Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout34 - PH-3 - Attachment 8 - 5/6/2014ATTACHMENT 8 APRIL 15, 2014 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: 125 EAST BAKER STREET APARTMENT PROJECT: FINAL EIR (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2013081051); GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -13-02; REZONE R-13-02; ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CO -13-02; MASTER PLAN PA -13-11, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA -14-02 125 EAST BAKER STREET FROM: PLANNING DIVISIONIDEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: APRIL 3, 2014 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5811 mel.Iee a0costamesacamov RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following action: 1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project. Additionally, staff is recommending that, based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, that the City Council grant tentative approval of the General Plan Amendment pending final approval as part of a future General Plan Cycle and take the following actions: 2. Tentatively approve by adoption of resolution General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. 3. Give first reading to the ordinance approving Rezone R-13-02. 4. Give first reading to the ordinance approving Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02. 5. Approve by adoption of resolution Master Plan PA -13-11, subject to conditions of approval and the E I R Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. 6. Approve Development Agreement DA -14-02 between the applicant and the City of Costa Mesa to fund public infrastructure improvements in the area. This staff report provides a summary of the proposed project and entitlements, as well as the Planning Commission's action related to the project. Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report dated March 24, 2014 for detailed information and analysis related to the proposed project. q Location: PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY 125 East Baker Street Applications: GP -13-021R-13-021 CO-13-021PA-13-111 DA-14-021FEIR (SCH No. 2013081051) Request: Approval of entitlements for 125 E. Baker Apartment Project SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: CL (Current); PDR -HD (Proposed) North: (Across Baker) MP, church and industrial uses General Plan: IP (Current; HDR (Proposed) South: (Across Pullman) MP, industrial uses Lot Dimensions: Irregular East: (Across Pullman) MP, industrial uses _ Lot Area: 181,415 SF 4.17 AC West: CM (55) freeway off -ramp and drainage channel Existing Development: Two-story office building (to be demolished) _ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON (Based on Proposed PDR -HD Zoning) Development Standard Required>�wed Proposed/Provided Lot Size: Lot Width NIA 340 FT Lot Area 43,560 SF 1 AC 181,415 SF 4.17 AC Density (High Density Residential): Zone 20 du'SIAC 83 Units Max. 58 du's1AC 240 Units Pro 1 General Plan 20 du's1AC 83 Units Max. 58 du's/AC 240 Units Pro 1 Maximum Site Coverage Overall Project): Buildings NA NA Perimeter ❑ en Space 20 FT Abutting Public ROW 20 FT Abutting Public ROW ❑ en Space gotal Site Area 42% 46.5% Min. Private Open Space(Patio/Balcony) Min. 5 FT Dimension/100 SF Min. 5 FT Dimension/100 SF 2 Building Height; NA 5 Stories/63 FT (Apartments) (3) 6 Stories/62.5 FT (Parking Structure 3 Setbacks Overall Project): Front Baker Street NA 20 FT Side left -Pullman Street/right-55 F NA 20 FT/20 FT Rear NA NA On -Site Parking: 538 Spaces 457 Spaces (In Parking Structure) 4 Spaces (At Grade Open Parking) 461 Spaces Total 4 Driveway Width 16 FT Min. 25 FT NA = Not Applicable or No Requirement. (1) Site specific density requires General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment (see staff report discussion). (2) 100 SF requirement may be met through a combination of private balcony area and other deck areas in the common area, as long as the overall dimension of the balcony/deck is not less than 5 FT. (3) Site specific building height requires General Plan Amendment (see staff report discussion). 4 Reduction in number of on -s ite sp aces re g uested see staff re port discussion . CEQA Status Environmental Impact Report EIR Final Action City Council BACKGROUND Project SiteJEnvirons The project site is located at the southwest corner of Baker Street and Pullman Street. The site is approximately 4.17 -acres in size (181,415 square feet), is roughly triangular- shaped, and is currently occupied by a 66,000 -square -foot two-story office building constructed in 1974, a surface parking lot, signage, and landscaped areas within the parking area and around the perimeter of the site, The property is currently toned CL (Commercial Limited) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Industrial Park (MP). The site is bounded to the north (across Baker Street) by buildings containing a church and various industrial uses zoned MP (Industrial Park), with a General Plan Land Use designation of Industrial Park; to the south and east (across Pullman Street) by various industrial buildings zoned MP (Industrial Park) with a General Plan Land Use designation of Industrial Park; to the west is the off -ramp for the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55) and a drainage channel surrounded by chain link fencing. The site is also located approximately one-half mile to the west of John Wayne Airport (JWA). Project Proposal The proposed project involves replacing the existing office building and surface parking areas with an apartment building and parking structure as described above. The apartment units are comprised of studio, one -bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units. A breakdown of the unit types are summarized in the table below: Studio & Lofts 1 Bedroom & Lofts 2 Bedroom & Lofts 3 Bedroom TOTAL _ 30 Units 107 Units 95 Units S Units _ 240 Units The building design and roof elements are modern style, i.e., characterized by simplified square and rectangular building forms with a variety of flat planes, projections, and recesses. The exterior consists of alternating stucco, smooth fiber cement panels with exposed attachments, and wood siding finishes. Additional accents include wood balcony rails and trellises, welded wire mesh grid systems that support the growth of landscape vines, and "caged rock" planters. The vehicular entrance to the parking structure is proposed to be provided from a single drive approach on Pullman Street. The project will include four outdoor on -grade parking spaces to serve the leasing office and 457 parking spaces provided within a six -level parking structure, which will also serve as a sound barrier to the adjacent freeway noise. Access to each residential level will be provided directly from each level of the parking structure and additionally by stairs and elevators throughout the development. The site plan includes private open space and courtyard areas that allow for circulation through the project while still maintaining a sense of privacy for the residents. The project also contains resident amenities that include a pool, a spa, a state-of-the-art cardio gym, a dog park, a roof top deck, a business center, community gardens, and a clubhouse. A detailed description of the project is provided in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project, under separate cover. SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On March 24, 2014 the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of the proposed project on a 5-0 vote. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ENTITLEMENTS General Plan Amendment GP -13-02 As noted earlier, a change in the land use designation of the 4.17 -acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential is proposed to accommodate the development. The proposed General Plan Amendment GP -13-02 would amend the following sections of the Land Use Element as underlined and italicized below: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS High -Density Residential In 2014 General Plan Amendment GP -13-02 was approved,' it consisted of a site- specific residential density increase for a 4,17 -acre site at 125 East Baker Street. The maximum density allowed is 58 units/acre which allows a maximum of 240 dwellin units. Building Height The Zoning Code does not specify a maximum building height for the PDR -HD zone; however, a maximum building height of four stories for buildings south of the San Diego (1-405) Freeway is established as an objective and a policy in the General Plan Land Use Element (Objective LU -1 C and Policy LU -1 C.2). Because the subject property for the proposed development is south of the 1-405 Freeway, the four-story maximum height would apply to the project. The proposed revision to the General Plan objective/policy language is underlined and italicized below: Objective LU -IC Promote land use patterns and development, which contribute to community and neighborhood identity. Policy LUAC.2 Limit building height to four stories above grade south of the 1-405 Freeway, except for special purpose housing, such as elderly, affordable, or student housing. An exception is for the Newport Plaza property at 1901 Newport Boulevard where a six -level parking structure is allowed, and the property at 925 East Baker Street where a five- stooY 240 -unit apartment building and six -story parking structure are allowed (GP -13-02). 47-- Rezone R-93-02 A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential – High Density (PDR - HD). The proposed rezone to PDR -HD would be consistent with the proposed High Density Residential General Plan designation for the project site. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02 A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre would be required. The proposed 240 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre for this project. The revised Table 13-58 is presented with changes as underlined and italicized below: Revised Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) Devetvpmmt PDR -LD PDR -VD PDRI.ND PDR,Nc" PDC PD1 5lsndwd 57 Feet 67 Feet 62 Feet, 6 Inches Maximum Density 8 12 20 35 20 per Section 13-59 M MAXIMUM mote: See North Note: The maximum DENSITY Mesa Specific density for 1901 Newport CRITERIA. Plan for exceptions. Boulevard is 40 dwelling Note: The maximum units per acre. See north (dwelling units per Costa Mesa Specific Plan density for 725 East acre) Baker Street is for exceptions. 58 dwelling units per acre (CO -93-021. Master Plan PA -93 -TT As noted earlier, the Master Plan application is for the proposed development of a five - story 240 -unit residential apartment building (63 feet overall height) that wraps around a six -story parking structure (62.5 feet overall height) with 457 parking spaces in the parking structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from the following zoning code development standards: on-site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). After the EIR was prepared, the following revision to the maximum height of the parking structure was made for the Baker Street Apartment Project: Original Parking Structure Parking Structure Height Parking Structure Revised Height as Evaluated In the Indicated On Submitted Height Project EIR Plans 57 Feet 67 Feet 62 Feet, 6 Inches According to the applicant, the revision was necessary due to changes in the shape and layout of the parking structure, which led to some parking stalls being relocated to the top of the structure and the lengthening of the ramps within the parking structure. However, —63— the project architect was able to reduce the height to 62'-6" to conform to the 65 -foot maximum building height previously determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), The number of overall stories within the parking structure (6) remains unchanged. The consultant that prepared the EIR for the project has reviewed the changes and determined that although the change results in a higher point visually for the parking structure, the Aesthetics Section in the EIR previously concluded that the project is improving the aesthetic value of the site and the overall height of the project is still under 63 feet. Thus, no revisions to the EIR analysis and conclusions are necessary. Development Agreement DA -14-02 The applicant has agreed to enter into a Development Agreement with the City in the amount of $256,000,00 to fund future public infrastructure improvements in the area (street paving, sidewalks, open space enhancements, etc.). If the project is converted into condominium in the future, the project would still be subject to the payment of Quimby Act park land impact fees. The Development Agreement is for a period of five years, during that time the $250,000,06 payment would be credited toward the required Quimby Act Fee. If approved by the City Council, staff recommends the following additional condition of approval for Master Plan PA -13-11: • Per Development Agreement DA -94-02, the applicant shall provide a payment to the City in the amount of $250,000.00 to fund future public infrastructure improvements in the area. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was made available for a 45 -day public review and comment period beginning on November 6, 2013, and remained available for comment until December 20, 2013. The Final EIR document can be found on the City's website at the below link: hftp://www.costamesaca.gov/index-aspx?paqe= 151. Electronic copies can also be obtained on CD's from the Planning Division at no charge. Hardcopies are also available for review at the following locations: City of Costa Mesa Planning Division/Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 The Costa Mesa/Donald Dungan Library 1855 Park Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 — to4— Mesa Verde Library 2969 Mesa Verde Drive East Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Response to Comments In total, twelve comment letters regarding the Draft EIR were received during the public review and comment period from five public agencies, one organization, and six individuals. Additionally, the Draft EIR was presented to the 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. The comments have been incorporated, where appropriate, in the Final EIR document. Brief Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Under CEQA, a "significant impact" represents a substantial or potentially substantial adverse physical change to the environment. In evaluating specific effects of the project on the environment, the EIR identifies thresholds of significance for each effect, evaluates the potential environmental change associated with each effect, and then characterizes the effects as impacts. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels, as briefly summarized in the table below: (1) Refer to the Final EIR document for detailed descriptions of each mitigation measure 0 SignificantSummary of -ImpaCts Potentially Significant Level of Significance After Environmental Effects Mitigation Measure Summary 11 j Mitigation Air Quality . Maintain equipment during construction Less than significant Minimize dust during construction Paint and building coatings to comply with air quality standards Provide a sealed MVAC system for all units HydrologyAllater Quality . Provide a Water Quality Management Less than significant Plan WQMP) Land Use/Planning ■ Notification to future residents of airport Less than significant in the vicinity of the pro ect Noise . Comply with applicable noise attenuation Less than significant standards a Minimize noise impacts during construction Transportation/Traffic . Provide a traffic signal at Baker/Pullman I Less than significant intersection 0 Provide street improvements at Red Hill/ Baker intersection • Payment of traffic impact fees Provide adequate sight distance for vehicles at all project drive approaches (1) Refer to the Final EIR document for detailed descriptions of each mitigation measure 0 RECOMMENDATION FOR TENTATIVE APPROVAL As noted earlier, the proposed project involves a site specific amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's 2000 General Plan. Per Government Code Section 5535$(b) a mandatory element of the General Pian cannot be amended more than four (4) times per calendar year. On January 21, 2014, City Council approved an update to the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, and several additional general plan amendments are in various stages of review by the City, including the 2012-2023 overall update to the General Plan. Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council grant tentative approval of the General Plan Amendment GP -13-02, for this project, with final action to be later this year to allow this general plan amendment approval to be combined with other in a single general plan amendment cycle as allowed per the Government Code. The Council can approve the Final EIR and Development Agreement DA -14-02, at this time. The Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02 and Rezone R-13-02 can also be approved for first reading at this time. Master Plan PA -13-11 has been conditioned to required final approval of the associated General Plan Amendment to be valid and therefore can be approved subject to final approval of the General Plan Amendment GP - 13 -02. LEGAL REVIEW The Final EIR and draft resolutions/ordinances have been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. CONCLUSION With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood. The project features quality construction and materials. The proposal provides on-site amenities expected of quality residential developments of this type. The parking study prepared for the project identifies that the parking demand is adequate for this project. The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) determined that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council Certify the Final EIR prepared for the Project; grant Tentative Approval of the General Plan Amendment; and Approval of the DA new item for Cily Council consideration) -and Master Plan; and First reading to the Rezone and Zoning Code Amendment,• subject to Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ALTERNATIVES The City Council has the following alternatives: 1. Continue the item to allow additional time for further analysis or revisions to the project. 2. Deny the project. If the City Council denies the project, the applicant could not submit substantially the same type of application for six months. MEL Ltt, AicP GARY A ST NG, AICP Senior Planner Director f Economic & De fopment 1 Deputy CEG Attachments: 1. Project Plans 2. Draft Resolution for Finai EIR Certification 3. Draft Resolution for General Plan Amendment 4. Draft Ordinance for Rezone 5. Draft Ordinance for Zoning Code Amendment 6. Draft Resolution for Master Plan 7. Minutes of the March 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting 8. March 24, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments 9. Planning Commission Resolutions 10. Final EIR 11, Development Agreement cc: Chief Executive Officer Assistant Chief Executive Officer Director of Economic & Development 1 Deputy CEO City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr. City Engineer City Clerk (9) Staff (7) File (2) Distribution List — Agencies and Persons Who Provided Comment on the Project EIR Red Oak Investments Attn: Joe Flanagan 2101 Business Center Drive, #230 Irvine, CA 92612 Nader Properties 3 Harbor Light Newport Beach, CA 92657 — 0 — Atkins Attn: Trina S. Abbott 3570 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA, 92130 InFocus Consultants Attn: Peter Naghavi 418 Avenida Salvador San Clemente, CA 92572 1 0— ATTACHMENT I PROJECT PLANS City of Costa Mesa CITY OF COSTA MESA - [Created: 2/10/2014 8:45:39 AM] [Scale: 322.32] [Page: 8.5 x 11 1 Landscape] Overview Map Legend Add res 5 Street Paints Names Freev+ral Street Ruads Centerlin- es F—way Parcel M*r Lines kawper. ,r BLVEI ❑ City Primary Boundary SC�pNd.�- H Wate rydrola- Ways ily Channel - (C) 2002A GeoPrise.net (GeoVec, Inc.) - (866)422-2505 Map Display C) �• f W BAKER 'ST AAA 4j ■ Y * V, Ail V. �} A r i 2Dtb2 4Mrrise.N ET ` . -ftt City of Costa Mesa CITY OF COSTA MESA - [Created: 2/10/2014 8:47:05 AM] [Scale: 322.321 [Page: 8.5 x 11 / Landscape] Overview Map Legend Address Zoning P8i ns AP _ Ftydralo- � O1 fly C13 Charnel- cz s �QR Street 1AG names mp Parcel P Foc Lanes Foy Water firm I4 lfli'ays POR -LD (cont) (C) 2002-4 GeoPrise.net (GeoVec, Inc.) - (866)422-2505 Vicinity Map n.T-S If sn�ra,on m N.n max. w F r SITEVA ^' y� 9f: ,r r PROJ ECT INFORMATION n cml d � 1.H fr 0• A•, Awiwtee An Sao aio¢a A.y y — If sn�ra,on m N.n max. w F r SITEVA ^' y� 9f: ,r r PROJ ECT INFORMATION TITLESHEET A2.1 ' 1.H fr 0• A•, Awiwtee An 6.Iri R i OAS�LCl CPfEruoc-,- — rr" Sr Sr AT L,1i eo�xYAfd Abe __pYtmWq Ar'JK .0 r.AL. • YiA ngALAVANr/L ta• xTwi.�A,t EE?.w fAr.O�Sr.YRRAGe _ [S1 r >•{• If sn�ra,on m N.n max. w F r SITEVA ^' y� 9f: ,r r PROJ ECT INFORMATION BAKER STREET APARTMENTS TITLESHEET A2.1 ' p.rpm W A[ fr 0• n.Jn.n o.fcia•.+nn me rClf.6 ra i OAS�LCl CPfEruoc-,- — rr" HANdJu Af.•L LOJlIKUC AT L,1i eo�xYAfd Abe __pYtmWq Ar'JK .0 r.AL. • YiA ngALAVANr/L ta• xTwi.�A,t EE?.w fAr.O�Sr.YRRAGe _ WFVAE�ID'JEO RrNrquErvyAq A-43 >•{• BAKER STREET APARTMENTS 125 BAKER STREET, COSTA MESA, CA RED OAK INVESTMENTS Artist's Rendering mmQ®■mAr�lAor�® Sam mum SS »rrr��®oma UNFF AREA ED MMARV D IIILDIN G COVERAGE AN O OPEN E PACE m RMS 'RM RM SG ,T4x oPCrr'.FAEE III GrVrE� ,.111. 1.1.1 ..4 Project Team OWNER: RED OAKINVESTMENTS 2109 Business Center drive, Suite 230 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 733-2000 Attn: Joseph Flanagan ARCHITECT, - Architects Orange 144 N. Orange Street Orange, CA 92866 (714) 839-9860 Attn: Rick Thome LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.• MJS Design Group 50730th St Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 675.9964 Attn: Mark Schattinger CIVIL ENGINEER: Fuseoe Engineering Inc. 10793 Van Kaman Ave. Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)27f4301 Attn: Trevor Dodean 6uuHua cOVC�r TITLESHEET A2.1 [wlrr AAA i PfeE.nw:rw �:elo rvK rClf.6 YE i OAS�LCl CPfEruoc-,- — rr" vhrpgplenr.v AT L,1i eo�xYAfd 125 BAKER STREET, COSTA MESA, CA RED OAK INVESTMENTS Artist's Rendering mmQ®■mAr�lAor�® Sam mum SS »rrr��®oma UNFF AREA ED MMARV D IIILDIN G COVERAGE AN O OPEN E PACE m RMS 'RM RM SG ,T4x oPCrr'.FAEE III GrVrE� ,.111. 1.1.1 ..4 Project Team OWNER: RED OAKINVESTMENTS 2109 Business Center drive, Suite 230 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 733-2000 Attn: Joseph Flanagan ARCHITECT, - Architects Orange 144 N. Orange Street Orange, CA 92866 (714) 839-9860 Attn: Rick Thome LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.• MJS Design Group 50730th St Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 675.9964 Attn: Mark Schattinger CIVIL ENGINEER: Fuseoe Engineering Inc. 10793 Van Kaman Ave. Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)27f4301 Attn: Trevor Dodean 6uuHua cOVC�r TITLESHEET A2.1 [wlrr AAA i PfeE.nw:rw �:elo rvK rClf.6 YE __ 'mt � Ari yr. •-•!'Au OAS�LCl CPfEruoc-,- — � vhrpgplenr.v AT L,1i eo�xYAfd i 1.! tti • YiA ngALAVANr/L ..00 1'a {]1 fAr.O�Sr.YRRAGe _ w TITLESHEET A2.1 [wlrr AAA i 12Zi} f __ c[PiAYANAI ]]H YA A.ANL Ra !A..ir � vhrpgplenr.v r,qs r►% roT:. c.erf sPu! .r.s., vs PRRR1NGSUMMAKY Sheet Index ARCHITECTURAL A-1 TITLESHEET A2.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A-2,2 OPEN SPACE GAL COLA TIONS A-3.1 1st FLOOR COMPOSITE PLAN A42 2nd FLOUR COMPOSITE PLAN A}3,3 3rd FLOOR COMPOSITE FLAN A}3.4 41h FLOOR COMPOSITE PLAN A-3,5 LOFT FLOOR COMPOSITE PLAN A-3,6 ROOF PLAN A-4,1 EXTERIOR ELEVA TIONS A-4.2 EXTERIOR ELE VA TIONS A-43 COLORED ELEVA TION A-5,1 BUILDING SECTIONS A-6.1 UNITPLANS A-6.2 UNITPLANS A-6.3 UNITPLANS A-6.4 UNITPLANS A-6.5 UNITPLANS A-6.6 UNITPLANS A-6.7 UNITPLANS COLOR AND MATERLAL FINISHES LANDSCAPE L-1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLATY L-2 POOL COURTYARD L-3 RELAX"COURTYARD L-4 ENTRYCOURTYARD CIVIL C-1 SITE PLAN C-2 PRELIMINARY GRADING C-3 EXISTING TREES EXHIBIT PANnun nenArmA.wPw� i:rr. Cpf Eulf� SiAUS� 6TAu f•.r lrrf Eo g 1" A-7 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS COSTA MESA, ca TITLE SHEET RED LAIC IN VES TMENTS 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733,2000 ARCHI TEC TS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714) 639-9860 © SOo4An* l90r 0mnP hn rh��, �•� -,r:Lin• p-,in:i�z ,ear n fro - on'lonreY 'rr •'iiia„ �Mr'JLEVE� am CVWA MC 5"Y Lb C1a,ie fLF;f,a A>tO m>�1 A _ +wK+C LOU 1 Y N m ru>+ouvas eT fA � n P.n��clxur�a sr x ti f�.f¢nie�fE�a K x i n .Anfnr.u.uris . n o rs �wvrr f.crcie o n o 7e g 1" A-7 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS COSTA MESA, ca TITLE SHEET RED LAIC IN VES TMENTS 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733,2000 ARCHI TEC TS ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714) 639-9860 © SOo4An* l90r 0mnP hn rh��, �•� -,r:Lin• p-,in:i�z ,ear n fro - on'lonreY 'rr •'iiia„ 55 x-�•,>< � -ac u _ xK x ux �—x�--x x�,r� F w Y- -- - --- _ G --- - --- - - -i=i-- - ` ----- - - --w-- --- -��� _ y-- - Z�.li _-_ -- -- -___-_-__-___� i 21/ �J - —, - _ tl ♦ �♦ T�iA5L�BIN STMI1 G `~♦` a � �'� n y��1 IR 1 a>iia"r 4 .- PICK-UP— ♦ W C- ■ a i, r _ to i y 1 � 1 I IYI LANE ♦♦ ♦ �~ a �` � � fig• �. �i I i i 1 ♦ ® yat V RESIDENT AND GJEST�, ♦♦ ENTRY Wi'H CALL BOH ,`` ♦ _ 'v>' ' Iy" 'r■ ■ a a :�:: to i I — 2•_e- —"�--._._- ANC TURN AROUND —� ♦ I .ry 12' X SS' MOVE -IN •� o r : .� IC V '' , LOADING AREA . `` hti `�r• I rr �Y. s♦ ❑, • LEASING C,UHROOM❑ PC.OL Y f •� p Q \, I PRG'!:R IY I INF �\ ♦♦ IQ "a.: tw i� �,, ;, DUB, .Vr I + I LEASING ENTRANCE ( ♦♦,�♦ �! TNC55 AND PARKING ` ♦ Q P" Lu 1 1 o � EXI1 PASSACFWAY ♦♦ _ ~ \ 18' V X 33' 2 SIORY - ♦•-L—�__ I -INAREA WITH ROLL - ----- ,. UP GARAGEDCO3 ARCHIT C TURAL S1 TE PLAN A-2.1 2O73 -W4 a1}&2014 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS COSTA MESA, CA SCALE 10=30' 0 30' 60' 90' RED DAfC INVES TMENTS ARCHITECTS ORANGE 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733.2000 �� ✓✓✓ 144 NORTH GRANGE ST, GRANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714) 639-9964 Y©20a4ArdalDcbCmVee „"'' "' "' 'M ': m.x . iv Axnnrlr auv. BASKETBALL AND GARDENS 9,592 SO Fr RESIDENTIAL'BACKYARD"�� 1 = COURTYARD 2 13.797 SO. FT. �, jI S.M SQ FT. I&—. _i,.., nl \� 0 / 1 t \ �\ 93 � A sr ` LEASINb,MURr 2,412 SO. FT. . 4- it a a s4W ff�$ 6NLDING COVERAGE AND OPEN SPACE / `` ` .r 1• - �crsnx.ncr OrLR Y ��fJ `- bF�YhRHwC'/vE�A4f ■1➢P !1� /'�\ COURTYARD 1 \ 12,223 SO. FT- wn3.rn�w� !a�ocui •wur..lrr rye nk _ mn�ow wruvacr �Elu �. r I oEwa nnw�eusoeu au! w ' I carni orr.ir.nwacral .ri , �-- _ _ OPEN SPACE PLAN 7 BAKER STREET A V V 1 A MEsA, cA SCALE 1"= 30' ❑ 30' 60' 90, - RED OAK IN VES TMENTS�� ARCHITECTS ORANGE 2lJr4 Rrrh� Orange � ,... -ims rc• ctilr.'onl avle-re° !•n•: 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92966 (714) 639-9960 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733.2000 .1 f :" «;'�`m. " � 1 i, I � r Iui l 1 � IM 11 II I I I1 + I I A-2.2 2013-04 0&}3.2014 BAKER STREET A V V 1 A MEsA, cA SCALE 1"= 30' ❑ 30' 60' 90, - RED OAK IN VES TMENTS�� ARCHITECTS ORANGE 2lJr4 Rrrh� Orange � ,... -ims rc• ctilr.'onl avle-re° !•n•: 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92966 (714) 639-9960 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733.2000 .1 f :" «;'�`m. " I 14z -11- MMUMES Al r (B2) M -, A4,�p 0 0 0 0 0 0V' — f , , SLOPE UP ' Y B2 ! W q T Q CAV S Ij ,� i 998TALE •a oo� —= 1-3r: �i sruR� IE I 4 Z-7 127•-3 a i IN - Al EEEC. ROOn1 r B2 n ry COURTYARD 2 Al ROIOM }/� �. Al ,:�. B2 if r.,. a •rr.� F f - 2 A2 ANr Al ; . Leasing 1,410 S.F. Club 2,260 S.F. COURTYARD i Fitnes F 1,720 S.F ,q3 3 Si 1 ,S 1 ]MOVE D7 IN r., l �Py 4£ UITILITY A3 i 4 iw jo .. �rrrrs�ilrrrcirr FIRST FLOOR COMPOSITE PLAN A-3.1 2013-m 0S-112074 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS cosTA MEsA, CA SCALE 1'= 20' o 20' 40' 60 RED OAK INVES TMENTS ARCHITECTS ORANGE jhV 7� 144 NORTH ORANGE S%, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 97866 (714) 639-9860 2'!01 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733,7000 W'��11fr 31t... i%ii'■ �F ■ rr � -r of o a a 0 RAMP - 5,0% SLOPE UP S 0 0 0 0 x Y 76 STALLS y .lo-oo' 3 oa — ,r.r 4- N� > 1 Y 0 0 1 0 0 0 Vol. J f MOVE j IN —' SECOND FLOUR COMPOSITE PLAN A-3.2 A . :U}3P4A ��1M2[I14 Y . BA KER S TREE T A PA R THEN TS COSTA DESA, CA SCALE 9" = 20' 0 20' 40' 60 v - RED OA f C IN VES TMEN TS }7r A RCHI TEC TS ORANGE v , 0 Al G B2 ss' -1" 0 RAMP .5.0% SLOPE UP 78 STALLS 1 Lio oo• oo• xo a ® p o o n u m� —mm �-! M 4 ■..�1i ar V',l-klX11 v: �' �-fir �" �_ � � , � • �. Z04 N 1 HIHLU I -L UUH Cr UMPUW / t: HLA N A-3.3 2O13 -0-M 0.14-2014 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS c os TA mESA, cA SCALE I"=20' o 20' 40' 60 = �� RED GAC IN VES TMENTS ARCHITECTS GRANGE n IR;flllllflllll4 IWI ■ X I ■ n I f EI - 103' B2L 65'-1 Ll J 0 0 0 of o 4 i I (r 4�A�Lj ry SIL SIL I B2L FOURTH FLOOR COMPOSITE PLAN A-3.4 2013-04 02-14-2014 Y BA KER S TREE T A PA R TMEN TS COSTA MESA, CA SCALE P=20' 0 20' 40' 60 RED OAK IN VES TMENTS - -, ARCHITECTS ORANGE 020NArc kwlsOrump 246_'-0` N J AAl0. 7 0 a C .._ _ RAMP • 6.0% SLOPE VP a ta 0 0 0 0 W In n 7D S7AL Il ? Q Ila - Ll J 0 0 0 of o 4 i I (r 4�A�Lj ry SIL SIL I B2L FOURTH FLOOR COMPOSITE PLAN A-3.4 2013-04 02-14-2014 Y BA KER S TREE T A PA R TMEN TS COSTA MESA, CA SCALE P=20' 0 20' 40' 60 RED OAK IN VES TMENTS - -, ARCHITECTS ORANGE 020NArc kwlsOrump If ;lSllll#tlllll OHIO munnui■ �� 1 0 I B2 -L �— °� s y 77 sines 0 196'-S" Y iQlliQ{� �1111� FIS � � IQuiun minim gounmlil mm 1, {unm iiffil �I 4 �ninuum .� � it miii IQniai B2L B2L i A L -L �- f • i �� 'S +r 4 r� : ■ urrrk+rrsrr� LOFT FLOOR COMPOSITE PLAN A-3.5 2013-044 02.142014 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS cosTA mESA, cA SCALE 1"=20' o 20' 40' 60 RED DA K IN CIES TMEN TS, _ ARCHI TEC TS ORANGE p re eoplK1l Fm!elei Gide 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (7'14) 639-9860 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733.2000 �• kgh1P • i 4'h siaue ur Q Q k 0 196'-S" Y iQlliQ{� �1111� FIS � � IQuiun minim gounmlil mm 1, {unm iiffil �I 4 �ninuum .� � it miii IQniai B2L B2L i A L -L �- f • i �� 'S +r 4 r� : ■ urrrk+rrsrr� LOFT FLOOR COMPOSITE PLAN A-3.5 2013-044 02.142014 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS cosTA mESA, cA SCALE 1"=20' o 20' 40' 60 RED DA K IN CIES TMEN TS, _ ARCHI TEC TS ORANGE p re eoplK1l Fm!elei Gide 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (7'14) 639-9860 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733.2000 9—M-5 ■ rr sraus RAMP - 5.0, 81.f7P£ aN S — I i ROOF PLAN A-3.6 2019-044 02-14-2014 I BAKER STREET A c s rA MESA, CA SCALE I"=20' 0 20Air-- RED firRED OAK IN VES TMENTS ARCHITECTS ORANGE 02014Arr %Cb0mge NORTH ELEVATION - BAKER ST. WEST ELEVATION - 55 FWY OFF RAMP EXTERIOR ELEVATION BAKER STREET APARTMENTS cosrn Mesn, ca 60 RED LAIC INVESTMENTS 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733.2000 ARCHI TEC TS ORANGE ` $ J 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714) 639-9860 A4. a A,3 0, 02.14,1014 Q 2014.4dlb charge I" j,. a. rorna+r FW. W .uw .u6 pml..W ✓nagprt.ce .ex c M R.MrN N. =.v .ai e, .� �. M .. Zl.e by w.nnRi, u�u SOUTH ELEVATION It�mmi. AI ff � 1 kl . t � fr fR �1 91 .: Nr Rr' 1 F RI C II W f' ,�1fA1 11 Rf L.. 1•-:IjN�.+_' f1 :ir .:,�7 fN Ir 11 fill _ R Big Rf r1■ Ir® �i 1 fr] f ilk 1 ff I . iif '��p rR �1 Ir Ir r rf .� In = _ = __ — Cw ``1S�JiY i nil c�� r == .�� .� f i�l �R ��■:C �11�� EAST ELEVATION - PULLMAN ST. EXTERIOR ELEVATION BAKER STREET APARTMENTS COSTA MESA, CA RED OAK INVESTMENTS 2901 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92692 TEL: 949.733.2000 m"r1 n�u 2013-0" 02-14ZI4 SCALE I"=20' 0 20' 40' 60 ARCHI TEC TS ORANGE m 2014AruMDcf,Gmrp 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714) 639-9860.. pl.. l srh pnl�nwJnnY we not pmmWN. mK. d.n. wn mf k �d� Mmox .mim nrrm��aer �cnndr amm r 7 J NORTH ELEVATION - BAKER STREET 0 6 2 CA 201.3-014 FEBRUARY14.2014 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS COSTA DESA CA SCALE: 9196, = 1'-0"'_ ■ _ RED OAK INVESTMENTS _ ARCHITECTS ORANGE 02014���Gwge 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA92612 TFL: 949.733.2000 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (794) 639-9860 SECTION - A BUILDING SECTIONS A-5.1 2013#4 0214-WI4 BA KER S TREE T A PA R THEN TS COSTA MESA, CA SCALE 1"= 20r D 20? 40, 60 RED OAK INVESTMENTS A ARCHITECTS GRANGE ��^°^ 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714) 639-9864 °� �a 9°� �° 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUUE230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 349.733.2000 � � � � p—U.. by R °tir"; �; y a UNR 4TH ■ UHR 4TH UNITS UNIT 4TH ■ UNIT {Try i re UNn UNIT 4TH ■' � d � �` \ �• Y I I I VNR 3R0 ■ VHR 3RD DE�NU UNR 3RD ■ VNR SRU y fil BEYOND UNR 3RD ■ i _ ` ` d i UNIT 2ND ■ UNR 2ND RECREATION k POOL AREA INR 2ND■ U7fIT 2ND ' y UNIT 2NU ■ % YI ` I "ti• ! ✓- I �- — �� I ' I; UNIT 15T ■ UNR 1ST UHIi 1 Sl �y' UNIT 15i a UNR 15i ■ y NEI RESIDENTIAL r _COURTYARD #t RESIDENTIAL COURTYARD 12 RESIDENTIAL Al + KEY SECTION - B BUILDING SECTIONS A-5.1 2013#4 0214-WI4 BA KER S TREE T A PA R THEN TS COSTA MESA, CA SCALE 1"= 20r D 20? 40, 60 RED OAK INVESTMENTS A ARCHITECTS GRANGE ��^°^ 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714) 639-9864 °� �a 9°� �° 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUUE230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 349.733.2000 � � � � p—U.. by R °tir"; �; UNIT S1: STUDIO LIVABLE AREA: 565 SO. FT PATICIBALCONY: 62 SQ. FT. UNIT S1L : STUDIO + LOFT 1ST FLOOR AREA: 565 SQ. FT. LOFT AREA: 130 SQ. FT. TOTAL AREA. 695 SQ. FT PATIOIBALCONY: 62 SQ FT. UNITA1: 1 BR 1 1 BA LIVABLE AREA: 715 SQ FT. PATIOIBALCONY: fit SQ. FT. Illifffm�4mlAA k&I UNITA1 L: 1 BR 1 1 BA 1ST FLOOR AREA: 715 SQ. FT. LOFT AREA: 138 SQ. FT TOTAL AREA: 853 BALCONY. 62 SQ. FT. A-6.1 X3-04 02-}4-20}4 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS COSTA MESA, CA 3116"= 9�-8' 1 l RED LlAfC HV VC a I IVICIV TS ARCHITECTS GRANGE 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 2301RVINE, C492612 TEL: 949 733.2000 Q �Rrdry9 a✓�6 p�s.�no 0ae e, -9860 144 ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92888 (714) 639Arepunwe�R �mn a .w -Tmaxu - —Nm� c 9r UNIT A2: 1BR11BA LIVABLE AREA: 758 SQ, FT, PATIOIBALCONY: 61 SO FT - ire UNIT A3: 1 BR 1 1BA 1ST FLOOR AREA: 7275Q FT PATIDBALCONY 82 SO FT 0 U N IT A3 L: 1 BR 1 1 BA 1ST FLOOR AREA: 727 SQ FT LOFT AREA 125 SO FT TOTAL AREA: 852 BALCONY: 82 SO FT UNIT PLANS UNITA4. 1BR11BA LIVABLE AREA: 963 SO FT PATICBALCONY: 107 SQ FT A-6.2 2U}3#4 02.14,W14 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS COSTA MESA CA 3116"_ ,.0p1 0 4f81 1, LAijlr— RED OAf C IN VES TMENTS ARC ` I TEG TS DRANGE ® 2014AIhNacb Omho mrs M— w. cyy f Fl l rW MJrt 944 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92966 (714) 639-9860 °" "� ^ �°°'"°�" • °°' A^ "" 2109 BUSINESS CEN TER DRI VE, SUITE 2301RVINE, CA 92692 TEL: 949.733.2000 ,r awA°°, I- INIP UNIT A4L 1 BR 1 1 BA + LOFT IST FLOOR AREA: 963 SQ FT LOFT AREA: 198 SQ. FT. TOTAL AREA: 1161 SQ. FT BALCONY: 107 SQ. FT. vnwMWw N' UNIT A5: 1 BR 1 1BA LIVABLE AREA- 981 SQ FT PATIO)RALCONY: 71 80 FT UNIT PLANS UNIT A5L: 1 BR 1 1BA + LOFT 1ST FLOOR AREA: 981 SO FT LOFT AREA 193 SQ. FT TOTAL AREA: 1174 SQ FT BALCONY: 71 SQ FT A-6.3 2019#4 07.14-ZI4 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS COSTA MESA, CA �,s•= �-o� --�6 �� RELY OAK IN VES TMEN TS ARCHI TEC TS ORANGE GE �0 2 ,Ma h g 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92886 (714) 639-98617 " m- ^°' m- 2 101 BUSINESS CENTER DRI VE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, C,4 92612 TEL: 949.733.2000 ,n,w .d ARhkclr oe. I 1 4 I I I i I I i I 7 f I I I I I I I 1 I I I UNIT A5L: 1 BR 1 1BA + LOFT 1ST FLOOR AREA: 981 SO FT LOFT AREA 193 SQ. FT TOTAL AREA: 1174 SQ FT BALCONY: 71 SQ FT A-6.3 2019#4 07.14-ZI4 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS COSTA MESA, CA �,s•= �-o� --�6 �� RELY OAK IN VES TMEN TS ARCHI TEC TS ORANGE GE �0 2 ,Ma h g 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92886 (714) 639-98617 " m- ^°' m- 2 101 BUSINESS CENTER DRI VE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, C,4 92612 TEL: 949.733.2000 ,n,w .d ARhkclr oe. bw LEFT 12-0' X' �l sr ap•..- �n-�- 7I „ I 11 I wlc I 1 ' =-"-I� 4 wlc • ____ xlc nf I i +nLL IuiLL µI.,1 I. q ra,cH 11 rn•• MiH Arnxn AniH2 AaR' ,.1; rtn'H r.,,� 4r I n UNIT B1: 2BR 12BA UNIT B1 L: 2BR 12BA UNIT B2: 2BR 12BA LIVABLE AREA: 1030 SQ. FT 1 ST FLOOR AREA: 1030 SQ- FT. LIVABLE AREA: 1.081 SQ. FT. PATIOIBALCONY! 62 SQ FT LOFT AREA: 138 SQ. FT, PATIO/BALCONY: 62 SQ. FT TOTAL LIVABLE: 1,168 SQ. FT. BALCONY: 62 SQ. FT. UNIT PLANS A-6.4 20IM" 02-14 I4 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS cos TA MEsA CA 3196" = 1'-on o 4' 8' 18' RED OAK INVESTMENTS ARCHITECTS ORANGE ope, "���r 199 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714) 639-9860 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRI VE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733.2000 mal .nrcen °um�s:a, er Ne+axn r o. Mole 7o-, r + 4 r` wic wic � Mc 0 ILD UNIT B2L: 2BR/2BA UNIT KAP 2BR ! 2BA 1ST FLOOR AREA 1055 SO FT LIVABLE AREA: 1,081 50 FT LOFT AREA: 143 SO FT PATiO1BALCONY: 123 SO FT TOTAL AREA: 1208 SO FT PATIOMALCONY: 67 SO FT UNIT PLANS + 1 l UNIT B2AL: 2BR / 2BA 1ST FLOOR AREA: 1,081 SO FT LOFT AREA: 143 SO FT TOTAL AREA: 1.224 SO FT PATIOIBALCONY: 123 SO FT A-6.5 2013-O>a 02-14aM BAILER S TREE T APARTMENTS COSTA MESA CA 3116"= 1 O" 0 4� 8' 9s' it RED D.4fC INVESTMENTS ARCHITECTS ORANGE (D 2014 � �~ ]hea Ahnr w w°m91 ,r^IwGd. VnYr 744 NORTH ORANGE ST., ❑RANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714) 639-9860 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE; SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733.2000 .e"nm°:;xM n mM �riEi: nnu UNIT B2B 2BR / 2BA LIVABLE AREA: 1,065 SQ. FT. PATIOIBALCONY: fit SO. FT. 3T-0" 8'-1" UNIT 133: 2BR ! 2BA NET LEASABLE AREA 1,106 SQ FT BALCONY: 62 SO. FT. UNIT PLAINS A-6.6 2013-W a2-14,2014 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS cosra Mesa, ca 3116'= I'-0' o :- -� RED OAK IN VES TMENTS 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733.2000 ARCHI TEC TS ORANGE 02014 kdWBb Urerge 144 NOR TN ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 82866 (714) 639-9860 �WIM °°° w. ate° zwe f_r LOFT 10'-F X 14'-2" OPEN TL) BECIM Ll 1 - - - - - LI–J—LI - ❑ PATIGIBALC — -- PATIQIBALC VARIES �I VARIES MBR — D If --I h3SR ❑ s I.n• x In a' IIWIWI II 1 s. o. r 1 n .s . I I. L —.� 3 n-' BR3 r7-0 .��.� V.9'%10.9 LIVINGIDINING ' ,3 LIVING/DINING I' 1 Vx" x 29' a'. i0 I t'd"X 24'-0' Ll KITCHEN f M k� 1 I; KITCHEN WIC WIC 4k_ L M BA rl- J M OATH 9A TF+ _ Bi13 {i r B % 1u'-6. R2 �, I` -V BR2k zeIL JI •r IN � G 'f. UNIT Ct 3BR 12BA UNIT C1L: 2BR 12BA + LOFT LIVABLE AREA: 1,365 SR FT 1ST FLOOR AREA: 1.352SQ FT PATJOIBALCONY: 89 SO FT LOFT AREA: 175 SO, FT TOTAL AREA: 1,527 SO FT BALCONY_ 90 SO FT UNIT PLANS A-6.7 2012-0" al4-2014 BAILER STREET APARTMENTS COSTA MESA CA 3116"= 1'. ' - 1* RED OAK IN VES TIVIEN TS ARCHI TEC TS GRANGE © 2014 kdoodo awwe '144 NORTH ORANGES T., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714) 639-986a 2107 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SCUTE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 548.733.2000 NMI 11 -MLI 01 A0 Al El I I sMsMsMn ■ u i ■r .n T Ircr r Wjrj rt .r.r �,1 IreLF is>!r -J!` �� . rt _�, �',� ■rr•r■ �___ rrrar rrra �,■ i� ■. Ij - - � Ell A1011 �� : r- .. � tires � I . � .i i ��a i �I ��. 