Loading...
RES-10807 Denying Final Environmental Plan AmendmentRESOLUTION NO. 10807 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE DENYING APPEAL NO. 0533 -14 AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ORANGE TO DENY THE FOLLOWING: (A) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1818 -09; (B) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2009 -02; (C) ZONE CHANGE NO. 1254 -09; (D) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 5825; AND, (E) ALL RELATED ENTITLEMENTS, INCLUDING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 001 -09, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17344, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 2012 -101, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0595 -09 AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO. 4413 -09, FOR THE RIO SANTIAGO PROJECT, GENERALLY LOCATED ON 110 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CANNON STREET AND SANTIAGO BOULEVARD. APPELLANT: JMI PROPERTIES /SANTIAGO PARTNERS, LLC WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an application for a Project in accordance with requirements of the Municipal Code of the City of Orange which consists of Environmental Impact Report No. EIR 1818 -09, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2009- 002 (Includes amendments to the East Orange and Orange Park Acres Plans), Zone Change No. ZC 1254 -09, Development Agreement No. DA 5825, Specific Plan No. SP 001 -09, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 2012 -101, Tentative Tract Map No. 17344 (City No. TTM 025 -09), Major Site Plan Review No. MJSP 0595 -09 and Design Review Committee No. DRC 4413 -09, all of which are collectively referred to herein as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project was processed in the time and manner prescribed by state and local law; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff analyzed the Project and determined that it will have a significant unavoidable adverse effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 1818 -09 was circulated for public review and comment within a State mandated 45 -day public review period as required by CEQA, with the comment period occurring between May 16, 2013, and July 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of the CEQA, local CEQA Guidelines, and the State CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 1818 -09) was prepared for the Project, including changes and revisions (Errata) to EIR No. 1818 -09, the Response to Comments, technical appendices, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program to address the Project's potential significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee reviewed the Project design at their regular August 7 and October 21, 2013 meetings and recommended approval of the Project by the City Council with Specific Plan design criteria and development standard changes and recommended conditions to facilitate Design Review Committee review and acceptance of the Project's sub -level site, architectural and landscape plans prior to the issuance of building permits; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing on January 13, 2014, which was continued to January 20, 2014, then to January 27, 2014, then to February 19, 2014, then to March 3, 2014, then to March 17, 2014, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of, or opposition to, the proposal and for the purpose of considering the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed Environmental Impact Report No. 1818 -09, including all public comments, responses, errata and technical appendices, and found it insufficient and inadequate for use for this Project; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the proposed Project, including potential environmental impacts addressed in the Environmental Impact Report No. 1818 -09 and unanimously voted to deny the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project Applicant filed Appeal No. 0533 -14, appealing the Planning Commission decision to deny the Project to the City Council of the City of Orange; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orange held a duly advertised public hearing on May 13, 2014, which was continued to June 10, 2014, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support of, or opposition to, the proposal and for the purpose of considering the Project upon property described in the attached legal description (Exhibit A); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orange hereby denies Appeal No. 0533 -14, and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission of the City of Orange to deny Environmental Impact Report No. EIR 1818 -09, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2009 -002 (Includes amendments to the East Orange and Orange Park Acres Plans), Zone Change No. ZC 1254 -09, Development Agreement No. DA 5825, Specific Plan No. SP 001 -09, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 2012 -101, Tentative Tract Map No. 17344 (City No. TTM 025 -09), Major Site Plan Review No. MJSP 0595 -09 and Design Review Committee No. DRC 4413 -09 ( "Project ") based on the following findings: 2 SECTION I — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDINGS The City Council finds that Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 1818 -09 does not reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Orange and is insufficient and inadequate for use for this project for the following reasons: 1. The City Council finds that the information contained in EIR 1818 -09, does not provide an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project and required discretionary permits; and 2. The City Council finds it is not possible to conclude that, even with the implementation of all mitigation measures recommended in EIR 1818 -09, there are substantial overriding benefits of the Project which outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project, with the exception of the project's internal design, that could override site -based significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts; and 3. The City Council finds that the EIR is lacking in clarity, information, accuracy, disclosure and completeness and that document components are dismissive and or misleading, specifically pertaining to the Threshold analysis and responses for the Land Use analysis with regard to a lack of analysis of changing the existing Orange Park Acres Plan, East Orange Plan, Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan and the proposed General Plan text amendment implications for the City's Open Space, Park General Plan Land Use Element designation; Biology with regard to lighting impacts on sensitive species; Hydrology and Water Quality with regard to dam inundation; Geology with regards to creek erosion; and Traffic with regard to the conclusion that no impacts would result even if all mitigation improvements were implemented; and 4. The City Council finds that critical public comments on the EIR received through comment letters, public comments, correspondence, the Planning Commission meetings, and the public hearings support the City Council's finding of inadequacy; and 5. The City Council finds that the EIR did not undergo sufficient peer review because it was only reviewed in certain subject areas at the beginning of the process and not at critical stages throughout or at the end of the process; and 6. The City Council finds that due to insufficient analysis in the areas of Water Hydrology and in particular with regard to dam inundation, the EIR would not further the City's goals to provide for the safety of residents or protect the liability of the City; and 7. The City Council finds that the EIR does not include exploration of appropriate project alternatives, as evidenced by the number of overriding considerations being requested for significant and unavoidable impacts; and 3 8. The City Council finds that the EIR includes deferred mitigation for multiple impact areas, particularly in the area of Traffic, because the timing for traffic related improvements are not included in the City's current Capital Improvement Program (CIP), or reasonably foreseeable in future CIP's. SECTION II — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The City Council hereby denies General Plan Amendment No. 2009 -002 (the denial includes amendments to the East Orange and Orange Park Acres Plans). The City Council further finds that a recommendation on the environmental document for this portion of the project is exempt from further analysis pursuant to CEQA section 15270 (Projects Which are Disapproved) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. The City Council finds that the East Orange and Orange Park Acres Plans, incorporated into the City's General Plan, are well accepted, long established documents that the community expects to guide the development for the project site and the City is under no obligation to change the General Plan unless it feels the right project would warrant such change. The City Council finds that the density is too high under the proposed general plan amendment for the residential portion of the Project, and with regard to the non residential portion, the allowable uses are too intense, given that the project site is located immediately adjacent to a uniquely rural equestrian community and is surrounded by property designated low density residential. The area of the property designated for a senior residential community would require a medium density residential general plan designation. This designation would permit the maximum residential density, such as apartments, allowable in the City. The City Council finds that this is completely out of context and not an appropriate fit for the area. The City Council also finds that the area proposed for low density residential would still have a higher density than what exists in the surrounding neighborhoods. The City Council finds that the area designated for a recreational amenity was more like a commercial designation because it would not be operated by a public entity. Finally, while the City Council was in favor of having 50 acres of the project designated for open space, the area would not be sufficient to be considered a City park because it lacked park amenities and did not have a public entity readily willing to accept the responsibility and maintenance for the area. The City Council finds that the lack of certainty with regard to certain essential aspects of the Project and the proposed Project inconsistencies do not warrant removing the Project area from the East Orange Plan or Orange Park Acres Plan. SECTION III — ZONE CHANGE The City Council hereby denies Zone Change No. 1254 -09. The City Council further finds that a recommendation on the environmental document for this portion of the project is exempt from further analysis pursuant to CEQA section 15270 (Projects Which are Disapproved) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. 4 The City Council generally agreed that the zone district designation for the portion of the project identified as Area A should be Open Space for the project. The City Council does not agree with the zone district designation for the portion of the project identified as Area B. While the City Council supports land uses offering recreational amenities, the Applicant's proposal for the use as a private facility, coupled with the uses necessary to support it, make it more commercial in nature. The commercial use of the property was not appropriate at this location. With regard to the portion of the project identified as Area C, the City Council finds that the low- medium density residential zoning designation is completely out of character with the existing surrounding neighborhoods because it is far too dense for the area. Also, the proposed senior assisted living and independent living uses are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Such a use in this area is not convenient, accessible or close to the support needs of its residents. The proposed use is too remote to