Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-091SEE ORD. NO. NS-1941 FOR SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 87-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MACARTHUR PLACE PROJECT; FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT THEREOF WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Santa Ana ("EIR") addresses the environmental effects of the MacArthur Place Project (the "Project"); WHEREAS, the EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (#CEQA") and the State EIR Guidelines; WHEREAS, a draft of the EIR ("Draft EIR") was circulated to the public for comment and review; WHEREAS, the Planning Department of the City of Santa Ana ("Planning Department") conducted public hearings on Sepember 20, 1987, to receive public testimony with respect to the Draft EIR; WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to and incorporated into the EIR; WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana has set forth the general development and design criteria for the Project in Specific Development Plan No. 43 ("SD No. 43"); and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana ("Redevelopment Agency") prepared the Redevelopment Plan for the'Santa Ana South Main Street Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment Plan") in conformity with the Santa Ana General Plan ("General Plan") to further the redevelopment, rehabilitation and revitalization of the area, including the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana that: 1068G/B0488-008 th:12/01/87 RES. NO. 87-91 SECTION 1: Procedural Background The City Council finds that adequate public notice, solicitation of, and opportunity for public comment have been given. Such notice was given at the same time and in the same manner as the public notice required for the approvals related to the Project. Notice of the initial September 28, 1987, Planning Commission meeting was mailed to the public on September 18, 1987. Notice of this hearing was also published in the Orange County Register on September 18, 1987. Notice for the November 23, 1987, Planning Department hearing was given by mail on November 13, 1987. Notice for the December 7, 1987, meeting of the City Council was mailed on November 24, 1987, and published on November 26, 1987, in the Orange County Register. The City Council finds that the Project description contained in the EIR adequately describes the entire MacArthur Place Project, including the number of acres, the general nature of the Project as an "urban village" consisting of approximately 4,051,000 square feet of mixed use office-commercial-retail, and 400 residential units. The Project description contained in pages 2-1 through 2-30 of the EIR adequately describes the nature of the complete development of MacArthur Place, as contemplated by the Redevelopment Plan and SD No. 43. The City Council finds that the EIR complies with the requirements set forth in CEQA, that the EIR was presented to the City Council, and that the City Council reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the EIR prior to approval of the Project. SECTION 2: Factual Background As described in the EIR, the Project is a proposed "urban village" mixed use facility, featuring commercial, retail, office, hotel and residential uses. The Project, as proposed, would develop an existing manufacturing plant and agricultural parcel into a relatively self-contained commercial/business/ residential complex consistent with structured growth in Orange County, and provide approximately 12,583 permanent employment opportunities. The Project would also clean up contaminated sol,1 and ground water that currently exist on a portion of the Project site. ' The Project is intended to achieve and further develop the major goals of the Redevelopment Plan, including the following: -2- B. Project residential areas. C. Project impacts. D. E. to urban use F. G. services. H. I. J. K. L. M. related traffic impacts on adjacent traffic circulation and Project access Air quality -- short term impacts. Conversion of agriculturally productive land (on a project specific basis). Population, housing and employment impacts. Natural gas, electricity, and telephone Demolition of existing on-site water wells. School impacts. Aesthetics. Light and glare impacts. Hazardous materials. Contaminated soils and ground water. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR INSIGNIFICANT EFFECTS Notwithstanding the fact that the EIR identified the above-mentioned effects as having no significant impact on the environment, the EIR provides additional mitigation measures for the following insignificant effects: 1. Project Related Traffic Impacts on Adjacent Resi- dential Areas. The following mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR to provide additional protection for the adjacent residential areas: A. Access points along Main Street shall be offset from existing access points to adjacent residential areas. B. Access along Main Street shall be restricted to right-turn-in/right-turn-out only movements. C. An existing intersection shall be utilized to provide signalized access to the east side of Main Street. -5- Ii I RES. 87-91 D. Improvements to Main Street along Project site frontage shall include a raised median. E. A neighborhood monitoring study shall be completed prior to occupancy of Phases II through V of the Project or as required by the City. These studies shall be conducted to detect any neighborhood through-traffic caused by the Project. These studies shall include field surveys, analysis and specifications for reducing or eliminating such impacts, if found. 