Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-60 - Adopting GP-83-1BRESOLUTION NO. 84-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -83-1B, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF COSTA 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, 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, General Plan Amendment GP -83-1B, an application to change the land use designation of properties bordered by Fairview Road, Harbor Boule- vard, Sunflower Avenue, and the San Diego Freeway (I-405), from Industrial Park to Commercial Center has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, public hearings were duly held by the Planning Carnmission on April 23, 1984, and by the City Council on May 7, 1984, in accordance with Section 65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, all per- sons having been given the opportunity to be heard both for and against said Amendment GP -83-1B 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 (CEQA) 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 Sec- tions 15091 and 15093 of the State EIR Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt General Plan Amendment GP -83-1B as shown in that document entitled "General Plan Amendment GP-83-1B/Rezone Petition R-83-0211, 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 incor- porated 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 Statment 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 is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be avoided or miti- gated will be avoided or mitigated by the imposition of conditions on development proposals submitted pursuant to the approved General Plan Amendment and by the imposition of mitigation measures as set forth in the Statement of Facts and 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. 8. 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 Considerations. 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 EIRs 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 -83-1B, 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 recommendation. The City Council has considered the recammenda- tion of the Planning Commission 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 bordered by Fairview Road, Harbor Boulevard, Sunflower Avenue, and the San Diego Freeway (I-405), as described in the text and maps of the document entitled "General Plan Amendment GP-83-1B/Rezone Petition R-83-02 are hereby amended from Indus- trial Park to Commercial Center (including allocation of square footage by blocks, as proposed, with provision for reallocation of square footage from one block to another as long as the amount reallocated does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total permitted in either affected block). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 1984. Mayor of the City of Costa Mega ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Costar 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. 84-60 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by said City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of May, 1984. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 8th day of May, 1984. C'ty Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of e City Council of the City of Cos aptsa Exhibit "A" Resolution 84-e0 CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS May 7, 1984 Significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposed General 0 �o d Plan Amendment is adopted, findings with respect to said effects and Statement of O0 1-4 Facts in support thereof, all with respect to the proposed amendment of the Gen- eral Plan of the City of Costa Mesa, designated General Plan Amendment GP -83-1B. 0 4J � v rn BACKGROUND o The California Envirormental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines 0 r (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environ- mental impact report has been completed 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 jurisdic- tion 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 infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives indentified in the Final EIR. The City of Costa Mesa proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by adcpting General Plan Amendment GP -83-1B. Because GP -83-1B 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 -83-1B as shown in that document entitled "General Plan Amendment GP-83-1B/Rezone Petition R-83-02", Option I, and has determined that the EIR for GP -83-1B is complete 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 -83-1B has concluded that the General Plan amendment and its attendant project would not have any significant adverse impacts on: EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE Hydrology/Drainage Noise Impacts The project will increase the impermeable surfaces causing an increase in the volume and rate of run-off directed into drainage facilities in the area. Additionally, the project is within the 100 -year flood plain. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorpor- ated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance in that: a. The project will incorporate the appropriate floodproofing measures identified in the City's Floodplain zoning regulations (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 analy- sis, on-site storm drains will be designed. c. Pervious paving material will be used whenever feasible to reduce suface water run-off. Impacts Project -generated traffic will incrementally increase noise along the road- way network which services the development. During project development, con- struction activities will generate short -tern noise impacts. -2- Geology (Pages 15-18, Draft EIR); Biological resources (Pages 38-39, Draft EIR); ro o i� Lard Use (Pages 72-75, Draft EIR); ,n n :3, Solid waste (Pages 93-95, Draft EIR); (D r•6 H. Historical resources (Pages 106-107, Draft EIR). N rt z 0 Q '-COFINDINGS CO AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS rn FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF C) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -83-1B EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE Hydrology/Drainage Noise Impacts The project will increase the impermeable surfaces causing an increase in the volume and rate of run-off directed into drainage facilities in the area. Additionally, the project is within the 100 -year flood plain. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorpor- ated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance in that: a. The project will incorporate the appropriate floodproofing measures identified in the City's Floodplain zoning regulations (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 analy- sis, on-site storm drains will be designed. c. Pervious paving material will be used whenever feasible to reduce suface water run-off. Impacts Project -generated traffic will incrementally increase noise along the road- way network which services the development. During project development, con- struction activities will generate short -tern noise impacts. -2- Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorpor- ated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance in that: a. The City's Noise Ordinance restricts construction activities between the hours of 8 p.m, of one day and 7 a.m. of the following day; b. TSM measures will be used to reduce the amount of traffic generated and, as a result, traffic -related noise levels. 