HomeMy WebLinkAbout66 - PH-4 - Review of Planning Application PA-13-29 - 6/17/2014CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JUNE 17, 2014 ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PLANNING APPLICATION PA -13-29 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17668
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 28 RESIDENTIAL AND LIVE/WORK UNITS AT 511
HAMILTON STREET, 2089, 2095 AND 2099 HARBOR BOULEVARD
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PRESENTATION BY: MINOO ASHABI, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DATE: JUNE 10, 2014
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MINOO ASHABI AIA (714) 754-5610
Minoo.ashabi@costamesaca.gov
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following action:
1. Adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. Approve Planning Application PA -13-29 — Master Plan for development of a 28 -
unit residential project including seven live/work units on 1.53 -acres zoned
Planned Community Commercial. The project includes the following deviations:
a. A Minor Modification to reduce the perimeter open space along Harbor
Boulevard from 20 feet to 17 feet.
b. A Variance to reduce the perimeter open space along Hamilton Street
from 20 feet to 10 feet.
c. Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines with respect to second and
third floor ratios to first floor (100% allowed, 104% - 110% percent
proposed).
3. Approve Tentative Tract Map 17668 — Subdivision of a 1.53 -acre property for
condominium purposes to allow private sale and ownership of the 28 residential
and live/work units.
Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report dated May 27, 2014 (Attachment 5)
for detailed information and analysis related to the project. The Initial Study/ Mitigated
Negative Declaration and the related documents are available on the City's website at the
following link:
http://www.costamesaca.gov/index.aspx?page=151
Review of Planning Application
A request for review was filed on May 30, 2014 by Councilmember Genis. The request
noted the following concerns with approval of the 28 -unit project.
1. Impacts and compatibility with community garden.
2. Consistency with planning and environmental laws as well as city's land use
policies.
3. Adoption of an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration is inappropriate in this
case.
The following includes a discussion of the above mentioned topics.
Community Garden/ Impacts and Compatibility
The 0.45 -acre community garden is one of two community gardens within the City. It is
considered a passive institutional use and is compatible with the proposed residential and
live/work development. The garden includes 42 parcels (200 SF each) that are rented
annually to the residents. Access to the garden is provided through a vehicular gate on
Charle Street.
Shade and Shadow
The City of Costa Mesa has not adopted a specific policy related to shade and shadow
or any thresholds with respect to effect of shade and shadow on light sensitive uses.
Other cities typically consider residential uses (back yards), outdoor pools, commercial
uses (outdoor cafes) and institutional uses (schools, convalescent homes public parks
and active play areas) as light sensitive uses.
The threshold is typically 2 or 3 hours of shade during late fall and winter months or
determined on a case by case basis. For example, Cities of Los Angeles and Santa
Monica have adopted a specific threshold and consider a significant impact as following:
Cast shadow on shade -sensitive land uses for more than three hours between the
hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM (between late October and early April), or for more
than four hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM (between early April
and late October).
The Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration indicated that: "The community garden
to the north of the project site is separated from the proposed structures by a 10 -foot
rear yard setback and approximately 20 foot wide access drive from the nearest
residence." Therefore, due to the broad setbacks from the sensitive uses, shadow
impacts on nearby properties are considered less than significant.
The applicant subsequently prepared a shade and shadow study focusing on the three
hour shade threshold (Attachment 5 of Planning Commission Report) that confirmed
the initial findings. Considering the following, staff determined that the shade and
shadow effects on the community garden is not significant and the exhibits were
included in the Planning Commission report dated May 27, 2014:
• The community garden includes a driveway to the south abutting the project site
that is more than 21 foot wide. With the 10 -foot building setback and the noted
driveway, the first row of garden parcels are 35 feet away from the 3 -story
structures. The footprint of the shaded area only affects the garden parcels at
the south edge of community garden (maximum 12 parcels). The garden
includes 42 parcels and 30 of these parcels will be available for full -use
throughout the year (Attachment 5).