public transportation, medical uses, shopping centers and similar uses that support the residents. Finally, with regard to the portion of the project identified as Area D, the City Council finds that the land use designation of single family residential is appropriate, however, a zone district designation of R -1 -6 is not appropriate as it allowed minimum lot sizes of 6000 square feet, which is too small for the area. The City Council recognizes that neighboring development in the area located to the north and south sides of the project are designated R -1 -8, which requires a minimum lot size of 8000 square feet and would be more compatible for the Project. The east and north eastern portion of the site are designated R1 -20, which requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and R1 -40, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet and would be compatible lot sizes for these portions of the Project. SECTION IV — DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FINDINGS The City Council hereby denies Development Agreement No. 5825. The City Council further finds that a recommendation on the environmental document for this portion of the project is exempt from further analysis pursuant to CEQA section 15270 (Projects Which are Disapproved) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. The City Council finds that the proposed Agreement is significantly lacking in additional public benefits. The 50 acres of public open space does not identify any agency or other entity willing to accept or maintain the property, much of which is located in the middle of the Santiago Creek watershed. The area identified to be donated to the YMCA or similar organization lacks a written commitment from any organization willing to acquire or operate a private recreation facility. A private operator of this type of amenity is essentially a pay to play facility and not encouraged by the City Council. The City Council finds that the financial contributions offered for trail connections are likely insufficient because the Applicant fails to identify the actual costs of building the trail connections. The City Council finds the relocation of the two water wells on site is required to develop the property and do not constitute public benefits. Finally, the City Council finds that most of the items offered by the Applicant lack timing as to if and when they would occur. E Accordingly, the City Council hereby finds that: 1. Development Agreement No. 5825 is not consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan or redevelopment plan, because it is significantly lacking in additional public benefits required to approve a development agreement and seeks park credits for open space area that is insufficient to meet the City's threshold for park needs pursuant to Chapter 16.60 of the Orange Municipal Code; and 2. Development Agreement No. 5825 is not compatible with the uses authorized in the district or planning area in which the real property is located and would require a general plan amendment, and zone change to make the project compatible; and 3. Development Agreement No. 5825 is not in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices because the proposed project seeks a higher density and land use intensity than what is currently allowed in the area. The projects lacks additional public benefits required for the approval of a development agreement and would result in the increase of residential users of City parks without the benefit of providing additional park space or fees in lieu; and 4. Development Agreement No. 5825 would not be beneficial to the health, safety, and general welfare consistent with the policy of the City with respect to development agreements as provided in Section 17.44.200 because it is significantly lacking in public benefits to the entire community. The City Council finds that even the dedication of 1.3 miles of public trails is deficient in identifying an owner and maintenance responsibilities for the trails, and fails to identify timing for the trail improvements; and 5. Development Agreement No. 5825 would adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in the City because the project as proposed is too dense and intense in terms of allowable development and land use in the area in which it is located. As such, it would likely detract from the surrounding properties, negatively affecting property values; and 6. Development Agreement No. 5825 would not promote and encourage the development of the proposed project by providing a greater degree of requisite certainty. The City Council finds that the development agreement proposes to dedicate 50 acres of public open space but does not identify any group or agency willing to accept the maintenance of the property or any commitment related to the timing on when the property would be conveyed as public open space. Furthermore, the development agreement identifies a 10 acre donation to the YMCA or similar organization for a recreational amenity but there are no written commitments from the YMCA or similar organization to accept the property or X timing identified for the property dedication. And finally, the Applicant proposes two separate $100,000 contributions for local trail connections but fails to identify the actual costs to build each connection or when the money would be donated for the connections. SECTION V — SPECIFIC PLAN, MAJOR SITE PLAN REVIEW, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS The City Council hereby denies Specific Plan No. 001 -09, Tentative Parcel Map No. 2012 -101, Tentative Tract Map No. 17344, Major Site Plan Review No. 0595 -09 and Design Review Committee No. 4413 -09. The City Council further finds that a recommendation on the environmental document for this portion of the project is exempt from further analysis pursuant to CEQA section 15270 (Projects Which are Disapproved) because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Specific Plan: The whole of the findings for Specific Plan approval are not met by the