HomeMy WebLinkAbout55 - PH-2 - Attachment 10 - 4/15/2014CITY OF COSTA MESA
125 EAST BAKER STREET
APARTMENT PROJECT
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2013081051
Volume la: Draft EIR Changes, Responses to Comments, and
Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program
Prepared for
City of Costa Mesa
Planning Division/Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92628
Prepared by
Atkins
12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Los Angeles, California 90025
February 2014
-fzlo
Final EIR
February 2014
Volume I: Draft EIR
Contents
Volume la: Draff EIR Changes, Responses to Comments, and Mitigation Monitoring
and Report Program
CHAPTER 8 Introduction to the Final EIR................................................................................ 8-1
8.1 CEQA Requirements.................................................... ................................................... 8-1
8.2 Public Review Process .............................................. ...................................................... 8-1
8.3 Contents and Organization of the Final EIR..............................................................8-1
8.4 Use of the Final EIR......................................................... .............. ................................ 8-2
CHAPTER9 Changes to the Draft EIR....................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Text Changes .................... ............................................. ................................................... 9-1
CHAPTER10 Comments and Responses................................................................................... 10-1
10.1 Organization of the Responses to Comments.........................................................
10-1
10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR......................—................................
10-2
10.2.1 Public Agencies......... ..................... ..... 10-3
10.2.2 Organizations............................................................. ..................................
10-19
10.2.3 Individuals........................................................... .... ............. :.......................
10-27
10.2.4 Oral Comments..................................................... ...... ....... .................. .....
10-42
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program...................................................11-1
11.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 11-1
11.2 Enforcement.............................................................................................11-1
....................
11.3 Program Modification.................................................................................................. 11-1
11.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix .......................................... 11-1
Tables
Table 10-1 Comments Received during the Draft EIR Public Review Period... ......................... ....... 10-1
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix.............................................................11-2
City of Costa Mesa iii 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
Contents
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
SCH No. 2013081051
Iv
Final EIR
February 2014
City of Costa Mesa
Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
8.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
CHAPTER 8 Introduction to the Final EIR
SECTION 8.1 CEQA Requirements
Before approving a project that may cause a significant _environmental impact, the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the Lead Agency to prepare and certify a Final
Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). The contents of a Final EIR are specified in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15132, which states that:
The Final EIR shall consist of
(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft EIR.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review
and consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
The City of Costa Mesa as Lead Agency must also provide each public agency that commented on the
Draft EIR with a copy of City's responses to those comments at least 10 days before certifying the Final
EIR. In addition, the City may also provide an opportunity for members of the public to review the Final
EIR prior to certification, though this is not a requirement of CEQA.
8.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
The Draft EIR for the 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project (proposed project) was circulated for
review and comment by the public, agencies, and organizations initially for a 45 -day public review period
that began on November 6, 2013, and concluded on December 20, 2013. In response to the Draft EIR,
thirteen written letters were received during the review period. Additionally, the Draft EIR was presented
to the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission during their regularly scheduled meeting on
December 9, 2013, and five speakers provided comments on the proposed project during the Planning
Commission Meeting.
8.3 CONTENTS AND ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
This Final EIR is composed of the following chapters:
■ Chapters 1 to 7 (Draft EIR with Changes)—These chapters describe the existing
environmental conditions in the project area and in the vicinity of the proposed project, and
analyze potential impacts on those conditions due to the proposed project; identifies mitigation
measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of significant impacts; evaluates cumulative
impacts that would be caused by the proposed project in combination with other past, present,
and future projects or growth that could occur in the region; analyzes growth -inducing impacts;
and provides a full evaluation of the alternatives to the proposed project that could eliminate,
reduce, or avoid project -related impacts. Text revisions to the Draft EIR resulting from
City of Costa Mesa 8.1 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 8 Introduction to the Final EIR
SECTION 8.4 Use of the Final EIR
i
Final EIR
February 2014
corrections of minor errors and/or clarification of items are identified in Chapter 9, as described
below.
■ Chapter 8 (Introduction to the Final EIR)—This chapter contains an explanation of the
format and content of the Final EIR
■ Chapter 9 (Changes to the Draft EIR)—This contains all changes to the Draft EIR that were
either initiated by Lead Agency staff or in response to public comments on the Draft EIR during
the public review process
■ Chapter 10 (Comments and Responses) This chapter contains a complete list of all persons,
organizations, and public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR; copies of the comment
letters received by the City of Costa Mesa on the proposed project; and the Lead Agency's
responses to these comments
■ Chapter 11 (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program)—This chapter contains the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
8.4 USE OF THE FINAL EIR
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088(a) and 15088(b), the lead agency must evaluate comments
on environmental and CEQA-related issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and
must prepare written responses to each of these comments. The Final EIR allows the public and the City
of Costa Mesa an opportunity to review the response to comments, revisions to the Draft EIR, and other
components of the EIR, prior to the City's decision on the project. The Final EIR serves as the
environmental document to support approval of the proposed project, either in whole or in part.
After completing the Final EIR, and before approving the project, the Lead Agency must make the
following three determinations as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15090:
■ That the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA
■ That the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and that the
decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to
approving the project
■ That the Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency's independent judgment and analysis
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), if an EIR that has been certified for a project identifies
one or more significant environmental effects, the lead agency must adopt "Findings of Fact." For each
significant impact, the lead agency must make one of the following findings:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency
and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 8.2
SCH No. 2013081051
City of Costa Mesa
Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR CHAPTER 8 Introduction to the Final EIR
February 2014 SECTION 8.4 Use of the Final EIR
Each finding must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for the finding. In addition,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), the agency must adopt, in conjunction with the
findings, a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes that it has either required in the project
or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen environmental effects. These measures
must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. This program is
referred to as the MMRP.
Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b), when a Lead Agency approves a project
that would result in significant, unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the Final EIR, the agency must
state in writing its reasons for supporting the approved action. This document, known as the Statement
of Overriding Considerations, is supported by substantial information in the record, which includes this
Final EIR. However, as the proposed project does not result in project -specific significant and
unavoidable impacts and cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is not required.
City of Costa Mesa 8.3 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 8 Introduction to the Final EIR
SECTION 8.4 Use of the Final EIR
[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 8.4
SCH No. 2013081051
Final EIR
February 2014
City of Costa Mesa
Red Oak Investments, LLC
I
J
Final EIR CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft EIR
February 2014 SECTION 9.1 Text Changes
Text changes are intended to clarify or correct information in the Draft EIR in response to comments
received on the document, or as initiated by Lead Agency staff. Revisions are shown in Section 9.1 (Text
Changes) as excerpts from the Draft EIR text, with a line thr-eugh deleted text and a double underline
beneath inserted text. In order to indicate the location in the Draft EIR where text has been changed, the
reader is referred to the page number of the Draft EIR as published on January 12, 2012. None of the
corrections or additions constitutes significant new information or substantial project changes as defined
by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
9.1 TEXT CHANGES
This section includes revisions to text, by Draft EIR section, that were initiated either by Lead Agency
staff or in response to public comments. All changes appear in order of their location in the Draft EIR-
Page
IR
Page 4.5-3, following third paragraph
As such, any construction or alteration of more than 200 feet in height above the ground level at its site
requires filing with the FAA.
ORTMOV= ■
t UT430r � •• ' ■ M . s .r •r �2 MAr.
,�� allow for --residential uses and allow most nonresident' U=L
RmV+jitei uses in Safev,
Zone 6.indude-outdoor stadiums- and similar uses with very intcasides.
0-9m, py'VINI
Page 4.5-8, following second paragraph
The proposed project would not exceed 200 feet in height; however the proposed project is located
approximately 4,300 feet from runways at John Wayne Airport and would therefore be required to
submit Form 7460-1 if implementation of the proposed project results in the construction of buildings
that exceed 43 feet in height.
r ■ ■ ■ r r ■" ! r
■ n■ w ;two. tMOTMINPINXIMM1,111INo
TIM
011
City of Costa Mesa 9.1 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft EIR Final EIR
SECTION 9.1 Text Changes February 2014
{ r►Ir ,►.i !9+t. ( A' r r f r f r I r [': 'f ! IR I
rrr-1-1 /A I' 'r►rr'r Ir ridei
Imnlementaf mi 'go on measureMM4.5-1 would ensure that the residential occupants_ of the
broboTnraaect would be notified to the Dresence of anvances associated with airn=neratians,
Overall, the City's land use policies generally encourage projects that provide a mix of -uses, are
compatible and harmonious with surrounding development, and offer pedestrian amenities that enhance
the image and quality of life and the environment.
Page 4.5-9, following last paragraph
Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. 2008. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne
Airport, April.
WK -1 !r►+ TTIVNOnf1�JjFlClrl/Tdli t WTMw- III—l►�IIF
Page 4.8-29, fiffh full paragraph
Standard Conditions
■ If a tract map is prepesedrecorded for this project, the Developer shall pay a park impact fee or
dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. The current park impact
fee is calculated at $13,829 per new multi -family dwelling unit.
Therefore, if a tract man is recorded for the proposed project_ Ecompliance with CMMC Title 13,
Chapter XI, Article 5, would ensure that Project implementation would result in a less than significant
impact involving parkland demand. This impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 9.2
SCH No. 2013081051
City of Costa Mesa
Red Oak Investments, LLC
•
� ■ ►
■ ■
■
r ■
i
I �r �
a.l1r--------------
Imnlementaf mi 'go on measureMM4.5-1 would ensure that the residential occupants_ of the
broboTnraaect would be notified to the Dresence of anvances associated with airn=neratians,
Overall, the City's land use policies generally encourage projects that provide a mix of -uses, are
compatible and harmonious with surrounding development, and offer pedestrian amenities that enhance
the image and quality of life and the environment.
Page 4.5-9, following last paragraph
Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. 2008. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne
Airport, April.
WK -1 !r►+ TTIVNOnf1�JjFlClrl/Tdli t WTMw- III—l►�IIF
Page 4.8-29, fiffh full paragraph
Standard Conditions
■ If a tract map is prepesedrecorded for this project, the Developer shall pay a park impact fee or
dedicate parkland to meet the demands of the proposed development. The current park impact
fee is calculated at $13,829 per new multi -family dwelling unit.
Therefore, if a tract man is recorded for the proposed project_ Ecompliance with CMMC Title 13,
Chapter XI, Article 5, would ensure that Project implementation would result in a less than significant
impact involving parkland demand. This impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 9.2
SCH No. 2013081051
City of Costa Mesa
Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.1 Organization of the Responses to Comments
10.1 ORGANIZATION OF THE RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This chapter of the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) contains all comments received on
the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) during the public review period, as well as
responses to each of these comments. Reasoned, factual responses have been provided to all comments
received, with a particular emphasis on significant environmental and CEQA-related issues. Detailed
responses have been provided where a comment raises a specific issue; however, a general response has
been provided where the comment is relatively general. Although some letters may raise legal or planning
issues, these issues do not always constitute significant environmental issues. Therefore, the comment
has been noted, but no response has been provided. Generally, the responses to comments provide
explanation or amplification of information contained in the Draft EIR.
In total, twelve comment letters regarding the Draft EIR were received from five public agencies, one
organization, and six individuals. Additionally, the Draft EIR was presented to the City of Costa Mesa
Planning Commission during their regularly scheduled meeting on December 9, 2013, and five speakers
provided comments on the proposed project during the Planning Commission Meeting. Table 10-1
(Comments Received during the Draft EIR Public Review Period) provides a comprehensive list of
comment letters and public speakers in the order that they are presented in this section.
Table 10-1 Comments Received during the Draft EIR Public Review Period
Letter Dale Comment I Page Where Page Where
No. Commenfer/Organiw on Code _Recelved Comment Begins I Response Begins
PUBLIC AGENCIES
1
California Department of Transportation
CALTRANS
12/11/2013
10-3
10-5
2
Native American Heritage Commission
NAHC
12/19/2013
10-6
10-10
3
Orange County Public Works
OCPW
12/02/2013
10-11
10-12
4
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation
JBMI
12/11/2013
10-13
10-14
5
1 Airport Land Use Commission
ALUC
12/20/2013
10-15
10-16
ORGANIZATIONS
6 1 Citizens Advocating Rational Development CARD 12/20/2013 10-19 10-22
INDIVIDUALS
7
Richard Crawford
RICR
11/06/2013
10-27
10-28
8
Bill Dunlap
BIDU
12106/2013
10-30
10-31
9
Mike Harrison
MIHA
12/06/2013
10-32
10-33
10
Kim Josephson
KIJO
12/09/2013
10-34
10-35
11
Gary Lukas
GALU
12/12/2013
10-36
10-38
12
1 Michael Manclark
MIMA
12/12/2013
10-40
10-41
ORAL COMMENTS
13 Planning Commission Meeting PC 12/9/2013 10-42 10-46
City of Costa Mesa 10-1 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses Final EIR
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR February 2014
10.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT EIR
This section contains the original comment letters, which have been bracketed to isolate the individual
comments, each followed by responses to the individual, bracketed comments within that letter. As
noted above, and stated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088(a) and 15088(b), comments that raise
significant environmental issues are provided with responses. Comments that are outside of the scope of
CEQA review do not merit a response, but are included within this Final EIR and may be considered by
the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission and City Council prior to taking action on this Final EIR
and the proposed project. In some cases, a response may refer the reader to a previous response, if that
previous response substantively addressed the same issues. To address the issues that were commonly
raised in many of the comment letters, master responses have been prepared below.
