Care Act has significantly expanded the availability of health care coverage for substance abuse treatment; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has seen a sharp increase in the number of sober living homes, which has generated secondary impacts including, but not limited to neighborhood parking shortfalls, overcrowding, inordinate amounts of second-hand smoke, and noise; and the clustering of sober living facilities in close proximity to each other creating near neighborhoods of sober living homes; and WHEREAS, over the past 20 months from January 2014 to September 2015 the City experienced an increase of 25.4% in the number of sober living facilities and residential care facilities in the multiple -family residential zones. Those new facilities resulted in an increase of 142 -beds, which is a 20.6% increase in beds since January of 2014. As of September 2015 the City had a total of 84 residential facilities, with 831 -beds to treat drug and alcohol addiction located in its multiple -family residential districts; and WHEREAS, currently, in all zones, it is estimated that the City of Costa Mesa is home to 1586 alcohol and drug recovery beds, divided as follows: 44 licensed residential facilities/certified alcohol and drug programs in residential zones, providing 411 beds; 107 unlicensed sober living homes in residential zones, providing 600 beds; Included in those 107 homes are 41 homes who have submitted applications per the R1 Ordinance providing 252 beds; and 1 State Licensed Facility on two separate parcels, providing 76 beds in a non-residential zone; and 40 nonresidential services facilities, providing support services such as administrative offices, therapy etc. _�A WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is currently home to almost 28.9% of the state licensed residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities in Orange County, while the City holds 3.6% of the County's population, thus it is reasonable to infer that unlicensed sober living homes are locating in the City at a higher concentration than in nearby communities; and WHEREAS, over the last decade the number of sober living homes in the City of Costa Mesa is rapidly increasing, leading to an overconcentration of sober living homes in certain of the City's residential neighborhoods, which is both deleterious to the residential character of these neighborhoods and may also lead to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the number of sober living homes has not increased to the point of overconcentration in certain Planned Development zones; and WHEREAS, the purpose of sober living homes is to provide a comfortable living environment for persons with drug or alcohol addictions in which they remain clean and sober and can participate in a recovery program in a residential, community environment, and so that they have the opportunity to reside in the residential neighborhood of their choice; and WHEREAS, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, who are not currently using alcohol or drugs, are considered handicapped under both the FHAA and FEHA; and WHEREAS, in 2008, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services projected spending on substance abuse recovery to be $35 billion annually by 2014 (source: Projections of National Expenditures for Mental Health Services and Substance Abuse Treatment 2004-2014, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Katharine R. Levit et al., 2008); and WHEREAS, based on the City's experience it has become clear that at least some operators of sober living homes are driven more by a motivation to profit rather than to provide a comfortable living environment in which recovering addicts have a realistic potential of recovery, or to provide a living environment which remotely resembles the manner in which the non -disabled use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS, establishing distance requirements for sober living homes is reasonable and non-discriminatory and not only helps preserve the residential character of the R2MD, R2HD, and R3 zones; as well as the planned development residential neighborhoods, but also furthers the interest of ensuring that the handicapped are not living in overcrowded environments that are counterproductive to their well-being and recover; and WHEREAS, sober living homes do not function as a single housekeeping unit for the following reasons: (1) they house extremely transient populations (programs are generally about 90 days and as noted, the 2008 UCLA study found that 65-70% of recovering addicts don't finish their recovery programs); (2) the residents generally have no established ties to each other when they move in and typically do not mingle with other neighbors; (3) neighbors generally do not know who or who does not reside in the home; (4) the residents have little to no say about who lives or doesn't live in the home; (5) the residents do not generally share expenses; (6) the residents are often responsible for their own food, laundry and phone; (7) when residents disobey house rules they are often just kicked out of the house; (8) the residents generally do not share the same acquaintances; and (9) residents often pay significantly above - market rate rents; and WHEREAS, the size and makeup of the households in sober living homes, even those allowed as a matter of right under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, is dissimilar and larger than the norm, creating impacts on water, sewer, roads, parking and other City services that are far greater than the average household, in that the average number of persons per California household is 2.90 (2.68 persons per household according to the City's General Plan), while a sober living facility allowed as a matter of right would house six, which is in the top 5% of households in Orange County according to the most recent U.S. federal census data; and WHEREAS, all the individuals residing in a sober living facility are generally over the age of 18, while the average household has just 2.2 individuals over the age of 18 according to the most recent federal census data; and WHEREAS, the City and public utility providers utilize federal census data and other information relating to the characteristics of residential neighborhoods to, among other things: (1) determine the design of residential homes, residential neighborhoods, park systems, library systems, transportation systems; (2) determine parking and garage requirements of various (bedroom) sizes and density of units; (3) develop its General Plan and zoning ordinances; (4) determine police and fire staffing; (5) determine impacts to water, sewer and other services; and (5) establish impacts fees that fairly and proportionally fund facilities for traffic, parks, libraries, police and fire; and WHEREAS, because of their extremely transient populations, above -normal numbers of individuals/adults residing in a single dwelling and the lack of regulations, sober living facilities present problems not typically associated with more traditional residential uses, including but not limited to: the housing of large numbers of unrelated adult who may or may not be supervised; disproportionate numbers of cars associated with a single housing unit, which causes disproportionate traffic and utilization of on -street parking; excessive noise and outdoor smoking, which interferes with the use and enjoyment of neighbors' use of their property; neighbors who have little to no idea who does and does not reside in the home; little to no participation in community activities that form and strengthen neighborhood cohesion; a history of opening facilities in complete disregard of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and with little regard for impacts to the neighborhood; disproportional impacts from the average dwelling unit to nearly all public services including sewer, water, parks, libraries, transportation infrastructure, fire and police; a history of congregating in the same general area; and the potential influx of individuals with a criminal record; and WHEREAS, a variable separation requirement will still allow for a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of sober living homes within the City and still result in preferential treatment for sober living homes in that non -handicapped individuals in a similar living situation (Le., in boardinghouse -style residences) have fewer housing opportunities than the handicapped; and WHEREAS, housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide the handicapped with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings," but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide relief from for the handicapped, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life in a normal residential surrounding; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the above, the City Council recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, that when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing the handicapped the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions, and that therefore providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including sober living homes, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, without some regulation there is no way of ensuring that the individuals entering into a group home are handicapped individuals and entitled to reasonable accommodation under local and state law; that a group home is operated professionally to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhood; and that the secondary impacts from over concentration of both group homes in a neighborhood and large numbers of unrelated adults residing in a single facility in an individual home are lessened; and WHEREAS, in addition to group homes locating in residential neighborhoods other state -licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons who are mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped or supervised, are also taking up residence in these neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the purpose of group homes for the handicapped is to provide the handicapped an equal opportunity to comfortably reside in the residential neighborhood of their choice; and WHEREAS, no residential developments of any kind are permitted in the I&R (Institutional and Recreation) zone, and no group homes exit in this zone at the time of the adoption of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance 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 pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the passage of this Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The following definition in Section 13-6 (Definitions) of Article 2 (Definitions) of Chapter I (General) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: Boardinghouse. A residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein rooms are rented under two (2) or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental manager resides within the residence. Boardinghouse, small means two (2) or fewer rooms being rented. Boardinghouse, large means three (3) to six (6) rooms being rented. Boardinghouses renting more than 6 rooms are prohibited. Section 2: Chapter XVI (Group homes and residential care facilities in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby added as follows: 13-320.- Purpose. This chapter is intended to preserve the residential character the City of Costa Mesa's residential neighborhoods and to further the purposes of the FEHA, the FHAA and the Lanterman Act by, among other things: (1) ensuring that group homes are actually entitled to the special accommodation and/or additional accommodation provided under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and not simply skirting the City's boarding house regulations; (2) limiting the secondary impacts of group homes by reducing noise and traffic, preserving safety and providing adequate off-street parking; (3) providing an accommodation for the handicapped that is reasonable and actually bears some resemblance to the opportunities afforded non -handicapped individuals to use and enjoy a dwelling unit in a residential neighborhood; and (4) to provide comfortable living environments that will enhance the opportunity for the handicapped, including recovering addicts to be successful in their programs. 13-321.- Definitions. Property. For purposes of this chapter, property is defined as any single development lot that has been subdivided bearing its own assessor's parcel number or with an approved subdivision map or condominium map. 13-322.- Group Homes in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones with Six or Fewer Occupants. (a) A special use permit shall be required for and may be granted to permit the operation of a group home including a sober living home with six or fewer occupants in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones) zones subject to the following conditions: (1) The application complies with subsections (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(4) through (a)(9) of Section 13-311. (2) The application includes a live scan of the house manager and/or operator of the group home. (3) The group home or sober living home is at least 650 feet from any other property, as defined in Section 13-321, that operates the same or similar home or facility as measured from the property line. (b) An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of this section by submitting an application to the director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to section 13-200.62. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of section 13-3119(b) to the contrary, the Development Services Director may revoke or deny a special use permit for a group home subject to this chapter following the director's determination that any of the circumstances set forth in Section 13- 311(b)(1) through (7) exist. 13-323.- Conditional Use Permit Required for Group Homes, Residential Care Facilities and Drug and Alcohol Treatment Facilities in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) with 7 or More Occupants. A conditional use permit shall be required for and may be granted to allow the operation of a group home, state licensed residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility with seven (7) or more occupants in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) zones subject to the following conditions: (a) The requirements of Chapter III PLANNING APPLICATIONS have been met. (b) The group home, residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is at least six -hundred fifty feet from any property, as defined in Section 13-321, that operates such the same or similar home or facility as measured from the property line. (c) The applicant obtains an operator's permit as required by Article 23, Chapter 2 of Title 9 except that this requirement shall not apply to any state licensed residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility. (d) The findings for granting a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 13-29(g) are met. 13-324.- Compliance. (a) Group homes in the in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones with six (6) or fewer occupants that are in existence upon the effective date of this ordinance may continue to operate subject to the following: 1. A complete application for a special use permit is filed within 90 days of the effective date of this ordinance; and 2. The group home is in full compliance with all of the conditions of this ordinance within one (1) year of its effective date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, existing group homes obligated by a written lease exceeding one (1) year from the effective date of the ordinance, or whose activity involves investment of money in leasehold or improvements such that a longer period is necessary to prevent undue financial hardship, are eligible for up to one (1) additional years grace period pursuant to planning division approval. (b) Group homes, state licensed residential care facilities and state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) with seven (7) or more occupants that are in existence upon the effective date of this ordinance may continue to operate subject to the following: 1. The operator of a group home obtains an operator's permit pursuant to section 9-445 et seq. within 120 days from the effective date of this ordinance; and 2. The group home, state licensed residential care facility and/or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is in full compliance with all _;7U conditions of this ordinance, including obtaining a conditional use permit, within one (1) year from the effective date of this ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an existing group home, state licensed residential care facility and/or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility obligated by a written lease exceeding one (1) year from the effective date of the ordinance, or whose activity involves investment of money in leasehold or improvements such that a longer period is necessary to prevent undue financial hardship, are eligible for up to one (1) additional years grace period pursuant to planning division approval. 13-325.- Severability. Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this chapter for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. This Ordinance shall be prospective in application from its effective date. Section 3: Subdivisions (4) through (10) of Section 13-30 Table 13-30 of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: See Attachment A. Section 4: Footnote 4 to Table 13-30 (Land Use Matrix) of Section 13-30 (Purpose) of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby repealed and replaced with the following: 4 For the purposes of this table, the symbols shall have the following meaning: C—Conditional Use Permit; MC—Minor Conditional Use Permit; P— Permitted; --Prohibited. S—Special Use Permit. Section 5: Footnotes 6 and 7 and 8 to Table 13-30 (Land Use Matrix) of Section 13-30 (Purpose) of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby added as follows: 6 Subject to the separation requirements set forth in Section 13-322(a)(3). ri i- Small boardinghouses shall locate at least 650 feet from any other small boardinghouse. Large boardinghouses shall be located at least 1,000 feet from any other boardinghouse. e Uses prohibited in the base zoning district of a Mixed -Use Overlay Zone shall also be prohibited in the Overlay Zone. Section 6: 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 no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 7: Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, state, or federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors. Section 8: 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. Adopted this day of ATTEST: , 2015 Stephen Mensinger, Mayor Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF COSTA MESA CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter at the regular meeting of said City Council duly held on the day of , 2015, was duly passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa --'�3--- ATTACHMENT 2 [DRAFT] ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO AMEND TITLE 9 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9-116 (ISSUING OFFICER) AND 9-125 (BUSINESSES ETC. REQUIRING PERMIT) OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER II OF TITLE 9 AND TO ADD SECTION 131 (BUSINESSES WHERE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR MAY ISSUE PERMIT) OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER II OF TITLE 9 AND ARTICLE XXIII (GROUP HOMES) OF CHAPTER II OF TITLE 9 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Sections 9-116 and 9-125 of Article I of Chapter II of Title 9 are amended, and Section 131 of Article I of Chapter II of Title 9 and Article XXIII of Chapter II of Title 9 are hereby added, to read as follows: Article I. 9-116. - Issuing officer. "Issuing officer" shall mean the city council of Costa Mesa, the director of finance, the fire chief, the chief of police, or the development services director. 9-125. - Businesses, professions, trades and occupations requiring a permit under the provisions of this chapter. (q) Group homes, as defined in section 13-6, that have seven (7) or more occupants. 9-131. - Businesses where the development services director may issue permit. The development services director may issue permits for operation of a group home located in the in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned -,)A- Development Zones) zones pursuant to the requirements of Article XXIII of this Chapter. Article XXIII GROUP HOMES 9-443. - Definitions The definitions set forth in Title 13 of this Code shall apply to the provisions of this article unless otherwise provided for herein. 9-444. - Zoning requirements. In addition to the requirements of this article, all group homes subject to this article shall comply with the requirements set forth in Chapter XVI of Title 13 of this Code. 9-445. — Operator's permit required. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate, or to permit any person to operate, a group home on any property located within the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones), without a valid permit issued for that group home pursuant to the provisions of this article. 9-446. — Exceptions. The requirements of this article shall not apply to: (a) A group home located in the R-1 zone that has six (6) or fewer occupants, not counting a house manager, and that is in compliance with the provisions of Chapter XV of Title 13 of this code; (b) A state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility,- or acility,or (c) A state licensed residential care facility. 9-447. Requirements for issuance of operator's permit. (a) The owner/operator shall submit an application to the director that provides the following information: (1) The name, address, phone number and driver's license number of the owner/operator; (2) The name, address, phone number and driver's license number of the house manager; —115- (3) A copy of the group home rules and regulations; (4) Written intake procedures; (5) The relapse policy; (6) An affirmation by the owner/operator that only residents (other than the house manager) who are handicapped as defined by state and federal law shall reside at the group home; (7) Blank copies of all forms that all residents and potential residents are required to complete; and (8) A fee for the cost of processing of the application as set by resolution of the city council. (b) Requirements for operation of group homes. (1) The group home has a house manager who resides at the group home or any multiple of persons acting as a house manager who are present at the group home on a twenty -four-hour basis and who are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the group home. (2) All garage and driveway spaces associated with the dwelling unit shall, at all times, be available for the parking of vehicles. Residents and the house manager may each only store or park a single vehicle at the dwelling unit or on any street within five hundred (500) feet of the dwelling unit. The vehicle must be operable and currently used as a primary form of transportation for a resident of the group home. (3) Occupants must not require and operators must not provide "care and supervision" as those terms are defined by Health and Safety Code Section 1503.5 and Section 80001(c)(3) of title 22, California Code of Regulations. (4) Integral group home facilities are not permitted. Applicants shall declare, under penalty of perjury, that the group home does not operate as an integral use/facility. (5) If the group home operator is not the property owner, written approval from the property owner to operate a group home at the property. (6) The property must be fully in compliance with all building codes, municipal code and zoning. (7) In addition to the regulations outlined above, the following shall also apply to sober living homes: L All occupants, other than the house manager, must be actively participating in legitimate recovery programs, including, but not limited to, Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous and the sober living home must maintain current records of meeting attendance. Under the sober living home's rules and regulations, refusal to actively participate in such a program shall be cause for eviction. ii. The sober living home's rules and regulations must prohibit the use of any alcohol or any non-prescription drugs at the sober living home or by any recovering addict either on or off site. The sober living home must also have a written policy regarding the possession, use and storage of prescription medications. The facility cannot dispense medications but must make them available to the residents. The possession or use of prescription medications is prohibited except for the person to whom they are prescribed, and in the amounts/dosages prescribed. These rules and regulations shall be posted on site in a common area inside the dwelling unit. Any violation of this rule must be cause for eviction under the sober living home's rules for residency and the violator cannot be re -admitted for at least ninety (90) days. Any second violation of this rule shall result in permanent eviction. Alternatively, the sober living home must have provisions in place to remove the violator from contact with the other residents until the violation is resolved. iii. The number of occupants subject to the sex offender registration requirements of Penal Code Section 290 does not exceed the limit set forth in Penal Code Section 3003.5 and does not violate the distance provisions set forth in Penal Code Section 3003. iv. The sober living home shall have a written visitation policy that shall preclude any visitors who are under the influence of any drug or alcohol. v. The sober living home shall have a good neighbor policy that shall direct occupants to be considerate of neighbors, including refraining from engaging in excessively loud, profane or obnoxious behavior that would unduly interfere with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of their dwelling unit. The good neighbor policy shall establish a written protocol for the house manager/operator to follow when a neighbor complaint is received. vi. The sober living home shall not provide any of the following services as they are defined by Section 10501(a)(6) of Title 9, California Code of Regulations: detoxification; educational counseling; individual or group counseling sessions; and treatment or recovery planning. (c) An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of this section by submitting an application to the director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to section Article 15 of Chapter IX of Title 13 of this Code. (d) The operator's permit shall be issued by the director if the applicant is in compliance, or, where applicable, has agreed to comply, with the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) above. (e) In addition to denying an application for failing to comply, or failing to agree to comply, with subsections (a) and/or (b), an application shall be denied by the director under any of the following circumstances: (1) Any owner/operator or staff person has provided materially false or misleading information on the application or omitted any pertinent information. (2) Any owner/operator or staff person has an employment history in which he or she was terminated during the past two (2) years because of physical assault, sexual harassment, embezzlement or theft; falsifying a drug test; and selling or furnishing illegal drugs or alcohol. (3) Any owner/operator or staff person has been convicted of or pleaded nolo contendere, within the last seven (7) to ten (10) years, to any of the following offenses: i. Any sex offense for which the person is required to register as a sex offender under California Penal Code Section 290 (last ten (10) years); ii. Arson offenses—Violations of Penal Code Sections 451-455 (last seven (7) years); or iii. Violent felonies, as defined in Penal Code Section 667.5, which involve doing bodily harm to another person (last ten (10) years). iv. The unlawful sale or furnishing of any controlled substances (last seven (7) years). (4) Any owner/operator or staff person is on parole or formal probation supervision on the date of the submittal of the application or at any time thereafter. (5) The owner/operator accepts residents, other than a house manager, who are not disabled or handicapped as defined by the FHAA and FEHA. (6) An operator's permit for a sober living home shall also be denied, and if already issued shall be revoked upon a hearing by the director, under any of the following additional circumstances: i. Any owner/operator or staff person of a sober living home is a recovering drug or alcohol abuser and upon the date of application or employment has had less than one (1) full year of sobriety. ii. The owner/operator of a sober living home fails to immediately take measures to remove any resident who uses alcohol or illegally uses prescription or non-prescription drugs, or who is not actively participating in a legitimate recovery program from contact with all other sober residents. (7) For any other significant and/or repeated violations of this section and/or any other applicable laws and/or regulations. 9-448. — Transfer of operator's permit. (a) An operator's permit shall not be valid for a location other than the property for which it is issued, unless and until the transfer of the permit is approved by the director pursuant to the requirements of section 9-447. (b) An operator's permit may not be transferred to any other person or entity. No operator's permit issued pursuant to this article shall be transferred or assigned or authorize any person or entity other than the person or entity named in the permit to operate the group home named therein. 9-449. - Revocation of operator's permit. An operator's permit may be revoked upon a hearing by the director pursuant to section 9-120 for failing to comply with the terms of the permit and/or for failing to comply with the applicable provisions of section 9-447. 9-450. — Reapplication after denial or revocation. (a) An applicant for an operator's permit whose application for such an operator's permit has been denied may not reapply for such a user's permit for a period of six (6) months from the date such notice of denial was issued. (b) A holder of a operator's permit that has been cancelled, revoked or otherwise invalidated may not reapply for a user's permit for a period of six (6) months from the date that such revocation, cancellation or invalidation became final. 9-451. — Compliance. A group home that is subject to the provisions of this article that is in existence as of the effective date of this ordinance shall have 120 days to comply with the provisions of this article. 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 no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 3: Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, state, or federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors. Section 4: 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. Adopted this day of ATTEST: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa , 2015 Stephen Mensinger, Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF COSTA MESA CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter at the regular meeting of said City Council duly held on the day of , 2015, was duly passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa �1 — ATTACHMENT 3 a in E s - N - a 0- a. o. p. a a s ■ U a U a rl 1'',-1 apV- a as I.UaUa UUU . apa'zuii a as • UaUa 1 �UU(U . apwZ0� a as UaUa ^IY ,-1-000CJ apw a as •UaUa 'I1`.: UUCUU a.0w a, a as •Ua . a r: • 2 MI N W o. • z = • • • • �o • • • • • . • • • • F- V N • a a • . • • • • • • • • I � CI1 • • • • • • • • • • • • V r (A z M - W V J mWW • • • • • • • • • • • • • G ~a I-- as . . . . . . • • cn v�M a as aUaUa �:1UU(Jv LL O w a as a0aUa JI1'.'I-Ulu 00 1 N G a a s a U a U a i'I:L UU U U e m c N ca- N y E ° y X c a N o `o E s N W N s ° N p N M p c a o _ m of'� u E w c 3 N Ul > (0 N N cD ° N ca I� EO z �+ cn a y E cn c E "c —> E o o L LL m cm �2 E o 5 - E o .�w° _> 75 Wr w E m a) '' a c a a�lu C _o' x a c U E m m m r ch o o �_ u, o° aEi -_ a '7 W� �' r 0N > N N 21 N N M 141 m M In W Co ( I� n a' W C7 p) cn T p w ATTACHMENT 3 a in E s - N - a ATTACHMENT 4 x a r • • • • • • • s • r • r • o _ U viv > c_ m 7 o �� L C2 c o a m m m C V p r L O V M �t o • • • • • • CL 0- d a. IL 0 - 0 O U E m o — $ r • as C d a) •UdUa 0` 00 cninU 0 W e C UU aLm. 9 C O • w0� U «� N � a c CL d �� qa U) .UaU0- oU o > u> T o a m U C U)m N L N cninUUU ° m c_� o n o m - o O i Q c o • a ao0r 7 OIC o2 -0 a M y o ad omN ao w E 0'+ �c •UaUa OO m n O U L O (D U c o Y p is O) o cninUUU a S 0 °o a a) '= Q) f0 C c m - U 0 C 'a . m CLU E �g :E c aawz0z N O N C N p EL as •VaUO_ U (nv)UUU6 y o N a)— E ul c'� c E > U Eo 0 °a N L CMC w ,X -0 Lt'' (LaIx=Or '2N — o LO CL as p y w N N 7 O 0 •UdUIL �O'n ani E UI 7 U'v,�'m y a) N N (0 oE;;O1 cninUUUU c o y«�oa 0 a) m t CLQw2or d D O NL • U o ao.c i a- cn cn • • • • 'Dt-oa`)LomEUO) li o IX J a— �.S�-w"LLa(oU)U)D co W Z X • • • • r • • • • • • • • r a W cn .- �.± V: • • • • • • • • • • • • s • r • • • • • • • • • • • U N • Mz a "', W a V r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - mW V J r • • r • • • • ■ • • • • • a� H Q W - M d (3 a d n. U CL U d U) U) U U U U �! y_ - OC C4 a a.a aUaUd cn&UUUU }O ~ �C4 a a_ a- 10- U1 0- U� a cncnU Ulu U fn m Q) O N E N L� N 0) c E L en O 0 O E " N oN W ui v 0(D (D o r" O (h U co O) > = T co �' O a) r Q W- C c c O n E m 'V m v0 vi a) V E j C 0 Z y 3 - °' N >_ ` m �, 0 a) c 0 co E O Z a) O r__ E �- >. b J4 ai ai 9 cup) U to L U E -'_`� ELL cad E'E m E.�m0 F W m •= OL E O E O L O := O 5CU a) � cc -0 -0- Q 0:2 =O Ui a) fn u) 0 0 a) U E O cu O O Q) C Q (j O fn � U �O O .: Uj mT7 N m m � U) r L NN a") N N M V) vr (D �rl- 1 00 U m ATTACHMENT 4 x 7N N O O N U) ar U U U N J 9 IsU CL 0 0 0 U) '" a I o _ U viv > c_ m 7 o �� L C2 c o a m m m C V p r L O V M OU ° N • 0 o o Ln E U o `° o(D o " a, 'a p _ 0 O U E m o U O C a) $ r O (D Q_ C C d a) (n a) N 0` 00 U E o 0 W e C N o aLm. 9 C O F w0� U «� N � a c o N O m L O O C qa U) Z rn0 O N oU o > u> T o a m U C U)m N L N c cn E ° m c_� o n o m - o O i Q c o o a iy E 7 OIC o2 -0 a M y o o �a omN ao w E 0'+ �c �o N t a OO m n O U L O (D U c o Y p is O) o a O L o U Of° .3 a S 0 °o a a) '= Q) f0 C c m - U 0 C 'a L m CLU E �g :E c y U E O) c o N O N C N p Q. a U 'U T N U N N O C p ., L y o N a)— E ul c'� c E > U Eo 0 °a N L CMC w ,X -0 Lt'' w- L U) —_ L '2N — o LO > c O p y w N N 7 O 0 O N U o Ul N �O'n ani E UI 7 U'v,�'m y a) N N (0 oE;;O1 7aEIT D c o y«�oa 0 a) m t N'XY D O NL c E cn m o ao.c al L 7 7 N c 01 a7 4? 0 o c_ a a CL' 7 Y a_ C CL U) O m L U L O. j L •+ N v n. Ew a�- u, 'Dt-oa`)LomEUO) �.S�-w"LLa(oU)U)D r N M 4 6 6 I� co ■eahr�faf®�� • Amo IETm �®©ate a Ilirm r^�ssf am®ra :s,a�af�safs� , m s. v �m� MMMM c �� ��a_ssra_ r mr3m mlmwm�m ®m rem®mom _ rm-a-a®oi� rr��-rasm:� OEM Km O� Wr7M OWN F7 FSR 00 c-�wcwm , a Iwo ®jjjjff:�' NIUE a. m� ATTACHMENT 6 Cal Pen Code § 290. Sex Offender Registration Act; Persons required to register Deering's California Code Annotated PENAL CODE Part 3. Of Imprisonment and the Death Penalty Title 1. Imprisonment of Male Prisoners in State Prisons Chapter 8. Length of Term of Imprisonment and Paroles Article 1. General Provisions (a) Sections 290 to 290.024, inclusive, shall be known and may be cited as the Sex Offender Registration Act. All references to "the Act" in those sections are to the Sex Offender Registration Act. (b) Every person described in subdivision (c), for the rest of his or her life while residing in California, or while attending school or working in California, as described in Sections 290.002 and 290.01, shall be required to register with the chief of police of the city in which he or she is residing, or the sheriff of the county if he or she is residing in an unincorporated area or city that has no police department, and, additionally, with the chief of police of a campus of the University of California, the California State University, or community college if he or she is residing upon the campus or in any of its facilities, within five working days of coming into, or changing his or her residence within, any city, county, or city and county, or campus in which he or she temporarily resides, and shall be required to register thereafter in accordance with the Act. (c) The following persons shall be required to register: Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in any court in this state or in any federal or military court of a violation of Section 187 committed in the perpetration, or an attempt to perpetrate, rape or any act punishable under Section 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 207 or 209 committed with intent to violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 220, except assault to commit mayhem, subdivision (b) and (c) of Section 236. 1, Section 243.4, paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261, paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 262 involving the use of force or violence for which the person is sentenced to the state prison, Section 264.1, 266, or 266c, subdivision (b) of Section 266h, subdivision (b) of Section 266i, Section 266j, 267, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, or 311.1, subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 3 11. l 1, or 647.6, former Section 647a, subdivision (c) of Section 653f, subdivision 1 or 2 of Section 314, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under Section 272, or any felony violation of Section 288.2; any statutory predecessor that includes all elements of one of the above-mentioned offenses; or any person who since that date has been or is hereafter convicted of the attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above-mentioned offenses. Cal Pen Code § 3003. Release of parolee to "last legal residence"; When parolee may be returned to another county; Release of information to local law enforcement agencies; Mileage exclusions; Other considerations; Parole to another state; Implementation of Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS) Deering's California Code Annotated PENAL CODE Part 3. Of Imprisonment and the Death Penalty Title 1. Imprisonment of Male Prisoners in State Prisons Chapter 8. Length of Term of Imprisonment and Paroles Article 1, General Provisions (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, an inmate who is released on parole or postrelease supervision as provided by Title 2.05 (commencing with Section 3450) shall be returned to the county that was the last legal residence of the inmate prior to his or her incarceration. For purposes of this subdivision, "last legal residence" shall not be construed to mean the county wherein the inmate committed an offense while confined in a state prison or local jail facility or while confined for treatment in a state hospital. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), an inmate may be returned to another county if that would be in the best interests of the public. If the Board of Parole Hearings setting the conditions of parole for inmates sentenced pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1168, as determined by the parole consideration panel, or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation setting the conditions of parole for inmates sentenced pursuant to Section 1170, decides on a return to another county, it shall place its reasons in writing in the parolee's permanent record and include these reasons in the notice to the sheriff or chief of police pursuant to Section 3058.6. In making its decision, the paroling authority shall consider, among others, the following factors, giving the greatest weight to the protection of the victim and the safety of the community: (1) The need to protect the life or safety of a victim, the parolee, a witness, or any other person. (2) Public concern that would reduce the chance that the inmate's parole would be successfully completed. (3) The verified existence of a work offer, or an educational or vocational training program. (4) The existence of family in another county with whom the inmate has maintained strong ties and whose support would increase the chance that the inmate's parole would be successfully completed. (5) The lack of necessary outpatient treatment programs for parolees receiving treatment pursuant to Section 2960. (c) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in determining an out -of -county commitment, shall give priority to the safety of the community and any witnesses and victims. (d) In making its decision about an inmate who participated in a joint venture program pursuant to Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 2717.1) of Chapter 5, the paroling authority shall give serious consideration to releasing him or her to the county where the joint venture program employer is located if that employer states to the paroling authority that he or she - „1.10, intends to employ the inmate upon release. (e) (1) The following information, if available, shall be released by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to local law enforcement agencies regarding a paroled inmate or inmate placed on postrelease supervision pursuant to Title 2.05 (commencing with Section 3450) who is released in their jurisdictions: (A) Last, first, and middle name. (B) Birth date. (C) Sex, race, height, weight, and hair and eye color. (D) Date of parole and discharge. (E) Registration status, if the inmate is required to register as a result of a controlled substance, sex, or arson offense. (F) California Criminal Information Number, FBI number, social security number, and driver's license number. (G) County of commitment. (H) A description of scars, marks, and tattoos on the inmate. (1) Offense or offenses for which the inmate was convicted that resulted in parole in this instance. (J) Address, including all of the following information: (i) Street name and number. Post office box numbers are not acceptable for purposes of this subparagraph. (ii) City and ZIP Code. (iii) Date that the address provided pursuant to this subparagraph was proposed to be effective. (K) Contact officer and unit, including all of the following information: (i) Name and telephone number of each contact officer. (ii) Contact unit type of each contact officer such as units responsible for parole, registration, or county probation. (L) A digitized image of the photograph and at least a single digit fingerprint of the parolee. (M) A geographic coordinate for the parolee's residence location for use with a Geographical Information System (GIS) or comparable computer program. (2) Unless the information is unavailable, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall electronically transmit to the county agency identified in subdivision (a) of Section 3451 the inmate's tuberculosis status, specific medical, mental health, and outpatient clinic needs, and any medical concerns or disabilities for the county to consider as the offender transitions onto postrelease community supervision pursuant to Section 3450, for the purpose of identifying the medical and mental health needs of the individual. All transmissions to the county agency shall be in compliance with applicable provisions of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (Public Law 104-191), the federal Health Information Technology for Clinical Health Act (HITECH) (Public Law 111-005), and the implementing of privacy and security regulations in Parts 160 and 164 of Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This paragraph shall not take effect until the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or his or her designee, determines that this provision is not preempted by HIPAA. 80-e (3) Except for the information required by paragraph (2), the information required by this subdivision shall come from the statewide parolee database. The information obtained from each source shall be based on the same timeframe. (4) All of the information required by this subdivision shall be provided utilizing a computer -to -computer transfer in a format usable by a desktop computer system. The transfer of this information shall be continually available to local law enforcement agencies upon request. (5) The unauthorized release or receipt of the information described in this subdivision is a violation of Section 11143. (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an inmate who is released on parole shall not be returned to a location within 35 miles of the actual residence of a victim of, or a witness to, a violent felony as defined in paragraphs (1) to (7), inclusive, and paragraph (16) of subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or a felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice that has been charged and proved as provided for in Section 12022.53, 12022.7, or 12022.9, if the victim or witness has requested additional distance in the placement of the inmate on parole, and if the Board of Parole Hearings or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation finds that there is a need to protect the life, safety, or well-being of a victim or witness. (g) Notwithstanding any other law, an inmate who is released on parole for a violation of Section 288 or 288.5 whom the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation determines poses a high risk to the public shall not be placed or reside, for the duration of his or her parole, within one-half mile of any public or private school including any or all of kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive. (h) Notwithstanding any other law, an inmate who is released on parole for an offense involving stalking shall not be returned to a location within 35 miles of the victim's actual residence or place of employment if the victim or witness has requested additional distance in the placement of the inmate on parole, and if the Board of Parole Hearings or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation finds that there is a need to protect the life, safety, or well-being of the victim. (i) The authority shall give consideration to the equitable distribution of parolees and the proportion of out -of -county commitments from a county compared to the number of commitments from that county when making parole decisions. 0) An inmate may be paroled to another state pursuant to any other law. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall coordinate with local entities regarding the placement of inmates placed out of state on postrelease supervision pursuant to Title 2.05 (commencing with Section 3450). (k) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall be the agency primarily responsible for, and shall have control over, the program, resources, and staff implementing the Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS) in conformance with subdivision (e). County agencies supervising inmates released to postrelease _Q1 r Cal Pen Code § 3003.5 Restriction on sharing of single family dwelling, by parolee from imprisonment for offense requiring registration as sex offender, with other person required to register as sex offender Deering's California Code Annotated PENAL CODE Part 3. Of Imprisonment and the Death Penalty Title 1. Imprisonment of Male Prisoners in State Prisons Chapter 8. Length of Term of Imprisonment and Paroles Article 1. General Provisions § 3003.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a person is released on parole after having served a term of imprisonment in state prison for any offense for which registration is required pursuant to Section 290, that person may not, during the period of parole, reside in any single family dwelling with any other person also required to register pursuant to Section 290, unless those persons are legally related by blood, marriage, or adoption. For purposes of this section, "single family dwelling" shall not include a residential facility which serves six or fewer persons. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290 to reside within 2000 feet of any public or private school, or park where children regularly gather. (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit municipal jurisdictions from enacting local ordinances that further restrict the residency of any person for whom registration is required pursuant to Section 290. supervision pursuant to Title 2.05 (commencing with Section 3450) shall provide any information requested by the department to ensure the availability of accurate information regarding inmates released from state prison. This information may include the issuance of warrants, revocations, or the termination of postrelease supervision. On or before August 1, 2011, county agencies designated to supervise inmates released to postrelease supervision shall notify the department that the county agencies have been designated as the local entity responsible for providing that supervision. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Department of Justice shall be the agency primarily responsible for the proper release of information under LEADS that relates to fingerprint cards. (1) In addition to the requirements under subdivision (k), the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall submit to the Department of Justice data to be included in the supervised release file of the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) so that law enforcement can be advised through CLETS of all persons on postrelease community supervision and the county agency designated to provide supervision. The data required by this subdivision shall be provided via electronic transfer. M e'rr °LexisNexis- User Name: Elena Gerli Date and Time: Sep 14, 2014 4:29 p.m. PDT Job Number: 12787306 Document(1) 1. 9 CCR 10501 Client/Matter: Costa Mesa City Atty 40 ATTACHMENT 7 Lexi ham ¢ I About texisfVsxis-I Privacy Policy I Terms'&"Conditions; Copyrig t-6-2- 614:1,LexisNexis. Elena Getli. 9 CCR 10501 This document is current through Register 2014, No. 34, August 22, 2014 Barcla s O cial Catifornia Code of Regulations > TITLE 9. REHABILITATIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES > DIVISION 4. DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG PROGRAMS > CHAPTER 5. LICENSURE OF RESIDENTIAL ALCOHOLISIV OR DRUG ABUSE RECOVERY OR TREATNIENT F4CILITIES > SUBCHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS > ARTICLE 2. DEFINITION § 10501. Definitions (a) The following general definitions shall apply to terminology used in Chapter 5, except where specifically noted otherwise: (1) "Adolescent" means an individual between fourteen (14) and eighteen (18) years of age, who has not been emancipated pursuant to Part 6 (commencing with Section 7000), Division 11 of the Fcrmidy Cade. (2) "Adult" means a person who is 18 years of age or older or a minor who has been emancipated pursuant to Part 6 (commencing with Section 7070). Division_ L1 of the Family Code. (3) "Adult Facility" means a residential alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility which is designed to serve adults. (4) "Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Planning" means the development of a resident specific goal and a continuum of recovery or treatment objectives. It is the licensee's responsibility to provide the activities to facilitate this process. (5) "Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Service" means a service which is designed to promote treatment and maintain recovery from alcohol or drug problems which includes one or more of the following: detoxification, group sessions, individual sessions, educational sessions, and/or alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment planning. (6) "Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facility" means any facility, building or group of buildings which is maintained and operated to provide 24-hour residential nonmedical alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment services. (7) "Authorized Representative" means any person or entity authorized by law to act on behalf of any resident of a residential alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. An authorized representative may be a minor's parent, a legal guardian, a conservator, a public placement agency, or a person granted power of attorney by the resident. (8) "Capacity" means the maximum number of residents for whom the facility has been licensed to provide services at any one time. (9) "Conviction" means a final judgment on a verdict or finding of guilty, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere. (10) "Day" means calendar day unless otherwise specified. (11) "Detoxification Service" means a service designed to support and to assist an individual Elena Gerli Page 2of4 9 CCR 10501 in the alcohol and/or drug withdrawal process and to explore plans for continued service. (12) "Department" means the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. (13) "Director" means the Director of the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. (14) "Education Session" means a planned, structured, didactic presentation of information related to alcoholism and alcohol or drug abuse. (15) "Evaluator" means any agent or employee of the Department who is authorized by the Director to conduct licensing evaluations on behalf of the Department. (16) "Facility" means a residential alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. (17) "Facility Administrator" means the individual responsible for the overall management of a residential alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. (18) "Goal" means a general statement of the applicant's or licensee's purpose in operating an alcoholism or drug recovery or treatment facility. (19) "Group Session" means group interaction that encourages residents to identify and resolve alcohol- and/or drug-related problems, to examine personal attitudes and behavior, and provides support for positive changes in life style and recovery from alcoholism and/or drug abuse. (20) "Illicit drug" means any substance defined as a drug in Section 11014- Chapter 1, 1]avisiort. 10 o f SheHealth and `ety Coda, except: (A) Drugs or medications prescribed by a physician or other person authorized to prescribe drugs, pursuant to Section 4036, Chapter 9. Division 2 ot'the Business and Professions Code, and used in the dosage and frequency prescribed; or (B) Over-the-counter drugs or medications used in the dosage and frequency described on the box, bottle,; or package insert, (21) "Individual Session" means a private interaction between a resident and program staff which focuses on identification and resolution of alcohol- and/or drug-related problems, to examine personal attitudes and behavior and other barriers to recovery. (22) "Licensee" means the entity identified on the license(s), issued by the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, to provide residential alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment services in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 11534.01). Part 2 Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Cade and the requirements of this chapter. (23) "Objective" means a specific, measurable step which can be evaluated to assess the licensee's progress toward the achievement of the stated; goal. (24) "Physician" means a person licensed as a physician and surgeon by the Medical Board of California or by the Osteopathic Medical Board of California. (25) "Premises" means the land, buildings, or other structures included in the license issued for an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. Elena Gerli Page 3 of 4 9 CCR 10501 (26) "Resident" means an individual who resides in and receives services from a residential alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility. (27) "Residential Alcoholism or Drug Abuse Recovery or Treatment Facility" means any facility, building, or group of buildings which is maintained and operated to provide 24-hour, residential, nonmedical, alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment services. (28) "Revocation of License" means a disciplinary action taken by the Department to rescind a license issued pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 11834.01). Part 2. Division 10.5 of the Health and SaMy _ ode and the requirements of this chapter. (29) "Substantial Compliance" means the absence of any Class A or Class B deficiencies, as defined in Section 10543. (30) "Suspension of License" means a disciplinary action taken by the Department to discontinue program operations, as permitted under the license, for a specified period of time. (31) "Volunteer" means uncompensated personnel. Statutory Authority AUTHORITY: Note: Authority cited:Sections 11755. 