2. Project Traffic Circulation and Project Access. The following measures are set forth in the EIR: A. Establishment of site access locations and characteristics as indicated in Appendix B to the EIR. B. Implementation of the site's internal circulation plan to public street standards and as conceptually depicted in Figure 5 of the EIR. 3. Air Quality -- Short Term. The following mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR: A. Grading activities shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, which requires watering for the control of dust. B. Construction roads shall be paved. C. Construction equipment shall be maintained in proper condition. D. Construction shall be discontinued during first and second stage smog alerts. 4. Natural Gas, Electricity, and Telephone Service. The following mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR: A. Energy conservation programs will be implemented in the Project wherever feasible. B. A telephone system shall be installed on the '- subject property, intended for acceptance by Pacific Bell and built to Pacific Bell's specifications. 5. Demolition of Existin~ On-Site Water Wells. The EIR sets forth that all necessary permits from the Orange County -6- RES. NO. 87-91 Health Department shall be secured for capping and demolition of the existing water wells on the Project site. 6. Schools. The EIR states that although the Project will generate approximately 60 students to the Santa Aha School District, the Project will contribute approximately $1,437,750 in school assessment fees. 7. Light and Glare. The following mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR: A. Outdoor lighting on the Project shall be designed and installed so that all direct rays will be confined to the site and adjacent properties will be protected from glare. B. Lighting on the Project shall be directed downward so that nighttime security lighting will not unreasonably interfere with aircraft approaching John Wayne Airport. 8. Contaminated Soils and Ground Water. The EIR states that clean-up operations will continue on the Project site where the soil and ground water may be contaminated by a former gas service station. POTENTIALLY ADVERSE EFFECTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE The following potentially adverse impacts shall be mitigated to a level of Insignificance. 1. Land Use. A. Siqnificant Effect. The Project will change the existing land use of the subject property ("Property") in that all on-site structures will be demolished and existing undeveloped agriculture and low intensity industrial uses will be converted into a high intensity mixed-use development. The intensity and scale of the Project may be incompatible with adjacent residential areas. B. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incoporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significnt environmental effects as identified in the EIR. -7- · RES. NO. 87-91 C. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measures have been included in the EIR and SD No. 43. (1) The Project will be developed in accordance with the requirements set forth in SD No. 43 with regard to maximum development intensities, parking, setbacks, building heights, site coverage, signage, landscaping and design features. (2) The Project site is physically separated from existing residential development by a major arterial roadway (Main Street). Site development will provide additional buffering through landscaping, parking and other setbacks incorporated in Project plans. (3) A gradual transition in scale between adjacent residential areas and higher intensity uses will be provided by clustering more intense activity areas and creating taller structures in central and eastern portions of the Property, as incorporated in Project plans. (4) Other land use comparability related impacts such as traffic generation, noise, aesthetics, shade and shadows, and light/glare have been analyzed and mitigated as appropriate by measures identified in other sections of the EIR. 2. Noise. A. Significant Effect. Construction noise represents a short-term effect on the environment. The Project will produce a long-term increase in noise levels particularly affecting the adjacent residential areas. B. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. C. Facts in Support of Findinq. The following mitigation measures have been included in the EIR. (1) Construction will be limited to normal weekday working hours~ (2) The residential portions of the Project_ will comply with the State of California Noise Insulation Standards which require that interior community noise levels, with windows closed and attributable to exterior sources, shall not exceed an annual level of 45 decibels in any habitable room. -8- RES. NO. 87-91 439 (3) Potential noise problems which may arise from sweeping operations in the Project's parking lot will be abated by limiting sweeping to daytime hours between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m., if necessary. (4) A detailed acoustical study will be conducted prior to occupancy of the first phase of the Project to determine the exact requirements necessary to mitigate the Project's noise impact on the residential units west of the Project. This study will identify specific mitigation measures to be implemented by the Project's developer in order to return noise levels in the Project area to pre-Project levels and the point after which such mitigation measures will be required. The mitigation measures to be considered include traffic rerouting and sound walls. 3. Geology and Soils. A. Significant Effect. A variety of potential geotechnical hazards and constraints to development may exist on the Property as a result of the Property's geologic, topographic and hydrologic characteristics including the following: varying groundwater levels, expansive soils, differential settlement of soils, fault displacement, groundshaking, liquefaction and other related phenomena. B. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. C. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR: (1) Grading and foundation plans shall be reviewed by a registered soils engineer. (2) Prior to excavation of the Project site, soils test will be conducted to determine specific site constraints and appropriate mitigation measures. a (3) Ail grading and earth work shall be performed under the observation of a registered geotechnical engineer]- (4) In the event that subsurface conditions are exposed during construction which appear significantly different than anticipated, the soils engineer shall be immediately notified. -9- RES. NO. 87-91 4,10 (5) Potential differential compaction and expansive soil conditions will be corrected. (6) If dewatering of the Property is necessary, a study will be completed analyzing the impact of dewatering on adjacent areas, accompanied by applicable permits from governmental authorities. (7) A site specific seismic design analysis shall be created for the Property. (8) Additional mitigation measures, as necessary to avoid excessive settlement, shall be proposed as such measures become necessary. 4. Hydrology. A. Significant Effect. Implementation of the Project will result in covering most of the Property with buildings, roadways, parking and other impervious surfaces, which will alter the Property's absorption rates and drainage patterns. B. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. C. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR: (1) A drainage system that adequately accepts and carries run-off from the Property shall be installed by the Project's developer and approved by the City. (2) A storm drain easement shall be dedicated to the City along a route necessary for an 84-inch storm drain. (3) Approval from the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency shall be obtained to connect any storm drain to County Flood Control Facility F08. 5. Cultural Resources/Paleontological Resources. A. Significant Effect. The Property is considered to have a low paleontological sensitivity. However, important cultural features may exist in the subsurface. B. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. -10- C. Facts in Support of Finding. It is doubtful that any significant cultural or paleontological resources will be discovered on the Property. The following mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR: (1) Grading work shall be monitored by a registered archaeologist. (2) described in distribution Grading work and monitoring of such shall be a report which will be made available for to future researchers. (3) Any important material collected during development of the Project shall be donated to local institutions. 6. Public Services and Utilities/Fire Service. A. Significant Effect. The Project and other new projects in the southern portion of the City will require the addition of an additional ladder company to provide adequate fire suppression coverage. Additionally, the 400 dwelling units on the Project can be expected to add approximately 40 requests for emergency medical service per year. This increase may not allow the fire department to meet its performance goal of emergency medical aid services. B. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. C. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR: (1) The Project's developer shall negotiate with the City in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on a fair share formula for capital acquisition of additional apparatus and personnel. (2) Built-in fire protection shall be provided in individual buildings whenever the circulated fire flow exceeds 3,500 gpm. Buildings with a fire flow in excess of'. 5,500 gpm are, prohibited. (3) Landscaping should include the use of fire retardant plants. (4) Construction should utilize fire retardant building materials. -11- 7. Public Services and Utilities/Police Service. A. Significant Effect. will increase demands on services Police Department. Implementation of the Project provided by the Santa Ana B. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. C. Facts in Support of Finding. The Project will generate additional revenue, allowing the City to increase police service levels on the Project. 8. Public Services and Utilities/Public Transit. A. Significant Effect. The Project is expected to place increased demands on service provided by the Orange County Transit District ("OCTD"). B. Findings. (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (2) Other changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of OCTD. Such changes have been adopted by OCTD or can and should be adopted by OCTD. C. Facts in Support of Findings. The following mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR: (1) The existing bus stops should be retained and passenger amenities such as bus shelters and accessible handicap pedestrian walkways should be provided between bus stops. (2) Bus turnouts, consistent with the Orange County Transportation District's Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities, should be provided at bus stops. (3) The Project developer should develop and promote ride share, flextime and a transportation management association. -12- RES. NO. 87-91 413 9. Public. Services and Utilities/Sewer. A. Significant Effect. The Project will require the extension of sewer facilities and will place additional burdens on sewer treatment plants by daily generating an estimated 320,000 gallons of sewage. B. Findings. (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (2) Ot~er changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Orange County Sanitation District ("OCSD"). Such changes have been adopted by OCSD or can and should be adopted by OCSD. C. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR: (1) The Project's developers shall be required to pay OCSD sewer connection fee of $50 per 1,000 square feet of building space, OCSD front footage fee of $40 per lineal foot of street, and City fixture unit fee of $24 per water closet fixture. (2) OCSD shall provide facilities to adequately convey project generated sewage. Although OCSD sewer treatment facilities currently operate in excess of capacity, OCSD estimates that its treatment facilities, expanded as planned, shall be adequate to handle the Project generated sewage. 10. Public Services and Utilities/Parks and Recreation. A. Significant Effect. Based on the City of Santa Ana's current standards, the Project will generate an additional demand for 1.9 acres of parkland. B. Finding. Changes or alterations have been require~ in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. C. Facts in Support of Finding. The Project will contribute approximately $582,432 toward park facilities. Although open space on the Project will not be credited against -13- 44 Es. 87-9'1 public park land requirements, the Project proposes a lake and park environment in the central portion of the Property. 11. Shade and Shadow. A. Significant Effect. Depending on the exact location and height of the Project's buildings, shadows may be produced which will impact the residential areas west of the Project. B. Findin9. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. C. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR: (1) SD No. 43 shall provide for setbacks, landscaping, open space, maximum site coverage and building height and intensity limitations. (2) SD No. 43 shall require that specific buildings be subject to site plan and architectural review. of 43. (3) The height restriction line shown in Figure 28 the EIR shall be included in and incorporated into SD No. (4) Solar access for space areas shall be considered plans. the required residential open in evaluating individual site 12. Public Health and Safety/Airport Operations. A. Significant Effect. The Project is located approximately 1.5 miles north of the John Wayne Airport ("Airport") and may potentially interfere with Airport operations. B. Finding. (1) Changes or alterations have been required in~ or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially, lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (2) Other changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"). Such changes have been adopted by the FAA or can and should be adopted by the FAA. -14- RES. NO. 87-91 C. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR: (1) The City adopted Ordinance No. 87-45 which provides as follows: "1. The Planning Department of the City of Santa Aha shall maintain maps by which it may be determined whether a proposed building or structure requires notification of the FAA pursuant to Section 77.13 of FAR Part 77. 2. The proponent of any building or structure which may require FAA notification shall be provided by the Department with an information packet including FAR Part 77, FAA Form 7460-2, and such other information as the Planning Director determines to be appropriate to assist the proponent in complying with FAA requirements. 3. No building permits shall be issued for any proposed building or structure unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director that one of the following conditions applies: (a) FAA notification is not required. (b) The FAA has determined that the proposed building or structure would not exceed any standard of Subpart C of FAR Part 77 and would not be a hazard of air navigation. (c) The FAA has determined that the proposed building or structure would exceed a standard of Subpart C of FAR Part 77 but would not be a hazard to air navigation; provided, however, that in such event final approval of the building or structure for occupancy or use shall be conditioned on compliance with any lighting or marking requirements of the FAA. (d) The FAA has determined that furthert aeronautical study is necessary to determine whether the proposed building or structure would be a hazard to air navigation, and the applicant has, within thirty (30) days of his receipt of notice of such determination, requested such further study, and that at least 120 days have elapsed since such request without a final determination by the FAA as 445 -15- 446 RES. NO. 87-91 to whether the proposed building would be a hazard to air navigation. (e) The applicant has modified the proposed building or structure in such a way as to avoid being a hazard to air navigation in accordance with FAA advice, subject to any marking or lighting requirements as specified in paragraph (c) hereinabove. (f) The FAA has finally determined that the proposed building or structure would be a hazard to navigation or proposed but the City Council, after public hearing, has determined that the weight of the relevant evidence does not support the determination of the FAA. 4. Except as provided in paragraph 3(f) hereinabove, no building permits shall be issued for any proposed building or structure which the FAA has finally determined would be a hazard to air navigation as proposed. 