HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-54 - Adopting GP -94-01A Auto Club ExpansionRESOLUTION NO. 94-54
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -94-01A.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the 1990 General Plan was adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa
Mesa by Resolution 92-27 on March 16, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range comprehensive document which serves as
a guide for the orderly development of Costa Mesa; and
WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan needs to be updated and refined to
account for current and future community needs; and
WHEREAS, an application (General Plan Amendment GP -94-01A) was filed by Hogle-
Ireland, Inc., authorized agent for the Automobile Club of Southern California and C. J.
Segerstrom and Sons, with respect to real property located at 3333 Fairview Road and an
adjacent parcel of approximately 9.7 acres, located west of the Orange County Flood Control
District channel and north of South Coast Drive, requesting an amendment to the Land Use
Element of the 1990 General Plan to change the land use designation of the property located at
3333 Fairview Road from Industrial Park to Urban Center Commercial and the adjacent parcel
of approximately 9.7 acres from Medium Density Residential to Urban Center Commercial; and
WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings on the requested General Plan Amendment
were held by the Planning Commission on March 14 and May 23, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by adoption of Resolution PC -94-43
recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment GP -94-01A; and
WHEREAS, on March 14 and May 23, 1994, the Planning Commission also conducted
public hearings and found that Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 1045 (State
Clearinghouse No. 94021036), comments, responses, and errata sheets, which collectively
constitute Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1045, have been reviewed and considered,
and that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that eliminate or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the Final EIR;
and that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable have been
balanced against the benefits of the project and against project alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the environmental review for the project was processed in accordance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings on General Plan Amendment
GP-94-OIA on June 6 and 20, 1994, to receive public testimony with respect to the General Plan
Amendment GP-94-OIA and EIR No. 1045; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in
Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1045 and certified it on June 6, 1994, and adopted a
resolution finding EIR No. 1045 as being complete and adequate; and
WHEREAS, this Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City that said
Amendment to the 1990 General Plan be adopted;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Costa
Mesa hereby adopts General Plan Amendment GP -94-01 A as set forth in attached Exhibit "A".
36
The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa has considered and finds that the benefits of the
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after mitigation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopts
the Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in
attached Exhibit "B".
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of June, 1994.
Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa
ATTEST:
2hj=� 7-
�-e-�
Deputy Ci10C
lerk of the City of Costa Mesa
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF COSTA MESA )
I, MARY T. ELLIOTT, Deputy City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of
the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 94-54 was
duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held
on the 20th day of June, 1994.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City
of Costa Mesa this 21 st day of June, 1994.
t
Deputy CClerk and ex -officio Clerk of
the City C tticil of the City of Costa Mesa
EXHIBIT "A"
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -94-01A
AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Adoption of General Plan Amendment GP-94-OIA hereby amends the Land
Use Element and Housing Subelement of the 1990 General Plan as
follows:
1. Amend Table 56 and other related inventories and figures
relating to various acreage of land use types throughout
the element as follows:
A. Reduce amount of Industrial Park acreage from
773 acres to 743.5 acres:
B. Increase amount of Urban Center Commercial
acreage from 174 acres to 213.2 acres.
C. Decrease amount of Medium Density Residential
acreage from 825 acres to 815.3 acres.
2. Amend text fourth paragraph within the Urban Center
Commercial text on page 394 of the 1990 General Plan to
reference "the Automobile Club processing center located
west of Fairview Road, between South Coast Drive and
Sunflower Avenue."
3. Add following text as fifth paragraph within the Urban
Center Commercial text on page 394 of the 1990 General
Plan:
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 1 of 2
39
"The Automobile Club of Southern California processing
center site contains two parcels totalling 39.2 acres.
The primary site contains 29.5 acres and is located west
of Fairview Road, between South Coast Drive and Sunflower
Avenue. The second parcel contains approximately 9.7
acres and is located across the adjacent flood control
channel to the west, just north of South Coast Drive.
The site is currently developed with 467,000 sq. ft. of
office and support service uses. An additional 500,000
sq. ft. of development is allowed pursuant to a devel-
opment agreement. The future construction will be
developed in phases during the 30 -year term of the
agreement. Based upon the unique traffic generation
characteristics of the Automobile Club operations, the
site's trip budget is based upon actual driveway counts
from a traffic study dated November 1992. The AM trip
budget is 881 trips while the PM trip budget is 697
trips. Based on an expected employment population of
2,574 employees, the population density standard for the
site would be approximately 66 employees per acre."
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 1 of 2
39
A
4. Amend Figure 73 as shown below:
Low DINS T IES[lOf m
QrmaW open IEsrov TLAL
HWH DEWTr WIDExrua
® IEOPOWAL COMEACIAL
® URBAN CEMM o0604MIAL
�\ ® IA.0f_0f1-000 cc-wf/gCYi
® OtM W COrf1f /1CYt
® COw"aftc l CYMII•
fr.•. _ qfl
ff10{JS 1f1y( MAa
f0af cftmsl
/VTC Vsl . •nM 1. •oMAbrr1 A .M �wr7
25-W V"IaIMa UHMf FM ACM
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 2 of 2
I
LJ
1
EXHIBIT "B"
' CEQA STATEMENTS OF FACTS, FINDINGS
AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THE
AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
FACILITY EXPANSION
AS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 20, 1994
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 1 of 47
42
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS
IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS OF POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE EXPANSION OF
AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
FACILITY EXPANSION
Paste
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CEQA PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SECTION I: EFFECTS FOUND TO BE INSIGNIFICANT . . .
SECTION II: EFFECTS FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT OR
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
3
4
7
A. LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 8
B. AESTHETICS/SHADE AND SHADOW . . . . . . . . . .
. . 10
C. POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT . . . . . .
. 12
D. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . .
. 14
E. AIR QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 20
F. NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 25
G. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES . . . . . . . . .
. 27
H. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, SOILS AND GROUNDWATER . .
. 31
I. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 34
SECTION III: FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 39
SECTION IV: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 42
^DOCNUM^
-1-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 2 of 47
SECTION V: MITIGATION MEASURES AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
1
^DOCNUM^
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 3 of 47
r
43
A4
CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS
IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS OF POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
FACILITY EXPANSION
INTRODUCTION
The Project is the expansion of the existing 467,000 square
foot processing center of the Automobile Club of Southern
California, located at 3333 Fairview Road. Final Environmental
Impact Report (Final EIR) #1045 and Addendum No. 1 to the Final
EIR (SCH# 94021036) have been prepared for the Project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and are incorporated in these Findings by reference thereto.
The City Council has reviewed the Final EIR and Addendum and
finds that they reflect the independent judgment of the City as
lead agency. The City Council also finds and determines that
the Final EIR and Addendum No. 1 provide a full and adequate
assessment of the significant or potentially significant effects
of the Project and set forth a reasonable range of alternatives
to the Project.
Section I of these Findings identifies the effects of the
Project which were determined to be insignificant and Section II
summarizes the significant and potentially significant effects
of the Project. Section II also sets forth the findings and
facts supporting the findings as required by CEQA (Public
Resource Code S 21081) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code
Regs. S 15091).
Section III summarizes the various Project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR and sets forth the appropriate
findings, and Section IV addresses the unavoidable adverse
effects of the Project and sets forth the statement of the City
Council that such impacts are unavoidable, but acceptable
because they are outweighed by overriding beneficial
considerations.
Section V identifies the Mitigation Measures for the
Project and the Mitigation Monitoring Program required by
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code; this program
describes the procedures by which the City will ensure the
implementation of the mitigation measures adopted with respect
to the Project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project site is located within the City of
Costa Mesa in Orange County, California. The existing
^DOCNUM^
-1-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 4 of 47
Automobile Club facility is situated on 29.5 acres, which is
north of the San Diego Freeway (I-405). The facility is bounded
by Fairview Road on the east, Sunflower Avenue to the north,
South Coast Drive to the south and the Greenville -Banning Flood
Control Channel to the west. The proposed project also includes
a 9.7 -acre development area immediately west of the channel,
along South Coast Drive.
The project proposes expansion of the existing Automobile
Club of Southern California Processing Center and associated
parking. The expansion is proposed in order to consolidate the
current processing activities occurring at various AAA
facilities located throughout Orange and Los Angeles Counties.
These activities would be relocated to the expanded processing
center on the project site. Project implementation would
require the following approvals:
• A General Plan Amendment (GPA) for the 29.5 -acre
parcel, located east of the channel, from Industrial
Park to Urban Center Commercial.
• A GPA for the adjacent 9.7 -acre parcel, located west
of the channel, from Medium Density Residential to
Urban Center Commercial. The 9.7 -acre parcel is owned
by C. J. Segerstrom & Sons, which is a co -applicant
for this project.
• A rezone of the existing Auto Club site from
Industrial Park (MP) to Planned Development Commercial
(PDC); and a rezone of the 9.7 -acre site from Planned
Development Residential -Medium Density (PDR -MD) to
Planned Development Commercial (PDC).
• A Final Development Plan.
• A Development Agreement.
• A Parcel Map dividing the northerly portion of the
Segerstrom Home Ranch site into three parcels to
accommodate the Proposed Project.
The proposed expansion would occur in two development
phases. Phase I would include development of 250,000 square
feet of additional office uses (one four-story structure) within
the 29.5 -acre parcel and 1,010 new surface parking spaces
distributed on site and on the adjacent 9.7 -acre parcel.