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10.2
SCH No. 2013081051
City of Costa Mesa
Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
10.2.1 Public Agencies
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
■ California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), 12/11/2013
Comments
nrre�rr�rui tin. yiaslfU,Sti_ahahShslJ _U1 i.ltDlil!�511[iAvrvcy
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 12
.1347 t%11('IIF.I..%N r)Rivr. sutra I(o
IRVINF CA 92b12-8894
IMI7.)uF: (949) 724._vm
FAX (`)49) ;24-2019
TI 711
s%,%"Ant.ca pns
December 2, 2013
Claire Flynn
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair hive
Costa Mesa, Califomiu 92628.1200
Subject: 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project
rear Ms, Flynn,
CALTRANSI
File: ICER/CFQA
SCIN:2013081051
Log 4: 33720
SR -55
1 frx7uupl ,r:
Re a-erV, efficve r
Thank you for the opportunity to reAew and comment on the Draft Environmental impact
Report (DEIR) for the 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project, The) project involves the
replacing of the. existing office building and surface parking areas with a new apartment building
and parking structure- The project consists of a five -story 240 -unit residential apartment
building that wraps around a six -level parking structure with 465 parking spaces in the structure
and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces. The required on-site parking, for the proposed
development per Code is 541 parking spaces. 469 on-site parking spaces are proposed. fhc
nearest State Highway located near the project site is SR -55.
The Department of Transportation (Depar(meni) is it responsible agency on this project and
we have the following comments:
Mitigation Measure 4,9-1 will involve the installation of tmffiQ signals on Slate owned Right of
Way at the intersection of Pullman Strecul3aker Street. Please cocrdinaw. with the Department to
meet requirements for any work within or near State right of way. All entities performing work
within the State right of way must obtain an E•ncmuchment Permit Our to commencement of
work• A fee may apply. If the cost of work within the State right of way is below $1, 000.000.
the Encroachment Permit process will be handled by our Permits Branch; otherwise the permit
should be authorized through the oil -ice of PrtijcG Department's Project Development. Allow 2
to 4 woks for a compiete subtttittal to be reviewed and for a permit to be issued. When applying
for Encroachment Permit, please incorporate Environmental Documentation. SWPPP/ WPCP,
Hydraulic Calculations. Traffic Control Plans, Geotechnical Analysis, R/W eeuiification and all
relevant design details including design exception approvals. For specific details Eneroachtnctit
Permits procedure, please refer to the Department's Encroachment Permits Manual. The latest
edition is available on the web site. hal :;:www.dotcn. *cFr h 'tra(Tu'drvrle)ysentlnrmits.
nnpru, , muhi(,n a —, r :il,/..roe,'
CALTRANS-1
CALTRANS-21
City of Costa Mesa 10-3 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Ms. Flynn
December 2, 2013
Page 2
Final EIR
February 2014
11
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could
potentially impact the Statc Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need to CALTRANS-3
contact us, please do not hesitate to call Miya I-Amonson at (949) 724-2228.
Sincerely, f�
Maureen El Harakc, Branch Chief
Regional-Community-Trdnsit Planning
C: Scott Morgan, Office of Planning and Research
f'tdip-am i Vrowri mnbilig, arrnss f '4(formu
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-4
SCH No. 2013081051
City of Costa Mesa i
Red Oak Investments, LLC
J
Final EIR
February 2014
Responses to CALTRANS
Response CALTRANS-1
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
This comment restates the project description and provides detail on build -out specifications and
location of the project. This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of information
provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response CALTRANS-2
This comment identifies that the traffic signals that would be installed at the intersection of Pullman
Street/Baker Street with implementation of mitigation measure MM4.9-1 would be within the State-
owned right-of-way, and that all work would need to be coordinated with Caltrans to meet the
requirements for any work within or near the State right-of-way. Additionally, the commenter states that
all entities performing work at a State right-of-way must obtain an encroachment permit prior to
commencement of work, and provides details of the relevant documentation required to obtain the
encroachment permit.
Response CALTRANS-3
This comment provides contact information for further follow-up. This comment does not address the
adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
City of Costa Mesa 10.5 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Dratt EIR
Final EIR
February 2014
■ Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), 12/19/2013
Comments
NAHC
OT&O r ►114 .
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
I U* Hwtw 6GUIPv euft 100
W*M Saonwv*nro, CR 96691
W
r(9`.6 37]-3775
-1
. 416] 37'�6S 71
011 n/}"f!atlMlI ro.!
a.mM•I• :3 •,.�I�,• •� i18C11PY hal
December 16, 2013 HemlVed
Mr, Mel Lee, Planner City of Costa Mesa
City of Costs Mesa Development SeMces Department
77 Fair Drive DEC 19 2013
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
RE: SCH#2013081051; CEQA Notice of Completion; draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) for the 1425 East Bakker Street Apartinent Project;'
located in the City of Costa Mesa; Orange County, California
Dear Mr, Lee:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has reviewed the
above -referenced environmental document. This project is also subject to
California Government Code Section 65040.2r 65352.3 et seq.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that any project
which includes archeological resources, is a significant effect requiring the
preparation of an EIR (CEQA guidelines 15064.5(b). To adequately comply with
this provision and mitigate project -related impacts on archaeological resources,
the Commission recommends the following actions be required:
Contact the appropriate Information Center for a record search to
determine :If a part or all of the area of project effect (APE) has been previously
surveyed for cultural plat es(s), The NAHC recommends that known traditional
cultural resources recorded on or adjacent to the APE be listed in the draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).
If an additional archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage
is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and
recommendations of the records search and field survey. We suggest that this
be coordinated with the NAHC, if possible. The finial report containing site forms,
site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to
the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native
American human remains, and associated hx*rary objects should be in a
separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure
pursuant to California Government Code Section 6254. 10,
A list of appropriate Native American Contacts for consultation concerning
the project site has been provided and is attached to this letter to determine if the
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-6
SCH No. 2013081051
NMC -1
City of Costa Mesa •-�
Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
proposed active might impinge on any cultural resources. Lack of surface
evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface
existence.
Califomia Government Code Section 65040.12(e) defines "environmental justice" to
provide 'fair treatment of People... with respect to the development, adoption,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies' and
Executive Order 8-10-11 requires consultation with Native American tribes their elected
officials and other representatives of tribal governments to provide meaningful input into
the development of legislation, regulations, rules, and policies on matters that may affect
tubal communities.
Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the
identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources,
pursuant to California Environmental Quaa l ty Act (CEQA) §15064.5(f). In areas
of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally
affiliated Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monitor
all ground -disturbing activities. Also, California Pubic Resources Code Section
21083.2 require documentation and analysis of archaeological items that meet
the standard in Section 13064.5 (a)(b)(f).
Lead agencies should consider first, avoidance for sacred and/or historical
sites, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15370(a). Then if the project goes ahead
then, lead agencies include in their mitigation and monitoring plan provisions for
the analysis and disposition of recovered artifacts, pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 21083.2 in consultation with culturally affiliated Native
Americans.
Lead agencies should Include provisions for discovery of Native American
human remains in their mitigation plan. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, CEQA
§ 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code §6097.98 mandates the process to be
followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a
location other than a dedicated cemetery,
CC: State Cleminghouse
Attachment:
Sincerely,
6i o L
Program Analyst'
,l
i
Native American Contacts list
A
NAHC-1
cont.
City of Costa Mesa 10.7 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Juamno Eland at Mission Wlatns Acjachemen Nation
David Belardes, Chairperson
32161 Avenida Los Amigos Juaneno
san .wan capf *&4 CA 92675
chiefdavidbelardes gyahoo.
(949) 493-4933 - home
(949) 293-8522
Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation
John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin.
Private Address GabrieNno Tongva
tattr9aw0gmail.com
31 D-570-0567
An rielel ra as. tS� Gabriel Band of Mission
y ora as. hiairperson
PO Box 693 Gabrlelino Tongva
San Gabriel , CA 91778
GTTribelcou ncl I(Paol.com
(626) 286-1632
(626) 286-1758 - Home
(626) 286-1262 -FAX
Gabdeilno !Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
P.O. Box 9e90e Gabrlelino Tongva
Los Angeles , CA 9was
sgoad@gabrie lino-tortgva.com
951-845-0443
Thi Nat In stun! W* a• of tie dote of go 4MMM .
Final EIR
February 2014
Native American Contacts
Orange County CalWarnia
December 16, 2013
Juaneno Band of Mission Indian* Aciachwwn Nation
Teresa Romero, Chairwoman
31411-A La Matanza Street Juaneno
stn Juan capiahang CA t MS -2874
(949) 488.3484
(949) 488.3294 - FAX
(530) 354-5876 - cell
Gatxiellno Tomm Indlarm of Callfomia Tribal Council
Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources
RO, BOX 400 Gabdelino Tongva
Bellflower CA 90707
SitOf lgva 0 veri=on. net
562-761-6417 - voice
562-761-6417- fax
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians
Adolph 'Bud' Sepulveda, Vice Chairperson
P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno
Santa Ana , CA 92799
bampullityahoo.net
714-838-3270
714-914-1812 - CELL
bsepul Oyahoo.net
Juaneft Band of Mission Indians
Sonia Johnston, Tribal Chairperson
P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno
Sarna Ana , CA 92799
sonlaJjohnston @sbcgkAml.
714-323-8312
714-998-0721
Db&fbtAl M d MMe St duces nd rttt iwin OW p11~1 WOO 800" wagon b fty as tMMf Ile $NOW "@U d rta Neeflh mW Gd* Owls,
• ONO NWA4 Wain rtMY Itaaswaoa Oak ettd,eowll SWM dMa f rhfto Iqp t Cady
his 1W s ardy sppgeansr far contacting focal kWve Americans w"h rep rd ID cutbAet reso roar Ibr the propasd
ttct lfaoetaet; CEQA trance or Carrrplctbn; dart Er+vlranmant.I Ynpaa Pa"A (DEIIq to the 125 Earl Makerahtrat Apmenwm profect;
beasad In the city of Clouts Meas; orange County. Cagrgrnia,
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-8
SCH No. 2013081051
City of Costa Mesa
Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
United Coalition to Protect Panhe (UCPP)
Rebecca Robles
119 Avenida San Fernando Juaneno
San Clemente CA 82672
rebrobleal @grnail.00m
(949) 573-3138
Gabrielino-Tongva Trine
Berrie Acuna, Co -Chairperson
P.O. Box 180 Gabrielino
Bonsall - CA 92003
(619) 294 -6680 -work
(310) 428-5690 - cell
(760) 636-0854- FAX
bacunal 0gabrielinotrlbe.org
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Native American Contacts
Orange County California
December 16, 2013
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393 Gabrielino
Covina , CA 91723
gabflelenoindiamOyahoo.
(626) 926-4131
Gatxiohno-Tongva Tribe
Conrad Acuna,
P.O. Box 180 Gabrlellno
Sonsall - CA 92003
760-636-0854 - FAX
Juaneno, Band of Wasion Indians Acywhwrwn Nnoon Gabrielino /rorpva Nation
Joyce Perry, Representing Tribal Chairperson Sam Dunlap. Cultural Resorces Director
4955 Paseo Segovia luaneno P.O. Box. 86" Gabrielino Tongva
Irvine . CA 92612 Los Angeles , CA aooea
kelmalam®gmail.com samdunklip0eerthlink.net
949-293-8522 909-262-9351
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Linda Candela a, Co -Chairperson
P.O. Box 180 Gabrlellno
Bonsall . CA 92003
paImeprIngs96 yahoo.00m
626-876-1184 cell
(760) 6364854 - FAX
TVA ea Is eu>Ir W mfr w Ob dee Bede dooms&
DrbfbNdlorr ar fflrls Id dew not MOM aY pteoow of etre 610NAn reepsraV w doMred Im e00111e0 7611141i of ffu Mmflh end 61I10113 Code,
e00"" 66W24 of tee Public nown ees Godo ural $*G& r eOfaAA of Vw Pdit Rnoorwo Go"
hie Ihn a oMy eppaabb for oonbee" WW WOO Afmwfaens wile reyerd to ouftmI reeouroee for the propaeed
fICMAOt a0if 1061; CR4A Mena. of campb>,t1oa; ares ElrMrpnrrrerMef 1lmpeet fespoR (Do11) Idr uw 176 fSe.lt �.1.r ma..t Ap.r�rr.ate Proleok
lmIn the City of Coefe Moet Crerge Coaft, CoMmio.