0 City -Wide Housing Inventory CD 1-4 Impact o The develcpment proposal submitted in conjunction with General Plan Amendment s GP -83-1B will generate an increase in City-wide housing demand of approxi- �4 ? ) mately 738 units over that which would be expected if the site were developed o w under the existing Industrial Park General Plan designation. This could N aggravate the City's existing housing market arra also affect the housing needs of adjacent cam unities. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorpor- ated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which miti- gate this significant environmental effect in that: a. The project sponsor will be required to submit a program to meet the additionally generated housing demand with units which were not anticipated by the City's existing General Plan. Water Facilities Impact The project will create a demand for approximately 652,000 gallons of water per day in addition to water required for landscape maintenance. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorpor- ated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance in that: a. The Mesa Consolidated Water District (the local water purveyor) has appointed a task force whose aim is to pranote water conservation and to reduce the demand for potable water thereby offsetting the impacts caused by the lass of Northern California water; b. The project will use reclaimed water for landscape/irrigation pur- poses when it becanes available; -3- 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 recirculating systems (California Energy Commission regulations); (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; Ko rt (7) Hot water lines will be insulated to provide hot water faster '6 with less water waste, and hot lines will be separated from cold lines; °, y (8) Restaurants will use water conserving dishwasher models or r retrofit dishwater spray emitters; ~ � (9) Restaurants will serve drinking water upon request only. 10) Conservation reminders will be posted in hotel roans and rest - CD roans; (11) Thermostatically controled mixing valves will be used for bath/ showers in hotel roans; (12) Water conserving models of washers will be used in laundry facilities. d. The following water conservation measures for landscape/irrigation purposes will be instituted: (1) Drought-resistent planting materials will be used for landscap- ing. The project's landscape plan will be approved by the Plan- ning Division prior to the issuance of building permits; (2) The use of lawn will be minimized; (3) Mulch will be applied extensively to all landscaped areas; (4) Efficient irrigation systems which minimize run-off and evapor- ation will be installed; (5) Pervious paving material will be used whenever feasible to re- duce surface water run-off and facilitate ground water recharge. Sewer Facilities Impact The project will generate approximately 652,000 gallons of wastewater daily. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorpor- ated 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 (CMSD) and the Orange County Sanitation Dis- tricts to insure adequate capacity is available and can be allocated to the development; -4- b. The site will be annexed by the CMSD in order to provide sewer ser- vice; c. Sewer facilities within public streets proposed for dedication to the Costa Mesa Sanitary District will be constructed by the Developer, at no cost to the District; d. Water conservation outlined above will be used to reduce the rate of wastewater flow. 0 Natural Gas CO 1-4 Impact :C O +J Ln The project will consume approximately 31 million cubic feet of natural gas v per month, or about 372 million cubic feet per year. � 7 ro Findings ow 1. Changes, alterations, arra other measures have been made in or incorpor- ated 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 ccrnpany to provide suf- ficient new facilities for gas service to the project. Electricity Impact The project will require approximately 82,332,000 kilowatt-hours of electri- city annually. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorpor- ated 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 anount that is necessary for the safety and the protection of proprietors and their custtmers. 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 selec- tion; -5- Energy Impact The project will cause a significant increase in the demand for energy resources. Findings 1. Charges, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorpor- ated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will m mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance in that: ro°5? n fi r a. All structures proposed in subsequent development proposals will be rn9 6 W. designed in accordance with the requirements mandated in Title 24 of o z California Administrative Code; rn O > b. Energy Conservation Master Plan will be prepared with each subsequent ~ J development proposal, outlining and identifying measures to be imple- a, mented to reduce the consumption of energy resources. This Master Plan will consider at a minimum, the following: (1) Building siting and orientation (2) Construction materials and techniques (3) Thermal resistance (4) Colors of roofs and walls (5) Size, placement, and canposition of windows (6) Shading (both landscape and structural) (7) Alternative energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, fuels, etc.) (8) Space and water heating Fire Protection 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. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorpor- ated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance in that: a. The project sponsor will dedicate a 30,000 square foot site for the location of a fire station; b. The project sponsor will deposit a development fee, determined by the Fire Department, which will be used to update Fire Department facilities; c. The project will be included in the Fire Department's Company inspec- tion program; -6- d. The Fire Prevention Division will require adequate fire flow at the project's building permit stage; e. The Fire Prevention Division will require that on-site fire hydrants be installed. The number of hydrants will be determined at the pro- ject's building permit stage. Police Protection Impact 0 The project will incrementally reduce the Police Department's service capabi- I lity. 001-4 Findings z O 4J r 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated 0.4 rn into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate C:a this impact to a level of insignificance in that: o En 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. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CAN- NOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Air Quality Impact The project will create an incremental increase in stationary and mobile source pollutants; forecasted emission levels are inconsistent with the Air Quality Management Plan, 1982 Revision. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorpor- ated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which miti- gate this significant environmental effect in that: a. Adequate watering techniques will be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction -generated dust particulates; b. Paving parking and materials staging areas early during development will reduce travel on unpaved surfaces; c. Trucks hauling debris will be sprayed to prevent blown dust from open trucks and to wash excess mud off vehicle tires before they enter vehicle roadways; OIC (1) The developing nature of the project vicinity makes it economi- cally unviable to continue farming the project site in view of mounting development pressures; (2) Agricultural production is inconsistent with the intense devel- opment trend of neighboring properties; (3) The retention of agricultural activities is inconsistent with the General Plan's long-range assumption of the eventual devel- opment of all agricultural land within the City by 1990. -8- d. Reduced vehicle speed will be enforced within the construction area; e. Construction -related dirt will be cleaned up on approach routes to the site; f. A detailed analysis of the energy conservation effectiveness of the project's heating and cooling systems will be conducted and submit- ted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits; g. Employees arca custaners will be encouraged to use public transit o r and/or carpools by the following methods: ro Q (1) Distribution of information on transit routes and schedules; CO (2) Provision of convenient bus shelters; o (3) Assistance to employees in forming carpools; • _ (4) Preferential carpool parking; CO (5) Subsidizing employees' costs for monthly transit passes; i o h. Duployers/tenants on-site will be encouraged to consider modified work schedules for employees to reduce travel during periods of traf- fic congestion and thereby reduce congestion -related motor vehicle emissions; i. Bicycle storage facilities will be provided. 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virture of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. 3. Project alternatives were rejected as infeasible, based on econanic, 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 jurisdiction of the AQMP and includes technological improvements to reduce emissions fran both mobile and stationary sources. b. The "No Project" Alternative was rejected because: (1) The developing nature of the project vicinity makes it economi- cally unviable to continue farming the project site in view of mounting development pressures; (2) Agricultural production is inconsistent with the intense devel- opment trend of neighboring properties; (3) The retention of agricultural activities is inconsistent with the General Plan's long-range assumption of the eventual devel- opment of all agricultural land within the City by 1990. -8- C. The "Existing General Plan" Alternative was rejected because: (1) The econanic base of the County is changing and industrial developments are becaning less viable; (2) There is a trend for industrial canpanies to leave the area because of lack of an adequate employee pool; d. The "Commercial Center at Reduced Density/Intensity" 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 General Plan policy of concentrating intense developments with high traffic generation near major transportation corridors and employment centers. e. The "Mixed Commercial/Residential Use" Alternative was rejected because: (1) Residential development to meet the project demand is being pursued in other parts of the City; (2) The site is not well-suited to residential development due to proximity of noise sources (San Diego Freeway, rail spur); (3) The advantages of a true mixed use development would not be achieved due to the separation of the two uses by South Coast Drive; (4) Air quality and traffic impacts would not be mitigated to an insignificant level. 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. Transportation/Circulation Impact The development proposal submitted in conjunction with General Plan Amendment GP -83-1B will generate approximately 38,500 vehicle trip ends per day. Findings 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorpor- ated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate this significant environmental effect in that: a. A detailed traffic analysis will be canpleted prior to the approval of development plans for each specific block within the project. Improvenents necessary to mitigate the projected traffic impacts will be canpleted by the project proponent or funding for their canpletion will be provided; -9- 0 i 2114 +J rd rn .4 - v how N M (1) Residential development to meet the project demand is being pursued in other parts of the City; (2) The site is not well-suited to residential development due to proximity of noise sources (San Diego Freeway, Rail Spur); (3) The advantages of a true mixed use development would not be achieved due to the separation of the two uses by South Coast Drive; (4) Air quality and traffic impacts would not be mitigated to an insignificant level. 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. -10- 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virture of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. 3. Project alternatives were rejected as infeasible, based on econanic, 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: ip ro o r (1) The developing nature of the project vicinity makes it econani- � cally unviable to continue farming the project site in view of m 6 mounting development pressures; C5ps rt (2) Agricultural production is inconsistent with the intense devel- 0 opment trend of neighboring properties; (3) The retention of agricultural activities is inconsistent with the General Plan's long-range assumption of the eventual devel- 00 opment of all agricultural land within the City by 1990. rn 0 b. The "Existing General Plan" Alternative was rejected because: (1) The econanic base of the County is changing and industrial developments are becaning less viable; (2) There is a trend for industrial canpanies to leave the area because of lack of an adequate employee pool; c. The "Canmercial Center at Reduced Density/Intensity" 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 General Plan policy of concentrating intense developments with high traffic generation near major transportation corridors and employment centers. d. The "Mixed Cc mmercial/Residential Use" Alternative was rejected because: (1) Residential development to meet the project demand is being pursued in other parts of the City; (2) The site is not well-suited to residential development due to proximity of noise sources (San Diego Freeway, Rail Spur); (3) The advantages of a true mixed use development would not be achieved due to the separation of the two uses by South Coast Drive; (4) Air quality and traffic impacts would not be mitigated to an insignificant level. 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. -10- Exhibit "B" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environnental Quality Act requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in o determining whether to approve the project. The City of Costa Mesa has detennined that the unavoidable environmental risks of this project are acceptable when bal- anced against benefits, giving greater weight to the unavoidable envirormental _ -4 risks. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits o were considered or decisions made: 4 0 1. General Plan Amendment GP-83-1B/Option I responds to changing land use o a and economic trends influencing the project site; 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment/Option I will increase the City's employment base; 3. Development of GP-83-1B/Option I will enhance the site's character and vicinity by providing a well -landscaped, attractive comrercial park; 4. Development of GP-83-1B/Option I will provide amenities such as hotels, restaurants, movie theatres, etc. for the enjoyment of the residents of Costa Mesa; 5. The benefits noted above cannot be attained with the project alternatives evaluated in the Final EIR.