Phase I would include construction of a vehicle/pedestrian
bridge and pedestrian -only bridge over the existing Greenville
Banning Channel to connect the Phase I surface parking with the
Automobile Club Processing Center. This Phase is proposed for
completion in 1999 and would employ approximately 687 people
(who would be transferred from the existing Automobile Club
facilities throughout Orange and Los Angeles Counties).
^DOCNUM^
-2-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 5 of 47
46
Phase II would include development of an additional 250,000
square feet of office uses (one four-story structure) on the
29.5 -acre parcel and a 1,680 space, four -level (above grade)
parking structure along the northern portion of the 9.7 -acre
parcel. Phase II is anticipated to be constructed between 10 to
30 years from the date of project approval. Phase II would
employ approximately 687 additional people.
CEOA PROCESS
The proposed expansion of the Automobile Club's existing
facility is a "project" as defined by CEQA (Public Resources
Code Section 21000, et sea.). As the lead agency for the
project, the City determined that an environmental impact report
would be required for the project, and, accordingly, on March 1,
1993 circulated a Notice of Preparation ("NOP"), which included
an initial study, for a 30 -day public review and comment period.
After preparation of the Draft EIR, a Notice of Completion was
filed with the State Clearinghouse on February 17, 1994. The
Draft EIR was circulated to the public for a 45 -day review and
comment period, from February 23, 1994 to April 9, 1994. The
purpose of the Draft EIR was to describe the Proposed Project
and to identify, analyze, and evaluate the potential significant
environmental effects which may result from the Project and
propose mitigation measures and alternatives to lessen or avoid
such effects.
A public hearing on the Draft EIR was held on March 14,
1994. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Final EIR on May 23, 1994 and the City Council held a public
hearing on the Final EIR on June 6, 1994. Additional public
Study Sessions on the Project were held on March 7, April 11,
May 2 and May 16, 1994. Following receipt of public comments,
detailed responses to comments were prepared. Following the
June 6th hearing, an Addendum to the Final EIR was prepared to
address an industrial designation for the project site as
opposed to a commercial designation as described in the EIR.
The physical description of the project is exactly the same as
that described in the EIR. The Addendum also answers questions
raised at the June 6th hearing.
The Costa Mesa Planning Commission and City Council, at
their public hearings held on June 20, 1994, found that the new
information added to the EIR makes insignificant modifications
to the EIR as described in Addendum No. 1. The Final EIR does
not require recirculation because no significant new information
has been presented in the Addendum. Specifically, the City
finds that no new significant environmental impacts would result
from the project and no increase in the severity of an impact
would occur. No new feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives which would reduce any significant impact of the
project were presented. The Final EIR, consisting of the Draft
EIR, technical appendices, public comments, all responses to
comments, Addendum No. 1 and other materials, was reviewed and
^DOCNUM^
-3-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 6 of 47
considered by the City in connection with approval of the
Proposed Project. The City of Costa Mesa Planning Division,
located at 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California, is the
custodian of the Final EIR and the entire record of proceedings
for the project.
SECTION I: EFFECTS FOUND TO BE INSIGNIFICANT
Finding•
The City finds the effects of the project listed below to
be insignificant, as determined during preparation of the Draft
EIR.
A. EARTH RESOURCES.
1. The proposed project will not result in the
destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features.
2. Due to the location and nature of the proposed
project, it will not result in changes in deposition
or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake.
B. WATER.
3. Due to the location of the project, the proposed
project will not result in significant changes in
currents, or in the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters.
C. AIR QUALITY.
4. The proposed project will not result in the
aggravation of the existing CO hotspot at the
intersection of Sunflower Avenue and Fairview Road.
D. PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE.
5. Due to the current agricultural activities on site and
the limited area of alteration to the channel, the
proposed project would not result in a significant
change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants or animals.
6. The proposed project
of the numbers of any
species of plants or
^DOCNUM^
would not result in a reduction
unique, rare or endangered
animals.
-4-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 7 of 47
'47
4X8
7. The proposed project would not result in the
introduction of new species of plants or animals into
the project area or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of plants or migration of animals.
8. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 711.4(d)(1),
the City hereby finds the proposed project to be de
minimis in its effect on fish and wildlife.
E. NOISE.
9. The proposed project when combined with existing
conditions will not significantly expose sensitive
receptors to increased traffic noise, due to
relatively little project traffic noise. An increase
of approximately 0.1 dBA in the 65 CNEL contour at 100
feet from the centerline is conservatively estimated,
which is below the threshold of 3 dBA. Accordingly,
the City finds that sound barriers along portions of
Fairview Road and Sunflower Avenue are not justified
due to the proposed project. In addition, most of the
cumulative noise impacts in the area are due to
existing conditions and background growth.
10. The proposed on site uses of the project would be
exposed to freeway and arterial traffic noise. Such
noise would not exceed the City's standard for a
significant impact.
F. RISK OF UPSET.
11. The proposed project will not result in any
significant impacts associated with a risk of
explosion or release of hazardous substances in the
project area.
G. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
12. The proposed project will not result in significant
impacts to waterborne or rail services.
H. HUMAN HEALTH.
13. The proposed project will not result in a significant
effect relating to any health hazard or potential
health hazard.
^DOCNUM^
-5-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 8 of 47
1
i
I.
J.
CULTURAL RESOURCES.
14. The proposed project will not result in any
significant effects to pre -historic or historic
archaeological sites, buildings, structures or
objects.
15. The proposed project will not result in any
significant effects to unique ethnic, cultural,
religious or sacred uses.
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT.
16. The proposed project would result in a net population
increase of 76 persons --approximately .07 percent over
the projected General Plan buildout population of
107,350. This increase is not a significant impact to
population in the area.
17. Development of the proposed project would generate
both short-term and long-term employment within the
City of Costa Mesa. This is not a significant effect.
K. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES.
Fire Services.
18. The proposed project may result in an additional
calls for service from the City Fire Department.
is found not to be a significant impact to fire
services. In addition, the applicant is required
comply with all codes and ordinances governing
construction, access, water mains, fire flows and
hydrants.
Schools.
f ive
This
to
f ire
19. The proposed project may result in an increase in the
student population due to the relocation of project
employees within the District. However, the projected
growth in the student population is not significant as
it would be addressed through the reopening of
existing schools that are now closed.
Parks and Recreation.
20. The project would increase the use of local park land
during lunch breaks of site employees. However, due
to current and proposed onsite meal facilities, this
increase would not be significant on a project -
specific or a cumulative basis. Thus, donating
Wimbledon Park to the Wimbledon Village Homeowners
^DOCNUM^
cm
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 9 of 47
;= t 50
Association is not required, and would not mitigate an
impact on parks in any event.
Electricity.
21. The project -generated demand for electrical services
is not anticipated to create significant individual or
cumulative impacts on Southern California Edison's
capability of providing electrical services to the
area.
Natural Gas.
22. The projected increase in demand for natural gas due
to project implementation is not considered to be a
significant impact on the availability of natural gas
to the area.
Telephone
23. The project's increased demand for telephone services
would not create a significant impact to service
levels.
SECTION II: EFFECTS FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT OR
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
Presented in this section are the significant or
potentially significant effects of the Project, as identified in
the Final EIR. With respect to these environmental effects, the
findings required by CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21081)
and section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the facts
supporting the findings, are also included in this section. The
Project's significant or potentially significant effects are
presented under the general headings used in the Final EIR. For
each significant effect one or more of the following findings
are made:
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 Final 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 agency or can and
should be adopted by such agency.
^DOCNUM^
-7-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 10 of 47
3. Specific economic, social
infeasible the mitigation
alternatives identified in
A. LAND USE.
or other considerations make
measures or project
the Final EIR.
1. Significant Effect: Implementation of the proposed
project would intensify existing onsite office uses
and result in the replacement of existing agricultural
and vacant areas with parking uses. This is con-
sidered a cumulative significant effect.
Finding: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The loss of agricultural land was discussed in
the City of Costa Mesa 1990 General Plan and
Final EIR. Overriding considerations were
adopted by the City Council. (See Resolution
No. 92-27, adopted March 16, 1992.)
b. This project will result in the elimination of
9.7 acres of agricultural land. This loss of
agricultural land, a limited resource, is
considered an unavoidable cumulative significant
effect.
C. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
2. Effect: Development of the proposed project would
require a General Plan Amendment and Rezone. This
would result in a loss of the existing residential
land use designation on the 9.7 -acre parcel.
^DOCNUM^
Finding: 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 Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The proposed General Plan Amendment would reduce
the remaining housing unit potential in Costa
-8-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 11 of 47
,r I
52
Mesa from 2,180 additional units to 2,072 units
(108) units.
b. The project would increase the housing demand by
137 units, approximately one-half this amount
during Phase I and one-half in Phase II.
C. The City shall identify in the next Housing
Element update, other sites within its boundaries
to provide 245 housing units over 1990 General
Plan levels to mitigate the increased demand
created by the project. The additional units
shall not result in intensification of
residential densities at any location which is in
excess of those specified in the 1990 General
Plan. The units may be provided in areas
designated for nonresidential uses under the 1990
General Plan. (Mitigation Measure #1)
Identification of specific sites for future
housing is not possible at this point in time and
is beyond the control and scope of the project.
Analysis at this time would be speculative and
not required by CEQA.
d. The City has identified potential additional
housing opportunities in north Costa Mesa. These
include the Transpacific Development Company's
South Coast Metro Center project, the undeveloped
portion of the Sakioka Farms property, the
undeveloped portion of the Arnel property and the
conversion to residential uses of the area along
the east side of Newport Boulevard.
e. The 245 -unit housing demand represents
approximately 11% of the presently vacant units
in the City.
f. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
3. Effect: The project is located within the
notification zone and partially within the Conical
Imaginary Surface Area of the John Wayne Airport. In
addition, the project contributes to the demand for
services at the airport, which is projected to be over
capacity.
