Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-107A - Adopting GP-83-2A242 RESOLUPICN NO. 83-107A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -83-2A, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF COSH MESA. WHEREAS, the 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, canprehensive 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 canmunity needs; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP -83-2A, an application to change the Land Use Designations of properties bound by South Coast Drive, Bear Street, Sunflower Avenue, and Tracts 7718 and 7557, frau Medium Density Residential to General Carnmercial has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, public hearings were duly held on August 15, 1983, and November 7, 1983, in accordance with Section 65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, all persons having been given the opportunity to be heard both for and against said Amendment GP -83-2A to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CE¢A) and the State EIR Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the certified Final EIR in making its decision on the proposed Amendment to the Costa Mesa General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by this Resolution, adopts the Statement of Facts and the Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Sections 15088 and 15089 of the State EIR Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt General Plan Amendment GP -83-2A as shown in that document entitled "June 1983 General Plan Review", Page II -12, Option I; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that: 1. The City Council makes the findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR together with the finding that each fact in support of the findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 2. The City Council finds that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Over- riding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. 4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the project are set forth in the Statement of Facts. 5. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project `�4�3 is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be avoided or mitigated will be avoided or mitigated by the imposition of conditions on development proposals submitted pursuant to the approved General Plan Amendment and the imposition of mitigation measures as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. 6. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, have not been reduced to a level of insignificance, but have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of mitigation measures. In making its decision on the project, the City Council has given greater weight to the adverse environmental impacts. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoid- able significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the project as set forth in the Statement of Over- riding Considerations. 7. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR, and all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. B. The City Council finds that the project should be approved, and that any alternative to this action should not be approved for the project based on the information contained in the Final EIR, the data contained in the Statement of Facts, for reasons stated in the public record, and those contained in the Statement of Overriding Considera- tions. 9. The City Council finds that a good faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR as indicated in the public record on the project, including the Final EIR. 10. The City Council finds that during the public hearing process for General Plan Amendment GP -83-2A, the Planning Commission and the environ- mental document evaluated alternative land uses and intensities and the project, as approved by this Resolution, is included within that range of alternatives. Therefore, the City Council finds that it is not necessary to refer the General Plan Amendment back to the Planning Commission for report and recammendation. The City Council has considered the recommenda- tion of the Planning CaM fission in its decision on the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that the Land Use Designations of the properties bound by Bear Street, South Coast Drive, Sunflower Avenue, and Tracts 7718 and 7557 are hereby amended frau Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of November., 1983. Mayor -46f the City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: City Clerk of e City of Costa 244 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. 83-107A was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21st day of November, 1983. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 22nd day of November, 1983. City Clerk and ex -officio clerk 9f the City Council of the City of CosV Mesa `e45 EXHIBIT "A" FOR RESOLUI'ICN NO. 83-107A CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS NOVEMBER 7, 1983 Significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposed General Plan Amendment is adopted, findings with respect to said effects and Statement of Facts in support thereof, all with respect to the proposed amendment of the General Plan of the City of Costa Mesa, designated General Plan Amendment GP -83-2A. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guide- lines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been canpleted and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following written findings for each of the significant effects, accanpanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding." The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alternatives have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; 3. Specific econanic, social, or other considerations make infeasi- ble the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The City of Costa Mesa proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by adopting General Plan Amendment GP -83-2A. Because GP -83-2A constitutes a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, the City of Costa Mesa has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR identified certain significant effects which may occur as a result of this proposed General Plan Amendment. Further, the City Council wishes to adopt General Plan Amendment GP -83-2A as shown in that document entitled "June 1983 General Plan Review", Page II -12, Option I, and has determined that the EIR for GP -83-2A is camplete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines, the findings set forth herein are made: EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT The EIR for General Plan Amendment GP -83-2A has concluded that the General Plan Amendment and its attendant project would not have any significant adverse impacts on: Geology (Page 74, Draft EIR); Telephone Service (Page 47, Draft EIR); Biological/Agricultural Resources (Pages 4-66 and 4-67, Draft EIR); Archaeological/Historical Resources (Page 4-75, Draft EIR); Public Transit (Page 4-64, Draft EIR); Solid Waste (Pages 4-54 through 4-56, Draft EIR). 