Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout86-79 - Finds Regarding R-86-08 & PA-86-91 and Overriding Considerationst s RESOLUTION NO. 86-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF REZONE PETITION R-86-08 AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PUR- SUANT TO PLANNING ACTION PA -86-91 AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THEREFOR. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, (the "City Council") by Ordinance No. 73-44 on December 24, 1973, adopted and approved the Redevelopment Plan for the Costa Mesa Downtown Redevelopment Project; and amended said Plan by Ordinance No. 77-27 on July 5, 1977, Ordinance No. 77-36 on August 1, 1977, and Ordinance No. 80-22 on November 17, 1980, (the "Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency, City of Costa Mesa, California, (the "Agency") and the City Council certified a Final Environ- mental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan (the "Original EIR") on December 17, 1973, by Resolution Nos. 8-73 and 73-131, respectively; and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City Council on July 10, 1984, certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report by Resolution Nos. 84-93 and 58-84, respectively, for a retail shopping center development within the Project area (the "Supplemental EIR"); and WHEREAS, the Agency and the City Council on December 18, 1985, certi- fied a Final Environmental Report (No. 1026) by Resolution Nos. 76-85 and 85-107, respectively, for the proposed development of three Sites in the Project area referred to as Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3, ("Final EIR"); and WHEREAS, the Agency proposes the development of a Mixed -Use Develop- ment including housing, hotel, and commercial uses on Site 1 by a private developer; and WHEREAS, said Mixed -Use Development requires the rezoning of Site 1 from C2 (General Business District) to PDC (Planned Development ConHnercial) and approval of a Final Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after public hearing, reccm- mended to the City Council adoption of Rezone Petition R-86-08 and approval of Planning Action PA -86-91, subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council proposes to approve and adopt R-86-08 and PA -86-91, subject to certain conditions, as public undertakings pursuant to and in furtherance of the Redevelopment Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby certifies that the information contained in the Final EIR has been reviewed and considered by the Members of the Council with respect to Rezone Petition R-86-08 and Plan- ning Action PA -86-91 and Site 1. 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Rezone Petition and the Mixed -Use Development to be developed on Site 1, and the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the Final EIR relating thereto: a. That the adverse environmental impacts pertaining to the development of Site 1, including all alternatives, set forth in the Final EIR have been considered and recognized by the City Council; b. That the proposed Mixed -Use Development for Site 1 pursuant to PA -86-91 corresponds to the reduced development intensity described in Alternative 4 of the Final EIR and thus, results in reduced adverse environmental impacts from those of the "project" described in the Final EIR; c. That based on information set forth in the Final EIR (as described in Section 3.0, Executive Summary, and Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Action, of the Final EIR attached hereto as Attachment "A" and incorporated herein by this reference) and other conditions of approval (attached hereto as Attachment "B" and incorporated herein by this reference), the City Council finds and determines that measures have been incorporated into the proposed Mixed -Use Development which mitigate or avoid adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR and set forth in Attachments "A" and "B"; d. That based on information set forth in the Final EIR and in Attachment "A" hereto, the adverse environmental impacts related to land use intensity and mix of uses, traffic, and circulation, the displacement and relocation of residents and businesses, short-term construction noise and air quality are significant environmental effects which cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the project is implemented; e. That no additional adverse impacts will have a significant effect or result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment as a result of the proposed rezoning and Mixed -Use Development of Site 1. 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines that all significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR have been reduced to an acceptable level in that: a. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened as determined through the findings set forth in paragraph 2.c of this Resolution; b. Based upon the Final EIR, the documents in the record and upon Attachment "C", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, specific economic, social or other considera- tions make infeasible other project alternatives identified in said Final EIR; c. Based upon the Final EIR and the documents in the record, all remaining, unavoidable significant effects of the proposed development are overriden by the benefits of the project as described in Attachment "C" and the City Council hereby approves and adopts said Attachment "C" as a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Mixed -Use Development pro- posed for Site 1 and implementing actions. The foregoing resolution was regularly introduced and adopted at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa duly held on the 15th day of July, 1986. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 1986. i Mayor'��pf the -City bf Q0 ATTEST: CTFyClerk of the City of Costa sa 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. 86-79 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a special meeting thereof, held on the 15th day of July, 1986. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 16th day of July, 1986. 04- C y Clerk and ex -officio Clerk o the City Council of the City of Cos Mesa ATTACHIb1ENT "A" 3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section of the report summarizes the impacts and suggested mitigation measures for the proposed project, as required under CEQA. After each iden- tified impact and mitigation measure, the site numbers (i.e. 1, 2, and/or 3) to which the statement applies are given in parentheses. Project impacts and miti- gation measures are described in greater detail in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. In addition, the summary provides qualitative indications of the magnitude of project impacts and the potential effectiveness of mitigation. An asterisk (*) after a mitigation measure indicates that it is required by law. A. Land Use 1. Potential Impacts a. Short-term construction impacts (noise, dust, unsightliness, traffic interruption) on Casa Bella and other nearby land uses (1,2,3). b. Potential land use incompatibility between residential uses (including Casa Bella and the proposed residential develop- ments) and adjacent non-residential land uses (i.e. noise, light/glare, privacy and aesthetic impacts) (1,2,3). C. Existing businesses and residents on-site will require relo- cation (1,2,3). d. PZumer Street abandonment zi.ZZ eliminate sane on -street parking and the current access to the Zibrary and community center (3). 2. Magnitude of Potential Impacts Adverse - It derate 3. Mitigation Measures a. Limit construction to the hours between 7.00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (1,2,3).