Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout77-36 Amend Downtown Redevelopment Plan°�3x' TMJ Recbrding requested By: City Clerk Eileen P. Phinney Post Oiiice Box 12UO Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626 EXEMPT C10 ORDINANCE NO. 77-36 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 73-44, THE COSTA MESA DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. �3 4�, 23Z5P6 862 P v RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECOv'G OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNw. 9:05 A.M. 8 AUG 1977 ' 1. WVUE CARLYLE, Coupty Recorder 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 hereby finds and declares as follows: 1. That the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency has prepared and approved amendments to the standards, procedures, and proposed uses of the Redevelopment Plan, Ordinance 73-44, adopted on December 24, 1973, and has recommended that the City Council approve and adopt said amendments. 2. That the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa has adopted Resolution PC -77-10 finding consistency between the Costa Mesa General Plan and the proposed amendments to the -Redevelopment Plan. 3. That these amendments are necessary and proper to resolve inconsistencies which presently exist between the City's General Plan and zoning and the Agency's Redevelopment Plan. 4. That these amendments are necessary and proper to improve the procedures for processing combined Redevelopment and City permits within the Re- development Area. 5. That these amendments are necessary and proper to accomplish the purposes and intent of redevelop- ment as set forth in Section 1 of Ordinance 73-44. ACCORDINGLY, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa herewith amends.Ordinance 73-44 as hereinafter set forth: SECTION 2. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa hereby adopts amendments to the Costa Mesa Downtown Redevelopment Plan set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 14 BK 12326FG 663 SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed, pursuant to Health and. Safety Code Section.33456, to record with the County Recorder of Orange County a description of the amend- ments to the Costa Mesa Downtown Redevelopment Plan set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto, as promptly as prac- ticable following adoption -of this Ordinance. Additional recordation of documents may be effected pursuant to Govern- ment Code Section 27295. SECTION 4.. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after -its passage, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the passage thereof, shall be published once in the Orange Coast Daily Pilot, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, together with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against the same. PASSED AND ADOPTED this lst day of August, 1977. ATTEST: 6) City Clerk of the City ofsta Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF COSTA MESA ) j A 0 ED AS TO FORM CITY ORNEY I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk.and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that .the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 77-36 was introduced and considered section by sectionat a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 18th day of July, 1977, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at a regular meeting of said City Council -held on the 1st day of August, 1977, by the following -roll call vote: AYES: Council Members: Hertzog, Hammett, Raciti, Smallwood, McFarland NOES: Council Members: None ABSENT: Council Members: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have -hereunto set my hand and ,affixed the Seal of the City,.of- Costa. Mesa this 2nd day of August, 1977. City C erk_ arid^ ex -officio Clerkft he City Council bf-the,'City of CdAa Mesa REDEVELOPMEN7 PLAN �� . '.2 �i ^• � �'. �. i3+ � tis-• B �. �u. 'L' � � ' 1 INTRODUCTION This report discusses possible amendments to the Costa Mesa Redevelopment, Plan. The first section of the report presents Case Studies for possible changes to the Land Use Map of the Plan. Detailed discussions of these .Case Studies are also presented in General Plan Amendment GP -77-2D. Amendments to the text of'the Redevelopment Plan are discussed in the second section of the study.. The Staff has suggested land use and, textual amendments to end conflicts between Agency and City policies and.procedures.. These changes are also designed to simplify the processing of plans .which require both Agency and City actions. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENTS The following Land Use Amendments were, initiated to bring the Redevelopment and Central Area Plans into conformance and to provide the necessary founda- tions for major public sponsored projects in the Redevelopment Area. .Imple- mentation of the recommended amendments will result in the a deletion of the Parking Land- Use designation and combine the Medium and High Density Residen tial designations into one residential classification. A. total of 13 case studies are involved and will be discussed individually in, the following subsections: CASE A Case A involves five parcels with a total area of approximately 1.6 acres lo- cated at the northeast corner of Center Street and Park Avenue. These parcels - have been' identified as a possible location for a 75 unit- senior citizens . housing project. A second alternative site at the southeast corner (Case B) is also under consideration. The primary purpose of -these case studies will be to review the impacts