Project. Required Findings: 1. That the proposal conforms to the General Plan in regard to land use designation and intensity; This finding is not met. As corroborated by the findings given for the denial of General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2009 -002 the City Council finds that the Project: a) Does not conform to the General Plan's existing land use designation without authorization for a change in Land Use designation. b) Does not adequately approximate density equivalent to or transition to the surrounding community. c) Is not considerate of the low intensity concept of area greenbelt plans that include the property. d) Does not provide analysis or consistency with the low intensity nature of the East Orange Plan or Orange Park Acres Plan. e) Does not facilitate required public park needs required by the City to justify the Project intensity. f) Has insufficient analysis to determine that there would not be park intensification impacts by allowing privatization of parks via changes to the Open Space — Park General Plan Land Use Designation definition. 7 g) Would create land use intensity incompatible with the area due to the number of land uses that could occur and the massing of buildings that could block viewsheds. h) Would result in use elements that would introduce a commercial use to an area that does not have such uses, thereby causing inconsistent land uses, change of community character and higher traffic intensity via commercial support vehicle activity. i) Would include a senior residential component land use that would not be supported by close convenient services hence, causing a use not compatible with the area. j) Would utilize a three story building component that is out of context with the intensity of any other buildings in the area. k) Would not have sufficient assurances in place to prevent the future conversion of planning Area C to unrestricted apartments which would increase traffic intensity to the area. 1) Includes use intensity not appropriate in a dam inundation area in such close proximity to dams. m) Would intensify emergency response needs in the event of a localized or regional emergency. n) Is not consistent with the numerous objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan specifically with regard to: Bullet objective number 2 from "A Vision For Orange: 2030" under the "Where We Play" header on page I -18 of the General Plan envisions Santiago Creek protection. The Project has not been shown to be consistent with this objective in that development occurs immediately adjacent to the existing creek flow line with potential to affect creek biology, hydrology and future remediation. Bullet objective number 3 from "A Vision For Orange: 2030" under the "Where We Play" header on page I -18 of the General Plan envisions the City to strive to build a comprehensive system of parks, open space, equestrian areas, scenic resources, undeveloped natural areas, as well as a full array of recreational, educational, and cultural offerings such as libraries, sports, entertainment areas, and play facilities." The Project has not been shown to be wholly consistent with this objective in that no public parks are provided as required by the Orange Municipal Code and the project partially obscures view of scenic resources. Bullet objective number 4 from "A Vision For Orange: 2030" under the "Where We Play" header on page I -18 of the General Plan and bullet objective number four from "Introduction and Vision for the Future" on page NR -1 of the General Plan both envision the City developing a "connected multi -modal network for Rl traveling from one end of town to the other that provides the option for residents from different neighborhoods to access parks, open spaces, and scenic areas by vehicle, transit, foot, bicycle or, where appropriate, horse." The Project has not been shown to be wholly consistent with this objective in that Project trail linkages for the Santiago Creek Trail and westerly terminus of the Santiago Canyon Road adjacent trail are not secured. Furthermore, the Project does not provide a creek trail crossing or widening of the Mabury adjacent trail as is identified in the General Plan. The project also does not propose all trails to meet City trail right -of -way dimensional standards. General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.4 seeks to "create and maintain open space resources that provide recreational opportunities, protect hillside vistas and ridgelines, and conserve natural resources." This policy is not met in that the Project does not provide recreational opportunities in the form of public parks and public use of the open space area proposed north of Santiago Creek. The project massing and density also partially obscures views of hillside vistas and ridgelines. 2. That the proposal contains at least ten gross acres; The Project contains approximately 110 acres. This finding can be met. 3. That the proposal provides for a mix of uses (such as, residential, commercial, office, public facilities, open space); The Project provides a mix of uses. This finding can be met. 4. That by incorporating features such as, but not limited to those listed below, the proposal constitutes an environment equal to or better than what might be accomplished under traditional development practices: a) Where usable open space is provided in excess of the amount required under conventional zoning; b) Where natural features are preserved that enhance the development and will benefit the community such as trees, scenic points, view corridors, ridgelines, historic buildings or landmarks, unique geological formations and other community assets; c) Where perimeter setbacks of the development exceed the minimum dimension required; d) Where distinctive design techniques are incorporated such as architectural treatments, site planning, structural design, landscaping as well as integration into the community; 0 e) Where the Project makes use of non- depletable energy sources for water heating or space heating; Where