Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-10 - Adopting GP-86-1D, Option IIIRESOLUTION NO. 87-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -86-1D, OPTION III, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa 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 catmunity needs; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GP -86-1D, an application to change the Land Use designation of property bounded by Anton Boulevard, Sakioka Drive, and Sunflower Avenue (Lot 1), from High Density Residential to Urban Center Residential and to increase the land use intensity established by General Plan Amendment GP -78-3A (Revised) for property located south of Sunflower Avenue, between Anton Boulevard, Main Street and the Costa Mesa Freeway (Lot 2) has been filed by the property owner; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recaimended approval of the amend- ment to change the land use designation of Lot 1 fran High Density Residen- tial to Urban Center Residential and to delete references to land use intensities fran the General Plan designation of Lot 2; and WHEREAS, public hearings were duly held on June 23 arra August 25, 1986, by the Planning Commission, and October 6, November 3, and December 1, 1986, and March 16, 1987, by the City Council, 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 -86-1D 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 -86-1D as shown as Option III in that document entitled General Plan Amendment GP-86-1D/R-86-02 (page 9) dated March, 1986; 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 a portion of Attachment "A" and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 2. The City Council finds that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial 0 evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Over- riding Considerations is attached hereto within Attachment "A" and incor- porated 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 substantially lessened will be avoided or mitigated by the imposition of conditions on development proposals submitted pursuant to the approved General Plan Amendment and the imposition of of mitigation measures as set forth in the Statement of Facts arra the Final EIR. 6. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, have not been reduced to a level of insignificance, but have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of mitigation measures. In making its decision on the project, the City Council has given greater weight to the adverse environmental impacts. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoid- able significant impacts are clearly outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Over- riding Considerations. 7. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described all reason- able 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 infonnation 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 EIR 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 bounded by Anton Boulevard, Sakioka Drive, and Sunflower Avenue (Lot 1) is hereby amended from High Density Residential to Urban Center Residential and that the land use intensities for property located south of Sunflower Avenue between Anton Boulevard, Main Street and the Costa Mesa Freeway (Lot 2) be deleted from the General Plan designation. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 16th day o March, 1987. Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Costa M STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF COSTA MESA ) 59 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. 87-10 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of March, 1987. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 17th day of March, 1987. (". �) /" 0 A, A - ) 9 �� City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of City Council of the City of Cost Vesa ATTACHMENT "A" STATEMENT OF FACTS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, INFEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, RELATING TO GENERAL PIAN AMEND ENT GP -86 -ID AND REZONE R-86-02 FOR LOT 1 OF SARIGXA FARMS The proposed General Plan Amendment changes the land use designation for Lot 1 of Sakioka Farms on the City's General Plan from High Density Resi- dential (maximum permitted density, 30 units per acre) to Urban Center Residen- tial (maximum permitted density, 50 units per acre). The proposed rezone changes the zoning of the preperty fran PIR --HD (Planned Development Residential - High Density) to PDR -UC (Planned Development Residential Urban Center). For purposes of analyzing potential impacts on the environment, the EIR considers a posssible urban development on the site consisting of 1,300 dwelling units and a 136,000 square foot cammercial/ retail center. Amending the General Plan and Zoning, however, will not alone generate significant environmental impacts. Before any of the potential impacts could occur, other levels of project review and approval will be necessary. I. Significant Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures A. Land Use 1. Based on information in EIR 41032, GP -86-1D and R-86-02 could result in potential land use incompatibilities with surrounding properties and in building heights which could impact operations at John Wayne Airport. 2. The EIR contains mitigation measures, including subsequent review of site plans, to insure that potential incompatibilities are reduced, and that required review by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Airport Land Use Camnission is obtained. Based on the EIR, the suggested mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to an insignificant level. 3. The suggested mitigation measures will be applied as con- ditions of approval of future development proposals on this site, thus avoiding or substantially lessening the significant environmental effects. B. Traffic and Circulation 1. EIR 41032 indicates that potential development of this site could yield 15,254 additional vehicle trips per day on the local circu- lation systen. 2. Extensive mitigation measures are specified in the EIR to improve the circulation systen capacity arra efficiency, increase transit and bicycle usage, and monitor the pace of development. Based on the EIR, the suggested mitigation measures will substantially lessen the traffic and circu- lation impacts. 3. Applicable mitigation measures of this EIR will be required as conditions of approval of future development proposals on this site, thus substantially lessening the significant environmental effects on traffic and circulation. 4. Unavoidable adverse impacts: Implementation of the above- described mitigation measures will only partially mitigate increases in local and regional traffic generation. C. Noise 1. The EIR finds that future roadway and airport noise may impact development on this site, that construction noise frau this site will temporarily impact nearby residential neighborhoods, and that future traffic fran this site will increase ambient noise levels. 2. Mitigation measures are specified in the EIR which re- quire noise reducing design features for future development on this site, notification of prospective tenants of the proximity of John Wayne Airport, Resolution No. 87-10 Attachment "A" Page 1 of 4 and limitation on hours of construction. Based on the EIR, with the exception of increased ambient noise, the suggested mitigation measures will substantially lessen the potential environmental impacts. 3. Applicable mitigation measures of this EIR will be required as conditions of approval on future development proposals on this site, thus substantially lessening the significant environmental effects. 