246 FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT RMRCNMENTAL EFFECTS OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -83-2A EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE LAND USE NOISE Impacts The proposed General Plan Amendment and attendant development repre- sent a substantial land use modification frcm the site's Medium Density Residential General Plan designation. The primary Land Use impact would be the development of a major commercial center adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood, rather than residential uses as envisioned by the existing General Plan. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being imple- mented, which mitigate this significant environmental effect in that: a. Construct a 45 -foot to 60 -foot wide, densely landscaped berm as detailed in the presentation, running the length of the site between the parking structure and the adjacent resi- dences; b. Construct a 6 1/2 -foot high wall along the westerly edge of the parking structure's upper level; C. Amend the site's General Plan designation and zoning classi- fication in accordance with the proposed project, thereby correcting the General Plan and zoning inconsistency. Impacts Project -generated traffic will incrementally increase noise along the roadway network which services the development. In addition, vehicle - related noise emanating fram the project's parking structure may impact neighboring residences. Lastly, during project development, construction activities will generate short-term noise impacts. Find ings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being imple- mented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance in that: a. Construct a 45 -foot to 60 -foot wide, densely landscaped berm as detailed in the presentation, running the length of the site between the parking structure and the adjacent resi- dences; b. Construct a 6 1/2 -foot high sound barrier along the westerly edge of the parking structure's upper level; C. Restrict maintnance operations, including parking lot and parking structure sweeping, to between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.; d. Finish parking structure floors with a rough surface; e. Restrict the hours of commercial trash disposal service to between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.; '217 f. The following construction techniques will be used: (1) Drilled piles or vibratory pile drivers instead of impact pile drivers; (2) Welding instead of riveting; (3) Mixing concrete off-site instead of on-site; (4) Employing prefabricated structures instead of assembling them on-site; (5) Using the quietest construction equipment (i.e., electric instead of diesel -powered equipment, and hydraulic tools instead of pneumatic impact tools); (6) Scheduling equipment operations to keep average noise levels low by having the noisiest operations coincide with times of highest ambient levels, keeping noise levels relatively uniform in time, and turning off idling engines; (7) Enclosing stationary construction equipment; (8) Constructing barriers around noisy areas on the site or around the entire site. VATER SERVICE The project will create a demand for approximately 68,000 gallons of water per day. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being imple- mented, which will mitigate this impact to a level of insignifi- cance in that: a. The Mesa Consolidated Water District (the local water purveyor) has appointed a task force whose aim is to promote water conservation and to reduce the demand for potable water thereby offsetting the impacts caused by the loss of Northern California water; b. The project will use reclaimed water for landscape/ irrigation purposes when it becanes available; C. The following water conservation measures will be used: (1) Low -flush toilets (Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code); (2) Low -flow faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20 -1406F); (3) Hot water lines will be insulated in water recircu- lating systems (California Energy Commission regula- tions); (4) Supply -line water pressure will be maintained at 50 pounds per square inch or less by means of pressure - reducing valves; (5) Flush valve operated water closets (three gallons per flush); (6) Drinking fountains will be equipped with self-closing valves; 243 (7) Hot water lines will be insulated to provide hot water faster with less water waste, and hot lines will be separated from cold lines; (8) Restaurants will use water conserving dishwasher models or retrofitted with spray emitters; (9) Restaurants will serve drinking water upon request only. d. The following water conservation measures for landscape/ irrigation purposes will be instituted: (1) Landscape with drought resistent planting materials. The project's landscape plan will be approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits; (2) Apply mulch extensively to all landscaped areas; (3) Install automatic and drip irrigation systems, and soil moisture sensors; (4) use pervious paving material. SEWER SERVICE Impact The project will generate approximately 68,000 gallons of wastewater daily. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance in that: a. The project sponsor will work closely with officials of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and the Orange County Sanitation District to insure adequate capacity is available and can be allocated to the development; b. The Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) will charge the project sponsor a connection fee based on a set fee schedule; C. The site will be annexed by the CMSD in order to provide sewer service; d. The project sponsor will construct and will pay for off-site sewer facilities which will be dedicated to the CMSD; e. The following water conservation measures will be used to reduce the rate of wastewater flaw: (1) Low -flush toilets; (2) Low -flow faucets; (3) Hot water lines will be insulated in water recirculating systems; (4) Supply -line water pressure will be maintained at 50 pounds per square inch or less by means of pressure -reducing valves; (5) Flush valve operated water closets (3 gallons per flush); (6) Drinking fountains will be equipped with self-closing valves; �i9 (7) Hot water lines will be insulated to provide hot water faster with less water waste; (8) Water -conserving dishwasher models will be installed in all restaurants or retrofitted with spray emitters; (9) Restaurant drinking water will be served upon request only. PIT-IM"P.