Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-27 - Adopting 1990 General PlanRESOLUTION NO. 92-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITY OF COSTA MESA 1990 GENERAL PLAN. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the 1981 General Plan was adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa by Resolution No. 81-67 on July 20, 1981; 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, the City Council initiated a comprehensive update of the 1981 General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council appointed a Citizen Advisory Committee and conducted numerous public hearings between 1988-1991 to receive evidence, public participation, and comments on proposed changes to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1044 (SCH No. 88122116) was prepared and completed to identify impacts and mitigation measures of the 1990 General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on Octo- ber 17, 22, and 24, 1991, to receive public testimony with respect to the 1990 General Plan and EIR No. 1044, and adopted Resolution No. PC -91-44 recommending to the City Council certification of Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1044 and adoption of the City of Costa Mesa 1990 General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a series of public hearings on the 1990 General Plan on October. 30, November. 20, and December. 11, 1991; Janu- ary 8, January 27, February 6, February 18, and March 2, 1992, to receive public testimony with respect to the 1990 General Plan and EIR No. 1044; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 1044 and certified it on February 6, 1992, and adopted a resolution on March 16, 1992, finding EIR No. 1044 as being complete and adequate; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa recognizes the need to adopt a General Plan which accounts for the current and future community needs and, as a result, hereby adopts the City of Costa Mesa 1990 General Plan. The City Council of the City of Costa Mesa has considered and finds that the benefits of the Project out- weigh 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 the attached Exhibit "A". PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 1992. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Costa sa Mayor. y, the City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) I, EILEEN P. PHINNEY, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and fore- going Resolution No. 92-27 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of March, 1992. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 17th day of March, 1992. Ci y Clerk and ex -officio Clerk oylthe City Council of the City of Cost Vesa EXHIBIT "A" CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE 1990 GENERAL PLAN -FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT X11044 INTRODUCTION The Project is a comprehensive General Plan for the City of Costa Mesa which supersedes the City of Costa Mesa's 1981 General Plan. Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 11044 has been prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council has reviewed the Final EIR and finds and determines that it provides a full and adequate assessment of the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project and sets forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. Section 1 identifies the effects of the Project which were determined to be insignificant and Section 2 summarizes the significant and potentially significant effects of the Project. Section 2 also sets forth the mitigation measures, findings and facts supporting the findings as required by the CEQA Guidelines. Section 3 summarizes the various Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR and sets forth the appropriate findings, and Section 4 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 5 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 identified in the Final EIR. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project adopted by the City Council primarily reflects Alternative 2 (a reduced intensity/density alternative) analyzed in Final EIR 11044 which is hereby incorporated by reference. The minor circulation and land use changes made to Alternative 2 by the City Council are within the scope of the overall analysis contained in Final EIR 11044. These changes are identified below: - Established a land use designation of Regional Commercial with a FAR of 0.652 and a trip budget of 2,300 AM peak hour trips and 8,350 PM peak hour trips applied to South Coast Plaza and a FAR of 0.89 applied to Crystal Court. Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 1 of 54 5 Established a land use designation of Fairgrounds with a FAR of <0.10 and applied it the Orange County Fairgrounds. Designated Alternative 2 -Site 16 as Medium Density Residential. Designated Alternative 2 -Site 18 as Neighborhood Commercial with a requirement for a Specific Plan. Designated Alternative 2 -Site #1 as Industrial Park and Medium Density Residential; a 5 story height limit was placed on the Industrial Park designation. Designated Alternative 2 -Sites #3 & #4 as High Density Residential with a density of 25-35 du/acre. Designated Alternative 2 -Site #9 as Medium Density Residential. Designated Alternative 2 -Site #11 as Light Industry with the possibility of Low Density Residential with a Specific Plan requirement. Designated Alternative 2 -Site 118 as Medium Density Residential. Designated Alternative 3 -Site 17 as Public/Semi-Public- Resource Conservation. Retained the Low Density Residential land use designation on the Bear Street school site. Retained the Gisler Avenue river crossing and the link of Bluff Road between 19th Street and Victoria Street on the Master Plan of Highways. Made the following amendments to the Master Plan of Bikeways: a) PAULARINO AVENUE (Bear Street to Ludington Street), delete from Master Plan; b) BAKER STREET (Harbor Blvd. to Mesa Verde Dr.), reclassify to Class -III bike route; C) SANTA ANA AVENUE (21st and 22nd Streets -west side only), classify to Class III bike route; d) TANAGER DRIVE (Golf Course Dr. to Canary Dr.) - classify to Class III bikeway; and e) BAKER STREET (Fairview to College), deletion of any classification of a bikeway. 2 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 2 of 54 SECTION 1: EFFECTS FOUND TO BE INSIGNIFICANT As stated on page 34 of the Final EIR, there were no potential effects of the Project that were determined to be insignificant, prior to mitigation, through the initial environmental study. SECTION 2: 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 mitigation measures, the findings required by 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 by the general headings described in the Final EIR and have been identified as either: 1. Mitigated to a level of insignificance; 2. Within the jurisdiction of another agency; and/or, 3. Unavoidable because mitigation of the adverse effects has been found to be infeasible for specific economic, social or other considerations, as discussed in Section 4. GEOLOGY/SOILS As discussed on pages 56-59, 251, and E -48-E-51 of the Final EIR the Project's significant or potentially significant effects are as follows: - As development of vacant/agricultural lands and redevelopment of existing urban areas occurs, site specific geology investigations may be necessary to ensure that new development is appropriately designed in view of any geological, soil, and/or seismic constraints. - The conversion of existing oil production areas to urban uses will require appropriate capping and stabilization of the oil wells. - Buildout of the Master Plan of Highways may require geotechnical investigations to ensure appropriate design of the infrastructure improvements. - Future treatment, collection, or recycling facilities for hazardous wastes that may locate in the City may be subject to geological constraints. Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 3 of 54 RI Cumulative Effects: As discussed at page 59 of the Final EIR, the Project will not have any significant cumulative impacts on geology and soil conditions due the mitigation measures discussed below. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 154, 156, 158, 159, 164, 165, 166, 171 and 172 on pages 59 and 60 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to minimize potential impacts from geological hazards. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of the mitigation measures. See the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste discussion for appropriate mitigation measures for facilities that handle hazardous wastes. Findings• The imposition and enforcement of these mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts from geological hazards identified in the Final EIR to a level of insignificance. Facts Supporting Findings: The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects of geological hazards described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will take into account the potential for geological and seismic hazards associated with proposed project sites. When deemed necessary, detailed geotechnical investigations will be required of future developments. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. The City of Costa Mesa uniformly requires the application of sound engineering practices to all new development which ensure that the soil condition following grading operations will support the improvements proposed, that the soil characteristics will be compatible with the footings and foundations, and that all buildings comply with sound seismic engineering and design practices. 3. The City Staff in its expert judgement recommends that these mitigation measures be included as part of the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant effects of geological hazards. Their expert opinion tupports the inclusion of these mitigation measures and the foregoing findings, as to the effectiveness and feasibility of these measures. Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 4 of 54 HYDROLOGY b5ignificant Effects: As discussed of pages 63-67, 251, E -42-E-47, E-52-E-57,and E -77-E- 78 of the Final EIR, the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - The development of 265 acres of vacant/agricultural land as indicated on the Land Use Map will decrease the amount of open space land that contributes to the recharge of the groundwater basin; however the value of undeveloped land for groundwater recharge is relatively low. - The Land Use Map indicates future development in flood hazard areas. - The Master Plan of Highways indicates two future river crossings of the Santa Ana River; construction of these bridges will require coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in respect to the river channel improvements. - Future treatment, collection, or recycling facilities for hazardous wastes that may locate in the City may be subject to hydrological constraints. Cumulative Effects: As stated on pages 66-67 of the Final EIR, future development will increase the amount of impervious surfaces, but the increase is not expected to be cumulatively significant due to the mitigation measures discussed below. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 167, 168, 170, 177 and 179 on page 67 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts to hydrology. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. See the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste discussion for appropriate mitigation measures for facilities that handle hazardous wastes. Findings: The imposition and enforcement of these mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts to groundwater basins, drainage patterns and impacts from flooding hazards as identified in the Final EIR to a level of insignificance. Mitigation measure' #79 is the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Costa Mesa that is making the finding; this measure has been adopted by such other agencies. Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 5 of 54 gacts Supporting Findings: The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects on hydrology described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will take into account hydrology and flood protection concerns associated with proposed project sites. When deemed necessary, detailed hydrological investigations will be required of future developments. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. All onsite drainage facilities will be reviewed by the City's Public Services Department to ensure compatibility with City's and County's drainage facilities. 3. The City Staff in its expert judgement recommends that these mitigation measures be included as part of the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant effects on hydrology resources and potential flooding hazards. These mitigation measures were supported by the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency in their correspondence on the draft EIR (see pages E-52 through E-60 of the Final EIR). The City Staff's expert opinion supports the inclusion of these mitigation measures and the foregoing findings as to the effectiveness and feasibility of these measures. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 68-72, 251, E -8-E-10, E -48-E-51, E -89-E-94, E -100-E-106, E -107-E-109 and G-2 of the Final EIR the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - Buildout of the Land Use Map will result in the eventual development of 265 acres of vacant/agricultural land as urban uses. - Buildout of the Land Use Map will reduce the size and diversity of the City's biological community when compared to existing conditions. [1 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 6 of 54 Construction of the 19th Street river crossing, and the development of two regional parks (which includes the extension of Bluff Road) by the County of Orange may potentially disrupt sensitive biological resources in the Santa Ana River area. The construction of the Gisler Avenue bridge should also require an analysis of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources. Future treatment, collection, or recycling facilities for hazardous wastes that may locate in the City may impact biological resources. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects of the 19th Street bridge, and the development of the two regional parks (which includes the extension of Bluff Road) by the County of Orange will cumulatively alter the biological resources in the Santa Ana River area; park development plans are expected to be passive in order to minimize impacts or to enhance the biotic communities. The significance of the cumulative effects will be appropriately assessed at the time the bridge and parks are proposed for construction. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 115 and 116 on page 72 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts to biological resources. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. Please refer to the Solid waste and Hazardous Waste discussion for appropriate mitigation measures for facilities that handle hazardous wastes. Lindings: The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant biological impacts as identified in the Final EIR. However, a full assessment of the project specific and cumulative impacts to biological resources as a result of construction of the 19th Street bridge and development of the regional parks by the County of Orange cannot occur at this time; the level of significance will be appropriately assessed in conjunction with precise development plans. In accordance with Sections 15091 through 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations is made in Section 4. Facts Supporting Findings: The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects on biological resources described above and their mitigation: Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 7 of 54 1.1 12 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will take into account the existing biological resources on proposed project sites. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. In sensitive biological resource areas, additional project review will be required by other agencies (e.g., the California Department of Fish and Game- See pages E-8 through E-10 in the Final EIR); comments and mitigation measures suggested and/or required by other agencies will be imposed as part of future project approvals, as appropriate. 3. The City Staff in its expert judgement recommends that these mitigation measures be included as part of the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant effects on biological resources. These mitigation measures were supported by correspondence received from the California Department of Fish and Game on the draft EIR (see pages E-8 through E-10 of the Final EIR). The City Staff's expert opinion supports the inclusion of these mitigation measures and the foregoing findings as to the effectivenes's and feasibility of these measures. CULTURAL RESOURCES Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 74, 75, 256 and G-2 of the Final EIR the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - Buildout of the Land Use Map will result in the eventual development of 265 acres of vacant/agricultural land as urban uses; future development may reveal unknown subsurface archaeological and paleontological resources, or may require the razing of historical buildings. - Buildout of the Master Plan of Highways is not expected to impact any known archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources although there is always the possibility that grading operations would reveal unknown subsurface resources. Cumulative Effects: As stated on page 75 of the Final EIR, significant cumulative impacts are not expected due to the mitigation measures discussed in the following: Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 8 of 54 Mitiaation Measure 23 Mitigation measures 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, and 123 on pages 75 and 76 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. Findings• The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts to cultural resources identified in the Final EIR to a level of insignificance. Facts Su000rting Findings: The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects on cultural resources described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will take into account the potential for archaeological and/or paleontological resources to be located on proposed project sites. Review for historical structures also occurs at this time. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. In areas where there is a potential for archaeological and/or paleontological resources or a historical structure exists, additional project review will be required by other appropriate experts (e.g., qualified archaeologists, and the Costa Mesa Historical Society); comments and mitigation measures suggested and/or required by other experts will be imposed as part of future project approvals, as appropriate. 3. The City Staff in its expert judgement recommends that these mitigation measures be included as part of the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant effects on cultural resources. Their expert opinion supports the inclusion of these mitigation measures and the foregoing findings as to the effectiveness and feasibility of these measures. Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 9 of 54 , 114 LAND USE Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 77-123, 256-261, E -64-E-71, E -72-E-75, E -77- E-80, and E -95-E-100 of the Final EIR, the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - Land use intensities and densities as established by the Project, in some instances, will result in existing developments being classified as nonconforming due to the applicable intensities and/or densities being lower than what the existing development was constructed at. - The Project results in some inconsistencies with the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code and Specific Plans. - The deletion of the future Wilson Street Santa Ana River crossing will increase daily vehicle trips on 19th Street, Victoria Street and Adams Avenue in"Post 2010 conditions. - Implementation of the Master Plan of Highways will require right-of-way acquisitions. These acquisitions will, in some instances, impact existing structures and property improvements. - The extension of the Costa Mesa Freeway may impact the City's Redevelopment Plan. - Future treatment, collection, or recycling facilities for hazardous wastes that may locate in the City may impact surrounding land uses. Cumulative Effects: - The eventual transition of existing single-family homes to multi -family dwellings in the Medium and High Density Residential designations on the Land Use Map will result in a cumulative change of the neighborhood character. - The anticipated development of the City's agricultural land to urban uses in conjunction with the conversion of other agricultural lands in the County represents a significant adverse impact on a cumulative basis. - Anticipated City growth will cumulatively increase demand for aviation services at John Wayne Airport which is presently overburdened. 10 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 10 of 54 FJ Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 1113, 1114, 1120, 1226, #233, 1238, 1251, 1252, 11, 12, 13, and 14 on pages 123-125 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts to land uses. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. See the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste discussion for appropriate mitigation measures for facilities that handle hazardous wastes. The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts to land uses as identified in the Final EIR to a level of insignificance. However, the following impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance: 1) The incremental loss of agricultural lands which has a significant cumulative impact countywide. 2) The eventual transition of single family homes in multiple -family designated areas on the Land use Map. 3) The acquisition of private property to accommodate the construction of the Master Plan of Highways. 4) The incremental increase for aviation services at John Wayne Airport which has a significant cumulative impact countywide. Therefore, in accordance with Sections 15091 through 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations is made in Section 4. The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to land uses as described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will take into account the potential impacts to existing and surrounding land uses as a result of proposed development. Mitigation measures will be applied- to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 11 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 11 of 54 15 The City Staff in its expert judgement recommends that these mitigation measures be included as part of the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant effects on land uses. Their expert opinion supports the inclusion of these mitigation measures and the foregoing findings as to the effectiveness and feasibility of these measures. 3. The Project responds to the concerns expressed by the General Plan Steering Committee (see General Plan Steering Committee Report dated October 10, 1989) and public testimony received at public hearings on the Draft General Plan to reduce land use densities and intensities in order to preserve the quality of life in Costa Mesa. HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT/POPULATION Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 128-134, 261-262, E -42 -E -47,E -64-E-73, E -113- E-118, E -154-E-161, and E -162-E-175 of the Final EIR, the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: Buildout of the Project will result in a 15,100, 7,800, and 22,400 numerical increase in population, housing and employment over 1988 estimates. The overall jobs to housing ratio is 2.16, which compares favorably to the SCAG-88 ratio of 2.32 and the OCP -88 ratio of 2.79. These projections are similar to Alternative 2 in the Final EIR. - The density reduction in the Medium and High Density Residential designations will reduce housing opportunities. This reduction is somewhat offset by specific land use amendments. The net result is still a decrease in potential residential units of 4,000 from the 1981 General Plan. - Anticipated growth in the City will create demand for specialized and affordable housing . The comprehensive strategy for 1988/89 through 1993/94 indicates a maintenance of 1,612 affordable units and creation of 1,333 affordable units and 2,750 market rate units. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 1266, 1270, 1274, 1278, 1279, 1280, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1295, 1299 and 1300 on pages 134: and 135 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts to housing/employment/population. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. 12 it Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 12 of 54 Findings- The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts to housing/employment/population as identified in the Final EIR to a level of insignificance. Facts Supporting Findings: The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects on housing/employment/population described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will consider the effects on housing/employment/population in the normal course of review. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. Pursuant to state law, the City of .Costa Mesa will continue to monitor the effectiveness of its housing programs and update its Housing -Element every f ive years. 3. The City Staff in its expert judgement recommends that these mitigation measures be included as part of the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant effects on housing/employment/population. Their expert opinion supports the inclusion of these mitigation measures and the foregoing findings as to the effectiveness and feasibil-ity of these measures. TRANSPORTATION Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 140-167, 262-264, E -42-E-47, E -52-E-60, E -64- E-71, E -82-E-88, E -90-E-106, E -126-E-131, and E -154-E-175 of the Final EIR, the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - Implementation of the Project will result in 148,900 additional average daily trips or a 13% increase over 1988 volumes. - On asystemwide basis, all intersection groups are operating at an acceptable level of service in post 2010 conditions. However, two individual intersections have been identified as potentially deficient in post 2010 conditions: Harbor and Gisler Bristol and Sunflower 13 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 13 of 54 The Master Plan of Highways deletes the Santa Ana River crossing at Wilson Street. These deletions result in an increase in traffic volumes on Adams Avenue, 19th Street and Victoria Street near the Santa Ana River; however, minimal impacts occur east of Harbor Blvd. The Master Plan of Highways is not consistent with the County of Orange Master Plan of Highways ir, the deletion of the Wilson Street river crossing and the deletion of Bluff Road between Victoria Street and Wilson Street. However the County of Orange has concurred with these two deletions and will pursue appropriate amendments to the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The Master Plan of Bikeways includes two bike lanes (Fairview Road between South Coast Drive and Baker Street, and Bear Street between South Coast Drive and Baker Street) that will require the widening of freeway overcrossings and/or streets. However the Master Plan of Bikeways does include alternative and parallel bike routes to both of these bike lanes. - Future treatment, collection, or recycling facilities for hazardous wastes that may locate in the City may impact the City's circulation system. Cumulative Effects: The preceding discussion is a full account of the cumulative impacts of traffic within the City of Costa Mesa. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 11, 1160, 1161, 1170, 1171, #`175, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1190, 1192, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1208, 1212, 1213, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1252, 11, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 11, 1163, 1164, 1180 and 1181 on pages 168-171 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts to transportation/ circulation. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. See the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste discussion for appropriate mitigation measures for facilities that handle hazardous wastes. Eindinas• The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts to the circulation system as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation measures 1171, 1187, 1202, 1203, 1204, and 1213 are the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Costa Mesa that is making the finding; these measures have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agencies. 14 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 14 of 54 However, the significance of the two individual intersections that have been identified as potentially deficient in post 2010 conditions will be dependent on the effectiveness of the transportation policies of the Project. As development occurs within the City, individual projects will be evaluated on a short- range basis focusing on individual intersections and using detailed data that is not possible in a long-range traffic model. Therefore, in accordance with Sections 15091 through 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations is made in Section 4. 1 • f • 1 The following facts were considered and taken into account in the above findings with respect to the effects on the transportation/circulation system• described above and their mitigation: 1. Both the City's Transportation Services Division and the transportation consultant for the Final EIR and Project have recommended, in their respective expert judgements, that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant potential traffic/circulation impacts of the Project. Caltrans in their correspondence on the Draft EIR supported these mitigation measures (see pages E-4 through E-7 of the Final EIR). 2. The consideration of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures should improve the City's circulation system's operation in post 2010 conditions than what was anticipated in the FEIR. With a 15 percent reduction in traffic volumes assumed as a result of TDM measures, improvements to intersection operations occur in the range of 5 to 10 percent citywide. 3. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will consider the effects on traffic/circulation in the normal course of project review. When appropriate, detailed traffic analyses will be required as part of the environmental documentation, and when necessary other agencies will be consulted (e.g.; Caltrans and the County of Orange). Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 4. The Project contains an objective with corresponding policies (see Objective VII -E) that are designed to ensure correlation between the Land Use Map and Master Plan of Highways through trip budgets, transportation systems and demand management programs, and land use/subdivision restrictions, thereby minimizing impacts to the circulation network. 15 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 15 of 54 19 AIR QUALITY ,Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 180-186, 264, E -11-E-21, E-52, E-53, E-58, E- 89- E-92, E -100-E-106, E -154-E-161 and G-3 of the Final EIR, the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - Potential short-term construction impacts to air quality are anticipated from fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions as a result of future development allowed by the Project. In post 2010 conditions, an overall decrease in air pollutants is anticipated. Carbon monoxide and reactive organic gas emissions are projected to decrease and nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and particulates are expected to increase. - Overall, the contribution to the carbon monoxide concentrations at intersections from motor vehicles is expected to decrease in buildout conditions when compared to existing conditions. All of the twenty-two intersections analyzed were projected to meet the State and Federal eight-hour standards. - Total citywide emissions at Project buildout represents 0.10% to 1.95% of the regional emission inventory in 2010. Implementation of the Project is not expected to result in inconsistencies with the growth projections in the AQMP. - Future treatment, collection, or recycling facilities for hazardous wastes that may locate in the City may increase air pollutant emissions. Cumulative_ Effects: As stated on pages 181 through 186 of the Final EIR, despite a projected decrease in citywide emissions at Project build -out, the cumulative impacts to regional air quality may be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 180, 181, 182, 183 and 187 on pages 186 and 187 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts to air quality, These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. See the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste discussion for appropriate mitigation measures for facilities that handle hazardous wastes. 16 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 16 of 54 Findings• The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts to air quality as identified in the Final EIR to the extent feasible. Mitigation measures 180, and 181 are the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Costa Mesa that is making the finding; these measures have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agencies. However, even with the imposition and enforcement of these mitigation measures, on a cumulative basis the air quality impacts of the Project cannot feasibly be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, in accordance with Sections 15091 through 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations is made in Section 4. Facts Supporting Findings: The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects on air quality described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will consider the effects on air quality in the normal course of review. When appropriate, detailed air quality analyses will be required as part of the environmental documentation, and other agencies will be consulted (e.g.; the Air Quality Management District). Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. Incorporation of transportation demand management measures will also help reduce the number of single - occupant automobiles, and in turn reduce the air pollutants associated with motor vehicles. 3. The energy use guidelines for building construction contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code were adopted in order to reduce energy consumption, and implementation of these guidelines by the City will in turn reduce the air pollutants associated with energy consumption to the extent feasible, given current, technology. 4. Phasing future development consistent with regional growth projections can be accomplished through detailed intermediate range projections and development monitoring programs. 17 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 17 of 54 zz 5. The City is cooperating in the countywide Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee formed by the Regional Advisory Planning Council. The primary purpose of the this cooperative planning effort is to develop a comprehensive countywide strategy to meet the air quality goals of the Air Quality Management Plan and the regional vehicle miles travelled (VMT) targets. The final product of this effort will be an implementation plan which the City can adopt to meet established emission and VMT reduction goals. 6. Both the City's Staff and the air quality consultant for the Final EIR and Project have recommended, in their respective expert judgements, that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant potential air quality impacts of the Project. The Air Quality Management District supports the inclusion of these mitigation measures (see pages E-11 through E-21 of the Final EIR). POISE Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 192-202, 264, E -52-E-60, E -64-E-71, E -77-E- 79, E -100-E-106 and G -3-G-4 of the Final EIR the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - Temporary noise impacts will result from future construction activities anticipated by the 1990 General Plan. - Implementation of the Project will result in incremental increases in roadway noise on the City's major streets and highways. Sixteen street links are expected to have decibel increases of 3 dBA or more. - Under General Plan buildout conditions, sensitive noise receptors are projected to be exposed to noise contours that are greater than 65 db CNEL. - The operation of land uses permitted by the Land Use Element may create noise impacts on surrounding land uses. - The construction the Santa Ana River bridge crossings at Gisler Avenue and 19th Street will increase noise levels beyond what would be anticipated if the bridges were not constructed. - Future treatment, collection, or recycling facilities for hazardous wastes that may locate in the City may create adverse noise impacts. 1s Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 18 of 54 Cumulative Effects: As stated on psge 202 of the Final EIR, the preceding discussion is full account of the cumulative impacts of noise within the City. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 1100, 1101, 1103, and 11 on pages 202 and 203 of the final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate potential noise impacts. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. Please refer to the discussion of Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste for appropriate mitigation measures for facilities that handle hazardous wastes. Findings• The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts to the noise environment as identified in the Final EIR to the extent feasible. Mitigation measure 193 is the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Costa Mesa that is making the finding; this measure has been adopted by 'such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. However, incremental increases in noise levels on the City's major streets and freeways will have potentially adverse impacts on existing sensitive land uses that are located adjacent to these roadways; the level of this significance will be more accurately assessed in conjunction with specific project proposals. Therefore, in accordance with Sections 15091 through 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations is made in•Section 4. Facts Supporting Findings: The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects on the noise environment described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will consider the effects of noise in the normal course of review. When appropriate, detailed noise analyses will be required as part of the environmental documentation. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. Both the City's Staff and the noise consultant for the Final EIR and Project have recommended, in their respective expert judgements, that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant potential noise impacts of the Project. 19 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 19 of 54 24 WASTEWATER As discussed on pages 204-208, 266 and G-4 of the Final EIR, the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - At Project buildout, a 0.88 mgd increase in sewage generation is expected, compared to existing conditions. Specific areas of the collection system may be impacted by new or redeveloped projects. Presently the sewage collection systems of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) are at or near capacity. Implementation of the Master Plan of Highways may affect sewer line locations. - Future treatment, collection, or recycling facilities for hazardous wastes that may locate in the City may create negative impacts on the wastewater collection and treatment system. As stated on page 208 of the Final EIR, regional sewage treatment facilities are presently proposed for expansion; the wastewater demands resulting from the Project may, on a cumulative basis, cause the CSDOC to accelerate their construction plans of their facilities. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 1251, 1252, 1253, and 1254, on pages 208 and 209 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate potential impacts to the wastewater collection and treatment system. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. See the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste discussion for appropriate mitigation measures for facilities that handle hazardous wastes. The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures -will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts to the wastewater collection and treatment system as identified in the Final EIR to the extent feasible. Mitigation measures 1253 and 1254 are the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Costa Mesa that is making the finding; these measures have been adopted by such other agencies.• However, the cumulative impact of anticipated regional growth (including the City of Costa Mesa) will 20 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 20 of 54 L� heighten the need for the expansion of the regional sewage treatment facilities, which will result in unavoidable adverse impacts, even after mitigation. Therefore, in accordance with Sections 15091 through 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations is made in Section,4. The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects on the wastewater collection and treatment system described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will consider the effects on the wastewater collection and treatment system in the normal course of project review. The affected agency is also consulted in the process for evaluation of potential impacts. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. The City Staff in its expert jddgement recommends that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the Project's significant impacts to the wastewater collection and treatment system. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District in their correspondence on the draft General Plan supports the inclusion of these mitigation measures (see page E-24 through E-26 of the Final EIR). WATER Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 211-215, 266, G-4, E -27-E-28, E -31-E-40, and E -61-E-63 of the Final EIR the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - The annual water consumption for the City at General Plan buildout is estimated at 26.25 million gallons per day. significant impacts to the water supply system are not anticipated; however, high density/ intensity development in specific areas may require upgrading of the system or other measures to ensure an adequate system. - Buildout of the Project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces which can collect urban pollutants and impact the quality of surface water. - Implementation of the Master Plan of Highways may affect water line locations. 21 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 21 of 54 2-0, - Future treatment, collection, or recycling facilities for hazardous wastes that may locate in ':he City may impact the City's water supply system. Cumulative Effects: As stated on page 215 of the Final EIR, affordable, potable water is a limited resource on a regional basis; increased water demand due to growth is a significant cumulative impact, regardless of the status of supply. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 125, 126, 127, 128, 133, 183, 185, 186, 188, 1251 and #252 on pages 216 and 217 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate potential impacts to the water supply system. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. See the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste discussion for appropriate mitigation measures for facilities that handle hazardous wastes. Findings: The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts to the water supply system as identified in the Final EIR to the extent feasible. Mitigation measures 126, 133 and 185 are the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Costa Mesa that is making the finding; these measures have been adopted by such other agencies. However, the cumulative impact of an increased demand for affordable potable water is a significant impact that can not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Therefore, in accordance with Sections 15091 through 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations is made in Section 4. Facts Supporting Findings: The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects on the water supply system described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will consider the effects on the water supply system in the normal course of project review. The affected agency is also consulted in the process for evaluation of potential impacts: Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 22 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 22 of 54 2. The City Staff in its expert judgement recommends that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the Project's significant impacts to the water supple system. Mesa Consolidated Water District and Orange County Water District in their correspondence regarding the draft EIR supports the inclusion of these mitigation measures (see pages E-27 through E-28 and E-31 through E-40 of the Final EIR). SOLID WASTE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 219-222, 266, and E -25-E-26 of the Final EIR, the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - Buildout of the Project will result in 378 tons/day of solid waste that will require disposal. - Buildout of the Project will result in incremental increases in hazardous waste generation. A 26 tons/day increase in household hazardous waste is anticipated. Hazardous waste from commercial and industrial land uses is estimated at 2,450 tons/year in the year 2000. Cumulative Effects: As stated on page 222 of the Final EIR, the increase stated in the preceding discussion represent the cumulative impact of the Project. However, this impact is not considered significant because of efforts at the State, regional, county and local level to address and resolve these disposal issues. Mitictation Measures: Mitigation measures 142, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109 on pages 222 and 223 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts of increased solid waste and hazardous waste generation. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. Findings: The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts of increased solid waste and hazardous waste generation as identified in the Final EIR to the extent feasible. Mitigation measure 1107 is the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Costa Mesa that is making the finding; these measures have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agencies. 23 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 23 of 54 23 Facts Supporting Findings: The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to increased solid waste and hazardous waste generation described above and their mitigation: I. The City of Cost* Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will consider the effects of additional solid waste and hazardous waste generation in the normal course of project review. When necessary, county, regional, and/or state agencies are also consulted in the process for evaluation of potential impacts. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. Implementation of a Source Reduction and Recycling Element by the City of Costa Mesa, as mandated by state law, will result in 50% of solid waste generated to be diverted from the County landfills by either source reduction or recycling programs. 3. Implementation of the Household'Hazardous Waste Element by the City of Costa Mesa will ensure proper disposal of household hazardous wastes. 4. Any facility proposed within the City to collect, transfer and/or treat hazardous wastes that are generated from other sites will be subject to the provisions of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, as well as to appropriate state and city regulations. 5. The City Staff in its expert judgement recommends that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the Project's significant impacts of additional solid waste and hazardous waste generation and/or the impacts of a facility that collects, transfers, and/or treats these types of wastes. ENERGY Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 224-226, 267, and E -29-E-30 of the Final EIR; the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - Buildout of the Project will result in increased natural gas consumption; 13% over 1988 conditions. Buildout of the Project will result in a 24% increase in electricity consumption. 24 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 24 of 54 Cumulative Effects: As stated on page 225 of the Final EIR, increased energy use as a result of the Project combined with regional increases represents the cumulative impacts. This impact is not considered significant since the energy suppliers indicate that demands can be met and the inclusion of the mitigation measures listed below. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 1251 and 1252 on page. 226 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts of increased energy consumption. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. Findings: The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts of increased energy consumption as identified in the Final EIR to the extent feasible. Facts Suonorting Findings: The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to increased energy consumption described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act ICEQA) that will consider the effects of additional energy consumption in the normal course of project review. When appropriate, the energy suppliers are notified of a proposed project for consultation in evaluating the potential impacts. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. The Southern California Gas Company has indicated its ability to service additional growth within the City from their existing supply facilities (see page A-15 of the Final EIR). 3. The Southern California Edison Company has indicated that the electrical load growth associated with the project is within their growth parameters (see page A-42 of the Final EIR). 4. The City Staff in its expert judgement recommends that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the Project's significant impacts of increased energy consumption. 25 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 25 of 54 POLICE SERVICES •,_ , As discussed on pages 227-229, 267, E -77-E-80, and E -100-E-106 of the Final EIR, the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: Buildout of the Project will incrementally increase demands for police services; an additional 23 police personnel and associated equipment will be needed. Cumulative Effects: As stated on page 225 of the Final EIR, the preceding discussion represents the cumulative impact of the Project. Mitigation measures 1156, 1157, 0158, 1159, and 0259 on pages 228 and 229 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts to police services. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts on police services as identified in the Final EIR to the extent feasible. The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects on police services described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will consider the effects on police services in the normal course of project review. When appropriate, the Police Department is notified of a proposed project for consultation in evaluating the potential impacts. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. The City Staff and the Police Department'in their expert judgement recommends that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the Project's significant impacts on police services. 26 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 26 of 54 FIRE SERVICES Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 230-233, and 267 of the Final EIR, the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - Buildout of the Project will incrementally increase demand for fire and paramedic services by an estimated 19%. - Two additional fire stations are estimated to be needed, for a total of seven fire stations. A minimum of nine additional firefighters is needed to man each new fire station. Cumulative Effects: As stated on page 228 of the Final EIR, the preceding discussion represents the cumulative impacts on fire services. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 1134, 1135, 1136, 1156, 1157, 1158 and 1159 on page 234 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts to fire services. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a complete listing of these measures. Findings: The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts on fire services as identified in the Final EIR to the extent feasible. Facts Suogorting Findings: The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects on fire services described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will consider the effects on fire services in the normal course of project review. When appropriate, the Fire Department is notified of a proposed project for consultation in evaluating the potential impacts. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 27 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 27 of 54 - 31 32 2. The City Staff and the Fire Department in their expert judgement recommends that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the Project's significant impacts on fire services. EDUCATION Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 235-237, and E -77-E-80 of the Final EIR, the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - An additional 4,950 students are anticipated to be added to the City's total student population at Project buildout. These additional students will require the Newport Mesa Unified School District to expand and/or reopen schools in order to accommodate the increase in students. Cumulative Effects: As stated on page 237 of the Final EIR, The additional students cited above represent the cumulative impact. Since the students will be added over a 20 -year time frame and the following mitigation measure has been included, the impact is not considered significant. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measure 11 on page 237 of the Final EIR has been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts to education. This measure is hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a restatement of the measure. Findings: The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts on education as identified in the Final EIR to the extent feasible. Facts Supporting Findings: The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects on education described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa review procedures that Environmental Quality Act effects on education in 28 has established environmental conform with the California (CEQA) that will consider the the normal course of project Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 28 of 54 review. When appropriate, the Newport Mesa Unified School District is notified of a proposed project for consultation in evaluating the potential impacts. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. The City Staff in its expert judgement recommends that this mitigation measure be imposed upon or included in the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the Project's significant impacts on education. PARRS ,Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 239-242, 267, E -107-E-109, E -126-E-131, and E -132-E-134 of the Final EIR, the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - Policy 2 of the Project requires that the parkland standard be readjusted to reflect the 1990 population/parkland ratio; this ratio requires that additional parkland to be acquired in conjunction with new developments. - Policy 3 of the Project requires a park site study to be . conducted which will identify additional park sites and acquisition mechanisms. umulative Effects: As stated on pages 241 through 242 of the Final EIR, the preceding discussion represents the cumulative impacts of the Project. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 11, 12, 13, 18, and 19 on page 242 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts to parks. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of this document for a restatement of the measures. Findings: The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts on parks as identified in the Final EIR to the extent feasible. However, if an adjustment is made to the current population/parks ratio, acquisition of additional parkland will be necessary; therefore, in accordance with Sections 15091 through 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations is made in Section 4. 29 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 29 of 54 Facts Supporting Findings: The, following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects on parks described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will consider the effects on parks in the normal course of project review. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. The Quimby Act allows the City to collect parkland fees or parkland dedication in conjunction with new subdivisions. 3. The City Staff in its expert judgement recommends that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the Project's significant impacts on parks. COASTAL RESOURCES Significant Effects: As discussed on pages 245-246 of the Final EIR, the significant or potentially significant effects of the Project are as follows: - The Project's Land Use Map indicates all of the coastal resource areas for public uses. Policy 47 of the Project encourages the County of Orange to acquire the property. - Future development of regional parks (which include Bluff Road) and bridge crossings of the Santa Ana River may impact wetland resources. - Future treatment, collection, or recycling facilities for hazardous wastes that may locate in the City may be impact coastal resources. Cumulative Effects: As stated on page 246 of the Final EIR, future development plans will cumulatively alter the coastal area; development plans, however, are expected to minimize impacts to coastal resources. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures 143, J44, 045, 147 and 051 on pages 246 and 247 of the Final EIR have been incorporated as part of the Project to mitigate impacts to coastal resources. These measures are hereby incorporated by reference; the reader may also see Section 5 of Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 30 of 54 this document for a complete listing of these measures. See the Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste discussion for appropriate mitigation meesures for facilities that handle hazardous wastes. Findings= The imposition and enforcement of the mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant or potentially significant impacts to coastal resources as identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation measure #47 is the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Costa Mesa that is making the finding; this measure has been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agencies. However, a full assessment of impacts to coastal resources as a result of construction of the 19th Street bridge and development of the regional parks (which include Bluff Road) by the County of Orange cannot occur at this time; the level of significance will be appropriately assessed in conjunction with precise development plans. In accordance with Sections 15091 through 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations is made in Section 4. acts Sunvortina Findinas: The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the effects on coastal resources described above and their mitigation: 1. The City of Costa Mesa has established environmental review procedures that conform with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that will take into account the existing coastal resources on proposed project sites. Mitigation measures will be applied to individual projects, as conditions of approval, in order to minimize negative impacts to the extent feasible. 2. In sensitive coastal resource areas, additional project review will be required by other agencies (e.g., the California Department of Fish and Game); comments and mitigation measures suggested and/or required by other agencies will be imposed as part of future project approvals, as appropriate. 3. The City Staff in its expert judgement recommends that these mitigation measures be included as part of the Project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant effects on coastal resources. Their expert opinion supports the inclusion of these mitigation measures and the foregoing findings as to the effectiveness and feasibility of these measures. 