1 MWE m J) _ _ iia � BSIL�r— lame &H ::�_.ti; iso i t ■■_r _ e— _ ■ ■ AN Fv �1 W.■i■aral C�l. ���� I�� :.us><.Ilre■a _— RED CSA K IN VES THEN TS E e A 21 r■� 'IL *. n'. -:■ ■res - n 7i— .Ismrm— F■ — _ ei -LF; _ G r67 LANDSCAPE AMENITIES KEY: o ENTRY COURTYARD -SEE SHEET LA o POOL COURTYARD -SEE SHEET L.2 © 'RELAX' COURTYARD -SEE SHEET L,3 o SECONDARY ENTRY VISITOR CALL BOX • DECORATIVE PAVING • ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO R.O.W. o RESIDENT'BACKYARD' • SEATING PLAZA with BENCHES • DOG PARK • PROTECT EXISTING'SKYLINE' EUCALYPTUS TREES AT PROPERTY LINE • EVERGREEN TREE SCREEN ALONG FWY COMMUNITY GARDEN • RAISED PLANTER BED (METAL AND WOOD) • GARDEN SHED o BAKER STREETSCAPE • 5WIDE CURB ADJACENT SIDEWALK • PALM GROVE wish GABON WALL to ACCENTUATE CORNERS • FIRE LANE 0 PULLMAN STREETSCAPE • 5' WIDE CURB ADJACENT SIDEWALK (PARTIAL) • STREET TREES @ 40' O.C. Ki ern_. tel•' • P�' u 1 A a T 0 BAKER STREET APARTMENTS cosTA MEsA, cA z _jQ I RED OAK IN VES TMENTS _- lq:5 - 2101 BUSINESS CENTER ORIVE, SVITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949 M 2000 L', S� FWY B`FRAMA 1,, PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT STATEMENT AF IAplr d k bA)A 4AYipNT (ar•Rll k 4 rA4p T Oarfr cF- e%r W r1 JxAfr. IrRf W rl0r flprfT. )Wb FM p�,el1M tl A[t><H1 e.prh ls�ld-vl�F•' iKil d of Ic[ayMPp ml rl Fit f' iWxae y�x"+ra rAlA4•p Fk PW d K refi lLL erilrD eAY niwi 6 tNH1ri hf -sr rllr PrWml v lTf k• m.� A1A.Fjo•A kf• dYWf W y4r,1 Y-'+Yn At om,0 mm m wn h led t.sr ,! 1•a(c r� n f [:ssp>te1 • JljL IFW M *L Phri Rmn dA drMLE LN 110510 used SWJWID �f��1priMRfii ilfpIp %MftWtAfff&Tpa 1031-11 p NMMW IrIIIN][ Ifi iN N? AISUPM fdl[ ii rim JR>)A/rp M[A Ili[[I Bm1pE lsl r,�rve WdrA ihrl nlin�d Iy11Np 5rA AW pflytllkk en(iMW 9fy" N�1trr� • K6rNrl I l ft Wdo40 kallrifV Ryle. MIN 1•li•f7f ik►F]:t$m N[ Lktl HSMFNO Y- rAq M,.ppgM ✓ v," rrd pW by M 11 m mnilzi ell Br Cly [I Gdn Fr rid NM W.IEI a�n pYdwwMWr4emY+e'er. _ _ BDTAN CAL NAME OOMMCN Ww.E FIXE TREES and PALMS AGACASTENOPHRA SHDEBIHINGACAC4 21'8 ALOE BMPESIl TREE ALOE 15G ARBUTUS,'MARINA' HYBRIDBTRAWBERRY 86'B A0LDHAMJ T1IABEPBAMBOU 153 SRAHEAARMATAMEXICAN&Lk PALM WB CERCISTOREST PANSY REDBUO 15G CHITALPA X TA94KENTEN3l3 CHITALPA 24•8. ORAQEPLADRACO CRZ TREE ISG DEUERAPARVIFLOWL AUSTRALIAN WILLOW 21'8 HYMENOu"PORUM FLAVUM SHEETSHCE 2011 NA.j3NDLIA'LITTLE rru' SOUTHERN MAGNB GLIA 24• ANYTENUS GREEN SHD'NER I.N}TEN B METROSIDIMSE% ELSU: Ni CHRSTMAATREE 3rB OLEALfl.WI'PAFASWA'1HU SWANHLLOLIVE 1�B PAAHINSCNA U."d Mdemn' IIYEWD PMAVERDE PVUSELDARICn AFGANN PINE PNUS TCRAEYANA TORREY PINE 20'B RHUS. LANCER AFRICAN BVAWC p4 -B SYAGRLAS RCNA FFLAM•A QUEEN PAIN 1z-16,8 T TIPUANU TIPU TIPIITREE 24 B TRISTANNLM,RNA WATERGuM y.B TR19TAHIACONFERTA BRgBME BDx 2f. B SHRUBS: BDTANM NAAE COMMON NME S� PERIMETER STREET EDGE and COURTYARDS AGAVEAlTNAAATA FDATNLAGAVE t5G AG4VE4TLMCLINLMN ocTCPUBAGAVE 160 ALCF MACULATA YELLOW00APALOE sG BOUGRIWILLEA SP BOUGANVILLEASG CALLISTFWN'LITTLEJDHN DWARF BQTFLE BRLASH 5 G CQPRGSIAAREPENSSHIHYCOPRG%% 51 COTONEASTEWLOWFA5T' COT' IJ ASTER 5G METES BOXOR BURERFLY IPoS 50 FEBTLKAMAFIEI AMS FESCUE 1G FESnxA, TADI M CREEPW FFSCLE NO FURCRAEAMACOOVALLII MAURITIUS HEMP TS G %EVILLEA'CQMTA GEN GREVLLEA 5r KNA'Y7K6 KKMWStA FELTPLANT 15G WIOFbIUM YW-OW WAVE VAREGATEDFLOA 5G RHAPHIOLEPIS GLOM DNF TAUHAWTMDPN 5G RHAFHIDLEPIS UMBEUATA Uff YEDDA HAWTHORN 5G R�INUS OFFICINALIS DWARFHQSETAARY 1 Q SENECIO SEPPENS H.UECHAUNSTICHS 1 G WESRiIRGA Fft41flICO5A CDASi R09EM1lydiY SG TRANSITION to COMMON AREA at REAR: ALOEAABORFECM 1REE ALOE 50 ALCESTRIATA E211LVL ALOE SG ARCT09TAPhYL0.5'SLWBE MANZANITA 5G ARTEWSACALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA SAGEBRUSH 1 G CEANCT-HUSSPM, CAIF NIA LILAC 5G EFIDGID" FA9CICLRATU CCFOHHIABUCKWHEAT 1 G HETERLIVLES HYBRID EVERGREEN DAYLII.Y 1 G HUECFIERASPECIES CORN BELLS 10 HNIFOPHAI LE MATO' PGRW PLANT 5G LDWwsATA. 9RCE2E' LUT RUSH 10 PoBES*TTEGRIFDLA LETAQNAOESERRY $G RHUSOVATA SUGAR BUSH 5G, "NEPA COULTERII 3uG BUSH 56. &ALNAC1EVUNDII CLEVLAl1DGAGE 5C. WATER QUALITY BASINS ACIILEAMILLEFOLWM YARfl -T CAREXPANEA SPM, DUNE SEDGE 1G CLARKLR AMDENA FAREWELL TO SPRING 1D OIANEIIATl5MANK A OIANF 5G IRIS PAC RC CORRT HYERD IRIS 1 G JUNCU..PATENS CALIFORNIA RUSH ] G LoMAA[PA uREEZE' MAT RUSH 1 G LYGEW SPARTAJM EWAFTO GFMS 1 G LYMUS CONDENSATUS W MRYE 1G NLMLFNBEItGIA FINK FLAM' TCCR GRASS 1G BESLERKAITTUNINLIS *MMNMODRGRASS 1G STACHYS BYUNFTINA LAABSERR 1 G CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L.1 Landscape Architects: /^ MJS Design Group 1 Cannery LOLLS MARCH 11, 2014 tdmpy507 h -.h p 15' �0' gp g0' N�Wypprl Bnech, CA 92883 SCALE! I'= 30' (949)675-0964 I El BAKER STREET APARTMENTS cosTA MEsA, cA RED OAK INVESTMENTS _ q4A 2W BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949- 733 2" LANDSCAPE AMENITIES KEY: 0 CLUBROOM LOUNGE + BBQ COUNTER • COMMUNAL TABLE ■ PING PONG TABLE WOOD DICK • FIRE TABLE • LOUNGE FURNITURE POOL DECK ■ GEOMETRIC SHAPED POOL AND SPA ■ RANDOM PAVING'BARS' • CHASE LOUNGES ■ DAYBEDS • SUNNING LAWN wish ACCENT WALL g 'HANG-OUT' DECK • RECYCLE TREE STOMP SUPPORT POLES for MOVABLE HAMMOCKS • LOUNGE FURNITURE 0 SPORTS BAR • SIT- UP BAR COUNTER • WALL MOUNTED TVS • POOLTABLE • SHADE SAIL POOL COURTYARD L.2 Landscape ArchitectINEs: �j MJS Design Group (�f C,��nery ions SOr30lh 01reet JANIZARY 10, 201 D 5' i0' 20' 3G' Nexpch Beech, CA 92863 SCALE: I" = 10' (049) 675-9964 w w V %f V BAKER STREET APARTMENTS coSTA MESA, cA RED 0-01,14K IN VES TMENTS 2901 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 23D IRVINE, C4 92612 TEL: 949 733.2000 —q5— ,- qa.,,J— LANDSCAPE AMENITIES KEY: 4 ENTERTAINMENT'DOCK' 'FLOATING' WOOD DOCK ■ COMMUNAL TABLE ■ OUTDOOR KITCHEN • LOUNGE FURNITURE © REFECTION POOLwilh WATER EFFECT © RANDOM CONCRETE 'EARS BRIDGE wish FLOOR GRAPHICS 0 'RELAX' LAWN • GEOMETRIC SHAPED FIREPIT • DAYBEDS • LOUNGE FURNITURE © GAME DECK • POOLTABLE ■ LOUNGE FURNITURE • SHADE SAIL 'RELAX' COURTYARD L.3 JANIZARY 10, 2014 (� 0 !' 1. I S CAL E: 1"= 10' Landscape Architects: ON- MJS Design Group Can nery LH. 507 301h S .1 30' Newport Beech, CA 9,1 5&1 (940) 575-9954 E NIX, �. LEA51fJG .t F \ L � 0 �y sly •� • � rr �I� V � 0 BAKER S TREE T A PA R TMEN TS COSTA MESA, CA RED OAK IN VES TMENTS 2'10'1 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEC: 548.733 20 O LANDSCAPE AMENITIES KEY: o ACCENT GABIpN WALLS POSSIBLE PROJECT SIGNAGE on MOUNTED LANDSCAPE © RANDOM PAVING'BARS' O PERMEABLE PAVERS for FUTURE TENANT PARKING o LEASING PLAZA 0 fi€ ftb. 940AT4bVE-IN STALL wilh SIGNAGE ENTRY COURTYARD L.4 Landscape Architects: f ` fCannery MARCH 71, 207 Tw Q 5' tfl' S C A LE :1"= 10' MJS Design Group Logs No- por�so-��i N�VOrt HoaCh, CA 92663 (949] e7e-9460 _ 70 --T "�W-vj LAN; 5 -F 7 --4 17 31 co EASEMENTS: M AN EASEMENT FOR THF PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDFNTAL THFRFTO As SPT FORTH IN A DOGLPMLNI- PURPOSE: CONDUI IN RECORDED: MARCH 29 1965 IN BOOK 7462, PACE 323, OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTS- THF FASTER LY 1 FOOT OF LOT 20 AND THF SOU THWFSTFRLY 1 FOOT OF IHF SOU IHEAEFLRLY 1 FOOT OF LOT 21 (D AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE SIIOWO'4 BELOW AND RIGIIIS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT. PURPOSE: SEWER LINES RFCORDFO- IN BOOK 7661 PAGE 747, (IFFICIAl RFCORDS AFFECTS: THAT PORTION OF �HE LAND AN EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSL 511OV4 13LLOW AND KIGIPTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS SET FORTH IN A DOCUMENT PURPOSE: UNDERGROUND LINES, CONDUITS INCLUDING ABOVE ROUND APPURTENANT FIXTURFE RFGORUEIJ' IN BOOK 11284 PAGE 1.39B, OFFICIAL RFCORDS AFFECTS: A PORTIOD,4 OF THE �AINLO r t CASEMENTS.COVENANTS A14U UGNUIIION GONIAINLD IN THE DEED FROM THE IRVINE COMPANY, AS GRANTOR, T,PKDFVFLOi'MFNT, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERS1IIP, AS GRAN ILL, RLCUKDLU Ju 15, 19�)3AS NS,RUMENT N0-93-469859 AL RECORDS. DOCUMENT LISTS NON–FYCLUSVFlLY EA5�-7MEN 1 5 FOR VARIOUS PURPCSE$. IHF. LOCATION 1Cl, AO11­0FN rANHOI BE DETERMINED FROM RECORD.) IF f I qw.b.-M F U S C 0 E 30' Q, 15' 30' 50' F N —iW — —. 6W J - wm.�- 16795 Von Korman, Suito 100 Irvine, Culifornio 92606 SCALE: 1 = 30' 2013-044 03-12-2014 [019 49.4 74.19 6049,474.5315 www.fusc x 9. c orn BA SCE R SO TREE T A PA R THEN TS 120 E. BAKER ST COSTA MESA, CA SITE PLAN C-1 `_ rr?, ARCHITECTS ORANGE "RED OAK IN VES TMEN TS 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRNE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 97612 TEL; 949,733.2000 144 NORTH ORANGE Sl., GRANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (7 f 4) 639-9860 DRAINAG' SWALF FLOWUNF PFR PLAN M FA DRAIN AREA DRAIN SYSTEMZSWALE TYPICAL DETAIL N -TS /LJ4* �'Tllwl 544AV (W -ti' FX 41.& FF 41.9' L 4. FF - 42.5 _,F ARCA DRAM t FF a 43.0 N 42.5 FF = 43.0 i Ills n Ii 4219 m <� i fn FF 43. % p pp 'N" su 111 I is jm� !'-z FUSCOE IN a1R f. 30, o' 1�" -'11), Flo' }b795 Von Knrmun, U.' 100 Irvine, C. W F- i. 9-2 60 6 r i. I q49 17A � 1960 , F.- 9A 9.4 74.5 a 15 ._fuscm-com SCALE: 1" .10' 2013-0-M 14 PRELIMINARY BAKER STREET APARTMENTS 120 E BAKER ST. COSTA MESA, CA GRADING C-2 RED OAK IN VES TMEN TSARCHITECTS ORANGE 2 101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE -130 IR V/AfE, CA 92692 TEL.- 949.733,2000 144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714) 639-9860 -! � — _--� z � � , � y �� , F '�.Jl l' --A_ - l "' � "'r"- =�='T �U ✓-titer.. _ ,, `` �� 11� _t IjINDEX: tI�/ E%IS - -- mg all 191 FUSCOE E Y 6 1 N E E E I N 6 15795 Von Konnnn, Suite 100 Irvine, Culifom in 92606 1.1949-474 19110 ° fox 949 474 5315 _ r7ansx % L+��S,�• y�rF'�—yy U-------- _ L r 1 EiGilHr; FREE : + �- — _ Y — ! !�J-"'� J ! + il•-� r =gat ly rr ,r - o 0- N f — it — � ,.f—�•-t � � , - +C -1151, ai C� 1 l3l " S 30' 0' 15' 30' 60• SCALE•! 1" 30 2013-044 02-044014 xve.c°m EXISTING TREES ! BA KER S TREE T A PA R TMEN TS 120 E. BAKER ST COSTA MESA, CA EXHIBIT C-3 RED OAK INVESTMENTS �� ARCHITECTS ORANGE ©2ou�J1.,rsas� 144 NORTH ORANGE ST— ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 {714) 639-9860 m.. x a' �y � roi 1m. Y� 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733.2000 miq Jri^• �nY = di rydreN w qua Nwl nhn yemiasxn ry �,enxap QOyI To v -- --- —�—_, �r-_- --__ ., X� _t IjINDEX: tI�/ E%IS - -- mg all 191 FUSCOE E Y 6 1 N E E E I N 6 15795 Von Konnnn, Suite 100 Irvine, Culifom in 92606 1.1949-474 19110 ° fox 949 474 5315 _ r7ansx % L+��S,�• y�rF'�—yy U-------- _ L r 1 EiGilHr; FREE : + �- — _ Y — ! !�J-"'� J ! + il•-� r =gat ly rr ,r - o 0- N f — it — � ,.f—�•-t � � , - +C -1151, ai C� 1 l3l " S 30' 0' 15' 30' 60• SCALE•! 1" 30 2013-044 02-044014 xve.c°m EXISTING TREES ! BA KER S TREE T A PA R TMEN TS 120 E. BAKER ST COSTA MESA, CA EXHIBIT C-3 RED OAK INVESTMENTS �� ARCHITECTS ORANGE ©2ou�J1.,rsas� 144 NORTH ORANGE ST— ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 {714) 639-9860 m.. x a' �y � roi 1m. Y� 2101 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 230 IRVINE, CA 92612 TEL: 949.733.2000 miq Jri^• �nY = di rydreN w qua Nwl nhn yemiasxn ry �,enxap QOyI ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION -lw- RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA TO CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 125 EAST BAKER STREET APARTMENT PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2013081051) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2013081051) has been prepared for the 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project. WHEREAS, The proposed project is a five -story, 240 -unit apartment complex (63 -foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 58 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a six -story parking structure (62.5 -foot maximum height proposed) with 457 parking spaces and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: 1. Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2013081051). Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. Change the land use designation of the 4.17 - acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential. In addition to the change in land use designation, the general plan amendment also involves text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories. 3. Rezone R-13-02. A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential – High Density (PDR -HD). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre. The site is proposed to be designated PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) in the City's Zoning Code. The designation allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre, or 83 dwelling units maximum for the site. The proposed 240 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre for this project. --i0` — 5. Master Pian PA -13-11. A Master Plan application for the proposed development of a five -story 240 -unit residential apartment building (63 feet overall height) that wraps around a six -story parking structure (62.5 feet overall height) with 457 parking spaces in the structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from: on-site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). 6. Development Agreement DA -14-02. A Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Costa Mesa to fund future public infrastructure improvements in the area. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Draft EIR was circulated from November 6, 2013 to December 20, 2013 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa received written and verbal comments from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties during the public review period. WHEREAS, written and verbal comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15088. WHEREAS, a Responses to Comment document was prepared which includes responses to comment on environmental issues received during the public review period of the Draft EIR and errata pages showing redlined/strikeout revisions reflected in the Final EIR. WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the Final EIR and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would require recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. WHEREAS, the Draft EIR, Responses to Comments, errata pages identifying revisions to the Draft EIR, and any other information added by the City constitutes the Final EIR for this project. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, r-- loz— and the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Final EIR for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2014, and continued to March 24, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission, by a 5-0 vote, finds that the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully supported by substantial evidence in that it addresses all environmental effects on the project and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation on May 16, 2013, which established a maximum building height of 111 feet above mean sea level (approximately 65 feet above ground level) for the proposed project. WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), at their meeting of January 16, 2014, determined, on a 6-1 vote, that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the AELUP for Heliports. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by a 5-0 vote, recommended that City Council tentatively approve General Plan Amendment GP -13-02, Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, Rezone R-13-02, and Master Plan PA -13-11, by separate resolutions. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 15, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, with the exception of the Final EIR, Development Agreement DA - 14 -02, Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, and Rezone R-13-02, Master Plan PA -13- 11, will be subject to the approval of the General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY CERTIFIES the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project as described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15TH day of April, 2014. ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA JIM RIGHEIMER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA) }ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 14u as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of April, 2014, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of April, 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2014 —.1105-- ATTACHMENT 3 DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT -&�Ict;oI RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA GRANTING TENTATIVE APPROVAL TO ADOPT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -13-02 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE 4.17 -ACRE 125 EAST BAKER APARTMENT PROJECT SITE FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TEXT AMENDMENT(S) TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN TO REFLECT A SITE- SPECIFIC DENSITY OF 58 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND A SITE- SPECIFIC HEIGHT OF SIX STORIES AT 125 EAST BAKER STREET. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2000 General Plan on January 22, 2002; WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of the City of Costa Mesa. WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan is subject to update and revision to account for current and future community needs. WHEREAS, The proposed project is a five -story, 240 -unit apartment complex (63 -foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 58 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a six -story parking structure (62.5 -foot maximum height proposed) with 457 parking spaces and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: 1. Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse ##2013081451), Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. Change the land use designation of the 4.17 - acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential. In addition to the change in land use designation, the general plan amendment also involves text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories. 3. Rezone R-13-02. A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD). -107— 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre. The site is proposed to be designated PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) in the City's Zoning Code. The designation allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre, or 83 dwelling units maximum for the site. The proposed 240 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Master Plan PA -13-11. A Master Plan application for the proposed development of a five -story 240 -unit residential apartment building (53 feet overall height) that wraps around a six -story parking structure (52.5 feet overall height) with 457 parking spaces in the structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from: on-site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 451 parking spaces proposed). 5. Development Agreement DA -14-02, A Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Costa Mesa to fund future public infrastructure improvements in the area. WHEREAS, a site specific amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is proposed to change the land use designation of the 4.17 -acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential for the development of the project as described above. WHEREAS, text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site- specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories is proposed for the project site. WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment involves an amendment to the Land Use Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit A) and a text amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (Exhibit B); WHEREAS, approval of the project is pending adoption of Ordinance No. 14-_ for Rezone R-13-02; WHEREAS, approval of the project is pending adoption of Ordinance No. 14-_ for Code Amendment CO -13-02; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2014, and continued to March 24, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Draft E1R was circulated from November 6, 2013 to December 20, 2013 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation on May 16, 2013, which established a maximum building height of 111 feet above mean sea level (approximately 65 feet above ground level) for the proposed project. WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), at their meeting of January 16, 2014, determined, on a 6-1 vote, that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the AELUP for Heliports. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on a 5-0 vote, recommended that City Council certify the EIR, approve Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, Rezone R-13-02, and Master Plan PA -11-13 by separate resolutions. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 15, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, with the exception of the Final EIR, Development Agreement DA - 14 -02, Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, and Rezone R-13-02, Master Plan PA -13- 11, will be subject to the approval of the General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY GRANTS TENTATIVE APPROVAL TO ADOPT GP -13-02 which amends the Land Use Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit A) and a text amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (Exhibit B) with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1ST" day of April, 2014. ATTEST: JIM RIGHEIMER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) }ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 14_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of April, 2014, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of April, 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, l have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of 12014 EXHIBIT A Amendment to the Land Use Map Change the land use designation of the 4.17 -acre development site at 125 East Baker Street from Industrial Park (IP) to High Density Residential (HDR) Ovtryiew Map Ma' Display I 1f t4� f f � J / f .i`- Lr�enyP rr �� fir, 40, +,~ l Wydm1v r■isrla 9Y Raw C hann■�- rnygoR ~� BueaY §a i:oact Hamra PirR r �.II �' f 'r r 1 f le ti f i / �� 4r iG12fA$•d .'NHI]W?dw MC'f EXHIBIT B The proposed General Plan Amendment GP -13-02 would amend the following sections of the Land Use Element as underlined and italicized below: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Nigh -Density Residential In 2014, General Plan Amendment GP -13-02 was approved, and it consisted of a site- specific residential density increase for a 4,17 -acre site at 125 Fast Baker Street. The maximum density allowed is 58 unitslacre. This allows a maximum of 240 dwelling units. Building Height The proposed revision to the General Plan objective/policy language is underlined and italicized below: Objective LIJA C Promote land use patterns and development, which contribute to community and neighborhood identity. Policy LU -1C.2 Limit building height to four stories above grade south of the 1-405 Freeway, except for special purpose housing, such as elderly, affordable, or student housing. An exception is for the Newport Plaza property at 1901 Newport Boulevard where a six -level parking structure is allowed, and the 240 -unit apartment proiect at 125 Fast Baker Street where a five -story apartment building and six -story parking structure are allowed (GP -13-021. ATTACHMENT 4 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR REZONE ORDINANCE NO. 14 - AN ORDINANCE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA GRANTING APPROVAL TO ADOPT REZONE R-13-02 FOR A REZONE (OR CHANGE) OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE 4.17 - ACRE DEVELOPMENT SITE FOR THE 125 EAST BAKER APARTMENT PROJECT FROM COMMERCIAL LIMITED (CL) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL — HIGH DENSITY (PDR -HD) AT 125 EAST BAKER STREET. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The proposed project is a five -story, 240 -unit apartment complex (53 -foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 58 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a six -story parking structure (52.5 -foot maximum height proposed) with 457 parking spaces and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: 1. Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2013081051). Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. Change the land use designation of the 4.17 - acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential. In addition to the change in land use designation, the general plan amendment also involves text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories. 3. Rezone R-13-02. A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre. The site is proposed to be designated PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) in the City's Zoning Code. The designation allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre, or 83 dwelling units maximum for the site. The proposed 240 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre far this project. 415— 5. Master Plan PA -13-11. A Master Plan application far the proposed development of a five -story 240 -unit residential apartment building (63 feet overall height) that wraps around a six -story parking structure (62.5 feet overall height) with 457 parking spaces in the structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from; on-site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). 6. Development Agreement DA -14-02. A Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Costa Mesa to fund future public improvements in the area. WHEREAS, a Rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4,17 -acre development site is proposed from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential -- High Density (PDR -HD) for the development of the project as described above. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2014, and continued to March 24, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Draft EIR was circulated from November 6, 2013 to December 20, 2013 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation on May 16, 2013, which established a maximum building height of 111 feet above mean sea level (approximately 65 feet above ground level) for the proposed project. WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), at their meeting of January 16, 2014, determined, on a 6-1 vote, that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the AELUP for Heliports. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on a 5-0 vote, recommended that City Council certify the EIR, tentatively approve General Plan Amendment GP -13-02; and approve Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, and Master Plan PA -11-13, by separate resolutions. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 15, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, with the exception of the Final EIR, Development Agreement DA - 14 -02, Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, and Rezone R-13-02, Master Plan PA -13- 11, will be subject to the approval of the General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. SECTION 1, REZONE. Based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY GRANTS APPROVAL TO ADOPT R-13-02, which amends the Zoning Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit B) with respect to the property described above. SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft EIR was circulated from November 6, 2013 to December 20, 2013 for public review and comment. The City of Costa Mesa received written and verbal comments from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties during the public review period. Written and verbal comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15088. A Responses to Comment document was prepared which includes responses to comment on environmental issues received during the public review period of the Draft EIR and errata pages showing redlined/strikeout revisions reflected in the Final EIR. No significant new information has been added to the Final EIR and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would require recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The Draft EIR, Responses to Comments, errata pages identifying revisions to the Draft EIR, and any other information added by the City constitutes the Final EIR for this project. The Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. The Final EIR for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa. SECTION 3: INCONSISTENCIES. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and or further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance, SECTION 4: SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 5: PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned summary and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the names and member of the City Council voting for and against the same. ATTEST: JIM RIGHEIMER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ]ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 14_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of April, 2014, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of April, 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2014 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: Required Finding: A compatible and harmonious relationship exists between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhoods. Response: With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood. The project features quality construction and materials. The proposal provides on-site amenities comparable with quality residential units. The parking study prepared for the project identifies that the parking demand is adequate for this project. The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) determined that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Required Finding: Safety and compatibility of the design of the parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. Response: The parking study prepared for the project concludes that the parking will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed mix of units within this project. The mitigation measures in the EIR include provisions for a traffic signal at Baker/Pullman intersection, street improvements at the Red Hill/ Baker intersection, payment of traffic impact fees, and to provide adequate sight distance for vehicles at all project drive approaches. Required Finding: The use complies with performance standards as prescribed elsewhere in the Zoning Code, subject to approval of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment for site specific changes to the density and height limits for this site. Response: The project complies with the City's Zoning Code, subject to approval of the associated Zoning Code Amendment for site specific text changes as it pertains to density and building height, and complies with the intent of the Zoning Code as it pertains to on-site parking spaces. Required Finding: The use is consistent with the General Plan. Response: A change in the land use designation of the 4.17 -acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential is proposed to accommodate the development; therefore, the proposed rezone to PDR - HD would be consistent with the proposed High Density Residential General Plan designation for the project site. Required Finding: The cumulative effect of all the planning applications have been considered. Response: The cumulative effects of General Plan Amendment GP -13-02, Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, Rezone R-13-02, and Master Plan PA - 13 -11 have all been considered for this project and no significant cumulative (A) impacts were identified. B. Required Finding: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Response: The project site is located at the southwest corner of Baker Street and Pullman Street. The site is approximately 4.17 -acres in size (181,415 square feet), is roughly triangular-shaped, and is currently occupied by a 66,999 -square -foot two-story office building constructed in 1974, a surface parking lot, signage, and landscaped areas within the parking area and around the perimeter of the site, The property is currently zoned CL (Commercial Limited) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Industrial Park (MP), The proposed project involves replacing the existing office building and surface parking areas with an apartment building and parking structure as described above. The apartment units are comprised of studio units, one -bedroom units, two-bedroom units and three bedroom units. A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD). The proposed rezone to PDR -HD would be consistent with the proposed High Density Residential General Plan designation for the project site. C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. The Final E I R was prepared for this project pursuant to Article 7 - E I R Process, of the CEQA Guidelines, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been included, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects, as identified in the final EIR. 12-1 EXHIBIT B Amendment to the Zoning Map Change the zoning designation of the 4.17 -acre development site at 125 East Baker Street from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential - High Density (PDR -HD) Overview Mar Map Diaplav fr Ley+nd Hydroln. N+c ula POW 31rra1 [--naxt f,.i j�alt'RI LbxFIle � ��-- x^ , .GI ffi!2a•wwv fn��[Ho kCT � — -r1177rt r ATTACHMENT 5 DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR ZONING CGDE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. 14 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA GRANTING APPROVAL TO ADOPT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CO -13-02 TO AMEND COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 13 FOR A SITE-SPECIFIC DENSITY OF 58 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR THE 125 EAST BAKER APARTMENT PROJECT. THE AMENDMENT IS PROPOSED TO THE FOLLOWING CODE SECTION IN TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE: TABLE 13-58 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) TO ALLOW A SITE- SPECIFIC DENSITY OF 58 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR THIS PROJECT AT 125 EAST BAKER STREET. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CRISTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The proposed project is a five -story, 240 -unit apartment complex (63 - foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 58 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a six -story parking structure (62.5 -foot maximum height proposed) with 457 parking spaces and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: 1. Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2013081051). Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. Change the land use designation of the 4.17 - acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential. In addition to the change in land use designation, the general plan amendment also involves text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories. 3. Rezone R-13-02. A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre. The site is proposed to be designated PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) in the City's Zoning Code. The designation allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre, or 83 dwelling units maximum for the site. The proposed 240 -unit project - 1z4- would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Master Plan PA -13-11. A Master Plan application for the proposed development of a five -story 240 -unit residential apartment building (63 feet overall height) that wraps around a six -story parking structure (62.5 feet overall height) with 457 parking spaces in the structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from- on-site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). 6, Development Agreement DA -14-02. A Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Costa Mesa to fund future public infrastructure improvements in the area. WHEREAS, a site specific amendment to the Zoning Code is proposed for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre and a site-specific height of six stories for the development of the project as described above. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2014, and continued to March 24, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Draft EIR was circulated from November 6, 2013 to December 20, 2013 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation on May 16, 2013, which established a maximum building height of 111 feet above mean sea level (approximately 65 feet above ground level) for the proposed project. WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), at their meeting of January 16, 2014, determined, on a 6-1 vote, that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the AELUP for Heliports. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on a 5-0 vote, recommended that City Council certify the EIR, tentatively approve General Plan Amendment GP -13-02; and approve Rezone R-13-02, Zoning Code Amendment CA -13-02 and Master Plan PA -13- 11, by separate resolutions. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 15, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, with the exception of the Final EIR, Development Agreement DA - 14 -02, Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, and Rezone R-13-02, Master Plan PA -13- 11, will be subject to the approval of the General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. SECTION 1: CODE AMENDMENT. The revised Table 13-58 is presented with changes as underlined and italicized below: Revised Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) Developmwd PDR -LD PDR -MD PDR -HD PDR NCM PDC PD1 Standar! Maximum Density 8 12 20 35 20 per Section 13-59 Nate: See North Nate: The maximum MAXIMUM DENSITY Costa Mesa Specific density for 1901 Newport CRITERIA. Plan for exceptions. Boulevard is 40 dwelling Note; The maximum units per acre. See North (dwelling units per Costa Mesa Specific Plan density for 1�5 East acre) Baker Street is far exceptions. 58 dwellincr units per acre (CO-13-Qzi. SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft EIR was circulated from November B, 2013 to December 20, 2013 for public review and comment. The City of Costa Mesa received written and verbal comments from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties during the public review period. Written and verbal comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15088. A Responses to Comment document was prepared which includes responses to comment on environmental issues received during the public review period of the Draft EIR and errata pages showing redlined/strikeout revisions reflected in the Final —62� – EIR. No significant new information has been added to the Final EIR and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would require recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The Draft EIR, Responses to Comments, errata pages identifying revisions to the Draft EIR, and any other information added by the City constitutes the Final EIR for this project. The Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. The Final EIR for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa. SECTION 3: INCONSISTENCIES. Any provision of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and or further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 4: SEVERABILITY. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or clauses or applications of this ordinance which can be implemented without the invalid provision, clause or application; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. SECTION 5: PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days from and after the passage thereof, and prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from its passage shall be published once in the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa or, in the alternative, the City Clerk may cause to be published a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance, and within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall cause to be published the aforementioned U-12-7- summary and shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of this Ordinance together with the names and member of the City Council voting for and against the same. ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA JIM RIGHEIMER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY 129-- STATE OF CALIFORNIA) }ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ] I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 14_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of April, 2014, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of April, 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2014 ATTACHMENT 6 DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR MASTER PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA GRANTING APPROVAL TO ADOPT MASTER PLAN PA -13-11 FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A FIVE -STORY 240 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING (63 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT) THAT WRAPS AROUND A SIX -STORY PARKING STRUCTURE (62.5 FEET OVERALL HEIGHT) WITH 457 PARKING SPACES IN THE STRUCTURE AND FOUR OUTDOOR ON -GRADE PARKING SPACES WITH A DEVIATION FROM THE FOLLOWING ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: FOR ON-SITE PARKING SPACES (538 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED; 461 PARKING SPACES PROPOSED) AT 125 EAST BAKER STREET. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The proposed project is a five -story, 240 -unit apartment complex (63 -foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 58 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a six -story parking structure (62.5 -foot maximum height proposed) with 457 parking spaces and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: 1. Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2013081051). Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. Change the land use designation of the 4,17 - acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential, In addition to the change in land use designation, the general plan amendment also involves text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories. 3. Rezone R-13-02. A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential – High Density (PDR -HD). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre. The site is proposed to be designated PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) in the City's Zoning Code. The designation allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre, or 83 dwelling units maximum for the site. The proposed 240 -unit project 131 — would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Master Plan PA -13-11. A Master Plan application for the proposed development of a five -story 240 -unit residential apartment building (63 feet overall height) that wraps around a six -story parking structure (62.5 feet overall height) with 457 parking spaces in the structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from: on-site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). 6. Development Agreement DA -14-02. A Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Costa Mesa to fund future public infrastructure improvements in the area. WHEREAS, A Master Plan application for the proposed development of a five - story 240 -unit residential apartment building for the development of the project as described above. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2014, and continued to March 24, 2414, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Draft EIR was circulated from November 6, 2413 to December 20, 2413 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation on May 16, 2013, which established a maximum building height of 111 feet above mean sea level (approximately 65 feet above ground level) for the proposed project. WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), at their meeting of January 16, 2014, determined, on a 6-1 vote, that the proposed project —132— was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the AELUP for Heliports. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on a 5-0 vote, recommended that City Council certify the EIR; tentatively approve General Plan Amendment GP -13-02; approve Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, Rezone R-13-02, and Master Plan PA - 13 -11 by separate resolutions. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on April 15, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, with the exception of the Final EIR, Development Agreement DA - 14 -02, Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, and Rezone R-13-02, Master Plan PA -13- 11, will be subject to the approval of the General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A and subject to the conditions of approval/mitigation measures indicated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained within Exhibit B and Exhibit C, respectively, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES PA -13-11 with respect to the property described above. ATTEST: PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15TH day of April, 2014. JIM RIGHEIMER Mayor, City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) }ss COUNTY OF GRANGE ) I, BRENDA GREEN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above Council Resolution Number 14_ as considered at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of April, 2014, and thereafter passed and adopted as a whole at the regular meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of April, 2014, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this day of , 2014 EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: Required Finding: A compatible and harmonious relationship exists between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhoods. Response: With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR for the proposed project, all potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood. The project features quality construction and materials. The proposal provides on-site amenities comparable with quality residential units. The parking study prepared for the project determined that the proposed parking spaces are adequate to meet the demand for this project. The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) determined that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Required Finding: Safety and compatibility of the design of the parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. Response: The parking study prepared for the project concludes that the parking will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed mix of units within this project. The mitigation measures in the EIR include provisions for a traffic signal at Baker/Pullman intersection, street improvements at the Red Hill/ Baker intersection, payment of traffic impact fees, and to provide adequate sight distance for vehicles at all project drive approaches. The project has been conditioned to comply with these mitigation measures; as a result, the safety and compatibility of the project has been insured. Required Finding: The use is consistent with the General Plan. Response: The project proposes a General Plan amendment from Industrial Park to High Density Residential and an associated General Plan Text Amendment to reflect a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre and a site-specific height of six -stories. Subject to approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment the project is consistent with the General Plan, as it pertains to overall project density and height limits. Required Finding: The cumulative effect of all the planning applications have been considered. Response: The cumulative effects of General Plan Amendment GP -13-02, Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, Rezone R-13-02, and Master Plan PA - 13 -11 have all been considered for this project and no significant impacts were identified. 0� B. Required Finding: The master pian meets the broader goals of the General Plan and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, and integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. Response: The Master Plan application is for the proposed development of a five -story 249 -unit residential apartment building (63 feet overall height) that wraps around a six -story parking structure (62.5 feet overall height) with 457 parking spaces in the parking structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from the following zoning code development standards: on-site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). With regard to the master plan, the following is noted: The project features quality construction and materials. The building design and roof elements are a modern style, i.e., characterized by simplified square and rectangular building forms with a variety of flat planes, projections, and recesses. The exterior consists of alternating stucco, smooth fiber cement panels with exposed attachments, and wood siding finishes. Additional accents include wood balcony rails and trellises, welded wire mesh grid systems that support the growth of landscape vines, and "caged rock" planters. The developer will also be required to contact the City's Transportation Services Division and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to replace the chain link fence between the westerly property line and the drainage channel v -ditch with a combination wrought iron fence with pilaster supports or other fence/barrier acceptable to both the City and Caltrans, and to landscape the area between the westerly property line and the v -ditch consistent with the abutting on-site landscape. The proposal provides on-site amenities comparable with gualify residential developments. The proposed resident amenities include a 5,499 square foot clubhouse, business center, and state-of-the-art cardio gym. Beyond the clubhouse is over 12,223 square feet of landscaped courtyard with a pool, spa and related recreation areas. A separate more passive courtyard encompasses 5,385 square feet of additional common open space. Stretching along the western edge of the property is the 13,797 square foot "resident back yard", including a dog park, basketball courts, landscaped walkways and community gardens. The parking study prepared for the protect, rather than strict compliance with the parking requirements in the Zoning Code, has been determined to appropriately identify the parking demand for this project. A shared parking analysis prepared for this project is a tool to identify peak parking demand for this project. The parking study was prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) and is included in the Transportation/Traffic Section of the EIR. The study concludes that the parking will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed mix of units within this project. The protect has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding uses in the area and future apartment tenants will be notified of the existing uses in the vicinity of this project. The project has been designed as a self-contained residential community with on-site amenities as discussed above. The building reflects a modern architecture style that makes it visually compatible with the architecture of the surrounding industrial area. A condition of approval has been incorporated requiring future tenants to be notified that there are surrounding industrial uses in the area, including but not limited to, operational characteristics such as hours of operation, delivery schedules, outdoor activities, noise, and odor generation that could be disturbing to residents. Additionally, future tenants will be notified of their proximity to the airport and the units will be designed with sound attenuation measures to mitigate any noise impacts. C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. The Final EIR was prepared for this project pursuant to Article 7 - EIR Process, of the CEQA Guidelines, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been included, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects, as identified in the final EIR. D. 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, must be 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/or cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not required. E. Mitigation measures from the EIR have been included as Exhibit C. If any of these conditions are removed, the decision-making body must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. F. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with Chapter XII, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that the development project's traffic impacts will be mitigated at all affected intersections and by the payment of traffic impact fees. G. The rear building of this development is at an excessive distance from the street, but the plan does not lend itself to fire apparatus access or placement of an on-site fire hydrant. Problems associated with the depth of buildings on the property can be somewhat reduced by installation of a standpipe system and a residential sprinkler system. _),3q — EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PA -13-11 Ping. 1. The approval of Master Plan PA -13-11 shall be contingent upon City Council's final approval of General Plan Amendment GP -13-02, Rezone R-13-02, and Zoning Code Amendment C0-13-02. 2. Final Master Plan PA -13-11 shall comply with the conditions of approval, code requirements, special district requirements, and mitigation measures of the EIR for this project and as listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit C). 3. Mitigation measures from the EIR for this project have been included as Exhibit C. If any of these conditions are removed, the City Council must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. 4. The conditions of approval including Mitigation Measures incorporated by reference in these Conditions of Approval as Exhibit C, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA -13-11 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package 5. A parking management plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Director and the Transportation Services Manager prior to final occupancy of the building. The parking management plan shall denote the fallowing: a. Method of allocation of assigned parking. b. Location of visitor parking, including appropriate signage. c. Location of security gates, if any, and how gates will be operated. d. Location of employee parking. e. Provide proof of a contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations if parking problems arise. 5. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articulation, or a change of the finish material(s), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process such as a minor design review or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 7. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised unless necessary to provide proper drainage, and in no case shall it be raised in excess of 30 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property or as would result in an overall building height in excess of 111 feet above mean sea level as discussed in condition of approval number 8. If additional fill dirt is needed to provide acceptable on-site stormwater flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may include subsurface tie-in to public stormwater facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined —131— appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. 8. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation issues on May 16, 2013, which established a maximum building height of 111 feet above mean sea level (approximately 65 feet above ground level) for the proposed project. 9. The developer shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy. This inspection is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 10. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of individual units, suites, buildings, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall contact the U.S. Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 12. The project shall incorporate green building design and construction techniques where feasible; CAL Green Code or higher as determined by applicant. The applicant may contact the Building Safety Division at (714) 754-5273 for additional information. 13. It is recommended that the project incorporate green building design and construction techniques where feasible. The applicant may contact the Building Safety Division at (714) 754-5273 for additional information. CAL Green Code or higher as determined by applicant. 14. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter system which is painted to match the building would comply with the condition. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division, 15. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. Freestanding signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division/Development Services Director to ensure compatibility in terms of size, height, and location with the proposed/existing development, and existing freestanding signs in the vicinity. 16. There shall be no signage above the second floor of the building. Building wall signage shall be limited to identification of the residential development. 17. Demolition permits for existing structures shall be obtained and all work and inspections completed prior to final building inspections. Developer is notified that written notice to the Air Quality Management District may be required ten (10) days prior to demolition. 18. Developer shall contact the City's Transportation Services Division and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to replace the chain link fence between the westerly property line and the drainage channel v -ditch with T KD- a combination wrought iron fence with pilaster supports or other fence/barrier acceptable to bath the City and Caltrans, and landscape the area between the westerly property line and the v -ditch consistent with the abutting on-site landscape. The off-site fencing and landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division, Issuance of certificate of occupancy shall not be withheld pending the completion of this condition; however, the applicant shall provide documentation of the progress and estimated time of completion of the condition prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 19. Developer shall submit a detailed Landscape Plan for the public and private open spaces, for review and approval by the Development Services Department, prior to any construction landscape improvements. The plan shall include all decorative hardscape and landscape improvements as shown on the conceptual plans to provide visual relief for the project from the street. Final materials shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 20. Perimeter landscaping shall be planted with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits and shall contain additional 24 -inch box trees above the minimum Cade requirements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller sized trees to 24 -inch box trees or providing additional 24 -inch box trees. 21. Existing mature trees shall be retained wherever passible. Should it be necessary to remove existing trees, the applicant shall submit a written request and justification to the Planning Division. A report from a California licensed arborist may be required as part of the justification. Replacement trees shall be of a size consistent with trees to be removed and may be required on a 1:1 basis, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. This requirement shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division, 22. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall identify to the Development Services Director a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site activity, including resolution of issues related to dust generation from grading/paving activities. 23. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan features methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring uses to the fullest extent that is reasonable and practicable. The plan shall include construction parking and vehicle access and specifying staging areas and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan should mitigate disruption to businesses during construction. The truck route plan shall preclude truck routes through residential areas and major truck traffic during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200 trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or Transportation Services Manager. 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the building plans shall demonstrate that all units are equipped with a mechanical ventilation system that will properly filter the indoor air. The ventilation system can be a component of the air conditioning system with the distinction being that clean, ventilated air flaw does not necessarily need coolant. 25. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading as well as the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Building official prior to issuance of grading permits. 26. Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of (1) City's approval of the project, including but not limited to any proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. 27. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for the approval of the City's Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following: • The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the project site unless approved by the Development Services Director; • The intensity and location of lights on buildings shall be limited to minimize nighttime light and glare to residents and shall be subject to the Development Services Director's approval; • All site lighting fixtures shall be provided with a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency; and • Lighting design and layout shall limit spill light to no more than 0.5 foot- candle at the property line of the surrounding properties, consistent with the level of lighting that is determined necessary for safety and security purposes on site. • Light standards located at the top level of the parking structure shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height, located and oriented in such a way as to minimize light spillage onto surrounding properties. 28. A "Notice to Tenants" shall disclose the surrounding industrial uses in the area, including but not limited to, operational characteristics such as hours of operation, delivery schedules, outdoor activities, noise, and odor generation. The Tenant Notice shall be reviewed/approved by the City Attorney's office and Development Services Director prior to issuance of building permits and shall be included as a reference document in the Tenants' Lease Agreement, The Tenant's Notice shall serve as written notice of the existing noise environment and any odor -generating uses within the vicinity of the project. 29. If the project is constructed in phases, perimeter fences/walls, landscaping - ,IV along the frontages, and irrigation shall be installed prior to completion of the first phase. 30. The FAA No Hazard Determination shall be current and valid at the time of issuance of building permits. Any required modifications to the building, including, but not limited to, the building height or appurtenances required by the No Hazard Determination shall be reflected in the building plans prior to building permit issuance. ALUC 31. Outdoor signage shall be provided informing the public of the presence of an operating airport for all designated outdoor common or recreational areas. If the proposed project should change significantly after the ALUC review, the proposed project must return to ALUC for another consistency determination. Eng. 32. Maintain the public right-of-way in a "wet -down" condition to prevent excessive dust and promptly remove any spillage from the public right-of-way by sweeping or sprinkling. CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR PA -13-11 The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping. 1. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 2. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 3. Development shall comply with all requirements of Article 1, Chapter 5, and Article 9, Chapter 5 of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relating to development standards for multi -family residential projects. 4. If a tract map is proposed/recorded 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 $13,829.00 per new multi -family dwelling unit. 5. Street address shall be visible from the public street and shall be displayed on the complex identification sign. If there is no complex identification sign, the street address may be displayed on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or on another prominent location. Street address numerals shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height with not less than one -half-inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Identification of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with not less than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 6. Parking stalls shall be double -striped in accordance with City standards. 7. Driveway ramp slope shall comply with the standards contained in the City's parking ordinance. 8. All new on-site utility services shall be installed underground. 9. Installation of all new utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure the installation from view from any place on or off the property. The installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the public utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box under the direction of the Planning Division. 10. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 11. The project shall be subject to the submission of legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of all common open space and other facilities provided in the final development plan. 12. All landscaped areas shall be separated from paved vehicular areas by 5 - inch high continuous Portland Cement Concrete curbing. 13. The parking structure shall be landscaped per the provisions of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-105(4) - Parking Structure Landscape Requirements. 14. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. 15. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 16. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 17. Trash enclosure(s) or other acceptable means of trash disposal shall be provided. Design of trash enclosure(s) shall conform to City standards. Standard drawings are available from the Planning Division. 18. If present and/or projected exterior noise exceeds 50 CNEL, California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL for residential structures. If required interior noise levels are achieved by requiring that windows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. 19. In compliance with the City's mitigation monitoring program, the applicant shall submit a compliance report to the Planning Division along with plans for plan check or prior to commencement of the project's activity if no construction is involved, that lists each mitigation measure and states when and how the mitigation measures are to be met. Bldg. 20. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable adopted California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. 21. This project shall comply with the in -Building Public Safety Radio System Coverage per Section 5-130 to 5-137 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. At plan check submittal 6 copies of an in -building Public Safety Radio System Coverage report (Radio System Report) shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division. The Radio System Report shall be certified by an FCC licensed radio technician as provided by the property owner/applicant. The technician is required by Section 5-133 to conduct initial tests and shall be employed by the owner, the engineer or architect of record, or agent of the owner, but not by the contractor or any other person responsible for the work. 22. The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. CBC 1803.3., unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and allowed by the soils engineer. 23. Projections, including eaves, shall be one-hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into a 5 -foot setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3 -foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1(1) and R302.1(2). 24. Submit a soils report for this project. Soils report recommendation shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. 25. Show compliance with Chapter 11A and 11B of the 2013 California Building Code, 26. On graded sites the top of exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved discharge device a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent. 2010 California Residential Code Section R403.1.7.3. 2013 California Building Code CBC 1808.7, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 27. Submit grading plans, an erosion control plan, and a hydrology study. 28. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of plans for plan check, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation for compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality Order 99- 08-DWQ; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS000002 for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit); the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2002- 0010 and NPDES Permit No. CAS618030; and, the City of Costa Mesa Ordinance No. 97-20 for compliance with NPDES Permit for the City of Costa Mesa. Such documentation shall include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying and detailing the implementation of the applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs). Eng. 29. For demolition, grading, or building permits involving projects with a valuation of $10,000 or more, the contractor shall use a City -permitted i hauler(s) to haul any debris or solid waste from the job site (refer to Section 8-83(h), Regulations, of Title 8 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code). Use of a City -permitted hauler for such projects is the responsibility of the designated contractor. Non-compliance is subject to an administrative penalty as follows: $1,000 or 3% of the total project value, whichever is greater. 30. At the time of development submit for approval an Offsite Plan to the Engineering Division and Grading Plan to the Building Division that shows Sewer, Water, Existing Parkway Improvements and the limits of work on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or Architect. Cross lot drainage shall not occur. Construction Access approval must be obtained prior to Building or Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. Pay Offsite Plan Check fee per Section 13-231 of the C.C.M.M.C. and an approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. 31. Pay Offsite Plan Check fee per Section 13-231 of the C.C.M.M.C. and an approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering Permits being issued by the Cit of Costa Mesa. 32. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan, including four (4) feet clear around obstructions in the sidewalk. 33. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. ADA compliance required for all new driveway approaches. 34. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk. 35. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct a wheelchair ramp on the corner of Baker Street and Pullman Street. 36. Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 06-19 requirements prior to approval of plans. 37. Applicant is informed that Baker and Pullman Streets will be under a "NO OPEN CUT" moratorium. Open cutting the street pavement during the moratorium period shall require special resurfacing requirements. 38. The storm runoff study shall show existing and proposed facilities draining directly to the flood control channel adjacent to the property. Trans. 39. Fulfill mitigation of off-site traffic impacts at the time of issuance of certificate of occupancy by submitting to the Transportation Division the required traffic impact fee pursuant to the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council. The traffic impact fee is calculated including credits for all existing uses. At the current rate per trip end, the traffic impact fee is estimated at $165,253.00. NOTE: The Traffic Impact Fee will be recalculated at the time of issuance of certificate of occupancy i SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR PA -13-11 The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani 1. It is recommended that the developer contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to obtain Sanitary District requirements. AQMD 2. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (800) 288- 7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by the district. School 3. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 4. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and X119 — based upon any changes in the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council and in effect at that time. 40. Fulfill San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Ordinance requirement at the time of issuance of building permit by submitting the required fee to the Transportation Division. For the proposed use, the corridor fee is estimated as $2,216.00 per dwelling unit. NOTE: This fee is subject to revision and possible increase effective July 1 of each year. 41. Submit detailed plans for parking structure providing dimensions for all parking spaces and aisle widths per City Standards. 42. Identify width of all drive aisles including the circle entryway approaching the gated entry to the parking structure. 43. Provide a minimum of 40 feet total overall width at entry/exit for turn around. 44. Close unused drive approaches with full height curb and gutter per City Standards. 45. Construct sidewalk on Baker Street and Pullman Street per the revised plans and per City Standards and relocate any conflicting utilities, subject to final approval by Public Services. 46. Construct commercial type drive approach for FIRE LANES on Baker Street and Pullman Street, construct as 3 -inch high curb. 47. Construct Type II drive approach at locations submitted on site plan. Comply with minimum clearance requirements from any vertical obstructions. 48. For the traffic study, revise Figure 9-A (Stopping Sight Distance Analysis) for southbound Pullman Street to show a merging point closer to the main entrance. 49. Developer shall be fully responsible for the design and installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Baker Street and Pullman Street. Fire 50. Provide Class I Wet Standpipes in all stairs. 51. Provide 2 -hour fire -rated stair enclosures. 52. Provide electronic supervision of all unit smoke detectors. 53. Provide Fire Alarm System per CFC, 2010. 54. Provide Automatic Fire Sprinkler System per NFPA 13. 55. Provide Fire Department Connection at direction of Fire Department. Parks/ 56. Designated street tree for Baker Street is jacaranda mimosifolia. Pkwys Designated street tree for Pullman Avenue is pinus pinea. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR PA -13-11 The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani 1. It is recommended that the developer contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to obtain Sanitary District requirements. AQMD 2. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (800) 288- 7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by the district. School 3. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 4. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and X119 — Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants (RIFA) exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Water 5. Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District -- Engineering Desk and submit an application and plans for project review. Customer must obtain a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water District. JWA 6. Proposed construction penetrates the 100:1 imaginary surface extending a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of John Wayne Airport. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall submit a Notice of Proposed Construction to the FAA. Written proof from the FAA of their approval of the proposed construction and applicant's compliance with all FAA requirements shall be provided to the Planning Division prior to the release of building permits. Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring Program CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monttoring and Reporting Program SECTION 1 1.4 Mifigatlon Monitoring and Reporiing Program Mafrlx Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Measure Action Required I hionNeFing Phase AIR QUALITY Final EIR February 2014 Responsible Compliance VerNication Agency Initial I tale i Comments 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 M11114.2-2 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 in active construction areas ■ Quick replacement of ground cover in disturbed areas. If disturbed graded areas remaln inactive for greater than 4 days, nontoxic soil stabilizers shall be applied. ■ Watering of exposed surfaces two times daily ■ Watering of all unpaved haul mads 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 oIf trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 5CH No. 2013081051 11-2 City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC Final EIR February 2014 Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix CHAPTER 1 1 Mitigation Moniloring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.4 Mitigation Monkoring and Reporting Program Matrix HYDROLOGYNVATER 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 Compliance Verification Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to Orange County DAMP requirements. The Agency/ of building permit; Orange, City of Miligcfion Measure Action Requked Monitoring Phase Party InNal Date Comments MM4.24 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction -related Construction document Prior to issuance City Planning; Department of equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be specifications of building permit; SCAQMD Public Works turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes. Diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles during construction with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds shall be turned off when components of the drainage plan and WQMP BMPs have been installed. 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 gllbr interior or 100 gAiter exterior. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Costa Mesa. MM4.2-6 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; 9CAQMD 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 (HAFA 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 passible during construction HYDROLOGYNVATER 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 VVQMP. 