^DOCNUM^
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 12 of 47
1
Finding: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The proposed structures of the project would not
penetrate the 100:1 Imaginary Notice Surface, or
the Conical Surface, as described in the Final
EIR, p. IV.A-14.
b. Impacts to airport operations were discussed in
the 1990 General Plan and overriding
considerations adopted. (See Resolution No. 92-
27.)
C. The proposed project would add to the City's
growth and increase the cumulative demand for
airport services.
d. The project would not cause project specific
significant effects, but an unavoidable
cumulative impact to airport services would
occur.
e. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
B. AESTHETICS/SHADE AND SHADOW.
1. Significant Effect: Long-term project impacts would
be permanent and would significantly alter views
across the site and the view shed from neighboring
properties. Impacts would also be generated by light
and glare.
^DOCNUM^
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. Replacement of existing parking lots with two
four-story buildings, and the 9.7 -acre vacant
parcel with a four -level parking structure would
permanently replace existing open views of the
site with urban uses.
-10-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 13 of 47
Ry 53
#! w 54
�4A
2.
^DOCNUM^
b. External lighting, including parking lot and
parking structure lighting, shall be stationary,
directed away from adjacent properties and public
rights-of-way, and of an intensity compatible
with the neighborhood. (Mitigation Measure #2)
C. A densely landscaped buffer shall be placed
within the setback between the north side of the
proposed parking structure and the adjacent
residential property and along the west side of
the parking structure, which is adjacent to Susan
Street. Landscaping shall be installed as a part
of Phase I. (Mitigation Measure #3)
d. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical
equipment shall be screened in accordance with
the City of Costa Mesa's Planning, Zoning and
Development Codes, Section 13-237. The Planning
Division, in its review, shall pay particular
attention to the screening of such areas and
equipment. (Mitigation Measure #4)
e. Any roof -top mechanical equipment shall be
minimized in height and area, and shall be
located in such a way as to minimize visual
impacts to surrounding properties. Unless
otherwise approved by the Planning Division,
rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located at
least five feet from the edge of the roof and
screened from view from surrounding properties.
(Mitigation Measure #4)
f. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
Significant Effect: Construction of a four -level
parking structure would produce shadows on
residentially zoned land.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. Shadow studies indicate that on December 22, the
proposed parking structure will cast shadows
-11-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 14 of 47
I
extending approximately 60 feet to the north from
the property line onto the adjacent vacant
property to the north.
b. The proposed Phase II parking structure shall be
redesigned to be located at least 60 feet away
from the northern property boundary to reduce
shade and shadow impacts to the residential
parcel adjacent to the north. (Mitigation
Measure #5)
C. This measure is not necessary if this parcel to
the north is redesignated to nonresidential uses.
d. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
C. POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT.
1. Effect: The impact to housing resulting from project
implementation would be a net increase in the demand
for housing within the City of Costa Mesa and
surrounding communities.
^DOCNUM^
Finding: 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 Final EIR.
Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The re -designation of the 9.7 -acre site from
Medium -Density Residential to Urban Center
Commercial will reduce the housing potential on
this site by 108 housing units.
b. The project would increase the housing demand by
137 units (10% of 1,374 -person employment
increase generated by the project).
C. The City shall identify in the next Housing
Element update, other sites within its boundaries
to provide 245 housing units over 1990 General
Plan levels to mitigate the increased demand
-12-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 15 of 47
55
56
created by the project. The additional units
shall not result in intensification of
residential densities at any location which is in
excess of those specified in the 1990 General
Plan. The units may be provided in areas
designated for nonresidential uses under the 1990
General Plan. (Mitigation Measure #1)
Identification of specific sites for future
housing is not possible at this point in time and
is beyond the control and scope of the project.
Analysis at this time would be speculative and
not required by CEQA.
d. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
2. Effect: Project implementation during Phase II would
have an impact upon the job/housing balance within the
Southeast Orange Subregion.
ADOCNUM^
Finding: 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 Final EIR.
Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The Southern California Association of
Governments (SLAG) and the City have found that a
job/housing imbalance may adversely affect
mobility and regional air quality.
b. The project's creation of new jobs in Phase II
will result in a need for 85 additional housing
units to achieve conformity with SCAG's policies
for jobs -rich subregions. (See Table C-9 of
Final EIR.)
C. The City shall identify in the next Housing
Element update other sites within its boundaries
to provide 245 housing units over 1990 General
Plan levels to mitigate the increased demand
created by the project. The additional units
-13-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 16 of 47
shall not result in intensification of
residential densities at any location which is in
excess of those specified in the 1990 General
Plan. The units may be provided in areas
designated for nonresidential uses under the 1990
General Plan. (Mitigation Measure #1)
Identification of specific sites for future
housing is not possible at this point in time and
is beyond the control and scope of the project.
Analysis at this time would be speculative and
not required by CEQA.
d. The City has identified potential additional
housing opportunities in north Costa Mesa. These
include the Transpacific Development Company's
South Coast Metro Center project, the undeveloped
portion of the Sakioka Farms property, the
undeveloped portion of the Arnel property and the
conversion to residential uses of the area along
the east side of Newport Boulevard.
e. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
D. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
1. Significant Effect: Of the seven intersections that
are projected to operate deficiently under 1999
no -project conditions, only one location, Harbor
Boulevard and Sunflower Avenue, is shown to
deteriorate further with Phase I development of the
proposed project. Additionally, the intersection of
Fairview Road and Sunflower Avenue drops from LOS "D"
to LOS "E" in the AM peak hour and the intersection of
Fairview Road and South Coast Drive drops from LOS "D"
to LOS "E" in the PM peak hour when Phase I project
traffic is added to 1999 no -project conditions. The
project is not anticipated to measurably impact any of
the three CMP intersection locations which were
analyzed under these conditions.
^DOCNUM^
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
-14-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 17 of 47
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The trip generation rates of the proposed project
are comparable to Light Industrial and Industrial
Park uses, which are lower than the Urban Center
Commercial designation sought in the General Plan
Amendment. These rates are based on driveway
counts at the existing Automobile Club facility.
b. The project's traffic contribution to the three
intersections identified is below 50 percent of
the traffic growth projected at each location.
Therefore, the project shall contribute toward
the improvement of these intersections through a
development fee, rather than the actual
construction of improvements.
C. The Project Applicant shall participate in the
implementation of Master Plan of Highways
improvements through the payment of development
impact fees in accordance with the City of Costa
Mesa's Ordinance 93-11 and Resolution 93-43 as
amended by Development Agreement DA -94-01.
Specific intersection improvements are as
follows:
• Harbor Boulevard/Sunflower Avenue: Add
northbound right -turn lane.
• Fairview Road/Sunflower Avenue: Add
eastbound right -turn lane.
• Fairview Road/South Coast Drive: Convert
second eastbound right -turn lane to shared
second eastbound through/second eastbound
right -turn lane. (Mitigation Measure #6)
d. The Project Applicant shall submit to the City
two traffic studies as provided under section 3.9
of the Development Agreement between the City and
the Applicant. The Development Agreement shall
be subject to annual review by the City.
e. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
Long Range Impacts
^DOCNUM^
-15-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 18 of 47
2. Significant Effect: Intersections that are measurably
impacted by the project (i.e., project ICU contribu-
tion is greater than .01) under Post -2010 conditions
and are either forecasted to operate deficiently or
have assumed implementation of non -committed Master
Plan improvements are indicated below:
^DOCNUM^
• City of Costa Mesa
Harbor & Adams
Susan & South Coast
Fairview and Sunflower
Fairview and Baker
• City of Santa Ana
Susan & Sunflower
Fairview & MacArthur
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR. Such changes are
over and above those required for short range impacts
described in l.c. above.
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 agency or can and
should be adopted by such agency.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. Each of the intersections impacted in the City of
Costa Mesa, as identified above, is forecasted to
operate within the City's LOS "D" performance
standard, and, therefore, no additional
circulation improvements are required beyond
those identified in the City's Master Plan.
For the long range condition, intersections
impacted by Phase I are assumed with Phase I
mitigations in place (Mitigation Measure #6)
b. The project's traffic contribution at each of
these intersections is below the City's 50
percent threshold requiring direct construction
of improvements.
C. The Project Applicant shall participate in the
implementation of the Master Plan of Highways
improvements through the payment of development
-16-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 19 of 47
59
"DOCNUM"
impact fees in accordance with the City of Costa
Mesa's Ordinance 93-11 and Resolution 93-43 as
amended by Development Agreement DA -94-01. The
City of Costa Mesa will contribute the project's
fair share of the trip fee to the City of Santa
Ana for improvements within that City. Specific
non -committed Master Plan improvements are as
follows:
Costa Mesa
• Harbor Boulevard/Adams Avenue: Add
eastbound right -turn lane.
• Susan Street/South Coast Drive: Construct
intersection - provide two eastbound thru-
lanes, two westbound thru-lanes, southbound
left -turn lane, southbound right -turn lane,
shared second southbound left turn lane/
second southbound right turn lane and
eastbound left turn lane.
• Fairview Road/Sunflower Avenue: Add
southbound right -turn lane and eastbound
right -turn lane.
• Fairview Road/Baker Street: Add fourth
southbound thru-lane, third westbound thru-
land and convert eastbound right -turn lane
to shared third eastbound thru-lane/
eastbound lane.
