HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07 - Environmental Impact Report No. 1049 for 2000 General PlanRESOLUTION NO. OZ -7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING FINAL
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO.
1049 FOR THE CITY OF COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL
PLAN.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1049
(State Clearinghouse Number 2000031120) has been prepared for the 2000
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Program EIR was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa circulated the Draft Program EIR between
June 26, 2001 to August 9, 2001, for public comment and review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on July 23,
2001 and October 22, 2001 on the Program EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 17,
2001 on the Program EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa received written and verbal comments
from the public during and after the review period; and
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2001, the City of Costa Mesa provided a copy of
its responses to any public agency that submitted comments; and
WHEREAS, written comments and oral testimony were responded to in the
manner set forth in California Code of Regulations Section 15088(b) through
Responses to Comments submitted to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended certification of Final
Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1049 by adoption of Resolution No. PC -
01 -53.
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all environmental documents
comprising the Final Program EIR and has found that the Final Program EIR
considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and is complete and
adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines,
and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Final Program EIR No. 1049 reflects the independent
judgment of the City of Costa Mesa, and it is comprised as the following:
A. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1049 (SCH No.
200031 120) dated June 27, 2001;
B. City of Costa Mesa General Plan and EIR Appendices, dated June 27,
2001;
C. City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan and EIR Response to Comments,
dated October 8, 2001; and
D. Exhibit A — Errata to Responses to Comments, dated December 7,
2001, attached to this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does
hereby certify Final Program EIR No. 1049 as complete and adequate in that it
addresses all environmental effects on the project and fully complies with the
requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa
Environmental Guidelines.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the administrative record is located in the
City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa,
California, and the Development Services Director of the City of Costa Mesa is the
custodian of the Final Program EIR No. 1049 and related environmental documents.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of January 2002.
Mayor of the- City of Costa Mesa
nWet,,-T
Deputy City C k of the City of Costa Mesa APPROVED AS TO FARM
e
W�W"NE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA) -£ITY AT
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF COSTA MESA)
I, MARY T. ELLIOTT, Deputy City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing
Resolution No. 00-1- 7 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22nd day of January, 2002.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby set my hand and affixed the Seal of
the City of Costa Mesa this 23 d day of January, 2002.
— �"1. gjziizxo�
Deputyi y Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of
the City uncil of the City of Costa Mesa
EXHIBIT A
Errata to Responses to Comments
December 7, 2001
EXHIBIT A
Errata to Responses to Comments
December 7, 2001
Costa Mesa General Plan EIR
Response to Comment No. 1
Stephen Rynas, California Coastal Commission
July 6, 2001
1A. The Coastal Commission has been added to the listing of State Agencies for the
Final EIR.
1B. As stated in Section 2.2 of the Draft EIR, the Costa Mesa General Plan was last
comprehensively updated in 1992 to produce the 1990 General Plan. The 2000
General Plan will supercede the 1990 General Plan and is primarily an update of
existing conditions, long-term projections, as well as reformatting the 1990 General
Plan. It is not the City's objective through this update process to develop a local
Coastal Program.
1C. Page 4.1-5 of the Draft EIR acknowledges that Costa Mesa is a landlocked
community with no direct access to the Pacific Ocean. However, a portion of the
City (approximately 125 acres) has been identified as within the Coastal Zone
under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. The Draft EIR goes on to state
that "the City of Costa Mesa is responsible for the development of policies and
programs to protect and enhance its coastal resources." Goal CON -1 focuses on
resource conservation and Objective CONA D states that the City will "work
towards the orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of the City's coastal
resources."
1 D. Through the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit, the City of Costa Mesa as a co -permittee adheres to water quality
requirements related to discharges from new development. Conformance with the
NPDES program requirements ensures that urban runoff and contaminated
discharge into coastal waters is minimized. In addition, the City would implement
measures to minimize urban runoff as required by the Countywide Drainage Area
Management Plan (DAMP). The City proposes adding the following General Plan
policies to the Final 2000 General Plan and EIR to address urban runoff and water
quality issues:
1 E. Refer to Response to Comment No. 1 D.
1 F. Refer to Response to Comment No. 1 D.
1G. It should be noted that the Commentor incorrectly refers to the location of Talbert
Regional Park within the City of Costa Mesa. Talbert Regional Park is a County of
Orange facility. Also, goals, objectives, and policies contained in the 2000 General
Plan refer to conservation of coastal resources. The objective which is stated in
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 1-10 FINAL • 10/08/01
Costa Mesa General Plan EIR
CON -113.1 Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of
major development or redevelopment project impacts on local water
supplies and water quality and an analysis of the impact on water capacity
and water availability.
CON -1 B.2 Pursue the use of reclaimed wastewater for the irrigation of all appropriate
open space facilities and require new developments and City projects, and
encourage existing developments to tie into the reclaimed water system
when recommended by the Orange County Water District, Mesa
Consolidated Water District, or Irvine Ranch Water District.
CON -1 B.3 Cooperate with the Mesa Consolidated Water District and Irvine Ranch
Water District to advise the citizens of Costa Mesa of the benefits which can
be obtained from the practices of water conservation.