• The community garden is not considered an active open space; the gardens are
heavily used during spring and summer months when no shade and shadow
affects are anticipated. Although, the community gardens are mostly used for
growing flowers, tomatoes, peppers, etc. during the active months that take
advantage of the full sun; leafy vegetables and herbs (i.e., cabbage, kale, mint,
broccoli) and root vegetables (beets, carrots, etc.) could be grown in the shade
and during the inactive months.
• There is evidence that shaded parts of the community garden along the block
wall is purposely being used by the gardeners (Attachment 7).
• In comparison, the other community garden located at 170 Del Mar Avenue is
not completely open to sunlight. The garden includes at least two mature trees
that provide shade for the southern portion of the garden (Attachment 5).
• The project site is zoned commercial and could potentially be developed with
buildings up to 30 -feet in height placed at the property line. The proposed
development includes detached structures setback 10 feet from the property line,
that are 34 feet in height (to the peak of the hip roof), which is four feet higher
than permitted height under current commercial zoning.
During the review public notice period, the applicant prepared a more detailed shade
and shadow study considering the thresholds adopted by City of LA that demonstrates
shade and shadow impacts between the months of October and April. The study
indicated the areas affected by over 3 -hours of shade are limited to less than 18
percent of the overall garden area (including the driveway) during winter months as
noted below. All shade and shadow studies including an alternative with a two -foot
reduction in overall building height of units 1-6 are included as Attachment 6.
3 HOUR SHADE AREAS
Garden
area
Total area
Drive aisle
shaded
shaded
% of drive
% of total area
date
shaded SF
SF
SF
shaded
% of garden shaded
shaded
21 -Oct
2232
80
2312
76.3%
0.4%
9.9%
21 -Dec
2267
1755
4022
77.5%
8.6%
17.2%
21 -Feb
2256
51
2307
77.1%
0.2%
9.9%
21 -Apr
322
0
322
11.0%
0.0%
1.4%
Consistency with planning and environmental laws as well as city's land use policies
The General Plan Land use for this site is General Commercial. This designation is
intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses, which serve both local and regional
needs. These land use areas are typically located along major transportation routes with
significant traffic. The General Commercial land use allows residential and other
noncommercial uses, as "complementary uses" through the Planned Development
process. The General Plan also notes that the residential densities in planned
development projects shall not exceed 20 dwelling units per acre with a corresponding
population density of up to 50 persons per acre.
On February 4t", the City Council on a 3-2 vote (Council members Leece and Genis
voting no) allowed the project to proceed with the proposal for a 28 -unit residential
development in a Planned Development Commercial (PDC) zone.
Adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is inappropriate in this case.
Under the "fair argument" standard, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be
prepared where, "after examining the entire record, there is substantial evidence to
support a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The environmental effects of the project were not considered significant and an EIR
was not prepared.
The question is whether there is substantial evidence of a significant effect on the
environment that may occur from the shading that will be caused by the project. The
shade study, concluding that there is no significant effect on the community garden
from the shading cause by the project. This is evidence that there will be no significant
effects on the environmental.
Under CEQA, "substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated
upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact," but does not include "argument,
speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or
erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are
not caused by, physical impacts on the environment."
The mere fact that shading will occur, does not necessarily mean that the shade that
would be caused by the project would create a significant environmental impact. An
impact can be due to a project, but will not require an EIR unless that impact is shown
to be a potentially significant impact. Initially, the broad setbacks to the garden patches
and subsequently the shade and shadow studies confirmed that the shade impact on
the garden patches is affecting only nine percent of the total gardening areas and
therefore not a significant impact.
A lead agency has discretion to determine whether evidence, offered to it by citizens
claiming a fair argument exists, meets CEQA's definition of substantial evidence. In
making that determination the mere fact that there is "public controversy over the
environmental effects of a project" is not enough to require that an EIR be prepared;
neither is the mere possibility of adverse impact on a few people, as opposed to the
environment in general."
Traffic
In addition to the noted issues, Councilmember Genis raised a concern with the
projected Level of Service at the Harbor/ Hamilton intersection.
The traffic study conducted for the proposed 28 -unit residential project at Harbor
Boulevard — Hamilton Avenue intersection follows the standard City methodology.
