From: Cynthia McDonald
To: REYNOLDS, ARLIS; CHAVEZ, MANUEL; HARLAN, JEFFREY; STEPHENS, JOHN; MARR, ANDREA; GAMEROS, LOREN; HARPER, DON
Cc: YEAGER, CHRISTOPHER; GREEN, BRENDA; CITY CLERK
Subject: New Business Item 1 - Screening for Proposed Residential Development at 3140 Bear Street Date: Monday, September 2, 2024 1:03:07 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
This is the first of this type of housing product proposed to be built in Costa Mesa. While the existing building is an eyesore to most, the height, layout and public benefits of this project do not qualify it to be the best replacement. In addition, there are other elements of the project that don’t give attention to the City’s focus on improving walkability, bikeability and quality of life of the residents.
In 2022 the City Council put Measure K (which took away voter approval for large projects) on the ballot. At that time Council Member Loren Gameros requested that this property, despite not being on a “major commercial or industrial corridor,” be put on the Measure K map for rezoning. Obviously, the property owner had designs on rezoning it before now. He presently has a buyer, Meritage Homes (Meritage), a small California homebuilder. I ask that each of you, in the interest of transparency, disclose any ex parte conversations you had with the owner or the buyer after June 2022.
This is another project where the developer is cramming in as many units as possible. Meritage wants to build 146 homeownership units, 20 of which would be two-story single-family homes with standard two-car garages. The remainder of the units would be four-story stacked flat condominiums with tandem garages. The smallest of the flats occupies level 2 and the larger units are on levels 3 and 4. The owners of the top units must climb two flights of stairs to reach their units. Imagine getting several bags of groceries or a king- size mattress up those stairs. New York City-style living in Costa Mesa! While the project is not
subject to our new Affordable Housing Ordinance
because of Mr. Gameros’s demand that for-sale housing be excluded, it includes eight deed-restricted units for very-low-income earners. Where will the eight units be located? Close to the freeway?
The developer has decided to exchange the affordable units as a concession to the City’s the maximum height allowed. This increases the height of the stacked flats from the allowed 27 feet/two stories to 50 feet, 6 inches/four stories. That is much taller than any of the residential properties in this area. There is no mention in the Agenda Report of any attempts to block views into the nearby units or the private open space of those units.
Most of the units are built right out to the interior streets (mainly without sidewalks), except for 56 units that face a small interior courtyard, but the façades on the private streets are just a row of garage doors, and that does not encourage social interaction amongst neighbors.
Because it is using the one concession under State density bonus law for the increased height, the developer wants a waiver from the City due to the project’s deficiency in providing the open space required by the City. Only the single-family homes that back up to the existing homes have any private open space. When the residents of the stacked flats want time outdoors, they will need to cross Bear Street to get to Schiffer Park, a City park that needs updating to serve the community’s needs. The Agenda Report does not indicate the anticipated collection of park fees, but since these are homeownership units, those fees must be collected. How does the City intend to use those funds? The project is within walking/biking distance of some shopping and services, but the bike lanes on Bear St. need to be converted to protected lanes with bollards. The addition of the Olympic Avenue pedestrian access point is nice, as is the signalized intersection and crosswalk across Bear Street to Shiffer Park. However, increasing the public access through the project to Shiffer Park is the only community benefit being offered.
The City has estimated there will be 1,009 daily trips generated by the project.
Yet no traffic study is required because the City estimated that the peak hour trips will not exceed 100. However, the trips from this project will be a drop in the bucket as those 1,009 trips will join the traffic from the large Related Bristol and Village Santa Ana projects (combined, those two projects will have about 5,400 residential units, up to 300,000 square feet of office space, and up to 430,000 square feet of retail space; my estimate is the daily trips will be around 11,000). Add in the upzoning from the new Housing Element for the area north of the 405 and any more projects coming to Santa Ana, and this area will have LA-style traffic. Expect the intersections on and around Bear St. to fail at peak hours, as Santa Ana residents do not want traffic to go through its city and requested the traffic from its projects go down Bristol and Bear Streets.
And Santa Ana is not paying Costa Mesa one dime in traffic impact fees .
Could this project be better? Yes. The developer is putting too many units on the lot and discarding niceties like sidewalks in the process. Will the guest parking be used by the residents when their garages are full, forcing overflow parking to Schiffer Park (note there is no street parking on Bear St.)? It is located near public transportation, bike lanes, and some shopping and services, but no market or Target-like store is nearby, so the residents will be using their cars for everyday shopping. The elementary school for this area is Paularino School. The stress level of the bike lanes is high, as the lanes are not protected and the bridge over the 405 does not have any fencing. Bear St. and Baker St. are on the safe route to school for Paularino School, but I would not let kids ride bikes on either street during rush hour.