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 Red Oak Investments, LLC ii -3 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR SCH No. 2013081051 CHAPTER 1 i Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION l 1.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Final Elk February 2014 Responsible Compliance V.wr]9cation Agency/ MiligaHon Measrre Action Required Moniioring Phase I Party I Initial Date Comments LAND USEIPLANNING 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 residential unit and resident, notifying them of potential annoyances associated with aircraft Vicinity within residential of occupancy Mesa Planning overflight and proximity to airport operations, including the following, with final form and development area permit Department content to be reviewed and approved by the Economic and Development Services Director and City Attorney: 'NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport intuence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the 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 residentiai 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 MM4.6-1 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 El SCH No. 2013081051 11-4 City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC Final EIR February 2014 Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mahix CHAPTER 1 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 1 1 ,4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix TRANSP O RTATIONITRAF FI C MbA4.9.1 Pullman StreeVBaker Street Intersection. Prior to issuance of a certificate of Install traffic signal and Prior to issuance Responsible Agerrcyl compflance veffflcoffan occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant shall install a traffic signal and Mitigalion Measure Action Required Monitoring 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 California construction: Department Manual on Unitorm Traffic Control Devices. The applicant will install signal interconnect a. The construction contractor shail provide written notification to all commercial and between Pullman StreeVBaker 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 StreeVSR 55 NB Ramps intersections. In conjunction with 204 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. bAM4.9.2 Red Hili 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 TRANSP O RTATIONITRAF FI C MbA4.9.1 Pullman StreeVBaker 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 StreetlBaker 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 California StreetlBaker Street Manual on Unitorm Traffic Control Devices. The applicant will install signal interconnect intersection between Pullman StreeVBaker Street traffic signal and existing traffic signals at the Baker Street/Red Hill Avenue and Baker StreeVSR 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. bAM4.9.2 Red Hili 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 throughlright-tum 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 Red Oak Investments, LLC 11-5 125 East Baker Street Aparlment Project EIR SCH No. 2013061051 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 UR SCH No. 2013081051 ii -4 City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC Responsible Compliance Vwr7iartion Agency/ Mitigafion Measure Action Required Monitoring Phase Party rnrliar Dafe 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 andlor of occupancy Mesa Public designed such that a driver's clear line of sight is not obstructed and does not threaten hardscape an 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 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 a 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 reshipe Pullman Street to include a dedicated southbound right -turn 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 UR SCH No. 2013081051 ii -4 City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC ATTACHMENT 7 MINUTES OF THE MARCH 24, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING f UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED 3.24.14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTE EXCERPTS PUBLIC HEARING NO. 3 — 125 East Baker 3. Application No.: Applicant: Site Address: Zone: Project Planner: Environmental GP -13-02, R-13-02, CO -13-02, and PA -13-11 Red Oak Investments 125 East Baker Street CL (Existing); PDR - HD (Proposed) Mel Lee Determination: Certify Final Environmental Impact Report Description: The proposed project is a five -story, 240 -unit apartment complex (63 - foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 58 dwelling units per acre with a six - story parking structure (57 -foot maximum height proposed) with a total of 461 parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: 1. Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2013081051). Certification of the Final EIR for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. Change the land use designation of the 4.17 -acre site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential, and text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories. 3. Rezone R-13-02. A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4,17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02. A zoning code amendment to Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre. 5. Master Plan PA -13-11. A Master Plan for development 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 a deviation from: on- site parking requirements (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). Mel Lee, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He advised that staff supported the proposed project and encouraged the Commission to recommend that City Council approve and take final action for the following entitlements: certification of final EIR (Environmental Impact Report), General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Zoning Code Amendment and Master Plan. Trina Abbott with Atkins North America, Inc., consulting company who prepared the project's EIR, gave a presentation regarding the CEQA process. -1N- UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED PUBLIC COMMENTS Joe Flanagan, Red Oak Investment Partner, reported their Design Team (Principals and staff) would be making a presentation on the project. Mr. Flanagan added staff had read the conditions of approval and they were in agreement with them. R. C. Alley, Architect with Architects Orange, gave an overview of the project's architecture that included the floor plan, unit amenities, courtyards, vehicular entrances, color palettes, etc. Mark Schattinger, Landscaping Architect with MGS Design Group, provided a rundown of the landscaping that would be used to give the proposed project a sense of privacy. The project included a dog park, basketball court, pool courtyard, relax courtyard, a walking trail and a community garden - the use of organic and natural materials gave the project a genuine feel. Peter Naghavi, Consultant, reported on the traffic and congestion problems at the intersection of Baker and Pullman. If approved, the developer would provide a traffic signal at the Baker/Pullman intersection, mitigating the only significant impact the project has. The signal would also mitigate the intersection of Baker and Redhill by providing a southbound right -turn lane. Overall, the proposed project would improve the intersection. Alex Wong, Red Oak Investment Partner, spoke about the cultural and community investment that was achieved when land uses were integrated instead of segregated. Bill Dunlap, President and Partner of Slater Builders. Inc., was in support of the project. He stated the area has been in transition from light manufacturing to currently a village with churches and schools. He felt the project was a compatible use and would be a great transformation for the area. Jay Humphrey, Costa Mesa resident, said the General Plan stating nothing over 4 -stories should be built south of the 405 Freeway. While the area was appropriate for this type of development, it was south of the 405 Freeway. He encouraged the inclusion of language establishing that this exception would not set precedence. Cynthia McDonald, Costa Mesa resident, did not feel the project benefitted the residents of Costa Mesa. It was a high-rise development that exceeded height limitations that were put into place to limit the number of high-rise buildings south of the 405 Freeway and would increase the traffic on Baker Street. She asked the Commission to deny approval of the General Plan amendment. 2 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Rick Huffman, Costa Mesa resident, asked what Costa Mesa residents would get in return from this type of project. He wanted to see something mitigating it. Costa Mesa residents were concerned with over -development and not fond of large projects that were being approved. Could the project be down -sized or the developer build a sports complex? Commissioner McCarthy asked the developer to list some of their impact fees to address the concerns of the public speakers. Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Wong did not have a list of impact fees but stated their fee budget, that would go to special districts (water, schools, drainage, sanitation, etc), was approximately 5 million dollars. They advised the Commission that from a property tax standpoint the property value would be 10 -times more than what it currently was and the City would receive a small portion of that tax money. The project would also attract more shoppers to Costa Mesa; hence, the City's revenue would increase as a result of the increase in sale taxes. Vice -Chair Dickson did not think the area was inappropriate to build to the height that the Airport Land Use Commission allows to build. MOTION: Based on the evidence of the record, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2013081051). Moved by Vice -Chair Dickson, second by Commissioner McCarthy — (PC Resolution 14-13). The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Fitzpatrick, Dickson, McCarthy, Mathews, Sesler Noes: None Absent. None Abstained: None MOTION: Based on the evidence of the record, the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment GP -13- 02 which amends the Land Use Map of the City of Costa Mesa as contained in Exhibit A and a Text Amendment(s) to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan contained in Exhibit B with respect to the 125 East Baker Project. Moved by Vice -Chair Dickson, second by Commissioner McCarthy — (PC Resolution 14-14) The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Fitzpatrick, Dickson, McCarthy, Mathews, Sesler Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED MOTION: Based on the evidence of the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt Rezone R-13-02 for a Rezone (or change) of the Zoning Classification of the 4.17 -acre development site for the 125 East Baker Apartment Project from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High -Density (PDR -HD) at 125 East Baker Street. Moved by Vice -Chair Dickson, second by Commissioner McCarthy — (PC Resolution 14-15) The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Fitzpatrick, Dickson, McCarthy, Mathews, Sesler Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None MOTION: Based on the evidence of the record, the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt Zoning Code Amendment CO -13- 02 to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a Site -Specific Density of 58 dwelling units per acre for the 125 East Baker Apartment Project. Moved by Vice -Chair Dickson, second by Commissioner McCarthy — (PC Resolution 14-16) The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Fitzpatrick, Dickson, McCarthy, Mathews, 5esler Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None MOTION: Based on the evidence of the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, subject to conditions of approval and the mitigation measures indicated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained within Exhibits B and C, the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt Master Plan PA -13-11 with respect to the property at 125 East Baker. Moved by Vice -Chair Dickson, second by Commissioner McCarthy — (PC Resolution 14-17) The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Fitzpatrick, Dickson, McCarthy, Mathews, 5esler Noes: None Absent: None Abstained: None 4 1!S9 UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED Chair Fitzpatrick asked staff when the item would go to Council. Mr. Lee advised it would go to the April 15, 2014 Council meeting. 5 ATTACHMENT 8 MARCH 24, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MARCH 24, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: n+ I ,3 SUBJECT: 125 EAST BAKER STREET APARTMENT PROJECT: FINAL EIR (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2013081051); GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -13-02; REZONE R-13-02; ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Co -13-02; AND MASTER PLAN PA -13-11 125 EAST BAKER STREET FROM: PLANNING DIVISIOWDEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MEL LEE, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: MARCH 13, 2014 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MEL LEE, AICP (714) 754-5611 mel.lee0costa mesacamov DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a five -story, 240 -unit apartment complex (63 -foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 58 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a six -story parking structure (57 -foot maximum height proposed) with 457 parking spaces and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: 1. General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. Change the land use designation of the 4.17 - acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential. In addition to the change in land use designation, the general plan amendment also involves text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories. 2. Rezone R-13-02. A rezone (or change) of the Zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential – High Density (PDR -HD). 3. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre. The site is proposed to be designated PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) in the City's Zoning Code, The designation allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre, or 83 dwelling units maximum for the site. The proposed 240 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre for this project. 4. Master Plan PA -13-11. A Master Plan application for the proposed development 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 457 parking spaces in the structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from: on- site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). 5. Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2013081051). Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. — QA_ APPLICANT Red Oak Investments is the authorized agent for Nader Properties, the property owner. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions recommending that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project. 2. Approve by adoption of resolution General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. 3. Give first reading to the ordinance approving Rezone R-13-02. 4. Give first reading to the ordinance approving Zoning Code Amendment CG -13-02. 5. Approve by adoption of resolution Master Plan PA -13-11, subject to conditions of approval and the E I R Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project, PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY Location; 125 East Baker Street Applications: GP -13-021R-13-021 CO-13-02/PA-13-11 Request: See first page of staff report. SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Zone: CL (Current); PDR -HD (Proposed) North: General Plan: IP (Current); HDR (Proposed) South: Lot Dimensions: Irregular East: Lot Area: 181,415 SF (4,17 AC) West; Existing Development: Two-story office building (to be (Across Baker) MP, church and industrial uses (Across Pullman} MP, industrial uses (Across Pullman) MP, industrial uses DEVELOPMENT STANDARD COMPARISON (Based on Proposed PDR -HD Zoning) Development Standard Required/Allowed than Proposed/Provided Lot Size: Lot Width NIA 340 FT Lot Area 43,560 SF 1 AC 181,415 SF 4.17 AC Density (High Density Residential): Zone 20 du's/AC 83 Units Max. 58 du's/AC 240 Units Pro 1 General Plan 20 du's/AC 83 Units Max. 58 du's1AC 240 Units Pro 1 Maximum Site Coverage Overall Project): Buildincts NA NA Perimeter ❑ en Space 20 FT Abutting Public ROW 20 FT Abutting Public ROW Open Space(Total Site Area 42% 46,5% Min. Private Open Space Patio/Batc:on Min. 5 FT Dimension/100 SF Min. 5 FT Dimension/100 SF 2 Building Height: NA 5 Stories/63 FT (Apartments) (3) 6 Stories/57 FT (Parking Structure 3 Setbacks Overall Project): Front Baker Street NA 20 FT Side left -Pullman Street/right-65 F NA 20 FT/20 FT Rear NA NA On -Site Parking: 538 Spaces 457 Spaces (In Parking Structure) 4 Spaces (At Grade Open Parking) 461 Spaces Total 4 Driveway Width 16 FT Min. 25 FT NA = Not Applicable or No Requirement. (1) Site specific density requires General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment (see staff report discussion). (2) 100 SF requirement may be met through a combination of private balcony area and other deck areas in the common area, as long as the overall dimension of the balcony/deck is not less than 5 FT. (3) Site specific building height requires General Plan Amendment (see staff report discussion). 4 Reduction in number of on -s ite sp aces req uested see staff report discussion . CEQA Status Environmental Impact Report EIR Final Action City Council MA BACKGROUND Project SitelEnvirons The project site is located at the southwest corner of Baker Street and Pullman Street. The site is approximately 4.17 -acres in size (181,415 square feet), is roughly triangular- shaped; and is currently occupied by a 66,000 -square -foot two-story office building constructed in 1974, a surface parking lot, signage, and landscaped areas within the parking area and around the perimeter of the site. The property is currently zoned CL (Commercial Limited) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Industrial Park (MP). The site is bounded to the north (across Baker Street) by buildings containing a church and various industrial uses zoned MP (Industrial Park), with a General Plan Land Use designation of Industrial Park; to the south and east (across Pullman Street) by various industrial buildings zoned MP (Industrial Park) with a General Plan Land Use designation of Industrial Park; and to the west by the off -ramp for the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55) and a drainage channel surrounded by chain link fencing. The site is also located approximately one-half mile to the west of John Wayne Airport (JWA). Project Proposal The proposed project involves replacing the existing office building and surface parking areas with an apartment building and parking structure as described above. The apartment units are comprised of studio, one -bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units. A breakdown of the unit types are summarized in the table below: Studio & Lofts _ 30 Units 1 Bedroom & Lofts 2 Bedroom & Lofts 3 Bedroom 8 Units TOTAL 240 Units 1 107 Units 95 Units The building design and roof elements are modern style, i.e., characterized by simplified square and rectangular building forms with a variety of flat planes, projections, and recesses. The exterior consists of alternating stucco, smooth fiber cement panels with exposed attachments, and wood siding finishes. Additional accents include wood balcony rails and trellises, welded wire mesh grid systems that support the growth of landscape vines, and "caged rock" planters. The vehicular entrance to the parking structure is proposed to be provided from a single drive approach on Pullman Street. The project will include four outdoor on -grade parking spaces to serve the leasing office and 457 parking spaces provided within a six -level parking structure, which will also serve as a sound barrier to the adjacent freeway noise. Access to each residential level will be provided directly from each level of the parking structure and additionally by stairs and elevators throughout the development. The site plan includes private open space and courtyard areas that allow for circulation through the project while still maintaining a sense of privacy for the residents. The project also contains resident amenities that include a pool, a spa, a state-of-the-art cardia gym, a dog park, a roof top deck, a business center, community gardens, and a clubhouse. A detailed description of the project is provided in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project, under separate cover. Continued Public Hearing The public hearing was continued from the February 24, 2014 meeting to March 24, 2014 to address minor changes to the design of the vehicle entries to the project from Pullman Street, which has been reviewed and approved by the Transportation Services Division and the Fire Department. The revisions do not change staff's recommendation for any of the proposed entitlements, or the conclusions or mitigation measures of the EIR prepared for the project. ANALYSIS General Plan Amendment GP -13-02 As noted earlier, a change in the land use designation of the 4.17 -acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential is proposed to accommodate the development. The proposed General Plan Amendment GP -13-02 would amend the following sections of the Land Use Element as underlined and italicized below: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS High -Density Residential In 2014, _General Plan Amendment GP -93-02 was an -proved, it consisted of a site- specific residential density increase for a 4.17 -acre site at 125 Fast Baker Street. The maximum density allowed is 58 unitslacre, which allows a maximum of 240 d_welfinq units. Building Height The Zoning Code does not specify a maximum building height for the PDR -HD zone; however, a maximum building height of four stories for buildings south of the San Diego (1-405) Freeway is established as an objective and a policy in the General Plan Land Use Element (Objective LU -1C and Policy LU -1C.2). Because the subject property for the proposed development is south of the 1-405 Freeway, the four-story maximum height would apply to the project. The proposed revision to the General Plan objective/policy language is underlined and italicized below: Objective LU -1C Promote land use patterns and development, which contribute to community and neighborhood identity. Policy LIJAC.2 Limit building height to four stories above grade south of the 1-405 Freeway, except for special purpose housing, such as elderly, affordable, or student housing. An exception is for the Newport Plaza property at 1901 Newport Boulevard where a six -level parking structure is allowed, and the property at 125 East Baker Street where a five- story, 240 -unit apartment building and six -story parkinq structure_ are allowed (GP -13-02). Rezone R-13-02 A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR - HD), The proposed rezone to PDR -HD would be consistent with the proposed High Density Residential General Plan designation for the project site. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02 A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre would be required. The proposed 240 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre for this project. The revised Table 13-58 is presented with changes as underlined and italicized below: Revised Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) Devek*wmt PDR4-D PDR -MD PDR -Fla PDR -NCM PDC P& Standard Maximum Density 8 12 20 35 20 per Section 13-59 MAXIMUM Nate: See North Note: The maximum MAXIMUM Costa Mesa Specific density for 1901 Newport CRITERIA, Plan for exceptions. Boulevard is 40 dwelling Note: The maximum units per acre. See North (dwelling units per Costa Mesa Specific Plan density for 125 East acre) for exceptions. Baker Street is 58 dwelling units per acre (CO -13-02}. Master Plan PA -13-'1'1 As noted earlier, the Master Plan application is for the proposed development 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 457 parking spaces in the parking structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from the following zoning code development standards: on-site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). With regard to the master plan, staff notes the following: ■ The project features guality construction and materials. As noted earlier, the building design and roof elements reflect a modern style, i.e., characterized by simplified square and rectangular building forms with a variety of flat planes, projections, and recesses. The exterior consists of alternating stucco, smooth fiber cement panels with exposed attachments, and wood siding finishes. Additional accents include wood balcony rails and trellises, welded wire mesh grid systems that support the 10— growth of landscape vines, and "caged rock" planters. The developer will also be required to contact the City's Transportation Services Division and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to replace the chain link fence between the westerly property line and the drainage channel v -ditch with a combination wrought iron fence with pilaster supports or other fence/barrier acceptable to both the City and Caltrans, and landscape the area between the westerly property line and the v - ditch consistent with the abutting on-site landscape. • The proposal provides on-site amenities comparable with Qualify residential projects of this size and density. The proposed resident amenities include a 5,400 square -foot clubhouse, business center, and state-of-the-art cardio gym. Beyond the Clubhouse is over 12,223 square feet of landscaped courtyard with a pool, spa and related recreation areas. A separate more passive courtyard encompasses 5,385 square feet of additional common open space. Stretching along the western edge of the property is the 13,797 square foot "resident back yard", including a dog park, basketball courts, landscaped walkways and community gardens. • The parking study prepared for the protect, rather than strict application of the parkin_ requirements in the Zoning Code, appropriately identifies the parking demand for this ro'ecf. A shared parking analysis was prepared for this project as a tool to identify peak parking demand. The parking study was prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) and is included in the Transportation/Traffic section of the EiR. The study concludes that the parking will be sufficient to accommodate the Proposed mix of units within this project based on the following. The project was compared with nine comparable sites in Costa Mesa, Irvine, Orange, Fullerton, Santa Ana, Monrovia, and Pasadena. This array of peak parking rates yields an average ratio of 1.33 spaces per unit, an 85th percentile ratio of 1.47 spaces per unit, and a maximum ratio of 1.75 spaces per unit (based on The Legacy multifamily residential project approved at 580 Anton Boulevard). The study estimates the project's parking needs based on the application of the average, 85th percentile, and maximum parking rates from the comparable sites mentioned above. For the 240 units proposed, it is estimated that the average parking demand would be 319 spaces, the 85th percentile demand would be 353 spaces, and the maximum demand would be 420 spaces. Comparing the maximum demand of 420 spaces against the proposed supply of 457 spaces in the structure yields a surplus of 37 spaces. The parking study has been reviewed by the City's Transportation Services Division, and they concur with the study methodology, suggested parking rates, and the consultant's conclusions regarding adequate parking. Staff is also recommending the following as a condition of approval: • A parking management plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Director and the Transportation Services Manager prior to final occupancy of the building. The parking management plan shall denote the following: ❑ Method of allocation of assigned parking. - fk�- o Location of visitor parking, including appropriate signage. o Location of security gates, if any, and how gates will be operated. • Location of employee parking. o Provide proof of a contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations if parking problems arise. ■ The prviect has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding uses in the area and future apartment tenants will be notified of the existing uses in the vicinity of this project. The project has been designed as a self-contained residential community with on-site amenities as discussed above. The architectural style of the building, with its clean modern lines, glass, wood and metal accents, is visually compatible with the architecture of the surrounding industrial area. A condition of approval has been incorporated requiring future tenants to be notified that there are surrounding industrial uses in the area, including but not limited to, operational characteristics such as hours of operation, delivery schedules, outdoor activities, noise, and odor generation. Additionally, future tenants will be notified of the existing airport in the vicinity of the project and the units will be designed with sound attenuation measures to mitigate any noise impacts. Number of Construction Jobs According to the applicant, the project will generate the following jobs: During Planning and Construction: ■ 100 temporary construction jobs over two years. ■ 15 temporary design professional jobs. Post Construction: ■ 7 permanent on site jobs, plus ancillary service jobs. John Wayne Airport (JWA) As noted earlier, the project site is located approximately one-half mile to the west of John Wayne Airport (JWA). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation on May 16, 2013, which established a maximum building height of 111 feet above mean sea level (approximately 65 feet above ground level) for the proposed project. The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), at their meeting of January 16, 2014, determined, on a 6-1 vote, that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the AELUP for Heliports, and recommended the following condition of approval, which has been incorporated into the draft resolution for PA -13-11: Outdoor signage shall be provided informing the public of the presence of an operating airport for all designated outdoor common or recreational areas. If the proposed project should change significantly after the ALUC review, the proposed project must return to ALUC for another consistency determination. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was made available for a 45 -day public review and comment period beginning on November 6, 2013, and remained available for comment until December 20, 2013. The Final EIR document can be found on the City's website at the below link: hfp://www.costamesaca.govlindex.aspx?pace=151 Electronic copies can also be obtained on CD's from the Planning Division at no charge. Hardcopies are also available for review at the following locations: City of Costa Mesa Planning Division/Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 The Costa Mesa/Donald Dungan Library 1855 Park Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Mesa Verde Library 2969 Mesa Verde Drive East Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Response to Comments In total, twelve comment letters regarding the Draft EIR were received during the public review and comment period from five public agencies, one organization, and six individuals. Additionally, the Draft EIR was presented to the 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. The comments have been incorporated, where appropriate, in the Final EIR document. Brief Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Under CEQA, a "significant impact" represents a substantial or potentially substantial adverse physical change to the environment. In evaluating specific effects of the project on the environment, the EIR identifies thresholds of significance for each effect, evaluates the potential environmental change associated with each effect, and then characterizes the effects as impacts. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels, as briefly summarized in the table below: — [T Summary of Significant/ Impacts Potentially Significant Leel of Significance After Environmental Effects Mitigation} Measure Summary (1) Mitigation Air Quality + Maintain equipment during construction Less than significant a Minimize dust during construction • Paint and building coatings to comply with air quality standards a Provide a sealed HVAC system for all _ units Hydrology/Water Quality ■ Provide a Water Quality Management Less than significant Plan WQMP) Land Use/Planning ■ Notification to future residents of airport Less than significant in the vicinity of the project Noise ■ Comply with applicable noise attenuation Less than significant standards Minimize noise impacts during construction Transportation/Traffic . Provide a traffic signal at Baker/Pullman Less than significant intersection • Provide street improvements at Red Hill/ Baker intersection • Payment of traffic impact fees • Provide adequate sight distance for _ vehicles at all project drive approaches (1 ) Refer to the Final EIR document for detailed descriptions of each mitigation measure. LEGAL REVIEW The Final EIR and draft resolutions have been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office. CONCLUSION With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood, The project features quality construction and materials. The proposal provides on-site amenities expected of quality residential developments of this type. The parking study prepared for the project identifies that the parking demand is adequate for this project. The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) determined that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the project and approval of the project subject to Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following alternatives: 1. Continue the item to allow additional time for further analysis or revisions to the project. 2. Recommend City Council deny the project. If the City Council denies the project the applicant could not submit substantially the same type f pplication for six months. MEL LEE, AICP JR G A , A1CP Senior Planner Int4i Ass' nt Director of Development Services Attachments: 1. Applicant's Project Description 2. Additional Correspondence from Public 3. Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution for Final EIR Certification 5. Draft Planning Commission Resolution for General Plan Amendment 6. Draft Planning Commission Resolution for Rezone 7. Draft Planning Commission Resolution for Zoning Code Amendment 8. Draft Planning Commission Resolution for Master Plan 9. Maps and Plans 10. Final Environmental Impact Report (Under Separate Cover) Also Available on the City Website at http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=1 51 cc: Director of Economic & Development J Deputy CEG Sr. Deputy City Attorney Public Services Director City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Fire Protection Analyst Staff (4) File (2) Distribution List — Agencies and Persons Who Provided Comment on the Project EIR Red Oak Investments Attn: Joe Flanagan 2101 Business Center Drive, #230 Irvine, CA 92612 Nader Properties -172- 3 Harbor Light Newport Beach, CA 92657 Atkins Attn: Trina S. Abbott 3570 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA, 92130 InFocus Consultants Attn: Peter Naghavi 418 Avenida Salvador San Clemente, CA 92672 -113- ATTACHMENT 1 APPLICANT'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION -174- 125 Baker PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project Applicant, Red Oak Investments LLC, proposes to construct 240 residential dwelling units within a five -story structure on the property known as 125 East Baker The properties are approximately 4.2 acres in size and is currently developed with a 60,000 square foot office building developed in 1974. The site is hounded by Pullman St. to the east, Baker St, to the North and the 55 Fwy access road to the west. The Applicant proposes to develop the 240 units in a combination of studio, one, two and three bedroom units. The site plan includes private open space and courtyard areas that allow for circulation through the Project while still maintaining a sense of privacy for the residents. The project also contains resident amenities that include a pool, a spa, a state- of-the-art cardio gym, a dog park, a roof top deck, a business center community gardens and a clubhouse. The Project will include 469 parking spaces provided within five levels in an above -grade covered parking structure, which will also serve as a sound barrier to the adjacent freeway noise. Access to each residential level will be provided directly from each level of the parking structure and additionally by stairs and elevators throughout the development. The Project would be accessible from two driveways located directly on Pullman. LA1161600M ATTACHMENT 2 ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM PUBLIC lab!