11834.50 and 11835, Health and Safety Co Reference:Sections 11834,01, 11834.02 and 11834.50, Health and Safety Code. History HISTORY: 1. New section filed 2-7-85 as an emergency; operative 2-7-85 (Register 85, No. 8). 2. Repealed by operation of law 2-1-86. Readoption of section filed 1-24-86 as an emergency; operative 2-1-86 (Register 86, No. 4). 3. Repealed by operation of law 6-2-86. Readoption of section filed 5-30-86 as an emergency; operative 6-1-86 (Register 86, No. 22). 4. Repealed by operation of law 9-29-86. Readoption of section filed 9-26-86 as an emergency; operative 9-29-86 (Register 86, No. 39), A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL no later than 1-27-87 or section will be repealed by operation of law (Government Code section 11346,1(e)) 5. Readoption of section filed 1-26-87 as an emergency; operative 1-27-87 (Register 87, No. 5). A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL no later than 5-26-87 or section will be repealed by operation of law (Government Coda section 11346.1(g ) 6. Readoption of section filed 5-26-87 as an emergency; operative 5-26-87 (Register 87, No. 22). A Certificate of Compliance mast be transmitted to OAL no later than 9-23-87 or section will be repealed by operation of law (Government Code section 11346.1()). 7. Repealer and new section transmitted to OAL 9-23-87 and filed 10-23-87; operative 10-23-87 Elena Gerli Page 4 of 4 9 CCR 10501 (Register 87, No. 43). 8. Amendment of subsection (a) filed 12-27-89 as an emergency; operative 1-1-90 (Register 90, No. 1). A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL within 120 days or emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on 5-1-90. 9. Amendment of subsection (a) refiled 4-30-90 as an emergency; operative 4-30-90 (Register 90, No. 22). A Certificate of Compliance must be transmitted to OAL within 120 days or emergency language will be repealed by operation of law on 8-28-90. 10. Certificate of Compliance as to 4-30-90 order including amendment of NOTE transmitted to OAL 8-27-90 and filed 9-26-90 (Register 90, No. 44). 11. Amendment of section and Note filed 4-18-94; operative 5-18-94 (Register 94, No. 16). 12. Change without regulatory effect adopting new article 2 heading filed 11-17-94 pursuant to se tion 100 title 1 California Code of Regidatiian (Register 94, No. 46). 13. Repealer of subsection (a)(2) and subsection renumbering filed 3-18-97; operative 4-17-97 (Register 97, No. 12). 14. Change without regulatory effect amending subsections (a)(1)-(2) filed 6-15-99 pursuant to .section 100title 1 Cali ornia Code of Regulations (Register 99, No. 25). 15. Change without regulatory effect amending definitions of "Adolescent" and "Adult" filed 6-12-2007 pursuant to section 100 title 1 California Code of Regulations (Register 2007, No. 24). BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS Copyright © 2014 by Barclays Law Publishers All rights reserved Elena Gerli ATTACHMENT 8 - 42 USCS § 3604 United States Code Service - Titles 1 through 51 TITLE 42. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 45. FAIR HOUSING GENERALLY § 3604. Discrimination in the sale or rental of housing and other prohibited practices. As made applicable by section 803 [42 USCS § 3603] and except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 [42 USCS §§ 3603(b), 3607], it shall be unlawful -- (a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. (b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. (c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. (d) To represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available. (e) For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. (f) (1) To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of -- (A) that buyer or renter,[;] (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or ' (C) any person associated with that buyer or renter. (2) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a handicap of -- (A) that person; or (B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available; or (C) any person associated with that person. (3) For purposes of this subsection, discrimination includes -- (A) a refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises except that, _q I'- in in the case of a rental, the landlord may where it is reasonable to do so condition permission for a modification on the renter agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.[;] (B) a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; or (C) in connection with the design and construction of covered multifamily dwellings for first occupancy after the date that is 30 months after the date of enactment of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 [enacted Sept. 13, 1988], a failure to design and construct those dwellings in such a manner that -- (i) the public use and common use portions of such dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons; (ii) all the doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within such dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by handicapped persons in wheelchairs; and (iii) all premises within such dwellings contain the following features of adaptive design: (I) an accessible route into and through the dwelling; (II) light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations; (III) reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and (IV) usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space. (4) Compliance with the appropriate requirements of the American National Standard for buildings and facilities providing accessibility and usability for physically handicapped people (commonly cited as "ANSI A117.1") suffices to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (3)(C)(iii). (5) (A) If a State or unit of general local government has incorporated into its laws the requirements set forth in paragraph (3)(C), compliance with such laws shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of that paragraph. (B) A State or unit of general local government may review and approve newly constructed covered multifamily dwellings for the purpose of making determinations as to whether the design and construction requirements of paragraph (3)(C) are met. (C) The Secretary shall encourage, but may not require, States and units of local government to include in their existing procedures for the review and approval of newly constructed covered multifamily dwellings, determinations as to whether the design and construction of such dwellings are consistent with paragraph (3)(C), and shall provide technical assistance to States and units of local government and other persons to implement the requirements of paragraph (3)(C). (D) Nothing in this title shall be construed to require the Secretary to review or approve the plans, designs or construction of all covered multifamily dwellings, to determine whether the design and construction of such dwellings are consistent with the requirements of paragraph 3(C). (6) (A) Nothing in paragraph (5) shall be construed to affect the authority and responsibility of the Secretary or a State or local public agency certified pursuant to section —q 1— 810 (0(3) of this Act [42 USCS § 36100(3)] to receive and process complaints or otherwise engage in enforcement activities under this title. (B) Determinations by a State or a unit of general local government under paragraphs (5)(A) and (B) shall not be conclusive in enforcement proceedings under this title. (7) As used in this subsection, the term "covered multifamily dwellings" means -- (A) buildings consisting of 4 or more units if such buildings have one or more elevators; and (B) ground floor units in other buildings consisting of 4 or more units. (8) Nothing in this title shall be construed to invalidate or limit any law of a State or political subdivision of a State, or other jurisdiction in which this title shall be effective, that requires dwellings to be designed and constructed in a manner that affords handicapped persons greater access than is required by this title. (9) Nothing in this subsection requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. a--qs -01 jolexisNexis° User Name: Kelsey Condon Date and Time: Sep 14, 2014 7:38 p.m. EDT Job Number: 12787344 Document(1) 1. Cal Wel & Inst Code § 4500.5 Client/Matter: Costa Mesa City Atty .a ATTACHMENT 9 L c siv � About LexisNexis Rrivacy Policy's Terms & Conditions I Copyright 0.2014;[ LexidNexis, Kelsey:Cerrdon i 9 Cal Wel & Inst Code § 4500.5 This document is current through Urgency Chapter 314 of the 2014 Regular Session of the 2013-2014 Legislatureand Propositions 41 and 42 approved June 2014 Deer int�'s Cal%�'ornia Code Annotated > WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE > Division 4,5. Services or the Developmentally Disabled > Chapter 1, General Provisions § 4500.5. Legislative rindings and intent The Legislature makes the following findings regarding the State of California's responsibility to provide services to persons with developmental disabilities, and the right of those individuals to receive services, pursuant to this division: (a) Since the enactment of this division in 1977, the number of consumers receiving services under this division has substantially increased and the nature, variety, and types of services necessary to meet the needs of the consumers and their families have also changed. Over the years the concept of service delivery has undergone numerous revisions. Services that were once deemed desirable by consumers and families may now no longer be appropriate, or the means of service delivery may be outdated. (b) As a result of the increased demands for services and changes in the methods in which those services are provided to consumers and their families, the value statements and principles contained in this division should be updated. (c) It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting the act that added this section, to update existing law; clarify the role of consumers and their families in determining service needs; and to describe more fully service options available to consumers and their families, pursuant to the individual program plan. Nothing in these provisions shall be construed to expand the existing entitlement to services for persons with developmental disabilities set forth in this division. (d) It is the intent of the Legislature that the department monitor regional centers so that an individual consumer eligible for services and supports under this division receive the services and supports identified in his or her individual program plan. History Added Shits 1992 ch 1011 $ 2 (SB 13$3,1. Amended Stoats 1997 ch 414 § 4 (S8 1034 effective September 22, 1997. Annotations Notes Amendments: 1997 Amendment: Added subd (d). Kelsey Condon ­_I0O— Page 2 of 2 Cal Wel & Inst Code § 4500.5 Research References & Practice Aids Hierarchy Notes: Deering's California Codes Annotated Copyright © 2014 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Kelsey Condon 4oi— (#'LexisNexis° User Name: Elena Geri! Date and Time: Sep 15, 2014 11:05 a.m. PDT Job Number: 12807447 Document(1) 1. Cal Wel & Inst Code § 4501 Client/Matter: Costa Mesa/City Atty -IG2- ' WxIsNer = I About didsNexis j Privacy Policy I Tenni &:Eoindi ions [ Gopyeight D 2014 I LexisNexis. Elena Ger .H Cal Wel & Inst Corte §4501 This document is current through Urgency Chapter 314 of the 2014 Regular Session of the 2013-2014 Legislatureand Propositions 41 and 42 approved June 2014 Deering "s California Code Annotated > ! ELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE > Division 4.5. Services for the Developmentally Disabled > Chapter 1. General Provisions § 4501. Declaration of policy The State of California accepts a responsibility for persons with developmental disabilities and an obligation to them which it must discharge. Affecting hundreds of thousands of children and adults directly, and having an important impact on the lives of their families, neighbors, and whole communities, developmental disabilities present social, medical, economic, and legal problems of extreme importance. The complexities of providing services and supports to persons with developmental disabilities requires the coordination of services of many state departments and community agencies to ensure that no gaps occur in communication or provision of services and supports. A consumer of services and supports, and where appropriate, his or her parents, legal guardian, or conservator, shall have a leadership role in service design. An array of services and supports should be established which is sufficiently complete to meet the needs and choices of each person with developmental disabilities, regardless of age or degree of disability, and at each stage of life and to support their integration into the mainstream life of the community. To the maximum extent feasible, services and supports should be available throughout the state to prevent the dislocation of persons with developmental disabilities from their home communities. Services and supports should be available to enable persons with developmental disabilities to approximate the pattern of everyday living available to people without disabilities of the same age. Consumers of services and supports, and where appropriate, their parents, legal guardian, or conservator, should be empowered to make choices in all life areas. These include promoting opportunities for individuals with developmental disabilities to be integrated into the mainstream of life in their home communities, including supported living and other appropriate community living arrangements. In providing these services, consumers and their families, when appropriate, should participate in decisions affecting their own lives, including, but not limited to, where and with whom they live, their relationships with people in their community, the way in which they spend their time, including education, employment, and leisure, the pursuit of their own personal future, and program planning and implementation. The contributions made by parents and family members in support of their children and relatives with developmental disabilities are important and those relationships should also be respected and fostered, to the maximum extent feasible, so that consumers and their families can build circles of support within the community. The Legislature finds that the mere existence or the delivery of services and supports is, in itself, insufficient evidence of program effectiveness. It is the intent of the Legislature that agencies serving persons with developmental disabilities shall produce evidence that their services have resulted in consumer or family empowerment and in more independent, productive, and normal lives for the persons served. It is further the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Elena Gerli Page 2 of 4 Cal Wel & Inst Code § 4501 Developmental Services, through appropriate and regular monitoring activities, ensure that regional centers meet their statutory, regulatory, and contractual obligations in providing services to persons with developmental disabilities. The Legislature declares its intent to monitor program results through continued legislative oversight and review of requests for appropriations to support developmental disabilities programs. History Added Stats 1977 ch 1252 § 550, operative July 1, 1978. Amended Stats 1992 cls 1011 § 2.5 (SB 1383); Stotts 1997 ch 41- ' S SB 1039),effective September 22, 1997. Former Sections: Former § 4501, relating to medical care, was added Stats 1957 ch 1068 § 1, amended Stats 1959 ch 337 § 1, operative October 1, 1959, Stats 1963 ch 2096 § 7, and repealed Stats 1965 ch 1784 § 4. Historical Derivation: (a) Former H & S C § 38001, as added Stats 1976 ch 1364 § 2. (b) Former H & S C § 38001, as added Stats 1969 ch 1394 § 14, amended Stats 1973 ch 546 § 15, Stats 1975 ch 694 § 3. (c) Former § 38000, as added Stats 1965 ch 1244 § 1. Annotations Notes Amendments: 1992 Amendment: (1) Substituted "persons with developmental disabilities" for "its developmentally disabled citizens" in the first sentence of the first paragraph, and for "the developmentally disabled" in the second sentence of the fifth paragraph; (2) amended the first sentence in the second paragraph by (a) substituting "and supports to persons with developmental disabilities requires the coordination of" for "to developmentally disabled persons require the coordinated" in the first sentence; and (b) adding "and supports" after "provision of services"; (3) added the second sentence in the second paragraph; (4) amended the third paragraph by (a) substituting the first sentence for the former first and second sentences which read: "Services should be planned and provided as a part of a continuum. A pattern of facilities and services should be established which is sufficiently complete to meet the needs of each person with developmental disabilities, regardless of age or degree of handicap, and at each stage of life."; and (b) adding "and supports" after "feasible, services" in the second sentence; (4) amended the first sentence in the fourth paragraph by (a) adding "and supports" after "Services"; and (b) substituting "people without disabilities" for "nondisabled people" after "available to"; (5) added the second, third, and fourth sentences in the fourth paragraph; (6) amended the fifth paragraph by adding (a) "and supports" after "delivery of services" in the first sentence; and (b) "in consumer or family empowerment and" in the second sentence. Elena Gerli Cal Wel & Inst Code § 4501 1997 Amendment: Page 3 of 4 Amended the last paragraph by (1) adding the third sentence; and (2) substituting "requests" for "request" in the fourth sentence. Case Notes 1. Generally 2. Construction 1. Generally Regional center that provided services to developmentally disabled individuals had a nondelegable duty to ensure proper care and services and therefore was vicariously liable for the negligence of its vendor in the death of a disabled adult. Morohoshi v. Pacific Nome 2003 Cal App 2d Dist 112 Cal App 4th 937 5 Cal Rlztr Id 51? Z003 Cal App LEXIS 1573 rev'd (2004) 34 Cal 4th 482, 20 Cal Rptr 3d 890, 100 Pad 433, 2004 Cal LEXIS 10639. 2. Construction Claims by disabled plaintiffs and their communitybased care providers under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U. S.C.S.j 1,132. and § 604 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S. C.S. § 794(a), which alleged that the State (California) was not employing adequate community based Medicaid services, failed as a matter of law because California was currently operating an acceptable deinstitutionalization plan, W & I C §4501, which (under Olmstead v. L. C. b -Y Zilnrin 1999 527 US 581 1191 Ct 2176 144 L Ed 2d 540 1999 US LEXIS 4368 should not be set aside or modified by the courts. Sanchez v Johnson 1005 CA9 Cal 416 Fad 1051 2005 US A LEXI 15821. Opinion Notes Attorney General's Opinions: Eligibility of children in resident homes for the retarded for admission to development centers for handicapped pupils. 56 U 3s. CaL AtM. Geta. 235.1. Research References & Practice Aids Collateral References: Cal. Forms Pleading & Practice (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 304 "Insane And Other Incompetent Persons". Cal Jur 3d (Rev) Guardianship and Conservatorship § 404. Law Review Articles: The regulation of electroconvulsive therapy in California: The impact of recent constitutional interpretations. 18 Golden Gate LR 469. Elena Gerli Page 4 of 4 Cal Wel & Inst Code § 4501 A proposed consolidated legal capacity standard for California. 27 Santa Clara LR 787, Hierarchy Notes: Deering's California Codes Annotated Copyright © 2014 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. a Elena Gerli -4-1- LexisNexisT User Name: Elena Gerli Date and Time: Sep 15, 2014 11:11 a.m. PDT Job Number: 12807899 Documents(7) ATTACHMENT 10 1. § 11834.20. Legislative declaration; "Six or fewer persons" Client/Matter: Costa Mesa/City Atty 2. § 11834.02. Definitions Client/Matter: Costa Mesa/City Atty 3. § 11834.25. Facilities considered residential use by single family Client/Matter: Costa Mesa/City Atty 4. § 11834.23. Zoning laws Client/Matter: Costa Mesa/City Atty 5. § 11834.21. Persons entitled to invoke provisions of article Client/Matter: Costa Mesa/City Atty 6. § 11834.22. Taxes and fees Client/Matter: Costa Mesa/City Atty 7. § 11834.24. Fire inspection clearances Client/Matter: Costa Mesa/City Atty 10q-- LeXiSfIexi5�• i About LexisNexis i Privacy Policy I Terms & Conditions i Copyriight0 20 °4-1�Lexi§[Nexis. Elena Oerli Cal Health & Sa f Code 11834.20 This document is current through Urgency Chapter 3 t4 of the 2014 Regular Session of the 2013-2014 Legislatureand Propositions 41 and 42 approved June 2014 Deering's Cali ornia Code Annotated > HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE > Division 10.5. Alcohol and Drug P"a rams > Part 2. State G❑verninent's Role to Alleviate Problems Related to the lna r❑ riute Use -of Alcoholic Bevera es and Other Drug Use > Chapter 7.5, Licensing > Article 2. Local Regulation § 11834.20. Legislative declaration; "Six or fewer persons" The Legislature hereby declares that it is the policy of this state that each county and city shall permit and encourage the development of sufficient numbers and types of alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities as are commensurate with local need. The provisions of this article apply equally to any chartered city, general law city, county, city and county, district, and any other local public entity. For the purposes of this article, "six or fewer persons" does not include the licensee or members of the licensee's family or persons employed as facility staff. History Added Stats 1984 ch 1667 § 2. Amended Stats 1949 ch 919 § 15. Annotations Notes Amendments: 1989 Amendment: Substituted "or drug abuse recovery or treatment" for "recovery" after "alcoholism" in the first paragraph. Editor's Notes For adoption of regulations, see the 1989 Note following H & S C § 11830. Research References & Practice Aids Hierarchy Notes: DEERING'S CALIFORNIA CODES ANNOTATED Copyright © 2014 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Elena Gerli Cal Health & Sq[ Code § 11834.02 This document is current through Urgency Chapter 314 of the 2014 Regular Session of the 2013-2014 Legislatureand Propositions 41 and 42 approved June 2014 Deering's California Corte Annotated > HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE > Division 10.5. Alcohol and Drug Programs > Part 2. State-overnment's Role to Alleviate Problems Related to the Inappropriate Use Qf Alcoholic Beverages and Other Drug Use > Chapter 7.5. Licensing > Article 1. General Provisions § 11834.02. Definitions (a) As used in this chapter, "alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility" or "facility" means any premises, place, or building that provides 24-hour residential nonmedical services to adults who are recovering from problems related to alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug misuse or abuse, and who need alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug recovery treatment or detoxification services. (b) As used in this chapter, "adults" may include, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) Mothers over 18 years of age and their children. (2) Emancipated minors, which may include, but is not limited to, mothers under 18 years of age and their children. (c) As used in this chapter, "emancipated minors" means persons under 18 years of age who have acquired emancipation status pursuant to Section 7002 of the Family Cade. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility may serve adolescents upon the issuance of a waiver granted by the department pursuant to regulations adopted under subdivision (c) of Section 11834.50. History Added Stats 1984 ch 1667 § 2, as H & S C § 11834.11. Amended -'tats 1988 ch 646 I Stats 1989 ch 919 § 9; Stats 1992 ch 620 S 3 (AB 2460); Stats 1993 ch 219 § 216.1 (AB 1500). Amended and renumbered by Starts 1993 ch 741 S 5 (AB 216011. Annotations Notes Amendments: 1988 Amendment: Deleted "exclusively for individuals whose involvement in services is related primarily to an alcohol problem" at the end of the section. 1989 Amendment: Substituted the section for the former section which read: "As used in this chapter, 'alcoholism recovery facility' means any facility, place, or building which is maintained and operated exclusively to provided 24-hour residential nonmedical alcoholism recovery services." Elena Gerli Page 2of2 Cal Health & Saf Code § 11834.02 1992 Amendment: (1) Substituted "that" for "which" after "place, or building" in subd (a); and (2) added subd (c). 1993 Amendment: Substituted the section for the former section which read: "(a) As used in this chapter, alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility means any facility, place, or building that provides 24-hour residential nonmedical services in a group setting to adults, which may include, but need not be limited to, mothers over 18 years of age and their children, and emancipated minors, which may include, but need not be limited to, mothers under 18 years of age and their children, who are recovering from alcohol, drug, or drug and alcohol misuse and are currently capable of meeting their life support needs independently, but who temporarily need guidance, counseling, or other alcohol or drug recovery services. "(b) 'Emancipated minors' as used in this chapter means person under 18 years of age who have acquired emancipation status through one or more of the following methods: "(1) Declaration of emancipation pursuant to Section 64 of the Civil Code. "(2) Marriage. "(3) Service in any of the armed forces of the United States. "(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility may serve adolescents upon the issuance of a waiver granted by the department pursuant to regulations adopted under subdivision (c) of Section 11834.13." (As amended Stats 1993 ch 741, compared to the section as it read prior to 1993. This section was also amended by an earlier chapter, ch 219. See Gov C § 9605.) Editor's Notes For adoption of regulations, see the 1989 Note following H & S C § 11830. Research References & Practice Aids Cross References: Licensure of alcoholism, drug abuse recovery, or treatment facility: H & S C S 11834.03. Hierarchy Notes: DEERING'S CALIFORNIA CODES ANNOTATED Copyright © 2014 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Elena Gerli 4 1 a.— Cal Health & Saff Gude � 11834.25 This document is current through Urgency Chapter 314 of the 2014 Regular Session of the 2013-2014 Legislatureand Propositions 41 and 42 approved June 2014 Deering's Cali:ornia Code Annotated > HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE > Division 10.5. Alcohol and Drug__Programs > Pgrt 2. State Government's Role to Alleviate Problems Related to the fon r© nate Use of Alcoholic Bevera es and Other Drug Use > Chapter 7.5. Licensing > Article 2. Local Regulation § 11834.25. Facilities considered residential use by single family For the purposes of any contract, deed, or covenant for the transfer of real property executed on or after January 1, 1979, an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility which serves six or fewer persons shall be considered a residential use of property and a use of property by a single family, notwithstanding any disclaimers to the contrary. History Added Slats 1984 ch 1667 § 2. Amended Stats 1989 ch 919§ 20. Annotations Notes Amendments: 1989 Amendment: Substituted "or drug abuse recovery or treatment" for "recovery' after "alcoholism'. Editor's Notes For adoption of regulations, see the 1989 Note following H & S C § 11830. Research References & Practice Aids Hierarchy Notes: DEERING'S CALIFORNIA CODES ANNOTATED Copyright © 2014 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Elena Gerli ^�11� Ctrl Health & 5f Cede ` 1IS34.2. This document is current through Urgency Chapter 314 of the 2014 Regular Session of the 2013-2014 Legislatureand Propositions 41 and 42 approved June 2014 Deering's CaliJorrda Code Annotated > HEALTH ANDSAFETY CDE > Division 10.5. Alcohol and Drug ProX_rarns > Part 2. State Government's Role to Alleviate Problems Related to the Ina rn riate Use of Alcoholic Bevera es and Other Drug Use > Chapter 7.5. Licensing > Article 2. Local Regulation § 11834.23. Zoning laws Whether or not unrelated persons are living together, an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility which serves six or fewer persons shall be considered a residential use of property for the purposes of this article. In addition, the residents and operators of such a facility shall be considered a family for the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance which relates to the residential use of property pursuant to this article. For the purpose of all local ordinances, an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility which serves six or fewer persons shall not be included within the definition of a boarding house, rooming house, institution or home for the care of minors, the aged, or the mentally infirm, foster care home, guest home, rest home, sanitarium, mental hygiene home, or other similar term which implies that the alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment home is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a single-family residence. This section shall not be construed to forbid any city, county, or other local public entity from placing restrictions on building heights, setback, lot dimensions, or placement of signs of an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility which serves six or fewer persons as long as the restrictions are identical to those applied to other single-family residences. This section shall not be construed to forbid the application to an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility of any local ordinance which deals with health and safety, building standards, environmental impact standards, or any other matter within the jurisdiction of a local public entity. However, the ordinance shall not distinguish alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities which serve six or fewer persons from other single-family dwellings or distinguish residents of alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities from persons who reside in other single-family dwellings. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility which serves six or fewer persons that is not required of a single-family residence in the same zone. Use of a single-family dwelling for purposes of an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery facility serving six or fewer persons shall not constitute a change of occupancy for purposes of Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 17910) of Division 13 or local building codes. However, nothing in this section is intended to supersede Section 13143 or 13 143.6, to the extent those sections are applicable to alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities serving six or fewer residents. History Added Stats 1984 ch 1667 § 2. Amended Stents 1989 ch 919 18. Elena Gerli Cal Health & Saf Code § 11834.23 Annotations Notes Amendments: 1989 Amendment: Page 2 of 2 (1) Substituted "or drug abuse recovery or treatment" for "recovery" after "alcoholism' wherever it appears; and (2) amended the sixth paragraph by (a) adding "or drug abuse" after "alcoholism" in the first sentence; and (b) substituting "or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities serving" for "recovery facilities providing care for" after "alcoholism" in the second sentence. Editor's Notes For adoption of regulations, see the 1989 Note following H & S C § 11830. Research References & Practice Aids Hierarchy Notes: DEERING'S CALIFORNIA CODES ANNOTATED Copyright © 2014 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Elena Gerli Cal Health Sad C'ocfe._ rrs. 21 This document is current through Urgency Chapter 314 of the 2014 Regular Session of the 2013-2014 Legori slat ureand Propositions 41 and 42 approved June 2014 Deerin 's Cali ornia Code Annotated > MEAUff AND SAFE4 TY CODE > Division 10.5. Alcohol and Druz Programs > Part 2. State Government's Bole to Alleviate Problems Related to the Inappropriate Use of Alcoholic Beverages. and Other Drug Use > Clla ter 7.5. Licensing > Article 2. Local Regulation § 11834.21. Persons entitled to invoke provisions of article Any person licensed under this chapter who operates or proposes to operate an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility, the department or other public agency authorized to license such a facility, or any public or private agency which uses or may use the services of the facility to place its clients, may invoke the provisions of this article. This section shall not be construed to prohibit any interested party from bringing suit to invoke the provisions of this article. History Added Stats 1984 ch 1667 § 2. Amended Stats 1989 ch 912_5 16. Annotations Notes Amendments: 1989 Amendment: Substituted "or drug abuse recovery or treatment" for "recovery" after "alcoholism' in the first paragraph. Editor's Notes For adoption of regulations, see the 1989 Note following H & S C§ 11830. Research References & Practice Aids Hierarchy Notes: DEERING'S CALIFORNIA CODES ANNOTATED Copyright © 2014 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Elena Gerli Cal Health & Saf Cate ' 11 34.22 This document is current through Urgency Chapter 314 of the 2014 Regular Session of the 2013-2014 Legislatureand Propositions 41 and 42 approved June 2014 Deerin 's Cali ornia Code Annotated > HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE > Division 10.5. Alcohol and Drug Pr9gramms > Part 2 State Government's Role to Alleviate Problems Related to the. Ina ro nate Use of Alcoholic Bevertt es and Other Drug Use > Chapter 7.5 Licensing > Article 2. Local Regulation § 11834.22. Taxes and fees An alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility which serves six or fewer persons shall not be subject to any business taxes, local registration fees, use permit fees, or other fees to which other single-family dwellings are not likewise subject. Nothing in this section shall be construed to forbid the imposition of local property taxes, fees for water service and garbage collection, fees for inspections not prohibited by Section 11834.23, local bond assessments, and other fees, charges, and assessments to which other single-family dwellings are likewise subject. Neither the State Fire Marshal nor any local public entity shall charge any fee for enforcing fire inspection regulations pursuant to state law or regulation or local ordinance, with respect to alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities which serve six or fewer persons. History Added Stats 1984 ch 1667 § 2. Amended Ste as 1989 ch 919 § 17. Annotations Notes Amendments: 1989 Amendment: Substituted (1) "or drug abuse recovery or treatment" for "recovery' after "alcoholism' both times it appears; and (2) "Section 11834.23" for "Section 1834.23". Editor's Notes For adoption of regulations, see the 1989 Note following H & S C ' 11830. Research References & Practice Aids Hierarchy Notes: DEERING'S CALIFORNIA CODES ANNOTATED Copyright © 2014 by Nlatthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Elena Gerli —115— Cal Health c .Sa ride 118.4.24 This document is current through Urgency Chapter 314 of the 2014 Regular Session of the 2013-2014 Legislatureand Propositions 41 and 42 approved June 2014 Deerin 's California Code Annotated > HEALW ND SAFET'3' CODE > Division 111.5. Alcohol and Drug Pro rants > Part 2, tat Government's Role tri Alleviate Problems Related, to the Ina ra riate Use of Alcoholic Beverages and Other Drug Use > Chapter 7.5. Licensing > Article 2. Local Regulation § 11834.24. Fire inspection clearances No fire inspection clearance or other permit, license, clearance, or similar authorization shall be denied to an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility because of a failure to comply with local ordinances from which the facility is exempt under Section 11834. 23, if the applicant otherwise qualifies for a fire clearance, license, permit, or similar authorization. History Added Stats 1984 ch 1667 § 2. Amended Stats 1989 ch 919 § 19. Annotations Notes Amendments: 1989 Amendment: Substituted "or drug abuse recovery or treatment" for "recovery" after "alcoholism'. Editor's Notes For adoption of regulations, see the 1989 Note following H & S C § 11830. Research References & Practice Aids Hierarchy Notes: DEERING'S CALIFORNIA CODES ANNOTATED Copyright © 2014 by Nv[atthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Elena Gerli `11(0— ATTACHMENT 11 Assessing the Evidence Base Series Recovery Housing: Assessing the Evidence Sharon Reif, Ph.D. Preethy George, Ph.D. Lisa Braude, Ph.D. Richard H. Dougherty, Ph.D. Allen S. Daniels, Ed.D. Sushmita Shoma Ghose, Ph.D. Miriam E. Delphin-Rittmon, Ph.D. Objective: Recovery housing is a direct service with multiple components that provides supervised, short-term housing to individuals with sub- stance use disorders or co-occurring mental and substance use disorders. It commonly is used after inpatient or residential treatment. This article describes recovery housing and assesses the evidence base for the ser- vice. Methods-' Authors searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts. They identified six individual articles from 1995 through 2012 that reported on randomized controlled trials or quasi -experimental studies; no reviews or meta-analyses were found. They chose from three levels of evidence (high, moderate, or low) based on benchmarks for the number of studies and quality of their methodology. They also described the evidence of service effectiveness. Results: The level of evidence for recovery housing was moderate. Studies consistently showed positive outcomes, but the results were tempered by research design limitations, such as lack of consistency in defining the program elements and outcome measures, small samples, and single -site evaluations, and by the limited number of studies. Results on the effectiveness of recovery housing sug- gested positive substance use outcomes and improvements in functioning, including employment and criminal activity, Conclusions: Recovery housing appears to be an important component in the continuum of care for some individuals. However, replication of study findings with greater specificity and in more settings is needed. (Psychiatric Services 65:295-300, 2014; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300243) r ccess to stable and supportive housing is recognized in the addictions field as an impor- tant component of establishing and s maintaining recovery from substance use disorders (1). Research suggests that maintaining recovery gains may be difficult for individuals who are not Dr, Reif is with the Institute for Behavioral Health, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, LWassachusetts. Dr. George, Dr. Daniels, and Dr. Chose are with Westat, Rockville, Maryland. Dr. Braude and Dr. Dougherty are with DiMA Health Strategies, Lexington, tMassachusetts Dr Delphin-Rittmon is tvith the Office of Policy, Planning, and Innovation, Substance Abuse and ,Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Rockville, Maryland Send correspondence to Dr. George at preethygeorge@westat.com. This literature review is part of a series that will be published in Psychiatric Services over the nest several nwnths. The reviews were commissioned by SALVIHSA through a contract with Truven Health Analytics. The reviews were conducted by experts ineach topic area, who wrote the reviews along with authors from Truven Health Analytics, Westat, DLtiIA Health Strategies, and SAMHSA. Each article in the series was peer reviewed by a special panel of Psychiatric Services reviewers PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES ♦ ps.psychiatryonline.org ♦ ylarch 2014 Vol 65 No 3 ' — I 1 living in stable housing situations (2), and environmental cues may play a role in triggering relapse (3). There is a need to identify housing settings that promote recovery after the com- pletion of residential treatment or during the receipt of outpatient treat- ment for substance use disorders. Recovery housing is one example of a type of service used in the field to address the needs of individuals with substance use disorders. This article reports the results of a literature review that was undertaken as part of the Assessing the Evidence Base (AEB) Series (see box on next page). For purposes of the AEB Series, the Substance Abuse and Nlental Health Services Administration (SANIHSA) has defined recovery housing as a direct service with multiple components that provides supervised, short-term hous- ing to individuals with substance use disorders or co-occurring mental and substance use disorders. Recovery housing aims to increase an individual's stability, improve his or her functioning, and move the resident toward a life in the community by supporting absti- nence and recovery. Table 1 contains a description of the components of this service. Policy makers and other leaders in behavioral health care need informa- tion about the effectiveness of recovery housing and its value as a service within the continuum of care. The objectives of this review were to de- scribe models of recovery housing for individuals with substance use disorders or co-occurring substance use and men- tal disorders, rate the level of research evidence ( that is, methodological quality), 295 About the AEB Series The Assessing the Evidence Base (AEB) Series presents literature reviews for 13 commonly used, recovery -Focused mental health and substance use services. Authors evaluated research articles and reviews specific to each service that were published from [995 through 2012 or 2013. Each. AEB Series article presents ratings of the strength of the evidence for the service, descriptions of service effectiveness, and recommendations for future im- plementation and research. The target audience includes state mental health and substance use program directors and their senior staff, Medicaid staff; other purchasers of health care services (far example, managed care organizations and commercial insurance), leaders in community health or- ;anizations, providers, consumers and family members. and others interested in the empirical evidence base for these services. The research was sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to help inform decisions about which services should be covered in public and commercially funded plans. Details about the research methodology and bases for the unciusions are included in the introduction to the AEB Series (10). and describe the effectiveness of the service. To be useful for a broad au- dience, this article presents an overall assessment of research quality and fo- cuses on key findings of the review. Recovery housing and the continuum of care Recovery housing for individuals with substance use disorders generally consists of alcohol- and drug-free residences, such as sober living houses (4,5). Recovery housing is often pro- vided to individuals after they have been in an inpatient or residential treatment program or during their first few months of recovery or sobri- ety. Recovery housing is not a formal treatment; rather, it is a service that supports recovery during or after treat- ment. Thus there is guidance about what constitutes recovery housing, but there are no clear standards. Sober living houses usually are peer -run residences where small- to medium-sized groups of individuals in recovery live in single or shared bed- rooms with common living areas. Individuals are expected to work, contribute rent, and participate in the responsibilities of running the household. Abstinence is an expec- tation, and individuals who relapse may be asked to leave the house because their behavior threatens the recovery of others. Sober living houses generally do not incorporate a structured recovery program, al- though residents often are required or strongly encouraged to attend a 12 - step mutual -help group (6), and they may choose to participate in formal Table 1 Description of recovery housing Feature Description Service deFirdtion Recovery housing is a direct service with multiple components that provides indmduals with mental and substance use disorders with supervised, short-term housing. Services may include case management, therapeutic recreational activities, and peer coaching or support. Service goals increase the individual's stability; improve trite person's functioning; help the individual move toward a life that is integrated into the Populations community Individuals with substance use disorders or those with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders Settings of service delivery Settings may vary and include sober living houses. -11F- treatment or aftercare. Less common are sober living houses that are affiliated with outpatient treat- ment facilities and require individu- als to attend outpatient treatment (7). Oxford House is a specific type of recovery home in which members evaluate and vote on candidates who may become residents to help ensure that they will fit in with the current housing members and meet expec- tations for the residence (4). Oxford Houses have a national network. They do not require individuals to be engaged actively in formal treatment, but resi- dents may choose to participate in self- help groups or outpatient treatment. The models of recovery housing de- scribed above generally are considered part of the continuum of care that spans from outreach through formal treat- ment and extends into informal treat- ment, maintenance, and aftercare needs. In this approach, recovery housing is an essential part of preparing for or transitioning to an independent life in the community. Recovery housing fre- quently facilitates access to support services and treatment utilization, such as case management, therapeutic recre- ational activities, and peer coaching or support. Often working in partnership with treatment or recovery programs, recovery housing options may provide transportation, in-house counseling, or mentoring. Recovery housing is often used by individuals who do not or no longer require higher levels of care, such as hos- pitalization or long-term residential treatment. Individuals who utilize re- covery housing may need assistance with activities of daily living (such as managing finances) or reminders and support to attend treatment, take medi- cations, or abstain from alcohol and drug use. For these individuals, recovery hous- ing may be a step on the way to inde- pendent living. It should be noted that there is concern that individuals who utilize abstinence -contingent housing may be at risk for housing instability if relapse occurs during the process of recovery. In summary, recovery housing is a type of service used for individuals with substance use disorders who are stepping down from inpatient or resi- dential care or who are not ready or able to live independently. This literature 296 PSYCHLAL iC SERVICES 0 ps.psychiatryontine.org ♦ March 2014 Vol. 65 No. 3 review examined the available research on recovery housing to determine its relative value as a treatment approach. Methods Search strategy To provide a summary of the evidence and effectiveness for recovery housing services, we conducted a survey of major databases: PubMed (U.S. Na- tional Library of Medicine and Na- tional Institutes of Health), PsycINFO (American Psychological Association), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts. We searched for and reviewed meta-analyses, re- search reviews, and individual studies from 1995 through 2012. We also ex- amined bibliographies of reviewed stud- ies. We used combinations of the following search terms: recovery hous- ing, sober housing, halfway house, group home, and substance abuse. research on residential treatment for substance use disorders in this series (9). Also excluded were articles about shelters or other housing -only options wifliout a recovery focus. We excluded studies that used only a pre -post bivariate analysis or a case study approach without comparison groups. Also excluded were studies that solely analyzed costs associated with the service, because our focus was on outcomes associated with clinical effectiveness. Strength of the evidence The methodology used to rate the strength of the evidence is described in detail in the introduction to this series (10). We independently exam- ined the research designs of the studies of recovery housing identified during the literature search and chose from three levels of evidence (high, moder- ate, or low) to indicate the overall service, populations, and interventions were defined; use of statistical meth- ods to account for baseline differences between experimental and comparison groups; identification of moderating or confounding variables with appropri- ate statistical controls; examination of attrition and follow-up; use of psycho- metrically sound measures; and indi- cations of potential research bias. Effectiveness of the service We described the effectiveness of the service—that is, how well the out- comes of the studies met the goals of recovery housing. We compiled the findings for separate outcome mea- sures and study populations, summa- rized the results, and noted differences across investigations. We considered the quality of the research design in their conclusions about the strength of the evidence and the effectiveness of the service. Results Level of evidence A search of the literature revealed very limited research in this area. No meta-analyses or research reviews on recovery housing were found We iden- tified five articles describing RCTs that compared some version of recovery housing to some control condition (4, 11-14) and one quasi -experimental study with a within -group, repeated - measures design (15). However, four of the five articles describing RCTs reported on the same base study; therefore, only three distinct studies on this topic met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted in the United States. Features of the studies and their findings are summarized in Table 2. The level of evidence for recovery housing was moderate. There were more than two RCTs of specific types of recovery housing models, but they had some methodological limitations. Methodological flaws, such as missing or inconsistent definition of program elements and small sample sizes, were prevalent and influenced the rating. Because of the variability in how re- covery housing was defined, fidelity rarely was discussed. The outcome mea- sures vaned across research studies and included measures of substance use, quality of life, and other outcomes. This 297 research quality of the collection of Inclusion and exclusion criteria studies. Ratings were based on prede- This review included the following fined benchmarks that considered the types of articles: randomized controlled number of studies and their methodo- trials (RCTs), quasi -experimental stud- logical quality. In rare instances when ies, single -group repeated -measures de- ratings were dissimilar, a consensus sign studies, and review articles such opinion was reached. as meta-analyses and systematic re- In general, high ratings indicate views; U.S. and international studies in confidence in the reported outcomes English; and studies that focused on and are based on three or more RCTs recovery housing for individuals with with adequate designs or two RCTs substance use disorders or co-occurring plus two quasi -experimental studies mental and substance use disorders, in- with adequate designs. Moderate cluding abstinence -contingent recov- ratings indicate that there is some ery housing, adequate research to judge the ser - Excluded were studies of residen- vice, although it is possible that future LW treatment, supportive housing, research could influence reported supported housing, and permanent results. Moderate ratings are based supportive housing, because these topics on the following three options: two or are covered in the review of permanent more quasi -experimental studies with supportive housing in this series (8). adequate design; one quasi -experimental Housing First models focus on per- study plus one RCT with adequate manent housing rather than on short- design; or at least two RCTs with some term, recovery -focused housing; they methodological weaknesses or at least are also discussed in the article on three quasi -experimental studies with permanent supportive housing and some methodological weaknesses. Low excluded here, Other housing models ratings indicate that research for this ser - For individuals with substance use vice is not adequate to draw evidence - disorders that do not require total ab- based conclusions. Low ratings indicate stinence as a requirement for resi- that studies have nonexpenmental designs, dence (for example, '`wet houses" or there are no RCTs, or there is no more "damp houses") were excluded from this than one adequately designed quasi - review because they are associated experimental study. with Housing First models. Residen- We accounted for other design tial treatment and therapeutic com- factors that could increase or decrease munities are covered in a review of the evidence rating;, such as how the PSYCHMTRIC SERVICES ♦ ps.psychiatryonline.org ♦ March 2014 vol. b7 No. I service, populations, and interventions were defined; use of statistical meth- ods to account for baseline differences between experimental and comparison groups; identification of moderating or confounding variables with appropri- ate statistical controls; examination of attrition and follow-up; use of psycho- metrically sound measures; and indi- cations of potential research bias. Effectiveness of the service We described the effectiveness of the service—that is, how well the out- comes of the studies met the goals of recovery housing. We compiled the findings for separate outcome mea- sures and study populations, summa- rized the results, and noted differences across investigations. We considered the quality of the research design in their conclusions about the strength of the evidence and the effectiveness of the service. Results Level of evidence A search of the literature revealed very limited research in this area. No meta-analyses or research reviews on recovery housing were found We iden- tified five articles describing RCTs that compared some version of recovery housing to some control condition (4, 11-14) and one quasi -experimental study with a within -group, repeated - measures design (15). However, four of the five articles describing RCTs reported on the same base study; therefore, only three distinct studies on this topic met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted in the United States. Features of the studies and their findings are summarized in Table 2. The level of evidence for recovery housing was moderate. There were more than two RCTs of specific types of recovery housing models, but they had some methodological limitations. Methodological flaws, such as missing or inconsistent definition of program elements and small sample sizes, were prevalent and influenced the rating. Because of the variability in how re- covery housing was defined, fidelity rarely was discussed. The outcome mea- sures vaned across research studies and included measures of substance use, quality of life, and other outcomes. This 297 Table 2 Studies of recovery housing included in the review Study design Outcomes Study and population measured Summary of Findings Comments Randomized controlled trials Jason et al., 2006-(4) Jason et al., 2007'(12) Groh et al., 2009'(11) Jason et al., 2011'(13) Oxford House versus usual aftercare; no exclusions noted Oxford House versus usual aftercare; no exclusions noted Oxford House versus usual aftercare; no exclusions noted Oxford House versus usual aftercare; no exclusions noted Substance use, criminal activity, employment Substance use, criminal charges, employment Substance use, criminal activity, employment Substance use, employment, self-regulation Tuten et al., Three groups: recovery Abstinence 2012 (14) house alone, recovery (opioid and house plus reinforcement- cocaine), based treatment, and consistent usual care; participants, abstinence 18--60 years old, were opioid dependent and had completed medication - assisted detoxSication; study excluded individuals receiving opioid agonist medication, those experiencing acute medical or psychological illness, and pregnant women Quasi -experimental study Polcin et al., Sober living houses 2010(15 )b associated with outpatient treatment versus freestanding sober living houses; no exclusions noted These articles reported on the same overall study. b Also reported in Polcin et al., 2010 (6) Substance use, Addiction Severity Index, psychiatric symptoms At 24 months, Oxford House group had significantly lower substance use, higher monthly income, and lower incarceration rates. Oxford House group had Significantly more positive outcomes for each measure over time (up to 24 months) compared with usual care. Length of stay and age interactions with outcomes were noted. Abstinence significantly increased for Oxford House group versus usual care for those who had high 12 -step involvement. For those with low 12 -step involvement, abstinence rates were similar across groups. Individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in usual aftercare had worse self-regulation at 2 years than those without PTSD in either group. For those with no PTSD, employment rates were higher in Oxford House group than in usual aftercare. For those with and without PTSD, relapse rates were higher in usual aftercare than in Oxford House. Abstinence decreased over time for participants in two recovery house conditions and increased over time for those in usual care condition, with significant differences between recovery house groups and usual care at 6 months. Length of stay mediated abstinence. Significant decline in 'peak density' of drug use was noted over 6 months in both groups. Low severity of alcohol and drug use at baseline was either maintained or further improved. Employment significantly improved in both groups. 