of the construction of such a project at both locations and to recommend one site as the most desirable. A detailed discussion of the desirability of constructing a senior citizen housing project at this location is contained in Case 1 of the proposed Central Area Plan Amendments. The potential for redeveloping the entire block as a unif ied commercial development and the proximity of the proposed Fire Station appear to make this a less desirable site for the senior citizen housing project. Recommendations The Planning Staff recommends that the Commercial designation of the subject properties be retained and that the remainder of the block. bounded by 19th Street, Park Avenue, Harbor Boulevard -and Center Street be redeveloped for commercial uses. CASE B This case study will review and -evaluate the desirability of constructing a 75 unit senior citizen housing project at the southeast corner .of Park Avenue and Center Street. This case study is also identified as Case 2 of GP -77-2D (Central Area Plan Amendments). The six subject parcels contain approximately 1.5 acres and are occupied by six residential units, a church, and'a medical supply store. Two parcels are currently vacant. This location seems to be more desirable than the north site for the develop- ment of a senior citizens housing.project. Commercial redevelopment may not be warranted due to the orientation.of the existing commercial development, the shape of the block, the lack of commercial traffic .on this portion of Park Avenue and the proximity to the proposed recreational facilities at Lions Park. -1- J PLAN Recommendations The Planning Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Plan be amended from Parking to Residential with a subsequent rezone to R4 -CP: The proposed -amend- ments to the Central Area Plan and Redevelopment Plan will allow the develop- ment of a 50 unit per acre senior citizen housing project at this location. CASE C A total of four parcels located between 1800 and 1818 Park Avenue are included in Case C. Presently, the Redevelopment Plan designation for the parcels is Parking, while only one of the parcels is developed as a Vehicle Parking Dis- trict lot. The remaining parcels front on Park Avenue and are developed as a fast food restaurant, TV repair and dress making shop, and an auto stereo and air conditioning shop. The Parking designation does not permit consideration of possible commercial redevelopment of the subject properties. It is the intent of this case study, and similar amendments, to delete Parking as a Land Use designation in the Redevelopment Plan. An amendment to Commercial will also allow the construc- tion of both public and private parking lots for the benefit of surrounding commercial uses. This is the approach recommended by the Central Area Plan., Recommendations The Planning Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Plan designation of the subject parcels be amended from Parking to Commercial. Implementation of this recommendation will provide greater flexibility in developing plans for the ultimate redevelopment of the subject property. CASE D Case D considers a possible amendment to the Master Plan of Highways to delete Center Street as a Commuter Highway (also Case 3 of the Central Area Plan Amendments) between Anaheim Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. Although, not specif- ically addressed in the Redevelopment Plan, consideration should be given to the ultimate closure of Center .Street to provide for the uniform development of the Lions Park expansion and the proposed senior citizen housing.and commercial redevelopment projects for the block bounded by 19th Street, Harbor and Newport Boulevards, 18th Street and Park Avenue. At the present time, Center Street carries a total traffic volume of 1670 vehicles per day (910 westbound and 760 eastbound). The high traffic volumes on both Newport and Harbor Boulevards, the number of turning movements and the awkward street alignment make this intersection the most dangerous in the Redevelopment area. The possiblity of closing -Center Street has been discussed in two EIRs which indicate that the closure will not have significant impacts on the surrounding street network. -2- Recommendations " Because of the relatively low volumes on Center Street and the hazardous intersection with Harbor and Newport Boulevards, the Redevelopment Agency should give consideration to the possible closure of Center Street, the development of plans for Super Block, and the proposed senior citizen housing and commercial redevelopment projects. CASE E All parcels bounded by Plumer Street, Park Avenue, Center Street and Anaheim Avenue have been purchased by the City to provide for the proposed expansion of e Lions Park. This case study and Case 4 of GP -77-2D proposan amendment from .Residential to Park/Plaza/Open Space. The subject parcels have been cleared of all structures except,for the Boys Club and the library. Recommendations .Since the City has purchased the subject property to be included in the pro- posed Lions Park expansion, the current High Density Residential designation is not appropriate. The Planning Staff recommends an amendment to Park/Plaza/ Open Space. ` CASE F This case study involves seven parcels located betwen 562 and 596 Plumer Street, directly north of the proposed Lions Park expansion project. With two exceptions, the parcels contain single and multi -family residences. A parking area for adjacent commercial property facing 19th Street.is located on one lot. The northeast corner of -Center Street and Anaheim Avenue .is occupied' by a Girl- Scout facility. These properties were also discussed as Case 5 of GP -77-2D. The subject property is currently designated for commercial use. A recent market analysis of the 19th Street Commercial District concluded, however, that the retention of commercial property which does. not have 19th Street frontage is not justified. Recommendation The Planning Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Plan be amended, on these parcels from Commercial to Residential. These parcels have limited commercial potential and should remain in _residential use for the foreseeable future. CASE G Case G is. located south of 19th Street, between Newport Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard. Currently these parcels are designated Parking by the Redevelop- -3- ment Plan and, except for a small multi -tenant commercial building located at 439-451 19th Street, are developed as parking lots. Because of the proposed widening of 19th Street, the' City has acquired the eastern parcel and is negotiating for the acquisition of the parcel occupied by the commercial building. The third parcel is occupied by a Vehicle Parking District lot. As in Case C, the Parking designation places constraints on the ultimate re- development of the subject parcels. Once acquired by the City, all of the parcels fronting on 19th Street could be reparceled into additional building sites. The proposed amendment to Commercial will provide the flexibility to accommodate this option. Recommendations The Planning Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Plan of the subject parcels be amended from Parking to Commercial. CASE H The five parcels included in Case H are located south of 19th Street, east of Fullerton Avenue and north of Flower Street. Parcels located on Flower Street are currently designated as High Density Residential by the Redevelopment Plan while the remaining, parcels are designated for Parking. A majority of the parcels are developed as a. public parking lot with commercial uses at the southwest corner of 19th Street and Fullerton Avenue, a vacant parcel at the northwest corner of Flower Street and Fullerton Avenue and a commercial building to the west of the vacant lot. Recommendations Although the primary use of the properties is parking, a Redevelopment Plan Amendment from Parking and High Density Residential to Commercial is recom- mended. The retention of the High Density Residential designation on the subject parcels'does not appear to be justified or desirable. The deletion of the Parking designation is consistent with previous case studies and with the current Central Area Plan designation of the subject properties. CASE I This study area is located south of Flower Street, north. of 18th Street, east of the commercial uses fronting on Newport Boulevard and west of Fullerton Avenue. A majority of the parcels are developed with single and multi -family residential units. Most of the commercial activities are located along the west side of the study area, adjacent to the alley. However, a few commercial uses face Fullerton Avenue. One industrial parcel is located on Flower Street. The Redevelopment Plan designates more than half of the study area as Parking. Parcels located on the south side of Flower Street and on the north and south side of Magnolia Street (exclusive of lots presently owned by the Vehicle Parking District) are designated as High Density Residential. Development trends in this area are moving toward high density residential development. -4- Case Study 10 of GP -77-2D refers to the sion in this report is slightly different tion of Commercial for the same area. Recommendations same study area. However, the discus - due to the Central Area Plan designa- The Planning Staff recommends that the eastern portion of the study area be amended to Commercial and that the remaining parcels be designated as resi- dential. This amendment will provide a buffer zone between the residential neighborhood to the east and _the intense Newport Boulevard Commercial Dist- ri.ct. CASE J Case J and Case 11 of GP -77-2D were. intiated .to redefine the boundary of the Newport Boulevard Commercial District. In general, the study area extends east of Newport Boulevard approximately 600 feet along the north side of Cabrillo Street, 450 feet on both sides of Rochester Street and 450 feet along the south side of 18th Street. Presently, the study area is occupied by a mixture of commerci.a.l and residential uses. A more detailed discussion of the Case Study and specific uses on each parcel i.s included in Case 11 of GP -77-2D. The parcels .to the east and north have experienced significant redevelopment as vacant and underdeveloped lots have. been combined into high density apart- ment projects. The City has received similar requests for parcels within the boundaries of this case study. As a result, a Redevelopment Plan amendment to Residential may facilitate a conversion of some of the older single family residences, the trailer park on Cabrillo Street and the heavy commercial uses along Rochester Street to high density residential development. Recommendations The Planni.ng Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Plan designation of the parcels located at 114-140 (even no.) Cabrillo Street; 117-135 (odd no.), 130 & 136 Rochester Street, 123-127 East 18th Street and the vacant lot to the west be amended from Commercial to Residential. Implementation of this recommendation will concentrate commercial uses along Newport Boulevard and provide for the conversion of the mixed commercial