31 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 31 of 54 - • 35 n r► 4aU SECTION 3- PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The Project alternatives are discussed on pages 248 through 292 of the Final EIR; Appendices G and H discuss circulation system alternatives. The City Council has considered the Project's alternatives identified in the Final EIR, and in adopting the 1990 General Plan, the City Council is approving a Plan that closely reflects Alternative 2 presented in the Final EIR; the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the "Proposed Project" and the remaining alternatives presented in Final EIR #1044. PROPOSED PROJECT The Proposed Project as presented and analyzed in the Final EIR results in a 27% increase in population, a 32% increase in housing units, and a 62% increase in employment opportunities when comparing Post -2010 to 1988 conditions. This additional internal city growth coupled with expected regional growth results in a 45% increase in the average number of daily trips expected at Project build -out on the City's circulation system. On a systemwide basis, all intersection' groups are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service in Post 2010 conditions; however, eight individual intersections have been identified as potentially deficient in Post -2010 conditions. The Proposed Project also includes the deletion of the Gisler Avenue crossing of the Santa Ana River and the deletion of Bluff Road from the City's Master Plan of Highways; both of these circulation improvements are shown on the County of Orange Master Plan of Highways, and the County has not yet concurred with their deletion until additional circulation studies have been completed. Should the City proceed with the deletion of these circulation improvements prior to the concurrence by the County of Orange, the City's eligibility for regional funds for circulation improvements may be jeopardized. On an overall basis, the Proposed Project places a substantially greater demand for public services and utilities as a result of the amount of growth allowed. See Table 40 on page 292 in the Final EIR. In the Medium and High Density Residential land use designations, the maximum densities can encourage the redevelopment of traditional single family dwelling units to multiple family dwelling units. The Proposed Project, therefore, as presented in the Final EIR has been rejected by the City Council due to the substantial demands placed on the City's circulation system, public services and utilities, anticipated change in residential neighborhood character, and the potential ramifications of inconsistencies with the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. 32 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 32 of 54 F1 ALTERNATIVE 1 -NO PROJECT The "No Project" Alternative entails the retention of the 1981 General Plan for the City of Costa Mesa. The implications of this alternative are as follows: - Noncompliance with State law that mandates an amendment to the Housing Element; - Specific building intensities for nonresidential land use designations would not be established; - The maximum number of dwelling units per acre would remain at 30 units/acre in the High Density Residential category; - Several areas within the City which currently have General Plan and zoning inconsistencies would not be corrected; - The marina alternative for the City's coastal area, which has potentially significant environmental impacts, would be retained. - The Santa Ana River crossing at Wilson Street and Bluff Road would be retained on the City's Master Plan of Highways. - The technical information in the 1981 General Plan is becoming dated and limited in its usefulness. The 1981 General Plan no longer, as a comprehensive policy, document, represents the present needs of the community. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion, this alternative has been rejected by the City Council as a reasonable alternative. ALTERNATIVE 3 - COSTA MESA RESIDENTS FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH This alternative was generated by the Costa Mesa Residents for Responsible Growth in August 1989; this alternative is similar to the Project that was adopted in that it proposes reduced densities/intensities in a variety of land use categories. As a result of these reductions, an overall decrease in population, housing, and employment would result. These decreases would result in corresponding decreases in the demand on public services and utilities, fewer air quality and noise impacts, and fewer individual intersections that are projected to operate at deficient levels at Project buildout. This alternative, however, is not as comprehensive as the Project in identifying specific areas within the community for specific land use map changes, and therefore it was rejected by the City Council. 33 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 33 of 54 1 J$ ALTERNATIVE 4 - NO CITY GROWTH PLUS FUTURE REGIONAL GROWTH This alternative assumes that the City of Cos�:a Mesa has reached buildout conditions and no more growth will occur. However, since the City is surrounded by cities which use Costa Mesa's circulation system and which are expecting to continue to grow in the next twenty years, impacts in the City would still occur in the areas of traffic, air quality and noise. This alternative has been rejected by the City Council as reasonable since the City may be faced with "taking' claims on all vacant and underdeveloped property in the City. This alternative would also not allow the City to meet regional affordable housing needs. Furthermore, improvements to the City's circulation system would still be required based on regional growth alone. SECTION 4: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Final EIR concludes and the City finds that certain significant environmental effects of the Project, if only on a cumulative basis, are unavoidable even after the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. These significant effects are identified in Section 2. 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 an 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines for the following reasons: I. The Project has reduced residential densities in response to community concerns, specifically, the Project has reduced residential densities in the Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential land use categories and has deleted the Urban Center Residential land use category which were included in the City's 1981 General Plan. The Project has also established building intensity limits for nonresidential land use designations where no limitations were specified previously. According to the General Plan Steering Committee (GPSC) report of October 10, 1989, the City's high density housing ranked second as the factor that survey respondents like least about Costa Mesa. Based on information from the State Department of Finance (DOF), the existing ratio of multi -family to single family housing in Costa Mesa is higher than in the neighboring cities and higher than the average for the entire County of Orange. Significant negative citizen comments were received about apartments, particularly high density apartments. The reduction in residential densities is in keeping with the overall goals and objectives of the GPSC. 2. The Project's reduced residential intensities and new building intensities will reduce build -out projections for the City by 9,500 for population, 4,000 for housing units and 32,900 for employment when compared to the 1981 General Plan. 34 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Rage 34 of 54 es 39 3. The Project's overall reduction in build -out projections will have correspondingly fewer impacts on the circulation system, public services and utilities, air quality and fewer noise impacts than what would occur with the 1981 General Plan. 4. The Project has designated new areas in the City for residential development, in order to provide more balance to the City's job/housing ratio and to provide more opportunities for ownership housing. 5. The Project complies with the State mandated provisions for Housing Elements, and sets forth a reasonable range of housing programs to address regional housing needs. 6. The Project's densities are sufficient to meet the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) current 5 year Regional Housing Needs Assessment (R)iNA). However, the City will seek for a reduction in future versions of the RHNA. The Project's reduction in commercial and industrial land, coupled with the intensity limits for these land use designations, result in lower job growth potential in the future when compared to the 1981 General Plan. Based on this reduction, fewer residential units should be necessary to support the growth in employment. SCAG's growth projections and corresponding housing needs numbers were adopted prior to the Project's adoption; as such the regional housing needs numbers for the City are overstated in view of the Project. Both the County of Orange and SCAG are currently in the process of formulating new growth projections which should reflect the Project's growth estimates. 7. The Project's circulation system is consistent with the County of Orange's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH); this consistency is necessary in order for the City to retain eligibility for regional and state arterial financing programs. Compliance with the County's MPAH will result in the City being eligible for $25-30 million in direct turnback funds over the next 20 years. The City will also be eligible to compete for its share of $690 million of regional funding programs provided by Measure M over the next 20 years. S. The Project provides policy direction to coordinate with surrounding cities and the County of Orange to reevaluate the need for regional street improvements that have potentially significant environmental effects associated with them. Mutual agreement of the deletion of these regional street improvements will not jeopardize the City's eligibility for regional and state funding programs. 35 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 35 of 54 9. The Project provides a general framework for land use and infrastructure development over the next twenty years, and has ensured that the two are appropriately correlated. Individual components of the Project will be the subject of additional environmental analyses and review, and if these individual projects are determined to be infeasible for either environmental, social and/or economic reasons, appropriate amendments can be made to the 1990 General Plan. 10. The project provides for an adequate ratio 6f neighborhood and community parkland to population in order to meet increased parkland demands as a result of additional growth in the community. 11. The project, being a General Plan, where CEQA requires subsequent discretionary project approvals before any physical change to natural habitat is permitted, will not have any adverse effect on fish and wildlife, or their habitat. As such, the project is "de minimis" in its impacts on fish and wildlife. SECTION 5: MITIGATION Mm ASURES AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURES Presented in this section are a complete listing of the mitigation measures from Final EIR 11044 that were adopted for the Project by the City of Costa Mesa City Council. The measures are contained in the following chart which also serves to illustrate the mitigation monitoring program for the Project. 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 Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) /1044 for the City of Costa Mesa 1990 General Plan has identified numerous measures to be implemented in order to mitigate potential impacts associated with the implementation of the plan, and it is -.the purpose of this program to identify the procedures by which the City of Costa Mesa will ensure compliance with the mitigation measures. 36 L, Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 36 of 54 It is, however, important to note that the City's 1990 General Plan, while a "project" as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), only provides the broad policy framework that guides future development approvals in the City. In accordance with CEQA, additional environmental analysis will be required in conjunction with specific projects that are proposed which are consistent with the General Plan. These projects, in turn, may have mitigation measures placed on their approval, and they would also be monitored for compliance with their mitigation measures. Therefore, this mitigation monitoring program for the 1990 General Plan is unique in its approach as it reflects the broad policy oriented purpose of a General Plan. PROCEDURES The City of Costa Mesa 1990 General Plan provides the framework to guide future City actions which include development approvals, infrastructure improvements, implementation of programs, and future ordinance adoptions that further the intent of the General Plan. The majority of the mitigation measures in FEIR .11044 are actual policies from the 1990 General Plan. The mitigation measures presented in FEIR 11044 can be categorized into two types: Development Project Review and Department Program. The monitoring procedures for each type of mitigation measure are as follows: fevelonment Project Review - These mitigation measures are applicable to specific projects that will be proposed in conformance with the General Plan. Pursuant to CEQA and established City procedures, every development proposal is subject to environmental evaluation as part of the project review. At the specific level of analysis, potential impacts can be identified and appropriate mitigation measures set forth in conformance with the broader policies contained in the 1990 General Plan. These project - specific mitigation measures will then be applied as Conditions of Approval and monitored appropriately for City Staff to ensure their implementation. Therefore, the actual monitoring of these types of mitigation measures will occur in conjunction with specific development construction. Furthermore, through the project review process, a proposal is reviewed for its consistency with the zoning ordinances which are in turn required by State law to be consistent with the General Plan. 37 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 37 of 54 ,41 42 Department Program - These mitigation measures are Department programs that are currently ongoing or are anticipated to be implemented in the near-term. The City Council annually reviews and prioritizes its goals and adopts a City budget that reelects these priorities. The General Plan is an important component of the goal -setting process of the annual budget. Department programs and budgets, in turn, reflect the priorities of the City Council. In addition, as mandated by State law, the Planning Commission is required to provide an annual report to the City Council on the status of the General Plan and progress towards its implementation. This process will serve as the procedure of monitoring the implementation of these "department program" policies/mitigation measures. The attached chart presents each mitigation measure contained in FEIR 11044 and identifies its type, implementation time frame, responsible City Department, and the anticipated funding source. 38 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. 