I would appreciate answers to the following questions:
1. How will the City mitigate the traffic impacts of this project, along with the cumulative traffic impacts of the large projects going forward near the Costa Mesa/Santa Ana border? Has the City taken into account the cumulative traffic impacts from the upzoning contemplated by the Housing Element update?
2. What will be the location of the affordable units within the project area?
3. Will the City require the developer to prevent occupants of the four-story units from viewing the private space of nearby units?
4. The rows of garage doors are ugly and uninviting. The developer must be instructed do better.
5. How does the City intend to increase the safety of the nearby bike lanes on Bear St. and Baker St., and the bridge over the 405 on Bear St.?
6. Costa Mesa is park poor. This project will add at least another 400 residents who will want to use Shiffer Park (the signal and crosswalk are needed for a reason). How does the City intend to mitigate the impacts of the increased use of Shiffer Park? What are the park fees that would be collected from the developer and what is the targeted project for their use?
7. Why aren’t more community
benefits offered? Perhaps Meritage could
help fund the rebuild of nearby Fire Station 2.
Thank you for your attention to my requests. I look forward to hearing responses to my questions during the meeting.
Cynthia McDonald
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to the Information Technology Department.
September
3,
2024
Costa
Mesa
City
Council
77 Fair
Drive
Costa
Mesa,
CA
92626
Re:
3150
Bear
St.
Screening
Mr.
Mayor
and
the
City
Council,
Thanks
for
all
the
work
you
do
for
the
city.
Here
are
my
humble
reactions
to
the
conceptual
plans
for
the
Trinity
Broadcasting
site
that
I
want
to
share
with
you.
I
would
say
these
things
about
any
large
site
development.
The
reason
I’m
bringing
this
up
is
to
help
you
think
through
some
of
the
aspects
that
maybe
you
aren’t
typically
focused
on,
with
the
goal
of
getting
any
changes
that
you
might
deem
appropriate
directed
to
the
applicant
now–
before
any
expensive
design
work
that
may
follow
the
screening.
Site
Design
The
primary
thing
that
I
want
to
get
across
to
staff
and
the
city
council
is
that
it
is
possible
to
build
146
units
without
the
dreaded
“townhome
community
site
plan
”
1 that
makes
us
all
squirm.
It’s
been
done
many
times
before,
and
it
is
still
done
in
many
places
across
the
world.
The
townhome
community
site
plan
is
one
that
is
criss-crossed
with
driveways
because
each
unit
needs
parking
directly
below.
This
leaves
little-to-no
room
on
the
site
for
anything
resembling
“public
realm”–the
element
that
buildings
traditionally
front
onto.
A
simple
principle
that
our
city
should
insist
on
is
that
new
buildings
front
2 a
public
realm
–whether
it
is
the
existing
sidewalks
on
the
edge(s)
of
the
site
(necessary
regardless),
or
new
public
realm
that
extends
into
(and
through
where
possible)
the
site
from
the
existing
sidewalk
in
the
form
of
new
streets
(
not
driveways),
paseos,
and/or
open
spaces.
3 These
spaces
should
be
generous
in
size,
contiguous
with
each
other,
and
connected
to
the
actual,
existing
public
realm–not
islands
within
inside-out
blocks,
floating
in
a
sea
of
driveways/alleys.
Please
see
my
previous
letter
on
3 I’m
using
this
term
to
describe
the
shared-ness
of
space,
not
the
ownership
of
the
space.
2 The
verb
to
front
implies
that
the
building
has
a
front.
A
garage
door
with
an
inconspicuous
auxiliary
entrance
for
humans
on
the
side
would
not
be
considered
to
be
a
front
by
any
reasonable
person.
That’s
a
back.
1 The
townhome
community
site
plan
is
not
necessarily
limited
to
townhome
projects,
though
that
is
what
they
are
most
of
the
time.
these
sorts
of
projects.
It’s
my
opinion
that
it
would
be
better
to
allow
more
units
and
require
less
parking
if
it
means
better
design.
If
we
could
collect
units
more
efficiently
and
reasonably
into
buildings,
perhaps
we
could
pull
all
new
buildings
away
from
the
existing
neighbors,
rendering
the
“need”
to
provide
SFHs
as
transitions
unnecessary.