City of Costa Mesa 10.9 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses Final EIR
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR February 2014
Responses to NAHC
Response NAHC-1
This letter summarizes the responsibilities of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and its
request for consultation with Native American tribes as appropriate. Based on the results of a cultural
resources survey,' included as Appendix B to the Initial Study for the proposed project, there are no
known archaeological resources located on the project site. Additionally, as identified in the Initial Study,
the project will implement the City's standard condition requiring the cessation of construction activities
in the unanticipated event that archeological materials are encountered during construction activities.
Throughout the EIR process the NAHC was advised and copied on all documents. No further response
is required.
1 Atkins, California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) Database Search, and Information -Scoping Results for the Baker Street Apartments Project, City of
Costa Mesa, Orange County, California Qune 30, 2013).
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10.10 City of Costa Mesa
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
J
Final EIR
February 2014
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
■ Orange County Public Works (OCPW), 12/11/2013
Comments
PublileWorks
Integrity, Accountability, Service, Trust
November 19, 2013
Ms. Mei Lee, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Costa Mesa
Planning Division/Development Services Department
77 fair Drive
Costa Mesa, California 92628
OCPW
Shane L SN" P.E- Unctor
900 N. Fimor Stmt
Santa And, CA 92103
P.o. Box 4046
Santa Ana. CSV 92702.4046
Twphana: (714) 067-M
Fax: (714) 967 -OM
NCL 13-041
SUBJECT: Second Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for 125 East
Baker Street Apartment Project
Dear Ms, Lee:
The County of Orange has reviewed the Second Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report for 124 East Baker Apartment Project located in City of Costa Mesa and has no
comments at this time. We would like to be advised of any further developments on the
project. Please continue to keep us on the distribution list for future notifications related to
this project.
Sincerely,
1
f J Olin Modanlou, nage
��
strategic Land PlannI g Divislon
OC Public Warks/OC Planning Services
300 North Flower Street
Santa Ana, California 92702-4048
Polin-modaniou@2gow.oci(ov.com
PM/yj
Received
city ot Costa Mesa
Develooment ServlCOS Department
NOV'2 12013
OCPW-1
City of Costa Mesa 10-11 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses Flnal EIR
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR February 2014
Responses to OCPW
Response OCPW-1
This comment states the County of Orange Public Works Department has reviewed the Draft EIR for
the proposed project and has no comments at this time. No further response is necessary.
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-12
SCH No. 2013081051
City of Costa Mesa
Red Oak Investments, LLC
J
J
Final EIR
February 2014
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
0 Juanefio Bond of Mission Indians (JBMI), 12/11/2013
Comments
JIVIBI
u ai i Ii o 8, a i i d m iM I s s I () i i I n d i �.l Is
AcI.J.ackilier) Natiori
OW
t1l "'J'4 e
AWFI, Uric, M.inrw?
01Y ides* Plarning :ji%:,SiOlic'[,).?.�ti,;;,»,-tiit Servi,:P% r)epr- ;,ii
Re� prqo< Is W, 1171, FSA 3V, he r 5trft-T Ap. a 11TOIN't Up
Ti%ank you for In. 4Y le colwirnerl ci,02S Pail B I KfIf Street Ap,W,i),n I FAR ri,-gardint, Draft 5rmll�nejltwl h 11-pam
JIVIE11-1
NN4, 4"v WiA V)0. proi-Cl. AICA r< tuli<l r.vly Saritow. 4"d rreti'
)w*q 111rwa5jlfe"' 5 hrjj(c" .8k:I
urif'r, wldfor aml Alaukel-cA twor. !Q-t-jr; Aq)ericatj silv!j. .,iqi
Nawa Aj,Ag jr,4p-. v„;Jft!"
a?I'Q 'wr7 1,0i% A tr It -Li -im C-11&rnin w rra M-11! W 0 U 1944 AL* % F -OA I r2i p;-;lw ?dc- -P.Atl $01 FA0
14 etjfVe0,-K' .4 Fg. ESNs i r e Jlz IV.1 Jill. iQ, - .. U 1, ZiL 1;1 iS lr+ "It "L"`"d I N-4 InVIA. "'10 18 " 1--fP IS * :ot'll - L t! PW
at,: M!+*'rj.l! OJ-'V;t FV.'0,9rV L., 4,p.ti.W,', IM [•ljy rejjt :r � NO t!VhT'LCtPCl! of an pay Cr rdjY
;'it it, M nil e %0 , J L'i r in Of P4 5i"r 01 - a 'IAP"q!Z'M W -A W. Jl re gat-Y31CLIS and tnJVJW.W Meat" J)F% JIM61-2
HLK. n--VkrkkiwM !.'n 1'4 ne Aivf�(I" A NO ve At iie. ukn 1#v,.ikpg pt.1 a: .,I" gra la VW -5
t;pt'.h :w Vg, -;:.; will- ! ;n -1 f n the p nol "I V.- 'LC NS a! ltrd'; 61 kes to roe pmwiVogI 1h t.3%;,4h 37qj,,16 n.:a an.:
inr 6qx)j ;1.*! 1 . to jpjv.n tW e a(002.
We (fq0i:-'A rhM' 'Xinolvir w keep vra:i reo abft, rol 1�Pr,'Jer! We - 01, lcrward to the ro5ults 6f;,r
cuftij! 3 1 ;-!.I.d IU full -if -I . in. It',e er...vir3prreota! To :tial er,4. we JM131-3
ltycow'n�:!: 1,innc' 0 0'e futt're.
S,irlcerely
F?01avd L. 'V�k;jhr
Diteetor
Received
cfty of costa mesa
DeviWoDmAnt SGrvlcGs DeP0IltrMnt
DEC 0 2 2013
City of Costa Mesa 10-13 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Responses to JBMI
Response JBMI-1
Final EIR
February 2014
The comment expresses concern that the project area is culturally sensitive. The comment states that site
elevations and mitigation measures should take into consideration the impacts of the proposed project
on potential archeological sites. Based on the results of a cultural resources survey,2 included as J
Appendix B to the Initial Study for the proposed project, there are no known archaeological resources
located on the project site. Additionally, as identified in the Initial Study, the project will implement the
City's standard condition requiring the cessation of construction activities in the unanticipated event that
archeological materials are encountered during construction activities.
Response JBMI-2
This comment restates the CEQA guidelines referring to archeological sites. Refer to Response ]BMI-1.
No further response is necessary.
Response JBMI-3
This comment expresses the commenter's request to be informed regarding the project and states
interest in further participation of the environmental review process. No further response is necessary.
2 Atkins, California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) Database Search, and Information -Scoping Results for the Baker Street Apartments Pr ject, City of j
Costa Mesa, Orange County, California Qune 30, 2013). }
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10.14 City of Costa Mesa )
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
■ Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), 12/20/2013
Comments
C)RANGE COt1NTY
ALUC
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
FCR
ORANGE COUNTY
3160 .Airway Avenue - Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252..5170 fax: 949.252.5178
December 20, 2411
Mel Lee, AIC.P, Senior Planner
City of Costa Mesa/Development Services Department
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
Subject: DFIR for 125 Fast Maker Street Apartment Project
Dear Mr. Lee:
`thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmenial Impact Report (DF.IR) for
the 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project in the context of the Airport Land Use
Commission's Airport Environs Land lr v Plan for John Wayne Airport (JWA AELUP) and
the AFLi1P far !Heliports, "Che proposed project includes replacing an existing office ALUC-1
building and surface parking areas with an apartment building and parking structum. The
project will consist of a five -story 240 unit residential apartment building (63 feet overall
height) that wraps around a six-stM parking structure (57 feet overall height) with 465
parking spaces in the structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces,
■
In addition to the NOP comments we submitted to the city on September 16, 2013 we would
also recommend that the DEIR discuss the project's location within Safety ?one 6 for the
short General Aviation runway. Zone 6 does allow for residential uses, and although there is ALUC-2
a low likelihood of accident occurrence at most airports within this zone, risk concern
primarily is with uses for which potential consequences are severe, primarily uses with high.
intensity.
■
Because of the project's proximity to a noise impacted area, any prospective resident should
be notified of the presence of aircraft overflight. We recommend that the DEIR include a
mitigation measure stating that any residential development in the JWA airport influence area
would be notified of potential aircraft overflight as follows:
"NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY,
ALUC-3
chis property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an
airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some tafthe
annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations Ifbr example.
noise, vibration or odors). hidividual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary front persa►t
to person. You may wish la consider what airport annoyances, (f any, are associated with the
property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to
you, "
City of Costa Mesa 10-15 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
ALLIC DEIR Comments 125 E. Baker
12.20.1 ]
Page 2
Final EIR
February 2014
in addition, the Draft FIR should identify if the project will be impacted by helicopter
overflight due to the close proximity of helicopter arrival and departure operations at JWA
and if the project allows for heliports as defined in the Orange County AELUP for Heliports.
Should the development of heliports occur within your jurisdiedon, pmposals to develop new ALUC-4
heliports must be submitted through the City to the ALUC for review and action pursuant to
Public Utilities Cade Section 21661-5. Proposed heliport projects must comply fully with the
state permit procedure provided by law and with all conditions of approval imposed or
recommended by FAA, by the ALUC for Orange County and by Caltrans/Division of
Aeronautics.
As was noted in your initial study, because this project falls within the JWA AELLT planning
areas and requires a General Plan Amendment, it is recommended that the project be referred
to the Airport Land Use Commission �ALUQ for a Consistency determination with the JWA
AELUP. In this regard, 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.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please contact Lea Choum at
(949) 252-5123 or via email at Ic gum crlcx.sir.cotrt should you have any questions related to
the future referral of your prglcct.
Sincerely,
Kari A. Rigoni
Executive Officer
ALUC-5
Responses to ALUC
Response ALUC-1
This comment provides introductory language and summarizes the proposed project's description. No
further response is necessary.
Response ALUC-2
This comment recommends that the Draft EIR discuss the project's location within Safety Zone 6 for
the short General Aviation runway. In response to this comment, the following text has been added to
Draft EIR page 4.5-3 of the Draft EIR:
NThe . . nthe John Wayne AiWiprt. ■ • S
a.< .sk—fictots and ru Men& having a low likelihood
occurren prts, This zone also includes A other 12ortions of rewAar traffic t2atterns and
■.. • !,.ntLy route,8. alls for . n, n. allow moat
nonresidential uses, Prohibited uses in Safety Zone 6 -include outdoor stadiurns, and sirnilar uses vith
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-16 City of Costa Mesa
SCH • 2013081051 '-• Oak Investments,
Final EIR
February 2014
Response ALUC-3
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
This comment recommends that mitigation be incorporated notify any prospective resident to the
potential of annoyances due to aircraft over flight and proximity to airport operations. In response to this
comment, Draft EIR p. 4.5-8 was amended to reflect this proposed mitigation measure and to follow the
recommendations made by the ALUC as follows:
The proposed project would not exceed 200 feet in height; however the proposed project is located
approximately 4,300 feet from runways at John Wayne Airport and would therefore be required to
submit Form 7460-1 if implementation of the proposed project results in the construction of buildings
that exceed 43 feet in height.
. • G���1. .. 1 . F';R•T�Tt�'�'i'iitf�.i#�'+iRif�i} • � • ... . - . • . �1� Ili:�i
6,7
. I11 h If II ! r I _ •! !�_• f [ , , r A I
Y, L/' rrrrr er! I'
1 r►•ry If' '■ 1 1 I � 1 (■ ( /Ir yI . ! /fl
f f
"1 30, 'mop"'10
-
I / 1' I { r r ,� 1 • r■Ir (I f .I■ 1 ■
I , I ! r . f ■ , I i► (- r r I r '
r, ,I
r , (I rs
r' / 1, ■. /f f/( !' 'r// /' /' /' /� ! ! 'I am1,
'far
Implementatioll of mitigation measure NGM4 5-1 would ensure that the residential occu
npro-osed prriect xyould_he apti&d to the 12msence of an}r artnolrances associated with aimort
aerations. Overall, the City's land use policies generally encourage projects that provide a mix of
uses, are compatible and harmonious with surrounding development, and offer pedestrian amenities
that enhance the image and quality of life and the environment.
Response ALUC-4
This comment provides additional recommendation for the Draft EIR to identify if the project will be
impacted by helicopter over flight due to the close proximity of helicopter arrival and departure
operations at JWA and if the project allows for heliports as defined in the Orange County AELUP for
Heliports. The proposed project does not include the development of a heliport as described in
Section 3.3 (Project Characteristics), Draft EIR p. 3-7, which provides a detailed plan for the residential
City of Costa Mesa 10.17 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
■ I ■ .f , n r , ,�,
,
r � r r
Implementatioll of mitigation measure NGM4 5-1 would ensure that the residential occu
npro-osed prriect xyould_he apti&d to the 12msence of an}r artnolrances associated with aimort
aerations. Overall, the City's land use policies generally encourage projects that provide a mix of
uses, are compatible and harmonious with surrounding development, and offer pedestrian amenities
that enhance the image and quality of life and the environment.