* b. Screening walls or solid fencing around perimeter of construction area (1,2,3). C. Acoustical analysis and building designp in compliance with Title 25 of the California Administrative Code (1,2,3).* d. Maintain a permanent masonry wall along boundary with Casa Bella and plant 30- to 35 -foot high landscaping along the wall (2). e. Locate commercial driveways as far as possible from Casa Bella and separate parking lots from Casa Bella by at least 50 feet. A landscaped buffer could be provided (2). f. The side of proposed buildings which can be viewed from Casa Bella or proposed residences should be decoratively treated and visually softened by tall landscaping. Truck loading areas, refuse storage areas, and loud or unsightly equipment should be restricted along walls facing residences (1,2). g. Screen roof mounted mechanical equipment from view from taller buildings. 3-1 5.35A.3-1 E. Shade/Shadow I. Potential Impacts a. The six -story hotel on Site 1 will cast morning shadows on some of the proposed Site l residential units, but will not adversely impact off-site uses (0. b. A five -story building on Site 2 as shown in Figures 5A and 5B would not create any new shadow impacts on Casa Bella since there is an existing commercial building blocking sunlight from reaching the south -facing wall of Casa Bella. 9 4- to 6 -story building could create morning minter shadows on Lion: Park (2). 3-2 5.35A.3-2 h. Limit retail uses on Site 2 7djacent to Casa Bella to daytime operations and/or locate uses with high customer turnuver (i.e., restaurants) as far as possible from residences (2). i. Reduce privacy impacts by orienting windows to avoid direct views into residential and hotel uses, by interrupting views with 30- to 35 -foot high trees, by incorporating solid patio enclosures and/or by utilizing one-way glass windows (1,2,3). j. Direct exterior lighting away from residential buildings. Avoid speedbumps where headlights could tilt up into residen- 1 c rrrr tial windows. Avoid lighted commercial signs facing residen- r,Cti tial windows. Design parking to screen headlights from N o surounding streets and buildings (1,2,3). k. Architectural designs should blend with recent redevelopment � rt projects in the area (1,2,3). 1. Comply with requirements of PDC and R-4 Districts and the C) m = Redevelopment/General Plan (1,2,3).* M. Provide relocation assistance to displaced residents and 1° businesses (1,2,3).* n. Provide alternate parking and vehicle access for the Zibrnru and community center (3). o. Notify Orange County Vector Control District at least trn weeks prior to demolition or grading activities, so that rodent control measures may be taken. Gude sites to avoid standing mater that could breed mosquitos. Store thrash in fZy-proof containers to be envti,ed meekly or preferabl,v hi - meekly (1,2,3). p. Incorporate landscaping that is not attrzetive to rodents, such as that listed in Appendix E of the EIR (1, 2,3). i. Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Full mitigation of land use compatibility impacts; partial mitiga- tion of construction impacts and substantial mitigation o,'resi- dent/business displacement impacts. Romever, residential/businese displacement should be regarded as a significant un►avoidable adverse impact. E. Shade/Shadow I. Potential Impacts a. The six -story hotel on Site 1 will cast morning shadows on some of the proposed Site l residential units, but will not adversely impact off-site uses (0. b. A five -story building on Site 2 as shown in Figures 5A and 5B would not create any new shadow impacts on Casa Bella since there is an existing commercial building blocking sunlight from reaching the south -facing wall of Casa Bella. 9 4- to 6 -story building could create morning minter shadows on Lion: Park (2). 3-2 5.35A.3-2 C. 5.35A.3-3 2. Magnitude of Potential Impacts Minimal. 3. !litigation Measures a. Provide pedestrian amenities that take advantage of winter sun and summer shade (1,2,3). b. If possible, place future Site 2 buildings in excess of three stories high in the southern portion of the property or :Zona Newport Boulevard (2). 4. Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Fully mitigates the minimal adverse impacts on Casa Bella are Lions Park. Population and Housing I. Potential Impacts a. The proposed project will generate 518 additional dwelling units and will add 1,015 people to the population of Costa Mesa. The proposed retail hotel and restaurant uses will create approximately 479 additional jobs and a demand for 64 new housing units (1.2,3). b. Several businesses and the occupants of up to 9 rental resi- dential units will be displaced by the proposed project (1,2,3). 2. Magnitude of Potential Impacts Moderate. 3. Mitigation Measures a. The Redevelopment Agency will comply with California Community Redevelopment Lw regarding aquisition of business properties and relocation of businesses (1,2,3).* b. The Agency will comply with laws governing acquisition of residential properties and relocation of�residents (3).* C. The proposed project will add to the number o*' Jobs ant the supply of low and moderate income housing in the city (1,2,3). 4. Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Substantial mitigation of residential and business displacement impacts. Rowever, such disvzacement and relocation may be regarded as a significant adverse impact by same c,r the &:,rvlace:' parties. ?his rwuZd be an unavoidable impact. Complete mitiga- tion of project -generated housing demand. 3-3 a. Streets abutting the project area should be constructed to their master -planned geometrics as part of the project, and should allow adequate transition of travel lanes. This is especially applicable to 19th and 18th Streets (1,2,3). b. The projects shall assist in implementation of planned high- ways by dedicating or reserving necessary rights-of-way and by participating in funding or construction of planned improvements based on project traffic levels and the fee progr= in effect at the time of issuance of building ve+r:ts (1.2.3). C. The City 15•affic Ekgineer will review and approve proposed haul routes and schedules for dreavated soil. If trucka entering and Zsavirq the site cauge significant traffic congestion, the Oity Naffic 1%gineer wi.ZZ reouire a chance in procedures to correct the problem. d. The abandonment of Plumer Street must allow for continued access to parking areas south of Plumer Street (3). e. Driveways should utilize a curb return or widened flare design and sufficient exit lanes to accommodate traffic volumes (1,2,3). f. Streetscape plans should allow for bus shelters, bus turn- outs, bike racks, pedestrian facilities and other other amenities to encourage transit usage, bicycling and walking. There should be a bus pass program for on-site vwZouees, penrrtnent displays of transit and rideshare information, ars pedestrian and handicapped access to bus stops (2,2,3). g. Adequate turning areas shall be designed to accommodate trash trucks and fire engines. 3-4 5.35A.3-4. D. Traffic and Circulation 1. Potential Impacts a. Site l will generate 5,U70 new vehicle trips per day. This will be partially offset by a reduction in ver,icle trips generated by Sites 2 and 3. Mid-day and PM peak hour trio generation will he 330 and 335 trips, respectively (1,2,3). b. The project will increase intersection capacity utilization ny in the area by a maximum of 0.03. With the proposed project 2 rCry and the tu7 related projecte, the ICU's at Newport Boulevard/ m r•n 18th Street and Harbor Boulevard/Newport Boulevard, will 41 : increase from C to D. do intersections will exceed a level o E rt of service D, which is considered to be an acceptable level • of service (1,2.3). N O rn > C. Existing on -street parking on Plumer Street and t%!e cu* en' J access to the Zibrary/community center pari ing will be lost as a result of the project (3). 