Santa Ana
• Susan Street/Sunflower Avenue: Install
traffic signal and add second eastbound
thru-lane and second westbound thru-lane and
construct south leg of intersection:
Provide southbound left -turn lane, south-
bound thru-lane, northbound left -turn lane,
northbound thru lane, northbound right -turn
lane and westbound left -turn lane.
• Fairview Road/MacArthur Boulevard: Add
southbound right -turn lane, eastbound right -
turn and westbound right -turn lane.
(Mitigation Measure #8)
d. In addition to the required trip fees, the
Project Applicant shall pay an equitable share of
the cost of construction of the portion of Susan
Street adjacent to the project and installation
of a traffic signal at Susan Street/South Coast
Drive at the time of building permit issuance for
Phase II. (Mitigation Measure #10)
e. The Project Applicant shall continue to comply
with a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
-17-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 20 of 47
^DOCNUM^
program consistent with the requirements of the
City of Costa Mesa TDM ordinance (Costa Mesa
Municipal Code Section 13-880 through 13-888), by
the provision of one or more improvements listed
in CMMC section 13-884. (Mitigation Measure 111)
(Refer also to Mitigation Measure #15.)
f. The Automobile Club has an aggressive
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
designed to reduce single -occupancy vehicle
ridership to work. The program resulted in an
Average Vehicle Ridership of 1.27 for 1991. The
Automobile Club provides financial incentives and
privileges for employees who use van pools, car
pools, public transit, walking and bicycling for
their work commute. Other incentives and methods
are included as discussed in the Final EIR,
p. IV.D-11.
g. In compliance with the intent of CMMC section
13-327(d), Transportation Demand Management
Program, as modified by Development Agreement DA -
94 -01, the Applicant shall submit within three
(3) years after occupancy of each phase, an AQMD
Regulation XV report or similar study to be
reviewed by the City's staff. The report shall be
prepared for the City at the expense of the
property owner to show whether or not the vehicle
trip reduction identified in the program has been
achieved and maintained. (Mitigation Measure
#12)
h. The Project Applicant shall submit to the City
two traffic studies as provided under section 3.9
of the Development Agreement between the City and
the Applicant. The Development Agreement shall
be subject to annual review by the City.
i. The project does not measurably impact the
intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Gisler
Avenue and is therefore not considered to
contribute to the potential need for a future
Gisler Avenue bridge over the Santa Ana River.
j. The project -related traffic does not
significantly impact mid -block access to
Wimbledon Village. Thus, gating this community
is not required.
k. The proposed project does not impact Raitt
Street, and thus does not trigger the need for
Raitt Street improvements.
-18-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 21 of 47
61
1. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
Freeway Impacts
3. Significant Effect: The project will contribute to
cumulative freeway deficiencies.
Finding: 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 Final EIR.
^DOCNUM^
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 agency or can and
should be adopted by such agency.
Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. A comprehensive list of improvements were
identified in the I-405 Freeway Access Study to
mitigate the cumulative impacts of developments
in Costa Mesa. Some of these improvements are
currently being implemented with the assistance
of Measure M funding.
b. The project, by itself, does not trigger the need
for any specific freeway improvements.
C. The project, by itself, does not significantly
impact the Harbor Boulevard/I-405 northbound or
southbound ramps, or the Fairview Road/I-405
northbound or southbound ramps, but contributes
to long-term cumulative impacts to these ramps.
d. The City and Caltrans are working together to
implement I-405 Freeway access improvements as
necessary.
e. The City has adopted Ordinance No. 93-11 and
Resolution No. 93-43 which do not include a
freeway improvement fee to be imposed on
-19-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 22 of 47
1
development projects. However, the City will
apply its traffic impact fee, as may be adjusted
pursuant to the Development Agreement, of $228
per generated daily trip end to mitigate the
project's impact to all transportation
facilities, including freeway access
improvements. This fee applied to the average
daily traffic (ADT) generated by the project will
determine the project's financial obligation for
implementation of transportation improvements.
f. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
E. AIR QUALITY.
Short -Term Construction Impacts
1. Significant Effect: Significant short-term air
quality impacts would occur during site preparation
and project construction.
^DOCNUM^
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
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 agency or can and
should be adopted by such agency.
Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. Temporary NOx emissions generated during project
construction would result in significant and
unavoidable short-term air quality impacts.
These impacts would cease following project
completion.
b. Due to the conservative methodology employed in
quantifying construction emissions, actual daily
No. emissions generated by project construction
-20-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 23 of 47
63.
64
^DOCNUM^
may be less than those identified in the Final
EIR.
C. In order to reduce fugitive dust emissions, the
following measures shall be implemented during
project grading and/or construction to the
satisfaction of the City Public Services
Department and the Building Safety Division.
These measures are subject to periodic site
inspections by City staff and the SCAQMD, per
Rule 403, as amended.
• The project shall comply with State, City,
and UBC dust control regulations, so as to
prevent the soil from being eroded by wind,
creating dust, or blowing onto a public road
or roads or other public or private
property.
• SCAQMD Rule 403, as modified, shall be
adhered to, ensuring that: 1) construction -
related dust does not extend beyond the .
property lines; 2) one or more reasonably
available control measures are utilized for
each dust source; and 3) PM10 levels from
construction -generated fugitive dust do not
exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter.
• All exposed surfaces, dirt piles and unpaved
roads (utilized by project construction
trucks) shall be watered, at least, two
times a day if necessary.
• All trucks hauling dirt, soil or other loose
dirt material shall be covered.
• All trucks shall maintain a minimum of two
feet of freeboard.
• Any vegetative ground cover to be utilized
on site shall be planted as soon as possible
to reduce the amount of open space subject
to wind erosion. Irrigation shall be
installed as soon as possible to maintain
the ground cover.
• Grading activity shall be suspended when
local winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
(Mitigation Measure 113)
d. In order to reduce short-term daily NOx emissions
associated with exhaust from onsite construction
equipment and offsite construction vehicles,
construction activity management techniques shall
-21-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 24 of 47
11
1
L,
be employed by the project contractor as recom-
mended by the AQMD (i.e., reducing the number of
pieces of equipment used simultaneously, when
possible). Compliance with this measure is
subject to periodic site inspections by City and
SCAQMD staff. (Mitigation Measure #14)
e. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
Lona -Term Impacts
2. Significant Effect: The project would result in an
overall increase in the local and regional pollutant
load due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and
indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas
consumption.
^DOCNUM^
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
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 agency or can and
should be adopted by such agency.
Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. Motor vehicles associated with the project would
constitute the primary source of the pollutant
emissions related to the project.
b. To reduce emissions from project -related vehicle
trips, the project applicant shall adhere to City
of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-880
through 888 (Transportation Demand Management)
and SCAQMD Regulation XV to reduce vehicle miles
travelled to the maximum extent feasible. The
code includes measures such as:
• Preferential parking for carpool vehicles;
-22-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 25 of 47
s�
68
We
^DOCNUM^
• Bicycle parking and shower facilities;
• Information provided to employees on
Transportation Alternatives;
• Rideshare vehicle loading areas;
• Vanpool vehicle accessibility; and
• Bus stop improvements. (Mitigation Measure
#15)
C. To reduce emissions from the power plant
providing electricity to the site prior to
building permit issuance, the project shall
demonstrate that onsite buildings will adhere to
Title 24 of the California Code which requires
new development to use energy efficient
electrical and mechanical systems, to the
satisfaction of the City of Costa Mesa Building
Officials. (Mitigation Measure #16)
d. Following implementation of mitigation measures,
long-term impacts on air quality, resulting from
CO, NOX, ROC and PM10 emissions at project
buildout, would be significant and unavoidable.
As the SCAB is designated non -attainment for CO,
ozone, NOX and PM10, the proposed project, in
combination with other future development
projects, would result in a significant and
unavoidable cumulative air quality impact, due to
the emission of these pollutants and their
precursors.
e. The City has recently entered into an agreement
with a private party to construct bus stop
facilities/improvements throughout the City.
This existing program should consider
constructing bus shelters and/or benches at the
following two locations near the site:
• Existing bus stop sign on Fairview Road
travelling north near the South Coast Drive
intersection; and
• Existing bus stop sign on Sunflower Avenue
travelling east near the Fairview Road
intersection.
f. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
-23-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 26 of 47
11
1
6'7
r. s
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
Consistency With Regional Plans
3. Significant Effect: The project would not be
consistent with the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan
and State Implementation Plan ("SIP").
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
^DOCNUM^
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 agency or can and
should be adopted by such agency.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The region presently has a jobs/housing imbalance
which may adversely affect mobility and result in
air quality impacts. The project will add 687
new jobs in Phase II, increasing this imbalance
and potentially causing regional air quality
impacts.
b. The new jobs associated with the project
correspond to a demand for 85 housing units under
SCAG's Conformity Review Procedures.
C. As set forth in Mitigation Measure #1, the City
shall identify in the next Housing Element update
other sites within its boundaries to provide 245
housing units over General Plan levels.
d. Since the project provides excess housing units
beyond the 85 units needed, the project as
mitigated conforms with the Air Quality
Management Plan Criteria, as described on page
IV -E-23 of the Final EIR.
e. The City has identified potential additional
housing opportunities in north Costa Mesa. These
include the Transpacific Development Company's
South Coast Metro Center project, the undeveloped
portion of the Sakioka Farms property, the
undeveloped portion of the Arnel property and the
conversion to residential uses of the area along
the east side of Newport Boulevard.