and residential parcels to high density residential. development. It is also recommended that the properties on the south side of Cabrillo Street from 125 to. 145 (odd no.) be changed from High Density Residential to Commercial. CASE K Case K involves one parcel located at 182 Wells Place. This property i.s occupied by a small, single family residence. At the present time, the parcel is zoned C2 and designated for commercial use. Case 7 of GP -77-2D also in- cludes this parcel as well as other parcels on Wells Place, Cabrillo Street, Fullerton Avenue and Orange Avenue. -5- All of the surrounding parcels contain residential structures. However, some of these structures are being used as commercial uses. Because of the separation from both 17th Street and Newport Boulevard Commercial Districts, these parcels have -little potential for new commercial development. Recommendations The Planning Staff subject property be tion is consistent parcels. CASE L recommends that the Redevelopment Plan designation of the amended from Commerical to Residential. This recommenda- with both the present use of the property and the adjacent Case Study L involves two parcels located at the northwest corner of Superior Avenue and 17th Street. The City Council directed the Planning Staff to ini- tiate Central Area and Redevelopment Plan amendments to Commercial for these parcels as a result of their denial of Rezone Petition R-77-08. This petition proposed a rezone of the property from C2 to MG into conformance with the current Land Use designations of the properties. One parcel contains an automotive repair and servicing center while the other contains a bowling alley. Both parcels .are designated for industrial use by the Redeveloment Plan. New commercial developments east of the subject property are a part of the Newport Boulevard Commercial District. With the exception of these commercial sites the surrounding properties are currently zoned, planned and developed for industrial use. Recommendations After considerable discussion the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed rezone from C2 to MG. However, the City Council expressed concern about the current commercial use of the properties and recommended denial of the rezone directing the Staff to initiate this amendment. CASE M This case study proposes to combine the two residential designations in the Redevelopment Plan into one classification- At the present time, all of the residential property located west of Harbor and Newport Boulevards is designated as High Density Residential while the majority of the residential property east of Newport Boulevard is designated Medium Density Residential. The Central Area Plan contains only one classification -for all residentially designated properties. A great majority of the new residential development has been located east of Newport Boulevard. In most cases, the development has been in excess of the current Medium Density Residential designation of 1the Redevelopment Plan. In order to provide sufficient encouragement to combine vacant or underdevel- oped lots into new residential developments, it appears that the high densities are necessary and consistent with the intent of the Redevelopment Plan. 1 Recommendations The Planning Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Plan be amended to include one residential Land Use designation consistent with the -current Central Area Plan. The maximum density recommended for the Redevelopment area is'35 units. per acre. Specialized housing projects reserved exclusively for senior citi- zens and handicapped persons may be developed at densities of .approximately 50 units per acre. -7- REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS Amendment No. 1 Add Section 2.1 Boundary Amendments - May 1977 Two parcels were added to the existing boundaries of Redevelopment Project Area No. 1, in order to provide for uniform development of the parcels. The locations of both additions are shown on Figure 1, and the legal descriptions are as follows: Addition No. 1: Beginning at a point on the existing boundary of the Costa Mesa Downtown Redevelopment Project Area No. 1, as described in a document recorded December 27, 1973 in Book 11041, Page 982 of Official Records of Orange County California, said point being the northeasterly corner of Lot 15 of Fairview Farms per map thereof recorded in Book 8, Page 71 of Miscel- laneous Maps, records of said Orange County; thence departing from the existing boundary of said Costa Mesa Downtown Redevelopment Project Area No. 1, north 0032'00" west along the northerly prolongation of the east- erly line of said Lot 15 a distance of 99.20 feet to a point on the south line of Bernard Street, 50.00 feet wide, as shown on a map of Tract 1002, recorded in Book 33 Page 11 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County; thence south 89028'00" west along said south line of Bernard Street a distance of 676.80 feet to the point of intersection with the northerly prolongation of the easterly line of that certain 20.00 foot wide alley as. shown on map of Tract No. 809, recorded in Book.24, Page 25 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange .County; thence south 0032'00" east along said line a distance of 99.20 feet to the point of intersection with the northerly line of said Lot 15 of Fairview Farms, said point being on the existing boundary of said Costa Mesa Downtown Redevelopment Project Area No. 1; thence north 89028'00" east along said line a distance of 676.80 feet to the Point of Beginning. Addition No 2: Beginning at an