usable recreational amenities are provided in excess of the amount required; g) Where special amenities are provided such as daycare, preschool, community care, or other amenities; h) Where multi -modal transportation opportunities are provided such as linkages to pedestrian and recreational trails, and public transit facilities; i) Where public institutional needs are met by providing for schools, religious facilities, libraries, post offices, policeTiire facilities; and j) Where special needs housing is provided. This finding is not met in its entirety. In addressing each of these issues the City Council finds as follows: a) Greater open space would result under the existing Greenbelt plan designations of the Orange Park Acres and East Orange Plans. The Project does not wholly consider said plans. The Open Space provided by the Project does not include open space required by the Orange Municipal Code that would best serve the City in the form of traditional public park facilities with recreational facilities and a public parking lot. b) Site constraints in relation to the surroundings are not adequately considered. Bulk and height of Project buildings could obstruct view to nearby Open Space Ridgelines as identified in the General Plan and incompatibility with the density and scale of the surrounding community context would result. c) Perimeter setbacks exceed the requirements of the code however, setbacks for the bulk and height of the buildings proposed do not alleviate community compatibility concerns with the Project. d) The Specific Plan includes distinctive design techniques such as architectural treatments, site planning, structural design and landscaping; however, the Specific Plan contains many indefinite clauses that could result in a liability to the City when administering and maintaining the Specific Plan. While the Specific Plan provides illustrations and some framework that would contribute to internal integration, it does not provide for adequate integration of the Project into the community due to the nature of uses, intensity, density and height proposed. The Specific Plan includes inadequate trail timing that is reliant on unpredictable factors that would need to first occur. The Specific Plan includes unrealistic contingency provisions for maintenance of the Project's Area A passive open space, Area D active open space and Project trails. e) The Specific Plan contains a Sustainable Design section requiring builders "to go above and beyond" Title 24 standards by a minimum of five percent. However, the Sustainable Design section contains several 10 non - mandatory phrases that could hamper the portrayed sustainable design for the Project. f) The Open Space provided by the Project does not include open space required by the Orange Municipal Code that would best serve the City in the form of traditional public park facilities with recreational facilities and a public parking lot. g) The Project allows for the inclusion of special amenities. h) The Specific Plan offers on -site trails. The eastern end of the Santiago Canyon Road adjacent trail would connect to an existing trail. A trail crossing would be provided at Nicky Way. However, trail connections for the Santiago Creek adjacent trail and the westerly terminus of the Santiago Canyon Road adjacent trail are not assured by the Specific Plan. Completion of a creek crossing trail or expansion of the Mabury Avenue adjacent trail envisioned in the General Plan would not be accomplished, and as such conflicts with the General Plan. Furthermore, no linkage to public transit facilities exists or is proposed. i) Traffic mitigation needs created by the Project may not be met in that the necessary mitigation measures /traffic improvements for the Project are not identified and fully funded Capital Improvement Projects by the City. Emergency evacuation needs of the Project would likely further strain emergency responder resources and no detailed plans have been demonstrated to show that the eventual site operators would alleviate the need. Park needs of the Project, as required by the Orange Municipal Code would not be met with public park facilities and a strain on other existing City park facilities could result from use by residents of the site. Uncertainty of Planning Area A open space and the Project trails ownership could result in a strain of City resources to maintain or encourage maintenance by the master owners association for the Project. The Specific Plan contains many indefinite clauses that could result in a liability to the City when administering and maintaining the Specific Plan. j) Age - qualified (senior housing) is proposed. However, no special needs' housing for lower income families is specifically included. Major Site Plan: The whole of the findings for Major Site Plan approval are not met by the Project. Required Findings: 1. The Project design is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods. This finding is not met. The City Council finds that the Project: 11 a) Does not adequately approximate density equivalent to or transition to the surrounding community. Site constraints in relation to the surroundings were not adequately considered. Bulk/massing and height of Project buildings could obstruct view to nearby Open Space Ridgelines as identified in the General Plan and incompatibility with the density and scale of the surrounding community context would result. b) Is not considerate of the low intensity concept of area greenbelt plans that include the property. c) Does not provide analysis or consistency with the low intensity nature of the East Orange Plan or Orange Park Acres Plan. d) Would create land use intensity incompatible with the area due to the number of land uses that could occur. e) Would result in use elements that would introduce a commercial nature to an area that does not have such uses, thereby causing inconsistent land uses, change of community character and higher traffic intensity via commercial support vehicle activity. f) Would include a senior residential