CON -1 D.3 Review existing public works facility planning efforts to ensure that adequate
water, sewer, and circulation systems are available to serve uses in the
Coastal Zone and to limit planned capacities to conform to the demands
created by development which is consistent with the Coastal Act.
2K. On Page 4.11-21 of the Draft EIR, a third paragraph has been added to the Electricity
Impact analysis, as follows:
2L. Cities throughout Southern California typically address Air Quality in the General Plan
as either a subsection of the Conservation Element or as its own Element. It is
common for cities to reference the provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act, California
Clean Air Act and the standards of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Goals and Policies are provided to be consistent with the provisions.
Similar to other cities in the region, the City of Costa Mesa's compliance with state,
local, and regional air quality regulations would minimize regional impacts to air
quality to the maximum extent practical. For construction -related air quality
impacts, the City requires that construction contractors comply with South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations. For example, some
strategies include control measures for fugitive dust, temporary coverings over
excavated soil, and application of chemical stabilizers as dust suppressants.
To reduce emissions from increased traffic, the City requires project applicants to
adhere to the City of Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-193 through 13-200
(Transportation Demand Management). These measures include preferential
parking for carpool vehicles, bicycle parking and shower facilities, information
provided to employees on transportation alternatives, and bus stop improvements.
The implementation of these control measures is a continuing and concerted effort
to reduce regional air quality impacts. Other city efforts such as the energy
conservation program included in the proposed Policy CON -1C.3 also will reduce
stationary source air quality emissions.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS f -I8 FINAL * 10/08/01
Costa Mesa General Plan EIR
approval shall be applied to the master plan or development plan to ensure
long-range control over subsequent phases of development.
♦ The combination and/or transfer of trips shall not result in any greater
impacts on the surrounding circulation system than would occur if each
Traffic Analysis Zone was developed independently.
♦ For the combination and/or transfer of trips between TAZs, such
combination and/or transfer of trips shall not exceed the total trip budget of
all parcels involved if each were developed independently according to the
floor area ratio and trip generation rates provided herein.
♦ The combination and/or transfer of trips shall not allow development
intensities which result in abrupt changes in scale or intensity within the
project or between the project and surrounding land uses.
♦ Approval of the master plan or development plan shall be conditioned to
ensure compliance with the above criteria and to preclude future over-
development on portions of the project or properties from which trips were
transferred.
Trip budget transfers shall be recorded against the properties."
3H. All roadway segments within the City, with the exception of Gisler Avenue just west
of Harbor Boulevard, are forecast to operate at levels less than the roadway's
maximum capacity given the buildout of the City's Master Plan of Arterial
Highways. Gisler Avenue is anticipated to exceed its maximum capacity due to
two factors: 1) the potential for land use intensification in that area of the City, and
2) that the bridge has not been constructed. Construction of the bridge would
reduce the traffic on Gisler Avenue such that the roadway would operate below its
maximum capacity.
31. Fairview Road is forecast to operate at levels between 46 percent and 89 percent
of its capacity in 2020. No improvements will be required that result in the removal
of residential homes.
3J. The public review process for the 2000 General Plan and EIR has coincided with
the public review for the Segerstrom Home Ranch project. The Segerstrom Home
Ranch project is currently in public hearings as the General Plan Update and EIR
are finalized. Refer to Appendix B of this document for more information relative to
the Segerstrom Home Ranch project.
3K. Incremental and build -out growth is anticipated to occur throughout the City on
parcels where the maximum building potential has not been achieved. The City's
largest remaining undeveloped parcels of property are located in North Costa
Mesa. As shown in Exhibit LU -1A, the Segerstrom Home Ranch project comprises
93.34 acres and is primarily undeveloped. The 54 -acre South Coast Plaza Town
Center has one vacant 5 -acre parcel, but anticipated redevelopment of some
existing buildings and other expansion plans will result in an additional 1.36 million
square feet of building upon full buildout. The Sakioka Family owns two
undeveloped parcels in the northeastern area of the city, totaling 73 acres. Exhibit
EM of the 2000 General Plan is a map depicting the vacant parcels in Costa
Mesa.
FINAL 9 10/08/01 1-23 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
p`
Costa Mesa General Plan EIR
t�mue o an�sfiate efeasiiiit'f City-sponsored�negY a 9 ,�
rams
3AA. The amount of daily vehicle trips generated in the area west of Harbor Boulevard,
south of 1-405, north of Adams Avenue and east of the river is forecast to
increase by approximately 12,000 ADT as the City reaches buildout conditions.
This additional 12,000 ADT together with the 8,000 ADT forecast for the Gisler
Bridge accounts for the increase on Gisler Avenue, west of Harbor Boulevard.
3BB. Section 4.13, Public Health and Safety, of the Draft EIR provides a comprehensive
review of Hazardous Material Impacts including issues associated with hazardous
materials contamination.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 1-30 FINAL • 10/08/01
APPENDIX B
2000 GENERAL PLAN PLUS HOME
RANCH PROJECT - ALTERNATIVE A
SECTION 1
2000 GENERAL PLAN PLUS HOME RANCH PROJECT- ALTERNATIVE A
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Subsequent to the completion of the 45 -day public review period for the Home Ranch draft
Program EIR-1048, an additional alternative to the originally proposed project, Alternative A:
Proposed Project With For -Sale Residential Units, was developed and incorporated into that
Final Program Environmental Impact Report.