-::; .. ._,IIc; January 14, 2014 Ilonorable Mayor James Righeinner Honorable Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Mensingor Honorable City Council Members Planning Commissioners and City Planning, Staff CITY O COSTA. MFSA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa CA. 92626 Re: Multi Family Rezone 125 Baker fluiwi-able Mayor. n Trust all is well. I wanted to drop you a note earl letyou know that I had an opportunity to review the plan -s for My. Flanagan and Mr. Wong for their residential project. We are in support of addlttg residential units in the sobecalairpo.rt area. I think it will create community and bring families tA) the neighborhood. [ hope that their project gets approved. Thank you for your continued dedication to our city, Si Shaheen Sadebhi January 21, 2014 Honorable Mayor James Righeimer Honorable Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Mensinger Honorable City Council Members Planning Commissioners and City Planning Staff CITY of COSTA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa CA 92626 Re: Multi Family Rezone —125 Baker Street Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission: Burke Real Estate Group developed the North West corner of Baker Street and Redhill Avenue. This project was a conversion of one large industrial building (former Briggs Cunningham Auto Museum) into a 3 building modern office complex. Burke Real Estate Group also occupies this location with our Corporate Office. As a Business and property owner in close proximity to the proposed property, I am in support of the proposed housing project at 125 Baker. This neighborhood while once a heavy manufacturing zone has been transitioning for decades away from strictly industrial uses. Today you will find a mix of uses. Office buildings continue to be developed in what were once industrial buildings, Churches coexist with schools and light industrial. Adding residential on the periphery seems to be a natural progression and should help alleviate business commute traffic. Sincerely, Brian R. Burke 6URKE REAL ESTATE GROUP $fi❑ E. BAKER STREET surrE 100 COSTA Mean, CA 9288£ TEU 714,924.6000 �— FAX' 714.F 001 WWW. liU K KEG EGROLJ P. N ET CD u)a'M&jV1tW4 OC CFIURC'J-i January 29, 201.4 HonorabIc Mayor James Righeimer Honorable Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Mensinger Honorable City Council Members Planning Commissioners and City Planning Staff City of Costa Mesa 77 hair Drive Costa Mesa CA 92626 Sent via USPS Re: Multi Family Rezone — 12 5 Balcor Street Dear Council and Commission; Watermarli OC Church 3186 Pullman St., Costa Mesa, CA, 92626 P: 714,597,6000 F:714.597.6009 Watermark OC Church has the privilege of serving local schools, business, neighborhoods, and families within the 92626 and neighboring zip codes. Our church currently consists of around three hundred families and adults. We place a high value on our local community, both in partnering and serving our local community, We believe the Red Oak Housing proposal is a great way to add another unique aspect to the Redhill Zone, which already consists of businesses, schools, and churches. Watermark OC Church supports the rezone afthis area and the development of this upscale housing project. Sincerely, Pastor I ucky Dennis Lead Pastor of Watermark OC Church _ na v!AwcE caunn-r January 29, 2414 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 • 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.5178 Mei Lee, AICP Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: City of Costa Mesa Baker Street Apartments Project (125 East Baker Street) Dear Mr, Lee; During the meeting held on January 16, 2014 the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County considered the subject project. The matter was duly discussed, moved, seconded and carried by a 6 to 1 vote by the Commission to find the City of Costa Mesa's proposed Baker Street Apartments Project to be Consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and with the AELUP for Heliports, The Consistency finding was as follows: The Commission found the proposed Baker Street Apartments Project consistent with the AELUP for JWA and the AELUP for Heliports as recommended by ALUC staff with the added condition that the City of Costa Mesa require outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of an operating airport for all designated outdoor common or recreational areas, If the proposed project should change significantly after this ALUC review, the proposed project must return to ALUC for another Consistency determination. Please contact ALUC staff at (949) 252-5123 or via email at lchoumeocair,com if you require additional information or have questions regarding this proceeding. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer - tge--." EWPOR JL Real Estate Services, Inc Glen Allen Pwmldent February 3, 2014 Honorable Mayor James Righeimer Honorable Mayor Pro Tem 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: POTENTIAL MULTI FAMILY REzoNE — SEC BAKER STREET/ NEWPORT (55) FWY Dear Sirs: I wanted to send this letter indicating my strong support for the referenced project. As a business owner in Costa Mesa, located near the subject property, I believe this development will provide much needed employee housing in our area. Our firm employs both senior level managers as well as administrative, accounting and support staff in our corporate facility located about a mile from the proposed project. We believe that this project will provide much needed attractive housing for our professional and administrative staff, particularly in the 20 to 40 year old age demographic that provides future business managers and leaders in Costa Mesa. As you know, the west airport area of Costa Mesa has experienced a dramatic conversion to higher skilled office workers, many of whom are in need of quality, affordable housing in a cutting edge, state-of-the- art architectural environment. Businesses such as mine need these discriminating younger emerging managers to fill our demand for higher skilled workers. New high-quality housing, particularly in Orange County, is a critical component to attracting and retaining these employees who will make current and future significant contributions to Costa Mesa. As importantly, as a real estate owner in this area, f truly believe that the conversion from the current use to the proposed use will be a net positive for property values in our area by both enhancing the surrounding architecture as well as providing much needed rental housing stock. As both a property owner and business owner in the immediate arca of the proposed project, we strongly support the proposed project and look forward to the opportunity to speak at both Planning Commission and City Council to further express the importance of this type of redevelopment for both our direct mixed use community as well as the greater City of Costa Mesa. Yours truly, NEWPORT REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. r Glen Allen President 0:\N ES1Correspondcnce1125 Baker Cos [a Mcsa 013014.docx 3184H Airway Avenue ■ Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ■ Tel: (714) 850-0085 ■ Fax: (714) 850-0086 ■ www.tires.ne't ■ Lie. 01342064 PIOREER PROKMG 11109 430: t3OUTH GRAND AVENUE * SANTA ANA, CA 92705 * (7144' 5.10-9751 * (800) 528-6567 FAX (i 14) 42B-0291 February 27, 201'1 I Ionorable 'Mayor James Righeimer Honorable Mayor Pro Teal Stephen Mensinger I Ionoreable City Cuincil Mcinbcrs Planning C.'ommissioiiers and City Planning Stall' (.°r,ry 01 COSTA MFSA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa CA 92626 Ile; 125 Baker Street Dear Council and C:`omrnission: I havc owned the building at 3030 Pullman. Pullman since 1978 1 have been patiently watohin.g the neighborhood transition through the years. We have seen industrial buildings shift va office buildings, schools and churches. "These uses by all appearances coexist quite \,ve11. 'l'he pro p(.)sed additioil of the res ident ital prajccI at 125 Baker would complement ill ost of the current uses in the area, The acid ition of residential is working well on the other side of the airport in Irvine; sa 1 see no reason that it can't be successful {gra "our side- ttf the airport gas well. EST. '710", Pf+-3 wamca March 12, 2014 Honorable Mayor James Righeimer I lonorable Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Mensinger If o norab le City Council Members Planning Commissioners and City Planning Staff CITY OF COSTA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa CA 92626 Re: Multi Family Rezone — 125 Baker Street Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission: RH Matthews, LLC purchased 3128 Red Hill and 325 Baker in 2010 and we have invested heavily in both properties. After extensive renovation of these properties we moved our aerospace lighting business (Wamco) into 3128 Red Hill and leased 325 Baker to Fox Rent A Car. As a Business and property owner in close proximity to the proposed property, I am in support of the housing project at 125 Baker. This project is a good addition to the neighborhood and should help create jobs, boost the property tax rolls and boost the property values of the entire neighborhood. Some of my own employees are excited at the possibility of housing within walking distance from work. As a live long resident of Costa mesa/Newport Beach I have seen a lot change over the years. This area was once all industrial and now with churches and schools have moved in. We now have more of a community feel to the neighborhood and I believe this housing project will be a good addition to the area. Sincerely, Greg Matthews Executive Vice President 3128 Red Hill Avenue 714-545-5560 www.wamcoinc.corn Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714-545-6093 fax info@)wamcoinc.coin pw3 December 3, 2013 ., City of Costa Mesa Honorable Mayor Jim Righeimer Honorable Mayor Pro 1 -em Stephen Mensinger Honorable City Council Members Planning Commissioners and City Planning Staff 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject; Baker Street Apartments- Red Oak Development As President and Partner of Slater Builders Inc. located at 3100 Pullman Street, 1 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 Le, the Westside area of 17t" Street and Placentia. Our current building at 31.00 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 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, Bill Dunlap r President S T H U L I R S InG. 3103-B Pullman Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92625 Tel: (714) 434-4887 Fax: (714) 434-5173 www. slate rbuiIders.cam License #675832. F14- 3 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, Trico Realty, Inc. is in favor of the proposed High Density Residential Development at 125 East Baker Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626. We agree with the City of Costa Mesa's Environmental Impact Report stating that the proposed project will not have significant impacts on visual character, construction, or 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 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 I Management 3100-A Pullman Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 751-4420 Fax (714) 540-4579 www.tricorealty.com DRELD, 00342120 TAA1ex11312U-125 E Baker EIR Commenfs.docx Real Tech December 9, 2013 Honorable Mayor James Righeimer Honorable Mayor Pro Tern Stephen Mensinger Honorable City Council Members Planning Commissioners and City Planning Staff CiTY Or COSTA MESA 77 lair Drive Costa Mesa CA 92626 Serf vin USPS Re: Potential Multi Family Rezone — SEC Baker Street/ Newport (55) freeway To Whom It May Concern: My firm recently purchased and completely remodeled our huiiding at 3199 F Airport Loop Drive; we relocated our office from Dove Street in Newport Reach. Our new building, previously consisting of Gvarcliousc and storefront, is now predominantly office. We believe that we have upgraded our offices significantly and have added value for our neighbors 1n Costa Mesa. The recent repaving ofRedhiII was another well needed improvement to the west -side of John Wayne Airpoit. 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 firm 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 ofTice leasing standards, the building would need to he demolished; current economics will not allow that, so the huiiding will attract low, or no, rent paying tenants and wilt slowly depreciate into a bigger eyesore. Irvine 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 13 each has also allowed res idcntial to be developed in KolI Center Newport. It makes total sense to have res idcntial closer to the work place, Mariner's Church School, Rock harbor Church, the trampoline center 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 res idcntial will enhance the trend. Sincerely, RLAL ESTATE & L(H,.Is-rics TrC'11NOI.OGY, INC. Kim Josephson Kim foscrphsvn kjnsnphsonCroal-tecfiinc.cam 657.210.5551 3199 Airport Loop Drive, 17Idg E, Costa Masa, (A 92626 DRE License No, 712155 PR'.5 Y' LEADING EDGE AviC7tion `7carvicf,s, Inc. De=]nber 12, 20.1.3 Honorable Mayor lames Righeimer Honorable Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Mensinger Honon, bto City Council Members. P1anniaxg Ccml.missioners and City Planning Staff CITY OF COSTA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa. CA 92626 Seat vial USPS Re: Multi Family Rezone 125 Baker Street hear Council and Commission: PR -,-3 Leading Edge Aviafion Services 3132 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, California 92£26 P; 714,556.6576 F: 714,556,4023 Leading Edge Aviation Services is headquartered in Costa Mesa and e171pinys over loop employees locally and across the country. As a coma actor to companies such as Boeing Company, United Airlines, American Airlines, et al the company has a vested interest in local devel0pal1en.t ill Costa Mesa to support job growth, economic growth and improvements in iatl"rastructure, Particularly as it relates to roads, coa inierciat and residential properties. In fact, Leading Edge has and continues to invest .in Costa Mesa and last year completed its new corporate headquarters located can Airway Averse just clown the street li om '125 Baker. As a busi.ncss owner', .invvstor and resident of the area I have witnessed firsthwid lbe evolutic)n of the s irroanding area :Froth heavy manufacturing to lite 131auufacttirirlg, retctiI, professional services as well as the schools as d chinches That have contributed to a diverse de vriognq-)hic blend. Tho area, while once an industria.I area has slowly over tine become an celeetic mix cif uses. This progression in the local area lends itself to tlac? addition of high -circ] aparfincrat housing as a perfect comptement to the current mix of businesses. From Segerstrorn Performing Arts Center, South Coast Plaza and Metro Pointe to Triangle Square and East 17'' Street Promenade, the busuaess-friendly Costa Mesa reflects this unigne confluence of business/retail and residential. The Red Oak 1 -lousing proposal is a natural extension of the "Costa Mesa Advantage" in the Redhill Zono. Leoding bel e Aviation Services offers I00% support for the rezone of this area and Clio developillettt of Otis upscale housing project. Sincerely, W. Michael Manclark Chairman and rounder Cxpert, Innovative. ConsiVert. i P4-3 February 28, 2014 Honorable Mayor .lames Righeilrier Honorable Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Mensinger Honorable City COLUIC11 Members Planning Commissioners and City Planning Staff' C',I'T'Y OF COSTA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa CII 92626 Re: Red 0,,k Project at 125 Baker Dear City leaders: As a significant property owner and operator in the area, I support the idea of'adding residential uses in and around the airport. My family business has been located in this area for over 30 years and we have witnessed the neighborhood transformation first hand. Residential uses are already prominent in the vicinity and should be encouraged. The location lends itself to a multifamily development as it is close to jobs, alllenities and transportation. The immediate neighborhood is already a mix orccicctic uses and this development will only add to a vibrant district. In addition, I believe it will add to my land value and that of the surrounding property owners. Southern California has been sueeessflully Integrating residential Llses In and around commercial/industrial uses Cr decades and it is great to sec Costa Mesa adapting to a regional trend. Joe Flanagan of Red Oak Investments took an hour at my office to personally walk me throLIgh his proposed development and answer my questions. So, I have reviewed the concept with the developer and have every confidence that this will he an extremely successful deal giving the consumer an opportunity to live a lifestyle that is not widely available today. Sincerely, Jim Warmington, Jr. I President & C1;O The Warmington group 3090 Pullman Street I Costa Mesa, CA 92626 EURL C:�=3AT PN -3 ��'1rt:11 I��, sfil<d V"!1, =r and C],ty Coull ciI N1cIiFI",c5 �?aiiFll'i'rls (�t}i T; ["1i1�'vlillit,'1:� ��{e1i]�Yl;t1�. I )C1i:iT"tlT1�111. '11i� g?It€a€1 1��c;i i .s'.� The Baker Slri°r! Pm.jcrt bN Rett Oak dime, tfinentr tkdr f 1c:11urahlc Ma}[st, CiId ("+�(irlcil, NZI111-,=iap, C <1111f)1isii(?11 "111 J -icl ?:�N:; I rlte;car OJNT2A('S it.S Iii\it° V xUr bw: i1)C',ti i11 the C' tv tat (o-5tJ 'MI !• a, :wvk,.-aj block-, fr�)w CI3k�, 24") -unit lu,"airV liav iccl 11(o.)c3 cd by Red Utak, I h ]11.(" cC;i. i o o KE 1 -cat Id I 11 III ill%Oils 11iat w I I I be livC';i ed 1.11c10 Inable the area iven b, i[:;1'. 'I'll �,:1r":1 aIrf:ack: ba" a In Atlao £it (assii% ;Cjca ": III :-ld 1 Ole =11`t.,", i11 L1 gUci<$ rr t13 . ]t i > a ,,zwd c o I Y1 1) 10 I°ic at to ;X:oc k, I l rbc it 'IiiircIi, W'(aM rlitrrk ('11i11•Ci1.: \M11,tii11':1, Mririncr,, ticIlo')'. l.1. nt c,tr an all the ott1:,0 bLaiM', <a=_t.� ars}1)11[i, afUeC RE>D HILL AVE. COHTA MESAPo CA -CjOE7EEi C:7.:.'44 -H_ 7c2,2. b94%C-1, I;41 ELlr"c1. ,A -:=?C. -T-, CaNi +1� ATTACHMENT 3 FINAL EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM --Q CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 1 1 .4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Final EIR February 2014 Responsible Compliance Verification Agency 1 7 - Measure I ,action Required I Monitoring Phase I Party I ini'hai I bate I 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 MIYI4.2-2 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; SCAOMD 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. IYIM4.2-3 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 ■ 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 V 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 SCH No. 201 3081 05 1 11-2 City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments. LLC Final EIR February 2014 Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix CHAPTER 11 Miligafion Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mofrix HYDROLOGYNVATER 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 Compliance Vefficoffon Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to Orange County DAMP requirements. The Agency) of building permit; Orange, City of Mwgrofiori Measure Action Required Monr7oring Phase Party frrlfinl Date Commerrfs MM4.2-4 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction -related Construction document Prior to issuance City Planning; Department of equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be specifications of building permit; SCAQMD Public Works turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes. Dies6fueled commercial motor vehicles during construction with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds shall be turned off when components of the drainage plan and WQMP BMPs have been installed. 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 glliter interior or 100 glliter exterior. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Costa Mesa. MM4.2-6 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 inferior 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 (USOOL 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 HYDROLOGYNVATER 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 Red Oak Inve5trnent5, LLC 11.3 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR SCH No. 201 3081 05 1 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.4 M11gaflon Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Final Elk February 2014 Responsible Compliance Veri£cafion Agency! Measure Action Requked Monitoring Phase Party Initial Date Comments LAND USEIPLANNING 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 residential unit and resident, notifying them of potential annoyances associated with aircraft Vicinity within residential of occupancy Mesa Planning overflight and proximity to airport operations, including the following, with final form and development area permit Department content to be reviewed and approved by the Economic and Development Services Director and City Attorney: "NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This 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 of the 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 MM4.&l Prior to issuance of a certfficate 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 dua! 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 SCH No. 2013081051 11-4 City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments. LLC Final EIR February 2014 Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix CHAPTER 1 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC MM4.9-1 Pullman StreetlBaker Street Intersection. Prior to issuance of a certificate of Install traffic signal and Prior to issuance Responsible Agency,+ compflance verrficc&n occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant shall install a traffic signal and AM"ffgaiion Measure Action Required Monitoring Phase Party rnPiial 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 California 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 -tum 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. MM4.9.2 Red Hill AvenuelBaker 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 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC MM4.9-1 Pullman StreetlBaker 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 California 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 -tum lane, and a dedicated eastbound right -turn lane. Crosswalks and ADA compliant ramps will be installed as required by the City. MM4.9.2 Red Hill AvenuelBaker 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 throughlright-tum lane. The Mesa General Plan, except applicant will modity 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-tum lane City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC 11-5 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project El SCH No. 2D13081051 CHAPTER i 1 Mitigation ManKoring and Reporting Program SECTION 1 1.4 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 E I R 11-6 City of Costa Mesa SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC kesponsr'ble Compliance VeniiCaffon Agency/ Mfifgoffon Measure Action "uked Monitoring Phase Party fniffof Dale Commenfs 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 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 -turn 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 E I R 11-6 City of Costa Mesa SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC ATTACHMENT 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS rq( RESOLUTION NO. PC -14-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 125 EAST BAKER STREET APARTMENT PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2013081051) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2013081051) has been prepared for the 925 East Baker Street Apartment Project. WHEREAS, The proposed project is a five -story, 240 -unit apartment complex (63 -foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 58 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a six -story parking structure (57400t maximum height proposed) with 457 parking spaces and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: 1. Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2013081051). Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. Change the land use designation of the 4.17 - acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential. In addition to the change in land use designation, the general plan amendment also involves text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories. 3. Rezone R-13-02. A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD), 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre. The site is proposed to be designated PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) in the City's Zoning Code. The designation allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre, or 83 dwelling units maximum for the site. The proposed 240 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Master Plan PA -13-11. A Master Plan application for the proposed development of a five -story 240 -unit residential apartment building (53 feet overall height) that wraps around a six -story parking structure (57 feet overall height) with 457 parking spaces in the structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from: on- site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 451 parking spaces proposed). WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Draft EIR was circulated from November 5, 2013 to December 20, 2013 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa received written and verbal comments from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties during the public review period. WHEREAS, written and verbal comments received from the general public, government entities, and other interested parties were responded to in the manner prescribed in California Code of Regulations Section 15088. WHEREAS, a Responses to Comment document was prepared which includes responses to comment on environmental issues received during the public review period of the Draft EIR and errata pages showing redlined/strikeout revisions reflected in the Final EIR. WHEREAS, no significant new information has been added to the Final EIR and no changes to the proposed project have occurred which would require recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. WHEREAS, the Draft EIR, Responses to Comments, errata pages identifying revisions to the Draft EIR, and any other information added by the City constitutes the Final EIR for this project. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. gag)— WHEREAS, the Final EIR for this project reflects the independent judgment of the City of Costa Mesa. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2014, and continued to March 24, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully supported by substantial evidence in that it addresses all environmental effects on the project and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation on May 16, 2013, which established a maximum building height of 111 feet above mean sea level (approximately 65 feet above ground level) for the proposed project. WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), at their meeting of January 16, 2014, determined, on a 6-1 vote, that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the AELUP for Heliports. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council approve General Plan Amendment GP -13-02, Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, Rezone R- 13-02, and Master Plan PA -13-11, by separate resolutions. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, the PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project as described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24T" day otMarch, 2014. Chair Planning Commission { q,Q STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 1, CLAIRE FLYNN, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 14-13 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on March 24, 2014, by the following votes: AYES: Fitzpatrick, Dickson, McCarthy, Mathews and Sesser NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Claire,-Iynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission 2w, RESOLUTION NO. PC -14-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA ADOPT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -13-02 CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE 4.17 -ACRE 125 EAST BAKER APARTMENT PROJECT SITE FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TEXT AMENDMENT(S) TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN TO REFLECT A SITE-SPECIFIC DENSITY OF 58 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND A SITE-SPECIFIC HEIGHT OF SIX STORIES AT 125 EAST BAKER STREET. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 2000 General Plan on January 22, 2002; WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of the City of Costa Mesa. WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan is subject to update and revision to account for current and future community needs. WHEREAS, The proposed project is a five -story, 240 -unit apartment complex (63 -foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 58 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a six -story parking structure (57 -foot maximum height proposed) with 457 parking spaces and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: 1. Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2013081051). Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. Change the land use designation of the 4.17 - acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential. In addition to the change in land use designation, the general plan amendment also involves text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories. 3. Rezone R-13-02. A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre. The site is proposed to be designated PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) in the City's Zoning Code. The designation allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre, or 83 dwelling units maximum for the site. The proposed 240 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Master Plan PA -13-11. A Master Plan application for the proposed development 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 457 parking spaces in the structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from: on- site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). WHEREAS, a site specific amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is proposed to change the land use designation of the 4.17 -acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential for the development of the project as described above. WHEREAS, text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site- specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories is proposed for the project site. WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment involves an amendment to the Land Use Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit A) and a text amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (Exhibit B); WHEREAS, approval of the project is pending adoption of Ordinance No. 14 - for Rezone R-13-02; WHEREAS, approval of the project is pending adoption of Ordinance No. 14-_ for Code Amendment CO -13-02; WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2014, and continued to March 24, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Draft EIR was circulated from November 6, 2013 to December 20, 2013 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation on May 16, 2013, which established a maximum building height of 111 feet above mean sea level (approximately 65 feet above ground level) for the proposed project. WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), at their meeting of January 16, 2014, determined, on a 6-1 vote, that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the AELUP for Heliports. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council certify the EIR, approve Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, Rezone R-13-02, and Master Plan PA -11-13 by separate resolutions. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT GP -13-02 which amends the Land Use Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit A) and a text amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan (Exhibit B) with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24T" day of Marl h, 2014. itzpatr'ick, Chair . Mesa Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE j I, CLAIRE FLYNN, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 14-14 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on March 24, 2014, by the following votes: AYES: Fitzpatrick, Dickson, McCarthy, Mathews and Sesler NOES: None ABSENT- None ABSTAIN: None 74 - Claire Flyr/, Secr tary Costa Mesa Planning CommiSion EXHIBIT A Amendment to the Land Use Map Change the land use designation of the 4.17 -acre development site at 125 East Baker Street from Industrial Park (IP) to High Density Residential (HDR) 20S Overview Map Map Display F 4 / J 7 . + F' jj 65 2 ff Legend p cM1anwL Ro:ygon. a s rc4eela i coast ;�'` / 20S EXHIBIT B The proposed General Plan Amendment GP -13-02 would amend the following sections of the Land Use Element as underlined and italicized below: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS High -Density Residential In 2014, General Plan Amendment GP -13-02 was approved, and it consisted of a site- specific residential density increase for a 4.17 -acre site at 125 East Baker Street. The maximum density allowed is 58 unitslacre. This allows a maximum of 240 dwelling units. Building Height The proposed revision to the General Plan objective/policy language is underlined and italicized below: Objective LUAC Promote land use patterns and development, which contribute to community and neighborhood identity. Policy LU -1C.2 Limit building height to four stories above grade south of the 1-405 Freeway, except for special purpose housing, such as elderly, affordable, or student housing. An exception is for the Newport Plaza property at 1901 Newport Boulevard where a six -level parking structure is allowed, and the 240 -unit apartment project at 125 East Baker Street where a five -story apartment building and six-stoly-parking structure are allowed SGP -13-0Q. Z(� RESOLUTION NO. PC -14-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA ADOPT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CO -13-42 TO AMEND COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 13 FOR A SITE-SPECIFIC DENSITY OF 58 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR THE 125 EAST BAKER APARTMENT PROJECT. THE AMENDMENT IS PROPOSED TO THE FOLLOWING CODE SECTION IN TITLE 13 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE: TABLE 13-58 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) TO ALLOW A SITE-SPECIFIC DENSITY OF 58 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR THIS PROJECT AT 125 EAST BAKER STREET. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The proposed project is a five -story, 240 -unit apartment complex (63 -foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 58 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a six -story parking structure (57 -foot maximum height proposed) with 457 parking spaces and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: 1. Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2413481451). Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. Change the land use designation of the 4.17 - acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential. In addition to the change in land use designation, the general plan amendment also involves text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories. 3. Rezone R-13-42. A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre. The site is proposed to be designated PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) in the City's Zoning Code. The designation allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre, or 83 dwelling units maximum for the site. The proposed 240 -unit project Z-1 __011 would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Master Plan PA -13-'1'1. A Master Plan application for the proposed development 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 457 parking spaces in the structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from: on- site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). WHEREAS, a site specific amendment to the Zoning Code is proposed for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre and a site-specific height of six stories for the development of the project as described above. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2014, and continued to March 24, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Draft EIR was circulated from November 6, 2013 to December 20, 2013 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation on May 16, 2013, which established a maximum building height of 111 feet above mean sea level (approximately 65 feet above ground level) for the proposed project. WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), at their meeting of January 16, 2014, determined, on a 6-1 vote, that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the AELUP for Heliports. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council certify the EIR, approve General Plan Amendment GP -13-02, Rezone R-13-02, and Master Plan PA -13-11, by separate resolutions. BE 1T RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT CO -13-02 which amends the Zoning Code as set forth in Exhibit A with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24TH day of March, 2014._ Jim Fi patrick, Chair Costa sa Planning Commission � 20� STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, CLAIRE FLYNN, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 14-15 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on March 24, 2014, by the following votes: AYES: Fitzpatrick, Dickson, McCarthy, Mathews and Sesler NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Claire Fiy n, Secretary Costa M sa Planning Commission EXHIBIT A The revised Table 13-58 is presented with changes as underlined and italicized below. Revised Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) Devefgp f PDR -!D POR MD PDR -HD PDR -NCM PDC PD1 SYandafdf Maximum Density S 12 20 35 20 per Section 13-59 Note: See North Note: The maximum MAXIMUM DENSITY Costa Mesa Specific density for 1901 Newport CRITERIA. Plan for exceptions. Boulevard is 40 dwelling units per acre. See North (dwelling units per Note: The maximum Costa Mesa Specific Plan acre) density for 125 East for exceptions. Baker Street is 58 dwelling units per acre (CO -13-02]. — 2-1A r RESOLUTION NO. PC -14-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA ADOPT REZONE R-13-02 FOR A REZONE (OR CHANGE) OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE 4.17 -ACRE DEVELOPMENT SITE FOR THE 125 EAST BAKER APARTMENT PROJECT FROM COMMERCIAL LIMITED (CL) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL — HIGH DENSITY (PDR -HD) AT 125 EAST BAKER STREET. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The proposed project is a five -story, 240 -unit apartment complex (63 -foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 58 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a six -story parking structure (57 -foot maximum height proposed) with 457 parking spaces and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: 1. Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #20130810511). Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. Change the land use designation of the 4.17 - acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential. In addition to the change in land use designation, the general plan amendment also involves text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories. 3. Rezone R-13-02. A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD). 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre. The site is proposed to be designated PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) in the City's Zoning Code, The designation allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre, or 83 dwelling units maximum for the site. The proposed 240 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre for this project. -'21Z 5. Master Plan PA -13-11. A Master Plan application for the proposed development 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 457 parking spaces in the structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from: on- site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). WHEREAS, a Rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site is proposed from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD) for the development of the project as described above. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2014, and continued to March 24, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Draft EIR was circulated from November 6, 2013 to December 20, 2013 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation on May 16, 2013, which established a maximum building height of 111 feet above mean sea level (approximately 65 feet above ground level) for the proposed project. WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), at their meeting of January 16, 2014, determined, on a 6-1 vote, that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the AELUP for Heliports. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council certify the EIR, approve General Plan Amendment GP -13-02, Zoning Code Amendment CO -13- 02, and Master Plan PA -11-13, by separate resolutions. 