4. Unavoidable adverse impacts: Future traffic from this site will generate an increase in anbient noise. D. Visual Impacts 1. EIR #1032 rues that development on this site will alter the site's visual character and will alter viewsheds from adjacent freeways' 2. A mitigation measure is proposed in.the EIR to reduce po- tential adverse visual impacts associated with roof -mounted equipment. Any development on the site, however, will alter the visual character and viewsheds of the site. Whether or not this impact will be significant will be subjective, and thus, no mitigation measures have been proposed. The suggested mitigation measure will lessen or avoid visual impacts associated with roof mounted equip- ment; whether or not development on the site is in itself an adverse visual impact is subjective and cannot necessarily be mitigated. 3. Applicable mitigation measures of this EIR will be required as conditions of approval of future development proposals on the site, thus substantially reducing or avoiding the significant environnental effects. E. Air Quality 1. EIR #1032 indicates that increased density of development on this site will result in increased emission of pollutants into the atmosphere. 2. A mitigation measure is included in the EIR to reduce vehicle trips. However, based on information contained in the EIR, there will still be a emulative impact on air quality. 3. The suggested mitigation measure of this EIR will be required as a condition of approval of future development on this site. However, the air quality impact will only be partially mitigated. This is an unavoidable adverse impact. F. Natural Hazards 1. EIR #1032 specifies that the site is characterized by soft to rm8erately firm soils, expansive soils, and high ground water conditions. 2. Mitigation measures are specified in the EIR to identify and correct potentially adverse soil conditions. Based on the EIR, the suggested miti- gation measures will substantially lessen or avoid the potential adverse impacts. 3. Applicable mitigation measures of this EIR will be required as conditions of approval of future development proposals on this site, thus substantially lessening or avoiding the significant environmental effects. G. Energy 1. The EIR notes that potential development on this site pursuant to the General Plan Amendment would result in increased consumption of electrical energy and natural gas. 2. Extensive mitigation measures are specified in the EIR to reduce energy consumption. Based on the EIR, the suggested mitigation measures will substantially lessen overall energy usage and potential environnental impact. 3. Applicable mitigation measures of this EIR will be required as conditions of approval of future development proposals on this site, thus substantially lessening the potential significant envirormental effects. 4. Increased energy usage cannot be eliminated; however, based on the inforration in the EIR, the utility companies can meet the increased demand. - 2 - Resolution No. 87-10 Attacunent "A" Page 2 of 4 H. City Services & Utilities 1. EIR #1032 identifies potential impacts on fire protection services, p)lice services, sewers, solid waste disposal, and water consumption. 2. Mitigation measures are specified in the EIR to lessen the Impact on each of these services or utilities. Based on the EIR, the suggested mitigation measures will substantially lessen the overall impacts on City services and utilities. 3. Applicable mitigation measures of this EIR will be required as conditions of future development proposals on this site, thus substantially lessening the significant environmental effects. I. Cumulative Impacts 1. EIR # 1032 identifies cumulative impacts on the environment associated with potential development of this site under the revised General Plan and zoning classifications. Cumulative impacts include traffic, air quality, noise, and land use impacts. 2. Mitigation measures are specified in the EIR to revise the Noise Element of the General Plan, to revise the Circulation Element of the General Plan, to initiate an urban design study, and to prepare a specific plan for the north Costa tbsa area. Based on the EIR, these suggested mitigation measures will substantially lessen the associated cumulative impacts. 3. Applicable mitigation measures of this EIR will either be required as conditions of approval of future development proposals on this site or will be initiated by the City, thus substantially lessening the emulative environmental effects. 4. After mitigation there will continue to be adverse cumu- lative impacts associated with increased traffic, noise, and air pollutants. II. Infeasibility of Project Alternatives A. No Project The no project alternative will result in Lot 1 renaining in an as -is (vacant) condition. ibis alternative would avoid adverse environmental impacts, but would eliminate potential housing opportunities and be inconsistent with various goals of the City's General Plan. B. Existing General Plan This alternative essentially would result in Lot 1 remaining at the High Density Residential General Plan classification. Development at this level would result in proportionately reduced impacts fran those identified in EIR #1032. However, the benefits to the City of providing urban density housing to compliment the existing urban omamrcial development in the area would be less, as would the opportunity to provide additional housing to offset the current imbalance between employment opportunities and available housing. C. Development of Commercial Center Uses Exclusive development of commercial uses on Lot 1 would exacerbate the potential environmental impact associated with development of the site. Additionally, needed housing opportunities would be lost, together with the advantages associated with locating housing in proximity to employment centers. D. Development Greater Than the Existing General Plan, But Less Than Than Evaluated in the EIR This alternative would result in a proportionate reduction in all impacts identified in the EIR. Since the proposed Urban Center General Plan and the PDR -UC designations contain ranges rather than specific densities, this alternative would be feasible under the proposed General Plan and Rezone classifications. While impacts would be somewhat less, the overall reduction in impact may not be significant. The resultant development density associated with the proposed General Plan and Rezone, however, will not be determined until an acceptable development plan is approved at a later date. - 3 - Resolution No. 87-10 Attachrwnt "A" Page 3 of 4 III. Statement of Overriding Considerations the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone may have signifi- cant or certain adverse environmental impacts as discussed in the EIR and above. Thus, the benefits of the proposed actions have been balanced against the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the final EIR and setforth above, and the City makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will pro- vide an opportunity to increase the housing supply within the City. 2. The location of this additional housing is advantageous since it is in proximity to a major employment center, an existing canmercial shopping center, cultural and entertainment areas, and public transportation. This canplimentary mix of uses can help reduce overall traffic and overall environmental impacts, while providing an exciting, convenient living environ- ment. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone are consis- tent with various adopted General Plan objectives and policies which encourage the development of a balanced cammmity of residential, c rof a 1eal,ty indu�ing and institutional uses, and which encourage pr opportunities. Resolution No. 87-10 Attachment "A" Page 4 of 4