On September 2- November 19, 2001, the City of Costa Mesa
City Council certified Final Program EIR-1048 (SCH No.
200007150) and adopted General Plan Amendment (GP -00-05) to the 1990 Costa Mesa
General Plan for the Segerstrom Home Ranch project; specifically they adopted Alternative A
Since the draft 2000
General Plan Program EIR included the 2000 General Plan Plus Home Ranch Alternative that
was based on the original Home Ranch project submittal, it is necessary to also include this
revised -newly adopted Home Ranch Alternative A as part of this Program Environmental Impact
Report.
Implementation of this new alternative would not result in any new or greater significant effects
than have already been previously identified and addressed in the 2000 General Plan Program
EIR No. 1049 or result in any new impacts that could not be mitigated to a level that is
considered less than significant. Therefore, based on CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(a), the
addition of this information does not require recirculation of the EIR. This section of the CEQA
Guidelines reads as follows:
"A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is
added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public
review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term
'information' can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as
additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not 'significant'
unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity
to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of a project or of a feasible
way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the
project's proponents have declined to implement. 'Significant new information' requiring
recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new
mitigation proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless
mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others
previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the
project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in
nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (Mountain Lion
Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043)."
The following section provides a description of the 2000 General Plan Plus Home Ranch
Alternative A and a comparative environmental evaluation to the identified impacts of the 2000
General Plan.
1.2 ALTERNATIVE A: PROPOSED PROJECT WITH FOR -SALE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
1.2.1 DESCRIPTION
Alternative A: Proposed Project With For -Sale Residential Units. This alternative would
implement the Home Ranch project as proposed in Alternative 5.4, but would replace 16 acres
of high-density rental apartment units with medium -density (12 dwelling units or less per acre),
for -sale residences. The remaining land use components of the project would be the same.
Under the Alternative A scenario, the Home Ranch project site would be developed with 192 for -
sale residential units, a 308,000 -square -foot IKEA store, 791,050 square feet of office and
office -related uses, 252,648 square feet of industrial park/office uses, and related infrastructure
improvements. This alternative also assumes the vehicular trips associated with the reduction
in residential units would be transferred to the industrial park parcel located north of South
Coast Drive. Exhibit 1-0 depicts a conceptual site plan for Alternative A.
As with the originally proposed Home Ranch project, Alternative A proposes a definitive retail
use, an IKEA home furnishings store, with site-specific information (e.g., square footage, site
plan, parking requirements, architecture, etc.). For the remainder of the project site, Alternative
A proposes office, office -related, institutional, and residential land uses, but no site-specific
users or building information 4 -are assumed.
Table 1-1 identifies the proposed land uses, associated acreage, maximum floor area ratio
(FAR)/density, and development characteristics of Alternative A. Alternative A would allow for
the development of the 16 -acre parcel located on the southeast corner of Sunflower Avenue
and Susan Street with 192 for -sale residential units. For this Alternative A analysis, a
conceptual mix of 56 single-family detached units and 136 single-family medium -density
attached units has been assumed. The maximum density would be 12 dwelling units per gross
acre (12 du/ac) and the residential trips identified in this analysis would not be exceeded. The
single-family detached units are expected to be one story and two stories at a maximum
building height of 27 feet. The remaining units could be up to three stories with a maximum
building height of 50 feet. The originally proposed Home Ranch project assumed the
development of 464 high-density rental apartments in this location. Apartment units would be in
one- to three-story buildings with a maximum building height of 50 feet.
The remainder of the Home Ranch site would be developed as proposed by the project
applicant and analyzed in the draft Program EIR #1049. As originally proposed, a 308,000 -
square -foot IKEA home furnishings store would be constructed on 17.2 acres at the southeast
corner of Harbor Boulevard and South Coast Drive. Office and office -related uses would be
developed on 45.4 acres south of South Coast Drive and east of Susan Street to Fairview Road.
Industrial park uses would be implemented on 14.5 acres north of South Coast Drive and west
of Susan Street.
2
Southern
Pacific
Rail Spur
Los Angeles
Times
g(Not •part)
m
Existing
Harbor Blvd.
off -ramp
RETAIL
IKEA CENTER
308,000 SF
GROSS FLOOR
AREA
POST OFFICE
Ye.
1. FRESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
Automobile / /
3 Club Parking,
(Not a pard /
,r
r.0
rr
r
.r
�� rraan ri��
OFFICE
Public Street
Intersection
OFFICE
Automobile
Club Parking
(Not a part)
Proposed exit from V –
future collector/distributor road
(Not a part of project) 4 Gisler Channel
Existing on-ramp to 1-405 Northboun' d—�
Alternative A Exhibit 1-01
Home Ranch Program EIR-1048
City of Costa Mesa
® Scale: Not to Scale
J-810_
CONSULTING
TABLE 1-1
ALTERNATIVE A: PROPOSED PROJECT WITH FOR -SALE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
LAND USE SUMMARY
�1C4��
51
Southeast corner of
"For -sale" residential units
16
12 du/ac
192 du
1 to 3
Sunflower Avenue
stories
and Susan Street
up to 50
Southeast corner of
Retail IKEA store, inclusive of home
17.2
0.41 FAR
308,000
2 s t o MR
South Coast Drive
furnishings sales, in-store restaurant,
sq.ft.