2—B BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT R-13-02, which amends the Zoning Map of the City of Costa Mesa (Exhibit B) with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24T" day of March, 2014. .Jimtzpatbi kk, hair Costa Mesa PTaf4iing Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA) }ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 1, CLAIRE FLYNN, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 14-16 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on March 24, 2014, by the following votes: AYES_ Fitzpatrick, Dickson, McCarthy, Mathews and Sesler NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Claire Flynn, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: Required Finding: A compatible and harmonious relationship exists between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhoods. Response: With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR for the proposed project, all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood. The project features quality construction and materials. The proposal provides on-site amenities comparable with quality residential units. The parking study prepared for the project identifies that the parking demand is adequate for this project. The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) determined that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Required Finding: Safety and compatibility of the design of the parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. Response: The parking study prepared for the project concludes that the parking will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed mix of units within this project. The mitigation measures in the EIR include provisions for a traffic signal at Baker/Pullman intersection, street improvements at the Red Hill/ Baker intersection, payment of traffic impact fees, and to provide adequate sight distance for vehicles at all project drive approaches. Required Finding: The use complies with performance standards as prescribed elsewhere in the Zoning Code, subject to approval of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment for site specific changes to the density and height limits for this site. Response: The project complies with the City's Zoning Code, subject to approval of the associated Zoning Code Amendment for site specific text changes as it pertains to density and building height, and complies with the intent of the Zoning Code as it pertains to on-site parking spaces. Required Finding: The use is consistent with the General Plan. Response: A change in the land use designation of the 4.17 -acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential is proposed to accommodate the development; therefore, the proposed rezone to PDR - HD would be consistent with the proposed High Density Residential General Plan designation for the project site. Required Finding: The cumulative effect of all the planning applications have been considered. Response: The cumulative effects of General Plan Amendment GP -13-02, Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-d2, Rezone R-13-02, and Master Plan PA- 13-11 have all been considered for this project and no significant cumulative impacts were identified. B. Required Finding: The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Response: The project site is located at the southwest corner of Baker Street and Pullman Street. The site is approximately 4.17 -acres in size (181,415 square feet), is roughly triangular-shaped, and is currently occupied by a 66,666 -square -foot two-story office building constructed in 1974, a surface parking lot, signage, and landscaped areas within the parking area and around the perimeter of the site. The property is currently zoned CL (Commercial Limited) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Industrial Park (MP). The proposed project involves replacing the existing office building and surface parking areas with an apartment building and parking structure as described above. The apartment units are comprised of studio units, one -bedroom units, and two-bedroom units. A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD). The proposed rezone to PDR -HD would be consistent with the proposed High Density Residential General Plan designation for the project site. C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. The Final EIR was prepared for this project pursuant to Article 7 - EIR Process, of the CEQA Guidelines, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been included, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects, as identified in the final EIR. - 2-1-1 - EXHIBIT B Amendment to the Zoning Map Change the zoning designation of the 4.17 -acre development site at 125 East Baker Street from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential - High Density (PDR -HD) Overview Map Map Disrlav _ n r p%Q, 4 ` i4 '4 t+�4'� • {p `� Legend Hydrola- NIC01B P+Ow C: 117nnal• Pelygan• J NCIYaKt Namv5 r FarcGl l ii1Pb Warr r f + \f r r y \ Wbys r puO.."As /!r /A x ti f Y HIM ZM Awwr uW*djjj NET f RESOLUTION NO. PC -14-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA ADOPT MASTER PLAN PA -13-11 FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 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 457 PARKING SPACES IN THE STRUCTURE AND FOUR OUTDOOR ON -GRADE PARKING SPACES WITH A DEVIATION FROM THE FOLLOWING ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: FOR ON-SITE PARKING SPACES (538 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED; 461 PARKING SPACES PROPOSED) AT 125 EAST BAKER STREET. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, The proposed project is a five -story, 240 -unit apartment complex (63 -foot maximum height proposed) at a density of 58 dwelling units (du's) per acre with a six -story parking structure (57 -foot maximum height proposed) with 457 parking spaces and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces, along with the following specific entitlements: 1. Final Environmental impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2013081051). Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. 2. General Plan Amendment GP -13-02. Change the land use designation of the 4.17 - acre development site from Industrial Park to High Density Residential. In addition to the change in land use designation, the general plan amendment also involves text amendment(s) to the City's General Plan to reflect a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre, and a site-specific height of six stories. 3. Rezone R-13-02. A rezone (or change) of the zoning classification of the 4.17 -acre development site from Commercial Limited (CL) to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD), 4. Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02. A zoning ordinance to amend Costa Mesa Municipal Code Title 13 for a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre. The site is proposed to be designated PDR -HD (Planned Development Residential -High Density) in the City's Zoning Code. The designation allows up to 20 dwelling units - Z,q_ per acre, or 83 dwelling units maximum for the site. The proposed 240 -unit project would require an amendment to Table 13-58 (Planned Development Standards) to allow a site-specific density of 58 dwelling units per acre for this project. 5. Master Plan PA -13-11. A Master Plan application for the proposed development 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 457 parking spaces in the structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from: on- site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). WHEREAS, A Master Plan application for the proposed development of a five - story 240 -unit residential apartment building for the development of the project as described above. WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2014, and continued to March 24, 2014, with all persons having the opportunity to speak and be heard for and against the proposal. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Draft EIR was circulated from November 6, 2013 to December 20, 2013 for public review and comment. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the Final EIR and has found that the Final EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, and the Final EIR is complete, adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. WHEREAS, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation on May 16, 2013, which established a maximum building height of 111 feet above mean sea level (approximately 65 feet above ground level) for the proposed project. WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC), at their meeting of January 16, 2014, determined, on a 6-1 vote, that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the AELUP for Heliports. —2-2b— WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council certify the EIR, approve General Plan Amendment GP -13-02, Zoning Code Amendment CO -13- 02, and Rezone R-13-02, by separate resolutions. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit A and subject to the conditions of approval/mitigation measures indicated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program contained within Exhibit B and Exhibit C, respectively, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PA -13-11 with respect to the property described above. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24TH day of March, 2014. Jim >=iiJtriGk-�Chair Costa sa Planning Commission :Z -JI — STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, CLAIRE FLYNN, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 14-17 was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on March 24, 2014, by the following votes: AYES: Fitzpatrick, Dickson, McCarthy, Mathews and Sesler NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Claire Fly n, Secretary Costa Mesa Planning Commission .22Z— EXHIBIT A FINDINGS A. The proposed project complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-29(e) because: Required Finding: A compatible and harmonious relationship exists between the proposed use and existing buildings, site development, and uses that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhoods. Response: With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR for the proposed project, all potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project will be compatible and harmonious with uses that exist within the general neighborhood. The project features quality construction and materials. The proposal provides on-site amenities comparable with quality residential units. The parking study prepared for the project determined that the proposed parking spaces are adequate to meet the demand for this project. The Airport Land Use Commission for Grange County (ALUC) determined that the proposed project was consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Required Finding: Safety and compatibility of the design of the parking areas, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features including functional aspects of the site development such as automobile and pedestrian circulation have been considered. Response: The parking study prepared for the project concludes that the parking will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed mix of units within this project. The mitigation measures in the EIR include provisions for a traffic signal at Baker/Pullman intersection, street improvements at the Red Hill/ Baker intersection, payment of traffic impact fees, and to provide adequate sight distance for vehicles at all project drive approaches. The project has been conditioned to comply with these mitigation measures; as a result, the safety and compatibility of the project has been insured. Required Finding: The use is consistent with the General Plan. Response: The project proposes a rezone of the property to Planned Development Residential — High Density (PDR -HD) and a Zoning Code Text Amendment to the maximum density of 58 Dwelling Units per acre. Subject to approval of the proposed rezone and text amendment the project complies with the City's Zoning Code as it pertains to building height, setbacks, and open space, and complies with the intent of the Zoning Code as it pertains to on-site parking spaces and overall project density. Required Finding: The cumulative effect of all the planning applications have been considered. Response: The cumulative effects of General Plan Amendment GP -13-02, Zoning Code Amendment CG -13-02, Rezone R-13-02, and Master Plan PA - 13 -11 have all been considered for this project and no significant impacts were identified. B. Required Finding: The master plan meets the broader goals of the General Plan .._ �- a'" and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning, and integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring development. Response: The Master Plan application is for the proposed development 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 457 parking spaces in the parking structure and four outdoor on -grade parking spaces with a deviation from the following zoning code development standards: on-site parking spaces (538 parking spaces required; 461 parking spaces proposed). With regard to the master plan, the following is noted: The protect features quality construction and materials. The building design and roof elements are a modern style, i.e., characterized by simplified square and rectangular building forms with a variety of flat planes, projections, and recesses. The exterior consists of alternating stucco, smooth fiber cement panels with exposed attachments, and wood siding finishes. Additional accents include wood balcony rails and trellises, welded wire mesh grid systems that support the growth of landscape vines, and "caged rock" planters. The developer will also be required to contact the City's Transportation Services Division and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to replace the chain link fence between the westerly property line and the drainage channel v -ditch with a combination wrought iron fence with pilaster supports or other fence/barrier acceptable to both the City and Caltrans, and to landscape the area between the westerly property line and the v -ditch consistent with the abutting on-site landscape. The proposal provides on-site amenities comparable with Quality residential developments. The proposed resident amenities include a 5,400 square foot clubhouse, business center, and state-of-the-art cardio gym. Beyond the clubhouse is over 12,223 square feet of landscaped courtyard with a pool, spa and related recreation areas. A separate more passive courtyard encompasses 5,385 square feet of additional common open space. Stretching along the western edge of the property is the 13,797 square foot "resident back yard", including a dog park, basketball courts, landscaped walkways and community gardens. The parking study prepared for the proiect rather than strict compliance with the parking requirements in the Zoning Code, has been determined to appropriately identify the parking demand for this prosect. A shared parking analysis prepared for this project is a tool to identify peak parking demand for this project. The parking study was prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) and is included in the Transportation/Traffic section of the EIR. The study concludes that the parking will be sufficient to accommodate the proposed mix of units within this project. The proiect has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding uses in the area and future apartment tenants will be notified of the existing uses in the vicinityof f thisrp olect• The project has been designed as a self-contained 4 .I residential community with on-site amenities as discussed above. The building reflects a modern architecture style that makes it visually compatible with the architecture of the surrounding industrial area. A condition of approval has been incorporated requiring future tenants to be notified that there are surrounding industrial uses in the area, including but not limited to, operational characteristics such as hours of operation, delivery schedules, outdoor activities, noise, and odor generation that could be disturbing to residents. Additionally, future tenants will be notified of their proximity to the airport and the units will be designed with sound attenuation measures to mitigate any noise impacts. C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental procedures. The Final EIR was prepared for this project pursuant to Article T - EIR Process, of the CEQA Guidelines, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been included, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects, as identified in the final EIR. D. 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, must be 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. E. Mitigation measures from the EIR have been included as Exhibit C. If any of these conditions are removed, the decision-making body must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. F. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with Chapter X11, Article 3, Transportation System Management, of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in that the development project's traffic impacts will be mitigated at all affected intersections and by the payment of traffic impact fees. G. The rear building of this development is at an excessive distance from the street, but the plan does not lend itself to fire apparatus access or placement of an on-site fire hydrant. Problems associated with the depth of buildings on the property can be somewhat reduced by installation of a standpipe system and a residential sprinkler system. EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PA -13-11 Ping. 1. The approval of Master Plan PA -13-11 shall be contingent upon City Council's final approval of General Plan Amendment GP -13-02, Rezone R-13-02, and Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-g2. 2. Final Master Plan PA -13-11 shall comply with the conditions of approval, code requirements, special district requirements, and mitigation measures of the EIR for this project and as listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit C). 3. Mitigation measures from the EIR for this project have been included as Exhibit C. If any of these conditions are removed, the City Council must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility of another public agency, or that specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures infeasible. 4. The conditions of approval including Mitigation Measures incorporated by reference in these Conditions of Approval as Exhibit C, code requirements, and special district requirements of PA -13-11 shall be blueprinted on the face of the site plan as part of the plan check submittal package 5, A parking management plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Director and the Transportation Services Manager prior to final occupancy of the building. The parking management plan shall denote the following: a. Method of allocation of assigned parking. b. Location of visitor parking, including appropriate signage. c. Location of security gates, if any, and how gates will be operated. d. Location of employee parking. e. Provide proof of a contract with a towing service to enforce the parking regulations if parking problems arise. 6. No modification(s) of the approved building elevations including, but not limited to, changes that increase the building height, removal of building articuiation, or a change of the finish materials), shall be made during construction without prior Planning Division written approval. Failure to obtain prior Planning Division approval of the modification could result in the requirement of the applicant to (re)process the modification through a discretionary review process such as a minor design review or a variance, or in the requirement to modify the construction to reflect the approved plans. 7. The subject property's ultimate finished grade level may not be filled/raised unless necessary to provide proper drainage, and in no case shall it be raised in excess of 30 inches above the finished grade of any abutting property or as would result in an overall building height in excess of 111 feet above mean sea level as discussed in condition of approval number 8. if additional fill dirt is needed to provide acceptable on-site stormwater flow to a public street, an alternative means of accommodating that drainage shall be approved by the City's Building Official prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Such alternatives may include subsurface tie-in to public stormwater facilities, subsurface drainage collection systems and/or sumps with mechanical pump discharge in -lieu of gravity flow. If mechanical pump method is determined appropriate, said mechanical pump(s) shall continuously be maintained in working order. In any case, development of subject property shall preserve or improve the existing pattern of drainage on abutting properties. 8. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation issues on May 16, 2013, which established a maximum building height of 111 feet above mean sea level (approximately 65 feet above ground level) for the proposed project. S. The developer shall contact the Planning Division to arrange a Planning inspection of the site prior to the release of occupancy. This inspection is to confirm that the Planning Division conditions of approval and code requirements have been satisfied. 10. Address assignment shall be requested from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. The approved address of individual units, suites, buildings, etc., shall be blueprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall contact the U.S. Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities shall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 12. The project shall incorporate green building design and construction techniques where feasible; CAL Green Code or higher as determined by applicant. The applicant may contact the Building Safety Division at (714) 754-5273 for additional information. 13. It is recommended that the project incorporate green building design and construction techniques where feasible. The applicant may contact the Building Safety Division at (714) 754-5273 for additional information. CAL Green Code or higher as determined by applicant. 14. No exterior roof access ladders, roof drain scuppers, or roof drain downspouts are permitted. This condition relates to visually prominent features of scuppers or downspouts that not only detract from the architecture but may be spilling water from overhead without an integrated gutter system which would typically channel the rainwater from the scupper/downspout to the ground. An integrated downspout/gutter system which is painted to match the building would comply with the condition. This condition shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 15. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. Freestanding signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division/Development Services Director to ensure compatibility in terms of size, height, and location with the proposed/existing development, and existing freestanding signs in the vicinity. 15. There shall be no signage above the second floor of the building. Building wall signage shall be limited to identification of the residential development. 17. Demolition permits for existing structures shall be obtained and all work and inspections completed prior to final building inspections. Developer is notified that written notice to the Air Quality Management District may be required ten (10) days prior to demolition. 18. Developer shall contact the City's Transportation Services Division and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to replace the chain link fence between the westerly property line and the drainage channel v-ditch with 2--,Zl r--- a combination wrought iron fence with pilaster supports or other fence/barrier acceptable to both the City and Caltrans, and landscape the area between the westerly property line and the v -ditch consistent with the abutting on-site landscape. The off-site fencing and landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. Issuance of certificate of occupancy shall not be withheld pending the completion of this condition; however, the applicant shall provide documentation of the progress and estimated time of completion of the condition prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 19. Developer shall submit a detailed Landscape Plan for the public and private open spaces, for review and approval by the Development Services Department, prior to any construction landscape improvements. The plan shall include all decorative hardscape and landscape improvements as shown on the conceptual plans to provide visual relief for the project from the street. Final materials shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 20. Perimeter landscaping shall be planted with trees and vegetation. The landscape plan shall be approved prior to issuance of building permits and shall contain additional 24 -inch box trees above the minimum Code requirements to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. Compliance with this requirement may include upgrading smaller sized trees to 24 -inch box trees or providing additional 24 -inch box trees. 21. Existing mature trees shall be retained wherever possible. Should it be necessary to remove existing trees, the applicant shall submit a written request and justification to the Planning Division. A report from a California licensed arborist may be required as part of the justification. Replacement trees shall be of a size consistent with trees to be removed and may be required on a 1:1 basis, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. This requirement shall be completed under the direction of the Planning Division. 22. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall identify to the Development Services Director a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site activity, including resolution of issues related to dust generation from grading/paving activities. 23. Prior to issuance of grading permits, developer shall submit for review and approval a Construction Management Plan. This plan features methods to minimize disruption to the neighboring uses to the fullest extent that is reasonable and practicable. The plan shall include construction parking and vehicle access and specifying staging areas and delivery and hauling truck routes. The plan should mitigate disruption to businesses during construction. The truck route plan shall preclude truck routes through residential areas and major truck traffic during peak hours. The total truck trips to the site shall not exceed 200 trucks per day (i.e., 100 truck trips to the site plus 100 truck trips from the site) unless approved by the Development Services Director or Transportation Services Manager. 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the building plans shall demonstrate that all units are equipped with a mechanical ventilation system that will properly filter the indoor air. The ventilation system can be a component of the air conditioning system with the distinction being that clean, ventilated air flow does not necessarily need coolant. 25. Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code applicable at the time of grading as well as the appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the City of Costa Mesa Building official prior to issuance of grading permits. 26. Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (collectively referred to as "proceeding") brought against the City, its elected and appointed officials, agents, officers or employees arising out of (1) City's approval of the project, including but not limited to any proceeding under the California Environmental Quality Act. The indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the applicant, the City and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. This indemnity provision shall include the applicant's obligation to indemnify the City for all the City's costs, fees, and damages that the City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this section. 27. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan and Photometric Study for the approval of the City's Development Services Department. The Lighting Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following: • The mounting height of lights on light standards shall not exceed 18 feet in any location on the project site unless approved by the Development Services Director; • The intensity and location of lights on buildings shall be limited to minimize nighttime light and glare to residents and shall be subject to the Development Services Director's approval; • All site lighting fixtures shall be provided with a flat glass lens. Photometric calculations shall indicate the effect of the flat glass lens fixture efficiency; and • Lighting design and layout shall limit spill light to no more than 0.5 foot- candle at the property line of the surrounding properties, consistent with the level of lighting that is determined necessary for safety and security purposes on site. • Light standards located at the top level of the parking structure shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height, located and oriented in such a way as to minimize light spillage onto surrounding properties. 28. A "Notice to Tenants" shall disclose the surrounding industrial uses in the area, including but not limited to, operational characteristics such as hours of operation, delivery schedules, outdoor activities, noise, and odor generation. The Tenant Notice shall be reviewed/approved by the City Attorney's office and Development Services Director prior to issuance of building permits and shall be included as a reference document in the Tenants' Lease Agreement. The Tenant's Notice shall serve as written notice of the existing noise environment and any odor -generating uses within the vicinity of the project. 29. If the project is constructed in phases, perimeter fences/walls, landscaping along the frontages, and irrigation shall be installed prior to completion of the first phase. 30. The FAA No Hazard Determination shall be current and valid ALUC 31 Eng. 32 issuance of building permits. including, but not limited to, the No Hazard Determination shall permit issuance. Any required modifications t building height or appurtenances )e reflected in the building plans at the time of D the building, required by the prior to building Outdoor signage shall be provided informing the public of the presence of an operating airport for all designated outdoor common or recreational areas. if the proposed project should change significantly after the ALUC review, the proposed project must return to ALUC for another consistency determination. Maintain the public right-of-way in a "wet -down" condition to prevent excessive dust and promptly remove any spillage from the public right-of-way by sweeping or sprinkling. CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR PA -13-11 The following list of federal, state and local laws applicable to the project has been compiled by staff for the applicant's reference. Any reference to "City" pertains to the City of Costa Mesa. Ping 1. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final inspections, final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 2. All noise -generating construction activities shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities shall be prohibited on Sunday and the following Federal holidays: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 3. Development shall comply with all requirements of Article 1, Chapter 5, and Article 9, Chapter 5 of Title 13 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code relating to development standards for multi -family residential projects. 4. If a tract map is proposed/recorded 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 $13,829.00 per new multi -family dwelling unit. 5. Street address shall be visible from the public street and shall be displayed on the complex identification sign. If there is no complex identification sign, the street address may be displayed on the fascia adjacent to the main entrance or on another prominent location. Street address numerals shall be a minimum six (6) inches in height with not less than one -half-inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. Identification of individual units shall be provided adjacent to the unit entrances. Letters or numerals shall be four (4) inches in height with not less than one -fourth -inch stroke and shall contrast sharply with the background. 6. Parking stalls shall be double -striped in accordance with City standards. •22.— T. Driveway ramp slope shall comply with the standards contained in the City's parking ordinance. 8. All new on-site utility services shall be installed underground. 9. Installation of all new utility meters shall be performed in a manner so as to obscure the installation from view from any place on or off the property. The installation shall be in a manner acceptable to the public utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box under the direction of the Planning Division. 10. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning equipment and duct work shall be screened from view in a manner approved by the Planning Division. 11. The project shall be subject to the submission of legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of all common open space and other facilities provided in the final development plan. 12. All landscaped areas shall be separated from paved vehicular areas by 6 - inch high continuous Portland Cement Concrete curbing. 13. The parking structure shall be landscaped per the provisions of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-105(4) - Parking Structure Landscape Requirements. 14. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans, which meet the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-101 through 13-108, shall be required as part of the project plan check review and approval process. Plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Division for final approval prior to issuance of building permits. 15. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to final inspection or occupancy clearance. 16. Two (2) sets of landscape and irrigation plans, approved by the Planning Division, shall be attached to two of the final building plan sets. 17. Trash enclosure(s) or other acceptable means of trash disposal shall be provided. Design of trash enclosure(s) shall conform to City standards. Standard drawings are available from the Planning Division. 18. If present and/or projected exterior noise exceeds 60 CNEL, California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 25, California Code of Regulations require a maximum interior noise level of 45 CNEL for residential structures. If required interior noise levels are achieved by requiring that windows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. 19. In compliance with the City's mitigation monitoring program, the applicant shall submit a compliance report to the Planning Division along with plans for plan check or prior to commencement of the project's activity if no construction is involved, that lists each mitigation measure and states when and how the mitigation measures are to be met. Bldg. 20. Comply with the requirements of the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards Code and 2013 California Energy Code (or the applicable —2-32-- adopted California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and California Energy Code at the time of plan submittal or permit issuance) and California Code of Regulations also known as the California Building Standards Code, as amended by the City of Costa Mesa. 21. This project shall comply with the in -Building Public Safety Radio System Coverage per Section 5-130 to 5-137 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code. At plan check submittal 6 copies of an in -building Public Safety Radio System Coverage report (Radio System Report) shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division. The Radio System Report shall be certified by an FCC licensed radio technician as provided by the property owner/applicant. The technician is required by Section 5-133 to conduct initial tests and shall be employed by the owner, the engineer or architect of record, or agent of the owner, but not by the contractor or any other person responsible for the work. 22. The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 5% for a minimum of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. CBC 1803.3., unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and allowed by the soils engineer. 23. Projections, including eaves, shall be one-hour fire resistive construction, heavy timber or of noncombustible material if they project into a 5 -foot setback area from the property line. They may project a maximum of 12 inches beyond the 3 -foot setback. CRC Tables R302.1(1) and R302.1(2). 24. Submit a soils report for this project. Soils report recommendation shall be blueprinted on both the architectural and grading plans. 25. Show compliance with Chapter 11A and 11B of the 2013 California Building Code. 26. On graded sites the top of exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved discharge device a minimum of 12 inches plus 2 percent. 2010 California Residential Code Section R403.1.7.3. 2013 California Building Code CBC 1808.7, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 27. Submit grading plans, an erosion control plan, and a hydrology study. 28. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of plans for plan check, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation for compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality Order 99- 08-DWQ; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS000002 for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit); the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2002- 0010 and NPDES Permit No. CAS618030; and, the City of Costa Mesa Ordinance No. 97-20 for compliance with NPDES Permit for the City of Costa Mesa. Such documentation shall include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying and detailing the implementation of the applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs). Eng. 29. For demolition, grading, or building permits involving projects with a valuation of $10,000 or more, the contractor shall use a City -permitted —2-32-- hauler(s) to haul any debris or solid waste from the job site (refer to Section 8-83(h), Regulations, of Title 8 of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code), Use of a City -permitted hauler for such projects is the responsibility of the designated contractor. Non-compliance is subject to an administrative penalty as follows: $1,000 or 3% of the total project value, whichever is greater. 30. At the time of development submit for approval an Offsite Plan to the Engineering Division and Grading Plan to the Building Division that shows Sewer, Water, Existing Parkway Improvements and the limits of work on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or Architect. Cross lot drainage shall not occur. Construction Access approval must be obtained prior to Building or Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. Pay Offsite Plan Check fee per Section 13-231 of the C.C.M.M.C. and an approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. 31. Pay Offsite Plan Check fee per Section 13-231 of the C.C.M.M.C. and an approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering Permits being issued by the Cit of Costa Mesa. 32. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan, including four (4) feet clear around obstructions in the sidewalk. 33. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. driveway approaches per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. ADA compliance required for all new driveway approaches. 34. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then remove any existing driveways and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk. 35. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct a wheelchair ramp on the corner of Baker Street and Pullman Street. 35. Fulfill City of Costa Mesa Drainage Ordinance No. 05-19 requirements prior to approval of plans. 37. Applicant is informed that Baker and Pullman Streets will be under a "NO OPEN CUT" moratorium. Open cutting the street pavement during the moratorium period shall require special resurfacing requirements. 38. The storm runoff study shall show existing and proposed facilities draining directly to the flood control channel adjacent to the property. Trans. 39. Fulfill mitigation of off-site traffic impacts at the time of issuance of certificate of occupancy by submitting to the Transportation Division the required traffic impact fee pursuant to the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council. The traffic impact fee is calculated including credits for all existing uses. At the current rate per trip end, the traffic impact fee is estimated at $155,253.00. NOTE: The Traffic Impact Fee will be recalculated at the time of issuance of certificate of occupancy SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR PA -13-11 The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani 1. It is recommended that the developer contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to obtain Sanitary District requirements. AQMD 2. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (800) 288- 7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by the district. School 3. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 4. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and — 7-3,+�_ based upon any changes in the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council and in effect at that time. 40. Fulfill San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee Ordinance requirement at the time of issuance of building permit by submitting the required fee to the Transportation Division. For the proposed use, the corridor fee is estimated as $2,216.00 per dwelling unit. NOTE: This fee is subject to revision and possible increase effective July 1 of each year. 41. Submit detailed plans for parking structure providing dimensions for all parking spaces and aisle widths per City Standards. 42. Identify width of all drive aisles including the circle entryway approaching the gated entry to the parking structure. 43. Provide a minimum of 40 feet total overall width at entry/exit for turn around. 44. Close unused drive approaches with full height curb and gutter per City Standards. 45, Construct sidewalk on Baker Street and Pullman Street per the revised plans and per City Standards and relocate any conflicting utilities, subject to final approval by Public Services. 46. Construct commercial type drive approach for FIRE LANES on Baker Street and Pullman Street, construct as 3 -inch high curb. 47. Construct Type II drive approach at locations submitted on site plan. Comply with minimum clearance requirements from any vertical obstructions. 48. For the traffic study, revise Figure 9-A (Stopping Sight Distance Analysis) for southbound Pullman Street to show a merging point closer to the main entrance. 49. Developer shall be fully responsible for the design and installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Baker Street and Pullman Street. Fire 50. Provide Class I Wet Standpipes in all stairs. 51. Provide 2 -hour fire -rated stair enclosures. 52. Provide electronic supervision of all unit smoke detectors. 53. Provide Fire Alarm System per CFC, 2010. 54, Provide Automatic Fire Sprinkler System per NFPA 13. 55, Provide Fire Department Connection at direction of Fire Department. Parks/ 56. Designated street tree for Baker Street is jacaranda mirnosifolia. Pkwys Designated street tree for Pullman Avenue is pinus pines. SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR PA -13-11 The requirements of the following special districts are hereby forwarded to the applicant: Sani 1. It is recommended that the developer contact the Costa Mesa Sanitary District at (949) 645-8400 to obtain Sanitary District requirements. AQMD 2. Applicant shall contact the Air Quality Management District (800) 288- 7664 for potential additional conditions of development or for additional permits required by the district. School 3. Pay applicable Newport Mesa Unified School District fees to the Building Division prior is issuance of building permits. State 4. Comply with the requirements of the California Department of Food and — 7-3,+�_ Agriculture (CDFA) to determine if red imported fire ants (RIFA) exist on the property prior to any soil movement or excavation. Water 5. Customer shall contact the Mesa Water District -- Engineering Desk and submit an application and plans for project review. Customer must obtain a letter of approval and a letter of project completion from Mesa Water District. .AWA 6. Proposed construction penetrates the 100:1 imaginary surface extending a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of John Wayne Airport. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall submit a Notice of Proposed Construction to the FAA. Written proof from the FAA of their approval of the proposed construction and applicant's compliance with all FAA requirements shall be provided to the Planning Division prior to the release of building permits. --23S-- Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring Program CHAPTER i 1 Mitigation Mondoring 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 Responsbie Compriance Veacarion Agency/ Measure I Action Required I MonNorrng Phase I Party I Initial I Dare I Comments Ala 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 tar greater than 4 days, nontoxic soil stabilizers shall be applied. ■ Watering of exposed surfaces two times daily ■ Watering of all unpaved haul roads two times daily ■ Covering all stock piles with tarp a 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 r 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 SC No. 2013081051 11-2 City Cf Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC Final EIR February 2014 Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix CHAPTER 11 Mltlgatlon Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11 A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrtx HYDROLOGYNATER QUALITY MM 4.4-1 The project applicant shall finalize the drainage plan and prepare a project Water Finalize drainage plan, Prior to issuance Respc)rWbfe Compliance Verificalfon Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to Orange County DAMP requirements. The Agency) of building permit; Orange, City of Mifigalion Measure Athan Required Monitoring Phase Party lni ial Date Cornmerda MM4.24 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction -related Construction document Prior to issuance City Planning; Department of equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be specifications of building permit; SCAQMD Public Works turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes. Diesel fueled commercial motor vehicles during construction with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds shall be turned off when components of the drainage plan and WQMP BMPs have been installed. 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 glliter interior or 100 glliter exterior, Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Costa Mesa. MM4.2.6 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 fitters 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 HYDROLOGYNATER 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 Cn►il 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 Red Qok Investments, LLC 11.3 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR SCH No. 201 3081 05 1 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.4 Mitigation Monloring and Reporting Program Matrix Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Final EIR February 2014 Responsible Compliance Verification Agency) MNgaWn Measure Action Required Monftdng Phase Party I Initial Date Comrnents LAND USEiPLANNING 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 residential unit and resident, notifying them of potential annoyances associated with aircraft Vicinity within residential of occupancy Mesa Planning overflight and proximity to airport operations, including the following, with final form and development area permit Department content to be reviewed and approved by the Economic and Development Services Director and City Attorney: "NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This 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 of the 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 Notce 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 MMU -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 5CH No. 2013081051 11-4 City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC mak Final Elk February 2014 Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix CHAPTER 11 Mil igation Moniforing and Reporting Program SECTION 11.4 Mitigatlan Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC MM4.9-1 Pullman Street/Baker Street Intorsection. Prior to issuance of a certificate of Install traffic signal and Prior to issuance Responsible Agencyl Compriance VerMcaffan occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant shall install a traffic signal and Mftrffon Measure Action Required Monitoring Phone Poorly Ifi al Date Commenfs 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 Ciy of Costa Mesa Design Guidelines and California 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 StreetlRed Hill Avenue and Baker StreetlSR 55 NB Ramps intersections. in conjunction with 200 feet of the receptor informing them of the estimated start date and duration of signal ization, the project applicant will restripe Baker Street to provide a dedicated eastbound daytime vibration -generating construction activities. and westbound left -tum 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. MM4.9.2 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 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC MM4.9-1 Pullman Street/Baker Street Intorsection. 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 StreetlBaker 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 Ciy of Costa Mesa Design Guidelines and California 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 StreetlRed Hill Avenue and Baker StreetlSR 55 NB Ramps intersections. in conjunction with signal ization, the project applicant will restripe Baker Street to provide a dedicated eastbound and westbound left -tum lane, and a dedicated eastbound right -turn lane. Crosswalks and ADA compliant ramps will be installed as required by the City. MM4.9.2 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 throughlright-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 Red Oak Investments, LLC 11-5 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR SCH No. 201 3081 05 1 CHAPTER 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.4 AMltlgatlan Manitoring and Reporting Program Matrtx Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Final EIR February 2014 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR SCH No. 2013081051 11-6 City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC Responsible Compliance Verilrcalfon Agency/ Mrligalion Measure Aclion Required Monitoring Phase Party Inufal safe Cornmerris MM4.9-3 Traffic Impact Fees. Prior ti) 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 andlor 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 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 appropri& parking restriction signs. 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR SCH No. 2013081051 11-6 City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC ATTACHMENT 10 FINAL EIR - a-qz- CITY OF COSTA 125 EAST BAKER 1' ■ EET APARTMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2013081051 Volume la: Draft EIR Changes, Responses to Comments, and ^,litigation Manitaring aid Repast 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 Final EIR February 2014 Volume Io Draft EIR Contents Volume la: Draft 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 CHAPTER 9 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 BLANKI 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR SCH No. 2013081051 Final EIR February 2014 i City of Costa Mesa A Red Oak Investments, LLC I Final EIR CHAPTER 8 Introduction to the Final EIR February 2014 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. 2.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS The Draft FIR 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 FIR 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, 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 FIR resulting from City of Costa Mesa 8-1 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051 CHAPTER 8Introduction to the Final EIR SECTION 8.4 Use of the Final EIR 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 CNEV RP). 8.4 USE 4F THE FINAL EIR Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088(a) and 15088(6), 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 FIR 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. ..J 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 8-2 City of Costa Mesa SCH No. 2013081057 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 MNIRP. 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 3-3 125 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] Final EIR February 2014 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 8,4 City of Costa Mesa SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC Final EIR CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draff 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 tkrreagh 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 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. The n*oj t -ite is v.nthin *h= john Waynt _Airport Safety Zone f- (r'- ffic Patz -n ' --` 4-`-'v Zone r-0 U t e S' - - AMOTTMOT e � �,esiuiatiorvs -allow for residential u5r5 and allo3y mQst nonresidential uses. well as children's hospital 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• • -Mi". •• • •. Y . • + _ •• rati 1. In Qrdgr-to—emure--ex9t 4&tire occupants • - • ••• -• City of Costa Mesa 9_1 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2D 13081051 CHAPTER 9 Changes to the Draft EIR SECTION 9.1 Text Changes __• ,•-rs •a' 'r , , 't r •e r , . ,. reit .i • , Final EIR February 2014 _?ESJDEJkWaT JAW ,_ r r , , r/ rr '! •• /.r/'r, r ,tits Its , , ,r , Implementation of mitigation measure MAM 5 1 vo ld -=,qurt that the resid retial occ pants of thc. prOp�Qiect would_ be no i&d to the Presence of anv annovancec accnci red c 1h air ort r�tinnc 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. Page 4.8-29, fifth full paragraph Standard Conditions ® If a tract map is Pf6l5aa, rer-nrrlerl 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 map is recorded fQr the pyo ocer 'ec 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 signMcarst, and no mitigation is required. 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 9-2 City of Costa mesa SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC Final EIR CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses February 2014 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 Mo. commeMer70r90nS.olion 11/06/2013 Letter Code Dote commend Received Page Where CommeMaegms Poge Where Responwilegins BIDU 12/06/2013 PUBLIC AGENCIES 10-31 9 1 California Department of Transportation CALTRANS 12/11/2013 10-3 10-5 2 Native American Heritage Commission NAHC 1219/2013 10-6 10-10 3 Orange County Public Works OCPW 1202/2013 10-11 10-12 4 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation JBMI 1211/2013 10-13 10-14 5 Airport Land Use Commission ALUC 12 20/2013 10-15 10-16 ORGANIZATIONS 6 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 12/06/2013 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 GALL! 12/12/2013 10-36 10-38 12 Michael Manclark MIMA 12/12/2013 10-40 1041 ORAL COMMENTS 13 1 Planning Commission Meeting I 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 Drafl 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 iri 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. _.J I _J 1 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-2 City of Costa Mesa •--i 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 10.2.1 Public Agencies California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), 12/11/2013 Comments ;rvnn t� r�MeFL^_-!rt.V1a:5y.rR,M1�1•R(!:Cygi_1n9litxyme .wr�ry __ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 NfIC11FJ.SON DR1VE. SFaTF on IRVINF CA 92612.5194 PHONE 1949) 724.2n M FAX (9,19) 724-2019 TF1' 711 x nw.dnt.ca gm December 2, 2013 Claire Flvnn City of Cassa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, Califorlim 92628.1200 Subject: 123 East Raker Street Apartment Project Dear Ms. phren. CALTRANS _.. .Ia7yyrmr na�wer:a r :.xr File: IGR/CEQA SCHN: 2013081051 Log 4:3372C SR -55 Flo wwP�'s. thank you fbr the opportunity- to review and comment an the Draft Environmental Impart Report (DEIR) for the 125 East Raker Street Apartment Project. The project involves the replacing of the existing office building and surface parking areas with anew apartment building and parking structure- The project consists of a five-swn, 240 -unit residetrtial apartment building that wraps ammnd a six -level parking smoome 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. The nearest State Highway located near the project site is SR -55. The Department of Transportation (Department) iA a responsible agency on this project and we have the following comments: Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 will involve the installation of auf&e signals on State owned Right of Way at the intersection of Pullman StrectBaker Strect. Please coordinate with the Department to meet requirements for any work within or near State right of way. All entities performing work within the Stale right of way must obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to crxnmemcemenrt of work. A fee may apply. If the east of work within the State right of way is below V. 000.000. the Encroachment Permit process will be handled by aur Permits Branch; otherwise the permit should be authorized through the office of Project Department's Project Development. Allow 2 to 4 weeks for a complete submittal to be reviewed and for a permit to be issued. When applying for Encroachment Permit, please incorporate Environmental Documentation. SU?PPP/ WPCP, Hydraulic C'alwlations. Traffic Control Plans. Geotechnicat Analysis, R!W certification and all relevant design details including design exception approvals. For specific details Encroachment Permits procedure. please refer to the Department's Encroachment Permits Manual. The latest edition is available on the wch site-. hap:;; vvww datca eovhu'tmlT>ps%ilevelooser/aermits CALTRANS-1 CALTRANS-2 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 Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially impact the State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need to CALTRANS-3 contact us. please do not hesitate to call Miya Fdmonson at (949) 724-2228. Sincerely, Maureen El Harake. Branch Chief Regional -Community -Transit Planning C: Scott Morgan. Office of Planning and Research e'a -v*' Imrs ' M'[ft ......e f'vlf mia 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 70.4 City of Costa Mesa SCH No. 2013081057 Red Oak Investments, LLC Final EIR February 2014 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. 2013087051 CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), 12/19/2013 Comments [>r UNA RE: SCH#2013081051; CECIA Notice of Completion; draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 1425 L=est ankor Street Apart mord project;* located in the City of Costs 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 65040.2, 65352.3 et seq. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that any projece 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 places(s), The NAHC recommends that known traditional cultural resources recorded on or adjacent to the APE be listed in the draft NAHC-i 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 final 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 funerary 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 latter to determine if the 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10.6 SCH No. 2013081051 Final EIR February 2014 City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC J N AATIIVE� AMERµICAAN1*UftoHERITAGE COMMISSION vMtsmonw�e�G 45M � �'ntngns 71 0ftbabe..n am e-mam nc�pacoe#.�t December 18, 2013 RemlVed Mr, Mel Lee, Planner City of Costa Mesa Cfty of Costa IYlesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 DEC X 9 2013 RE: SCH#2013081051; CECIA Notice of Completion; draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 1425 L=est ankor Street Apart mord project;* located in the City of Costs 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 65040.2, 65352.3 et seq. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that any projece 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 places(s), The NAHC recommends that known traditional cultural resources recorded on or adjacent to the APE be listed in the draft NAHC-i 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 final 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 funerary 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 latter to determine if the 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10.6 SCH No. 2013081051 Final EIR February 2014 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 Proposed active might impinge on any cultural resources. Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. Cartfomia Government Code Section 65040.12(e) defines "environmentaljustice° to provide "fair treatment of People... with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws. regulations and policies" and Executive Order B-10-11 requires consultation with Native American tribes their aWried 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 tnbal communities. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation pian provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15084.5(1). 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 Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 require documentation and analysis of archaeological items that meet the standard kr Section 15064.5 (a)(b)(f). Lead agencies should consider first, avoidance for sacred and/or historical sites, pursuant to CEPA 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 21088.2 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 cernetery. Sincerely, Rogram Analyst' CC: State Clearinghouse t Attachment: Native American Contacts list NAHC-t cont. City of Costa Mesa 10.7 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051 CHAPTER 70 Comments and Responses SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR Juarrno Band of Mission fri lam PCgad*rc n Nati." David Belardes, Chairperson 32161 Avenida Los Amlgos Juareno Sen Juan c a n9 CA 92675 chiefdavldbelardes (yahoo. (949) 493-4933 - home (949) 293-6522 Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. Private Address Gabrieufo Tongva taariawogmail.com 310-570-6567 a rteyWronv PanGabrielof Band of Mission PO Box 693 Gts�r Gabrielino Tongva San Gabriel , CA 91778 GTTribafnx rncl10sol_com (626) 286-1632 (626) 286-1758 - Home (626) 286-1262 -FAX Clabdellno rrongva Nation Sandonne Goad, Chairperson P.O. Box eam Gabrienno Tongva Los Angeles , CA eadra spad@gaWalino-bmva.com 951.845-0443 This Ra to curraftonlyo ottbq die W sols dm=BWIL Final EIR February 2014 Native American Contaota Orange County Caiffomis December 16, 2013 Jimnsno Band of Mission Indians Aciactfamen Nation Teresa Romero, Chairwoman 31411-A La Matanza Street Jusneno am Junin CRP9rerp CA WWS-2874 (949) 4884484 (949) 4884294 - FAX (530) 354.6876 - Celt Gabrialino ncil Robert FTDoorame,ongva l Tribal of C�r/CTj�r l Resources P.O. Box 490 Gabrielino Tongva Bellflower CA 90707 9101119vafverizen.n et 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 boepuf Oyaihoo.rlet 714-838-3270 714-914-1812 - CELL bseput@yahoo.net JuanetSo Sand of Mission Indians Sonia Johnston, Tribal Chairperson P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Sarna Ana , CA 927% sonla. Johnston f sbogiobai. 714-323-8312 714-9913-0721 IIIstrWWen ofatMd dos nor n0ass MW 9M>son of We sh"DW ftWWMMNV as dMYrW In season 79BU*#*S H"M ON 92%W Cods. Mede 9W.94 ars* PUN%aMwsess Cods and ssotlsn SIW M crew hhb 800wsvas Cole. his Va s Wry apPerawe for *Wdscrfng rasa ME"" AWWkWr VAh regard m Culham rpon Po the PmPood SCHIPM30e/0e1; CEA aodW W Complodon. dma Envie nand knpeg aep0lt (DOM for Ur 120 Pat atFer Sneer 1000W Mar CRY of Costs Um; orange CouMy, Caworr", APWU 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 70.6 City of Costa Mesa SCH No. 2013081057 Red Oak Investments, LLC Final EIR February 2014 United Coalition to Protea Panhe (UCPP) Rebecca Robles 119 Avenida San Fernando Juaneno San Clements CA 92872 rebrobles l Ogmati.com (949) 573-3136 Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Bernie Acuna, Co -Chairperson P.O. Box 180 Gabrielino Bonsall , CA 92003 (619)294 -6660 -work (310) 426-5690 - pail (780) 636-0854- FAX bacunai 0gabrielinobi ro.org CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR Native American Contacta Orange County California Deoember 16, 2013 Gabrieieno Band of Mesion Indians Andrew Sales, Chairperson P.O. Box 393 Gabrielino Covina . CA 91723 gabrieleroindiansiBlyahoo, (626)926-4131 Gabrietino-Tongva Tribe Conrad Acuna, P.O. Box 180 Gabriellno Bonsali , CA 92003 Juntwro Band of Mimbn Indkm Actadiemen Nnoon Gabnetino /rorlf jva Nation Joyce Perry, Representing Tribal Chairperson Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resorces Director 4955 Paseo Segovia Juaneno P.O. Box ee9p8 Irvine , CA 92612 Los Angeles . CA Gatxielirlo Tongva kaamalarn ft lail.com samdunlap0earthlink.net 949-293-8522 909-262-9351 Gabrialino-Tongvet Tribe Unda Candelaria, Co -Chairperson P.O. Box 180 Gabrieiino Bonsall . CA 92003 palm9wmg99*yetm0.00m 626-676-1184- cell (760) 836-0654 - FAX Tbb lfatb of es dtiw dwA do* deowneft Distribution dMbaftdoesnot Meresbwhenda,®® y+aepane®fygrasd.en.ain800110n7 dtt,,Mesa end assay Com, 111*01on SWA4 of t!w Td[e ifaamaeee Code "aeoam, $fWAS of the R*ffo Cod& his yet s only eppseetm for conUoarg bcal Nedw Amarleuw will, tayard to cubl resaw for the proposed 9CIW2012al10e1l Ce" Neese Or CempMtbnl draft Ee dram" N hnwet Report MOM rorthe 115 hear 1WW 80601 Awrinwnm pmjw4 bceted In the dry of Coats War pnnpa Counly, Calllh le. 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 EIR Final SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR February l 14 EIR 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. I Atkins, California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) Database Search, and Information -Scoffing Results for the Baker SireetApartmentr Pr ject, CITY of 4 J Costa Mesa, Orange County, California Qune 30, 2013). 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-10 City of Costa Mesa >._J SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC Final EIR February 2014 Comments ..of. P"ublicorks Integrity, Accountability, service, Trust November 19, 2013 Ms. Mel Lee, AICD, Senior Planner City of Costa Mesa Planning Division/Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628 CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR OCPW Shmm L 59sby, P$ Dkegor 300 N. Eimer SUW smw AM, CA 92703 P.O. Sax 404E Smta Ami. CA 92702.4048 TaleplwN: (714) 807-0800 Fix: (714) 967-0698 NCL 13-042 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, Olin Modanlou, nage Strategic Land Plannr g Division OC Public Works/OC Planning Services 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Polin_modanlou@ocow.o=v com PM/yj Receiver City of Costa Mesa Devet®orrient SenACW DGParhrtent NOV '2 12913 1OCpW-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 EIR Final SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR February l 14 EIR 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. 725 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-12 SCH No. 2013081051 City of Costa Mesa ..� Red Oak Investments, LLC i 4 A Final EIR February 2014 Comments CHAPTER TO Comments and Responses SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR JMB1 ivllssioll 111(JIM)s 2 AejachEjlivml Natiori I— k 1 C ty C� s;. Re', P,,NG, 2 1 : I P 'i L,;v,g, St! "I &,, _,,, E p T"(* YQo tpf sae 0; r fA,yr:tq 1,• QoIMeri .1125 F:wl 31k" SlIc Alive Ic,I( -Jji Draft 5 of. """m Ir!•T act a ill- J.-.l,sensm�re.e'awq1'.,qJMBI-1 5-1-0 .17 r.", A 'r- Jh-e5. mcwd' r• ":![If' -M-1 zWMI111111- AL! TrEQ-) rwdcfls pl,.,oc L, F,'rec la u.. WaG [,e pre""d A. A;d,aoc;,qy is .. .... 01 o"y 111;F - ,,, ey.. L of an 'I pc tan pa^ r.f 'A"t JMEII-2 ALS ane 0! 1a be Ae Iqll .1 11'.1 1- -71l; fo 'k lGnvdld to Ine rR IIS C11!X3; 1"Klo1Old l! — Ul ILVool l , we e,,l,rTe,o1 T� :rm e-� , 7 ;I, �,ro I i �t � f"lle, , ; JMBI-3 S,rw,i, Received Cft'Y of Costa mesa TloveloCmant Sai`Wces Department DEC 0 2 2013 City of Costa Mesa 1013 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 Response JBMI-1 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,' 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. Response JBMI-2 This comment restates the CEQA guidelines referring to archeological sites. Refer to Response JBMI-1. No further response is necessary. Response JBMI-8 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 HistoricaiResources Information System (CHRIS) Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHQ Sacred Lands File (SLF) Database Search, and InformationScopingResults for the Baker StreetApadments Project, City of I Costa Mesa, Orange County, California (June 30, 2013). 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 70-i4 City of Costa Mesa SCH No. 2013081057 Red Oak Investments, LLC Final EIR February 2014 CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the krait EIR Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), 12/20/2013 Comments ALUC ORANGE COUNTY .AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 6 FOR ORANGE COUNTY 702_ 3160 Airway Avenue , Costa Mesa, California 92626 • 9492525170 fax: 9492525178 December 20, 2013 MCI Lee, AICP, Senior Planner City of Costa MesaiDevelopment Services Department 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Subject: DEIR for 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project Dear Mr. Lee: Thank you for the Opportunity to review the Draft Environmental impact Report (DEIR) for the 125 East Baker Street Apa.u7ent Prcaject in rhe context of the Airport Latin Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Usv Plan forJohn Wayne Airport (JWA AELUP) and the AELUPfor Heliports. The proposed project includes replacing an existing office building and surface parking areas with an apartment building and parking structure. The project well consist 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 four outdoor on -grade parting 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 Zone 6 for the short General Aviation runway. Zone 6 does allow for residential uses, and although there is a low likelihood of accident occurrence at most airports within this zone; risk conecm 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: 77tis property is presently located in the vicinity ofan airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations /for example: noise, vibration or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary+from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the Property before yiou complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. " ALUG1 ALUC-2 ALUC-3 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 ALUC DE1R Comments 125 1? Raker 12,20.13 Page 2 Final EIR February 2014 In addition, the Draft EIR should identify if the project will be impacted by helicopter overflight due to the close proximity of helicopter anival and departure operations at JWA and if the project allows for heliports as defined in the Orange CountyAELUPfor Heliports. Should the development of heliports occur within your jurisdiction, proposals to develop new heliports must be submitted through the City to the ALUC for review and action pursuant to ALUC-4 Public Utilities Code 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 AELUP planning areas and requires a General Plan Amendment, it is recommended that the project be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission {ALUC} 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 Chourn at (949) 252-5123 or via email at lchotLm _ air.com should you have any questions related to the future referral of your project. 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 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 1016 City of Costa Mesa SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC Final EIR February 2014 1•U" 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. • r • r : r► i wt►trAl r =Vlations. 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 operations Heliports. Section 3.3 atJWA and if the project The proposed project d odue to the close proximity of allows for heliports as defined in es not include the develcl (Project Characteristics), Draft EIR p. 3-7, which provides helicopter arrival and departure the Orange County AELUP for t of a heliport as described in 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-b 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 1018 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 1aftm CARD Mel Lee City of Costa Mesa (714) 754-5245 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92625-1200 Re: 125 East Baker Street Apartment project SCH 20130x1051 Dear Mr. Lee, The undersigned represents Citizens Advocating Rational Development ("CARD"), a non-profrt 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. ENERGY 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. r CARD -2 City of Costa Mesa 10-19 T 25 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013D81051 CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR 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; Final EIR February 2014 2. Document Project demand; 3. Determine reasonably foreseeable development scenarios, both near-term and long-term; CARD -3 4. Determine the water demands necessary to serve both near-term 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 watersupply system; 9. Compare both near-term and long-term demand to near-term and long-term supply options, to determine water supply sufficiency; 10. 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. CARD -4 There is virtually no information in the DEIR which permits the readerto draw reasonable conclusions regarding the impact of the Project on water supply, either existing or in the future. For the foregoing reasons, this EIR is fatally flawed. AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS/CLIMATE CHANGE The OR lacks sufficient data to either establish the extent of the problem which local emissions I CARD -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 atthe 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 Draff EIR due to the catastrophic effects they will have on human life, agriculture, industry, sea level risings, and the many otherserious consequences of global warming. This portion of the EIR fails for the following reasons! 1. 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 tum 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 warming issues the shortshrift 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 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. For the foregoing reasons, the EIR is fatally flawed. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS The altemative analysis fails in thatthe entire attematives-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 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. Very truly yours, CITIZENS ADVOCATING RATIONAL DEVELOPMENT NICK R. Green CARD -5 Cont_ CARD --E ICARD-7 CARD -8 CARD -9 ICARD-10 City of Costa Mesa 1021 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051 CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses EIR Flnal SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR February l 14 EIR 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 hearing, 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 Title 24 requirements. Some of the following design features that would potentially be incorporated into the proposed project to reduce energy cunsurnption would be: a The installation of radiant roof barriers ® The requirement that a i -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 fixture solar panel or photovoltaic panels ® The provision of electrical conduits for future access to solar systems ® The provision of natural light and ventilation _i 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. I 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 70-22 City of Costa Mesa A 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 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 In 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 EIR Final SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR February l 14 EIR 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 warming 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 pemiit 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 CO2e 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. _J 1 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-24 City of Costa Mesa ...) SCH No. 2073081051 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. The commenter continues to express that the Draft FIR 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 Draff OR 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 10.28 City of Costa Mesa SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC 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 4.2013 Revolved Citv of CC,sta Mees City of Costa Mesa Develapme— a nr w,ns oqr Crtment Honorable Mayor Jim Righeimer, NOV 0 6 2011 Honorable Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Mensinger Honorable City Council Members Planning Commissoners 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 T about the potential development of Apartment housing in the industriaVnueni t�turing/oftict area bounded on the comer of Baker and Pullman off the 55 Freeway at 125 Baker Street. I have been in my ofTcefwarehouse location doing business just a block away from this proposed project for 29 years and have Seen much of the business development and re -development RICK -1 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 hes been for the betterment for both business and the City of Costs Mesa. Now there is a request to include a "Class A" apartment of high density with a zoning change for this area. Asa builder and experienced development individual, t feel this is a misplaced improvement, against reasonable land planning and zoning requirements and should be rejected RICK -2 in as unecrtain terms for the following reasons; 1. This is NOT a residential eros. The project will have no supportive infrastructure adjoining the property. There is no market, laundry, fast or fine dining, no coffee houie, no park., no sidewalks, no playground, nothing that a "Class A" apartment would nood to RICR-3 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 55/405 faeeways 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 RICR4 multiple lights to get through. no Baker street overpass with 2 existing lights bunches traffic up as it comes from Redhill/Brisiolland all of the adjoining streets. Adding another signal to damp more cars onto Baker with nowhere to go?" Really this is not going to be satisfactory at all. 3. The parking mast 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 with the church events in the evening. RICR-5 295 Fischer Avenue, Stile 0.1. Cosa Mesa, California 92626.714.395.09)4 Crawford CustomHonim cum City of Costa Mesa 10.27 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2073081051 CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR 4. fhe definition of "Class A" apartments means a highly detailed and attractive product in A211 1001 arm. 