I
know
that
these
are
ridiculous
images
to
share,
but
I
think
they’re
useful
in
reminding
ourselves
that
density
is
not
the
enemy.
Rather,
bad
urbanism
is
the
enemy.
Buildings
and
neighbors
are
good,
and
urban
living
can
be
green
and
quiet
and
beautiful
and
economically
productive–the
things
we
all
want.
Note
that
part
of
what
feels
“right”
about
all
of
these
is
that
buildings
front
and
frame
a
car-lite
public
realm.
It's
a
key
ingredient
to
livable
cities
that
people
want
to
be
in.
The
Units
Themselves
There
is
nothing
wrong
with
flats.
People
live
in
them
all
over
the
world.
Ironically,
everyone
in
this
particular
design
is
living
above
the
ground
floor
(which
is
nearly
entirely
devoted
to
parking),
making
it
puzzling
as
to
why
such
tortured
floor
plans
that
are
awkwardly
trying
to
approximate
townhomes
are
necessary.
The
multiplex
buildings
each
contain
something
like
12 to
18 units
each.
Why
not
build
simple
12-plexes
or
18-plexes
then?
Façades
Not
only
are
the
floorplans
tortured,
the
façades
are
tortured.
Part
of
this
is
the
fault
of
our
design
guidelines,
which
beg
for
as
much
variety
as
possible–gratuitous
or
not.
I
believe
that
most
people’s
preferences–whether
they
can
articulate
it
or
not–is
simplicity
,
with
tasteful
ornamentation,
regardless
of
style.
We
should
update
our
guidelines
to
reflect
this.
If
larger
buildings
were
included,
and
they
were
brought
up
to
Bear
St.,
this
would
provide
at
least
some
bit
of
framing
to
the
street,
as
well
as
some
“eyes
on
the
street”
that
could
only
make
Bear
St.
a
little
more
pleasant.
Parking
Parking
precludes
good
design.
This
is
especially
true
when
each
space
needs
to
be
connected
to
each
unit
on
a
dense
site
.
It
is
embarrassing
that
we
still
have
not
managed
to
lower
our
parking
minimums
at
this
point,
such
that
477
spaces
would
be
required
were
it
not
for
density
bonus
law.
This
forces
us
to
admit
something
that
many
of
us
don’t
want
to:
thank
God
for
state
usurping
of
local
control.
The
provision
of
288
parking
spaces
is
still
a
lot.
Not
only
does
it
degrade
urban
design,
but
it
floods
our
streets
with
more
cars
(exacerbating
traffic
and
parking
problems
elsewhere)
and
generally
contributes
to
car-dependent
density
–something
we
do
not
want.
Regardless
of
what
the
developer
thinks
the
right
number
is,
we
as
a
city
should
be
pushing
for
developers
to
embrace
Costa
Mesa
as
a
walkable
and
bike-able
city,
and
we
should
commit
to
continue
to
do
our
part
to
make
such
a
risk
worth
it
for
them.
Context
Although
this
site
butts
up
against
the
405,
it
is
not
a
terrible
location
for
new
residents:
it
is
a
10-minute
walk
to
Metro
Pointe
and
South
Coast
Plaza
and
a
five-minute
bike
ride
to
the
heart
of
SoBECA.
What
is
the
city
doing
to
ensure
that
Bear
St.
is
a
safe
and
pleasant
place
to
be
on
and
to
cross?
Same
with
Paularino
and
Baker.
Would
you
want
to
walk
to
SCP?
Or
the
park
across
the
street?
Would
you
want
to
bike
to
a
brewery
on
Randolph?
It
shouldn’t
take
a
project
of
this
size
to
make
us
consider
these
things,
but
it
would
be
remiss
of
us
to
entertain
this
project
without
having
a
serious
discussion
about
whether
we
are
doing
everything
we
reasonably
can
to
ensure
that
this
neighborhood
is
a
great
place
for
people
to
live
and
where
car-lite
living
is
possible.
Car-lite
living
is
the
ultimate
win-win
scenario
for
housing
projects.
Regarding
the
emergency
access
from
Olympic
Ave.,
we
should
never
pass
up
an
opportunity
to
create
more
pedestrian
connectivity
in
the
city.
But
the
connection
should
be
provided
via
the
public
realm
(see
above)–not
through
people’s
private
car-alleys.
This
is
really
our
only
opportunity
to
integrate
this
site
into
the
fabric
of
the
existing
neighborhood,
unless
we
are
ambitious
and
are
able
to
provide
another
pedestrian
access
point
further
north
on
Bear
St.
That’s
all–thanks
for
reading!
Russell
Toler