-24-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 27 of 47
f. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
F. NOISE.
1. Significant Effect: The project would expose adjacent
areas to short-term construction -related noise.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. Construction activities during the grading of
each phase of the proposed project are
anticipated to exceed temporarily the City's
noise standards.
b. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the
project proponent shall produce evidence
acceptable to the Development Services Director,
such as notation on the front sheet of the
grading plans, that:
• All construction vehicles or equipment,
fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet
of a dwelling shall be equipped with
properly operating and maintained mufflers.
• All operations shall comply with the City of
Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance.
• Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas
shall be located as far as practicable from
dwellings. (Mitigation Measure #17)
C. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
^DOCNUM^
-25-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 28 of 47
2. Significant Effect: The project includes stationary
noise sources that would expose adjacent areas to
noise.
^DOCNUM^
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The project includes the following stationary
noise sources:
• Mechanical equipment, such as ventilation
and air conditioning units.
• Surface parking lots and a four-story
parking structure.
b. The Final EIR projects no significant noise
impacts from mechanical equipment.
C. The Final EIR concludes that parking structure
noise may exceed the City's Noise Ordinance.
d. The project applicant shall submit detailed
design plans for the proposed parking structure,
prior to building permit issuance. Said plans
shall be accompanied by an acoustical study
prepared by a City -approved acoustical expert, to
the satisfaction of the Planning Division. The
study shall demonstrate that all feasible sound
attenuation in compliance with the City's Noise
Ordinance has been incorporated into parking
structure design, such as brushed driving
surfaces (textured), limited openings on the
north and western sides, relocation to the south
of the parcel, and other appropriate measures.
This mitigation will be necessary only if the
vacant land to the immediate north and west of
the 9 -acre parcel is zoned residential at the
time of grading or building plan submittal.
(Mitigation Measure 118)
e. Even with mitigation, noise generated by vehicles
in the Phase II parking garage might create a
significant and unavoidable noise impact to
potential residences adjacent to the north and
west.
-26-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 29 of 47
70
f., The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
G. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES.
Police Services
1. Effect: Project implementation would require
additional onsite security beyond existing conditions.
^DOCNUM^
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The existing Automobile Club facility currently
has a 24-hour onsite security staff utilizing
cameras, foot patrols and a badge identification
system to provide security.
b. For the duration of each phase of construction,
the project applicant shall provide sufficient
onsite security personnel on a 24-hour, seven
days a week basis to patrol all areas of con-
struction. Evidence of compliance with this
measure is subject to periodic site inspections
by City staff. (Mitigation Measure #19)
C. Upon the occupancy of each project phase, the
project applicant shall provide security for the
parking areas on the adjacent parcel. A letter
report verifying the increased security for each
phase shall be submitted to the City upon
occupancy of each phase for review and approval.
(Mitigation Measure #20)
d. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
-27-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 30 of 47
Water
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
2. Effect: The project would require additional water
beyond what is currently being consumed on the
property.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
^DOCNUM^
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The project's net increase in water consumption
is 1,114 gallons per day.
b. The City's General Plan identified incremental
increases in development as contributing to an
unavoidable cumulative significant impact. The
project's intensification of onsite uses may
increase this impact.
C. The Automobile Club shall be subject to the Mesa
Consolidated Water District's (MCWD) fee schedule
which includes a Development Impact Fee based on
the estimated future water consumption.
(Mitigation Measure #21)
d. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
Automobile Club shall provide the MCWD with all
construction drawings in order to allow the
District to review any impacts which may occur to
Well No. 8 or any other adjacent facilities.
(Mitigation Measure #22)
e. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
developer shall demonstrate to the MCWD and
City's Planning Division, that the use of low
water use fixtures, plumbing fixtures and
appliances are planned for the project as
follows:
Interior:
• Supply line pressure: Reduce water pressure
according to MCWD by means of a pressure -
reducing valve (exclusive of fire protection
water).
-28-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 31 of 47
71
72
^DOCNUM^
• Drinking fountains: Equip drinking
fountains with self-closing valves.
• Ultra-low flush toilets: Install 1.6 gallon
per flush toilets in all new construction.
Exterior:
• Landscape with low water -consuming plants
wherever feasible.
• Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn -
dependent uses.
• Group plants of similar water use to reduce
over irrigation of low -water -using plants.
• Use mulch extensively in all landscaped
areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will
improve the water -holding capacity of the
soil by reducing evaporation and soil
compaction.
• Preserve and protect existing trees and
shrubs. Established plants are often
adapted to low -water -using conditions and
their use saves water needed to establish
replacement vegetation.
• Install efficient irrigation systems which
minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize
the water which will reach the plant roots.
Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and
automatic irrigation systems are a few
methods to consider in increasing irrigation
efficiency and may be feasible for the
project.
• Use pervious paving material whenever
feasible to reduce surface water runoff.
• Install separate domestic and irrigation
water meters for future monitoring needs of
the MCWD. (Mitigation Measure 123)
f. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
-29-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 32 of 47
Sewer
3. Effect: The proposed project would generate
additional wastewater beyond existing conditions. The
area of the project west of the flood control channel
would require annexation into the Costa Mesa Sanitary
District if sewer facilities are proposed.
^DOCNUM^
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
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 agency or can and
should be adopted by such agency.
Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The existing Automobile Club facility generates
approximately 93,000 gpd of wastewater. The
Final EIR estimates that approximately 100,000
gpd would be generated by the proposed project.
b. The City's General Plan projected county -wide
growth creating an unavoidable significant
cumulative impact on the facilities of the County
Sanitation Districts of Orange County. The
project's additional demands on these facilities
may increase this cumulative impact.
C. Prior to issuance of building permits, the
applicant shall submit a Request for Annexation
to the Costa Mesa Sanitary District for any
portion of the subject property as deemed
necessary by the District. (Mitigation Measure
#24)
d. The project applicant will construct sewers to
serve the project which meet the requirements of
the Costa Mesa Sanitary District.
e. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
-30-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 33 of 47
73
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
Solid Waste
4. Effect: Project Implementation would increase solid
waste service demands to the project site.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Findin
a. The project is anticipated to generate about 500
pounds of solid waste per day.
b. The project shall be subject to the provisions of
AB 939 as administered by the City of Costa Mesa.
(Mitigation Measure #25)
C. The project applicant shall select a waste
hauling company licensed by the City of Costa
Mesa.
d. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
H. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, SOILS AND GROUNDWATER.
Geology
1. Significant Effect: Implementation of the proposed
project may result in differential settlement of the
soil. Differential settlement is a potential
geotechnical hazard which causes foundation distress
when the earth beneath buildings settles to varying
degrees because of the nature of the soil or sediment
materials below.
^DOCNUM^
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
-31-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 34 of 47
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. Soils with a high expansion potential are present
at the surface of the project site. Such soils
are sensitive to moisture changes and consolidate
further and cause settlement in building loads.
b. Grading and foundation plans, including
foundation loads, shall be reviewed by a
registered Soils Engineer and approved by the
City Building and Safety Division. (Mitigation
Measure 126)
C. All grading and earthwork shall be performed
under the observation of a registered
Geotechnical Engineer in order to achieve proper
sub -grade preparation, selection of satisfactory
materials, and placement and compaction of all
structural fill. (Mitigation Measure #27)
d. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
seismicity
2. Significant Effect: It is anticipated that the
project site would be affected by moderate to strong
groundshaking due to earthquakes on one or more active
faults in the region.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
r' 114TOWL11.19
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The project site is located approximately 1.5
miles from a branch of the active Newport -
Inglewood fault zone. Given this proximity, a
major earthquake can be expected to produce
severe groundshaking and lurching within the
vicinity of the project area.
b. All grading and earthwork shall be performed
under the observation of a registered
Geotechnical Engineer in order to achieve proper
sub -grade preparation, selection of satisfactory
-32-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 35 of 47
75
V �s
Soils
materials, and placement and compaction of all
structural fill. (Mitigation Measure #27)
C. Project compliance with applicable grading and
building design requirements is expected to
reduce potential impacts to less than significant
levels.
d. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
3. Significant Effect: Implementation of the proposed
project would result in modifications of the existing
topography which would occur during grading
activities.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. Site modifications would include earthwork
excavation and replacement with compacted fill.
b. All grading and earthwork shall be performed
under the observation of a registered
Geotechnical Engineer in order to achieve proper
sub -grade preparation, selection of satisfactory
materials, and placement and compaction of all
structural fill.
C. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
Groundwater
4. Significant Effect: The level of groundwater
encountered during the drilling of borings (17 to 18
^DOCNUM^
-33-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 36 of 47
feet below the ground surface) may impact proposed
foundations.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The allowable bearing capacity of the soils below
a foundation level may be reduced when the water
table is close to or at the footing level of a
proposed structure.
b. All grading and earthwork shall be performed
under the observation of a registered
Geotechnical Engineer in order to achieve proper
sub -grade preparation, selection of satisfactory
materials, and placement and compaction of all
structural fill. (Mitigation Measure 1 27)
C. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
I. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE.
Drainage
1. Significant Effect: With implementation of the
proposed project, higher peak flows are expected from
the 9.7 -acre portion of the project site, located to
the west of the Greenville -Banning Channel, since the
proposed land use contributes to higher ground
imperviousness and shorter runoff times of
concentrations from that area. The project will also
contribute to cumulative impacts on drainage and flow
rates since future development in the project area
will increase the impervious surfaces.
"DOCNUM"
Finding: Changes or alterations have
in, or incorporated into, the project
substantially lessen the significant
effect identified in the Final EIR.