45 feet
and Harbor Blvd.
surface parking
South of South
Office and office -related uses, such as
45.4
0.40 FAR
791,050
2 to 5
Coast Drive
restaurants/ cafes, health club, office
sq.ft.
stories
services (print shops, etc.)
75 feet'
North of South Coast
Industrial Park: variety of industrial and
14.5
0.40 FAR
252,648
1 to 5
Drive and west of
compatible office and support commercial
sq.ft.
stories
Susan Street
75 feet
Fairview Road
Retention of Segerstrom House and two
(s)
n/a
7,025
1 and 2
associated buildings, and Segerstrom
sq.ft.
stories
Barn; removal of remaining eight structures
(existing)
Fairview Road
Mesa Consolidated Water District Well Site
0.24
n/a
n/a
1 story
(existing)
North to southwest
Infrastructure: Greenville -Banning Channel
1,633 lineal ft.
n/a
n/a
n/a
through site
improvements
East -to -west of
Infrastructure: Gisler Channel
350 lineal ftp'
n/a
n/a
n/a
Harbor Boulevard
Improvements
Total
93.34 acres
1,351,698
sq.ft.
192 du
FAR: floor area ratio
GFA: gross floor area
DU: dwelling unit
Table 1-2 identifies the development assumptions associated with Alternative A. Alternative A
would result in fewer residences on the Home Ranch site than the originally Home Ranch
project; the other land uses and intensity of the proposed land uses would be the same. As a
part of Alternative A, the project applicant is request;^^requested that the same number of a.m.
and p.m. peak hour and total average daily vehicular trips be assigned to this alternative as
would be associated with the originally proposed project. The difference in vehicular trips
associated with the residential portion of the originally proposed project and the residential
portion of Alternative A would be transferred to the combined trip budget for the office and
industrial park portions of the Home Ranch site. However, the square footage maximums for
office and industrial park uses associated with Alternative A would not change from that of the
originally proposed project. For example, if the traffic -generating characteristics of a proposed
future office or industrial park use were expected to generate greater vehicular trips than the
established trip generation rates for these uses, all or a portion of the additional vehicular trips
could be applied to the use. As with the originally proposed project, no transfers of vehicular
trips can be applied to the IKEA site.
TABLE 1-2
ALTERNATIVE A: PROPOSED PROJECT WITH FOR -SALE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
y�
�
�
�
� ?
�:
/ f �La.�,l� v/ } J
1 � rt����'�i 5
1➢ �F���."i $:�
t E 4�P�%�'le �E ��i s�� Y ' �L
r;i, ..>.vK�,'4,'"+..+..r^✓�da e.l.�'P i.a..k.,u�a
/�tii/�J�
/.wnav�.fi.,Cfr/.5 ....H; ..<.: .>v aG. .iS
?, ., ,. elm'.. .. Su.A'
Q,
Single-family
136 du
1 to 3 stories
60 a.m. and 73 p.m. peak trips;
Attached Residences
50 feet
797 ADT
Single -Family
56 du
42 a.m. and 57 p.m. peak trips;
Detached
536 ADT
Residences
102 a.m. and 130 p.m. peak trips;
Total: 192 du
1,333 ADT
12 du/ae'
IKEA
308,000 sq.ft.
2 stories
43 a.m. and 431 p.m. peak trips;
0.41 FAR
45 feet
6,394 ADT
Office and Office-
791,050 sq.ft.
2 to 5 stories 75 feet
4-,_1�1, 993 a.m. and -1 631,569
Related Uses
0.40 FAR
p.m. peak trips; X9312,211 ADT
Industrial Park
252,648 sq.ft.
1 to 5 stories 75 feet
0.40 FAR
2,668 ADT
Total
Alternative A
1,351,698 sq.ft.
1,738 a.m. and 2,130 p.m. trips;
192 du
19,938 ADT
GFA: Gross floor area
FAR: Floor Area Ratio
sq.ft.: square feet
du: dwelling unit
a. The number of attached and detached residences is provided for illustrative purposes and is used to analyze the
potential impacts of Alternative A. In no case shall the total number of dwelling units exceed 192 nor shall the total
number of residential trips exceed 1,333.
Sources: C.J. Segerstrom & Sons, July 2001, Costa Mesa Zoning Code, 1999, North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, April 19,
1999.; Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., July 2001.
11
Alternative A assumes that the project site would undergo phased development, with the IKEA
home furnishings store and flood control improvements constructed as Phase One and the
remainder of the site developed over a period of up to 20 years.
Table 1-3 identifies the General Plan and zoning designations for the Home Ranch site
associated with Alternative A.
TABLE 1-3
ALTERNATIVE A: PROPOSED PROJECT WITH FOR -SALE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
- 101101
--
. -
- a--
■
■
• , i /NOW
1 - vppyiy
/ .