-. Impact The project will consume approximately 13,600 million cubic feet of natural gas per month, or about 163,200,000 million cubic feet yearly. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance in that: a. Energy conserving construction and management techniques will be required by State law to insure efficient use of natural gas; b. The project sponsor will work with the gas company to provide sufficient new facilities for gas service to the project. PT.Pf TR'TC TTY is DI Impact The project will require approximately 13,000,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate this impact to level of insignificance in that: a. Water heaters and hot water pipes will be wrapped with good quality, thermal insulation; b. Interior and exterior lighting will be limited to the amount that is necessary for the safety and the protection of pro- prietors and their customers. The use of time -controlled outdoor lighting, adjusted seasonally, will aid in reducing unnecessary electrical use during daylight hours; C. Energy -efficiency will be a major consideration in elevator selection; d. C union property will be illuminated by flourescent lighting or lighting which is as efficient as flourescent lighting. If an alternative to flourescent lighting is proposed, an analysis will be prepared which demonstrates its energy efficiency. Impact The project will cause a significant increase in the demand for energy resources. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance in that: Construction Materials and Building Techniques a. Use building materials which provide minimum heat loss and gain; b. Use light-colored roofing materials; C. Use light colors on walls facing west and dark colors on walls facing south; d. Use photoelectric controls on security lighting; e. Insulate heating ducts; f. Use double -paned glass, glazed glass, and recessed windows; g. Use thermal or lined drapes on windows; h. Insulate hot water tanks and pipes; i. Use deciduous trees along the southern face of the building; j. Use solid-state dimmer switches; k. Install recycling bins; 1. Use time -controlled thermostats; M. Use outdoor advertising which does not require energy; n. Insulate doors, walls, floors, and ceilings; o. Use tight fitting, weather-stripped windows; p. Use clear glass for south facing windows; q. On south, southeast, and east -facing windows, shading will be employed instead of specialized glass; r. Use exterior shading devices such as overhangs, awnings, and recessed entryways; S. Plant deciduous trees directly in front of south -facing windows or provide a hanging trellis with a climbing vine that sheds its leaves in winter. Siting and Orientation of New Structures a. Final site design planning shall consider the optimum orien- tation, slightly east of south for Costa Mesa; b. Structures will be shaped so as to maximize southeast exposure and minimize west and north exposures in order to accomplish higher solar heat gain in the winter and minimize summer cooling needs. Alternative Energy Sources a. Use flourescent lighting, or mercury or sodium vapor lamps, instead of incandescent lighting; b. Use automatic flue gas dampers if using a gas heater system; C. Use heat pump systems if using electric heating; 25? d. Solar energy is a feasible source of alternative energy for space heating and cooling and water heating. This energy - type will be incorporated when possible; e. Prepare a detailed analysis of the energy conservation effectiveness of the project's heating and cooling systems and submit analysis to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. FIRE PROTECTICN Impact The project will incrementally reduce Costa Mesa Fire Department's service capability in the area of fire suppression, medical aid, and fire prevention inspections. Find ings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being imple- mented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance in that: a. The project sponsor will deposit a development fee, deter- mined by the Fire Department, which will be used to update Fire Department facilities; b. The project will be included in the Fire Department's company inspection program; C. The Fire Prevention Division will require adequate fire flow at the project's building permit stage; d. The Fire Prevention Division will require that on-site fire hydrants be installed. The number of hydrants will be determined at the project's building permit stage. POLICE PROTECTICN Impact The project will incrementally reduce the Police Department's service capability. Find ings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being imple- mented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance in that: a. The project sponsor will provide a full-time security force; b. The Police Department's patrol area will be expanded to include the project. C. Submit the security plan of the Broadway/Robinson's project to the City Council and neighboring residents. Impact The project may produce localized flooding during storm episodes of greater than 10 -year frequency. Find ings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being 252 implemented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance in that: a. The project will incorporate the appropriate floodproofing measures identified in the City's floodplain zoning regula- tions (i.e., elevate building pads to the 32 -foot base flood elevation or above); b. The project sponsor will prepare a detailed hydrological analysis in conjunction with the project's final site plan. Based on this analysis, on-site storm drains will be pro- vided. In particular, the analysis will determine the specific drainage systems or sump facilities that will be required to reduce the potential flooding impact. 