Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout85-32 - Adopting GP-85-1ARESOLUTION NO. 85-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -85-1A, 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 Fe solution 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 community needs; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP -85-1A, an application to change the land use designation of approximately 54 acres located at the northeasterly corner of the Fairview State Hospital property has been recamnended for approval by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, public hearings were duly held by the Planning Commission on March 25, 1985, and by the City Council on April 15, 1985, 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 -85-1A to the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in canpliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR prior to 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 findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State EIR Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt General Plan Amendment GP -85-1A, Option III, together with General Plan Guidelines 1 and 2, all of which are described in that document entitled "General Plan Amendment GP -85-1A and Pe zone R-85-01"; 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 and Findings with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR together with the finding that each fact in support of the find- ings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts and Findings is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" 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 "C" 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 and Findings. 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 Findings and in the Final EIR. 6. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts and findings, have not been reduced to a level of insignificance, but have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of mitigation measures. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 7. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain 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, based on the information contained in the Final EIR, the data contained in the Statement of Facts and findings, 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that the land use designation of the property located west of Harbor Boule- vard, at the northeasterly corner of the Fairview Stag Hospital site, as described and shown in Exhibit "A", is hereby amended from Institutional and Recreational (I&R) to Planned Development Residential - High Density (PDR -HD), and that the General Plan Implementation Guidelines contained in that same document are herein adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 1985. ATTTEST: Ci y Clerk of the City of Cost Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) May f the City of 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. 85-32 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of April, 1985. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 16th day of April, 1985. City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk the City Council of the City of Co Mesa EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A A parcel of land lying within Lot A of the Banning Tract, in the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana, City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map of said Tract filed in Action No. 6385 in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, being an action for Partition entitled Hancock Banning, et al vs. Mary H. Banning, more particulary described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard and the Easterly prolongation of the North line of Lot A of the Banning Tract as shown on a Record of Survey filed in Book 53, Pages 34 through 36 of Records of Survey in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County; thence South 89°18113" West along said North line and Easterly prolongation 60.00 feet to a point in a line parallel with and 60.00 feet Westerly from the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 0°17142" East along said parallel line 1743.54 feet to a tangent curve concave to the Northwest having a radius of 30.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along said curve 47.12 feet through a central angle of 90°00'00' to a tangent line; thence along said tangent line South 89°42118" West 477.26 feet to a tangent curve concave to the South having a radius of 390.00 feet; thence Westerly along said curve 4.40 feet through a central angle of 0038146" to a reverse curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 30.00 feet; thence Northwesterly along said reverse curve 34.05 feet through a central angle of 65°01'29" to a reverse curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 4020.00 feet; thence Northwesterly along last mentioned reverse curve 369.44 feet through a central angle of 5°15156" to a compound curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 737.50 feet; thence Northwesterly along said compound curve 598.99 feet through a central angle of 46°32107" to a tangent line; thence along said tangent line North 77043102" West 731.98 feet to a tangent curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 300.00 feet; thence Westerly along said N M I W M W oo � -'q �x o7 Q7 W J1 W t� 09 H H N u LIN t. Cd o 4) z u w c V .r C! ' c LO H O ,O �+ w W � b o $ OCD Qix :° �' a0. d" O e 0 04 cd ., .. W ' u t- x o W " z O c LL.. on = r4 0 10 '" 44 o c :r °�`°� ad C ;; v ° O u I s z ti c N �• of 4f O O � %-d 3 °0 w �° O I ! 