1 i i 1
1
\ 1
■W.—M-21=72
• -
Im
, i 1
O■
1.2.2 IMPACT EVALUATION
LAND USE
CONSISTENCY WITH THE PROPOSED 2000 GENERAL PLAN
With respect to residential development on the project site, the draft Costa Mesa 2000 General
Plan currently designates 30.5 acres of the Home Ranch site for medium -density residential
development (north of South Coast Drive, east and west of Susan Street). As a part of
Alternative A, 16 acres of the 30.5 -acre area would be retained as Medium Density Residential.
Alternative A proposes the development of the area south of Sunflower Avenue and east of
Susan Street with 192 for -sale residences at an overall density of 12 du/ac (Medium -Density
Residentiao. As with the 2000 General Plan, the introduction of residential development into
this setting would need to be carefully designed to allow for the integration of residences into a
predominately non-residential setting. However, it should be noted that existing residential
development is located in proximity to existing office and institutional land uses in the project
vicinity (existing single-family and multi -family residences east of Fairview Road).
The remainder 14.5 acres (west of Susan and south of Sunflower Avenue) is proposed for
industrial park uses, and therefore an amendment to General Plan is required. The 62.84 acres
south of South Coast Drive also requires a Getup -ml Plan aFn9Rdmentchange to the draft 2000
General Plan from Industrial Park to Commercial Center.
CONSISTENCY WITH NORTH COSTA MESA SPECIFIC PLAN
The intent of the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan is to implement policies of the Costa Mesa
General Plan through the adoption of development standards. Although the Alternative A
requires anamendment to thea change to the draft pFspsse4d-2000 General Plan, the alternat+ve
is generally Gonsistent With the following applir--a-ble development standards of thee North Costa
Use , ,
Considerations.Gonsiderations, and Design North Costa Mesa Specific Plan was
appropriately amended by the Citv Council on November 19, 2001 to reflect the adoption of GP-
01you,
n
CONSISTENCY WITH CITY OF COSTA MESA ZONING CODE
In conjunction with City Council adoption of GP -00-05, a rezone was also approved.
Specifically,- OF to provide $_;t_f_QRt_ With the proposed -20-0-0- G-tap19ral Plan land use
designatie s, 14.5 acres south of Sunflower avenue and west of Susan Street needd to-bewere
rezoned from PDR -MD to PDI. The 62.84 acres south of South Coast Drive would need
bewere rezoned from PDI to PDC (Planned Development Commercial).
Implementation of Home Ranch Alternative A requires only a change to the
draft 2000 General Plan, since the appropriate changes have already been adopted for the
North Costa Mesa Specific Plan; and the City's Zoning Map. In this regard) elteMative a is
environmentally inferier to the proposed 20-0-0- Gpnprpl Pl;;n
However, it is withiR t
diSGretiGRary autherity of the City Ge-unr-A to amend these dOGUments as the GOMMURity's nee
POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT
Retention of the residential land use designation on the Home Ranch site would allow for 16
acres of the site to be developed with medium -density, for -sale residences (12 du/ac). This
would result in 192 residences on the Home Ranch site, north of South Coast Drive. Assuming
2.59 persons per household, this alternative would generate 497 additional City residents,
creating a direct population increase within the City of Costa Mesa. The 2000 General Plan
assumptions would generate 948 additional residents.
At build out, Home Ranch Alternative A is anticipated to create 3,864 full- and part-time
employment opportunities compared to 2,853 full- and part-time employment opportunities
associated with the 2000 General Plan. This occurs as a result of increasing the acreage
designated for non-residential land uses. Home Ranch Alternative A could provide for
increased job opportunities for residents of Costa Mesa and surrounding jurisdictions.
Residential development and employment opportunities are anticipated under both Home
Ranch Alternative A and the proposed 2000 General Plan. The decrease in dwelling units and
population, and the increase in employment do create slightly different impacts with regard to
population, employment, and housing than the proposed 2000 General Plan. Home Ranch
Alternative A generates a higher demand for housing than the proposed General Plan. In this
regard, Home Ranch Alternative A is environmentally inferior to the proposed 2000 General
Plan.
7
TABLE 1-4
ALTERNATIVE A: PROPOSED PROJECT WITH FOR -SALE RESIDENTIAL UNITS
PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT AT BUILDOUT OF HOME RANCH
AESTHETICS
Home Ranch Alternative A would allow for 16 acres of medium -density for -sale residences
south of Sunflower Avenue and east of Susan Street, industrial park uses north of South Costa
Drive and west of Susan Street, an IKEA home furnishings store south of South Coast Drive
near Harbor Boulevard, and office development on the remainder of the site south of South
Coast Drive.
The maximum density allowed by this designation is 12 dwelling units per acre (total of 192
units), which would typically be achieved by construction of residential units with a height of one
to three stories. The IKEA store would be constructed on the southeast corner of South Coast
Drive and Harbor Boulevard. The concrete, tilt -up structure would be up to 45 feet in height.
Industrial park uses are currently permitted on the Home Ranch site from two to five stories (up
to 75 feet), the latter only in the central portion of the project site.
