Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08 - Adopting City's 2000 General Plan Plus Home Ranch Alternative A (GP-01-01)RESOLUTION NO. OGZ- ,T A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITY OF COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN PLUS HOME RANCH ALTERNATIVE A (GP -01-01) AND ACCOMPANYING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND STATEMENTS OF FACTS AND FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 1990 General Plan by Resolution No. 92-27 on March 16, 1992; and WHEREAS, the General Plan is a long-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of Costa Mesa. WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan needs to be updated and refined to account for current and future community needs; and WHEREAS, the 2000 General Plan, as a technical update of the 1990 General Plan, does not change land use designations, floor area ratios, or residential densities, nor does it substantially modify existing goals, objectives, and policies; and WHEREAS, the 2000 General Plan's primary objectives are to reformat the 1990 General Plan, update technical information and projections, incorporate the Housing Element certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in June, 2000, and add a Community Design Element; and WHEREAS, the 2000 General Plan was prepared in conformance with the State of California General Plan Guidelines, 1998 Edition; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held on July 23, 2001 and October 22, 2001 by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, with all persons having been given the opportunity to be heard both for and against the said 2000 General Plan and accompanying Program EIR No. 1049; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2001 and October 22, 2001, the Planning Commission also conducted public hearings and found that Draft Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1049 and Responses to Comments, that collectively constitute Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1049, have been reviewed and considered, and WHEREAS, the environmental review for the project was processed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on October 22, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended certification of Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1049 by adoption of Resolution No. PC -01-53, and adoption of the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan Plus Home Ranch Alternative A by adoption of Resolution No. PC -01-54, and the Commission recommended; and WHEREAS, On October 18, 2001, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found the 2000 General Plan to be consistent with the ALUC's Airport Environs Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of Home Ranch Alternative A as an amendment to the 1990 General Plan by adoption of resolution PC -01-47; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2001, the City Council adopted Home Ranch Alternative A by adoption of Resolution No. 01-79; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 17, 2001 by the City Council in accordance with Section 65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, with all persons having been given the opportunity to be heard both for and against the said 2000 General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Costa Mesa City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City that the City of Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan Plus Home Ranch Alternative A and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statements of Facts and Findings and Overriding Considerations be adopted. BE IT RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby adopt the 2000 General Plan Plus Home Ranch Alternative A and Technical Appendices, dated June 27, 2001, and as additionally amended as shown in attached Exhibits A BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby declare the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan, dated September 19, 1999, which implements the goals, policies and objectives of 2000 General Plan, as a separate Master Plan which implements the 2000 General Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council does hereby adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program that minimizes anticipated impacts to a level of insignificance where possible as identified in the Final Program EIR No. 1049 as set forth in attached Exhibit C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa City Council has also considered and finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after mitigation and does hereby adopt the Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit D. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of Januar , 2002. Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa ATTEST: T. Deputy City C rk of the City of Costa Mesa STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF COSTA MESA ) APPROVED AS TO FO M .r CITY RNEY 100 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. aa- g was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 22"d day of January, 2002. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 23`d day of January, 2002. T - (� . Deputy CiIM Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City C 9ncil of the City of Costa Mesa Costa Mesa General Land Uses _ Lav Density Residential _ Medium Density Residential ' High Density Residential Commercial - Residential r r— General Commercial =37Commercial Center _ Neighborhood Commercial Y _ Regional Commercial Urban Center Commercial ':_,. �,' _!_ _ :y� r^ - �� _ : :<•' Cultural Arts Center .5 _�' "` `_ -- • , i _m Light Industrial 4\ _— Industrial Park Golf Course Fairgrounds Publidlnshtutional © Park R Institutional Regional Park Special Designations 2530 Dwelling Units Per Acre N i Transition Area Underlying Designation of Lav Density 3000 0 3000 6000 Feet Residential that can be activated with Specific Plan 14 W E Freeways ""�^� City Limits CITY OF COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Page 1-3, Paragraph 8 of the 2000 General Plan is revised to include the following information: The City is home to a regional symphony orchestra, and the South Coast Repertory Theater. In 1983, the Orange County Performing Arts Center was established. This center includes a 3,000 seat facility, which was completed in 1985. Iri'2001,'the Cit' "of Costa ' Mesa .approved expansion plans for `the -Segerstrom Center for Arts - These include the 32;500 square foot expansion of South Coast Repertory Theatre o alloylt the addition of anew stage, 1,000 -seat expansion of the Orange Cou6iy,., ortning;its a .. �.'g Center, the,additiorr of a new 2,500 -seat concert hall, 'and a new art museum., - The City ;of Costa Me§a is also pursuing the annexafion o t e many uninco rate -d islands in the eastside area. _ The goal of the annexation,,efforts is,to provide a tog%ca[ jurisdictional 'boundary with the City of Newport Beacti and toy simplify the provision;of public services to these areas: CHAPTER 2. LAND USE ELEMENT Page LU -6, Paragraph 4 of the 2000 General Plan has been as follows: j Table LU -3, Population, Housing, and Employment, presents historical data for Costa j Mesa's population, number of housing units, and employment opportunities, and includes projections to the year 2020. The table is based upon OCP -2000 Projections. Data which is available for the 2000 Census, as of September 2001, has also been incorporated in the Land Use and Housing Elements. Page LU -8, Paragraph 5 of the 2000 General Plan is revised as follows: Ne!gnbornood comoatibiiity Issues surrounding small -lot residentiai developments occurring on lona. narrow properties have intensified in recent years. especially t`,rougnout Costa Mesas eastside. New development standards were created for small- ; ct subdivisions ;n 2.01 These standards increased the minimum lot size and parking i requirements for these types of developments. Discretionary review and approval procedures were also added to ensure compatibility with the existing. surrounding I neighborhoods; i Page LU -34 of the 2000 General Plan; a fourth paragraph will be added as follows: Proposed nd'ustrial aevelopmeiit would be analyzed for potential significantimpac�o air quality, aesthetics, land use, and other enVironmental`'issues ,:The Planhed Development process encourages the approval of industrial ;development;with `min mal impacts to the, environment; thereby promoting cleaner Y and environmentally 'sens"Vei business. Generally, commercial uses are not compatible with ind_usfial uses <tiowever ancillary commercial uses that support industrial uses are allowed; Exhibit LU -1 A, VACANT LAND, is added to this element. 1-2 10/17;01 Costa Mesa Vacant Land Mesagist\\GisD=%Pnmary0ata\Recreation\Vacant_Lantl apr Created Date: Sept 2001 by Vi Pham EXHIBIT LU -1A Pages LU -2, LU -3, LU -4, LU -5, LU -28, and LU -34 are amended as shown on the following pages. ll)1; 01 1-3 Costa Mesa General Plan The requirements for the Land Use Element are contained in Government Code Section 65302(a). The element must designate the general distribution, location, and extent of land used for housing, business, industry, open space (including agriculture and parks), education, public buildings and lands, and waste disposal facilities. Standards for population density and building intensity in each planning district are also required. 2.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS The Land Use Element serves as the primary means of integrating the policies in other elements of the 2000 General Pian with the proposed pattern of land uses designated on the General Plan Land Use Map, The Housing Element contains policies for residential development which also are considered in the Land Use Element. The Circulation Element provides for the maintenance of a transportation network that will support the ultimate land uses established on the Land Use Map. The Safety Element identifies hazards that need to be considered in land use planning for the City. The noise contours in the Noise Element are used as a guide to establish the land use patterns to ensure that future development minimizes exposure of residents to excessive noise. The Open Space and Recreation Element designates sites for community open space uses which are considered along with other provisions of the Land Use Element. The goals and policies of the Community Design E!ement establish criteria for quality development which are also coordinated with development - oriented policies of the Land Use Element. 2.3 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS This section provides an overview of existing 'and use patterns throughout the Citv. Statistical hand use information is summarized in Table LU -1. Land Use Designations (2001). RESIDENTIAL AREAS T're Low -Density Residential land use designation covers 25.8 percent of the net acreage of the City and its sphere of influence. This high, percentage of low- density is not unique to Costa Mesa, but is found throughout several communities in Orange County. The accelerated demand for suburban homes experienced in the mid 1950s and 1960s resulted in the conversion of thousands of agricultural acres to large single-family housing tracts. Today this use remains predominant in Costa Mesa. New opportunities for large-scale, single-family development are limited with less than two acres of undeveloped Low -Density Residential land remaining. Recent single-family construction has taken the form of in -fill development; especially in the area east of Newport Boulevard but at a higher density than traditional single-family neighborhoods. Medium and High -Density Residential Land Uses account for ;EC:� 24-4 percent of the net acreage of the City. In many instances, existing residential development density exceeds the allowed number of dwelling units per acre within Medium and High -Density Residential designations. This is primarily the LAND USE ELEMENT LU -2 FINAL • 10/12/01 Costa Mesa General Plan TABLE LU -1 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS (2001) Acres Total % of ResidentialLand Use • .. .. . Designation •• .. . Acres city DUIAcre* (1999) Low -Density <8 Same as 2,167.9 1.8 2,169.7 26.8% Residential - Neighborhood Commercial Medium -Density <12 Same as 794 6 25 7 C21CI 10 O Residential" - Neighborhood Commercial 40-3 834.8 4&3°6 High -Density <20.. Same as 836.3 42.0 878.3 10.8% Residential` - Neighborhood Commercial 0.20/High Traffic Commercial- <17.4 0.30/Moderate Traffic 42.6 0.9 43.6 0.5% Residential - 0.40/Low Traffic 0.15/High Traffic Neighborhood 10.25/Moderate Traffic 41.4 2.5 43.9 0.5% Commercial 0.35/Low Traffic 0.75/Very Low Traffic I 0.20/High Traffic General 0.30/Moderate Traffic <20 610.9 20.4 631.8 7.84'0 Commercial 0 40 Low Traffic 0.75Nery Low Traffic i 0.25/High Traffic Commercial 1 0.35iModerate Traffic 63.34 92.74 1.1% Center <20 - 1 0.45 Low Traffic 294 0 5 2" 8-494 0.75/Very Low Traffic Regional <20 0.6520.89- 114.7 0.0 I 114.7 I 1.440 Commercial - 0.50 Retail Urban Center 160 Cf{ce <20 I 134.2 26.2 160.4 2.0,� Commercial ! - C.79 Site-Soecific FAR for j � i i So. Ccast (Metro Center-* I 1 Arts 77 i 49.0 5.0 54.0 I 0.7?0 nte Center I 20/High Traffic 30/Moderate Traffic17.66 Industrial Park i <29 696.5 I 714.16 O 110/Law Traffic i 66 762 5 9-4 75/Very Low Traffic 0.15/High Traffic Light Indust g Industry <20 0 25/ oderate Traffic 376.5 6.6 383.1 4.8% - 0.3511ow Traffic i 0.75/Very Low Traffic Public/ 0.25 I 1,286.3 0.5 1,286.8 15.9% al stitutiGolf Course <0 01 560.1 0.0 560.1 6.9% Fairgrounds <0.10 146.4 0.0 146.4 1.8% Total 7,886.9 212.7 8,100.0 100.0% ` Within the Medium- and High -Density Res;dential designation, existing residential units legally built in excess of the dwelling units per acre standard may be recuilt at the same higher density subject to other zoning code standards. The allowable density or number of units to be reCeveicced .vould be limited to the 199C General Plan density with a 25% incentive bonus for Medium -Density or a 50°' ncent.,.e ccnus `or Hign-Density'or the existing number of units, whichever is less. " See High -Density Residential text egara!ng an area in North Costa Mesa where the density allowance is 25 to 35 DU/acre. See Regional Commercial ;ext. "" See Urban Center Commercial text. F!',,AL • 10 /I2/01 LU -3 LAND USE FI FMFNT Costa Mesa General Plan result of changes in the 1990 General Plan that reduced residential densities. This change was primarily a reflection of the community's concerns for quality of life issues related to traffic and a more appropriate balance between the amount of land devoted to multi -family and single-family development. The density of these existing legal, non -conforming residential developments is accounted for in the growth and traffic projections of this 2000 General Plan. COMMERCIAL AREAS Commercial land use designations encompass j3 4373 percent of the City's land area. The 1,140 4,47-8 acres designated for commercial uses contain approximately 16.6 47--9 million square feet of commercial space. These uses are spread throughout the City, divided into sever sig commercial designations and one mixed-use designation (Commercial -Residential) (refer to Table LU -1). South Coast Plaza contains the largest single concentration of retail uses in the City. It accounts for 30 percent of the City's commercial square footage and 25 percent of the retail sales. Within this same area, the development in the Town Center area contains 20 percent of the City's office space. The Harbor Boulevard commercial district encompasses almost one-third of Costa Mesa's commercial land. The district is responsible for 40 percent of the City's retail sales, indicating that Harbor Boulevard's trade area is of a regional scale. The major factor for this is the concentration of new car dealerships on Harbor Boulevard. The 92 -acre East 17"' Street commercial district contains a variety of commercial uses, including retail, service, and office. The area generally serves local residences and businesses. One-tenth of the City's retail sales is attributable to East 1 f, Street businesses. INDUSTRIAL AREAS Industria! 'and use designations encompass 1,097 ;-143 acres of land in Costa .tesa. Tnese uses are primarily concentrated in three major districts: the Southwest District. the Airport Industrial District, and the North Costa Mesa lydus:,^a: District :refer to Table LU -2). The Southwest District is the City's oldest ncustnai area and he two other areas are more recently developed industrial carks !ocated in the northwest and northeast sections of the City. The South,.vest District contains 312 acres and represents 88 percent of the C,ty's land eesignated for Light Industry. This area contained a substantial amount cf industrial development before the City was incorporated. The area contains several large manufacturing firms as well as a high percentage of smaller industrial operations, frequently in multi -tenant structures. The Southwest District is one of Costa Mesa's major employment centers employing approximately one-fourth of the City's employees engaged in manufacturing - related jobs. Forty-one (41) percent of the manufacturing employers are located in this district. The 390 -acre Airport Industrial Area is a portion of the much larger Irvine Industrial Complex which extends into the cities of Irvine and Tustin. This area is characterized by large parcels and wide landscaped setbacks. Several firms have located their main or regional headquarters in the area and are often the single tenants in large structures. LAND USE ELEMENT LU -4 FINAL • 10/12/01. Costa Mesa General Plan TABLE LU -2 INDUSTRIAL AREAS Industrial Area Southwest General Plan Light Industry Total Acres 312 Airport Industrial Park 390 North Industrial Park 32.3. 37-3 Other Light Industry 70 Total 1;086 4r145 The third industrial area is the 32$. 37 -3 -acre industrial park located between the San Diego Freeway, Fairview Road, the Santa Ana River, and the northerly City limits. This district is a part of a larger industrial area which extends northward into the City of Santa Ana. The primary users of this industrial area are large single -tenant manufacturing firms and corporate offices. Included within this district is the 14.5- 65 -acre portion of the Home Ranch area located north sf-the of South Coast Drive and wesf of SusanrStree�. The remaining 70 acres of land designated for light industrial uses are located in five smaller pockets in various sections of the City. These areas are generally characterized by small parcels in areas which were designated for industrial uses by the City's original zoning plan. PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL AREAS Costa Mesa contains a relatively high percentage of land designated for pubiic and institutional use. A total of 1,286 acres is specified in this category. When combined with the golf course and fairgrounds designations, these uses constitute 25 pefcent of the City's area. This high proportion is primarily the result of past actions of various governmental entities. The development of the Santa Ana Army Air Base during World War 11 was the first major land acquisition by a governmental agency.. This site has since been divided and remains largely in public ownership. The current users of the site are: Orange Coast College, Costa Mesa High School, Davis Middle School. Presidio Elementary School, TeWinkle Park, the National Guard Armory, Orange County Fairgrounds, Costa Mesa Farm Soccer Complex. Civic Center Park, City Hall, and Vanguard University. A major land acquisition by the State in 1950 was responsible for the public ownership of the Costa Mesa Golf and Country Club, and Fairview Park. In 1950, 750 acres were acquired for a State institution. Today, the Fairview Developmental Center occupies 111 acres of the original 750 acre site. The golf course and most of Fairview Park belong to the City. Acquisitions by the City and County have expanded this area to include the Talbert Regional Park site adjacent to the Santa Ana River and the adjoining City Canyon Park. Three golf courses exist within Costa Mesa and its sphere of influence. The previously mentioned Costa Mesa Golf and Country Club is the only one of the three open to the public, FINAL • 10/12/01 LL -5 LAND USE ELEMENT Costa Mesa General Plan Facilities that transfer, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes that are generated at another source (off-site) are most appropriately located in the Industrial Park and Light Industry land use designations; however, a facility with a purpose and scale of operation that is compatible with this commercial designation may be allowed pursuant to the issuance of a conditional use permit. General Commercial developments are mainly located along major arterials such as Harbor Boulevard, East 17th Street and Bristol Street south of the 1-405 and SR -55. Compatible zoning districts include CL, C1, C1 -S, C2, PDC, AP, and P. Commercial Center The Commercial Center designation is intended for large areas with a concentration of diverse or intense commercial uses serving local and regional needs. Appropriate uses include a wide variety and scale of retail stores, professional offices, restaurants, hotels and theaters. Intense service uses, such as automobile repair and service, should be discouraged. Because of the large service area. direct access to major transportation corridors is essential. Development within this designation is intended for a variety of intensities rangirg from one- to four-story buildings. The allowable floor area ratios are 0.25 for high traffic generating uses, 0.35 for moderate traffic generating uses, 0.45 for 'cw traffic generating uses. and 0.75 for very -low traffic generating uses. In conjunction with approval of Home Ranch Alternative A, a site-specific FAR of 0.41 was established for the 17.2 -acre IKEA site. (IKEA is a large retail1warehouse use.) This property is located at the southeast corner of South Coast Drive and Harbor Boulevard. A trip budget of 43 AM peak hour trips and 431 PM peak hour trips was also adopted for the IKEA site. A maximum allowable FAR of 0.40 for office uses was also established for the remaining 45.4 acres located s6uth of South Coast Drive. The combined trip budget for this site and the 14.5 -acre industrial Park parcel located to the north of South Coast Drive is 0.593 AM peak hour trips and 1.569 PM peak hour trips. The North Costa Mesa Specific Plat, provides more FAR, building height, and trip budget information for Segerstrom Home Ranch (Area 1). Artic:cated population density for the standard mix of uses in the Commercial Cznter c'esicraticn would de 45 employees per acre A development that cons sted cf office use only would require up to 66 employees per acre. Res dercy 'nctels such as single room occupancy (SRO) hotels may be located ,n the Commercial Center district. These hotels would have resident populations of up to 131 persons per acre. Again, these estimates are generalized and should to more refined as specific development proposals are approved. Institut cnal uses are also appropriate in this commercial designation provided that land use compatibility and traffic issues have been addressed. Institutional uses require discretionary approval. As complementari uses. residential and other noncommercial uses may be allowed through the Planned Development process. Residential densities in clanged development pro ects should not exceed 20 dwelling units per acre. The ccrresconcing pcpulatlon density range is up to 50 persons per acre. LAND USE ELEMENT LL -28 FINAL • 10/12/01 Costa Mesa General Plan The High Traffic category allows uses with daily trip generation rates in excess of 15 trip ends per 1,000 square -feet of floor area. Allowable uses under this standard include support commercial service uses and restaurants. Industrial Park The Industrial Park designation is intended to apply to large districts that contain a variety of industrial and compatible office and support commercial uses. Industrial parks are characterized by large parcels and landscaped setbacks which lend to the creation of a spacious campus -like environment. Industrial parks must have proximity to freeways and other major transportation routes in order to provide the accessibility they require. An internal circulation system consisting of lesser highways is also necessary to accommodate the vehicle demands created. Industrial parks have major physical separations from areas designated for other uses in order to maintain their distinctiveness and avoid potential land use incompatibilities. Development within this designation would consist of one- and two-story buildings. Additional height may be permitted when compatible with adjacent development and the uses are consistent with other constraints such as height limits near John Wayne Airport. The Industrial Park portion of the Home Ranch site may include buildings up to five_ stories in height near the center of the development. The North Costa Mesa Specific Plari providesemore,building height information for Segerstrom Home Ranch (Area 1). In the Inddstrial Park designation, the allowable floor area ratios are 0.20 for high traffic generating uses, 0.30 for moderate traffic generating uses, 0.40 for low traffic generating uses, and 0.75 for very low traffic generating uses. The exception to the above standards is the 14.5- 62 -acre Segerstrom Home Ranch site. This site is governed by the maximum allowable FAR standard of 0.40, a maximum building square footage of 252,648 961.069 afld e 49 9+3 .�A1 ^aak hour +ri g and�s51 P>n� nPak hn�ir+rr. The combined trip budget for this site and the 45.4 -acre Commercial Center parcel located to the south of South Coast Drive is 1.593 AM peak hour trips and 1.569 PM peak hour trips; The North Costa Mesa Specific Plan provides more -_ FAR. _ and_ trip budget information for Segerstrom Home Ranch (Area 1). Anticipated population densities are dependent upon the particular mix of the uses within a given project. However, based upon the standards provided in Table LU -6. the copulation density would be an average of 40 employees per acre. An office development would have a population density of 58 employees per acre Commercial uses may be allowed provided that the use is determined to be complementary to the industrial area. Commercial recreational uses may also be appropriate under the same condition. Institutional uses may also be appropriate provided that land use compatibility and traffic issues have been addressed. Institutional uses shall require discretionary approval. Combinations of residential, institutional, and commercial uses may be allowed through the Planned Development zone process. Floor area ratios and population densities for commercial projects would be similar to the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation. Residential densities in Planned development projects shall not exceed 20 dwelling units per acre. The corresponding population density range is up to 50 persons per acre. LAND USE ELEMENT LU -34 FINAL • 10/12/01 CHAPTER 3. CIRCULATION ELEMENT Policy CIR-1 A.1 will be revised to read: CIR-1A.1 incaipordtiiia a�", 119199991 tle900 roLe.0 as appropriate. Incorporate bicycle facilities (circulation and storage) into the design and development of all new commercial and industrial projects and public facilities. Exhibit CIR-6, Master Plan of Bikeways, is amended in this element, as follows. J -4 10/1701 Lcgend Bice Trail (class l) Figure CIR-6 ■�����■ BikcLan c(Cl ass 2) ■++■+•++�+ Bike Route (Class :) NLAZE—r- t PL -MV OF BIKEWAYS Regional Trial �- - - — City Boundary City of Costa Mesa Gencral Plan Trak Analysis CHAPTER 6. CONSERVATION ELEMENT The following policies are amended and/or added to the Conservation Element: CON -1A.1 Ensure that all future developments will be adequately reviewed with regard to possible adverse effects on plant and animal life and critical wildlife habitat and wetlands, and , incorporate feasible s;­ffiait;nt mitigation measures into the project design to reduce such effects. CON -1A.2 the Feten.tin­n &nhana-a-ment of existing mature . Encoufage sustainable landscapes through landscape techniques that conser' recycle, and reuse valuable resources, including the use of native veget tion and drought tolerant landscape materials consistent with the -Gies landscaping standards set forth in Chapter VII of Costa Mesa Zoning C6de1 CON -1A.3 Continue to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Eli mination;Sysieci - (NPDES) Program _ by participating. in,,the ,.Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) which stipulates water quality' requirements far mirimizing urban runoff and discharge from new development and requires_ the provisions of applicable Best Management Practices (BMP),- CON-1A_4 BMP):CON-1A.4 Continue to implement the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP),tand any amendments to it, that require site dischargers to reduce pollutants_ in runoff from new development and significant redevelopment areas. CON -1A.5 Pursue the adoption of an offsite mitigation program for the loss of critical wildlife habitat and wetlands when onsite mitigation is determine to, be infeasible. Offsite mitigation should occur within the City of Costa Mesa; CON -1C.3 Pursue adoption of an Energy Conservation Program that requires the use of materials, devices, and measures to reduce energy consumption above the energy conservation requirements of Title 24. These measures may include built-in energy efficient appliances, automated controls for air conditioners and lighting, special sunlight -filtering window coatings or double -paned windows, light-colored roofing materials, and other means to reduce energy consumption and a structure's heating and cooling needs. CON -ICA Continue to investigate the feasibility of municipal power programs The following text is added to page CON -14 preceding the subheading Coastal Resources. NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN The=County of Orange Environmental Management Agency (EMA) prepared a Naga Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) 'fo( tFie Central and Coastal Subregion of Orange County. The NCCP/HCP was adopted on JuN 17 996;- PURPOSE OF THE NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN/ HAMBITAT.CONSERVATION PLAN (n fO-91; the'Califoirnia Legislature enacted the NCCP Act'and declared that."th6i'jsIN need for broad-based planning to provide for effective protection and conservation.;i state's wildlife heritage while. continuing to allow appropriate dev_elopmentand groWt The primary goal of the Orange County NCCP/HCP is to protect and manage :hatiifa€ supporting a broad range of plant and animal populations that are now found withirf,the Central and Coastal Subregion. To accomplish this goal, the NCCP/HCP creates subregional habitat Reserve System and implements a coordinated program_ to manage biological resources within the habitat reserve. Specific project purposes of NCCP/HCP are: Planning -for the protection of multiple -species and multiple -habitats within-_ coastal sage scrub habitat mosaic by creating a habitat Reserve System a con ns substantial coastal sage scrub, chaparral,grasslands, ripariaRn,x woodlands, cliff and rock, forest and other habitats; Developing a conservation program that -shifts- away from the current focus:: do ro ect-b ro ect, single species protection to conservation and mana emento P 1 Y -P 1 9 P P 9. � many species and multiple habitats, on a subregional, level; ♦ Allowing social and economic uses:within thetsubregion that are comi566b-16-Wiffi the protection of Identified Species and Habitats; ♦ Protecting the federally -listed coastal California gnatcatcher in a manner consistent with Section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the Special 4(d) Rule for the gnatcatcher while providing for future Incideri6i Take of the species; ♦ Protecting the other two "target species," the coastal cactus wren and orange- throated whiptail lizard, by treating them "as if they were listed" under Section 10(a) of FESA and allowing Incidental Take of these species; ♦ Protecting non -Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) habitat within the CSS habitat mosaic at a level comparable to the protection provided for CSS, thereby contributing to the protection of a broader range of species than just the target species or CSS species; • Addressing the habitat needs of the non -target species within the subregion and the non -CSS habitats, including protecting six other federally -listed species consistent with FESA Section 10(a) and treating 30 other "identified" species "as if they were listed" under Section 10(a) of the FESA; s Addressing the conservation of sensitive species located on the Dana Point Headlands site, including the coastal California gnatcatcher, Pacific pocket mouse, other Identified Species and five designated plant species; • Building upon prior regional open space planning that has occurred in Orange County and integrating that open space planning into the creation of the ha_b_ita± Reserve System and subregional conservation strategy; and ♦ Addressing impacts to CSS and non -CSS habitats and related NCCPIH P.. species addressed in the Joint EIR/EIS in a manner that will be used a_ndretie" upon in conjunction with future environmental „reviews and documents; SUBREGION DESCRIPTION The Central and Coastal Subregion is a 208,000 -acre area (about 325 square'miles includes the central portion of Orange County, incorporating the area from the coo: inland to Riverside County. The subregion extends along the coast from the moi the Santa Ana River (Costa Mesa) to the mouth of San Juan Creek (Dana. Pointy- inland boundaries of the subregion follow State Route 91 `along the west'anci: El Road and'lnterstate 5 to San Juan Creek to the east.., Existing natural habitat, incli 13 major vegetation types, cover about one-half of the overall Central_ ar_ Subregion! HABITAT RESERVE SYSTEM The Habitat Reserve System is one of six components of the NCCP/HCP. The'offf&.Tve components include the Adaptive Management Program, Non -Reserve Supplermena Habitat Areas;. North Ranch Policy Plan Area, Interim Management Program' ari Funding Reserve Creation and_Habitat Management. A 37,378 -acre Habitat Reserve System was created to include significant areas'of�12 Q the 13 major habitat types located within the subregion.., The Reserve System will,profl more than 18,500'acres of CSS habitat and is also designed to.function as zi`: l p habitat system:_ `In addition�to,CSS habitat, it also contains about 6,950*, acres- # chaparral, -5,700 acres of grasslands, 1,750 acres of riparian, 950 acres 'of w_ ood(a 200 acres of forest habitat and significant portions of six other habitat �'xi t g p types now,exis ng within the subregion., Only ,coastal dune habitat is not included within the:Rese System. In terms of target.bird species, the Reserve contains 370 coastal Gnatca cher sites and 671.c6astal cactus wren sites. Habitat areas witflin the Reserve were identified as one of four categories'to indica e e x.... primary reason for.inclusion in the Reserve. These Reserve habitat categories reflect Biological Goals and Objectives outlined in Section 3.1 of the NCCP/HCP docurnen The four categories are as follows: ♦ Target Species Habitat: Areas with significant coastal sage scrub componerrts and target species populations. Habitat areas within this category make up the "core" of the Reserve (primary goals 1, 2, 3 and 7). ♦ Habitat Linkage: Areas of natural habitat with coastal sage scrub and othe_ r habitats that are especially important as linkages (primary goals, 3, 4 and 5). • Biodiversity Habitat: Areas with minimal to modest coastal sage scrub andfor target species that contribute toward a more diverse and manageable reserve (primary goals 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7). ♦ Restoration Opportunity: Areas that are currently subject to intensive agricultural or functionally similar land uses (e.g., landfills) where restoration would add coastal scrub in key linkage areas and/or contribute to a more manageable Reserve boundary (primary goals 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7). Within the Reserve System, the NCCP/HCP restricts the kinds of permitted 'uses—td protect long-term habitat values. Residential, commercial and industrial uses ;are prohibited, as are new active recreational uses outside already disturbed areas. New recreational facilities will be sited in locations compatible with habitat protection baskb'n the understanding that recreational use is subordinate to habitat protection within the Reserve. EXISTING OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE SUBREGIONAL HABITAT RESERVE A significant amount of public open space is included within the Reserve Sysfem:: ;'ihe existing public lands in the Reserve total 14,498 acres and are located within-:bottithe Central and Coastal areas. The public open space includes regional and wilderness parks managed by the Countyof Orange EMA, other regional parks/open ;'sVn pace managed by cities located within the subregion, State parks or_ecological.resen s managed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The following existing facilities are within the Habitat Reserve: ' Aliso and Wood 'Canyo s Regional Park, Irvine Regional Park, Laguna Coast Wilderness, Park, PetersCajy. Regional Park, Santiago Oaks Regional Park, Talbert Nature Preserve, UppeF. w o Bay Regional Park, Weir Canyon. Wilderness Park, Whiting Ranch..Wildemess`.. t_Q roll- AI CHAPTER 8. SAFETY ELEMENT The following policy is revised in the Safety Element: SAF -1A.1 Consider geologic hazard constraints,'- ° roles developrng land use policies and w_ Ften::.tt]_a _g public decisions relating to land development. CHAPTER 5. HOUSING ELEMENT Page HOU-10 of the 2000 General Plan, following the second paragraph beginning with "Currently . ", a new paragraph has been added as follows: Page HOU-30, Paragraph 2, of the 2000 General Plan will be revised to include the following information: Approximately 3,211 renter households and 487 owner households were overcrowded in 1990. This situation is affected by large renter households unable to afford the larger ownership housing and a lack of larger rental housing units. For example, a total of 747 — seven or more person renter households resided in the City in 1990, while there were only 46 — five bedrooms or larger and 513 - four bedroom rental units in the City. At the same time, there were 4,640 owner occupied housing units with four or more bedrooms and only 556 owner households with six or more persons. According to the -2000 U.S. Census -,-40 percent of the City's housing units are owner occupied, and 60 percent are renter occupied_ Page HOU-31, Paragraph 1, of the 2000 General Plan will be revised to include the following information: The number of large families has been increasing in Costa Mesa and consequently demand will increase for larger bedrooms. Although the supply of larger housing units has met the demand in the past, overcrowding is increasing and occurring in the larger families. According to �t ie 200080 S.:Cerisus, the Homeowner vacaricy�rate is 1.3 percent and the rental vacancyratepis 6.3 percent Costa Mesa will continue to offer a balance of bedroom types through the encouragement of many rental sizes and ownership programs. T,) 1-01 1.0 Page HOU-33 of the 2000 General Plan, preceding "Inventory of Resources", a new paragraph is added as follows: In addition page HOU-50 of the Housing Element is hereby revised as shown. 