41 O qr O :' u 0 a N z '� r+ 0 u `q «% ai 3 c� b � " a � d � z z ti04 O z 4) O GOi � +' c � 00 op z 41 O Q ,v W C 41 �y COJ O '' Cl O G 00 M O m z �+ 4 god V •� u .Nc ti 'a = c � a� oo cd ti a w �v :36 A. o a� O Ot. WLn 0 wz t10 N r+ a co .Go aid %-4 w Oq H O CG 7 to p u w Q p. a 3 iid N 0 Ey. hibit "A" Resolution 85-32 Paye 2 of 3 EXHIBIT TABLE CI 4r IZ01- no.UU- ,iti.o-► C Z G5' 01' 29' 30.00' 34.05 C3 5' 19 5G' 4020.00 369.44 C4 46'32'07' 737.50' 598.99' C S 273T31 - 300.00 144.65' C ro 90.00.00" 30.00 41.12 N C1 0' 38'40 390.00 4.40' OD y16 ALE�P-0' TI 5 89.28'13'W (•0.00' TZ N 1102W40"W 40.10' to T3 N 73' 03' Z5'E 2t 11.27' V 74 N 7 IT 31'E2,20.54 ; a T S N N 40' IS' IN 24 I.80' wr• r- > C7 Ort / r _Z COSTA MESA GOLF COURSE `�'P'Qi Gtr Qpm i TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING = £ HARBOR BLVD. POINT OF BEGINNING ia" 3 of 3 JO Mso 1 1 m c W wr• r- > C7 Ort / r o OD y16 w a Iy w _ N LL Q �. _Z COSTA MESA GOLF COURSE `�'P'Qi Gtr Qpm i TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING = £ HARBOR BLVD. POINT OF BEGINNING ia" 3 of 3 JO Mso EXHIBIT "B" STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS APRIL 15, 1985 2. Such charges or alterations are within the responsiblity 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 economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible 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 -85-1A. Because GP -85-1A constitutes a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, the City of Costa Mesa has prepared an Environmental hWct Report (EIR). Zhe EIR identifies 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 -85-1A, approving Option III and implementing Guidelines 1 and 2 as described and shown in that document entitled "General Plan Amendment GP -85-1A and Rezone R-85-01", and has determined that the EIR for GP -85-1A is Complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines. The findings set forth herein are made. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONEIIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RE- SPECT TO THE PROPOSED AMENMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY Of COSTA MESA, DESIGNATED GUMAL w PLAN AMENIMENT GP-85-lA. La r M rt r rr• ort BACKGROUND M co W J U The California Environmental Quality Act (CERA) and the State CEQA Guidelines 47 N (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, accompanied 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 charges or alterations are within the responsiblity 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 economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible 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 -85-1A. Because GP -85-1A constitutes a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, the City of Costa Mesa has prepared an Environmental hWct Report (EIR). Zhe EIR identifies 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 -85-1A, approving Option III and implementing Guidelines 1 and 2 as described and shown in that document entitled "General Plan Amendment GP -85-1A and Rezone R-85-01", and has determined that the EIR for GP -85-1A 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 Initial Study prepared for General Plan Amendment GP -85-1A identified those environmental elements which would not be significantly impacted by the General Plan amendment and its attendant project and, therefore, would not require eval- uation in the EIR per Section 15063(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines (as amended). These elements include: Geology Trees and other plants Natural environment Archeological and paleontological resources Maintenance of public facilities and roads Z Ln r - Parks and other recreational facilities -- o 0 •••1 N JJ FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF C'nUAL PIAN AMENDRE TT GP -85-1A EFFECTS DETERMINED TD BE MTTIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE OR SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED Impacts The project will increase the inWrnieable surfaces causing an increase in the volume and rate of run-off directed into drainage facilities in the area. E3ban polutants and sediment from the site's run-off would add cumulatively to the water quality impacts on surface water resources. Soil erosion could result if a portion of the site is cleared and left unimproved. Findings The hydrological impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance since various requirements of Oode and other mitigation measures proposed in the EIR will be applied to any project approved pursuant to GP -85-1A. These mitigation measures include the following changes, alterations, or other measures: 1. Seeding and/or landscaping of undeveloped areas. 2. Proper design of subsurface drains, appropriate grading, and landscape programs. 3. Institution of a street sweeping program utilizing state of the art equipment to reduce street and parking lot contaminants. 4. Slutmittal by the applicant of a detailed hydrology study to quantify the drainage impacts of the development and evaluate the need for any upgrading of public stone facilities. 5. Oompliance with City's grading requirements. -2- Animal Life impacts Development of the site may eliminate all existing vegetation, which would result in the loss of habitat for some species of birds which utilize open grassy areas. Findings m Impacts on animal life will be mitigated to level of insignificance w since various requirements of Code and/or mitigation measures proposed o rt o � in the EIR will be applied to any project approved pursuant to GP -85-1A. CO co These mitigation measures include the following changes, alterations, or JI other measures: N 1. Possible inclusion of open space as part of the project's land- scaping. 2. Retention of existing trees. 