Home Ranch Alternative A is consistent with the scale of development that exists in this area
and would be similar to what would occur with the 2000 General Plan. Therefore, Home Ranch
Alternative A would result in the same effects on aesthetics as would occur under the 2000
General Plan. In this regard, Home Ranch Alternative A is considered neither environmentally
superior not inferior to the proposed 2000 General Plan.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Table 1-5 summarizes the trip generation for Home Ranch Alternative A and the original Home
Ranch project. When compared to the original Home Ranch, Alternative A would generate 152
fewer trips in the a.m. peak hour, 174 fewer trips in the p.m. peak hour, and 1,860 fewer daily
trips. However, the project applicant has requested that these additional vehicular trips be
applied to the Alternative A trip budget without any corresponding increase in square footage.
These additional vehicular trips would be applied to future office or industrial park uses on the
Home Ranch site; no additional trips would be available for the IKEA site.
Because no changes are assumed for Phase One (the construction of IKEA and flood control
channel improvements), both the original Home Ranch and Alternative A would have the same
traffic impacts in short-term conditions. With the addition of IKEA traffic, the following
intersections would be significantly impacted. These impacts would be mitigated to a less than
significant level.
City of Costa Mesa
2. Harbor Boulevard/Adams Avenue—LOS E (p.m. peak)
43. Harbor Boulevard/South Coast Drive—LOS E (p.m. peak)
City of Santa Ana
112. Harbor Boulevard/Warner Avenue—LOS E (p.m. peak)
At build out, Home Ranch Alternative A would significantly impact the following intersections:
City of Costa Mesa
43. Harbor Boulevard at South Coast Drive
45. Fairview Road at South Coast Drive
51. Fairview Road at 1-405 northbound ramps
52. Fairview Road at southbound ramps
62. Bristol Street at Baker Street
City of Santa Ana
34. Fairview Road at MacArthur Boulevard
114. Harbor Boulevard at Segerstrom Avenue
W
TABLE 1-5
ALTERNATIVE A: TRIP RATE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
Trip Generation
du
0.07
0.37
0.44
0.36
0.18
For -Sale Residential
High -Density Residential
464 du
37
200
237
195
93
Medium -Density 136 du
10
50
60
49
24
73
797
Single -Family 56 du
11
31
42
37
20
57
536
Total Residential 192 du
21
81
102
86
44
130
1,333
IKEA 308.00 TSF
34
9
43
182
249
431
6,394
Office 791.05 TSF
1,0691
148
1,217
1951
968
1,163
8,593
Industrial Park 252.65 TSF
184
40
224
48
184
232
1,758
Subtotal
1,308
278
1,586
511
1,445
1,956
18,078
Change (Home Ranch Alternative A
Trips minus Originally Proposed Project
Trips)
(31)
(121)
(152)
(112)
(62)
(174)
(1,860)
Alternative A Requested Trip Budget
Residential 192 du
21
81
102
85
45
130
1,333
IKEA 308.00 TSF
34
9
43
182
249
431
6,394
Office 791.05 TSF
954
263
1,217
297
910
1,207
9,543
Industrial Park 252.65 TSF
330
46
376
59
303
362
2,668
Alternative A Total Trip Budget
1,339
399
1,73811
623
1,507
2,1301
19,93811
Trip Generation
du
0.07
0.37
0.44
0.36
0.18
0.54
High -Density Residential
464 du
37
200
237
195
93
288
3,076
IKEA
308.00 TSF
34
9
43
182
249
431
6,394
Office
791.05 TSF
1,084
150
1,234
198
981
1,179
8,710
Industrial Park
252.65 TSF
184
40
224
48
184
232
1,758
Subtotal
0.19
1,339
399
1,7381
623
1,507
2,13011
19,938
Medium -Density
Residential
du
0.07
0.37
0.44
0.36
0.18
0.54
5.86
Single-family Residential
du
0.19
0.56
0.75
0.65
0.36
1.01
9.57
High -Density Residential
du
0.08
0.43
0.51
0.42
0.2
0.62
6.63
Office
TSF
1.37 1
0.191
1.561
0.25
1.241
1.4911
11.01
Industrial Park
TSF
0731
0.161
0.89
0.19
0.73
0.9211
6.96
IKEA
TSF
1 0.111
0,031
0.1411
0.591
0.811
1.41
20.76
TSF: 1,000 square feet du: dwelling unit
Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., July 2001.
ADT: average daily traffic
10
In contrast to the original Home Ranch project, Home Ranch Alternative A would not result in
significant project -related impacts at the following Costa Mesa intersections when compared to
"without project" conditions (no site development) because the thresholds of significance would
not be exceeded and/or mitigation measures would minimize any significant impact to below a
level of significance.
2. Harbor Boulevard at Adams Avenue
36. Harbor Boulevard at Sunflower Avenue
42. Bristol Street at Sunflower Avenue
Alternative A would reduce (but not eliminate) project impacts at the City of Costa Mesa
intersections of Fairview Road/1-405 northbound ramps and Bristol Street/Baker Street. The
reduction in significant impacts is attributable to the directionality of traffic patterns associated
with Alternative A. Alternative A would provide approximately 60 percent fewer housing units
than the originally proposed project (192 units compared to 464 units), and the difference in trips
would be reallocated to proposed office and industrial park uses without any commensurate
increase in allowable square footage. The redistribution of the residential trips to office and
industrial uses has different peak hour characteristics than residences, thereby resulting in
changes to the directionality of project -related vehicular movement to and from the site during
the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Although Alternative A would generate the same traffic volumes
as the original Home Ranch, these changes in the directionality of traffic are responsible for the
reductions in traffic impacts.