5. The Planning Director shall notify the OCALUC of any proposed building or structure whenever the Department has been informed that the FAA has determined that the building or structure would exceed a standard of Subpart C of FAR Part 77. Any comments received by the City from the OCALUC shall be considered by the City in its approval, disapproval or conditioning of the proposed project in any discretionary action applicable thereto." (2) All structures proposed on the Project are subject to Ordinance No. 87-45. The following design and procedural methods shall be utilized in satisfying Ordinance No. 87-45, as appropriate. REFLECTIONS: (a) Realignment: By changing a Project building°s alignment relative to the incident/impingin~ wave, the reflected wave can be directed to a no-impact area; (b) Face Change: A number of actions can be taken to change the face design on which the impinging/wave strikes, from a flat surface to spherical, corrugated, honeycombed, irregular, sloped, sawtoothed, or curtained; -16- (c) Material: Change the face material or cover it with non-reflective plants; (d) Relocation: Physically move the subject building to an area where there is an electromagnetic shadow from some other building; (e) Height/Width Reduction: Reduce such building's physical height and/or width to acceptable dimensions including grade undercutting; (f) Procedural Modification: Have consultants work with the FAA to develop procedure changes to preclude significant negative impact to air traffic or air traffic control. SHADOWS: (g) Relocation: Same as (d) above; (h) Height/Width Reduction: Same as (e) above; (i) Procedural Modification: Same as (f) above. Until the TVOR system is no longer considered an active navigational aid at the Airport, the height limit at the Project site will remain 210 feet MSL. 13. McGaw Overpass. A. Significant Effect. The Project proposes an overpass over the Route 55 Freeway as a mitigation measure to improve deficiencies in the regional circulation system. Such overpass may affect or obstruct the view from the adjacent office buildings and the signs of such buildings. B. Finding. (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or '. substantially~.lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (2) Other changes or alterations are within the responsibility of the City of Irvine, the California Transportation Department ("Caltrans") and the Federal Highway Administration ("FHA"). Such changes have been -17- 448 RES. NO. 87-91 adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agencies. C. Facts in Support of Findinq. (1) Driveway improvements will be provided as necessary to properties affected by the overpass so that such properties may have adequate site access. (2) The McGaw overpass shall include a design which will maintain a trim, geometric shape with landscaping wherever feasible. This design will reduce potentially negative visual impacts of the overpass which may particularly affect adjacent office buildings. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED The following adverse effects cannot be avoided even with the implementation of mitigation measures. 1. Traffic and Circulation. A. Significant Effect. The Project will contribute to significant cumulative traffic impacts, including the following: (1) As set forth in the EIR and the exhibits attached thereto, the Project would produce the following impacts on traffic and circulation: (a) The Project would generate an estimated 87,150 daily trips (half inbound, half outbound), with an estimated 8,290 of those trips occurring during both the morning and evening peak traffic hours. (b) Based on full development, including the McGaw overpass and the implementation of comprehensive area traffic improvements, all intersections except the Hutton Center/MacArthur (Project access) intersection, the Route 55 southbound off-ramp/MacArthur intersection and five locations within the City of Irvine (Red Hill/MacArthur, Von Karman/ McGaw, Red Hill/McGaw, Red'~ Hill/Alton and Red Hill/ Barranca) would operate at acceptable service levels in the peak traffic hours. Hutton Center/ MacArthur would be adverse in the evening - peak hour and the Route 55 southbound ramp at MacArthur would be adverse in the morning peak hour. Although the study attached to the EIR regarding traffic and circulation suggests a number of physical improvements beyond those dictated by the circulation master plan of -18- -- 449 RES. NO. 87-91 the City of Irvine, the City of Irvine locations would be adverse with or without the Project. Further physical improvements at all of the above locations are generally unfeasible. (c) If the Project is fully developed without the McGaw overpass, additional improvements will be necessary for the Main/Alton, Maple/Alton and Halladay/Alton intersections. Hutton Center/MacArthur would be more adverse in the evening peak hour, and the Route 55 southbound off-ramp/MacArthur intersection would be adverse during the morning peak hour. Furthermore, the Route 55 southbound off-ramp would also be adverse in the evening peak hour, as would the Route 55 northbound off-ramp during the morning peak hour. Elimination of the McGaw overpass would also cause a deterioration of all MacArthur intersections by as much as one service level. The description of the different service levels is set forth in the exhibits attached to the EIR. Level of Service D ("LOS D") is traditionally considered the maximum acceptable level for urban or suburban peak hour conditions. At LOS D, most traffic clears an intersection on the first available green phase of the signal, but short accumulations of vehicles may occur. At LOS D, average vehicle speeds are in the range of 20-25 miles per hour, including stops. (d) Notwithstanding the construction of the McGaw overpass, the Hutton Center/MacArthur and Route 55 southbound off-ramp intersections would not operate at LOS D during the morning and evening peak hours, respectively. At set forth below, a change in Project mix or description, implementation of a Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") program, or combination of these actions, may significantly reduce the adverse effects of the Project. (e) Without reduction based on a change in the Project mix or success of the TDM program, the Project is expected to generate at full development 610,000 vehicle miles of travel daily. (2), The first phase of the Project ("Phase I") anticipates 700,000 square feet of office/commercial, 400 residential units, and a 250-room hotel constructed over the next five years. Phase I impacts are as follows: (a) Traffic generation will total approximately 25,350 daily trips (half inbound, half outbound), 1,935 trips in the morning peak hours and -19- 2,560 trips in the evening peak hour. These estimates may be reduced if the TDM program proves successful. (b) Traffic impacts within the City of Santa Aha may be accommodated within an estimated near-term cumulative setting with implementation of select area traffic improvements that have been identified for the "ultimate build-out" condition. These improvements include completion of Columbine Avenue across the entire site frontage with a primary cross-section, completion of master plan improvements along the Project's Main Street frontage, minor modification and restriping on MacArthur Boulevard under Route 55 to maintain a continuous six lane cross-section, and localized lane improvements at six key area intersections. Phase I traffic improvements would ensure LOS D peak hour operating conditions at all locations generally west of Route 55, except the Main/MacArthur intersection. (c) Future and near term operating conditions at key intersections along the Red Hill corridor in the City of Irvine would be adverse to varying degrees without the impacts of the Project and with improvements beyond the programs initiated by the City of Irvine. B. Findings. (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantialy lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. (2) Other changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, FHA and the City of Irvine. Such changes have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agencies. (3) Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures not identified in the EIR Or the project alternatives identified in the EIR and set forth in Section 4 below. (4), Any remaining unavoidable adverse impacts on the environment are considered acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. -20- --451 RES. NO. 87-91 C. Facts in Support of Findinq. (1) The EIR sets forth a comprehensive set of long-term mitigation measures in response to cumulative traffic needs, including those needs of the Project. The mitigation measures, which are described in the EIR, include street master planning actions, improvement of key arterials to applicable master plan standards, localized intersection improvements and implementation of the TDM program, which will include preferential parking rates, ride sharing, van pools, encouragement of offset employee working hours, and coordination with the Orange County Transit District to expand scheduled bus service. (2) The applicable infrastructure improvements corresponding to each phase of development within the Project are required to be substantially completed as follows: (a) With respect to the first phase of the Project, fifty percent (50%) of all applicable first phase off-site improvements set forth in Section 2.4 and Table 1 of the EIR shall be completed prior to the issuance of any tenancy occupancy permits with respect to the last building to be constructed in such phase, and the remainder of all first phase off-site improvements shall be completed not later than one year following the date of issuance of such tenant occupancy permit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as a condition to such one-year extension of the obligation to complete such first phase off-site improvements, the Project's developer shall deliver to the City sufficient security to ensure the completion of the remaining first phase off-site improvements within such one-year period; (b) For each remaining phase of the Project, seventy-five percent (75%) of all of the applicable required off-site improvements of each phase shall be completed prior to the issuance of any tenant occupancy permit with respect to the last building to be constructed in such phase, and the remainder of all such off-site improvements applicable to each phase shall be completed not later than one year following the date of issuance of such tenant occupancy permit; provided, however,,that as a condition to such one-year delay in completion of such off-site improvements, the Project's developer shall deliver to the City sufficient security to ensure completion of such off-site improvements within such off-site improvements within such one-year period; -21- RES. NO. 87-91 (c) The determination of the percentge of completion of the applicable off-site improvements shall be based upon a cost estimate prepared by a licensed civil engineer reasonably satisfactory to the City. 2. Air Quality - Long-Term. A. Significant Effect. The main source of emissions generated by the Project will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions will be generated from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. Emissions will also be generated by the use of natural gas and oil for the off-site generation of electricity. Development of the Project will result in a local and regional increase in emissions which will not be consistent with the Air Quality Management Program ("AQMP"). B. Findings. (i) 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 EIR. (2) Other changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Mangement District, the California Air Resources Board, the Southern California Association of Governments and the Environmental Protection Agency. Such changes have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agencies. (3) Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures not identified in the EIR or the project alternatives identified in the EIR and set forth in Section 4 below. (4) Any residual, unavoidable significant effects are acceptble when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Co mitigation in the EIR: Facts in Support of Finding. The following measures are proposed in the TDM program and set for~.h (1) Encouraging the use of alternative transportation modes by promoting public transportation usage. (2) Providing secure bicycle facilities and preferential carpool rates and locations. -22- RES. NO. 87-91 453 (3) Providing mass transit accommodations. (4) Providing sufficient service establishments within the Project, such as restaurants and copy centers. (5) Establishing a transportation management association to coordinate ride pool data for those working in the Project. (6) Encouraging van pools with company vehicles or subsidies. (7) Encouraging the use of staggered work schedules. 