Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-100RESOLUTION NO. 89-100 -. 045 REL:mb(18) 4/14/89 Rev.5/5/89 Rev. 9/26/89 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE XEROX CENTRE PROJECT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS REGARDING SUCH PROJECT PUR- SUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. WHEREAS, Birtcher Xerox Partners owns certain property located on the east side of the Santa Ana Freeway between First and Fourth Streets which it has partly developed with a 319,227 square foot professional office building, together with approxi- mately 7,709 square feet of commercial building space and an 8-level parking structure; and WHEREAS, Birtcher Xerox now seeks approval from the City of Santa Ana for additional development on the subject property, consisting, at a maximum, of two additional professional office buildings with a total of approximately 780,773 square feet of office space, plus approximately 36,200 square feet of addi- tional commercial building space and two additional parking structures (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the approvals sought by Birtcher Xerox Centre include a General Plan amendment to establish a building intens- ity standard for the subject property which would allow the Pro- ject as proposed, a Specific Development Plan to establish zoning regulations governing the Project, a Development Agreement to provide Birtcher Xerox with certain vested rights with regard to the Project; and a Vesting Tentative Map to allow for the sub- division of the subject property; and WHEREAS, an environmental impact report (consisting of a document entitled "Xerox Centre Draft Environment Impact Report," dated October 1988, and a second document entitled "Xerox Centre Response to Comments and Final Environmental Impact Report," dated June, 1989) has been prepared for the Project (the "E.I.R."); and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines require that, prior to any approval of the Project, the City Council must make certain certifications and findings; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City council hereby certifies that the E.I.R. has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental O46 RESOLUTION NO. 89-100 PAGE TWO Quality Act, and that the E.I.R. has been presented to the City Council, and that the City Council has reviewed and con- sidered the information contained in the E.I.R. prior to approving the Project. 2. Those certain findings, statements, and programs set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. The City Council hereby adopts and approves said findings, statements, and programs. ADOPTED this ]6th day of 0ct0~ , 1989. ATTEST: COUNCILMEMBERS: Young Aye Acosta Griset ~h~q~ May McGuigan AyE Norton Pulido AyE APPROVED AS TO FORM: Edward J. City Attorney EXHIBIT CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SANTA ANA~ CALIFOP~IA FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE XEROX CENTRE APPROVALS, INCLUDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. , VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 88-102, SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. , AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND BIRTCHER XEROX PARTNERS UPON APPLICATION OF BIRTCHER XEROX PARTNERS I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. The Approvals And Applications. Birtcher Xerox Partners ("Applicant") has applied to the City of Santa Ana ("City") for approval of a commercial development (the "Xerox Centre Development") consisting of approximately four lots (consisting of Phases I, II, III and IV of the Xerox Centre Development). Phase I is an existing high-rise professional office building previously approved by the City. The pending applications request various approvals from the City for Phases II, III and IV of the Xerox Centre Development on a site of approximately 10.6 gross acres 'in the northeast portion of the City of Santa Ana (the "Project Site"). The Project Site is bounded by the Santa Ana (I-5) freeway to the west, First Street to the south, the future extension of Cabrillo Park Drive to the east and by Fourth Street to the north. The applications consist of requests for four approvals from the City and the certification of a Final 048 EIR in conjunction therewith: (1) General Plan Amendment No.89-7, (2) Vesting Tentative. Map'No. 88'102, (3) Specific Development Plan No. 54 , and (4) a development agreement between the City of Santa Aha and Birtch'er Xerox Partners approved by Ordinance No.NS-2031 After submitting the applications, the Applicant made n~merous~hanges in the Xerox Centre Development to mitigate perceived environmental impacts. Based upon the applications and subsequent modifications, this City Council approves the following actions (collectively referred to as the (1) An amendment to the City General Plan. The proposed Project was consistent with the previous City General Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 2-14 through 2-18.) However, because the City recently updated its General Plan (by General Plan Amendment No. 88-102) and revised the development intensity regulations contained therein, the Applicant is requesting a General Plan amendment in order for the proposed Project to be consistent with current General Plan development intensity regulations. (2) Approval of Vesting Tentative Map No. 88-102, designed for multiple-phase final maps. This approval allows the Project to create separate parcels of land on the 10.6-acre site and guarantees that the City's current land use regulations and policies will remain in effect through completion of the Project. 2 (3) Specific Development Plan No. Pursuant to the proposed Special District zoning, the Specific Development Plan allows creation of specific development standards applicable only to the Project Site, including setback, open space and other standards. (4) A development agreement between the City of Santa Aha and Birtcher Xerox Partners approved concurrently with the above approvals by City Ordinance No. The development agreement, among other things, details the phasing and development standards for the Project. It also guarantees that the City's existing development regulations will govern the Project during the term of the development agreement. For the purpose of these findings, the above Approvals and Phases II, III and IV of the Xerox Centre Development are collectively referred to as the "Project." B. The Environmental Impact Report. (1) The City prepared an Initial Study of environmental significance dated September 3, 1987. Pursuant to the recormmendation of the Initial Study, the City de~ermined that an environmental impact report was necessary under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"; Pub. Res. Code S 21000 et seq.). A Notice of Preparation of an EIR was prepared on September 3, 1987, and was assigned State Clearinghouse No. 87090908. The Notice of Preparation was duly circulated to appropriate responsible agencies, and comments 049 050 were received from those agencies. The Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, and comments thereto are included in the Draft EIR as Appendix "A." This City Council finds and determines that the Notice of Preparation satisfied the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and applicable City regulations in that the Notice of Preparation described the Project, the Project's location, and the environmental effects of the Project. (2) Pursuant to the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation, the City prepared a draft environmental impact report on the Project dated October 1988 (the "Draft EIR"). Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (14 Code Admin. Regs. ~ 15000 et seq. ), which was circulated to the public and the responsible agencies for comment. The Planning Commission also held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Final EIR and the approvals. (3) After receiving comments on the Draft EIR, the City prepared a response to comments document dated June , 1989 (the "Response Document"). The Initial study, Notice of Preparation, Draft EIR, Respons,e Document, and all the technical appendices and other written documentation prepared during the EIR process together comprise the final environmental impact report on the Project pursuant to CEQA (collectively the "Final EIR"). 4 C. Certification Of The Final EIR. This Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Aug.14, 1989, to consider the adequacy of the Final EIR. At that meeting, this Commission recommended that this City Council certify that the Final EIR ia adequate and satisfies the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and applicable City regulations. This council held a public hearing on , 1989 and approved the Planning Commission recommendation. This Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to issuing and the Approvals for the Project. D. Description Of The Record. For the purposes of CEQA and the findings made herein, the record before this City Council relating to its actions includes without limitation the following: The Applicant's applications for the (1) Approvals; (2) (3) COuncil, The Staff Reports on the Approvals; Ail documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed by the Planning Commission and this City COuncil during the public hearings on the Approvals, the Draft EIR, the Project; (4) The Final EIR; and (5) All matters of common knowledge to this including: (a) The city General Plan, and policies. (b) (c) The City Zoning Ordinance, and Other City ,ordinances, regulations and The discussions which.follow under the various captions "Facts" for each cat~gory_~recite~background information, suggested mitigationmeasures,-and modifications to the Project as reflected in the~Appro~a%s. The texts under these headings provide information supporting the approval or rejection of mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval for the Project. The summarized facts may be primarily or entirely based on the Final EIR. This City Council intends that each finding herein be based on the entire record, including written and spoken testimony to this Council, and the omission of any relevant fact from the summary discussions below is not an indication by this Council that a particular finding is not based in part on the omitted fact. The discussions which follow under the various captions "Findings" for each category contain the findings which are made by this City Council, based on the entire record before it, including without limitation the information which is recited under the discussion of "Facts." This Council intends that any finding or determination required or permitted to be made by this Council shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of this document, and that all of the language included in this document constitutes findings and determinations by this Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. 6 II. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. Traffic And Circulation. (1) Facts. The traffic and circulation impacts of the Project are analyzed on pages 3-1 through 3-68 of the Draft EIR and in the Response Document. The Project would generate approximately 10,763 average daily vehicle trips at full build-out, with approximately 1,695 trips accruing during the morning peak hour and 1,737 trips occurring during the evening peak hour. The EIR recommends adoption of a comprehensive program of short-term and long-term mitigation measures in response to cumulative traffic needs including the incremental impacts of the Project. The mitigation measures include street master planning actions, improvement of key arterials to applicable master plan standards, localized intersection improvements and site-specifio transportation demand management measures. A list of recommended traffic and circulation mitigation measures is found at Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR. Further recommended mitigation measures are discussed in the Response Document. The Project's impagt upon traffic and circulation is considered a significant impact on a cumulative basis. However, the recommended mitigation measures would ensure that the transportation system will be improved to accommodate the traffic generated by the Project and maintain acceptable levels of reducing this impact. roadway operation, thereby substantially The remaining impact of the Project upon 7 :053 traffic and circulation is considered a significant, unavoidable adverse impact of the Project on a cumulative level. (2) Findinqs. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before it, this City Council finds that: (i) The mitigation~measures referenced in the Final EIR have been adopted as conditions of approval or incorporated into the Project. (ii) With the imposition or incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the Project-specific traffic impacts of the~o~Ject will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, and cumulative impacts of the Project upon traffic and circulation will be substantially reduced, although the cumulative traffic impact will not be reduced to a level of insignificance. (iii) To the extent that the impacts of the Project relating to transportation and circulation are not mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh and override any such remaining significant impacts, as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III, below). B. Noise. (1) Facts. The noise impacts of the Project are analyzed on pages 3-69 through 3-74 of the Draft EIR. The Project would create three significant noise impacts: 05.5 (a) Temporary noise impacts during construction of the Project~ (b) Increased noise levels for.surrounding land uses due to project-related traffic. (c) On-site noise levels will exceed the maximum desirable level of 65dB CNEL, in a narrow zone adjacent to the First Street, Fourth Street and Cabrillo Park Drive upon implementation of the Project. The EIR recommends four mitigation measures, including the following: (i) Limit the construction hours to normal weekday working hours. (ii) Reconstruct the Fourth Street and Interstate 5 on-ramp to route traffic away from First and Fourth Streets in the City of Tustin. (iii) Construct the proposed parking and office structures so that freeway and arterial-related noise potentially affecting the pedestrian plaza will be reduced to acceptable levels. (iv) Mitigate on-site noise impacts through barriers to the sound path and standard UBC off~ce construction standards. The Draft EIR concludes that these mitigation measures will mitigate noise impacts to a level of insignificance. (2) Findinqs. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before it, this City Council finds that: (i) The mitiga~i0n measures referenced in the Final EIR have been adopted as conditions of Approval or incorporated into the Project. (ii) With the imposition or incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the noise impacts of the Project will be reduced to a level of insignificance. '~ (iii) In the alternative, to the extent that the noise impacts of the Project are not insignificant or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental, social, economic and other benefits of the Project outweigh and override any suoh impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III, below). C. Air Quality. (1) Facts. The air quality impacts of the Project are analyzed on pages 3-75 through 3-85 of the Draft EIR and in the Response Document. The Project would create three types of impacts upon air quality: (a) Temporary air quality impacts will result from construction activities related to the Project, including emission of air pollutants by construction equipment and generation of dust during grading activities and site preparation. will result emissions. (b) Implementation of the proposed Project in a local and regional increase in vehicular l0 (C) Construction of proposed parking structures will increase carboa monoxide emissions due to increased idling and low speeds of vehicles leaving the structure. The EIR recommends the following mitigation measures: (a) Control fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads or other dust preventive required by the South Coast Air Quality Management measures as District. (b) Encourage the use of alternative transportation modes by promoting transit usage and providing preferential rates or locations for ride pools. (c) Provision of mass transit accommodations such as off-site bus turn-out lanes and bus shelters and provision of ride pool data to employees working in the office structure. (d) Use of ride sharing incentive programs such mass transit accommodations, subsidies for car pools, van pools, and modified working hours to reduce increased carbon monoxide emissions/concentrations in the parking structures. (e) Design of the parking structures to allow outside ventilation to flow within the garage. At pages 1-4 through 1-5, the Draft EIR indicates that the impacts of the Project due to temporary construction activities and increased carbon monoxide emissions from the parking structures will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the proposed mitigation measures. The 11 impacts of the Project upon local and rgg,~onal vehicular emissions are identified as an unavoidable adverse environmental impact on a cumulative level, (2) Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before it, this City CounCil.finds that: (i) The mitigation measures referenced in the Final EIR have been adopted as conditions of approval or incorporated into the Project. (ii) With the imposition or incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the Project-specific impacts of the Project upbn air quality, including temporary construction activities and increased carbon monoxide emissions in the parking structures, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. (iii) Although the implementation of the Project will result in a local and regional increase in vehicular emissions when cumulated with.other similar proposed Projects, the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh and override any remaining Project-s~ecific and cumulative air quality impacts of Project, as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III, below). D. Ge01ogy And Soil. (1) Facts. The impacts of the Project upon geology anti soils are analysed at pages 3-86 through 3-92 of the Draft EIR. The Project will result in construction of a 12 059 parking structure on the western portion of the Project Site which will sit approximately 20 feet below the g~ound surface. Structures 15 to 23 stories in height will be cantilevered over a portion of the parking structure. Excavation and re-compaction will be required. In addition, ground shaking from earthquakes along the Newport-Inglewood or Whittier faults may occur at the site. The Draft EIR recommends several mitigation measures, including review of grading and foundational plans by a registered soils engineer, performing of all grading and earthwork under the observation of a registered geotechnical engineer, notification of the soils engineer if subsurface conditions do not conform to the geotechnical investigation, performing any necessary site preparation or foundation work to correct potential differential expansion and expansive soils conditions, and conducting a site-specific seismic design analysis to be submitted to the City for the high-rise office structures. (2) Findinqs. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before it, this City Council finds that: (i) The mitigation measures referenced in the Final EIR have been adopted as Conditions of Approval or incorporated into the Project. (ii) With the imposition or incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the impacts of the Project upon geology and soils will be reduced to a level of insignificance. 13 (iii) In the alternative, to the extent that the geology and soils impacts of the Project are not insignificant or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental, SOCial, economic and othe~ b~n~fit~ of th~ Project outweigh and override any such impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III, below). E. Hydrology. (1) Facts. The hydrology impacts of the Project are analyzed on pages 3-93 through 3-94 of the Draft EIR. Construction of the Project will result in 90 percent coverage of the Project Site with impervious surfaces, thereby changing absorption rates and drainage patterns. The Draft EIR recommends several mitigation measures, including construction of a drainage system to carry runoff from the site pursuant to plans approved by the City Engineer, obtaining approval from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency for connecting any storm drain to a County Flood Control facility, and maintenance and sweeping of the.parking area on a regular basis to reduce the amount of pollutants entering the drainage system. (2) Findinqs. Based.upon the Final EIR and the entire record before it, this City Council finds that: (i) The mitigation measures referenced in the Final EIR have been adopted as Conditions of Approval or incorporated into the Project. 14 (ii) With the imposition or incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the hydrology impacts of the ~roject will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (iii) that the hydrology impacts or mitigated to a level of In the alternative, to the extent of the Project are not insignificant insignificance, the environmental, social, economic, and other benefits of the Project outweigh and override any such impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III, below). F. Land Use. (1) Facts. The land use impacts of the Project are analyzed on pages 3-95 throUgh 3-102 of the Draft EIR and in the Response Document. The Project would convert existing low intensity uses on the Project Site to high intensity office and commercial uses. As previously noted, the proposed Project was consistent with the General Plan designation for the Project Site until the General Plan' was updated to establish building intensity standards. A General Plan amendment is now needed to modify the building intensity standards for the Project Site. The proposed Projectis a permitted use under the existing zoning. The zone change will allow the Site Development Plan to establish the development standards for the Project Site. The Park Center area of Santa Aha is currently undergoing a major transition from low density office and commercial uses to higher density mixed-use development due to 15 061 ·-, 062 its close proximity to the I-5 and Route 55 freeways and the rising cost of land in general. The Project Site is approximately one-half mile from the Tustin city limit and will not impact land uses along First Street within the City of Tustin. The City has prepared and adopted an area-wide General Plan amendment which identifies intensitY~andards throughout the City. The land use impacts of the Pk0jeCt itself are not considered to be significant. (2) Findinqs. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before it, this City Council finds that the Project will not have any significant adverse impact upon land uses in the vicinity of the Project Site, O. Visual And Aesthetic Resources. (1) Facts. The visual and aesthetic impacts of the Project are analyzed on pages 3-103 through 3-110 of the Draft EIR and also in the Response Document. The Project would substantially alter the visual character and aesthetic perception of the Project Site, and mitigation measures would substantially reduce Project-specific impacts on visual and aesthetic resources, but would not eliminate the impacts% The Final EIR recommends five mitigation measures, including architectural features on entrances, centralized focal elements such as plazas and fountains, shielding or concealment of exterior lighting fixtures, plaza and parking structure lighting, and FAA-approved obstruction lighting on all three office towers. The visual and aesthetic impact of the Project 16 063 is considered to be a significant, unavoidable adverse impact of the Project due to the view obstruction and light glare impacts of the Project. The response to Comment C-10 states that the shade and shadow impacts of the Project are not significant because sensitive residential land uses are not substantially affected and that the change in aesthetic and visual character of the site itself is not an adverse impact. Overall, the Project will have a positive visual and aesthetic impact by replacing an existing unsightly building with a visually and aesthetically appealing structure. (2) Findinqs. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before it, this City Council finds that: (i) The mitigation measures referenced in the Final EIR have been adopted as conditions of approval or incorporated into the Project. (ii) With the imposition or incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project upon visual and aesthetic resources will be reduced, although the impact upon views and light and glare will not be reduced to a level of insignificance. (iii) Although the Project will have an unavoidable, adverse aesthetic impact relating to views, light and glare, the other Project-specific and cumulative impacts relating to visual and aesthetic resources are either insignificant or have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. 064 (iv) To the extent that the impacts of the Pro3ect relating to visual and aesthetic resources are not insignificant, or mitigated to a leVel of i~significance, the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh and override any such sighificant impacts, as more fully described in the Statement of'Overriding Considerations (Section III, below). H. Cultural Resources. (1) Facts. The impacts or,the Project upon cultural resources are analyzed at pages ~111 through 3-112 of the Draft EIR. Although it is unlikely that significant fossils will be encountered during Project development, there is a possibility that cultural features exist in the subsurface material. Therefore, the Final EIR recommends that grading work be monitored by an archaeologist if significant resources are encountered. (2) Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before it, this City Council finds that: (i) The mitigation measures referenced in the Final EIR have been adopted as Conditions of Apprbvals or incorporated into the Project. (ii) With the imposition or incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project upon cultural resources will be reduced to a level of insignificance. 18 (iii) In the alternative, to the extent that the cultural resource im~gts~ the Project are not insignifigant or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental, social, economic, and other benefits of the Project outweigh and override any such impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III, below). I. Police and Fire Protection. (1) Facts. The Draft EIR and Response Document state that implementation of the proposed Project will place increased demands on the services provided by the Santa Ana Police Department and Fire Department. To address these impacts, the Project Applicant will provide an on-site private security system for all the office towers and parking structures, include design features into the Project to reduce fire danger, and contribute to the cost of fire safety inspection services. (2) Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before it, this City CounciI finds that: (i) The mitigation measures referenced in the Final EIR have been adopted as Conditions of Approval or incorporated into the Project. (ii) With the imposition or incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the impact of the Project upon Police and fireprotection will be reduced to a level of insignificance. 19 '066 (iii) In the alternative, to the extent that the police and fire services impacts of the Project are not i~significant or mitigated to a level'o£ insignificance, the environmental, social, economic, and other bene£~t~ Project outweigh and override any SUch impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of overriding Consl~eratlons (Section III, below). J. Public Services And Utilities. (1) Facts. The impacts of the Project upon public services and utilities are analyzed at pages 3-125 through 3-136 of the Draft EIR. The Final~EIR concludes that the cons%unption of water and production of sewage from the Project will be significant. The Draft EIR recommends a number of mitigation measures, including water conservation measures, installation of connections to the City's water system, and construction of necessary on-site sewer facilities. (2) Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before it, this City Council finds that: (i) The mitigation measures referred to in the Final EIR have been adopted as Conditions of Abproval or incorporated into the ~roject. (ii) With the imposition or incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the Project-specific and cumulative impacts of the Project upon public services and faciiities will be reduced to a level of in~ignificance, although the impact upon waste water treatment 2O facilities will be a significant unavoidable adverse impact if the Orange Co~mty Sanitation District does not increase the qapacity of its treatment plant. Any expansion of plant capacity is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Orange County Sanitation District. (iii) To the extent that the impacts of the Project upon public services and utilities are not insignificant or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the' Project outweigh and override any such significant impacts, as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III, below). '067 K. Public Health And Safety. (1) Facts. The Draft EIR analyzes public health and safety impacts of the Project at pages 3-139 through 3-138. The EIR concludes that the public health and safety impacts of the Project will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by imposition of two mitigation measures, application to the FAA for Phases II and III and obstruction lights on the towers. (2) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before it, this City Council finds that: (i) The mitigationlmeasures referred to in the Final EIR have been adopted as Conditions of Approval or incorporated into the Project. 