2. Magnitude of Potential Impacts Minimal. 3. Mitigation Measures a. Streets abutting the project area should be constructed to their master -planned geometrics as part of the project, and should allow adequate transition of travel lanes. This is especially applicable to 19th and 18th Streets (1,2,3). b. The projects shall assist in implementation of planned high- ways by dedicating or reserving necessary rights-of-way and by participating in funding or construction of planned improvements based on project traffic levels and the fee progr= in effect at the time of issuance of building ve+r:ts (1.2.3). C. The City 15•affic Ekgineer will review and approve proposed haul routes and schedules for dreavated soil. If trucka entering and Zsavirq the site cauge significant traffic congestion, the Oity Naffic 1%gineer wi.ZZ reouire a chance in procedures to correct the problem. d. The abandonment of Plumer Street must allow for continued access to parking areas south of Plumer Street (3). e. Driveways should utilize a curb return or widened flare design and sufficient exit lanes to accommodate traffic volumes (1,2,3). f. Streetscape plans should allow for bus shelters, bus turn- outs, bike racks, pedestrian facilities and other other amenities to encourage transit usage, bicycling and walking. There should be a bus pass program for on-site vwZouees, penrrtnent displays of transit and rideshare information, ars pedestrian and handicapped access to bus stops (2,2,3). g. Adequate turning areas shall be designed to accommodate trash trucks and fire engines. 3-4 5.35A.3-4. 4. E. Boise 1. 2. T 5.35x.3-5 h. Precise vZans for varki.na, internal site access and interna,' circulation wiZZ be analyzed by the Clity Staff and reviewed at public meetings vrior to approval of the site plans (1,2,.3). i. Widen 19th Street crest of Birk Avenue consistent with the City Master ?Zan of Highways. Such widening mist allow a smooth and proper transition to the improvements noir being made at ?irk Avenue (3). j. ReaZign the substandard curve on 28th Street near Rochester Street to aZZow the full attainment of capacity at .Newport Boulevard (2). k. The abandonment of PZtoner Street must aZZow for continued access to parking areas South of PZvner Street, across the aite or by alternate means. This uvuZd be accomplished by the plan presented in Section 2.6, Figure 7B of the FII? L. A deceleration Zane on Newport Boulevard may be required b.0 the State for any Site access from that street (2,2). In. reveZovers should provide aZZ required parking on-site (1,2,3). Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Full mitigation of traffic circulation impacts. Partial mitiga- tion of traffic generation. Unavoidable loss of on -street parking along a portion of Plumer Street, +,Stich WiZZ be reaZaeed bu an increase in library/community center parking. Potential Impacts a. The project will generate short-term construction noise which will impact Casa Bella and other adjacent uses (1.2,3). b. The increase in Site 1 traffic will increase CNEL noise levels along Harbor Boulevard north of Newport Boulevard (1). C. The proposed residential developments are partially in areas exceeding 60 CNEL (1.2,3). d. Project residents may regard the intermittent emergency sirens from Fire Station 3 as a nuisance (1,2,3). Magnitude of Potential impacts Moderate to significant. Mitigation Measures a. Construction should be allowed only between 7:00 am and 8:00 pm (1,2,3). b. Construction sites should be screened by temporary solid fencing and/or permanent masonry walls (1,2,3). C. M accoustical engineer should review retail, restaurant „nd hotel building plans and suggest measures to ensure accept- able indoor noise levels (e.g. barrier walls, double -glazed windows, extra insulation) (1.2). 3-5 rn r I Amo : N o �p o n 4J 4-) ro a°) 3-6 5.35A.3-6 d. Buildings in areas of over 60 CNEL should have adequate ven- -tilation and temperature control to allow windows to remain closed (1,2,3). e. State law requires an acoustical analysis and insulation of multi -family residences constructed within the 60 CNEL con- tour in order to maintain a maximum of 65 CNEL in exterior usable patio areas and 45 CNEL in all habitable rooms (1,2,3).* f. Truck loading areas, refuse storage areas and any outdoor equipment should not be placed along walls facing residential uses (D r• (] o � 4. Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation (D 0 Partial mitigation of construction noise impacts arf emergencti N _ o m > siren impacts. Substantial mitigation of traffic noise impacts on Jproposed residences. The net unavoidable adverse impacts are insignificant. F. Air Quality 1. Potential Impacts a. The project will generate short-term diesel exhaust and dust emissions during construction (1,2,3) b. The project and related projects will generate significant long-term air pollution emissions due to project vehicle miles traveled and consumption of natural gas and electri- city. C. The project may be inconeistent with the Air Q4aZitu 142nagement PZan for the South Coast Air Basin, since it will require General Plan Amendments. 2. Magnitude of Potential Impacts Significant. 3. Mitigation Measures a. Construction operations should include regular wetting of soil piles and exposed dirt areas and trucks hauling away dirt shouZd be tarped when necessitate(f by soft and Lvat;-er conditions, as roW.red by the City (1,2,3). b. Discontinue construction work during first and second stage smog alerts (1,2,3). C. Orient air intakes away Eros major traffic areas and use separate intakes for each building floor (1,2.3). d. Maximize use of air filters and electrostatic precipitators in the hotel, and air conditioners in residential units and retail buildings (1.2,3). Provide well ventilated areas for smoking and xeroxing (l,2). e. f. Restrict use of synthetic building materials (1,2,3). 3-6 5.35A.3-6 G. a. Encourage energy efficient building layouts, designs and orientations (1,2,3). b. Improve streetscape and circulation system to encourage bicycle (bicycle racks) and mass transit use and more effi- cient vehicle traffic flow (1,2,3). C. Provide pedestrian amenities to encourage pedestrian activity to and from the project sites (1,2,3). d. Utility companies should utilize the same trenches to mini- mize diesel consumption (1,2,3). e. Incorporate 25 percent compact car spaces into parking lots (1,2,3). f. Compliance with Title 24 of California Administrative Code (1,2,3).* g. Insulate walls, ceilings, floors, windows, and hot water lines (1,2,3). h. Incorporate use of active solar systems for waoer heating. Site pZanning must ensure that incoming solar radiation is unobstructed (1,2,3). i. Incorporate energy efficient lighting and avoid nonessential ornamental lighting (1,2,3). J. Use landscaping to moderate temperature (1,2,3). k. 0■ientation of the Zarpest surface areas and the major open- ings of buildings toward the south will maximise sola* expo- sure and natural heat gain during the winter months and minimise heat gain &rinq the summer (2,2,3). 4. Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Partial. Net adverse impacts are considered insignificant. 3-6A 5.35A.3 -o.1 g. Incorporate transportation systems management measures and -energy conservation measures, as summarised in this section under D.3. are G.3. (1,2,3). 4. Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Partial. L4am4lative impacts could stili be significant. Energy Consumption I. Potential Impacts a, r The project will increase on-site electricity consumption by I 4 co N approximately 465,435 kilowatt hours per month and will increase natural gas consumption by about 9,360,066 cubic feet per month c o (1,2,3). o r 2. Magnitude of Potential 1W&Cta 4J : 2) w Moderate. °a) 3. Mitigation Measures a. Encourage energy efficient building layouts, designs and orientations (1,2,3). b. Improve streetscape and circulation system to encourage bicycle (bicycle racks) and mass transit use and more effi- cient vehicle traffic flow (1,2,3). C. Provide pedestrian amenities to encourage pedestrian activity to and from the project sites (1,2,3). d. Utility companies should utilize the same trenches to mini- mize diesel consumption (1,2,3). e. Incorporate 25 percent compact car spaces into parking lots (1,2,3). f. Compliance with Title 24 of California Administrative Code (1,2,3).* g. Insulate walls, ceilings, floors, windows, and hot water lines (1,2,3). h. Incorporate use of active solar systems for waoer heating. Site pZanning must ensure that incoming solar radiation is unobstructed (1,2,3). i. Incorporate energy efficient lighting and avoid nonessential ornamental lighting (1,2,3). J. Use landscaping to moderate temperature (1,2,3). k. 0■ientation of the Zarpest surface areas and the major open- ings of buildings toward the south will maximise sola* expo- sure and natural heat gain during the winter months and minimise heat gain &rinq the summer (2,2,3). 4. Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Partial. Net adverse impacts are considered insignificant. 3-6A 5.35A.3 -o.1 H. Yater Supply I. Potential Impacts a. The proposed project will increase water consumption on the pro- ject sites by 193,745 gallons per day (1,2,3). 3. New water .mains will be needed in loth Street, R2rbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard (1). �p 2. Magnitude of Potential Impacts Significant. (DH -0 o, o �T 3. Mitigation Measures o R a. Incorporate low flow sink fixtures and shower heads, water . o saver toilets and pressure regulators to limit water consump- o = tion (1,2,3). b. Incorporate water efficient sprinkler systems and/or drip irrigation (1,2,3). C. Incorporate low water demand landscaping (1,2,3). d. Consider using reclaimed water for irrigation (1,2,3). e. !Peri water mains sufficient to serve the proposed site deve- Zopment meet be constructed at the developer's eaaenee in Newport Boulevard, harbor Boulevard and 19th Street adiacent to the site (1). 4. Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Partial - should reduce impacts to an acceptable level. I. Sever System I. Potential Impacts The proposed project will increase on-site sewage generation by an estimated 167,245 gallons ;per day. This is beyond master planned sewage flows (1,2,3). 2. lisgnitude of Potential Impacts Significant. 3. Mitigation Measures a. Sewer lines in Plumer Street and/or Newport Boulevard may require relocation, or easements say be required (1,2,3). b. Developers may be required to participate in providing addi- tional sever capacity or fees to the Costa !Mean and Orange County Sanitation Districts (1.2,3). C. Incorporate the water conservation measures under H.3 above (1,2,3). 4. Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Substantial - should reduce impacts to an acceptable level. 3-7 5.35A.3-7 J. Drainage 1. Potential Impacts The project will not increase storm water runoff from the project sites, but the sites are within an area which has experienced flooding historically (1,2,3). 2. Magnitude of Potential Impaets Moderate. 3• Mitigation Measures rn r � �Ccuo a. The flooding potential on-site can be minimized through proper N 244 C site grading and structural design (1,2,3). b. The City should continue to 0 make available the funding sour- ces to pay for needed drainage system i The underground improvements (1,1,3). parking entrance .a c. o:f of Anaheim Avenue ekouZe! be designed to keep street runoff out (3). 4 w d. An eroeio?V& iZtation controZ aZan for project grading „ust he submitted to the LHslifornia Reoi,onal pater ouaZi,ty Control Board (1,2,3). 4. Potential Effectiveness of litigation The existing drainage problems could be improved by the proposed project and could ultimately be eliminated if government funding is available. K. Police Protection 1. Potential Impacts The Police Department anticipates no problem in serving the pro- posed project. However, the increased intensity of development may increase the demand for police services (1,2.3). 2. Magnitude of Potential Ienacts Minimal. 3. Mitigation Measures a. The developments should be well lighted and easy to identify numerically, and should provide roof top identification (1.2,3). b. Avoid built-in alcoves and walkways and minimize roof access (1.3.3). . C. Emergency telephone numbers should be easy to locate (1,2,3). 4. Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Partial. Net adverse impacts are insignificant. 3-8 5.35A.3 -l; 5.35A.3-9 L. Fire Protection 1. Potential Impacts Fire flows in the project area are limited and the project will incrementally increase the demand for fire protection and parame- dic services (1,2,3). 2. Magnitude of Potential Impacts a � n (DD rrr a Moderate. r- O 0 3. Mitigation Measures M V fr n ' A. Maintain access for fire apparatus during construction 00 9 (1,2,3). !� b. Comply with local and national fire codes (1,2,3).• C. Superior types of building construction and full sprinkler systems may be required for all buildings (1,2,3). d. Developers may be required to share the cost of providing fire fighting services to the project (1,2,3). 4. Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Substantial. Net adverse impacts are considered insignificant. M. Schools I. Potential Impacts The project will generate approximately 26 additional students, which will not have an adverse impact on school services (1,3). 2. Magnitude of Potential Impacts Minimal. 3. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. 4. Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Not applicable. N. Solid Haste 1. Potential Impacts The Site L development will increase solid waste generation by abuut t,740 pounds per day. Sites 2 and 3 will have only slightly increased solid waste generation rates. The Coyote Canyon Landfill is nearing capacity and a new landfill site has not yet been approved (1,2,3). 3-9 5.35A.3-9 2. Magnitude of Potential Impacts Minimal. 3. !litigation Measures a. Provide waste compactors in residential units (1,2,3). b. Encourage voluntary refuse separation to allow recycling (1,2,3). 4. Potential Effectiveness of !litigation Partial. Net impacts are considered insignificant. 0. Natural Resources 1. Potential Facts a. The project will continue to commit prime agricultural soil for commercial and residential development (1,2,3). b. The project will commit building materials to the construc- tion of the project (1,2,3). C. Energy resources will be committed for short-term construc- tion activities and the long-term operation of the proposed uses (1,2,3). 2. Magnitude of Potential Impacts Moderate. 3. !litigation Measures a. Recycle demolition waste, where feasible (1,2,3). b. See energy and watt* consumption mitigation measures and .7.3.) (1, 2, 3). 4. Potential Effectiveness of Mitigation Partial. Net impacts are considered insignificant. 3-10 5.35A.3-lu rn r i CD - CN a Z 0 O � U 46 +J N 4J 7 CT �a 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 7.1 No Project In considering the range of possible alternatives to a given action, one alter- It private development of the project site does not occur independently in the near future, the "no project" alternative would result in a direct loss of reve- nue to the Redevelopment Agency as well as a potential indirect loss, since it would affect the values of surrounding redeveloped properties. In addition, the uncertainty of development of the site could make it more difficult to generate developer interest in redevelopment of the surrounding area. The no project alternative would avoid or at least delay the potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed project (i.e., increased traffic, noise, air pollution and natural resource/energy consumption). These impacts must be evaluated in conjunction with the potential benefits of the proposed project, as described in the preceding paragraph. 