Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout79-137REL:ms 8/10/79 RESOLUTION N0.79-137 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ADOPTING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT ITS APPROVAL OF GENEI:~L PLAN hMEND- MENT 79-2 AND VARIANCE APPLICATION 79-1. WHEREAS, on July 2, 1979, this Council after hearings, duly noticed in the manner prescribed by law, and after certification and approval of that certain Final Environmental Impact Report designated EIR 78-4 for the Mohler Development Santa Ana Office Complex project, approved General Plan Amendment 79-2 and Variance Application 79-1, permitting the said project subject to modifications and conditions, Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana that that certain document entitled "Findings in Support of the Approval of the Mohler Development Santa Aha Office Complex," attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein as though fully set forth, is hereby approved and adopted as this Council's findings of fact based upon the abovesaid hearings and the evidence therein presented. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon the findings hereby adopted, the Council does reaffirm and ratify its approval of General Plan Amendment 79-2 and its approval of Variance Application 79-1 subject to the recommended requirements and conditions contained in the staff report prepared for said variance application, except that the building height and setback requirements shall be established by CD site plan review without restriction by said variance conditions other than the maximum height limitation of 98 feet. ADOPTED this 20th day of the following vote: August , 1979, by AYES: COUNCILMEN: Bricken, Griset, Luxembourger, Yamamoto NOES: COUNCILMEN: Markel, Serrato ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Ward ATTEST: VI~ MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: GOW, City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 79-137 REL:adg 7/10/79 FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPROVAL OF THE MOHLER DEVELOPMENT SANTA ANA OFFICE COMPLEX (GPA 79-2 and Variance Application 79-1) A. Findings in support__of the granting of Variance Application 79-!.' 1. The subject property is located at the intersection of two arterial streets in immediate proximity to the Orange County Courthouse and other Civic Center facilities. This location renders the site unsuitable for continued residential use or new residential development, and highly suitable for development for use for administrative and professional offices, especially attocney offices. 2. The subject property is within the Santa Ana Redevelop~nent Agency Project Area, which has been determined to be a blighted area ~n need o~ cedevelopment. 3. Redevelopment of the subject site for use as adm~.n~.st~2%ve and professional offices is financially infeasible to private develop~ent in the foreseeable future unless permitted to take place in the ~ocm of an office building of at least eight stories. 4. The subject site is immediately next to the City's Height District II in which high-rise buildings are permitted. 5. The use of residentially zoned property, which forms a northern projection of the subject site, for open space use accessory to the proposed office building is necessary and desirable for the purpose of expanding the setback between the said building and residentially used property to the north. 6. The above facts constitute special circumstances applicable to the subject property. To deny the variance and strictly apply the zoning ordinance would deprive the I XIBIT A P~SOLUTIONNO. 79-137 subject site of the privilege of being developed for administrative and professional offices. Such development in the form of a building exceeding the height limitation is not otherwise at variance with the intent and purposes of the provisions of Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. 7. The granting of this variance from the height limitation, and allowing the use of residentially zoned properties for accessory setback purposes, is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the right of the developer to obtain the most productive use of the property consistent with the public welfare and the objectives of the Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency, which constitutes a substantial property right. 8. The granting of this variance Will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property.~ For reasons set forth at length hereafter, the benefit to the public outweighs minor adverse effects on residential property in the vicinity. 