21 0,68 (ii) With the imposition or incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, the Project-specific and cumulative impacts Of fhe Project upon public health and safety will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (iii) health and safety impacts To the extefit~'that the public of the Pfoj. eCt ar~ not insignificant or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh and override any such impacts, as more fullY'stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerat'~0ns (sec%ion III, below). L. Schools. (1) Facts. The Final EIR evaluates the impact of the Project upon schools in Section 1 of the Response Document. The Final EIR concludes that the possible increased enrollment at schools would be insignificant, and states that the Santa Aha Unified School District will assess developer fees as permitted by law against the Project. The Final EIR recommends that school impacts be mitigated by, the assessment of appropriate developer fees, and states that the Project will not have a significant impact on schools based on the number of students and the amount of fees that will be generated. (2) Findings. Based upon the Final EIR and the entire record before it, this City Co~lncil finds that: (i) By operation of City and Santa Aha Unified School District ordinances and policies, the payment of 22 school impact fees is incorporated into this Project, and the applicant will pay the required school impact fee as and when required by those ordinances and policies. (ii) Pursuant to state law, this Council may not impose school mitigation measures beyond requiring payment of appropriate impact fees. (iii) The Project-specific and cumulative impacts of this Project relating to schools are either insignificant or will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. (iv) In the alternative, to the extent that any of the school-related impacts of the Project are not insignificant or mitigated to a level of insignificance, the economic, social and other benefits of the Project outweigh and override any such significant impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section III, below). III. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, and to the extent that any impacts of the Project are significant and have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance, this City Council adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project, as discussed above, and the anticipated economic, social and other benefits of the Project. 069 23 070 A. Generally. ~ ~? The Project will have the~f~llowing economic, social and other benefits: ~. (i) The Project will provide temporary employment opportunities during Project construction and will provide approximately 2,712 permanent employment opportunities at ultimate build-out. Employees will include managers, professional and technical workers, clerical workers, sales occupations, production and maintenance jobs, and service personnel. (ii) The Project will result in significant Applicant contributions toward necessary public infrastruoture, including circulation and transportation improvements, public services and utilities, and other elements of public infrastructure. (iii) The Project will assist in the in-fill development of an underutilized site in an urban area, thereby furthering the ongoing transition from low density office and commercial uses to higher density mixed-use development within the Park Center area of. the city of Santa Ana. Current land uses on the project site include Phase I of the Xerox Centre Development, a vacant two-story office building and related parking facilities. The Project will result in the construction of two high-rise office towers, parking structures, a restaurant and a pedestrian plaza. 24 B. Cumulative Transportation And Circulation Impacts. With respect to unavoidable cumulative transportation and circulation impacts of the Project, this City Council finds that the environmental, social, economic and other considerations set forth above warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding these impacts which may not be avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval imposed on the Project or incorporated into the Project. This Council also finds that this cumulative impact cannot be avoided by approval of any of the Project alternatives, including the No Project Alternative. To the extent that this cumulative impact may be reduced by approval of the No Project Alternative, the No Project Alternative completely eliminates the Project benefits as set forth above, thus justifying approval of the Project notwithstanding this impact. C. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. With respect to unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts of the Project, this City Council finds that the environmental, social, economic and other considerations set forth above warrant approval of the Project~ notwithstanding this cumulative impact, which cannot be avoided entirely despite the numerous mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval imposed on the Project or incorporated into the Project. This Council also finds that these impacts cannot be entirely avoided, due to their cumulative nature, by adoption of any Project alternative. To the extent that this cumulative 25 071 072 impact could be reduced by adoption of the No Project Alternative, the No ProjeCt Alternative w6u~d completely eliminate the Project benefits as ~t forth above, and ~proval of this Project is justifie~ notwi'thstandihg this cumulative impact. D. Cumulative Water Consumption Impacts. With respect to the cumulative impact of the Project on water consumption, this City Council finds that the aforementioned environmental, social, economic and other considerations warrant approval of the Pr0~ect notwithstanding this impact which cannot be avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and Conditions of ApprOval imposed upon the Project or incorporated into the Project. This Council also finds that this impact, due to its cumulative nature, cannot be entirely avoided by adoption of any Project alternative. To the extent that this cumulative impact may be reduced, but not avoided entirely, by adoption of the No Project Alternative, the No Project Alternative would completely eliminate the Project's benefits as set forth above, and the benefits of this Project justify approval of the P~oject notwithstanding'this cumulative impact. E. Cumulative Waste Water Production Impacts. With respect to the unavoidable impact of the Project relating to cumulative waste water production, this City Council finds that the aforementioned environmental, social, e~nomic and other considerations warrant approval of the 26 073 Project notwithstanding this impact, which cannot be avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval imposed on the Project or incorporated into the Project. This Council also finds that this impact, due to its cumulative nature, cannot be entirely avoided by adoption of any Project alternative. To the extent that this cumulative impact may be reduced by adoption of the No Project Alternative, the No Project Alternative would entirely eliminate the Project's benefits as set forth above, and approval of this Project is justified because of those Project benefits. F. Aesthetic Impacts. With respect to the unavoidable aesthetic impact of the Project, including the alteration of existing views of the Santiago Mountains and the increases amount of light and glare from the office towers, this City Council finds that the environmental, social, economic and other Considerations set forth above warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding these impact which cannot be avoided despite the numerous mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval imposed on the Project or incorporated into the Project. This Council also finds that these impacts cannot be completely avoided except by approval of the No Project Alternative, which alternative completely eliminates the'Project benefits as set forth above. In addition, this Council finds that a change in the visual character of the Project Site is a subjective impact which will 27 O74 be perceived by some as an insignificant or positive change, which may reduce the overall perceived adverse aesthetic or visual impacts of the Project. IV. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, this City to Council makes the following findings regarding alternatives the Project discussed in the Final EIR. A. No Project Alternative. (1) Facts. As described on page 6-1 of the Draft EIR, the No Project Alternative would maintain the site in its current condition with one vacant, unsightly two-story office structure (the "Allstate" building). This alternative avoids the environmental effects of the Project but does not meet the applicant's objectives. This Alternative does not provide additional employment opportunities, does not provide capital improvements for adjacent roadways, and does not provide for construction of area-wlde public transportation improvements such as the Cabrillo Park Drive extension. Nor does it provide for the re~oval of the aesthetically ~ndesirable vacant office building currently on the Project Site. (2) Findinqs. This City Council finds that the No Project Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project, and rejects the No Project Alternative, for the following reasons: 28 O75 (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have substantially mitigated most of the environmental impacts of the Project, excepting only cumulative impacts which cannot be avoided by adoption of any Project alternative and visual impacts relating to light, glare, and views, which impacts are subjective and cannot be entirely avoided due to the existing development on and around the Project Site. Accordingly, the perceived mitigating benefits of approving the No Project Alternative have been diminished or eliminated. (b) The No Project Alternative would not provide capital improvements for adjacent roadways and would not provide for construction of area-wide public transportation improvements. In addition to mitigating Project impacts, these aspects of the Project are environmental benefits which may alleviate cumulative problems resulting from area-wide growth in general. (c) Approval of the No Project Alternative would result in the loss of developed office space and the Jobs, economic benefits and public revenues that would be generated by such development. (d) Approval of the No Project Alternative would result in a loss of construction jobs that will be provided through development of the Project. (e) The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project would not be obtained. 29 O76 B. 1.5 FAR Alternative. ,~. (1) Facts. As described on pages 6-1 through 6-8 of the Draft EIR, the 1.5 FAR Alternative would provide for 375,000 square feet of professional offices and 36,200 square feet of commercial retail space on the Project Site, representing a 52 percent reduction in off,Ge and retail space compared to the proposed Project. Although this alternative would generate fewer average daily trips, traffic impacts of this alternative would be significant on a cumulative basis, and air quality impacts of this alternative would be significant on a cumulative basis. Like the proposed Project, this alternative is gonsistent with existing zoning and plan designations and would displace the existing office uses on the Project Site. This alternative will still provide a highly visible office commercial development, although the aesthetic and visual impacts will be reduced to some extent. The impact on public services and utilities to this alternative would be similar to the proposed Project in some instances, although demand for certain services would be reduced as a result of the reduction size of the Project. (2) Findings. This City Council finds that the 1.5 FAR Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the and rejects the 1.5 FAR Alternative, for the following Project, reasons: (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have substantially mitigated most of the environmental impacts of 3O the Project, excepting only cumulative impacts which cannot be avoided by adoption of any Pr?ject alternative and visual impacts relating to lights, glare, and views, which impacts are subjective and cannot be entirely avoided due to the existing development on and around the Project Site. Accordingly, the perceived mitigating benefits of approving the 1.5 FAR Alternative have been diminished or eliminated. (b) This alternative would, like the proposed Project result in cumulatively significant traffic and air quality impacts, and would include a highly visible office-commercial development, although the visual and aesthetic impact of the Project would be reduced to some extent. Accordingly, the mitigating benefits of approving this Project alternative have been substantially diminished or eliminated. (c) Approval of this alternative would result in a reduced amount of developed off.ice space and a reduction in the jobs, economic benefits, and public revenues that would be generated by the development off, the Project. (d) Approval. of this alternative would result in a reduced amount of construction jobs that would be provided through development of the Project. (e) As stated in the Draft EIR, this alternative does not utilize the Project Site to its highest use. $1 078 (f) Due to the reduction in size of the Project, the environmental, ~onomiC~., soc'ial and other benefits of the Project would be obtained to a lesser degree. C. 2.0 FAR Alternative. (1) Facts. As described on pages 6-8 through 6-14, the 2.0 FAR Alternative includes 500,000 square feet of professional offices and 36,200 square feet of commercial retail space on the Project Site, representing a 36 percent reduction in office square footage comparedto the proposed Project. Although this alternative would generate fewer average daily trips, traffic impacts would remain significant on a cumulative basis, and the air quality impacts of this alternative are significant on a cumulative basis. Like the proposed Project, this alternative is consistent with existing zoning and plan designations, and would displace existing office uses on the Project Site. This alternative would slightly reduce the visual and aesthetic impacts of the proposed Project. The impact of'this alternative on public services and utilities would be similar in some instances, although less demand for certain services would be created as a result of the reduced size of the development pursuant to this Project alternative. (2) Findings. This City Council finds that the 2.0 FAR Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project, and rejects the reasons: 2.0 FAR Alternative for the following 32 079 (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have substantially mitigated most of the environmental impacts of the Project, excepting only cumulative impacts which cannot be avoided by adoption of any Project alternative and visual impact