angle point on the existing boundary of the Costa Mesa Downtown Redevelopment Project Area No. 1, as described in a document recorded December 27, 1973 in Book 11041, Page 982 of Official Records of Orange County, California, said point being the northerly corner of Lot 61 of Newport Heights as shown on a map recorded in Book 4, Page 83 of Miscellaneous Maps of said Orange County; thence south 49059'43 east along the existing boundary of said Costa Mesa Downtown Redevelopment Project Area No. 1, said boundary also being the northeasterly line of said Lot 61 a distance of 322.25 feet to the easterly line of Parcel 2 as shown on a Parcel Map recorded in Book 78, Page 47 of Parcel Maps of said Orange County; thence departing from the existing boundary of said Costa Mesa Downtown Redevelopment Project Area No. 1, south 8058'14" west along the easterly line of said Parcel 2 a distance of 315.28 feet to the most southerly corner of said Parcel 2; thence north 49059'43" west along the southwesterly line of said Parcel 2 a distance of 484.77 feet to the most westerly corner of said Parcel 2, said corner also being on the southeast- erly line of Superior Avenue, 60 feet in width; thence north 40000'00" east along the southeasterly line of Superior Avenue a distance of 270.15 feet to the Point of Beginning. COSTA MESA DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJEC'Y' ARES► NO. I Ja ADDITION 1 5i 12 29 TH c�rvr� P . N 0 200 500 1000 6r ADDITION 2 FIGURE -1 Amendment No. 2 Page 3-2, Section -3-2, Amend to read: 3.2 Neighborhood Impact/Neighborhood.Element In 1973 there were approximately 620 dwelling. units in the Project Area. Of these units, approximately 278 were single family dwellings, 316 were multiple units and 28 were mobile homes. The 1976 Costa Mesa Special Census revealed that there were 912 dwelling units in the Project Area.. The unit mix in 1976 was 303 single family units, 610 multiple family units and 28 mobile homes. There were 293 multiple family dwellings added to the Project Area housing inventory, a 92% increase. This growth reflects the trend toward multiple family projects which Are encouraged by greater permissable densities within the Project Area than elsewhere in the City. This trend can.be expected to continue with increasing"emphasis� on housing for the elderly and handicapped. Single family units, developed under obsolete County zoning standards, which do not meet current building and zoning codes in Costa Mesa can be expected to remain until such time as it is economically feasible to undertake their redevelopment. With the exception of older, scattered residential units that are inter- spersed with commercial and -industrial development, the impact on residen- tial areas will not involve substantial disruption. The effects of the. Project on residents of the Project Area and the surrounding area are described as follows: Amendment No. 3 Page 3-3, Section C, Add Second Paragraph as follows: C. Environmental Qualit An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for -the Downtown Redevelopment Project. The EIR, accepted by the City Council on .. December 17, 1973, provided, a generalized analysis, or overview, of potential- environmental impacts resulting from the adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. As such, it was not intended to. be used as a substitute for a more thorough examination - of individual activities or projects in the area. Consequently, more detailed, site-specific environmental review will be required for each project: By initiating such review procedures, the precise level of environmental impacts of these activities can be identified,' thereby insuring that the goals of the Redevelopment Project are . achieved. An example of this process is the Super Block EIR prepared for the proposed expansion of Lions Park. Amendment No. 4 Page 3-3, Paragraph D, Add Third Paragraph D. Availability of Community Facilities and Services Center Street- will be abandoned between Park Avenue and Anaheim Avenue to allow expansion- of Lions Park into the .block south of Plumer Street. In addition to landscaping and recreation, areas, 0 the block may contain an expanded public library and other commun- ity facilities. A new and larger fire station will be built at the southwest corner of Park Avenue and Plumer Street. [A paragraph had been added to include a description of the Super Block facilities.] Amendment No. 5 Page 3-4, Section E, Revise as Follows: E. Effect on School Population & Quality of Education The Project will have an impact on the school population: Assuming development of the residential areas to full capacity, the Project Area will include approximately 2100 dwelling units. Utilizing an enrollment generation of 0.35 students per unit for multiple dwellings, the total student population will be approximately 710 students. This enrollment compares with a current enrollment of approximately 190 students. Thus, the project at full residential capacity will result in a total enrollment increase of approximately 5,20 students over the existing enrollment. Amendment No. 6 Page 4-1, Section 4, Revise Second Paragraph as Follows: 4. DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES Figure a identifies the proposed Land Use Plan for the Downtown Redevelop- ment Project. The proposed land use pattern is superimposed on the existing street network to aid in identifying the location of various land uses only, and does not reflect the ultimate alignment of the circulation network in the Project Area. Figure presents an illustrative, con- ceptual site plan of one development alternative of the proposed Land Uses. This plan also illustrates a conceptual circulation alternative for the Project Area. Amendment No. 7 Page 4-1, Section 4.1, Revise First Paragraph as Follows: 4.1 Land Use Figure A indicates the location of Project Area Land Uses. The Land Use propoosals include recommendations for commercial, industrial, residential and public develoment. -10= ILCOMSTA MESA 0ilk 1AYNTOWN REDEVELOPMEMT ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN 1 0 Man FIGURE 3 Amendment No.' 8 Page 4-1, Section 4.1, Paragraph A, Revise as Follows: A. Commercial Uses: As indicated in Figure �I, commercial development is proposed for 19th. Street, Harbor Boulevard, Newport Boulevard and 17th. Street frontages. Uses permitted in these areas shall be those uses listed as permitted in the corresponding zoning dis- trict of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Uses not specifically listed may be approved by the Redevelopment Agency if a finding is made that said use is consistent with the objectives of the Plan and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area. Heavy commercial uses, such as automotive repair and service uses should not be encouraged in the Project Area. The McNally School site should be studied as a possible multi. -use center with possible integration of residential and commercial uses. The relatively large size of the parcel can be used for both vertical and horizontal integration of the two uses into a unique specialty center, located z at the northern entrance to the project area. [The wording of permitted. commercial uses in the Project Area has been amended to eliminate some confusion that previously existed with specifi- cally identified uses and to reference the permitted uses in the corre- sponding zoning district of the Municipal Code.] Amendment No. 9 Page 4-2, A.1:, Revise as Follows: 1. Commercial parcels shall be no less than 12,000 square feet: This shall apply only to the creation of new parcels in the Project Area. Any legal parcel on record in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County on the date of amendment of this section may be used as a building site. [The minimum parcel size of commercial parcels has been reduced to 12,000 square feet to bring it into conformance with the standards contained in the Commercial zoning district of the Municipal Code. A grandfather clause has also been included to allow use of existing legal parcels as building sites without requiring Redevelopment Plan variations from minimum parcel size standards. Several of these variations have been processed in the past and all have been approved. This has been based primarily on the fact that because of the amount of development existing in the area it is usually difficult to increase the size of existing par- cels.] -11- Amendment No. 10 A.2., Delete. [This section has been deleted in an attempt to reduce the number of specific regulations applying to development within the Project Area. The intent of this section to establish maximum floor. areas for commercial parcels will be accomplished by other existing standards such as parking and landscaping requi.rements]. Amendment No. 11 A.4., Delete. [This secti.on has been deleted as it appears redundant to the first sentence of Section 4.3 on Page 4-3.] Amendment'No. 12 Page 4-2, Paragraph B, Revi.se as Follows: B. Resi.dential Use: Areas for residential development are indicated in Figure 2, and generally include portions of the Project Area east of Newport Boulevard commerical areas and the areas adjacent to Lions Park west of the Newport and Harbor Boulevard commercial areas. It Is anticipated that residenti.al development will include a variety of housing types and densities. Areas designated for residential use shall be developed according to the following standards: 1. The maximum allowable densities for residential parcels shall be as follows: Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Less .than 18,000 sq. ft. 50 feet 18,000 to 35,999 sq. -ft. 80 feet 36,000 sq. ft. or more 150 feet Maximum Density 15 units per acre 22 units per acre 35 units per acre Higher densities may be granted to encourage the provision of speci.alized housing reserved exclusively for senior citizens and/or handicapped persons. Such developments shall require approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Agency. [These sections have been deleted and replaced with standards consistent with present City policy establishing residential densities related to parcel sizes. Additional wordi.ng has been included to allow increased densiti.es for specialized senior citizen and handicapped housing such as the project proposed at the corner of Park Avenue and Center Street. This would be limi.ted to projects reserved exclusively for these purposes and would require approval of a Conditi.onal Use Permit by the Agency to insure that these higher densities are not available to conventional projects and that impacts on traffic, etc. may be kept to a minimum.] -12- 2. Residential parcels shall be no less than 18,000 square feet. This shall apply only to the creation of new parcels in the Project Area. Any legal parcel on record in the office of the County Re- corder of Orange County on the date of amendment of this section may be used as a building site. [Residential parcel size has been decreased from 20,000 to 18,000 square feet to- bring it into conformity with exi.sting City -policy which, establishes 18,000 square feet as the cut-off point between R2 r and R3 densities.] 3. No Change 4. No Change 5. Delete [This has been deleted as it is redundant to Section. 4.3 on. Page 4-3.1 6. No Change Amendment No. 13 Page 4-3, Paragraph C, Revise as Follows: C. Industrial Use: Areas for industrial development are indicated on - Figure ,k and include the southern portions of the Project Area adjacent to 17th Street. Uses Permitted in these areas shall be those uses listed as permitted in the corresponding zoning district of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. Uses not specifically listed may be approved by the Redevelopment Agency if a finding is made that said use is consistent with the objectives of the Plan and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area. [Permitted uses in the industrial area have been revised for consistency with the Costa Mesa zoning ordinance.] Amendment No. 14 Page 4-3, Section 4.2, Revise Third Paragraph as Follows: 4.2 Rights of Way The proposed development will require alterations to 19th Street, 17th Street, 18th Street, Center Street, Newport Boulevard and.Harbor Boulevard to complete the major street system proposed by the Plan.. -13- Amendment No. 15 Page 4-3, Section 4.3, Revise First Paragraph as Follows: 4.3 Standards.for Development In addition to the standards set forth in this Plan, developers of pro- perty must meet the provisions of the Costa Mesa zoning ordinance, the Costa Mesa Building Code and the Health and Safety Code of the State of ' California. Zoning recommended.for-the Project Area is as follows: CL, Cl and C2 for commercial; MG for i.ndustri.al areas; R2, R3 and R4 for residential areas; and I & R for public facilities. Amendment No. 16 Page 4-4, 4-5, Paragraphs 1. - 8., Revise as Follows: General Development Standards ]. The Agency may establish setback requirements for new developments wi.thi.n the Project Area which may exceed the requirements of the City's zoning ordinance. Setback areas shall be used for landscaping, access drives, walkways, and off-street parking. [This paragraph has been revised to allow add'i.tional setback requirements in specific cases where warranted, whereas the previous wording would have applied to all properties within the Project Area.] 2._ The Agency shall require that, as feasible, adequate landscaping and screening be provided for each use to create buffers between those areas designated for different uses.' No outdoor storage of materials or equipment shall be permitted and all uses shall be conducted underroof unless approved by the Agency with adequate screening. All .service areas, refuse collecti.on areas and trash bi.ns shall be com- pletely screened. Screening shall consist of a solid wall or fence, vine covered fence, or compact evergreen hedge of a height necessary to screen the use from vi.ew of adjoining streets and properties. [This paragraph has been revised for consistency with the Municipal Code, and has incorporated wording previously included in Paragraph 8; on Page 4-5.1 3. Delete [This standard has been removed as the intended result will be accom- plished by compliance with City zoning ordinances.] -14- 4., No Change 5. Design of all signs shall be submitted to the Agency for review and approval before erection. Resolution 9-74 was adopted by the Agency on May 6, 1974, providing that all signs conforming to the City of Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance (Ordinance 74-25) shall be deemed to have met the requirement for review and approval by the Agency. Billboards and other off-site advertising devices shall not be per- mitted in the Project Area. [Revisions have been made to include 'citation of Resolution 9-74 relating to Agency approval of signs.] 6. For all new construction, all on-site utilities shall be installed underground unless determined by the Planning Commission to be not practically feasible. Provided that, in any case, facilities shall be installed to allow future connection to an underground system. All above ground utilities shall be placed at the rear of the site. [Wording has been changed to comply with City zoning standards.] 7. Adequate parking shall be provided to accommodate all parking needs for each parcel in accordance, with the provisions of the City's zoning ordinance. Parking facilities for the joint use of two or more parcels of a size sufficient to meet the combined requirements of such parcels may be constructed with prior written approval of the Agency. No parking space shall be located in a required setback abutting a public right-of-way except with prior written approval of the Agency. Parking spaces shall be paved and drained so that storm and sur- face waters draining from parcels will not cross public sidewalks. Parking spaces visible from streets shall be screened as necessary to prevent unsightly or barren appearance. Lighting for parking spaces shall be shielded from residential buildings and adjoining streets. [Paragraph l.allows use of setbacks for off-street parking. Revisions to Paragraph 7. have been made to prohibit only parking within required street setbacks.] 8., Delete. [These standards have been incorporated into Page 4-4, Paragraph 2.1. -15- Amendment No. 17 Page 7-5, 7.6, Paragraph 2, Revise as Follows: 7.6 General Develoment Standards and Design for Development No Building Permits shall be issued for the following unless prior ap- proval has been granted by the Agency in accordance with procedures set - forth herein: All Zones: Construction of new structures Addition of area to existing buildings Alterations to change the basic use of a building (residential, commerical, industrial) Commercial and Industrial Zones:. Exterior Remodeling of existing buildings One of the objectives of this Plan is to create.an attractive and pleasant environment in the Project Area. Therefore, all plans shall give consid- eration to good design, - open space and other amenities to enhance the aesthetic quality of the Project Area. All new uses approved in the Project Area shall be consistent with this Plan and compatible with existing and permitted uses in the area. The Agency may not approve any plans that do not comply with this Plan. [Admi.nstration of review requirements based on permit value has. -presented many problems in the past. Proposed revisions would eliminate any ques- tion as to whether Agency approval is required for a specific project. The criteria established would apply to projects which may have an impact from the standpoint of use, intensity, or visual conformity., Interior alterations and remodels for existing uses have been excluded as these impacts are minimally perceptible from anywhere but within the subject building.] Amendment No. 18 Page 7-5, 7.7.A, First Paragraph, Delete. Page 7-6,.7.7.A., Second Paragraph, Revise as Follows: 7.7 Bui.ldina Permits Within the Project Area Each applicant for a Building Permit in the Project Area for which an approved development plan is required under Section, 7.6 of this Plan, shall submit a proposed_ development plan for review. The development plan shall be furnished by the applicant and shall contain the following drawings and/or information: -16- 1., No Change. 2., No Change. 3., Revise as Follows: 3. Elevations of all sides of all buildings indicating design features and exterior materials. 4. Revise as Follows: 4. Landscaped areas and proposed conceptual landscape treatment. [Proposed revisions would clarify elevation plans required, and reduce detail required on landscape plans. Detailed landscape plans must be approved by the Staff prior to issuance of Building Permits.] 5., No Change. 6., No Change. Next Paragraph, Delete. Amendment No. 19 Page 7-6, 7.7., Add Paragraph B to Read as Follows: B. Upon receipt of a proposed development Plan, the Planning Department shall fix a ti.me and date of public hearing thereon. before the Planning Commission not less than 20 nor more than 45 days there- after. The Planning Director or his designee shall review the proposed development plan and shall file with the Planning Commission a written report setting' forth his determinations and recommenda- tions, which shall include but not be limited to the following: 1. No Change. Page 7-7, 2., No Change. Second Paragraph, Revise as Follows: The Planning Commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of any proposed development plan. A written report of the decision of the Planning Commission and a copy of. the Staff Report shall be filed with the Redevelopment Agency and mailed to the.applicant at the address shown on the application. -17- Upon receipt of the decision of the Planning Commission, the Executive Director of the Redevelopment -Agency shall set the matter on the agenda for the next Redevelopment Agency meeting without futher notice. The Redevelopment Agency shall, by majority vote ,either approve,. approve with conditions or disapprove the proposed development Plan: The decision of the Redevelopment Agency shall be final unless appealed to the City Council in the manner provided for hereinafter. [The approval procedure has been modified to take into account procedural changes made since the adoption of the original,Plan. Since this time, the. Redevelopment Agency has been appointed separately from the City Coucil, and the Procedural Overlay Ordinance has been adopted. giving final authority to'the Planning Commission for Conditional Use Permits and variances from City zoning requirements.] Page 7-7, C., Revise as Follows: C. Appeal: The applicant or any interested party may appeal the deci- sion of the Redevelopment Agency to the City Council. Within 10 days of such decision, the appellant shall file his appeal with the City Clerk. The application for appeal shall set forth the grounds relied upon by the appellant. At its next meeting, the City Council shall set the matter for public hearing and shall give notice of the time and place for said hearing to the applicant, the appellant and any other party having requested such notice. The City Council may reverse or affirm wholly or partly, or may modi- fy any decision or determination or may impose such conditions as the facts warrant, and its decision or determination shall be final. [As the Staff is responsible to both the Planning Commission and the Redevelopment Agency, a conflict in direction could occur if .the Planning Commission's action on a variance or C.U.P. were to differ from the Agency's decision on the same project. In such cases, the appeal pro- cedure'would enable the Staff to file an appeal to allow the City Council to resolve such discrepancies.] COUNCIL ACTION*- MEETING OF JULY 18, 1977 Case Study K deleted from consideration because of their previous action on 7-5-77 on Case 7, GP -77-2D, which left the subject property commercial. On Case Study L, the Council Commercial in accordance with subject property remain C2. reconfirmed their direction for an amendment to their action on R-77-08, directing that the Modified Amendment No. 19, Section C., as follows: "The applicant or any interested party may appeal the decision of the Redevelopment Agency to the City Council, according to provisions of Section 2-300 et seq of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code." —18—