9. The variances is accompanied by an amendment to the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan which change the ultimate planned use designation of the subject site from High Density Residential to Professional Administrative Offices. As thus amended, the General Plan of the City would not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. B. FeaSibilit~_~M%~i~ation Measures and Alternatives (EIR references are to that certain final Environmental Impact Report designated EIR 78-4, certified and approved by the City Council of the cit~ of SantaoA~a on July 2, 1979) 1. Intrusion of high rise building into existing buffer between residential area and professional administrative area (EIR $ 3.1.2). EXHIBIT RESOLUTION NO. 79-137 The effect has been substantially mitigated by restricting development to a 98-foot height limit the 159-foot building originally requested· Restriction to a lower height limit is infeasible nonviable to the developer. Further erosion of the buffer is not significantly more likely because of this development. In the first place, other parcels in this area are further removed from the Civic Center and lack the special circumstance of immediate proximity which justifies the height variance in this case. In the second place, the ~dvers~ env%¢o,~mental effects of any further discretionary projects in the area must be judged as additional to those due to this project, thus facing a j.astification. The visual impact of this project on property immediately to the north has been mitigated by the incorporation of the two parcels fronting on Olive Street into the subject site for buffering purposes, which also allows a more desirable design of the Olive Street cai-de- sac . 2. Increased ground-water runoff. (EIR ~ 3.3.2) An adequate drainage system, including retention and metering of incremental runoff, will be incorporated i,]to the development, thus mitigating any adverse effect into ]._ns tun i.f Lcance. 3. Increased traffic and off-street parking. (EIR § 3.42) The increment in traffic and off-street parking due to this project is not any greater than could occur by development of the site in accordance with existing zoning without any discretionary permits from the City. On-street parking impact in residential areas has been substantially mitigated by the requirement that on-site, off-street parking be provided by the developer in an amount of 25 EXItlB,ff A RBSOLUTION NO. 79-137 percent above zoning code requirements. Traffic egress on Olive Street has been prohibited. It is infeasible to determine the desirability of limited packing or traffic access restrictions on other residential streets at the present time, but such options remain open in the future. 4. Increased noise. (EIR ~ 3.5.3) Construction related noise will be limited by the City noise ordinance to acceptable times of the day and week. The closure of Olive Street to site related traffic will avoid the most significant potential incident of traffic related noise. Architectural review of the project design will permit the City to require all feasible noise mitigation measures appropriate for the parking structure and any proposed drive-in teller operation. 5. Increased wind jetting. (EIR $ 3.6.) Architectural review of the project design will permit the City to require all feasible wind jetting mitigation measures appropriate for the project. In any event, wind jetting will not be a significant effect of the proposed project. 6. Light and Glare 3.7.2.2) Impacts. (EIR S~ 3.7.1.2 and The shadow projected by the building has been reduced correspondingly to the required reduction in proposed building height. Glare has been substantially mitigated by requirements for smoked windows, landscaping, parking structure walls, and lighting restrictions. 7. Aesthetic Impact. (EIR S 3.8.2) The contrast between the project and the ~esidential neighb(~r~6od is not a demonstrably negative aesthetic effect. Th~ aegthetic reaction to the project will be a matter of individual taste. 8. Police and Fire Impacts (EIR ~ 3.10.4 and 3.10.5) RESOLUTION NO. 79-137 Compliance with the City's Fire Code, the Regulations of the State Fire Marshal, a~d the City's Building Security Ordinance will assure that no significant adverse effects pertaining to Police and Fire Department operations will occur. 9. Alternative of "No Project" and "Development to Existing Zoning and General Plan Restrictions." (EIR §§ 5.1 and 5.2) These alternatives are considered together for the reason that they equally assume noninvolvement by the City with respect to changes in land use, and a corresponding dependence on market factors alone, within existing zoning law constraints. They are considered infeasible for the following reasons: (1) The site is primar~.ly attractive economic- ally for high-rise development for uses accessory to the Civic Center. Retention of the 35-foot height maximum thus poses a substaatial likelihood that the site will not be improved beyond its current state so long as such restriction exists. (2) On the other hand, in the event a developer was found who was prepared to redevelop the site within the 35-foot height restriction, a substantial risk exists that the resulting project would create traffic, off-street parking, and noise impacts equal to those of the proposed project. Although the impacts particular to a high-r~$e building would be avoided, there would likely be a cor- responding loss of laadscaped open space. EXHIBIT RBSOLUTION NO. 79-137 (3) The accessibility to the civic Center, the site makes it a likely prospect for develop- ment by the State or County governments, which development, if it occurred, would be exempt from the height limitation and fro~ local municipal regulation in general. 10. Extension of the Professional/Administrative Designation and Height District II Westward to Baker Street. (EIR S 5.3) This alternative would increase significant environmental effects beyond those of the proposed project. 