-34-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 37 of 47
been required
which avoid or
environmental
77
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. The peak runoff during a storm event from the
9.7 -acre parcel would occur and pass in the
Greenville -Banning Channel before the peak flow
from the remainder of the watershed area would
occur.
b. The project applicant shall be required to
complete a detailed hydrological analysis prior
to issuance of building permits for the final
design to determine the size and location of
drainage facilities. Based on those analyses,
storm drain facilities shall be designed to
minimize both volume and velocity of surface
runoff and shall be indicated on the site plan
and submitted to the City Engineer for review and
approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
(Mitigation Measure 128)
C. Private on-site drainage facilities and parkway
culverts or drains shall be maintained by the
applicant.
d. Runoff volumes from the 29.5 -acre portion of the
project site are expected to be similar to
existing conditions since the area of impervious
surface would not be significantly altered.
e. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
2. Significant Effect: Construction of the pedestrian
and vehicular bridges traversing the Greenville -
Banning Channel would impact flows within the earthen
trapezoidal channel.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
^DOCNUM^
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 agency or can and
should be adopted by such agency.
-35-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 38 of 47
1
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. Modifications to the Greenville -Banning Channel
which include the construction of concrete box
structures beneath the bridges would temporarily
alter flows as they transition from earthen
trapezoidal channel to boxed concrete channel.
b. Prior to grading permit issuance, the project
applicant shall coordinate with the Army Corps of
Engineers ("ACOE") to obtain all necessary
permits required for improvements to the
Greenville -Banning Channel. All ACOE permits
must be received and evidence of compliance
demonstrated to the City prior to issuance of
grading permits. (Mitigation Measure #29)
C. Prior to issuance of grading permits or
alterations to the adjacent flood control
channel, the Applicant shall comply with the
applicable provisions of Fish and Game Code
Section 1603. (Mitigation Measure #29A)
d. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
Flooding
3. Significant Effect: The project site may be impacted
due to the generation of floodwaters from a 100 -year
storm event.
^DOCNUM^
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
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 agency or can and
should be adopted by such agency.
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. Flooding on the site cannot be mitigated by the
construction of an onsite storm drain, since the
-36-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 39 of 47
79
80
Greenville -Banning Channel is not designed for a
100 -year storm event.
b. Prior to grading permit issuance, the project
applicant shall submit to the Orange County Flood
Control District the proposed channel improvement
plans for review and approval. Evidence of
District approval shall be demonstrated to the
City prior to issuance of grading permits.
(Mitigation Measure #30)
C. All onsite structures must be elevated to the
100 -year base flood elevation or floodproofed.
The Final Site Plan shall indicate this require-
ment for approval by the City Building Safety
Division prior to issuance of grading permits.
An elevation certificate required by FEMA shall
be completed and submitted to the Building
Division prior to occupancy. (Mitigation Measure
#31)
d. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
Water Ouality
4. Significant Effect: Development of the site would
result in changes in the quality of storm runoff
generated from the site due to the increase of traffic
and urban types of pollutants, such as oil and grease,
heavy metals, and debris. The project would also
contribute to cumulative impacts on water quality due
to future development in the project area.
^DOCNUM^
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
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 agency or can and
should be adopted by such agency.
-37-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 40 of 47
1
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. Site development would result in replacing
agricultural uses with an asphalt parking lot,
thus increasing urban runoff.
b. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the
applicant shall develop a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan ("SWPPP"), which emphasizes
structural and non-structural Best Management
Practices ("BMPs"), in compliance with NPDES
Program requirements. BMPs shall be implemented
by the project applicant to the satisfaction of
the State Water Resources Control Board and NPDES
Program requirements in order to protect the
receiving waters from degradation. (Mitigation
Measure #32)
C. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the
project applicant shall file a Notice of Intent
("NOI") with the State Water Resources Control
Board ("SWRCB"), as required by the General
Construction Activity Storm Water Permit adopted
on August 20, 1992. (Mitigation Measure #33)
d. The City will mitigate cumulative impacts to
water quality on a project -by -project basis by
requiring future projects to be designed to
minimize surface runoff. These impacts can be
reduced to a less than significant level through
proper implementation of NPDES Best Management
Practices.
e. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
5. Significant Effect: During construction, some soil
loss would occur due to sheet erosion of exposed
soils.
^DOCNUM^
0
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified in the Final EIR.
-38-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 41 of 47
Facts Supporting Finding:
a. During construction, erosion of exposed soil
could occur during periods of heavy rainfall.
b. In order to prevent exposed soils from erosion
during periods of heavy rainfall, the project
applicant shall be required to meet standard
erosion control measures, as deemed necessary by
the City Engineering and Building Safety
Divisions. Compliance with this measure is
subject to periodic site inspections by City
staff. (Mitigation Measure #34)
C. The overriding social, economic, and other
considerations set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in the Findings
Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts
in support of these findings. Any remaining,
unavoidable significant effect after available
mitigation is implemented is acceptable when
balanced against the facts set forth therein.
SECTION III: FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. Alternative A: No Proiect Alternative.
The "no project" alternative would retain the site in its
existing condition and assumes no expansion of the existing
facility. The existing condition of the project site is
discussed in the environmental setting sections of the Final
EIR.
The City hereby finds that specific economic, social or
other considerations make this alternative infeasible for the
following reasons:
1. The "no project alternative" would avoid the project -
specific impacts, but would not address the objectives of the
proposed project as described in Section III.D. of the Final
EIR.
2. Implementation of this alternative would not preclude
development of the adjacent 9.7 -acre project site.
3. With this alternative, the City may not be able to
retain the Automobile Club as a major employer in the City.
4. This alternative would not result in the creation of
1,374 new jobs within the City.
^DOCNUM^
-39-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 42 of 47
5. The Findings on the Proposed Project set forth in
Section II of this document and the overriding social, economic
and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations provide support for the Proposed Project and the
elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
B. Alternative B: Reduced Density Alternative.
Implementation of the "Reduced Density" Alternative would
consist of eliminating the Phase II portion of the proposal and
development of Phase I only. Overall, implementation of this
Alternative would result in an approximate 50 percent reduction
in the proposed building size although the entire 39.2 -acre site
(29.5 -acre parcel and 9.7 -acre parcel) would still be developed
(a reduction in developed acreage would not occur). Although
this Alternative would reduce the overall scale of the facility,
the resulting impacts would be only slightly less than those of
the proposed project.
The City hereby finds that specific economic, social or
other considerations make this alternative infeasible for the
following reasons:
1. With the reduced density alternative, the City may not
be able to retain the Automobile Club as a major employer in the
City.
2. This alternative would generate less revenue for the
City.
3. This alternative would result in 687 new jobs, rather
than 1,374.
4. This alternative would not meet the design and
planning objectives of the Automobile Club (see Section III D.
of the Final EIR) .
5. The Findings on the Proposed Project set forth in
Section II of this document and the overriding social, economic
and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations provide support for the Proposed Project and the
elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
C. Alternative C: Onsite Expansion Only Alternative.
Similar to the proposed project, this Alternative would be
developed in two phases. However, this Alternative would be
located on the existing site only. Development of the 500,000
square feet of additional office space would occur in two
buildings (same as the proposed project). The Phase I and
Phase II office buildings would be located on the same location
as currently proposed (in the southwestern portion of the site).
^DOCNUM^
-40-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 43 of 47
e83
Implementation of the Onsite Expansion Only Alternative
would consist of concentrating all parking associated with the
proposed project within the 29.5 -acre parcel located east of the
Greenville -Banning Channel. All parking would be consolidated
within two separate parking structures. The Phase I, four -level
parking structure would be located in the southwestern corner of
the site along South Coast Drive with a 50 -foot setback from the
roadway and 70 -foot setback from the channel. However, in order
to accommodate the Phase II parking structure, the existing
130,000 square foot service building would be demolished. In
order to accommodate uses currently housed in the Service
Building, the Auto Club would lease or acquire existing
warehouse/office space in the vicinity of the current processing
center. The location of the relocated Service Building uses
would occur post -2010 and the exact location is unknown.
This Alternative would employ approximately 1,374 people
beyond existing conditions (687 employees per Phase - same as
the current project). The Onsite Expansion Alternative would
eliminate the need for pedestrian and vehicular bridges over the
Greenville -Banning Channel and the adjacent 9.7 -acre parcel
would remain in its current state, available for future
residential uses.
While this alternative would reduce impacts to future
housing inventories, the City hereby finds that specific
economic, social or other considerations make this alternative
infeasible for the following reasons:
1. This alternative would result in increased aesthetic
impacts since the Parking Structure would be more visible to
surrounding uses than the existing Service Building it would
replace.
2. This alternative would hinder the applicant from
achieving its objective of consolidating AAA activities into a
single location in that the Service Building activities would be
relocated to an offsite location.
3. The Findings on the Proposed Project set forth in
Section II of this document and the overriding social, economic
and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations provide support for the Proposed Project and the
elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
D. Alternative D: "Transfer of Development Rights"
Alternative.
The City of Costa Mesa General Plan Land Use element allows
a limited form of Transfer of Development Rights ("TDR") for
properties located east of Harbor Boulevard and north of
Interstate 405 (11I-40511). TDR means that for those properties
that are, or would be, operating below their maximum trip budget
allocations, other properties which may exceed their allocation
^DOCNUM^
-41-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 44 of 47
may arrange for development rights to be permanently transferred
to allow them to construct a project which would otherwise
exceed the permitted trip budget. As the General Plan does not
currently authorize the transfer of additional building area and
since a "donor" site has not been identified, the Final EIR
analyzed this Alternative for comparative study purpose only.