12 -month outcomes were similar to 6 -month outcomes. — 1-2�) Brief report with little detail on methods or participant characteristics Statistical controls for demographic and baseline characteristics (no demographic differences reported by group); no information reported on response rates at follow-up No baseline sociodemographic differences; analyses did not control for covariates Small sample of participants with PTSD; required employment of Oxford House residents led to somewhat biased outcome; only self- regulation analyses included covariates Inclusion and exclusion criteria limited generalizability; abstinence measured only for opioids and cocaine; urine samples collected to complement self-report Self-selection into housing and characteristics of clients in two groups differed; some evidence of recovery success required before entry into sober living house; thus some floor effect for outcomes 298 PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES ♦ ps.psychiatryonline.org ♦ March 2014 Vol. 65 No. 3 lack of consistency in models and out- comes made it difficult to assess evi- dence across programs. Llost of the studies did not distinguish among sub- stances used by participants, but the programs required abstinence at the time of entry into housing. Effectiveness of the service Studies examining Oxford House models for individuals with substance use disorders showed positive effects. In an RCT, Jason and colleagues (4,11- 13) recruited individuals who were completing residential substance use treatment and randomly assigned them to Oxford House or to treat- ment as usual (for example, outpatient substance use treatment, aftercare, and mutual help). The researchers, who are long-term collaborators with Ox- ford Houses, facilitated Oxford House entry by identifying those with open- ings for new residents and assisting with the application process. Two years after entering the Oxford House, individuals had significantly less substance use, more employ- ment, and higher incomes than those who received usual care. Further, longer stays in an Oxford House were related to better outcomes; this was particularly true for younger Oxford House residents, who had better out- comes if they stayed at least sir months. Researchers also found that among individuals with co-occurring post- traumatic stress disorder who were randomly assigned to an Oxford House or to treatment as usual, individuals in the treatment -as -usual condition had lower levels of self-regulation com- pared with those in the Oxford House condition (13). Replication of this study is warranted because it used small sam- ples. Oxford House residence com- bined with involvement in a 12 -step program had a positive effect on self- report of abstinence over a 24 -month period (11). Tuten and colleagues (14) exam- ined drug abstinence outcomes of individuals who were randomly as- signed after opioid detoxification to a recovery home with a reinforcement - based outpatient treatment condition, a recovery home only condition, or usual care (that is, aftercare referrals and community-based resources). They found that the groups had signifi- Evidence for the effectiveness of recovery housing: moderate Areas of improvement suggested by overall positive results: • Drug and alcohol use • Employment • Psychiatric symptoms cantly different rates of abstinence at the one- and three-month follow-up as- sessments; those in the recovery home with reinforcement -based outpatient treatment had the highest rates of ab- stinence, and those in the usual -care condition had the lowest rates of ab- stinence. Individuals in the recovery home with reinforcement -based out- patient treatment remained signifi- cantly more likely than individuals in the usual -care condition to abstain from opioid and cocaine use at the sir - month follow-up assessment. In a single - group, repeated -measures study of individuals receiving outpatient treat- ment combined with residence in a sober living house, Polcin and col- leagues (13) found improvements at six months postbaseline on measures of alcohol and drug use, arrests, and days worked. Significant declines in alcohol and drug use were maintained at 12 months postbaselirie, and no sig- niflcant increases in alcohol or drug use were found at 18 months. Discussion and conclusions This review found a moderate level of evidence for the effectiveness of re- covery housing (see box on this page). Findings in the literature suggest that recovery housing can have positive effects on many aspects of recovery and that this service has an important role to play in supporting individuals with substance use disorders. This re- commendation is tempered by the fact that the sic articles Identified through the literature review represented only three distinct studies. Further, these studies had methodological limitations, including attrition, nonequivalent groups, small samples, single -site evaluations, and lack of statistical controls. With limited literature, it is difficult to draw conclusions across studies; however, these studies highlight areas of recovery housing that have policy and practice imnlicatilons. It should —12j— PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES ♦ ps.psychiauyonilne.org ♦ NLarch 20L4 vol. 65 iiNo. 3 be noted that with an abstinence re- quirement for entering housing, there is often a floor effect. That is, when participants have very low substance use at baseline, it is unlikely that fur- ther improvements over time will be found in substance use measures— a traditional outcome in studies of substance use disorders. Rather, out- come measures are likely to reflect maintenance of abstinence or limited substance use over time. Changes in employment and criminal activity in- stead may be the key outcomes. Two studies indicated that out- comes were better with longer stays in the recovery house (12,14). In ad- dition, several studies indicated that success in the recovery house may also depend on other client characteristics, such as involvement in a 12 -step pro- gram, age, or a diagnosis of posttrau- matic stress disorder (11-13). These differential effects should be exam- ined further, and it is likely that other variations in outcomes may be identi- fied in additional studies. The primary recommendation for future research is for methodologically rigorous randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials that are conducted with larger samples and across multi- ple sites. Further, several of the studies (for example, studies of Oxford House) were conducted by researchers who were collaborators. In most cases, the conditions were not blind to the inter- viewers or the evaluators. Because these issues may lend themselves to bias, ex- ternal evaluations would also be an im- portant next step. The research in this area would benefit from more consistent approaches that would facilitate better cross -comparisons and meta-analyses. We identified other topics for future research, in addition to the need for greater methodological rigor. The effects of recovery housing on long- term recovery in multiple domains of functioning should be examined. For 299 example, the literature should focus on improvements in psychiatric symp- toms and substance use and severity that extend beyond housing and quality -of -life outcomes. Further stud- ies of approaches to recovery housing for individuals with substance use dis- orders should be undertaken to deter- mine whether models other than the Oxford House approach are valuable. Also, evaluation of which organizational and structural aspects of 'sober living houses are effective would help with program development and clarity in defining the recovery housing model. Finally, it is important to assess recovery housing for specific subpop- ulations (for example, by diagnosis, age, sex, and immigrant status). Most studies described participants' demo- graphic characteristics, and some studies controlled for these character- istics in their analyses. However, few studies specifically analyzed race or ethnicity through interaction terms, stratification, or other approaches. As with any consideration of individual Lives and successful recovery, it is essential to consider subgroup differ- ences. This may be important partic- ularly when we consider how people Live, interact, or incorporate their cultural beliefs and backgrounds— key concerns when evaluating the role of housing. These characteristics may affect willingness to live inde- pendently or in group settings, for example, and they may also affect the roles of staff or residents in managing aspects of recovery. Preliminary re- search is beginning to examine ap- proaches to adapt features of recovery homes to better meet the c.;dtural needs of specific racial -ethnic popula- tions (16). However, more research is required to explore the effectiveness of these adaptations. We encourage future researchers to evaluate whether certain approaches are as successful for a variety of subgroups as they are for the broader population. Recovery housing has value as part of the fiill spectrum of options that support recovery from substance use disorders. However, a key issue for recovery housing as a service is funding. In most cases, recovery housing does not include formal therapeutic treat- ment; therefore, it is not reimbursable by public or private insurance. Rather, recovery houses are often supported by charitable donations and contributions from the residents. Policy makers, in- cluding payers (for example, directors of state mental health and substance use treatment systems, administrators of managed care companies, and county behavioral health administrators), must consider alternative mechanisms that would support recovery- housing as they determine how best to incorpo- rate this approach into a full contin- uum of care. Consumers will benefit from increased access to sober living opportunities as a long-term step to- ward a life in recovery in the commu- nity. Future rigorous research on this service will improve our ability to target the consumers who would re- ceive the most benefit. Acknowledgments and disclosures Development of the Assessing the Evi- dence Base Series was supported by con- tracts HHSS283200700029UHHSS28342002T, HHSS283200700006UHHSS28342003T, and I- IHSS2832007000171/HHSS28300001T from 2010 through 2013 From the Substance ,Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The authors acknowledge the contributions of Tison Thomas, M.S.W., Kevin Malone, B.A., and Suzanne Fields, M.S.W., from SANIHSA; John O'Brien,'v[.A., from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; Garrett Moran, Ph.D., from Westat; John Easterday, Ph.D., Linda Lee, Ph.D., Rosanna Coffey, Ph.D., and Tami Mark, Ph.D., from Tmven Health Analytics; and Amity Quinn, \LA., from Brandeis University. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of SANIHSA. The authors report no competing interests References 1. Polcin DL: Communal living settings for adults recovering from substance abuse. Journal of Groups in Addiction and Re- covery 4:7-22, 2009 2. Milbv JB, Schumacher JE, Wallace D, et at; To house or not to house: the effects of providing housing to homeless sub- stance abusers in treatment. American Journal of Public Health 95:1259-1265, 2005 _ID-_ 3. Shaham Y, Shalev U, Lu L, et at: The re- instatement model of drug relapse: history, methodology and major findings, Psvcho- pbarmucology 168:3-20, 2003 4. Jason LA, Olson BD, Ferrari JR, et at: Communal housing settings enhance sub- stance abuse recovery. American Journal of Public Health 96:1727-1729, 2006 5. Polcin DL: Sober living houses: potential roles In substance abuse services and sug- gestions for research. Substance Use and Misuse 36:301-311, 2001 6. Poicin DL, Korcha R, Bond J, et at: What did we team from our study on sober living houses and where do we go from here? Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 42:5-433, 2010 7_ Polcin DL, Korcha R, Bond J, et at: Eighteen month outcomes for clients re- ceiving combined outpatient treatment and sober living house. Journal of Substance Use 15:352,766, 2010 8. Rog DJ, Marshall T, Dougherty RH, et at: Permanent supportive housing: assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services 65:287-294, 2014 9. Reif S, George P, Braude L, et al: Resi- dential treatment For individuals with sub- stance use disorders: assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services 65:301-312, 2014 10. Dougherty RH, Lyman DR, George P, et al: Assessing the evidence base For be- havioral health services: introduction to the series. Psychiatric Services 65:11-15, 2014 11. Groh DR, Jason LA, Ferrari JR, et al: Oxford House and Alcoholics Anonymous: the impact of two mutual -help models on abstinence. Journal of Groups in Addiction and Recovery 4:2331, 2009 12. Jason LA, Olson BD, Ferrari JR, et at: An examination of main and interactive effects of substance abuse recovery housing on multiple indicators of adjustment. Addic- tion 102:1114-1121, 2007 13. Jason LA, Mileviciute 1, Aase DM, et at: How type of treatment and presence of PTSD affect employment, self-regulation, and abstinence. North American Journal of Psychology 13:17--186, 2011 4# 14. Tuten ivl, Deflho A, Jones HE, et at: Abstinence -Contingent recovery housing and reinforcement -based treatment Fol- lowing opioid detoxification. Addiction 107: 973-982, 2012 15. Polcin D. Korcha R, Bond J, et at: Re- covery from addiction in two types of sober living houses: 12 -month outcomes. Addic- tion Research and Theory 18:142=455, 2010 16, Contreras R, Alvarez J. Digangi J. et at: No place like home: examining a bilinguul- bicultural, self -run substance abuse recover home for Latiaos. Global Community Psy- chology and Practice 3;1-11, 2012 300 PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES ♦ ps.psychiatryonline.org 4 March 2014 vol. 65 No. 3 Im Im a ,,; iM� /A'r I ; t�r,`c.�'7`-�'�`. t j i��"�� e.. ,• � i' y:� ''W } Y r �t��"'� ' t�'I'7-, �Ar �h �, `fir fE' '� '!�' it ' i`� t� h �t • ��y � t ,• fiC •� SIT- s � ; .'e F ' ti � �+�. x � r! � �sdp, hr �, w ` aJ« • [+: `+gid I�• . A"';}+ 2 A` ..� i.:ti � � � .. - `... �` ;,! 4 1 "44M 7 I C�� r P.I . ly • r/F' . A y , -1. � 3V,a ! _. _moi '��� :. �� j � +' CM) cna_ ��� � �.,� w•! A. IIFFFI�7 rr �• \ �• �y7I t * pP t f Q 1 �j N rl LO ({� 0 lil 0 CLI r L Z Q -0 -0 0- c 0 lu 71 O CU N 7 �7 a od Cr 0 L [[4 3� cu G) cr r- cq un W— Ln r- u7 07 Irl r r N N N M Con cu cu cu ai cn cz w aJ a---4 o 1-4 S -47-4Q Q 'L = ---q tU, d > x f f C w i BRAIN ACT iVITY n L Y C O O 4�w j i ,•�+ +p-� � � � •rd .� C ai C b :d 1 � �.... Y O ^A O O �^• � �7 � ,•YJ Y y y -�j � aJ p 3 c 'C ai a> C O y[ C b cry C #4--C OC C r" C •p C C O �i y L7 j tr p_ M w d CJ S3. ?+7� y sr Uhl �1J C J C O 3 � Q O tci O � • � � C � Y .� Cl. �n c cP1 n O C O o Q7 4J s. y Jf -. :.� O •p Y ��. rn aj .O n cn CO a1 Y Lo aj cn CD O 3 4-3 .� D C9 O �� � C 3 E `� d O �❑ C C y y ❑O❑ O O Y 4: n y -O Y7 y L Y n = -,J C y =mw C B:; O C Y O C O 1a y4-5 O CJ71 Y t A-41 cocn y Y O O O64 b O O Q+ U Ua� 3� Y � Y ❑� .� > Y � o y U ,n O Y y M4 O 3[ Y o 2 C O y tn Q %2 m vii 3 I'r- cc V Q L 5W w i �— 7V' 'C C cd n O O cu y O 3 ;i T O p U y .• �3 O V s v E"' � '� y y •� C k oC -C ~ C, O. y C O 00 y s" •: n U ch C e- c� C C aTi p C 0 E 3 .0 bA y C3. 0 `3 s. CO ccnn RJ L co 7- W .rul w U y n n Z3L. _ p y y W = co y 'O R, p n p 3 y , x T7-4 C G Cl. S-•+ C O Q C C 0 d y n p 0 y n [ y r' ii �+ 1-1 6 CL n Cid 0 �o aoi N U C y w O O Q_ "C -C y -0y' w p d - y y U L p y vi n r. a y y � v � y b bLO C y E v 'u 3 h b (D ? -d w C. y cC� h O "" O rA w ad w cu O y w i �— _ice_ C. C D sU CO 0) 73 1 •_ -. ..;.i� :t a �,L i �e ,N �I 4r r J 4J a y - pt y -:E s c o Er O 67 C r w cu L S O V] O, CJ u •14 CD cjrr�� J O = o O.. u J _ v c. CU b v U r [ .'" av � cu •i s aL Ln,. J uas191 UkIAM JSauna) O i= N '-- 4-3 y U 7 ^~LL ' U O C. X17 =! C V p a CU cri _ ,rte "_ '•3 ^. � cid — y �0 :.1 C4-3 ' U Q1 p O �� y N y CD �• C 4-2 C C 7 CU f y x •y C. Y r O U cLn o • A T J C..) O w ,� a' Q 19 O v y p y CD Ln f. J > •� f�l1 �+ n OM 3 y Q 4-1 O O y n q y v L O o! o I �' =l b V y pz aci Q) o 3 o aG 'Y O r y fII m a� 'LO LLp m y N > ". O Ul O _ cc Zd 030 � 7J ad ad ld O] > y > y a �, y T J n� y n CD (D co a. Lo Q) 0 -14CL n n 4 co y y as yy y y O) x E -j zd 7 =7 J y O p.4 .O. CnLO y v �� > -O co ad SJ O •,y -.-. ... cy y y J Cv 71y _ O ti �_ � O CC)R Lo RA y x cl-. d 4e9.c v _ co _ y n O � n tel] y v a v CD L' y JjCD oz t U) y w CD .. 1 _ i xeFi U) cf: y � L y CD S y C CO73 L a d C5 U_-71 y T y O •r. �dlf' cu aa� 4-1 ^r 11 ad .�. v TI J v y y O cn 03 y Ld %� L) C r, ~+ mayTd v ^. _ Uld L ;_ �. d 3 U 4-3 c O r Y y p C y CL) 0�0 ^ '• Z L 73 a. ry y 4 :. �baj y v C 74 OCD y CO L El RA C l35 :J v C v f 3 s JJ J U n C J ^ ..7 _ 7 C n •� y > v � C Y L it y aj U r J i 1^ J C l35 _0 O g \ - G z ± 2 C:: / 4-3 .g 3 CD- O g % L) _ O §� cco � E cc4-3 R S) / 7 o c d fƒ § 3§ C_) 0) u / 2 y 2 3%¥ g± 2® 2 y CO g § § C- � $ c -0 k � I X, ct .. p CL) cu aj Ems• _� 8 0 ct aJ a eLJ cr, ms o C CD bAy r ice, ��.+• _ .� L„4., �"• ,,a --y C o w y a O EQ O °� d O U O 1 O cd G U QJ CJ 1l 'Ct b O Com. 4 CUl p G o ['co cm a� yU. CZ C c� '3jcli CJ '� C [/Oj � �� Q U U ��✓^. v � w O G a) � v7 .� � �. rn � �, Oi � :y '.-_,Tq CD— cd �C C c0� r' ✓✓� `y, r 4 r ti CU tin +3 aG M y ec o 45 n. E co �_ _� bcj ci cn U y fi J M or- - a Cv cu :S .� y-' U p w a! r r. 0-1cl o to c3 : e r p� C U] cu w ca • , O - ^ ~ cr, q - - O.Y U d - i ,Sj� y CU C" ro CU �= w s �I cn W C. #+ W3 a a ry s CU C" m a+ a s 0 au Mn 7 cy N � O C N � 9 u C N O 00 ct N O rpasp lMaN MH oqM asoyj 6uotue sa;alliin JeaA-Ised 10 abeIua»ad i y V O 0 Mn 7 cy N � O C N � 9 u C N O 00 ct N O rpasp lMaN MH oqM asoyj 6uotue sa;alliin JeaA-Ised 10 abeIua»ad h; L L -y 7:1 .. >. ❑ 3 SJ id ;j C "�" •r J C. • �-• U] -:1 n 75 cocl- C i j � •� � � � y iy. CM 71 J Cr � J 3 CO n y y O 64 n J > Lam. > O y ^7y U L r3. ,•. `� O y Q7O r. n N y co L Q) Jy CMEn y • � co 3 y'�� O C�C Co U7 C `� L O y d �+> y � O >CD CO Q Q) J J J L x. t. z� 0a <o °z z° O U r O EL Cr N LU LLJ Q 0- O z a owm O O oa a --I c� ❑� =a c - N 2 o c� G cr: �a cn = LL CL O (D z Z O P:Pc,3 0 LU N° N O Er d OO F ❑ li) Z Q m ❑. w D ul (n LU° w � a U N r c r- c E� •� c m n o v o a� �� a ami n oc d s •� o CT � 3 � C •� � O N � E .S Ci CL •� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 - � M N lua:)aad 00 0 a O O O O V M N lua:)aad O 1r r —cjUGJ U ;n ... G.. vRC� 6.4 "r C O X C� ;d O `G I.Ll cn P. V� Cc � N p •cn G � •R. p, � C -con Qj U] 7:1 b •� � 0.l Zd n •;Zz Yom--, C �. Lei � jnIS v � :d `��• � C O w U Cd G • �' .:6J • t�..i Cid c�i ``� � GJ r C.1 jm– •-" Qom.? �-' ,�^ U y u 6. O c. C1 O O O ky ct (Q •=+ G C U C cn O. .m C n o QJ C c CO tc � RY 75 `n v Ci ? C En D9 n b L C cn 1r —cjUGJ U ;n ... G.. vRC� 6.4 "r 6J 9J `G I.Ll cn P. V� Cc tv -con Qj U] 7:1 b •� � 0.l � p L �.--• •;Zz Yom--, i -r �. Lei jnIS C.1 jm– •-" Qom.? �-' ,�^ 1r -142— O 4l 67 67 O ' c o m c o m c c •E � a°�i p m t a� o a� ZE ca N t 0 v I�4 :J _ ,El •J � � '> y � r+ =•A � 7q 154 -d y . ComCD E n ca CD 1J CD y 4-3 ico.- J n C QJ Lw C 724-1 L ^. C s. n � ;n C J _n d � d I�4 C co L a) U_ 0 (o O L O E U) Om L U C -- co co a L ,tel � m A J a v o O Y x � v 'V 1 f -fir _ n :S ... o N p�j Y O '-• c v y A C C d ■ Y C N 3 y •� L Y � y cn jj Y3 Z v � W •C y x y a> y M •as T O o o � c c C •� u v � o E � E `0 � � 0 w v L C j d m a� ; J J J7 , 1-4 VI :.7 � ^ y i �JJi 's A C 5 ;1 > 07 `IJ CO .0 .J � m A J a v o O v o N p�j O '-• c v � C C d ■ � C N C ` . cn ■ 0 Z v � W •C y x y a> v a •as T O o o � c c C •� v � o E � E `0 � � 0 w v L C j d m a� ; Y 4-3 ad a) Y O CO Ij cl- Y v -0 Lo C:T) v O a) v O .y y= y = T C U) - O Cl)co 4-3 v v o C y O 0 CO CL) y J .� Y 4-3 -c- 5, C 6l y CD En v J = Y Y O v cn O GL 'j �— RV Y j 0 U G Oj v O � Y CO cl- Y v -0 Lo C:T) v O v O U) Cl)co 4-3 v v o Q L CL) J .� Y 4-3 -c- 5, C A - ci %� Sr ^ : :.j � v _ U CD 11 O Cti• C17 � • -_-. -O aQ.. � M � c CO [n �. =s w 1J c v L CJ co Ca CM :J L v • L . CD rte. O ,y., O 4-3 O aj a --J L 0o '. o i CO CO O -O U„ - A - O 'C >1 oG G cid cd oA _ v� q U � v a o� v a U CQ q O m O ❑ Cfl Ocu U N a ,O ❑ - -O Les s CD OJ U .. ❑ U %r ' pp Co .. ❑ Q7 cn vi � L 445ca LO � '❑ 5 sr o Q.l -Q pvi °✓ CC U7 al CQ 6 O ❑ co 7DCD �' cn cu p ❑ ca °J �, ct ❑ O p � � O CD ;L4 U 'L7 �"' p-, A :;tires L1 CO fa ■■ - U cu - r' n, -D w .cu E 1-4 ❑ C ■ . ti.�. ., `:sem^. C4 cd vi y cd b .. t - :;X74-3 c' co cc LPA RPQtl Im MA i" 4 S"y 1 T �-Y all V P am 74 ad Zl •vn v on V 7� L �` .,j Y y '�] O UE r+ O y ij 75 C' • '� =s .+ v o O «J 'A Yn y O Y O+ CD H Y X Y Y CD ad j �- V j L.4 ac �"' ''""'.' '_' '�G e C •C Y C Vis+-IYv- .r•--' ,J^,,,+ '� �.7 -= iyca + ;3 L a,J � � OT• J 7Y.J � '� Y � r. y O ?�.) .L] y � O "'O G 1-4 Ln co pa t 3.14 cl-- O C) U C co cn O cn Q) U CII U 4= U CD ca - LO 4— O .-j Z J L _ I q— O C O n C fy i •].t4 J O W cn H U LU LL LL Q LU Y C � f'•� O - C w � fl, I N 'O ` a U _ c c � r m Q u +w 'off E 0 z cl-- O C) U C co cn O cn Q) U CII U 4= U CD ca - LO 4— O .-j Z J L _ I q— O C O n C -ri rA n n O dam" y C •- zt n y :J U v y ~ y "' N i •� U U ... i > C " C •,J- . , J ... rte-'., �" -� � '� is � � •� .'�' 'J U .= n 7�! n y = u 73 aj ad 71 ND Id 'J y .0 3J 1J n '�77 C ryh y ^r 3 n ' � � n � � U � CJ dam•' r" � � .� � "' O tJ.., ad J O •O O .J T :J �" c� cJi C L .^i V y c�'i�.T �"••� 72 C y y L y C cu rd 4.a y ad ad CZ O � O 5A at � b0 'yJ C W O :i .y � � •3 � � •� � T y L •n y � y y 7J � � � y ad r+ajcn vyi T y w J Lj ad ad n y C n C -" `� n O C [ 3 U y '� �O J Z J J ycu y '.• 3 Q O � C � ;; y d '.. .'= � •r, it p � ;� � O y11 > :3 J ,^ C y y ^—� -0- '~ L y Oy0 aj y C Y J J ^3 yM. C TI r. tJ cs 1) A ad v O � � 1■I � li W � O — Ia y � r y ¢+ 1 .r 12 ct c v.�=- Z E2 o Q y El y , L tr- � C p CU CU p U > aJ , n C a� O r O p y c � � C Zda t J QJ _ U) UJ U U Ln v r coi + J co cup O Q7 C L c..,cyv W .� 4-.3 U n N C C b C -t4 rs' O a O U U v OO C C O O�. U U z b I< — T lid y J y y _ O o �= Y Ei cc v -� 4-3 _CL CD Ln y - C o p4-3 _ co U a n v C CL) C U n d -p co a y .� �+ U co fi ocm C g CSI v. �g � y � � -•,-�' � � y r Sy+ S.. fes•' .~�. +~•' Cc4-2 :r Cn .. 3 o v U CO y y Y O +� p y > U y-0 3 n C D] � aT r- cu y n n Q) C: CD 06 y A C w "' CL 1nJ a '" Q a) •." T C .-. '7 y p -� U C =, -1 Gam. L ' = ❑ � '[ n y y 4-3 c� 1i ,r cn c CO u zi a)C_ 4-3 Ln CL L y Cl)o 4--3 L (3) y j 0 � > � � � � QJ CD o � T •� •V � cn. C p CJ y L` '�� SG1 i L C ❑ ti 3 y_ y p cn cu 04 p CO0 C] F 3 '" 7CD vi n ^ p W m C I< — 1153— 0 O. C cc p23 Ly 4-3 y o" ? C]CD co O x• L �A co J y J .J J .n �L `•) -i "� '� Z!Ei Id FaJ �1 �x.7 'Y Q p r n ~�'. y '� C 3 y Q) C) 'O d-� O CO ;s y 71 y c [> c 1153— 0 07 72 i La O O C Q_ Q O • 61 C1 1-., an O O v Q �w r T C C ,o C Q E .Y C O Q Q O cp - O_ L V CU C 4J 4i y Q C N fe Q as cm Q O Q s vOi s ` cu C 'N '•C F, o y y e Q C u t G ILcm a�Xa c cu cu G� V ' ' �� NCD 4-" �•� V V Q V� .S � .5 E � a 0 M N Id 15 ad ad ad A) Z > ad y 7:1 > V 7 n y y 7 7 J = DA o to CD o > : ; ' z. 3QdI z 7= �, d cn cc U L^^. Q J �8 G+ Q Q Q .1Q y i ❑ +�• 1 y ^J3 U v O U 79 CD Q C y i -A C -� r' 3 C C 4-3 '' C Q LL -1 CD3d Ul +� ��r"'., '.J •�•• L 1 y O i 24 O a n .' -� n r� ::� CCO n (.0 n p .i Co L CD U7 '" 3 y L y L O ^U] W 4-3 CO 75 U U 0- ZOI i U7 4-3 I_ O L co co U L Q] U co 4] cn 4--1 Q Q7 4-3 i p � � v J � � �2 E; n 4, y L .�.. � V bs ad��o 3�a3 os y MQ J NCL O �Zil ms i a z nc J � � n s"yL bs ad��o 3�a3 os y MQ J n � ` d Qq V N L' i a z nc y 3 n s"yL bs ad��o 3�a3 os wl n � ` i y � y n 3�a3 wl -4 ci 15 CD 1= 54 '16 ev .1 r- V, f4 E—' CIO E- a c y ,fix cl C3 N yy rA c mp '—ZJ 0 15 c: to 0 cl 21 P F 2 lz w SL cl. U Qo 9 �E r4 o ;z E 'n b ax a In Z' sz 'D E Ei rg R dj� zz 'ij I -A 'cl P 14- E3 -1 14 ui :ala I C5 ED P Ei '5 0 T, ►o 4. H 51 r-- a, C CD ry — .fl a - z a- �n v rA ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -2 MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Group Home Map - Explanations From: TUCKER, MIKE Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 3:28 PM To: HATCH, THOMAS <THOMAS.HATCH @costamesaca.gov> Subject: Group Home Map - Explanations Tom, The Group Home Map that was created to support the Multi -Family Group Home Ordinance tracks 4 different categories of facilities as follows: • Unlicensed Sober Luring—This classification includes residential homes providing supportive housing for individuals and are not providing services that require state licensing. This category also includes non-residential properties which are used for Group Home administrative offices and do not provide any beds. • City Permitted —This classification of properties are those that have submitted applications perthe City's newly enacted Group Home Ordinance, 14-13. Properties in this category have not necessarily been granted permission to operate, it just indicates that they are currently compliant with the ordinance. • DHCS Licensed —These are properties licensed by the State of California Department of Health Care Services. They are licensed to provide services such as alcohol and/or drug detox, treatment plans, counseling services and the dispensing of medications. (Von -residential properties can voluntarily apply to be licensed by the DHCS. • Homes in Violation — Homes on this list are homes which we have identified that are in violation of Group Home Ordinance 14-13. The homes currently identified in this category are those homes which were existing at the time the ordinance was adopted, and did not submit a application within 90 days of the Group Home applications becoming available (April 8, 2014) • Ua i icensed Fa ili6cs —These are properties that are licensed by the State of California Department of Social Services (DSS). The DSS licenses such facilities as Child Care Centers, Pre-schools, Adult Residential, Elderly Assisted Living, Children Group Homes, homes for children with special needs and homes for the developmentally disabled. The cluster of DSS Licensed Facilities in the area of East Mesa Verde Dr. and Baker St. include multiple licenses at 2985 Mesa Verde. The licenses are for Renascence School, Montessori Harbor -Mesa and Independent Options Foster Care, The DSS properties are tracked because many of the properties operate as Group Homes. PH -2 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: R2/R2 Sober Living Ordinance From: Mark -Green Core Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 2;44 PM To: MENSINGER, STEPHEN <STEPHEN.MENSINGER@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM <JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.gov>; MONAHAN, GARY <GARY.MONAHAN@costarnesaca.gov>; FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>; CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: R2/R2 Sober Living Ordinance City Council of Costa Mesa, Please get this done right, the first time. Spend the money to do this right. It will be well spent. There has to be city PAC's that are successfully creating livable guidelines to support the backbones of our city. If there is not, then start one so that we don't always end up being the low spot and you know what we mean. These "Hotels" are of a completely different culture than the neighborhoods they've moved into. They're not city licensed nor taxed based on revenues. Good folks are moving. I myself am selling at a reduced value!!! These R2 places are generating way north of $350,000/ MONTH at the expense of the neighbors and our city coffers. That's just the start, our fed and insurance dollars are funding these ventures, but that's another story for another time. These folks don't care. We've had the city Code enforcement and CMPD numerous times, the state etc. We have spread sheets of incidents with and with out city department history numbers. When meeting with their "C Suite" staff who are not much more than graduates of their own system, when mentioned during such a meeting that the CMPD was just out the night before for exactly what they've said over and over is fixed, or that you have Audio & Video recordings, they simply ramble on as though they didn't even hear you. After a couple of years, we finally suggested they put up signs for their hotel patients to be considerate of neighbors - they thought that was a good idea - HELLO - you know they had to have thought of that many projects before. They're arrogant owners! It's smoking, choking, coughing, be#thing.. loud chatter, cell phone speaker phones, Doors SLAMMING at all hours, their supervisors 0 and out of the next door units 24/7 all through the night. We can't raise a family here In our opinion, Our City isn't turning into a waste land - it already is. We're the only city in the county that still allows the purchase of fireworks - and then of course why leave the dump to blow them off when no rules are enforced. We've gained a real reputation across the country over the last several years and none of them seem to be topics we'd want to be associated with. These facilities are simply money printing machines. Their websites are complete marketing tools promoting - the luxury living, the yachts, the electric boats etc. Seldom discussing their protocols for recovery or rehab. Never any claims of recidivism rates. It's a different culture. Most have been checked out of a normal society. they have no idea what they're doing or the effect what they do is having. We seek your guidance and commitment to fulfill what is in the best interest of our "permanent" and/or owner residents. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -2 MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Sober Living Ordinance From: SANDRA FARWELL fmailto: Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 7:10 AM To: MENSINGER, STEPHEN <STEPHEN.MENSINGER@costamesaca.gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM <JIM.RIGHEIMER@costamesaca.gov>; FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; GENIS, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS@costamesaca.gov>; MONAHAN, GARY <GARY.MONAHAN@costamesaca.Rov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov>; CITY COUNCIL <CITYCOUNCIL ci.costa-mesa.ca. us> Subject: Sober Living Ordinance Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen, I am a long-time resident of Costa Mesa and before that grew up in Newport Beach (4th Generation!). Costa Mesa, or as it is now sadly known as "Costa Meth" has become an overly dense, parking challenged, disrespectful neighborhood in which families are trying to both protect their investments and raise their next generation of kids and being overly challenged by the multitude of disrespectful, non -tax -paying neighbors, smoking in our back yards, staying up late without any care about their affect on those around them, breaking noise ordinances regularly, and their numbers continue to grow unchecked. I live on a short block (300 block of Cabrillo Street) and have 3 properties of Sober Living facilities just on that little section alone! These are 2 R4 lots and an R5 which you can imagine adds all the more to the issues. I thank you for addressing this out-of-controll situation and closing down all the Sober Living facilities. It's too late to limit them in numbers, as they are in excess of 400 just in this area alone! It's past time to take action on this, ban them from our Costa Mesa... and NOT burden my tax dollars to support their efforts. We voted for you all to look out for our city, so please take back "Costa Meth" and return it to charming "Costa Mesa." Newport was successful in extricating these houses and I have every faith you will be too if you put more effort in that direction. I beg of you to also include R3 -R5 properties as well. On a semi -related subject, have you all considered taking the cops out of the annoyingly disruptive helicopters and putting them on bicycles where they'd get to know the people, sights and sounds of the areas they are hired to protect? Just consider this, please. Sandra Farwell ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -2 MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: ATTENTION CITY CLERK: Please include in packet From: Kelli [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 2:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL<CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costamesaca.gov> Subject: ATTENTION CITY CLERK: Please include in packet Re: Sober Living Ordinance for R2/R3 CO -15-04 We are unable to attend the City Council Meeting on November 3, 2015 but would like to exercise our right to comment on the issue. The Council needs to adopt a sober living home ordinance for the R2/R3 properties similar to the ones in the cities of Orange and Newport Beach. The R1 ordinance we have in Costa Mesa is an impotent attempt at controlling the plague of sober living homes in our city that leaves residents at the mercy of junkies and out of town profiteers. Stop hiding behind the "protected class" issue and protect the residents of Costa Mesa for a change. Sincerely, Todd & Kelli Weber Costa Mesa Residents ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -2 MEDIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: R2/R2 Sober Living Ordinance From: Mark -Green Core Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 3:13 PM To: MENSINGER, STEPHEN <STEPHEN.MENSINGER@costamesaca.,gov>; RIGHEIMER, JIM <JIM.RIGH EIMER costamesaca. ov>; GENIE, SANDRA <SANDRA.GENIS costamesaca. ov>; MONAHAN, GARY <GARY.MONAHAN@costamesaca.gov>; FOLEY, KATRINA<KATRINA.FOLEY@costamesaca.gov>; GREEN, BRENDA <brenda.green@costa mesaca.gov>; CITY COUNCIL<CITYCOUNCIL@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: Re: R2/R2 Sober Living Ordinance Honored council persons, Please indulge me as I append to my previous message. Most issues are noise such as additionally - with the doors and windows wide open and at all hours; the TV, Stereo or Video games blaring. To the point that yelling up at them to please just close the doors and windows they cannot hear and we've had to call the CMPD multiple times. The parking on the street is already at a premium and some streets have no restrictions for street sweeping. If there were penalties for parking for everyone (having to move their cars at least once a week) this could curb some of the appeal for our areas. These homes although equipped with 2 car garages + 2 car driveways generally only use 1-2 places so we have their staff shift changes going on 24/7/365 with the constant car doors slamming, beep -beep of the key fob (instead of being courteous and manually key locking and unlocking of cars. Cigarette butts are prolifically in the gutters, in our yards over the fences into our yards and pools etc. It's just simply not a fit for the neighborhoods whose dynamics they are looking for they adversely change. The money they make seems to be a real open invitation for the same types of folks who run Las Vegas, and this is local tax exempt etc. and hugely profitable. Certainly this isn't rocket science for a city team that really wants to properly manage it. A hotel tax of some sort for all residences that have less than 30 day leases. Many CID's are impacted this way. Thanks for listening. On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Mark -Green Core wrote: City Council of Costa Mesa, Please get this done right, the first time. Spend the money to do this right. it will be well spent. There has to be city PAC's that are successfully creating livable guidelines to support the backbones of our city. If there is not, then start one so that we don't always end up being the low spot and you know what we mean. These "Hotels" are of a completeEy different culture than the neighborhoods they've moved into. They're not city licensed nor taxed based on revenues. Good folks are moving. I myself am selling at a reduced value!!! These R2 places are generating way north of $350,0001 MONTH at the expense of the neighbors and our city coffers. That's just the start, our fed and insurance dollars are funding these ventures, but that's another story for another time. These folks don't care. We've had the city Code enforcement and CMPD numerous times, the state etc. We have spread sheets of incidents with and with out city department history numbers. When meeting with their "C Suite" staff who are not much more than graduates of their own system, when mentioned during such a meeting that the CMPD was just out the night before for exactly what they've said over and over is fixed, or that you have Audio & Video recordings, they simply ramble on as though they didn't even hear you. After a couple of years, we finally suggested they put up signs for their hotel patients to be considerate of neighbors - they thought that was a good idea - HELLO - you know they had to have thought of that many projects before. They're arrogant owners! It's smoking, choking, coughing, belching, loud chatter, cell phone speaker phones, Doors SLAMMING at all hours, their supervisors in and out of the next door units 24/7 all through the night. We can't raise a family here In our opinion, Our City isn't turning into a waste land - it already is. We're the only city in the county that still allows the purchase of fireworks - and then of course why leave the dump to blow them off when no rules are enforced. We've gained a real reputation across the country over the last several years and none of them seem to be topics we'd want to be associated with. These facilities are simply money printing machines. Their websites are complete marketing tools promoting - the luxury living, the yachts, the electric boats etc. Seldom discussing their protocols for recovery or rehab. Never any claims of recidivism rates. It's a different culture. Most have been checked out of a normal society, they have no idea what they're doing or the effect what they do is having. We seek your guidance and commitment to fulfill what is in the best interest of our "permanent" and/or owner residents. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -2 M EJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW: Sober living ordinance From: Valerie Fletcher [mailto Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:10 PM To: Mayor <Mayor@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Sober living ordinance City of Costa Mesa Council Mayor and Council Members As a 5 112 year Costa Mesa homeowner, resident and voter and 40 year Orange Co resident, I strongly support the sober living ordinance that is on the agenda for tonights meeting for the new regulations. . . I agree the 2014 ordinance should be expanded to nearly the entire city including Eastside Costa Mesa and in my area of many townhomes, condos, small apartments, and single family homes, as this area is also subject to some of the issues and problems associated with group homes.. Thank you, Mrs. Valerie Fletcher ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO AMEND TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER XVI (GROUP HOMES, SOBER LIVING HOMES, AND RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES) IN THE R2 -MD, R2 - HD AND R3 RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND THE PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONES) OF TITLE 13 AND AMENDING SECTION 13-6 (DEFINITIONS) OF ARTICLE 2 (DEFINITIONS) OF CHAPTER I (GENERAL) AND SECTION 13-30 TABLE 13-30 (LAND USE MATRIX) OF CHAPTER IV OF ARTICLE 1 OF CHAPTER V OF TITLE 13 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE: WHEREAS, under the California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7, the City has been granted broad police powers to preserve the residential characteristics of its R2MD, R2HD, and R3 zones; and planned development residential zones, which powers have been recognized by both the California Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court, the latter of which has stated that, "It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled"; and WHEREAS, the Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments ("FHAA") and the California Fair Employment Housing Act ("FEHA") prohibit enforcement of zoning ordinances which would on their face or have the effect of discriminating against equal housing opportunities for the handicapped; and WHEREAS, a core purpose of the FHAA, FEHA and California's Lanterman Act is to provide a broader range of housing opportunities to the handicapped; to free the handicapped, to the extent possible, from institutional style living; and to ensure that handicapped persons have the opportunity to live in normal residential surroundings and use and enjoy a dwelling in a manner similar to the way a dwelling is enjoyed by the non -handicapped; and WHEREAS, to fulfill this purpose the FHAA and FEHA also require that the City provide reasonable accommodations to its zoning ordinances if such accommodation is necessary to afford a handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and 1 WHEREAS, the Lanterman Act fulfills this purpose in part by requiring cities to treat state licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer as a residential use; and WHEREAS, in enacting this Ordinance the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa is attempting to strike a balance between the City's and residents' interests of preserving the characteristics of residential neighborhoods and to provide opportunities for the handicapped to reside in such neighborhoods that are enjoyed by the non -handicapped; and WHEREAS, over the past several years the City, County and State have seen a significant increase in the number of single- and multi -family homes being utilized as alcohol and drug recovery facilities for large numbers of individuals (hereafter, "sober living homes"); and WHEREAS, the increase appears to be driven in part by the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (hereafter, "the Act") adopted by California voters which provides that specified first-time drug and alcohol offenders are to be afforded the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment rather than incarceration; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Care Act has significantly expanded the availability of health care coverage for substance abuse treatment; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has seen a sharp increase in the number of sober living homes, which has generated secondary impacts including, but not limited to neighborhood parking shortfalls, overcrowding, inordinate amounts of second-hand smoke, and noise; and the clustering of sober living facilities in close proximity to each other creating near neighborhoods of sober living homes; and WHEREAS, over the past 20 months from January 2014 to September 2015 the City experienced an increase of 25.4% in the number of sober living facilities and residential care facilities in the multiple -family residential zones. Those new facilities resulted in an increase of 142 -beds, which is a 20.6% increase in beds since January of 2014. As of September 2015 the City had a total of 84 residential facilities, with 831 -beds to treat drug and alcohol addiction located in its multiple -family residential districts; and WHEREAS, currently, in all zones, it is estimated that the City of Costa Mesa is home to 1586 alcohol and drug recovery beds, divided as follows: 44 licensed residential facilities/certified alcohol and drug programs in residential zones, providing 411 beds; 107 unlicensed sober living homes in residential zones, providing 600 beds; Included in those 107 homes are 41 homes who have submitted applications per the R1 Ordinance providing 252 beds; and 1 State Licensed Facility on two separate parcels, providing 76 beds in a non-residential zone; and 40 nonresidential services facilities, providing support services such as administrative offices, therapy etc. E WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is currently home to almost 28.9% of the state licensed residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities in Orange County, while the City holds 3.6% of the County's population, thus it is reasonable to infer that unlicensed sober living homes are locating in the City at a higher concentration than in nearby communities; and WHEREAS, over the last decade the number of sober living homes in the City of Costa Mesa is rapidly increasing, leading to an overconcentration of sober living homes in certain of the City's residential neighborhoods, which is both deleterious to the residential character of these neighborhoods and may also lead to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the number of sober living homes has not increased to the point of overconcentration in certain Planned Development zones; and WHEREAS, the purpose of sober living homes is to provide a comfortable living environment for persons with drug or alcohol addictions in which they remain clean and sober and can participate in a recovery program in a residential, community environment, and so that they have the opportunity to reside in the residential neighborhood of their choice; and WHEREAS, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, who are not currently using alcohol or drugs, are considered handicapped under both the FHAA and FEHA; and WHEREAS, in 2008, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services projected spending on substance abuse recovery to be $35 billion annually by 2014 (source: Projections of National Expenditures for Mental Health Services and Substance Abuse Treatment 2004-2014, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Katharine R. Levit et al., 2008); and WHEREAS, based on the City's experience it has become clear that at least some operators of sober living homes are driven more by a motivation to profit rather than to provide a comfortable living environment in which recovering addicts have a realistic potential of recovery, or to provide a living environment which remotely resembles the manner in which the non -disabled use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS, establishing distance requirements for sober living homes is reasonable and non-discriminatory and not only helps preserve the residential character of the R21VID, R2HD, and R3 zones; as well as the planned development residential neighborhoods, but also furthers the interest of ensuring that the handicapped are not living in overcrowded environments that are counterproductive to their well-being and recover; and 3 WHEREAS, sober living homes do not function as a single housekeeping unit for the following reasons: (1) they house extremely transient populations (programs are generally about 90 days and as noted, the 2008 UCLA study found that 65-70% of recovering addicts don't finish their recovery programs); (2) the residents generally have no established ties to each other when they move in and typically do not mingle with other neighbors; (3) neighbors generally do not know who or who does not reside in the home; (4) the residents have little to no say about who lives or doesn't live in the home; (5) the residents do not generally share expenses; (6) the residents are often responsible for their own food, laundry and phone; (7) when residents disobey house rules they are often just kicked out of the house; (8) the residents generally do not share the same acquaintances; and (9) residents often pay significantly above - market rate rents; and WHEREAS, the size and makeup of the households in sober living homes, even those allowed as a matter of right under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, is dissimilar and larger than the norm, creating impacts on water, sewer, roads, parking and other City services that are far greater than the average household, in that the average number of persons per California household is 2.90 (2.68 persons per household according to the City's General Plan), while a sober living facility allowed as a matter of right would house six, which is in the top 5% of households in Orange County according to the most recent U.S. federal census data; and WHEREAS, all the individuals residing in a sober living facility are generally over the age of 18, while the average household has just 2.2 individuals over the age of 18 according to the most recent federal census data; and WHEREAS, the City and public utility providers utilize federal census data and other information relating to the characteristics of residential neighborhoods to, among other things: (1) determine the design of residential homes, residential neighborhoods, park systems, library systems, transportation systems; (2) determine parking and garage requirements of various (bedroom) sizes and density of units; (3) develop its General Plan and zoning ordinances; (4) determine police and fire staffing; (5) determine impacts to water, sewer and other services; and (5) establish impacts fees that fairly and proportionally fund facilities for traffic, parks, libraries, police and fire; and WHEREAS, because of their extremely transient populations, above -normal numbers of individuals/adults residing in a single dwelling and the lack of regulations, sober living facilities present problems not typically associated with more traditional residential uses, including but not limited to: the housing of large numbers of unrelated adult who may or may not be supervised; disproportionate numbers of cars associated with a single housing unit, which causes disproportionate traffic and utilization of on -street parking; excessive noise and outdoor smoking, which interferes with the use and enjoyment of neighbors' use of their property; neighbors who have little to no idea who does and does not reside in the home; little to no participation in community activities that form and strengthen neighborhood cohesion; a history of 2 opening facilities in complete disregard of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and with little regard for impacts to the neighborhood; disproportional impacts from the average dwelling unit to nearly all public services including sewer, water, parks, libraries, transportation infrastructure, fire and police; a history of congregating in the same general area; and the potential influx of individuals with a criminal record; and WHEREAS, a variable separation requirement will still allow for a reasonable market for the purchase and operation of sober living homes within the City and still result in preferential treatment for sober living homes in that non -handicapped individuals in a similar living situation (i.e., in boardinghouse -style residences) have fewer housing opportunities than the handicapped; and WHEREAS, housing inordinately large numbers of unrelated adults in a single dwelling or congregating sober living homes in close proximity to each other does not provide the handicapped with an opportunity to "live in normal residential surroundings," but rather places them into living environments bearing more in common with the types of institutional/campus/dormitory living that the FEHA and FHAA were designed to provide relief from for the handicapped, and which no reasonable person could contend provides a life in a normal residential surrounding; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the above, the City Council recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, that when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing the handicapped the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions, and that therefore providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including sober living homes, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, without some regulation there is no way of ensuring that the individuals entering into a group home are handicapped individuals and entitled to reasonable accommodation under local and state law; that a group home is operated professionally to minimize impacts to the surrounding neighborhood; and that the secondary impacts from over concentration of both group homes in a neighborhood and large numbers of unrelated adults residing in a single facility in an individual home are lessened; and WHEREAS, in addition to group homes locating in residential neighborhoods other state -licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons who are mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped or supervised, are also taking up residence in these neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the purpose of group homes for the handicapped is to provide the handicapped an equal opportunity to comfortably reside in the residential neighborhood of their choice; and 5 WHEREAS, no residential developments of any kind are permitted in the I&R (Institutional and Recreation) zone, and no group homes exit in this zone at the time of the adoption of this ordinance; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance 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 pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the passage of this Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The following definition in Section 13-6 (Definitions) of Article 2 (Definitions) of Chapter I (General) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: Boardinghouse. A residence or dwelling, other than a hotel, wherein rooms are rented under two (2) or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or combination thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental manager resides within the residence. Boardinghouse, small means two (2) or fewer rooms being rented. Boardinghouse, large means three (3) to six (6) rooms being rented. Boardinghouses renting more than 6 rooms are prohibited. Section 2: Chapter XVI (Group homes and residential care facilities in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby added as follows: 13-320.- Purpose. This chapter is intended to preserve the residential character the City of Costa Mesa's residential neighborhoods and to further the purposes of the FEHA, the FHAA and the Lanterman Act by, among other things: (1) ensuring that group homes are actually entitled to the special accommodation and/or additional accommodation provided under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code and not simply skirting the City's boarding house regulations; (2) limiting the secondary impacts of group homes by reducing noise and traffic, preserving safety and providing adequate off-street parking; (3) providing an accommodation for the handicapped that is reasonable and actually bears some resemblance to the opportunities afforded non -handicapped individuals to use and enjoy a dwelling unit in a residential neighborhood; and (4) to provide 0 comfortable living environments that will enhance the opportunity for the handicapped, including recovering addicts to be successful in their programs. 13-321.- Definitions. Property. For purposes of this chapter, property is defined as any single development lot that has been subdivided bearing its own assessor's parcel number or with an approved subdivision map or condominium map. 13-322.- Group Homes in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones with Six or Fewer Occupants. (a) A special use permit shall be required for and may be granted to permit the operation of a group home including a sober living home with six or fewer occupants in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones) zones subject to the following conditions: (1) The application complies with subsections (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(4) through (a)(10-9) of Section 13-311. (2) The application includes a live scan of the house manager and/or operator of the group home. (3) The group home or sober living home is at least 650 feet from any other property, as defined in Section 13-321, that contains a group home, sober living home or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as measured from the property line. (4) Upon eviction from or involuntary termination of residency in a group home, the operator of the group home shall make available to the occupant transportation to the address listed on the occupant's driver license, state issued identification card, or the permanent address identified in the occupant's application or referral to the group home. The group home operator may not satisfy this obligation by providing remuneration to the occupant for the cost of transportation. (b) An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of this section by submitting an application to the director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to section 13-200.62. (c) Notwithstanding any provision of section 13-3119(b) to the contrary, the Development Services Director may revoke or deny a special 7 use permit for a group home subject to this chapter following the director's determination that any of the circumstances set forth in Section 13- 311(b)(1) through (7) exist. 