11. Rezor]ing to High Density Residential (EIR S 5.4) The subject site, due to its immediate proximity to the Civic Center, is far more appropriate for administrative or professional office use than for apartments or condominiums. There is no evidence of any significant market demand for high density housing developments on the north side of Civic Center Drive west of Flower. Thus this alternative runs the substantial risk of resulting in no redevelopment or improvement of that area whatsoever. On the other hand, to the extent such market demand may arise, the proposed project would not constrain such residential development west of the subject site. 12. Redesign to One-Half Height and Space., (EIR S 5.5) The proposed project, as modified by the developer, is a compromise between this alternative and the project as originally proposed. Any degree of reduction in height and size will correspondingly mitigate the adverse effects incident to those factors and this alternative is only illustrative of th~ ~ea of a smaller building. The reductions made b~the developer during the course of environmental and planning review bring the proposed project down to the threshhold of financial viability to the EXHIBIT RESOLUTION NO. 79-137 existing developer. Any further reduction would preclude development by the only developer currently interested in developing the subject site, and thus cause the substantial risk of creating the situation set forth in paragraph 9 above. C. Statement of Overriding Considerations The adverse environmental effects of the proposed project, even after the modifications and mitigation, are not totally insignificant. But neither can they fairly be characterized as very severe, especially when compared to other potent~.al development of the subject site. The concerns of the neighboring residential community have been carefully considered by the City. While these concerns are no doubt sincere, they are judged to reflect an exaggerated conception of negative consequences. The City does not concur in the assumptions which underlie allegations that the project will induce a blighting of the residential community. There is no basis for the assumption that the approval of this project will inevitably lead to high rise development westward o~ the subject site. (Reference paragraph Al, above.) The visual impact and temporary shadowing consequences of a high-rise building are judged to be only moderately adverse effects, which will have slight impact, if any, on the continuing desirability of existing single family dwellings for residential purposes. The primary attribute of such dwellings will continue to be as a supply of moderately-priced single family housing, providing residents with more spacious housing and yard areas per given purchase price than can be obtained in areas further removed from the annoyances of the urban center. The concern expressed by some opponents of the project, to the effect that the project will induce a higher RESOLUTION NO. 79-137 crime rate in the residential neighborhood, is without apparent foundation in evidence or logic. The incremental increase in traffic and off street parking due to the project cannot be viewed in isolation. There exists a city-wide problem of vehicular travel between the central city and regional traffic routes. The neighboring residential area is particularly vulnerable to such problems as the central city is redeveloped, because of its proximity to it. Traffic flow and parking restrictions in the neighborhood remain options open to City consideration at such time as need and feasibility can be more specifically assessed. Aside from these options, however, traffic and parking impacts are judged not to be unduly disproportionate to those which could reasonably be expected in the ne~.ghbochood in the next few years even if the proposed project had been disappuoved. The City Council therefore judges that the benefits accruing to the community from the project far more than outweigh the environmentally adverse effects. The project will upgrade the Civic Center area and enhance its image, attracting new development, and thereby promoting the established goal of eliminating blight in the Redevelopment Project Area. The project will accommodate a demand for office space for professional and administrative uses accessory to the Civic Center, particularly attorney offices with ease of access to the Orange County Courthouse· By providing office space within easy walking access to the ~ivic Center, the project will decrease vehicular traffic to and from the Civic Center and parking congestion at the Civ~c Center. The pro~ct will provide substantial tax increment benefits to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana, thus promoting the Agency's ability to achieve its objectives elsewhere throughout the Redevelopment Project Are. EXt:H IT A RESOLUTION NO. 79-137 Approval of the project provides the City with the certainty of attainment of these benefits now, rather than speculation that a similar project might be proposed at a different location if this project were rejected. It likewise avoids a substantial risk that a less beneficial development of the subject site would occur in the future or that the subject s~.t~ would continue indefinitely in its present state. EXHII IT