Response ALUC-4
This comment provides additional recommendation for the Draft EIR to identify if the project will be
impacted by helicopter over flight due to the close proximity of helicopter arrival and departure
operations at JWA and if the project allows for heliports as defined in the Orange County AELUP for
Heliports. The proposed project does not include the development of a heliport as described in
Section 3.3 (Project Characteristics), Draft EIR p. 3-7, which provides a detailed plan for the residential
City of Costa Mesa 10.17 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
February 2014
apartment building. Further, as described in Section 4.6 (Noise), Draft EIR p. 4.6-7, the existing heliport
operations were determined to not generate substantial noise within the City. Therefore, no further
response is necessary.
Response ALUC-5
This comment requests that the project be referred to the ALUC for a consistency analysis determination
with the JWA AELUP. Further instruction for follow-up on this matter is provided by the commenter.
No further response is necessary at this time.
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10.18 City of Costa Mesa
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
February 2014 SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
10.2.2 Organizations
■ Citizens Advocating Rational Development (CARD), 12/20/2013
Comments
�A&EM
CARD
Mel Lee
City of Costa Mesa
(714) 754-5245
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200
Re: 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project
SCH #: 2013081051
Dear Mr. Lee,
The undersigned represents Citizens Advocating Rational Development ('CARD"), a non-profit
corporation dedicated to issues in development and growth.
This letter contains comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the 125 East Baker
Street Apartment Project, in accordance with CEQA and the Notice of Completion and Availability.
Please ensure thatthese comments are made a part of the public record.
FNFRGY
The DEIR does not discuss any requirements that the Project adopt energy saving techniques
and fixtures, nor is there any discussion of potential solar energy facilities which could be located on the
roofs of the Project. Under current building standards and codes which all jurisdictions have been
advised to adopt, discussions of these energy uses are critical; the construction of a five -story 240 unit
residential apartment building (63 feet overall height) that wraps around a six -story parking structure
(57 feet overall height) with 465 parking spaces in the structure and 4 outdoor on -grade parking spaces,
will devour copious quantities of electrical energy, as well as other forms of energy.
CARD
CARD -'1
CARD -2
City of Costa Mesa 10.19 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draff EIR
Final EIR
February 2014
WATER SUPPLY
The EIR (or DEIR —the terms are used interchangeably herein) does not adequately address the
issue of water supply, which in California, is a historical environmental problem of major proportions.
What the DEIR fails to do is:
1. Document wholesale water supplies;
2. Document Project demand;
CARD -3
3. Determine reasonably foreseeable development scenarios, both near-term and longterm;
4. Determine the water demands necessary to serve both near -terns and long-term development
and project build -out.
5. Identify likely near-term and long-term water supply sources and, if necessary, alternative
sources,
7. identify the likely yields of future water from the identified sources.;
8. Determine cumulative demands on the water supply system;
9. Compare both near-term and long-term demand to near-term and long-term supply options, to
determine water supply sufficiency;
19. Identify the environmental impacts of developing future sources of water; and
11. Identify mitigation measures for any significant environmental impacts of developing future
water supplies.
12. Discuss the effect of global warming on water supplies. ;ARD -4
There is virtually no information in the DEIR which permits the reader to draw reasonable conclusions
regarding the impact of the Project on water supply, either existing or in the future.
Forthe foregoing reasons, this EIR is fatally flawed.
AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS/CLIMATE CHANGE
The EIR lacks sufficient data to either establish the extent of the problem which local emissions CARR -5
contribute to deteriorating air quality, greenhouse emissions or the closely related. problem of global
warming and climate change, despite the fact that these issues are at the forefront of scientific review
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10.20 City of Costa Mesa
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
due to the catastrophic effects they will have on human life, agriculture, industry, sea level risings, and
the many other serious consequences of global warming.
This portion of the EIR fails for the following reasons:
CARD -5
Cont.
2. The DEIR does not provide any support: or evidence that the Guidelines utilized in the analysis
are in fact supported by substantial evidence. References to the work of others is inadequate unless the
document explains in sufficient detail the manner and methodology utilized by others.
2. Climate change is known to affect rainfall and snow pack, which in turn can have substantial
effects on river flows and ground water recharge. The impact thereof on the project's projected source
of water is not discussed in an acceptable manner. Instead of giving greenhouse emissions and global
CARD -6
warming issues the short shrift that it does, the EIR needs to include a comprehensive discussion of
possible impacts of the emissions from this project.
3. Climate change is known to affect the frequency and or severity of air quality problems, which is
CARD -7
not discussed adequately.
4. The cumulative effect of this project taken with other projects in the same geographical area on
water supply, air quality and climate change is virtually missing from the document and the EIR is totally
deficient in this regard.
CARD -8
For the foregoing reasons, the EIR is fatally flawed.
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
The alternative analysis fails in thatthe entire alternatives -to -the -project section provides no
discussion of the effects of the project; or the absence of the project, on surrounding land uses, and the CARD -9
likely increase in development that will accompany the completion of the project, nor does it discuss the
deleterious effects of failing to update the project upon those same surrounding properties and the land
uses which may or have occurred thereon.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these factors as they pertain to the referenced DEIR. I CARD -10
Very truly yours,
CITIZENS ADVOCATING RATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
NICK R. Green
President
City of Costa Mesa 1021 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses Final EIR
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR February 2014
Responses to CARD
Response CARD -1
This comment contains introductory information and is not a direct comment on the adequacy of the
Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response CARD -2
This comment describes the commenter's opinion on the environmental analysis on energy savings and
the lack of discussion regarding potential solar energy facilities within the Draft EIR. Section 4.10
(Utilities/Service Systems) analyzes the impacts associated with the current energy demand and with the
implementation of the proposed project. As stated on Draft EIR p. 24 under Impact 4.10-8, the
proposed project would be required to comply with the energy conservation measures contained in
Title 24, which would reduce the amount of energy needed for the operation of the building. As Title 24
identifies Building Energy Efficiency Standards applicable to all new construction, the proposed project
would be designed to conserve energy with regards to heating, cooling, ventilation water heating and
lighting.
Additionally, the City of Costa Mesa adheres to the current 2013 California Building Code, including
Chapter 1, Division II; the California Green Building Standards Code which requires the energy
efficiency of the proposed project to be 15 percent above the Tide 24 requirements. Some of the
following design features that would potentially be incorporated into the proposed project to reduce
energy consumption would be:
■ The installation of radiant roof barriers
■ The requirement that all -gas fired space heating equipment have an annual fuel utilization ratio of
0.90 or higher
■ The requirement that all cooling equipment have a seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) higher
than 13.0 and an energy efficiency rating (EER) of at least 11.5
■ The requirement that all gas-fired water heaters have an energy factor of 0.60 or higher
■ The provision of roof space to allow for the future installation of future solar panel or
photovoltaic panels
■ The provision of electrical conduits for future access to solar systems
■ The provision of natural light and ventilation
As the proposed project would include a variety of energy conservation features through the 2013
California Building Code (CALGreen), no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this
comment.
Response CARD -3
This comment claims that the Draft EIR fails to document wholesale water supply, project water
demand, and cumulative demand, as well as water sources.
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10.22 City of Costa Mesa -
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
1
Final EIR CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
February 2014 SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
However, as stated on Draft EIR p. 4.10-2 of Section 4.10 (Utilities/Service Systems), the City of Costa
Mesa is served by two water supply agencies: Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa Water) and Irvine
Ranch Water District (IRWD). Section 4.10 also indicates that Mesa Water is able to meet full service
demands of its member agencies with existing supplies from 2015 through 2035 during normal years,
single dry year, and multiple dry years. Additionally, the potential impact on existing water facilities is
detailed on Draft EIR p. 4.10-7, Impact 4.10-1 and states the proposed project would result in an
increase of less than 1 percent (0.003 percent) to Mesa Water's overall demand as detailed in Mesa
Water's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Specifically, the proposed project's 240
residential units would result in approximately 48,000 gallons per day (gpd), or 53.8 acre-feet per year
(AFY) and the proposed increase in water demand from redevelopment of the site is not expected to
require new or expanded entitlements.
The Draft EIR does provide an analysis of projected normal water supply and demand in normal years
(Table 4.10-1) and projected single -dry -year water supply and demand (Table 4.10-2) for the future years
of 2015 through 2035 as near- and long-term scenarios for water supply demand and has sufficient
sources of water to meet projected needs through the year 2035 during normal, dry, and multiple -dry
years. As mentioned above, the project's 240 residential units would result in approximately 48,000 gpd,
or 53.8 AFY.
Water sources for the proposed project are described on Draft EIR p. 4.10-3 of the "Water Sources"
subsection and states that "water is imported into Orange County via two extensive systems of aqueducts
operated by MWD. At present, the primary source of supply is the Colorado River Aqueduct system. In
addition, Mesa Water owns and operates nine groundwater production wells. Seven of these wells are
currently in operation and have a total design capacity of approximately 14,000 gallons per minute (gpm).
Cumulative analysis within the Draft EIR, Section 4.10.4 (Cumulative Analysis), indicates that
development of cumulative projects within the City of Costa Mesa would demand additional quantities
of water, depending on net increases in population, square footage, and intensity of uses. However, the
proposed increase in water demand from redevelopment of the site is not expected to require new or
expanded entitlements. As previously stated, the Mesa Water UWMP shows that Metropolitan is able to
meet full service demands of its member agencies with existing supplies from 2015 through 2035 during
normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years.
Response CARD -4
The commenter mentions that the Draft EIR fails to compare both near-term and long-term demand to
near-term and long-term supply options, to determine water supply sufficiency. As mentioned in
Response CARD -3, the Draft EIR does provide an analysis of projected normal water supply and
demand in normal years (Table 4.10-1) and projected single -dry -year water supply and demand
(Table 4.10-2) for the future years of 2015 through 2035 as near- and long-term scenarios for water
supply demand, and therefore, addresses water supply sufficiency.
The commenter claims that the Draft EIR fails to identify the environmental impacts of developing
future sources of water. As mentioned in Response CARD -3, the potential impact on existing water
facilities is explained on Draft EIR p. 4.10-7, Impact 4.10-1 discussion, and states the proposed project
would result in an increase of less than 1 percent (0.003 percent) to Mesa Water's overall demand. No
City of Costa Mesa 10.23 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses Final EIR
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR February 2014
additional sources of water were identified as being necessary to serve the proposed project, and thus no
impact analysis of developing such sources was conducted.
The commenter claims the Draft EIR's lack of identification for mitigation measures for "any significant
environmental impacts of developing future water supplies." No significant impacts relating to water
supply were found, and therefore, no mitigation measures were necessary.
The commenter claims that the Draft EIR is required to discuss the effect of global warming on water
supplies. The potential effects of global warniing are discussed in Section 4.3 (Greenhouse Gas
Emissions) on Draft EIR pp. 4.3-1 through 4.3-3. The commenter restates the opinion that the Draft
EIR fails to permit the reader to draw reasonable conclusions, however any or all of the commenter's
concerns are addressed within the Draft EIR and this comment describes the personal opinion and views
of that of commenter. As discussed previously in the responses to comments above, the Draft EIR
provides sufficient information on the adequacy of the City's water supplies in relation to the increase in
demand from this Project. The City has sufficient water supplies to serve the proposed project and no
significant impacts will result from the approval of the proposed project.
Response CARD -5
The commenter claims that the Draft EIR lacks sufficient data to either establish the extent of the
problem which local emissions contribute to a variety of different areas. However, the potential effects of
global warming are discussed in Section 4.3 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) on Draft EIR pp. 4.3-1
through 4.3-3.
The commenter also claims the Draft EIR fails to provide sufficient data that establishes impacts that
local emissions contribute to air quality, greenhouse gases and climate change. Specifically, the
commenter states the Draft EIR does not provide evidence for the Guidelines utilized in the analysis are
in fact supported by substantial evidence. However, the Draft EIR utilizes a variety of sources to
sufficiently analyze the impacts of the proposed project within that of established CEQA Guidelines. As
stated on Draft EIR p. 4.3-13, the 2013 CEQA Guidelines do not establish a threshold of significance
for GHG impacts; instead, lead agencies have the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their
respective jurisdictions. Contrary to the assertion in the comment, the EIR does not merely reference the
work of others, but in fact undertakes a thorough quantitative analysis of the proposed project based on
established methodologies approved by the overseeing agency, in this case the SCAQMD.
The SCAQMD has proposed screening level thresholds for projects such that projects that fall below
3,000 MT CO2e annually are considered to comply with the GHG emission reduction strategy as
mandated by AB 32. The analytic method described on Draft EIR p. 4.3-15 mentions that the proposed
project would result in a net total of 1,885.78 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in GHG emissions above the 3,000 MT COZe per year screening level
threshold established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD). This impact is
considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10.24 City of Costa Mesa }
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
Response CARD -6
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
The commenter claims that the Draft EIR does not include a comprehensive discussion regarding the
impact climate change has on rainfall and snowpack, and gives the opinion that such resulting impacts
are not discussed in an acceptable manner. However, contrary to the claims of the commenter, the Draft
EIR fully evaluates the impacts of the proposed project on water supply, air quality, and greenhouse gas
emissions in Draft EIR Section 4.2 (Air Quality), Section 4.3 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), and
Section 4.10.While the emissions are clearly identified and the resulting effects of global GHG emissions
are discussed in Section 4.3, the incremental effect of the project's emissions on macro -level processes
such as rainfall and snow pack dynamics cannot be quantified. Attempting to draw a direct link between
the project's GHG emissions and changes in climate would be speculative at best.