Typically, projects of this magnitude do not require a traffic study; per City's
requirements, traffic analysis is required when projects add 50 peak hour trips at an
intersection. The proposed project is expected to generate 21 two-way trips in the
morning peak hour period and 28 two-way trips in the evening peak hour period. The
maximum number of trips in a single direction is expected to be 18 inbound in the
evening peak hour period.
Staff required the analysis of Harbor Boulevard — Hamilton Avenue intersection to
assess the left -turn impacts from project trips leaving the site and its impact to the
proposed project driveway operations. Therefore, in addition to standard City -required
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, staff also requested analysis of this
intersection using a more detailed Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. The
ICU methodology is purely a sum of individual volume -to -capacity ratios of critical
movements of an intersection. HCM uses traffic signal timing and simulates intersection
operations, and produces detailed results including queue lengths for left -turn volumes.
Both methodologies provide average results of overall intersection operations.
The ICU methodology forecasted a Level of Service (LOS) A at the intersection. This is
using a capacity of 1,600 per hour per lane and applying it to the observed existing
traffic volumes with additional project traffic. The more detailed HCM operations -based
methodology forecasted a LOS C at this location. In general, traffic volumes on Harbor
Boulevard at this location, which represent over 80 percent of traffic do not experience
any significant delays and clear the intersection within one phase. The traffic on
Hamilton Avenue, which is a minor street, may experience a longer wait time for green
with longer delays. However, the results of the intersection analysis is based on
weighted scale and the projected LOS values represent the overall intersection
operations.
Based on the results of the study, additional left -turn queue storage length for
eastbound Hamilton Avenue to northbound Harbor Boulevard movement was
recommended and the driveway on Hamilton Avenue was restricted to right -turn exit
only. The entry on Hamilton Street is limited to emergency vehicles.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has the following alternatives:
• Uphold the Planning Commission's adoption of Initial Study / Mitigated Negatives
Declaration and approval of Planning Application PA -13-29 and Tentative Tract
Map No. 17668 subject to conditions and mitigation measures; or
• Direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial of the project.
MINOO ASHABI GARY ARMSTRONG, AICP
Principal Planner Director of Economic & Development /
Deputy CEO
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution upholding Planning Commission's approval
2. Review Application
3. May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
4. May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report and Related
Exhibits
5. Community Garden Exhibit
6. Shade and Shadow Exhibits
7. Submitted Plans and Photos (by applicant)
cc: Chief Executive Officer
Assistant Chief Executive Officer
Director of Economic & Development / Deputy CEO
City Attorney
Public Services Director
Transportation Svs. Mgr.
City Engineer
City Clerk (9)
Staff (7)
File (2)
David Hutchins
South Coast Communities LLC
100 Pacifica, Suite 360
Irvine, CA 92618
Eric Nelson
Red Mountain Asset Fund I, LLC
1234 E. 17t" Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Red -E- Rentals
2075 Harbor Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Dale Frankhouse
2077 Harbor Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
COMMUNICATIONS
CITY OF COSTA MESA
OFFICIAL PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Costa Mesa City Council at
its regular meeting on Tuesday, June 17, 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall,
77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, to consider the following item:
Application No.: PA -13-29 & TTM 17668
Site Address: at 51.1 Hamilton Street, and
2089, 2095 and 2099 Harbor Boulevard
Contact: Planning Division
(714)754-5245
Email: cityclerk@costamesaca.gov
Description:
Applicant: South Coast Communities LLC
Zone: PDC
Environmental Determination:
Mitigated negative Declaration
Website: www.costamesaca.gov
The proposed project involves:
• Adoption of an Initial StudylMidgated Negative Declaration (IS/MND):
• Planning Application PA -23-29 — Master Plan for a 28 -unit detached three-story
townhouse development including seven live/work unitswith ground floor workspace. The
project site is located in Planned Development Commercial Zoning district where ancillary
residential use of up to 20du/acre is permitted by approval of a master plan. The project
requests approval of the following deviations:
• A Minor Modification to reduce the perimeter open space along Harbor Boulevard
from 20 feet to 17 feet.
i A Variance to reduce the perimeter open space along Hamilton Street from 20 feet
to `10 feet.