1 Costa Mesa General Plan Under-utilized land is land not being used to its maximum potential. For example, one unit on a 12,000 square -foot lot that is zoned for one unit per 6,000 feet is an under -utilization of the land. An aging office building on land zoned for multi -family residential is also considered under-utilized. Currently, there is an estimated potential for an additional 87 353 housing units on under-utilized land in the City of Costa Mesa. Vacant land could yield an additional61 4g X93 units. Most of the vacant land zoned for residential uses is located in the Planned Development Residential- Medium- Density (PDR -MD) and the Planned Development Residential -North Costa Mesa zone. These PDR zones are specifically intended for innovative residential projects, such as zero lot line, small lot, cluster development and mixed income developments. The largest piece of land left in the City of Costa Mesa is located within the PDR -NCM. This site represents a total of 40.3 acres of land with a potential for 1,274 housing units that comprises approximately half of the city's remaining housing production. There are 14-32 33.82 remaining vacant acres and 146.23 143 acres with potential for redevelopment. See the Apoendix for the complete list of suitable sites in the City of Costa Mesa. Due to the near built -out condition of the City, public services and facilities, such as water, sewer and storm drains are readily available to all residential sites, including the North Costa Mesa Specific Plan. The following table displays the total vacant and under-utilized land suitable for residential development by zoning, permitted density ranges, public service availability and the potential number of units. The maximum number of units assumes that the acreage is built at the maximum permitted density. The net number of units reflects typical development densities, based on a sample of recent residential projects. TABLE HOU-45 SUITABLE LANDS BY ZONE (1999) Vacant lands R1 I 1-7 Units/Acre 1.09 Acres 7 Units 6 Units Yes R2 6-12 Units/Acre 3.09 Acres 31 Units 28 Units Yes j R2H 7-14 Units/Acre 1.15 Acres 21 Units 18 Unifs Yes R3 j 7-20 Units/acre 0.52 Acres 10 Units 9 Units Yes PDR -MD 8-12 Units/Acre 28.17 42 67 Acres i 338 5-1--2 Units 305 493 Units Yes PDR -NCM 25-35 Units/Acre 40.30 Acres 1,410 Units 1,274 Units Yes Under -Utilized lands R1 1-7 Units/Acre 62.26 Acres 179 Units I 161 Units Yes R2 6-12 Units/Acre 47.36 44.86 Acres I 367 346 Units 1332. 34-4 Units Yes R2H 7-14 Units/Acre 35.30 Acres 395 Units 356 Units Yes R3 7-20 Units/Acre 1.31 Acres_____L 25 Units 22 Units Yes TOTAL: 2511 E66"nits Source: City of Costa Mesa Land Use Database and Zoning Co& ' A correction factor of 0.9037 was applied to the maximum number of units, to reflect typical development densities, based on a sample of recent residential development. HOUSING ELEMENT HOU-50 FINAL • 10/12/Of CHAPTER 9. COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT Page CD -3 of the 2000 General Plan is amended to include Class 1 Bikeways under the secondary corridors category. In addition, Exhibit CD -1 is revised to add Class 1 Bikeways. Page CD -5 and Exhibit CD -2 are revised to distinguish between the North Costa Mesa/Mesa Del Mar/ Halecrest Hall of Fame and the South Coast/Wimbledon Village residential areas. Page CD -9 AND Exhibit CD -4 of the 2000 General Plan is amended to include South Coast Repertory Theatre as a City landmark. Page CD -12, Bullet No. 1 of the 2000 General Plan, under the subheading "Opportunities" has been revised as follows: ♦ There is an opportunity to improve and maintain the visual quality of existing major arterial and secondary arterial streets (i.e., paths) by implementing theCfty's adopted stapdards, the Streetscape and Median Development Standar-ds Guidelines The Guidelines mciu'de a -comprehensive. sfreet �treepaletteand .._...._ developmenfstandards CHAPTER 10. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION ELEMENT The following policy is added to the Open Space and Recreation Element: 0SR:1A.16 Ensure -that 'pafks 7 and are- devef_opea with faciliffes appropriate to all ages, including athletic fields, active play areas, passive open space, tot lots and picnic areas. CHAPTER 11. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT Page HCR -9 of the Draft 2000 General Plan is amended as follows: The research conducted and analysis preformed resulted n the identification of buildings that have been evaluated and classified according to the California Office of Historic Preservation categories 1 through 6 7 previously discussed. The following evaluation codes were found to apply to one or more surveyed properties and appear on the DPR 523 forms: Exhibit HCR -1 is added to this Element. City of Costa Mesa Properties that Meet the Standards for Listing in the National Register +'+ 3315 Fairview Road I - - Segerstrom House - Segerstrom Bam 77 -- =� Arl MMMORM7,16i 42 1900 Adams Avenue=— r' - Diego Sepulveda Adobe AM l REEL - 114 __ - /� s EXHIBIT HCR - 1 Note: This amended page reflects change due to addition of Exhbit HCRA Costa Mesa General Plan RESOURCES LISTING IN OR ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER One property in the survey area is currently listed as eligible for the National Register. This property is the Station Master's House located at 2150.Newpo BjLL(evCrcfl 4 900 Adams AyeRye. Five properties, including the Station Master's House, in the survey area appear to meet the standards for listing in the National Register. These properties have been given an OHP rating of "3S" and are as follows: • 420 West 19'h Street— Methodist Church ♦ 1900 Adams Avenue — Diego Sepulveda Adobe 3315 Fairview Road — Segerstrom House • 3315 Fairview Road — Segerstrom Barn 2150 Newport Boulevard — Station Master House RESOURCES WORTHY OF LOCAL DESIGNATION Twenty-six properties in the survey area have been evaluated as eligible for designation under an existing local historic preservation ordinance. The OHP rating classification given to these structures were "5SV and "5D1." "5S1" applies to properties, which are eligible for individual designation under the local ordinance. "5DV applies to contributors in recognizable groupings or districts which are likely to be designated as local historic districts. RESOURCES WORTHY OF LOCAL NOTE A total of 141 properties in the survey area were evaluated as worthy of note at the local level. These resources, primarily single-family residences, derive their significance fcom the historic development patterns and architectural characteristics which give the study area a cohesive identity. The OHP classification given to such buildings were '5SY and were evaluated as eligible for special consideration in the local planning process. in summary. the Citywide Survey conducted by PCR Services Corporation during July 1999, identified 4.332 properties that were constructed prior to 1954 (45 years or older). of which 3,348 were inventoried after completing the initial windshield survey and field research. Upon completion of in-depth field research and an intensive level survey approximately 29 properties were identified as significant federal, state, and/or local historic resources. Approximately 60 properties, including the 29 significant properties. were formally documented on State Inventory Forms (DPR523 forms). CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts from development on archaeological resources may be mitigated in a variety of ways. The most obvious is to prohibit further development in archaeologically sensitive areas. However, this is normally not a practical solution unless the land is'publicly owned or can be used, in its natural state, to satisfy open space requirements of a larger private deve!opment. Even if the "no development" alternative were feasible, and it may be in some cases, the possibility would remain for damage to the site from vandals or souvenir hunters. With proper design and HISTORIC/CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT HCR -10 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT • G/27/0I TECHNCIAL APPENDICES The following Section H. Housing Element and Section I. Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations are added to the General Plan Technical Appendices. I-12 10/I-1101 Costa MesaGeneral Plan HOUSING ELEMENT TECHNICAL APPENDICES LIST OF ACRONYMS w ADA: American Disability Act w AHP: Affordable Housing Program u) AMI: Area Median Income m CDBG: Community Development Block Grant uu CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act a CHFA: California Housing Finance Agency o CMSA: Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area m COG: Council of Governments m CRA: Community Reinvestment Act a CTCAC: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee o CUP: Conditional Use Permit m EDD: Employment Development Department m EIR: Environmental Impact Report o DOF: Department of Finance f m FTHB: First-time Homebuyer m GPAC: General Plan Advisory Committee m HUD: Housing and Urban Development ri LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credit B MCC: Mortgage Credit Certificate m OCCOG: Orange County Council of Governments m OCHA: Orange County Housing Authority m OCHITF Orange County Housing Issue Task Force o PDC: Planned Development Commercial o PDR -MD: Planned Development Residential — Medium Density H-1 HOUSING ELEMENT' APPENDIX H Costa Mesa G=eneral Plan PMSA: Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area a RCC: Regional Census Centers m RCPG: Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide a RDA: Redevelopment Agency a RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Assessment a SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments ur SIPP: Survey of Income and Program Participation a SRO: Single Room Occupancy II TBA: Tenant -based Assistance H -2 HOUSING ELEMENT �1 Costa MesaC�neral Plan LIST OF NON -PROFITS The following organizations have the capacity to acquire and manage affordable housing or "at - risk" housing developments. 1) Orange County Housing Authority 2043 North Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92706 (714) 434-6200 2) Civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation 431 South Bristol Colonia Community Center Santa Ana, CA 92703 (714) 835-0406 3) Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, Inc. P.O. Box 7086 Orange, CA 92613 (714) 434-6200 4) Orange County Community Housing Corporation 1833 East 17t" Streeet, Suite 207 Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 558-6006 5) Orange County Community Development 825 N. Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92702 (714) 897-6670 6) Jamboree Housing Corporation 2081 Business Center Drive Irvine. CA (949) 263-8676 7) Southern California Presbyerian Homes 1111 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 300 Glendale, CA 91202 (818) 247-0420 8) A Community of Friends 3345 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 480-0809 9) Affordable Housing People 7720 B. EI Camino Suite 159 Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 436-5979 H-3 HOUSING ELEMENT Costa Mesa General Plan 10) BRIDGE Housing Corporation One Hawthorne Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 989-1111 11) Century Housing Corporation 300 Corporate Pointe Suite 500 Culver City, CA 90230 (310) 642-2007 12) Community Partnership Development Corporation 7225 Cartwrught Ave. Sun Valley, CA 91352 (818) 503-1548 13) Eden Housing, Inc. 409 Jackson St. Hayw,-rd, CA 94544 (510) 582-1460 14) H.O.M.E.S., Inc. 4341 Birch St. Suite 213 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 851-2766 15) Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles PO Box 17157 Foy Station Los Angeles. CA 90017 (213) 252-2701 16) Housing Corporation of America 31423 Coast Highway Suite 7100 Laguna Beacn. CA 92677 (323) 726-96-2 17) Long Beacn Affordable Housing Coalition. Inc. 110 West Ocean Blvd. # 350 Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 983-8880 23) Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc. 515 S. Figueroa St. Suite 940 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 629-9172 18) Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County, Inc. 350 Hillcrest La Habra, CA 90631 (562) 694-2051 H -4 HOUSING ELEMENT V Costa Mesa General Plan 19) San Diego County SER -Jobs for Progress, Inc. 3355 Mission Ave. Suite 123 Oceanside CA 92054, (760) 754-6500 20) Shelter for the Homeless 15161 Jackson St. Midway City, CA 92655 (714) 897-3221 21) Solari Enterprises, Inc. 1544 West Yale Ave. Orange, CA 92687 (714) 282-2520 22) Southern California Housing Development Corporation 8265 Aspen St. Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909)483 -?444 23) American Baptist Homes of the West PO Box 6669 Oakland, CA 94603 (510) 635-1786 24) Citizens Housing Corporation 26 O'Farrell St. #506 San Francisco. Ca 94108 (4l i) 431-8605 25) Community Housing Assistance Program, Inc. 3803 East Casselle Ave. Orange, CA 92869 (7 14) 744-62';2 26) DML & Associates Foundation 6043 Tampa Ave. Suite 101A Tarzana, CA 91356 (8 18) 708-'710 27) EAH, Inc. 2169 East Francisco Blvd. Suite B San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 258-1800 28) Foundation for Affordable Housing III, Inc. 2600 Michelson Dr. Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 440-8277 H-5 HOUSING ELENIENT Costa Mesa General Plan 29) HELP Development Corporation 30 East 33rd St. New York City, NY 10016 (212) 779-3350 30) Joshua's House 24111 NE Halsey St. Suite 203 Troutdale, OR 97060 (503) 661-1999 31) Mercy Charities Housing California 1038 Howard St. San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 553-6360 32) National Housing Development Corporation 8265 Apsen St. Suite 100 Rancho 3ucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 483-2444 33) National Housing Trust PO Box 3458 Walnut Creek. CA 94598 (925) 945-1774 34) OSM Investment Company 5155 Rosecrans Ave. Duite 120 Hawthorne, CA 90250 (310)676-0451 35) Paramount Financial Group. Inc. 1655 Nor,h Main St. `Suite 220 Walnut Creek. CA 94596 (800) 850-0694 36) Related Companies of California 18201 Von Karman Ave. Suite 400 Irvine. CA 92612 (949) X60-7272 37) Retirement Housing Foundation 5150 East Pacific Coast HWY Suite 600 Long Beach, CA 90804 (562)597-5541 38) Shelem, Inc. 24111 NE Halsey St. Suite 202 Troutdale, OR 97060 (503) 661-1999 H-6 HOUSING ELEMENT � Costa Mesa�en�ral Plan 39) Squier Properties 3129 6`h St. Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 581-9043 40) SLSM, LLC 651 29'' St. San Francisco, CA 94101 (415) 826-0301 41) The Trinity Housing Foundation 1399 Ygnacio Valley Rd. #21 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 (925) 939-5421 42) Union Partners Realty Group, Inc. 24 Professional Center Suite 250 San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 446-1811 H-7 HOUSING ELEMENT Costa. MesaGenQral Plan DATA SOURCES Every attempt was made to use the most acceptable, current and reliable data for the Costa Mesa Housing Element. II U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 1970, 1980 and 1990 Census Reports: Summary Tape File 3 and Summary Tape File 1. m Department of Finance: Demographic Research Unit, Report E-5: 1990-1999. m Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): 1988 RHNA, 1999 RHNA, Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide: March 1996, Creating Livable Places, 1994 Growth Forecast. a Longtin's California Land Use: 1999. u� National Decision Systems, Pop Facts Database, Demographic Snapshot Report (1990-1999), Demographic Trends Report (1970-1990), Income Reports (1970- 1990), Senior Living Reports (1990-2003). State of California, Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division: Labor Force and Industry Employment (Sept. 1999). o Bureau of Labor Statistics, EA and I Unit: Local Area Unemployment Statistics (Sept. 30, 1999) o Axciom/Dataquick: Sales and Median Price Reports, 1997-1999. m Comps InfoSystems (Nov. 1999). m U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census: Survey of Income and Program Participation (1-994-1995). o United States Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service: 1997 Census of Agriculture -Count,,, Data B Laurin Associates: City-wide Apartment Survey.. October 1999, Affordable Housing Database (1999) o City of Costa Mesa: General Plan, Zoning Code, Newport Boulevard Specific Plan, Costa Mesa Westside Specific Plan, Coolidge Avenue/Fillmore Way Neighborhood Improvement Plan, North Costa Mesa Specific Plan, Redevelopment Plan, City Council Agenda Reports and Land Use Database. o California State University, Fullerton, Center for Demographic Research: Orange County Progress Report 1997 m U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development/California Housing Partnership Corporation: Federally -Assisted Multifamily Housing, Prepayment Eligible and Project -Based Section 8 Expirations (Sept. 1999). o U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Policy Development and Research: Fiscal Year 1999 HUD Income Limits (Dec. 1998). H-8 HOUSING ELEMENT Costa MesaC'�en�eral Plan u� State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development: California's Housing Markets 1990-1997, Statewide Housing Plan Update Phase II (1998), State Consolidated Plan 1995-2000. a Building Standards: Building Valuation Data (1999) w California Coastal Commission, October 1999 w Metroscan Property Profile Report m Housing Elements from the Cities of Irvine, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Santa Ana and Fountain Valley and Orange County. H-9 HOUSING ELEMENT Costa Mesa General Plan LIST OF SENIOR HOUSING IN COSTA MESA INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES 1) Saint John's Manor - 2031 Orange Avenue 2) Bethel Towers — 666 West 19`h Street 3) Casa Bella — 1844 Park Avenue SENIOR MOBILE HOME PARKS 1) Island View — 1660 Whittier a 2) Orange Coast — 1684 Whittier 3) Playport Estates — 903 West 17`h Street 4) Rolling Homes Park — 1973 Newport Boulevard CONGREGATE, ASSISTED LIVING AND RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES 1) Costa Newport — 2283 Fairview 2) Orange Coast Villa — 2619 Orange Avenue 3) Atkinson Residence — 3264 Colorado Lane A) Mesa Verde — 673 Center Street 5) Newport Villa West — 393 Hospital Read 6) Newport Villas — 4000 Hilaria Way 7) Patty's Guest Home — 257 Magnolia Street 8) Stonefield Garden — 1311 Stonefield Street 9) Teresa•s Home — 2917 Royal Palm Drive SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES 1) Beverly Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — 340 Victoria Street 2) Flagship Skilled Nursing Center — 466 Flagship 3) Mesa Verde Convalescent Hospital — 661 Center Street H -10 HOUSING ELEMENT Costa MesaGeneral Plan 4) Newport Convalescent Hospital — 1555 Superior Avenue 5) Park Superior Health Care — 1445 Superior Avenue H -11 HOUSING ELEMENT +V� Costa MesaGen�al Plan LIST OF HOMELESS SERVICE PROVIDERS IN COSTA MESA 1) HOPE Institute (YWCA of Central Orange County) — 2900 Bristol Street 2) Human Options — 1500 Adams Avenue 3) Mental Health Activities Center/Mental Health Association — 420 West 19'h Street 4) Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter —1963 Wallace Avenue 5) Serving People in Need (SPIN) — 2900 Bristol Street 6) Share Our Selves (SOS) Emergency Services — 1550 Superior Avenue 7) Someone Cares Soup Kitchen — 720 West 19`h Street J H -12 HOUSING ELEMENT Costa MesaGerieral Plan LIST OF VACANT SUITABLE SITES Address • • - Area 1325 1325 Sunflower PDR -MD 14.5 acres 2195 Pacific R2 0.58 acres 2187 Miner R2 0.19 acres j 1645 Adams PDR -MD 0.52 acres 1641 Adams PDR -MD 11.65 acres 380 West Wilson R3 0.37 acres 1856 Placentia R3 0.15 acres 2000 Wallace R2H 0.21 acres 2000 Wallace R2H 0.42 acres 514 Hamilton R2 0.45 acres I 2029 Charle R2H 0.32 acres i 2002 Maple R2H 0.19 acres 1581 Orange R2 0.27 acres 283 Esther R1 i 0.15 acres j 200 Esther j R1 ; 0.18 acres 200 Esther ! R1 ! 0.18 acres 1485 Sunflower ! PDR -NCM 1 32.0 acres 1485 Sunflower PDR -NCM ! 0.69 acres 1485 Sunflower PDR -NCM 7.66 acres H -13 HOUSING ELENTE`T c� M�s�a1 �an RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following technical appendix is excerpted from the Costa Mesa Zoning Code. The appendix includes partial development standards for residential, planned development, accessory apartments, granny flats and parking requirements. The complete Zoning Code should be consulted for the complete development standards. Residential — General (R1 -R3) The purpose of the residential development standards are as follows: (a) Ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit. (b) Minimize traffic congestion and avoid overloading of public services and utilities. (c) Protect residential neighborhoods from excessive noise, illumination, unsightliness, odor, smoke and other objectionable influences. (d) Locate development which retains the scale and character of existing residential neighborhoods and facilitates the upgrade of declining and mixed -density residential neighborhoods. Accessory Apartments Requests for the construction of, or conversion to, accessory apartments shall be submitted to the Planning Division for development review approval. Accessory apartments shall meet the criteria specified in State Government Code Section 65852.2 and the following criteria: (a) One dwelling unit on the property shall be owner occupied. A "Notice and Declaration of Land Use Restriction" to this effect shall be signed and recorded proper to issuance of building permits for the accessory apartment. (b) Accessory apartments shaH be limited to those lots large enough to support 2 units without exceeding the General Plan density of units per acre for the lots on which they are to be located. (c) Two open parking spaces shall be provided for the accessory apartment. (d) Accessory apartments shall comply with this Zoning Cod's required setbacks for main buildings shown in Table 13-32 and shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any main building and a minimum of 6 feet from any accessory building. Granny Units Request for the construction of, or conversion to, granny units shall be submitted to the Planning Division for development review approval. Granny units shall meet the criteria specified in the State Government Code Section 65852.1 and the following criteria: (a) A "Notice and Declaration of Land Use Restriction" outlining the occupancy limits for the granny unit per State Government Code Section 65852.1 shall be signed and recorded prior to issuance of building permits for the granny unit. (b) Two open parking spaces shall be provided for the granny unit. H -l4 HOUSING ELEMENT Costa MesaGeneral Plan (c) Granny units shall comply with this Zoning Code's required setbacks for main buildings shown in Table 13-32 and shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any main building and a minimum of 6 feet from any accessory building. H -15 HOUSING ELEMENT DEVELOPMENTRESIDENTIAL DA•D STANDARDS RI R2 -MD R2 -HD R3 Minimum Lot 6,000 Square feet 12,000 square feet Area Minimum Lot Interior lot: 50 Feet Width Corner lot: 60 Feet Maximum 2 Stories / 27Feet. Lofts without exterior access having only clerestory windows Number of will not be regarded as a story. Stories & Building Height Maximum Density 1 Dwelling unit per 1 Dwelling unit per 1 Dwelling unite 1 Dwelling unit per (Based on gross 6,000 square feet 3,630 square feet. per 3,000 square 2,178 square feet. acreage) (Note: Only 1 1 unit per 3,000 feet. dwelling unit is square feet for permitted per lot) i legal lots existing as of March 16, 1992, that are less than 7,260 square i feet in area but not j less than 6,000 ! square feet in area. Minimum Open 40% of total lot 40% of total lot area. Space area Distance 10 -foot minimum between main buildings Between 6 -foot minimum between main buildings and accessory structures Buildings Driveway width 10 -foot minimum Same as R1, except 16 -foot minimum driveway is required if the driveway serves tenants and/or guest parking for more than one dwelling unit. i SETBACKS FOR MAIN BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES (Minimum distances given, unless otherwise noted. All setbacks from streets are measured from the ultimate property line shown on the Master Plan of Highways.) Front 20 Feet Side Interior Lot: 5 feet on both sides. Note: Accessory structures that do not exceed i 6'/z feet in height in the R1 zone or 15 feet in height in the other residential zones may have a zero side setback. iCorner Lot: 10 feet on street side; 5 feet on the other side I On corner lots, no detached accessory structure shall be constructed closer than the main structure to the side property line abutting the street on the same lot. H -15 HOUSING ELEMENT Costa MesaGeneral Plan Planned Developments (PDR -LD — PDI) The purpose and intent of the Planned Developments is to promote more imaginative and innovative planning concepts. It is also the intention of the City to promote a more efficient use of land, additional alternative environments and the allocation and maintenance of more privately controlled and usable open space. A variety of building products and complimentary uses are encouraged in the design of projects in the Planned Development zones. The following are some site design concepts in the Planned Development Residential zones: 1) Within the low density zone: Small -lot, single-family detached residential developments including clustered developments, zero lot line development and conventional development. H -16 HOUSING ELEMENT DEVELOPMENTRESIDENTIAL .A-. STANDARDS Rear (not abutting 20 feet for 2 story structures. 15 feet for 2 story a publicly 10 feet for 1 story structures (15 foot maximum height) structures. dedicated alley) provided that a maximum rear yard coverage is not 10 feet for 1 story exceeded. structures (15 -foot Note: Accessory structures that do not exceed 6 '/ feet in maximum height) height in the R1 zone or 15 feet in the height in the R2 zones may have a zero rear yard set back, except on corner lots in Note: Accessory the R2 zones. structures that do not exceed 15 feet Corner lots in the R2 -MD R2 -HD & R3 zones: in height may have a zero rear yard a. Where the rear property line of a corner lot adjoins the setback except on side property line of another lot, no detached accessory corner lots (see structure shall be allowed on the corner lot, except within R2 -MD and R2 - the rear quarter of the corner lot farthest from the side HD column for street. setbacks for j corner lots.) b. Where the rear property Ione of a corner lot abuts a public or private street, accessory structures shall maintain setbacks for main structures. Rear Yard Main Buildings: 25% of rear yard area* ; Not applicable � Coverage Accessory Buildings: 50% of rear yard area* (Maximum) !, *Rear yard area equals lot width, measured from side property line to side property line, multiplied by 20 feet. i Rear Abutting 5 feet; however, garages may be required to setback further to ensure adequate i Publicly backup distance. Rear Yard Coverage does not apply. Dedicated Alley Note: Accessory structures that do not exceed 6 '/z feet in height in the R1 zone or 15 feet in height in the other residential zones may have a zero yard setback, except on corner lots in the R2 and R3 zones where accessory structures shall maintain setbacks for main structures. I Bluff Top Setback No building or structure closer than 10 feet from bluff crest (see Section 13-34 it Bluff -Top -Development.) Planned Developments (PDR -LD — PDI) The purpose and intent of the Planned Developments is to promote more imaginative and innovative planning concepts. It is also the intention of the City to promote a more efficient use of land, additional alternative environments and the allocation and maintenance of more privately controlled and usable open space. A variety of building products and complimentary uses are encouraged in the design of projects in the Planned Development zones. The following are some site design concepts in the Planned Development Residential zones: 1) Within the low density zone: Small -lot, single-family detached residential developments including clustered developments, zero lot line development and conventional development. H -16 HOUSING ELEMENT ! Costa MesaGeneral Plan 2) Within the medium density, high density, and north Costa Mesa zones: Single -and multi- family residential developments containing any type or mixture of housing units, either attached or detached, including but not limited to, clustered development, townhouses, patio homes, detached houses, duplexes, garden apartments, and high rise apartments or common interest developments. 3) As a complimentary use, non-residential use of a religious, educational, or recreational nature may be allowed. 4) As a complimentary use in the PDR -MD, PDR -HD and PDR -NCM zones, nonresidential uses of a commercial nature may be allowed if the projects are compatible with the PDR project and if the FAR does not exceed the established thresholds. Maximum Density Criteria a) The provision of affordable housing is necessary to reach the maximum density for the North Costa Mesa residential district. b) Density increments up to the maximum may be approved to provide an incentive for design excellence Criteria for density increments include, but are not limited to, the following (criteria 6-10 do not apply to small -lot, single-family development) 1) Preservation of natural features that enhance the development and will benefit the community. 2) Provision of distinctive design, including site planning, structural design, architectural treatments, landscaping and integration into the community. 3) Provision of usable open space in excess of the required amount. 4) Enlargement of the required perimeter open space. 5) Utilization of non-depletable energy sources for water heating and/or space heating. 6) Provision of low and moderate income housing as a portion of the total development. 