Response CARD -7
The commenter claims that climate change may potentially affect the frequency and or severity of air
quality problems and that such an impact is not discussed adequately. The comment is not clear and
provides no supporting data, references, or sources to explain what specific problems are of concern, or
why the analysis provided in the Draft EIR is inadequate. Further, the comment does not explain what
would constitute adequacy. The EIR discusses numerous effects of climate change on the environment
and discusses the potential increased risk of large wildfires, the rise in sea levels, a reduction in the quality
and quantity of certain agricultural products, and the exacerbation of air quality problems, along with
other potential effects. Carbon dioxide, which is the primary source of GHGs, is identified in
Table 4.2-5, Draft EIR p. 4.2-21, as a cause of increased occurrence of cardiovascular and respiratory
diseases and other chronic conditions. Air quality impacts are thoroughly analyzed in Draft EIR
Section 4.2, and air quality impacts from the occupancy and use of the project were determined to be less
than significant with the implementation of mitigation.
Response CARD -8
The commenter expresses concern that the Draft EIR is missing analysis accounting for the cumulative
effect of the proposed project in regards to other projects in the same geographical area on air quality,
climate change and water supply. This claim is untrue, as the Draft EIR considers cumulative impacts
and such impacts are specifically taken into consideration for each respective impact section of the Draft
EIR. Cumulative impacts related to air quality are analyzed beginning on Draft EIR p. 4.2-26. Global
climate change emissions are inherently cumulative; therefore, the project impacts would be identical to
the cumulative impacts. Cumulative impact analysis relating to water supply is provided on Draft EIR
p. 4.10-8. No additional cumulative analysis is required. No further response is necessary in regards to
this comment.
Response CARD -9
The commenter continues to express that the Draft EIR fails to discuss the effects of the project, or the
absence of the project, on surrounding land uses, and the likely increase in development that will
accompany the completion of the project. The commenter also mentions that the Draft EIR fails to
discuss "deleterious effects of failing to update the project upon those same surrounding properties and
the land uses which may or have occurred thereon." The Draft EIR specifically takes into consideration
City of Costa Mesa 10.25 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
February 2014
the potential effects of alternative projects throughout the respective analysis sections of the Draft EIR
and furthermore continues to analyze the impacts of considered alternatives to the proposed project
within Chapter 6 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project). The potential impacts of the alternatives to the
proposed project are looked at length in this particular and start on Draft EIR p. 6-4.
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-26
SCH No. 2013081051
City of Costa Mesa
Red Oak Investments, LLC
J
J
Final EIR
February 2014
10.2.3 Individuals
■ Richard Crawford (RICR), 11/06/2013
Comments
Crawford
CUSTOM HOMES
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
November 4, 2013Revolved
City of Cc-ita Mein
DAvelopme-, tor°- "s Doportmenl
City of Costa Mesa
Ilonorabie Mayor Jim Righeimer, NOV a 6 2014
lionorablc Mayor Pro Tern Stephen Mensingcr
Honorable City Council Members
Planning Commissioners and City Planning Staff
77 Fair Drive,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
As a business owner in the City of Costa Mesa, I am writing with some very pertinent concerns
about the potential development of Apartment housing in the industriallmanufac-turinglofSice
area bounded on the corner of Baker and Pullman off the 55 Freeway at 125 Baker Street.
I have been in my office/warehouse location doing business just a block away from this proposed
project for 28 years and have seen much of the business development and re -development
happen in this area. The impact on businesses, parking, traffic and upkeep of the streets
surrounding this area with the change in use of industrial to a mix of industrial and office has
been tremendous. Much of the change has been for the betterment for both business and the City
of Costa Mesa.
Now there is a request to include a "Class A" apartment of high density with a zoning change for
this area. As a builder and experienced development individual, I feel this is a misplaced 11
improvement, against reasonable land planning and zoning requirements and should he rejected
in no uncertain terms for the following reasons: e
I. This is NOT a residential area. The project will have no supportive infrastrwture ■
adjoining the property. There is no market, laundry, fast or fine dining, no coffee house,
no park, no sidewalks, no playground, nothing that a "Class A" apartment would need to
support success.
2. There is significant current traffic impact already and this development would add to the
congestion. At peak traffic times getting on and off the 55/403 freeways and 73 toll road
is a nightmare. The transition road and off -ramp from the 55 and 73 at various times of
the day — especially during the morning work commute and at evening rush hour takes
multiple lights to get through. The Baker street overpass with 2 existing lights bunches
traffic up as it comes from RedhilUAristoVand all of the adjoining streets, Adding
another signal to dump more cars onto Baker with nowhere to go??? Really this is not
going to be satisfactory at all. ■
RICR
RICR-11
RICR-2
RICR-3
RICR-4
The parking must be totally contained for ALL residents on the property site because
there is NO available street parking during the work day and there is also impact at night RICR-5
with the church events in the evening.
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite 8-1. Costa Mesa, California 92626 714,545.0904 Crawrtwd CustomNomcs-corn
City of Costa Mesa 10.27 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
4. The definition of "Class A" apartments means a highly detailed and attractive product in
y1ell located area. 'I his is an industrial park area! The person looking to rent a high end
(high rent) apartment will seek a location that is much more attractive, It is hard to
compete with other desirable locations both in and out of the City: If the City wants to
attract more renters it should take the lead to locate "Class A" and other levels of higher RICR-6
density residential in a more logical and good planning manner, Exceptions to the
general plan should be very well thought out and look to umsition the City from a
current use to a use with a future vision for redevelopment. That is not the case at 125
Baker Street, Perhaps if this project was located adjoining the Camp and Lab properties
or other planning area that the City of Costa Mesa could identify?
Pica= take very camf'ully review these concerns and perhaps find a way to guide development t
RICR-7
o
a better suited arra of the City.
( nppreciute your hard work for the citirrns and hu�iness owners of Costa Mesa,
Res fully,
Richard F [gawk)
Pnsident
Crawford Custom Homes
Final EIR
February 2014
Responses to RICR
Response RICR-1
This comment contains introductory and anecdotal language, and does not address the adequacy or
accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response RICR-2
This comment expresses concern over including "Class A" apartments within the proposed project area.
This comment pertains to the proposed 125 E. Baker Street Project itself and does not address the
adequacy or accuracy of information presented in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response RICR-3
This comment claims that the proposed 125 E. Baker Street Project is misplaced due to the existing
location not being a residential area and has no surrounding amenities to support the project's economic
success. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy or accuracy of the information presented in the
Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response RICR-4
This comment claims that the proposed 125 E. Baker Street Project is misplaced due to potentially
significant traffic impacts. The comment provides anecdotal evidence relating to traffic during peak
hours from getting on and off the SR -55/I-405 freeway and SR -73 toll road. The Draft EIR does
provide a detailed analysis of existing and proposed traffic conditions regarding the proposed project in
Section 4.9 (Transportation/Traffic), including the projects effects at the Baker Street and SR -55
northbound and southbound on/off-ramps. As shown in Table 4.9-7 (Year 2016 Peak Hour Intersection
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 1028 City of Costa Mesa -�
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
February 2014 SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
LOS Analysis), and Table 4.9-8 (General Plan Buildout Peak Hour Intersection LOS Analysis), the
proposed project would not result in a decrease in level of service at the Baker Street and SR -55 on/off-
ramps. While the project's impact to the Red Hill Avenue/Baker Street intersection under the General
Plan Buildout scenario was considered a potentially significant impact, with implementation of mitigation
measures MM4.9-1, MM4.9-2, and MM4.9-3, this impact would be reduced to less than significant, as
shown in Table 4.9-10 (Traffic LOS with Implementation of Mitigation) Draft EIR p. 4.9-17. Therefore,
contrary to the commenter's claims, the proposed project would not result in significant traffic impacts.
Response RICR-5
This comment represents the commenter's opinion regarding parking on the property site and that the
lack available street parking may be problematic to the proposed development with the neighboring
church events in the evening. The Draft EIR evaluated whether the proposed project would result in
inadequate parking capacity on Draft EIR pp. 4.9-20 and 4.9-21. The Draft EIR determined that the
provision of 452 spaces for the 240 residential units would be more than adequate and parking impacts
would be less than significant.
Response RICR-6
This comment expresses concern over including "Class A" apartments within the proposed project area.
This comment pertains to the proposed 125 E. Baker Street Project itself and does not address the
adequacy or accuracy of information presented in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response RICR-7
This comment states the commenter's request for his written concerns to be carefully reviewed and that
those comments might help the project be guided to abetter suited area of the city. This comment does
not address the adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is
necessary.
City of Costa Mesa 10.29 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
■ Bill Dunlap (BIDU), 12/06/2013
Comments
December 3, 2013
City of Costa Mesa
Honorable Mayor Jim Righeimer
Honorable Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Mensinger
Honorable City Council Members
Planning Commissioners and City Planning Staff
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92676
Subject: Baker Street Apartments- Red Oak Development
Final EIR
February 2014
BIDU
M
As President and Partner of Slater Builders Inc. located at 3100 Pullman Street, I feel it
pertinent that I write to you regarding the above referenced development proposal. In the
almost 20 years that our company has been located in the Redhill area we have seen the slow
progression of new office conversion from the original light manufacturing that existed in the
'60s and '70s. This transition has trended along with other areas of Costa Mesa i.e. the BIDU-1
Westside area of 17'h Street and Placentia, Our current building at 3100 Pullman was once light
manufacturing and we converted it for Trico Realty to an office use. Along with this change has
come the off business hour use of buildings for religious purposes. There are five religious
organizations now occupying buildings in the Redhill zone.
The Red Oak proposal for upscale housing apartments will be a compatible fit for the area as It
will compliment the existing office and religious uses. One does not have to venture far to find
live/work uses in numerous parts of Orange County, The proposed project is on an Isolated
piece of property which is well suited for residential use. There are ample support services in
the immediate neighborhood on Bristol and Baker as well as at Bristol and Redhill. Our
Company has looked with numerous developers at adjacent properties for retail use which BIDU-2
would support a residential project. The current office building is very out dated and not
desirable In the current market as an office complex. The conversion of the use to residential
would have a definite tax increase for the city and be a significant benefit to the Redhill area.
I fully support the change in use and the proposed development by Red Oak Investments
Sincerely,
Recolveed
:11rAA.011 City of Costa Mesa
Bill Dunlap Development Services Department
President S L A T E fl B U I L p f R S l fi�4 ° 6 Z013
3100-13 Pullman 5lrtemi, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel; (714) 4344887 Fax. (714) 434-6173 www s nterburkders vnrr License 9675832
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-30 City of Costa Mesa
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
Responses to BIDU
Response BIDU-1
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
This comment contains introductory and anecdotal language and does not address the adequacy or
accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response BIDU-2
This comment states the commenter's approval of the proposed project as it will be "a compatible fit for
the area as it will complement the existing and religious uses and states the proposed project is well suited
for residential use due to it being an isolated piece of property. The commenter also provides the opinion
that states there are ample support services in the project vicinity, with the addition of having personal
experience of communicating with numerous retail developers. It should be noted the commenter "fully
support(s) the change in the proposed development by Red Oak Investments." No further response is
necessary.
City of Costa Mesa 10.31 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
■ Mike Harrison (MIHA), 12/06/2013
Comments
'AmIlki., MIHA
1,/
TRICO
REALM INC
December 6, 2013
Mel Lee
City of Costa Mesa, Planning Division
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92628
RE: 125 East Baker Street Apartments
Dear Mr. Lee, T
Trico Realty, Inc. is in favor of the proposed High Density Residential Development at 125 East Baker j
Street Costa Mesa, CA 92625, We agree with the City of Costa Mesa's Environmental Impact Report II
stating that the proposed project will not have significant impacts on visual character, construction, or ' MIHA-1
other aspects relating to the enjoyment of the immediate vicinity of the proposed project as a working
environment.
With this being said, a traffic study has indicated that the proposed project will have a very significant
impact on congestion on Pullman Street near and at its Intersection with Baker Street. Trico Realty
strongly endorses the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Pullman and Baker. We believe MIHA-2
that if the city intends to approve a high density residential project at an already congested intersection,
it has an indisputable obligation to mitigate current and future congestion.
Sincerely,
Mike Harrison
Vice President and CFO
Alex Remo
Property Manager
Brokerage 1 Development 1 Management
3100-A Pullman Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 751-4420 Fax(714)540-W9
www tricorealty.com DRE LD. 00342120
T:JUe%%131 206-. 125E Baker EIR Camrwemt clock
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-32
SCH No. 2013081051
Final EIR
February 2014
City of Costa Mesa
Red Oak Investments, LLC
1
Final EIR
February 2014
Responses to MIHA
Response MIHA-1
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
This comment contains introductory and anecdotal language and does not address the adequacy or
accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response MIHA-2
The commenter states support for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Pullman and
Baker and gives support of the mitigation measures outlined in Section 4.9 (Transportation/Traffic). As
identified in Table 4.9-10 (Traffic LOS with Implementation of Mitigation), with implementation of
mitigation measures MM4.9-1, MM4.9-2, and MM4.9-3, traffic impacts at the Pullman Street/Baker
Street intersection would be reduced to less than significant. Further, the project applicant would be
responsible for the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. No further response is
necessary.