• Deviation from Residential Design Guidelines to allow 104% -110% second floor
and third floor ratio to first floor (100% recommended)
• Tentative Tract Map 97668 — Subdivision of a 1.53 -acre property for condominium
purposes to allow private sale and ownership of the 28 residential and live/work units.
Public Comments: Oral or written comments must be received by the City'Clerk prior to the
hearing date (see above) or presented in-person at the hearing. If you challenge this action in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you, or someone else raised, at or prior to
the -hearing.
For further information, please contact Minoo Ashabi, Principal Planner, at (714) 754-5610 or visit
the Planning Division, Second Floor of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California. The
Planning Division is open 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies of Staff Reports
will be available to interested parties on Friday, June 13, 2014 after 4:00 p.m. or available on the
City's website, www.costamesace.gov.
nd
"The project would redevelope an infil site that has deterioteted buildings"
Gee, so would a nice dental office, medical suits or a Vet hospital. Along with some complentary support
businesses.
A Neighbors view
Many years back (1977) The City had a plan to purchase the 30,000 Square foot lot on Hamilton along
with the corner lot that now is the garden and create a park for the use of the many residents in this
area that need an open space to get out of their high density apartments that line Charle street. This
would add value to the neighborhood, resolve part of Red Mountain's dilemma and be complementary
to the existing commercial uses. What a wonderful asset it would be to 100's of our west side's lower
income families.
The facts are:
Red Mountain bought this property, knowing it had subsurface contamination, in a cavalier move to
combine the properties and build to suit for a major retailer. They talked of 7-11, Walgreens and such,
with condos in the rear. They evicted the tenants and allowed the buildings to be vandalized.
In the next few years we all had to deal with the economy. With a two year effort Red Mountain
proposed a new commercial project. Some of it was very good; however, before they could get going
they ran out of money. Red Mountain has used, as an excuse, leaving the empty buildings because of a
lender requirement. The truth is that they have already prepared the buildings for demolition and are
using them as leverage to promote the sale of the site. "If it looks bad enough the City will go for
anything to get rid of it!" Costa Mesa's staff planners aligned with that concept and presented it to the
Council and Planning Commission as a "really good thing because it will clean up the corner". Ignoring
the fact that, as residential, to be built in a commercial zone it must be, "Complementary to
Commercial uses"
The deter!oated buildings are not the city's or the neighbor's responsibility to fix!
This was to be a money making project by Red Mountain, they are responsible for the mess and if they
can't find a good use for it, too bad! Dumping the wrong project here to fix Red Mountain's problem is
dumping their solution on us.
"There is no commercial use for this property" Red Mountain
The truth is: This project will make them the most monev!
Planning application issues
1. Pg 2 existing Development "The site includes five parcel previously developed with commercial
buildings and a gasoline station ( all properties have been vacant for several years)
Comment: this statement fails to describe the number of parcels (7) and their existing
developed uses. Where was the gas station? Assumption or deception?
2. Surrounding Property:
Comment: The descriptions here do a poor job of conveying the surrounding property.
North: City garden, auto repair garage.
South: construction equipment rental yard
East: Medical offices
West: High density apartments
The use of the expression "Multiple family Residential" is misleading. What does this say?
The failure to list contigious uses at all, is misleading. Is an Automotive repair Garage with a
grandfathered use, contigiously wrapped by the project, less important than a "Fast food
restaurant" Across a street and facing away from the project?
The listing of "Red -E -Rental" makes the assumption that the reader knows what it is or does?
"East: Harbor Blvd. (commercial and residential". This is very misleading as the entire city could
be called commercial and residential. This portion of harbor blvd. is automotive orentiated.
There is no residential use in the area of direct influence
on Harbor blvd.