7) Provision of all or part of the required parking within the principal structure(s) (i.e., subterranean, tuck under, etc.) 8) Provision of facilities for the storage of recreational vehicles. 9) Provision in the project's circulation system for the separation of pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle traffic through the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian trails that link with city- wide networks. 10) Project location is adjacent to or within one-quarter of a public transit facility or route. vensily in mixea i ne aensity or Ine resiaenuai component OT a mixea use mannea uevelopment Use Projects : shall be calculated by dividing the total number of dwelling units proposed by that portion of the total site area (original lot size minus dedicated streets) devoted to residential uses, including required parking, landscaping, open space, and driveways to serve the residential component. The density permitted in the residential component is determined by the Maximum Density i Criteria ! Maximum Site Not Applicable 30-35% 50% Coverage I Perimeter Open 20 feet abutting all public right-of-ways (may be reduced in the PDC and PDR - Space NCM zones pursuant to Open Space Criteria) H -17 HOUSING ELEMENT Costa Mesa General Plan D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENTPDR-LD PDR -MD PDR -HD •.- PDC -. STANDARDS Open Space (May 45% of total site area, 42% of total site area, See Perimeter Open be reduced) by inclusive of Perimeter inclusive of Perimeter Space and Parking in 10%) 1 Open Space I Open Space Zoning Code Bluff -top Setback I No building or structure c SMALL LOT RESIDENTIAL Minimum Lot Size 5,000 Sq. 3,000 Sq. Ft. with an Ft. with an overall overall average of average of 5,500 1 3,500 Minimum Lot Width 40 Ft. Minimum Front 5 Ft., 9 Ft., 19 Ft. or 23 Setback Ft. depending on the provision of a sidewalk Minimum Side I 0 Ft. on one side; 10 Ft. Setback combination of both sides Minimum Rear 5 Ft. Setback Parking requirements n 10 feet from bluff crest Not Applicable These parking requirement provisions apply to the R1, R1 -MD, R2 -HD and R3 zones. and to the residential portions of the Planned Development and Institutional and Recreational zones. At the time of the construction of any building and/or structure or at the time any such building or structure is enlarged or increased by adding bedrooms, the following minimum off-street parking spaces shall be provided. The parking spaces shall provide safe and adequate ingress and egress and shall be maintained in connection with the building or structure and use of land. (a) R1 zone and small -lot single family common interest developments (excluding townhouses). Each residence shall provide off-street parking in the form of a garage or garages, which shall be a minimum of 20 feet in length and 20 feet in width, unobstructed inside measurements. Two open parking spaces are required and can be provided on the driveway leading to a garage. (b) R2 -MD, R2 -HD, R3, PDR -LD, PDR -NCM and residential components of developments in the PDC and PDI zones. Required parking shall be per the following table, except that single-family dwelling units (excluding townhouses) on individual lots in common interest developments shall provide parking according to subsection (a). (c) Reduction of required parking. No owner or manager shall lease, rent, sell, or otherwise make unavailable to residents and guests the parking required by this subsection. Furthermore, the rental of a dwelling unit shall be deemed to include the exclusive use of one covered parking space and equal access to the required open spaces reserved for residents. H -18 HOUSING ELEMENT Costa Mesa General Plan (d) Parking for accessory apartments and granny units. Accessory apartments and granny units as provided for elsewhere in this Zoning Code shall be provided with at least 2 on-site parking spaces in addition to parking required for the existing single-family residence. The parking need not be covered. City of Costa Mesa Parking Standards shall apply. H -19 HOUSI`G ELEMENT RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS UNIT SIZE TENANT TENANT OPEN GUEST PARKING COVERED PARKING PARKING Bachelor 1 .5 .5 1 Bedroom 1 1.0 .5 2 Bedrooms 1 1.5 .5 3 or more bedrooms 1 2.5 .5 (1) If covered parking for apartments is provided in a parking structure and there is more than one parking space in any parking structure, then there shall be no solid walls constructed to separate individual parking spaces. (2) Open parking spaces required by this section shall be distributed throughout the project at convenient locations and shall be screened from view from any public right-of-way. (3) For projects on individual lots, individual driveways of at least 19 feet in length leading to two -car garages shall each account for no more than one (1) of the required tenant open parking spaces. The garages shall be furnished with automatic garage door openers and roll up doors as appropriate under the direction of the Planning Division. (4) Open parking can be reduced by .25 space per unit for one bedroom and larger units if the covered parking is provided within either a carport or a parking structure. For purposes of this section, a parking structure shall be defined as-. a structure designed and constructed to provide a covered automobile parking where parking spaces are located in a common area with no walls or other physical separations between spaces. Open parking requirements may be met by excess covered parking. i (5) Guest parking shall be clearly marked and permanently maintained for individuals visiting within the development. Guest parking spaces shall not be allowed on individual driveways. Guest parking may be reduced to .25 space per unit for each unit above 50 in a large residential development. (6) Fractions equal to or above one-half (0.5) shall be rounded up. For rounding purposes, the tenant parking requirements shall be added together; guest parking shall be rounded up separately. H -19 HOUSI`G ELEMENT APPENDIX I PART 77 OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 77 OF THE FEDERAL AIRPORT REGULATIONS Airport Considerations Both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County have concern for the safety of air navigation in the airport area. Under Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), the FAA requires notice of proposed construction in excess of certain heights which may affect the safety of aircraft operation. Part 77 defines "obstruction to air navigation" and provides for studies and hearings to determine whether such an obstruction may be a hazard. The authority of the FAA in these matters extends only as far as issuing a notice of hazard to air navigation; the FAA does not have jurisdiction to prohibit construction. The issuance of a hazard notice, however, may adversely affect the ability of a developer to obtain financing and insurance. Following are summaries of the standards for determining obstructions as they apply to John Wayne Airport. Section and Paragraph numbers and letters refer to FAR Part 77. Section 77.13 Construction or Alteration Requiring Notice. (a) A sponsor who proposes any of the following construction or alteration shall notify the FAA. (1) Any construction or alteration of more than 200 feet in height above the ground level at its site. (2) Any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at one of the following slopes: (i) 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of each airport (John Wayne Airport) with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, excluding heliports. (4) When requested by the FAA, any construc- tion or alteration that would be in an instrument approach area (defined in the FAA standards governing instrument approach procedures) and available information indicates it might exceed a standard. Section 77.23 Standards for Determining Obstructions. (a) Any object exceeding the following heights: (1) 500 feet above ground level at the site. Ira PART 77 OF THE FEDERAL AIRPORT REGULATIONS (2) 200 feet above ground level or established airport elevation (John Wayne Airport = 53.68'), whichever is greater, within 3 nautical miles of established reference point of airport. Height increases 100 feet for each additional nautical mile of distance from airport, up to a maximum of 500 feet. Section 77.25 Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces (Figure 1). (a) Horizontal surface -- horizontal plane 150 feet above established airport elevation, perimeter defined by 10,000 foot radius from center of each end of runway with the two arcs connected by a tangent. (b) Conical surface -- surface extending outward and upward from edge of horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. (c) Primary surface -- surface at runway elevation extending (in the case of John Wayne Airport) 500 feet on either side of runway centerline and 200 feet beyond end of paved runway surface. (d) Approach surface -- surface, extending outward and upward from end of primary surface for a horizontal distance of 50,000 feet (in the case of John Wayne Airport), with width expanding from width or primary surface to 16,000 feet (in the case of John Wayne Airport). (Costa Mesa is not directly affected by the approach surface.) (e) Transitional surface -- surface extending outward and upward from edge or primary surface at a slope of 7 to 1 until intersecting with horizontal surface. The surface also extends outward and upward from edge of approach surface at a slope of 7 to 1 , where approach surface projects through and beyond conical surface, for a width of 5,000 feet horizontally from edge of approach surface. Section 77.29 Airport Imaginary Surfaces for Heliports (Figure 2). (a) Primary surface -- surface coinciding with size, shape, location, and elevation of take -off and landing area. (b) Approach surface -- begins at edge of primary surface with same width as primary surface and extends outward and upward at a slope of 8 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet to a width of 500 feet. K IMAGINARY SURFACES 20368 40368 FOR JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT - ORANGE COUNTY .._� j '�!1)� �y r. �l�l }fit' _ - ®�.,� � • LEGEND SLOPE APPROACH r- SURFACES ® 501 --° -1 � •���u II i ✓ ,a— �/j O 40:1 TRANSITIONAL v , X& .' SURFACE" 71 { !� HORIZONTAL SURFACE s 201 \ CONICAL ! \ ;} SURFACE — _ 1 I"� .I V `\\r,�pi HELIPORTS Ln, : `� dV �} v �`, t��� ✓>,��✓ f SAMPLE ALTITUDES 550 1090 AIRPORT GROUND 53.66 !p ELEVATION REFERENCE « v� Y� t�--_-.J _�I POINT ( /I��� �ki �• \--- f f ID LL z / �_... 3 _ f � Cc Lu All HEEFERE( J AAHny AH.E .H.l .A71VE TO Ij — SEA n.11 wZ !n - _ 177(1 ---� -2 u ---- -------- FIGURE 1 -=-_- uENRAL PLAN N=A MESA - 7-SOURCES FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SSD FF IMAGINARY SURFACES FOR HELIPORTS PARIES APPROACH SURFACE, LENGTH: 4000, SLOPE : 8:1 OR 12.5% TRANSITIONAL SURFACE, WIDTH: 250, SLOPE: 2:1 OR 50% NOTE: NUMBER AND DIRECTION OF APPROACH PATHS ARE DETERMINED AFTER REVIEW OF HELIPORT LICENSE APPLICATION. FIGURE 2 T� rhJ 11 PART 77 OF THE FEDERAL AIRPORT REGULATIONS (c) Transitional surface -- surface extending outward and upward from lateral edge of primary surface and approach surfaces at a slope of 2 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 250 feet from centerline of primary and approach surfaces. The California Public Utilities Code provides for creation of countywide commissions to work towards achieving compatible land uses in the vicinity of airports. Power and duties include study of conditions, conduct of public hearings and making of recommendations regarding building height and other land use restrictions to assure the safety of air navigation and to assure compatibility of surrounding land uses with airport operations. Commissions are also required to formulate comprehensive land use plans which may include acceptable uses, height restrictions, and other building standards, such as noise insulation. The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (ALUC) has established a planning area surrounding John Wayne Airport coincident with the boundaries of the imaginary surfaces. The Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) sets forth standards for acceptable land uses and provides for review of development plans for properties within its planning area. The standard of the Federal Aviation Administration most likely to be of concern in Costa Mesa is the horizontal surface for John Wayne Airport. This surface is 203.68 feet above mean sea level and extends nearly two miles from the airport. In reviewing the Town Center Master Plan (the area east of Bristol Street and north of the 1-405), the City concluded that it could not be responsible for enforcing the regulations or recommendations of other agencies (FAA and ALUC), although impacts on air safety should be weighed in the review of applications for new construction. With this in mind, the master plan was approved subject to the condition that building height be limited to that specified by FAR Part 77 unless evidence is presented that the structure will not pose a hazard to air navigation nor interfere with instrument guidance systems. Evidence may be in the form of an FAA determination of no hazard or a study by a qualified aviation consultant in private practice that has been certified by the FAA as true and correct. A number of Town Center structures have received City approval although they encroach beyond the established horizontal surface elevation. In all cases obstruction lighting was required, and in some cases minor adjustments to seldom -used flight patterns were necessitated, but the safety of aircraft operation in the airport vicinity was not compromised. The horizontal surface established by the FAA will place restrictions on future development proposals similar in scale to the Town Center buildings. These developments will also be required to provide mitigation for potential hazards to air safety. The Airport Environs Land Use Plan, adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission, specifies acceptable uses proximate to the airport. These are defined as those uses which will not subject people to adverse noise impacts, will not concentrate people in areas with high potential for aircraft accidents, and will not adversely affect navigable airspace or aircraft operations. Due to 9 PART 77 OF THE FEDERAL AIRPORT REGULATIONS the small number of off -airport accidents in the history of John Wayne Airport, the ALUC found it unnecessary to designate an accident potential zone. The AELUP declares any use to be unacceptable to the ALUC if the use requires review by the FAA (under FAR Part 77) and is found to be unacceptable by the FAA. J 7 ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. PC -01- 54 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN PLUS HOME RANCH ALTERNATIVE A. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa adopted the 1990 General Plan by Resolution No. 92-27 on March 16, 1992; and WHEREAS, the General Plan is a !ong-range, comprehensive document that serves as a guide for the orderly development of Costa Mesa. WHEREAS, by its very nature, the General Plan needs to be updated and refined to account for current and future community needs; and WHEREAS, the 2000 General Plan, as a technical update of the 1990 General Plan, does not change land use designations, floor area ratios, or residential densities, nor does it substantially modify existing goals, objectives, and policies; and WHEREAS, the 2000 General Plan's primary objectives are to reformat the 1990 General Plan, update technical information and projections, incorporate the Housing Element certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in July, 2000, and add a Community Design Element; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held on July 23, 2001 and October 22, 2001, by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 65355 of the Government Code of the State of California, with all persons having been given the opportunity to be heard both for and against the said 2000 General Plan and accompanying Program EIR No. 1049; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2001 and October 22, 2001, the Planning Commission also conducted public hearings and found that Draft Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1049 and Responses to Comments, that collectively constitute Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1049, have been reviewed and considered, and WHEREAS, the environmental review for the project was processed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended certification of Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1049 by separate resolution; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of Home Ranch Alternative A as an amendment to the 1990 General Plan by adoption of resolution PC -01-47; and WHEREAS, this Commission deems it to be in the best interest of the City that said 2000 General Plan plus Home Ranch Alternative A be adopted. BE IT RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council adoption of the 2000 General Plan plus Home Ranch Alternative A set forth in Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission recommends adoption of the mitigation measure monitoring program that minimizes anticipated impacts to a level of insignificance where possible as identified in the Final Program EIR No. 1049 as set forth in Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission has also considered and finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after mitigation and does hereby recommend to City Council adoption of the Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit C. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October, 2001. Ch ir, Cos "ai&esa Pla ina Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, R. Michael Robinson, acting secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on October 22, 2001, by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS Foley, Garlich, Davenport, Egan, Perkins NOES: COMMISSIONERS None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS None Actin Secretary, Cos�esa Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AND STAFF REPORT lktober 22. 2'001 section in the Requirements of the Political Reform Act as well as the California Government Code, and she wanted to be sure that there is an analysis completed as to the individual Commissioners and what, if any, conflicts there may be for Commissioners who mai lige on the Westside or near some of the areas; i.e., Fillmore, Mendoza. etc.—Staff concurred. Chair Foley also asked consideration for her request of a study session on moratorium issues and she would like the analysis before that study session which she understood would be next week. CONSENT CALENDAR: There were no items on the Consent Calendar for this date. PUBLIC HEARINGS: DRAFT EIR #1049 The Chair opened the public hearing for consideration of (a) DRAFT DRAFT 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR #1049 for the Draft 2000 General Plan, and (b) DRAFT 2000 GENERAL PLAN for the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa: City of Costa Mesa Environmental determination: Draft EIR # 1049. Associate Planner Claire Nguyen reviewed the information in the staff report and recommended Planning Commission (a) recommend to City Council, certification of Draft EIR #1049, b) adoption of Planning Commission resolution, and (b) recommend to Citi Coun- cil, adoption of Draft 2000 General Plan, by adoption of Plannin,, Commission resolution. Principal Planner R. Michael Robinson said the Draft General Plan was presented to the .Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County for their review for consistency with the Airport Em irons Land Use Plan. TheN found that the General Plan did compl} �+ith this plan by a 6-0 vote. Commissioner Davenport requested the following changes after dis- cussion with staff: (1 ) Land Use Element LU -28. PaLe 30 of the stat) report under Commercial Center. paragraph, new languaoc ...The combined tnp budget for this site and the 14.5 -acre Industnai Park parcel located to the north of South Coast Drive is AM peak hour trips an.1 1.569 PM peak hour trips. He �%as not u. -c about the PM peak hour trips and asked that they be reconfirmed. i 3 Housing Element HO! -50, Page 4U of the staff report (Draft Genera; Plan) in Table HOU-45. Suitable Lands B\ Zone (1999). under zon- ing district PDRA'.ID, tiet Number of Units: 798 units. He said that the net number of units was not correct and should be corrected as appropriate Vice Chair Garlick confirmed with staff that there wa. m. ouhr- formation to this report that the (_on,nlis,;ion has not seen hrforc terms of update; to t're General N_a .�r to the FIR \L lirar..'t ..- piained the Dra-ft 2u0u General Plan was re,�tcwed precious!:. study session. and at a previous hearing during the 45 -da' re\ iew pe- riod: subsequent)}, the information that staff brought forward ani packaged with this, is the Home Ranch Alternative A recommenda- tion: that information has been added to the environmental document for the 2000 General Plan. She said there are some listed polio changes that came out through the Response to Comments period where staff added some additional General Plan policies based on some of the Commissions recommendations, some public recom- mendations and some from staft Vice Chair Garlich asked. if :he Commission has already approved the Home Ranch general plan amendment for A, +ha, i�, the acuon Nein_ t3kcn hxu `is. Brandt explained that the Segerstrom Home Ranch project wa, an amendment to the 1990 General Plan currentIN in effect, and therefore. encironmen:al documents (Se,erstrom Home Ranch a;;, tktaber 11, 1001 2000 General Plan EIRs) are consistent in terms of the assumptions. Ms. Brandt noted itis necessary to incorporate the current Planning Commission recommendation on Home Ranch, into the 2000 Gen- eral Plan update. Commissioner Egan asked for the following changes after discussion with staff: (1) Housing Element HOU 31 of the Draft General Plan, top of page: The number of large families has been increasing in Costa Mesa and consequently demand will may increase for larger additional bedrooms. She commented that that there is some evi- dence of overcrowding due to families getting together to share a dwelling unit because they cannot afford the rent and the word "may" should be used instead of "will." (2) Land Use Element LU -35 of the Draft General Plan, Paragraph 7: The 30 -acre area located west of Whittier Avenue is designated Light Industry in recognition of the existing development in the area. (sentence omitted and would like it restored) Page 398 of the 1990 General Plan, after first sentence reads as follows: "Nevertheless, the area may lend itself to residen- tial development in the future. Therefore this area has an underlvine Low -Density Residential designation that can be activated concur- rently with the development of a Specific Plan. The Specific Plan would address the issues of transitioning from industrial to sensitive residential uses." And then completion of paragraph 7, LU -35: "However, the area may lend itself to residential development in the future. A specific plan will be prepared to address the issues of tran- sitioning from industrial to residential uses." (3) Commissioner Eean noted on Page 221, Table 940, under Housing Conditions. 1990 Gen- eral Plan, indicates some units as substandard. She requested an up- date on how mane have been rehabilitated and, how many have been replaced. Reference was also made to the updated housing element. In response to Chair Foley. Ms. Brandt explained that she wanted to correlate the references with the current housing element Comm!, - stoner Egan said what she say+ wa, a footnote that said there hadn't been a sure} since 1988. Mr. Bran; said she would f0llo�% up un this notation. Sandra Gems. 1>86 %It rtle% ood. (e sta Mesa. made the follow!nc points and suggestions. i I t Sa iies;cd the ens ironmentai documen- tation for Home Ranch be incorporated, by reference, into the envi- ronmental dceumentation for the General Plan since it includes the Home Ranch changes. (2 ) Appen!ces to the 2000 General Plan EIR, Page C-237, under totals, are not consistent with the numbers in the "Population. Housing and Emp!o,•ment­ in the FIR. and are be- lie%ed to retlect OCP 2000 Are the numbers presented in th! ,c, tion, retlectoe of 1001„ bu:id-out in.iud!ng Town Center. and othcr anal,,>>; ti; ure, >uch as consumptnn . u!r yu.!,- it', emis,ions done on the amount of iand use reflected in the trip t i- bles, or the amount of land use as reflected in the "Population. Hou,- ing and Employment" numbers' Chair Foley asked Ms. Gems if she had the table numbers she was referencing; so her comment, could be addressed. �Vith regard to the buildout numbers. tits. Brandt ex- plained that she would have to check the numbers, but the OCP 2000 numbers in the land use element are the current year projections. There might be some slight differences because one come, from the Cite, but it builds up in terms of going into the regional projections for the County. She said Ms. Genis is right. in that staff does go on a parcel -to -parcel basis: the numbers that are included in thi, table can he taken beyond 202(1 in tetTns of the build -out of the General Plan which is an unknown point in time She said they could look at %%here the differences «ould be The FIR references the OCP 2000 but also uses for traffic. air. noise. uti!it\. consumption. etc. %1, ckroOer 22, 2001 Genis said the only discrepant} would then be the Population. Hous- ing and Employment discussion in the EIR. Ms. Brandt explained that one looks at the time frame, while the other looks beyond 2020. Responding to Ms. Genis, Ms. Brandt explained that we don't have an employment number because "build -out" is out in the future. (3) 2000 General Plan EIR, analysis of the Jobs/Housing Balance is con- fusing. It is clear that the jobs to employment balance is significantly different than what's called the "Jobs/Housing Balance" for Costa Mesa in the Housing Element. She said this needs to be clarified that that's actually "Resident Labor Force" and not jobs generated in the City. Jobs generated in the City should be added to that discussion. (4) The number of units that can be provided in the City, is not clear from the table listing the various available sites and the numbers of units that can be built. Ms. Brandt pointed out that there is a footnote included in that table explaining, "a correction factor of 0.9037 was applied to the maximum number of units, to reflect typical deselop- ment densities, based on a sample of recent residential development." She said this correction factor does take into account, on a citywide basis, overall, what our unit count will be. Ms. Genis confirmed and thanked Ms. Brandt. Vice Chair Garlich stated he wanted to be sure the Commission fol- lowed Mr. Genis' comments and asked if staff agreed that we should clarify the discussion on resident labor force in the jobs hous- ing/balance discussion in the General Plan update. Chair Foley said Ms. Genis also commented that the jobs generated in the City should be added to that discussion. Staff concurred. Chair Foley requested that Ms. Brandt restate her response to \ls. Genis' question about, "do we have an employment at build -out number." Ms. Brandt explained that we do not generate one because this is not a "build -out General Plan"; she explained that it is a 20 - year projection. She said we do anticipate additional de%elopment beyond 2020, but this growth depends on how the market \corks oxer the course of the next 10 years and at what rate the vacant land i, be- ing developed and is absorbed. We are not looking for build -out numbers at this point for emplo�mer,t and housing. we are just look- ing at the 2020. Chair Fole% asked what would be the benefit ha%in_ an emplo,,ment at build -out number in this document. \1,. Brandt explained you would do it in conjunction with build -out in tern;, dwelling units and population to gne perspective in terms of hw.,, much the City has already developed. Chair Foley asked it when talking about .buil,i-out' does that include where there is current dc- \elopment but ma,, be that de%elopment %could he de-,tro\ed and nc%. development built \1, Brandt a r.'irmed that it doe" nen the market. properties :hit ha heen de\ei ,pe. for ;tt %ears. can he completer rase rcde%cloped %,,,t ,:- ject, i.e., the Harbor Center and the Target Center. \lr. Ronin„on added that we rely on the OCP numbers to maintain consistenc\ \tith regional population growth projections that are not cine_ used at the County level, but regional planning efforts by SLAG and the Air Quality ;Management District. It pro\ ides a regional consistent\ in terms of some of the more critical projections of population, housing and employment. We could generate those numbers as tar as ulti- mate build -out- but as Ms. Brandt said. those projections are based on the figures b�, the demographic experts at the Center of Demographic Research at Cal State Fullerton and are based upon both nztional an! local market trend, and market pr .bans These pr :c .. n more reality -based to terms of loukm-, at the planning rft,n, %tic h.,,.e in thi, 2U year planning horizon. 4 Commissioner Egan made a correction on Page 22, of the staff report. under Chapter 2. Land Use Element - Page LU -8, Paragraph 5 of the 2000 General Plan: "These standards increased the minimum lot size and parking requirements for the -se t� pe -s this type of developments. Discretionary..." Staff confirmed. No one else wished to speak. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Garlich, seconded by Commis - Draft EIR 91049 sioner Davenport and carried 5-0, to recommend to City Council, cer- Recommend adoption tification of Draft EIR #1049, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution PC -01-53, based on public testimony, analysis and infor- mation contained in the Planning Division staff report, and findings contained in exhibit "A" with the following modification: (1) Insert "Whereas" paragraph #7 to read: "WHEREAS, the im- pacts of the Segerstrom Home Ranch Alternative A here evalu- ated in Draft Program EIR No. 1048, which has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, and is hereby incorporated by ret= erence into Draft Program EIR No. 1049", into the body of Resolution No. PC -01-53. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice Chair Garlich, seconded by Commis - Draft 2000 General Plan sioner Perkins and carried 5-0, to recommend to City Council, adop- Recommend adoption tion of Draft 2000 General Plan, by adoption of Planning Commis- sion Resolution PC -01-54. based on public testimony. analysis and information contained in the Planning Division staff report. and find- ings contained in exhibit "A" with the follokving modifications: (1) Land Use Element LU -28, Page 30 of the staff report (Draft Gen- eral Plan) under Commercial Center. 3'° paragraph, new lan- guage: ...The combined trip budget for this site and the 14.5 - acre Industrial Park parcel located to the north of South Coast Drive is Com. 1.593 AM peak hour trips and 1.569 PM pear hour trip;. (2) Housing Element HOU-50. Page 40 of the staff report (Drafts General Plan) in Table HOU-45. Suitable Lands B% Zone (1999 under z,,ntng district PDR -MD. \e; Number of l nit,, 7" unit, (correct as appropriate) t 1 Ilou7in Element HOU 31 of the Draft General Plan, top of pa_e The number of large families has been increasing in Costa l`leNa arnt consequently demand w44 ma% increase for lawef additional bedrooms. ,Although... 0 ) Land t'se Element Lt_' -35 of the Draft General Plan. Pa-agraph 1 he -41-acre area located kkest o! `l hnt!er A%enue a designated Light Indust.^: in recoomilor. ±the e\istin de,,elopment in the area ,en!ence om!tted and %k, _-i3 like i,, retitoredi .Pale '9X the !`%`­ General Plan. atter sentence read, a, lotlov., ..\ecertheiess. the area ma\ lent itself to residenuai de� ment to the future. Therefore. this area has an underling Low- Den,tt% Residential designation that can be activated concur- rentk with the de, elopment of a Specific Plan The Specific Plan could address the issues of transitioning from industrial to sensitive residential uses.