In analyzing the TDR Alternative, it was assumed that the
additional floor area and trips necessary to accommodate the
proposed project expansion could be transferred from the Arnel
Metro Pointe project located at the southwest corner of South
Coast Drive and Bear Street. This parcel is the largest
underdeveloped property in the area which meets the locational
restrictions of the current transfer criteria listed above. In
addition, most of this site has entitlements to build at a much
higher FAR and trip budget than would normally be allowed in the
Urban Center Commercial designation.
The City hereby finds that specific economic, social or
other considerations make this alternative infeasible for the
following reasons:
1. This alternative would not be feasible, inasmuch as it
would require agreement from other landowners to provide the
transferred development rights, which is beyond the control of
the project applicant.
2. The Findings on the Proposed Project set forth in
Section II of this document and the overriding social, economic
and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations provide support for the Proposed Project and the
elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
SECTION IV: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City finds that certain cumulative and project -specific
significant environmental effects related to the project are
unavoidable even after the incorporation of all feasible
mitigation measures. CEQA requires a public agency to balance
the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks in determining whether to approve the
project. These unavoidable significant effects are identified
in Section II of these Findings and summarized as follows:
A cumulative loss of agricultural land.
• A cumulative increase in aviation service needs at the
John Wayne Airport.
• Temporary NO, emissions during project construction
would result in unavoidable significant short-term air
quality impacts. Long-term impacts resulting from CO,
^DOCNUM^
-42-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 45 of 47
NO,, ROC and PM10 emissions would be significant and
unavoidable on a project -specific and cumulative
basis.
Noise generated by vehicles in the Phase II parking
garage might create a significant and unavoidable
impact to potential residences adjacent to the north
and west.
• Cumulative impacts to the regional water supply and
the County of Orange Sanitation Districts' current and
planned wastewater facilities.
In knowledge of these significant effects, the City has
considered the benefits of the Project to outweigh these adverse
effects in its decision to approve the Project. In this regard,
the City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable adverse
impacts are acceptable within the meaning of sections 15092 and
15093 of the CEQA Guidelines for the following reasons:
1. With implementation of mitigation measures, the
proposed project will be compatible with future adjacent
residential uses, with the exception of possible noise impacts
from the proposed parking structure.
2. Although the Automobile Club's existing facility is
one of the City's largest employment sites, the impacts of the
facility have been relatively minimal given the scale of the
operation.
3. The Automobile Club is not a major consumer of City
services, especially in the areas of police and fire services.
4. The proposed project will allow the City to retain the
Automobile Club as a major employer in the City. Relocation of
such an important employer with a strong community presence
could have significant implications within the City, given the
current economic climate.
5. According to the report on economic impacts of the
Project prepared by Economics Research Associates (May, 1994)
and the City's analysis thereof, the proposed project will
generate revenue for the City, exceeding costs associated with
serving the project. In addition, the indirect benefits
associated with the current employment level and the potential
for increased employment opportunities are substantial.
6. The Automobile Club aggressively promotes its TDM
program which effectively reduces transportation impacts and
serves as an example and incentive for other businesses.
7. The overall project planning for the site is a
comprehensive and interrelated design.
-43-
i1
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 46 of 47
8. Approval of the project may allow the City to maintain
a stable tax base and attract new business.
9. Consistent with General Plan Policy No. 84, project
approval will allow development in the vicinity of major
arterials which facilitates ridesharing and trip reduction
programs to improve air quality.
10. The intensity of the proposed project is appropriate
for the location.
SECTION V: NIITIGATION MEASURES AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MEASURES
Presented in this section is a complete listing of the
mitigation measures from Final EIR #1045 that were adopted for
the Project by the City of Costa Mesa City Council. The
mitigation measures are presented by the topical area as found
in the Final EIR.
PURPOSE OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Section 21081.6 of the State of California Public Resources
Code requires that a public agency adopt a monitoring program
for the project it has approved in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment. The monitoring program
shall be designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation
measures during project implementation.
Final EIR #1045 for the expansion of the Automobile Club of
Southern California facility has identified numerous measures to
be implemented in order to mitigate potential impacts associated
with the implementation of the plan. Each measure includes
details of who is responsible for complying, as well as when and
how compliance will be satisfied. The Development Agreement for
the Project shall supercede or modify the mitigation measures
adopted by the City of Costa Mesa Council. The City of Costa
Mesa will ensure compliance with the mitigation measures by
requiring the following condition of approval:
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.
^DOCNUM^
-44-
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 47 of 47
E:XI
as
Te As approved by City Council June 20, 1994
VII. INVENTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
A. LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING
Land Use
No mitigation identified for the loss of agricultural land.
Relevant Planning
#1. The City shall identify in the next Housing Element update, other sites within its
boundaries to provide 245 housing units over 1990 General Plan levels to
mitigate the increased demand created by the project. The additional units shall
not result in intensification of residential densities at any location which is in
excess of those specified in the 1990 General Plan. The units may be provided
in areas designated for non-residential uses under the 1990 General Plan.
Airport Operations
No mitigation identified for the cumulative impact to airport operations.
B. AESTHETICS/SHADE AND SHADOWS
Aesthetics
#2. External lighting, including parking lot and parking structure lighting, shall be
stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and
of an intensity compatible with the neighborhood.
#3. A densely landscaped buffer shall be placed within the setback between the north
side of the proposed parking structure and the adjacent vacant residential
property and along the west side of the parking structure, which is adjacent to
Susan Street. Landscaping shall be installed as part of Phase 1.
#4. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in
accordance with the City of Costa Mesa's Planning, Zoning and Development
Codes, Section 13-237. The Planning Division, in its review, shall pay particular
attention to the screening of such areas and equipment. Any roof -top mechanical
equipment shall be minimized in height and area, and shall be located in such a
way as to minimize visual impacts to surrounding properties. Unless otherwise
approved by the Planning Division, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located
at least five feet from the edge of the roof and screened from view from
surrounding properties.
Shade and Shadows
#5. The proposed Phase II parking structure shall be redesigned to be located at
least 60 feet away from the northern property boundary to reduce Shade and
Shadow impacts to the residential parcel adjacent to the north. This measure is
not necessary if this parcel to the north is redesignated to nonresidential uses.
V11-1 (INVENTOR)
Mitigation Measures
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 1 of 9
C. POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT
Population
Since there are no significant impacts identified, mitigation measures are not required.
Employment
Since there are no significant impacts identified, mitigation measures are not required.
Housing
Refer to Mitigation Measure #1 in Section IV.A, LAND USE AND RELEVANT
PLANNING.
Job/Housing
Refer to Mitigation Measure #1 in Section IV.A, LAND USE AND RELEVANT
PLANNING.
D. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Short -Range Mitigation
#6. The Project Applicant shall participate in the implementation of Master Plan of
Highways improvements through the payment of development impact fees in
accordance with the City of Costa Mesa's Ordinance 93-11 and Resolution 93-43
as amended by Development Agreement DA -94-01. Specific intersection
improvements are as follows:
► Harbor Boulevard/Sunflower Avenue: Add northbound right -turn lane
► Fairview Road/Sunflower Avenue: Add eastbound right -turn lane
► Fairview Road/South Coast Drive: Convert second eastbound right -turn lane
to shared second eastbound through/second eastbound right -turn lane.
#7. Deleted
Long -Range Mitigation
#8. The Project Applicant shall participate in the implementation of the Master Plan
of Highways improvements through the payment of development impact fees in
accordance with the City of Costa Mesa's Ordinance 93-11 and Resolution 93-43
as amended by Development Agreement DA -94-01. The City of Costa Mesa will
contribute the project's fair share of the trip fee to the City of Santa Ana for
improvements within that City. Specific non -committed Master Plan improvements
are as follows:
VII -2
Mitigation Measures
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 2 of 9
(INVENTOR)
�,0
Costa Mesa
► Harbor Boulevard/Adams Avenue: Add eastbound right -turn lane
► Susan Street/South Coast Drive: Construct intersection - provide two
eastbound thru-lanes, two westbound thru-lanes, southbound left -turn lane,
southbound right -turn lane, shared second southbound left -turn lane/second
southbound right -turn lane and eastbound left -turn lane.
► Fairview Road/Sunflower Avenue: Add southbound right -turn lane and
eastbound right -turn lane.
► Fairview Road/Baker Street: Add fourth southbound thru-lane, third westbound
thru-lane and convert eastbound right -turn lane to shared third eastbound thru-
lane/eastbound right -turn lane.
Santa Ana
Susan Street/Sunflower Avenue: Install traffic signal and add second
eastbound thru-lane and second westbound thru-lane and construct south leg
of intersection: Provide southbound left -turn lane, southbound thru-lane,
northbound left -turn lane, northbound thru-lane, northbound right -turn lane and
westbound left -turn lane.
Fairview Road/MacArthur Boulevard: Add southbound right -turn lane,
eastbound right -turn lane and westbound right -turn lane.
#9. Deleted
#10. In addition to the required trip fees, the Project Applicant shall pay an equitable
share of the cost of construction of the portion of Susan Street adjacent to the
project and installation of a traffic signal at Susan Street/South Coast Drive at the
time of building permit issuance for Phase II.
#11. The Project Applicant shall continue to comply with a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program consistent with the requirements of the City of Costa
Mesa TDM ordinance (Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-880 through
13-888), by the provision of one or more improvements listed in CMMC section
13-884.
