i
f
A
m ° T 'u' q
vi
v
y . r b q v q u O'
y v mo . mv ' P
F w a.
N
I k o CI
v UY { v
NH
ge
0q
a
v
v ' O 2 . 4
P
co
N
v
1:
in
Ow
1•
p
O P+ `, o u
y .
n "
h
O
uo W
U oU
cl
to _ o N
in
o pu oici, rd
y
tl .
U '+ .
co
N
va
B
0 O v -
u
auHA . 7o
5 w
W
5 .
Hv -
v
h •"
o
90 -
Eu
4 . .
U5b2
o
b . !
w -
a
G
i7
P+
a
o Uu O .° b o ov
F O„ 5o a .a 0u
U
U . 0q O O 0 0 v .> • . 4 - U 0 O
N ' O
a; P a w U w 2 .T.• H 3 ' H w7 H u .e - H t 4t1 ' S H r 2, W av 1
c0
1 o
co
I
73Cm 1
CUU Uca0-
E E
m
O I
Z
I I
DZ
Il o
a v
Vc fa
ual
C -C c ' c
4 - ° U Oa C
U
to a al
N mN0
F- E ED i
3 U U1
I I I
U
I
I
aN
2 o
vo ci
VI
U U
d
T
P
YT
I
f _.a_,,
Tvy,, r. 3 Electronic Message Center Sign Project
CEQA Findings
5, 4. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives.
1 A. Basis for Alternatives Feasibility Analysis
The project will result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts, for which I no feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would substantially lessen, or f avoid the significant impact in connection with the project. Those impacts are:
Impact 5. 1. 4.4
Project implementation could result in significant impacts related to the long- term degtadation of the visual character/ quality of the site and its surroundings.
Impact 5. 1. 4. 6:
Project development, together with cumulative projects, could result in the degradation of character/ quality or substantial increase in light and glare on a cumulative basis.
Under CEQA, where a significant impact can be substantially lessened( i.e. mitigated to an acceptable level) by adoption of mitigation measures, the agency has no obligation i to consider the feasibility of project alternatives with respect to those impacts, even if an alternative would mitigate the impact to a greater degree than the proposed project. k Basically, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or il
1 alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modifications or alternatives are not required where such changes are considered infeasible or where the responsibility of modifying the 41 I'
project lies with some Other agency ( CEQA Guidelines 15091).
As is evident from the text of the EIR, all but the two impacts identified above have been mitigated to a level of less than significant. Some mitigation measures were considered such as such as landscaping in Moon Park within Costa Mesa or along the Ii levee of the Santa Ana River, however, it is unlikely that vegetative screening would screen die views from all potential view points in the neighborhood. Further, any trees or bushed planted would take time to mature and the impact would remain in the interim. Any planting within the park would be within the jurisdiction of the City of 1 Costa Mesa and any planting on the levee would be within the jurisdiction of the Orange k County Flood Control District. As such, the implementation or maintenance of the any screening plants would be outside the jurisdiction or control of the City of Fountain II Valley. For these reasons, no feasible mitigation has been identified and potential u5 impacts remain significant and unavoidable. III
Therefore, the City Council, in considering the four alternatives identified in the DEIR N and thesefindings, needs to determine whether any alternatives are environmentally superior with respect to those impacts which cannot be mitigated to less than j:
significant. If any of the alternatives are superior with respect to those impacts, the City Council is then required to determine whether the alternatives are feasible. If the City II Council determines that no alternative is both feasible and environmentally superior k 1 City of Fountain Valley 5- 11 July 2015 k
Final Environmental Impact Report
436
5
A,o xAcq.,yF Electronic Message Center Sign Project
CEQA Finch gs
with respect to the unavoidable significant impacts identified above, then the City Council may approve the project as mitigated after adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Under CEQA, " feasible" means capable ofbeing accomplished in a successful manner within the reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors ( CEQA Guidelines 15364). The concept of feasibility permits an agency' s decision- makers to consider whether an alternative is able to meet some or all of the projects objectives. In addition, the definition of " feasibility" encompasses desirability" to the extent that an agency' s determination of infeasibility represents a reasonable balancing of competing economic, environmental, social, and technological factors supported by evidence.