relating to light, glare, and views, which impacts are subjective and cannot be entirely avoided due to the existing development on and around the Project Site. Accordingly, the perceived mitigating benefits of approving the 2.0 FAR Alternative have been diminished or eliminated. (b) The impacts of this alternative on traffic and air quality would remain significant on a cumulative basis, and this alternative would only slightly reduce the visual and aesthetic impacts of the development on the site when compared to the proposed Project, so the mitigating benefits of approving this Project alternative have been substantially diminished or eliminated. (c) Approval of this alternative would result in a reduced amount of developed office space and a corollary reduction in the jobs, economic benefits and public revenues that would be generated by such development. (d) Approval of this Project alternative would result in a reduced number of construction jobs that would be provided through development of the Project. (e) As stated in the Draft EIR, this Project alternative would not utilize the Project Site to its highest use. 33 O8O (f) Due to the redUced Size of this alternative, the envirormental, economic, Social and other benefits of the Project would be obtained t6 a lesser degree. D. 2.5 FAR Alternative. :, (1) Facts. As described on, pages 6-14 through 6-20 of the Draft EIR, the 2.5 FAR Alternative would provide for 625,000 square feet of office space and~36,200 square feet of commercial space on the Project Site, representing a 20 percent reduction in square.footage co~pared to the proposed Project. Many impacts of this alternative are similar to the impacts of the Project, and traffic impacts and air quality impacts would be cumulatively significant pursuant to this alternative. Like the proposed Project, this alternative is consistent with existing zoning and plan designations and would displace the existing office uses on the Project Site. This alternative will slightly reduce the visual and aesthetic impacts of the Project, resulting in significant impacts. The impact on public services and utilities would be similar to the proposed Project in several instances, although the demand for certain services would be reduced due to the smaller siz~ of this Project. (2) Findings. This City Council finds that the 2.5 FAR Alternative is infeasible and less desirable than the Project, and rejects the 2.5 FAR Alternative, for the following reasons: 081 (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and adopted ss Conditions of Approval have substantially mitigated most of the envir0nmen~al impacts of the Project, excepting only cumulative impacts which cannot be avoided by adoption of any Project alternative and visual impacts relating to lights, glare, and views, which impacts are subjective and cannot be entirely avoided due to the existing development on and around the Project Site. Accordingly, the perceived mitigating benefits of approving this Project alternative have been diminished or eliminated. (b) This alternative would have cumulative impacts which are similar to the cumulative impacts of the Project, and the visual and aesthetic impacts of this Project would also be significant, as are the impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, this alternative would not substantially mitigate any of the potentially significant~environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the m~igating benefit of approving this alternative has been eliminated. (c) Approval of this alternative would reduce the amount of developed office space on the Project Site, and similarly reduce the jobs, economic benefits and public revenues that would be generated by such a development, (d) Approval of this alternative would result in a reduced number of construction jobs that will be provided through development of the Project. 082 alternative, benefits of the Project would be obtained to a lesser E. (e) Due to the reduced size of this the environmental, economic, social and other degree. Mixed Use Alternative.~ (1) Facts. As described on.pages 6-20 through 6-~4 of the Draft EIR, the Mixed Use Alternative would provide for 319,227 square feet of office space, a 400-room hotel, 33,200 square feet of commercial retail use and a 12,000 square foot restaurant on the Project Site, representing a 60 percent reduction in office space on the Project Site and a 30 percent increase in commercial retail space on the Project Site. This alternative would generate approximately 90 percent of the trip-ends generated by the proposed Project. This alternative would generate more traffic on a daily basis than the proposed project; however, it would generate somewhat less traffic during peak hours. Traffic impacts would be cumulatively significant. There is very little practical difference between the proposed Project and this alternative in noise generation, and air quality impacts of this alternative would be significant on a cumulative basis. This alternative woul~ convert the existing office uses on the Project Site to a mixed use high-tech development, but this alternative is inconsistent with the existing General Plan designation, and would require rezoning. The impact of this alternative on public services and utilities would be similar to the'Project in some 083 instances, although the demand for some services would be reduced as a result of the lesser si~e of this alternative. (2) Findings. This Cit~ Council finds that the Mixed Use Alternative is infeasible and less desirable on the Project, and rejects the Mixed Use Alternative, for the following reasons: (a) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and adopted as Conditions~of Approval have substantially mitigated most of the environmental impacts of the Project, excepting only ctunulative impacts which cannot be avoided by adoption of any Project alternative and visual impacts relating to light, glare, and views, which impacts are subjective and cannot be entirely avoided due to the existing and proposed development on and around the Project Site. Accordingly, the perceived mitigating benefits of approving the No Project Alternative have been diminished or eliminated. (b) Specifically, the Mixed Use Alternative generates 90 percent of the trip-ends compared to the Project and generates more traffic on a daily basis than the Project, traffic impacts are cumulatively Significant, noise impacts are similar to the Project, and air quality impacts are cumulatively significant. The Mixed Use Alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan.. Accordingly, the Mixed Use Alternative has not substantially reduced most significant impacts of the Project, and the mitigating benefits of approving the Mixed Use Alternative have been substantially diminished or eliminated. S7 · (c) Appr0val °f~the Mixed Use Alternative would reduce the amount of developed office Space on the Project Site, and result in corollary reductions in the jobs, economic benefits and public revenues that would be generated by development of the Project Site. (d) Approval of the Mi~ed Use Alternative would reduce the number of conSt=u~ion jobs that would be provided through development of th® Project] (e) Due to the reduced size of this alternative, the environmental, economic, s0~ial and other benefits of the Project would be obtained %o a lesser degree. Alternative Sites. (1) Facts. (a) Three alternate sites for the proposed Project are analyzed at pages 6-24 through 6-31 of the Draft EIR. These are the intercity site, the Arnel site, and the Bluebird Motel site. Development on