92-27 Page 38 of 54 EIR Section Geology/Soils 1990 GENERAL PLAN Type of Implemention Mitigation Measure 1kGtigation Measure Time Frame Department Involved Outside Agency 54. Limit present oil extraction activities to those properties currently in oil production.aRe"nt program Ongoing Development Services 56. Establish development standards and review criteria to minimize the impact I Department Program of existing oil production activities on other land uses existingor proposed to 1992-1997 Development Services be developed on properties containing oil wells. 58. Take steps to minimize detrimental effects of the conversion of existing oil Development Project producing lands to other uses. Ongoing Development Services Review 59. Prohibit new residential development on property containing active oil Development Project extraction activities. Permit new industrial and commercial development on Review Ongoing Development Services such properties only if the impacts of the oil extraction activities can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. ' 64. Consider geologic hazard geo constraints in the development of land use policies Development Project and public decisions relating to land development. Review Review Development Services 65. Enforce standards, review criteria, and other methods to ensure that Development Project a are set back sufficiently structures on or adjacent W bluff ently to preserve the Review Ongoing Development Services natural contour and aesthetic value of the bluff line and to provide sufficient access for fire protection 66. Require geologic surveys of all development located on or adjacent to bluffs. Development Project Ongoing Development Services Review 71. Design all noncritical structures to conform to the seismic design Development Project requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code to provide a minimum Review Ongoing Development Services level of seismic hazard protection. 72. Require developers to conduct site-specific seismic design studies, including Development Project consideration of the structure use and occupancy, for all critical structures Review O1Og Development Services (schools, hospitals, high-rise structures over three stories, emergency medical and disaster centers, and important government facilities) to identify specific seismic design parameters in excess of the Uniform Building Code necessary to preclude the collapse of the structure in the event of a major seismic episode. 20 Uty Landing Sources Department Budgets Department Budgets Development Review Fees Development Review Fees Development Review Fees Development Review Fees Development Review Fees Plan Check Fees Development Review/Plan Check Fees 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) EIR Section Hydrology Mitigation Measure 67. Permit 5n 100 -year floodplain only those uses which aro floodproofed or which can sustain periodic flooding. Type of Mitigation Measure Development Project Review Implementation Time Frame Ongoing �P��e City went a� Involved Outside Agency Development Services City Fmding Sources Development Review Fees 68. Require that new development within the 100 -year floodplain elevate building pads or floodproof sufficiently to protect the buildings from a 100- year flood. Development Project Review On oin 8 g Development Services Development Review/Plan Check Fees 70. Drainage plans shall be based on the current Master Plan of Drainage and designed based upon the current Ora a Cou H drolOngO1ng n8 my y ogy Manual. Development project Review Development Services/Public Services Development Review Fees 77. Require all proposed development projects to be designed to minimize bot the volume and velocity of surface runoff through the 8 Proper design of subsurface drains, appropriate grading, on-site retention programs, landscape Programs, or other measures as appropriate. Development ProjectOngoing Review Development Services/Public Services Development Review Fees 79. Strongly encourage County, State, and Federal agencies to complete flood control improvements to the Santa Ana River and Greenville-Banning Channel to protect Costa Mesa residents and property located in the 100 -year flood zone from a potential major disaster. Department m Ongoing Public Services Department Budgets Biological Resources 15. Ensure that all future developments will be adequately reviewed with regard to possible adverse effects on plant and animal life and critical wildlife habitat, and wetlands. Where feasible and appropriate, incorporate sufficient mitigation measures into the project design to reduce such effects. Development Project Review Review Development Services Development Review Fees 16. Require landscape plan for all public and private developments to consider the retention and/or enhancement of existin mature ve elation. Development Project Review Ongoing °g° ng Development Services Development Review Fees Cultural Resources 17. Require, as part of the environmental review procedure, an evaluation of the significance of paleontological, archaeological and historical resources and the impact of proposed development on those resources. Development Project Review Ongoing Development Services Development Review Fees 18. Require monitoring of grading operation by a qualified paleontologist or archaeologist when the site is reasonablysuspected spected of containing such resources. If, as a result, evidence of resources is found, require the Development Project Review Ongoing Development Services Project Developer property to be made available for a reasonable period of time for salvage of known paleontological and archaeological resources by qualified experts, organization, or educational institution. An 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) EIR Section Mitigation MeasureL 'type of Implementation L Responsible City Department Cultural Resources 19. Require devel9pineuts on land contain known 14Gti8atioa Haemes rune Frame and Involved Outside Agency City Funding Sources archaeological logical resources to (Continued) use reasonable care to locate structures, paving, la ndscapittg, and fill dirt in Development Project Review �gO1Dg Development Services Project Developer such a way as to preserve these resources undamaged for future generations when it is the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist that said resources be preserved in situ. 21. Consult with local organizations and individuals to designate sites, buildings, and stnutures of historical significance and determine b world y ng with the Departnent Program 1992-1997 Administration/Community Services/ Department Budgets Costa Mesa Historical Society which historical resources merit preservation. Development Services/Costa Mesa Consider designating a site for the preservation of significant historical Historical Society buildings and structures. 22. Promote the preservation of significant historical resources and encourage Department Program other public agencies or private organizations to assist in the purchase and/or 1992-1997 Administration/Commonly Services/ Department Budgets relocation of sites, buildings, and structures deemed to be of historical Development Services significance. 23. Create an overlay zone, or similar tool, to require approval of a Conditional Department Program Use Permit prior to demolition, grading, or construction on sites identified 1992-1997 Development Services Department Budget as having significant historical resources. Land Use 113. Prepare a specific plan to ensure that the portion of the Route 55 extension Department Program from 19th Street through the Redevelopment Area is compatible with the 1992-1994 Development Services Department De Budget P g Redevelopment Area and to review development related issues on the remainder of the alignment. 114. In the event of damage or destruction, allow any legal conforming use in Development Project existence at the time of adoption of the 1990 General Plan in a011� Review Development Services Developrhent Review Fees nonconforming development to be rebuilt to its original building intensity, as long as any such rebuilding would not increase the development's nonconformity, and the damage or destruction was in no way brought about by intentional acts of any owner of such use. 120. Develop policies and standards to provide a balanced mix of residential uses Department Program within the Redevelopment Area including the provisions of single-family 19921997 - Development Services Department Budget homes and RI within the Redevelopment Area. A; EIR Section Mitigation Measure Land Use (Continued) 226. Locate high intensitydevelopments opmenus or high traffic generating uses away from low density residential in order to buffer the more sensitive land uses from the potentially adverse impacts of the more intense development or uses. 233. Provide levels of public improvements and services necessary to support the existing level of business activity and allow for the expansion of business opportunities in the future at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure. 238. Prohibit construction of buildings which would present a hazard to air navigation as determined by the FAA or independent studies by qualified Private consultants that have been certified by the FAA as true and correct. 251. Include an evaluation of impacts on utility systems and infrastructure in EIR's for all major General Plan Amendment, rezone and development 252. Phase or restrict future development of the City to that which can be accommodated by infrastructure, existing or planned to exist, at the time of completion of each phase of a mufti -phased project. I. All new development in the City shall be subject to environmental review in accordance with the California Euvironmental Quality Act and City 2. The City shall review existing zoning designations for consistency with the 1990 General Plan, and initiate appropriate rezones where necessary to maintain consistency with the 1990 General Plan. 3. The City shall review Title 13 of the Costs Mesa Municipal Code for consistency with the 1990 General Plan, and amend as appropriate to maintain consistency with the 1990 General Plan. 4. The City shall review all adopted Specific Plans for consistency with the 1990 General Plan, and amend as necessary to maintain consistency with the 1990 General Plan. 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONITORIIVG PROGRAM (Continued) Type of [tion Measure Development Project Review Development Project Review Development Project Review Development Project Review Development Project Review Department Program Department Program Department Program Department Program Al Implementation Time Frame Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing 1992-1993 1992-1993 1992-1993 ResponsWe City Department and Involved Outside Agency Development Services Funding Sources Development Review Fees Development Semices/Public Services I Development Review Fees Development ServicedAirport 1 anc!I Development Review Fees Use Commission Development services I Development Review Fees Development Services/Public Services I Development Review Fees Development Services Development Services Development Services Development Services Development Review Fees Department Budget Department Budget Department Budget 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) EIR Section Mitigation Measure Housing ng 266. Continue existing rehabilitation loan and grant programs for low- and moderste4thcome homeowners and rental Property landlords to encourage M utilization of the City's existing housing stock as long as HCDA funds aro available. 270. Encourage the development of housing which fulfills specialized housing needs. 274. Provide incentives (.e., density bonuses, fee reductions, exemption from development or processing fees, fast tracking, etc.) to developers of residential projects who agree to provide the specified percentage of units mandated by State law at a cost affordable to very low- and/or low-income households. Density bonus units may be provided when the bonus units do not allow the project's resulting density to exceed the General Plan designation density limit, or for affordable senior citizen projects. 278. Continue to allocate a majority of the City's Community Development Block Grant funds to direct housing-relatedOngoing programs. 279. Support the continuation and expansion of Federal housing assistance Programs for very low- and low- and moderate -income households.O 280. Continue membership in the Orange County Housing Authority to provide housing assistance to low- and moderate4ncome households. 287. Cooperate with latge employers, the Chamber of Commerce, and major commercial and industrial developers to identify and implement programs �P P grams to balance employment growth and the subsequent demand for housing opportunities affordable to the incomes of the newly created job opportunities. 288. Continue to allocate portions of the City's Community Development Block Grant funds for the acquisition acrd write-down of land costs to increase the supply of low- and moderate -income housing opportunities. Type of Mtkation Measure Department program Department P Program Development project Review Department program Department Program Department Program Department Program Department Program Implementation Time Frame Ongoing Ongoing 01� , OngoingAdministration 1992-1997 Ongoing Responsible City Department and Involved Outside Agency ] - L- City �8 Sources Administration Department Bud Dep get Development Services Department Budget Development Services Development Review Fees Administration Department Budget Administration Department Budget Department Budget Admimstretl°nl/DCVelopmlentSt[vlces Department Budgets Adstration/Development Services Department Budgets A7 EIR Section Mitigation Measure Housing (Continued) 289. Consider the effects of new a to me mP Y nt, particularly in relation to housing demands, when new commercial or industrial development is proposed, 1 290. Consider the potential impact on housing opportunities and existing residential neighborhoods when reviewing rezone petitions affecting residential rties. 295. Provide density bonuses or other incentives (exemption from development or processing fees, participation in costs of off-site improvements and/or land acquisition, or exemption from certain development standards) to developers of residential projects which provide a specified percentage of the units meeting specialized housing needs. Density bonuses nay be provided when the bonus units do not allow the project's density to exceed the General Plan designation density limit. 299. Encourage and support the construction of residential developments which will meet the needs of families and individuals with specialized housing 300. Establish a residential development monitoring program to assess the changes in Costa Mesa's housing stock over time and to evaluate the effectiveness of the City's housing m. 1. Coordinate with the County of Orange and surrounding cities to achieve Transportation consistency between the various Master Plans of Highways. 160. Require discussion of transit services needs and site design amenities for 161. Require discussion of Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures in all EIRs prepared for major projects. 