B. Alternatives Considered
CEQA does not specify the methodology for comparing alternatives. However, the issues and impacts that ate most germane to a particular project must be evaluated when comparing an alternative to a proposed project. As such, the issues and impacts analyzed in project alternatives vary depending on the project type and the environmental setting. Long-term impacts ( e.g., visual impacts and permanent loss of habitat or land use conflicts) are those that are generally given more weight in comparing alternatives. Impacts associated with construction ( i.e., temporary or shortterm) or those that are easily mitigated to less than significant levels are considered to be less important
The alternatives analysis below compares each alternative to the proposed project according to whether it would have a mitigating or adverse effect for each of the environmental resource areas analyzed in this EIR. The Final EIR identified and compared the significant environmental impacts of the project alternatives listed below in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. 6. The following project alternatives were evaluated:
Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section • 15126. 6( e)( 2), the No Project Alternative must be analyzed within the EIR. The No Project Alternative should discuss what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project were not approved. In certain instances, the No Project Alternative means " no build" wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained. Thus, the " No Project" Alternative assumes that no new development would take place on-site and that the site would remain in its existing condition.
Additionally, no lease agreement or development and relocation agreement would be implemented. The existing static billboard located at 12191 Edinger Avenue would remain in place.
Alternative 2 — " Alternative Location" Alternative: The Alternative Location Alternative would involve changing the location of the proposed project. The size and all other factors of the proposed project would remain the same. The alternative location would be across the I-405 Freeway from the proposed project' s site on a CityCity of Fountain Valley 5- 12 July 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report
437
Ii
mFe.,-- 3S%t[ 3} Electronic Message Center Sign Project C,,=•-;, -; 14. 79,--' CEQA Findings
F
owned stip ofland between Euclid Street and the Santa Ana River Trail adjacent to the freeway. The alternative location would still be visible to residents in the City of Costa Mesa located on the south side of the Santa Ana River, but would likely be incrementally less visible due to the increased distance ofthe EMC sign from residential uses compared to the proposed project. One of the major constraints for this site is the - • i existing sewer lines located in this area, approximately 30 feet from the Santa Ana River i bank. Because the sign caisson would have to be placed 35 to 50 feet below the ground I surface, potential conflicts would occur with the sign support sftucture and the existing sewer lines. Realignment of the sewer lines would require approval from the Orange County Sanitation District. j
Alternative 3 —" Lower Hei• ht" Alternative: The Lower Height Alternative would involve lowering the maximum height of the EMC sign of the proposed project. This f alternative considers the sign at the same location and at the same size as the proposed F project, but at a lower maximum height of 60 feet compared to 79 feet with the proposed project. A maximum height of 60 feet was chosen because it is the same height as the existing pylon sign across the freeway from the proposed project location. t A height of 60 feet would incrementally reduce the visibility of the sign from residents and visitors to Moon Park, which is located within the City of Costa Mesa on the south side of the Santa Ana River.
Alternative 4— " V Formation" Alternative: The " V Formation" Alternative would 111involve changing the orientation of the EMC sign of the proposed project. This F alternative considers the sign at the same location, same size, and same height as the proposed project, but would change the sign orientation from a back-to- back formation to a " V Formation". The sign would be angled so as to maximize views towards the freeway. The sign panels would be separated by 15 to 20 feet at the south end of the panel sides. The proposed separation of the panel would cause eastern facing panel to extend over Euclid Street. As k such, a City encroachment permit would be required • 6 under this alternative. The V-formation would incrementally reduce the visibility of the advertising content of the sign to residents and park visitors in the City of Costa Mesa j neighborhood across the river from the project site. This alternative would also orient I views of the sign More directly at freeway traffic and would incrementally reduce if nighttime visibility of the sign from the Costa Mesa neighborhood. fi These four alternatives were determined to be an adequate range of reasonable 6! alternatives as required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. 6 ( DEIR, p. 7- 1). The G environmental impacts of each of these alternatives are identified and compared with the " significant" and " potentially significant" impacts resulting from the proposed project. That comparison is shown on Table 7- 1 at the end of DEIR Section 7. 0, it
Alternatives. Further, the" environmentally superior" alternative is identified in Section
7. 8 of the DEIR( DEIR, p. 7- 35). t
In addition, the project identified the following Project Objectives ( DEIR, p. 3- 2): l
1. Locate the electronic message center billboard sign along a major freeway segment within the City to generate maximum exposure. y f
111 City of Fountain Valley • 5- 13 July 2015
Final Environmental Impact Report
r
Ii
u
438
i
Electronic Message Center Sign Project
Sr,; CEQA Findings
2. Construct an outdoor electronic message center billboard sign on City property to generate income for the City through a lease agreement.
3. Minimize environmental impacts by locating the project in an area with minimal impacts on natural resources.
C. Alternatives Analysis
The City Council finds that the range of alternatives studied in the FIR along with recognition of the Project Objectives reflects a reasonable attempt to identify and evaluate various types of alternatives that would potentially be capable of reducing the Project environmental impacts, while accomplishing most of the Project Objectives The City Council is required to determine whether any alternative identified in the Eli. is environmentally superior with respect to the project impacts that cannot be reduced to less than significant through mitigation measures. As described above, there are two significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant.
