Monday, March 24, 2014

Meetings This Week

Tonight, Monday, March 24, 2014, the Costa Mesa Planning Commission will meet for the final time this month beginning at 6:00 in City Council Chambers at City Hall.  You can read the agenda report HERE.

There are three Public Hearings on the agenda.  The first, HERE, is the recommendation by staff to deny a conditional use permit for a hookah lounge at 3033 Bristol Street, Suite F.

The second, HERE, is the proposal to dramatically expand the existing bar/restaurant (Wild Goose) from 1,335 square feet to 5,185 square feet as part of a new two-story, 8,720 square foot multi-tenant retail/office building.  The request asks for three (3) conditional use permits, one (1) minor conditional use permit and two (2) separate deviations from normal parking requirements.  This is just one more under-parked project being requested by out-of-town developers.

The third public hearing is for 240 apartments on East Baker Street in what is now an industrial zone, HERE.  As this project has inched its way through the process several business owners near the location have expressed concern about having residential units so close - right across the street - to their businesses.  Those businesses generate noise and there is concern that residents of apartments so nearby may, in the not too distant future, may be so bothered by it that they may demand changes be made to those businesses.

Also on the agenda is an update on the Planning Commission Goals, HERE.  It makes for some interesting reading.

The Finance Advisory Committee meets on Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 3:30 p.m. in Conference Room 1A on the First Floor of City Hall.  According to the published agenda, HERE, there will be a presentation by Development Services/Economic Development Director, Gary Armstrong and the presentation of the new Ethics Policy by new Assistant CEO Tammy Letourneau.

On Thursday, March 27, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. in council chambers, the Costa Mesa Parks and Recreation Commission will hold its monthly meeting and it appears, from the brevity of the agenda, HERE, that it might be a short one.

There are no public hearings nor Old Business items and only two (2) New Business items on the agenda.  The first, HERE, is a tree removal request on Ceylon Drive that the staff recommends denying.

The second, HERE, is the proposal of a 5-year extension of the agreement with the Harbor Soaring Society for the use of a segment of Fairview Park where that organization has been a good steward of the property since 2007.  I think the staff recommendation is a good one and expect it will be approved by the Commission.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


Anonymous Casual Viewer said...

Does the planning commission do anything but nod and say yes? It would save the city money to replace them with bobble-heads.

Seriously, an underparked business will create an ongoing problem which will be brought up to the council by adjacent residents again and again. It will result in more police calls, too. Isn't the city cracking down on businesses that generate excessive police calls? Oh, the inconsistency!

3/24/2014 07:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Where's My Coffee? said...

I am getting fed up with cars parked with For Sale signs on them. Makes neighborhoods look like used car lots and brings people in that need not be there. Yesterday, a car parked in the middle of the street, while they got out and looked at cars.

Yet, you need a permit to have a garage sale on your own property.

3/24/2014 08:39:00 AM  
Anonymous lovemygarden said...

The proposed development on East Baker Street should be of concern to all residents. The General Plan Amendment will allow the developer to exceed the four story residential/five story parking limitation that was instituted years ago. If we let this developer go to five/six, then the next guy will want to do the same and we’ll see these all over town. Where does it stop? Why not go to six/seven along Harbor Blvd. and start creating the concrete canyon effect we see in other cities? Add in the additional traffic that comes with increased density and no additional open space and a nice quiet town turns into a nightmare.

3/24/2014 09:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Casual Viewer said...

The support letters for the Baker St. E. project are amusing. One speaks of bringing families to the area. Most of the proposed units are lofts and 1 bedroom.

There are fewer than 2 parking spaces per unit. It may be average for such projects, but that doesn't mean it's adequate.

Only 2 driveways? Seems like a bottleneck. What kind of renters do they hope to attract? Given its proximity to the airport, it might be a better location for a hotel, although it should still meet existing height restrictions.

3/24/2014 12:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Papa Smurf said...

Here's a thought - what if it is being built with the sole purpose of being a sober living facility. They can pack 5-6 beds per unit x # of units and make a huge profit all from one location. Think it cannot happen - look at the Pat More facility on Newport Blvd by the Regency Motel. It used to be a trailer park and was bought up then converted to what it is today. Each "trailer" spot had a mobile unit put on it that can contain up 5-6 people. There are apartment building already like this throughout the city. Some reported/recorded and some not. If the units don't sell/rent the owner could convert it anyway. That's what happened to the "green house" on Gisler which overlooks the golf course. Did not sell so now it's a sober living facility for women.

Perhaps this is Jimbo's plans all along.

3/24/2014 03:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Heart for Costa Mesa said...

The poor residents on Cabrillo and the other nearby neighborhoods! When will the Planning Commission and City Council majority recognize the rights of long term, tax paying residents who invested in their homes with the understanding that development on nearby properties was governed by General Plan, Zoning and Code? Every property owner has the right to develop within the rules. When a developer wants entitlements above those the property is entitled to, why is it that time after time, the residents lose their right to quiet enjoyment and often lose property value?

It’s happened over and over and over again in the last three and a half years with this Council majority and in the two years preceding when his royal mayorness was on the Planning Commission. Hmmm.

I want my city back!

3/24/2014 09:27:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home