The Home Ranch EIR provided adequate mitigation to reduce its level of impact to General Plan
conditions with the 1990 General Plan traffic model assumptions. Applying the Home Ranch
Alternative to the draft 2000 General Plan traffic model assumptions results in the following four
intersections to operate at level of service (LOS) `E' in 2020 conditions. Ioweve ate
nrnPrffistRnt With thA General Plan goal of LOS (D' at all Gity intersertions-'.
❑ Harbor Boulevard -Adams Avenue;
❑ Bristol Street - Sunflower Avenue;
❑ Bristol Street - Paularino Avenue; and
❑ Bristol Street - Baker Street.
These are not new significant impacts, since the draft 2000 General Plan also causes these four
intersections to operate at LOS `E'. The—The draft 2000 General Plan,-as--prepose ,
identifies i�, d certain mitigation rneasuresintersection improvements at these
to meet the General Plan goal —olp icy of LOS U. Incorporation of these nitigat+an
easresimprovements and additional mitigation measures identified fsr-in the Home Ranch
Alternative `A' analysis results in LOS `D' at three of the above four intersections. The
intersection of Bristol Street - Baker Street however still would operate at LOS `E' with the
proposed Home Ranch Alternative A and the proposed 2000 General Plan improvements. In
order to achieve LOS `D' at this location, the following r s+on__ revision to then +gat+on
measures2000 General Plan intersection improvements are propose r at -Bristol - Baker
Street is proposed: (1) provide a 3`d left -turn lane for northbound and southbound approaches;
Delete the nothboundnorthbound right -turn lane; and (2) delete the 3`d left -turn lane on
eastbound Baker Street to northbound Bristol Street.
11
The above mi+gA+o_rneasuFesadditional intersection improvement would reduce the
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value from 0.92 (LOS `E') to 0.89 (LOS 'D').— This ensures
that with Home Ranch Alternative `A' Project, the 2000 General Plan goal of LOS `D' is achieved
at all intersections controlled by the City.
12
However, since the Home Ranch Alternative A would create additional daily and peak hour
vehicle trips when compared to -the originally proposed
2000 General Plan assumptions for the Home Ranch property,. n th1s egafd, the Home Ranch
Alternative A is considered environmentally inferior to the originally proposed 2000 General
Plan.
AIR QUALITY
As stated above, the Home Ranch Alternative A would generate more average daily trips than
the -the originally proposed 2000 General plan. However, development of the Home Ranch site
is anticipated under the both the proposed 2000 General Plan and the Home Ranch Alternative
A. The anticipated development under either scenario would result in both construction -related
and operational air quality impacts. These impacts under either scenario would be cumulatively
significant. In this regard, Home Ranch Alternative A is considered neither environmentally
superior not inferior to the proposed 2000 General Plan.
NOISE
No traffic noise level increases greater than 3 dB (decibel) on the roadways identified in the
Home Ranch Final Program EIR 1048 would result ferm-from implementation of the Home
Ranch Alternative A. However, development of the Home Ranch site is anticipated under both
the proposed 2000 General Plan and Home Ranch Alternative A. The anticipated development
under either scenario would not result in significant traffic noise impacts; however, cumulative
noise impacts could be expected under either scenario due to regional growth in the area. In
this regard, Home Ranch Alternative A is considered neither environmentally superior not
inferior to the proposed 2000 General Plan.
GEOLOGY
Implementation of Home Ranch Alternative A would be expected to require the same types and
amounts of grading as the originally proposed project. Potential seismic and geotechnical
effects associated with land uses permitted by this alternative are expected to result in similar
impacts as the 2000 General Plan. In this regard, Horne Ranch Alternative A is considered
neither environmentally superior not inferior to the proposed 2000 General Plan.
HYDROLOGY/DRAINAGE
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar amount of surface land disturbance
and approximately the same amount of impermeable surfaces as Alternative 5.4. Impacts
related to drainage and water quality would be similar. Implementation of this alternative would
also require improvements to the Greenville -Banning Channel and Gisler Channel. As with the
2000 General Plan, the Home Ranch Alternative, and Alternative A, an increase of impervious
surfaces will occur, but the rate of runoff from the site can be decreased when compared to
existing conditions. Thereby not creating impacts to downstream flood control facilities. In this
regard, Alternative A is considered neither environmentally superior not inferior to the proposed