7.2 Project Alternatives Three project alternatives of varying intensities and land use mixes are addressed in detail in the Final EIR for the 16 -acre Costa Mesa Redevelopment Project Bounded by 19th Street, Newport BouZevard, 18th Street and Park Avenue (certified February 6, 1984). The alternatives are defined in Section 2.4 and a summary comparison of the environmental impacts is provided in Section 3.0 of the February, 1984 EIR. In addition, it should be noted that a fourth project alternative has been added for analysis in this Supplemental EIR. Table 28 summarizes the four alternatives for each of the three sites. The first three alternatives for Sites 1 and 2 are based on the land use/intensity assumptions discussed in the previous EIR. Since Site 3 was not included in the previous EIR, it was assumed that the land use types and intensity would be similar to the Sites 1 and 2 Alternatives. Since the related project site, currently under construction, had been included in the alternatives addressed in the previous EIR, the developments previously assumed for that site have been subtracted out of the following alternatives analysis. These three alternatives for Sites 1, 2 and 3 are presented only as concepts representing a range of development possibilities. 7-1 5.35A.7-1 native that is both obvious and mandated by applicable guidelines is the "no project" alternative. Selection of this alternative would require that the redevelopment action initiated by the City of Costa Mesa be terminated. The project area would remain in a partially redeveloped condition (i.e., the related project, now under construction, would be completed) and would be available for other public or privately initiated proposals in the future. It is possible that the subject area could he privately redeveloped on a site spe- cific basis in the future without public involvement. However, development under the current zoning and Ceneral Plan designations for the site »ouZ,i most M rt a Zi{ely involve uses Similar to those which presently exist. However, there is ~ 0 no guarantee that such development/ redevelopment would occur solely through the ^': private sector, particularly where there are multiple ownerships of developed 0 8' : properties. On the contrary, the historical lack of private reinvestment in the n;' _ area would seem to indicate that redevelopment is unlikely to occur without a) public participation. In addition, without Redevelopment Agency participation in lot consolidation, no significant development has occurred or is expected to 1D occur in the project area. It private development of the project site does not occur independently in the near future, the "no project" alternative would result in a direct loss of reve- nue to the Redevelopment Agency as well as a potential indirect loss, since it would affect the values of surrounding redeveloped properties. In addition, the uncertainty of development of the site could make it more difficult to generate developer interest in redevelopment of the surrounding area. The no project alternative would avoid or at least delay the potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed project (i.e., increased traffic, noise, air pollution and natural resource/energy consumption). These impacts must be evaluated in conjunction with the potential benefits of the proposed project, as described in the preceding paragraph. 7.2 Project Alternatives Three project alternatives of varying intensities and land use mixes are addressed in detail in the Final EIR for the 16 -acre Costa Mesa Redevelopment Project Bounded by 19th Street, Newport BouZevard, 18th Street and Park Avenue (certified February 6, 1984). The alternatives are defined in Section 2.4 and a summary comparison of the environmental impacts is provided in Section 3.0 of the February, 1984 EIR. In addition, it should be noted that a fourth project alternative has been added for analysis in this Supplemental EIR. Table 28 summarizes the four alternatives for each of the three sites. The first three alternatives for Sites 1 and 2 are based on the land use/intensity assumptions discussed in the previous EIR. Since Site 3 was not included in the previous EIR, it was assumed that the land use types and intensity would be similar to the Sites 1 and 2 Alternatives. Since the related project site, currently under construction, had been included in the alternatives addressed in the previous EIR, the developments previously assumed for that site have been subtracted out of the following alternatives analysis. These three alternatives for Sites 1, 2 and 3 are presented only as concepts representing a range of development possibilities. 7-1 5.35A.7-1 Alternative 4 assumes that the proposed land uses for Sites 2 and 3 remain con- sistent with.that of the proposed project. Site 1 however, reflects a change in land use. The impacts of each of the four alternatives are discussed in Sections 7.2.1 - 7.2.4. Those impacts which can be quantified are summarized and compared with the proposed project in Table 29. The impacts of the existing on-site land uses are not subtracted from the impacts in Table 29, since the existing impacts would be consistent for all alternatives. Alternative 1 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Alternative 2 Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 5.35A.7-1.1 TABLE 28 Description of Project Alternatives Use Area (square feet) Retail 35,000 Office 46,000 Total 81,000 Retail 35,000 Retail 50,000 Total for Alternative 1 166,500 Retail Hotel (350 rooms) Retail Of f ice Retail Of f ice 8,000 185 0000 Total 193,000 18,000 1t0 000 Total 128,0 0 10,000 90,000 l ,00 Total for Alternative 2 421,000 7-2 TABLE 28 (Continued) Description of Project Alternatives 7-3 5.35A.7-2 Site 1 Retail 25,000 Office 265,000 > Total 290,000 G rr ~ n Site 2 15,000 41� � Office 120,000 0 �3 Total 135,000 M p rr No 00> Site 3 Retail 20,000 Office 100,000 �o Total 120,000 Total for Alternative 3 545,000 Area Use (square feet) Alternative 4 Site 1 Hotel 60,000* (150 rooms) Retail 40,000 Restaurant 15,000 Residential 150 units Total 115,000 (150 units) Site 2** Residential 150 units Retail 10,000 Site 3** Residential 160 units Total for Alternative 4 125,000 (460 units) * Estimated square footage. ** Same land use assumptions as the proposed project. 7-3 5.35A.7-2 TABLE 29 Quantitative Comparison Between Proposed Project Area and Alternatives Impacts Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Proposed Project Water (gals/day) 14,933 84,900 76,750 141,580 166,055 Irrigation (gals/day) 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Electricity (KWH/mo) 582,750 1,473,500 1,907,500 737,000 850,050 I � -CO o Natural Gas C O (cu-ft./mo) 2,563,180 10,636,000 2,815,050 6,600,000 7,935,000 Z cin Sewer o M +J � (D System (1) 4.) w (gals/day) 14,933 84,900 76,750 141,580 166,055 Solid Waste Disposal (lbs/day) 2,870 3,645 6,050 3,582 3,970 Student Generation (No. Students) 0 0 0 24 28 Traffic Generation(2) ADT (Average Daily Traffic) 6,904 8,477 10,964 7,730 8,520 Employment (no. of jobs) 497 1,955 2,558 519 751 Housing Demand(3) (no. of units) 66 260 341 69 100 (1) Same as water consumption factors. (2) Traffic generation factors for Alternative 1-3 are based on a September, 1985 traffic study by Justin F. Farmer, Traffic Engineers. (3) Based on 1.5 employees per household and 20 percent new household demand. 