13-323.- Conditional Use Permit Required for Group Homes, Residential Care Facilities and Drug and Alcohol Treatment Facilities in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) with 7 or More Occupants. A conditional use permit shall be required for and may be granted to allow the operation of a group home, state licensed residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility with seven (7) or more occupants in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) zones subject to the following conditions: (a) The requirements of Chapter III PLANNING APPLICATIONS have been met. (b) The group home, residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is at least six -hundred fifty feet from any property, as defined in Section 13-321, that contains a group home, sober living home or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility, as measured from the property line. (c) The applicant obtains an operator's permit as required by Article 23, Chapter 2 of Title 9 except that this requirement shall not apply to any state licensed residential care facility or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility. (d) The findings for granting a conditional use permit in accordance with Section 13-29(g) are met. 13-324.- Compliance. (a) Group homes in the in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones with six (6) or fewer occupants that are in existence upon the effective date of this ordinance may continue to operate subject to the following: 1. A complete application for a special use permit is filed within 90 days of the effective date of this ordinance; and 2. The group home is in full compliance with all of the conditions of this ordinance within one (1) year of its effective date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, existing group homes obligated by a written lease exceeding one (1) year from the effective date of the ordinance, or whose activity involves investment of money in leasehold or improvements such that a longer period is necessary to prevent undue financial hardship, are eligible for up to one (1) additional years grace period pursuant to planning division approval. (b) Group homes, state licensed residential care facilities and state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) with seven (7) or more occupants that are in existence upon the effective date of this ordinance may continue to operate subject to the following: 1. The operator of a group home obtains an operator's permit pursuant to section 9-372445 et seq. within 120 days from the effective date of this ordinance; and 2. The group home, state licensed residential care facility and/or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility is in full compliance with all conditions of this ordinance, including obtaining a conditional use permit, within one (1) year from the effective date of this ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an existing group home, state licensed residential care facility and/or state licensed drug and alcohol treatment facility obligated by a written lease exceeding one (1) year from the effective date of the ordinance, or whose activity involves investment of money in leasehold or improvements such that a longer period is necessary to prevent undue financial hardship, are eligible for up to one (1) additional years grace period pursuant to planning division approval. 13-325.- Severability. Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this chapter for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. This Ordinance shall be prospective in application from its effective date. Section 3: Subdivisions (4) through (10) of Section 13-30 Table 13-30 of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) are hereby repealed and replaced with the following: See Attachment A. 9 Section 4: Footnote 5 to Table 13-30 (Land Use Matrix) of Section 13-30 (Purpose) of Chapter IV (Citvwide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Plannina. Zonina and Development) is herebv amended to read as follows: 5 650 foot separation required between sober living homes, or from state licensed alcohol or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities. CMMC 13- 311(a)(10)(i).Fer the purposes of thms table, the svn+bols shall have—t4e fnllowanq m GondotffiORal Use Permit; MG Minor Genditiennl Use. Permit; D Permitted; . Prohibited. S SIDeriol I Ice Dermic Se^*�B:Section 5: Footnotes 6,_—aPA-7 and 8 to Table 13-30 (Land Use Matrix) of Section 13-30 (Purpose) of Chapter IV (Citywide Land Use Matrix) of Title 13 (Planning, Zoning and Development) is hereby added as follows: 6 Subject to the separation requirements set forth in Section 13-322(a)(3). Small boardinghouses shall locate at least 650 feet from any other small boardinghouse. Large boardinghouses shall be located at least 1,000 feet from any other boardinghouse. 8 11 Uses prohibited in the base zoning district of a Mixed -Use Overlay Zone shall also be prohibited in the Overlay Zone. Section 6: 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 no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 10;Section 7: Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, state, or federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors. 10 Section i 1I .Section 8: 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. Adopted this day of , 2015 Stephen Mensinger, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF COSTA MESA ) CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2015, and thereafter at the regular meeting of said City Council duly held on the day of , 2015, was duly passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa 11 [-T]-ORDINANCE NO. 15 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO AMEND TITLE 9 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTIONS 9-116 (ISSUING OFFICER) AND 9-125 (BUSINESSES ETC. REQUIRING PERMIT) OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER II OF TITLE 9 AND TO ADD SECTION 131 (BUSINESSES WHERE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR MAY ISSUE PERMIT) OF ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER II OF TITLE 9 AND ARTICLE XXIII (GROUP HOMES) OF CHAPTER II OF TITLE 9 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE: WHEREAS, in enacting this Ordinance the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa is attempting to strike a balance between the City's and residents' interests of preserving the characteristics of residential neighborhoods and to provide opportunities for the handicapped to reside in such neighborhoods that are enjoyed by the non -handicapped; and WHEREAS, over the past several years the City, County and State have seen a significant increase in the number of single- and multi -family homes being utilized as alcohol and drug recovery facilities for large numbers of individuals (hereafter. "sober livina homes"l: and WHEREAS, the increase appears to be driven in part by the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (hereafter, "the Act") adopted by California voters which provides that specified first-time drug and alcohol offenders are to be afforded the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment rather than incarceration; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Care Act has significantly expanded the availability of health care coverage for substance abuse treatment; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has seen a sharp increase in the number of sober living homes, which has generated secondary impacts including, but not limited to neighborhood parking shortfalls, overcrowding, inordinate amounts of second-hand smoke, and noise; and the clustering of sober living facilities in close proximity to each other creating near neighborhoods of sober livina homes: and WHEREAS, over the past 20 months from January 2014 to September 2015 the City experienced an increase of 25.4% in the number of sober living facilities and residential care facilities in the multiple -family residential zones. Those new facilities resulted in an increase of 142 -beds, which is a 20.6% increase in beds since January of 2014. As of September 2015 the City had a total of 84 residential facilities. with 831 -beds to treat drua and alcohol addiction located in its multiple- familv residential districts: and WHEREAS. currently. in all zones. it is estimated that the Citv of Costa Mesa is home to 1586 alcohol and drug recovery beds, divided as follows: 44 licensed residential facilities/certified alcohol and drug programs in residential zones, providing 411 beds; 107 unlicensed sober living homes in residential zones, providing 600 beds; Included in those 107 homes are 41 homes who have submitted applications per the R1 Ordinance providing 252 beds; and 1 State Licensed Facility on two separate parcels, providing 76 beds in a non-residential zone; and 40 nonresidential services facilities, providing support services such as administrative offices, theraav etc. WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa is currently home to almost 28.9% of the state licensed residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities in Orange County, while the City holds 3.6% of the County's population, thus it is reasonable to infer that unlicensed sober livina homes are locatina in the Citv at a hiaher concentration than in nearbv communities: and WHEREAS, over the last decade the number of sober living homes in the City of Costa Mesa is rapidly increasing, leading to an overconcentration of sober living homes in certain of the City's residential neighborhoods, which is both deleterious to the residential character of these neiahborhoods and may also lead to the institutionalization of such neighborhoods; and WHEREAS. the number of sober livina homes has not increased to the point of overconcentration in certain Planned Development zones; and WHEREAS, the purpose of sober living homes is to provide a comfortable living environment for persons with drug or alcohol addictions in which they remain clean and sober and can participate in a recovery program in a residential, community environment, and so that they have the opportunity to reside in the residential neiahborhood of their choice: and WHEREAS, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, who are not currently using alcohol or drugs, are considered handicapped under both the FHAA and FEHA; and WHEREAS, in 2008, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services projected spending on substance abuse recovery to be $35 billion annually by 2014 (source: Proiections of National Expenditures for Mental Health Services and Substance Abuse Treatment 2004-2014, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Katharine R. Levit et al., 2008); and WHEREAS, based on the City's experience it has become clear that at least some operators of sober living homes are driven more by a motivation to profit rather than to provide a comfortable living environment in which recovering addicts have a realistic potential of recovery, or to provide a living environment which remotely resembles the manner in which the non -disabled use and enjoy a dwelling; and WHEREAS. sober livina homes do not function as a sinale housekeeoi unit for the following reasons: (1) they house extremely transient populations (programs are generally about 90 days and as noted, the 2008 UCLA study found that 65-70% of recovering addicts don't finish their recovery programs); (2) the residents generally have no established ties to each other when they move in and typically do not mingle with other neighbors; (3) neighbors generally do not know who or who does not reside in the home; (4) the residents have little to no say about who lives or doesn't live in the home; (5) the residents do not generally share expenses; (6) the residents are often responsible for their own food, laundry and phone; (7) when residents disobey house rules they are often just kicked out of the house: (8) the residents aenerally do not share the same acauaintances: and (9) residents often oav sianificantly above -market rate rents: and WHEREAS, the size and makeup of the households in sober living homes, even those allowed as a matter of right under the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, is dissimilar and larger than the norm, creating impacts on water, sewer, roads, parking and other City services that are far greater than the average household, in that the average number of persons per California household is 2.90 (2.68 persons per household according to the City's General Plan), while a sober living facility allowed as a matter of right would house six, which is in the top 5% of households in Orange County according to the most recent U.S. federal census data; and WHEREAS, all the individuals residing in a sober living facility are generally over the age of 18, while the average household has just 2.2 individuals over the aae of 18 accordina to the most recent federal census data: and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the above, the City Council recognizes that while not in character with residential neighborhoods, that when operated responsibly, group homes, including sober living homes, provide a societal benefit by providing the handicapped the opportunity to live in residential neighborhoods, as well as providing recovery programs for individuals attempting to overcome their drug and alcohol addictions, and that therefore providing greater access to residential zones to group homes, including sober living homes, than to boardinghouses or any other type of group living provides a benefit to the City and its residents: and WHEREAS, without some regulation there is no way of ensuring that the individuals entering into a group home are handicapped individuals and entitled to reasonable accommodation under local and state law; that a group home is operated professionally to minimize both the impacts to the surrounding neighborhood as well as to the residents of the group homes; and that the secondary impacts from over concentration of both group homes in a neighborhood and large numbers of unrelated adults residing in a single facility in an individual home are lessened: and WHEREAS, regulation of the operations of larger group homes in the multi- family zones pursuant to the business license provisions of Title 9 is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City, including the residents or occupants of the aroup homes themselves: and WHEREAS, this Ordinance 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 pursuant to Section 15061 (b,(3) (General Rule) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the passage of this Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Sections 9-116 and 9-125 of Article I of Chapter II of Title 9 are amended, and Section 131 of Article I of Chapter II of Title 9 and Article XXIII of Chapter II of Title 9 are hereby added, to read as follows: Article I. 9-116. - Issuing officer. "Issuing officer" shall mean the city council of Costa Mesa, the director of finance, the fire chief, the chief of police, or the development services director. 9-125. - Businesses, professions, trades and occupations requiring a permit under the provisions of this chapter. (q) Group homes, as defined in section 13-6, that have seven (7) or more occupants. 9-131. - Businesses where the development services director may issue permit. The development services director may issue permits for operation of a group home located in the in the R2 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 residential zones and the PDR -LD, PDR -MD, PDR -HD, PDR -NCM, PDC, AND PDI (Planned Development Zones) Zones_pursuant to the requirements of Article XXIII of this Chapter. Article XXIII GROUP HOMES 9-370443. - Definitions The definitions set forth in Title 13 of this Code shall apply to the provisions of this article unless otherwise provided for herein. 9-371444. - Zoning requirements. In addition to the requirements of this article, all group homes subject to this article shall comply with the requirements set forth in Chapter XVI of Title 13 of this Code. 9-372446. — Operator's permit required. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate, or to permit any person to operate, a group home on any property located within the R21VID, R21 -ID, R3, PDRLD, PDRMD and/or PDRHD zone, without a valid permit issued for that group home pursuant to the provisions of this article. 9-373446. — Exceptions. The requirements of this article shall not apply to: (a) A group home that has six (6) or fewer occupants, not counting a house manager, and that is in compliance with the applicable provisions of Chapters XV and XVI of Title 13 of this code; (b) A state licensed alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility; or (c) A state licensed residential care facility. 9-374447. Requirements for issuance of operator's permit. (a) The owner/operator shall submit an application to the director that provides the following information: (1) the name, address, phone number and driver's license number of the owner/operator; (2) the name, address, phone number and driver's license number of the house manager; (3) a copy of the group home rules and regulations; (4) written intake procedures; (5) the relapse policy; (6) an affirmation by the owner/operator that only residents (other than the house manager) who are handicapped as defined by state and federal law shall reside at the group home; (7) blank copies of all forms that all residents and potential residents are required to complete; and (8) a fee for the cost of processing of the application as set by resolution of the city council. (b) Requirements for operation of group homes. (1) The group home has a house manager who resides at the group home or any multiple of persons acting as a house manager who are present at the group home on a twenty -four-hour basis and who are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the group home. (2) All garage and driveway spaces associated with the dwelling unit shall, at all times, be available for the parking of vehicles. Residents and the house manager may each only store or park a single vehicle at the dwelling unit or on any street within five hundred (500) feet of the dwelling unit. The vehicle must be operable and currently used as a primary form of transportation for a resident of the group home. (3) Occupants must not require and operators must not provide "care and supervision" as those terms are defined by Health and Safety Code Section 1503.5 and Section 80001(c)(3) of title 22, California Code of Regulations. (4) Integral group home facilities are not permitted. Applicants shall declare, under penalty of perjury, that the group home does not operate as an integral use/facility. (5) If the group home operator is not the property owner, written approval from the property owner to operate a group home at the property. (6) Upon eviction from or involuntary termination of residency in a group home, the operator of the group home shall make available to the occupant transportation to the address listed on the occupant's driver license, state issued identification card, or the permanent address identified in the occupant's application or referral to the group home. The group home operator may not satisfy this obligation by providing remuneration to the occupant for the cost of transportation. (7) The property must be fully in compliance with all building codes, municipal code and zoning. (8) In addition to the regulations outlined above, the following shall also apply to sober living homes: i. All occupants, other than the house manager, must be actively participating in legitimate recovery programs, including, but not limited to, Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous and the sober living home must maintain current records of meeting attendance. Under the sober living home's rules and regulations, refusal to actively participate in such a program shall be cause for eviction. ii. The sober living home's rules and regulations must prohibit the use of any alcohol or any non-prescription drugs at the sober living home or by any recovering addict either on or off site. The sober living home must also have a written policy regarding the possession, use and storage of prescription medications. The facility cannot dispense medications but must make them available to the residents. The possession or use of prescription medications is prohibited except for the person to whom they are prescribed, and in the amounts/dosages prescribed. These rules and regulations shall be posted on site in a common area inside the dwelling unit. Any violation of this rule must be cause for eviction under the sober living home's rules for residency and the violator cannot be re -admitted for at least ninety (90) days. Any second violation of this rule shall result in permanent eviction. Alternatively, the sober living home must have provisions in place to remove the violator from contact with the other residents until the violation is resolved. iii. The number of occupants subject to the sex offender registration requirements of Penal Code Section 290 does not exceed the limit set forth in Penal Code Section 3003.5 and does not violate the distance provisions set forth in Penal Code Section 3003. iv. The sober living home shall have a written visitation policy that shall preclude any visitors who are under the influence of any drug or alcohol. v. The sober living home shall have a good neighbor policy that shall direct occupants to be considerate of neighbors, including refraining from engaging in excessively loud, profane or obnoxious behavior that would unduly interfere with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of their dwelling unit. The good neighbor policy shall establish a written protocol for the house manager/operator to follow when a neighbor complaint is received. vi. The sober living home shall not provide any of the following services as they are defined by Section 10501(a)(6) of Title 9, California Code of Regulations: detoxification; educational counseling; individual or group counseling sessions; and treatment or recovery planning. (c) An applicant may seek relief from the strict application of this section by submitting an application to the director setting forth specific reasons as to why accommodation over and above this section is necessary under state and federal laws, pursuant to co�rArticle 15 of Chapter IX of Title 13 of this Code. (d) The operator's permit shall be issued by the director if the applicant is in compliance, or, where applicable, has agreed to comply, with the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) above. (e) In addition to denying an application for failing to comply, or failing to agree to comply, with subsections (a) and/or (b), an application shall be denied by the director under any of the following circumstances: (1) Any owner/operator or staff person has provided materially false or misleading information on the application or omitted any pertinent information. (2) Any owner/operator or staff person has an employment history in which he or she was terminated during the past two (2) years because of physical assault, sexual harassment, embezzlement or theft; falsifying a drug test; and selling or furnishing illegal drugs or alcohol. (3) Any owner/operator or staff person has been convicted of or pleaded nolo contendere, within the last seven (7) to ten (10) years, to any of the following offenses: Any sex offense for which the person is required to register as a sex offender under California Penal Code Section 290 (last ten (10) years); ii. Arson offenses—Violations of Penal Code Sections 451-455 (last seven (7) years); or iii. Violent felonies, as defined in Penal Code Section 667.5, which involve doing bodily harm to another person (last ten (10) years). iv. The unlawful sale or furnishing of any controlled substances (last seven (7) years). (4) Any owner/operator or staff person is on parole or formal probation supervision on the date of the submittal of the application or at any time thereafter. (5) The owner/operator accepts residents, other than a house manager, who are not disabled or handicapped as defined by the FHAA and FEHA. (6) An operator's permit for a sober living home shall also be denied, and if already issued shall be revoked upon a hearing by the director, under any of the following additional circumstances: i. Any owner/operator or staff person of a sober living home is a recovering drug or alcohol abuser and upon the date of application or employment has had less than one (1) full year of sobriety. ii. The owner/operator of a sober living home fails to immediately take measures to remove any resident who uses alcohol or illegally uses prescription or non-prescription drugs, or who is not actively participating in a legitimate recovery program from contact with all other sober residents. iii. For any other significant and/or repeated violations of this section and/or any other applicable laws and/or regulations. 9-375448. — Transfer of operator's permit. (a) An operator's permit shall not be valid for a location other than the property for which it is issued, unless and until the transfer of the permit is approved by the director pursuant to the requirements of section 9- 374447. (b) An operator's permit may not be transferred to any other person or entity. No operator's permit issued pursuant to this article shall be transferred or assigned or authorize any person or entity other than the person or entity named in the permit to operate the group home named therein. 9-376449. - Revocation of operator's permit. An operator's permit may be revoked upon a hearing by the director pursuant to section 9-120 for failing to comply with the terms of the permit and/or for failing to comply with the applicable provisions of section 9-374447. 9-377459. — Reapplication after denial or revocation. (a) An applicant for an operator's permit whose application for such an operator's permit has been denied may not reapply for such an operator's ep rmit for a period of six (6) months from the date such notice of denial was issued. (b) A holder of an operator's permit that has been cancelled, revoked or otherwise invalidated may not reapply for an operator's or a user's permit for a period of six (6) months from the date that such revocation, cancellation or invalidation became final. 9-378454. — Compliance. A group home that is subject to the provisions of this article that is in existence as of the effective date of this ordinance shall have 120 days to comply with the provisions of this article. 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 no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 3: Severability. If any chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or its application to other persons. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each chapter, article, section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of the application thereof to any person, be declared invalid or unconstitutional. No portion of this Ordinance shall supersede any local, state, or federal law, regulation, or codes dealing with life safety factors. Section 4: 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. Adopted this day of , 2015 Stephen Mensinger, Mayor ATTEST: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF COSTA MESA ) CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2015, and thereafter at the regular meeting of said City Council duly held on the day of , 2015, was duly passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Brenda Green City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa Cl T Y COUNCIL A GENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH -3 SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 —CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP FOR NET DEVELOPMENT CO. 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER 22, 2015 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was conceptually approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011, who recommended denial of the project to the City Council, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard by the City Council. The applicant is re -submitting the project for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the helistop by adoption of City Council resolution, subject to conditions of approval. BACKGROUND Site Location The property is located on the east side of Airway Avenue, between Baker Street and Fischer Avenue. The property is zoned MP (Industrial Park), approximately 2.4 acres in size, and contains an existing one-story, 37,955 square foot industrial building. The subject property abuts John Wayne Airport (JWA) to the east. On April 1, 2011, the City issued building permits for a tenant improvement for Leading Edge Aviation Services. Leading Edge Aviation Services paints civilian and military aircraft at facilities around the world; however, no painting of aircraft is proposed at this location - this location is for storage of materials and offices only. The tenant improvement included a second story, 980 square foot addition for the CEO's office at the northeast end of the building (see site photos Attachment 2). This tenant improvement was finaled in October 2011. The second phase of the tenant improvement was to be the construction of the helistop on the southeast end of the existing building for the CEO's private helicopter. Per Zoning Code Section 13-30(82), heliports and helistops require the approval of a conditional use permit. What is a helistop? A helistop is a landing place for helicopters, often on the roof of a building or some other limited access area. There are a number of different terms to describe similar facilities, including "heliport" and "helipad". The applicant's supporting documents, which are attached to the Planning Commission staff report, explains that the facility will be specifically used for limited takeoffs/landings, rather than housing other related activities such as maintenance, refueling, and storage, which is normally associated with a heliport; additionally, the facility is for private use and not open to the general public. For clarity, the term "helistop" is used to describe the proposed facility in this report. A map showing the known helistops in the City of Costa Mesa and within the area of JWA is attached to this report for reference (Attachment 1). Other Regulatory Agencies Because of the proximity of the helistop to John Wayne Airport (JWA), the proposed facility is regulated by the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) and, in addition to City approval, requires approval by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1975, ALUC adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) which specifies permitted uses in proximity to the airport. The uses include the following general provisions: 1. Uses not deemed to create adverse noise impacts. 2. Uses that will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft - related accidents. 3. Uses that will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. A detailed description of the proposed facility was submitted to ALUC and their determination that the facility was compatible with the AELUP was made on July 21, 2011, and is attached to the Planning Commission staff report. According to the ALUC, their 2011 approval of the proposed facility remains valid. City Council as the Final Review Authority Typically, the Planning Commission is the final review authority for CUP's unless the Commission's action is appealed or called up for review by the City Council. However, Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5(b) stipulates that final approval of the helistop is by the City Council, unless said approval is specifically delegated by the Council to the Commission. The specific PUC provision is summarized below: 21661.5. (a) No political subdivision, any of its officers or employees, or any person may submit any application for the construction of a new airport to any local, regional, state, or federal agency unless the plan for construction is first approved by the board of supervisors of the county, or the city council of the city, in which the airport is to be located and unless the plan is submitted to the appropriate commission exercising powers pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9, and acted upon by that commission in accordance with the provisions of that article. (b) A county board of supervisors or a citV council maV, pursuant to Section 65100 of the Government Code, delegate its responsibilitV under this section for the approval of a plan for construction of new helicopter landing and takeoff areas, to the county or citV planning agencV. Because the City Council does not have a formal policy delegating the approval of heliports or helistops to the Planning Commission, it is necessary that the Council take final action on the CUP. Original Request (2011) On August 8, 2011, Planning Commission considered the request. One member of the public spoke in opposition to the request during the hearing. The Commission recommended denial of the project to the City Council on a 3-1 vote (Commissioner Fitzpatrick voting no, Commissioner Salcedo absent). The basis for the denial is discussed in greater detail in the attached Planning Commission staff report. The project, with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial, was scheduled for the November 1, 2011 City Council hearing. The applicant requested several continuances before withdrawing the item from the City Council agenda on June 19, 2012. Because of the amount of time that has elapsed between the time the project was last considered at a public hearing, the request was brought back to the Planning Commission at their September 28, 2015 meeting for recommendation to the City Council. Summary of September 28, 2015 Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 28, 2015, which included presentation of the staff report. In addition, public comments both in favor of and opposed to the request were received by the Planning Commission. Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to the City Council by a 5-0 vote based on the following: The applicant's noise study, which was not presented to the Planning Commission in 2011, concluded that there would be no significant noise impacts to surrounding properties as a result of the helistop operations. After the August 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant prepared a noise study for the City Council's consideration, which was withdrawn prior to the public hearing. The noise study, prepared by Acoustics Group Inc., concluded that there would be no increase in noise impacts to surrounding uses (including noise -sensitive uses such as the nearby Mariner's Christian School) because the subject site is within the 65 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour of JWA, and that the helistop noise would be below this City, County, and FAA noise standard for sensitive receptors. At Mariner's Christian School, the existing CNEL from JWA is 62 dB. Future helistop operations would produce a CNEL of 46.1 dB at the school, approximately 16 dB below existing airport noise levels. The noise study was updated by the consultant and presented at the September 28, 2015 meeting, and incorporated as a condition of approval. The use of the helistop is for a private helicopter only — the facility will not be open to the general public, i.e., a heliport, and will be limited to a specific number of flights per day and per week and hours of operation. According to the applicant, the use of the facility will vary depending upon the business owner's travel needs. A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are permitted for the helistop. Hours of operation shall be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 am -7:00 pm Sunday. This is reflected in the conditions of approval. No fueling, maintenance, or repair facilities are proposed. According to the applicant the facility will be used for arrivals and departures of the helicopter only. No fueling or maintenance activities will occur on the site. 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 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project. If the project is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA Section 15270(a) for Projects Which Are Disapproved. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the resolutions and they have been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing: 1. Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners within a 500 - foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. (See attached Notification Radius Map.) 2. On-site posting. A public notice was posted on the street frontage of the project site. 3. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper. Notice was also provided to all persons who submitted correspondence for the project. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may take the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of the facility to the City Council as proposed by the applicant; or 2. Recommend denial of the facility to the City Council as proposed, based on the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the August 8, 2011 meeting as discussed earlier in this report. CONCLUSION Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council as to the approval or denial of the requested conditional use permit for the private helistop facility. MEL LEE, AICP GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Senior Planner Director of Economic Development & Development Services / Deputy CEO Attachments: 1. Location Map and Radius Map 2. Site Photos 3. Applicant's Prosect Description Letter and Proposed Flight Route 4. Draft Resolutions 5. Correspondence from Public from July 2011 to Present in Reverse Chronoloaical Order 6. Plans 7. September 28. 2015 Plannina Commission Meetina Minute Excerpts 8. September 28, 2015 Planning Commission Resolution 9. September 28. 2015 Plannina Commission Reports and Attachments Additional Correspondence received 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) File (2) Distribution List a m U h C fU J r x Ln 00 N ai U a M L(i 00 0 N M r (0 U LU OO LL OO U U „ r ATTACHMENT 1 y -- 7— y. 6. 0 �pI Y LL i7 + S x go dM flC W -- 7— y. n %r Nj LnmQ mQ m AVENUE & RED HILL a— AVENUE LL 'b Jit t ttb n 12 P M E17-06 he T 6303 AC/ JB a A Do J3 ti r 4 saa-n 5067A P, a s, _ w PA�H.. S/4 AC P.D48AG r- '' 14 re Z 4 PAR / TJ3 iy� eR J 6�C 'O as c 1.55y we r VEJV$ AUE - tier AYEJVUE". '9 o AIRWAY to P. M. rfx fret uy° A L I _ v �Il� y�„gl°ACJEP7• J1���r ait � m—. 3/96AC K7 - •� b � P 449 AC q 2. 45 AC. d flOt?JIC ' C b 'p/ 4 2�A C N0. 6956 1 ce�ex' •a' •� �'�„b r a � . � � � �J'0 k � + •fix �i . �' ell.L= rpr 4 4,47, ! 02 Al I i FILE # 152144 Map Preparers 3132 AIRWAY AVE SUSAN W. CASE, INC. COSTA MESA CA 917 GLENNEYRE ST #7 JULY 23 2015 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 500/ OWNERS 949 494 6105 938 980 N NORTH susancase i►)c ahov.corrs Ca" CITY OF COSTA MESA HELISTOPS: Source: California Department of Transportation Name Address Approval Costa Mesa Police Department 99 Fair Drive No CUP on file HeliStream (helicopter flight training school) 3000 Airway Avenue No CUP on file L.A. Times Costa Mesa (Newspaper publisher) 1375 Sunflower Avenue No CUP on file South Coast Metro Center (shopping center) 555 Anton Boulevard PA -91-04, Approved by PC 2/11/1991 Proposed Location 3132 Airway Avenue PA -11-03, Approved by PC 9/28/2015 10 fv 16 ATTACHMENT 2 U. W J O Q a J W CL O H J W 0 W N O a O a i Z D J m LL O oc Q W ATTACHMENT 3 KEVIN A. COLEMAN 3130 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92e26 July 9, 201 City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, P.O. 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 RE: Requested Conditional Use Permit-helipad To Whom It May Concern: Thls-request is to place a helicopter pad on roof located at 3132 Airway Avenue. This property is located against the John Wayne Airport at the Southwest corner. There is a current helicopter flight pattern already over the top of the property and would be compatible with current uses and permits in the general area. This proposed use should not be detrimental in any way to other properties in the same area. If you have any concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 11-11 vin A: KAC:klw PF7-: m H 2 J LL. a ii r. �lb,.40 r I ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA - 11 -03, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Kevin A. Coleman, owner of real property located at 3132 Airway Avenue, requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Conditional Use Permit to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was conceptually approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011, who recommended denial, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard by the City Council. The applicant is re -submitting the project for consideration; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2011 the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) reviewed the applicant's request and found the proposed facility to be in conformance with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and the AELUP for Heliports, on a 4-1 vote; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2011, the applicant obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for the helistop design; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted an airspace study as mandated under Part 157 of the Federal Aviation Regulations and found the site to be acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint; and WHEREAS, staff has confirmed that all of the above approvals continue to remain valid as long as no changes are proposed in the design of the helistop; and WHEREAS, the proposed project was found to be categorically exempt under Section 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 28, 2015 and the Commission, after considering the evidence and public testimony, recommended approval of PA -11-03 on a 5-0 vote; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City council on November 3, 2015; and WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 requires that the City Council approve the proposal to construct and operate a helistop located within the city boundaries before Caltrans Division of Aeronautics can issue its final approval; and WHEREAS, the proposed helistop has conditionally complied with federal requirements, and a City Council resolution noting City approval of the helistop is required to finalize the State permitting process. 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 City Council hereby APPROVES Planning Application PA -11-03 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 -11-03 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 on this 3RD day of November, 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 3rd day of November, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 3rd day of November, 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 —,9-- EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (for approval) 1. The information presented substantially complies with Section 13-29(e) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that: a. The proposed use is compatible and harmonious with uses on-site as well as those on the surrounding properties. b. Safety and compatibility of the design of the buildings, parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. c. The Industrial Park land use designation permits a wide range of uses, and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Approval of CUP would be consistent with the proximity of the subject property to John Wayne Airport. d. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. Finding: The conditional use permit substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that the proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the area. Facts in Support of Findings: Specifically, because of the proximity of the helistop to John Wayne Airport, the proposed facility is regulated by the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) and, in addition to City approval, requires approval by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1975, ALUC adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) which specifies permitted uses in proximity to the airport. The uses include the following general guidelines: 1. Uses not deemed to create adverse noise impacts. 2. Uses that will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft - related accidents. 3. Uses that will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. On July 21, 2011, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) has determined that the proposed facility is consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and the AELUP for heliports, on a 4-1 vote. In addition, the applicant obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics on March 13, 2011, and an acceptable airspace study determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on June 11, 2011. The modifications to the -- q building exterior to accommodate the helistop will not be visually intrusive to the existing development or surrounding properties. The presence of the helicopter on the roof of the building will not create an adverse visual impact to surrounding properties due to its proximity to the airport and distance from Airway Avenue. The use of the helistop is for a private helicopter only — the facility will not be open to the general public. No fueling, maintenance, or repair facilities are proposed. Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity, which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation for the property. 3. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15311 for Accessory Structures. 4. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Ping. 1. 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. 2. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described in the staff report. Any change in the operational characteristics including, but not limited to, the hours of operation and additional services provided, shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the conditional use permit. Specifically, refueling and overnight maintenance in the helistop area are expressly prohibited. 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(0)]. 3. Any visible steel beams supporting the helistop shall be painted to match the existing building, subject to Planning Division approval. 4. A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are permitted for the helistop. Hours of operation shall be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 am - 7:00 pm Sunday. 5. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or operator shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 6. Helistop noise levels shall not exceed the 65 dB CNEL maximum noise level as identified in the noise study. 7. 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. 8. 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. The City shall have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City's interests, and the applicant shall indemnify City for all such costs incurred by City. 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. 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/her opinion, any of the following circumstances exist: 1) the use is being operated in violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 2. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 3. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. Bldg. 4. Comply with the requirements of the adopted 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical code , 2013 California Plumbing code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted, California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance ) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Fire 5. Helistop shall comply with all requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 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. .- 23 -- RESOLUTION NO. PC -15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11- 03, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Kevin A. Coleman, owner of real property located at 3132 Airway Avenue, requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was conceptually approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011, who recommended denial, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard by the City Council. The applicant is re -submitting the project for consideration; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on November 3, 2015. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS DENIAL by the City Council of Planning Application PA -11-03 with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 3RD day of November, 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 3rd day of November, 2015, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 3rd day of November, 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 (for denial A. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (e) because: a. The proposed use is not compatible and harmonious with uses both on site and those on surrounding properties. b. The project is not consistent with the General Plan. B. Finding: The information presented does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) because the proposed use is not compatible with developments in the same general area. 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. 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. Facts in Support of Findings: The potential noise impacts of the proposed helistop to surrounding properties had not been sufficiently identified or analyzed; Although the subject site is not part of the JWA property or airport facility, the proposal constitutes an expansion of aircraft activities beyond the existing footprint of JWA; ■ Potential changes in the type of helicopter, i.e., the "quiet" helicopter proposed by the applicant versus the potential for a different, noisier, helicopter, could result in additional noise impacts to surrounding properties; and The proposed use, i.e., a private helistop facility, provides no benefit to the citizens of Costa Mesa compared to helipads/helistops utilized by hospitals or law enforcement agencies. C. The Costa Mesa City Council has recommended denial of PA -11-03. 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. —2-7— October 16, 2015 Honorable Mayor Stephen Mensinger City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mayor Mensinger, ATTACHMENT 5 I am writing on behalf of the Airport Working Group of Orange County (AWG) Board of Directors and our over 6,000 members throughout Orange County and especially In Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to express our concern regarding the Planning Commission approval of the application of Mr. Kevin Coleman to place a helipad on the roof of his building located at 3132 Airway Ave. in Costa Mesa next to John Wayne Airport (JWA). You may recall that in 2011 the Costa Mesa Planning Commissioners denied the same application on the ground that it constituted an expansion of the airport. AWG agreed then with the decision and we would like to express again our opposition to Mr. Coleman application based on the following criteria: • The project is an indirect expansion of JWA beyond its current footprint. • The application is a violation to the Corridor Cities principles. • The project will add more noise impact to our communities. ■ The increased air traffic will results in a degradation of the environment. For all of the above reasons, the AWG Board of Directors urges you to reject the application during your upcoming City Council meeting review. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tony Khoury AWG Board President C C: Honorable Tom Hatch — Costa Mesa City Manager 1048 Irvine Avenue - PMB 467 - Newport Beach, CA 92660 • www.awgoc.com LEE, MEL From: Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:49 PM To: LEE, MEL Subject: RE: Concerns Regarding the Helipad Decision Dear Mr. lee, I am writing on behalf of the Airport Working Group of Orange County (AWG) Board of Directors and our over 6,000 members throughout Orange County and especially in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach to express our concern regarding the Planning Commission approval of Mr. Kevin Coleman application, to place a Helipad on the roof of his building located at 3132 Airway Avenue, in Costa Mesa next to John Wayne Airport (JWA). You may recall that in 2011 the Costa Mesa Planning Commissioners denied the same application on the ground that it constituted an expansion of the airport. AWG agreed then with the decision and we would like to express again our opposition to Mr. Coleman application based on the following criteria: • The project is an indirect expansion of JWA beyond its current footprint. • The application is a violation to the Corridor Cities principles. • The project will add more noise impact to our communities. • The increased air traffic will results in a degradation of the environment. For all of the above reasons, the AWG Board is greatly concerned with the Planning Commission decision for approving the Helipad. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tony Khoury AWG Board President Pq–Z12— LEE, MEL From: Denis Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 1:31 PM To: LEE, MEL Subject: Tonight's PC mtg re PA -11-03 Dear Mr Lee, Please allow me time to speak in opposition to this application . I have been given approval to speak in opposition for 60% of the owners of this condominiumized commercial building. Thank you, Denis LaBonge Owner 3136 Airway Ave, 92626 Sent from my Whone 3 O— LEE, MEL From: David Heil Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 1:41 PM To: Denis Cc: LEE, MEL; Michael Gray; Mike Gray Subject: Re: Tonight's PC mtg re PA -11-03 Yes! DAVID AUGUST HEIL Founder I Creative Director I CEO David August Inc. Work: 714.545.SUIT 7848 Fax: 714.545.7880 Dk 3140 AIRWAY AVE. COSTA MESA, CA. 92626 CALIFORNIA I LAS VEGAS I FLORIDA I NEW YORK Stay In Touch With Us Online: WWW.DAVIDAUGUSTINC.COM On Sep 28, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Denis rote: Dear Mr Lee, Please allow me time to speak in opposition to this application. I have been given approval to speak in opposition for 60% of the owners of this condominiumized commercial building. Thank you, Denis LaBonge Owner 3136 Airway Ave, 92626 Sent from my iPhone LEE, MEL From: Dale Lyon Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 8:52 AM To: LEE, MEL Subject: Helistop at 3132 Airway Dear Mr. Lee, Thank you for sending the staff report for the Helipad at 3132 Airway Av.. We are the owners of 3100 Airway. This project consist of four buildings and approximately 70,000 Scl Ft, occupied by +/- 35 individual tenants. We opposed the application back in 2011 and it appears the new application is a renewal of the 2011 one. The noise and safety issues have not changed. Therefore, we are still not in favor of the Helipad. Thank you, Dale M. Lyon Dale M. Lyon Senior Vice President, Construction OLEN DEVELOPMENT CORP. Seven Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)719-7221 - Direct (949)719-7274 - Fax www , olen pro p erti e s . co m -3Z- &,L 92627 September 23, 2015 Costa Mesa Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Subject: APP #PA -11-03 Honorable Commissioners: Attached is a letter I wrote to the City Council when this application was presented in 2011 which I urge you to read. Since that initial letter, flights to Canada and Mexico have already begun and has added to the noise and pollution to my and the homes in the immediate area. My strong objection to this project remains. I really don't care that the Airport Land Use Commission has approved this - none of its members live here. And I don't care that it has received conditional approval by the Federal Aviation Administration - again, none of its members live here. I resent bureaucrats trying to mandate policies that will not affect them. It's the residents of Costa Mesa who will have to put up with the additional headaches this project will bring; the entities involved reap the benefits while we "lowly" citizens bear the brunt of its consequences. I'm curious as to exactly where these helicopter flights would take /retrieve its passengers and how often. If successful, how many more would be added. We are all aware of the noise the police helicopters create when flying overhead. I have no objection to that; that's law enforcement doing its job. However, I do object to the noise/pollution commercial helicopter operations would bring, as well as the safety issues would be raised. Approving this could very well result in more such applications, which the city will be hard pressed to deny. However, even more ominous is the fact that this could very well be a catalyst that will enlarge the airport footprint, something that would be absolutely devastating to Costa Mesa and its citizens; something that we absolutely do not want. This is not LAX. John Wayne is still a relatively small airport — regardless of whether you put "International" in its title. The city should be making every effort to avoid steps that might lead to a larger, busier John Wayne Airport. Two previous City Councils wisely rejected this application. I urge you the same. Please put the quality of life and welfare of the citizens you represent first and foremost. Sincerely Dolores Storme Attachment �o,►,�rce/z � xotime -- - - — l?Qokaeoa, �aPiaa+un 92627 August 23, 2011 Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Subject: App #PA -11-03 Honorable Council Members: I write this letter in opposition to your approving the subject application. I do not believe approving this application request is in the best interests of the citizens of Costa Mesa. While the proposed helipad will be located atop a building next to the airport runways, it nevertheless may be construed as a way to enlarge the airport footprint. In addition, any helicopters using the helipad will be able to access it by flying over residential areas of Costa Mesa. There is enough air and noise pollution emanating from John Wayne Airport as it is; we do not need any more. I believe there are also safety concerns. We don't need any addition risks (remember the helicopter crash at New York's Pan Am building?) along with what is already present with planes from John Wayne taking off/landing over residential areas. Another thing to consider — just how many helicopter flights are planned — and how many more if this venture is successful.. Approve this application and I am certain Legacy will return with their ambitious plans which would also further enlarge the airport footprint. The previous Council wisely turned Legacy down. Why risk having the camel put his nose under the tent by approving the subject application. This is not far-fetched. The new terminal at John Wayne will have everything needed for easy international travel — customs, immigration, etc. Obviously the airport planners are anticipating expanded service to Canada — and who knows where else. How convenient to have a helipad for passengers wanting to avoid the mess that is LAX. If successful, there will be more applications for helipads. You have to think long term here. Again, I urge the Council to reject this application — regardless of what governmental agencies have given it their blessings. The citizens of Costa Mesa must come first. Sincerely, Dolores Storme P O BOX 1200 • 77 FAIR DRIVE • CALIFORNIA 92623-1200 • (714) 764-5245 City of Costa Mesa TELEPHONE RECORD Date: September 15, 2015 Name: Lea Choum, Land Use Manager, John Wayne Airport Address: 3160 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa Call Received by: Mel Lee ICOMMENTS: (Use Back or Attach Additional Sheets as Necessary) 1 Lea Choum confirmed that as long as no changes have been made to the proposed helistop/helipad ay 3132 Airway Avenue (PA -11-03 ), the approval of the location and use by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on July 21, 2011 is still valid (Nj� LEE, MEL Subject: FW: Proposed Helipad at 3132 Airway Avenue (PA -11-03) Attachments: MX-3116N_20150909_082502.pdf From: Brandt, Kim[mailto:KBrandt@newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 4:52 PM To: LEE, MEL <MEL.LEE @costamesaca.gov> Cc: FLYNN, CLAIRE <CLAIRE.FLYNN @costamesaca.gov>; ARMSTRONG, GARY<GARY.ARMSTRONG@costamesaca.gov> Subject: Proposed Helipad at 3132 Airway Avenue (PA -11-03) Hello Mel, Thank you for consulting the City of Newport Beach regarding the proposed helipad at 3132 Airway Avenue. As you noted in your email, the City of Newport Beach did send the attached letter dated August 5, 2011 expressing concerns regarding the proposed Leading Edge Aviation Services private -use helistop project in view of the Corridor Cities' principles. If indeed, this 2015 helipad proposal is a renewal of the 2011 application, the City of Ne,,vport Beach's concerns remain as stated in the attached August 2011 letter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, 'CtiSr, Yrit-n6 t, r -W, p Go'rr,ir,uni�ti� De✓eGv�M.��ct 1�irZctar 949-644-3220' www.newoortbeachca.eov ~,3(p August S, 2011 The Honorable Gary Monahan Mayor, City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive M�,5 ?A - Ik'o3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. Colin McCarthy Chairman of the Planning Commission 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 Costa Mesa, California 92626 RE: Proposed "Leading Edge Aviation Services" Heliport at 3132 Airway Avenue Dear Mayor Monahan and Chairman McCarthy: Our City has long appreciated the City of Costa Mesa's cooperative work as a member of the "Corridor Cities" to keep John Wayne Airport (JWA) a "neighborhood -friendly" airport. Additionally, our two cities adopted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in October 2008 (attached) which underscored our collective commitment to protect our citizens from adverse impacts of operations at JWA. Together we have partnered to attempt to limit the expansion of JWA and to block any negative change in JWA's operational characteristics, including operational hours, the passenger caps, and the limits on average daily departures of the loudest commercial planes. It is in the spirit of our mutual commitment that we offer these comments. At the core of the October 2008 MOU is the philosophy that: "the Cities believe it is in their respective best interests to foster a closer working relationship between the Cities and to keep each other informed of issues that relate to JWA; to look for opportunities to assist one another, to work together to implement strategies and action plans that are designed to achieve the primary objective of protecting their residents and that the strategies and plans must consider and respect the complex legal, political and economic factors relevant to airport operations and impacts, ..." Goals within the MOU Include: A. Ensuring that no actions are taken at JWA which would negatively alter the quality of life, and that any such actions are otherwise in the best long term interests, of the residents of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa; B. Ensuring communication by the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa and their residents and community groups concerned about the impacts of JWA; C. Oppose any expansion of JWA beyond its current (2008) boundary footprint; and D. Ensure that regional plans are consistent with the legal and practical constraints on air carrier service at JWA; Letter to Mayor Monahan and Mr. McCarthy August 5, 2011 Page 2 The Corridor Cities' adopted principles include: To oppose any expansion of JWA beyond its current (2007) footprint. It is JWA's geographic constraints that give both of our communities the added assurance that JWA will remain neighborhood -friendly. In evaluating the "Legacy Air" project in March 2010, your community cited the Corridor Cities' Principles to limit the potential expansion of the airport footprint. We greatly appreciated Costa Mesa's response to the Legacy Air project. Its 2.7 -acre expansion of the security and airport zone, which some might have seen as minor, was seen by both of our communities as a breach in the containment wall along the westside of JWA and a violation of the principles set forth above.. It is with a similar view that our community has looked at the proposed Leading Edge Aviation Services private -use helistop at 3132 Airway Avenue in Costa Mesa. As you may be aware, Council Member Leslie Daigle, who serves on the Airport Land Use Commission, could not find that the Leading Edge project was consistent with the JWA Airport Land Use Plan. She did so in part because of questions she raised which were not answered satisfactorily — including the lack of a noise study, an inability of any municipality to control flights or limit hours of operation, and questions about the specific number of takeoffs and landings permitted (four versus six). Our City, of course, is interested in our region's economic development, and we do not wish to attempt to intervene in your economic interests. However, we did want to express our respectful concern about the Leading Edge project as viewed through the lens of the Corridor Cities' principles. We have no doubt that your respective decision-making bodies will thoughtfully and carefully examine whether Leading Edge should be approved in light of Costa Mesa's strong commitment to the Corridor Cities' principles. We look forward to working with you on this and other issues of mutual interest, including any discussions you might wish to have on airport and boundary issues. We value your continued cooperation and partnership in municipal governance and protecting the quality of life that our two cities' residents expect. If you have any questions about this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, MI rILA\, NN V Mayor of Newport Beach V' Attachment: October 2008 MOU between Newport Beach and Costa Mesa cc: Members of the Newport Beach City Council Allan Murphy, John Wayne Airport w r] IL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT BETWEEN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA AND THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CAUFORNIA THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA ("Newport") and the CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA ("Costa Mesa"), hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as the "Cities", this 110+l `l day of d , 2008. WHEREAS, Newport and Costa Mesa are committed to protecting their respective residents from the adverse impacts of commercial aircraft operations at and from John Wayne Airport (JWA); and WHEREAS, the Cities believe that airport impacts are now, and will continue to be a significant threat to the quality of life of their respective residents, and WHEREAS, the Cities believe it is in their respective best interests to foster a closer working relationship between the Cities and to keep each other informed of issues that relate to JWA; to look for opportunities to assist one another, to work together to implement strategies and action plans that are designed to achieve the primary objective of protecting their residents and that the strategies and plans must consider and respect the complex legal, political and economic factors relevant to airport operations and impacts; and WHEREAS, the Cities recognize that a thorough understanding of airport operations and impacts is necessary in dealing with JWA and the factors include but are not limited to: State and Federal law; the attitudes, philosophy and regulations of the FAA; the regional demand for air transportation; regional and sub -regional planning and transportation programs and policies; the decisions, philosophy and opinions of the Grange County Board of Supervisors and other local, State and Federal representatives and officials; and the opinions and concerns of Orange County residents and business owners, and WHEREAS, a number of relevant factors and the complexity of the issues related to adverse airport impacts mean that no single approach or simple strategy will be successful in achieving the Cities` primary objectives and that the Cities will be able to achieve thein primary objectives only if their strategies and action plans reflect a thorough understanding and consideration of these factors and that if the two (2) Cities work together to achieve their respective goals the likelihood of success increases. NOW, THEREFORE, the Cities of Newport Beach and Crista Mesa desire to work together to achieve the following objectives and take the following action and agree as follows:. _ 39— 1-1 OBJECTIFIES Pq Establish a working relationship between Newport Beach and Costa Mesa and provide support to one another regarding JWA. This objective can be achieved by encouraging joint meetings between the elected officials of the two (2) Cities; joint meetings between staff of the respective Cites, including but not limited to having a designated representative of the City of Costa Mesa attend the monthly Aviation Committee meeting of the City of Newport Beach with full membership on the Committee. 2. Establish a dialogue and forum between the Cities to discuss ways in which the two Cities can protect their residents from the adverse impacts of commercial aircraft operations at and from John Wayne Airport. These objectives can be achieved by the exchange of information, including but not limited to technical information as it relates to the MA, by and among, elected officials and the staff of the two (2) Cities; the Involvement of community groups within the Cities, Encourage a joint public forum of the elected officials, with the participation of technical experts, consultants and resident groups at least once a year. Meanwhile each City will identify a principal contact for the purposes of exchanging information and meeting with a representative of the other City on a continuing basis regarding JWA. The Cities expect that the joint forum will develop a plan of action; review and assess cooperative activities between the Cities; recommend ways to improve cooperation and undertake such activities as the Cities deem necessary. u Establish a working relationship by and between staff on an as needed basis, with exchange of information as it relates to airport operations and impacts. The foregoing exchange of information should include but not be limited to: State and Federal lave; Environmental impacts, noise, air duality, water quality, the attitudes, philosophy and regulations of the FAA; Regional and sub -regional planning and transportation programs and policies; the decisions, philosophy and opinions of the Grange County Board of Supervisors and other local, State and Federal representatives and officials, and the opinions and concerns of Grange County residents, The meeting of staff should occur no less than once (1) a month. 4. Use the established relationship of the Cities to work with other cities in Grange County California, including but not limited to the "Corridor Cities" of Santa Ana, Orange, Anaheim, Tustin and Irvine, all of whom are adversely impacted by commercial aircraft operations at JWA and explore mechanisms for formalizing the relationship of the Corridor Cities. 5. Establish a working relationship with the County of Orange and continually exchange information as it relates to airport operations and impacts, , TU U fi. Establish a mechanism for the joint financing by the Cities of the foregoing stated objectives and the attainment of the goals as hereinafter set forth. GOALS 7. The objectives as outlined above would be adopted with the goals of: A. Ensuring that no actions are taken at JWA which would negatively alter the quality of life, and that any such actions are otherwise in the best long term interests, of the residents of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa; B. Ensuring that there be no modification to the County's airport noise curfew including but not limited to opposing any change to air carrier or general aviation noise ordinances; C. Ensuring that no actions would be taken that could lead to the construction of a second air carrier runway at JWA or extension of the existing runway(s); D. Ensuring that any and/or all steps necessary be taken to protect and preserve the validity of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to any amendments thereto; E. Ensuring communication by the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa and their residents and community groups concerned about the impacts of JWA; F. Oppose any expansion of JWA beyond its current (2008) boundary footprint; G, appose any significant reduction in general aviation operations/facilities; H. Ensure that regional plans are consistent with the legal and practical constraints on air carrier service at JWA; I. appose any attempt by out -of county entities to assume any ownership of, or operational control over, JWA; J. In cooperation with the Orange County Board of Supervisors and other public agencies, actively support development and implementation of proposals that enable Orange County residents and businesses to conveniently access underused out -of -county airports using roadway improvements and air passenger rail links. r] MISCELLANEOUS 1-9 a. Termination. This Memorandum of Understanding (`MOU" shall take effect as of the date first set forth hereinabove and shag remain effective until terminated by the Cities Hereto; Either parity to this MOU may terminate this MOU without cause at anytime by giving a thirty (30) day written notice to the other party. Any notice provided hereunder shall be deemed given when personally delivered to the other party or three (3) days after the date the notice is deposited in the United States mail, first-class postage paid, and addressed to the appropriate representative as specified in this MOU. 9. Modifications. Mod fications within the scope of this MOU shall be made by mutual consent: of the Parties, by the issuance of an executed written modification, signed and dated by all Parties. 10. Voluntary. This MOU reflects an entirely voluntary comm tment between the Parties. This WOU in no way obligates or restricts the activity of any party nor shall it in any way interfere with the governance by the Cities of their respective Cities. No Party shall have any right, power, or authority to create any obligation, express or implied, on behalf of any other Party or Parties. 11. Indemnify, The City of Newport Beach agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City of Costa Mesa, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents,. employees and volunteers harmless against and from any and all losses, claims, actions, damages, expenses or liabilities, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of or in any way connected with the City of Newport Beach's negligent performance of this MOU. Newport Beach assumes worker's compensation liability for injury or death of its officers, agents, employees and volunteers, and assumes no worker's compensation responslbility for the elected and appointed officials, officers, and employees of Costa Mesa_ The City of Costa Mesa agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City of Newport Beach, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, employees and volunteers harmless against and from any and all loses, claims, actions, damages, expenses or liabilities, including reasonable attomey"s fees, arising out of or in any way connected with Costa Mesa's negligent performance of this MOU. Costa Mesa assumes worker`s compensation liability for injury or death of its elected and appointed officials, officers, and employees, and assumes no worker's compensation responsibility for the officers, agents, employees and volunteers of Newport Beach. 12, No Assignment. This MOU may not be assigned or transferred by either Party without the express written consent of the other Darty. E 13. notice, The Cities have designated the following representatives to receive notices and act on their City's behalf in the administration of this MOU: City of Newport Beach Domer L. Bludau, City Manager 33.00 Newport Blvd. PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 City of Costa Mesa Allan Roeder, City Manager 77 Pair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 14, Additional Documents, The Cities agree promptly to execute or cause to be executed any and all documents now or hereafter necessary to effectuate the purpose of this MOU. 15, Headings, The headings used in this MOU appear striedy for the Cities' convenience in identifying the provisions of thin MOU and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of the provisions of this MOU, 16, No Third Party Beneficiary. No third party is an intended or implied beneficiary of this MOU. 1 11 Ll IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE CAUSED THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO BE EXECUTED THE DATE FIRST AE30VE WRITTEN, ATTEST: ./.) 1 '1/1 . 4� (A00 0-�f ! City Clerk for the City of Newport Beach NEWPORT BEACK, Layer for the City of Newport Beach Page 1 of 11 LEE, MEL From: Denis LaBonge Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:19 AM To: LEE, MEL Cc: Dave Kiff Subject: Helipad application PA -11-03 at 3132 Airway Ave Dear Mr Lee, The following photos additionally demonstrate the clear risk to safety. These High Voltage wires are DIRECTLY in the claimed ingress /egress flight path and nearly same elevation noted in Conditional Use Application PA -11-03. There are 6 occupied privately owned business condominiums .Three owners have submitted written opposition to the Costa Mesa City Council to the application ( I own 3136 Airway), one abstains at last count. That means a majority on this site opposes this proposed Helipad that serves only one man, one company , who is already well served when he parks his helicopter within the existing SNA boundaries. I am out of town until July 17th. I am asking that you forward this letter and photos to the entire Costa Mesa City Council and postpone any further discussion on this matter until I return. The applicant, Mr Coleman, has certainly been granted several extensions previously, as I do now. Thank you for your consideration. Denis LaBonge Newport Coast, 92657 DSC -0599 06/27/2012 A 1f! � i 12'• .�jrY $'a{yr.+ i �' + � r a' �..YS�.�l �� A't' i tl ` ,•m Aj I . c f. • >r ^ + e � 6' ,�:Y ',� �P�� 0+: t yS N �� 3._. t� �i A 'x•11 � f i` V'x^ ... �5:�'. 1�1 ` A � � .{'P ,x.. S^ Y� �#•,ar' _". rn k- z w' a X,^t,�1 w Lie r I i,. , � `. � �} r' • eta � �� f ... .�•`.` � ..e� � .r.,o,''" > roll- + W ' `-+ Ci ... 1 ��a 40 ,.�a• i�� r�. i 7�.,��f,"� Ao 064 .. n.� n Ii 'ti r b s. r 6-M r ... 0 a Wl k r .. t t• ! 'A^i+fl `r a�,y�ris'-°'Ki��'.6[�%77CC""�-'"4: t,r�it ��if..a � .�- ,� h., i ri .J.' it '4 rn�", r'M�1 1 Y s«•i > �� � �{x... !fir fes, T��� i .. � � �;�i i"�' +. f.',`�i lit 22ill X14 X h��•y'�;�,�Y� •:, syn tal +ice +�i c .�i ,.% Y `�d'r d AOL 4^ �1i}r�.�h:«.�,:w,.••,-;�.o-e•,..•,,..`�''r. ".. ` 1 .. .ss.... s�,�l'a'�!_I' Mt'� �1 , o � +si'�i1Sk t r {r x e ��� h i� q � v �, ,a :� a ��n r �''�-+���i d �` ���t � �� 1� �rt'.r�st 4� ��r r,q� � K a � �! � a n' s e'Y � �,..a�' ��• 6ti � s,u;�y.`,Yh.s�':.; -rc jK� n� -" i�+fs`^;�.�4p�'4='@'� �l`L°.y�t r � _tyr"�f ,r �f:..� tell w1`'irf < � + '4` t-.,, t t i rrs t 7 `r � R °'$� t .�,+' r l r r�ry� � r� 'F�'+�fd'Sas ��1� r_' a -4 a � t 1�#r a�� � " � �,�x _.,.� C t, r}�" t �rui... j .l��,w � rf�i r �� 1 `t t �t r� i %�'`f �-#1. t'ri7s���.. ��� :itirv't t�'� t.t cf h¢r� ! t; ��, 1 �" ► l�,y isa:. t � r � ..eta,, � .I:f _ ., M jt,. A' . �' AI$er '-;•r ,-1rT� "N`�1 w ��",/� �€r'�ri*�'�i''at G 1 t r� � �"':kv r � •4{�! c,yy�4 � �rYie Z r J'A' _� w � y - s - �i aiT _. WWI- 4W aIsem` iw _ `�so11 a1 .x.119...« N j"a•ekt .�. rNO RIP e S s. �...� `a•y ; [t.,l,.+N 3r NP, . IA y1I"�, Rl e g+ � M 'M 1 s 2 Ri A' ♦i fig, ey w . J "S','d��'?gp 1 ' rM ., l.a .Y5" � y'T �� i✓,' f _ �gvf�,�fx�M .. .► . � �' ,°-,rs�s+��l `.... .. -� !�'� .. - f,. ,1��"r4r,wrt� L�;��f14a'Pl�'1:�� t ...11 tiff js �... gym,.-+::. .sr�..n. .., ,. _ •. ;• r '. ,�} fi�{ x 4 N i�at 7��•r-.a £,.... -�� '.,.. •'. - • ��, .` eb r',� Y ifr rrr 4 I., WWI I �`ArV � r i° 1• � d r , SC.. ^ih1'"�• 6 W /'K... I�yy,�i-� �e4� ,� r" �'}`•-=t' M tC.Z,ria tl. 5 r 'ori tom* T 9 I Wil?•.,, � �'` •'� �. '� aM]..i 4x .� �te�,,r,�•,, tj Jun 12 2012 4:24PM Hawkins Law Offices (9491 650-1181 P.1 Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (949) 650-1181 Fes: COVER SHEET TRANSMITTED TO: NAME FAX NUMBER PHONE NUtiIBER Julie Foleik, City Clerk Me] Lee, AICP, Senior Planner (714) 754-4942 (714) 754-4856 From: Robert C. Hawkins Client/Matter: General Date: June 12, 2012 Documents: Comment Letter for Planning Application PA -11-03 for a Proposed Heliport, 3132 Airway Ave. Pages: 2* COMMENTS na Inlbrination contained in 'his facsirnila message is infornta:ion protected by attorney-client andlar the arrvrneylwork produce prrvilege. If is intended anly for the use of the Individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been start by facsimile. 1J'iJae person actually receiving this facssmile or any other reader of the facsimile is nor the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the nmrzed recipient, any we. dissemination, distribution, or copying of the com?nunicadon is strtcrly pro hiblied Ifyou have received this communication in error, please immediately noti/y us by relephone and return the original message to us at the above address via U.S. Postal Service. 'r NOT COUNTIxe COVER SHEET, IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE Us MMEDIATELY AT (949) 650-55_50. Jun 12 2012 4:24PM Hawkins Law Offices (949) 650-1181 p.2 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS June 12, 2012 Via Facsimile Only The Honorable Eric R. Bever, Mayor Members of the City Council c/o Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628 Re; Application PA -11-03 for a Condition Use Permit for a Helipad/Helistop/Heliport on the roof of an existing industrial building at 3132 Airway Avenue; Finding of Exemption for Accessory Structures Greetings: Thank you for the opportunity to continent on the captioned project. As you may know, this firm represents individuals and groups including the Mariners Community Association in Newport Beach, AirFair, a local group focused keeping John Wayne Airport at its current size as well as others in the Orange County area. These individuals and groups have an interest in the Project and related projects, and environmental issues in the area. As you know, we have opposed this Project from the beginning. The Planning Commission agreed with our arguments and recommended that you deny the captioned Project. In its August 25, 2011 Staff Report, Planning Staff recommended denial of the Project based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation. At that time, the applicant requested a continuance, which you granted and continued the matter to November 1, 2011, On October 20, 2011, the applicant made a second request for continuance, which you granted and continued the matter to Nlarch 6, 2011 On February 13, 2011, the applicant wrote; "I formally request a second continuance from the Helistop Project at 3132 Airway .Avenue until the June 19, 2012 City Council meeting." Now, after all of this delay and continuances, Mr, Lee, the Project Planner for the City, informs that, when June 19' looms, the Applicant has requested that the Project be put on an "indefinite hold." As with the earlier requested continuances, this requires several comments which we have made before. First, as indicated above and as evident in the administrative record, this is the fourth continuance requested by the applicant without any statement of the reasons for such requests. Second, although the applicant prepared a noise study, it falls far short of the studies required and the studies referenced in our earlier comments to the Planning Commission. I i0 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax; (949) 650-1181 -59- Jun 12 2012 4:24PM Eric R, Bever, ,vlayor Members of the City Ccuncil Hawkins Law Offices •2- (949) 650-1181 June 12, 2012 Third, almost a year has passed since the Planning Commission rejected this Project and noted that environmental review was required for this Project to proceed. The applicant has failed to conduct such review, and it's noise study is inadequate. Fourth, and most importantly, as recognized by the Planning Commission, this Project constitutes an expansion of John Wayne Airport and takes airport uses off the airport footprint. The City has long opposed expansion of JWA. The City Council should deny this Project, or at least, deny the Project with leave to renew its application, begin this process again, and provide fresh documentation including full environmental review. Having this application languish burdens City staff and creates a cloud for our clients. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document for the captioned Project. As before, please provide us with notices, if any, for any subsequent public hearings, determinations, actions, and/or findings. Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. RCH/kw cc: City Clerk (via fax only) Sincerely, -IgbVPVFFTCES OF R OBER HAIl wKYs MIC, . y: Robert C. Hawkins 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (949) 650- L 181 M p.3 MARCH 6 2012 RE PA 11-03 PROPOSED HELIPAD. GOOD EVENING COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF 50% OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3130 N 3140 AIRWAY, COSTA MESA CA 926261 VVHO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, THERE ARE 6 SEPERATLEY OWNED SUBDIVIDED UNITS THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED HELICOPTER HELIPAD ABOVE THIS BUILDING. IT IS A SINGLE BUILDING WITH 6 SUB DIVIDED PROPERTY TAX TITLES. IT HAS COMMON EXTERIOR WALLS AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, ONE SINGLE COMMON ROOF. I SUBMITTED MY WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO THIS APPLICATION TO THE COUNCIL ON NOV 1s"r 2011: THE APPLICANT HAS NOW EXTENDED THE MATTER FROM TONIGHT TO JUNE 2012. ATTACHED ARE LETTERS FROM THE OWNERS WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION WHICH I WILL HAND TO EACH OF YOU TONIGHT. THESE LETTERS SUMMARIZE THE EXTREME HARDSHIP THIS HELIPAD VFILL IMPOSE ON THEIR BUSINESS OPERATIONS OR IDENTIFY SAFETY THREATS TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. I REMIND THE COUNCIL THIS HELIPAD WILL SERVE ONLY THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ONE MAN AND ONE BUSINESS IN ORDER TO PARK HIS HELICOPTER IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE HIS OFFICE. CURRENTLY THIS NEED IS BEING QUITE SAFELY HANDLED 100% INSIDE AND WITHIN THE AIRPORT PERIMIETER. THE NET EFFECT WILL BE AN INCREASE IN NUMEROUS SAFETY RELATED MATTERS, BUSINESS DISRUPTION AND INSURANCE ISSUES. OF THE 6 UNITS THERE ARE 3 OPPOSED, 1 ABSTAINING AND 2 IN FAVOR. I AM ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO ABIDE BY THEIR PLANNING COMMISSION'S ""NO" RECOMMENDATION RE THIS MATTER AND REJECT THE APPLICATION ONCE AND FOR ALL. DENIS LABONGE, OWNER 3136 AIRWAY, 92626 Denis LaBonge Fwd: Commercial Property Owner Opposition to Application # PA 11-03, a proposed helipad serving one company. 1 message Denis LaBonge Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:30 PM To: Gary.Monahan a@costamesaca.gov, Jim.Righeimer@costamesaca.gov, Edc.Bever@costamesaca.gov, Wendy. Leece@costamesaca.gov, Stephen. Messinger@costamesaca. ov Cc: planningcommission@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us, Darrin Smith _ avid Gene Salas _ James Golden , Airway Associatio Dear Costa Mesa City Council and Planning Commission Members, Please consider the points I have raised in the email below re the matter titled # PA 11-03, due for Council hearing and public comment on Nov 1st. NOTE WELL: CORRECTION to the text below: I just now received email communication from Mr Coleman re my request for an HOA meeting, he indicates it will be scheduled as soon as possible. The other cc recipients noted above are other owners or responsible parties of this commercial complex. Thank you for your time and consideration. I know these times are very hectic for you all. Denis LaBonge Owner 3136 Airway Costa Mesa, Ca 92626 --------- Forwarded message -------- From: Denis LaBonge Date: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:11 PM Subject: Commercial Property Owner Opposition to Application # PA 11-03, a proposed helipad serving one company. To: .mi l?e,rr Cc: Darrin Smith 3, David __ , Gene Salas ames Golden Dear Mr Lee and all Members of the Costa Mesa City Council, This communication is concerning a Council Hearing re PA 11-03, scheduled for Nov 01, 2011 @ 7 pm at City Council Chambers. I am one of 6 property owners of the industrial unit located at Baker and Airway [ 3140, 3138, 3136, 3134, 3132, 3130 Airway] . I own 3136 Airway and I am the original buyer when the complex was developed in 2003/4 and sold by Mr Coleman to me. At that time he expressed a great personal commitment to keep the development low profile, quiet and low impact. I and my tenant are opposed to this helipad. I depend on this rental income from this property as I am retired. In today's commercial real estate market, having a good tenant, who pays on time is a lucky matter. They indicate if a helipad goes in, they have no intention of remaining as a tenant. I will loose money. From a valuation point of view, local real estate agents I have spoken with indicate the value of the building will likely go down due to the risk and noise. Costa Mesa should be thoughtful re the re- assessed lower property tax value for mine and all adjacent properties if this happens to be the case. The owner of the units at 3130/3132 Airway, Mr Kevin Coleman, has applied for a City of Costa Mesa Conditional Use Permit PA 11-03 to allow a helicopter landing pad to be constructed and used above his unit at 3132 Airway. _ 0 `— This complex of units is governed b, ",e Airway Business Park Owners Associp+Yon C,C & R's , and Mr Coleman handles all aspects of the associatio,. i matters [ architectural approvals, finaniL andscaping ,meetings,etc etc] I have attempted to advise and request Mr Coleman to call for an official HOA meeting to record a formal owners vote re which property owners are in favor of ... and which owners are opposed. Mr Coleman has been advised of my travel schedule. As of this hour, 3:30 pm Tuesday Oct 17th, I have received no response from Mr Coleman re my email requests to him [and cc'd to his assistant] re this matter. I am out of town now until Monday Oct 24th. It is my opinion that there are other unit owners of this development who have voiced opposition to the proposed helipad. I am cc'ing them a copy of this email to keep them aware of my opposition. It is solely up to them, of course, to communicate to you if they choose. I am solely speaking for my property at 3136 Airway. I am opposed to the Conditional Use Permit Application # PA 11-03 for the following reasons: 1. There is a huge personal safety risk, financial risk, quiet enjoyment and peace of mind risk to all tenants in common, to have a helicopter landing 6' above their common roof on a 40'x40' pad. One need only to refer to the helicopter crash in New York OCT 4th, 2011 upon take off. People died. To help everybody visualize 40 feet ... if you are a football fan, you know 40 feet is just a bit over the 10 yd line for a 1 st down. Big chopper, small target zone. 25 feet of drop-off 2. There is a huge risk in the proposed ingress/ egress flight path that the FAA stipulates the chopper must cross! Immediately in line of this path are three SCE High Power poles and heavy duty lines at approximately 20 to 40 feet in elevation. Nearly at the same elevation as the proposed helipad. These lines directly cross the proposed FAA path. Any shift in winds, fog, westem setting sun light, pilot or mechanical error and/or an errant landing path or the choppers landing skids hits these lines and ... you can fill in the blanks. 3. 1 am not a pilot, but I do know that the OC sheriff's helicopter pilot I have asked preferred to take off into the wind. The proposed FAA path for this application is nearly opposite, at 180 degrees opposite of the prevailing winds. This does not bode well for any tenant's west of 3132 helipad if the pilot elects, for safety reason, to take off in a westerly direction and that is a concern of mine. Regardless of the approved FAA path, a pilot's # 1 rule is aircraft safety, we all know that. 4. There are so many unknown dangers involved from flying debris, from established prop wash winds during take off or landing above this small multi unit complex, both from loose roof tile sand [ a natural roof material degrading process and always present ], loose debris of any nature , trash , etc etc that simply are uncontrollable risks 24/7. 5. Additionally this complex has individual air conditioning units that will be subject to prop wash winds due to dust, sand and debris blown into their intake fans, as well as the existing 12 or more skylights which are, by design, open slotted for ventilation, thus allowing for more debris flying into the units below. Debris inside the 6 units is a normal minor occurrence during Santa Ana winds. Can you imagine what that debris will be like under 200 mph prop wash winds? Even Mr Coleman himself noticed this risk during a roof top inspection we took. 6. No mention has been made re spewing tiny airborne jet fuel droplets from the chopper's exhaust under heavy take off and landing engine load condition s.There are over 60 cars parked in the lot immediately below the proposed helipad who are tenants, customers or employers of the businesses at that site. 7. Of major concern to me is the fact my current insurance carrier indicated they will NOT RENEW my commercial insurance if a helipad is approved. So now I must seek to find a new carver that will insure me. Additionally there is an obvious potential for increased insurance /liability risk that will be assigned to the Airway Business Park Owners Association in general for the common area, thus increasing my association dues in a matter I have no economic benefit or participation. In addition, there will be unknown but obvious increased maintenance fees to allow for increased wear and tear to the roof material due to prop wash. 8. The applicant, Mr Coleman's tenant for 3132 Airway currently lands his chopper on the concrete ground [ big target --big pad+ wide berth] at JWA Martin Aviation, merely 150 feet from his new office at 3132 Airway. Is it asking too much of The City Council of Costa Mesa to reject this application on the grounds the risks to employers, employees, current tenants, their visiting customers, nearby citizens et al, .... are not worth the SINGULAR BENEFIT _-(4 ONE PERSON ... all for the purpos park one's personal chopper outside hi- -fFice door, 25 feet off the ground on a 40x40 pad ??? Thank you for considering these points and I urge you to REJECT application # PA 11-03. Denis LaBonge Property Owner 3136 Airway Costa Mesa, Ca 92626. 92657 CP2 - '7..I 0 March 5, 2012 City of Costa Mesa Dear City Council Members: Vortex Industries, Inc. has invested well over $1.5 million in the Vortex Training Center which occupies 3138 Airway. We have developed a state-of-the-art facility unlike anything in our industry and we take great pride in it. We hold training sessions, manager meetings, customer presentations, and business meetings continuously in this facility through out the year. A helicopter pad will be extremely disruptive to our operation. We would not have located our training center in this building had the helicopter pad been on the roof and may have also moved it out of Costa Mesa. Our training classes are a week long and we house our employees in local hotels and provide their meals from local Costa Mesa restaurants and thereby further benefiting the local economy. In addition to our training center at 3138 Airway, our corporaCe office is located at 3198-ivi Airport loop which employs about 25 full-time people. We also operate service centers in Fullerton and Santa Ana each one employing about 25 full and part-time employees. A helicopter landing on our shared roof is a hazard that is unacceptable to us, the health and safety risks are obvious but there may be other hazards we can not foresee. We ask that you deny the CUP to operate the helicopter landing pad and allow us the continued quiet enjoyment of our training center. Sincrtrel , i fr ElizabetK T. Everett Owner of 3138 Airway and C.E.O. of Vortex Industries, Inc. 3148-M Airport Loop Costa Mesa, California 92626-3407 :N�w]E� R 0 714-434-8953 • Fax: 714-434-0727 ~ -1; + g: License *287885 • Vortex Industries, Inc. a M �� �, Mar 02 2012 4:32PM Hawkins Law Offices (949) 650-1181 P.1 Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (949) 650-1181 TRANSMITTED TO: NAME FAX COVER SHEET FAX NUMBER Julie Folcik, City Clerk (714) 754-4942 Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner (714) 754-4856 From: Robert C. Hawkins Client/Matter: General Date: March 2, 2012 PHONE [NUMBER Documents: Comment Letter for Agenda Item No, Public Hearing No. 1: Planning Application PA -1 1-03 for a Proposed Heliport, 3132 Airway Ave. Pages: 2* COMMENTS: The inforntarion contained it: this facsimile message is information pr7tecxed by attorney-client andlar the ailarrley/ri+A�:+r product privilege. It Is attended onlyfor the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not wolved by vtritte of rfris having been -vent by fcacsfmde. if the person actually recetvi,tg thisfacslrnile or any other reader of the fac3lnzde is not the named recipient or tete employee or agent responsible to deli ver at to the reamed recipient, any use, dissemination. dint ibtrtion. or copying of the communication is suictly prohibited. !f you have received this communication itt error, please immediately noNU5 us by telephone and return the original message to tis at the above address via U. S, Postal Service. * NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET, IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE US PONIEDIATELY AT (949) 650-5550. Mar 02 2012 4:32PM Hawkins Law Offices (9491 650-1181 P.2 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS March 2, 2012 Via Facsimile Only The Honorable Gary Monahan, Mayor Members of the City Council c/o Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628 Re: Agenda Item No. Public Hearing No, 1: Application PA -11-03 for a Condition Use Permit for a Helipad/Helistop/Heliport on the roof of an existing industrial building at 3132 Airway Avenue; Finding of Exemption for Accessory Structures Greetings: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned project. As you may know, this firm represents individuals and groups including the Mariners Community Association in Nowport Beach, AirFair, a local ,Voup focused beeping John Wayne Airport at its current size as well as others in the Orange County area. These individuals and groups have an interest in the Project and related projects, and environmental issues in the area. As you know, we have opposed this Project from the beginning. The Planning Commission agreed with our arguments and recommended that you deny the captioned Project. In its August 25, 20l 1 Staff Report, Planning Staff recommended denial of the Project based upon the Planning Commission's recommendation. At that time, the applicant requested a continuance, which you granted and continued the matter to November 1, 2011, On October 20, 2011, the applicant made a second request for continuance, which you granted and continued the matter to March 6, 2011. On February 13, 2011, the applicant wrote: "I formally request a second continuance from the Helistop Project at 3132 Airway Avenue until the June 19, 2012 City Council meeting." This requires several comments. First, as indicated above and as evident in the administrative record, this is the third continuance requested by the applicant without any statwent of the reasons for such requests. Second, although the applicant prepared a noise stud, , it falls far short of the studies required and the studies referenced in our earlier comments to thie Planning Commission. Third, more than eight months have passed since the Planning Commission rejected this Project and noted that environmental review was required for this Project to proceed. The applicant has failed to conduct such review, and it's noise study is inadequate, Fourth, and most importantly, as recognized by the Planning Commission, this 110 Newport Center Drivt, Suite 200 Newport Beach, Caldor, -Iia 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (949) 650.1 L3 L III ar uc cU1c It; 0.3r- III nawKins L-aw urr ices iZJYZZIJ 1:3Z)U-1101 P. i Gary Monahan, Mayor Members of rhe Ciy CoUnci, . 2- March 2, 2012 Project constitutes an expansion of John Wayne Airport and takes airport uses off the airport footprint. The City has long opposed expansion of JWA. The City Council should deny this Project. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document for the captioned Project. Please provide us with notices, if any, for any subsequent public hearings, determinations, actions, and/or findings. Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. RCH/kw cc: City Clerk (via fax only) Sincerely, OF ROFWRfL. HAWKINS RobertlC. Hawkins 110 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Nmvpon Beach, California 9660 (949) 654.5550 Fax; (949) 650 1 181 D,1_AV,,!�)i A U G I f LIFESTYLE OUTFITTERS 6 Feb 2012 All members of the Costa Mesa City Council, My business, David August, Inc has been operating in Costa Mesa since August 2003 serving clients of Orange County, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Diego and several major locations in the United states. In addition to the 3,000 clients we serve, I have 18 employees that work in the offices to which I am charged with providing a safe work place. With the potential addition of a helipad on the premises I am concerned about the impact on safety, the quality of the business environment, the work environment and potential impact on property value this may cause. The addition of the helipad presents potential safety problems for our employees and our clients through possible accidents as well as debris. With this risk of accidents, any disruption would impair our business through loss of client product and in retail business interruption. In the worst case scenario that a terrible accident may occur, our business would be irreparably harmed by the interruption caused. This is a risk I am not willing to take and it was never is consideration when I decided to place my operation at this address. More immediately, I also have concerns about what the operation of the helipad will have on the current working environment and the selling environment for my business, its employees and our clients through noise, traffic, and debris. Our clients don't expect to have low flying aircraft landing on the building as they visit our showroom. Lastly, it is unknown what impact the addition of a helipad will have on the value of the property that I own. For these reasons, I am opposed to adding the helipad operation to the 3140 Airway property. iSinerely, a td Heil Owner ,3140 Airway Owner, David August Inc _0 HAND -TAILORED WARDROBES FOR THE SUPERSTARS OF BUSINESS, SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT 3140 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, California 92626 • Tel: (714) 545 -SUIT (7848) Fax: (714) 545-7880 t -mail: Info0_)DavidAugustlnc.com • Website: DavldAugustlnc.com Page 1 of 3 LEE, MEL From: LEE, MEL Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:14 PM To: FOLCIK, JULIE; CORDON, CHRISTINE; NGUYEN, KHANH; FLYNN, CLAIRE Subject: FW: Commercial Property Owner Oppostion to Application # PA 11-03, a proposed helipad serving one company. From: Denis LaBonge [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 20114:12 PM To: LEE, MEL Cc: Darrin Smith; David; Gene Salas; James Golden Subject: Commercial Property Owner Oppostion to Application # PA 11-03, a proposed helipad serving one company. Dear Mr Lee and all Members of the Costa Mesa City Council, This communication is concerning a Council Hearing re PA 11-03, scheduled for Nov 01, 2011 @ 7 pm at City Council Chambers. I am one of 6 property owners of the industrial unit located at Baker and Airway [ 3140, 3 13 8, 3136, 3 13 4, 3 13 2, 3 13 0 Airway] . I own 3136 Airway and I am the original buyer when the complex was developed in 2003/4 and sold by Mr Coleman to me. At that time he expressed a great personal commitment to keep the development low profile, quiet and low impact. I and my tenant are opposed to this helipad. I depend on this rental income from this property as I am retired. In today's commercial real estate market, having a good tenant, who pays on time is a lucky matter. They indicate if a helipad goes in, they have no intention of remaining as a tenant. I will loose money. From a valuation point of view, local real estate agents I have spoken with indicate the value of the building will likely go down due to the risk and noise, Costa Mesa should be thoughtful re the re- assessed lower property tax value for mine and all adjacent properties if this happens to be the case. The owner of the units at 3130/3132 Airway, Mr Kevin Coleman, has applied for a City of Costa Mesa Conditional Use Permit PA 11-03 to allow a helicopter landing pad to be constructed and used above his unit at 3132 Airway. This complex of units is governed by the Airway Business Park Owners Association C,C & R's, and Mr Coleman handles all aspects of the association's matters [ architectural approvals, finance, landscaping ,meetings,etc etc] I have attempted to advise and request Mr Coleman to call for an official HOA meeting to record a formal owners vote re which property owners are in favor of ... and which owners are opposed. Mr Coleman has been advised of my travel schedule. As of this hour, 3:30 pm Tuesday Oct 17th, I have received no response from Mr Coleman re my email requests to him [and cc'd to his assistant] re this matter. I am out of town now until Monday Oct 24th. 10/18/2011 Page 2 of') It is my opinion that there are other unit owners of this development who have voiced opposition to the proposed helipad. I am cc'ing them a copy of this email to keep them aware of my opposition. It is solely up to them, of course, to communicate to you if they choose. I am solely speaking for my property at 3136 Airway. I am opposed to the Conditional Use Permit Application # PA 11-03 for the following reasons: 1. There is a huge personal safety risk, financial risk, quiet enjoyment and peace of mind risk to all tenants in common, to have a helicopter landing 6' above their common roof on a 40'x40' pad. One need only to refer to the helicopter crash in New York OCT 4th, 2011 upon take off. People died. To help everybody visualize 40 feet ... if you are a football fan, you know 40 feet is just a bit over the 10 yd line for a 1 st down. Big chopper, small target zone. 25 drop-off 2. There is a huge risk in the proposed ingress/ egress flight path that the FAA stipulates the chopper must cross! Immediately in line of this path are three SCE High Power poles and heavy duty lines at approximately 20 to 40 feet in elevation. Nearly at the same elevation as the proposed helipad. These lines directly cross the proposed FAA path. Any shift in winds, fog, western setting sun light, pilot or mechanical error and/or an errant landing path or the choppers landing skids hits these lines and ... you can fill in the blanks. 3. I am not a pilot, but I do know that the OC sheriffs helicopter pilot I have asked preferred to take off into the wind. The proposed FAA path for this application is nearly opposite, at 180 degrees opposite of the prevailing winds. This does not bode well for any tenant's west of 3132 helipad if the pilot elects, for safety reason, to take off in a westerly direction and that is a concern of mine. Regardless of the approved FAA path, a pilot's # 1 rule is aircraft safety, we all know that. 4. There are so many unknown dangers involved from flying debris, from established prop wash winds during take off or landing above this small multi unit complex, both from loose roof tile sand [ a natural roof material degrading process and always present ], loose debris of any nature , trash , etc etc that simply are uncontrollable risks 24/7. 