3. Compliance with various requirements of the orange County vector Control District to avoid potential vector problems. s. 7heeseosal, nae- quirements include proper grading, props landscaping with plants which are not attractive to rodents. Land Use Impacts 7he project will have incremental adverse impacts to traffic, air quality, noise, water quality, and public services, as well as an irreversible commitment of natural resources, long -terms effects on the site's landform, and visual impacts. Construction activities will also generate increased erosion and sedimentation, traffic, noise, air quality, air, and view impacts. Findings land use impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance or signif- icantly reduced since various requirements of Code and other mitigation measures proposed in the EIR will be applied to any project approved pursuant to GP -85-1A. Findings and mitigation measures cited elsewhere in this Statement address the specific impacts cited above. in addition, the following circumstances and mitigation measures relate to and/or reduce the land use impacts: 1. Project will provide affordable housing and will include units designed to facilitate access for handicaped persons. 2. Some of the effects could be reduced by lowering the density of the proposed affordable housing project. This, however, would reduce the supply of potential housing and would be contrary to the intent of the City's General Plan. -3- 3. provision of adequate landscaping will help reduce possible nega- tive visual impact. Population/Housing Impacts GP -85-1A would facilitate the development of a proposed 406 -unit affordable housing project. This residential project would generate a residential M population of roughly 881 persons and would add cumulatively to the City's r population and affordable housing supply. Demand for goods and services _M CO would increase as a result of the project. -, 0 .P .0 C Findings am The EIR does not specify any mitigation for this impact. The increased housing will be a beneficial impact. The increase in population does not represent a significant increase in the City's total population. Traffic/Circulation Impacts The residential project would add cumulatively to traffic, affecting the surrounding circulation system. Findings The traffic/circulation impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignifi- cance since various requirements of Code and/or mitigation measures pro- posed in the EIR will be applied to any project approved pursuant to GP -85-1A. These mitigation measures include the following changes, alter- ations, or other measures: 1. Widening of that segment of Fair Drive west of Harbor Boulevard. 2. Convenient pedestrian access to bus stop facilities. 3. ]improvements to the bus stop area on Harbor Boulevard. 4. Provision of a bus stop turnout on Harbor Boulevard at Gregory/ Merrimac. 5. Widening of the segment of Gregory/Merrimac Way west of Harbor Boulevard. 6. participation by the developer in financing or construction of regional transportation improvements. 7. Provision of bicycle trails, as required by the City. Air Quality Impacts Increased population and traffic associated with the proposed residential use will result in increased air polutant emissions. The construction phase of the project will result in short term increases in dust and exhaust emissions. -4- Findings Air quality impacts will be reduced significantly since various require- ments of Code and other mitigation measures proposed in the EIR will be applied to any project approved pursuant to GP -85-1A. 7hese mitigation measures include the following changes, alterations, or other- measures: 1. Cessation of grading and other dust generating activities during high wind conditions. C:3,2. Fegular watering, or paving/oiling of construction roads, or other CD rt dust reduction measures. Ln N• r• o r+ 3. Proper maintenance of construction equipment engines. - 4. phasing and scheduling of construction activities to level emis- ,, v, C0 I sions peaks. 5. Cessation of construction during first and second stage smog alerts. "' 6. Incorporation of convenient pedestrian access to bus stops, public sidewalks and adjacent commercial areas. 7. Provision of bus shelters or benches. 8. Provision of bicycle storage facilities. Noise Impacts Project -generated traffic will incrementally increase noise along the road- way network which services the site. During project development, construc- tion activities will generate short-term noise impacts. Findings Noise inpacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance since various requirements of Code and/or other mitigation measures proposed in the EIR will be applied to any project approved pursuant to GP-85-lA. These miti- gation measures include the following changes, alterations, or other mea- sures: 1. Preparation of an acoustical analysis to guarantee compliance with State Code and City noise guidelines. 2. Compliance with the standards of the residential noise ordinance of the City of Costa Mesa will reduce the noise inpacts of con- struction activities. Public Services Impacts The proposed project may increase demand for fire, police, schools, and solid waste disposal. Since the proposed project is a private project to be developed on State -awned property, traditional methods of financing municipal services may not be applicable to the site. Findings Public services impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance -5- since various requirements of Oode and other mitigation measures proposed in the EIR will be applied to any project approved pursuant to GP -85-1A. These mitigation measures include the following charges, alterations, or other measures: 1. Provision of access for fire equipment during construction. 2. Provision of such fire prevention measures as smoke detectors and fire retardant roofing material. 3. Payment of monies by the developer toward the upgrading of fire department facilities. 