component land use that would not be supported by close convenient services hence, causing a use not compatible with the area. g) Would utilize a three story building component that is out of context with the intensity of any other buildings in the area. h) Would not have sufficient assurances in place to prevent the future conversion of planning Area C to unrestricted apartments which would increase traffic intensity to an unacceptable level in the area. 2. The Project conforms to City development standards and any applicable special design guidelines or specific plan requirements. This finding is not met. The City Council finds that the Project merits denial of General Plan Amendment No. 2009 -002 and Zone Change No. 1254 -09. Without the change of land use designation, the Project is incompatible with the existing General Plan and Zoning Designations for the site because the proposed uses are not allowed. 3. The Project provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both on- and off -site. This finding is not met. The City Council finds that the traffic mitigation needs created by the Project may not be met in that the necessary traffic improvements for the Project are not identified and fully funded Capital Improvement Projects by the City. Emergency evacuation needs of the Project have not been detailed to demonstrate that site occupants would be able to be evacuated and would be evacuated in a manner that would not cause disruption of, or intensification to, existing evacuation routes. 12 City services are available and adequate to serve the Project. This finding is not met. The City Council finds that Traffic mitigation needs created by the Project may not be met in that the necessary mitigation measures /traffic improvements for the Project are not identified Capital Improvement Programs by the City. Emergency evacuation needs of the Project would likely further strain emergency responder resources and no detailed plans have been demonstrated to show that the eventual site operators would alleviate the need. Park needs of the Project, as required by the Orange Municipal Code would not be met with public park facilities and a strain on other existing City park facilities could result from use by residents of the site. Uncertainty of planning Area A open space and the Project trails ownership could result in a strain of City resources to maintain or encourage maintenance by the master owners association for the Project. The Specific Plan contains many indefinite clauses that could result in a liability to the City when administering and maintaining the Specific Plan. 4. The Project has been designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse environmental effects. This finding is not met. As evidenced in the findings for denial of EIR No. 1818 -09, the Project does not fully mitigate nor substantially minimize adverse environmental effects. Tentative Tract Map The whole of the findings for Tentative Tract Map approval are not met by the Project. The data and analysis upon which these findings are based are set forth in the record. Required Finding: A. The requirements for the filing of subdivision maps shall be governed by the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the provisions of Title 16 of the Orange Municipal Code (OMC). All maps shall comply with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Zoning Ordinance, Title 16 of the OMC, and any other ordinance, statute or law pertaining to the use, sale, leasing or subdivision of land. 1. The proposed subdivision map and the design and improvements are consistent with City of Orange General Plan which includes the East Orange Plan and Orange Park Acres Plan as part of the Land Use Element. This finding is not met. The City Council finds that the Project merits denial of General Plan Amendment No. 2009 -002 and Zone Change No. 13 1254 -09. Without the change of land use designation, the Project is incompatible with the existing General Plan and Zoning Designations for the site because the proposed uses are not allowed. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development and the proposed density of development. This finding is not met. The City Council finds that the age- restricted senior) component of the Project is not located in an area where necessary support services are conveniently located. The site is located in a dam inundation zone in close proximity to two dams. Associated potential dam inundation impacts to life and property have not been fully mitigated by the Project, specifically in consideration of the request to have the City's highest density land use designation established for the senior independent and assisted living land uses in planning Area C. The density of planning Area C and the massing of building in planning Area B for the Project is out of character with the surrounding community because the massing and density is substantially higher than the surrounding rural suburban community. Furthermore, the three story building component in planning Area C is out of context with any other buildings in the area. The Project does not adequately approximate density equivalent with or transition to the surrounding community. The Project is not considerate of the low intensity concept of area greenbelt plans that include the property. The Project does not provide analysis or consistency with the low intensity nature of the East Orange Plan or Orange Park Acres Plan. The Project does not facilitate required public park needs required by the City to justify the Project density. The Project would create land use intensity incompatible with the area due to the number of land uses that could occur and the massing of buildings that could block viewsheds. Project uses would introduce a commercial nature to an area that does not have such uses, thereby causing inconsistent land uses, change of community character and higher traffic intensity via commercial support vehicle activity. The road infrastructure of the area requires improvements merited by the Project and such improvements are not identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program. The Project would intensify emergency response needs in the event of a localized or regional emergency. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. This finding is not met. Environmental Impact Report No. 1818 -09 discloses the Significant and Unavoidable Impacts of the DEIR including: 14 Grading and Construction Aesthetic Impacts Long -Term Aesthetic Visual Impacts Light and Glare Impacts Air Quality Impacts Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts (Dam Inundation) Transportation /Traffic Impacts Cumulative (Aesthetics, Air Quality, and Traffic) Impacts In addition to the above impacts, the City Council finds that the Environmental Impact Report No. 1818 -09 does not: Wholly reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Orange. Provide an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Provide adequate clarity, information, accuracy, disclosure and completeness. Provide adequate peer review. The City Council further finds that the Environmental Impact Report No. 1818 -09: Includes deferral of mitigation for multiple impact areas. Would not further the City's goals to provide for the safety of residents or protect the liability of the City. Includes dismissive and or misleading components, specifically pertaining to Threshold analysis and responses for: the Land Use analysis with regard to a lack of analysis of changing the existing Orange Park Acres Plan, East Orange Plan, Creek Greenbelt Plans and the proposed General Plan text amendment implications for the City's Open Space, Park General Plan Land Use Element designation; Biology with regard to lighting impacts on sensitive species; Hydrology and Water Quality with regard to dam inundation; and, Traffic with regard to the conclusion that no impacts would result even if all mitigation improvements were implemented. Therefore, the City Council finds that the Project may cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat beyond that which is reported in Environmental Impact Report No. 1818 -09. 15 4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. This finding is not met. The City Council finds Environmental Impact Report No. 1818 -09 inadequate for the reasons stated above and in the denial findings for Environmental Impact Report No. 1818 -09. The Project has at least three potential serious impact areas related to public health as follows: The Project is located adjacent to the Villa Park Landfill and methane migration is a known potential issue for Project land and buildings. The Project has Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) on- site requiring remediation. Portions of the Project are located in and/or adjacent to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and approval of use of County land for fire fuel modification purposes is necessary to secure the tract as proposed. Given the deficiencies in Environmental Impact Report No. 1818 -09, the City Council is unable to wholly rely on it to make this finding, especially in consideration of responsible agency concerns regarding the Project. S. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. This finding can be made in that there are no known easements for public use of any portion of the Property. 6 The subdivision provides for, to the extent feasible, future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. This finding is not met. The Specific Plan contains a Sustainable Design section requiring builders "to go above and beyond" Title 24 standards by a minimum of five percent. However, the Sustainable Design section contains several non - mandatory phrases that could hamper the portrayed sustainable design for the Project. The Project Specific Plan does not contain requirements that make passive or natural heating or cooling mandatory. 7. The proposed subdivision complies with the development standards contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance. This finding is not met. The City Council finds that the Project merits denial of General Plan Amendment No. 2009 -002 and Zone Change No. 1254 -09. Without the change of land use designation, the Project cannot comply with the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance because the proposed uses are not allowed. 16 8. The proposed uses are compatible with existing uses located in the vicinity of the subject site. This finding is not met. The density of planning Area C and the massing of building in planning Area B for the Project is out of character with the surrounding community because the massing and density is substantially higher than the surrounding rural suburban community. Furthermore, the three story building component in planning Area C is out of context with any other buildings in the area. The number of lots per acre in planning Area D is not commensurate to the larger size lots to the east of the Project site, specifically south of Santiago Creek. The Project does not adequately approximate density equivalent with or transition to the surrounding community. The Project is not considerate of the low intensity concept of area greenbelt plans that include the property. The Project does not provide analysis or consistency with the low intensity nature of the East Orange Plan or Orange Park Acres Plan. The Project would create land use intensity incompatible with the area due to the number of land uses that could occur and the massing of buildings that could block viewsheds. Project uses would introduce a commercial nature to an area that does not have such uses, thereby causing inconsistent land uses, change of community character and higher traffic intensity via commercial support vehicle activity. The road infrastructure of the area requires improvements merited by the Project and such improvements are not identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program. 9. The Project is subject to conditions that will preserve the public welfare and insure that the Project will not have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses, and local transportation systems, including local and regional trails. This finding is not applicable. No conditions are merited because the tract map is denied in part because the Project will have an adverse impact on adjacent land uses for the reasons cited in this resolution. 10. City departments have reviewed the proposed Project and found that City services are available and adequate to serve the needs of the proposed use. This finding is not met. The Traffic mitigation needs created by the Project may not be met in that the necessary mitigation measures /traffic improvements for the Project are not identified and fully funded Capital Improvement Projects by the City. Emergency evacuation needs of the Project would likely further strain emergency responder resources and no detailed plans have been demonstrated to show that the eventual site operators would alleviate the need. Park needs of the Project, as required by the Orange Municipal Code would not be met with public park facilities and a strain on 17 other existing City park facilities could result from use by residents of the site. Uncertainty of planning Area A open space and the Project trails ownership could result in a strain of City resources to maintain or encourage maintenance by the master owners association for the Project. The Specific Plan contains many indefinite clauses that could result in a liability to the City when administering and maintaining the Specific Plan. 11. The proposed subdivision allows implementation of local and regional recreational opportunities as stated in the City's General Plan. This finding is not met. The Project does not facilitate required public park needs required by the City. The Open Space provided by the Project does not include open space required by the Orange Municipal Code that would best serve the City in the form of traditional public park facilities with recreational facilities and a public parking lot. A strain on other existing City park facilities could result from use by residents of the site. Greater open space would result under the existing Greenbelt plan designations of the Orange Park Acres and East Orange Plans. The Project did not wholly consider said plans. The Project has insufficient analysis to determine that there would not be park intensification impacts by allowing privatization of parks via changes to the Open Space — Park General Plan Land Use Designation definition. The Specific Plan includes inadequate trail timing that is reliant on unpredictable factors that would need to first occur. The Specific Plan includes unrealistic contingency provisions for maintenance of the Project's Area A passive open space, Area D active open space and Project trails. Trail connections for the Santiago Creek adjacent trail and the westerly terminus of the Santiago Canyon Road adjacent trail are not assured by the Project. Completion of a creek crossing trail or expansion of the Mabury Avenue adjacent trail, per the General Plan, would not be accomplished. 12. A sufficient water supply is available to the Project. This finding is met. Design Review Committee: The whole of the findings for Design Review Committee approval are not met by the Project. Required Findings: 1. In the Old Towne Historic District, the proposed work conforms to the prescriptive standards and design criteria referenced and /or recommended by the DRC or other reviewing body for the Project (OMC 17.10.070.F.1). This finding is not applicable. The Project is not in the Old Towne Historic District. 2. In any National Register Historic District, the proposed work complies with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines (OMC 17.10.07.F.2). This finding is not applicable. The Project is not in a National Register Historic District. 3. The Project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.07.F.3). This finding is not met. Although the Project is internally consistent with an integrated design theme, the City Council finds that overall community aesthetics of the Project: a) Does not adequately approximate density equivalent to or transition to the surrounding community. Site constraints in relation to the surroundings were not adequately considered. Bulk/massing and height of Project buildings could obstruct view to nearby Open Space Ridgelines as identified in the General Plan and incompatibility with the density and scale of the surrounding community context would result. b) Is not considerate of the low intensity concept of area greenbelt plans that include the property. c) Does not provide analysis or consistency with the low intensity nature of the East Orange Plan or Orange Park Acres Plan. d) Would result in use elements that would introduce a commercial nature to an area that does not have such uses, thereby causing buildings with a mass and architecturally - related function that reflect a change of community aesthetics. e) Would utilize a three story building component that is out of context with the intensity of any other buildings in the area. 4. For infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange Infill Residential Design Guidelines, the new structure(s) or addition are compatible with the scale, massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and will preserve or enhance existing neighborhood character (OMC 17.10.07.F.4). This finding is not applicable. The Project is not infill residential development, as specified in the City of Orange Infill Residential Design Guidelines. 19 ADOPTED this 81h day of July, 2014 Pi`rtJ eyes E. Smith, Mayor, ity of Orange ATTEST: Mary a hy, City Clerk, Cit _ _ nge I, MARY E. MURPHY, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adoted by the City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8 day of July, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Alvarez, Smith, Murphy NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Whitaker, Bilodeau ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mary E. rp City Cle range 20