170. Implement citywide and/or areawide transportation system improvement Programs on new development and fee programs for new development 171. Require developers to construct on-site transit facilities or bus bays and/or bus pads consistent with the OCTA Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities on adjacent streets when appropriate 175. Require annual monitoring of employer TDM (Transportation Demand Management) programs by the Planning Division and annual review of the effectiveness of such programs by the Planning Commission and City Council. 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) Type of ition Measure Development Project Review Development Project Review Development Project Review Department Program Department Program Department Program Development Project Review Development Project Review Department Program Development Project Review Department Program 44 Implementation Time Frame Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing 1992-1997 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing 1992-1997 Responsible City Department I and Involved Outside Agency City Flut Development Services Development Review Fees Development Services I Development Review Fees Development Services I Department Budget Development Services I Department Budget Administration/Development Services I Department Budget Public Services/Development Services I Department Budgets Development Services Development Services Public Services Public Services/Development ScMces/OCTA Development Services Development Review Fees Development Review Fees Sources Department Budget/Development Impact Fees Development Review Fees Department Budget 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) :EIRSection Mitigation Measure Type of Implementation Mitigation Measure Time Frame Transportation (Continued) 186. Attempt to maintain or improve mobility within the City to achieve a Development standard level of service not worse than Level of Service 'D' at all Pment 1992-1997 intersections under the sole control of the City with the exceptionProgram /Department following intersection for which Level of Service 'D' may obtained. Program • Harbor and Gisler 187. Cooperate with the State Department of Transportation or adjacent Development project jurisdictions to maintain or improve mobility within the City to achieve a Review/Department standard level of service no worse than Level of service 'D' at all intersections under State or joint agency control with the exceptionProgram following intersection for which Level of Service 'D' may riot be obtained. • Bristol and Sunflower 188. Place priority on improving parallel streets and intersections, completing the Department s and i P Program Master Plan of Bikeways improving transit opportturities in the areas surrounding identified deficient intersections. 190- Prioritize intersection improvement, which improve through traffic on major, Department Program Primary and secondary arterials and reduce impacts on local neighborhood streets with due consideration to pedestrian safety. 192. Maintain balance between had use and circulation systems by phasing new Development Project development to levels which can be accommodated by roadways existing or Review, planned to exist at the time of completion of each phase of the project. 202• Coordinate with Caltrans and adjacent cities to construct access and maintain Department Program improvements along I-405, both in the City of Costa Mesa and in adjacent cities. 203. Coordinate with Caltrans, Orange County Transportation Authority, John Department Program Wayne Airport, the County of Orange, and the Transportation Corridors Agency to complete and improve the interchanges of Route 73 (the San Joaquin Hills Toll Road) with Route 55 (the Costa Mesa Freeway), and Route I405 (the San Diego Freeway), 204. Coordinate with Caltrans to complete extension of Route 55 (the Costa Mesa Department program Freeway) from 19th Street to the southern City boundary, incorporating a transition back into Newport Boulevard north of 15th Street/Industrial Way. 45 1992-1997 1992-1997 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Responsible City Department and Involved Outside Agency City Firading Smr*s Administration/Development Department Budgets/Development Review Fees/ Services/Public Services Development Impact Fees/Community Facility Assessment Districts/Redevelopment Projects/County, State, Federal Grant Sources Administration/Development Department BudgetsMevelopmentReview Fees/ Services/Public Services/ Development Impact Fees/Community Facility Caltrans/Local Agencies Assessment DistricWRedevelopment Projects/County, State, Federal Grant Sources Public Services Development Impact Fees/Department Budget/ Community Facility Assessment Districts Public Services I Department Budget Development Services/Public Services I Development Review Fees Administration/Public Services/Department Budgets Caltrans/Local Agencies Administration/Public Services/ Department Budgets Caltrans/JWA/L.ocal Agencies/OCTA Administration/Public Services/Department Budgets Caltrans 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MOVff )RING PROGRAM (Continued) EIR Section Mitigation Measure Type of Mtigation Measure Implementation Responsible City Department Transportation (ContinLued) nspo ( ed) 208. Coordinate concept design, final engineering, Time Frame and Involved Outside Agency Funding City ding Sources Development eveopmem Impact Fees/Department Budget/ and construct improvements to Department provide peak period intersection operation not worse than LAS 'D' at Ongoing Public Services intersections under the control of We City except at the following intersection: Project Review Community Facility Assessment Districta/Redevelopment • Harbor and Gisler Projects/County, State, Federal Gram Programs 212. Continue to evaluate and pursue design and operational improvements (medians, drivewayclosures signal 8 synchronization phasing, Department Program Ongoing Public Services Department Parking or turn restrictions, etc.) to improve the efficiency of intersections to more Budget Closely approximate theoretical carrying capacities. 213. Coordinate with OCTA to construct die planned transitway along Route 55 Department Program Department Budgets and 1-405. Ongoing Administration/Public Services/OCTA 216. Coordinate with major employers to gain support for an implementation of Department P Program Department Budget transportation management rideshare Ongoing Public Services programs. Program components may include flex -time, transit subsidies, and improved communications. 217. Identify existing and proposed fixed guideway transit and facilities in and Department Program/ Department Budgets/Development Review Fees Initiate in 1992 Development Services/Public Services around major new developments and encourage Participation in the Development project construction of such facilities or the inclusion of such facilities into new project designs. Review 218. Complete and annually maintain a needs assessment for traffic service levels and traffic safety. Department Program Ongoing Public Services Department Budget 219. Develop and annually update a priority list of improvement projects, with Department "ram P 8 Department Budget Ongoing Public Services priorities based on 1) correcting identified hazards; 2 improving/maintaining Peak period operation to standard LOS; 3) improving efficiency of existing infrastructure utilization; and 4) intergovernmental coordination. 252• Phase or restrict future development of the City to that which can be Department Program Department Budgets accommodated by infrastructure, existing or planned to exist, at the time of Ongoing Development Services/Public Services completion of each phase of a multi -phased project. 46 EIR mon Mitigation Measure Transportation (Continued) 1. Continue to pursue all available countywide, State or Federal transportation funding mechanisms (OCU'IT, AHFP, etc.) to augment local funding to ensure completion of the Master Plan of Highways. 220. Continue to participate in countywide and/or local intergovernmental transportation planning and growth management efforts. 221. Prepare and adopt a Growth Management Element that is consistent with the requirements of the County of Orange Revised Traffic and Growth Management Ordinance. 222. Continue to participate in the countywide Congestion Management Program to maintain City eligibility for gas tax revenues authorized by State Congestion Management Program legislation. 223. Prepare and adopt a City Congestion Management Program that is consistent with the countywide and State Congestion Management Program legislation. 1. The City of Costa Mesa shall continue to coordinate with the County of Orange to achieve consistency between the City and County Master Plan of Bikeways. 163. Require dedication of right -of --way in an equitable manner for completion of adopted bikeway system as condition of development of adjacent properties. 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) Type of Mitigation Measure Department Program Department Program Department Program Department Program Department Program Department Program Development Project Review 4" Implementation I Responsible City Department Time Frame and Involved Outside Agency Ongoing Public Services Ongoing Public Services 1992/1993 Ongoing 1992/1994 Ongoing Ongoing City Funding Sources Department Budgets Department Budgets Development Services/Public Services I Department Budgets Public Services Department Budgets Development Services/Public Setvices I Department Budgets Public Services Development Services Department Budget Development Review Fees EIR Section Mitigation Measure 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONffORING PROGRAM (Continued) Type of Mitigation Measure Transportation (Continued) 164. Include bicycle lanes on all new bridges along Master Plan of Bikeway Development Project designated arterials within or adjacent to the City. In cases where bridges Review are not located within the City, the City should exert its influence on responsible agencies to include such bicycle lanes. If provision of bicycle lanes is not feasible, measures should be taken to prohibit bicycle riding on bridge walkways. Air Quality Noise . 180. Pursue acquisition of right -of way for completion of adopted bikeway system through all available funding mechanisms. 181. Construct bicycle lanes and trails shown on the adopted bikeway plan in areas where sufficient right -of --way exists. 80. Cooperate with and support regional, State, and Federal agencies to improve air quality throughout the South Coast.Air Basin. Department Program Department Program Department Program 81. Participate is the environmental analysis review and adoption process of the Tier I Control Measures identified in Department program the adopted South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan. 82. After analysis of each measure, implement, as appropriate, the Tier I Control Measures in the Air Quality Management Department Program Plan as they are formally adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 83. Require, as part of the environmental review proEan anal�- developmentjor or redevelopment impacts Development Project project oand regiond water quality. Review 87. Develop and implement a Reasonable Available Control Measure Plan (including employee rideshari Department Program ng, traffic signal synchronization, bicycle/ Pedestrian facilities, energy conservation street lighting, modified work schedules, preferential carpool parting, or other equivalent control measures) in conformance with the Air Quality Management Pian for the South Coast Air Basin. 90. Require, as a part of the environmental review process, that full consideration be given to the existing and projected noise environment. Development Project Review 48 Implementation I Responsible City Department Time Frame and Involved Outside Agency Ongoing Public Services City Funding Sources Department Budget/Regional Bikeway (SB -821) Funds Ongoin8I Public Services I Department Budget/Regional Bikeway (SB -821) Funds OgoinBI Public Services I Department Budget/Regional Bikeway (SB -821) Funds Ongoing Administration/Development Serviced Public Services/SCAQMD/ARB/EPA Ongoing Administration/Development Services/ Public Services/SCAQMD Department Budgets Department Budgets OngoingI Administration/Development Services/ IDepartment Budgets Public Services/SCAQMD OugoiingI Development Services I Development Review Fees Ongoing Administration/DevelopmentServices/ Public Servicea/SCAQMD Department Budgets Ongoing I Development Services I Development Review Fees 103. In conjunction with Environmental Impact Reports, assess the potential noise Department Program impact associated with increased traffic on surrounding residential and Ongoing Development Services Development Review Fees sensitive land uses. When acceptable exterior and interior mise levels aro Projected to be exceeded, project related impacts shall be mitigated through construction of noise attenuation walls or other measures. 1. Review and revise, as appropriate, the City's Residential Noise Attenuation Department Program 1992-1997 Walls Standards and Specifications to address the expected noise levels at Development Services Department Budget General Plan buildout. 49 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) EIR Section Mitigation Measure Type of Mitigation Measure implementation Responsible City Department Noise (Continued)City 92. Give 411 consideration to the existing and Time Frame and Involved Outside Agency Sources projected noise environment when considering alterations to the City's circulation system and Master Plan of Development Projectoin Review 8 Public Servicea/Development Services Department Budgets Highways. 93. Encourage Caltrans to construct noise attenuation barriers along State freeways and highways adjoining residential and other noise sensitive areas. Department Program 8 Ongoing Administration/Public Department Budgets 94. Provide necessary equipment and training to enforce the Noise Ordinance Department Program Services/Caltrans wntrans using existing City staff for initial field check of noise complaints. Ongoing 8 n8 Development Services Department Budget 95. Contract with Orange County for enforcement of the Noise Ordinance in Department Program those cases where staff and equipment demands exceed City resources. Ongoing Development Services Department Budget 97. Ensure that appropriate site design measures are incorporated into residential developments, when required by an acoustical Department DeP Program Ongoing Development Services study, to obtain appropriate exterior noise levels. When necessary, require field testing at the time of Development Review Fees/Prc jest Developer project completion to demonstrate compliance. 98. Apply the standards contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Department Program Code as applicable to the construction of all new dwelling units. 0r18°1118 Development Services Development Review Fees 99. Require field testing of completed residential structures to ensure compliance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Department Program Development Review Fees/Project Developer 0r8O1l18 Development Services 100. Minimize noise impacts upon residential and other noise sensitive land uses. Department Progralll Ongoing Development 101. Discourage sensitive land uses from locating in the 65 CNEL noise Services Development Review Fees contour of the John Wayne Airport. Should it be deemed b the Cit as a Y Y appropriate Development Project Review Ongoing 8 8 Development Services Development Review Fees and/or necessary for a sensitive land use to locate in the 65 CNEL noise contour, ensure that appropriate interior noise levels aro met, and that minimal outdoor activities are allowed. 