City of Costa Mesa 10-33 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
■ Kim Josephson (KIJO), 12/09/2013
Comments
R e a T e c h KILO
December 9, 2013
Honorable Mayor James Righeimer
Honorrible Mayor Pira Tem Stephen Mensinger
Honorable City Council Members
Planning Commissioners and City Planning Staff
CITY OF COSTA MFSA
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa CA 92626
Sent vie USPS
Re: Poteutiarl Multi Family Rexane — SEC Baker Street/ Newport {5511 Freeway
To Whom It May Concent:
My Linn recently purchased and completely remodeled our building at 3199 E Airport Loop
Drive; we relocated our office frolrr Dove Street in Newport Beach. Quer new building,
previously consisting ofwarehottse and storefront, is now predominantly office. We believe KIJO-1
that we have upgraded our offices significantly and have added value for our neighbors in
Costa Mesa. The recent repaving of Redhill was another well needed improvement to the
west -side of John Wayne Airport.
■
It has come to our attention that the 125 Baker Street building desires a rezone to multi-
family residential units instead of office space. My Gem and I applaud the concept and fully
support the rezone. The current office building is functionally obsolete; in order to bring the
building to current office leasing standards, the building would need to be demolished; KIJO-2
current economics will not allow that, so the building will attract low, or no, rent paying
tenants and will slowly depreciate into a biggereyesore.
Imine has integrated residential into the Business Complex Frequently with success; retail
uses have followed, making the community much more vibrant due its mixed use nature.
Newport Beach has also allowed residential to be developed in Kali Center Newport. it
makes total sense to have residential closer to the workplace. Mariner's Church School, KIJO-3
Rock Harbor Church, the trampoline venter on Airway, the bike store on Airway, all uses that
have made the West side of the Airport a more attractive and interesting environment. Multi-
family residential will enhance the trend.
Sincerely,
RFA;, ESTATE. R I,ctramcs TFcn!vr LOGY, INC
/4,
Kim Josephson
Kt►nJwephaww 6tJv�ephsar7�rpur-tcachai�7�.cam 657,210.5651
5199 Airport Loop Drava, Bldg E, Carta Meso, CA 92626
DRE License No, 712155
Final EIR
February 2014
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-34 City of Costa Mesa -- J
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
Responses to KIJO
Response KIJO-1
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
This comment contains introductory and anecdotal language and does not address the adequacy or
accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response KIJO-2
This comment provide the opinion that the current office building as "functionally obsolete" and that
the building would need to be demolished in order to meet current office leasing standards. This
comment expresses the commenter's support of the proposed project and does not address the adequacy
or accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response KIJO-3
This comment provides the commenter's experience with integrated residential uses and the potential it
has to create a more vibrant community due to its mixed nature. This comment expresses the
commenter's support of the proposed project and does not address the adequacy or accuracy of
information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
City of Costa Mesa 10-35 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draff EIR
■ Gary Lukas (GALU), 12/12/2013
Comments
Final EIR
February 2014
Capata, Julian F G`A►L.0
From. LEE, MEL IMEL.LEE@costamesaca.govj
Sent: Thw'sday, December 12, 2013 11:18 AM
To: Gapata, Julian F; 'Joe Flanagan';'pnaghavil@yahoo.com"
Subject: FW: 125 Baker it
Another comment FYI.
MR' lan, AICP
Senior Planner
itiry of Coma Ansa
771=aa Dawe, Costa Mesa. 92626
Ph. (714) 764-5611 Fax- (714) 754-4266
mel.leoC M61amesaea.aov
%c1Sta
1Fronx Garry Lukas rmailtro:garTyc&azm iric.cofl9l �-
Sent- Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:02 AM
To: PLANNING COMMISSION; RIGHEIMER, JIM; Stephan,nmisinger0costarresaca.9ov; LEECE, WENDY; GENIE,
SANDRA; MiONAHAN, GARY
Cc: )HorianCaol.com: Dan Hirt; sm.illen+nstillen.com: KHKHKHKHKHKHKH
Subject: 125 Baker St
To those whom it should concern: �
I
I attended the 12-09-13 Planning meeting.
After 6 hours of waiting, at 11:0OPM. GALU-1
I was given less than 4 minutes to orate in front of fatigued commissioners.
They seemed like they could care less.
It was a waste of time for everybody.
The 125 Baker 5t tenement proposal will mix high density residential with manufacturing.
GALu-2
They will be right on top of each other.
The 1:25 Baker property is not unique!
It is an integral piece of this industrial park.
GALU-3
The 125 Baker property is not uniquel
It is an integral piece of this industrial park.
You are placing this crowded tenement in the middle of the industrial park!
Is this what they teach in planning school? GALU-4
To mix incompatible zones?
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-36
SCH No. 2013081051
City of Costa Mesa
Red Oak Investments, LLC
J
Final EIR
February 2014
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
A
is this not THE problem on the west side, mixed zoning?
Is that part of your general pian to mix zones and become a Santa Ana?
GALU-5
We do not address the quality of living instead it's all about the money.
We will have children playing in industrial lots and paint booths across the street from homes.
■
l am pleading with you folks to come to your senses.
For 17 years we have enjoyed the professional atmosphere of this industrial park.
We originally relocated from Santa Ana for this very reason of residents too ;lose in proximity. GALU-6
Don't force us to relocate again!
Shame on Joe and Alex for telling you lies, they know better.
GALU-7
Mixing industrial with residential is dangerous, irresponsible and wrong.
Garry iukas
A2 Mfg Inc.
200 Briggs. Av
92626
The IS team in Atkins has scanned this email and any attachments for viruses and other threats; however no
technology can be guaranteed to detect all threats. Always exercise caution before acting on the content of an
email and before opening attachments or following links contained within the email.
City of Costa Mesa 10-37 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses Final EIR
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR February 2014
Responses to GALU
Response GALU-1
This comment contains anecdotal language regarding the December 9, 2013, Planning Commission
Meeting and his attendance thereof. This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of
information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response GALU-2
The commenter expresses his opinion that the 125 E. Baker Street project would be in too close
proximity to industrial manufacturing. Draft EIR Section 4.5 (Land Use/Planning) addresses the
potential impacts the proposed project may encounter with respect to land use and planning. The Draft
EIR specifically analyzes the potential impact of changing the existing Industrial Park land use to that of
high density residential use. Land use compatibility issues between sensitive land uses and existing
industrial businesses that could result in potential impacts involving aesthetics, air quality/odors,
hazardous materials, and noise. However, a less -than -significant impact would occur to the proposed
residential uses following compliance with the established regulatory framework, conditions of approval,
and specified mitigation measures. A condition of approval has been incorporated requiring notification
to future residents that the project is located within an area designated as Light Industry and subject to
existing and potential annoyances/inconveniences associated with industrial land uses. Therefore, the
project would not be incompatible with the surrounding land uses. No revisions to the Draft EIR are
required in response to this comment.
Response GALU-3
This comment expresses the opinion of the commenter that the 125 E. Baker Street property is not a
unique property and is an integral piece of the existing industrial park. This comment does not address
the adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response GALU-4
The commenter expresses his opinion that the 125 E. Baker Street project would be in too close
proximity to industrial manufacturing. Refer to Response GALU-2. This comment does not address the
adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR, and no further response is necessary.
Response GALU-5
The commenter expresses his opinion that the 125 E. Baker Street project would be in too close
proximity to industrial manufacturing. Refer to Response GALU-2. As mentioned previously, Draft EIR
Section 4.5 addresses the potential impacts the proposed project may encounter with respect to Land I�
Use and Planning and have respectively been found to be of no impact or less -than -significant impact. 1
This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR and
no further response is necessary.
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-38 City of Costa Mesa -
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
w
Final EIR
February 2014
Response GALU-6
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
The commenter expresses his opinion that the 125 E. Baker Street project would be in too close
proximity to industrial manufacturing. Refer to Response GALU-2.This comment does not address the
adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response GALU-7
The commenter expresses his opinion that the 125 E. Baker Street project would be in too close
proximity to industrial manufacturing. Refer to Response GALU-2. This comment does not address the
adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
City of Costa Mesa 10-39 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
■ Michael Manclark (MIMA), 12/12/2013
Comments
Final EIR
February 2014
i
MIMA
Leading Edge Aviolon Services
3132 Atway Avenue
LEADING EDGE Costa Mesa, Catlbmle 92626
Awa rra]rt Set vtcc s, Inc-. P: 714.556.0376 F: 714.5:56.4023
December 12, 2013
Honorable Mayor Jaynes Righeimer
Honorable Mayor ProTett Stephen Mensinger
Honorable City Council Members
Planning Commissioners and City Planning Staff
CITY OF COSTA MESA
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa CA 92626
Sent via USPS
Re: Multi Family Rezone —125 Baker Street
Dear Council and Commission:
leading Edge Aviation Services is heatiquartered in Costa Mesa and employs over 1000 employees
locally and across the country. As a contractor to companies such as Boeing Company, United Airlines,
American Airlines, et al the company has a vested interest in local development in Costa Mesa to support
job growth, economic growth and improvements in irlfrtlstMcture, particularly as it relatcs to roads, MINA -1
commercial and residential properties. In fact, Leading Edgc has and continues to invest in Costa Mesa
and last year completed its new corporate headquarters located on Airway Avenue just down the street
from 125 Baker.
As a business owner, investor and resident of the area J have wi messed firsthand the evolution of die 01
surrounding area from heavy manufacturing to lite manufacturing, retail, professional services as well as
the schools and churches that have contributed to a diverse demographic blend. The area, while once an MINA -2
industrial arca has slowly over time become an eclectic unix of uses. This progression in the local area
lends itself to the addition of high-end apartment housing as a perfect complement to the current mix of
businesses.
From Segerstrom Performing Arts Center, South Coast Plaza and Metro Pointe to Triangle Square and
East 17th Street Promenade, the business -friendly Costa Mesa reflects this unique confluence of
business/retail and residential. The Red Oak Housing proposal is a natural extension of the "Costa Mesa
Advantage" in the Redhill Zone. MINA -3
Leading Edge Aviation Services offers 100% support for the rezone of this area and the development of
this upscale housing project. 1111111
Sincerely,
W. Michael N1an�,larr
Chairman and Founder
Expert. Innovative. Consistem,
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-40
SCH No. 2013081051
City of Costa Mesa
Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
Responses to MIMA
Response MIMA-1
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
This comment contains introductory and anecdotal language and does not address the adequacy or
accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary.
Response MIMA-2
This comment provides support for the proposed project as it would complement existing uses in the
area.. This comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the Draft
EIR, but rather the personal opinion and views of that of commenter. No further response is necessary.
Response MIMA-3
This comment provides support for the proposed project. This comment does not address the adequacy
or accuracy of information provided in the Draft EIR, but rather the personal opinion and views of that
of commenter. No further response is necessary.
City of Costa Mesa 10.41 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
10.2.4 Oral Comments
■ Planning Commission Meeting (PC), 12/9/2013
Comments
Public Comments from Planning Application 125 East Baker Street
Speaker One.
Good evening, Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa resident, I am going to surprise you
all. I actually think it's a good project for where ii is. I don't have any real
problems for it. I think the area is use appropriate. I think it serves as a significant
part of the community and provides a appropriate utilization. The developer is
going to in fact handle what I can see as most of the traffic mitigation issues in
that setting. So I do not have a problem with this project at all except one thing
and only one thing and it really has to do with setting precedence. And in the
General Plan Amendment for this project it is listing that 1901 Newport is an
exception and is precedence setting for them to get approval of a higher level of
property utilization in that it says that specifically the General Plan says nothing
over four stories south of the 405 freeway, This is south of the 405 freeway and
1901 is. 1901 does have a parking structure that is higher than four stories but
that is still less in actual height than the four story housing that is around it. So
you cannot even see the parking from if you are standing in a car in the parking
lot you can't see past the residence houses around so it's also in a different type
of land, different place, different issues. So the use of a precedence setting
concerns me not because they are using it to get the project built but because of
what it means the future land use in Costa Mesa in the area south of the 405
freeway if we start having every little step be a precedence setter and i think Mr.
Mathews you brought up the fact that this whole meeting is a whole lot of
precedence settings and exceptions in that and I agree with that statement The
reality is that what we are talking about here is that the precedence setting of
significance of looking at a residence facility, a housing facility, that will now push
that envelope up. The concern Is that somewhere south of the 405 freeway we
now get two others or three others projects that come in here say you know we
really cannot do this project without being five and half to six stories tall and the
housing element and well if we have to park it we will have to have a seven story.