3. Public Services and Utilities/Water Consumption. A. Significant Effect. The Project is expected to consume 480,890 gallons of water daily. This consumption represents a 360% increase over the amount of water currently used at the Property for agricultural purposes. B. 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 EIR. (2) Other changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Water District, and the applicable City and County water agencies. Such changes have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agencies. (3) Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures not identified in the EIR or the project alternatives identified in the EIR and set forth in Section 4 below. (4) Any remaining, unavoidable, adverse impacts on the environment are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. C. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR and shall be employed on the Project: (i) Low flush toilets. -23- RES. NO. 87-91 (ii) LOW flow faucets. (iii) Insulation of hot water lines and water recirculating systems. (iv) Supply line pressure reductions by means of pressure reducing valves. (v) Drinking fountains equipped with self-closing valves. (vi) Landscaping employing low water consuming plants, wherever feasible. 4. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural Soils. A. Significant Effect. Development of the Project will reduce Orange County's prime agricultural soils by 45 acres, contributing to the diminishing agricultural basis in Orange County. B. Findinqs. (1) Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR and set forth in Section 4 below. (2) Any residual, unavoidable, significant effects from the Project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. C. Facts in Support of Finding. Although farming will continue on an interim basis on undeveloped portions of the Property as long as it is economically feasible, the Project will contribute to the loss of approximately 45 acres of prime agricultural soil. However, loss of agricultural soil is consistent with the reduction of total crop bearing acreage in Orange County. Furthermore, retention of the Project site as agricultural soil is not an objective of the General Plan. SECTION 4: Project Alternatives. A. Project Review. The EIR evaluates alternatives for the proposed Project. The Project represents the culmination of a plan applied for by the Project's developer and approved by the Santa Ana Planning Department. The Project has been refined during the course of public review and incorporates comments from the following: -24- (1) Analysis of the Project by the Planning Department and the City Council; (2) Responses to the Notice of Preparation; (3) Responses to the comments on the Draft EIR; and (4) Responses from the general public in the Public Participation Program meetings. Below is a brief description of the Project alternatives which were rejected in favor of the proposed Project. B. Description of Project Alternatives. (1) No Project Alternatives. The No Project Alternative would maintain the Property in its current condition and permit the existing farming operations and the Emerson Electric facility to continue. Although the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project, specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative for the following reasons: (a) The No Project Alternative would not utilize the Property for its highest and best use; (b) The No Project Alternative would not provide high employment and housing opportunities; (c) The No Project Alternative is not consistent with the City's General Plan, Redevelopment Plan and SD No. 43 designating the Property as a mixed- use district center; (d) The No Project Alternative would not provide a high degree of local economic benefits associated with the Project; (e) The No Projec't Alternative would not provide additional revenues to the City of Santa Ana; '. (f) Circulation improvements associated with the Project which would be of area wide benefit would not be implemented; (g) By not developing the Project, development demands would still exist which might create future impacts similar to those created by the Project; -25- (h) Significant effects of the Project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. Residential Alternative. Under the Residential Alternative, the Property would be developed as a residential community. It is anticipated that the Property would be developed with medium/high density residential restrictions permitting 22 dwelling units per acre or a total of 1,452 units on the 66 acre site. The Residential Alternative would reduce the potentially adverse environmental effects relative to the proposed Project in many areas including the following: land use (compatibility with adjacent residences), transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, geology and soils, natural gas, electricity, public transit, water consumption, sewer usage, aesthetics/shade and shadow, light and glare, hazardous materials, and airport operations. Specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible the Residential Alternative reviewed in the EIR for the following reasons: (a) The Residential Alternative would not generate the expected 12,583 permanent employment