- And then completion of paragraph 7. LU -35: "However. the area may tend itself to residential devel- opment in the future. A specific plan will be prepared to addres, the issue; of transitioning from industrial to residential uses. t 5 f Correction on Page 22. of the staff report. under Chapter 2. Land i ,e Element - Page EU -X. Para-gaph : of the 2000 General Pian: "These standards increased the minimum lot size and park- in` requirements for tfxc t� pethis i%pe of de%clopments. Dis- cretionar-k PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: October 22, 2001 SUBJECT: 2000 GENERAL PLAN GP -01-01 AND FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 1049 DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2001 Uig ITEM NUMBER: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CLAIRE NGUYEN, ASSOC. PLANNER (714) 754-5278 DESCRIPTION A comprehensive update of the City of Costa Mesa's 2000 General Plan and accompanying Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1049. RECOMMENDATION Recommend to City Council adoption of the 2000 General Plan plus Home Ranch Alternative A and certification of Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1049, by adoption of the attached resolutions. CLAIRE NGUYEN KIMBERLY BRANDT, 1 Associate Planner Senior Planner `� R. MI HAEL ROBINSON Planning & Redevelopment Mgr. APPL. GP -01-01 BACKGROUND The purpose of this public hearing is to review and make recommendations to City Council regarding the 2000 General Plan plus Home Ranch Alternative A and Final Program EIR No. 1049. The 45 -day public review period for the 2000 General Plan and Draft Program EIR was from June 26, 2001 to August 9, 2001. Staff responded to all written comments received during this public review period and at the July 23, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. The Responses to Comments document was previously forwarded to the Commission. In addition, the document was sent to all commenting agencies, organizations, and individuals on October 12, 2001, ten days prior to the October 22, 2001 Commission meeting. In accordance with Sections 15088, 15089, and 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Final EIR consists of three documents: 1) Public Review Draft, Costa Mesa 2000 General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1049, June 27, 2001; 2) Responses to Comments, October 2001 ; and 3) Technical Appendix, June 27, 2001. ANALYSIS 2000 General Plan The 2000 General Plan accomplishes the following goals: • Reformat, and simplify the General Plan; • Update Technical Information; Incorporate updated Housing Element; • Add a New Community Design Element. The proposed 2000 General Plan does not change land use designations, floor area ratios, or residential densities, nor does it substantially modify existing goals, objectives, and policies. The Technical Appendix of the Responses to Comments document provides a redlined; Istrike-out comparison of 1990 and 2000 General Plan goals, objectives. Modifications are shown with underlines (new text) and strike - through (deleted text) marks. All changes and additions to the Draft 2000 General Plan (i.e. text and exhibits) are attached as Exhibit A to the Draft General Plan Resolution. (Exhibit A also 10 APPL. GP -01-01 includes the Housing Element Appendix and Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) 77 Appendix.) The Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit B) and Statement of Facts and Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit C) are also attached to the Draft General Plan Resolution. Staff is also recommending that additional policies be added to the Draft General Plan as a result of comments received during the public review period. These proposed policies are included in Table 1. Staff also proposes an additional minor amendment to Master Plan of Bikeways. A discussion of several minor changes to other planning documents included in the General Plan Update follows below. Master Plan of Highways (MPH) (Exhibit 11: As part of the 2000 General Plan update, Staff is proposing that the City's system of classifying roadways be modified to be consistent with the County's classification system. This change will not result in any changes to physical characteristics of any the city's streets. Only one change to the City's MPH is proposed. The segment of East 17th Street between Tustin and Irvine Avenues is proposed to be downgraded from a Major Arterial to a Primary Arterial; this is consistent with the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Master Plan of Bikeways (Exhibit 2): Several minor changes to the Master Plan of Bikeways (MPB) are included in the update. They are as follows: A. Delete the bike trail north of Banning Place and Joann Street between Pacific Avenue and Placentia Avenue; B. Delete the bike trail between Canary Drive and the north entrance to Fairview Park; c. Terminate a portion of the north -south bike trail through Fairview Park, i.e., the connection between the north parking lot and Placentia Avenue; D. Add a loop trail in Fairview Park in the area east of Placentia Avenue; E. Extend the Tanager Drive Class III bicycle lane to Placentia Avenue via Canary and Oriole Drives'; and F. Delete the bicycle lane on Harla Avenue and a portion of the bicycle lane on Mesa Verde Drive East. *It should be noted that the Tanager Drive bicycle lane was extended to Placentia Avenue pursuant to City Council direction, subsequent to the circulation of the Draft 2000 General Plan. Land Use Map (Exhibit 3): Only one change is proposed to the General Plan Land Use Map. The parcel located at the northeast corner of Victoria Street and Maple Streets is proposed for Public Use. This parcel is city -owned and a residual piece 2 APPL. GP -01-01 from the Victoria Street widening. On October 15, 2001, City Council approved the site plan for a neighborhood park on this property. In addition, new exhibits are proposed to be added to the 2000 General Plan since circulation of the draft document: • Exhibit LU -1 A - Vacant Land in Costa Mesa; • Exhibit HCR -1 - Properties that Meet the Standards for National Register Listing. These exhibits are contained in Exhibit A, attached to the Draft General Plan resolution. Final Program EIR No. 1049 Final Program EIR No. 1049 addresses the following environmental issues associated with the 20 -year planning horizon of the 2000 General Plan (2020): land use and planning; biological resources; aesthetics; transportation and circulation; air quality; cultural resources; population, housing, and employment; geology; hydrology and drainage; noise; and public services and utilities, parks, recreation and trails, and public health and safety. Significant Impacts: For each of the topical areas analyzed, the Final EIR identifies mitigation measures to minimize identified impacts. All impacts can be reduced to below a level of significance after mitigation, with the exception of impacts related to transportation/circulation, air quality, and noise. A statement of overriding considerations will need to be adopted in conjunction with adoption of the 2000 General Plan. The statement indicates that the City has balanced the benefits of the plan against unavoidable effects that remain after mitigation, and the City finds such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in view of certain overriding considerations (Exhibit C of Draft General Plan resolution). Alternatives: The proposed 2000 Generai Plan is only a technical update, and therefore, four alternatives were determined as appropriate: 1 . No Project/No Build Alternative (No City Plus Regional Growth); 2. No Project/ Existing 1990 General Plan Alternative; 3. 2000 General Plan plus Home Ranch Alternative; and 4. 2000 General Plan plus Home Ranch Alternative A No Project/No Build Alternative: This alternative assumes that no additional growth would occur within City and that regional growth would still occur in surrounding areas. The Final EIR concludes that the City would continue to be impacted by regional growth including additional traffic, air pollutants, noise, and demands for public services and utilities. This alternative does not allow the City to meet its a APPL. GP -01-01 quantified objectives for housing as outlined in the Housing Element. The Final EIR notes that this alternative does not significantly reduce or avoid any potential impacts of the proposed 2000 General Plan, and does not consider it environmentally superior to the proposed 2000 General Plan. No Project/Existing 1990 Genera/ Plan Alternative: This alternative assumes that the technical update of 1990 General Plan and the minor MPH, MPB, and land use map amendments would not occur. The Final EIR concludes that this alternative would result in similar environmental impacts when compared to the proposed 2000 General Plan, and it does not eliminate significant traffic, air quality, or noise impacts. It is also the intent of the 2000 General Plan to provide new information based on current conditions within the city since the 1990 General Plan has become dated. The Final EIR concludes that this alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed 2000 General Plan. 2000 General Plan plus Home Ranch Alternative: This alternative adds the originally proposed Segerstrom Home Ranch project to the proposed 2000 General Plan. The applicants originally sought approval of a general plan amendment, rezone, and other related approvals to allow development of 464 apartments, a 308,000 square -foot IKEA store, 791,050 square feet of office and office -related uses, and 252,648 square feet of industrial uses on approximately 93 acres. This proposal has been analyzed in Final Program EIR No. 1048. Draft EIR No. 1049 concludes that this alternative will result in similar impacts when compared to the proposed 2000 General Plan for the following areas: aesthetics, air quality, noise, geology, hydrology/drainage, biological resources, cultural resources, public services and utilities, and public health and safety. Implementation of this alternative results in greater environmental impacts than the proposed 2000 General Plan for the following areas: land use; population, employment housing; transportation/circulation, and parks:' recreations. 2000 General Plan plus Home Ranch Alternative A: On September 24, 2001, the Planning Commission completed their review and recommendations on the Segerstrom Home Ranch project and forwarded the project to the Costa Mesa City Council for final action. To reflect the Commission's recommendation, staff incorporated Home Ranch Alternative A as an additional alternative into Final Program EIR No. 1049. 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 creates a trip budget for the residential component, IKEA, office component, and industrial park component. 1 Z) APPL. GP -01 -01 - Implementation of Alternative A would not result in any new or greater significant effects than have already been previously addressed in the 2000 General Plan Program EIR No. 1049 or result in impacts that could not be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. However this alternative creates additional land use, population/employment/housing, and transportation/circulation impacts (Bristol Street - Baker Street impact described below). Also, development assumptions for Home Ranch Alternative A are not reflected in the proposed 2000 General Plan land use, transportation, housing or employment projections for the year 2020, and these projections would have to be adjusted accordingly. Altematit,e A: Impacts to Bristol Street - Baker Street Home Ranch Alternative A would result in similar traffic -related impacts as the original Home Ranch project submittal, except for an additional impact to the Bristol Street - Baker Street intersection in 2020 conditions. The Home Ranch EIR No. 1048 provides adequate mitigation to reduce its level of impact to General Plan 2020 conditions. Incorporating Alternative A into the 2000 General Plan results in the following four intersections with General Plan conditions resulted in level of service (LOS) 'E'. This level is inconsistent with the General Plan goal of LOS 'D' at all city intersections: • Harbor Boulevard - Adams Avenue; • Bristol Street - Sunflower Avenue; • Bristol Street - Paularino Avenue; and • Bristol Street - Baker Street. The Draft 2000 General Plan identified specific intersection improvements at these intersections to meet the General Plan goal of LOS 'D'. By incorporating these intersection improvements and additional improvements identified for Home Ranch Alternative A in the Final Program EIR No. 1049, LOS 'D' results at three of the above four intersections. However, the Bristol Street - Baker Street intersection would still operate at LOS 'E' with the proposed Home Ranch Alternative A and 2000 General Plan improvements. In order to achieve LOS 'D' at this location, staff proposes the following revisions to intersection improvements at Bristol - Baker Street: (1) Provide a 3rd left -turn lane for northbound and southbound approaches; Delete the northbound right -turn lane; and (2) Delete the 3rd left -turn lane on eastbound Baker Street to northbound Bristol Street. These additional intersection improvements at the Bristol Street - Baker Street intersection will achieve LOS "D", consistent with City's goals and policies. !/J APPL. GP -01-01 Detailed information related to Home Ranch Alternative A is provided as Appendix B in the Technical Appendix of the General Plan/Program EIR No. 1049 Responses to Comments document. Staff finds that the Final Program EIR No. 1049 is complete and adequate, in that it addresses all environmental effects on the project and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Costa Mesa Environmental Guidelines. CONCLUSION Staff recommends Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending to City Council certification oe Final Program EIR No. 1049. Additionally, staff recommends Planning Commission adopt the second attached resolution recommending to Council adoption of the 2000 General Plan plus Home Ranch Alternative A. Attachments: Table 1 Summary of New and Amended Policies hwags aster an of -Bikeways ftp mmission--Resoiu Tions art_- i i o I a n E x h i b i B—Mit m Ex ibA _ _ Statement-f—Facts— a --Fjnclings,_ Statement of Gverridiri-g-a-onsiderations cc: Deputy City Manager - Dev. Svcs. Director Assistant Development Services Director Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Engineer Transportation Services Manager Associate Transportation Engineer Staff (4) File (2) Mr. Glenn Lajoie RBF Consulting PO Box 57057 Irvine, CA 92619-7057 Mr. Bradley R. Hogin Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart 701 South Parker Street, Suite 7000 Orange, CA 92868-4724 I Table 1 - Summary of New and Amended 2000 General Plan Policies *New Text shown as underlined; amended text shown as-stinikeeut. CIRCULATION ELEMENT CIR-1 A.1 Develop the Master Plan of Bikeways by pursuing all funding mechanisms and incorporating into roadway and bridge widening projects; Incorporate bicycle facilities (circulation and storage) into the design and development of all new commercial and industrial projects and public facilities. CONSERVATION ELEMENT CON -1A.1 Ensure that all future developments will be adequately reviewed with regard to possible adverse effects on plant and animal life and critical wildlife habitat and wetlands, and--whe-re--- #�s+f4e--and appropriate, incorporate feasible�f�a eient mitigation measures into the project design to reduce such effects. CON -1 A.2 Require landseape plans for all o. cons*der the s- of ve-getatK),i+. - Encourage__sustainable _I_andscaoes through landscape techngues__that conse_rveL_recycle,_and reuse valuable_ reso_ur_ce_sl__including the use of native vegetation and drought tolerant_ landscape__materials consistent with the City's landscapinq standards set forth -in Chapter VII of Costa Mesa Zoning Code. CON -1 A_3 Continue to comply with the Nation_a_I_P_oI_I_utant__Dscharge_Elimination SystemDES Pro ram_ bby partjcjpatin�in the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) whichstipulates water quality requirements for minimizing urban_ runoff and discharge from ____n_evv development and requires the _n_rovisions of applicable _Best Management Practices (BMS CO_N-1 A.4 Continue to implement the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), and anv amendments to it, that require site dischargers to reduce pollutants in runoff from __ new development._ and _significant redev_el_opment_are_as. IN CON -1 A.5 Pursue the adoption of an offsite mitigation program for the loss of critical wildlife habitat and wetlands when onsite mitigation is determined to be infeasible. Offsite mitigation should occur within the of Costa Mesa. CON -1A.6 Support environmentally acceptable and sustainable energy sources (especially renewable resources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal resources) for new development and significant redevelopment projects. CON -1 C.3 Pursue adoption of an Energy Conservation Program that requires the use of materials devices and measures to reduce energy consumption above the energy conservation requirements of Title 24• These measures may include built-in energy efficient appliances, automated controls for air conditioners and lighting, special sunlight -filtering window coatings or double -paned windows, light-colored roofing materials and other means to reduce energy consumption and _a structure's heating and cooling needs. CON -1 CA Continue to investigate_ the feasibility of municipal power programs, SAFETY ELEMENT SAF -1 A.1 Consider geologic hazard constraints, impacts and mitigation when developing in the development of land use policies and whenmaking public decisions relating to land development. OPEN SPACE RECREATION ELEMENT OSR_1 A._1 6Ensure _that _parks and recreation_ facilities are developed_ with facilities appropriate to all apes, including athletic fields, active elaya_reas,_ passive open space, tot lots and picnic areas. EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) / Responsible City Department and Conditions of Approval (Condition)1 Implementation Time Frame Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency LAND USE Consistency with Relevant Plans and Policies Policies The policies are identified in Table 4.1-3. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Plan Implementation Land Use Compatibility Policy LU -1A.2 Consider the effects of new employment, particularly in relation to housing impacts, when Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department new commercial or industrial development is proposed. Plan Implementation Policy LU -1A.3 Locate high-intensity developments or high traffic generating uses away from low-density Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department residential in order to buffer the more sensitve land uses from the potentially adverse Plan Implementation impacts of the more intense development or uses. Policy LU -1C.1 Permit the construction of buildings over two stories or 30 feet only when it can be shown Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department that the construction of such structures will not adversely impact surrounding Plan Implementation developments and deprive existing land uses of adequate light, air, privacy, and solar access. Policy LU -1 CA Require building setbacks, structure orientation, and the placement of windows to Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department consider the privacy of adjacent residential structures within the same project or adjacent Plan Implementation properties. Policy LU -1 C.6 Provide assistance to neighborhoods with excessive noise impacts such as walls for Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department sound attenuation, development of landscaped greenbelts, etc. Plan Implementation Policy LU -1E.1 Building densities/intensities for proposed new development projects shall not exceed the Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department trip budget for applicable land use classifications, as identified in the Land Use Element. Plan Implementation Building intensities for proposed new development projects shall not exceed the applicable floor area standards; except for the following conditions: Page 1 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Involved Outside Agency Mitigation Measure (M.M.) (a) Limited deviations from the graduated floor area ratio standards depicted in Tables LU -4 and LU -8 for the commercial and industrial land use designations may be approved through a discretionary review process. No deviation shall exceed a 0.05 increase in the FAR in the moderate traffic category, and no deviation shall be allowed in the very low, low, and high traffic categories. Deviations from the FAR standards shall not cause the daily trip generation for the property to be exceeded when compared to the existing daily trip generation for the site without the proposed project or maximum allowable traffic generation for the Moderate Traffic FAR category, whichever is greater. (b) Additions to existing nonconforming non-residential developments may be allowed if the additions do not affect the overall traffic generation characteristics of the development, and if the additions do not substantially affect the existing height and bulk of the development. Additions to non-residential developments shall be limited to those land uses with traffic generation rates based on variables other than building area square footage. Examples of such additions include, but are not limited to: 1) Hotels/Motels: increases in the size of hotel rooms or lobbies where no increase in the total number of rooms is proposed; 2) Theaters: increases to "back -stage" support areas or lobbies where no increase in the total number of seats is proposed. (c) In the above conditions, the new development shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Additional criteria for approving deviations from the FAR standards may be established by policy of the City Council. Policy LU -1F.1 Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods, including mobile home parks (and Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department manufactured housing parks) from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially Plan Implementation disruptive land uses and/or activities. Policy LU -1F.4 Ensure that residential densities can be supported by the infrastructure and that high- Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department density residential areas are not permitted in areas which cause incompatibility with Plan Implementation existing single-family areas. Page 2 COSTA MESA LUUU UtNCKAL rLAIV CIM MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy)1 Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Involved Outside Agency Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Policy LU -11F.5 Provide opportunities for the development of well planned and designed projects which, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible Plan Implementation residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project or neighborhood. Policy LU -3A.1 Pursue annexation of certain areas within the City's Sphere of Influence to control Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department development or uses which may be detrimental to the City. Plan Implementation Policy CON -1A.1 Ensure that all future developments will be adequately reviewed with regard to possible Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department adverse effects on plant and animal life and critical wildlife habitat and wetlands, and Plan Implementation incorporate feasible mitigation measures into the project design to reduce such effects. Policy CON -1D.4 Require the provision of adequate visitor serving on-site parking facilities that do not Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department impact sensitive resources within the Coastal Zone. Plan Implementation Policy N -1A.7 Discourage sensitive land uses from locating in the 65 CNEL noise contour of the John Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Wayne Airport. Should it be deemed by the City as appropriate and/or necessary for a Plan Implementation sensitive land use to locate in the 65 CNEL noise contour, ensure that appropriate interior noise levels are met and that minimal outdoor activities are allowed. Policy SAF -113.2 Ensure that appropriate in-depth environmental analyses are conducted for any proposed Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department hazardous waste materials treatment, transfer, and/or disposal facility. Plan Implementation Policy CD -8A.1 New and remodeled commercial structures and properties in Costa Mesa should be Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department designed to reflect the City's architectural diversity, yet be compatible with nearby existing Plan Implementation buildings' scale and character. As a condition of approval, commercial uses should be required to include interesting roof lines, building shapes, and patterns of shade and shadow while demonstrating sensitivity to the contextual influences of the surrounding area and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. Policy CD -813.1 New commercial development or redevelopment should integrate adequate site planning Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and design features to optimize compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoods. Plan Implementation The following guidance should be considered Page 3 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) / Conditions of Approval (Condition) t Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency ♦ When adjacent residential and non-residential uses can mutually benefit from connection, appropriate linkages (e.g. walkways, common landscape areas, building orientation, and unfenced property lines) are encouraged. Successful interaction between commercial and residential uses may be achieved through adequate setbacks, landscape buffers, screening, decorative masonry walls, berms, building orientation, and limitations of commercial activities. Loading areas, access and circulation driveways, trash and storage areas, and rooftop equipment should be located as far as possible from adjacent residences. ♦ Building orientation and landscaping cf commercial buildings should minimize a direct line of sight into adjacent residential private open space. Policy CD -10.131 Require industrial projects to incorporate landscape setbacks, screening walls and/or Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department other elements that mitigate negative impacts with adjacent uses. Plan Implementation POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT Population Growth Policy LU -1A.1 Provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department goods and services, and employment opportunities in consideration of the needs of the Plan Implementation business and residential segments of the community. Policy LU -1A 4 Strongly encourage the development of low-density residential uses and owner- occupied Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing Plan Implementation opportunities. Policy GM -1A.1 Recognizing the constraints of existing physical development conditions, the City shall Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department strive to achieve a balance of land uses whereby residential, commercial, industrial and Plan Implementation public land uses are proportionally balanced. Policy GM -1A.2 Maintain balance between land use and circulation systems by phasing new development Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department to levels that can be accommodated by roadways existing or planned to exist at the time Plan Implementation of completion of each phase of the project. Page 4 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy)1 Conditions of Approval (Condition)1 Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy HOU-3.1 Encourage the conversion of existing marginal or vacant commercial and/or industrial Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department land to residential, where feasible and consistent with environmental conditions that are Plan Implementation suitable for new residential development. This does not preclude the initiation of such actions by the City. Employment Growth Policy HOU-3.2 Provide opportunities for the development of well planned and designed projects which, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible Plan Implementation residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project or neighborhood. Policy HOU-3.3 Cooperate with large employers, the Chamber of Commerce, and major commercial and Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department industrial developers to identify and implement programs to balance employment growth Plan Implementation with the ability to provide housing opportunities affordable to the incomes of the newly created job opportunities. Policy HOU-3.5 Consider the effects of new employment, particularly in relation to housing demands, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department when new commercial or industrial development is proposed. Plan Implementation Policy GM -1A.1 Recognizing the constraints of existing physical development conditions, the City shall Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department strive to achieve a balance of land uses whereby residential, commercial, industrial and Plan Implementation public land uses are proportionally balanced. Policy GM -1 A.2 Maintain balance between land use and circulation systems by phasing new development Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department to levels that can be accommodated by roadways existing or planned to exist at the time Plan Implementation of completion of each phase of the project. Displacement of Housing and People. Policy LU -1A.1 Provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department goods and services, and employment opportunities in consideration of the needs of the Plan Implementation business and residential segments of the community. Page 5 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy)1 Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy LU -1A.4 Strongly encourage the development of low-density residential uses and owner- occupied Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department housing where feasible to improve the balance between rental and ownership housing Plan Imnlementation opportunities. Policy LU -1A.5 Provide a balance of housing and employment opportunities within planned development Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department areas to the extent feasible. Plan Implementation Policy HOU-2.2 Provide incentives (i.e., density bonus units, fee reductions, exemption from development Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department or processing fees, fast -tracking, etc.) to developers of residential projects who agree to Plan Implementation provide the specified percentage of units mandated by State law at a cost affordable to Housing & Community Development Very -low and/or Low income households. Division Policy HOU-2.2a Provide incentive bonus units to encourage the redevelopment of residential units that are Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department nonconforming in terms of density. The incentive shall be limited to the multi -family Plan Implementation residential land use designations. The density incentive shall be limited to an increase of Housing & Community Development 25% above Medium -Density or an increase of 50% above High -Density. In no case shall Division the resulting number of units exceed the existing number of units on each site. Policy HOU-2.2b Consider financial incentives in lieu of density bonus units if the proposed affordable, non- Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department senior density exceeds that allowed by the General Plan designation of the property. Plan Implementation Require the review of such projects by Planning Commission and City Council. Housing & Community Development Division Policy HOU-2.3 Provide incentive bonus units to encourage the redevelopment of residential units that are Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department nonconforming in terms of density. The incentive shall be limited to the multi -family Plan Implementation residential land use designations. The density incentive shall be limited to an increase of Housing & Community Development 25% above Medium Density or an increase of 50% above High Density. In no case shall Division the resulting number of units exceed the existing number of units on each site. Policy HOU-2.4 Continue to allocate Home and Redevelopment Agency Low to Moderate funds to direct Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department housing -related programs. Plan Implementation Housing & Community Development Division Page 6 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) / Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Responsible City Department and Implementation Time Frame Involved Outside Agency Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Policy HOU-2.5 Support the continuation and expansion of federal housing assistance programs for Very- Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department low, Low and Moderate -income households. Plan Implementation Housing & Community Development Division Policy HOU 2.7 Recognizing the effect of supply and demand on prices for housing and other Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department commodities and encourage development of residential uses on vacant parcels where Plan Implementation appropriate. Housing & Community Development Division Policy HOU-2.8 Investigate the effectiveness of the accesscry apartment and granny unit development Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department standards within the Zoning Code to ensure housing opportunities and appropriate Plan Implementation mitigation of government constraints. Policy HOU-3.1 Encourage the conversion of existing marginal or vacant commercial and/or industrial Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department land to residential, where feasible and consistent with environmental conditions that are Plan Implementation suitable for new residential development. This does not preclude the initiation of such actions by the City. Policy HOU-3.2 Provide opportunities for the development of well planned and designed projects which, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible Plan Implementation residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single projoct or neighborhood. Policy HOU-3.4 Continue to allocate portions of the City's Community Development Block Grant funds for Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department the acquisition and write-down of land costs to increase the supply of Low and Moderate Plan Implementation income housing opportunities. Housing & Community Development Division Policy HOU-3.7 Continue to allocate portions of the City's CDBG funds to sub -recipients who provide Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department shelter for the homeless. Plan Implementation Housing & Community Development Division Page 7 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy)1 Conditions of Approval (Condition)1 Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy HOU-3.8 Identify potential sites for residential development and emergency shelters for the Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department homeless. Plan Implementation AESTHETICS Visual Quality Policy CD -1A.1 Implement the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Standards in all Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department new streetscape corridor and parkway projects. Coordinate with new development Plan Implementation adjacent to applicable public rights-of-way to integrate landscape features and design Parks & Parkways Division elements consistent with the streetscape standards and recommendations. Policy CD -1A.2 Encourage the consolidation of compatible street furniture elements (benches, bus Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department shelters, newspaper racks, trash receptacles, kiosks, etc.) whenever possible. Develop Plan Implementation design standards and guidelines for the placement of street furniture elements within and Parks & Parkways Division adjacent to public rights-of-way to complement the specific recommendations provided for streets in the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Standards. Policy CD -1A.3 Walls and fences should contribute to an attractive street and sidewalk environment and Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department compliment the style and character of the local district and adjacent buildings. Newly Plan Implementation constructed or reconstructed walls and fences adjacent to sidewalks and roadways Parks & Parkways Division should not run in a continuous plane, should incorporate architectural treatments, such as masonry or wrought iron, and integrate tiered plantings to soften their appearance. Policy CD -1A.4 Require a consistent landscape character along City streets to reinforce the unique Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department qualities of each corridor and district, including the development of landscaped medians Plan Implementation identified in Exhibit CD -5. Support the implementation of the recommended street tree Parks & Parkways Division palette for each City street, as identified in the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Standards. Page 8 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy)1 Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy CD -1A.5 Electric and communication lines should be placed underground, and electrical Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department substations and telephone facilities should be screened to minimize visual impacts from Plan Implementation sidewalks, streets, and adjacent properties. Support utility undergrounding through Parks & Parkways Division conditions of project approval, preparation of undergrounding plans, and the formation of assessment districts. Policy CD -1 B.1 Promote linkages between separate districts through bike trails, pedestrian paths, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department common medians or parkway landscaping in connecting streets, and other physical Plan Implementation improvements as necessary. Through conditions of project approval, public improvement Parks & Parkways Division projects, and other measures, support the development of new connections and the enhancement of existing connections between districts. Policy CD -2.1 Future development and redevelopment should improve the environment for the public; it Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department should support the distinctiveness of each district as well as the special characteristics of Plan Implementation the existing fabric of its local context. Adopt urban design guidelines for each identified district in Costa Mesa that recognizes, maintains, and enhances the character and identity of each district, integrate existing specific plans' policies and design guidelines as applicable. Policy CD -3.1 Introduce entry monument signs and entry pole signs at key gateway locations (i.e. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department nodes) in the City, as identified in Exhibit CD -3. Utilize the standard design specifications Plan Implementation for entry signs included in the City of Costa Mesa Streetscape and Median Development Standards and as illustrated in Exhibit CD -6. Policy CD -3.2 Reinforce a sense of arrival into the City by promoting architecturally significant Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department development and significant landscape plantings at key nodes. Undertake a visioning Plan Implementation process to develop specific design guidelines that articulate the desired character for each key node within Costa Mesa. Policy CD -4.1 Support efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve the condition of Costa Mesa Ongoing throughout 2000 General I Development Services Department landmarks. Plan Implementation Page 9 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy)1 Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy CD -5 1 Preserve and optimize natural views and open spaces in Costa Mesa. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Parks & Parkways Division Plan Implementation Policy CD -5.2 Control the visual impacts of new development on natural views of the coast and the Ongoing throughout 2000 General Parks & Parkways Division wetlands. Plan Implementation Policy CD -5.3 Develop open space corridors and trails along the edges of Costa Mesa where feasible. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Parks & Parkways Division Plan Implementation Policy CD -5.4 Continue to preserve natural open space, including restoration of the natural area of Ongoing throughout 2000 General Parks & Parkways Division Talbert Nature Reserve. Plan Implementation Policy CD -5.5 Continue protection of Fairview Park as an open space and recreation area. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Parks & Parkways Division Plan Implementation Policy CD -5.6 Work with Caltrans to improve the design quality of freeways. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Transportation Services Division Plan Implementation Caltrans Policy CD -6.1 Encourage the inclusion of art and aesthetically pleasing architecture into new Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department development and redevelopment that will have the effect of perpetuating the image of the Plan Implementation "City of the Arts". Adopt an incentive -based design assistance program which allows business and property owners to enhance the design quality of their property while satisfying City image objectives. Policy CD -6.2 Encourage the use of creative and well designed signs, which establish a distinctive Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department image for the City. Consider amending existing sign regulations to include an incentive- Plan Implementation based program to encourage quality signage Policy CD -6.3 Continue to work with Code Enforcement to ensure continued maintenance of properties Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and compliance with adopted development standards. Plan Implementation Code Enforcement Section Page 10 COSTA MESA ZUUU htNtKAL PLAN tIK MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) / Conditions of Approval (Condition) / Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy CD -7A.1 Ensure that new and remodeled structures are designed in architectural styles which Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department reflect the City's diversity, yet are compatible in scale and character with existing Plan Implementation buildings and the natural surroundings within residential neighborhoods. Develop and adopt design guidelines for residential development. Policy CD -7A.2 Preserve the character and scale of Costa Mesa's established residential neighborhoods, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department where residential development or redevelopment is proposed, require as a condition of Plan Implementation approval that it is consistent with the prevailing character of existing development in the immediate vicinity, and that it does not have a substantial adverse impact on adjacent areas. Policy CD -8A.1 New and remodeled commercial structures and properties in Costa Mesa should be Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department designed to reflect the City's architectural diversity, yet be compatible with nearby existing Plan Implementation buildings' scale and character. As a condition of approval, commercial uses should be required to include interesting roof lines, building shapes, and patterns of shade and shadow while demonstrating sensitivity to the contextual influences of the surrounding area and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. Policy CD -8A.2 High quality commercial architectural style in Costa Mesa is meant to reinforce a positive Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department sense of place and to respond to the geographical location and climate of the area. Plan Implementation Commercial architectural design elements and materials that establish high quality style, and should be integrated in new commercial development, include the following: Page 11 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Conditions of Approval (Condition) I implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Design Elements ♦ Simple, multi -planed pitched roofs ♦ Open rafters/tails with large overhangs ♦ The appearance of "thick" walls ♦ Courtyards, arcades, intimate spaces ♦ Tile details ♦ Deep-set window and door openings ♦ Offset wall planes ♦ Fountains and other unique details ♦ Building masses with the incorporation of one and two story architecture ♦ Sequencing of enclosed space/arches Design Materials ♦ Stucco, smooth, sand or light lace finish ♦ Wood, as an exposed structural material ♦ Clay or concrete roof tiles ♦ Native fieldstone ♦ Wood window casements ♦ Wood, as an accent material ♦ Brick, as an accent material ♦ Wrought iron (rust proof; anodized aluminum) ♦ Tile, as an accent material ♦ Slumpstone garden walls Policy CD -8A.3 Encourage the use of entrance patios, courtyards, plazas, arcades, fountains, porches, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department tower elements, covered walks, and other features in commercial areas. Pursue Plan Implementation incentives for promoting pedestrian amenities and significant design features in new and redevelopment projects. Page 12 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) i Conditions of Approval (Condition) ! Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy CD-8AA All areas not covered by structures, service yards, walkways, driveways, and parking Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department spaces shall be landscaped consistent with City's Landscaping Standards contained in Plan Implementation the Costa Mesa Zoning Code. Utilize landscaping to provide project amenities for new and remodeled commercial uses, and to screen parking and equipment areas. Landscaped areas should generally incorporate planting utilizing a three tiered system: 1) grasses and ground covers, 2) shrubs and vines, and 3) trees. Policy CD -8A.6 Locate areas for outside equipment, trash receptacles, storage, and loading areas in the Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department least conspicuous part of the site. Utility and mechanical equipment (e.g. electric and gas Plan Implementation meters, electrical panels, and junction boxes) should be concealed from view of public streets, neighborhood properties, and nearby higher buildings. Trash enclosures should be architecturally compatible with the project, landscaping should be incorporated into the design of trash enclosures to deter graffiti. Policy CD -8A.7 Decorative paving treatments are encouraged to be incorporated throughout commercial Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department developments, including driveway entries, pedestrian walkways, plazas, and other areas. Plan Implementation The design, materials, and colors of decorative paving treatments (e.g. stamped concrete, stone, brick or granite pavers, exposed aggregate, or colored concrete) should compliment the architectural style of the primary buildings and should make a positive contribution to the aesthetic and function of the site. Policy CD -8A.8 All exterior lighting on commercial properties should be consistent with the architectural Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department style of the commercial building. On each commercial site, all lighting fixtures should be Plan Implementation from the same family of fixtures with respect to design, materials, color, fixture, and color of light. Lighting sources should be shielded, diffused or indirect to avoid spillover on adjacent properties, nighttime sky light pollution, and glare to pedestrians and motorists. To minimize the total number of freestanding light standards, wall mounted lights should be utilized to the greatest extent possible. Page 13 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Conditions of Approval (Condition)1 implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy CD -813.1 New commercial development or redevelopment should integrate adequate site planning Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and design features to optimize compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoods. Plan Implementation The following guidance should be considered: ♦ When adjacent residential and non-residential uses can mutually benefit from connection, appropriate linkages (e.g. walkways, common landscape areas, building orientation, and unfenced property lines) are encouraged. Successful interaction between commercial and residential uses may be achieved through adequate setbacks, landscape buffers, screening, decorative masonry walls, berms, building orientation, and limitations of commercial activities. ♦ Loading areas, access and circulation driveways, trash and storage areas, and rooftop equipment should be located as far as possible from adjacent residences. ♦ Building orientation and landscaping of commercial buildings should minimize a direct line of sight into adjacent residential private open space. Policy CD -9A.1 Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to mitigate potential conflicts Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department between uses. Consider noise, lighting, and security. Plan Implementation Policy CD -9A.2 Provide adequate parking, open space and recreational facilities to serve residents in Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department mixed-use development projects. Site and design parking and other areas to Plan Implementation acknowledge different users (i.e. residents versus shoppers) and to be compatible with the architectural character of the building(s). Policy CD -10A.1 Require that industrial projects be designed to convey visual interest and a positive Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department image. Architectural qualities and design elements for industrial uses that are Plan Implementation encouraged in Costa Mesa, are: ♦ Building modulation indentations and architectural details; ♦ Building entry accentuation; ♦ Screening of equipment and storage areas; and ♦ Landscaping to soften building exteriors and buffer between uses. Page 14 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy)1 Conditions of Approval (Condition)/ Implementation Time Frame Responsible CityDepartment and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy CD -10A.2 The design of industrial buildings should consider the visual and physical relationship to Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department adjacent uses. An industrial structure which dominates its surrounding environment by its Plan Implementation relative size shall generally be discouraged. Policy CD -10A.3 Materials and colors should be used to produce diversity and visual interest in industrial Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department buildings. The use of various siding materials (i.e. masonry, concrete texturing, cement or Plan Implementation plaster) can produce effects of texture and relief that provide architectural interest. Policy CD-10AA Consistent with the Zoning Code, landscaping should be used to define areas such as Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department entrances to industrial buildings and parking lots, define the edges of developments, Plan Implementation provide transition between neighboring properties, and provide screening for outdoor storage, loading and equipment areas. Landscaping should be in scale with adjacent buildings and be of an appropriate size at maturity to accomplish its intended purpose. Policy CD -10A.5 The design of lighting fixtures and their structural support should be of a scale and Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department architectural design compatible with on-site industrial buildings. Large areas should be Plan Implementation illuminated to minimize the visual impact and amount of spillover light onto surrounding projects. Policy CD -10.131 Require industrial projects to incorporate landscape setbacks, screening walls and/or Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department other elements that mitigate negative impacts with adjacent uses. Plan Implementation Policy CD -10.132 Protect transitional areas between industrial and other uses. Storage yards, parking Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department areas, and service areas should be screened from public view. Plan Implementation Policy CD -13.2 Encourage the use of common design elements in signs for commercial and industrial Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department centers through the development of planned sign programs to improve center identity by Plan Implementation publicizing the benefits of such programs to developers and local business operators. Policy CD -13.3 Consider developing citywide sign design guidelines that promote creativity and flexibility Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department while upholding design quality. Design guidelines could include the design and placement Plan Implementation of business signs, public street graphics, street signs, locational and directional signs, traffic signs, etc. Page 15 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy)1 Responsible City Department and Conditions of Approval (Condition) / Implementation Time Frame involved` Outside Agency Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Light and Glare Policy CD-8A.8 All exterior lighting on commercial properties should be consistent with the architectural Ongoing throuahout 2000 General Development Services Department style of the commercial building. On each commercial site, all lighting fixtures should be Plan Implementation from the same family of fixtures with respect to design, materials, color, fixture, and color of light. Lighting sources should be shielded, diffused or indirect to avoid spillover on adjacent properties, nighttime sky light pollution, and glare to pedestrians and motorists. To minimize the total number of freestanding light standards, wall mounted lights should be utilized to the greatest extent possible. Policy CD-9A.1 Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to mitigate potential conflicts Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department between uses. Consider noise, lighting, and security. Plan Implementation Policy CD-10A.5 The design of lighting fixtures and their structural support should be of a scale and Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department architectural design compatible with on-site industrial buildings. Large areas should be Plan Implementation illuminated to minimize the visual impact and amount of spillover light onto surrounding projects. Policy CD-10.131 Require industrial projects to incorporate landscape setbacks, screening walls and/or Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department other elements that mitigate negative impacts with adjacent uses. Plan Implementation TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 2020 Traffic Volumes/Roadway Capacities Policy CIR-1A.5 Investigate all available operational measures, including the use of one-way streets, to Ongoing throughout 2000 General Transportation Services Division improve traffic circulation and minimize delay and congestion on arterials. Plan Implementation Policy CIR-1A.7 Implement citywide and/or areawide transportation system improvement programs on Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department new development and fee programs for new development. Plan Implementation Transportation Services Division Policy CIR-1A.8 Encourage the integration of compatible land uses and housing into major development Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department projects to reduce vehicle use. Plan Implementation Page 16 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Conditions of Approval (Condition) / Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and - Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Oatside Agency Policy CIR-1A.9 Encourage permitted General Plan land uses which generate high traffic volumes to be Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department located near major transportation corridors and public transit facilities to minimize vehicle Plan Implementation use, congestion, and delay. Transportation Services Division Policy CIR-1A.10 Allow the application of transportation management rideshare programs, integration of Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department complementary land uses, and other methods to reduce project related average daily and Plan Implementation peak hour vehicle trips in order to achieve consistency with allocated trip budgets. Transportation Services Division Policy CIR-1A.13 While the Gisler Road segment, west of Harbor, will exceed its theoretical maximum Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department capacity, the City shall work to ensure that the future volume to capacity ratios do not Plan Implementation exceed those identified in Table CIR-3 of the General Plan. Transportation Services Division Policy CIR-1A.15 Prioritize intersection improvements which improve through traffic flow on major, primary, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and secondary arterials, and reduce impacts on local neighborhood streets with emphasis Plan Implementation on pedestrian safety. Transportation Services Division Policy CIR-1A.16 Maintain balance between land use and circulation systems by phasing new development Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department to levels that can be accommodated by roadways existing or planned to exist at the time Plan Implementation of completion of each phase of the project. Transportation Services Division Policy CIR-1A.17 Work closely with the State of California and other government agencies to control traffic- Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department related impacts of uses on State- or other agency -owned land (i.e., Orange County Plan Implementation Fairgrounds, Orange Coast College, etc.). Transportation Services Division Policy CIR-2A.2 Coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority and with adjacent Ongoing throughout 2000 General Public Works Department jurisdictions to improve signal timing and coordination along major arterials. Plan Implementation Orange County Transportation Authority Policy CIR-2A.3 Continue to work with Caltrans to synchronize and coordinate traffic signals on arterials at Ongoing throughout 2000 General Public Works Department intersections controlled by Caltrans. Plan Implementation Caltrans Page 17 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) ! Conditions of Approval (Condition) / Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy CIR-2D.2 Construction of circulation improvements for phased development projects may be Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department constructed commensurate with the project construction based upon the findings of a Plan Implementation traffic study approved by the City of Costa Mesa. Transportation Services Division Policy CIR-2D.5 Require discussion of transportation system management (TSM) and transportation Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department demand management (TDM) measures in all EIRs prepared for major projects. Plan Implementation Policy GM-1A.1 Recognizing the constraints of existing physical development conditions, the city shall Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department strive to achieve a balance of land uses whereby residential, commercial, industrial and Plan Implementation public land uses are proportionally balanced. Policy GM-1A.2 Maintain balance between land use and circulation systems by phasing new development Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department to levels that can be accommodated by roadways existing or planned to exist at the time Plan Implementation of completion of each phase of the project. Transportation Services Division Policy GM-1A.4 Every new development project shall pay its share of costs associated with the mitigation Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department of project generated impacts. Plan Implementation CMP LOS Standards Policy CIR-1A.11 Attempt to maintain or improve mobility within the City to achieve a standard level of Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department service not worse than Level of Service "D" at all intersections under the sole control of Plan Implementation the City. Intersection level of service analyses for General Plan conditions shall be Transportation Services Division updated periodically and presented to City Council. Policy CIR-1A.12 Cooperate with adjacent jurisdictions to maintain or improve mobility within the City to Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department achieve a standard level of service no worse than "D" at all intersections under State or Plan Implementation joint control. Intersection level of service analyses for General Plan conditions for Transportation Services Division locations under State or joint control shall be updated periodically and presented to City Council. Page 18 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) / Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy CIR-2C.2 Complete and annually maintain a needs assessment for traffic service levels and traffic Ongoing throughout 2000 General Transportation Services Division safety. Develop and annually update a priority list of improvement projects, with priorities Plan Implementation based on 1) correcting identified hazards; 2) improving/maintaining peak hour traffic volumes; 3) improving efficiency of existing infra-structure utilization; and 4) intergovernmental coordination. Policy GM-1A.3 The established level of service standard shall not apply to intersections under the Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department jurisdiction of another city, the County of Orange or the State of California or to Plan Implementation intersections included on the Deficient Intersection List as established by Congestion Transportation Services Division Management Program (CMP) and/or the City. Policy GM-1A.6 The City's seven year capital improvement program shall be adopted and maintained in Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department conformance with the provisions of Measure M for the purpose of maintaining the Plan Implementation established level of service standard. Transportation Services Division Consistency with OCTA Master Plan of Arterial Highways Policy CIR-1A.18 Council shall review the results and findings of the (SARX) study to delete the Gisler Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Avenue and 19th Street bridges over the Santa Ana River as needed. Upon completion Plan Implementation of the study and approval of the changes to the Orange County Transportation Authority's Transportation Services Division (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways by the OCTA Board, the City shall process a General Plan Amendment to delete the bridges from the City's Master Plan of Highways. Orange County Transportation All future development applications submitted to the City shall be reviewed in such a way Authority that the 19th Street and Gisler Avenue bridges will not be included as mitigation measures. Policy CIR-1A.20 Encourage Orange County Transportation Authority to downgrade Mesa Verde Drive, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Baker Street west of Harbor Boulevard, and Gisler Avenue to a designation less than a Plan Implementation Collector Street in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Transportation Services Division Orange County Transportation Authority Page 19 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) / Conditions of Approval (Condition)1 Implementation Time Frame Responsible City.;Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy CIR-1A.21 Encourage Orange County Transportation Authority to downgrade Arlington Avenue Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department between Fairview Road and Newport Boulevard to a "Collector" Street. Plan Implementation Transportation Services Division Orange County Transportation Authority Policy CIR-1A.22 Encourage Orange County Transportation Authority to downgrade Baker Street between Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Red Hill Avenue and Bristol Street, and Red Hill Avenue between 1-405 and Bristol Street Plan Implementation to Primary Arterial from current Major Arterial designation. Transportation Services Division Orange County Transportation Authority City's Master Plan of Highways Policy CIR-1A.7 Implement citywide and/or areawide transportation system improvement programs on Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department new development and fee programs for new development. Plan Implementation Transportation Services Division Policy CIR-1A.15 Prioritize intersection improvements which improve through traffic flow on major, primary, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and secondary arterials, and reduce impacts on local neighborhood streets with emphasis Plan Implementation on pedestrian safety. Transportation Services Division Policy CIR-1A.18 Council shall review the results and findings of the (SARX) study to delete the Gisler Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Avenue and 19th Street bridges over the Santa Ana River as needed. Upon completion Plan Implementation of the study and approval of the changes to the Orange County Transportation Authority's Transportation Services Division (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways by the OCTA Board, the City shall process a General Plan Amendment to delete the bridges from the City's Master Plan of Highways. Orange County Transportation All future development applications submitted to the City shall be reviewed in such a way Authority that the 19th Street and Gisler Avenue bridges will not be included as mitigation measures. Page 20 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy CIR-1A.19 Minimize circulation improvements that will necessitate the taking of private property on Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department existing developed properties. Plan Implementation Transportation Services Division Policy CIR-1A.20 Encourage Orange County Transportation Authority to downgrade Mesa Verde Drive, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Baker Street west of Harbor Boulevard, and Gisler Avenue to a designation less than a Plan Implementation Collector Street in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Orange County Transportation Authority Policy CIR-1A.21 Encourage Orange County Transportation Authority to downgrade Arlington Avenue Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department between Fairview Road and Newport Boulevard to a Collector Street. Plan Implementation Transportation Services Division Orange County Transportation Authority Policy CIR-1A.22 Encourage Orange County Transportation Authority to downgrade Baker Street between Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Redhill Avenue and Bristol Street, and Redhill Avenue between 1-405 and Bristol Street to Plan Implementation Primary Arterial from current Major Arterial designation. Transportation Services Division Orange County Transportation Authority Policy CIR-2A.1 Coordinate with Caltrans for future consideration of the extension of Route 55 (the Costa Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Mesa Freeway) from 19th Street to the southern City boundary. Plan Implementation Caltrans Policy CIR-2AA Continue to evaluate and pursue design and operational improvements (medians, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Transportation Services Division driveway closures, signal synchronization or phasing, parking or turn restrictions, etc.) to Plan Implementation improve the efficiency of intersections. Page 21 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible. City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) M Involved'Outside Agency Master Plan of Bikeways Policy CIR-1A.1 Develop the Master Plan of Bikeways by pursuing all funding mechanisms and Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department incorporating into roadway widening and bridge projects; Incorporate bicycle facilities Plan Implementation (circulation and storage) into the design and development of all new commercial and Policy CIR-1A.2 n equitable manner for completion of adopted Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department bikeway system as condition of development of adjacent properties. Plan Implementation Transportation Services Division Policy CIR-1A.3 Coordinate the design and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle ways in major Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department residential, shopping, and employment centers, parks, schools, other public facilities, Plan Implementation public transportation facilities, and bicycle networks with adjacent cities. Policy CIR-1A.4 Include bicycle lanes on all new bridges along Master Plan of Bikeway designated Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department arterials within or adjacent to the City. In cases where bridges are not located within the Plan Implementation City, the City should exert its influence on responsible agencies to include such bicycle Transportation Services Division lanes. If provision of bicycle lanes is not feasible, measures should be taken to prohibit bicycle riding on bridge walkways. Alternative Transportation Policy CIR-213.1 Coordinate with OCTA to construct bus turnouts at appropriate locations with attractive Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department shelters designed for safe and comfortable use. Plan Implementation and OCTA Policy CIR-2E.4 Require discussion of transit service needs and site design amenities for transit ridership Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department in EIRs for major projects. Plan Implementation AIR QUALITY Construction Emissions Policy CON -1 E.1 Cooperate with and support regional, State, and Federal agencies to improve air quality Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department throughout the South Coast Air Basin. Plan Implementation Southern California Air Quality Management District Page 22 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy)1 Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy CON -1 E.2 Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department development or redevelopment project impacts on local and regional air and water Plan Implementation quality. Condition Future development projects shall be subject to the following condition of approval: Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department ♦ SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction- Plan Implementation related dirt on approach routes to the site. Rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive Southern California Air Quality dust emissions from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area Management District beyond the property line of the emission source. Particulate matter