these sites could proceed whether or not the Project goes forward.' (b) The impacts of. developing the Project on the intercity site would be similar in most respects to the impacts of developing the Project on the Project Site. Impacts which would be similar include noise, air quality, geology and soils, land use, aesthetics,, and public services and utilities. Surface runoff would be increased at the intercity site, the potential for encountering cultural resources during excavation is somewhat greater than on the Project Site, and 38 0,85 displacement of current uses on this alternate site would reduce the net increase in employment opportunities due to the Project. Development of the P~oject on this site would not substantially mitigate any potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project. (c) Development of the Project on the Bluebird Motel alternate site would result in similar impacts as development of the Project on the Project Site. Development of the Bluebird Motel site with this Project would have similar impacts relating to noise, air quality, geology and soils, ~ydrology, land uses, aesthetics, cultural resources, socioeconomics, and public services and utilities. Development of the Project on this site 'would not substantially mitigate any potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project. (d) Development of the Arnel site with this Project would result in more adverse impacts than are anticipated from development of the Project on the Project 8ire. Impacts relating to transportation and circulation, air quality, geology and soils, hydrology, aesthetics, socioeconomics, and most public services and utilities are similar to development on the Project Site. The noise impacts of development at this site would be more severe, due to the proximity of more sensitive residential neighborhoods, development at this site would necessitate more expenditures for drainage facilities, and land use compatibility issues may be'more of a problem due to proximitYofresidential 39 O86 Development. of the Project on this site would neighborhoods. not substantially mitigate any potential!y~ignificant environmental impacts of the Project. (2) Findinqs. Thi~ City Council finds that the Alternative Sites evaluated in the Draft EIR are infeasible and less desirable than the Project, amd rejects.!the Alternative Sites, for the following reasons: .~ . .~ (a) None of the Alternative Sites would substantially mitigate or reduce any potentially significant environmental impacts of the ProjeCt, thereby eliminating the mitigating benefit of approving an, Alterngt, i~e Site. In addition, development of this Project on the Arnel site would result in increased adverse environmental impact. (b) Mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and adopted as Conditions of Approval have substantially mitigated most of the environmental impacts of the Project, excepting only cumulative impacts which cannot be avoided by the adoption of any Alternative Project Site and visual impacts relating to light, glare, and views, which cannot be avoided by development of the Project on an Alternative Site. Accordingly, the perceived mitigating benefits of approving an Alternative Site for this Project have been diminished or eliminated. V. FINDINGS REGARDING MONITORING OR REPORTING OF CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code requires this City Council to adopt a reporting or 4o monitoring program regarding CEQA mitigation measures in connection with these finding~s. Thi~ City Council adopts the following program in fulfillment of this requirement: The Applicant shall file a written report with the Planning and Building Department of the City approximately once every twelve months, beginning with the first periodic review of Applicant's compliance with the development agreement pursuant to Section 13(a) of that agreement. Subsequent written reports shall be filed concurrently with each annual review of Applicant's compliance with the development agreement. The written report shall briefly state the status in implementing each mitigation measure which is adopted as a condition of approval or which is incorporated into this Project. The Planning and Building Department staff shall review the written report and determine whether there is any unusual and substantial delay of over one year in, or obstacle to, implementing the adopted or incorporated mitigation measures which requires action by Department staff. The result of this review will be provided to the Applicant in writing. If the staff determine that action is required, ~he staff and the Applicant shall consult and, if possible, agree upon additional act{0ns to be taken to implement the mitigatign measure(s) which is subject to the delay or obstacle. If and only if the staff and the Applicant are unable to agree upon the additional actions to be taken, then either staff or the Applicant may bring the matter before the Executive Director of the Planning and Building Department for a decision whether any action should be taken and what that action should be. Staff and the Executive Director of the Planning and Building Department shall be limited to imposing reasonable actions as permitted by law and by the terms of the development agreement and the Final EIR which will implement the existing mitigation measures 41 · -087 088 in the time contemplated by the terms of the development agreement. The above-described %Omplia~hce reports will supplement the City's normal'process which includes, among other things, plan checks and site inspections to verify compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. VI. GENERAL This City Council makes the following general findings and determinations and intends them to be generally applicable to this Project and each of the Appr0vals~a~d further intends that the following findings and determinatigns shall be generally applicable to all findings and ~e~erminations as a whole contained herein. A. In addition to the foregoing specific findings, this City Council hereby incorporates by reference the applicable portions of the City Staff reports and studies, oral and written evidence submitted into the record, the Final EIR, resolutions, Conditions of Approval, and the information submitted by the Applicant, all relating to the Project and the Approvals. B. This City Council intends that the foregoing findings and determinations be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any-~subdivision of these findings and determinations fails to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other subdivision of these findings ~nd determinations, that any finding and/or determination required or permitted to be made by this Council with respect to any ' 089 particular subject matter of the Project or any of the Approvals shall be deemed made if it appears, in any portion of these finding~ and determinations. All of the foregoing constitute findings and determinations by this Council whether or not any particular sentence or clause states such. C. Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are based upon the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire administrative record relating to the Project and the Approvals, including, without limitation, that evidence presented in hearings on the project before the Planning Commission and this City Council. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of this Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by the competent and substantial evidence in the administrative record as a whole. MHZ:nas/10 0877Y/05.24.9 72642.001 43