'WATER QUALITY Impact The project will incrementally increase the level of runoff contami- nants into the Orange County Flood Control District system and ulti- mately into the Santa Ana River. Find ings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being imple- mented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance in that: a. Landscape planting will be carried out as quickly as possible. b. Street and parking lot paving will be restricted to the surmer dry period; C. Porus pavement will be used in parking lot and roadway construction. If the site's soils are not conducive to porus pavement, the project's drainage system will include pervious collection basins and ditches; d. Storage and infiltration systems will be incorporated into the project's runoff collection system. These facilities will be designed to accommodate maximum runoff loads. AESTHETICS/PRIVACY Impact Aesthetics is considered a subjective issue; therefore, it is diffi- cult to state whether neighboring properties will be negatively impacted in terms of aesthetics. The proposed project could impact neighboring residences' privacy. Find ings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being imple- mented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance in that: a. The building elevations will be designed to be campatible with the exteriors of South Coast Plaza's major department stores; b. The project's landscape treatment will canplement its design. C. The project's design will include a 45 -foot to 60 -foot wide, densely landscaped berm as detailed in the presentation, running the length of the site between the parking structure and the adjacent residences; 253 d. A 6 1/2 -foot high wall will be constructed along the westerly edge of the parking structure's upper level. CITYWIDE HOUSING INVENTORY Impact The development proposal, submitted in conjunction with General Plan Amendment GP -83-2A, will generate a Citywide housing demand for approximately 49 dwelling units, and eliminate the potential of developing 272 new units on the site. This could aggravate the City's existing housing market and also affect the housing needs of adjacent cammunities. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being imple- mented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance in that: a. The project sponsor shall submit a program that will replace the lost, and supply the newly generated housing units and demand to accammodate the housing shortage that the Broadway/Robinson's project will create, plus future projects of C. J. Segerstram and Sons. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRCNMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CAN- NOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PRWECT IS IMPLEMENTED AIR QUALITY Impact The project will create an incremental increase in stationary and mobile source pollutants; forecasted emission levels are incon- sistent with the Air Quality Management Plan, 1982 Revision. F ind ings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being imple- mented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance in that: a. Perform major grading in spring when soil moisture is highest, or after thoroughly sprinkling the site; b. Paving parking and materials staging areas early during development to reduce travel on unpaved surfaces; C. Spray trucks hauling debris to prevent blown dust from open trucks and wash excess mud off vehicle tires before they enter vehicle roadways; d. Enforce reduced vehicle speed within the construction area; e. Clean up construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site; f. Conduct a detailed analysis of the energy conservation effectiveness of the project's heating and cooling systems and submit to the Planning Cammission for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. g. Encourage employees and customers to use public transit and/or carpools by the following methods: (1) Distribute information on transit routes and schedules; (2) Provide convenient bus shelters; rJ Q- i (3) Assist employees in forming carpools; (4) Provide preferential carpool parking; (5) Subsidize employees' costs for monthly transit passes. h. Employers/tenants on-site should consider modified work schedules for employees to reduce travel during periods of traffic congestion and thereby reduce congestion -related motor vehicle emissions; i. Provide bicycle storage facilities. 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorpor- ated into the project as set forth above. 3. Project alternatives were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social, and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: a. Air quality in the vicinity of the project site is generally good due to the proximity of the coast and prevailing wind patterns. Mitigation of air impacts is partially the responsibility of another agency as presented below: (1) The implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin is the jurisdic- tion of the AQMP and includes technological improve- ments to reduce emissions from both mobile and stationary sources. b. The "No Project" alternative was rejected because: (1) The developing nature of the project vicinity makes it economically unviable to continue farming the project site in view of mounting development pressures; (2) Agricultural production is inconsistent with the intense development trend of neighboring properties; (3) The activities attendant to farming such as the appli- cation of pesticides and creation of dust from culti- vation adversely impact neighboring residents; (4) The retention of agricultural activities is inconsist- ent nconsistent with the General Plan's long-range assumption of the eventual development of all agricultural land within the City by 1990. C. The "Existing General Plan" alternative was rejected because: (1) City service expenditures to provide services to this alternate would eceed revenues. This potential effect would in turn result in a net revenue drain and conse- quently, is inconsistent with objectives of the City of Costa Mesa; (2) Project implementation would be inconsistent with the intense development trends in the project vicinity; (3) The public park (Wakeham Park) that project residents would utilize, lacks the capacity to adequately accom- modate their recreational needs. d. The "Reduced Density" alternative was rejected because: (1) A market demand does not exist for development in accordance with this alternative; 255 (2) Project implementation would be inconsistent with the intense development pattern that is evolving in the vicinity of the project site; (3) Project implementation would produce the most adverse impact to the City's housing inventory (create a demand for 367 dwelling units), compared to the project (321 dwelling units). (4) Project implementation would be inconsistent with the General Plan policy of concentrating intense develop- ments with high traffic generation near major trans- portation corridors and employment centers. 4. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when compared to and balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. TRANSPORTATICN/CIRCUTATICN Impact The development proposal submitted in conjunction with General Plan Amendment GP -83-2A will generate approximately 23,800 vehicle trips per day. F ind ings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being imple- mented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance in that: a. Fund and construct traffic improvements in the amount of $30.00 per daily trip to mitigate regional traffic def is i- encies caused or contributed to by the project from among the following locations: (1) Add travel lanes to the segment of Sunflower Avenue between Fairview load and Bear Street; (2) Add travel lanes to the segment of MacArthur Boulevard between Fairview load and Bear Street; (3) Add travel lanes to the Bear Street/MacArthur Boulevard intersection; (4) Add travel lanes to the Bear Street/South Coast Drive intersection; (5) Add travel lanes to the Bear Street/Paularino Avenue intersection; (6) Add travel lanes to the Fairview Road/Sunflower Avenue intersection. b. Full development of the project may result in the need for traffic signals at the access on Bear Street and at the access to South Coast Drive. The traffic signal at Fuschia Street and Sunflower Avenue is to be implemented as soon as possible in concert with the residential project north of Sunflower Avenue. However, since the close spacing of signals is not desir- able, these intersections will be monitored to identify the actual need for traffic signals following project comple- tion. C. Locate the South Coast Drive main entrance sufficiently west to permit left turns eastbound and westbound at the planned signalized location. Also, locate the Sunflower Avenue ``56 access sufficiently west to permit left turns for westbound and for possible future signalization; d. Prohibit left -turn access out of the site onto Bear Street between South Coast Drive and Sunflower Avenue and design for circulation to Sunflower Avenue instead as a planned alternative. e. Provide a portion of the necessary funding to initiate feasibility studies toward obtaining CALTRANS approval for additional freeway access to Bear Street in the vicinity of South Coast Drive; f. Establish and participate in an Employers' Transportation Management Association. g. Submit a plan to provide services for parking overflows during the traditional Christmas shopping season (the day after Thanksgiving through January 2); h. Submit plans for pedestrian bridges linking South Coast Plaza with the Broadway/Robinson's project and Town Center; i. Submit a plan to provide crossing guards during the morning and evening hours for students attending Bear Street School; k. Prepare a program of coordinating the efforts of the project applicant with the City of Costa Mesa, CALTRANS, and the Federal Highway Administration on the San Diego Freeway/ South Coast Drive on- and off -ramps. 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorpor- ated into the project as set forth above. 3. Project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based on economic, social, and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts, the Final EIR, and listed below: a. The "No Project" alternative was rejected because: (1) The developing nature of the project vicinity makes it economically unviable to continue farming the project site in view of mounting development pressures; (2) Agricultural production is inconsistent with the intense development trend of neighboring properties; (3) The activities attendant to farming such as the application of pesticides and creation of dust from cultivation adversely impact neighboring residents; (4) The retention of agricultural activities is inconsist- ent nconsistent with the General Plan's long-range assumption of the eventual development of all agricultural land within the City by 1990. b. The "Existing General Plan" alternative was rejected because: (1) City expenditures to provide services to this alternative would exceed revenues. This potential effect would in turn result in a net revenue drain and consequently, is inconsistent with objectives of the City of Costa Mesa; (2) Project implementation would be inconsistent with the intense development trends in the project vicinity; 257 (3) The public park (Wakeham Park) that project residents would utilize, lacks the capacity to adequately accom- modate their recreational needs. C. The "Reduced Density" alternative was rejected because: (1) A market demand does not exist for development in accordance with this alternative; (2) Project implementation would be inconsistent with the intense development pattern that is evolving in the vicinity of the project site; (3) Project implementation would produce the most adverse impact to the City's housing inventory (create a demand for 321 dwelling units compared to the project 367 dwelling units); (4) Project implementation would be inconsistent with the General Plan policy of concentrating intense develop- ments with high traffic generation near major trans- portation corridors and employment centers. 4. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when canpared to and balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. .58 EXHIBIT "B" FOR RESOLUrICN NO. 83-107A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CCNSIDERATICNS The California Environmental Quality Act requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The City of Costa Mesa has determined that the unavoidable environmental risks of this project are acceptable when balanced against benefits, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental risks. In making this determination, the follow- ing factors and public benefits were considered or decisions made: 1. Revenues generated by the proposed project will exceed costs associated with serving the project resulting in a financial gain to the City of Costa Mesa; 2. Funds will be available frau revenues generated by the proposed project to provide expanded and improved municipal services; 3. General Plan Amendment GP-83-2A/Option I responds to changing land use and economic trends influencing the project site; 4. The proposed commercial development is consistent and campatible with commercial development proximate to the project site; 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment/Option I will increase the City's employment base; 6. Development of GP-83-2A/Option I will enhance the site's char- acter and vicinity by providing a well -landscaped, attractive shopping mall; 7. The benefits noted above cannot be attained with the project alternatives evaluated in the Final EIR.