So as we go we keep on increasing the height of projects south of the 405
freeway. I would much rather see that first of in the LUICIC.2 policy in the
General Pian that instead of just land both exceptions that they say these two
cannot be used as a precedence setting in other general utilization to do housing
ect_ If that was happening then I would be a perfectly happy camper. The project
said I like. I don't have any problem with it. It may be sensical to in fact make
that exception but in fact then change the General Plan that's in process right
now change that to include within that area north of the 405 freeway because in
essence it is the same kind of property.
Final EIR
February 2014
PC
PC -1
PC -2
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10.42 City of Costa Mesa
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
Speaker Two
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
My name is Gary Lucas, AZ Manufacturing, I am sixty feet away from ground
zero. Ground zero being the front entrance of this tenement, The problem I have
if you can see that for a moment ignore the zones because we have basically
have an industrial parte with a couple of commercial zones in there and I do not
know why they were labeled commercial. When I talked to people about that park
they said really that is zoned different. When you go through that whole thing it is
one cohesive park. Now the next one the little red dot there actually that is four
acres that Joe and Alex want to build that is south of the freeway. There is
nothing general public south of the freeway. No gas stations, no restaurants,
nothing that the general public wants to go there. You put those six hundred
people in there in that tenement and they have to egress out of there, they are
going through the entire industrial park. This is where I want to start reading.
Sovereignty is not given it's taken and that's what's happening here. A vote for
rezoning is to vote for our trade away industrial sovereignty for Joe and Alex's
game. In 1970 a poor decision was made to zone 125 Baker street property as
commercial even though everything that surrounds it is zoned industrial park. For
this reason some people have labeled this property unique. This property is not
unique. It is geographically integrate, apart of the entire industrial complex,
Everyone I spoke with was surprised to learn this. Four years later along come
Joe and Alex telling us it's a good idea to allow dense residential in this industrial
manufacturing zone. That's like saying that is good to put a cigar lounge in an
airplane. I believe they are contused with some of Costa Mesa other future vision
products. Some commercial residential mixed zoned changes are positive. An
apartment over a laundry mat, a condo across from an eater this project is not
one of those. Even by Joe and Alex's own admission this one's got more hurdles
despite the hyperbole written in the EIR. The properties immediately surrounding
the proposed tenement are all manufacturing. It's an Industrial park. Joe and
Alex's proposal actually creates the same conditions the City is now trying to
clean up on the west side. Mixed industrial residentially zoning that's what this
will be it is surrounding look manufacturing. Joe and Alex have gone through a
great deal of time and money to convince you to vote in favor of mixed
manufacturing and residential and have you feel good about it, The location
choice is not because it's an ideal or practical safe residential site rather the
existing property is financial prey sub skeptical this kind of rezone pup petering.
PC -3
The amount of units chosen for this tenement is not because the numbers are
ecological or acceptable standards rather the number chosen to maximize their
investment. They want to put a dense residential high rise tenement buikiing
smack in the middle of an industrial park against a freeway across from an airport
and they would have you believe that this is a good idea. This is not another PC4
NIMBY project this is a life changing proposal targeted against those that have
invested years decades establishing reputations and commerce here. We relish
our present reputable location and the professional business atmosphere. Am
going am going Jim. My personal opinion is that this proposed tenement will tum
into a relocation carrousel folks will find it difficult navigating about the area
City of Costa Mesa 10-43 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Final EIR
February 2014
traffic, parking, and structure itself, A lot of people living in tight industrial area will
no doubt have complaints that turn into litigation. It will never be a cohesive part
of the surrounding business community. The incompatibility will create problems.
Santa Ana's zoned to suite policies are one of the primary factors for the overall
lower real estate values in that city. Joe and Alex's zoned to suite proposal is the
same mistake. A quickie return for an eternity of lowered rents. There is a reason PC -4
for zoning, To protect everyone, to protect communities, by separation zones that cont -
we don't have children playing in industrial yards and paint booths across the
street from where you live. Zoning is the toot to retain the quality of life; value
land use, and respect. Zoning is not to manipulate for profit. The council has to
decide whether this was meant for the council my apologies has to decide
whether to finically favor the existing commerce or Joe or Alex. This is not a
compromise able situation. Thank you.
Speaker Three
Good evening members of the Council my name is Max?? I am a tenant at this �
location currently and my question is not so much environmental as with the
process is involved. We have a four year lease. We are one year into it so I was
just wondering yah know we invested substantially in the infrastructure and so PC -5
forth with the process that, is moving forward and what types of notice we would
be given if this project were to move forward. Jim Fitzpatrick said ok let me see if
we can get you an answer_
■
Speaker Four
Hi my name is Anne Lucas, I am Gary's wife, and I am co -yawner of AZ
Manufacturing at 200 Brigs. Um thank you Commission for giving me a few
minutes of your time. First of all I don't know reading the IRR, the EIR I cannot
really understand it its very confusing but 1 didn't really see in there the measures
taken to address the traffic situation that will be caused by this project_ Um first of
all it said um that the traffic will be in and out of the apartments at opposing times PC -6
as the work day. Um first of all not everyone works 9 to 5. Um so that's kinds
mute, Urn the traffic on Pullman and on Brigs and on Baker there are big rigs full
of materials, heavy materials, pallets, boxes, and such coming in and out all
hours of the day. Um there are often more than one at a time because there is
more than obviously more than one business in that particular manufacturing
area. Um our hours of operation are from 6:30 to 11:30pm um which would PC -7
cause noise issues with the tenants if this project is approved, Pullman is urn a
heavily traveled rode most of the from time cars are parked from Baker to
Calmus on a daily basis. Red Oak is telling you that the six story parking
structure will handle all this cars belonging to the tenants_ 1 do not believe this to
be true. Um I would like to propose, urn this is just an observation, that I have PC -8
had lately, um I mould like to propose that you don't the members of the
Commission go to a five to six story parking structure and a busy time of day and
drive up and drive down tell me how long that takes you. And you do that twice
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-44 City of Costa Mesa - -�
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
day. Um I have been doing this on a daily basis sometimes twice a day um for
doctor's appointments in the last six months and I can personally tell you that
street parking is preferred over the parking structure. And it is a five story parking
structure and it takes sometimes 5 to 10 minutes to get to the top because
people well they drive slow, can't get into the spots what have you. Um then you
have getting onto Baker from Pullman across to access the freeway some days
at 5 o'clock it takes twenty minutes to get out onto Baker and then a couple of
lights to actually get on the freeway itself whether it be north or south bound. And
a new light will only make matters worse in my opinion You will have four traffic
lights in less then one quarter of a mile. That in it self causes traffic as well as
frustrations for drivers trying going home. Um Redhill and the 55 Redhill and the
5 at Tustin there are six lights in a quarter of mile. That is a total disaster that is
where we live we avoid that at all cost, Um I looking at the EIR I just don't believe
that the issue has been um properly addressed due as to the traffic and um the
parking and all of that stuff and you have 240 residences right across from high
manufacturing facility in between high end auto motive repair, and maintenance,
car repair to name a few. And then you have the freeway and the airport. I just
don't see where this makes much sense, Thank you.
Speaker 5
My name is Mike Harrison and I represent Trico Reality. We have a portfolio of
multi tenant industrial parks about 400,000 square feet in Costa Mesa. Um we
have an office at 3100 Pullman Street which is couple of blocks south of Baker
and so I am very familiar with the territory. Um oddly enough I have been a
member the Commission that evaluated recommendations for the west side a
few years ago. The Council in its wisdom decided not to adopt what our
Commission recommended and so I have been an opponent of residential
development filtrated within our industrial area on the west side. In this case I
have to tell you I think this is an appropriate land use. I think it is a very well
conceived project. Um it maybe across the freeway but it relates to the apartment
development, residential development, on the other side of the 55 Um for me
personally I look at the intersection of Pullman and Baker Street as disaster
waiting to happen in the current situation, And I think the traffic mitigation issues
that are proposed here would Improve that intersection considerably, it's
relatively a tough situation and even though the traffic would increase I think the
traffic is counter to the usual industrial traffic or business traffic in the area. So I
actually think this would be a very positive development and I support it 100
percent, And Commissioner McCarthy I think you asked about the industrial
alternatives and I would say if you look at what is going on in that area
increasingly heavy industrial manufacturing uses are not the current use
transition that is going on you see more creative office space. You see lighter
industrial uses and that's what we see in our properties and so I am very
comfortable with this development. And I would encourage you to be supportive,
I think it is well thought out. And I would be in support. Thank you.
PC -8
cont.
PC -9
PG -10
PC -11
City of Costa Mesa 10-45 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses Final EIR
SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR February 2014
Responses to PC
Response PC -1
This comment contains introductory and anecdotal language. The commenter states general approval of
the proposed project while stating the proposed project will be able to handle all the stated traffic issues
through the proposed mitigation measures. No further response is necessary.
Response PC -2
The commenter expresses concern that the project would establish precedence for building height for
projects south of the Interstate 405 Freeway in the surrounding area. As described in Section 4.5 (Land
Use/Planning), Draft EIR p. 4.5-5, the proposed project would amend the City's General Plan to allow
for a five -story apartment building and six -story parking structure. The proposed project would represent
a new land use on the site and in the immediate area but would not in itself result in environmental
impacts related to land use and planning. The proposed project would not conflict with existing City
policies or regulations that were adopted for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect. Future
development projects would be required to undergo environmental review, consistent with CEQA and
City regulations, including analysis of conflicts with applicable plans and policies. Potential development
within the surrounding area of the proposed project would be subject to the building standards set forth
in the General Plan and would not be directly influenced by implementation of the proposed project.
Response PC -3
This comment contains anecdotal information regarding the commenter's opinion that the proposed
project would locate residential uses in close proximity to commercial and industrial uses. The
commenter expresses concern that the proposed project would be incompatible with surrounding uses
and would create conflict with established uses. The Draft EIR specifically analyzes the potential impact
of changing the existing Industrial Park land use to that of high-density residential use, and all impacts
were found to be less than significant. The project would not be incompatible with the surrounding land
uses. Refer to Response GALU-2.
Response PC -4
The comment states that the amount of units chosen for the proposed project is for economic reasons
rather than to meet acceptable standards. This comment contains opinion, anecdotal, or general
information and is not a direct comment on environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the
Draft EIR.
Response PC -5
This comment contains opinion, anecdotal, or general information and is not a direct comment on
environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR.
Response PC -6
This comment claims that the Draft EIR did not adequately evaluate traffic impacts. Contrary to this
commenter's claim, the Draft EIR evaluated potential traffic impacts in Section 4.9
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10.46 City of Costa Mesa ---
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses
February 2014 SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
(Transportation/Traffic). With implementation of mitigation measures MM4.9-1 through MM4.9-4, all
traffic impacts were found to be less than significant. This comment contains opinion, anecdotal, or
general information and is not a direct comment on environmental issues or the content or adequacy of
the Draft EIR.
Response PC -7
The comment claims that the manufacturing uses located adjacent to the proposed project would
generate noise impacts for the occupants of the proposed project. However, the Draft EIR, Section 4.6
(Noise) provided a comprehensive analysis of the potential noise impacts associated with the existing
environment, and with all impacts were found to be less than significant with the implementation of
mitigation measure MM4.6-1.
Response PC -8
This comment represents the commenter's opinion regarding parking on the property site. The Draft
EIR evaluated whether the proposed project would result in inadequate parking capacity on Draft EIR
pp. 4.9-20 and 4.9-21. The Draft EIR determined that the provision of 452 spaces for the 240 residential
units would be more than adequate and parking impacts would be less than significant. Refer to
Response PC -6.
Response PC -9
This comment contains opinion, anecdotal, or general information and is not a direct comment on
environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR.
Response PC -10
The commenter states support for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Pullman and
Baker and gives support of the mitigation measures outlined in Section 4.9 (Transportation/Traffic). As
identified in Table 4.9-10 (Traffic LOS with Implementation of Mitigation), with implementation of
mitigation measures MM4.9-1, MM4.9-2, and MM4.9-3, traffic impacts at the Pullman Street/Baker
Street intersection would be reduced to less than significant.
Response PC -11
This comment contains opinion, anecdotal, or general information and is not a direct comment on
environmental issues or the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR.
City of Costa Mesa 10.47 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
0
J
Final EIR CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
February 2014 SECTION 11.1 Introduction
11.1 INTRODUCTION
This section reflects the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) requirements of Public
Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Section 15097 states:
... In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the EIR or
negative declaration are implemented, the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or
reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to
mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. A public agency may delegate reporting or
monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity which accepts the
delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed the lead agency remains
responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the
program.
11.2 ENFORCEMENT
In accordance with CEQA, the primary responsibility for making determinations with respect to
potential environmental effects rests with the lead agency rather than the Monitor or preparer. As such,
the City of Costa Mesa is identified as the enforcement agency for this MMRP.
11.3 PROGRAM MODIFICATION
After review and approval by the lead agency, minor changes to the MMRP are permitted but can only
be made by the City. No deviations from this MMRP shall be permitted unless it continues to satisfy the
requirements of PRC Section 21081.6, as determined by the lead agency.