deposits on public roadways are also prohibited. Condition Future development projects shall be subject to the following condition of approval: Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department ♦ Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of Plan Implementation construction -generated dust particles. Portions of the project site that are undergoing Southern California Air Quality earth moving operations shall be watered such that a crust will be formed on the Management District ground surface and then watered again at the end of the day. Condition Future development projects shall be subject to the following condition of approval: Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department ♦ Grading operations shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone Plan Implementation episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph). Southern California Air Quality Management District Vehicle Miles Traveled and Stationary Source Emissions Policy CON -1 C.3 Pursue adoption of an Energy Conservation Program that requires the use of materials, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department devices, and measures to reduce energy consumption above the energy conservation Plan Implementation requirements of Title 24. These measures may include built-in energy efficient Southern California Air Quality appliances, automated controls for air conditioners and lighting, special sunlight -filtering Management District window coatings or double -paned windows, light-colored roofing materials, and other means to reduce energy consumption and a structure's heating and cooling needs. Page 23 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) ! Conditions of Approval (Condition)1 Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved outside Agency Policy CON-1 E.1 Cooperate with and support regional, State, and Federal agencies to improve air quality Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department throughout the South Coast Air Basin. Plan Implementation Southern California Air Quality Management District Policy CON-1E.2 Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department development or redevelopment project impacts on local and regional air and water Plan Implementation quality. Southern California Air Quality Management District Policy CON-1E.3 Develop and implement a Reasonable Available Control Measure Plan (including Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department employee ridesharing, traffic signal synchronization, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, energy Plan Implementation conservation street lighting, modified work schedules, preferential carpool parking, or Southern California Air Quality other equivalent control measures) in conformance with the Air Quality Management Plan Management District for the South Coast Air Basin. Policy CIR-1A.3 Coordinate the design and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle ways in major Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department residential, shopping, and employment centers, parks, schools, other public facilities, Plan Implementation public transportation facilities, and bicycle networks with adjacent cities. Policy CIR-1A.8 Encourage the integration of compatible land uses and housing into major development Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department projects to reduce vehicle use. Plan Implementation Policy CIR-1A.9 Encourage permitted General Plan land uses which generate high traffic volumes to be Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department located near major transportation corridors and public transit facilities to minimize vehicle Plan Implementation use, congestion, and delay. Transportation Services Division Policy CIR-1A.10 Allow the application of transportation management rideshare programs, integration of Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department complementary land uses, and other methods to reduce project related average daily and Plan Implementation peak hour vehicle trips in order to achieve consistency with allocated trip budgets. I I Transportation Services Division Page 24 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) / Conditions of Approval (Condition) I implementation Time Frame Responsible Ci Dp e artment and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Consistency with Regional Plans Policy LU-1A.1 Provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department goods and services, and employment opportunities in consideration of the needs of the Plan Implementation business and residential segments of the community. Policy LU-1A.2 Consider the effects of new employment, particularly in relation to housing impacts, when Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department new commercial or industrial development is proposed. Plan Implementation Policy LU-1A.5 Provide a balance of housing and employment opportunities within planned development Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department areas to the extent feasible. Plan Implementation Policy LU-1 B.1 Permit adequate quantities and locations of commercial land to serve residential Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department neighborhoods. Plan Implementation Policy GM-1A.1 Recognizing the constraints of existing physical development conditions, the city shall Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department strive to achieve a balance of land uses whereby residential, commercial, industrial and Plan Implementation public land uses are proportionally balanced. Policy CON-1E.1 Cooperate with and support regional, State, and Federal agencies to improve air quality Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department throughout the South Coast Air Basin. Plan Implementation Southern California Air Quality Management District Policy CON-1E.2 Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department development or redevelopment project impacts on local and regional air and water Plan Implementation quality. Southern California Air Quality Management District Policy CON-1E.3 Develop and implement a Reasonable Available Control Measure Plan (including Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department employee ridesharing, traffic signal synchronization, bicyclelpedestrian facilities, energy Plan Implementation conservation street lighting, modified work schedules, preferential carpool parking, or Southern California Air Quality other equivalent control measures) in conformance with the Air Quality Management Plan Management District for the South Coast ,fir Basin. Page 25 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) / Responsible City:Department and Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Involved Outside Agency Mitigation Measure (M.M.) NOISE Construction Noise Policy N-1A.1 Require, as a part of the environmental review process, that full consideration be given to Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department the existing and projected noise environment. Plan Implementation Policy N-1A.2 The maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas is 65 CNEL. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Plan Implementation Policy N-1A.3 Give full consideration to the existing and projected noise environment when considering Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department alterations to the City's circulation system and Master Plan of Highways. Plan Implementation Transportation Services Division Condition Future development projects shall be subject to the following condition of approval: Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department ♦ The City of Costa Mesa shall enforce a Noise Ordinance which clearly addresses Plan Implementation on- maximum exposure limits and mitigation requirements to protect people from non- Public Services Division transportation-related noise. This shall include limitations on construction hours and transportation location/storage of construction equipment adjacent to sensitive receptors. Traffic Noise Policy N-1A.1 Require, as a part of the environmental review process, that full consideration be given to Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department the existing and projected noise environment. Plan Implementation Policy N-1A.2 The maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas is 65 CNEL. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Plan Implementation Policy N-1A.3 Give full consideration to the existing and projected noise environment when considering Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department alterations to the City's circulation system and Master Plan cf Highways. Plan Implementation Transportation Services Division Page 26 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) involved Outside Agency Policy N -1A.4 Encourage Caltrans to construct noise attenuation barriers along State freeways and Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department highways adjoining residential and other noise sensitive areas. Plan Implementation Transportation Services Division Caltrans Policy N -1A.5 Ensure that appropriate site design measures are incorporated into residential Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department developments, when required by an acoustical study, to obtain appropriate exterior and Plan Implementation interior noise levels. When necessary, require field testing at the time of project Building & Safety Division completion to demonstrate compliance. Policy N -1A.6 Apply the standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department applicable to the construction of all new dwelling units. Plan Implementation Building & Safety Division Aircraft Noise Policy N -1A.7 Discourage sensitive land uses from locating in the 65 CNEL noise contour of the John Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Wayne Airport. Should it be deemed by the City as appropriate and/or necessary for a Plan Implementation sensitive land use to locate in the 65 CNEL noise contour, ensure that appropriate interior noise levels are met and that minimal outdoor activities are allowed. Policy N -1A.8 Support alternative methods for the reduction of noise impacts at John Wayne Airport Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department while continuing to maintain safety and existing limitations on aircraft daily departures. Plan Implementation Stationary Noise Policy N -1A.1 Require, as a part of the environmental review process, that full consideration be given to Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department the existing and projected noise environment. Plan Implementation Condition Future development projects throughout the City and the Orange County Fairgrounds Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department shall be subject to the following condition of approval, as appropriate: Plan Implementation ♦ The City of Costa Mesa shall continue to coordinate with the County of Orange to ensure that the modified noise ordinance for the Orange County Fairgrounds is enforced. Page 27 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Conditions of Approval (Condition)1 Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Condition Future development projects throughout the City and the Orange County Fairgrounds Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department shall be subject to the following condition of approval, as appropriate: Plan Implementation ♦ All activities in the City are subject to the City's Noise Ordinance standards. GEOLOGY AND SEISMIC HAZARDS Seismicity Policy SAF -1A.1 Consider geologic hazard constraints, impacts and mitigation when developing land use Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department policies and when making public decisions relating to land development. Plan Implementation Policy SAF -1A.3 Require geologic surveys of all new development located on or adjacent to bluffs. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Plan Implementation Building & Safety Division Policy SAF -1A.5 Identify and publicize the extent of geologic and seismic hazards within Costa Mesa and Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department advise affected residents and proper'cy owners of appropriate protection measures. Offer Plan Implementation ' information regarding earthquake standards to reduce or eliminate structural damage. Building & Safety Division Policy SAF -1A.6 Encourage, through technical assistance or development incentives, private property Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department owners to take adequate steps to protect their property against seismic hazards. Plan Implementation Building & Safety Division Condition Future development projects shall be subject to the following condition of approval: Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department ♦ Where studies indicate that buildings may be subject to substantial damage during Plan Implementation earthquakes, the structure shall be designed and/or retrofitted for seismic resistance Building & Safety Division in compliance with all relevant recommendations for seismic design and seismic safety in the most recent editions of the Uniform Building Code and the California Building Code. Erosion Policy SAF -1A.1 Consider geologic hazard constraints, impacts and mitigation when developing land useOngoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department policies and when making public decisions relating to land development. Plan Implementation Page 28 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy SAF -1A.3 Require geologic surveys of all new development located on or adjacent to bluffs. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Plan Implementation Building & Safety Division Policy SAF -1A.7 Require all proposed development projects to be designed to minimize both the volume Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and velocity of surface runoff and permit no adverse downstream impacts due to Plan Implementation increased runoff through the proper design of subsurface drains, appropriate grading, on- Engineering Division site retention basins, landscape programs, or other appropriate measures. Condition Future development projects shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department ♦ Grading plans for development projec.s shall include an approved drainage and Plan Implementation erosion control plan to minimize the impacts from erosion and sedimentation during Public Services Department grading. Plans should conform to all standards adopted by the City and meet the requirements of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPS) required by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Unstable or Expansive Soils Policy SAF -1A.1 Consider geologic hazard constraints, impacts and mitigation when developing land use Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department policies and when making public decisions relating to land development. Plan Implementation Condition Future development projects shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department ♦ Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the City shall require that Plan Implementation Public Services Department geotechnical reports be prepared for all land development projects that involve substantial earthwork (e.g., major site grading or trenching, etc.). These geotechnical reports shall address soil conditions, including low soil strength, shrink swell potential, and other unstable soil conditions. Page 29 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) i Conditions of Approval (Condition)1 Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) involved Outside Agency HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE Water Quality Policy CON -1A.3 Continue to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Program by participating in the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) Plan Implementation which stipulates water quality requirements for minimizing urban runoff and discharge Engineering Division from new development and requires the provisions of applicable Best Management Practices (BMP). Policy CON -1A.4 Continue to implement the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and any Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department amendments to it, that require site dischargers to reduce pollutants in runoff from new Plan Implementation development and significant redevelopment areas. Engineering Division Policy CON -1 B.1 Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department development or redevelopment project impacts on local water supplies and water quality Plan Implementation and an analysis of the impact on water capacity and water availability. Engineering Division Policy CON -1 B.4 Prohibit the use of land for solid waste disposal dump sites in Costa Mesa and work Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department towards the prohibition of contiguous areas for dump sites where there is possible ground Plan Implementation water contamination. Sanitation Division Policy CON -1 D.2 Preserve and enhance existing wetlands areas. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Plan Implementation Policy CON -1 D.3 Review existing public works facility planning efforts to ensure that adequate water, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department sewer, and circulation systems are available to serve uses in the Coastal Zone and to Plan Implementation limit planned capacities to conform to the demands created by development which is Public Services Department consistent with the Coastal Act. Policy CON -1E.2 Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department development or redevelopment project impacts on local and regional air and water Plan Implementation quality. Page 30 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency - Policy SAF-1A.7 Require all proposed development projects to be designed to minimize both the volume Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and velocity of surface runoff and permit no adverse downstream impacts due to Plan Implementation increased runoff through the proper design of subsurface drains, appropriate grading, on- Building & Safety Division site retention basins, landscape programs, or other appropriate measures. Condition Future development projects shall be subject to the following condition of approval: Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department ♦ Prior to or concurrent with submittal of plans for building plan check/submittal of the Plan Implementation Public Services Department final subdivision map for engineering plan check, the applicant shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that identified the application and incorporation of those routine structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the Countywide Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Groundwater Policy CON-1A.2 Encourage sustainable landscapes through landscape techniques that conserve, recycle, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and reuse valuable resources, including the use of native vegetation and drought tolerant Plan Implementation landscape materials consistent with the City's landscaping standards set forth in Chapter Public Services Department VII of Costa Mesa Zoning Code. Policy CON-1 B.1 Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department development or redevelopment project impacts on local water supplies and water quality Plan Implementation and an analysis of the impact on water capacity and water availability. Engineering Division Policy CON-1 B.2 Pursue the use of reclaimed wastewater for the irrigation of all appropriate open space Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department facilities and require new developments and City projects, and encourage existing Plan Implementation developments to tie into the reclaimed water system when recommended by the Orange Engineering Division County Water District, Mesa Consolidated Water District, or Irvine Ranch Water District. Page 31 1/ COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) / Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame RespQna�bla City gepartment and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy CON -1 13.3 Cooperate with the Mesa Consolidated Water District and Irvine Ranch Water District to Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department advise the citizens of Costa Mesa of the benefits which can be obtained from the Plan Implementation practices of water conservation. Public Services Department Mesa Consolidated Water District Irvine Ranch Water District Policy CON -1 D.2 Preserve and enhance existing wetlands areas. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Plan Implementation Policy CON -1D.3 Review existing Public Services facility planning efforts to ensure that adequate water, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department sewer, and circulation systems are available to conform to the demands created by Plan Implementation development which is consistent with the Coastal Act. Public Services Department Policy SAF -1A.7 Require all proposed development projects to be designed to minimize both the volume Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and velocity of surface runoff and permit no adverse downstream impacts due to Plan Implementation increased runoff through the proper design of subsurface drains, appropriate grading, on- Building & Safety Division site retention basins, landscape programs, or other appropriate measures. Drainage Policy CON -1 D.2 Preserve and enhance existing wetlands areas. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Plan Implementation Policy CON -1 D.3 Review existing public works facility planning efforts to ensure that adequate water, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department sewer, and circulation systems are available to serve uses in the Coastal Zone and to Plan Implementation limit planned capacities to conform to the demands created by development which is Public Services Department consistent with the Coastal Act. Policy SAF -1A.7 Require all proposed development projects to be designed to minimize both the volume Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and velocity of surface runoff and permit no adverse downstream impacts due to Plan Implementation increased runoff through the proper design of subsurface drains, appropriate grading, on- Building & Safety Division site retention basins, landscape programs, or other appropriate measures. Page 32 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Responsible City Department and Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Mitigation Measure (M.M.) involved Outside Agency Flooding/Dam Inundation Policy SAF -1A.4 Cooperate with local, State, and Federal flood control agencies to reduce the potential for Ongoing throughout 2000 General Public Services Department flood damage in the City of Costa Mesa. Plan Implementation Policy SAF -1A.7 Require all proposed development projects to be designed to minimize both the volume Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and velocity of surface runoff and permit no adverse downstream impacts due to Plan Implementation increased runoff through the proper design of subsurface drains, appropriate grading, on- Building & Safety Division site retention basins, landscape programs, or other appropriate measures. Policy SAF -1A.8 Publicize the extent of flood hazards within Costa Mesa and advise affected residents and Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department property owners of appropriate protection measures. Develop an education program, Plan Implementation such as the Flood Awareness Program, and emergency disaster plans for flooding. Engineering Division Policy SAF -1A.9 Encourage County, State and Federal agencies to complete flood control improvements Ongoing throughout 2000 General Min i a to the Greenville -Banning Channel to protect Costa Mesa residents and property located Plan Implementation in the 100 -year flood zone from a potential major disaster. Biological Resources Policy CON -1A.1 Ensure that all future developments will be adequately reviewed with regard to possible Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department adverse effects on plant and animal life and critical wildlife habitat and wetlands, and Plan Implementation incorporate feasible mitigation measures into the project design to reduce such effects. Policy CON -1A.2 Encourage sustainable landscapes through landscape techniques that conserve, recycle, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and reuse valuable resources, including the use of native vegetation and drought tolerant Plan Implementation landscape materials consistent with the City's landscaping standards set forth in Chapter Public Services Department VII of Costa Mesa Zoning Code. Policy CON -1A.5 Pursue the adoption of an off-site mitigation program for the loss of critical wildlife habitat Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and wetlands when on-site mitigation is determined to be infeasible. Off-site mitigation Plan Implementation should occur within the City of Costa Mesa. Public Services Department Page 33 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) ! Conditions of Approval (Condition)1 Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) involved Outside Agency Cultural and Historical Resources Policy HCR -1A.1 Require, as part of the environmental review procedure, an evaluation of the significance Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department of paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources and the impact of proposed Plan Implementation development on those resources. Policy HCR -1A.2 Require monitoring of grading operations by a qualified paleontologist or archaeologist Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department when the site is reasonably suspected of containing such resources. If, as a result, Plan Implementation evidence of resources is found, require the property to be made available for a reasonable period of time for salvage of known paleontological and archaeological resources by qualified experts, organizations, or educational institutions. Policy HCR -1A.3 Require development on land containing know archaeological resources to use Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department reasonable care to locate structures, paving, landscaping, and fill dirt in such a way as to Plan Implementation preserve these resources undamaged for future generations when it is the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist that said resources be preserved in situ. Policy HCR -1A.4 Encourage the preservation of significant historical resources as identified on Table HCR- Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department 1 by developing and implementing incentives such as building and planning application Plan Implementation permit fee waivers, Mills Act contracts, grants and loans, implementing the State Historic Building. Code and other incentives as identified in the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. Policy HCR -1A.5 Promote the preservation of significant historical resources and encourage other public Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department agencies or private organizations to assist in the purchase and/or relocation of sites, Plan Implementation buildings, and structures deemed to be of historical significance. Policy HCR -1A.6 Encourage development of an interpretive center for paleontological, archaeological, and Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department historical resources at Fairview Park. The center may contain resources found in the Plan Implementation park area as well as resources found throughout the City. Page 34 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Responsible City Department and Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Invoived Outside Agency Mitigation Measure (M.M.) PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Fire Protection Policy LU-3A.3 Establish a development impact fee program to fund additional fire and police personnel, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department facilities, and equipment to meet the demands of additional growth in the City. Plan Implementation Fire Department Policy LU-3A.4 Require appropriate site and environmental analysis for future fire and police station site Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department locations or for the relocation or closure of existing fire and police facilities. Plan Implementation Fire Department Police Protection Policy LU-3A.3 Establish a development impact fee program to fund additional fire and police personnel, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department facilities, and equipment to meet the demands of additional growth in the City. Plan Implementation Police Department Policy LU-3AA Require appropriate site and environmental analysis for future fire and police station site Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department locations or for the relocation or closure of existing fire and police facilities. Plan Implementation Police Department School Facilities Policy LU-3A.2 Strongly encourage protection and preservation of existing but underutilized school sites Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department for future recreational, social, or educational uses. Plan Implementation Water Facilities Policy CON-1 B.1 Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department development or redevelopment project impacts on local water supplies and water quality Plan Implementation and an analysis of the impact on water capacity and water availability. Engineering Division Policy CON-1 8.2 Pursue the use of reclaimed wastewater for the irrigation of all appropriate open space Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department facilities and require new developments and City projects, and encourage existing Plan Implementation developments to tie into the reclaimed water system when recommended by the Orange Engineering Division County Water District, Mesa Consolidated Water District, or Irvine Ranch Water District. Page 35 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Invoiv0d Outside Agency Policy CON -1 B.3 Cooperate with the Mesa Consolidated Water District and Irvine Ranch Water District to Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department advise the citizens of Costa Mesa of the benefits which can be obtained from the Plan Implementation practices of water conservation. Mesa Consolidated Water District and Irvine Ranch Water District Sewer Services Policy LU -1D.1 Include an evaluation of impacts on utility systems and infrastructure in EIRs for all major Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department general plan amendment, rezone, and development applications. Plan Implementation Engineering Division Policy LU -1 D.2 Phase or restrict future development in the City to that which can be accommodated by Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department infrastructure at the time of completion of each phase of a multi -phased project. Plan Implementation Engineering Division Policy CON -1 B.1 Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department development or redevelopment project impacts on local water supplies and water quality Plan Implementation and an analysis of the impact on water capacity and water availabil availability. Engineering Division Policy CON -113.2 Pursue the use of reclaimed wastewater for the irrigation of all appropriate open space Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department facilities and require new developments and City projects, and encourage existing Plan Implementation developments to tie into the reclaimed water system when recommended by the Orange Engineering Division County Water District, Mesa Consolidated Water District, or Irvine Ranch Water District. Policy CON -1 B.3 Cooperate with the Mesa Consolidated Water District and Irvine Ranch Water District to Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department advise the citizens of Costa Mesa of the benefits which can be obtained from the Plan Implementation practices of water conservation. Engineering Division Policy CON -1 D.3 Review existing public works facility planning efforts to ensure that adequate water, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department sewer, and circulation systems are available to serve uses in the Coastal Zone and to Plan Implementation limit planned capacities to conform to the demands created by development which is Engineering Division consistent with the Coastal Act. Page 36 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Electricity Policy CON-1A.6 Support environmentally acceptable and sustainable energy sources (especially Ongoing throughout 2000 General Public Services Department renewable resources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal resources) for Plan Implementation new development and significant redevelopment projects. Policy CON-1 C.1 Continue the program of replacing mercury vapor and other street lights with high- Ongoing throughout 2000 General Public Services Department pressure sodium vapor. Plan Implementation Policy CON-1C.2 Apply the standards contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code of Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Regulations as applicable to the construction of all new dwelling units. Plan Implementation Building & Safety Division Policy COW C.3 Pursue adoption of an Energy Conservation Program that requires the use of materials, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Public Services Department devices, and measures to reduce energy consumption above the energy conservation Plan Implementation requirements of Title 24. These measures may include built-in energy efficient appliances, automated controls for air conditioners and lighting, special sunlight-filtering window coatings or double-paned windows, light-colored roofing materials, and other means to reduce energy consumption and a structure's heating and cooling needs. Policy CON-1CA Continue to investigate the feasibility of municipal power programs. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Public Services Department Plan Implementation Natural Gas Policy CON-1C.2 Apply the standards contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code of Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Regulations as applicable to the construction of all new dwelling units. Plan Implementation Building & Safety Division Parks, Recreation and Trails Policy OSR-1A.1 Provide a minimum of 5.76 acres of permanent public open space (consisting of 4.26 Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department acres of neighborhood and community parks and 1.5 acres in school yards) for every Plan Implementation 1,000 residents. Parks & Parkways Division Page 37 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) Conditions of Approval (Condition)/ Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved Outside Agency Policy OSR-1A.2 Provide maximum visibility and accessibility for future public parks by locating such Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department facilities adjacent to existing or planned public streets. Plan Implementation Parks & Parkways Division Policy OSR-1A.3 Encourage the acquisition of land for neighborhood or community parks for active Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department recreational use. Plan Implementation Parks & Parkways Division Policy OSR-1A.4 To the extent legally possible, require other local, regional, State, or Federal agencies to Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department maintain an adequate inventory of open space lands within Costa Mesa. Plan Implementation Policy OSR-1A.5 Encourage, through development rights transfers or other incentives, the development of Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department private permanent open space, and recreation facilities to meet the needs of the City's Plan Implementation residents. Parks & Parkways Division Policy OSR-1A.6 Encourage, through open space easements, development rights transfers or acquisition, Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department zoning regulations, or other incentives, the long-term maintenance of existing open space Plan Implementation lands. Parks & Parkways Division Policy OSR-1 A.7 Require, through development standards and planned development review criteria, the Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department integration of open space uses (plazas, courtyards, landscaped areas, etc.) into major Plan Implementation commercial and industrial development or redevelopment projects. Policy OSR-1A.8 Continue to require, through development standards, the integration of open space and Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department recreational uses and facilities into all multiple-family residential projects. Plan Implementation Policy OSR-1A.10 Strongly encourage improved maintenance of City and school district facilities used for Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department recreation and organized sports activities. Strongly support recreation programs that Plan Implementation benefit the youth of the community. Parks & Parkways Division Policy OSR-1A.11 Retain all existing open space in Lions Park. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Plan Implementation Parks & Parkways Division Page 38 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time -Flame Responsible City;Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Involved dutside Agency Policy OSR-1A.12 Preserve and enhance existing wetlands areas. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Plan Implementation Policy OSR-1 A.13 Encourage the preservation of views of coastal resources from City and County parkland Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department and public streets within Costa Mesa. Plan Implementation Parks & Parkways Division Policy OSR-1A.14 Through continued implementation of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Ongoing throughout 2000 General Parks & Parkways Division Plan, actively pursue the acquisition and development of pocket and neighborhood parks Plan Implementation within park deficient areas. Policy OSR-1A.15 Update the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan on a regular basis. Ongoing throughout 2000 General Parks & Parkways Division Plan Implementation Policy OSR-1A.16 Ensure that parks and recreation facilities are developed with facilities appropriate to all Ongoing throughout 2000 General Parks & Parkways Division ages, including athletic fields, active play areas, passive open space, tot lots and picnic Plan Implementation areas. Condition Future development projects shall be subject to the following condition of approval: Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department ♦ In compliance with Resolution #98-67 adopted by the City Council on July 1998, Plan Implementation new residential developments shall comply with the established park land dedication Parks &Parkways Division and in -lieu fee exactions. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Routine Hazardous Materials Use, Generation and Transport Policy LU -1 F.1 Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods, included but not limited to mobile Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department home parks (and manufactured housing parks) from the encroachment of incompatible or Plan Implementation potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. Code Enforcement Section Policy LU -1 F.2 Actively enforce existing regulations regarding derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department storage, and substandard or illegal buildings and establish regulations to abate weed- Plan Implementation filled yards when any of the above are deemed to constitute a heath, safety or fire hazard. Code Enforcement Section Page 39 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Pian Policy (Policy) I -Responsibi� City,Department and Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Involved Outside Agency Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Policy CON -1 B.4 Prohibit the use of land for solid waste disposal dump sites in Costa Mesa and work Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department towards the prohibition of contiguous areas for dump sites where there is possible ground Plan Implementation water contamination. Sanitation Division Policy SAF -16.1 Participate with the County of Orange in the implementation of the Orange County Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Plan Implementation County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department Policy SAF -1 B.2 Ensure that appropriate in-depth environmental analyses are conducted for any proposed Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department hazardous waste materials treatment, trans'er, and/or disposal facility. Plan Implementation Policy SAF -1 B.3 Continue to work with the County of Orange to identify and inventory all users of Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department hazardous materials and all hazardous waste generators and prepare clean-up action Plan Implementation plans for identified disposal sites. County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department County of Orange Health Care Agency Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials Policy LU -1 F.1 Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods, included but not limited to mobile Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department home parks (and manufactured housing parks) from the encroachment of incompatible or Plan Implementation potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. Code Enforcement Section Policy LU -1 F.2 Actively enforce existing regulations regarding derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor ' Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department storage, and substandard or illegal buildings and establish regulations to abate weed- Plan Implementation filled yards when any of the above are deemed to constitute a heath, safety or fire hazard. County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department County of Orange Health Care Agency Page 40 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) ! Conditions of Approval (Condition)/ Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) tnvoived Outside Agency Policy CON -1 B.4 Prohibit the use of land for solid waste disposal dump sites in Costa Mesa and work Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department towards the prohibition of contiguous areas for dump sites where there is possible ground Plan Implementation water contamination. Sanitation District Policy SAF -1 B.1 Participate with the County of Orange in the implementation of the Orange County Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Plan Implementation County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department Policy SAF -1 B.2 Ensure that appropriate in-depth environmental analyses are conducted for any proposed Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department hazardous waste materials treatment, transfer, and/or disposal facility. Plan Implementation Policy SAF -1 B.3 Continue to work with the County of Orange to identify and inventory all users of Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department hazardous materials and all hazardous waste generators and prepare clean-up action Plan Implementation plans for identified disposal sites. County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department County of Orange Health Care Agency Hazardous Materials Contamination Policy CON -1 B.4 Prohibit the use of land for solid waste disposal dump sites in Costa Mesa and work Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department towards the prohibition of contiguous areas for dump sites where there is possible ground Plan Implementation water contamination. Sanitation District Policy SAF -1 B.1 Participate with the County of Orange in the implementation of the Orange County Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Plan Implementation County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department Policy SAF -16.2 Ensure that appropriate in-depth environmental analyses are conducted for any proposed Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department hazardous waste materials treatment, transfer, and/or disposal facility. Plan Implementation Page 41 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy)1 Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Responsible City Department and Mitigation Measure (M.M.) involved Outside Agency Policy SAF -113.3 Continue to work with the County of Orange to identify and inventory all users of Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department hazardous materials and all hazardous waste generators and prepare clean-up action Plan Implementation plans for identified disposal sites. County of Orange Integrated Waste Management Department County of Orange Health Care Agency Condition Future development projects shall be subject to the following condition of approval: Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department ♦ Prior to construction of development projects, a Phase I hazardous materials review Plan Implementation shall be conducted for each project which includes, or is potentially affected by, a Building &Safety Division property identified in local, state or federal records as containing a hazardous materials issue. Depending on the results of this study, further investigation and remediation may be required in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations and policies. Condition Future development projects shall be subject to the following condition of approval: Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department ♦ If during demolition of any building, paint is separated from the building material Plan Implementation (e.g. chemically or physically), the paint waste will be evaluated independently form Building &Safety Division the building material by a qualified hazardous materials inspector to determine its proper management. All hazardous materials shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. Page 42 Costa Mesa General Plan EIR CON -1A.2 Encourage sustainable landscapes through landscape techniques that conserve, recycle, and reuse valuable resources, including the use of native vegetation and drought tolerant landscape materials consistent with the City's landscaping standards set forth in Chapter VII of Costa Mesa Zoning Code. CON -1A.5 Pursue the adoption of an off-site mitigation program for the loss of critical wildlife habitat and wetlands when on-site mitigation is determined to be infeasible. Off-site mitigation should occur within the City of Costa Mesa. G. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The project's potential impacts on historical and cultural resources that can be mitigated to below a level of significance are discussed in Section 4.10, Historical and Cultural Resources, of the 2000 General Plan EIR. Identified impacts include: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 1. Historical and Cultural Resources. Implementation of the proposed 2000 General Plan may result in the degradation or loss of historic structures or resources, or cultural (archaeological and paleontological) resources. The following 2000 General Plan policies would mitigate any impact to this issue to below a level of significance. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts in Support of Findings 1. The potential impacts to historical and cultural resources have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, which are also referenced in the 2000 General Plan EIR. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan HCR -1A.1 Require, as part of the environmental review procedure, an evaluation of the significance of paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources and the impact of proposed development on those resources. HCR -1A.2 Require monitoring of grading operations by a qualified paleontologist or archaeologist when the site is reasonably suspected of containing such resources. If, as a result, evidence of resources is found, require the property to be made available for a reasonable period of time for salvage of known paleontological and archaeological resources by qualified experts, organizations, or educational institutions. HCR -1A.3 Require development on land containing known archaeological resources to use reasonable care to locate structures, paving, landscaping, and fill dirt in such a way as to preserve these resources undamaged for future final • 12/07/01 FF -31 Facts and Findings Costa Mesa General Plan EM generations when it is the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist that said resources be preserved in situ. HCR -1A.4 Encourage the preservation of significant historical resources as identified on Table HCR -1 by developing and implementing incentives such as building and planning application permit fee waivers, Mills Act contracts, grants and loans, implementing the State Historic Building Code and other incentives as identified in the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. HCR -1A.5 Promote the preservation of significant historical resources and encourage other public agencies or private organizations to assist in the purchase and/or relocation of sites, buildings, and structures deemed to be of historical significance. HCR -1A.6 Encourage development of an interpretive center for paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources at Fairview Park. The center may contain resources found in the park area as well as resources found throughout the City. H. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The project's potential impacts on public services and utilities that can be mitigated to below a level of significance are discussed in Section 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, of the 2000 General Plan EIR. Identified impacts include fire protection, police protection, school facilities, and water facilities. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 1. Fire Protection. Implementation of the proposed 2000 General Plan would result in the need for additional fire facilities and additional personnel in the planning horizon year of 2020. The following 2000 General Plan policies would mitigate any impact to this issue to below a level of significance. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts in Support of Findings 1. The potential impacts to fire protection have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, which are also referenced in the 2000 General Plan EIR. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan LU -3A.3 Establish a development impact fee program to fund additional fire and police personnel, facilities, and equipment to meet the demands of additional growth in the City. Facts and findings FF -32 final 0 12/07/01 Costa Mesa General Plan EIR LU -3A.4 Require appropriate site and environmental analysis for future fire and police station site locations or for the relocation or closure of existing fire and police facilities. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 2. Police Protection. Implementation of the proposed 2000 General Plan would result in the need for additional police facilities and additional personnel in the planning horizon year of 2020. The following 2000 General Plan policies would mitigate any impact to this issue to below a level of significance. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts in Support of Findings 1. The potential impacts to police protection have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, which are also referenced in the 2000 General Plan EIR. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan LU -3A.3 Establish a development impact fee program to fund additional fire and police personnel, facilities, and equipment to meet the demands of additional growth in the City. LU -3A.4 Require appropriate site and environmental analysis for future fire and police station site locations or for the relocation or closure of existing fire and police facilities. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 3. School Facilities. Implementation of the proposed 2000 General Plan would increase the population in the City, which in turn would result in significant adverse physical impacts to existing school facilities. The following 2000 General Plan policies would mitigate any impact to this issue to below a level of significance. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. final 0 12/07/01 FF -33 Facts and Findings Costa Mesa General Pian ElEff Facts in Support of Findings 1. The potential impacts to school facilities have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, which are also referenced in the 2000 General Plan EIR. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan LU-3A.2 Strongly encourage protection and preservation of existing but underutilized school sites for future recreational, social, or educational uses. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 4. Water Facilities. Implementation of the proposed 2000 General Plan would result in increased demand for the water service within the City in the planning horizon year of 2020. The following 2000 General Plan policies would mitigate any impact to this issue to below a level of significance. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts in Support of Findings 1. The potential impacts to water facilities have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, which are also referenced in the 2000 General Plan EIR. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan CON -1 B.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 -16.3 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. 1. PARKS, RECREATION AND TRAILS The project's potential impacts on parks, recreation and trails that can be mitigated to below a level of significance are discussed in Section 4.12, Parks, Recreation and Trails, of the 2000 General Plan EIR. Facts and findings FF -34 final 0 12/07/01 Costa Mesa General Plan EIR Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 1. Parks, Recreation and Trails. Implementation of the 2000 General Plan could result in significant impacts to the adequate availability of parkland and recreational facilities within the City. The following 2000 General Plan policies would mitigate any impact to this issue to below a level of significance. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR, 2. The effects identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts in Support of Findings 1. The potential impacts to parks, recreation and trails have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, which are also referenced in the 2000 General Plan EIR, as well as the standard City conditions of approval identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan OSR-1A.1 Provide a minimum of 5.76 acres of permanent public open space (consisting of 4.26 acres of neighborhood and community parks and 1.5 acres in school yards) for every 1,000 residents. OSR-1A.2 Provide maximum visibility and accessibility for future public parks by locating such facilities adjacent to existing or planned public streets. OSR-1A.3 Encourage the acquisition of land for neighborhood or community parks for active recreational use. OSR-1A.4 To the extent legally possible, require other local, regional, State, or Federal agencies to maintain an adequate inventory of open space lands within Costa Mesa. OSR-1A.5 Encourage, through development rights transfers or ofher incentives, the development of private permanent open space, and recreation facilities to meet the needs of the City's residents. OSR-1A.6 Encourage, through open space easements, development rights transfers or acquisition, zoning regulations, or other incentives, the long-term maintenance of existing open space lands. OSR-1A.7 Require, through development standards and planned development review criteria, the integration of open space uses (plazas, courtyards, landscaped areas, etc.) into major commercial and industrial development or redevelopment projects. OSR-1A.8 Continue to require, through development standards, the integration of open space and recreational uses and facilities into all multiple -family residential projects. final 9 12/07/01 FF -35 Facts and Findings NOW - Costa Mesa General Plan EIR OSR-1A.10 Strongly encourage improved maintenance of City and school district facilities used for recreation and organized sports activities. Strongly support recreation programs that benefit the youth of the community. OSR-1A.11 Retain all existing open space in Lions Park. OSR-1A.12 Preserve and enhance existing wetlands areas. OSR-1A.13 Encourage the preservation of views of coastal resources from City and County parkland and public streets within Costa Mesa. OSR-1A.14 Through continued implementation of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, actively pursue the acquisition and development of pocket and neighborhood parks within park deficient areas. OSR-1A.15 Update the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan on a regular basis. OSR-1A.16 Ensure that parks and recreation facilities are developed with facilities appropriate to all ages, including athletic fields, active play areas, passive open space, tot lots and picnic areas. City Conditions of Approval ♦ In compliance with Resolution #98-67 adopted by the City Council on July 1998, new residential developments shall comply with the established parkland dedication and in -lieu fee exactions. J. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY The project's potential impacts to public health and safety that can be mitigated to below a level of significance are discussed in Section 4.13, Public Health and Safety, of the 2000 General Plan EIR. Identified impacts include the routine use, generation or transport of hazardous materials, the accidental release of hazardous material, and hazardous material contamination. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 1. Routine Hazardous Materials Use, Generation and Transport. New commercial or industrial development allowed under implementation of the proposed 2000 General Plan may result in an increased risk of upset associated with the routine use, generation, and transport of hazardous materials, which may potentially pose a health or safety hazard. The following 2000 General Plan policies would mitigate any impact to this issue to below a level of significance. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts and findings FF -36 final 0 12/07/01 Costa Mesa General Plan EIR Facts in Support of Findings 1. The potential impacts attributed to routine hazardous materials use, generation and transport have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, which are also referenced in the 2000 General Plan EIR. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan SAF -1 B.1 Participate with the County of Orange in the implementation of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. SAF -1 B.2 Ensure that appropriate in-depth environmental analyses are conducted for any proposed hazardous waste materials treatment, transfer, and/or disposal facility. SAF -1 B.3 Continue to work with the County of Orange to identify and inventory all users of hazardous materials and all hazardous waste generators and prepare clean-up action plans for identified disposal sites. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 2. Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials. Accidental release of hazardous materials uses, stored, or transported in the City may result in a public health risk. The following 2000 General Plan policies would mitigate any impact to this issue to below a level of significance. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts attributed to the accidental release of hazardous materials have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, which are also referenced in the 2000 General Plan EIR, as well as the standard City conditions of approval identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan LU -1 F.1 Protect existing stabilized residential neighborhoods, included but not limited to mobile home parks (and manufactured housing parks) from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. LU -1 F.2 Actively enforce existing regulations regarding derelict or abandoned vehicles, outdoor storage, and substandard or illegal buildings and establish regulations Final 0 12/07/01 FF -37 Facts and Findings Costa Mesa. General Plan EIR to abate weed -filled yards when any of the above are deemed to constitute a heath, safety or fire hazard. CON -1 B.4 Prohibit the use of land for solid waste disposal dump sites in Costa Mesa and work towards the prohibition of contiguous areas for dump sites where there is possible ground water contamination. SAF -1 B.1 Participate with the County of Orange in the implementation of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. SAF -1 B.2 Ensure that appropriate in-depth environmental analyses are conducted for any proposed hazardous waste materials treatment, transfer, and/or disposal facility. SAF -1 B.3 Continue to work with the County of Orange to identify and inventory all users of hazardous materials and all hazardous waste generators and prepare clean-up action plans for identified disposal sites. Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated 3. Hazardous Material Contamination. Development allowed under implementation of the proposed 2000 General Plan may expose people to existing areas of hazardous materials contamination during construction activities depending on the specific development site selected. The following 2000 General Plan policies and Conditions of Approval would mitigate any impact to this issue to below a level of significance. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. 2. The effects identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR have been determined not to be significant. Facts in Support of Findings 1. The potential impacts attributed to hazardous material contamination have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, which are also referenced in the 2000 General Plan EIR. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan CON -1 B.4 Prohibit the use of land for solid waste disposal dump sites in Costa Mesa and work towards the prohibition of contiguous areas for dump sites where there is possible ground water contamination. SAF -1 B.1 Participate with the County of Orange in the implementation of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. SAF -1 B.2 Ensure that appropriate in-depth environmental analyses are conducted for any proposed hazardous waste materials treatment, transfer, and/or disposal facility. Facts and findings FF -38 final 0 12/07/01 Costa Mesa General Plan EIR SAF -16.3 Continue to work with the County of Orange to identify and inventory all users of hazardous materials and all hazardous waste generators and prepare clean-up action plans for identified disposal sites. City Conditions of Approval ♦ Prior to construction of development projects, a Phase I hazardous materials review shall be conducted for each project which includes, or is potentially affected by, a property identified in local, state or federal records as containing a hazardous materials issue. Depending on the results of this study, further investigation and remediation may be required in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations and policies. ♦ If during demolition of any building, paint is separated from the building material (e.g. chemically or physically), the paint waste will be evaluated independently form the building material by a qualified hazardous materials inspector to determine its proper management. All hazardous materials shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. ♦ Prior to any demolition work, buildings built prior to 1978 shall be sampled as part of an asbestos survey in compliance with the National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Those buildings built after 1978 shall be inspected for compliance with the NESHAP. If asbestos is found in the building, asbestos-related work, including demolition, involving 100 square feet or more of asbestos containing materials (AGMs) shall be performed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor under the supervision of a certified asbestos consultant. Asbestos shall be removEd and disposed of in compliance with applicable state laws. V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION In the environmental areas of transportation and circulation, air quality, and noise, there are five instances where environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. These areas include the following: A. Circulation - 2020 Traffic Volumes/Roadway Capacities on the Gisler Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard roadway segment; B. Circulation — Build -out of the City's Master Plan of Highways; C. Air Quality - Construction Emissions; D. Air Quality - Vehicles Miles Traveled and Stationary Source Emissions; E. Noise - Traffic Noise. A. 2020 TRAFFIC VOLUMES/ROADWAY CAPACITIES Potentially Significant and Unavoidable Impact after Mitigation Circulation - 2020 Traffic Volumes/Roadway Capacities. Implementation of the 2000 General Plan would result in an increase in traffic volumes for the planning horizon year of 2020, which in turn would impact the capacities of roadways within the City of Costa Mesa. Impacts remain significant and unavoidable impact for one roadway segment: Gisler Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard. This roadway segment is forecast with a volume of 30,000 ADT, an exceedance of the roadway capacity by 5,000 ADT in year 2020. This forecast includes the proposed Gisler Bridge over the Santa Ana River, which final 0 12/07/01 FF -39 Facts and Findings Costa Mesa General Plan EIR is currently under study. If the City's objective to remove the proposed Gisler Bridge from the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the City's Master Plan of Highways is achieved, this significant and unavoidable impact would not occur. The 2000 General Plan policies related to this issue minimize significant impacts to the maximum extent practicable. All traffic impacts to other major roadway segments would be mitigated to less than significant levels. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. 2. The traffic volume impacts to roadway segment Gisler Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after implementation of policies included in the 2000 General Plan, the impacts would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. All other impacts to roadway segments have been determined to be less than significant with implementation of the aforementioned policies. Facts in Support of Findings 1. The traffic volumes impacts to one roadway segment (Gisler Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard) in the City remain a significant impact despite the implementation of available 2000 General Plan policies. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan CIR-1A.5 Investigate all available operational measures, including the use of one-way streets, to improve traffic circulation and minimize delay and congestion on arterials. CIR-1A.7 Implement citywide and/or areawide transportation system improvement programs on new development and fee programs for new development. CIR-1A.8 Encourage the integration of compatible land uses and housing into major development projects to reduce vehicle use. CIR-1A.9 Encourage permitted General Plan land uses which generate high traffic volumes to be located near major transportation corridors and public transit facilities to minimize vehicle use, congestion, and delay. CIR-1A.10 Allow the application of transportation management rideshare programs, integration of complementary land uses, and other methods to reduce project related average daily and peak hour vehicle trips in order to achieve consistency with allocated trip budgets. CIR-1AA3 While the Gisler Road segment, west of Harbor, will exceed its theoretical maximum capacity, the City shall work to ensure that the future volume to capacity ratios do not exceed those identified in Table CIR-3 of the General Plan. CIR-1A.15 Prioritize intersection improvements which improve through traffic flow on major, primary, and secondary arterials, and reduce impacts on local neighborhood streets with emphasis on pedestrian safety. Facts and findings FF -40 final • 12/07/01 Costa Mesa General Plan EIR CIR-1A.16 Maintain balance between land use and circulation systems by phasing new development to levels that can be accommodated by roadways existing or planned to exist at the time of completion of each phase of the project. CIR-1A.17 Work closely with the State of California and other government agencies to control traffic -related impacts of uses on State- or other agency -owned land (i.e., Orange County Fairgrounds, Orange Coast College, etc.). CIR-1A.18 Council shall review the results and findings of the (SARX) study to delete the Gisler Avenue and 19th Street bridges over the Santa Ana River as needed. Upon completion of the study and approval of the changes to the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways by the OCTA Board, the City shall process a General Plan Amendment to delete the bridges from the City's Master Plan of Highways. All future development applications submitted to the City shall be reviewed in such a way that the 19th Street and Gisler Avenue bridges will not be included as mitigation measures. CIR-1A.20 Encourage Orange County Transportation Authority to downgrade Mesa Verde Drive, Baker Street west of Harbor Boulevard, and Gisler Avenue to a designation less than a Collector Street in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. CIR-2A.2 Coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority and with adjacent jurisdictions to improve signal timing and coordination along major arterials. CIR-2A.3 Continue to work with Caltrans to synchronize and coordinate traffic signals on arterials at intersections controlled by Caltrans. CIR-2D.2 Construction of circulation improvements for phased development projects may be constructed commensurate with the project construction based upon the findings of a traffic study approved by the City of Costa Mesa. CIR-2D.5 Require discussion of transportation system management (TSM) and transportation demand management (TDM) measures in all EIRs prepared for major projects. GM -1A.1 Recognizing the constraints of existing physical development conditions, the city shall strive to achieve a balance of land uses whereby residential, commercial, industrial and public land uses are proportionally balanced. GM -1A.2 Maintain balance between land use and circulation systems by phasing new development to levels that can be accommodated by roadways existing or planned to exist at the time of completion of each phase of the project. GM -1A.4 Every new development project shall pay its share of costs associated with the mitigation of project generated impacts. 2. The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in the Findings Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts in support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effect after available general plan policies are implemented is acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth therein. final • 12/07/01 FF -41 Facts and Findings Costa Mesa General Pian M B. BUILDOUT OF THE CITY'S MASTER PLAN OF HIGHWAYS Potentially Significant and Unavoidable Impact after Mitigation Circulation - City's Master Plan of Highways. The 2000 General Plan assumes implementation of the City's Master Plan of Highways (MPH) and one minor change when compared to the 1990 MPH. Implementation of the City's Master Plan of Highways would result in physical impacts to the environment, including residential and business displacements from required land acquisitions, to accommodate the improvements identified in the MPH. The implementation of the MPH would therefore result in potentially significant and unavoidable land use impacts. Additional detailed environmental analysis and documentation would be required for the individual arterial improvement projects. The 2000 General Plan policies related to this issue minimize significant impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. 2. The impacts to the Cities Master Plan of Highways have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, the impacts would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. Facts in Support of Findings The impacts to the Cities Master Plan of Highways remain significant despite the implementation of the policies contained in the 2000 General Plan. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan CIR-1A.7 Implement citywide and/or areawide transportation system improvement programs on new development and fee programs for new development. CIR-1A.15 Prioritize intersection improvements which improve through traffic flow on major, primary, and secondary arterials, and reduce impacts on local neighborhood streets with emphasis on pedestrian safety. CIR-1A.18 Council shall review the results and findings of the (SARX) study to delete the Gisler Avenue and 19th Street bridges over the Santa Ana River as needed. Upon completion of the study and approval of the changes to the Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways by the OCTA Board, the City shall process a General Plan Amendment to delete the bridges from the City's Master Plan of Highways. All future development applications submitted to the City shall be reviewed in such a way that the 19th Street and Gisler Avenue bridges will not be included as mitigation measures. CIR-1A.19 Minimize circulation improvements that will necessitate the taking of private property on existing developed properties. CIR-1A.20 Encourage Orange County Transportation Authority to downgrade Mesa Verde Drive, Baker Street west of Harbor Boulevard, and Gisler Avenue to a Facts and findings FF -42 final 0 12/07/01 C. Costa Mesa General Plan. EIR designation less than a Collector Street in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. CIR-1A.21 Encourage Orange County Transportation Authority to downgrade Arlington Avenue between Fairview Road and Newport Boulevard to a Collector Street. CIR-1A.22 Encourage Orange County Transportation Authority to downgrade Baker Street between Redhill Avenue and Bristol Street, and Redhill Avenue between 1-405 and Bristol Street to Primary Arterial from current Major Arterial designation. CIR-2A.1 Coordinate with Caltrans for future consideration of the extension of Route 55 (the Costa Mesa Freeway) from 19th Street to the southern City boundary. CIR-2A.4 Continue to evaluate and pursue design and operational improvements (medians, driveway closures, signal synchronization or phasing, parking or turn restrictions, etc.) to improve the efficiency of intersections. The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in the Findings Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts in support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effect after available general plan policies are implemented is acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth therein. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Potentially Significant and Unavoidable Impact after Mitigation Air Quality - Construction Emissions. Citywide construction activity associated with implementation of the proposed 2000 General Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable increase of air quality criteria pollutants, and would violate air quality standards. Development anticipated in the 2000 General Plan includes new development, redevelopment, and construction of infrastructure. Short-term impacts to air quality would occur during the related grading and construction activities. Although the City enforces continuing and concerted efforts to minimize pollutant emissions during construction, short-term air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The 2000 General Plan policies related to this issue minimize significant impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. The impacts in regards to construction emissions have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after the implementation of the policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, the impacts would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. Final 0 12/07/01 FF -43 Facts and Findings Costa Mesa General Plan EIR Facts in Support of Findings 1. The proposed project's impact in regards to construction emissions remains a significant impact despite the implementation of the policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, as well as the standard City conditions of approval identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan CON -1 E.1 Cooperate with and support regional, State, and Federal agencies to improve air quality throughout the South Coast Air Basin. CON -1 E.2 Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major development or redevelopment project impacts on local and regional air and water quality. City Conditions of Approval ♦ SCAOMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. Rule 403 prohibits the release of fugitive dust emissions from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area beyond the property line of the emission source. Particulate matter deposits on public roadways are also prohibited. ♦ Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of construction -generated dust particles. Portions of the project site that are undergoing earth moving operations shall be watered such that a crust will be formed on the ground surface and then watered again at the end of the day. Grading operations shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph). 2. The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in the Findings Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts in support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effect after available general plan policies and standard conditions of approval are implemented is acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth therein. D. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS Potentially Significant and Unavoidable Impact after Mitigation Air Quality - Vehicles Miles Traveled and Stationary Source Emissions. Development associated with implementation of the proposed 2000 General Plan would result in an overall increase in mobile and stationary source emissions within the City, which would exceed SCAQMD air quality standards. Currently, the city's mobile source air emissions exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's thresholds. Cumulative air pollution impacts from implementation of the proposed 2000 General Plan are considered significant because future development projects would generate emissions of criteria pollutants (reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide) within an area designated as non -attainment for these pollutants. Local efforts to minimize air quality emissions would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts on a cumulative level after mitigation. The 2000 General Plan policies related to this issue minimize significant impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Facts and findings FF -44 final 0 12/07/01 Costa Mesa General Plan EIR Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 4. The impacts in regards to vehicles miles traveled and stationary source emissions have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after the implementation of the policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, the impacts would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. Facts in Support of Findings 1. The proposed project's impact in regards to vehicles miles traveled and stationary source emissions remains a significant impact despite the implementation of the policies contained in the 2000 General Plan. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan CON -1 C.3 Pursue adoption of an Energy Conservation Program that requires the use of materials, devices, and measures to reduce energy consumption above the energy conservation requirements of Title 24. These measures may include built-in energy efficient appliances, automated controls for air conditioners and lighting, special sunlight -filtering window coatings or double -paned windows, light-colored roofing materials, and other means to reduce energy consumption and a structure's heating and cooling needs. CON -1 E.1 Cooperate with and support regional, State, and Federal agencies to improve air quality throughout the South Coast Air Basin. CON -1 E.2 Require, as a part of the environmental review procedure, an analysis of major development or redevelopment project impacts on local and regional air and water quality. CON -1E.3 Develop and implement a Reasonable Available Control Measure Plan (including employee ridesharing, traffic signal synchronization, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, energy conservation street lighting, modified work schedules, preferential carpool parking, or other equivalent control measures) in conformance with the Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. CIR-1A.3 Coordinate the design and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle ways in major residential, shopping, and employment centers, parks, schools, other public facilities, public transportation facilities, and bicycle networks with adjacent cities. CIR-1A.8 Encourage the integration of compatible land uses and housing into major development projects to reduce vehicle use. final 0 12/07/01 FF -45 Facts and Findings Costa Mesa General Plan EIR CIR-1A.9 Encourage permitted General Plan land uses, which generate high traffic volumes to be located near major transportation corridors and public transit facilities to minimize vehicle use, congestion, and delay. CIR-1A.10 Allow the application of transportation management rideshare programs, integration of complementary land uses, and other methods to reduce project related average daily and peak hour vehicle trips in order to achieve consistency with allocated trip budgets. 2. The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in the Findings Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts in support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effect after available general plan policies are implemented is acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth therein. E. TRAFFIC NOISE Potentially Significant and Unavoidable Impact after Mitigation Noise - Traffic Noise. Future traffic noise levels associated with implementation of the 2000 General Plan development would contribute to an existing exceedance of the City's noise standard resulting in potential noise impacts to sensitive receptors. Specific roadway segments along Sunflower Avenue, Bristol Street, Baker Street, 17th Street, Fairview Road, Bear Street, 1-405 (Harbor to Fairview), 1-405 (Fairview to SR -73), and SR -55 currently exceed the City's 65 CNEL noise standard and will continue to impact residential uses in the immediate area. The 2000 General Plan objectives related to this issue minimize significant impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2000 General Plan EIR. 2. Impacts associated with traffic noise have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after implementation of the policies contained in the 2000 General Plan, the impacts would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. Facts in Support of Findings 1. The proposed project's impacts associated with traffic noise remain significant despite the implementation of the policies contained in the 2000 General Plan. Policies in Proposed 2000 General Plan N -1A.1 Require, as a part of the environmental review process, that full consideration be given to the existing and projected noise environment. N -1A.2 The maximum acceptable exterior noise levels for residential areas is 65 CNEL. N -1A.3 Give full consideration to the existing and projected noise environment when considering alterations to the City's circulation system and Master Plan of Highways. Facts and findings FF -46 final 0 12/07/01 Costa Mesa General Plan EIR N -1A.4 Encourage Caltrans to construct noise attenuation barriers along State freeways and highways adjoining residential and other noise sensitive areas. N -1A.5 Ensure that appropriate site design measures are incorporated into residential developments, when required by an acoustical study, to obtain appropriate exterior and interior noise levels. When necessary, require field testing at the time of project completion to demonstrate compliance. N -1A.6 Apply the standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as applicable to the construction of all new dwelling units. 2. The overriding social, economic, and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in the Findings Regarding Alternatives provide additional facts in support of these findings. Any remaining, unavoidable significant effect after available general plan policies are implemented is acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth therein. VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The 2000 General Plan EIR addresses the environmental effects of alternatives to the proposed project. A description of these alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to the proposed project, and the City's findings are listed below. A. NO PROJECTMO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Project/No Build Alternative (pages 5-6 through 5-10 of the Public Review Draft 2000 General Plan EIR) would maintain the status quo of existing land use conditions and levels of development in the City of Costa Mesa, with no additional development permitted. Land use designations under the No Project/No Build Alternative would be identical to those under the proposed 2000 General Plan. However, any development that would occur as part of implementation of the proposed 2000 General Plan would not occur under this alternative. By definition, this alternative prohibits issuance of building permits for new residential units or additional non-residential square footage. However, the of Costa Mesa would continue to be impacted by growth occurring in surrounding cities. This regional growth would result in impacts beyond "existing conditions" in such topic areas as traffic, air quality, noise, and public services and utilities. Findings The City hereby finds that specific economic, social or other considerations make this alternative feasible for the reasons noted in the following paragraphs. The No Project/No Build (No City Growth Plus Regional Growth) Alternative would result in no change to the existing conditions within the City of Costa Mesa. Therefore, no new or additional environmental impacts would directly result from this alternative. However, the City would continue to be impacted by growth occurring in neighboring cities and in the region. Impacts from regional growth are anticipated to create additional traffic, air quality, noise, and public service and utility impacts over existing conditions. The No Project/No Build Alternative would prevent the City of Costa Mesa from making needed improvements to existing properties, infrastructure, public facilities, parks and recreation facilities, and public services. Existing conditions under this alternative would be maintained, not improved, and would continue to be impacted by regional growth. final 0 12/07/01 FF -47 Facts and Findings Costa Mesa General Plan EIR Adoption of the No Project/No Build Alternative does not allow for infill development or the opportunity to expand or construct a new use on an "underdeveloped" parcel. Limiting the ability to expand or improve buildings or parcels may force existing businesses or residents to leave, since their needs will not be able to be met in the City. This could create new or additional impacts in other cities. Overall, the level of impact under the No Project/No Development Alternative is less than significant with the exception of traffic impacts. And this alternative results in regional impacts to the City with respect to traffic, air quality, noise, and public services and utilities. However, this alternative does not significantly reduce or avoid any potential impacts of the proposed 2000 General Plan. The No Project/No Build Alternative fails to accomplish the project objectives and has other potential environmental impacts resulting from its implementation. The No Project/No Build Alternative, due to these reasons, is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. The Findings of the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. B. NO PROJECT/EXISTING (1990) GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE The No Project/Existing (1990) General Plan Alternative (pages 5-10 through 5-14 of the Public Review Draft 2000 General Plan EIR) describes buildout of the City of Costa Mesa in accordance with existing zoning and general plan land use designations under the policies and implementing strategies of the 1990 General Plan, adopted in 1992. A description of the basis for the City's decision to proceed with an update of the 1990 General Plan is provided in Section 3.0 of this EIR. This alternative assumes that the 1990 General Plan would continue to provide outdated information regarding several issues, such as City traffic conditions, land use database, community noise levels, and air quality data. In addition, this No Project/Existing (1990) General Plan Alternative includes the designation of the Home Ranch project site as Industrial Park and Medium Density Residential and does not reflect the Planning Commission's City Council's recent action on a General Plan amendment to the 1990 General Plan for this property. The 15 land use designations in the 1990 General Plan, and their associated residential densities or floor area ratios, were not modified in the proposed 2000 General Plan. Nor were any new land use designations (categories) added in the proposed 2000 General Plan. However, the proposed 2000 General Plan does include one land use map modification for a 0.34 -acre parcel on the northeast corner of Victoria and Maple Streets. The designation was modified to Public Use — Institutional in the proposed 2000 General Plan. The proposed 2000 General Plan also includes, but is not limited to, the following: an update of the Costa Mesa Traffic Model (CMTM), minor modifications to the City's Master Plan of Highways, and modifications to the City's Master Plan of Bikeways. The No Project/Existing (1990) General Plan would not include the changes or modifications noted above or detailed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of this EIR. Findings The City hereby finds that specific economic, social or other considerations make this alternative feasible for the reasons noted in the following paragraphs. The No Project/Existing (1990) General Plan Alternative would result in similar environmental impacts as the proposed project for land use, aesthetics, air quality, noise, geology, Facts and findings FF -48 final 0 12/07/01 N� Costa Mesa General Plan EI hydrology/drainage, biological resources, cultural resources, public services and utilities, parks/recreation/trails, and public health and safety. This alternative would generate similar impacts than the proposed project with respect to population/employment/housing and transportation/circulation. Implementation of the 1990 General Plan does not eliminate significant traffic, air quality, or noise impacts. However, as it is the intent of the proposed project to provide new information based on current conditions within the City, the 1990 General Plan evaluated under the No Project/Existing (1990) General Plan Alternative would not serve the City as adequately as the proposed project. Overall, the 1990 General Plan and the proposed project would result in similar environmental impacts with the exception of those previously mentioned. Thus, the No Project/Existing (1990) General Plan Alternative is not considered environmentally superior when compared to the proposed project. The findings of the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. C. HOME RANCH ALTERNATIVE The Home Ranch Alternative (pages 5-15 through 5-22 of the Public Review Draft 2000 General Plan EIR) provides a different development scenario for the Segerstrom Home Ranch site (Home Ranch). All other proposed designations and densities shown on the General Plan Land Use Map would remain the same for all other areas of the City. The Home Ranch project would involve the development of retail, office, office -related, light industrial and residential uses on the Home Ranch site. A phased development is proposed for 308,000 gross square feet for the IKEA home furnishings store on approximately 17.2 acres, 791,050 square feet of office and office -related uses on 45.4 acres, 252,648 square feet of industrial park development on 14.5 acres and 464 high density apartments on 16.0 acres. Additionally, the project proposes flood control channel improvements to the existing Greenville -Banning Channel and Gisler Channel. Retention of the Segerstrom House, associated guesthouse and garage, and Segerstrom Barn are assumed as part of the project. The remaining structures would not be retained on the site at project buildout. This alternative would also modify the land use designations for this site 1) from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential and Industrial Park and 2) from Industrial Park to Commercial Center. In addition, floor area ratios and density limits have been established to correspond to the change in land use designations. And last, new trip budgets have been determined for the Home Ranch Alternative. Findings The City hereby finds that specific economic, social or other considerations make this alternative feasible for the reasons noted in the following paragraphs. The Home Ranch Alternative would result in similar impacts as compared to the proposed project for the following issue areas: aesthetics; air quality; noise; geology; hydrology/drainage; biological resources; cultural resources; public services and utilities; and public health and safety. This alternative allows the development of 464 high-density residential units on the Segerstrom Home Ranch site compared to 192 owner -occupied single-family units proposed in the proposed project. The provision of owner -occupied single- family units reflects the community concern regarding the high percentage of rental housing in the City. final 0 12/07/01 FF -49 Facts and Findings Costa Mesa General Phan EIR This alternative, however, does not reflect the recent City Council action approving the proposed development of the Segerstrom Home Ranch site (GP -00-05). The findings set forth in this Statement of Facts and Findings and the overriding social, economic and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. D. ORIGINAL 2000 GENERAL PLAN PROJECT The City rejects the originally proposed 2000 General Plan project because the original draft document does not reflect the development assumptions of Home Ranch Alternative A, as approved by City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 01-79 in November, 2001. The original proposal for Segerstrom Home Ranch included 366 Medium Density Residential units and 961,060 square feet of Industrial Park uses. The proposed project incorporates the recent development approval for the Segerstrom Home Ranch site: (a) 16 acres of Medium Density Residential uses, (b) 17.2 acres for a 308,000 square -foot IKEA home furnishings store (c) 14.5 acres of industrial park uses, and (d) 45.4 acres of office and office -related uses. The City finds that, for the proposed project (the 2000 Costa Mesa General Plan plus Home Ranch Alternative A), any remaining, unavoidable significant effect after available general plan policies are implemented is acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth herein in the Statement of Facts and Findings. Facts and findings FF -50 final • 12/07/01 Costa Mesa General Plan EIR STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS I. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines provide in part the following: a) CEQA requires that the decision maker balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects that are identified in the General Plan EIR but are not mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the General Plan EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the finding under Section 15091 (a)(2) or (a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination (Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines). The City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the 2000 General Plan EIR for the project, Responses to Comments and the public record, adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations that have been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impacts in reaching a decision on this project. II. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Although all potential project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated as described in the preceding findings, there is no complete mitigation for five project impacts: 1. 2020 Traffic Volumes/Roadway Capacities on the Gisler Avenue west of Harbor Boulevard roadway segment; 2. Build -out of the City's Master Plan of Highways; 3. Construction Emissions; 4. Vehicles Miles Traveled and Stationary Source Emissions; and 5. Traffic Noise. Details of these significant unavoidable adverse impacts were discussed in the 2000 General Plan EIR and are summarized, or were otherwise provided in Section V, Environmental Effects Which Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation, in the Statement of Facts and Findings. Final 0 12/07/01 oc-1 overriding considerations Costa Mesa General Plan EIR III. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS To the extent that the significant effects of the project are not avoided or substantially lessened to below a level of significance, City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the 2000 General Plan EIR and the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds that such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in view of the following overriding considerations. 1. The project's implementation will help ensure orderly, integrated, and compatible development in response to existing conditions and ongoing local and regional trends. 2. The project will maintain the City's long-term viability and productivity through a managed growth plan as opposed to allowing piecemeal development for the benefit of short-term gain. 3. The project complies with State of California Planning Law by providing "a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development" of the City (Government Code Section 65300) comprised of an "integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies" (Government Code Section 65300.5). 4. The project complies with the State mandated provisions for Housing Elements, and sets forth a reasonable range of housing programs to address regional housing needs. 5. The project provides policy direction to coordinate with surrounding cities and the County of Orange to reevaluate the need for bridges and/or regional street improvements that may have potentially significant environmental effects associated with them. Mutual agreement of the deletion of transportation -related improvements will not jeopardize the City's eligibility for regional and state funding programs. 6. The project's circulation system is consistent with the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). This consistency is necessary for the City to retain eligibility for regional and state arterial financing programs. Compliance with the County's MPAH will result in the City being eligible for direct turnback funds and regional funds provided by Measure M. The project provides a general framework for land use and infrastructure development over the next twenty years, and has ensured that the two are appropriately correlated. Individual components of the project will be subject to additional environmental analyses and review, and if these individual projects are determined to be infeasible for either environmental, social and/or economic reasons, appropriate amendments can be made to the 2000 General Plan. The project, being a General Plan, where CEQA requires subsequent discretionary project approvals before any physical change to natural habitat is permitted, will not have any significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, or their habitat. 9. Implementation of the project will result in the reduction and elimination of existing and projected environmental impacts in the following areas: OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OC -2 FINAL 0 12/07/01 Costa Mesa General Plan EIR Land Use ■ Consistency with Regional Plans and Policies ■ Land Use Compatibility Population, Employment and Housing ■ Population Growth ■ Employment Growth ■ Displacement of Housing and People Ap-gthp_tiCS ■ Visual Quality ■ Light and Glare Transportation/Circulation ■ Congestion Management Program (CMP) LOS Standards ■ Consistency with OCTA Master Plan of Arterial Highways ■ Master Plan of Bikeways, ■ Alternative Transportation Air Quality ■ Consistency with Regional Plans Noise • Construction Noise • Aircraft Noise ■ Stationary Noise Geology and Seismic Hazards ■ Seismicity ■ Erosion ■ Unstable or Expansive Soils Hydrology and Drainage • Water Quality ■ Groundwater ■ Drainage ■ Flood/Dam Inundation Biological Resources ■ Biological Resources Historical and Cultural Resources ■ Historic and Cultural Resources Public Service and Utilities ■ Fire Protection • Police Protection • School Facilities ■ Library Facilities ■ Water • Sewer Services ■ Solid Waste ■ Electricity ■ Natural Gas • Telephone ■ Cable Television Final 0 12/07/01 oc-3 overriding considerations Costa Mesa General Plan EIR Parks, Recreation and Trails ■ Parks, Recreation and Trails Public Health and Safety ■ Routine Hazardous Material Use, Generation and Transport ■ Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials ■ Hazardous Material Contamination Although significant impacts will remain, the City of Costa Mesa will mitigate any significant adverse impacts to circulation, air quality, and noise to the maximum extent practicable. In it's decision to approve the project, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa finds that the project's benefits outweigh the environmental impacts. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OC -4 FINAL 0 12/07/01 COSTA MESA 2000 GENERAL PLAN EIR MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Policy (Policy) I Responsible City Department and Conditions of Approval (Condition) I Implementation Time Frame Involved Outside Agency Mitigation Measure (M.M.) Condition Future development projects shall be subject to the following condition of approval: Ongoing throughout 2000 General Development Services Department ♦ Prior to any demolition work, buildings built prior to 1978 shall be sampled as part Plan Implementation Building &Safety Division of an asbestos survey in compliance with the National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Those buildings built after 1978 shall be inspected for compliance with the NESHAP. If asbestos is found in the building, asbestos-related work, including demolition, involving 100 square feet or more of asbestos containing materials (AGMs) shall be performed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor under the supervision of a certified asbestos consultant. Asbestos shall be removed and disposed of in compliance with applicable state laws. Page 43