positions available under the Project; (b) The Residential Alternative does not accomplish the goal of creating a mixed-use development consistent with the General Plan, Redevelopment Plan and No. 43; SD (c) The Residential Alternative would not meet the planning and design objectives of the Project's developer; and (d) The significant effects of the Project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 3. Industrial Alternative. Under the Industrial Alternative, the entire Property would be developed for industrial use. The Industrial Alternative remains the environmentally superior alternative due to the significantly reduced impact on traffic. CEQA requires that an EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative in addition to the No Project Alternative. The Industrial Alternative would have less of an adverse effect than the proposed Project in many areas including the following: -26- transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, geology and soils, police service, electricity, telephone service, public transit, water consumption, sewer usage, schools, parks and recreation, light and glare, and airport operations. Although environmentally superior, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Industrial Alternative for the following reasons: (a) The Industrial Alternative does not accomplish the goals of creating a mixed-use development; (b) The Industrial Alternative does not generate the employment opportunities under the proposed Project; (c) The Industrial Alternative is not consistent with the General Plan, Redevelopment Plan or SD No. 43; (d) The Industrial Alternative would generate increased conflict with adjacent residential areas from a public safety standpoint; (e) The Industrial Alternative would require additional fire protection and emergency medical services; (f) The significant effects of the proposed Project are acceptable when balanced against the facts forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. set 4. Existing Zoning Alternative. Under the Existing Zoning Alternative, the Property would be developed consistent with the existing zoning designations. Since the Emerson Electric facility is consistent with the present designation, this facility would not be redeveloped under the Existing Zoning Alternative. The Existing Zoning Alternative would have less of an adverse effect on the environment than the proposed Project in many areas including th~ following: land use, transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, geology and soils, fire service, police service, natural gas consumption, electricity, telephone service, public transit, water, sewer usage, schools, parks and recreation, airport operations, and contaminated soils and ground water. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the Existing Zoning Alternative identified in the final EIR for the following reasons: (a) The Existing Zoning Alternative would generate significantly fewer jobs than the proposed Project; -27- q~RES. NO. 87-91 (b) The Existing Zoning Alternative is not consistent with the mixed-use designation found in the General Plan, Redevelopment Plan and SD No. 43; (C) The Existing Zoning Alternative would not generate the amount of additional annual revenues to the City of Santa Aha as would be generated by the Project; (d) The Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet the planning and design objectives of the Project's developer; (e) Significant effects of the proposed Project are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 5: General Findings A. The plans for the Project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in the planning and CEQA process. B. The planning process for the Project has developed a land use plan that is in conformance with plans set forth in documents circulated to the public, including the Draft EIR. C. The plans for the Project are in conformance with plans set forth under the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan, and SD No. 43. D. To the degree that any impacts described in the EIR are perceived to have a significant effect on the environment, or such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on the environment, any significant effect of such impacts has been substantially lessened or avoided by the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR or is outweighed by the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. E. The City and Planning Department received comments and responses regarding the Draft EIR from public agencies, including the following: Office of Permit Assistance of the Office of Planning and Research, Department of Food and Agrigulture, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, the Department of Transportation, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Orange County Sanitation District, the County of Orange, the City of Costa Mesa, the City of Irvine, the County of Orange-John Wayne Airport, and the Airport Land Use Commission for the County -28- RES. NO. 87-91 459 of Orange. Such comments and responses were adequately responded to by the City or Planning Department, the significant affects described in such comments or responses were avoided or substantially lessened by the mitigation measures described in the EIR, or significant effects described in such comments and responses were outweighed by the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. F. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures not identified in the EIR or the project alternatives identified in the EIR. ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF December , 1987_. ATTEST: _~_~ice C. Guy / Clerk of the Council7~ COUNCILMEMBERS: Young A e McGuigan ~ Acosta Aye Griset Aye Hart Aye May A e Pulido ~ ' APPROVED AS TO FORM: E'c[wa-rd /J.~ CD, per City At t o-fT~ry '29-