2000 General Plan.
13
There is the potential for portions of the Home rarGh Ranch site to experience 100 -year flooding
impacts. These impacts would occur under either scenario. Thus, flooding impacts under this
alternative would be similar to those of the proposed 2000 General Plan. In this regard,
Alternative A is considered neither environmentally superior not inferior to the proposed 2000
General Plan.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This alternative assumes approximately the same amount of site disturbance as would be
associated with the 2000 General Plan. Therefore, Alternative A would result in the same
effects on biological resources as would occur under the 2000 General Plan. In this regard,
Home Ranch Alternative A is considered neither environmentally superior not inferior to the
proposed 2000 General Plan.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Development of the Home Ranch site is anticipated under both the proposed 2000 General Plan
and Home Ranch Alternative A. The Home Ranch site contains several historic structures,
including the Segerstrom House and its associated garage and guesthouse, and the
Segerstrom Barn. Under this alternative or the proposed 2000 General Plan, these resources
would be retained on the Home Ranch site to accommodate development. Therefore, impacts
to cultural resources under this alternative would be similar to those under the proposed 2000
General Plan. In this regard, Home Ranch Alternative A is considered neither environmentally
superior not inferior to the proposed 2000 General Plan.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
As stated previously, Home Ranch Alternative A would increase the amount of allowable
development on the Home ranch site over the amount specified in the proposed 2000 General
Plan. Implementation of Home Ranch Alternative A would not result in significant impacts to
police service, water, solid waste, schools, libraries, electricity or natural gas. However, Home
Ranch Alternative A has the potential to impact fire services, particularly as it relates to
construction of a new fire station in the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan area, and to impact
sewer trunk lines. The Home Ranch project is required to facilitate construction of the new fire
station. The impacts to fire services and wastewater would occur under both the Home rare#
Ranch Alternative A and the proposed 2000 General Plan. Thus, implementation of the Home
Ranch Alternative A would result in similar impacts to public services and utilities when
compared to the proposed 2000 General Plan. In this regard, Home Ranch Alternative A is
considered neither environmentally superior not inferior to the proposed 2000 General Plan.
PARKS/RECREATION/TRAILS
The proposed 2000 General Plan has identified a potential shortage of 95 acres of parkland in
the year 2020 to accommodate the 118,764 residents. Given that Home Ranch Alternative A
proposes fewer dwelling units (192 versus 366) when compared to the 2000 General Plan, this
alternative would decrease this projected deficiency somewhat. However, this impact can be
mitigated through the provision of on-site park and recreation facilities or the payment of in -lieu
parkland fees. In this regard, Home Ranch Alternative A is considered neither environmentally
superior not inferior to the proposed 2000 General Plan.
14
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Development of the Home Ranch site is anticipated under both the proposed 2000 General Plan
and the Home Ranch Alternative. The generation of hazardous materials for the Home Ranch
site is not anticipated under either scenario. Thus, no significant impacts with respect to
hazardous waste generation would result from implementation of either the Home Ranch
Alternative or the proposed 2000 General Plan. In this regard, Home Ranch Alternative A is
considered neither environmentally superior not inferior to the proposed 2000 General Plan.
1.2.3 CONCLUSIONS
Home Ranch Alternative A would result in similar impacts as compared to the proposed 2000
General Plan for the following issue areas: aesthetics; air quality; noise; geology;
hydrology/drainage; biological resources; cultural resources; public services and utilities;
parks/recreation/trails; and public health and safety. Implementation of this alternative would
result in greater environmental impacts that thethan the originally -proposed 2000 General Plan
for the following issue areas: land use, ,_population/employment/housing, and
transportation/circulation.
R^+�;oThis alternative and the proposed 2000 General Plan meets most of the project
objectives; however thioalternativA e"s addifienal land use,
_. Also, the development
assumptions for Home Ranch Alternative A are not reflected in the
proposed 220-00 General Plan land use, transportation, hou Moyment projeGtions
fercurrent county growth projections for the year 2020--
15
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
_ fJ
F
RESOLUTION NO. PC -01-53
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 1049 FOR THE 2000 GENERAL PLAN.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HEREBY RESOLVES
AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 1049
(State Clearinghouse Number 2000031120) has been prepared for the 2000
General Plan;
WHEREAS, the Draft Program EIR was prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines.
WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa circulated the Draft Program EIR between
June 26, 2001 to August 9, 2001, for public comment and review.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on July 23,
2001 and October 22, 2001 on the Program EIR.
WHEREAS, the City of Costa Mesa received written and verbal comments
from the public during and after the review period.
WHEREAS, written comments and oral testimony were responded to in the
manner set forth in California Code of Regulations Section 15088(b) through
Responses to Comments submitted to the Planning Commission.
WHEREAS, the impacts of the Segerstrom Home Ranch Alternative A were
evaluated in Draft Program EIR No. 1048, which has been reviewed by the Planning
Commission and is hereby incorporated by reference into Draft Program EIR No.
1049.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental
documents comprising the Final Program EIR and has found that the Final Program
EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed project and is complete
and adequate and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines.
WHEREAS, the Final Program EIR No. 1049 reflects the independent
judgment of the City of Costa Mesa.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council certification of Final Program EIR No. 1049 as
complete and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects on the project
and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the
City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this t"ay of VC?k �;,
, Cost�Mesa Planning Commission
F
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
to the Planning Commission of the
I, R. Michael Robinson, acting secretary foregoing Resolution was passed and
City of Costa Mesa, do hereby he City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on
that the adopted at a meeting oft Y
October 22, 2001, by the following votes:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS Foley, Garlich, Davenport, Egan, Perkins
NOES: COMMISSIONERS None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS None
jActinWSecre+tary,osta Eesa���
Planning Commission