4. Possible installation of automatic sprinkler systems. 5. Municipal services may require a contractual agreement between the state and the various municipal agencies. It is possible that, as part of the agreement, a fee may be requested as a substitution for property taxes. 6. review of safety features by the Police Department. 7. Adequate lighting of the project. 8. Adequate identification of the facilities. 9. Possible widening of Gregory Way at Harbor Boulevard. 10. Possible implementation of an on-site recycling collection program. 11. Review of possible measures to reduce the amount of waste material generated during construction. Energy/Utilities Impacts Development of the site will increase demand for natural gas, electricity, water, and telephone servicing, along with an increased need for waste water treatment. Upgrading of the existing downstream waste water line in Harbor Boulevard will be needed prior to development. Findings These impacts will be substantially reduced since various requirements of Oode and other mitigation measures proposed in the EIR will be applied to any project approved pursuant to GP -85-1A. These mitigation measures include the following changes, alteration, or other measures: 1. Consideration of energy conservation tactics such as energy effi- cient concepts in building orientation, landscaping to minimize heating and energy use, insulation of walls, floors, etc., and energy efficient lighting. 2. Consultation with utility companies during the building design prase for further energy conservation measures. 3. solar water heating of proposed recreational pools. 4. Compliance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Oode. 5. reduction in the use of lawn areas. 6. Extensive use of mulch in landscaped areas. 7. Installation of irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation. 8. Use of pervious paving material whenever feasible. 9. Use of cluster development where possible to reduce the amount -6- N M u, r` m cv W 0 0 -4 %.0 4J � rn � &w SIGNIFICANT ENVIFOMM AL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PRWECT IS IMPIZMERTED The following unavoidable impacts have been identified in the Environmental Impact report: 1. Development of the project would significantly alter views of the site fran the roads and surrounding areas. This potential impact involves subjective interpretation. Thus, although a proposed mitigation measure requires landscaping to soften and/or screen the views of the project, the impact may still be perceived as significant by some viewers. 2. Impacts to water quality, air quality, energy, and water supplies can be mitigated to some degree; however, they may be considered cumulatively significant. With respect to these areas of impact, the City recognizes its duty to reduce or avoid environmental damage where feasible. Thus, requirements of Code and other mitigation measures cited earlier in this document and identified in the EIR will be applied to any project approved pursuant to GP -85-1A. These was- ures will substantially reduce these unavoidable impacts. The remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable when compared to and balanced against facts set forth above, in the report entitled "General Plan Amendment GP -85-1A and Rezone R-85-01", in the EIR, and in the Statement of overriding Considerations. -7- C-4-7 of impervious paving. 10. Preservation and protection of existing trees and shrubs. 11. Limitation on down -stream water pressure. 12. Use of drought resistant vegetation. 13. Minimization of water runoff. 14. Low -angle, law -volume sprinkler heads. 15. Possible use of reclaimed water for dust control. 16. Avoidance of irrigation at times of high evaporation. 17. Possible incorporation of the Green Acres program for landscape CD irrigation purposes. o'er 18. Low -flush toilets and law -flow showers and faucets. o 19. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems. CO W 20. Compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code. ^' 21. reduction in sewage flows through implementation of water con- servation measures mentioned above. 22. Participation by the developer in the cost of improvements to the Costa Mesa Sanitary Districts downstream sewage line in Harbor 23. Boulevard. Submittal of a water demand analysis and landscape/irrigation plans to the Teter District for review. SIGNIFICANT ENVIFOMM AL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PRWECT IS IMPIZMERTED The following unavoidable impacts have been identified in the Environmental Impact report: 1. Development of the project would significantly alter views of the site fran the roads and surrounding areas. This potential impact involves subjective interpretation. Thus, although a proposed mitigation measure requires landscaping to soften and/or screen the views of the project, the impact may still be perceived as significant by some viewers. 2. Impacts to water quality, air quality, energy, and water supplies can be mitigated to some degree; however, they may be considered cumulatively significant. With respect to these areas of impact, the City recognizes its duty to reduce or avoid environmental damage where feasible. Thus, requirements of Code and other mitigation measures cited earlier in this document and identified in the EIR will be applied to any project approved pursuant to GP -85-1A. These was- ures will substantially reduce these unavoidable impacts. The remaining unavoidable effects are acceptable when compared to and balanced against facts set forth above, in the report entitled "General Plan Amendment GP -85-1A and Rezone R-85-01", in the EIR, and in the Statement of overriding Considerations. -7- C-4-7 U N O 0 .Y fg N i1 10-4� N 0.0 X28 o roo�o N C�C w U +J 2 p� U �w ro O C ►1 •.1 ro 2 10 41 2 2 '2 00 c Exhibit "C" lasolution 85-32 Page 1 of 1