A three block description of Harbor starting at Victoria going south on the west. Used car sales,
Auto stero installiation, radiator/ auto air repair, Tile store, Glass shop, Used car sales, Walk up
Taco, Medical office, auto repair, medical office, Rental store, U -storage and uhaul rental, auto
repair, Toyota car storage, auto repair, auto uphoulstery, Resturant, car wash, tire store. @2000
harbor
East side of harbor going south. Norm's 24hr restaurant, Thrift store and collection, auto parts
store, archery shop, labor ready, used car sales/auto repair, T. Robbins Ford, Gas station/ auto
repair, car rental, auto repair, auto painting, Motel, small commercial center.
Ok where is the residential within the area of influence on Harbor Blvd?
Page 3 Background Project location
This rambling description is confusing and impossiable to understand as to what is acuratly
there. Important information about the previous uses has been left out and mixed up. The
information reguarding the addresses and their uses is simply not correct.
More misinformation about the surrounding uses:
North is a fast food on Harbor, however, the property behind it and directly across from the
proposed homes on Hamilton is a portion of and driveway for the used car dealership on
Harbor. The proposed homes are directly in line with the service and repair department of the
dealership. This ignores that Rudys garage is also in the area of influence along eight of the
homes to their northern boundries.
East: ignores the fact that fact one home is five feet away from the medical building.
South: Ignores General Transmission that is closer than the storage.
General plan
"Residential and other noncommercial uses that are Complementarvto commercial uses."
I would like to hear the definination of the term "Complementary"!
Webster dictionary: Supplying mutual needs or deficits. Producing effects in concert different
from those produced separately.
The previous use of the property:
Medical office. Providing medical care to persons living in this area and those of immediate
need.
Automotive repair. Providing automotive repair to the community and those with immediate
needs. Repair of equipment with automotive type engines such as fork lifts and air compressors.
Roofing Contractor. Having a need to store materials and equipment for immediate repairs
requires a storage yard of some size. It should be located next to a use that is not offended by
truck traffic and noise.
Tree service contractor. ( Long time use of this property not noted in the request) Needing
parking for trucks, equipment and storage of materials/waste where traffic,no!se and smell is
not and issue.
The above previous uses of this property were truly complementary uses to the neighborhood
for both residential and commercial users.
Please list where "Complementary to commercial uses" is provided by this project in order for
it to be "consistent with the General Plan land use designation".
1. Noise from four repair shops, storage and tillers in the community garden. Tendency to
offend residents and cause complaints. Barking dogs
2. Hours of operation by all businesses without a CUP limiting hours are 7:00 AM toll PM.
This is not the norm in a residential area. Tendency to offend residents and cause
complaints. Barking dogs
3. Loading and unloading of flat bed tow trucks at both Rudys garage and general transmission.
Hi idle diesel engines and hydraulic units. Barking dogs
4. Odors from the community garden, 3 repair shops, Propane tank refilling, Taco restaurant,
the running of diesel engines and at least one commercial trash can within 5 feet of a home.
Tendency to offend residents and cause complaints.
S. 24-7 Night lighting for security and after dark operations exist to the north, south and East.
Tendency to offend residents and cause complaints.
6. With Cautious respect I must make a notation about," The First Step House" on Charle
street. It is this Cities oldest running Alachol recovery group. The residents here are very
troubled and in need. They come and go on foot along Charle St. They tend to be intermixed
with the homeless. These troubled folks have a greater tendency to frieghten and
sometimes to offend the other users of this area. I would not brand any people in need as
dangerous or chriminal in nature, however, having them hanging out around your property
will make you very nervous at times. Tendency to offend residents and cause complaints.
Barking dogs.
7. Late night users of Harbor Blvd are a strange fact that most don't see. Having after hour
video from General transmission reviels a strange group of persons that sometimes exibit
really bizarre behavior along Harbor Blvd after dark. Its not illeagle to walk the streets all
night and in this area they do. We often find food trash, beer bottles and needles on our
lawn. A constant reminder of the after hours world here. With only a 6 foot wall and 10 feet
from the sidewalk it will be a constant Dog barking every night and well, a tendency to cause
complaints.
What part of this project is complementary to the commercial users ? (maybe the Taco seller)
C14 �j