5. Additionally this complex has individual air conditioning units that will be subject to prop wash winds due to dust, sand and debris blown into their intake fans, as well as the existing 12 or more skylights which are, by design, open slotted for ventilation, thus allowing for more debris flying into the units below. Debris inside the 6 units is a normal minor occurrence during Santa Ana winds, Can you imagine what that debris will be like under 200 mph prop wash winds? Even Mr Coleman himself noticed this risk during a roof top inspection we took. 6. No mention has been made re spewing tiny airborne jet fuel droplets from the chopper's exhaust under heavy take off and landing engine load conditions. There are over 60 cars parked in the lot immediately below the proposed helipad who are tenants, customers or employers of the businesses at that site. 7. Of major concern to me is the fact my current insurance carrier indicated they will NOT RENEW my commercial insurance if a helipad is approved. So now I must seek to find a new carrier that will insure me. Additionally there is an obvious potential for increased insurance /liability risk that will be assigned to the Airway Business Park Owners Association in general for the common area, thus increasing my association dues in a matter I have no economic benefit or participation. In addition, there will be 10/18/2011 Page 3 of 3 unknown but obvious increased maintenance fees to allow for increased wear and tear to the roof material due to prop wash. 8. The applicant, Mr Coleman's tenant for 3132 Airway currently lands his chopper on the concrete ground [ big target+big pad+ wide berth] at JWA Martin Aviation, merely 150 feet from his new office at 3132 Airway. Is it asking too much of The City Council of Costa Mesa to reject this application on the grounds the risks to employers, employees, current tenants, their visiting customers, nearby citizens et al,.... are not worth the SINGULAR BENEFIT ONE PERSON ... all for the purpose to park one's personal chopper outside his office door, 25 feet off the ground on a 40x40 pad ??? Thank you for considering these points and I urge you to REJECT application # PA 11-03. Denis LaBonge Property Owner 3136 Airway Costa Mesa, Ca 92626. r] Z, 10/18/2011 i rr�6lrr,U1rr, I�[�°M�rtin, 92627 August 23, 2011 Costa Mesa City Council 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Subject: App #PA -11-03 Honor Council Members: I write this letter in opposition to your approving the subject application. I do not believe approving this application request is in the best interests of the citizens of Costa Mesa. While the proposed helipad will be located atop a building next to the airport runways, it nevertheless may be construed as a way to enlarge the airport footprint. In addition, any helicopters using the helipad will be able to access it by flying over residential areas of Costa Mesa. There is enough air and noise pollution emanating from John Wayne Airport as it is; we do not need any more. I believe there are also safety concerns. We don't need any addition risks (remember the helicopter crash at New York's Pan Am building?) along with what is already present with planes from John Wayne taking off/landing over residential areas. Another thing to consider —just how many helicopter flights are planned — and how many more if this venture is successful. Approve this application and I am certain Legacy will return with their ambitious plans which would also further enlarge the airport footprint. The previous ely Council wis turned Legacy down. Why risk having the camel put his nese under the tent is approving the subject application. This is not far-fetched. The new terminal at John Wayne will have everything needed for easy international travel — customs, immigration, etc. Obviously the airport planners are anticipating expanded se^✓ice to Canada — and who knows where else. How convenient to have a helipad for passengers wanting to avoid the mess that is LAX. If successful, there will be more applications for helipads. You have to think long term here. Again, I urge the Council to reject this application — regardless of what governmental agencies have given it their blessings. The citizens of Costa Mesa must come first. Sincerely, , Dolores Storme --rJ" �� -1 \-rO From: Soong Kim [mailto Sent: Monday, August 08, 20113:31 PM To: LEE, MEL; PLANNING COMMISSION Cc: Dale Lyon Subject: App. No. PA -11-03 Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners, Good evening. I represent the ownership of the property at 3100 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, a neighboring building to the subject property at 3132 Airway Avenue. I would like to address the concern(s) involving this project. In search of an answer to my question — the path of ingress and egress to the proposed helipad — I have spoken with Margie Drilling, Airport Planner from FAA. According to her, the applicant has not yet met the conditions of approval posed by FAA, and one condition apparently involves the ingress and egress path. She recommended that 1 contact Doug Blaul at Air Control Tower agency for more information related to the path. He was not available today, however, so I could not clarify my concern. As an owner of the neighboring property, we object to the proposed project if its path to and from the helipad is over our or any of the neighboring buildings. We ask that we be well informed of the approvals that the applicant has to acquire prior to the project's final approval. Thank you. Soong Kim Design/Project Manager OLEN DEVELOPMENT CORP. Seven Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)719-7222 - Direct (949)719-7274 - Fax www.olen ro erties.com -m LAw OFFICES OF ROBERT C, HAwKINS August 8, 2011 Via Facsimile and Hand Delivery The Honorable Colin McCarthy, Chair Members of the Planning Commission c/o Mel Lee, AICP, Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa, Planning Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628 �s PA - Il 3 Re: Planning Commission A en�da Item iYa. l/I 5: � lication PA --11-03 for a Condition [Jse Permit for a HeHpad/Helisto liffeliport an 0-3�e rv¢f of awn existina indutrial huildinZ at 31.32 Airw iy Avenue; FinfU# of Exem tion for AceessE}r Structx�res Greetings: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned project. As you may know, this turn represents individuals and groups including the Mariners Community Association in Newport Beach, AirFair, a local group focused keeping John Wayne Airport at its current size as well as others in the Orange, County area. These individuals and groups have an interest in the Project and related projects, and environmental issues in the area. We have reviewed the original staff report as well as the August 8, 2011 supplemental staff reports on the captioned project and its recommended finding of exemption. Both reports are seriously in error and we object to Staffs recommendation of approval of the CUP and of the finding of exemption. First, the original staff report erroneously characterizes the Project as a helistop. The Airport Land Use Environs Plan for Heliports ("Heliport AELUP") does not distinguish between a helistop and a heliport; they are governed by the same rules and requirements. Heliport AELUP, page 4, I. Summary of OWeetions We object to the Project and the Finding of Exemption for the following reasons: A. The Project expands the footprint of John Wayne Airport in violation of the City of Costa Mesa' commitment to contain the airport in the September 3, 2008 Memorandum of Understanding on John Wayne Airport and its commitment to the Corridor Cities Agreement. C 10 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fac: (949) 65(ti 1 181 Colin McCarthy, Chair Members of d -ie Planning Commission 2 • August B, 2011 B. The Project is not exempt as an accessory structure under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), the Project will have potentially significant environmental impacts including noise, land use, and other impacts, and the City has failed to analyze such impacts as required by CEQA. C_ The Project is the second of a series of airport related projects in the City; the City cannot provide a piecemeal review and approval of such project without violating CEQA; CEQA requires a programmatic analysis of any efforts by the City to convert the area east of Red Hill Ave. to airport uses. H. The is an Expansion of the Footprint of John Wayne Airport. The City has entered into several agreements to contain the expansion of John Wayne Airport. In 2000, the City entered into the Corridor Cities Agreement which include virtually all of the cities in Orange County along the flight path of John Wayne Airport. Among other things, this Agreement commits all signatories including the City to make every effort to keep John Wayne Airport at its current size and footprint. In addition, on September 30, 2008, the City of Newport Beach and the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding John Wayne Airport which had as one of its goals keeping the footprint of John Wayne Airport at its 2008 size. Finally, on August 5, 2011, Mayor Henn transmitted a letter to you and Mayor Monahan urging you to reject the Project because among other things it would violate these commitments. The Project would violate all of this. Currently, the applicant use a helipad on the footprint of John Wayne Airport at Martin Aviation. The Project proposes to move this operation off the footprint of John Wayne Airport and onto private property. This expands the footprint in two ways: (1) it creates new air uses off the John Wayne Airport footprint; and (2) it frees up capacity on John Wayne Airport for other airport uses including storage of planes overnight, The August $, 2011 supplemental staff report erroneously concludes that the Project will not expand the existing footprint of John Wayne Airport, Citing Ms. Kari Rigoni, Executive Officer for the Airport Land Use Commission, the report states that the Project is not an expansion because the land is privately owned. It assumes that the footprint is a physical limitation. There are so many problems with this conclusion. First, is City staff seriously maintaining that County personnel can interpret the agreements and commitments of the City and of the City of Newport Beach regarding John Wayne Airport? Second, although the report may be correct as far as it goes, it stops far short of the spirit and intent of the agreements between the cities: transferring air uses off the airport footprint onto ILO Nrwpurt Center Drive, Suite 200 Nrwpor, Beacli, California 92660 (949) 65(15550 Fax: (949) 650- t 18 L —7r„— Colin McCarthy, Chair Members of [he Planning Commission 3 • August 8, 201 l a private parcel expands that footprint and uses regardless of the ownership of the parcel. The footprint applies both the physical boundaries as well as the uses within those boundaries. Because the Project transfers air uses off John Wayne Airport, it expands the boundaries of air uses. Third, the Project will free up capacity and land on the airport for additional air uses. This increase in capacity as well as the new capacity off John Wayne Airport is a further example of the Project's expansion of the airport footprint. The Commission must follow the commitments of the City, comply with its agreements and reject this application. III. The PrDiect is Not Exempt under CEQA Citing CEQA Guidelines section 15311, the Staff Report maintains that the Project—construction of a heliport— is exempt under CEQA as an accessory structure. This is wildly inaccurate and simply wrong. Section 15311 provides: "Class 11 consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including but not limited to: (a) On -premise signs; (b) Small parking lots; ( c) Placement of seasonal or temporary use items such as lifeguard towers, mobile food units, portable restroorns, or similar items in generally the same locations from time to time in publicly owned parks, stadiums, or other facilities designed for public use." None of the examples apply. Moreover, the heliport is not an accessory structure in that it is not like a parking space; it is a parking space for a helicopter which generates substantial noise and other impacts. The Municipal Code also does not support this conclusion. For instance, Municipal Code section 13-6 includes the following definitions: "Accessory building. A building or part of a building which is subordinate to, and the use of which is incidental to that of the main building or use on the same lot." 110 Newporr Cenrer Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650-1 181 _qq Colin McCarthy, Chair Meulbers of the Planning Commissian . 4 - August 8, 20 1 l "Accessory use. A use incidental and subordinate to, and devoted exclusively to the main use of the land or building thereon." Neither apply: the heliport is a unique Project; it requires federal, state and county approvals; it is not simply ancillary to the office use. Indeed, it is unique to the office use in Costa Mesa. Moreover, ultimately the City of Costa Mesa will not be able to condition the Project fully. Under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 47521, et sect., the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") has sole jurisdiction to control access to airspace including hours of operation. Although the new conditions attempt to control the hours of the Project, ultimately the FAA will decide this and other land use issues. Indeed, as discussed below, the exemption is improper, because a fair argument exists that the Project may create potentially significant impacts on the environment. Helicopters in a location off the airport create significant environmental impacts for various reasons. First, helicopters are noisy. A helicopter on takeoff generates sound of 105 dB Single -Event Noise Exposure Level ("SENEL"). That is fifty (50%) percent louder than a jack hammer. Moreover, it is 2dB louder than F-18 on takeoff. This is not to say that any noise generated by the Project could not be mitigated; this is only to say that such impacts require analysis. Federal guidance concerning the evaluation of aircraft noise including helicopters is contained in 14 C.F.R. Part 150, "Airport Noise Compatibility Planning", December 1984; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050, 1E, "Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures", June 2004; FAA Order 5050.4B, "National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions", April 2006; and, FAA's "Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions", October 2007. All of these direct that any airport activities require environmental review. As you know, in its June 21, 2011 letter concerning the captioned matter, the Federal Aviation Administration advised that: "This airspace study did not include an environmental review to determine whether or not the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in accordance, with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) as amended." Attachment 6, page 26 of the Staff Report, In order to comply wide such requirements, the City must conduct its own environmental review under CEQA. The FAA in its airspace study together with its administrative orders and rulings direct as much. Indeed, the University of California, San Francisco conducted extensive environmental review for its proposed hospital expansion and helipad for medical helicopters. This review included the 2005 LRDP Amendment #2 — Hospital Replacement EIR ("2005 EIR"), the 2008 Environmental Impact Report for UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay expansion project ("2008 Expansion EIR"), and the 2009 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for UCSF 110 Newport Crater Drive, Suite ZOO Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 1. ax: (949) 650-1 181 _96, � � = � t -J -r�J amu - Ilam P. Colin McCarthy, Chair Members of the Planning Commission 5 August 8, 20 t t Medical Center at Mission Bay helicopter operations near residential sites ("2009 Mission Bay Helicopter SELR"). The Regents of the University of California. published the 2009 Mission Bay Helicopter SEIR in order to develop a noise mitigation program for their helipad project which was near residential uses in San Francisco, 45 Although the Project is not near residential uses, the Mariners Christian School which is about 900 feet away from the Project has over 630 students, which are sensitive receptors plus over 90 teachers, aides and administrators. Clearly, these 630 sensitive receptors and their facility are entitled to the protections of the County's Heliport Airport Environs Land Use Plan and CEQA, Indeed, EIR 508 for the Jahn Wayne Airport Expansion in the 1980's long ago recognized that noise impacts on school children can be severe and Long term. Further, the noise discussions in the UCSF Project 2008 Expansion EIR and in the 2009 Mission Bay Helicopter SEIR provide additional guidance regarding the importance of and the need for full environmental review of the Project by the City, Moreover, helicopters create vibration which can rattle windows in the office buildings near the Project site. Such vibration itself is a potentially significant impact which requires analysis and perhaps mitigation. Further, the case law does not support Staff s recommendation or the proposed finding for a Class 1 1 exemption, In Simons v. Ci of Los Angeles (1977) 72 Cal: App, 3d 924, the City found that construction of a firearms training simulator building adjacent to the police firing range was exempt under Class 11 as an accessary structure. The Court rejected petitioner's challenge that the range required preparation of an environmental impact report. The Court noted that the administrative record indicated that: " .. no noticeable noise should emanate from the facility. , .. [para. ] The proposed construction will not displace any automobile parking area, will apparently not involve increased attendance at the training academy , , .." Ld. at 938 (Emphasis supplied), Based upon the lack of any impacts, the Court ruled that the firing range construction was exempt; "The addition of the firearms training simulator building adjacent to the pistol range is clearly within exempt class i l (Cal, Admin, Code, tit. 14, § 151 l 1) as a minor structure accessory to existing institutional facilities," Id. at 938-39. Here, however, the Project is not accessory to an existing institutional facility, the heliport is a radically new use on the site which requires federal, state and county approvals, 1 to Newporr Center Drive, Suite 200 Newport death, California 91660 (949) 650.5550 Fax- 1949) 650-1 l S f '19' —'—— a._.T fi U.JU— 1 1 0 1 P. V Colin McCardiy, Chair Members of the Planning Comtuission 6 Augtisr 8, 201 1 More importantly, a substantial amount of noise will emanate from the facility with the arrival and departure of the noisy helicopters. The Project is not exempt and not an accessory use. The City cannot approve this Project without conducting the appropriate environmental review. Moreover, even assuming for the salve Of argument that the Class 11 Exemption may apply,'CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 entitled "Exceptions" would except the Project from any exemption. Section 15300.2 provides in pertinent part that the City cannot use exemptions in the following situations: "(a) Location, Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and l I are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located. — a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. (b) Cumulative Impact. Ail exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects ofthe same type in the same place, over time is significant_ ( c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a sigrl.i fiicant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." (Guidelines section 1530'}.2 contains other exceptions not applicable here.) In Lewisy. Seventeenth District AgEieulturanl ,Association (1985) 165 Cal..App,3d 823, the respondent Nevada Counter approved a contract extension for the continued use of a race track on county fairgrounds for auto racing. The county approved the contract based upon its findings that the project was exempt under the Class 23 exemption for normal operations of existing facilities for public gatherings. Because of the potential for significant noise impacts on the adjacent neighboring residents, the Court of Apply held that the exemption did not apply and cited Guidelines section 15300.2 exception applied, This Project is similar and each of these exceptions apply; they remove the Project from any claim for an exemption. First, the Project's location is unique and there is a "reasonable possibility" that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment due to usual circumstances. The Project is adjacent to John Wayne Airport. It is a sensitive area because: it requires federal, state and local approvals, it requires analysis of safety issues; it expands the footprint of John Swayne Airport; it is within 1,000 feet of kfariners Christian school. l 10 Newport Cenrer Uriw, Suite 200 Nrwport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Rm (949) 650.1 1 s L rom _., —1 lu. tj Colin McCarthy, Cliair Members of the Planning Commission 7 - August 8, 20 l t Second, as discussed below, the Project is the second in a series of airport related projects on the west side of John Wayne Airport. City officials appear to seek such airport related projects, Third, there is a reasonable possibility that the Project will have potentially significant impacts on the environment: aesthetic impacts; land use impacts; impacts on hazards; noise and vibration impacts; and cumulative impacts, all of which require analysis and mitigation. In addition, because the Project wil I expand the footprint of John Wayne Airport and place helicopters within 1,000 feet of Mariners Christian school, it has the potential to create significant land use impacts: the Project will bring airport related uses and impacts closer to sensitive receptors, office and industrial uses. Further, the Project may have aesthetic impacts from the arrival and departure of helicopters in an area with schools and office parks. All of this requires full environmental analysis. The August 8, 2011 supplemental staff report relies extensively on the Airport Land Use Commission's ("ALUC") finding and recommendation regarding the consistency of the Project with the Heliport AELUP and the Airport Environs Land Use .Flan. ALUC did no environmental review and did not conduct a noise study. Ultimately, as indicated above, neither the FAA nor ALUC conducts the environmental review for the City. That function falls squarely on the shoulders of the Commission and Council, and the environmental review has not been conducted. IN'. The Pro"eet A ears to he a Part of a Larger Airport Expansion Projekt. As indicated above, the Project is the second in a series of projects which will expand John Wayne Airport. In spring 2010, the City considered a project for a corporate aircraft hangar/office facility on the west side of John 'Wayne Airport at 2970 Airway Avenue and 3180 Airway Avenue owned by the County of Orange, the owner and operator of John Wayne Airport known as the Legacy Air Center. Although the project proponent withdrew its application, the City's, representative on the Airport Land Use Commission indicated that he and many others at the City supported the project. This means that the City will approve more airport related projects on the west side of John Wayne Airport. In order to comply with CEQA, the City must conduct a programmatic environmental review for this airport expansion project. We welcome the opportunity to review and comment on this project. However, the City cannot segment this project into small pieces. Since its inception, CEQA has forbid "piecemeal" xeview of the significant environmental impacts of a project. Laurel Heights_Irnprovement Assn V. Re tents_ of Univeirsity of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, fn. 2. This prolubition sterns in part from CEQA itself: Public Resources Code section 21002.1(d) requires that an environmental document "consider[] the effects, both individual and collective, of all activities involved in [the] project." Courts have recognized that: I 10 Ne,.porr Centtr lh•ivs, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650- l l8 1 mat - - -- -. - _. .. ._... L.,.,. L,rr iue5 tZiff yJ bbU-1181 10.9 Colin McCarthy, Chair Members of rhe Planning Commission 3 • August 8, 201 l "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider. mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal ... and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua tion of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." Sacramento Old City Assn. V. City -Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1023 [280 Cal.Rptr. 478], original italics; Stanislaus Natural Heritage .Project v. County ofStanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.AppAth 182, 201. Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15165 provides that: "Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the lead agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 13168 .. ,." Under the Guidelines, the term "project" is defined as "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably indirect physical change'in the environment ...." Id. at CEQA Guidebnes section 15378(a). At the other end of the spectrum, long-range planning proposals are exempt from EIR requirements: "A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR ...." CEQA Guidelines section 15262. As indicated above, the Project is the second in a series of airport related projects. The City cannot comply with CEQA by segmenting the environmental analysis and approve individual airport expansion projects with little or no environmental review and analysis. To the extent that the City proposes such a wholesale conversion of the west side of John Wayne Airport to airport uses, he City must analyze the full programmatic environmental review and analysis for such an airport expansion project. V. Conclusion The Commission cannot make the findings necessary to recommend the Project for approval to the Council. The Commission should reject the Project for the following reasons: 1. The Project expands the footprint of John Wayne Airport in violation of a host of commitments by the City; 110 Nrv,qjort Center Drive, SUILN 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650- 118 l -B2-,,- - • - •-I — —aW U r ices la4Ul 650-1181 P. 10 Colin McCarrhy, Chair Members of rhe Planning Commission 9 • Augusr 8, 2011 2. The Project is not exempt under CEQA and the City must conduct environmental review, The Project appears to be the second in a series of airport expansion projects in the City; the City must conduct programmatic environmental review for this conversion. The City cannot do this in a piecemeal manner. Public Resources Code section 15021 requires that the City has a duty to minimize environmental darnage and balance competing public objectives and that it is required to give major consideration to preventing such. damage, The Project has the potential to <.reate such damage and the City must conduct a thorough and adequate review of such impacts, Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document for the captioned Project. We look forward to participating the in the public hearing process, receiving responses to these and other cornments, and commenting on these responses at the appropriate public hearings. Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. RCH/kw cc: City Clerk (via fax only) Sincerely, VICES OF ROBERT A WKINS B . Robert C. Hawkins 110 Newport Cenrcr Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, Cahfomia 92660 (949) 650-5 5 50 Fax: (949) 650.1 l8l LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C, HAWKINS July 21, 2011 Via Facsimile and Hand Delivery Gerald Bresnahan, Chairman Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County John Wayne Airport Eddie Martin Administration Building Airport Cornmission Hearing Room 3 160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 Re: A ends Item No. 1: Request for Consideration of Leading Ede AviationServices Helisto at 3132 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, California Dear Honorable Chairman and Members of the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County: This firm represents residents and groups in Newport Beach who are interested in the development of John Wayne Airport. Although I have served on the board of the Airport Warming Group and now serve on the board of AirFair, these comments do not represent their views but only the Views of my clients. Leading Edge Aviation Services, Inc. whose headquarters are 19341 Campus Dr., Suite 250 Santa Ana, California 92707 in the Martin facility and adjacent to John Wayne Airport, seeks approval of helistop at 3132 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, California 92626 and across Ike Jones Drive from the Lyon Air Museum. (For the purposes of the ALUC analysis, a helistop requires the same analysis as a heliport.) Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21661.5, this application requires a determination by this Commission that this Project for a helistop across Airway from John Wayne Airport is consistent with the Airport Environs Lend Use Plan for John Wayne Airport ("JWA AELUP") ant" the Airport. Environs Land Use Plan for Heliports ("Heliport AELUP"), For several reasons, it is not consistent with either plan. First and by way of introduction, Public Utilities Code section 21661.5 is interesting from several perspectives. First, it is entitled: "Approval of Plan for Construction of New Airport; Delegation of Responsibility;" that is, the Project is for the construction of a new airport or in this case a new heliport. Second, section 21661.5(b) authorizes the County to delegate to this Commission the authority for " , . , the approval of a plan for construction of new helicopter landing and takeoff areas.. 1f 110 Newport Center Drive, Su ire 200 Newport Beach, Calitornia 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 Gerald f3resnahn11, Chair Members of the A1.UC . 2 . July 21, 2011 Secorid; fhe Iuly n,-701-174 fi`'Repo —cogni at riots- is a slgniTioan cot oncem rregarding — this application. However, no noise study has been performed for this project, The Heliport AELUP states that: "The Commission shall rely on the acoustical study, prepared for each proposed heliport as necessary, to evaluate the potential noise impact area associated with the facility. The Commission may, on a case by case basis, recommend to the responsible local agency that the heliport's use be specifically controlled as a means of mitigating noise impacts. Noise Levels of 60 dB CNEL are considered to have potential noise impact on surrounding sensitive land uses." Heliport AELUP, Section 2.2.2. Although this application is for a helistop, the same standards apply. See Heliport AELUP, page 4, Indeed, the noise generated will be the same, and Staff is concerned about the noise generated from this Project. The Staff Report notes that the Project is within the Noise Impact Zone I with greater than 65 CNEL from the current operations of John Wayne Airport. The Airport generates substantial noise. Nonetheless the Project in proximity to schools and offices may increase that level unacceptably and move the noise contour further into Costa Mesa. In addition, the Project will likely create increases in the significant single event noise exposure levels ("SENEL") in the vicinity. The Commission should require a noise study; the Heliport AELUP provides no exceptions. Moreover, placing the Project within the Noise Impact Zone I with greater than 65 CNEL does not free the Project from noise analysis. The noise study should also consider and analyze the impact of Single Event Noise Exposure Levels to determine the consistency of the Project with the Heliport AELUP and the AELUP, The Noise impact Zone 1 is simply noise levels for the Community Noise Equivalent Level which simply averages the noise levels for a 24 hour period. Further, earlier environmental documents may have analyzed the expansion of the Airport but none has analyzed the Project features which will expand the noise contour further into Costa. Mesa. At the very least, the Commission should require preparation of an acoustical study before considering this application, Indeed, such a study will be necessary to conduct the environmental analysis for the Project, Third, the Staff Report discusses the surrounding land uses: "The project is located in an area zoned Multi Purpose (MP) Industrial Park and is surrounded by John Wayne Airport to the north and east, light industriallofficelresearch uses to the south, and light industrial/office/research uses and Mariners,Christian School to the west "Mariners Christian School is about 900 feet west of the project site but not beneath proposed flight paths." Staff Report, page 1. Section 3.2.1 of the Heliport AELUP states: A proposed heliport site may be found inconsistent with the AELUP if the site is: (l) Near places where people may be affected adversely by aircraft noise, (2) Near concentrations of people, 110 Newport Center Drive, $vire 100 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 65a5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 -95--- Genid Bresnahan, Chair -Members of rhe ALUC 3. July 21,'011 cord dors. tul es whose het ht'ii7T6`cferes wlt3� referre�`le`Ta1ce-offer ,a raad}i --,. ----- - Clearly, the Project is "near places where people may be affected adversely by aircraft noise" and "near concentrations of people:" the Mariners Christian School which is about 900 feet away from the Project has over 630 students, which are sensitive receptors plus over 90 teachers, aides and administrators. Clearly, these 630 sensitive receptors and their facility are entitled to the protections of the Heliport AELUP. Indeed, EiR 508 long ago recognized that noise impacts on school children can be severe and long term. Further, Section 3,2.1 provides if any application is found inconsistent with these General Policies, the application is inconsistent with the Heliport AELUP. As indicated above, the application is inconsistent with the General Policies and therefore inconsistent with the Heliport AELUP. Moreover, Public Utilities Code section 21662.5 provides: "Notwithstanding Section 21006 or Section 21661 or any other provision of law to the contrary, no helicopter may land or depart in any area within 1,000 feet, measured by air line, of the boundary of any public or private school maintaining kindergarten classes or any classes in grades l through 12, without approval of the department or by a public safety agency designated by the department, unless the landing or departure takes place at a permitted permanent heliport, or is a designated emergency medical service landing site." Although the Staff Report indicates that the Department has reviewed the plans and conditionally approved them subject to environmental review and local agency approvals. However, the Staff Report does not state that the Department has reviewed the Project for safety issues as required by Section 21662.5. As indicated above, the Mariners Christian is within 1,000 feet of the Project and requires the Department's safety analysis. That has not happened. Fourth, the hours of operation of the Project will differ from the hours of operation of John Wayne Airport. The Project proposes to operate from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, This conflicts with the John Wayne Airport curfew set for Sunday mornings at 8:00 a.m. The�Project will generate noise which has not been studied without the background noise of the Airport during this quiet Sunday morning, Clearly, the Commission should require a noise study for this Project. Fifth, if the Commission finds the Project inconsistent with the Heliport AELUP, then it is inconsistent with the AELUP. See AELUP, Section 2,1.5. See also AELUP, Section 3.2.1 (similar policies to the Heliport AELUP Section 3.2, 1.) Sixth and most importantly, this Project expands the footprint of John Wayne Airport. As indicated above, Public Utilities Code section 21161.5 addresses location of new airports and heliports. This Project is simply the first of what wil I surely be more applications to expand the Airport into the west side of the Airport and the east side of Costa Mesa, It is the camel's noise, er, nose under the 110 Newport Cenrer Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1 181 M4001I Oerahl 1ires)MIM11, C'hatr Mvwkcr.-of 11hcAi LI( 4• Jul'i 'l,'_DI I m arid�wv Nfe—w its9p—plicaffff— substantial controversy arose over than Project. This Project will suffer the same fate. Moreover, the Project proposes to allow the applicant to enter air space without appropriate security protections. The Project is a "through the fence" Project. Passengers can enter the Project facility, board the helicopter, enter regulated air space and then land at the Airport or other airports, all without the benefit of any security clearances or reviews, For all of these reasons, we urge you to reject the Project and find it inconsistent with the AELUP and the Heliport AELUP, At the very least, the Commission should require preparation of a noise study for the Project. Thank you for your consideration, Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, LAW OFFICES OF ROBE C. HAWKINS r RCH'kw yWI-C..H ins ^V 19 -0 110 Newport Cenrer Drive, Suire 200 Newporr Beach, California 92660 (949) 650-5550 Fax: (9,4,9) 650.1181 ---8 qJ ATTACHMENT 6 C C0RTLANO M O R G A N ARCHITECT 711 N. FIELDER RD. ARLINGTON. TX 76012 PH: (817) 633-7896 fAX: (817) 855-5694 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ IKE JONES ROAD I X AREA OF o SECOND FLOOR, q X OFFICE ADDITION x -- - -- -- 464 C � II ✓� fel I BBBN '1 III E XISTING AC PAVING PIXAISTING RKING ADA 11 S " O 1 EXISTING ADA SAN' _ ACCESSR3LE PATH OF .•. - _[/�""� _ _ S� TRAVa _ I Exrrnc MeIAL W- GARAGE < I I y. 4 f / W LU cc AREA OF 11 W LLJ < INIPR VE TENIENTS - - Y BRPAKROOAI 7o, _�._., ,� W : + EXISTUJG SUJC3C 9FEVIORMENA - v, W S7axT BLaI.FiNG -(D +------` • - - _ E�IXISTING AC PAVING_ ? z a I 0 � N I<► Q O OO I ACSli Ol15 DATE 3 j'y�J�+ BLDG DEPT 14 PWII I EXISTING AC PAVING/BX STIN3 PA2KMNZ FIRST SUBMITTAL Q1jt / STRIPING 1 1,101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L94 811 11 1 1 1)/.J/ 1 1 1 1!111,.il JOB NO. 10127 SITE PLAN SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY —S -7o. — oma EXISTING SITE PLAN r zap 1 AO.2 �✓ � iV r �r✓ L U _—_—_—_---i—_ ROOF PUN I vow � OTES I❑ ROLL® STANDm SEAM METAL ROOFING. PACCLAD (PETERSEN ALLNAINAA 71GFR—LOC 7 H K IS, O.C. PRE—FINISHED (AS SELECTED) CLRVINIG W ROOFING MA7E3tIAL IN FIELD. ❑2 LINE OF WALL BROW. ❑3 NEW ROOF CRICKET. SEE ® EXISTING ROOF SCLPPER, C4192MOW AND DOWNSPOUT. 75 1 SECOND PLOOR OFFICE FRAMING SHALL BE OPEN TO EXISTING ROOF DECK BELOW. PATCH AND REPAIRR� IDEfICIEINCIES, AND CAP .INSPECT, 7❑ UNE OF EXISTING CONCRETE WALL BELOW. © NEW HVAC LWIT. SEI• MSCI-IM6CAL Q PEM BACK EISTIMG SLALT LP ROOFING TO ACCESS DISTING ROOP PRAA" IAS REOLIR®L PROVIDE NEW PATCH AND REPAIR OF EXISTING CLASS 'A' BUILT LP ROOPINS WITH CAP SINN. NO G -IAN SES TO EXISTING ROOF DRAINAGE SHALL OCCLR ALL EXISTING ROOF' SLOPES, SOU -PERS AND DOWNSPOUTS SHALL REMAIN. 0 C C RT L A M O M 0 RG A N ARCHITECT 711 N. NIELDER RD. ARLINGTON, T% 76012 His (617) 659-9666 FAX: [817) US -1696 a oc CL I F m 6 C 1 ^ W �Oco .j J ; V Q REMMON5 DATE BLDG DEPT 14 PM II PIRST SLEIMITTAL J06 N0. 10127 ROOF PLAN A2.3 9Y V U� C0 R T L A N 0 N 0 R G A N ARCHITECT 711 N. FIELDER RD. ARI WOM. TR 7$019. PN: (917) 93 5-5999 FAX: 19177 63s-5998 KEYNOILj 4 W -O° RAD0.k4 �z tu a� .j U Q I I 7 I I V I I 3.733i 4 4 i I ra cr'1c,>>I I I k c ria I I I f SECTION 7/a'S•� C 3eaa RAp0.8 I I — V I I I I I 1 I I r 4 I i I I' I I I I I I I I k I l it I � 1 I I I I I I SECTION .� p TS POST 2X2 TS TCP AFD SEE STOXTLRAL BOTTOM RAIL V81COP1ER LANDING PAD LI DER SEPARATE SUBMITTAL T ENSK N M ST®. CABLE WIRE RAILNG I GUARDRAIL ELEVATIONyr r-0- F SECTION 7resr� E 9Y V U� C0 R T L A N 0 N 0 R G A N ARCHITECT 711 N. FIELDER RD. ARI WOM. TR 7$019. PN: (917) 93 5-5999 FAX: 19177 63s-5998 REVISIONS DATE BLDG DEPT 14 FES II FIRST SUBMITTAL .vw un 10127 BIALDMIO SECTIONS A4.2 W W �, y �z tu a� .j U Q REVISIONS DATE BLDG DEPT 14 FES II FIRST SUBMITTAL .vw un 10127 BIALDMIO SECTIONS A4.2 ATTACHMENT 7 OFFICIAL MINUTE EXCERPTS FROM THE SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING REGARDING 3132 Airway Avenue (Public Hearing No. 2 — PA -11-03) 2. Application No.: Applicant: Site Address: PA -11-03 Kevin Coleman 3132 Airway Avenue Zone: MP Project Planner: Mel Lee Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt under Section 15311 of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines — Class 11 (Accessory Structures). Description: Conditional Use Permit to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helipad/helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6' high platform on the roof of an existing 19' high building. The proposed helistop was conceptually approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011, who recommended denial of the project to the City Council, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard by the City Council. The applicant is re -submitting the project for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mel Lee, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Andranian asked if other helipads within the City had been approved. Mr. Lee responded yes. He also asked about the reasons for the first denial of the application and if any of them had been corrected. Commissioners and staff discussed if any other surrounding cities beside Newport Beach stated that they were in opposition, City policies on helipads, and where other helipad locations were within the City. PUBLIC COMMENTS Kevin Coleman, applicant, has read and is in agreement with the conditions of approval. He also addressed the concerns of the application. Chair Dickson asked for clarification with how many flights per day, location of where the maintenance/fueling will take place and where the helicopter will be stored. Mr. Coleman responded it does not fly on a daily basis; it is a private helicopter. Maintenance/fueling will occur off-site and the helicopter will be stored on the helipad. Denis S. LaBonge, adjacent business owner, spoke in opposition of the application. Beth Refakus, Costa Mesa resident, stated concerns with the increased intensity of the flight activity, noise and debris. Mike Manclark, owner of the helicopter, responded to Commissioners questions and public comments. Mr. Coleman responded to the public comments. Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioners discussed the concerns and public comments about the application. MOTION: Hereby approve that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council for Planning Application PA -11-03, conditional use permit for a private helistop for Leading Edge Aviation Services at 3132 Airway Avenue based on the findings set forth in Exhibit A, and subject to conditions set forth in Exhibit B with the following modification: Condition of Approval No. 4 to read: "A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are permitted for the helistop. Hours of operation shall be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 am -7:00 pm Sunday". Moved by Commissioner McCarthy, seconded by Vice Chair Mathews. Claire Flynn, Assistant Development Services Director, asked the Commissioners if they wanted the hours of operation on Sunday, in Condition of Approval No. 4, to be changed to 8 a.m. to coincide with the same hours as John Wayne Airport. Commissioner McCarthy agreed. RESOLUTION 15-54 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP FOR LEADING EDGE AVIATION SERVICES AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None —qi— ATTACHMENT 8 RESOLUTION NO. PC -15-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11- 03, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP FOR LEADING EDGE AVIATION SERVICES AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Kevin A. Coleman, owner of real property located at 3132 Airway Avenue, requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Conditional Use Permit to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was conceptually approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011, who recommended denial, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard by the City Council. The applicant is re -submitting the project for consideration; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2011 the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) reviewed the applicant's request and found the proposed facility to be in conformance with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and the AELUP for Heliports, on a 4-1 vote; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2011, the applicant obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics for the helistop design; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) conducted an airspace study as mandated under Part 157 of the Federal Aviation Regulations and found the site to be acceptable from an airspace utilization standpoint; and WHEREAS, staff has confirmed that all of the above approvals continue to remain valid as long as no changes are proposed in the design of the helistop; and -qZ- WHEREAS, the proposed project was found to be categorically exempt under Section 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the CEQA categorical exemption for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 28, 2015; and WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 requires that the City Council approve the proposal to construct and operate a helistop located within the city boundaries before Caltrans Division of Aeronautics can issue its final approval; and WHEREAS, the proposed helistop has conditionally complied with federal requirements, and a City Council resolution noting City approval of the helistop is required to finalize the State permitting process. 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 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL by the City Council of Planning Application PA -11-03 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 -11-03 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. _q3, PASSED AND ADOPTED this V Robert L. Dickson Jr., Chair Costa Mesa Planning Commission - q-1 - 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 September 28, 2015, by the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission -q5 - EXHIBIT A FINDINGS (for approval) PA -11-03 1. The information presented substantially complies with Section 13-29(e) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that: a. The proposed use is compatible and harmonious with uses on-site as well as those on the surrounding properties. b. Safety and compatibility of the design of the buildings, parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. c. The Industrial Park land use designation permits a wide range of uses, and the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Approval of CUP would be consistent with the proximity of the subject property to John Wayne Airport. d. The planning application is for a project -specific case and does not establish a precedent for future development. Finding: The conditional use permit substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(g)(2) in that the proposed use is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area. Granting the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the area. Facts in Support of Findings: Specifically, because of the proximity of the helistop to John Wayne Airport, the proposed facility is regulated by the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) and, in addition to City approval, requires approval by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1975, ALUC adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) which specifies permitted uses in proximity to the airport. The uses include the following general guidelines: 1. Uses not deemed to create adverse noise impacts. 2. Uses that will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft - related accidents. 3. Uses that will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. On July 21, 2011, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) has determined that the proposed facility is consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and the AELUP for heliports, on a 4-1 vote. In addition, the applicant obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics on March 13, 2011, and an acceptable airspace study determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on June 11, 2011. The modifications to the PA -11-03 building exterior to accommodate the helistop will not be visually intrusive to the existing development or surrounding properties. The presence of the helicopter on the roof of the building will not create an adverse visual impact to surrounding properties due to its proximity to the airport and distance from Airway Avenue. The use of the helistop is for a private helicopter only — the facility will not be open to the general public. No fueling, maintenance, or repair facilities are proposed. Granting the conditional use permit will not allow a use, density or intensity, which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation for the property. 3. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15311 for Accessory Structures. 4. The project is exempt from Chapter XII, Article 3 Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. _qq- EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA -11-03 Ping. 1. 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. 2. The use shall be limited to the type of operation as described in the staff report. Any change in the operational characteristics including, but not limited to, the hours of operation and additional services provided, shall require review by the Planning Division and may require an amendment to the conditional use permit. Specifically, refueling and overnight maintenance in the helistop area are expressly prohibited. 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(0)]. 1 Any visible steel beams supporting the helistop shall be painted to match the existing building, subject to Planning Division approval. 4. A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are permitted for the helistop. Hours of operation shall be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 am - 7:00 pm Sunday. 5. The use shall be conducted, at all times, in a manner that will allow the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant and/or operator shall institute whatever security and operational measures are necessary to comply with this requirement. 6. Helistop noise levels shall not exceed the 65 dB CNEL maximum noise level as identified in the noise study. 7. 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. 8. 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, f i 1 PA -11-03 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. The City shall have the right to choose its own legal counsel to represent the City's interests, and the applicant shall indemnify City for all such costs incurred by City. 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. 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/her opinion, any of the following circumstances exist: 1) the use is being operated in violation of the conditions of approval; 2) the use is being operated in violation of applicable laws or ordinances or 3) one or more of the findings upon which the approval was based are no longer applicable. 2. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 3. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. Bldg. 4. Comply with the requirements of the adopted 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, 2013 California Mechanical code , 2013 California Plumbing code, 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted, California Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance ) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. Fire 5. Helistop shall comply with all requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code. 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 _cfq — PA -11-03 (800) 288-7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by AQMD. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 ATTACHMENT 9 ITEM NUMBER:-� SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP FOR LEADING EDGE AVIATION SERVICES 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5511 mel.lee@costamesaca_gov PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit to install a 40 -foot (long) x 40 -foot (wide) helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The. helistop will be located on a 6 -foot high platform on the roof of an existing 19 -foot high building. The proposed helistop was conceptually approved in 2011 by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011, who recommended denial of the project to the City Council, and subsequently withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard by the City Council. The applicant is re -submitting the project for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. APPLICANT The applicant is Kevin A. Coleman, who is also the owner of the property. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval or denial of the helistop to the City Council by adoption of Planning Commission resolution. — 101-- BACKGROUND Site Location The property is located on the east side of Airway Avenue, between Baker Street and Fischer Avenue. The property is zoned MP (Industrial Park), approximately 2.4 acres in size, and contains an existing one-story, 37,955 square foot industrial building. The subject property abuts John Wayne Airport (JWA) to the east. On April 1, 2011, the City issued building permits for a tenant improvement for Leading Edge Aviation Services. Leading Edge Aviation Services paints civilian and military aircraft at facilities around the world; however, no painting of aircraft is proposed at this location - this location is for storage of materials and offices only. The tenant improvement included a second story, 980 square foot addition for the CEO's office at the northeast end of the building (see site photos Attachment 2). This tenant improvement was finaled in October 2011. The second phase of the tenant improvement was to be the construction of the helistop on the southeast end of the existing building for the CEO's private helicopter. Per Zoning Code Section 13-30(82), heliports and helistops require the approval of a conditional use permit. City Council as the Final Review Authority Typically, the Planning Commission is the final review authority for CUP's unless the Commission's action is appealed or called up for review by the City Council. However, Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5(b) stipulates that final approval of the helistop is by the City Council, unless said approval is specifically delegated by the Council to the Commission. The specific PUC provision is summarized below: 21661.5. (a) No political subdivision, any of its officers or employees, or any person may submit any application for the construction of a new airport to any local, regional, state, or federal agency unless the plan for construction is first approved by the board of supervisors of the county, or the city council of the city, in which the airport is to be located and unless the plan is submitted to the appropriate commission exercising powers pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9, and acted upon by that commission in accordance with the provisions of that article. (b) A county board of supervisors or a city council may, pursuant_ to Section 65100 of the Government Code, delegate its responsibility under this section for the approval of a plan for construction of new helicopter landing and takeoff areas, to the county or city planning agency. Because the City Council does not have a formal policy delegating the approval of heliports or helistops to the Planning Commission, it is necessary that the Council take final action on the CUP. Planning Commission Recommendation of Denial to City Council On August 8, 2011, Planning Commission considered the request. One member of the public spoke in opposition to the request during the hearing. The Commission recommended denial of the project to the City Council on a 3-1 vote (Commissioner Fitzpatrick voting no, Commissioner Salcedo absent). The Planning Commission's recommendation of denial was based on the following: • The Planning Commission was concerned that potential noise impacts of the proposed helistop to surrounding properties had not been identified or analyzed, due to the fact that at the time the project went before the Planning Commission, a noise study had not been prepared; • The Planning Commission was concerned that, although the subject site is not part of the JWA property or airport facility, the proposal constituted an expansion of aircraft activities beyond the existing footprint of JWA; • The Planning Commission was concerned that potential changes in the type of helicopter, i.e., the "quiet" helicopter proposed by the applicant (see photo in Attachment 3) versus the potential for a different, noisier, helicopter, could result in additional noise impacts to surrounding properties; and • The Planning Commission was concerned that the proposed use, i.e., a private helistop facility, provided no benefit to the citizens of Costa Mesa compared to helipads/helistops utilized by hospitals or law enforcement agencies. The August 8, 2011 Planning Commission staff reports and meeting minute excerpts are attached to this report for reference. The reports, meeting minutes, and video can also be found on the City's website at the below link: http://www.costamesaca.goviindex.aspx?page=1822 The project, with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial, was scheduled for the November 1, 2011 City Council hearing. Between the time the Planning Commission considered the project and it was scheduled for City Council, the following public correspondence in opposition to the project were received as listed below (copies are attached to this staff report — Attachment 5): 1. Letter from the Mayor of Newport Beach dated August 5, 2011 — note that an email was also provided by the Newport Beach Community Development Director dated September 11, 2015 affirming that the City remains opposed to the proposal; 2. Email from the owner of 3100 Airway Avenue dated August 8, 2011; 3. Letters from Robert C. Hawkins (who also spoke at the hearing) dated July 21, 2011 and August 8, 2011; 4. Letter from the owner of 182 Brandywine Terrace date August 23, 2011; and 5. Email from the owner of 3136 Airway Avenue dated October 18, 2011. The applicant requested several continuances before withdrawing the item from the City Council Calendar on June 19, 2012. In the interim, 6 additional public correspondence -- 1D13- opposing the project were received (copies are attached to this staff report — Attachment 5): 1. Letter from the owner of 3140 Airway Avenue dated February 6, 2012; 2. Letter from the owner of 3198-M Airport Loop Drive dated March 5, 2012; 3. Letter from the owner of 3136 Airway Avenue dated, March 6, 2012; 4. Additional letters from Robert C. Hawkins dated March 2, 2012 and June 12, 2012; and 5. Additional email from the owner of 3136 Airway Avenue dated June 27, 2012. Because of the amount of time that has elapsed between the time the project was last considered at a public hearing, it is being brought back to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council. All of the above commenters will receive notice of the Planning Commission hearing date. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION What is a helistop? A helistop is a landing place for helicopters, often on the roof of a building or some other limited access area. There are a number of different terms to describe similar facilities, including "heliport" and "helipad". The applicant's supporting documents, which are attached to the August 8, 2011 staff report (Attachment 10), explains that the facility will be specifically used for limited takeoffs/landings, rather than house other related activities such as maintenance, refueling, and storage, which is normally associated with a heliport; additionally, the facility is for private use and not open to the general public. For clarity, the term "helistop" is used to describe the proposed facility in this report. Other Regulatory Agencies Because of the proximity of the helistop to John Wayne Airport, the proposed facility is regulated by the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) and, in addition to City approval, requires approval by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1975, ALUC adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) which specifies permitted uses in proximity to the airport. The uses include the following general provisions: 1. Uses not deemed to create adverse noise impacts. 2. Uses that will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft - related accidents. 