103. In conjunction with Environmental Impact Reports, assess the potential noise Department Program impact associated with increased traffic on surrounding residential and Ongoing Development Services Development Review Fees sensitive land uses. When acceptable exterior and interior mise levels aro Projected to be exceeded, project related impacts shall be mitigated through construction of noise attenuation walls or other measures. 1. Review and revise, as appropriate, the City's Residential Noise Attenuation Department Program 1992-1997 Walls Standards and Specifications to address the expected noise levels at Development Services Department Budget General Plan buildout. 49 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) EIR Section Mitigation Measure Type of Mitigation MeasureL Wastewater 251. Include as evaluation of impacts on utility y systems and infrastructures in Department Program EMs for all major General Plan Amendment, rezone and development applications. Implementation Time Frame LRespoavble 1 'Department and Involved Outside Agency City finding Bounce Development Review Fees Ongoing Development Services °p 252. Phase or restrict future development of the City to that which can be Department Program accommodated by infrastructure, existing or planned to exist, at the time of P g completion of each phase of a multi -phased project. Ongoing Development Servicea/Pubfic Services Department Budgets 253. Require developers to pay appropriate impact fees to the Costa Mesa Department Program Sanitary District and Orange County Sanitation Districts to fund the cost of any necessary improvements to the sewage collection and treatment system. Ongoing Development Services/CMSD/CSDOC Development Review Fees 254. Require developers, when necessary, to coordinate with the Costa Mesa i Department Program Sanitary District and Orange County Sanitation Districts to determine flow reduction techniques to be incorporated into their project designs. Ongoing g 8 IServices/MCSD/CSDOC Development Services/Public Development Review Fees Water 25. Require, as part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major Development Project development or redevelopment project impacts on local water supplies and Review water quality, and analysis of the impact on water capacity, water availability and water costs. Development Services Ongoing g g Development Review Fees 26. Pursue the use of reclaimed wastewater for the irrigation of all appropriate Development Project open space facilities and require new developments to tie into the wastewater Review system when recommended by the Orange County Water District or Mesa Consolidated Water District. Development Review Fees Ongoing Development Services/Public Services 27. Require proposed development projects to incorporate all interior and Development Project exterior water conservation measures required by State law and State and Review local water agencies. Encourage the implementation of measures On oin 8 g Development Services Development Review Fees recommended by the water agencies. 28. Amend the landscape standards to require the use of low flow irrigation Department systems and native California vegetation and/or other low demand plants, Program with evaluation as to their drought resistance, in all proposed development Projects. 1992-1997 Development Services Department Budget 33. Direct developers to work with the local water agency when the water Development Projectoin agency determines that a project impacts the local water supply system. The Review Y water agency may require fees or other financial assessments of developers to finance any required expansion of the water supply system to serve new projects. g Development Ser'iees/MCWD/SAHWC Development Review Fees 50 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONMRING PROGRAM (Continued) EIR Section Water (ContinFued) � Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Mitigation Measure 83. Require, as a pact of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major development or redevelopment project impacts on local and regional air and water quality. 85. Require compliance with regional, State and Federal regulatory agencies topro enforce water quality regulations and reduce surface water pollution. 86. Review existing street cleaning policies and equipment and evaluate all necessarymodifications use of vacuum street sweeping equipment, slower � uP ng e9 P sweeping speeds, modified schedules, etc.) to reduce surface water pollution. 88. Investigate alternative methods to improve all streets with curbs and guttersrtment to facilitate removal of significant street pollutants throughout the community. 251. Include an evaluation of impacts on utility systems and infrastructures in EIRs for all major General Plan Amendment, rezone and development applications. 252. Phase or restrict future development of the City to that which can be accommodated by infrastructure, existing or planned to exist, at the time of completion of each phase of a multi -phased project. 42. Prepare and adopt a Source Reduction and Recycling Element that is consistent with the goals of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. 106. Enact appropriate ordinances that address the siting of hazardous waste facilities in the City that are consistent with the intent of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The siting criteria shall include standards and requirements that ensure the protection of the community and environment from potential negative impacts of hazardous waste facilities. 107. Participate with the County of Orange in the implementation of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 108. Ensure that appropriate in-depth environmental analysis is conducted for any Proposed hazardous waste treatment, transfer, and/or disposal facility. Type of Mitiigatiou Measure Development project Review Department Program Department Program �Pa Program Department Program Department Program Department P Program Department P Program Department ram wog Development Project Review Implementation Tune Frame Ongoing Ongoing 1992-1997 1992-1997 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing 1992-1993 1992-1997 On of g n8 Responsible �' p��� and Involved Outside Agency City Funding Sources Development Services Development Review Fees Administration/Public Services/ Development Services/RWQCB/DHS/EPA Department Budgets Department Budget Public Services Public Services Department Budget Development Services Development Review Fees Development Services/Public Services Department Budgets Administration/Public Services/Costa Mesa Sanitary District/Development Services Department BudgetsfUser Fees Development Services Department Budget Development Services/Public Services Department Budgets Development Services Development Review Fees 51 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) EIR Section Mitigation MeasureType of Mitigation Measure Implementation rune Frame Responsible City Department and Involved Outside Agency City Ftmdiag Sources Department Budgets Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste (Continued) 109. Provide community education on the types and uses of household hazardous wastes and their proper disposal (including how to reduce the use of hazardous household materials, and where and how to dispose hazardous household materials); distribute information on local collection sites. Department Program mooing Public Services/Development Services Natural Gas and Electricity/ 34. Establish guidelines for encouraging passive solar design and require Energy analyses of available energy conservation measures in excess of Title 24 requirements. This shall include considerations such as modified site and building design in conjunction with EIRs and Negative Declarations for all • new buildings and subdivisions. 35. Consider effects of buildings over two stories or 30 feet in height on adjacent parcels to ensure minimum interference with solar access in the vicinity of all new developments. 39. Consider adoption of regulations to require all new heated swimming pools to be equipped with solar heating and encourage retrofitting of existing to swimming pools with solar beaters. 39. Encourage active solar systems for either water and/or space heating in all residential, commercial and industrial building designs. 40. Encourage retrofitting of all existing residences with wall and ceiling insulation and water heater insulation. 251. Include an evaluation of impacts on utility systems and infrastructures in EIRs for all major General Plan Amendment, rezone and development applications. 252. Phase or restrict future development of the City to that which can be accommodated by infrastructure, existing or planned to exist, at the time of completion of each phase of a multi -phased project. Development Project Review Ongoing Development Services Development Review Fees Development Review Fees Department Budget Department Budget Department Budget Development Review Fees Department Budgets Development Project Review Ongoing Development Services Department Program 1992-1997 Services Department Program 1992-1997 Development Services Department P Program 1992'1997 Development Services Dcpanment Program On of g n8 Development Services Department Program Ongoing Development Services/Public Services Police/Fire Services 134. Continue to require smoke detectors to be installed in all existing residential units upon change of ownership and encourage the installation of smoke detectors in all units. 135. Continue to require smoke detectors to be installed in all existing residential units upon addition or alteration in excess of $1,000 valuation or upon addition of one or more sleeping rooms. Department Program Fire Department Department Budgets Department Budgets Department Program Ongoing Fire 52 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) EIR Section Nfitigation Measure Type of LN�Gtigation Measure Implementation Time Frame Responsible �y � and Involved Outside Agency Y Funding Sources Department Budgets Department Budgets Department Budgets Police/Fire Services Continued 136. Encourage the installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in all new and existing developments, including new single-family and multi -family dwelling units. Department Program Ongoing Fire 156. Set appropriate goals for average nonemergency and emergency response times for police and fire as part of their annual department program budgets. Review the department's ability to meet the stated goals on an annual basis and implement corrective action as appropriate. Department Program Ongoing Policere 157. Developappropriate methods to determine the cumulative impacts of new development on the police and fire departments' ability to provide service. Department Program 1992-1997 Police/Fire 158. Prepare and adopt a development impact fee program or similar financing tool to fund additional fire and licePolice/Fire police personnel, facilities and equipment as required to meet the demands of additional growth in the City. Department Program 1997-1"7 Department Budgets Department Budgets Department Budgets 159. Require appropriate site and environmental analysis for future fire and police station site locations or for the relocation or closure of existing fire and police facilities. Department Program Ongoing Police/Fre/DevelopmentServices 259. Develop standards and/or guidelines for new development with emphasis on site (including minimum site securityand lighting) g ng) and building design to minimize vulnerability to criminal activity. Department Programs 1992-1997 Police/DevelopmentServices �Y�4O° shall continue to require developers to submit roof of schoolP pact fee payment, where appropriate, prior to the issuance of ermits. F Development Project Review Ongoing Development Services Development Review Fees Parks results of the 1990 Federal census are available> provide a acres of permanent public open space (2.5 acres in ood and community parks and 1.5 acres in school yards) for every 1,000 residents. Department Program Ongoing Communis Services4.0 y Department Budget/Park Fees 2. Conduct a comprehensive parkland study after the results of the 1990 Federal census are available in order to adjust the ratio of neighborhood and community park acreage to the total population to reflect the census. Unless State law is modified, the amount of neighborhood and community parks shall not be reduced below three acres and shall not exceed five acres per 1,000 residents. Department P Program In Progress Development Services/Community Services Department Budgets 53 1990 GENERAL PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (Continued) EIR Section Mitigation Measure Type of Mitigation Measure Implementation Tune Frame Responsible City Department and Involved Outside Agency City Funding Sources Parts (Continued) 3. Conduct a comprehensive parkland study to identify future park sites in the City and acquisition mechanisms to meet the needs of future population increases. The acquisition mechanisms can include lease or cooperative agreements with other public agencies regarding surplus land, dedication or easements in conjunction with planned commercial, industrial or mixed use development, acquisition of land by fee, development of City -owned surplus property as parkland, or other mechanisms. Department P Program in Progress Development Services/Community Services Department Budgets 8. Encourage, through development rights transfers or incentives, the development of private open spa oP P � permanent n ce, and recreation facilities to meet the needs of the City's residents. Development Project Review Ongoing Development Services oP Development Review Fees 9. Encourage, through open space easements, development rights transfer or acquisition, zoning regulations, or other incentives, the long-term maintenance of existing open space lands. Department Project Review Ongoing Devel runt S °p Services Development Review Fees Coastal Resources 43. Coordinate the planning efforts of the City with those of the County of e, the Cit of Newport Beach, and other appropriate agencies to develop uniform and consistent policies regarding the future use and development in the Santa Ana River lowlands extending from the Pacific Ocean to the Fairview Regional Park site. Department Program Ongoing Administration/Development Services/CommunityServices Department BudgetsOran 44. Preserve and enhance existing wetland areas. Department Program 1992-1997 Development Services/Community Services Department Budgets 45. Develop the Canyon Park site as a low intensity wilderness arca combining hiking, picnicking, and educational uses in a restored natural environment. Department Program In Progress Communis Services Y Department Budget/Revenue Sharing 47. Encourage the County of Orange to acquire the remaining 5 -acre privately owned parcel adjacent to the Santa Ana River. 51. Pursue adoption of a Local Coastal Plan. Department prog ram Department Program 1992-1997 1992-1997 Administration/Development Ser-rices/County of Orange Department Budget Development Services Department Budget P 8 54