Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-82 - Adopting Supplemental CEQA Findings for PA-87-15RESOLUTION 87-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING SUPPLEMENTARY CEQA FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL OF PA -87-15. WHEREAS, the City Council approved development of PA -87-15, the Home Ranch Project, on May 4, 1987; and WHEREAS, a lawsuit (Costa Mesa Residents for Responsible Growth v. City of Costa Mesa, orange County Superior Court, Case Number 52-54-40) has been filed that challenges the lawfulness of that approval and alleges the City's CEQA findings in support of that approval are legally inadequate; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate to clarify for the benefit of the court the City's reasoning for approving PA -87-15 by adopting supplemental findings; NOW, THEREFORE, EE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa that the attached supplementary findings are hereby adopted to clarify the City Council's reasoning in approving PA -87-15. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of Auggys£, 1987. ty of Costa Mesa ATTEST: . p CrIty Clerk of the City of Costa esa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF QJSTA 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. 87-82 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at an adjourned regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of August, 1987. IN WITNESS WHERECF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 4th day of August, 1987. Ciry Clerk and ex -officio Clerk oorthe City Council of the City of Cost Mesa SUPPLEMEN'M FINDINGS CONCERNING APPROVAL OF PLANNDIG ACTION PA 87-15 I. IIPACTS FOUND TO BE INSIGNIFICANT The Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for One South Coast Place (the "project") included analyses of a number of impacts which were identified in the Initial Study as being potentially significant, but which were found after study to be insignificant. These impacts included those falling within the following headings: Shade and Shadow; Airport Operations; and Archaeology. Given the height of the proposed structures in the project, an analysis was made to determine whether the shadows from these structures would impact any sensitive land uses. Based upon shadow pattern analyses, the City's consultant concluded that the structures would not cast shadows impacting upon any sensitive land use. Based upon the shadow pattern analyses in the FEIR, the City Council concurs and finds that the shade and shadow impacts of the project are insignificant. Given recent concerns that new construction may be impairing the operation of navigational equipment for John Wayne Airport, an analysis was conducted to determine whether the project was within the outside limits of the horizontal or conical surfaces of that airport, as those surfaces are described by Part 77 of the FAA Regulations. The DEIR concluded that the project is beyond the boundaries set by Part 77, and is therefore presumed to have no impact on the operations of that airport. Moreover, any construction exceeding 200 feet above ground level is required to be submitted for review and approval by the FAA under Part 77 to ensure that the construction will not Exhibit for Resolution No. 87-82 constitute a hazard to air navigation. This requirement is part of the project, and ensures that there will be no significant adverse impact from the project on airport operations. The FEIR therefore concluded, and the City Council concurs and finds, that the project has no significant impact on the operations of John Wayne airport. Finally, because the Orange County area is rich in archaeological and paleontological resources, a review was made of the available records to determine whether the project might have any adverse impact on such resources. In addition, a field survey of the project site was conducted. The FEIR concluded, and tte City Council concurs and finds, that the project will not affect any known or expected archaeological or paleontological resources. II. FACTS FMM TO BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT. The FEIR for the project identified the following significant or potentially significant environmental effects associated with its completion, under the following general headings. With respect to each of these significant or potentially significant effects, the findings required by ;21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and ;15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the facts supporting each finding, are set forth below. A. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Significant Effects The significant or potentially significant effects of the project falling under the general category of "traffic circulation" are summarized in pages 11 through 21 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR"). As summarized in the DEIR, the project is estimated to generate 11,866 trips daily; 2,010 trips are projected to occur during the a.m. peak hour and 1,811 trips are projected during the p.m. peak hour. Based upon daily volume -to - capacity ratios for existing conditions, the intersection of Harbor Boulevard -2- Exhibit fior Resolution No. 87-82 y'r-' HAYS[ and the northbound I-405 ramps and the intersection of Fairview and the I-405 ramps are currently operating at higher volumes than theoretical design capacity during peak hours. With improvements currently scheduled for completion in 1990, estimated 1990 background traffic, and project related traffic, the intersection of Fairview and the I-405 ramps is predicted to operate at volumes below theoretical design capacity, but the predictions are that the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and the northbound I-405 ramps will continue to operate in the short term (1990) at higher volumes than theoretical design capacity during peak hours, and that three other intersectipns would be operating during morning or evening peak hours at or just slightly below level of service (LOS) D, all as reflected on Table 4 of the DEIR. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures incorporated into or imposed upon the project which mitigate the traffic circulation impacts of the project are identified on pages 21 through 22 of the DEIR. To summarize those measures, the developer will be required to participate in the City's Development Trip Charge Program, and to participate in future financing mechanisms established to improve access to the I-405 freeway. The developer will be required to work with the City to provide mitigation for 1990 conditions resulting from project -related traffic at necessary locations, including adding through and/or turning lanes, and restriping of lanes, at Harbor/South Coast, Harbor/I-405 Southbound, and Harbor/Gisler. The developer will be required to dedicate on-site street rights-of-way and to make on-site street improvements, including funding and construction of traffic signals at access driveways if and when warrants are exceeded and when permitted by the City. Finally, the developer will prepare -3- Exhibit fDr Resolution No. 87-82 and implement a Transportation System Demand Management Program with a target goal of a 25% reduction in trips below predicted peak hour generation rates. The actual terms and conditions for these mitigation measures are as set forth in the project approval. Findings The incorporation of these mitigation measures into the project approval substantially lessens the significant potential traffic circulation impacts of the project to the extent feasible. Remaining unmitigated impacts are within acceptable ranges. On a cumulative basis the project will have some adverse impacts that cannot be fully mitigated by the circulation improvements to be constructed in connection with this project. However, the project with its mitigation measures will have an overall, long-term beneficial impact on the traffic circulation system, which outweighs the short-term adverse impacts. In accordance with 5;15091 through 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations, given these remaining cumulative impacts, is made below. Facts Supporting Findings The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the traffic circulation impacts of the project. 1. Both the City's Transportation Services Division and the consultant traffic engineer for the FEIR have recommended, in their respective expert judgments, with the concurrence of the Traffic Comt:ission, that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant potential traffic circulation impacts of the project. Their expert opinions support the imposition and inclusion of thes mitigation measures, and the foregoing findings as to the effectiveness and feasibility of these mitigation measures. -4 - Exh ibi t fpr Resolution No. 87-82 2. The intersection of Harbor Boulevard and South Coast Drive is one of the two intersections predicted in the DEIR to be severely impacted by the project, assuming no mitigation. Without the project, the 1990 p.m. peak hour intersection capacity utilization ratio ("ICU") for that intersection is predicted to be .84. With the project, the 1990 p.m. pEak hour ICU is predicted to be 1.11. However, the addition of a westbound left turn lane on South Coast Drive would improve the ICU for this intersection to a predicted .88, which is within acceptable limits (Page B-91 of the DEIR). 3. The second intersection predicted to be most severely impacted by the project, without mitigation, is Harbor Boulevard and the northbound I-405 off -ramp. The FEIR predicts that in 1990, assuming no mitigation, the project will cause the ICU for this intersection to worsen from .84 to 1.06. However, the FEIR recommended that the project participate in the overall systemwide improvement program being undertaken by the City for freeway access which will include a fourth southbound thru lane on Harbor Boulevard at the freeway off - ramp, adding a northbound right turn lane for Harbor commencing south of the northbound I-405 off -ramp and extending north to South Coast Drive, and restriping southbound Harbor at the southbound I-405 off -ramp for four lanes. With these improvements, this intersection, too, is predicted to operate well within acceptable ICU's, as reflected in the tables on pages B-99 and B-103 of the FEIR. 4. Project -related traffic together with all other anticipated traffic will not cause the level of service (LOS) at the following intersections to deteriorate below LOS D, which is an acceptable level: Harbor/Sunflower, Harbor/MacArthur, Harbor/I-405 southbound ramp, Fairview/Sunflower, Fairview/South Coast, Fairview/Baker and Fairview/I-405 ramps. -5- Exhibit fpr Resolution Iib. 87-82 5. In the short-term (by 1990), project -related traffic will contribute to causing IAS E or F at either morning or evening peak hour at the following intersections: Harbor/South Coast, Harbor/Gisler, Harbor/Baker, and Harbor/northbound I-405 ramps. 6. Several circulation studies are now in progress to identify measures needed to improve traffic circulation, throughout the system. These are the I-405 freeway access study, the Baker Street arterial study, and an arterial intersection study. The mitigation measures for the project include the developer's contributing substantially to the cost of constructing systemwide improvements which in the long-term will significantly improve traffic flow throughout the circulation system, including the intersections adversely impacted by the project. 7. Additional mitigation measures require participation of the project developer in the funding of regional traffic circulation system improvements and provision of on-site regional and project -serving improvements. These mitigation measures will add additional capacity to the regional circulation system, which is critical to the implementation of the General Plan of the City for this area. B. GBOIDGY/GROUNDWAM Significant Effects The significant or potentially significant effects of the project falling under the general category of "geology/groundwater" are summarized in pages 34 through 38 of the DEIR. As summarized in the DEIR, the project is in an area that, like all of Orange County, is susceptible to seismic activity and the consequences of earthquake: ground shaking, possible ground rupture, and potential for differential compaction of soils under load, including liquifacation of the soils. The project is also within an area that, like Exhibit for Resolution No. 87-82 most of Costa Mesa, has a relatively high water table, and collapsible and expansive soils, with the potential effects associated with these -factors, including possible flooding and foundation distress. Mitigation Measures City policies and conditions, and other measures which mitigate these potential effects are described on pages 38 and 39 of the DEIR. As there discussed, grading plans for the project shall be approved by the City Engineer for compliance with the City's uniform codes and ordinances. The grading and foundation plans, including foundation loads, shall be reviewed by a registered Soils Engineer and, if necessary, special site preparation or special foundation work will be required to correct potential differential compaction or expansive soil conditions. All grading and earthwork shall be performed under the observation of a registered Geotechnical Engineer in order to achieve proper sub -grade preparation, selection of satisfactory materials, and placement and compaction of all structural fill. The Soils Engineer shall be notified and consulted in the event that subsurface conditions are exposed during grading and construction which are significantly different from those described in the geotechnical investigation. No dewatering shall be permitted unless and until a study considering the impacts of that dewatering on adjacent properties has been made and submitted to the City Engineering for approval. Finally, a site-specific seismic design analysis must be conducted and submitted to the City for the high-rise office structures. The actual terms and conditions for these mitigation measures are set forth in the project approval. Findings The imposition and enforcement of these policies, conditions and requirements incorporated into the project approval avoid or substantially -7- Exhibit 7- Exhibit for Resolution No. 87-82 lessen the potentially significant geology/groundwater impacts identified in the FEIR. With the imposition and enforcement of these policies, conditions and requirements, the potential geology/groundwater effects of the project have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Facts Supporting Findings The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the geology/groundwater impacts of the project. 1. The City's policies and conditions which apply to all grading and construction activities within the City, as reflected in the mitigation measures described in the FEIR, have been adopted by the City to uniformly require application of sound engineering practices which ensure the following: that all soils following grading operations will support and are compatible with the improvements proposed to be made with the project; that soil characteristics will be compatible with the footings and foundations; that improvements will be protected against the problems of groundwater intrusion and flooding; that all buildings constructed in the project area will comply with sound seismic engineering and design practices; and that no grading and construction activities on one building will adversely impact adjoining properties and property owners. 2. Adherence to the inspection programs during grading operations will ensure that these standards will be met. 3. The requirement for additional studies in conjunction with this particular project, and the development of remedial programs and requirements based upon those studies, if indicated, further ensure that the engineering and design for the project will incorporate industry standards for grading and construction. Exhibit for Resolution No. 87-82 C. LAPID USB/AESTHETICS Significant Effects The land use/aesthetic effects of the project are described in pages 45 through 51 of the DEIR. As summarized in the DEIR, the project will result in the conversion of an undeveloped, agricultural area of the City to an urban use. The primary land use/aesthetic impact of the project, therefore, will be the alteration of the current visual environment by the addition of buildings, including one mid -rise and one high-rise building. Immediately surrounding land uses are similar in nature and are considered compatible with the proposed project., Existing residential neighborhoods are relatively distant from the project site, with no direct adverse impacts to them from the project. Mitigation Measures The FEIR does not propose any mitigation measures for the land use/aesthetic impacts of the project beyond those measures specifically included in the project itself. Specifically, as a component of the project itself, the project site will be densely landscaped to mitigate the urban character of the project. The proposed parking structure is designed to be partially screened in order to reduce its visibility. The project location was chosen to take advantage of natural buffers from residential neighborhoods, such as the I-405 freeway and surrounding industrial developments. These internal project components will reduce the visual impacts of the project, although the project will remain, intentionally, visible. Findings and Facts Supporting Findings The FEIR concludes, and the City Council concurs and finds, that the the project does not have or threaten to have any significant adverse land use or QE Exhibit fir Resolution No. 87-82 aesthetic impacts. The project has been well-designed from an aesthetic viewpoint, admitting that aesthetic judgments are largely a matter -of individual preference. All feasible mitigation measures to soften the visual impacts of the project, such as use of a screened parking structure, incorporation of landscaping, and incorporation of distinctive architectural components, have been included in the project description and submittal, and no additional mitigation measures have been suggested or identified other than the project alternatives. The findings with respect to those project alternatives are made below. Although the FEIR concluded and the City Council concurs and finds that there are no significant land use/aesthetic impacts from the project as proposed, the City Council nonetheless finds that on a cumulative basis the conversion of the agricultural areas of the City to urban uses does have unavoidable and potentially significant land use/aesthetic impacts. However, this conversion carries out with the goals and policies of the General Plan and zoning ordinances, which make no provision for permanent agricultural uses within the City. As for this cumulative impact, in accordance with §§15091 through 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations given these remaining cumulative impacts is made below. D. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AMID BOUSING Significant Effects The effects of the project falling under the heading of population, employment and housing are described in pages 57 through 65 of the DEIR. As summarized in the DEIR, the project will result in the creation of 2,713 permanent jobs, in addition to the construction related employment associated with the completion of the project. These employment opportunities have been included in the regional forecasts used by the County of Orange and SCAG, and _10- Exhibit 10- Fochibit for Resolution No. 87-82 cannot in themselves be considered a potential adverse impact of the project. To the contrary, as noted in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below, this employment from the project is a beneficial project impact. However, the housing demand generated by this employment could possibly impact the local housing stock and contribute to pressure on vacancy rates and housing costs in the vicinity of the project. Although it is extremely difficult to quantify the housing impacts of the project, the DEIR estimates that the project could generate a demand for approximately 362 dwelling units in Costa Mesa. Mitigation Measures The measures imposed upon the project to mitigate its impacts on local housing are listed in page 65 of the DEIR. Specifically, prior to the issuance of building permits, a Housing Plan as well as a phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City. The Housing Plan shall provide for a range of housing types, including rental and ownership units. The actual terms and conditions for these mitigation measures are as set forth in the project approval. Findings These mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant population, employent and housing impacts identified in the FEIR. With the imposition of these measures, the potential adverse population, employment and housing effects of the project have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Facts Supporting Findings The DEIR concluded, and the City Council concurs and finds, that no direct population impacts are projected as a result of the project, and that the current and planned housing supply appears adequate to absorb projected Otis Exh ib i t fi) r Resolution Iib. 87-82 housing demand. Nonetheless, to ensure that the project will not have an adverse impact in terms of housing, the requirement has been imposed that these projections be verified in the form of a Housing Plan and, if necessary, additional steps be implemented in that Housing Plan to provide needed housing. The requirement for such a Housing Plan is a performance verification measure that ensures this project will not result in an adverse housing and population impact on the surrounding region. E. HYDROLOGY Significant Effects The effects of the project involving hydrology are described on page 67 of the DEIR. As summarised in the DEIR, the project will result in the conversion of permeable to impermeable surfaces through the construction of buildings, streets and other paved surfaces. The result of this conversion will be to significantly increase the volume and rate of runoff directed to the drainage facilities. Mitigation Measures The measures imposed upon the project to mitigate its hydrology impacts are also listed on page 67 of the DEIR. Specifically, the developer will be required to complete a detailed hydrological analysis in conjunction with the final site plans. In -tract storm drain facilities will be designed based upon that analysis. In addition, structures will be elevated to base flood elevation 32 -feet above mean sea level, or otherwise flood -proofed in accordance with City policies. The developer shall coordinate with the Orange County Environmental Management Agency ("EMA") with respect to regional channel improvements, and in particular with respect to the improvements to the Greenville -Banning Channel. -12- Exh ibi t for Resolution Iib. 87-82 The actual terms and conditions for these mitigation measures are set forth in the project approval. Findings These mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant hydrology impacts identified in the FEIR. With the imposition of these measures, the hydrology effects of the project have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Facts Supporting Findings These mitigation measures are consistent with the City's policies, conditions and requirements concerning hydrology and flood protection. Adherence to local and regional flood control design and improvement standards of the City and of the County EMA, based upon studies demonstrating the ability and adequacy of those design and improvement standards to contain runoff from the project and deliver it into adequate flood control facilities, will incorporate and implement a performance criterion that the project area will be protected against flooding because of the project. That performance standard equates to a performance standard of no significant impact. Moreover, the specific elevation or alternative flood protection requirements for on-site improvements protects those improvements from periodic flooding in all but extraordinary storms. F. POLICE PROTECTION Significant Effects The effects of the project in terms of police protection and demands on police services are described on pages 70 and 71 of the DEIR. As summarized in the DEIR, the project will result in additional demands for service from the police department. Cumulatively with other new construction activity in the North Costa Mesa area, the demands for new police services will be -13- Exhibit for Resolution No. 87-82 significant. That cumulative demand is estimated at between two and four additional officers in the future, with the possible need for a new police substation in the project vicinity. Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval to lessen the adverse impacts of the project cumulatively with other projects in the area are listed on page 3h of the FEIR. Specifically, the developer will be required to provide private security on-site in order to supplement and relieve the need for public police services to the project. In addition, the developer shall participate with other ongoing developments in the cost of providing a new police substation to be located in the North Costa Mesa area. The actual terms and conditions for these mitigation measures are as set forth in the project approval. Findings and Facts Supporting Findings The FEIR concludes, and the City Council concurs and finds, that the above-described mitigation measures reduce the impacts of the project on police protection services to a level of insignificance. All feasible mitigation measures to eliminate the police protection impacts of the project have been included in the project approval, and no additional mitigation measures have been suggested or identified other than the project alternatives. The findings with respect to those project alternatives are made below. Although the FEIR concluded, and the City Council concurs and finds that there are no significant police protection impacts from the project as proposed and mitigated, the City Council nonetheless finds that on a cumulative basis police protection services may experience some deterioration in this growth area until such time as a new substation is in fact warranted -14- Exhibit 14- Exhibit fDr Resolution Iib. 87-82 3 and provided. For this cumulative impact, in accordance with H15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations given these remaining cumulative impacts is made below. G. FIRE PROTECTION Significant Effects The potentially significant effects of the project in terms of fire protection are described on page 73 of the DEIR. As discussed, the project will result in an increase in emergency calls for fire protection, with a consequently diminished availability of manpower and equipment. Moreover, the project includes several high-rise buildings, which create special demands and concerns for fire protection. Mitigation Measures To mitigate the fire protection impacts and needs of the project, the developer shall dedicate a site for construction of a new fire station in the project vicinity and shall participate in the cost of construction of the fire station in conjunction with other ongoing develoment in the area. The developer will also be required to comply with State and Local construction standards related to fire protection, and to provide on-site fire protection facilities and improvements, as described on pages 73 and 74 of the DEIR. Findings and Facts Supporting Findings The FEIR concludes, and the City Council concurs and finds, that the project as so mitigated does not have or threaten any significant adverse impacts on fire protection services in the area. Instead, the project approval is conditioned upon providing a site for a new fire station in the North Costa Mesa area and participating in the costs of constructing that station, which will result in reduced response times regionally, as well as for the project. As mitigated, therefore, the project will result in an -15- Exhibit for Resolution No. 87-82 improvement in fire protection services generally. Moreover, the high-rise buildings will be required to comply with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code dealing with high-rise construction, as a part of the project, which provisions are intended to ensure that the fire protection risks associated with the project are maintained within acceptable levels. Finally, the property tax and sales tax revenue generated by the project will offset the cost of increased manpower and equipment necessitated by this and other development in the area. H. SIM FACILITIgS Significant Effects The potentially significant effects of the project on sewer facilities are described on pages 75 and 76 of the DEIR. As discussed, the project will generate approximately 137,610 gallons of sewage daily. While these flows are within the predictions of Orange County Sanitation District #7 for the property that includes the Project, and there is planned capacity to handle this volume of daily sewage flow, this flow volume is nearing the total volumes predicted for all of the agricultural land in the vicinity of the project. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures incorporated into or imposed upon the project to mitigate the sewer facilities impacts of the project are identified on page 76 of the DEIR. To summarize those measures, any portions of the project not within the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, and all sewer facilities prepared for dedication to that District shall be constructed at the developer's expense in accordance with all applicable District standards and located within public streets. Flows from the project shall be directed to the Sunflower Avenue trunk sewer owned by the Orange County Sanitation District V. and the -16- Exhibit fior Resolution Iib. 87-82 developer shall coordinate with that District to determine appropriate flow reduction techniques to be incorporated into design plans. All connection fees, processing, administrative and engineering fees shall be paid by the developer to the Costa Mesa Sanitary District and Orange County Sanitation District V. The actual terms and conditions for these mitigation measures are as set forth in the project approval. Findings and Facts Supporting Findings The FEIR concludes, and the City Council concurs and finds, that the foregoing mitigation measures reduce the potential adverse impacts of the project on sewer facilities to a level of insignificance. Adequate capacity exists in existing and planned sewer treatment and carrying facilities to transport and treat the predicted sewage flows from this project, including cumulative predicted flows. Coordination with the responsible Districts in the design and construction of the sewer lines to carry the flows from the project to the Sunflower Avenue trunk line will ensure compliance with the standards of those Districts for such improvements, which in turn constitute general design criteria adopted to ensure there will be no significant adverse impacts in terms of sewer facilities associated with this project. Nonetheless, the sewage flows from this project, when considered in conjunction with anticipated flows with the ultimate build -out of the surrounding undeveloped properties, must be considered cumulatively significant. In accordance with 1§15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding consideratins given this cumulatively significant impact is made below. -17- Exhibit fx)r Resolution Iib. 87-82 I. WATER FACILITIES Significant Effects The potentially significant effects of the project on water facilities are described on pages 77 and 78 of the DEIR. As discussed, the project will generate a demand for approximately 406,950 gallons of water daily, including exterior consumption. While this demand represents a significant increase over existing conditions, the Mesa Consolidated Water District states that the project will not create a need for expansion of the existing facilities. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures incorporated into or imposed upon the project to mitigate the water facilities impacts of the project are identified on page 78 of the DEIR. To summarize those measures, the water system serving the project shall be designed to comply with all applicable standards, specifications, policies and regulations of the Mesa Consolidated Water District, with the construction of those facilities being the financial responsibility of the developer. The developer will be required to perform a detailed analysis of water use to minimize water demand, and the analysis will be submitted to the District for review and approval before the issuance of building permits. The project shall incorporate water conservation techniques and fixtures as recommended by the California Department of Water Resources, including the use of low -flush toilets, low -flow showers and faucets, insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems, and water pressure regulators. Landscaping and irrigation plans will be required which incorporate the use of low water demand plant species, and techniques and fixtures to minimize waste of water resources, which plans should be submitted to the District for review prior to issuance of building permits. Reclaimed Mm Exhibit for Resolution %. 87-82 water shall be used for landscaping and irrigation when made available by the District. The actual terms and conditions for these mitigation measures are as set forth in the project approval. Findings and Facts Supporting Findings The FEIR concludes, and the City Council concurs and finds, that the foregoing mitigation measures reduce the potential adverse impacts of the project on water facilities to a level of insignificance. Existing water facilities are adequate to serve the demands of the project. Coordination with the Mesa Consolidated Water District in the design and construction of water facilities for the project, and the incorporation of conservation techniques and fixtures, will ensure compliance with the standards of the District for such improvements, which in turn constitute general criteria adopted to ensure there will be no significant unmitigated adverse impacts in terms of water facilities associated with this project. Nonetheless, the water demands of this project, when considered in conjunction with anticipated demands with the ultimate buildout of the surrounding undeveloped properties, must be considered cumulatively significant. In accordance with 1§15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considertions given this cumulatively significant impact is made below. Significant Effects As noted on page 82 of the DEIR, the potential air quality impacts of the project were analyzed in the Home Ranch Master Plan EIR certified in 1984 ("EIR 1015"). The potential air quality impacts of the project are discussed in pages 24 through 28 of the EIR 1015. As discussed, in the short term -19- Exhibit fir Resolution lib. 87-82 during project construction air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment, and fugitive dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. In the long term, following completion and occupancy of the project, emissions from motor vehicles resulting from the project will cumulatively adversely impact ambient air quality. There will likewise be cumulative pollutant emission impacts from the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating in the project, and off-site emissions will be generated in the production of electricity consumed by the project. Mitigation Measures Mitigation -,measures incorportated into or imposed upon the project to mitigate the air quality impacts of the project are listed on pages 28 and 29 of the EIR 1015. To summarize those measures, the developer will adhere to Rule 403 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), ensuring the clean-up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to and from the site, and accepted watering techniques will be used to partially mitigate the impact of construction -generated dust particulates. Building construction shall comply with the energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. The developer shall encourage employees and customers to use public transit and carpools by providing information, convenient bus shelters, and assistance in forming carpools and vanpools. Employers/tenants should be encourage to consider modified work schedules to reduce peak hour demands. Energy efficient lighting shall be used to reduce emissions related to power generation. Use of diesel -powered construction equipment shall be encouraged to reduce exhaust emissions during the construction phases of the project. The actual terms and conditions for these mitigation measures are as set forth in the project approval. -20- Exhibit for Resolution No. 87-82 These specific measures are in addition to the mitigation measures incorporated into or imposed upon the project to mitigate the traffic circulation impacts of the project, which mitigation measures also operate to mitigate air quality impacts by improving traffic flow and reducing traffic from the project. Findings The imposition and enforcement of these policies and conditions will avoid or substantially lessen the significant or potentially significant air quality impacts of the project identified in the FEIR to the extent feasible. Nonetheless, even with the imposition and enforcement of these mitigation measures, on a cumulative basis the air quality impacts of the project cannot feasibly be mitigated to a level of insignificance. In accordance with 1§15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations given these remaining cumulatively significant impacts is made below. Facts Supporting Findings The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the air quality effects described above and their mitigation: 1. SCAQMD Rule 403 was promulgated to reduce particulate emissions during grading and results in particulate abatement procedures which mitigate this potential impact to the extent feasible given current technology. 2. Incorporation of measures and employment of techniques to encourage employees to use public transit, alternative means of transportation, carpooling and off-peak travel will help to reduce dependency upon and use of single -occupant automobiles and the emissions associate-' with vehicle traffic. -21- Exhibit for Resolution No. 87-82 3. The energy use guidelines for building construction contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code were promulgated to -reduce energy consumption, and adherence to those guidelines will, in turn, reduce the air quality impacts of energy consumption to the extent feasible given current technology. 4. Both the City's staff and the consultant retained by the City to conduct an air quality study for the project, in their respective expert judgments, recommend that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant potential air quality impacts of the project. Their expert opinions support the imposition and inclusion of these mitigation measures and the foregoing findings as to the effectiveness and feasibility of these mitigation measures. L. NOISE Significant Effects As noted on page 82 of the DEIR, the potential noise impacts of the project were analyzed in EIR 1015. The potential noise impacts of the project are discussed in pages 33 through 36 of EIR 1015. As discussed, in the short term during project construction, two types of noise impacts will be created. First, transport of workers to and from the site will incrementally increase noise levels along the roadways leading to and from the site. This incremental increase is not predicted to be within detectable ranges. Second, the noise from operation of construction equipment will be introduced to the area. This noise could be significant for nearby sensitive land uses. However, the project is surrounded by non -sensitive uses, and construction activity noise should, therefore, not be a significant adverse impact of the project. -22- Exhibit 22- Fochibit fo r Resolution No. 87-82 In the long term, this project will not create noise that can be heard from off-site. However, upon buildout of the 98 -acre site there will be a perceptible increase in existing noise levels along streets in which the project -related traffic will disperse. will increase within audible levels Noise levels along several streets Those streets are Fairview between I-405 and South Coast Drive, and Sunflower and South Coast Drive between Harbor and Fairview. Mitigation Measures Mitigation.measures incorporated into or imposed upon the project to mitigate the noise impacts of the project are described on pages 36 and 37 of EIR 1015. To summarize those measures, construction activity shall be restricted to daylight hours or between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., whichever is more restrictive. Noise reduction devices shall be used on construction equipment as appropriate. Truck access, loading areas, and air- conditioning/refrigeration equipment shall be designed to minimize potential noise impacts and to ensure compliance with the City's Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. Detailed acoustical analyses shall be performed in conjunction with future building plans to ensure that sensitive land uses are appropriately insulated from unacceptable noise impacts through construction of berms and acoustic barriers, building orientation and design, and that the project will comply with and incorporate the standards set fort! in the City's Noise Element of its General Plan and Noise Ordinance, the State Noise Insulation Standards, and all other State and City noise attenuation requirements. The actual terms and conditions for these mitigation measures are as set forth in the project approval. -23- Exhibit for Resolution Iib. 87-82 These specific measures are in addition to the mitigation measures incorporated into or imposed upon the project to mitigate the traffic circulation impacts of the project, which mitigation measures also operate to mitigate noise impacts by improving traffic flow and encouraging reduced vehicle traffic from the project. Findings The imposition and enforcement of these policies and conditions will avoid or substantially lessen the significant or potentially significant noise impacts of the project identified in the FEIR to the extent feasible. Nonetheless, even with the imposition and enforcement of these mitigation measures, on a cumulative basis the noise impacts of the project cannot feasibly be mitigated to a level of insignificance. In accordance with §§15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations given these remaining cumulatively significant impacts is made below. Facts Supporting Findings The following facts were considered and taken into account in making the above findings with respect to the noise effects described above and their mitigation: 1. Limitation of construction and business operations to specified hours and the routing of construction traffic to avoid existing residential areas will concentrate the short-term construction noise generating activities to those hours of the day and locations which are less sensitive to noise impacts. 2. Adherence to the requirements of the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance of the City, and the final acoustical study called for by the mitigating conditions, will ensure that long term noise impacts from the -24- Exhibit for Resolution No. 87-82 project have been mitigated to acceptable levels as set by the Noise Element, in that the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance were adopted specifically for that purpose and have fulfilled that purpose since their adoption. 3. Those mitigation measures identified with respect to traffic circulation impacts associated with the project will likewise reduce the noise impacts associated with motor vehicle use by reducing traffic and noise - creating congestion. 4. Both the City's staff and the consultant retained by the City to conduct a noise study for the project, in their respective expert judgments, recommend that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant potential noise impacts of the project. Their expert opinions support the imposition and inclusion of these mitigation measures and the foregoing findings as to the effectiveness and feasibility of these mitigation measures. L. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Effects As noted on page 82 of the DEIR, the potential impacts of the project on biological resource were analyzed in EIR 1015 at pages 38 and 39 of EIR 1015. As discussed, the principal impact of this project in terms of biological resources is the conversion of the site from agricultural production to an urban use. Ultimately, the conversion of this project site and the remainder of the Home Ranch area from agriculture to urban uses will result in the loss of 98 acres of farmland, leaving the City with an inventory of only 193 acres of agricultural land. However, the project includes a large portion of landscaped open space. -25- Exhibit for Resolution No. 87-82 Mitigation Measures In order to mitigate this impact on biological resources to the extent feasible, the developer shall phase the project in such a way that the portions of the site not developed immediately or during the initial phases of construction allowed to continue in an agricultural/open space use. Findings and Facts Supporting Findings The FEIR concludes, and the City Council concurs and finds, that the conversion of the project site from an agricultural use to an urban use does not represent or result in a significant biological resource impact in light of the long-range plans projected by the City through its General Plan, for reasons set forth below in the findings rejecting the "No Project" alternative. Nonetheless, on a cumulative basis the loss of agricultural land in the Orange County region is recognized as unavoidable, potentially significant impact. For that reason, in accordance with 1§15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations given this unavoidable, cumulatively significant impact is made below. �I tj" Significant Effects As noted on page 82 of the DEIR, the potential impacts of the project on energy resources were analyzed in EIR 1015, at pages 103 through 105 of EIR 1015. As discussed, the project will ultimately cause an increase in the demand for energy resources (electricity, natural gas, gasoline and diesel fuels) over the present demands created by the agricultural operations on the site. -26- Exhibit for Resolution Db. 87-82 Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures imposed upon or included in the project to mitigate the energy resource demands of the project are described on page 105 of EIR 1015. As described, all buildings constructed as part of the project must comply with the energy conservation requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. In addition, the developer will be required to prepare an "Energy Conservation Master Plan" for the project, for submittal to the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits, outlining and identifying ways to reduce further the consumption of energy resources by the project. The actual terms and conditions for these mitigation measures are as set forth in the project approval. Findings and Facts Supporting Findings The FEIR concludes, and the City Council concurs and finds, that the foregoing mitigation measures reduce the potential adverse impacts of the project on energy resources to the greatest extent feasible, and to acceptable levels. Both the City's staff and the consultant retained by the City to assess the energy resource impacts for the project, in their respective expert judgments, recommend that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant potential impacts of the project on energy resources. Their expert opinions support the imposition and inclusion of these mitigation measures and the foregoing findings as to the effectiveness and feasibility of these mitigation measures. Nonetheless, while energy suppliers have stated that there are adequate supplies or sources for the various energy resources that will be required and consumed by the project, so that the individual impact of the project is insignificant, the energy resource demands of the -27- Exhibit for Resolution No. 87-82 project are potentially significant on a cumulative basis. For that reason, in accordance with §§15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations given this unavoidable, cumulatively significant impact is made below. N. PMJC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Significant Effects As noted on page 82 of the DEIR, the potential impacts of the project on public services and utilities not analyzed in the DEIR (i.e., solid waste disposal, natural gas, electricity and telephone services) were analyzed in EIR 1015. These,potential impacts of the project are discussed in the following pages of EIR 1015: solid waste on page 93, natural gas on page 94; electricity on pages 96 and 97; and, telephone services on page 98. As discussed, the project will add to the generation of solid waste, the consumption of natural gas, the demands for electricity, and the need for telephone facilities. Mitigation Measures In order to mitigate solid waste disposal impacts, the project should incorporate compacting equipment where feasible. The project will be constructed in conformance with all applicable requirements of the City of Costa Mesa respecting public utilities and services and minimizing of demand for such services, as well as all requirements of other public service agencies and utilities for the provision of services by them. The project also shall comply with the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, and the developer will be required to prepare an "Energy Conservation Master Plan" for the project, for submittal to the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits, outlining and C'M Exhibit for Resolution Iib. 87-82 identifying ways to reduce further the consumption of energy resources by the project. The actual terms and conditions for these mitigation measures are set forth in the project approval. Findings and Facts Supporting Findings The FEIR concludes, and the City Council concurs and finds, that the foregoing mitigation measures reduce the potential adverse impacts of the project on these public services and utilities to the greatest extent feasible, and to;acceptable levels. The City's staff, the consultant retained by the City to assess these public service and utility impacts for the project, and the purveyors of those services and utilities, in their respective expert judgments, recommend that these mitigation measures be imposed upon or included in the project, as substantially and feasibly lessening the significant potential impacts of the project on public services and utilities, and that with these mitigation measures there is adequate capacity for the project. Their expert opinions support the imposition and inclusion of these mitigation measures and the foregoing findings as to the effectiveness and feasibility of these mitigation measures. Nonetheless, while suppliers of these services and facilities have stated that there are adequate facilities and resources for the project, so that the individual impact of the project is insignificant, the demands of the project are potentially significant on a cumulative basis. For that reason, in accordance with H15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations given this unavoidable, cumulatively significant impact is made below. -29- Exhibit for Resolution Iib. 87-82 III. ALTERNATIVES Alternatives to the project are discussed in Section IV of the DEIR, beginning on page 79. Additional alternatives to the project were also evaluated in Section VI of EIR 1015, beginning on page 109. The "No Project" alternative is to leave the project site in its existing agricultural use. This alternative would avoid the otherwise unavoidable direct and cumulative impacts of the project identified in EIR 1015 and the foregoing findings. Nonetheless, this alternative has been rejected as infeasible for economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the previous findings for the "No Project" alternative of the EIR 1036, as well as EIR 1015. Specifically, as stated on page 39 of EIR 1015, the property owner has indicated that although the project site has been in production for many years, the viability of continued agricultual operation of the site has substantially diminished in recent years. Because of increased water, labor and fuel costs relative to crop returns, it is no longer economically feasible to continue production at this time. In addition, agricultural operations themselves cause adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided by the "No Project" alternative, such as generation of fugitive dust from plowing and discing work, odors from pesticides, fertilizers, and decaying vegetable matter, and vandalism from occupants of nearby residential areas. In other words, the "No Project" alternative is illusory as a long term alternative, and has its own peculiar adverse environmental effects. The "No Project" alternative would also not allow the City to obtain the public improvements, such as intersection improvements, that will be made by the project developer and will provide capacity in excess of the incremental demands of the project. It would not produce the fees and taxes that are -30- Exhibit for Resolution Iib. 87-82 projected to be paid because of the project. It would not provide the office space needed to maintain IBM as a tenant in the City. Finally, this area has been planned for conversion to urban uses as part of the General Plan for Costa Mesa, and the "No Project" alternative would be contrary to the overall planning goals and policies of the City. A second alternative considered in the DEIR and discussed in EIR 1015 would allow the project site to be developed pursuant to a previous General Plan amendment, GPA 83-1B, approved in 1983. That previous general plan covered all of the Home Ranch, and not simply the project site, without specific development allocations to the various commercial areas of the property. Nonetheless, the previous general plan would generate a similar level of environmental impacts to the project's impacts in every impact area. Moreover, the prior general plan allowed a maximum building height of 25 stories, compared to the 20 stories in the present project, with consequently greater shadow and aesthetic impacts. Finally, the design of the present project allows for certain amenities, such as the Pavilion and Art Center, that are integral to the project but are not integral to and may not occur under the previous General Plan provisions. For these reasons, this alternative has been rejected. A third alternative discussed in EIR 1036 would be to allow the Home Ranch property to be developed as analyzed in EIR 1029. This alternative would consolidate a substantial portion of the commercial development potential for the Home Ranch property into one building consisting of 32 stories. This alternative too, would, generate impacts similar in magnitude as compared with the potential ultimate development of the Home Ranch, considering the current project as the first phase. Again, the primary differences between this alternative and the project would be in terms of the -31- Exhibit fbr Resolution No. 87-82 greater shadowing impacts of the taller building, and aesthetics. For these reasons, this alternative has been rejected. A fourth alternative considered in both EIR 1015 and EIR 1036 would allow the Home Ranch property to be developed at the existing commercial center General Plan designation but at a 25% reduced development intensity. This alternative, if applied to the entire 98 -acres, would result in an approximately 25% reduction in the intensity of the entire Home Ranch development from those levels reviewed in the EIRs. This alternative would result in similar environmental impacts to topography, geology and hydrology and would reducd by about 25% the impacts on traffic, public services and utilities, air quality, noise, housing, and energy consumption. However, the reduced intensity alternative would result in less revenue from fees and taxes and fewer jobs, which are economic and social benefits of the project. A reduction in the intensity of the project would require reconsideration of the economic viability of the project as burdened by the full range of mitigation measures that have been identified, and either a selective elimination of some of the more costly of those mitigation measures or abandonment of the project. Finally, from a planning standpoint, this area of the City has been designated for Commercial Center development for a number of years, with intensities close to that proposed in the project. A wholesale reduction in the square footages allowed for this site would be contrary to that planning effort and an underutilitation of the site from a land use planning standpoint as reflected in the City's General Plan. For these reasons, this alternative has also been rejected in favor of the project. A further alternative discussed in EIR 1015 would allow the entire Home Ranch property to be developed for a mixed commercial/residential project. This alternative would result in some equal as well as some lessened -32- Exhibit fx)r Resolution No. 87-82 environmental impacts. This alternative would mitigate population/housing impacts by providing additional housing units for population generated by increased employment opportunities of the project. However, the needed residential development to meet the project demand is being pursued in other parts of the City. Also, the site is not well-suited to residential development because of its proximity to noise sources (San Diego Freeway, railroad span), and the advantages of a true mixed use development would not be achieved since the two uses would be separated by South Coast Drive. Finally, air quality and traffic impacts would still not be mitigated to an insignificant level. For these reasons, this alternative has been rejected in favor of the present project. IV. STATEKTr OF OVKRRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The FEIR concludes and the City Council finds that certain significant environmental effects of the project, if only on a cumulative basis, are unavoidable even after the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. For such significant effects, summarized on pages 83 and 84 of the DEIR, the City has balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidable environmental impacts in deciding to approve the project. In this regard, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa finds that the remaining unavoidable environmental impacts are acceptable within the meaning of $115092 and 15093 of the of the CEQA Guidelines for the following specific reasons: I. The project's developer will provide financing for and construction of local street improvements that are not only required to mitigate the traffic from this project, but which will be used by regional traffic and will result in a net improvement in the City's circulation system. 2. The project is intended to be occupied by IBM, which needs new consolidated office space to maintain its presence in the City. Employers and -33- Exhibit for Resolution Iib. 87-82 large office space users such as IBM are generally good citizens. For example, through a variety of special community programs, IBM seeks to improve the quality of life in areas where its employees live and work, such as by practicing "flex -time" and other procedures to minimize employee traffic on the streets and highways at peak times. By providing consolidated office space in a timely fashion for the needs of tenants such as IBM, the City is able to reap the social and economic benefits of the project, while also minimizing the traffic and other related impacts that could not otherwise be managed if market demand for such office space were to be met on a less planned basis. 3. The project incorporates a number of planning and design amenities that are peculiar to the project and could not be obtained in the same manner through alternative designs or entitlements. Specifically, the project incorporates a skylit pavilion connecting the two office towers which will provide space for an Art Center and art museum, enhancing the position of the City as a forerunner in bringing art into public awareness and public places, and of sufficient size to meet needs for community events. The design of the project also allows for the creation of a significant, campus -like open space amenity surrounding the two office buildings, incorporating groves of trees, a recreation trail, and park and picnic area. In fact, the project leaves three-quarters of the site in open space that will be privately improved and maintained and publicly available. 4. As noted, the project will create short-term employment for workers in the construction trades and long-term employment for an estimated 2,713 people. 5. The project will be required to pay approximately one million dollars towards the cost of the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. Ninety- -34 - Exhibit fpr Resolution No. 87-82 five dollars per average daily vehicle trip will be contributed to the City's Development Trip Fee Program. Approximately one hundred eighty-one thousand dollars will be paid to the Newport -Mesa Unified School District under its recently adopted school fee program. The developement will annually yield substantial revenue in the form of property taxes. In short, the project will have a net positive fiscal impact on the City and other public entities. These benefits of the project, jointly and severally, outweigh the unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts of the project. -35- Exhibit for Resolution Db. 87-82