I-Iowever, the City Council Ends that the significant and unavoidable impacts would still occur under the alternatives evaluated.
The following summarizes each of the project alternatives and Project Objectives that were evaluated to determine feasibility:
Alternative 1- No Project Alternative
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. 6( e)( 2), the No Project Alternative must be analyzed within the EIR. The No Project Alternative should discuss what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project were not approved. In certain instances, the No Project Alternative means" no build" wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained. Thus, the " No Project" Alternative assumes that no new development would take place on- site and that the site would remain in its existing condition. Under this alternative no lease agreement or development agreement would be implemented.
The No Project Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project in regards to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, GHGs, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise and utilities and services. Like the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in no impacts to agriculture and forest resources, biological resources, cultural resources, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and transportation and traffic. This Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics that were identified under the proposed project. However, the No Project Alternative would not accomplish any of the project objectives; in particular, it would not produce additional revenue for the City through a lease agreement.
The City Council is not required to consider the feasibility ofthe No ProjectAlternative.
However, the City Council does consider this alternative undesirable and inconsistent with the Project Objectives.
City of Fountain Valley 5- 14 July 2015
Final Environmental Impact Report
439
Fr cnrnr.,,,
IGrf
T`js0 Electronic Message Center Sign Project
ft" CEQA Findings
Alternative 2—" Alternative Location" Alternative
The Alternative Location Alternative would involve changing the location of the proposed project. The size and all other factors of the proposed project would remain the same. The alternative location would be across the I-405 Freeway from the proposed project's site on a City-owned strip of land between Euclid Street and the Santa Ana River Trail adjacent to the freeway. The alternative location would still be visible to i residents in the City of Costa Mesa located on the south side of the Santa Am River, but j would likely be incrementally less visible due to the increased distance of the EMC sign from residential uses compared to the proposed project. One of the major constraints for this site is the existing sewer lines located in this area, approximately 30 feet from the Santa Ana River bank. Because the sign caisson would have to be placed 35 to 50 feet below the ground surface, potential conflicts would occur with the sign support structure and the existing sewer lines. Realignment of the sewer lines would require a approval from the Orange County Sanitation District( OCSD). 1 The Alternative Location Alternative would accomplish the project objectives. The Alternative Location Alternative would increase impacts related to air quality and GHGs compared to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, the Alternative Location Alternative would result in no impacts to agriculture and forest resources, biological I' resources, cultural resources, mineral resources, population andhousing, public services, recreation, and transportation and traffic. The Alternative Location Alternative would 1•I have similar impacts as the proposed project in regards to hazards and hazardous ii i
materials, hydrology and water quality, land use planning, noise, and utilities and services.
This Alternative Would incrementally reduce impacts on aesthetics and light and glare, however the significant and unavoidable impacts would remain. This alternative is considered undesirable because it is within the jurisdiction of another public agency, OCSD, and any construction within the OCSD easement would require approval from the agency. Further the realignment of sewer lines would substantially increase the construction cost associated with the sign and could affect the financial feasibility of the b sign with regard to the City' s lease with the applicant. k Alternative 3—" Lower Height" Alternative
ii
The Lower Height Alternative would involve lowering the maximum height of the EMC sign of the proposed project This alternative considers the sign at the same location and ti at the same size as the proposed project, but at a lower maximum height of 60 feet compared to 79 feet with the proposed project. A maximum height of 60 feet was chosen because it is the same height as the existing pylon sign across the freeway from the r proposed project location. A height of 60 feet would incrementally reduce the visibility ofthe sign from residents and visitors to Moon Park, which is located within the City of Costa Mesa on the south side of the Santa Ana River. Constraints ata 60- footmaximum height include:
4 6 Reduced visibility at greater distances on die freeway so drivers would have tO be i closet to read the EMC sign and would have less time to read it; t 1 City of Fountain Valley 5- 15 July 2015
Final Environmental Impact Report
t
440
II
f fi,
koultva
Electronic Message Center Sign Project
CEQA Findings
e The sign is more easily screened from drivers by high profile vehicles on the freeway such as large sport utility vehicles, motorhomes, and semi- trucks; and e Existing trees on the proposed project site would screen the sign from view for drivers on the southbound I-405.