#12. In compliance with the intent of CMMC section 13-327(d), Transportation Demand
Management Program as modified by Development Agreement DA -94-01, the
applicant shall submit, within three years after occupancy of each phase, an
AQMD Regulation XV report or similar study to be review by the City's staff. The
report shall be prepared for the City at the expense of the property owner, to
show whether or not the vehicle trip reduction identified in the program has been
achieved and maintained.
E. AIR QUALITY
Short-term Air Quality Impacts - Construction
#13. In order to reduce fugitive dust emissions, the following measures shall be
implemented during project grading and/or construction to the satisfaction of the
VII -3
Mitigation Measures
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 3 of 9
(INVENTOR)
i1
City Public Services Department and the Building Safety Division. These
measures are subject to periodic site inspections by City staff and the SCAQMD,
per Rule 403, as amended.
► The project shall comply with State, City, and UBC dust control regulations, so
as to prevent the soil from being eroded by wind, creating dust, or blowing
onto a public road or roads or other public or private property.
► SCAQMD Rule 403, as modified, shall be adhered to, ensuring that: 1)
construction -related dust does not extend beyond the property lines; 2) one or
more reasonably available control measures are utilized for each dust source;
and 3) PM10 levels from construction -generated fugitive dust do not exceed
50 micrograms per cubic meter.
► All exposed surfaces, dirt piles and unpaved roads (utilized by project
construction trucks) shall be watered, at least, two times a day if necessary.
All trucks hauling dirt, soil or other loose dirt material shall be covered.
All trucks shall maintain a minimum of two feet of freeboard.
► Any vegetative ground cover to be utilized onsite shall be planted as soon as
possible to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion.
Irrigation shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the ground cover.
► Grading activity shall be suspended when local winds exceed 25 miles per
hour.
#14. In order to reduce short-term daily NOx emissions associated with exhaust from
onsite construction equipment and offsite construction vehicles, construction
activity management techniques shall be employed by thb project contractor as
recommended by the AQMD (i.e., reducing the number of pieces of equipment
used simultaneously, when possible). Compliance with this measure is subject
to periodic site inspections by City and SCAQMD staff.
Long-term Air Quality Impacts - Operation
#15. To reduce emissions from project -related vehicle trips, the project applicant shall
adhere to City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-880 through 888
(Transportation Demand Management) and SCAQMD Regulation XV to reduce
vehicle miles travelled to the maximum extent feasible. The code includes
measures such as:
► Preferential parking for carpool vehicles;
► Bicycle parking and shower facilities;
► Information provided to employees on Transportation Alternatives;
► Rideshare vehicle loading areas;
► Vanpool vehicle accessibility; and
► Bus stop improvements.
VII -4
Mitigation Measures
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 4 of 9
(INVENTOR)
i? 91
#16. To reduce emissions from the power plant providing electricity to the site prior to
building permit issuance, the project shall demonstrate that onsite buildings will
adhere to Title 24 of the California Code which requires new development to use
energy efficient electrical and mechanical systems, to the satisfaction of the City
of Costa Mesa Building Officials.
Carbon Monoxide Roadway Analysis
No mitigation measures are required.
Consistency with Regional plans
Refer to Section IV.A; LAND USE AND RELEVANT PLANNING, and Section IV.C,
POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT, for discussion and mitigation.
F. NOISE
Short -Term Construction
#17. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project proponents shall produce
evidence acceptable to the Development Services Director, such as notation on
the front sheet of the grading plans, that:
a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000
feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained
mufflers.
b. All operations shall comply with the City of Costa Mesa Noise Ordinance.
c. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable
from dwellings.
Project Noise Impacts - Stationary Sources
#18. The project applicant shall submit detailed design plans for the proposed parking
structure, prior to building permit issuance. Said plans shall be accompanied by
an acoustical study prepared by a City -approved acoustical expert, to the
satisfaction of the Planning Division. The study shall demonstrate that all feasible
sound attenuation in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance has been
incorporated into parking structure design, such as brushed driving surfaces
(textured), limited openings on the north and western sides, relocation to the
south of the parcel, and other appropriate measures. This mitigation will only be
necessary if the vacant land to the immediate north and west of the 9 -acre parcel
is zoned residential at the time of grading or building plan submittal.
G. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Police Services
#19. For the duration of each phase of construction, the project applicant shall provide
sufficient onsite security personnel on a 24-hour, seven days a week basis to
u><W
Mitigation Measures
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 5 of 9
(INVENTOR)
1
patrol all areas of construction. Evidence of compliance with this measure is
subject to periodic site inspections by City staff.
#20. Upon the occupancy of each project phase, the project applicant shall provide
security for the parking areas on the adjacent parcel. A letter report verifying the
increased security for each phase shall be submitted to the City upon occupancy
of each phase for review and approval.
Fire Services
No mitigation required because significant impacts to Fire Services would not occur.
Schools
The project is subject to standard conditions of approval and no additional mitigation is
required for schools.
Park and Recreation
No mitigation measures are required because significant impacts to Parks and
Recreation would not occur.
Electricity
No mitigation measures are required because significant impacts to Electrical Services
would not occur. Project would be required to conform with Title 24 of the California
Resources Code which is a standard condition of Project Approval. Please refer also to
Section IV.E, AIR QUALITY.
Gas
No mitigation measures are required because significant impacts to gas service would
not occur.
Telephone
No mitigation measures are required because significant impacts to telephone service
have not been identified.
Water
#21. The Automobile Club of Southern California shall be subject to the Mesa
Consolidated Water District's fee schedule which includes a Development Impact
Fee based on the estimated future water consumption.
#22. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Automobile Club of Southern
California shall provide the MCWD with all construction drawings in order to allow
the District to review any impacts which may occur to Well No. 8 or any other
adjacent facilities.
VII -6 (INVENTOR)
Mitigation Measures
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 6 of 9
93
94
#23. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall demonstrate to the
MCWD and City's Planning Division, that the use of low water use fixtures,
plumbing fixtures and appliances are planned for the project as follows:
Interior:
► Supply line pressure: Reduce water pressure according to MCWD by means
of a pressure -reducing valve (exclusive of fire protection water).
► Drinking fountains: Equip drinking fountains with self-closing valves.
► Ultra-low flush toilets: Install 1.6 gallon per flush toilets in all new construction.
Exterior:
► Landscape with low water -consuming plants wherever feasible.
► Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn -dependant uses.
► Group plants of similar water use to reduce over irrigation of low -water -using
plants.
► Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil
will improve the water -holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and
soil compaction.
► Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often
adapted to low -water -using conditions and their use saves water needed to
establish replacement vegetation.
► Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and
maximize the water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil
moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods to
consider in increasing irrigation efficiency and may be feasible for the project.
► Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff.
► Install separate domestic and irrigation water meters for future monitoring
needs of the MCWD.
Sewer
#24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a Request for
Annexation to the Costa Mesa Sanitary District for any portion of the subject
property as deemed necessary by the District.
Solid Waste
#25. The project shall be subject to the provisions of AB 939 as administered by the
City of Costa Mesa.
H. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, SOILS AND GROUNDWATER
Geology
#26. Grading and foundation plans, including foundation loads, shall be reviewed by
a registered Soils Engineer and approved by the City Building and Safety
Division.
VII -7 (INVENTOR)
#27. All grading and earthwork shall be performed under the observation of a
registered Geotechnical Engineer in order to achieve proper sub -grade
preparation, selection of satisfactory materials, and placement and compaction of
all structural fill.
Seismicity
Refer to Mitigation Measure #27.
Solis
Refer to Mitigation Measure #27.
Groundwater
Refer to Mitigation Measure #27.
I. HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
Drainage
#28. The project applicant shall be required to complete a detailed hydrological
analysis prior to issuance of building permits for the final design to determine the
size and location of drainage facilities. Based on those analyses, storm drain
facilities shall be designed to minimize both volume and velocity of surface runoff
and shall be indicated on the site plan and submitted to the City Engineer for
review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits.
#29. Prior to grading permit issuance, the project applicant shall coordinate with the
Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) to obtain all necessary permits required for
improvements to the Greenville -Banning Channel. All ACOE permits must be
received and evidence of compliance demonstrated to the City prior to issuance
of grading permits.
#29A. Prior to issuance of grading permits or alterations to the adjacent flood control
channel, the applicant shall comply with the applicable provisions of Fish and
Game Code Section 1603.
Flooding
#30. Prior to grading permit issuance, the project applicant shall submit to the Orange
County Flood Control District the proposed channel improvement plans for review
and approval. Evidence of District approval shall be demonstrated to the City
prior to issuance of grading permits.
#31. All onsite structures must be elevated to the 100 -year base flood elevation or
floodproofed. The Final Site Plan shall indicate this requirement for approval by
the City Building Safety Division prior to issuance of grading permits. An
elevation certificate required by FEMA shall be completed and submitted to the
Building Division prior to occupancy.
N:3
Mitigation Measures
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 8 of 9
(INVENTOR)
9
Water Quality
#32. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall develop a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which emphasizes structural and non-
structural Best Management Practices (BMPs), in compliance with NPDES
Program requirements. BMPs shall be implemented by the project applicant to
the satisfaction of the State Water Resources Control Board and NPDES Program
requirements in order to protect the receiving waters from degradation.
#33. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall file a Notice
of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), as
required by the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit adopted on
August 20, 1992.
#34. In order to prevent exposed soils from erosion during periods of heavy rainfall, the
project applicant shall be required to meet standard erosion control measures, as
deemed necessary by the City Engineering and Building Safety Divisions.
Compliance with this measure is subject to periodic site inspection by City staff.
Ulm
Mitigation Measures
Resolution No. 94-54
Page 9 of 9
(INVENTOR)
FJ