7.2.1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would involve the development of a total of 166,500 square feet, primarily occupied by miscellaneous retail, commercial and office uses. Buildings would be one or two stories high. Alternative 1 would not include any residential use. Shadows for Alternative 1 on all sites would be considered negligible. 7-4 5.35.7-3 As shown in Table 29, Alternative 1 would generate fewer employees and approxi- mately 31 percent less demand for housing within the project area. The pro- jected -daily traffic flow for Alternative 1 is 6,904 trips per day, which is approximately 19 percent less than the proposed project traffic. It can be reasonably estimated that due to the reduction in traffic, the level of noise produced by Alternative 1 will be less than for the proposed project and that the reduction in air qu._lity is directly proportionate to the reduction in traf- fic generated by Alternative 1 versus the proposed project. Employment and housing demands would be greater under Alternative 2, due to the larger amount of retail and office space. Unlike the proposed project, This demand would not be offset by any on-site residential developments. Average daily traffic would be alightly less than for the proposed project. Subsequently, noise and air pollution would also be slightly less. Energy consumption for Alternative 2 would be higher than for the proposed pro- ject. Electricity usage would be 73 percent greater and natural gas consumption would be 34 percent greater. Sewage generation and water consumption for Alternative 2 would be approximately 95 percent less than for the proposed project. This reduction is due in part to the elimination of the residential uses. 7-5 7.35A.7-4 Energy consumption would also be less should Alternative 1 be incorporated. A 31 percent reduction in electricity usage and a 68 percent reduction in natural gas consumption would occur over that of the proposed project. The overall G rt reduction in the intensity of development would provide additional options for (D r a) site design/layout to further mitigate any energy impacts and incorporate 0 energy conservation measures. r" Water and sewer consumption would be much less than for the proposed project. OD >The projected sewage flows for the proposed project could require upgrading of a ' existing sewer lines, but Alternative 1 would pose no adverse impacts on the sewer or water lines. Drainage impacts would be similar to those of the pro- posed project. Alternative 1 would further reduce solid waste generation by 38 percent over the proposed project. Public service demand would also be reduced. No students would be generated as a direct result of this alternative. 7.2.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would involve the development of 421,000 square feet of retail structures, including a theatre, a hotel, a medical traffic office building, a financial office building and several restaurants. The buildings would range from 2-6 stories high. It is possible that a parking structure would also be a part of this proposal. Shadows for Alternative 2 would be similar to those of the proposed six -story hotel on Site 1 and the 5 -story residential complex on Site 2. Employment and housing demands would be greater under Alternative 2, due to the larger amount of retail and office space. Unlike the proposed project, This demand would not be offset by any on-site residential developments. Average daily traffic would be alightly less than for the proposed project. Subsequently, noise and air pollution would also be slightly less. Energy consumption for Alternative 2 would be higher than for the proposed pro- ject. Electricity usage would be 73 percent greater and natural gas consumption would be 34 percent greater. Sewage generation and water consumption for Alternative 2 would be approximately 95 percent less than for the proposed project. This reduction is due in part to the elimination of the residential uses. 7-5 7.35A.7-4 Solid waste generation for Alternative 2 would be 9 percent less than for the proposed project. The demand for police and fire protection would not be notably different than for the proposed However, project. there would be no direct student generation under this alternative. 7.2.3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would involve the development of 545,000 square feet of various retail and office uses. The buildings would range from 2 to 8 stories in height with subterranean parking as an additional alternative. Shadows cast by the proposed buildings in Alternative 3 could have an effect on adjacent developments in the event that the buildings are not �C ao 0 c o properly placed to allow sunlight to reach park/recreational areas, residential patios and windows, pedestrian areas during o the winter months. ­4and �., The employment generation for Alternative 3, and the projected housing demand based on those employees will increase 255 ro 4J m a percent over the proposed project which could have a substantial impact on the surrounding area, due to the fact that no housing is proposed for Alternative 3. Traffic generation would be 29 percent greater under Alternative 3 and could have a substantial impact on intersection capacities. Noise and air pollution would be increased as well. Electricity consumption would increase approximately 126 percent over that of the proposed project. Again, this increase would be due to the high percentage Of office and retail use assumed for Alternative 3. Natural gas consumption would decrease by 64 percent. Sewage generation and water consumption would decrease by approximately 25 per- cent. This decrease would be due to the elimination of residential units. Student generation and solid waste generation would be less than for the pro- posed project. Police and fire protection demand could be greater under this alternative due to the high intensity of development. 7.2.4 Alternative 4 Alternative 4 would involve the development of 125,000 square feet of retail commercial and hotel developetent and 460 apartment units. The impacts for Sites 2 and 3 would be the same as those for the proposed project. Because this alternative involves a reduced intensity of development for Site 1, all impacts would be less than for the proposed project. As Alternative Site Man or Sita 2 is sham in Figure 28. 11he aharaetorietfae of this aZternative devetotment ?Zan are sunnyrued in fable 30. Shadows for the hotel on Site t would be shorter. Employment and housing demands would decrease approximately 28 percent and traffic generation would decrease by approximately 9 Accordingly, percent. noise would be reduced and a directly proportionate reduction in air quality impacts would be recognized as a result of the reduction in traffic generation. As varki.no faailities unr'er this alternative plan :,Vutl mee*. ^ity -rdinanae *equiremente. 7-6 7.35A.7-5 O a V Z W a O W W C co RIA ��I •r-�. O a V Z W a O W W C co _ _ _ ~ LL L LL C LL C ` O ON O N Ln v) Ln cn vi O O N O C c CO O 00 O O u 0 O O O _ ` �, 0r d — D'n fn N �D +I + f� N +I b c +I O o >+u— r` -C > O vo_j m.m - 0 LL L- 6 P N �n O 8 O O 00 co +�1 a, m M M M N o.r-a V'1 V1 m r 000 Ly„ O o� — N a M 19 maa, c O m — H LL LL LL N_ O Q C of v1 n N ` O ON O N a LA n co Vf �0%ON O N O C c E E O O u 0 O O O _ ` �, 0r d v v >. Omm 0 N N b c Zn 0 I- C C � 3 � H d O C v c E '@N u - `c 01 v y N N c E ov V v Ulu r 000 Ly„ O o� — N a M 19 maa, c O m — H I1 LL LL O Q Q7 v N_ O V1 N N In N V^ V'1 Vf �0%ON O C O N 0 0 CC N O a: 0r � a C 0 N N CN C al C C c v d s v c E '@N .. 