3. Uses that will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. A detailed description of the proposed facility was submitted to ALUC and their determination that the facility was compatible with the AELUP is attached to the August 8, 2011 staff report (see Attachment 10). ANALYSIS If the Commission were to recommend approval of the request, the following information is provided: Current Status of ALUC approval The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County ALUC determined that the ro osed facility is consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (AELUP), as well as the AELUP for Heliports, on July 21, 2011. According to ALUC, the approval is still valid. The ALUC determined that the proposed helistop was consistent with the AELUP, on a 4-1 vote. The determination that the project was consistent with the AELUP included the following: Although Mariners Christian School is approximately 900 feet to the west of the subject property, the school will not be underneath any flight paths for the proposed facility (see Attachment 3). Potential noise impacts by the proposed use will be negligible due to the location of the facility, surrounding uses, and the approach and departure paths used for the facility (see Attachment 7). The proposed approach and departure paths will correspond to existing helicopter paths designated by the airport and will be in compliance with FAA regulations. The applicant has obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics on March 13, 2011, and an acceptable airspace study determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on June 11, 2011. Staff contacted Lea Choum, Land Use Manager of JWA, on September 15, 2015 and confirmed that the determination of the ALUC remains valid since there have been no changes to the project (see Attachment 5). Theapplicant's noise study dated August 24 2011 which is being updated, concluded that there would be -no significant noise impacts to surrounding_properties as a result of the helistop operations. After the August 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant prepared a noise study for the City Council's consideration, which was withdrawn prior to the public hearing (see Attachment 7). The noise study, prepared by Acoustics Group Inc., concluded that there would be no increase in noise impacts to surrounding uses (including noise -sensitive uses such as the nearby Mariner's Christian School) because the subject site is within the 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour of JWA, and that the helistop nose would be below this City, County, and FAA noise standard for sensitive receptors. At Mariner's Christian School, the existing CNEL from JWA is 62 dB. Future helistop operations would produce a CNEL of 46.1 dB at the school, approximately 16 dB below existing airport noise levels. As noted earlier, the noise study is in the process of being updated by the consultant and will be presented at the September 28, 2015 meeting. —165- OwnerlOperator_ is required to fully comply with conditions required by Caltrans and the FRA, The helistop design is based on the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics design criteria. Other than standard conditions related to future changes in operations and aesthetic issues, staff is not recommending additional conditions related to the use/operation of the helistop that would be above and beyond those required by Caltrans or the FAA. The modifications to the building exterior to accommodate the helistop will not be visually intrusive to the existing development or surrounding ro erties. According to the applicant, the facility will consist of a 40 foot long by 40 foot wide metal rooftop landing pad, standard helistop lighting (i.e., lighted wind cone, green perimeter lights and red obstruction lights), and standard pad markings. A diagram showing the proposed pad markings is included in Attachment 6. The overall elevation above ground level of the helistop is 25 feet, approximately 6 feet over the roof of the existing industrial building, which is approximately 19 feet in height. The pad will be supported by steel beams, the footings for which were previously installed for the pad. If approved, staff is requiring the beams to be painted to match the existing building. It is not possible to screen the helistop since any elements extending above the helistop level would be considered obstructions and would not be allowed by the FAA or Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The helistop and the surrounding environment have been very carefully designed to meet all airspace obstruction -clearance requirements. The presence of the helicopter on the roof of the building will not create an adverse visual impact to surroundiQgjoroperties due to its proximity to the airport and distance from Airway Avenue. The proposed helistop is approximately 225 feet from the front property line, toward the southerly rear of the existing building. As noted earlier, the proposed helistop will have an overall elevation above ground level of 25 feet, approximately 6 feet above the roof of the existing building. The use of the helistop is fora jorivate helico ter only — the facility will not be open to the general goublic, i.e. a heliport. According to the applicant, the use of the facility will vary depending upon the business owner's travel needs. A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are anticipated for the helistop. Hours of operation will be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Sunday. This is reflected in the conditions if the Planning Commission recommends approval. No fueling, maintenance, or repair facilities are proposed. According to the applicant the facility will be used for arrivals and departures of the helicopter only. No fueling or maintenance activities will occur on the site. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY In accordance the General Plan Land Use Element, the use is required to comply with the State permitting procedures and with all conditions of approval imposed and/or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics.' With these approvals in place, the use will be in conformance with the City's General Plan, if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the project. 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 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the project. If the project is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA Section 15270(a) for Projects Which Are Disapproved. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the resolutions and they have been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing: 1. Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners within a 500 - foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is measured from the external boundaries of the property. (See attached Notification Radius Map.) 2. On-site posting. A public notice was posted on the street frontage of the project site. 3. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot newspaper. As discussed earlier in this report, notice was also provided to all persons who submitted prior correspondence for the project. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following alternatives: 1. Recommend approval of the facility to the City Council as proposed by the applicant; or 2. Recommend denial of the facility to the City Council as proposed, based on the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the August 8, 2011 meeting as discussed earlier in this report. Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element, Pages LU -15 and LU -16. _107- CONCLUSION Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council as to the approval or denial of the requested conditional use permit for the private helistop facility. MEL LEE, AICP CLAIRE FLYNN, AI P Senior Planner Asst. Development Services Director Attachments: 1. 3. ute 4. s 5. in der 6. -Pt'a lr 7. Noise Study 8. August 8, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Minute Excerpts 9. August 8, 2011 Planning Commission Resolution 10. August 8, 2011 Planning Commission Reports and Attachments 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) Distribution List ATTACHMENT 7 11L I Cornrnitarito in AcOIIrt1CW' Noire a& Yibcation August 24, 2011 Mr. Kevin A. Coleman Net Development Company 3130 Airway Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92626 City of Costa Mesa Deveioprnent Seryl as D9,00rtment AUG Z .4 2911 Subject: Analysis of the Proposed Net Development Company Helistop Project in Costa Mesa, CA. Reference: Net Development Company Heiistop Specifications prepared by Heliplanners, dated March 15, 2011. Dear Mr. Coleman: Acoustics Group, Inc., (AGI) has reviewed the referenced information and analyzed the noise from the proposed Heiistop project. Because of the proximity of the project to Orange County John Wayne Airport (SNA), the noise produced by helistop operations is expected to be overshadowed by the existing and future noise of the airport. This letter report provides a summary of the noise levels expected to be generated by the helistop and a comparison with the SNA noise contours. The project site is located at 3132 Airway Avenue, in the City of Costa Mesa. As shown in the vicinity map in the Attachment, the site is located northwest of SNA. Landuses to the north, west, and south of the site are industrial. There are no residential receptors or other noise sensitive receptors located immediately adjacent to the project site. However, Mariner's Christian School is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the project site at 300 Fischer Avenue. August 24, 2011 2102 Business Center Drive, Suite 130 Irvine, CA 92612 877.595.9988 - Voice 877.595.9989. Fax Net Development Company Helistop Project in Costa Mesa, CA The Federal Aviation Administration's Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 7.0 was used to determine the future noise levels from the project. A Eurocopter BC -135 helicopter will be used by the applicant at the helistop. The helistop approach tracks are from the north and southwest a 175 degree and 40 degree true headings, respectively. Final approach slopes for both approach tracks were modeled using default values of 8 to 1. Departures are on the same path, but with opposite headings. The locations of the flight tracks relative to the project site are shown in the Attachment. A maximum of 2 arrivals and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are forecasted for the helistop. All operations would occur during the daytime between 7am and 7pm. The arrivals and departures were assumed to be continuous over a 12 month period and evenly distributed over 365 days per year. Figure 1 shows the 65 and 60 dBA CNEL noise contours that would be generated by helistop operations in relation to the existing land use and SNA noise contours. As shown in the figure, the future CNEL from Helistop operations would be less than the CNEL generated by aircraft operations at SNA. Additionally, helistop noise would be below the City, County and FAA noise standards of 65 dB CNEL for sensitive receptors. At Mariners Christian School the existing CNEL from SNA airport operations is 62 dB CNEL. Future helistop operations would produce a CNEL of 46.1 dB at the school, approximately 16 dB below existing airport noise levels. Noise generated by future helistop operations would not result in significant noise impacts at the project site and adjacent properties. CONCLUSION Analyses have been conducted to evaluate the fuuture noise level that would be generated by the Net Development Company Helistop. The analyses considered the helicopter type, forecasted daily operations, approach and departure tracks, and default operational profiles. Results of the INi+,I modeling indicated that the future CNEL generated by helistop operations would be below existing aircraft noise levels from SNA and would also comply with all City, County and applicable exterior CNEL standards for noise sensitive receptor locations. Future Helistop noise levels would be 46.1 dB CNEL at Mariner's Christian School and would be approximately 16 dB below existing aircraft noise levels from SNA. In addition, future helicopter fight tracks would not pass over the school site. Noise generated by future helistop operations would not result in significant noise impacts at the project site and adjacent properties. August 24, 2011 —110— 2102 Business Center Drive, Suite 130 Inline, CA 92612 877.595.9988 - Voice 877.595.9989 - Fax Net Development Company Helistop Project in Costa Mesa, CA Please contact Mr. Robert Woo at 877-595-9988 if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, AcousriCs GROUP, INC. Robert Woo Principal Consultant August 24, 2011 --IIOa- liCOUSTICB C,, F. Ch 1 -1, -.fl. ".—N C: 2102 Business Center Drive, Suite 130 Irvine, CA 92812 877.595.9988 - Voice 877.598.9989 • Fax Net Development Company Helistop Project in Costa Mesa, CA Figure 1. Predicted Net Development Company Hefistop Noise Levels. August 24, 2011 2102 Busin ess Center Drive, Suite 130 Irvine, CA 92612 877.595.9988 - Voice 877.595.9989 - Fax August 24, 2011 Net Development Company Ha isiop Project in Costa Mesa, CA ATTACHMENT ACOUt3TZC9 . _ 2102 Business Center .Drive, Suite 130 Irvine, CA 92812 877.595.9988 • Voice 877.595.9989 - Fax ATTACHMENT 8 08-08-11 PC Minute Excerpt for PA -11-03 - Unofficial Until Approved 5. Application No.: Site Address: Applicant: Zone: Project Planner: Environmental Determination: PA -11-03 3132 Airway Avenue Kevin Coleman MP Mel Lee Exempt Description: Conditional use permit to install a 40 foot (long) x 40 foot (wide) helipad/helistop on the roof of an existing industrial building. The helistop will be located on a 6' high platform on the roof of an existing 19' high building. The proposed helipad has been approved by the Airport Land Use Commission and conditionally approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. Kevin Coleman, applicant, discussed the private property use of the proposed facility; noise impacts; the flight path used by John Wayne Airport; and receiving approval from the other regulatory agencies. Robert C. Hawkins of the Law Offices of Robert C. Hawkins, representing individuals and several groups including Mariners Community Association and AirFair, discussed his objection to staff's recommendation of approval and of the finding of exemption from CEQA. The Commissioners discussed their concerns relating to the airport footprint, noise impacts, and if this use is good for Costa Mesa. MOTION: Recommend that the City Council deny Planning Application PA -11- 03, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution PC -11-33, based on the evidence in the record and the denial findings contained in Exhibit "A". Moved by Vice Chair Sam Clark, seconded by Chair Colin McCarthy. During discussion on the motion, Commissioner Fitzpatrick made a substitute motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Delay the decision tonight until such time the Commission can clarify and understand the issues of the City of Newport Beach and AirFair. Direct staff to work with the City of Newport Beach and AirFair to obtain their official positions. The substitute motion died for lack of a second. -1 H- Commissioner Fitzpatrick reiterated his non-support of the motion. The Chair and Vice Chair Clark said this application will go before the City Council, the policy-making body. Deputy City Attorney Bettenhausen clarified the original motion and the Chair agreed. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Chair Colin McCarthy, Vice Chair Sam Clark, and Commissioner Robert Dickson Noes: Commissioner Jim Fitzpatrick Absent: Commissioner Edward Salcedo. The Chair explained the appeal process. ATTACHMENT 9 RESOLUTION NO. PC -11- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HELISTOP AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Kevin A. Coleman, owner of real property located at 3132 Airway Avenue, requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction and operation of a 40 foot (long) x 40 foot (wide) helistop on a 6 -foot high platform. The helistop has an overall elevation 25 feet above ground level as it is located on the rooftop of an existing 19 -foot tall industrial building. The facility will generally average three landings and three departures per week with actual activities varying from day to day. Hours of operation will be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and 7:00 am to 7:00 pm on Sunday; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2011. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A", the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny Planning Application PA -11-03 with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 2011. 000 kfiilgcCarthy, Chair Costa Mesa Planning Com `iion '-Mo- 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 August 8, 2011, by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MCCARTHY, CLARK, DICKSON NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FITZPATRICK ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SALCEDO ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE `tom Secretary, Costa Mesa Planning Commission EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS PA -11-03 A. The proposed project does not comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29 (e) because: a. The proposed use is not compatible and harmonious with uses 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 the proposed use is not compatible with developments in the same general area. 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. 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. The Costa Mesa Planning Commission has recommended denial of PA -11-03. 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. ATTACHMENT 10 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM V- . So,. MEETING DATE: AUGUST 8, 2011 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 FOR A PROPOSED HELISTOP 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE DATE: AUGUST 1, 2011 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER (714) 754-5611 (mleeficixosta-mesaxa.us) Attached is additional analysis, in a Q and A format, of the proposed helistop based on input from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC): 1. What is the existing "footprint" of John Wayne Airport (JWA)? An attached exhibit from the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for JWA (AELUP) shows the current physical footprint of the airport. The footprint is defined as the legal boundary of real property owned by the County of Orange for JWA. 2. Will the proposed helistop expand this footprint? No. An expansion of the JWA footprint requires real property acquisition by the County of Orange. According to Kari Rigoni, Executive Officer for John Wayne Airport, the proposed project does not involve expansion of the airport footprint because the project site is 100% privately owned. Because the proposed helistop is a private facility, it is not part of the airport footprint (see attached Google Map). This has been added to the findings of the revised approval resolution attached. 3. Will the proposed helistop increase noise in the area? According to the staff report prepared for ALUC (handwritten pages 21 and 22 of the Commission staff report), the proposed helistop is within the 65 decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour for JWA. Additionally, according to the applicant, the operator of the proposed helistop currently flies his helicopter to and from the existing Martin Helipad at the airport, which is approximately 200 yards to the north of the proposed facility. The staff report for ALUC concluded that noise impacts from the proposed facility would be ne li ible as a result of the location, surrounding uses, limited number of operations, and the approach/departure paths for the facility. 4. Will the fight path for the helistop impact Mariner's Christian School? No. As noted in the staff report prepared for ALUC (handwritten page 21 of the Commission staff report), Mariner's Christian School, which is approximately 900 -- I 1q- feet to the west of the subject property, is not beneath the departure and arrival flight paths for the proposed helistop. Additionally, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is requiring that the flight path for the helicopter (which currently departs and arrives from the Martin Helipad at John Wayne Airport) remain unchanged. Therefore, although the proposed helipad will be on private property, the actual flight path for the helicopter with regard to Mariner's Christian School does not change. The proposed departure and arrival paths correspond to the existing helicopter paths designated by the Air traffic Control Tower at JWA and will be in compliance with FAA regulations. 5. Will the hours of operation for the helistop differ from the airport? Yes, as proposed. The applicant is proposing the hours of operation for the helistop to be 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Sunday. However, JWA's hours of operation on Sundays are 8:00 am to 7:00 pm. Although the hours of operation apply to commercial flights, and not to private facilities, staff is recommending an additional condition of approval (Condition no. 6) requiring the Sunday hours of operation to be consistent with the airport. cc: Interim Development Services Director Deputy City Attorney City Engineer Transportation Svs. Manager Fire Protection Analyst Staff (4) File (2) Kevin A. Coleman Net Development Company 3130 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attachments: 1. JWA Map 2. Google Map of Subject Property and JWA File: 080811 PA1103SuppMemo Date: 080111 I Time: 1:00p.m. I2D- R ^-F-F^C:HMEN-F 1 Contact the ALUC office at 949.252.5170 to view this exhibit. t Contact the ALUC office at 949.252.5170 to view this exhibit. 3132 Airway Avenue, Costa N/fesa, CA - Google Maps Page I of I A-r-r^C:; H NA EH N -r 2 a Address 3132 Airway Ave Ge( Google Maps on your phone 11, E1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Text the word 'GMAPS" to 46645 3 l Fri yr S-irl (C 'cge, rrA.e."J' T-v­rso A;e 9 c;' orpc-t -jr Nan 3tee C r OL cal V, 'm % a Park 4 'e b Paularina Ave we R;4-', 7orr.-ir ii 'Tj Sr 7�-1416 Aa V9 T qtyT V ! 11 may, Z7,I T Bich Sr Ana c:Ub 21 41 (�D 10111� 1z' 41 6� 02011 - Google . -.Map dat!6201 I Google - -1-22-- littp://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=31')2+Airway+Av... 08/01/2011 PLANNING COMMISSION .A G ND,A RE'P"oR r MEETING DATE: AUGUST 8, 2011 SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 FOR A PROPOSED HELISTOP 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE DATE: JULY 28, 2011 ,=.,5 ITEM NUMBER: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER (714) 754-5611 (mlee&i.costa-mesa.ca.us) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction and operation of a 40 foot (long) by 40 foot (wide) helistop on a 6 -foot high platform. The helistop has an overall elevation of 25 feet above ground level because it is located on the rooftop of an existing 19 -foot tall building. APPLICANT The applicant is Kevin A. Coleman, the owner of the property. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval to City Council by adoption of Planning Commission resolution, subject to conditions. BACKGROUND What is a helistop? A helistop is a landing place for helicopters, often on the roof of a building or some other limited access area. There are a number of different terms to describe similar facilities, including "heliport" and "helipad". The applicant's supporting documents explain that the facility will be specifically used for limited takeoffs/landings, rather than house other related activities such as maintenance, refueling, and storage, which is normally associated with a heliport; additionally, the facility is for private use and not open to the general public. For clarity, the term "helistop" will be used to describe the proposed facility in the remainder of this report. Site Location The property is located on the east side of Airway Avenue, between Baker Street and Fischer Avenue. The property is zoned MP (Industrial Park), approximately 2.4 acres in size, and contains an existing one-story, 37,955 sauare foot industrial building. On April 1 z-3- 1, 2011, the City issued building permits for an 11,874 square foot tenant improvement for Leading Edge Aviation Services. Leading Edge Aviation Services paints civilian and military aircraft at facilities around the world; however, no painting of aircraft is proposed at this location - this location is for storage of materials and offices only. The tenant improvement includes a second story, 980 square foot addition for the CEO's office at the northeast end of the building. The tenant improvement is currently under construction (see attached photos). The second phase of the tenant improvement includes the construction of the helistop on the southeast end of the existing building for the CEO's private helicopter. Per Zoning Code Section 13-30(82), heliports and helistops require the approval of a conditional use permit. Other Regulatory Agencies Because of the proximity of the helistop to John Wayne Airport, the proposed facility is regulated by the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) and, in addition to City approval, requires approval by the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In 1975, ALUC adopted the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) which specifies permitted uses in proximity to the airport. The uses include the following general provisions: 1. Uses not deemed to create adverse noise impacts. 2. Uses that will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft - related accidents. 3. Uses that will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. A detailed description of the proposed facility was submitted to ALUC and their determination that the facility was compatible with the AELUP is attached to this report for reference (Attachment 3). City Council as the Final Review Authority Typically, the Planning Commission is the final review authority for CUP's unless the Commission's action is appealed or called up for review by the City Council. However, Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5(b) stipulates that final approval of the helistop is by the City Council, unless said approval is specifically delegated by the Council to the Commission. The specific PUC provision is summarized below: 21661.5. (a) No political subdivision, any of its officers or employees, or any person may submit any application for the construction of a new airport to any local, regional, state, or federal agency unless the plan for construction is first approved by the board of supervisors of the county, or the city council of the city, in which the airport is to be located and unless the plan is submitted to the appropriate commission exercising powers pursuant to Article 3.5 (commencing 12y - with Section 21670) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9, and acted upon by that commission in accordance with the provisions of that article. (b) A county board of supervisors or a city council may, pursuant to Section 65100 of the Government Code delegate its responsibility under this section for the approval of a plan for construction of new helico ter landing and takeoff areas, to the county or city planning agency. Because the City Council does not have a formal policy delegating the approval of heliports or helistops to the Planning Commission, it is necessary that the Council take final action on the CUP. ANALYSIS Staff Justifications for Approval Staff supports the proposed facility based on the following: • The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange Count ALUC has determined that the proposed facility is consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Air ort AELUP as well as the AELUP for Heliports. On July 21, 2011, the ALUC determined that the proposed helistop was consistent with the AELUP, on a 4-1 vote. The determination that the project was consistent with the AELUP included the following: ■ Although Mariners Christian School is approximately 900 feet to the west of the subject property, the school will not be underneath any flight paths for the proposed facility. • Potential noise impacts by the proposed use will be negligible due to the location of the facility, surrounding uses, and the approach and departure paths used for the facility. The proposed approach and departure paths will correspond to existing helicopter paths designated by the airport and will be in compliance with FAA regulations. The applicant has obtained conditional approval from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics on March 13, 2011, and an acceptable airspace study determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on June 11, 2011, which amounts to approval, at least in concept, to the proposed facility. These documents are included in the applicant's submittal package to ALUC, which is attached to this report. It should be noted that ALUC received a letter in opposition to the proposed facility, stating that the project should not be approved because it was not consistent with the ALEUP (Attachment 4). However, as noted earlier, ALUC determined that the project was consistent with the AELUP. • Owner/Operator shall fully comp/Z with conditions required by Caltrans and the FAA. The helistop design is based on the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics design criteria. Other than standard conditions related to future changes in operations and aesthetic issues, staff is not recommending additional conditions related to the use/operation of the helistop that would be above and beyond those required by Caltrans or the FAA. It The modifications to the building exterior to accommodate the helistop will not be visual!y intrusive to the existing development or surrounding Properties. According to the applicant, the facility will consist of a 40 foot long by 40 foot wide metal rooftop landing pad, standard helistop lighting (i.e., lighted wind cone, green perimeter lights and red obstruction lights), and standard pad markings. A diagram showing the proposed pad markings is included in the attached application package that was submitted to ALUC. The overall elevation above ground level of the helistop is 25 feet, approximately 6 feet over the roof of the existing industrial building, which is approximately 19 feet in height. The pad will be supported by steel beams, which staff is requiring to be painted to match the existing building (condition no. 3). It is not possible to screen the helistop since any elements extending above the helistop level would be considered obstructions and would not be allowed by the FAA or Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The helistop and the surrounding environment have been very carefully designed to meet all airspace obstruction -clearance requirements. • The presence of the helicopter on the roof of the building will not create an adverse visual impact to surrounding ro erties dole to its proximitZ to the airport and distance from Airway Avenue. The proposed helistop is approximately 225 feet from the front property line, toward the southerly rear of the existing building. As noted earlier, the proposed helistop will have an overall elevation above ground level of 25 feet, approximately 6 feet above the roof of the existing building. • The use of the helistop is for a private helicopter only — the facility will ,not be open to the general public, iRe.,, a heliport. According to the applicant, the use of the facility will vary depending upon the business owner's travel needs. The applicant anticipates and average of three landings and three departures per week — and this activity will vary on a daily basis. Hours of operation will be 7:00 am -7:00 pm, Monday through Sunday. Condition of approval no. 4 establishes no more than 2 takeoffs and 2 landings per day and no more than 4 takeoffs and 4 landings per week. No fueling maintenance. or repair facilities are proposed. According to the applicant the facility will be used for arrivals and departures of the helicopter only. No fueling or maintenance activities will occur on the site. _ 12�_ GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY In accordance the General Plan Land Use Element, the use is required to comply with the State permitting procedures and with all conditions of approval imposed and/or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, and the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. With these approvals in place, the use will be in conformance with the City's General Plan. 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 15311, Class 11, Accessory Structures. If the project is denied, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA Section 15270(a) for Projects Which Are Disapproved. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following alternatives.- 1. lternatives: 1. Recommend approval of the facility as proposed by the applicant; or 2. Recommend denial of the facility as proposed. If the use is denied, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. CONCLUSION This proposal has received final approval from the Airport Land Use Commission, conditional approval from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and an acceptable airspace study determination from the Federal Aviation Administration. It is staffs opinion that, based on review of the other regulatory agencies, the location and the recommended conditions, the helistop will not create any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Therefore, staff supports the request. 4 r A/ MEL LEE, AICP CLAIRE FLYNN,' ICP Senior Planner Acting Asst. Development Services Director Attachments: 3. ALUC Approval Letter, Agenda, Staff Report, and Application Package y Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use Element, Page LU -15. (1-7— cc: Interim Development Services Director Deputy City Attorney City Engineer Transportation Svs. Manager Fire Protection Analyst Staff (4) File (2) Kevin A. Coleman Net Development Company 3130 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 File: 080811 PA1103 I Date: 072511 1 Time: 1:00 .m. RMS :��Art�r ctx:?wTv July 22, 2011 TTACHMENT 3 AIRPORT LAND {_.ISE COMMISSION FOR ORANIG E COUNTY AirNay A4en:-ie • M-3, Cal;t-1�- ,1 926:6 • ?49 252 5170 ra (. 949,25"? 60112 Kevin Coleman Net Development Company 3130 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: Leading Edge Aviation Services Helistop Dear Mr. Coleman: During the meeting held on July 21, 2011, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County considered the subject project. The matter was duly discussed, moved, seconded, and carried by a 4 to I vote, to find the proposed Leading Edge Aviation Services Helistop located at 3132 Airway Avenue to be Consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and AELUP for Heliports, providing that the owner/operator complies fully with the conditions required by the FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics and with the operational parameters submitted to the ALUC and to the City of Costa Mesa. Please contact Lea Chourn, at (949) 252-5123 or via email at Ichoum'�tocaincom if you require additional information or have questions regarding this proceeding. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer 12q - AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION *� FOR QR.ANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (949) 252-5170 Fax (949) 252-6012 REGULAR MEETING OF THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY July 21, 2011 PLEASE NOTE LOCATION TIME: 4:00 p.m. PLACE: John Wayne Airport 3160 Airway Avenue SUBJECT: Regular Meeting Costa Mesa, CA Airport Commission Hearing Room NOTICE PERSONS ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION ARE REQUESTED TO GIVE THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESSES FOR THE RECORD. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ON ANY ITEM NOT APPEARING IN THE FOLLOWING AGENDA. THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS STATED FIN THE AGENDA ITEM OR UNDERLYING STAFF REPORTS SIMPLY REFLECT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION STAFF AND THE DISCUSSION AND ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION MAY DEVIATE THEREFROM. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING ON ITEMS LISTED IN THIS AGENDA, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ITEMS OF INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC THAT ARE WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION. ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW IN THE EDDIE MARTIN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LOCATED AT 3160 AIRWAY AVENUE, COSTA MESA, CA 92626 DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS, 8:00 A.M. — 5:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. AGENDA ITEMS ARE ALSO AVAILABLE BY CALLING (949) 252-3170. PLEDGE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting of June 16, 2011: AGENDA 13V`— ALUC Agenda Page 2 July 21, 2011 Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Alternate Commissioners Present NEW BUSINESS: Gerald Bresnahan, Rod Propst, Leslie Daigle, Jon Dumitru, Jim Righeimer Herman Beverburg and Tom O'Malley Stephen Beverburg 1. Request for Consideration of Helistop at 3132 Airwav Avenue: Leading Edge Aviation Services has submitted for ALUC consistency review a proposal to establish a private -use helistop on an existing building at 3132 Airway Avenue in Costa Mesa. No maintenance or refueling activities will take place. The helistop will serve as a landing place to pick up and drop off passengers only. Recommendation: That the Commission find the Leading Edge Aviation Services Helistop located at 3132 Airway Avenue to be Consistent with the AELUP for JYVA and the AELUP for Heliports, providing that the owner/operator complies fully with the conditions required by the FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics and with the operational parameters submitted to the ALUC and to the City of Costa Mesa. 2, Administrative Status Report: Receive and file memo regarding various administrative activities/issues, Commission correspondence sent/received, and pending project reviews. 3. Proceedin6s with Consistent Agencies: Aliso Viejo (April 15, 2004), Anaheim, Buena Park, Costa Mesa (October 17, 2001), Cypress (August 16, 2001), Fullerton (June 17, 2004), Garden Grove, HuntinZD gton Beach, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest (June 15, 2006) Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach (2006), Santa Ana (December 18, 2008), Stanton, Tustin, Westminster, and County of Orange. 4. Proceedings with Inconsistent A6encies: Laguna Woods (April 19, 2001) and Seal Beach. 5, Items of Interest to the Commissioners: Commissioners may comment on agenda or non -agenda matters, and ask questions of or give direction to staff; provided that no action may be taken on off - agenda items. 6. Items of Interest to the Public: Members of the public may address the Commission regarding any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Commission provided that no action may be taken on off -agenda items unless authorized by law. ADJOURiNTMENT: Next Regular Meeting: August 18, 2011 -i31- 109 ANCE a CCOUNTY'. �L V►G _T - July 21, 2011 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Backzround AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 A rwaY Av?iu,2 . Cost3 11zs,3, C:alirorn 92626 252 .5' I fiv 9+9,252.6012 AGENDA ITEM 1 Commissioners/Alternates Kari Rigoni, Executive Officer Request for Consideration of Leading Edge Aviation Services Helistop Leading Edge Aviation Services has submitted for ALU -C consistency review a proposal to establish a private -use helistop on an existing building at 3132 Airway Avenue in Costa Mesa. Leading Edge intends to use the helistop for its corporate travel needs between its various facilities (See Attachment 1 to view the project location map). There are no plans to perform maintenance or refueling activities, the helistop will serve as a landing place to pick up and drop off passengers only. Leading Edge is also building a second floor addition office on top of the existing building. The office will be one room at 950 square feet. The helistop will be located outside of the second floor office (See Attachment 2 to view the roof plan for 313 2 Airway Avenue). The project still requires approval of a conditional use permit by the City of Costa Mesa to allow a helistop on the project site. Leading Edge anticipates that the proposed helistop will be reviewed by the City Costa Mesa Planning Commission at its August 10, 2011 meeting. The project is located in an area zoned Multi Purpose (MP) Industrial Park and is surrounded by John Wayne Airport to the north and east, light industriaUoffice/res=ch uses to the south, and light industrial/office/research uses and Mariners Christian School to the west. Mariners Christian School is about 900 feet west of the project site but not beneath proposed flight paths. Leading Edge is proposing 3 takeoffs and landings per week. The hours of operation for the Helistop will be Monday through Sunday 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. (See Attachment 3 to view the Helistop Site Layout and Helistop Detail). Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 requires ALUC review and action on each heliport/ helistop proposal within Orange County prior to issuance of an operating permit to the sponsor by Caltrans/Aeronautics Program. AELUP Issues Staff has identified noise impact and airspace safety as potential AELUP issues. Regarding the Noise Issue: This site and the adjoining properties are zoned for industrial uses. The impacts from noise generation will be negligible as a result of the location, surrounding uses, limited number of operations, and the approach/departure paths used for the facility. -132-- Agenda Item I- Helistop at 3132 Airway 7/21/2011 Page 2 The proposed departure and arrival paths will correspond to existing helicopter paths designated by the Air Traffic Control Tower at JWA and will be in compliance with FAA Regulations (See Attachment 4 to view the proposed helistop within the 65 CNEL noise contour for JWA). Regarding Building Height Issues: The proposed second floor office addition, the helistop platform and lighted windcone do not penetrate the 7:1 transitional surface for JWA. The transitional surface would be penetrated at 133' Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL). The office is proposed at 89' AMSL, the platform at 77'AMSL and the lighted windcone at 94' AMSL. The highest portions of the proposed project are below the 7:1 transitional surface for JWA (See Attachment 5 to view the proposed project within the FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA). Regarding the Airspace Safety Issue: Following the submittal of FAA Form 7480-1 "Notice of Landing Area Proposal" by the project sponsor, the FAA Western Pacific Regional Office completed an Airspace Analysis and determined that the proposal is acceptable but is subject to the following conditional provisions specified below prior to being issued an operational permit. These conditional provisions will ensure that there will not be any adverse effects to the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft from an airspace utilization standpoint. The FAA response includes comments from the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at John Wayne Airport (JWA) that are based solely on Air Traffic Control operational perspective. The following must be in effect prior to being operational (See Attachment 6 to view the FAA Airspace Study): a. Specific arrival and departure procedures/routes for use during Rwy 19 and Rwy 01 operations are mandated within a "Letter of Agreement" (LOA) between Leading Edge and the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATC). b. Final procedures are dependent upon completion of a local "Safety Risk Management/Safety Management System (SRM/SMS) review process and made with Mr. Doug Blaul, Acting Air Traffic Manager, at 714-668-0141 x114. c. Contact should be made with the California Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division (Caltrans) in order for their office to make an evaluation and determination in regards to obtaining a state heliport permit once the SRM/SMS review process has been completed. Point of contact is Mr. Jeff Brown, Chief, Office of Airports. As part of the submittal package to ALUC, the project sponsor has also included the Concept Plans for the helistop. The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics has reviewed these plans and conditionally approved them as of March 15, 2011. Caltrans approval is conditional subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, local approval and other permit requirements through the City of Costa Mesa. These conceptual plans are included as exhibits within the submittal package to the ALUC (See Attachment 7). Conclusion Subject to compliance with the conditions required by the FAA, as well as adherence to the operational parameters relating to flight frequency stated by the project sponsor, the project will be a compatible land use at the planned location and would be Consistent with the pertinent guidelines of the AEL UP for JWA and the AEL UP for Heliports. Agenda Item I- Helistop at 3132 Airway 7/21/2011 Page 3 Recommendadon That the Commission find the Leading Edge Aviation Services Helistop located at 3132 Airway Avenue to be Consistent with the AELUP for JWA and the AELUP for Heliports, providing that the owner/operator complies fully with the conditions required by the FAA, Caltrans Aeronautics and with the operational parameters submitted to the ALUC and to the City of Costa Mesa. Respectfully submitted, Kari A. Rig oni Executive Officer Attachments: 1. Project Location Map 2. Roof Plan 3. Helistop Site Layout and Detail 4. JWA CNEL Noise Contour Exhibit 5. JWA Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces Exhibit 6. FAA Airspace Study (Airspace Case No. 2007 -AWP -166 -NRA) 7. Sponsor Submittal Package to ALUC U -._._.-.___._._.-. VJ VT3W Y1S0o VAY Acv aete S3 IMRS NOU VIA V f 3003 ONI0131 9� i E L U N Q . U::: r Ea oo u edol enop �+e a oaoaa oao U -._._.-.___._._.-. VJ VT3W Y1S0o VAY Acv aete S3 IMRS NOU VIA V f 3003 ONI0131 9� i E L U N Q ] S S } s l l : 71 711 T STI. r + .�- 1 Y i I J. _.t„ , � �.,�", ti /} ,�.. tikes•' 9 -e- r1 7f4i� }rte I" �_ r. y ✓ MLISTOF v COS/ -1 - .1 i'3, % i �'9 `a, w—. .• f^'rV ` f 1 INE < x r �c �� C f(-:/�'`,� � -+.fc. rte'/'_ ^.•� i Iry I i Nota; County Unincorporated areas are shown in white. John Wayne Airport Impact Zones Joan wayfw ��+rcctl ?reject U� :� ;tna 2rc5 LEGEND I / CNEL C06ITOUR � - so ✓ CEA7IFIGATIC J ,� I 4 � -- RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE Nk.�Sd ;� � �GC�1 ,�� I�.� ��C/�6'3+UI kx �ialC� �L�rry CITY BOUNDAR ES T AJRPORT BOUNDARIES/ �, • ^yr gou;/%� awl IC ,av1 A PPt E:SL''C win a,1 va Otfi w Dc4d Attachment 4 "tom �, 70 go, 't , 41 &III I ='A'&* VA I I del*] a MLWJ*;3idIlotd to] a= I a &to 94D 1 Isle WAND -141 m to rd U S Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Jun,, Li, 2i)__ 'ririg :. el loLarn:tat-!i ,ii11CI Av=ndi.a Ott1 :�QLI:3 0 Ta:„:-a1El, ?. ?3391 .era r M.-. s;ri...:C. Western -Pacific Region P G Box 92OOT Los Angeles Airports Oislnd Office Los Angeles CA 90009 Lc+dii1 c'3 •.J•_ i1cli�cct 1 r5r)a:a ..d3H,p 201 1 -A'/,'P_77a_\ �;- I J3 -4C-30. Pl, Lc:ng ! 1 !-52-,'3,'1U 1JAD e.3 The Foc oral Avia�ion ]c.dlrti.!lis`;:tion Aa1 h.es c,ontuler:e;i an air.'s;:,due Study in r.espc>,;5e !:o ycui pr.opoal s!iuwl li:d o:r P.A.A Fc cm :437-i, lVcCi.,. a;i l.,fr!riirq Arna Propos-3— Cor The _cLivation and est:ab! Lsh:ge:ii: of he subject private h_elip;;r� Lrt :'csta mesa, Calitorrila. Our analysis determined that the proposal is acceptable but is subject to the following conditional provisions specified below pciar to being issued an -operational permit to insure there will not be any adverse effects to the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft. Our ras�c^�s nclud s camc.an:s tnaC haw--, been or"'vi^ecd trcnn ;:he Ai.r Tril.Vi:: U.nt_o1 (Al'C!') ;:r,rl Wd'y'n'a A!rocr-,, iSNA) tha: ar@ bas2d ioloiy or! ALC TraCC._ '_ontr^_ o_e-_^ tinnaL Q4_3:.Jr:_...L`/�. TE"Ie br _..':...,.. (::; .:jL .o beLny _..' e C,3 L LP: iGI a. Suecit1= arrive_ arta departuce FrocAduris/rJ+J7:e3 for d'_C.n: Rwy 1y and Eloy .;l operati.^.n dr.., .,gat:;ac_ within 3 Agreeme.:C" ;L');) bet'w'een Laadiny E:age arid Cha Ail: ,.cel[ei_ Corizral TU'wJ!.r ;ATC1 . b• l'i::31 ucocedur23 dei,eride- :t upon cor;pia=ion, ol- a local "Sa?aty_Risk Mana emant/Safer :lana errant S stem (SSM/StHS) f' -!V LE!W prcceSa and inc-lu3ion oC any 1j?:!i_..Ile:1 risk Con"a_-. Bho"ild be :Wade 'wi.th Mr. [7ouy ',31au1, Acting y:L' Tr3rt1= u,an._. , a_ 711-663-0191, <114. Hi e.rnai.l address is dJuy,bisu_'�iaa.gov :Or:C.3::'. -shauLa be m e ,.•/_=h t^.2 C:d11rnia -'e._^3S-i.me'n CI r -m 1Sj)�JCr:)L"_•:)!l, eVaLua=ior. and :3 = CR1i)dtl�. in a .. ,3 fl�i1.Pro crl_e =he SRIVi/S.1S revLew pcoce = h3s beer. :7flrolez"_'d, YOU' COLn- r. JOflt;�_ Ai�porC., ..31,].COi.'fi?._, ni'-Dar-fi!dn= ;)_ a-:...3Or)C..J.ti✓'f J L'J: G:O;OC J- 1'1'.. _.. jn �_....aU-2 ,n. C'e•iu ..+9C_CM, _.... /�� Attachment 6 C:nrS dpi -2L Ir !a:mor: 1,,�s nom_ :u:_ FP -A .gporn a, d_s-frLC 'f3_ o' r. Cl :_ .^.?'.: ;!r^I Lr13 !: ion Silo :k d=C=1�1?:'.� '/S? ..r. ...=VL _S:Ji 31 r_✓d._ 0 y ._ir-::rd:_ darl .-_JCI : 2 F:ia !son7 -;,,i ;I, Gf'rl)P_r:y iJi1 1:;1:, orf-u,l1 and:G?t'3La 1 J T: 9 l.f.'.- i:.3:_UC"1 }a'__ .ii..,Z -T. •`!?_5j. L '!i, tip- �:......, ?lf'p,of t3, C.rt!'. _. _`Ce C i!; :v 0 v L' -;a ex-,3Cirt(3 d:C-SU.:::� pL-O iQ�r�.� �.YUa'.'3:!r:-, �:L C!?C ��i+�„ t.�= �f.. ,,J„5 _._ •-:Juld hav;. .._. -h� Sa �..l y� cE ti?c�-:ns ._:.d �.'a.�ec :}- a:. :....- '3t._._!IJ, end :'•:_ a`�_�_.. I:ha, dxLatin� oc orcoos=_�: man:n unu K^ :•Jn ri.:-ird_ 0O]'::=s 'N' ,. `•U ::{ f19'•._ C.1 zht. ht_.i•L)Cr` •prcpcGga A'. a'J, I:hi_ ...'t''T-.^.li f!3:10^ ir'. rlo 'w •i `/ ..i oi' iLSL'!?i ai':y OL�indnr�C„S, 13'ws, J_ rzcol.a=i:)rrs OC :fly :)thee body or ;'AA (: dit::U: l;r�v l: Y r I"•i r` ..,, n.. CQi.s:L'J_'.L:Jt'. OL dlf'UVCI:C;J3 neo' f12:L00:::5. L 1CLi'_C}- ?[iVLrl;Cl C3a balk' CE! iir0=c:CtcQ _h=OL:Ct": 31iC;1 I!l2:]C;3 2i 1.UGa1 ?CR _Fly 'y_ rJ? i:. arl X103 i,-;Cj 3 :J'_'dC:t11-- (Piguce 2) enl•iLlQ"A Q--_ _rra ~.,_cy 5 _Czc f�c a:igti;c'�-�' 3 V_UL'=_ V_!'f. i::dl .:123 C3i,... _., 'h11 .. ..:a tFhuu i:] be ma L11ta i::a: bE. `_qs all Lh,. ::P,praC; on. s z 'TI_r:L:T.JI^ rLr3d i';I ,','n'd`/s. ig'J=-2 ? 19 _fl_OrpUrin c- 3r._ na. `PhIS datarmination axpiras •7:f DeQeaber 21, 2012, unless Ln 1 ti oti'1i::'.•:i3a '1G I:etl ded, evisad, ar t?;!'.Ilndt3d, Cr ''"`8 C3�i11=y IS C:U[15', C`: .: !:= t:?1;•G L? =hal- -3d t... An extension may be raqueatad through our office, if neca33ary, up to 15-daya prior to this expiration data. -rl c o:"jos=: is 4h� Airport NEastar Racord, FAP, Form 5010-5 o 'prlVatC-3 _andlay9 __23 W .^.!1' dal aC.',3Sa SYS'.d31r1 31U-C,9"•v at I C5: I: r1v' '•',_ _@1 i"?' ;.IaS U�'.: C.3" L�n3` ',•12 Y: ,J i:l ;i 3L!pC._...dl: f^U _CrL-Lp �. ,.I fl Cj :.7:s'S _'p_ Ctla ^af L;r -.. ^y `.i, _ ^..:lg 1= :t!2 .1 zhi3 UCI=LC> ,.. J }aur faci.Ii y _ani ce =da _,._ ca=+ A. ,'b_ D _=_ Sys'.. -2.m. !c vert "Idve, an, questions, phase corl.:a:_:e a� et 31i 31f3/%2'' 3621. 4incorLlj, l y .I cc: Cili�o.cni: I1CU1r=!T'?!1L ��` ,nnspQr:l=i�r. I�iviSicn o[ 'r�?rc:!t3',iti:,s, M� 90 i-�i2Cr �C�L:.c AJC ,yi Y1!>'LS t'.0. Box 9428'4 CA 94 J_ , -1-4)- Attachment 6 — H2- 0 0 CL o r3 1S 71au -S k w k4 u r1 �v0 - .a --cep vs 0 m O �qCC. p 4oa-^au u�+ a� y� �y 1 is �4 0 0 0 .+0 Aj 41 tp m ss 1a •.� G s s p 14 y 7 u uo w64 w 4 s•+ n 4'4— p Q devenalaff ng,3;. CO June 27, 2011 Commissionersa�T Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County (,�,�� 11 r^ 3160 Airway Avenue! Costa Mesa, California 92626 Attention: Lea U. Choum, Land Use Manager, Facilities Subject: Application for Airport Land Use Commission Review of Proposed Helistop Leading Edge Aviation Services, Costa Mesa, California Dear Commissioners: Leading Edge Aviation Services intends to request, from Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, a permit to build a new rooftop helistop on an existing building at 3132 Airway Avenue in Costa Mesa. The applicant, Net Development Company, on Leading Edge's behalf, is processing the project with various aviation - related agencies including the Orange County ALUC, FAA and Caltrans Aeronautics with the assistance of Heliplanners, a heliport planning firm. in conjunction with this process, Net Development Company and the City of Costa Mesa request that your Commission review the proposal with respect to consistency with the adopted Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Heliports in accordance with PUC Sections 21670 et seq., and with California Administrative Code Title 21, Business Regulations, Chapter 25, Aeronautics Program, Sub -Chapter 2. 1, Heliports. The following project description responds to specific items requested in the Orange County Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Heliports, June 19, 2008. 1. Location of the proposed heliport1helistop (street address) The helistop will be located at Leading Edge Aviation Systems' headquarters at: 3132 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92626 2. Purpose of the request. Leading Edge intends to use the helistop for its corporate travel needs between its various facilities. The request is only for a helistop, simply a landing place to pick up and drop off passengers. There are no plans to perform maintenance or refueling activities; activities that might take place at a full heliport. Leading Edge already uses part of the building for its business activities and will be concurrently building a superstructure office on top of the existing building. The helistop will be outside of the office. 3. Zoning of the site The site lies within Costa Mesa corporate limits and is zoned MP (Industrial Park). 4. Description of area and adjoining properties Surrounding land uses are airport and light industrial related. Specifically: • To the north: John Wayne Airport aircraft storage area • To the east: John Wayne Airport including Martin Aviation 3130 Airway Avenue a Costa Mesa, California 82626 a Phone (714) 7544454 • Fox (714) 754-0158 Attachment 7 -1-13- June 27, 2011 Commissioners Page 2 • To the south: Light industrialloffice/research uses • To the west: Light industrial/office/research uses and Mariners Christian School (about 900 feet west but not beneath proposed flight paths). 5. Approach/departure paths The project is adjacent to John Wayne Airport property and sits within the Class C airspace surrounding the Airport. Our proposed approach/departure paths are shown on the enclosed Helistop Layout Plan, prepared by Heliplanners, and described below. They are specifically designed to minimize impact on John Wayne Airport's traffic patterns. The flight paths are also designed to avoid conflict with existing helicopter routes used at Centerport, approximately 1,300 feet to the south. Please understand, we are currently working with the John Wayne Airport FAA Air Traffic Control Tower and will execute a Letter of Agreement with the Tower. The Letter of Agreement would specify communications procedures and flight paths. We fully understand that the Tower Chief needs to control air traffic for a very busy airport. If he suggests changes to our proposed flight paths, we will comply with his request and modify our Helistop Layout Plan accordingly. Also note that FAA Airports Division has issued an airspace determination letter (enclosed) conditioned upon executing the Letter of Agreement. Our proposed flight paths are: • Primary approach (and alternate departure) north-northwest • Primary departure (and alternate approach) southwest. 6. Depiction of proposed Helipad Protection Zone per Section 2.1.2 of the Heliport AELUP Section 2.1.2 mandates that the Helipad Protection Zone (HPZ) extends 280 feet out from the FATO edge. The HPZ is not specifically depicted on the enclosed Helistop Layout Plan. However, our proposed approach and departure surface alignments are depicted, centered upon each flight path. While we do not own the area beneath the HPZs, we can assure you that there are no objects that extend above landing pad elevation within those areas. In fact the site provides for full 8:1 approach/departure surface clearance for 4,000 feet along each flight path per FAR Part 77 criteria. 