'Phis 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 remers it should take the lead to locate "Class A" and other levels of higher density residential in amore logical and good planning manner, Exceptions to the RICK -b general plan should be very well thought out and look to transition the City from a current use to a use with a future vision for redevelopment. Tbat is not the case at 125 Baker Strect. Perhaps if this project was located adjoining the Camp and Lab properties or other planning area that the City of Costa Mesa could identify? Please take very carefully review these concerns and perhaps. find a way to guide development to abetter suited area of the City. RICR-7 I appreciate vour hard work for the citizens and business owners of costa Mesa, Res fully, # Richard F Crawfo President Responses to RICR Response RICK -1 Final EIR February 2014 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 RICK -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 duting 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 i 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10.28 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 Draff 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 NM4.9-3, 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 RICK -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-! 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 0.29 125 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 92626 Subject: Baker Street Apartments- Red Oak Development Final EIR February 2014 �1 1 As,President and Partner of Slater Builders Inc. located at 3100 Pullman Street, I feel it pertinent that 1 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 '605 and '70s. This transition has trended along with other areas of Costa Mesa i.e. the BIDU-t Westside area of 171" 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 fn 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, Received City of Costa Mesa Bill Dunlap Development Services Department President 0 0 2013 SHTER 8UIL0fUS Int, 3100-13 Pullman Sir"t Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel; (714) 434A887 Fgx: (714) 434-8173 wwwslaterbuRners mm License 9675832 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10.30 City of Costa Mesa _J SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC Final EIR February 2014 Response BIDU-1 CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Dratt EIR This comment contain' 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 1031 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 (MINA), 12/06/2013 Comments ANIL UPMiHA TRICO REALTY INC December 6, 2013 Mel tee City of Costa Mesa, Planning Division 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92628 RE: 125 East Baker Street Apartments Dear Mr. Lee, Trico Realty,.lnc. is in favor of the proposed High Density Residential Development at 125 East Baker Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626. We agree with the City of Costa Mesa's Environmental Impact Report stating that the proposed project will not have significant impacts on visual character, construction, or MIHA_I 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 that if the city intends to approve a high density residential project at an already congested intersection, MINA -2 it has an indisputable obligation to mitigate current and future congestion. Sincerely, Mike Harrison Vice President and CFO 81 Alex Remo Property Manager Brokerage / Development / Management 3100-A Pullman Sheet, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 751-0420 Fa(714)540-4579 www.tri=0811v.com ORE LD. 003,12120 T'4131W(ii_125 E Baker EIR Camnpn6.dom Final EIR February 2014 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-32 City of Costa Mesa ,.J SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC 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 Oraft EIR Kim Josephson (KIJO), 12/09/2013 Comments Real Tech December 9, 2013 Honorable Mayor James Righeimer Honorable Mayor Pro Tem Stephen Mensinger Honorable City Council Members Planning Commissioners and City Planning Staff CM OF COSTA ME&A 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa CA 92626 Sentcia USPS Re: Potential Aluld Family Rhone — SEC Baker Street/ Newport 1551 Freeway To Whom It May Concern: My tum recently purchased and completely remodeled our building at 3199 E Airport Loop Drive; we relocated our office from Dove Street in Newport Beach. Our new building, Previously consisting of warehouse and storefront, is now predominantly office. We believe that we have upgraded our offices significantly and have added value for our neighbors in Costa Mesa. T91e 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 M Baker Street building desires a rezone to mufti - family residential units instead of office space. My firm 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; current economics will not allow that, so the building will attract low, or no, rent paying tenants and will slowly depreciate into a bigger eyesore. Irvine 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 Kull. Center Newport It makes total sense to have residential closer to the work place. Mariner's Church School, Rock Harbor Church, the trampoline center an Airway, the bike store on Airway, all uses that have made the West side of the Airport a more attractive and interestingenviromnent. Multi- family residential will enhance the trend sincerely, REAL ESTATF. R 1"asncs TEcimianAGY, INc. Kim Josephson RtmlmeFtrson 4juaephsan®.eat-rechinccom 657.210.5551 3199 Alrporc Loop Drwe, Bldg E, Coat, Meso, CA 92426 DRE Licence No. 712155 KIJOA KWO-2 KIJO-3 Final EIR February 2014 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project FIR 10.34 City of Costa Mesa SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC Final OR February 2014 Responses to KIJ® Response KIJ0-1 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 KIJ0-3 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. 2013061051 CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR Gary Lukas (GALU), 12/12/2013 Comments Final EIR February 2014 Capata, Julian f GALL) From: LEE, MEL IMELLEE@costamesaca.govj Sent- Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:18 AM To: Capata, Julian F; Joe Flanaga ';'pnaghavit aprahoo.mm• Subject: FW: 125 Baker St Another comment FYI. Nal lee, AICIP Senior phinnar CPfy of Corp Mesa 77 Fair Orka, Costa Masa, 92628 Ph. (714) 751-6611 Fac (714) 7544656 mel Ieera4mN�.aw �d6RSta^Mega From. Garry Lukas Irma, iha•ganY0azrnfairx mmt sent, Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:02 AM To: PLANNING COMMISSION; RIGHEIMER, JIM; steohan.mensingerc®costamesaca aov LEECE, WENDY; GENIS, SANDRA; MONAHAN, GARY cc_ JUgnan(oJaol.com: Dan Hirt; smillen2lstillen.com: KHKHKHKHKHKHKH Subject. 125 Baker St To those whom it should concern: I attended the 12-09-13 Planning meeting. After 6 hours of waiting, at 11:00PMI. GALLIA 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 St tenement proposal will mix high density residential with manufacturing. 1 They will be. right on top of each other. jl GALu-2 The 125 Baker property is not unique! It is an integral piece of this industrial park The 125 Baker property is not unique! GALu-3 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? GALu4 To mix incompatible zones? 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-38 City of Cosa Mesa _J SCH No. 2013081051 Red Oak Investments, LLC Final EIR February 2014 Is this not THE problem on the west side, mixed zoning? CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draff EIR Is that part of your general plan 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 I 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 close in proximity. GALLI-6 Don't force us to relocate again! Shame on Joe and Alex for telling you lies, they know better. Mixing industrial with resideneial is dangerous, irresponsible and wrong. GALU-7 Garry Lukas AZ 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 entail 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 EIR Final SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR February l 14 EIR Responses to GALl1 Response GALU-1 This comment contains anecdotal language regarding the December 9, 2013, Planning Conurrission 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 industtial 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 Use and Planning and have respectively been found to be of no impact or less -than -significant impact. 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 70.38 City of Costa Mesa SCH No. 2013D61051 Red Oak Investments, LLC 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 December 12, 2013 Honorable Mayor James Righeimer Honorable Mayor ProTem Stephen Mensinger Ilonorable City Council Members Planning Commissioners and City Planning Staff CITY OF COSTA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa CA 92626 Sent vis USPS Re: Multi Family Rezone —125 Baker Street Dear Council and Commission: Leading Edgc Aviation Services is headquartered in Costa Mesa and employs over 1000 employees m locally and across the country. As a contractor to companies such as Boeing Company, United Airlines, American Airlinea, et al the company has a vested interest in local development in Coit, Mesa to support job growth., economic growth and improvements in ipfmtmeture, particularly as it relates to mads, MINA -1 commercial and residcntinl properties. In fact. Leading F..dgc has and continues to invest in Costa Mesa and last year completed its new corporate headquarters located on Airway Avenue just down the serest from 125 Baker. As a business owner, investor and resident of the area I have witnessed firsthand the evolution of tae 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 industrial arca has slowly over time become an eclectic mix of uses. This MINA -2 lends itself [o the addition of high-end apartment housing as a Progression to the the ant area gh e P g Perfect complement to the tau rent mix of businesses. From Segerstrom Perkwining Arta Center, South Coast Plaza and Metro Pointe to Triangle Square and Fast 171° Strut Promenade, the business -friendly Costa Mesa reflects this unique confluence of businesshetail and residential. The Red Oak Housing proposal is It natural extension of the "Costa Mesa Advantage" in the Ralhill Zane. MINA -3 Leading Edge Aviation Services efrerrs 100% support for the rtaonc of this area and the development of this upscale housing project. Sincerely. w� W. Michael Mancla t Chairman and Founder Ex0ert. Innovative. ConslareN, 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-40 SCH No. 2D 13081051 City of Costa Mesa J Red Oak Investments, LLC .J MIMA %f Leading Edge Aviation Services C� /Al/+ IC,/�/+C 1 LEADING EDGE 3132 AJvmy Avenue Costs Mesa, CalfamW 02626 Aviation Servrces, Inc. P: 714.556.0576.F: 714.556.4023 December 12, 2013 Honorable Mayor James Righeimer Honorable Mayor ProTem Stephen Mensinger Ilonorable City Council Members Planning Commissioners and City Planning Staff CITY OF COSTA MESA 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa CA 92626 Sent vis USPS Re: Multi Family Rezone —125 Baker Street Dear Council and Commission: Leading Edgc Aviation Services is headquartered in Costa Mesa and employs over 1000 employees m locally and across the country. As a contractor to companies such as Boeing Company, United Airlines, American Airlinea, et al the company has a vested interest in local development in Coit, Mesa to support job growth., economic growth and improvements in ipfmtmeture, particularly as it relates to mads, MINA -1 commercial and residcntinl properties. In fact. Leading F..dgc has and continues to invest in Costa Mesa and last year completed its new corporate headquarters located on Airway Avenue just down the serest from 125 Baker. As a business owner, investor and resident of the area I have witnessed firsthand the evolution of tae 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 industrial arca has slowly over time become an eclectic mix of uses. This MINA -2 lends itself [o the addition of high-end apartment housing as a Progression to the the ant area gh e P g Perfect complement to the tau rent mix of businesses. From Segerstrom Perkwining Arta Center, South Coast Plaza and Metro Pointe to Triangle Square and Fast 171° Strut Promenade, the business -friendly Costa Mesa reflects this unique confluence of businesshetail and residential. The Red Oak Housing proposal is It natural extension of the "Costa Mesa Advantage" in the Ralhill Zane. MINA -3 Leading Edge Aviation Services efrerrs 100% support for the rtaonc of this area and the development of this upscale housing project. Sincerely. w� W. Michael Mancla t Chairman and Founder Ex0ert. Innovative. ConslareN, 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-40 SCH No. 2D 13081051 City of Costa Mesa J Red Oak Investments, LLC .J Final EIR February 2014 Responses to MIMA Response MIMA-1 CHAPTER 10 Comments and Responses SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Draff 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 it 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 Oft 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 thatsetting. 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 ft 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 Plan 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 I said 1 like. 1 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 m PC -I PC -2 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 10-42 City of Costa Mesa _.. I 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 Icy 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 l have if you can see that for a moment ignore the zones because we have basically have an industrial park 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 confused 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. 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 building 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 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 PC -3 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 traffic, parking, and structure itself. A lot of people living in tight industriaf 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 for zoning, To protect everyone, to protect communities, by separation zones that we don't have children playing in industrial yards and paint booths across the street from where you live. Zoning is the tool 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 Final EIR February 2014 PG4 coni 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 -6 forth with the process that is moving forward and what types of notice we would be given if this project were to move fonvard. Jim Fitzpatrick said ok let me see if we can get you an answer. Speaker Four Hi my nameis Anne Lucas, I am Gary's wife, and I am co-owner 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 realty understand it its very confusing but I 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 timesPC-6 as the work day. Um first of all not everyone works 9 to 5. Um so that's kinda mute, Um 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 cause noise issues with the tenants if this project is approved. Pullman is um a I-7 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 the cars belonging to the tenants. 1 do not believe this to be true. Um I would like to propose, um this is just an observation, that I havePC-8 had lately, um I would 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 i 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 1 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. Speakers 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 1 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 1 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 PC -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 EIR Final SECTION 10.2 Comments and Responses on the Dralt EIR February l 14 EIR 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 residendal 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 of 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 -d. 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 F 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 0-48 City of Costa Mesa SCH No, 2013081051 9 _J 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 MIV14.9-1 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 1047 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR Red Oak Investments, LLC SCH No. 2013081051 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 envunnmenral 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. flflgz' •r • 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 MATFIY 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 t _ 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 Final Elk February 2014 MM4.2-11 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction equipment Construction docs engines be maintained in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification specifications 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. MM4.2.2 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction operations Construction docL rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than electrical specifications generators powered by internal combustion engines. 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. MM4.2-3 As required by South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403—Fugitive Construction docu Dust, all construction activities that are capable of generating fugitive dust are required to specifications implement dust control measures during each phase of project development to reduce the 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 ■ 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 carded 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 SCH No. 2013081051 11-2 iment Iment Prior to issuance of building permit; during construction Prior to issuance of building permit; during construction City Planning; SCAQMD City Planning; SCAQMD ment Prior to issuance City Planning; of building permit; SCAQMD during construction City of Costa Mesa 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 HYDROI nr v/W®TI:R 01 IAr rTv MM 4.4-1 The project applicant shall finalize the drainage plan and prepare a project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to Orange Finalize drainage plan, Prior to issuance County of County DAMP requirements. The plans shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer be Ampondble Compliance Verffkaffon . .. Action Required Monitoring Phase AgenCYl - Prnfy kftl Date Comments N1M4.2.4 The Applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction -related including Construction document Prior to issuance City Planning; The City shall not issue a grading permit for the project unfit it has reviewed and approved the equipment, heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 5minutes. Diesel -fueled specifications of building permit; SCAQMD final drainage plan and WQMP. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City shall ensure the commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds shall be turned off when during construction components of the drainage plan and WQMP 9MPs have been installed. 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 (paint and primer) products used have a VOC rating of 190 liter Construction document Prior to issuance City Planning; grams per or less, for all exterior and interior nonresidential land use architectural coating. As per SCAQMD specifications of building permit; SCAQMD regulations, architectural coating for residential land -uses shall not exceed 50 glliter interior or during construction 100 glliter exterior. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Costa Mesa. M1114.2-6 Install a sealed HVAC system in conjunction with MERVE 13 or higher rated filters for all residential development within the project site. The sealed air system be Installation of a sealed Prior to issuance City Planning; will designed so that all ambient air introduced into the interior living space would be filtered through HVAC system in conjunction with MERVE 13 of building permit; during construction SCAQMD 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). As a conservative within tie project site 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. 11111114 .2-7 Install all HVAC system air intakes as far from SR 55 as possible. This will further reduce risk for all interior spaces to the risk where the HVAC Installation of HVAC Prior to issuance City Planning; air intake is placed. systems as from SR 55 as of building permit; SCAQMD possible during construction HYDROI nr v/W®TI:R 01 IAr rTv MM 4.4-1 The project applicant shall finalize the drainage plan and prepare a project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to Orange Finalize drainage plan, Prior to issuance County of County DAMP requirements. The plans shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer or Environmental Engineer be Prepare a project WQMP of building permit; Orange, City of and shall submitted to the City of Costa Mesa Department of Public Works for review and approval. conforming to Orange County DAMP requirements during construction Costa Mesa The City shall not issue a grading permit for the project unfit it has reviewed and approved the Department of final drainage plan and WQMP. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City shall ensure the Public Works components of the drainage plan and WQMP 9MPs have been installed. Ciiy of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC 11-3 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR SCH No, 2013081051 CHAPTER I I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, SECTION 11.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Table 11-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Mailrix LAND LISEIPILANNING MM4.5.1 The applicant for the proposed ,project shall provide a written statement to each residential unit and resident, notifying them of potential annoyances associated with aircraft overflight and proximity to airport operations, including the following, with final form and content to be reviewed and approved by the Economic and Development Services Director and City Attorney: "NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: This 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 of the 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." 11IM4.6-1 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall prepare an acoustical analysis ensuring that interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources will be at or below 45 dBA CNEL in all units. One or a combination of the following measures will be 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. It. 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 SCH No. 2013081051 r Post Notice of Airport in Vicinity within residential development area NOISE Prepare acoustical analysis 11.4 InNal Prior to issuance City of Costa of occupancy Mesa Planning permit Department Final EIR February 2014 1r to issuance City of Costa wilding permit Mesa Planning Department City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC Final EIR February 2014 Table 11-1 Matrix. ^ten ..If measure Adson Required MM4.6-2 For construction activities within 200 feet of existing commercial or industrial Construction document businesses, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures during specifications construction: a. The construction contractor shall provide written notification to all commercial and industrial tenants at least three weeks prior to the start of construction activities within 200 feet of the receptor informing them of the estimated start date and duration of daytime vibration -generating construction activities. b. Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site receptors as possible. G. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC CHAPTER I I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SECTION 11.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Matrix Responsible Agency/ Prior to issuance JCftyofCosta of building permit Mesa Planning Department nmo-.a-r ruuman bueet/8aker Street intersection. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant shall install a traffic signal and Install traffic signal and Pdor to issuance City of Costa associated signing modifications and pavement legends at the Pullman Street/Baker Street intersection. Intersection design will incorporate the driveway associated signing modifications and pavement of occupancy permit Mesa Public Works existing that provides access to the 150 Baker Street property per the City of Costa Mesa Design Guidelines and California legends at the Pullman Street/Baker Street De artment p Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The applicant will install signal interconnect intersection between Pullman Streel/Baker Street traffic signal and existing traffic signals at the Baker StreetlRed 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 -tum lane. Crosswalks and ADA compliant ramps will be installed as required by the City. 1111111114.9-2 Red Hili Avenue/Baker Street Intersection. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant will implement the Implement planned improvements Prior to issuance City of Costa planned improvements at this intersection as identified in the current City of Costa Mesa General Plan, except the project applicant will provide a dedicated at intersection as identified in of occupancy permit Mesa Public Works southbound right -turn lane, with overlap phasing, in lieu of the planned third southbound shared through/right-tum lane. The the currant City of Costa Mesa General Plan, except Department p applicant will modify the existing traffic signal accordingly to current City of Costa Mesa Standards and Design Guidelines. the project applicant will provide a dedicated southbound right -turn lane, with overlap phasing, in lieu of the planned third southbound shared through/right-tum lane City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC 11.5 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR 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 Matlrlx Final EIR February 2014 125 East Baker Street Apartment Project EIR SCH No. 2013081051 11-6 City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC Responsible Compllance Verification Mitigation Measure MIY14.9.3 Traffic Impact Fees. Prior to issuance of a certificate AcNeaRequked MonitoringPhase Agency/ Party Infital Date Comments of occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant will pay the City's required traffic impact fee, based on the increase Project applicant will pay the City's required traffic Prior to issuance of occupancy City of Costa Mesa Planning project's net in trips. The precise,fee required will be determined upon issuance of project building permits. impact fee, based on the permit Department project's net increase in trips N1M4.9.4 To ensure adequate sight distance is provided at the project driveways, the project driveways and landscaping and/or hardscape on north these Project driveways and Prior to issuance City of Costa side of driveways will be designed such that a driver's clear line of sight is not obstructed and does not threaten landscaping and/or hardscape on north side of of occupancy Mesa Public vehicular or pedestrian safety, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. The minimum stopping sight distance will be 300 feet. The following design recommendations will be these driveways will be designed such that a permit Works De artment P implemented: driver's clear line of sight is ■ Install stop signs and stop bars at the proposed project driveways on Pullman Street. not obsllructed 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 Analysis]) will be of the type that will grow no higher than 30 inches above the curb or a Traffic Engineer 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 SCH No. 2013081051 11-6 City of Costa Mesa Red Oak Investments, LLC ATTACHMENT 11 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -- DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND RED OAK INVESTMENTS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 125 EAST BAKER STREET WHEREAS, Red Oak Investments ("Developer") proposes a project located at 125 East Baker Street, Costa Mesa, CA consisting of a five -story, 240 -unit apartment complex located on the southwest corner of Baker Street and Pullman Street ("Project"); and WHEREAS, on or about March 24, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report; approve General Plan Amendment GP -13-02, give first reading to the ordinance approving Rezone R-13-02, give first reading to the ordinance approving Zoning Code Amendment CO -13-02, and approve, by adoption of resolution, Master Plan PA -13-11 (collectively, the Project Approvals); and WHEREAS, City ordinances and regulations do not require the payment of park impact fees for the Project because park impact fees apply only to projects that require subdivision, however, the Developer agrees to make a public infrastructure improvement contribution to the City of Costa Mesa; and WHEREAS, on or about April 14, 2014, the City Council is scheduled to approve DA -14- 02 subject to final approval of the General Plan Amendment for the Project. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1. Recitals. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct. 2. Term. This Agreement shall be for a term of five (5) years.from the Effective Date (as defined below). 3. Effective Date. Effective Date means the date on which General Plan Amendment GP -13-02 is approved by the City Council. 4. Traffic Impact Fees. Developer acknowledges that traffic in the Project vicinity will be impacted due to construction and cars to and from the Project. As a result, Developer hereby agrees to pay the Traffic Impact fee estimated at one hundred sixty five thousand two hundred fifty three dollars ($165,253.00) but subject to final calculation based upon the prevailing schedule approved by the City Council prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy. 5. Public Infrastructure Improvement Contribution. Developer acknowledges that the Project will place increased burden on the City's infrastructure. As a result, Developer hereby agrees to provide two hundred, fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) as a public infrastructure improvement contribution payable to the City prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project. i 6. Park Impact Fees. The City and Developer hereby agree that if the Project is subdivided, the Developer shall pay the current park impact fee of thirteen thousand and eight hundred twenty nine dollars ($13,829.00) per dwelling unit ("Park Impact Fees"). Moreover, the Public Infrastructure Improvement Contribution set forth in paragraph 4 shall be credited against the Developer's Park Impact Fees. 7. Vested Right to Develop the Project. The City hereby grants to the Developer the vested right to develop the Project on the Property to the extent and in the manner provided in this Agreement subject to Developer obtaining all applicable land use approvals for the Project. Any change in the Applicable Rules adopted or becoming effective after the Effective Date (Subsequent Rules), other than the Project Approvals, shall not be applicable to or binding upon the Project or the Property. This Agreement will bind the City to the terms and obligations specified in this Agreement and will limit, to the degree specified in this Agreement and under state law, the future exercise of the City's ability to regulate development of the Project 8. Applicable Rules, Applicable Rules means the rules, regulations, ordinances and official policies of the City which were in force as of the Effective Date, including, but not limited to, the Project Approvals, the General Plan, City zoning ordinances and other entitlements, development conditions and standards, public works standards, subdivision regulations, grading requirements, and provisions related to density, growth management, environmental considerations, and design criteria applicable to the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Applicable Rules does not include any changes to the City's prevailing schedule and/or fee schedule that is the subject of any rules, regulations, ordinances and official policies of the City. 9. Development of the Property. The Developer agrees that the Property shall only be developed in accordance with the Project Approvals and any conditions and mitigation measures imposed on the Project through final approval of the Project, and the provisions of this Development Agreement. Notwithstanding anything set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, unless Developer proceeds with development of the Property, Developer is not obligated by the terms of this Agreement to affirmatively act to develop all or any portion of the Project, pay any sums of money, dedicate any land, or to otherwise meet or perform any obligation with respect to the Project, except and only as a condition of development of any portion of the Project. 10. Indemnity. Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, and their respective officers, officials, members, employees, agents, representatives, and volunteers, from all claims, demands, damages, defense costs or liability of any kind or nature relating in any manner to the amount, adequacy or application of development fees for the Project. 11. Notices. All notices, requests, demands, and other communications required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by either (a) personal delivery, (b) reliable courier service that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, (c) registered or certified U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or (d) facsimile. Notices shall be addressed to the respective parties as set forth below or to such other address and to such other persons as the parties may hereafter designate by written notice to the other party hereto: To City: City of Costa Mesa Attn: Gary Armstrong 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Copy to: Jones & Mayer Attn: Thomas P. Duarte 3777 N. Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92832 Developer: Red Oak Investments Attn: Joseph Flanagan 2101 Business Center Dr. Ste. 230 Irvine, CA 92612 Copy to: Allen Matkins Attn: William Devine, Esq. 1900 Main Street, 5th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Each notice shall be deemed delivered on the date delivered if by personal delivery or by overnight courier service, on the date of receipt as disclosed on the return receipt if by mail, or on the date of transmission with confirmed successful transmission and receipt if by telefax. By giving to the other parties written notice as provided above, the parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and assigns shall have the right from time to time, and at any time during the term of this Agreement, to change their respective addresses. 12. Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the losing party its expert witness fees (if any), its reasonable costs and expenses including, without limitation, litigation costs, and its reasonable attorneys' fees. 13. Binding on Heirs. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, representatives, transferees, successors, and assigns. 14. Scope Agreement, Waivers, and Amendments. This Agreement is limited to the payment of park and traffic impact fees. Nothing herein shall be construed as addressing the Developer's other obligations for the Project. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the party to be charged. Any amendment or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by Agency and Developer. 15. Interpretation; Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meaning and as if prepared by both parties hereto. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 16. Severability. if any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. 17. Execution in Counterpart. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, and all so executed shall constitute one agreement binding on both parties hereto, notwithstanding that both parties are not signatories to the original or the same counterpart. 18. Attachments. Attachment No. 1 to this Agreement is incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Said Attachment(s) are identified as follows: Attachment 1: Legal Description (To Be Provided Under Separate Cover) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have entered into this Agreement as of this day of 2014. °° city " City of Costa Mesa, a California Municipal Corporation Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa By: ATTESTATION Brenda Green, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Tom Duarte, City Attorney "Developer" Red Oak Investments, a California Corporation By: Joseph Flanagan, Red Oak Investments 2-1q - IOL2 ,r- C�� ' , o k -r -ti potI4ek,Ck-S Matt Silver Dave Singleton, Program Analyst 4000 Barranca, Suite 250 Native American Heritage Commission Costa Mesa, CA 92604 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 James Horian Kim Josephson Metro Bay Products, Inc 3199 Airport Loop Drive, Bldg E 3150 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Richard Crawford Alex Remo 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite B-1 Trico Reality Inc. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 3100-A Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Garry Lukas W. Michael Manclark Briggs Enterprises Leading Edge Aviation Services 200 Briggs Avenue 3132 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Richard Vaughn David R. Law, Senior Planner 31411 La Matanza Street City of Irvine San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623-9575 Polin Modanlou, Manager Daisy Covarrubias Strategic Land Planning Division Orange County Sanitation District OC Public works/OC Planning Services 10844 Ellis Avenue 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92702 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Maureen EI Farake, Branch Chief Ian MacMillan Regional -Community -Transit Planning South Coast Management District Department of Transportation District a2 21865 Copley Drive 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Irvine., CA 92612-8894 Bill Dunlap 31.00-13 Pullman Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Officer Airport Land Use Commission 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 L-1'J-f-