7 01 j y N N c �O V v v. I1 LL LL O Q Q7 v O V1 N N In N V^ V'1 O O C O co 0 0 CC N O a: 0r � a C 0 N N CN C al C s �O v. a v+ a C .D D7 C m O 61 C .0 m O v N o v+ �N E � S E a.- FO- :2=u CC Ol I g 0000 O 44 C2 O O (0•.) (6 +) N 4.) O 9 deP4 t� .1i_ernative o would "suL' in 17 percent Less natural gas consumption and li percent Less electricity usage than for the proposed project. Water demand and sewage generation would be 15 percent less and solid waste generation would be 10 percent less than for the proposed project. Public ser- vice demand would also be less. C rrtr (D rt W w O C:I ren O rrr N ' O 00 > 0) J 7-9 7.35A.7-6 Mala Dev./CM Redev. Agcy. PA-86-91/RA-86-12/R-86-08 ATTACHPIENT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (PA -86-91 AND RA -86-12) Ping. 1. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved prior to the submittal of working drawings for building permit plan check. 2. Detailed, fully dimensioned and labeled parking plans, including ramp 1.0 m 00 slope profiles, shall be approved prior to the submittal of working „ w drawings for building permit plan check. c 0 *3. Applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures for Site 1 o �' noted in the attached excerpt (Executive Slmnary) from EIR No. 1026. ; m 4. A Planned Signing Program shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Planning Comftission and the Redevelopment Agency prior to the issuance of sign permits. 5. Approval of the Planning Action is valid for one (1) year and will expire at the end of that period unless building permits are obtained or the applicant applies for and is granted an extension of time. 6. Planning Ommmission action on PA -86-91 shall not became final until seven (7) days following final action on RA -86-12. 7. Address assignment shall be obtained from the Planning Division prior to submittal of working drawings for plan check. 7he approved address of individual units, suites, buildings, etc., shall be blusprinted on the site plan and on all floor plans in the working drawings. 8. Except as necessary for drainage, existing grades at property lines shall be maintained. 9. Turn -around area shall be striped and marked for no parking. 10. Demolition permits for existing structure(s) shall be obtained and all work and inspections completed prior to issuance of building permits. 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service with regard to location and design of mail delivery facilities. Such facilities ahall be shown on the site plan, landscape plan, and/or floor plan. 12. 7he final map shell show easements or other provisions for the placement of centralised mail delivery units, if applicable. Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, Engineering Division, and the U.S. Rtatal Service. APPLICANT IS REMINDED TEAT THE FOLL O M4G C1ONDITIO[S AAS: RE DUIREMENIS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LLCM. LAWS AND CANNOT BE WAIVED CR MODIFIED: 13. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Aosta Mesa. Final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted, and final inspections will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 14. Proof of recordation of the final parcel/tract map shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. 15. Perk fees shall be paid upon issuance of building permits in accordance with City standards. 16. Parking stalls shall be double -striped in accordance with City standards. 17. All on-site utility services (Edison and Telephone) shall be installed underground. Mola Dev./CM Aedev. Agcy, PA-86-91/RA-86-12/R-86-08 18. Developer is hereby advised that all utilities such as gas meters, elec- trical meters, telephone pedestal -mounted terminal boxes, surface -mounted electrical transformers, fire hydrants, or any other potential obstruc- tions, shall not be located within the approved parking and/or turn - radius area. If 0 a approved by the Planning Division, said facilities may be installed underground in a vault having an approved traffic lid. �c m H_0rt All such facilities located above -ground shall meet with the approval N o ng of the PlanningDivision and serving utility. o a 19. Installation of all utility meters shall be performed in a manner M. so as to obscure said installation from view from any place on or off the un co p7 property. Said installation shall be in a marurer acceptable to the Pub- lic utility and shall be in the form of a vault, wall cabinet, or wall box, and shall be installed in accordance with standard pians and speci- fications of the City of Costa Mesa. 20. Any mechanical equipment such as air-conditioning compressors and duct work shall be screened from view. 21. A detailed landscape/irrigation plan per the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Ptmicipal Code Sections 13-263 through 13-266, inclusive, shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Drought resistant vegetation together with a water conserving irrigation system shall be utilized. Landscaping aha11 be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to release of utilities. 22. Trash enclosure(s) or other acceptable means of trash disposal shall be provided. Design of trash enclosures) shall conform with City Stan- dards. Standard drawings are available from the Planning Division. 23. Driveway ramp slopes shall comply with the standards contained in the City's Perking Ordinance. 24. Permits shall be obtained for all signs according to the provisions of the Costa Pbsa Sign Ordinance. 25. in compliance with the provisions of the Calif orn#a Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Sub -chapter 1, Article 4, the applicant shall sub- mit an acoustical analysis of the proposed development, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering. 1bo copies of said report shall be submitted with the application for building permits. Ire acoustical analysis shall eval- uate existing and projected noise levels, noise attenuation measures to be applied, and the noise insulation effectiveness of the proposed construction. Vre person preparing the report shall, under the direc- tion of a person experienced in the field of accustical engineering, perform an inspection of the project prior to or at the time of the framing inspection to certify that construction techniques Comply with recommendations contained within the acoustical analysis. Upon comple- tion of the subject structures, field tests may be required under the provisions of Title 25. Eng. 26. At the time of development submit Grading Plan, that shows sewer, water, parkwsy/street improvements and the limits of work on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a Civil Engineer, to City of Mola Dev./CM Redev. Agcy. PA-86-91/RA-86-12/R-86-08 Costa Mesa Engineering Division. Rough grade approval must be obtained prior to Building or Engineering Permits being issued by City of Costa Mesa. 27. A permit will be required from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Divi- sion, prior to any on- or off-site work to insure the integrity of remaining and adjacent improvements due to construction ingress/ egress. 28. Maintain the site in a 'wet -down" condition to the degree necessary to prevent excessive dust. Periodically remove spillage from the public right-of-way by sweeping or sprinkling, however, watering that results in mud on public streets is not permitted as a substitute for other cleaning methods. 29. Haul routes must be approved by City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division. 30. Cbtain a permit from CALTRANS prior to performing any work in the State right-of-way. 31. Submit to the City of nista Mesa, Engineering Division, Street Improve- ment Plans prepared by a Civil Engineer, and construct improvements as needed at intersection of Newport Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard includ- ing traffic signaliration as required by the Transportation Services Engineer. 32. Cbtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and construct P.C.C. commercial sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Grading Plan/Street Im- provement Plans. including 4' clear around obstructions in the sidewalk. 33. Cbtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and oonstruct P.C.C. Type II driveway approach per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Grading Plan/Street Improvement Plans. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Engineer. 34. Cbtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and remove any existing drives and/or curb depressions that will not be used and replace with full height curb and sidewalk at applicant's expense. 35. Fulfill Drainage Ordinance Flee requirements prior to: Issuance of Building Permits. *36. Pay fees for traffic mitigation prior to issuance of building permits pursuant to most current fee schedule. Fire *37. Development shall meet all Fire Department requirements of the EIR of October 1985. 38. At this .time, the site plans are inadequate to determine required fire flow. A more detailed site plan shall be provided. Further require- ments pertaining to fire and life safety proptection equipment and water supplies will be made pending a Fire Department review of the requested detailed site plan. THE RMUIREMENIS CF THE FOU -OWING SPECIAL DISTRICT ARE HMMY FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT: Mola Dev./CM Redev. Agcy. PA-86-91/RA-86-12/R-86-08 Sani. 39. Developer will be required to construct sewers to serve this project, at his own expense, meeting the approval of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. 40. County Sanitation District fees, fixture fees, and sewer permit required prior to installation of sewer. o 41. Due to the increased sewer capacity problems stemming from the nature c gr of this project, the development may be required to participate in the rtW cost of providing additional sewer capacity. M 9 42. Developer is required to submit a plan showing sewer improvements to the District Engineer's Office - (714) 631-1731. ren rrT Lnof FOR APPLICANT'S II4f MATION: CO rn = 43. It is recommended that the applicant contact 1 -Ool � ppl Oop ey ony Cablevision of Costa Mesa at 200 Paularino Avenue, Oosta Mesa (546-2946) prior to con- struction to arrange for pre -wiring for future cable communication ser- vice. * These conditions have been included as mitigation measures proposed in the EIR. If any of these conditions are removed, the decisionynaking body must make a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts, that the conditions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, or that specific economic, social or other consid- erations make the mitigation measures infeasible. Nola Dev./CM Redev. Agency PA-86-91/RA-86-12/R-86-08 PLANNING CataSSION ACTION - June 9, 1986 REZONE PETITION R-86-08 - Recommended adoption to the City Council of Rezone Petition R-86-08 to rezone subject property from C2 to PDC (Planned Develop- ment Ccuuercial). (4-0, Mr. Andreen abstained) PLANNIM ACTICN PA -86-91 - Recommended approval of Planning Action PA -86-91 rn to the City Council, based on Planning Staff analysis and findings and sub- wCOLn ject to conditions contained in the Planning Division Staff Report with modi- c o ficationof Conditions #27 and /36 and the addition of Conditions /46 and #47 0 r. c 0 27. A permit will be required from the City of Costa Mesa and a deposit4J made to Engineering Division, prior to any on- or off-site work to insure 4 a the integrity tegri s remaining and adjacent improvements due to pirgres/egress a2 36. Pay fees for traffic mitigation prior to the issuance of building permits, fees shall be based on the estimated trip forecast indi- cated in the EIR as $58.00 per trip, subject to adjustment for future needs. 44. Approval of Planning Action PA -86-91 shall be subject to the aoquisi- tion of the project site by the developer. 45. A comprehensive security plan shall be presented to the Costa Mesa Police Department and submitted to the Planning Commission detail- ing a plan of staff and/or hardware systems to provide adequate security for the entire project. As per the Final Development Plan, the 150 -room hotel will be deleted and that a modified development plan be resubmitted for approval to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. (3-1, Mr. Davenport voting no, Mr. Andreen abstained) MMVMZffGM XMICN RA --86-12 - For Redevelopnent Agency, review the mixed use project outlined in PA -86-91. (3-1, Mr. Davenport voting no, Mr. Andreen abstained) 9. The Mixed -Use Development proposed for Site 1 implements the City's goal to provide its citizens with a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and institutional uses to satisfy the needs of the social and economic segments of the population; to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification; and, to ensure the long term viability and productivity of the community's natural and man-made environments. ATTACHMENT "C" CITY COUNCIL STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Rezone Petition R-86-08 And Planning Action PA -86-91 The rezoning of the site identified as Site 1 in the Final Environmental Impact Report (No. 1026) ("Final EIR") from General Business District (11C211) to Planned Development Commercial ("PDC") and the proposed Mixed -Use Development to be constructed thereon may have significant or certain adverse environmental impacts on ro the environment as discussed in the Final EIR. Thus, the benefits of the rezoning and m r. n the proposed mixed-use development have been balanced against the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, and the City Council makes the a Z M O ft following statement of overriding considerations: CO nO 1. The proposed Mixed -Use Development Site is located in the Costa Mesa Downtown Redevelopment Project and implements the adopted Redevelopment Plan for said Project. 2. The PDC zone will provide for a more efficient use of land through integration of uses and structures in a single development, and by removal of obsolete development and subdivision patterns which now exist in the block. 3. The PDC zone is consistent with the Commercial Center General Plan designation and the Commercial Redevelopment Plan designation for Site 1. 4. The proposed Mixed -Use Development is an adopted policy of the General Plan and a stated objective of the Comprehensive Design Plan for the Redevelopment Project. 5. The proposed Mixed -Use Development permits a more efficient use of land through shared parking for all uses and common residential amenities for the apartments and the hotel. 6. The proposed Mixed -Use Development will introduce an around-the- clock activity center in the core of the Redevelopment Project area, which will be a significant enhancement of the overall vitality and success of redevelopment efforts downtown. 7. The proposed Mixed -Use Development will locate housing opportunities directly into a major employment center. 8. The location of housing, employment and shopping opportunitities in a single development will have beneficial impacts on traffic. 9. The Mixed -Use Development proposed for Site 1 implements the City's goal to provide its citizens with a balanced community of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and institutional uses to satisfy the needs of the social and economic segments of the population; to meet the competing demands for alternative developments within each land use classification; and, to ensure the long term viability and productivity of the community's natural and man-made environments.