11.4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MATRIX
The organization of the MMRP follows the subsection formatting style as presented within the 125 East
Baker Street Project Final EIR. Subsections of all of the environmental issues presented in the Final EIR
are provided below in Table 11-1 (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix).
City of Costa Mesa 11.1 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Final EIR
February 2014
Respondble, Ca: ,n , nce Venftafilon
Agency!
Mrligalion Measure Action Required Monifodng Phase Party InlNal Dale Comments
AIR QUALITY
MM4.2-1 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction equipment
engines be maintained in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification
for the duration of construction. Contract specifications shall be included in project
construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Costa Mesa prior to issuance
of a grading permit.
Construction document
specifications
Prior to issuance
of building permit;
during construction
City Planning;
SCAQMD
MM4.2-2 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction operations
Construction document
Prior to issuance
City Planning;
rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than electrical
specifications
of building permit;
SCAQMD
generators powered by internal combustion engines. Contract specifications shall be included
during construction
in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Costa Mesa prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
MM4.2-3 As required by South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403—Fugitive
Construction document
Prior to issuance
City Planning;
Dust, all construction activities that are capable of generating fugitive dust are required to
specifications
of building permit;
SCAQMD
implement dust control measures during each phase of project development to reduce the
during construction
amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air. These measures include the
following:
■ Application of soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
■ Quick replacement of ground cover in disturbed areas. If disturbed graded areas remain
inactive for greater than 4 days, nontoxic soil stabilizers shall be applied.
■ Watering of exposed surfaces two times daily
1
■ Watering of all unpaved haul roads two times daily
■ Covering all stock piles with tarp
■ Reduction of vehicle speed on unpaved roads
■ Post signs on site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less
■ Sweep streets adjacent to the project site at the end of the day if visible soil material is
carried over to adjacent roads
■ Cover or have water applied to the exposed surface of all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil,
or other loose materials prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the
surrounding areas
■ Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads to
wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 11.2 City of Costa Mesa
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
HYDROLOGYIWATER QUALITY
MM 4.4-1 The project applicant shall finalize the drainage plan and prepare a project Water
Finalize drainage plan,
Prior to issuance
Responsible A
Compliance VenTicaHon
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to Orange County DAMP requirements. The
Prepare a project WQMP
Agency/
Orange, City of
Mligoffon Measure
Action Required
MonWng Phase
Party
hwal
Date
Comments
MM4.2-4 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction -related
Construction document
Prior to issuance
City Planning;
The City shall not issue a grading permit for the project until it has reviewed and approved the
equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be
specifications
of building permit;
SCAQMD
final drainage plan and WQMP. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City shall ensure the
turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes. Diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles
during construction
components of the drainage plan and WQMP BMPs have been installed.
with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds shall be turned off when
not in use for more than 5 minutes. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed
project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Costa Mesa.
MM4.2-5 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that the architectural coating
Construction document
Prior to issuance
City Planning;
(paint and primer) products used have a VOC rating of 190 grams per liter or less, for all
specifications
of building permit;
;SCAQMD
exterior and interior nonresidential land use architectural coating. As per SCAQMD
during construction
regulations, architectural coating for residential land -uses shall not exceed 50 g/liter interior or
100 g/liter exterior. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project
construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Costa Mesa.
MIN4.2-6 Install a sealed HVAC system in conjunction with MERVE 13 or higher rated filters
Installation of a sealed
Prior to issuance
City Planning;
for all residential development within the project site. The sealed air system will be designed
HVAC system in
of building permit;
SCAQMD
so that all ambient air introduced into the interior living space would be filtered through
conjunction with MERVE 13
during construction
MERVE 13 or higher rated filters to remove DPM and other particulate matter. The MERVE
or higher rated filters for all
13 or higher rated filter is designed to remove approximately 74 percent of particulates of 3
residential development
microns or larger in size from the ambient air that is introduced to the system (NAFA 1999).
within the project site
As a conservative estimate of reductions, it is assumed that the residents are indoors up to
78 percent of the time (USDOL 2010). Therefore, a reduction of 58.75 percent of particulate
matter is anticipated with respect to this measure.
MM4.2-7 Install all HVAC system air intakes as far from SR 55 as possible. This will further
Installation of HVAC
Prior to issuance
City Planning;
reduce risk for all interior spaces to the risk where the HVAC air intake is placed.
systems as from SR 55 as
of building permit;
SCAQMD
possible
during construction
HYDROLOGYIWATER QUALITY
MM 4.4-1 The project applicant shall finalize the drainage plan and prepare a project Water
Finalize drainage plan,
Prior to issuance
County of
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to Orange County DAMP requirements. The
Prepare a project WQMP
of building permit;
Orange, City of
plans shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer and shall be
conforming to Orange
during construction
Costa Mesa
submitted to the City of Costa Mesa Department of Public Works for review and approval.
County DAMP requirements
Department of
The City shall not issue a grading permit for the project until it has reviewed and approved the
Public Works
final drainage plan and WQMP. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City shall ensure the
components of the drainage plan and WQMP BMPs have been installed.
City of Costa Mesa 11-3 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Final EIR
February 2014
Responsible Camp!,:::re vefcallon
jI` Agency/
Miligation Measure Action Required MonBodngPhase Party Intiial Date Comments
LAND USE/PLANNING
MM4.5-1 The applicant for the proposed project shall provide a written statement to each
Post Notice of Airport in
Prior to issuance
City of Costa
acoustical analysis ensuring that interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources will be at
residential unit and resident, notifying them of potential annoyances associated with aircraft
Vicinity within residential
of occupancy
Mesa Planning
or below 45 dBA CNEL in all units. One or a combination of the following measures will be
overflight and proximity to airport operations, including the following, with final form and
development area
permit
Department
incorporated as necessary to ensure interior noise will be at or below 45 dBA CNEL:
content to be reviewed and approved by the Economic and Development Services Director
a. Limit opening and penetrations on portions of buildings impacted by noise.
and City Attorney:
b. Apply noise insulation to walls, roofs, doors, windows, and other penetrations.
"NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY:
c. Install dual -paned windows. For some units, it may be necessary for the windows to be
This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an
dBA CNEL. Consequently, a ventilation or air conditioning system would be required for
airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the
these units to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed.
annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for
example, noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances, if any,
are associated with the property before your purchase and determine whether they are
acceptable to you.
POSTING OF NOTICE OF DISCLOSURE IN EACH RESIDENTIAL UNIT
Prior to offering the first residential unit for purchase, lease, or rent, the property owner or
developer shall post a copy of the Notice of Disclosure in every unit in a conspicuous
location. Also, a copy of the Notice of Disclosure shall be included in all materials
distributed for the project, including but not limited to: the prospectus, informational
literature, and residential lease and rental agreements."
NOISE
IWN14.6-1 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall prepare an
Prepare acoustical analysis
Prior to issuance
City of Costa
acoustical analysis ensuring that interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources will be at
of building permit
Mesa Planning
or below 45 dBA CNEL in all units. One or a combination of the following measures will be
Department
incorporated as necessary to ensure interior noise will be at or below 45 dBA CNEL:
a. Limit opening and penetrations on portions of buildings impacted by noise.
b. Apply noise insulation to walls, roofs, doors, windows, and other penetrations.
c. Install dual -paned windows. For some units, it may be necessary for the windows to be
able to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet the interior standard of 45
dBA CNEL. Consequently, a ventilation or air conditioning system would be required for
these units to provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed.
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 11.4 City of Costa Mesa
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
Final EIR
February 2014
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
MM4.9-1 Pullman Street/Baker Street Intersection. Prior to issuance of a certificate of
Install traffic signal and
Prior to issuance
Responsible
Agency/
Co.: pEa a VeriNcation
occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant shall install a traffic signal and
heigatler: Measure
Action Required
Monhbdng Phase
Party
Initial
Date
Comments
MM4.6-2 For construction activities within 200 feet of existing commercial or industrial
Construction document
Prior to issuance
City of Costa
intersection. Intersection design will incorporate the existing driveway that provides access to
businesses, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures during
specifications
of building permit
Mesa Planning
the 150 Baker Street property per the City of Costa Mesa Design Guidelines and Califomia
construction:
Department
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The applicant will install signal interconnect
a. The construction contractor shall provide written notification to all commercial and
between Pullman Street/Baker Street traffic signal and existing traffic signals at the Baker'.
industrial tenants at least three weeks prior to the start of construction activities within
Street/Red Hill Avenue and Baker Street/SR 55 NB Ramps intersections. In conjunction with
200 feet of the receptor informing them of the estimated start date and duration of
signalization, the project applicant will restripe Baker Street to provide a dedicated eastbound
daytime vibration -generating construction activities.
and westbound left -turn lane, and a dedicated eastbound right -turn lane. Crosswalks and
b. Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site
ADA compliant ramps will be installed as required by the City.
receptors as possible.
IUIN4.9-2 Red Hill Avenue/Baker Street Intersection. Prior to issuance of a certificate of
c. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site.
Prior to issuance
City of Costa
occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant will implement the planned
TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
MM4.9-1 Pullman Street/Baker Street Intersection. Prior to issuance of a certificate of
Install traffic signal and
Prior to issuance
City of Costa
occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant shall install a traffic signal and
associated signing
of occupancy
Mesa Public
associated signing modifications and pavement legends at the Pullman Street/Baker Street
modifications and pavement
permit
Works
intersection. Intersection design will incorporate the existing driveway that provides access to
legends at the Pullman
Department
the 150 Baker Street property per the City of Costa Mesa Design Guidelines and Califomia
Street/Baker Street
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The applicant will install signal interconnect
intersection
between Pullman Street/Baker Street traffic signal and existing traffic signals at the Baker'.
Street/Red Hill Avenue and Baker Street/SR 55 NB Ramps intersections. In conjunction with
signalization, the project applicant will restripe Baker Street to provide a dedicated eastbound
and westbound left -turn lane, and a dedicated eastbound right -turn lane. Crosswalks and
ADA compliant ramps will be installed as required by the City.
IUIN4.9-2 Red Hill Avenue/Baker Street Intersection. Prior to issuance of a certificate of
Implement planned
Prior to issuance
City of Costa
occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant will implement the planned
improvements at
of occupancy
Mesa Public
improvements at this intersection as identified in the current City of Costa Mesa General
intersection as identified in
permit
Works
Plan, except the project applicant will provide a dedicated southbound right -turn lane, with
the current City of Costa
Department
overlap phasing, in lieu of the planned third southbound shared through/right-turn lane. The
Mesa General Plan, except
applicant will modify the existing traffic signal accordingly to current City of Costa Mesa
the project applicant will
Standards and Design Guidelines.
provide a dedicated
southbound right -turn lane,
with overlap phasing, in lieu
of the planned third
southbound shared
through/right-turn lane
City of Costa Mesa 11.5 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIF
Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 201 3081 05 1
CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SECTION 11.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix
Final EIR
February 2014
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 11-6 City of Costa Mesa
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC
Responsible
Cornp -IF anee VenTcaHon
Agenryl
NUiiggtfon Measure
Action Rego*ed
Morftdng Phase
Party
Inrh'al
Date Comments
MM4.9-3 Traffic Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed
Project applicant will pay
Prior to issuance
City of Costa
project, the project applicant will pay the City's required traffic impact fee, based on the
the City's required traffic
of occupancy
Mesa Planning
project's net increase in trips. The precise fee required will be determined upon issuance of
impact fee, based on the
permit
Department
project building permits.
project's net increase in
trips
MM4.9-4 To ensure adequate sight distance is provided at the project driveways, the project
Project driveways and
Prior to issuance
City of Costa
driveways and landscaping and/or hardscape on north side of these driveways will be
landscaping and/or
of occupancy
Mesa Public
designed such that a driver's clear line of sight is not obstructed and does not threaten
hardscape on north side of
permit
Works
vehicular or pedestrian safety, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. The minimum
these driveways will be
Department
stopping sight distance will be 300 feet. The following design recommendations will be
j designed such that a
implemented:
driver's clear line of sight is
■ Install stop signs and stop bars at the proposed project driveways on Pullman Street.
not obstructed and does not
Install all appropriate striping, signage and/or pavement legends per City of Costa Mesa
threaten vehicular or
standards/requirements.
pedestrian safety, as
■ All plants and shrubs within the limited use area (see Figure 4.9-3 [Line of Sight
determined by the City
Traffic Engineer
Analysis]) will be of the type that will grow no higher than 30 inches above the curb or a
have a canopy no lower than 72 inches above curb.
■ The maximum tree size and minimum tree spacing in the limited use area will be limited
to 24 -inch caliper tree trunks (maximum size at maturity) spaced at 40 feet on center.
■ Subject to review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer, prohibit on -street parking on
Pullman Street between project driveways and on the north side of the primary project
driveway, and restripe Pullman Street to include a dedicated southbound right -tum lane
at the primary project driveway with minimum storage of 100 feet be provided. Curbside
parking will be restricted for a minimum of 200 feet north of the primary driveway. Parking
will be restricted via installation of red curb and appropriate parking restriction signs.
125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 11-6 City of Costa Mesa
SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC