HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 - PH-1 - Final Environmental Impact Report- One - 5/4/20211
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: MAY 4, 2021 ITEM NUMBER: PH-1
SUBJECT: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2019050014),
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-20-01, REZONE R-20-01, SPECIFIC
PLAN SP-20-01, MASTER PLAN PA-19-19, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 19015, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA-20-02 FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT (ONE METRO WEST)
LOCATED AT 1683 SUNFLOWER AVENUE
DATE: APRIL 22, 2021
FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT/PLANNING DIVISION
PRESENTATION
BY:
MINOO ASHABI, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
NANCY HUYNH, SENIOR PLANNER
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
MINOO ASHABI 714.754.5610
minoo.ashabi@costamesaca.gov
NANCY HUYNH 714.754.5609
nancy.huynh@costamesaca.gov
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing including presentations from staff and the applicant and
receipt of public comments; and
2. Continue the item to the next regular City Council meeting scheduled for June 1,
2021 in order to have further deliberations and receive additional information; or
3. Approve the EIR, General Plan Amendment, Master Plan, Tract Map and language
of the Development Agreement, and give first reading to the Zoning Code
Amendment, Specific Plan, and Ordinance adopting the Development Agreement.
APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT:
The applicant and property owner is International Asset Management Holding Group,
LLC. The authorized agent is Brent Stoll with Rose Equities.
2
PLANNING APPLICATION SUMMARY
Location: 1683 Sunflower Avenue Application Number: FEIR (SCH No. 2019050014); GP-20-01,
R-20-01, SP-20-01, PA-19-19, T-19-01,
and DA-20-02
Request: The proposed One Metro West project would redevelop the 15.23-acre subject property with a mixed-use development, to
include up to 1,057 residential dwelling units (anticipated to be rental units with a minimum of 106 affordable units), 25,000
square feet of commercial office, 6,000 square feet of specialty retail, and 1.5 acres of open space available for use by the
general public. The project would also include off-site improvements to Sunflower Avenue and to an existing bicycle trail
connection to the Santa Ana River Trail. The request includes a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land
use designation of the subject property from Industrial Park to High Density Residential and to establish a site-specific
density of 80 dwelling units per acre; Rezone to change the site’s zoning designation from Industrial Park (MP) to PDR-HD;
Specific Plan to establish site-specific zoning regulations and guidelines; a Master Plan to implement the Specific Plan and
provide site plan and architectural details; a Tentative Tract Map for condominium purposes, and a Development
Agreement between the applicant and the City.
SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTY:
Zone: Current: MP (Industrial Park)
Proposed: PDR-HD (Planned
Development Residential – High Density)
North: PDI – Planned Development Industrial (Across
Sunflower Avenue)
General Plan: Current: Industrial Park
Proposed: High Density Residential
South: Interstate 405 Freeway
Lot Dimensions: Irregular East:
PDC – Planned Development Commercial (South
Coast Collection)
Lot Area: 15.23-acres1 West: PDI – Planned Development Industrial
Existing Development: Approximately 345,000-square-foot single-story industrial building with associated surface parking lot and site
landscaping
SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPARISON
Development Standard Required per Specific Plan Proposed/Provided
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.22 2.22
Maximum Building Height 7 stories
98 FT Maximum4
Building A: 6 stories (78 FT)
Building B: 7 stories (88 FT)
Building C: 7 stories (98 FT)
Office Building: 3 stories (52 FT)
Development Lot Building Setbacks:
Front (Sunflower Avenue) 10 FT 10 FT
Side (east; adjacent to SOCO) 10 FT 10 FT
Side (west) 10 FT 10 FT
Rear (Along I-405 Freeway) 10 FT for Residential
5 FT for Office
10 FT for Residential
5 FT for Office
Parking Ratio2
Residential 1.3 spaces per unit 1.75 spaces per unit
Office 4 spaces per 1,000 gross SF 4 spaces per 1,000 gross SF
Retail 4 spaces per 1,000 gross SF 4 spaces per 1,000 gross SF
Total Parking 1,498 parking spaces 1,914 parking spaces3
Open Space
Private 3.22 acres (140,248 SF) 3.22 acres (140,248 SF)
Public 1.5 acres (65,340 SF) 1.5 acres (65,340 SF)
Total Open Space 4.72 acres (205,588 SF) 4.72 acres (205,588 SF)
1 The entire project site is 15.75 acres; however, approximately 0.52 acres along the southwest site boundary would be dedicated for the I-405
Freeway expansion. Therefore, the proposed development would occur on the remaining 15.23 acres.
2 The One Metro West Specific Plan requires a minimum parking ratio of 1.3 parking space per dwelling unit and 4 spaces per 1,000 gross
square feet for the office and retail uses.
3 A total of 61 parking spaces for the office building would be shared with the residential uses in Building A and a total of 39 parking spaces
would be dedicated for office building parking only.
CEQA Status Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019050014)
Final Action City Council
3
BACKGROUND:
Project Location
The subject property is 15.23 acres in size and is located at 1683 Sunflower Avenue. The
site is zoned MP (Industrial Park) and has a General Plan land use designation of
Industrial Park. The site is bounded by Sunflower Avenue to the north, the South Coast
Collection (SOCO) retail center to the east, the Interstate 405 Freeway (I-405 Freeway) to
the south, and industrial and logistics uses to the west (zoned PDI, Planned Development
Industrial). Regional access to the project site is provided by the I-405 Freeway, State
Route 73 (SR-73), and State Route 55 (SR-55). Harbor Boulevard and Sunflower Avenue
are the major roadways that provide local access to the site; Hyland Avenue and Cadillac
Avenue extend perpendicularly from Sunflower Avenue to the east and west, respectively.
The project site is currently occupied by office, warehouse, and manufacturing uses
including Sakura Paper Factory, Robinson Pharma, South Coast Baking, and Dekra-
Lite Industries, Inc. within an approximately 345,000-square-foot, one-story industrial
building.
General Plan Screening
On March 5, 2019, the City Council conducted a General Plan Screening for the proposed
One Metro West mixed-use development pursuant to City Council Policy 500-2 for
General Plan Amendment applications. At that meeting, the City Council on a 6-1 vote
(Councilmember Genis voting no) directed staff to allow for submittal of a land use
application for a General Plan Amendment. The City Council staff report, minutes, and
video of the One Metro West General Plan Screening are available at these links:
March 5, 2019 City Council staff report of the One Metro West General Plan Screening:
http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/council/agenda/2019/2019-03-05/NB-1.pdf
Minutes from March 5, 2019 City Council meeting:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=37718
Video from March 5, 2019 City Council meeting:
http://costamesa.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=10&clip_id=3342
Planning Commission Hearings
On April 13, 2020, the Planning Commission held the first public hearing for the project,
received reports and presentations from the staff and the applicant, received public
comments and asked staff and the applicant questions. The project was continued to
the April 27, 2020 Planning Commission meeting which was later cancelled. On May 11,
2020, the Planning Commission held the second public hearing, received staff and
applicant presentations focused on responding to Commissioner questions from the first
public hearing, received public comments, deliberated, and recommended certification
4
of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by a 7-0 vote, and recommended approval by
a 6-1 vote (Commissioner Zich voting no). With the motion, the Planning Commission
requested the following condition of approval be modified for the proposed art display
adjacent to the I-405 Freeway (modifications shown in double-underlined and
strikethrough):
Modified Condition of Approval Number 9: The final design of the public art
display on Building A’s parking structure façade along the I-405 Freeway, which
shall incorporate vertical landscaping, shall be subject to City review and final
approval by the Planning Commission. The Cultural Arts Committee (CAC) shall
may first review the proposed freeway façade design and make a
recommendation to the Planning Commission. No public art display visible along
the I-405 Freeway shall be installed without prior review by and approval from the
City Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission discussed the following main topics at the hearings:
RHNA and the project’s contribution to the upcoming 6th RHNA cycle
Jobs/housing balance and the project’s effect
Existing industrial land use and potential loss in revenue
Proximity to the Measure X area, potential loss in Measure X-related revenue,
and any conflicts with State cannabis regulations
Proximity to the I-405 Freeway, impacts on future residents, and view impacts to
residences across the I-405 Freeway
Project’s traffic impact on Harbor Boulevard and nearby residential communities
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Affordable housing component
Development Agreement
The April 13, 2020 Planning Commission staff report and video from the meeting are
available at these links:
April 13, 2020 staff report:
http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/planningcommission/agenda/2020/2020-04-
13/PH-1.pdf
April 13, 2020 meeting video:
https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3540?view_id=10&redirect=true
April 13, 2020 meeting minutes:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46222/637441649781970
000
April 13, 2020 public comments received:
http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/planningcommission/agenda/2020/2020-04-
13/PH-1-pc.pdf
5
The May 11, 2020 Planning Commission staff report and video from the meeting are
available at these links:
May 11, 2020 staff report:
http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/planningcommission/agenda/2020/2020-05-
11/PH-1.pdf
May 11, 2020 meeting video:
https://costamesa.granicus.com/player/clip/3548?view_id=10&redirect=true
May 11, 2020 meeting minutes:
https://www.costamesaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/46224/637441650283070
000
May 11, 2020 public comments received:
http://ftp.costamesaca.gov/costamesaca/planningcommission/agenda/2020/2020-05-
11/PH-1-pc.pdf
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
One Metro West is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and
subject to a consistency determination by ALUC prior to City Council decision. On
Thursday, June 18, 2020, ALUC determined that the project is consistent with
AELUP and requested as part of their approval a disclosure notice to the future
tenants related to the aircraft and helicopter noise be included in the lease agreement
(Condition of Approval No. 50).
The June 18, 2020 ALUC staff report is available at the following link:
https://files.ocair.com/media/2021-
04/AgendaItem1.pdf?VersionId=jIcS1z4jWdqsqBxM1gtpqHMqg4iq1SWK
DESCRIPTION:
Project Description
The One Metro West project proposes to redevelop the existing 15.23-acre project site
from an industrial use to a mixed-use development with residential, retail, commercial
and open space uses. The General Plan land use designation and zoning designation
of the property is Industrial Park. The project would change the General Plan land use
designation to High Density Residential and rezone the property to PDR-HD (Planned
Development Residential – High Density.
The residential component of the project would include up to 1,057 multi-family units
located within three separate buildings – Buildings A, B, and C. The residential buildings
6
are proposed at six and seven-stories with the maximum building height at 98 feet (which
is Building C). Parking structures would be provided in each of the residential buildings.
The project proposes to provide a total of 1,914 parking spaces. The proposed 6,000-
square-foot specialty retail uses would be located on the ground floor within Building C,
facing Sunflower Avenue and are intended to primarily serve the on-site residents of the
One Metro West project. The proposed creative office uses would occupy a standalone
three-story, 25,000-square-foot building with maximum building height of 52 feet.
Building Summary
Building Type Square Footage (sq. ft.) Building Height Unit Total
Building A 969,660 sq. ft. 6 stories/78 feet 449 units
Building B 549,880 sq. ft. 7 stories/88 feet 379 units
Building C 495,100 sq. ft. 7 stories/98 feet 229 units
Office 25,000 sq. ft. 3 stories/52 feet --
The proposed residential unit mix includes studio, one, two and three-bedroom units in
nine different floor plan layouts. The units range in size from 618 square feet to 1,526
square feet. Refer to the table below for a breakdown of the proposed unit mix.
Unit Summary
Unit Type Square Footage (sq. ft.) Building A Building B Building C Total
Studio 618 sq. ft. 53 47 31 131
1 Bedroom A 745 sq. ft. 63 66 77 206
1 Bedroom B 812 sq. ft. 0 5 0 5
1 Bedroom C 820 sq. ft. 154 110 14 278
2 Bedroom A 1,150 sq. ft. 146 106 69 321
2 Bedroom B 1,170 sq. ft. 6 9 13 28
2 Bedroom C 1,184 sq. ft. 14 22 14 50
3 Bedroom A 1,526 sq. ft. 13 14 0 27
3 Bedroom B 1,370 sq. ft. -- -- 11 11
Total Units 449 379 229 1,057
The One Metro West project would also include a 1.5-acre urban open space area with
seating and resting areas as well as landscaping, art pieces, and shade structures. A
1,500-square-foot community room accessible from the open space and integrated
within Building B would also be available for public and private events subject to the
terms of the Development Agreement with the City. An active transportation hub would
be provided within the open space. The hub would include bicycle lockers, bicycle
storage, bicycle repair facilities and space to accommodate a future community-wide
bike-share program. The open space area is also proposed with a bicycle trail connecting
to the existing Santa Ana River Trail. The proposed bicycle trail is a straight 14-foot wide
path along the western edge of the open space accessible from Sunflower Avenue. The
original design presented at the Planning Commission public hearings was a meandering
bicycle path located in between the subject property and the adjacent property to the west;
however, an agreement with the adjacent property owner has not yet been secured so the
bicycle path was redesigned and relocated to be entirely on the project site.
7
The open space including the bicycle trail would be privately maintained but available to
the general public through the dedication of a public access easement, as shown on the
Tentative Tract Map.
As part of the project’s off-site improvements, Sunflower Avenue from Cadillac Avenue to
Hyland Avenue would be improved with bicycle paths, new sidewalks, street parking, and
landscaped medians. Proposed off-site improvements would include the following:
Narrow Sunflower Avenue from a four-lane roadway to a three-lane roadway with
one travel lane in each direction with a center striped left turn lane;
Add a six-foot sidewalk, eight-foot parkway, seven-foot protected bike lane, seven-
foot landscaped median, and seven-foot parallel parking lane on the southern side
of Sunflower Avenue adjacent to the project site;
Add a six-foot bike lane and two-foot striped buffer median on the northern side of
Sunflower Avenue; and
Underground existing SCE poles and utility lines (only along the project frontage;
although it may extend as far as Hyland Avenue, subject to coordination with the
adjacent property owner).
Planning Applications and Required Approvals
The proposed project requires approval of the following planning applications:
Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2019050014)
General Plan Amendment (GP-20-01): Amend the Land Use Element to
change the General Plan land use designation of the property from Industrial
Park (IP) to High Density Residential (HDR) to allow residential uses and
establish a site-specific maximum density of 80 dwelling units (du) per acre and
site-specific maximum building height of 98 feet;
Rezone (R-20-01): Change the zone of the project site from Industrial Park (MP)
to Planned Development Residential – High Density (PDR-HD) to allow for a
mixed-use development with residential and commercial uses;
Specific Plan (SP-20-01): Establish site-specific zoning regulations such as
development standards and design guidelines which would function as the
project’s zoning document;
Master Plan (PA-19-19): Implement the Specific Plan and provide site plans and
architectural details including floor plans, building elevations, landscaping, and
renderings/streetscape views;
Tentative Tract Map No. 19015 (T-19-01): Subdivide the site including
establishing the right to a future airspace subdivision for condominium purposes
as well as dedication of an easement to the City for public access and use of the
1.5-acre open space; and
Development Agreement (DA-20-02): Agreement between the applicant and
the City pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. The
Agreement guarantees project approvals for a period of 25 years in exchange for
public benefits including, but not limited to, 106 affordable housing units (67 units
8
very-low income; 39 units low-income). The DA is described in detail later in this
report.
The project also requires approval from:
Parks, Arts, and Community Services Commission (PACS) for the proposed
removal of City trees on Sunflower Avenue; and
Cultural Arts Committee (CAC) for the project’s Public Art Plan including the art
design adjacent to the I-405 Freeway
Both of the above future approvals are required as conditions of approval of the project.
Measure Y
The City Attorney’s Office has opined to the Planning Commission that the project as
currently proposed is subject to the requirements of Measure Y because it meets the
definition of a “major change in allowable land use”. The project requires one or more
legislative land use approvals (GPA, rezone and specific plan) and it meets at least one of
the specified increase criteria (over 40 additional residential units). See Costa Mesa
Municipal Code (CMMC) Section 13-200.102(f) and (k). In addition, the project is not
subject to any of the listed exceptions to Measure Y. See CMMC Section 13-200.106. As
such, if approved by the City Council, the project would be subject to final approval by the
voters pursuant to Measure Y at either the next regularly scheduled election or a special
election funded by the applicant. See CMMC Section 13-200.104(a). As drafted, the
Ordinances necessary to approve this project would not become effective unless and until
approved by the voters.
Modified Construction Phasing Schedule
Since the Planning Commission hearing on May 11, 2020, the applicant has modified the
project’s construction phasing schedule. Previously, the project was proposed to be
constructed in one phase over a period of five years beginning in January 2022 to January
2027.
The modified construction schedule would occur in three phases instead over the same
period of time with construction anticipated to conclude in 2027. Phase 1 would include
Building A and the open space area, phase 2 would include Building B, and phase 3 would
include Building C and the office building. The modified phasing schedule has been
analyzed in the Final EIR which did not substantially change the analysis resulting in any
new significant environmental impacts. Refer to the Environmental Determination section
of the staff report for further discussion.
ANALYSIS:
Proposed Land Use and Density
9
The proposed project via the requested General Plan Amendment represents a change in
land use policy that would allow for residential development north of the I-405 Freeway
beyond the development permitted under previously approved entitlements and
development agreements. In addition, it also represents a land use policy change that
would result in redevelopment of the predominantly and historically industrial zoned
properties in the area into residential developments. The latest project in a similar context
is the Baker Block project at 58 dwelling units (du)/acre that was approved in the Airport
Industrial area in 2014.
The proposed project is requesting a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to allow a
site-specific density of 80 du/acre on the site. Higher density residential developments
may be beneficial in this context because they allow for a self-contained development
(with a mix of uses like the proposed project) which could generate less traffic than
typical low density residential developments. In that sense, higher density developments
tend to be more walkable, as well, since destinations like retail and commercial are
clustered or located closer to residences.
The buildings have been designed to be situated and set back to ensure minimal
impacts on surrounding developments while also providing adequate width for drive
aisles and site circulation, emergency access lanes, open space areas, and
opportunities for natural lighting. The buildings have been designed to provide private
and common space areas at the ground, roof and internal levels – including a 1.5-acre
urban open space dedicated for general public use. Other past high density projects
were approved with similar and in some cases, less open space. The site is also
developed with an existing infrastructure system including water, sewer, and storm drain
connections adequate to support a high-density mixed-use development. The Specific
Plan also provides guidelines to ensure the design and scale of the buildings
incorporate techniques to give the overall development a human scale to avoid a bulky
appearance sometimes associated with high-density buildings. Examples include
ground level patios with front stoops, canopies over commercial entries, and outdoor
dining areas.
It should be noted that the City has approved a number of projects with similar or higher
densities than the proposed project north of the I-405 Freeway such as 580 Anton (125
du/acre), Halcyon Apartments (81 du/acre), and Sakioka Lot 2 (80 du/acre). Therefore,
the density is in line with other similarly situated and approved projects, considering site
size, context and project design.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the Housing Element
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by State Housing Law
as part of the periodic process of updating local General Plan Housing Elements. Once
RHNA allocations are assigned, each jurisdiction must update its General Plan Housing
Element and demonstrate through sites and zoning analysis how it will accommodate
the future housing needs and meet its local RHNA allocation.
10
The City has started to prepare for the 6th RHNA eight-year cycle. For the 2021-2029
Housing Element planning period, Costa Mesa’s RHNA allocation is 11,760 units including
6,801 affordable units (very low, low and moderate income) as shown in table below.
6th Cycle RHNA for Costa Mesa
Very-low income (<50% of AMI) 2,919 24.8%
Low income (50-80% of AMI) 1,794 15.3%
Moderate income (80-120% of AMI) 2,088 17.8%
Above Moderate income (>120% AMI) 4,959 42.1%
Total 11,760
If approved, the project would help address a portion of the City’s total RHNA allocation
and would also help address a portion of the City’s affordable housing allocation. The
project is proposing a total of 106 units (or ten percent of the total units) as affordable
housing units, deed-restricted for 40 years. The affordable units are proposed to be at the
low and very low-income levels. The terms and conditions of the affordable units were
negotiated and included in the draft Development Agreement (Attachment 5, Exhibit A).
The affordable units would be required to be integrated throughout the site and distributed
among various buildings and unit types. The affordable units would not have any different
amenities or distinction from the market rate units.
In updating its Housing Element, the City has begun to study potential opportunity sites to
accommodate housing and to modify zoning in certain areas of the City to accommodate
the City’s RHNA allocation of 11,760 dwelling units. As such, although in the past there
was no interest in pursuing rezoning for housing in the area north of the I-405 Freeway,
Costa Mesa’s 6th cycle RHNA allocation is a reason to reconsider that approach. The City
anticipates that substantial land use policy changes will be needed to comply with State
Housing Element law requiring the City to plan for this level of future housing development.
Rental Housing and Jobs/Housing Balance
General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-1.3 calls for a better balance between
ownership and rental housing in Costa Mesa. The proposed development would provide
additional rental housing that may further the gap between ownership and rental housing
in the City. However, given the demand for diverse housing options and the City’s high
RHNA allocation, ownership housing may no longer be the best method for expanding the
housing stock in the City. Rental housing, including workforce housing in mostly industrial
areas, as well as affordable housing provided may take on greater importance. While the
project would provide only rental units including deed-restricted affordable units, it would
improve the City’s overall jobs-housing balance.
The jobs-housing balance has implications for mobility, air quality and the distribution of
tax revenues and is one indicator of a project’s effect on quality of life. The City is currently
considered job-rich with more jobs than housing. Providing more housing options in a job-
rich area would generally improve quality of life because of less time spent commuting to
11
work (reducing vehicle miles traveled) which could also reduce potential adverse impacts
such as traffic and air quality.
Industrial Uses and Employment
The proposed project would reduce the land area zoned for industrial uses, which would
incrementally reduce the City’s revenue stream from industrial land use. In addition,
there would be fewer employment opportunities in the industrial/manufacturing sector.
However, the project’s proposed change in land use would replace the industrial jobs
with different jobs such as the on-site office building, retail uses, and leasing office. The
project is anticipated to generate 129 jobs, which is a net increase of 84-percent, or 59
jobs compared to the property’s existing number of industrial jobs totaling 70 employees
with three tenants onsite.
Given the housing shortage in the State and the City’s high RHNA number, the addition
of housing with affordable units would increase the City’s housing stock and improve the
City’s jobs/housing balance. Providing housing in proximity to major employment areas
such as the area north of the I-405 Freeway is encouraged by urban planners and
housing advocates alike as a means to reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage a
more integrated horizontal mixed-use land use strategy.
Adjacency to Measure X Zone
The project is located within the boundaries of the Measure X zone, which includes
properties zoned for cannabis-related manufacturing and distribution as well as retail
cannabis non-storefront (delivery) uses under Measure Q. Rezoning the site for the
proposed mixed-use development would remove the possibility of commercial cannabis
uses locating on the property in the future. In addition, the Specific Plan expressly
prohibits commercial cannabis uses on the site, thereby rendering the site ineligible for
potential future cannabis tax revenue.
Adjacency to the I-405 Freeway
Building A Parking Structure Lighting and Public Art
To enhance the façade of the parking structure located along the I-405 Freeway, the
project proposes a creative method of screening the parking structure that would
provide visual interest such as a public art display. The final design and details of the
screening artwork have not yet been finalized. In addition, the Specific Plan provides
examples of potential design ideas. The applicant would be required to submit its final
design to the City’s Cultural Arts Committee (CAC) for review and approval to ensure
the design for the public art along the freeway is appropriate.
Additionally, the project would be required to submit a lighting plan and photometric
study for the Planning Division’s review and approval prior to issuance of the first
building permit to ensure the project provides adequate lighting without impacts to
12
surrounding uses. All proposed project lighting along the freeway would also be
required to meet Caltrans standards to ensure lighting would not impact motorists
travelling on the freeway (Mitigation Measure No. AE-1).
Furthermore, at the May 11, 2020 Planning Commission meeting – a condition of
approval was added to require the art display along the Building A parking structure
adjacent to the I-405 Freeway be reviewed by the Planning Commission following a
recommendation by the City’s CAC’s review (Condition of Approval No. 9). The City
Council could consider including additional requirements and criteria in the design
guidelines in the Specific Plan for the parking structure and art display adjacent to the
freeway.
Noise Impacts to Future Residents
The project is adjacent to the I-405 Freeway which could result in adverse noise
impacts to future residents, unless adequately addressed. Building A and the office
building are the only two structures proposed to be located adjacent to the I-405
Freeway. Building A is designed so that no residential units or balconies directly face
the freeway but are instead facing toward the building’s internal open space or
courtyards. The residential units would be further buffered from the freeway by Building
A’s parking structure which stretches nearly the entire southern property line adjacent to
the freeway.
Outdoor areas such as the 1.5-acre open space, balconies, patios, private common
spaces, and internal courtyards are exempt in the Specific Plan from the City’s exterior
noise standards. The exemptions reflect that there is a different expectation of the exterior
noise environment for residential uses in mixed-use areas, compared to the relatively low
exterior noise levels typical of a traditional single-family residential neighborhood. The
project would be required to comply with all other City noise standards including interior
residential standards. In addition, the project would be required to submit an acoustical
noise study prior to the issuance of a residential building permit (Condition of Approval
No. 73).
Health Risk Assessment
Due to the project’s location in an industrial setting and in proximity to the I-405
Freeway, the City required a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) be prepared for the project
in accordance with the policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental
Health Hazards and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The
purpose of the HRA is to determine the increased health risks to future residents of a
proposed project from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs) from all sources in a
project’s vicinity, including vehicles from the freeway – which are the primary sources of
TAC emissions within 1,000 feet of the proposed project site. The closest portion of the
residential buildings are located approximately 300 feet from the edge of the nearest I-
405 freeway lane.
13
The health risk levels compared to SCAQMD significance thresholds are shown in the
table below.
Health Risk Assessment
Location
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Maximum
Noncancer Risk
(Hazard Index)
Maximum
Noncancer Acute
Risk (Hazard
Index)
Residences on Project Site 9.3 in a million 0.011 0.010
SCAQMD Significance
Threshold
10 1.0 1.0
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
The health risks do not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold; thus, future
residents would not be exposed to significant health risks. The project would be
required as a condition of approval to install special air filters at all residential buildings
as well as maintain the filters per recommended practices to ensure it efficiently
captures air particles and pollutants.
Views from the Residences South of the I-405 Freeway
The applicant has prepared a Visual Analysis Booklet (Attachment 11) which analyzes
views of the proposed One Metro West project from the residential neighborhood south
of the I-405 Freeway. The study concludes that 82 out of 667 homes north of Gisler
Avenue in the Mesa Verde neighborhood would be able to see the project over the 16-
foot high sound wall along the I-405 Freeway. Homes located on Rhode Island Circle,
Maryland Circle, Wyoming Circle, Nevada Avenue, and New Hampshire Drive that are
within 275 to 1,000 feet of the freeway have the most direct views of the project site.
Although, view impacts on private property are not a CEQA issue, the City Council may
consider the change in views from certain residential properties south of the I-405
freeway in its general review of the project.
Traffic
A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for the project which analyzed several
traffic scenarios: 1) existing conditions (baseline condition), 2) existing plus the
proposed project conditions, 3) future short-term cumulative baseline condition with and
without the proposed project, and 4) general plan build out baseline condition with and
without the proposed project. The study area consists of a total of 29 intersections
within the jurisdictions of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Santa Ana, and 12 freeway
on/off ramp segments within the jurisdiction of Caltrans.
The existing industrial use generates 429 average daily trips (ADT) with 37 vehicle trips
in the AM peak hour and 8 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour. The proposed mixed-use
project would generate a net increase of 6,800 ADT with 498 AM peak hour and 662
PM peak hour trips.
14
The TIA concluded that the project would have significant impacts to the following
intersections and freeway ramps:
Euclid Street/I-405 Northbound Ramps – Newhope Street (Caltrans)
Susan Street/South Coast Drive (City of Costa Mesa)
Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (City of Fountain Valley)
I-405 Northbound at:
o South of Fairview Road On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only)
o Fairview Road On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only)
o Fairview Road On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour
only)
o Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (p.m. peak hour only)
o Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp and Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (both a.m. and
p.m. peak hours)
o Hyland Avenue On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
I-405 Southbound at:
o Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
o Harbor Boulevard Off-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp (both
a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
o Harbor Boulevard On-Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
o Harbor Boulevard Loop On-Ramp and Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp
(both a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
o Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp (both a.m. and p.m. peak hours)
o Harbor Boulevard Slip-On Ramp and Fairview Road Off-Ramp (both a.m.
and p.m. peak hours)
It should be noted that the Euclid Street/I-405 Northbound Ramps – Newhope Street
intersection would be improved as part of the planned I-405 Freeway widening project.
Mitigation measures were identified to improve the Level of Service (LOS) at the other
two impacted intersections to LOS D or better as follows:
Susan Street/South Coast Drive (City of Costa Mesa):
o At General Plan Buildout (2040) with Project: Add a southbound right-
turn lane by restriping Susan Street. Sufficient right-of-way is available
for this improvement.
Talbert Avenue/Mt. Washington Street (City of Fountain Valley):
o At Existing Plus Project: Installation of a traffic signal;
o At Future Short-Term Cumulative (2027) Plus Project: Add a traffic
signal; restripe the northbound approach to a shared left through lane
and a dedicated right turn lane, and convert the southbound right turn
lane to a dedicated free right turn channelize lane.
o At General Plan Buildout (2040) with Project: Add overlap phasing to
the northbound right turn movement.
15
Although the proposed project would contribute to deficient LOS at the above listed
freeway segments and ramps, there are no feasible improvements to address the
deficiency. Therefore, the project’s impact to the identified freeway segments and ramps
is considered significant and unavoidable; it should be noted that the freeway segments
currently operate a deficient LOS but the project would add to the deficiency.
Despite mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels,
impacts to the two intersections listed above are identified in the Final EIR as significant
and unavoidable. For Susan Street/South Coast Drive, although fair share funding of
the project’s portion to fund the proposed improvement would be provided, there is no
way to guarantee that the full improvement funds would be secured nor that these
improvements would be constructed at a particular point in time. For the Talbert
Avenue/Mt. Washington Street intersection, since the intersection is not located within
the City of Costa Mesa, there is no way to guarantee that the improvements identified
would be implemented by another City. Although impacts to the two intersections could
be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures, as a conservative
approach, the Final EIR identifies the impacts as significant and unavoidable.
The project would also be subject to the City’s traffic impact fees based on the project’s
net trips at $235 per net increase in trips.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
As a conservative approach, the EIR included both LOS-based and VMT traffic analysis
since at the time of preparing the project’s EIR VMT analysis was not yet required per
the State CEQA Guidelines. The Orange County Transportation Analysis Model
(OCTAM) was used to estimate both the regional and project VMT.
The residential component of the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts pertaining to VMT as shown in the table below. However, the office component
of the project would result in significant VMT impacts since it is three-percent higher
than the Orange County regional VMT.
VMT Comparison (Residential and Office Land Uses)
Land Use
Region (Orange
County)
Project
% Change
Residential 18.0 14.8 -18%
Office 25.0 25.9 3%
Source: Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM); LSA 2020b.
From a practical perspective, locating a mixed-use development that would add housing
along with pedestrian and bikeway improvements to an area within walking and biking
distance to existing employment, retail, restaurant, and entertainment opportunities
could potentially result in lower VMT than disclosed in the EIR.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
16
A fiscal impact model projects the annually-recurring expenditures and revenue that
would directly impact the City’s General Fund from a given housing development
project. If a project is estimated to generate a net fiscal surplus, then the project itself
would result in a fiscal benefit to the City. If a project is projected to result in a net fiscal
deficit to the City, the City has several options: 1) negotiate with the applicant to mitigate
the fiscal impacts of the project through direct funding for various staff or City services
such as Police and/or Fire services; 2) offset through other commitments such as the
provision of affordable housing, discounted parking rates or off-site improvements; or 3)
in some instances, the City may determine that a project is beneficial to the City despite
a projected annual negative fiscal impact. Ideally, the City would plan for a balance of
new uses, including a mixture allowing some fiscally negative projects while ensuring an
overall fiscally balanced City (i.e. balancing revenue-generating land uses with uses
which may have a negative fiscal impact but provide other desired benefits).
The City’s consultant, The Natelson Dale Group (TNDG), prepared a fiscal impact
analysis (FIA) for the project on the City’s behalf. The TNDG report indicates the project
is estimated to generate approximately $1.585 million in annual General Fund revenue
to the City. Expenditures are projected at about $1.590 million per year with the majority
of expenditures related to Police, Fire and Public Services. Thus, the project is
projected to generate an annual net fiscal deficit of approximately $5,000 to the City’s
General Fund. Given the standard “margin of error” for fiscal impact studies, TNDG
would characterize a project with this slight deficit as essentially a break-even project for
the City. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the City’s FIA model intentionally
takes a conservative approach to evaluating the potential fiscal impacts of new
development projects. Staff and TNDG believe it is important that the FIA represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario in order to protect the City’s General Fund balance.
The applicant submitted its own FIA as part of Attachment 11, Applicant Submittals. The
report was reviewed and compared to the City’s fiscal report. The applicant’s model
indicates a net annual fiscal benefit to the City of $584,514. The difference results from
variances in model assumptions used that the applicant’s team felt were reasonable
given likely future conditions or, in some cases, standard fiscal practices.
Development Agreement
The proposed project includes a Development Agreement between the applicant and the
City pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. The applicant is
requesting City Council consider proposed modifications to the Development Agreement
as contained in Attachment 12 of this report.
The Development Agreement as currently drafted (Attachment 5, Exhibit A) has been
negotiated for a 25-year term and would include the following public benefits to the City:
Affordable Housing:
106 units (10% of project). 67 Very Low and 39 Low-income units
Term: 40 years
17
For reference, refer to the table below for a breakdown of income category and rental
rate based on 2020 State Guidelines:
Affordable Housing Income Levels
Income Category % of Area Median Income (AMI) Affordable Monthly Rent Annual Income Range
Very Low Income 0-50% $961-$1,281 $0-$64,050
Low Income 51-80% $2,561 $64,051-$102,450
Moderate Income 81-120% $3,090 $102,451-$123,600
Above Moderate >120% >$3,090 >$123,061
Public Safety:
$2 million: To be used to benefit local police and fire services (e.g. firing range,
replacement fire engine)
Community Infrastructure Improvements:
$1 million: To be used toward roadway and trail improvements (e.g. Adams
Avenue improvements and Citywide bike trail improvements)
Economic Recovery Fund:
$3 million: To be used to support essential governmental functions following the
COVID-19 State of Emergency
Parks/Open Space:
Required: Payment of Measure Z fees (approximately $2.2 million)
Required: Payment of required Park Fees ($5.3 million)
Public use easement over 1.5-acre public urban open space/park
Other Fees/Improvements:
Required: Traffic Impact Fees ($1.44 million)
Payment of Fire Impact Fees (Estimated to be approximately $900,000) (Note:
This fee is based on the existing North Costa Mesa Fire Fee; if adopted, the
applicant would be required to participate in a new Citywide fee)
Support of removal of Gisler Avenue/Garfield Avenue bridge from Master Plan of
Arterial Highways (Value: No cost)
Improvements to Sunflower Avenue (wider sidewalks, pedestrian/bicycle
improvements, public art, etc.) (Value: $0.5 to $1 million); Applicant and the City
will share maintenance (City: pavement and curb/gutter / applicant: landscaping,
irrigation, others)
Public use of the Community Center within the project
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE:
The following analysis evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with specific goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan including the Land Use, Housing,
Circulation, and Open Space Elements. The General Plan contains many applicable
goals and policies beyond those discussed below; the goals and policies discussed
18
here are the most closely related or applicable to the project but do not represent a
comprehensive list. It should be noted that the General Plan includes numerous goals
and policies, including some goals and policies that reflect competing policy interests.
Though the project is inconsistent with a few of the General Plan’s current goals and
policies (for example, Policy LU-1.3 (strongly encourage development of ownership
housing to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing), the project is
consistent with the majority of General Plan goals and policies. Therefore, on the
balance, staff finds the project consistent with the General Plan. Ultimately, the City
Council determines whether the project conforms to the intent of the General Plan on
the balance.
Overall, staff finds that the project would be in conformance with the General Plan
including the following policies and objectives:
1. General Plan Policy LU-1.1: Provide for the development of a mix and balance
of housing opportunities, commercial goods and services, and employment
opportunities in consideration of the needs of the business and residential
segment of the community.
The proposed project is a mixed-use community that consists of residential,
specialty retail, creative office, and open space uses. The vision of the project is
to create a mixed-use community with housing near employment centers in a
master planned setting with on-site amenities, a 1.5-acre open space area, and
pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Santa Ana River Trail. The creative
office component of the project would provide future residents the opportunity to
live and work within the same community. The existing surrounding employment
centers (e.g. Vans, Anduril, AAA) would also benefit from the mixed-use project
including taking advantage of available housing for its employees that is in close
proximity to the office, and the public recreational opportunities like the open
space, public art, and bicycle trail connection. The proposed development is also
located in close proximity to existing commercial centers (e.g. SOCO), major
thoroughfares and transit lines, which contributes to a desirable mix of land uses.
Thus, the project would develop a mix and balance of housing, commercial, and
employment opportunities in Costa Mesa.
2. General Plan Policy LU-2.7: Permit the construction of buildings over two
stories or 30 feet only when it can be shown that the construction of such
structures will not adversely impact surrounding developments and deprive
existing land uses of adequate light, air, privacy, and solar access.
The proposed buildings would have a maximum height of seven stories (ranging
from 78 to 98 feet; the Specific Plan allows up to 98 feet in height). Surrounding
land uses include industrial uses to the north, SOCO to the east, I-405 to the
south, and industrial and logistics uses to the west. The locations of the proposed
buildings on-site would not result in light, air, privacy, or solar access issues to
existing uses in the project vicinity. More specifically, Building A (up to 78 feet)
19
and the creative office building (three stories [52 feet] in height) would be
adjacent to the I-405 Freeway; Building B would be located in the center of the
site and physically separated from adjacent uses by Sunflower Avenue, and
Building C would be adjacent to the back of commercial buildings associated with
the SOCO retail center. The closest residences to the project site are
approximately 300 feet to the south on the other side of the I-405 Freeway. There
are only a few homes with two-stories within that neighborhood: therefore, visual
impacts of the project in terms of privacy are minimal. The Master Plan includes
exhibits depicting visibility of the project from across the freeway. The nearest
project feature to these residences would be the parking structure facade for
Building A and the three-story office building. Further, screening features are
proposed along the Building A façade and any proposed screening would be
reviewed by the City prior to installation to ensure the screening would not cause
adverse impacts. Therefore, the project would not impact the lighting, air, or
privacy of surrounding uses.
3. General Plan Policy LU-5.7: Encourage new development that is organized
around compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods and districts to conserve
open space resources, minimize infrastructure costs, and reduce reliance on the
automobile.
The project is a mixed-use development and would incorporate walkable spaces
between the residential, commercial, and office buildings. The project would also
include off-site improvements along Sunflower Avenue that would reduce the
number of travel lanes to add bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and landscaped parkways
that would further promote and encourage active transportation. In addition, the
public open space would include an active transportation hub as an amenity to
further reduce reliance on the use of cars. The project would also provide a direct
bicycle trail connection from the project site to the existing Santa Ana River Trail.
Furthermore, the mixed-use nature of the project would allow easier access to
tenant-serving uses without relying on a car such as a small grocery store and
dry cleaners that would be within the 6,000-square-foot retail space. Additionally,
the project site is in walking and biking distance from the SOCO retail center and
employment centers such as Vans, AAA, Anduril and the on-site office building.
4. Housing Element Objective HOU-3.1: Encourage the conversion of existing
marginal land to residential, where feasible and consistent with environmental
conditions that are suitable for new residential development.
The project site is currently developed with one industrial building and associated
parking and landscaped areas. The project would convert the industrial use into a
mixed-use community that would include a residential component with up to
1,057 multi-family rental units, including affordable housing. Because the existing
use is fully developed with adequate on-site infrastructure, it could support a
residential development without requiring significant upgrades to the
infrastructure including water and sewer. The project site is suitable for a new
20
residential development that would provide additional housing opportunities for the
community and replace an underutilized industrial site with housing.
5. General Plan Policy C-1.5: Implement road diets on street segments with
excess capacity to enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The proposed project would enhance bikeways and walkways on Sunflower
Avenue and would upgrade the existing bicycle path that connects to the Santa
Ana River Trail system. The proposed improvements along Sunflower Avenue
would require a road diet that includes reducing travel lanes to add enhanced
bicycle lanes and new sidewalks. The existing rights-of-way, low traffic volumes,
and street infrastructure along Sunflower Avenue allows the project an
opportunity to transform Sunflower Avenue into a more bicycle and pedestrian
friendly street.
6. General Plan Policy OSR 1.21: Provide opportunities for public access to all
open space areas, except where sensitive resources may be threatened or
damaged, public health and safety may be compromised, or access would
interfere with the managed production of resources.
The proposed project includes development of a 1.5-acre open space area that
would be available for public use and not just exclusively for residents of One
Metro West. The open space would include seating areas, shade structures, area
for small performances, public art displays, and an active transportation hub. Also
available for public use is 1,500-square-foot community room that would be
accessible from the public open space. In addition, the project would enhance
bicycle and pedestrian connections from the open space to the Santa Ana River
Trail. The proposed open space amenities would not interfere with sensitive
resources since there are none identified on the project site or within the vicinity.
The proposed General Plan Amendment would re-designate the land use from Industrial
Park to High Density Residential in order to allow residential uses with a site-specific
density and building height. To ensure consistency between the General Plan Land Use
Map and the Zoning Map, the property would be rezoned from Industrial Park (MP) to
Planned Development Residential – High Density (PDR-HD). PDR-HD districts are
intended for multi-family residential developments and complementary non-residential
uses could also be included in the planned development. As such, the proposed zoning
district would allow a mix of residential and non-residential uses.
Conformance with Zoning Code
The proposed project includes a Specific Plan that establishes the intensity of the
development (e.g. density, lot coverage, height, etc.) as well as development standards
and guidelines for the site and building design. If adopted, the Specific Plan would serve
as the zoning document for the site and the adjacent areas as included in the project
scope of the Specific Plan. As part of the project application, a master plan is included that
21
depicts the specifics of the site and building design. If for any reason, the master plan is
not implemented, any future development on this site would be required to comply with the
Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines – thus, the project would be
consistent with the Zoning Code.
JUSTIFICATIONS FOR APPROVAL:
Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(g), Findings, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, in
order to approve the project, the City Council must find that the evidence presented in the
administrative record substantially meets specified findings as follows.
General Plan Amendment GP-20-01
Per Zoning Code Section 13-29(g), there are no specific findings criteria for a general plan
amendment application. Such action is considered a legislative action subject to the
discretion of the final decision body, the City Council. The proposed general plan
amendment would re-designate the land use from Industrial Park to High Density
Residential in order to allow the proposed residential use with a site-specific density of 80
du/acre and seven-story building height (maximum 98 feet). The amendment would
update the text, tables, and graphic within the Land Use Element to include the One Metro
West project.
Below is staff’s justification in support of the proposed general plan amendment:
The proposed project would contribute to the City meeting its City’s 6th cycle
RHNA allocations including affordable housing allocation.
The RHNA is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of
updating local General Plan Housing Elements. Once RHNA allocations are
assigned, each jurisdiction must update its General Plan Housing Element and
demonstrate through sites and zoning analysis how it will accommodate the
future housing needs and meet its local RHNA allocation. For the 2021-2029
Housing Element planning period (6th RHNA cycle), the City has been allocated
11,760 units. Given the large RHNA allocation and to meet the requirements of
state Housing Element law related to identifying adequate sites that are zoned at
a high enough density to accommodate the housing construction that would be
necessary to meet the RHNA allocation, the City will likely need to identify areas
City-wide to rezone for housing at a minimum density of 30 du’s per acre (HCD’s
minimum density necessary to accommodate affordable housing). As such, the
proposed project would fit that criteria with a proposed density of 80 du/acre
(maximum of 1,057 units). Additionally, the project is proposing a total of 106
units (or ten percent of the total units) as deed-restricted affordable housing
units. The affordable units are proposed to be at the low and very low-income
levels.
22
The proposed density at 80 du/acre is appropriate given the property’s location,
site size, and design of the project.
Higher density residential developments are beneficial because it allows for a
self-contained development (with mix of uses like the proposed project) which
could generate less traffic than typical low density developments. In that sense,
higher density tends to be more walkable as well since destinations like retail and
commercial are clustered or located closer. Research has also shown more
walkable communities have a healthier lifestyle. Higher density developments
also attract new employers since companies are drawn to convenient housing
options for potential employees especially options that reduce or cut commuting
time as well as provide convenient access to retail and commercial amenities.
The proposed project would improve the City’s overall jobs-housing balance.
The jobs-housing ratio is a general measure of the total number of jobs and
housing units in defined geographic area. The jobs-housing balance has
implications for mobility, air quality and the distribution of tax revenues and is one
indicator of a project’s effect on quality of life. SCAG considers an area balanced
when the jobs-housing ratio is 1.36; communities with more than 1.36 jobs per du
are considered job-rich and those with fewer than 1.36 are housing-rich. The City is
currently considered job-rich at 2.11 jobs per du; in the year 2040, the ratio is
anticipated to be 2.19 jobs per du. With the proposed project, however, the ratio
would be reduced to 2.14 because the project would introduce more housing in a
job-rich area. More housing in job-rich area would improve quality of life because of
less time spent commuting to work (reducing vehicle miles traveled) which could
also reduce potential adverse impacts such as traffic and air quality. While the
proposed project would provide only rental units including affordable units,
providing market rate and affordable rental housing at this location would improve
the City’s jobs/housing balance.
Rezone R-20-01
Per CMMC Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(11) – the following is the required finding for a
rezone application:
The proposed rezone is consistent with the Zoning Code and the general plan and
any applicable specific plan.
The proposed general plan amendment would change the General Plan land use
designation from Industrial Park to High Density Residential in order to allow a
residential use with a site-specific density and building height. To ensure
consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map, the
property would be rezoned from Industrial Park (MP) to Planned Development
Residential – High Density (PDR-HD). Per General Plan Table LU-19 (General
Plan and Zoning Consistency), the PDR-HD zoning designation is compatible with
23
the High Density Residential land use designation. According to Zoning Code
Section 13-20(p), PDR-HD districts are intended for multi-family residential
developments and complementary non-residential uses could also be included in
the planned development. As such, the proposed zoning district would allow a mix
of residential and non-residential uses and is consistent with the intent of the
General Plan and the PDR-HD zoning designation. The PDR-HD zoning
designation also allows up to 20 du/acre but also allows for a higher density with
pursuant to an adopted specific plan. The project includes adoption of a Specific
Plan to allow specific development standards (density, building height, setbacks,
open space, permitted uses land use matrix, and parking) that are different than the
development standards outlined in the Zoning Code. The Specific Plan would act
as the project’s zoning regulations. Future development on-site and off-site
improvements would be required to comply with the Specific Plan development
standards and design guidelines – thus, the project would be consistent with the
General Plan, Zoning, and Specific Plan.
Specific Plan SP-20-01
Per Zoning Code Section 13-29(g), there are no specific findings criteria for a specific plan
application. Such action is considered a legislative action subject to the discretionary
approval of the final decision body, the City Council. The One Metro West Specific Plan
establishes the development’s land use plan, development standards, zoning regulations
and permitted uses, design guidelines, infrastructure systems, and implementation
strategies on which subsequent, project-related development activities would be founded.
Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, subsequent project-specific architectural plans,
detailed site plans, grading and building permits, and any other actions requiring either
ministerial or discretionary approvals would be required to demonstrate consistency with
the Specific Plan.
Master Plan PA-19-19
Per CMMC Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(5), the following are required findings for a master
plan application:
The master plan meets the broader goals of the general plan, any applicable
specific plan, and the Zoning Code by exhibiting excellence in design, site planning,
integration of uses and structures and protection of the integrity of neighboring
development.
The proposed general plan land use change to High Density Residential and
rezone to PDR-HD, would allow for the redevelopment of the property from an
industrial use to the mixed-use development as depicted in the Master Plan
(residential, office, retail, open space). Overall, the Master Plan depicts the
development plans that meet the Specific Plan development standards and design
guidelines. The Master Plan would serve as a precise plan of development for the
project site and would include schematic designs of the various project components
24
such as building locations, parking design, the off-site improvements along
Sunflower Avenue, exterior elevations of residential buildings, and the open space.
The site plan has been designed to consider the project’s location adjacent to the I-
405 Freeway, Santa Ana River Trail, and SOCO. Residential units are located so
that they generally face toward the project’s internal courtyards and open spaces;
no dwelling units in Building A (which is situated adjacent to the freeway) are
proposed along the freeway. Units adjacent to SOCO would be further separated
by a decorative six-foot block wall. The 1.5-acre publicly accessible urban open
space is strategically located at the northwesterly corner of the property which
allows for it to be a visually prominent feature of the development and convenient
and accessible to the public from Sunflower Avenue.
The residential buildings are designed so that each building has its own distinct
feature. For example, Building A is proposed to feature a large public art display
facing the I-405 Freeway, Building B includes units with front stoops facing
Sunflower Avenue and Building C is designed with a rooftop terrace with private
recreational amenities. Overall, the designs of the buildings incorporate several
architectural elements that would visually enhance the buildings and avoid long,
unbroken building façades – such as breaks in the horizontal and vertical building
planes, changes in building massing, various materials and colors, and projecting
bays or recesses. The Master Plan is consistent with the Specific Plan including
development standards such as building setbacks, maximum building heights, and
the design guidelines.
Master plan findings for mixed-use development projects in the mixed-use overlay
district are identified in Chapter V, Article 11, mixed-use overlay district.
The proposed project is a mixed-use development; however, it is not located within
a mixed-use overlay district. Therefore, these master plan findings do not apply.
As applicable to affordable multi-family housing developments, the project complies
with the maximum density standards allowed pursuant to the proposed general
plan and provides affordable housing to low or very-low income households, as
defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
The project includes long-term affordability covenants in compliance with state law.
The proposed project includes 1,057 units within a mixed-use multi-family
residential development. The project is proposing to provide 10 percent of the
project dwelling units (106 units) as affordable units to low- and very-low-income
households. The applicant’s proposal of affordable housing is included in the
Development Agreement.
Tentative Tract Map No. 19015 (T-19-01)
25
Per CMMC Title 13, Section 13-29(g)(13), the following are required findings for a tentative
tract map application:
The proposed subdivision and related improvements is consistent with the
general plan, any applicable specific plan, and this Zoning Code.
The formation of the subdivision including establishing the right to a future
airspace subdivision for condominium purposes and related improvements is
consistent with the General Plan, Zoning, and Specific Plan; the site is physically
suitable to accommodate the subdivision in terms of type, design, and density of
development; and the proposal is consistent with the State Subdivision Map Act.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element in
that the project complies with Policy LU-1.1 which encourages the development
of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial goods and services,
and employment opportunities in consideration of the needs of the business and
residential segments of the community. The proposed project is a mixed-use
development that would provide housing, commercial, and employment
opportunities contained within a single development. Additionally, the project
includes recreational opportunities through the proposed 1.5-acre open space
and off-site improvements for new bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Public Services
staff have confirmed that there are no interferences with the City’s or other utility
right-of-way areas and/or easements within the tract.
The proposed use of the subdivision is compatible with the general plan.
The project proposes a mixed-use development with residential, office, and retail
uses on the property. The proposed project would have a site-specific density of
80 du’s per acre. Upon approval of the general plan amendment (GP-20-01)
rezone (R-20-01), and Specific Plan (SP-20-01) the proposed project, including
the site-specific density, would be consistent with the General Plan.
The subject property is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision in
terms of type, design and density of development, and will not result in
substantial environmental damage nor public health problems, based on
compliance with the Zoning Code and general plan, and consideration of
appropriate environmental information.
The City of Costa Mesa prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The EIR analyzed the proposed project’s impact on the environment including air
quality, noise, traffic, and public services among other topics as required per
CEQA. The EIR concluded that the project would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts to air quality during construction, greenhouse gas emissions
during project operation, and traffic during project operation. All other
environmental topics analyzed in the Draft EIR would not result in significant
environmental impacts with implementation of the mitigation measures identified
26
in the EIR as well as implementation of City standard conditions of approval/code
requirements. It should be noted that the unavoidable environmental impacts do
not affect the physical condition of the subject property and the property would be
able to support the proposed mixed-use development. The property is developed
with an industrial building and associated parking/landscaping, so it is physically
suitable to accommodate the proposed use without the need of extensive
infrastructure improvements to provide service to the site.
The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive
or natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by
State Government Code section 66473.1.
The project provides adequate setbacks and private open space areas such as
patios or balconies for most units and incorporates extensive landscaping
throughout to ensure natural and passive heating and cooling from the sun
exposure. The design of the residential buildings also incorporates open
courtyards and rooftop terrace which would allow for additional natural cooling
and heating. Units would also have operable windows which would provide
natural cooling and ventilation opportunities as well. In addition to the private
open space areas, the project would also provide a publicly-accessible 1.5-acre
open space area.
The division and development will not unreasonably interfere with the free and
complete exercise of the public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or
easements within the tract.
The proposed project does not interfere with the public rights-of-way per the
Public Services Department. A public access easement would be necessary for
the public access and use of the 1.5-acre open space and bicycle trail connection
to the existing Santa Ana River Trail (for the portion located on the private office
lot). These easements are reflected on the proposed Tentative Tract Map.
The discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system will
not violate the requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board
pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with State Water Code section 13000).
The applicant will be required to comply with all regulations set forth by the Costa
Mesa Sanitation District as well as the Mesa Water District.
Development Agreement DA-20-02
Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 88-53 and Government Code section 65865(c),
staff recommends approval of the request, based on the following assessment of facts
and findings, which are also reflected in the draft Resolution:
27
The Development Agreement between the City of Costa Mesa and Developer is:
o Consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs
specified in the General Plan and with the General Plan as a whole;
o Compatible with the uses authorized in, and the existing land use regulations
prescribed for, the zoning district in which the real property is and will be
located; and
o Is in conformity with and will promote public convenience, general welfare, and
good land use practice.
The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan as the
agreement would provide several public benefits to the City including a total of 106
deed-restricted affordable units at the very low and low-income levels, public
access to a 1.5-acre urban open space, and improvements to Sunflower Avenue. In
addition, the Development Agreement requires contributions of funding (beyond the
required development impact fees) for public services such as police and fire, and
funding toward economic recovery. The 1.5-acre open space accessible to the
public would provide needed recreation space. The affordable units would
contribute toward the City’s compliance with its high RHNA allocation. The
improvements to Sunflower Avenue is in line with several goals in the Circulation
Element including implementation of a road diet and complete streets.
Upon approval of the General Plan Amendment (GP-20-01), Rezone (R-20-01) and
Specific Plan (SP-20-01), the proposed project would be consistent with the
General Plan and Zoning Code.
The Development Agreement between the City of Costa Mesa and Developer will
not:
o Be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare; and
o Adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of
property values.
The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the public or adversely affect the orderly development of
property. The Development Agreement reflects the development plan for the site
and documents the additional public benefits of the project (such as affordable
housing, public access to 1.5-acres of open space and funding to improve City
infrastructure) agreed to by the applicant in exchange for the right to develop per
the project approvals for the term of the DA.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared by the City in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The DEIR examines the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed project and focuses on the changes to the existing
environment that would result from the proposed project. The EIR examines all stages of
the project, including construction and operation.
28
The DEIR evaluated the proposed project’s potential environmental impacts on various
topics (such as air quality, aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, and land use) and
identified specific mitigation measures to lessen environmental impacts whenever feasible.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the DEIR was made available for a
public comment period beginning on February 7, 2020 and ending at 5PM on March 23,
2020. However, as a result of Governor Newsom’s direction regarding COVID-19, City Hall
and other facilities that had hard copies of the DEIR began closing to the public on March
16, 2020; as such, the City extended the public review period and accepted comments
through March 30, 2020 to allow the public additional time to review and submit
comments.
Final EIR including Response to Comments
A total of seven comments were received from public agencies, three from Indian tribes,
three from organizations, and 78 from individuals. Copies of all comments received and
responses to the comments are included in the Final EIR, Volume II. The Final EIR
consists of the response to comments, errata and mitigation monitoring and reporting
program (MMRP). The response to comments represents responses to the public
comments received during the public review period of the Draft EIR. The errata makes
minor changes to the Draft EIR that do not affect the overall conclusions of the
environmental document. The MMRP is a comprehensive list of all mitigation measures
identified in the EIR.
Modification to the Project Construction Phasing Schedule
The Draft EIR analyzed construction of the project to occur in one phase. The revised
construction phasing schedule shows construction is planned to occur in three phases. A
technical memo was drafted to evaluate the construction phasing change in terms of
impacts to air quality, greenhouse gases, noise, and transportation associated with the
revised phasing schedule. The proposed change in the phasing resulted in no significant
environmental effects not previously considered in the Draft EIR and do not substantially
alter the conclusions or findings of the Draft EIR related to the project’s potential
environmental effects or proposed mitigation measures. The technical memorandum is
included in the Final EIR.
While the Final EIR consists of a modification to the project, it does not constitute
“significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; as a result, a
recirculation of the EIR is not required.
Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The MMRP lists the mitigation based on each environmental topic with mitigation
measures required in order to reduce the project’s potentially significant impacts. The
MMRP also specifies which City department is responsible for monitoring and ensuring
compliance with the mitigations. The MMRP also includes timing of when the mitigation
29
measure applies e.g. prior to issuance of building permits, during ground disturbance
activities, etc. The MMRP includes mitigation for the following potentially significant
environmental impacts identified in the EIR:
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Public Services and Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
With the implementation of mitigation measures, environmental impacts were reduced to
less than significant levels in all areas except greenhouse gas and transportation. In these
two areas, impacts remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of all feasible
mitigation.
Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The EIR finds that the project would result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts in
the areas of greenhouse gas emissions during project operation and transportation during
project operation.
In order to approve a project with significant unavoidable impacts, the City Council must
approve a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) before it renders a decision. An
SOC documents the balance of the benefits of a proposed project weighed against its
significant unavoidable environmental impacts. An SOC is required in order to make the
determination that a project’s benefits outweigh its adverse impacts and therefore it may
be approved. A Draft SOC has been included as Attachment 1, Exhibit C.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The City Council has the following alternatives:
1. Approve the project. The City Council could approve the project as proposed with an
80 du/acre site-specific density for a mixed-use development including 1,057
residential units, 6,000 square feet of retail, 25,000 square feet of commercial office,
and a 1.5-acre open space – subject to conditions of approval and mitigation
measures; or
2. Approve the environmentally superior alternative project. The City Council could
approve the environmentally-superior alternative project which is the Reduced
Development Intensity. Under this alternative the proposed project would be reduced
to 845 residential units along with the elimination of the office building and 1.5-acre
open space; or
30
3. Modify the project. The City Council could request specific changes to the project
design that are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any requested changes are
substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or
additional analysis. In the event of significant modifications to the proposal, staff will
return with revised resolution(s) incorporating new findings and/or conditions; or
4. Deny the project. If the City Council believes that there are insufficient facts to
support the findings for approval, the City Council could deny the application(s) and
provide facts in support of denial.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The project is estimated to generate an annual net fiscal deficit of approximately $5,000
to the City’s General Fund, as discussed earlier in this report. A Fiscal Impact Study is
provided as Attachment 10.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the documents and approved them as to form.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Pursuant to Title 13, Section 13-29(d), of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code, three types
of public notification have been completed no less than 10 days prior to the date of the
public hearing:
1. Mailed notice. A public notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants
within a 500-foot radius of the project site. The required notice radius is
measured from the external boundaries of the property.
2. On-site posting. A public notice was posted on each street frontage of the
project site.
3. Newspaper publication. A public notice was published once in the Daily Pilot
newspaper.
As the date of this report, one written public comments have been received. Any
additional public comments received after the publication of the staff report will be
forwarded to the City Council separately.
31
CONCLUSION:
The proposed project, One Metro West, would redevelop an existing industrial site into a
mixed-use development with residential, office, retail and open space uses. In addition,
One Metro West proposes off-site improvements that would enhance Sunflower Avenue
into a more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly street. The proposed project includes a
General Plan Amendment to re-designate the property to High Density Residential, a
Rezone to change the zone to PDR-HD, a Specific Plan to establish site-specific
regulations, a Master Plan to implement the Specific Plan, a Tentative Tract Map to
establish future airspace subdivision for condominium purposes, and a Development
Agreement between the applicant and the City.
_________________________________ _________________________________
NANCY HUYNH MINOO ASHABI
Senior Planner Principal Planner
_________________________________
JENNIFER LE
Director of Economic and Development Services
________________________________ _________________________________
CAROL MOLINA KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW
Finance Director City Attorney
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2021-XX – Certification of the Final EIR (SCH No.
2019050014)
Exhibit A – Final EIR Volume I and II dated April 2021 (provided
under separate cover)
Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
Exhibit C – Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
2. Draft Resolution 2021-XX – General Plan Amendment (GP-20-01),
Master Plan (PA-19-19), Tentative Tract Map No. 19015 (T-19-01)
3. Draft Ordinance No. 2021-XX – Rezone (R-20-01)
4. Draft Ordinance No. 2021-XX – Specific Plan (SP-20-01)
Specific Plan (provided under separate cover)
5. Draft Ordinance No. 2021-XX – Development Agreement (DA-20-02)
Exhibit A – Development Agreement
6. Vicinity Map and Zoning Map
7. Existing Site Photos
8. Master Plan (provided under separate cover)
32
9. Tentative Tract Map No. 19015 (provided under separate cover)
10. Fiscal Impact Analysis
11. Applicant Submittals (including Applicant Letters, Applicant’s Fiscal
Study prepared by David Taussig Associates, Pedestrian Connection
Site Plan, Visual Analysis Booklet)
12. Applicant Letter Request to Modify the Development Agreement
Applicant:
Brent Stoll
Rose Equities
8383 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Property
Owner:
International Asset Management Holding Group, LLC1683 Sunflower Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, CERTIFY THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2019050014), AND
ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM FOR THE ONE METRO WEST PROJECT LOCATED AT
1683 SUNFLOWER AVENUE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code, section 21067 and State
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §
15000 et seq.) sections 15051 and 15367, the City is the lead agency for the proposed
Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, section 15063, the City
prepared an Initial Study to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
was required for the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.: “CEQA”) and
the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report
should be prepared pursuant to CEQA to analyze all potential adverse environmental
impacts of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the City sent a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of a Draft EIR to the
Office of Planning and Research, responsible and trustee agencies, and other interested
parties and published the NOP in the Daily Pilot, a newspaper of general circulation, on
or about May 23, 2019; and,
WHEREAS, the NOP was circulated for 30 days pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines, sections 15082(a) and 15375 to invite comments from responsible and
trustee agencies and other interested parties regarding the scope of the environmental
impact report; and
WHEREAS, the City held a public scoping meeting on June 5, 2019 to receive
public comments on the proposed Project and its potential impacts on the physical
environment; and
Attachment 1
WHEREAS, the City received written comments in response to the NOP, which
assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR;
and
WHEREAS, on or about February 7, 2020, the City initiated a 45-day public review
period on the Draft EIR by filing a Notice of Availability with the State Office of Planning
and Research, publishing the notice in the Daily Pilot, a newspaper of general circulation,
and releasing the Draft EIR (SCH No. 2019050014) for public review and comment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15086, the City consulted
with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory
agencies, and other interested parties during the 45-day comment period, which was
anticipated to end on March 23, 2020; due to Covid-19 crisis and limited access to hard
copies of the document, the City extended the review period through March 30, 2020;
and
WHEREAS, during this public review period, copies of the Draft EIR (referenced
hereto as Exhibit A) were provided to approximately 60 public agencies and
organizations, and were available for review at City Hall, the City website, the Mesa Verde
Library, and the Costa Mesa Library (Donald Dungan Library); and
WHEREAS, the City received written comments during the public review period for
the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final EIR, consisting of comments received
during the extended 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written
responses to those comments, and revisions and errata to the Draft EIR. For the purposes
of this Resolution, the “EIR” shall refer to the Draft EIR, including all of the technical
studies and appendices to the Draft EIR, together with the other sections of the Final EIR,
including all of the technical studies and appendices to the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR analyzed construction of the project to occur in one phase.
The revised construction phasing schedule shows construction is planned to occur in three
phases. A technical memo was drafted to evaluate the construction phasing change in terms
of impacts to air quality, greenhouse gases, noise, and transportation associated with the
revised phasing schedule. The proposed change in the phasing resulted in no significant
environmental effects not previously considered in the Draft EIR and do not substantially
alter the conclusions or findings of the Draft EIR related to the project’s potential
environmental effects or proposed mitigation measures. The change in construction phasing
does not constitute “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5; as a result, a recirculation of the EIR is not required;
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was made available to the public 10 days prior to the City
Council public hearing date on the City’s website as well as an email notification to previous
commenters of the Draft EIR;
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that the City finds are
less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Exhibit C, Findings of
Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant, but which the City finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through
the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, are described
in Exhibit C, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to
CEQA, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially
significant, but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level less than significant
despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, are
described in Exhibit C, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
pursuant to CEQA, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from
the Project identified in the Final EIR are described in Exhibit C, Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result
from the Project, but which would be mitigated, and which are identified in the Final EIR, are
described in Exhibit C, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
pursuant to CEQA, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the Project
identified in the Final EIR are described in Exhibit C, Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations pursuant CEQA, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Exhibit C, Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference; and
WHEREAS, an analysis of the Project’s benefits and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is described in Exhibit C, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations pursuant to CEQA, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program sets forth the
mitigation measures to which the City shall bind itself in connection with this Project and
is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth
the basis for its decision on the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have
been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the
potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Project have been
adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the proposed Project sufficiently
analyzes both the feasible Mitigation Measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen
the proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible
alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA
and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant
to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole
and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Planning Commission held two duly noticed public hearings
on April 13, and May 11, 2020, during which the Planning Commission considered the
Draft EIR, the Project and associated actions, and during these public hearings all
persons wishing to testify in connection with the Draft EIR and the Project were heard,
and the Planning Commission fully studied the Draft EIR and the Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council certify the EIR and approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the
project; and
WHEREAS, the City has not received any comments or additional information that
produced substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental
review under Public Resources Code sections 21166 and 21092.1 and State CEQA
Guidelines, section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA
ADOPTS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, sections 15091 and
15093, the City Council hereby adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA, attached hereto as Exhibit C and
incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. Pursuant to
Public Resources Code, section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein
by this reference. The City finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is
designed to ensure that, during the implementation of the Project, the City and any other
responsible parties implement the components of the Project and comply with the
mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. To
the extent there is any conflict between the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
and the Final EIR, the terms and provisions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program shall control.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if any section, division, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this resolution, or the documents in the record in support of this resolution, are
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
provisions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this XX day of 2021.
__________________________
John Stephens
Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Kimberly Hall Barlow
City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, Brenda Green, City Clerk of the City of Costa Mesa, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2021-XX and was
duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa at a regular
meeting held on the XX day of May, 2021, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of the
City of Costa Mesa this ___ day of ___________, 2021.
__________________________
Brenda Green, City Clerk