7. Anticipated number of approaches and departures (counted separately) during a specified time interval (day, week. month) While the facility's use will vary depending upon varying business travel needs, we anticipate an average of three landings and three departures per week. Some days may have none and sorre may have more. 8. Potential for creating a nuisance due to noise generated by the operation of helicopters The site is characterized by two noise -producing nearby land use categories. One of course is John Wayne Airport, subject to frequent noise events by turbine and piston aircraft, helicopters, etc. The site is also in a light industrial and distribution area where nearby land uses generate their own on-site noise due to manufacturing processes, truck deliveries, etc. There are no homes nearby to be affected by this proposal. Considering nearby land uses, the additional noise associated with infrequent helicopter activity at this project is negligible. 9. Potential for creating an accident hazard The Federal Aviation Administration and Caltrans' Aeronautics Program have developed safety related criteria for heliport design. The project must comply with Caltrans' design criteria in order to qualify for a Heliport Site Approval Permit, which authorizes construction, and a Heliport Permit, which authorizes flight operations. We have designed the facility in accordance with Caltrans Aeronautics' criteria. Caltrans Aeronautics has already reviewed and approved the design concept. In addition, FAA publishes its Heliport Design advisory circular. The facility is also designed in accordance with that document's recommendations and FAA has issued an airspace determination letter expressing no objection. -144- Attachment 7 June 27, 2011 Commissioners Page 3 The helistop will not be equipped with instrument landing aids. Nor do we foresee instrument approaches to the site. Therefore, its use would be limited to VFR (visual flight rules) operations although, if needed, instrument approaches could be made to John Wayne Airport runways with a side step under visual conditions to land on the helistop. Leading Edge's Eurocopter EC -145 T2 helicopter is a twin -engine aircraft. Therefore, it offers engine out safety margin. 10. Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Study FAA reviews helistop proposals with respect to airspace usage. FAA's analysis centers on safe and efficient use of airspace as well as safety of persons and property on the ground. We submitted an application package to FAA on March 5, 2011. FAA issued its airspace determination letter indicating that "the proposal is acceptable" on June 21, 2011 (see Item 5, above)_ We enclose a copy for your reference. 11. Type of craft proposed to be used and noise output of craft The primary user would be Leading Edge's Eurocopter EC -145 T2, which we have used as the design aircraft for dimensional and obstruction -clearance purposes. This is a twin -engine executive helicopter with a four -blade main rotor system. Noise output would be much lower than many of the aircraft currently operating at John Wayne Airport. The EC145 T2 is a turbine - powered aircraft that incorporates a hingeless rotor system and enhanced rotor blades that reduce sound and vibration levels. 12. Description of proposed operationsffacilides (maintenance/refueling, etc.) The helistop will consist only of a metal rooftop landing pad, standard helistop lighting (lighted wind cone, green perimeter lights and red obstruction lights), and standard helistop markings. Fueling and maintenance activities will not occur on site. 13. Other Agencies Caltrans Division of Aeronautics: Caltrans Aeronautics ensures that the physical construction will meet its criteria for its Heliport Permit. Our project team has designed the helistop specifically to meet those criteria. We have already received "conditional design approval" from Caltrans Aeronautics. In keeping with Caltrans Aeronautics policy, we will file a full formal application package upon receiving all other agency review documentation, including ALUC's. Ci of Costa Mesa: The City's Planning Commission will review the helistop proposal. As you know, ALUC review is designed to provide input to that process. We anticipate that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission will review the project at its August 10, 2011 meeting. Subsequent to that, it will go to the City Council for approval per California PUC requirement. Conclusion This project will provide a low impact facility in a light industrial area. Flight operations will be coordinated with FAA's John Wayne Air Traffic Control Tower via a Letter of Agreement. FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics have already provided their approvals. We look forward to your Commission's finding of consistency. Please call should you need additional information. Kevin _ 145— Attachment 7 June 27, 2011 Commissioners Page 4 Enclosed: Application Summary Flight Landing Pattern Site Plan Roof Plan Roof Elevation FAA Letter Caltrans Approval Stamp Costa Mesa Planning Letter Costa Mesa Planning Application & Letter Cc: Leading Edge (Michael Manclark) Heliplanners (Jeff Wright) I �� Attachment 7 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION APPLICATION SUMMARY FOR LEADING EDGE AVIATION SERVICES HELISTOP Pu rQc►s-e: A private rooftop helistop to accommodate a helicopter used for business transportation purposes. Site Location; 3132 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Zone:. Multi Purpose: MP Applicant: Kevin A. Coleman/Leading Edge Aviation Services 3130 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Land Owner: Kevin A. Coleman -e i t p Name: Leading Edge Aviation Services Helistop Hours of O eration: Monday through Sunday 7AM to 7PM 02eratin¢ Conditions: Visual Flight Rules (VFR) only Number of Landings: An average number of. 2 landings per day 7 days per week 14 landings per week Type of Helicopter:, Representative helicopter models: weight up to 12,000 lbs EC 146 —1-19— Attachment 7 j 7 VO vs3kv 4'1600 4•� =t- �� 93ain83s HoudrA d 3JQ3 ON14Y37 3@ oboe ;aNcr aur as — 1-46— 10 c Q E L ca m J � Q a� a 10 c Q E L ca m if pier cow uausdcs�r�aifia �w+u Irr �Q� f I a l VAV l(g)VLy ZM ' V30#AJd3S M011WAd i 3043 ONIOV31 96 2 C N E r U co Q r ORANGE ANT AIRPORT PROPER C014D RO4AL PLAN AMOVAL a FM STATIC AM MDAT111 EL&MT T -A: MWXCT HIM KSOGN sTANDAM& MAL LOCAL ONT AMKR AL. AND Qr1M MAW DIVISON O4' AERCM4AVnCS NAM- ���_ *Caltrans Aeronautics Approval Contingent DATE upon Acceptable FAA Airspace Determination * Caltrans Aeronautics Approval Box I I F G H i I t50 - J YO' 20' 4' GRAPHIC SCALE TpAwffxw 7 SOUTH1 Drafted: CL Checked: JWW Approved: Proj. Code: LD( Attachment 7 K C Above mean sea level (LASE) — 77" rounded Elevation Above ground level (AGL) 25' sl(s) EC -135, EC -146 mum main rotor diameter 3 fi.1' mum overall length 42.8' mum gross takeoff Weight 7,904 Pounds mum fuel capacit`/ 258 Gallons f i (final oporoach & takeoff area)_ length do width (or diame_tarj* 65" x 63' (touchdown do liftoff area) length do width 40' x 40' ty area width-* 12.5' 1 1 unobstructed width (FATO plus safety area on each side)* 1 90' x 90' /water sepmtor: minimum fuel retention capacity -- surface material METAL surface qradient a1[ direction 1 1% SW 3 :er—to—center TLOF separation (where applicable) N/A ting Activation — Aviation Lighting Pilot Controlled ting Activation — Walkway Area Lighting I objects allowed above TLOF elevation within FATO safety Area (except maximum 2" height for perimeter lighting) C014D RO4AL PLAN AMOVAL a FM STATIC AM MDAT111 EL&MT T -A: MWXCT HIM KSOGN sTANDAM& MAL LOCAL ONT AMKR AL. AND Qr1M MAW DIVISON O4' AERCM4AVnCS NAM- ���_ *Caltrans Aeronautics Approval Contingent DATE upon Acceptable FAA Airspace Determination * Caltrans Aeronautics Approval Box I I F G H i I t50 - J YO' 20' 4' GRAPHIC SCALE TpAwffxw 7 SOUTH1 Drafted: CL Checked: JWW Approved: Proj. Code: LD( Attachment 7 K PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATION PA -11-03 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE HELISTOP FOR LEADING EDGE AVIATION SERVICES 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER A�VI FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:. MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee@costamesaca.gov Attached to this memo is a cover letter from Acoustics Group, Inc., who prepared the noise study dated August 24, 2011 for the helistop (Attachment 7 of the staff report) which affirms that the original analysis and conclusions of the noise study remain valid. Attachments: Cover Letter and Noise Study 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) Distribution List AL I Conmultaats to Acoustics, Noiaa 8s Yibrgtioa September 24, 2015 Mr. Kevin A. Coleman Net Development Company 3130 Airway Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: Helistop Noise Study for Net Development Company in Costa Mesa, CA. Reference: Net Development Company Helistop Project Letter Report, prepared by Acoustics Group, Inc., dated August 24, 2011. Dear Mr. Coleman: Acoustics Group, Inc., (AGI) has reviewed the referenced previous Net Development Company Helistop Project Noise Study dated August 24, 2011. There have been no changes to the proposed flight tracks, operating parameters, and helicopter. Therefore, the results of the referenced noise study are not expected to change and remain valid. Please contact Mr. Robert Woo at 877-595-9988 if you have any questions regarding this update letter. Sincerely, ACOUSTICS GROUP, INC. J' - Robert Woo Principal Consultant September 24, 2015 LiCC)LTSTICB C.: T-11 U: X -r f�' t 1- <- 2102 Business Center Drive, Suite 130 Irvine, CA 92812 877.595.9988 - Voice 877.595.9989 - Fax ATTACHMENT 7 '� _ �iCUUI�TICS 4COn1ftl7Lt 1MtA to Ac_nuatLcw, Nculare do VLbratLon August 24, 2011 Mr. Kevin A. Coleman Net Development Company 3130 Airway Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92826 Heceivew City of Costa M'A)sa Development u^�1r. Decrtmenit AUG2.4 201-1 Subject: Analysis of the Proposed Net Development Company Helistop Project in Costa %Iesa, CA. Reference: Net Deveiopment Company :He stop Specifications prepared by Heliplanners, dated March 15, 2011. Dear Mr. Coleman: Acoustics Group, Inc., (AGI) has reviewed the referenced information and analyzed the noise from the proposed Helistop project. Because of the proximity of the project to Orange County John Wayne Airport (SNA), tine noise produced by helistop operations is expected to be overshadowed by the existing and iuzure noise of the airport. This letter report provides a summary of the noise leve?s expected to be generated by the nebstop and a comparison with the SIVA noise contours. The project site is located at 3132 Xrwray Avenue, in :he City of Costa ook:lesa. As shown in the vicinity map in the Attachment, the site is located no4west of SMA. Landuses to the north, west, and south of the site are industrial. Thera are no residentia; receptors or other noise sensitive receptors located immediately adjacent to the project site. However, Mariners Christian School is located approximately 1,000 feet west of the project site at 300 Fischer Avenue. August 24, 2011 —IS -3— ACOUSTICS - -. 2102 Business Center Drive, Suits 1.10 Irvine, CA 92812 877.395.9988 • Voice 877,595.9989 • Fair Net Development Company HePsto,o Proi9ct in Costa Mesa, CA The Federal Aviation Administration's integrated Noise Model (!NSM) Version 7.0 was used to determine the future noise levels from tie project. A Eurocopter =C-135 helicopter wi:l be used by tine applicant at the helistop. The helistop approach tracks are from the north and southwest a 175 degree and 40 degree true headings, respectively. Final approach copes for .both approach tracks were modeled using default va!ues of 8 to 1. Departures are on tripsame path, but with opposite headings. The'ocations of the flig:nt tracks relative to the project site are shown in the Attachment. A rnax>mum of 2 arriva€s and 2 departures per day with a maximum of 3 arrivals and 3 departures per week are forecasted for the 'neeistop. All operations would occur during the daytime between 7am and 73m. -he arriva s and departures were assumed to be continuous over a 12 month period and evenly d sir bated over 365 days ;per year. Figure 1 shoves the 65 and 60 dBA CNEL noise contours that would be generated by helistop operations in relation to the existing sand use and SNA noise contours, As shown in the figure, the future CNE'' from Helirstop operations would be less than the CNEL generated by aircraft operations at S`4A. Additionally, heUstop noise in/ould be below the City, County and FAA noise standards or 65 dB CNH for sensitive receptors. At +iMarinees Christian Sc, -1001 the existing CNEL from SENA airport operations is 62 d3 C;N'=+_. Future helistop operations wou`d produce a CNEL of 40.1 dB at the school, approximately 15 d3 below existing airoor~ noise levels. Norse generatec by future he:istop operations would not result in signi='can' noise impacts at the pro;flc site and adjacent propertiies. CONCLUSION Analyses have been conducted to avaluate the fiture noise level that Nioutd be generated by the Net Development Company Helisrop. The ana'yses considered the helicopter type, forecasted daily operations, approach and departure tracks, and default operationa; profiles. Results of tree IN!" modaUng indicated that the future CNEL generated by helistop operations would be below existing aircraft noise levels from SNA and would also comply with all City, County and; applicable exterior CUEL standards for noise sensitive receptor locations, Future -e<+stop noise levels would be 46.1 dB CNE:_ at Mariner's Christian School and would be approximately 16, d3 below existing aircra` noise levels from SNA. In addition, future ,he'lico,oter f'igent tracks would not pass over the school site. Noise generated by future ;-ieCjstop operations wound not resuPt in significant noise impacts at tine pro,ect site and ad,�acent propert:es. August 24, 2011 _I54, ACOUSIrICS = . ' - 210,2 Business Center Drive, Suite 130 Irdne, CA 92612 877.595.9988 • Voice 877.395.9989 • Fax Net .Developmant Company Helastop Project in Costa Niesa, CA Please contact Mr. Robert Woo at 877-595-9988 if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, A coos ncs GROUP, IN C. Robert Woo Principal Consul#ant August 24, 2011 —IVS A.COUST[CS T, 1102 3usiness Canter Drive, Suite f30 Irvine, CA 92812 877.593.9988 - voice 877,593.9989• Fax Met DeveloaM-Ont Company Hel.istop Project in Costa rLlesa, CA ` Y =" f:� ,r _ Mariner's Christian v # h 041 ` J r _ � * '' '' +tib "�•�� . " !� �.° F20 ., J Figure '. l0redioted Net Deve opment Company Helistop `,oise '_avels. August 24, 2011 5to✓ 2102 3usiness Center Drive, Suite IJo Irvine, CA 9251.2 877.595.9988 - Voice 877.595.9989 • Fa,( August 24, 1011 Net Developmart Cornoaan/,,V.gdisTooProja.ctin Costa,N/esa, CA ATTAC 7WENT ALCOCJ STICS 1102 Business C•snlor Drive, Suite 730 Inline, CA 92612 877.395.9988 • ,/nice 877.393.9989 • F3u ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -3 c�lc�l�e�1 �y�yte October 26, 2015 City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Honorable Council Members: Once again, I strongly urge you to reject the granting of the Conditional Use Permit granted in Planning Application PA -11-03. A helipad/helistop atop a 19'high building is a completely objectionable request, particularly as the existing building is located in an area already populated by many commercial structures. The construction of the helipad/helistop is a danger to those working in the area and is a green light to any other business/organization/individual to make similar requests. This is also a green light to an expansion of the John Wayne Airport footprint which will lead to the further enlargement and expansion of John Wayne. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit is not in the interest of this city or its citizens. This helipad/ heliport is simply allowing the camel to put its nose under the tent so to speak and will only lead to further encroachment of the airport into our city limits. As I understand it, Conditional Use Permits "run" with the use of the land. In other words, that helipad/heliport will remain in perpetuity as long as that building stands. I believe this is the first of many requests the City will receive for this type of Conditional Permit. How do you reject a similar request for a business that may want to run a helicopter shuttle from the top of a building already built? You are about to open the floodgates. The only one to benefit from this absurdity is Kevin Coleman — and those will come after him. This cannot end well for the citizens of Costa Mesa. Please reverse the Planning Commission's approval and consider those of us who actually live here. Sincerely, Dolores Storme PRIVATE HELISTOP AT 3132 AIRWAY AVENUE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -3 MEJIA, JESSICA Subject: FW; [BULK] TONIGHT'S CITY COUNCIL MTG RE PUBLIC HEARING & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE PA -11-03 Importance: Low From: Denis LaBonge [mailto Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 2:05 PM To: CITY CLERK <CITYCLERK@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us> Subject: [BULK] TONIGHT'S CITY COUNCIL MTG RE PUBLIC HEARING & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE PA -11-03 Importance: Low Dear City Clerk, Please distribute this email communication to all City Council members. Thank you, Denis LaBonge Owner, 3136 Airway Ave, CM 92626 CA RE: PA - 11 - 03, a proposed hellpad at 3132 Airway. Dear Council Members, 1 request that the Costa Mesa City Council postpone for 90 days any vote re the proposed Helipad and its conditional use permit proposed to be constructed at 3132 Airway, for the following reasons: 1. 1 am the owner of 3136 Airway, which is part of a building that was condominiumized into a 6 unit individually owned commercial building. The applicant, Kevin Coleman, finally met with 50 % of the fellow building owners on Oct 9th, after several attempts to meet with him previously, to discuss our concerns as common walled owners, living under a roof and a helipad that he and Mr Manclark wish to develop. [ NDCIManclark] 2. NDCIManclark did agree in writing to several minor financial HOA matters to 100% cover extraneous costs to the HOA due to potential wind damage to the roof & the structure and tenants that their helicopter operations inevitably might cause. 3. Mr Coleman advised at that meeting his atty would draw up language for all the owners to review with their counsel. But ... 111E WON'T SEE THE PROPOSED DOCS until February 2016 !!! 4. Of greater impact, I think you all will agree, is the personal financial threat and concerns that were discussed on that Oct 9th meeting re a document to be developed by NDCIManclark, addressing Financial Indemnifications to be provided and paid for by NDCIManclark to all owners, protecting us from potential personal I liability due to structural damage and/ or personal /physical injuries caused by NDC/Manclark helicopter operations. 5. Mr Coleman's 10/09/15 letter to the Airway owners does not address this indemnification matter nor allow sufficient time for the owners to consult with OUR legal counsel to see if these protections have been correctly addressed. For these reasons I ask the City Council to act - in the interest of fairness to all - by postponing any vote for at least 90 days, thus allowing Mr Coleman time to produce such a document addressing these indemnification matters to his fellow common walled/roofed neighbors and owners, who will be most impacted by this development which seemingly serves one man & one business. Thank you for your consideration, Denis LaBonge 2 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS - PH -3 c�lc�l�e�1 �y�yte �(S��l ��NC!/!(�I/��Nf •�rYC/!'f (°JI'J�U .��%(.j!/, (J!!I�•/'//(!! %�l�)�J/. October 26, 2015 City Council City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Honorable Council Members: Once again, I strongly urge you to reject the granting of the Conditional Use Permit granted in Planning Application PA -11-03. A helipad/helistop atop a 19'high building is a completely objectionable request, particularly as the existing building is located in an area already populated by many commercial structures. The construction of the helipad/helistop is a danger to those working in the area and is a green light to any other business/organization/individual to make similar requests. This is also a green light to an expansion of the John Wayne Airport footprint which will lead to the further enlargement and expansion of John Wayne. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit is not in the interest of this city or its citizens. This helipad/ heliport is simply allowing the camel to put its nose under the tent so to speak and will only lead to further encroachment of the airport into our city limits. As I understand it, Conditional Use Permits "run" with the use of the land. In other words, that helipad/heliport will remain in perpetuity as long as that building stands. I believe this is the first of many requests the City will receive for this type of Conditional Permit. How do you reject a similar request for a business that may want to run a helicopter shuttle from the top of a building already built? You are about to open the floodgates. The only one to benefit from this absurdity is Kevin Coleman — and those will come after him. This cannot end well for the citizens of Costa Mesa. Please reverse the Planning Commission's approval and consider those of us who actually live here. Sincerely, Dolores Storme Cl T Y COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: PH -4 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE EASEMENT AT 580 ANTON BOULEVARD DATE: OCTOBER 22, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PRESENTATION BY: ERNESTO MUNOZ, PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FARIBA FAZELI, CITY ENGINEER (714)754-5335 RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution ordering the vacation of a portion of Sidewalk and Landscape Easement at 580 Anton Boulevard (Attachment 1). 2. Authorize execution of the Quitclaim Deed by the Mayor and the City Clerk (Attachment 2). BACKGROUND On October 6, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-53 (Attachment 3) declaring its intention to order the vacation of a portion of sidewalk and landscape easement at 580 Anton Boulevard, and setting this public hearing. 580 Anton Boulevard is being developed with The Lakes Pavilions which will include new retail stores and sit-down restaurants with a total of 21,349 commercial square feet. Included will be a 250 -unit 7 -story residential apartment complex. On August 10, 2015, a report was presented to the Planning Commission outlining the proposed vacation as required by Government Code Section 65402. Subsequently, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC -15-47 (Attachment 4) finding that the proposed vacation of a portion of the sidewalk and landscape easement is consistent with the City's General Plan. Vacation of a portion of this easement is being requested by Legacy Partners, property owner of 580 Anton Boulevard in conjunction with the proposed development. This vacation of portion of the existing easement consist of the corner cut-off of 20 foot wide City sidewalk and landscape easement located at the Northeast corner of Avenue of the Arts and Anton Boulevard (Attachment 5). ANALYSIS Anton Boulevard is currently designated on the Master Plan of Highways as a Major street (104 feet wide) and Avenue of the Arts is currently designated on the Master Plan of Highways as a Secondary street (72 feet wide). Both streets are at their full right-of-way width and include an additional 20 foot landscape easement. There is currently a class I bike path along Anton Boulevard and a class II bike lane along Avenue of the Arts. Neither the existing bike facilities nor pedestrian access will be impacted by this request to vacate the corner cut-off. After the proposed vacation is approved and recorded, the subject vacated property will revert back to the adjacent property at 580 Anton Boulevard. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City could retain the remaining landscape easement and continue to be responsible for its maintenance and safety. FISCAL REVIEW Once the area is vacated it becomes taxable square footage, resulting in additional property taxes to the adjacent property owner to which the land will revert. This will result in additional revenue to the City. LEGAL REVIEW The City Attorney's Office has approved the attached Resolution of Intent as to form. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution ordering the vacation of a portion of sidewalk and landscape easement at 580 Anton Boulevard. In addition, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the execution of the Quitclaim Deed by the Mayor and the City Clerk ERNESTO MUNOZ FARIBA FAZELI Public Services Director City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: 1 — Resolution ordering the vacation of a portion of Sidewalk and Landscape Easement at 580 Anton 2 — Quitclaim Deed 3 — Resolution No. 15-53 4 — Planning Commission Resolution PC -15-47 5 — Site Plan DISTRIBUTION: Chief Executive Officer Assistant CEO Economic & Dev. Director/Deputy CEO City Attorney City Clerk E ATTACHMENTI RESOLUTION NO. 15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ADJACENT TO 580 ANTON BOULEVARD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa did, on the 6T" day of October, 2015, adopt Resolution No. 15-53, entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ADJACENT TO 580 ANTON BOULEVARD; AND WHEREAS, pursuant to said Resolution of Intention, the time and place for hearing all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation was set for Tuesday, the 3rd day of November, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California; and WHEREAS, notices of said proposed vacation were duly and regularly posted as required by law, all pursuant to the provisions of Section 8300 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, on said date of hearing, the proposed vacation came on regularly to be heard; all persons appearing on the proposed vacation were heard; and said hearing was closed on the 3rd day of November, 2015; and WHEREAS, the original 2007 dedication per Tract No. 17017 is in excess of the City's needs for sidewalk and landscape purposes and there are no other public facilities located within said easement area. The purpose of this vacation is based on a review of the current and future needs of the City and to vacate the portion of said easement land to the underlying fee owner. The easement being vacated is not useful for landscape or sidewalk purposes, is unnecessary for present or future public use, and the vacation serves the public interest and is a public benefit. The vacation will also benefit the neighborhood with new improvements. WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa City Council finds and determines from all the evidence submitted that the hereinafter described easement is unnecessary for present or prospective landscape and sidewalk purposes; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the hereinafter described easement is unnecessary for present or prospective landscape and sidewalk purposes: All as more particularly described in legal description shown in Exhibit "A" and on map shown in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of November, 2015. ATTEST: BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk STEVE MENSINGER, Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM Tom Duarte, Attorney I, BRENDA GREEN, Interim City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of November, 2015, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 4th day of November, 2015. BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk 3 HUITT-ZOLLARS HUITT-ZOLLARS, INC,' 2603 Main Street 1 Suite 400 1 Irvine, CA 92614.4250 1 949,988.5815 phone 1 949.988,5820 (ox 1 huilt•zollars.com R301409.02 08-06-15 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION VACATION OF SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPING EASEMENT That portion of that certain easement for sidewalk and landscaping purposes dedicated to the City of Costa Mesa on Tract No. 17017, in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on map filed in Book 888, Pages 47 through 49, inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwesterly corner of said Tract No. 17017; thence along the Northerly line of said Tract No. 17017 South 88°44"54" East 20.00 feet to the Easterly line of said easement, said line being a line parallel with and 20.00 feet Easterly of the Westerly line of said Tract No. 17017; thence leaving said Northerly line along said Easterly line South 0°53'22" West 256.64 feet to the Northeasterly line of said easement, said line being a line parallel with and 20.00 feet Northeasterly of the Southwesterly line of said Tract No. 17017, said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said Easterly line along said Northeasterly line South 43°56'05" East 22.98 feet to the Northerly line of said easement, said line being a line parallel with and 20.00 feet Northerly of the Southerly line of said Tract No. 17017; thence leaving said Northeasterly line along the Westerly prolongation of said Northerly line North 88°44'54" West 16.20 feet to the Southerly prolongation of said Easterly line; thence leaving said Westerly prolongation along said Southerly prolongation North 0°53'22" East 16.19 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing an area of 131 square feet or acres, more or less. Subject to covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions, rights-of-way and easements, if any, of record. All as shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. DAVID W. MACKEY, PL/S> 8912 (Ii 361;1)9!02/a/I/Sidewalk-Landscape-Vac/zk/dm I I20.00' (N88 4454 "W 125.92) —� P C C N'L Y LINE 7RAC7- NEILY CORNER NO. 17017 J TRACT NO. 17017 :5 LIZ I I � O ►.:��7! W lV � Ajo, 17017 LOT l IW e I T.P.O.B. POR AON TO BE VA CA TED '1- e� �°''XOs,.NE'L Y LINE EASEMENT o 131FOR SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPING PURPOSES 2 SO. CN'L Y LINE EASEMENT FOR SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPIAIr PURPOSES N88 4454'W N88 4454";W y 16.20' 306.14' EASEMENT FOR ANDLANDSCAPINGLANDSCAPING PURPOSES PER TRACT NO 17017 M )w 1d . AM / l .1jr sP SL Y LINE TRACT N0. 17017 N0. 8912 INDICATES RECORD (N8844'S4"W 420.39) tf # sf�OF Ct.101 t� TRACT NO. 17017,M.M888147 49 ANTON BOULEVARD LJADC SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY SCALE1 =10' x..11 A LEGAL DESCRIPTION 01PAMN BY DKY r 3 MaJ E&o t, r^+� EXHIBI T IB' CHECKED BY +tat 3 iutedn 8trsa#, Salts 400, Irv6ts, CA 926U JJL Phone (949) 988-5815 Fax 1949) 98a-5820 VA CA TION OF EASEMENT DATE 81612015JJL APPRO D BY FOR SIDEWALK AND Z✓ 94-1Y LANDSCAPING PURPOSES " Na 8301409.02 R. \R30140902\MAPPING\DWG\EX\30140902JEXOI.DWG Recording Requested by CITY OF COSTA MESA When Recorded Mail to: CITY OF COSTA MESA Attention - City Clerk P.O. BOX 1200 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628-1200 Mail Tax Statements to: Owner (s) of Record APN: 410-521-05 TCA: 15-036 Location: 580 ANTON BOULEVARD Declarationof Documentary Transfer Tax: The undersigned Grantor declares that no documentary transfer tax is due — no consideration. ATTACHMENT 2 Deed No.: 3832 Exempt Recording Requested per Government Code 6103 QUITCLAIM DEED (AS TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENT RIGHTS) THE UNDERSIGNED DECLARE(S) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS NONE. GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY EXEMPT CITY OF COSTA MESA FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, City of Costa Mesa, a Municipal Corporation do/does hereby remise, release and forever quitclaim to SCP Apartments, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company following described real property subject to reversion rights as recognized by State and local law, in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California: SEE RESOLUTION NO. 15 RECORDED November, 2015 AS INSTRUMENT NO. OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. THIS DEED IS BEING RECORDED TO PERFECT THE TITLE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES. ATTEST: City Clerk of the Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa City of Costa Mesa Dated: Dated: ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 15-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ORDER THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ADJACENT TO 580 ANTON BOULEVARD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa does hereby declare its intention to vacate a portion of its interest in Sidewalk and Landscape easement at 580 Anton Boulevard, being more particularly described in Exhibit A and B attached hereto. The original 2007 dedication per Tract No. 17017 is in excess of the City's needs for sidewalk and landscape purposes and there are no other public facilities located within said easement area. The purpose of this vacation is based on a review of the current and future needs of the City and to vacate the portion of said easement land to the underlying fee owner. The vacation will benefit the neighborhood with new improvements. SECTION 2. On August 10, 2015, the proposed vacation of the Sidewalk and Landscape easement was referred to the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission pursuant to Government Code Section 65402(a) and the Planning Commission determined that said vacation would be in conformity with the adopted City General Plan; and based on all of the information and evidence submitted the City Council finds that vacation of the Excess sidewalk and landscape easement is consistent with the City's general plan; SECTION 3. On Tuesday, the 3rd day of November, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California, is hereby fixed as Resolution No. 15-53 Page 1 of 3 the time and place for hearing all persons interested in or objecting to the proposed vacation. SECTION 4. These proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of Section 8300 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and any other applicable laws. SECTION 5. The City Chief Executive Officer of the City of Costa Mesa is hereby directed to cause notices of the said proposed vacation to be conspicuously posted along said strip of land for at least two (2) weeks before the date of said hearing. Said notices shall be posted not more than three hundred (300) feet apart, but in no event shall fewer than three (3) notices be posted. SECTION 6. This Resolution shall be published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6t" day of October, 2015. Step} 11. Mensinger, Mayor ATTEST: ( )Y" &� rlr-u� Brenda Green, City Jerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Resolution No. 15-53 Page 2 of 3 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. 15-53 and was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of October, 2015, by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Foley, NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Genis, Monahan, Righeimer, Mensinger IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 7th day of October, 2015. {cam 0&� Brenda Green, -CiV Clerk (SEAL) Resolution No. 15-53 Page 3 of 3 HUITTICUARS, INC. • 2603 Main Slraer • Suile 400 • Irvine, CA 92614.4250 1 949 988.5019 phone -9499885620 fox r hula.zellan com 8301409.02 08-06-15 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION VACATION OF SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPING EASEMENT That portion of that certain easement for sidewalk and landscaping purposes dedicated to the City of Costa Mesa on Tract No. 17017, in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on map tiled in Book 888, Pages 47 through 49, inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwesterly corner of said Tract No. 17017; thence along the Northerly line of said Tract No. 17017 South 88°44"54" East 20.00 feet to the Easterly line of said easement, said line being a line parallel with and 20.00 feet Easterly of the Westerly line of said Tract No. 17017; thence leaving said Northerly line along said Easterly line South 0°53'22" West 256,64 feet to the Northeasterly line of said easement, said line being a line parallel with and 20.00 feet Northeasterly of the Southwesterly line of said Tract No. 17017, said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said Easterly line along said Northeasterly line South 43°56105" East 22.98 feet to the Northerly line of said easement, said line being a line parallel with and 20.00 feet Northerly of the Southerly line of said Tract No. 17017; thence leaving said Northeasterly line along the Westerly prolongation of said Northerly line North 88°44'54" West 16.20 feet to the Southerly prolongation of said Easterly line; thence leaving said Westerly prolongation along said Southerly prolongation North 0°53'22" East 16.19 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing an area of 131 square feet or acres, more or less. Subject to covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions, rights-of-way and easements, if any, of record. All as shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. t J' i'/A' f DAVID W. MACKEY, Pl.. 8912 (/R ql6 ,09!a2lall/Sidewalk-Landscape-Vae/zk/dm 20. 00, (N8644 54 "W 125.92) --- P.O. C. NE'L Y CORNER NNE 'L Y LJTRACT f NE TRACT NO N0. 1 I 17 17017 t 20' I rf?-Aicr ova, )70)7 �i Lar I W a I T.P.aa PORTION To BE VACATED NEL Y UNE EASEMENT FOR SIDEWALK AND f31 �LANDSCAPING PURPOSES SO. FT. N'LY LJNE EAS,EMEIVT y FOR SIDEWALK AND c3 r LANDSCAPING PURPOSES N86 44 54 "W N8$ 44'.'74;W — ry,,��~ z4 16.20' 308.14' EASEMENT FOR SIDEWALK---�� AND LANDSCAPING PURPOSES ".v PER TRACT NO. 17017 0 1`� L ANO% 49 S ` S'LY LINE TRACT NO. �g r^ 17017 OL N0. 8912 (N88'4454"W 420.J9) sr�, f ,,►a (XXX) INDICATES RECORD DATA PER ANTQN BOULEVARD £ or c��►�°`` TRACT NO. 17017, M.M. 888/47-49 HUlTF—`7Jkj "L l A SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY 1 DIWLA LEGAL DESCRIPAON a"'�'+" Br p HWt#-Zahn, hr- Irv1r� EXHA�9lT 'B� a�car� er 2103 Mah 'Meet, Sr o 400, #r*w, CA 9266 1AX rens ("9) sea- Fwx (om) M-5= VACATION OF EASEMENT oA7E 8/6/zo1� A ROHM BY FOR SIDEWALK AND �� A . R <-if LANDSCAPING PURPOSES Na 8301409.02 R: \R30140902\MAPPING\DWG\EX\30140902,CXOI.DWG ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. PC -15-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA FINDING THAT THE CITY OF COSTA MESA'S VACATION OF A LANDSCAPE EASEMENT WITHIN THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 580 ANTON BOULEVARD IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY OF COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN, WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa City Council adopted the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan on January 22, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the Government Code of the State of California, Section 65402, provides in part that a local agency shall not acquire or lease real property nor abandon or dispose of any real property, nor construct a public building or structure in any county or city, until the location, purpose, and extent of such activity has been reported upon as to conformity with the adopted General Plan applicable thereto; and, WHEREAS, a landscape easement on the property at 580 Anton Boulevard was originally dedicated to the City of Costa Mesa under Tract Map No. 17017; and - WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa proposes to vacate a portion of the landscape easement, approximately 131 square feet in area, at the corner of Anton Boulevard and Avenue of the Arts, within the property limits of 580 Anton Boulevard, as shown in Exhibit B; and, WHEREAS, the landscape easement being vacated has been found by the Engineering Division to not be necessary for present and future use, and as such, the vacation serves the public interest and is a public benefit as it eliminates any maintenance costs and liabilities imposed on the City associated with the easement; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the vacation is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15312 (Class 12), Surplus Government Property Sales, because the portion of the right-of-way to be vacated is not located on a parcel of land in an area of statewide, regional, or area wide concern; and, WHEREAS, on August 10, 2015, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission reviewed the proposed vacated easement and findings; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission does hereby find the proposed vacation of a portion of a landscape easement within the property located at 580 Anton Boulevard to be in conformance with the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan, will serve the public interest, and is a public benefit. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of August X015. Rdbert L. Dicksofi,'Cilair' 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 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on August 10, 2015, by the following votes: AYES: Dickson, Mathews, McCarthy, Sesler, Andranian NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Claire L. Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 5 POR77ON TO RE VA CA 7ED .._ _. ANTON -BouLE ARRI7- -- � r . _ .� 1 "-10, SITE PLAN ,M, By °L 'Ll"LL S80 ANTON BOULEVARD Hula-Zal.ra„ Inc. Irvine VACATION OF EASEMENT DECKED BY JJc 2603 Main street, supe 400, Irvine„ ca !D2& 4 FOR SIDEWALK AND °A 8/6/2015 Phone {949} 988-6= Fax (949) %8-5820 LANDSCAPING PURPOSES ice No. 8301409.02 R. \R30140902\MAPPING\DWG\EX\30140902.EX02.DWG m V m O s � E w ..� LM W Vf W H m W t� > > � O C 3 O GO O O = � O N CL r r •. O �/� 4a •X CL O W CL 580 Anton Blvd. Public Hearing Posting 10/16/15 RESOLUTION 15-53 Ave. of the Arts @ 580 Anton Blvd. North DW Looking South NE Corner Ave. of the Arts & Anton Blvd. @ 580 Anton Blvd. Looking East NE Corner Ave. of the Arts & Anton Blvd. @ 580 Anton Blvd. Looking North Anton Blvd. @ 580 Anton Blvd. Looking North Anton Blvd. @ 580 Anton Blvd. easterly end Looking Northwesterly NW Corner Ave. of the Arts & Anton Blvd. @ 600 Anton Blvd. Looking East SE Corner Ave. of the Arts & Anton Blvd. @ 600 Anton Blvd. Looking Cl T Y COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2015 ITEM NUMBER: OB -1 SUBJECT: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 15-12 FOR SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA -00-02 DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2015 FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MINOO ASHABI, PRINCIPAL PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MINOO ASHABI, AIA (714) 754-5610 Minoo.ashabi@costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION: Give second reading to Ordinance No. 15-12 approving the following: • Second amendment to Development Agreement DA -00-02 (Segerstrom Town Center): 1a) Extend the term of the development agreement (originally executed in 2001) for an additional 20 years to the year 2035, except as otherwise described in 1 b. 1 b) For the properties located at 3400 and 3420 Bristol Street within Segerstrom Town Center Sub -Area 3, the term of the development agreement shall be 10 years, to the year 2025. However, the Development Services Department shall automatically grant a 5 -year extension, to the year 2030, at a staff level provided that construction started on at least 30% of the projects on these specified parcels. 2) Provide consistency between the development agreement and the entitlements approved on January 16, 2007 by General Plan Amendment (GP -06-02) as included in North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. ANALYSIS: On October 20, 2015, City Council gave first reading to Ordinance No. 15-12 by a 5-0 vote. The ordinance adopts the second amendment to Development Agreement DA -00-02 to extend the term and provide consistency between the agreement and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. MINOO ASHABI, AIA Principal Planner Attachment: Ordinance No. 15-12 GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP Economic Development & Development Services Director / Deputy CEO 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) Justin McCusker C.J. Segerstrom & Sons 3315 Fairview Road Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 15-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA - 00 -02 FOR SEGERSTROM TOWN CENTER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, does hereby find and declare as follows: 1. On or about March 5, 2001, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted Ordinance No. 01-14 approving Development Agreement DA -00-02 for the Segerstrom Town Center Project. 2. The parties to said Development Agreement have subsequently determined that certain provisions of the Development Agreement require amendment. 3. Public hearings have been held before this City Council pursuant to the procedures described in Council Resolution No. 88-53. At these hearings, the City Council considered the evidence, the testimony presented by the public, and the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the proposed First Amendment to Development Agreement DA -00-02 between the City of Costa Mesa and South Coast Plaza, a California general partnership ("Owner") 4. The Second Amendment to the Development Ag reement between the City of Costa Mesa and Owner: (a) Is consistent with the General Plan and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan; (b) Is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the existing land use regulations prescribed for, the zoning districts in which the 3 real property covered by the Amendment to the Development Agreement are located; and (c) Is in conformity with and will promote the public necessity, and public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices. 5. The Second Amendment to the Development Agreement will not: (a) Be detrimental to the public's health, safety and general welfare; nor (b) Adversely affect the orderly development of the property. 6. The Second Amendment to the Development Agreement will promote and encourage the development of the proposed project by providing stability and certainty to the Owner, and will provide to the City and its citizens the public benefits promised in the Development Agreement and subsequent Amendments thereto. 7. The Second Amendment to the Development Agreement has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt. Section 2. The City Council hereby approves, adopts and enters into the Second Amendment to the Development Agreement in the form attached hereto and incorporates the Second Amendment herein by this reference (Exhibit 1). Upon execution of the Second Amendment by all parties, the City Clerk is directed to record the Second Amendment pursuant to the City of Costa Mesa Development Agreement Procedures and Requirements. Section 3. Publication. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after its passage and, before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, shall be published once in the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA 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) 4 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 of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2015 Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, ------------, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above foregoing Ordinance No. 15-12 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 rol EXHIBIT 1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRAFT ORDINANCE DRAFT 10/27/2015 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: CITY OF COSTA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attn: CITY Clerk Use) (Space Above This Line for Recorder's This Second Amendment to the Development Agreement for Segerstrom Town Center is recorded at the request and for the benefit of the CITY of Costa Mesa and is exempt from the payment of a recording fee pursuant to Government Code § 6103 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SEGERSTROM TOWN CENTER by and between CITY OF COSTA MESA and SOUTH COAST PLAZA DA -00-02 Ordinance No. 01-4 0 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SEGERSTROM TOWN CENTER THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SEGERSTROM TOWN CENTER (the "Amendment') is executed this day of , 2015, by and between The City of Costa Mesa, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California ("City"), South Coast Plaza, a California general partnership ("SCP"), and One Town Center Associates, a California general partnership ("OTCA" and together with SCP, "Owners"), withrespect to the following: RECITALS A. City and SCP entered into that certain Development Agreement for Segerstrom Town Center executed as of March 5, 2001 (the "Original Agreement'), as amended by that certain First Amendment to the Development Agreement for Segerstrom Town Center executed April 5, 2004 (the "First Amendment'). The Original Agreement and First Amendment were recorded in the Official Records of Orange County, California as Instrument Nos. 20010281648 and 2004000686075, respectively, and are herein referred to together as the "Development Agreement." The Development Agreement provides for development within Town Center, as that term is defined in the Original Agreement. OTCA is an affiliate of SCP and successor in interest from SCP to certain property in Town Center. B. City and Owners desire to amend the Development Agreement to extend its term and to ensure that it includes and references certain changes to accord with changes in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan approved by the City. C. This Amendment was approved by City of Costa Mesa Ordinance No. , adopted by the City Council on , 2015, after the public notice and public hearings required by law. The parties have executed this Amendment on the date indicated above after the effective date of this Ordinance. AGREEMENT IN CONSIDERATION OF the foregoing Recitals, and for good and valuable consideration, City and Owner agree as follows: 1. Effective Date of Amendment. The effective date of this Amendment shall be the date this Amendment was executed by the parties as indicated in the opening phrase of this Amendment prior to the Recitals. 1. Duration of Agreement. The Development Agreement (originally executed in 2001) is hereby extended and shall be operative for twenty (20) years from the effective date of this Amendment (the "New Expiration Date"). Exception: For the properties located at 3400 and 3420 Bristol Street within Segerstrom Town Center Sub -Area 3, the duration of the development agreement shall be 10 years from the effective date of this Amendment. The Development Services Department shall automatically 61 grant a 5 -year extension at a staff level provided that construction has started on at least 30% of the projects on these specified parcels. To that end, the first sentence of Section 3.2 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: "This Agreement shall be operative commencing on the Effective Date and continue thereafter until the New Expiration Date, unless otherwise extended by the Parties, subject to earlier termination upon the completion, performance and discharge of all obligations hereunder." 2. Definitions. The following terms in the Development Agreement shall have the definitions as set forth below, which shall replace any previous definitions of the same term in the Development Agreement.: a. "Property" shall mean that certain property generally located along Bristol Street between Anton Boulevard and Sunflower Avenue as more fully described in Exhibit "AA" and shown in the map set forth on Exhibit `BB" both attached hereto. b. "STC Project" shall mean the development of the Property pursuant to the Existing Land Use Regulations, Existing Development Approvals, the TAD Plan, the Future Development Approvals, and the terms of this Agreement. The STC Project may include non-residential (i.e. office, hotel, restaurant, retail and cultural uses) and residential uses as more specifically described in the Existing Land Use Regulations. C. "Existing Development Approvals" and "Existing Land Use Regulations" shall be as defined in the Original Agreement except that all references to the City's General Plan and the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan included therein shall mean the General Plan and North Costa Mesa Specific Plan in effect as of the effective date of this Amendment. In addition, if both City and Owner subsequently agree in writing to amend the Development Approvals or Land Use Regulations at some future date, the term "Existing Development Approvals" or "Existing Land Use Regulations," as applicable, shall mean the Development Approvals or Land Use Regulations in effect as of the effective date of such subsequent amendment (which the parties shall endeavor to reflect in an updated Exhibit "D" to the Development Agreement prepared and exchanged between the parties). 3. Future Design. Precise building uses, locations, square footages and designs for the STC Project will be determined in conjunction with Future Development Approvals. To that end, (a) references in the Development Agreement to a new office building at the corner of Bristol Street and Sunflower Avenue and a hotel at the intersection of Bristol Street and Anton Boulevard are illustrative only, and (b) Article IV of Exhibit "F" to the Development Agreement is deleted in its entirety from the Development Agreement. 4. FAR and Trip Budgets. The FAR and trip budget for the TTC Project, the SCA Project and the Balance of Town Center, as well as the overall FAR and trip budget for the entire Town Center area shall be as provided in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan in effect as of the effective date of this Amendment and included in the Existing Development Approvals and Existing Land Use Regulations. Exhibit "G" to the Development Agreement is deleted in its entirety from the Development Agreement. 5. Original Agreement Amended and Conflicts. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the remainder of the Development Agreement, this Amendment shall control. Except as otherwise set forth herein to the contrary, all terms and provisions of the Development Agreement shall remain unamended and continue in full force and effect. This Amendment with the remainder of the Development Agreement shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement. 10 6. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein have the same meanings as set forth in the Development Agreement. 7. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall be deemed to constitute one instrument. It shall not be necessary that all signatories execute the same counterpart(s) of this Amendment for this Amendment to become effective. [Signature Page Follows] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to the Development Agreement for Segerstrom Town Center as of the date first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, City of Costa Mesa SOUTH COAST PLAZA, a California general partnership By: C.J. Segerstrom & Sons, a California general partnership, Managing General Partner By: Henry T. Segerstrom Management LLC, a California limited liability company By: OR By: AND Alternate Manager By: HTS Management Co., Inc., a California corporation Senior Vice President 1Z CITY OF COSTA MESA, A municipal corporation Mayor of Costa Mesa ONE TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES, a California general partnership By: Henry T. Segerstrom Management LLC, a California limited liability company, Manager By: OR By: AND Alternate Manager By: HTS Management Co., Inc., a California corporation, Manager S Senior Vice President Exhibit "AA" Legal Description of Property Parcels between Sunflower Avenue and Town Center Drive Parcels 1 and 2 of Lot Line Adjustment No. LL 2013-01, recorded on August 13, 2013, as Instrument No. 2013000478793 in the Official Records of the County Recorder of Orange County, California; and Parcels 5 and 6 of Parcel Map 5-78-10, as shown on a map filed in Book 115, Page 37 of parcel maps, in the Official Records of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. Parcels between Town Center Drive and Anton Boulevard Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 81-379, as shown on a map filed in Book 164, Page 10 of parcel maps, in the Official Records of the County Recorder of Orange County, California; Parcels 1 and 2 as shown on a map filed in Book 12, Page 18 of parcel maps, in the Official Records of the County Recorder of Orange County, California; Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 5-20-67, as shown on a map filed in Book 11, Page 32 of parcel maps, in the Official Records of the County Recorder of Orange County, California; and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 5-78-10, as shown on a map filed in Book 115, Page 37 of parcel maps, in the Official Records of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. 15 Exhibit `BB" Map of the Property 9 jig � � I I ! , u I. Bristol Street �IL11.11.11 It fp D pp H m o o � WDD O C Rx O �m0 m III. ii II LH. I.FIft�N! o /\J\ O Park Center Onve F N7, 1s N C n N