This alternative would generally meet the project objectives but would conflict with elements of the objectives relating to maximizing exposure, and minimizing impacts on natural resources. At a height of 60- feet, motorists would have to be closer to die sign before having an optimum view of the sign, which would conflict with the objective a constructing a sign with maximum exposure. At 60- feet, existing trees on the site would have to be trimmed or topped off to prevent the tree canopies from screening all or portions of the sign from motorists traveling on the freeway. This would conflict with the objective of minimizing impacts on natural resources.
The Lower Height Alternative is considered to have incrementally reduced impacts compared to the proposed project in regards to aesthetics. Like the proposed project, the Lower Height Alternative would result in no impacts to agriculture and forest resources, biological resources, cultural resources, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and transportation and traffic, and similar less than significant impacts to air quality, geology and soils, GHGs, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use planning, noise, and utilities and services.
This Alternative would incrementally reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics that were identified under the proposed project, but not completely mitigate the impacts. However, the Lower Height Alternative would not accomplish the second project objective— to maximize exposure along the freeway segment— compared to the proposed project, which would provide better exposure for the EMC sign.
Removing or altering existing trees would conflict with the goal of minimizing impacts to natural resources.
Alternative 4—" V Formation" Alternate
The " V Formation" Alternative would involve changing the orientation of the EMC sign of the proposed project. This alternative considers the sign at the same location, same size, and same height as the proposed project, but would change the sign orientation from a back- to- back formation to a " V Formation". The sign would be angled so as to maximize views towards the freeway. The sign panels would be separated by 15 to 20 feet at the south end of the panel sides. The proposed separation of the panel would cause eastern facing panel to extend over Euclid Street. As such, a City encroachment permit would be required under this alternative.
The" V Formation" Alternative would accomplish the project objectives, as listed above.
The" V Formation" Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project in regards to aesthetics. T the proposed project, the " V Formation" Alternative would result in no impacts to agriculture and forest resources, biological resources, cultural resources, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and transportation and traffic and has similar less than significant impacts to air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water City of Fountain Valley 5- 16 July 2015
Final Environmental Impact Report
441
I
wt. r.,,,. 1
Electronic Message Center Sign Project
1 f,.,s....IN:if a
CEQA Findings
quality, land use planning, noise, and utilities and services. This Alternative would incrementally seduce the significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics that i were identified under the proposed project, but still have significant and unavoidable 1 impacts related to aesthetics.
5. 5 Statement of Overriding Considerations. . R
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, this City Council adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the remaining significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, as discussed above, and the anticipated economic, legal, social, and other benefits of the Project. i'
F
Approval by the City of Fountain Valley City Council of the Electric Message Center Sign project will result in significant adverse environmental effects which cannot be mitigated or avoided, notwithstanding the City Council has adopted all feasible mitigation measures. Despite I' the ultimate occurrence of these expected effects, the City Council, in accordance with Public I' Reiourres Code Section 21081( b) and CBA Guidelines Section 15093, has balanced the benefits f ofthe proposed Project Final EIR against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures. The City Council has also( i)independently reviewed the information in the DEIR and the record of proceedings; ri ii) made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially lessen the impacts y resulting from the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures as identified I;
in the EIR; and, ( iii) balanced the project' s benefits against the project' s significant unavoidable impacts. The City Council has also examined alternatives to the proposed project, and has j determined that adoption and implementation of the proposed project is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate action. The City Council has chosen to approve the Project EIR 11 because in its judgment, it finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh die project' s significant effects on the environment. I' Substantial evidence supports the various benefits and can be found at a minimum in the ij preceding CEQA findings, which are incorporated by reference into this Statement, the DEIR, and the documents which make up the record of proceedings.
A. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Based on the information and analysis set forth in the Draft Environmental impact Report(" DEIR") and the record of proceedings, construction of the proposed project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures: II
1. Impact 5. 1: 4. 4 Project implementation could result in significant impacts related to the Iong-term degradation of the visual character/ quality of the site and its surroundings.
2. Impact 5. 1. 4. 6: Project development, together with cumulative projects, could result in the degradation of character/ quality or substantial increase in light and glare on a cumulative basis. 4
I
I
City of Fountain Valley 5- 17 July 2015 I Final Environmental Impact Report f t
B
442
1
I
C. Electronic Message Center Sign Project
LL ^` CEQA Findings
e.
B. Overriding Considerations
The following statement of considerations identifies why, in the City Council' s judgment, the project and its benefits to City of Fountain Valley outweigh its unavoidable significant environmental impacts. The City Council has determined that any one of these considerations override, on balance, the cumulative significant negative environmental impacts of the project. The substantial evidence supporting these various considerations is found in the following findings based on the EIR and/ or the contents of the record of proceedings for die project:
1. The project generates income for the City of Fountain Valley.
Through a lease agreement with the project applicant the City of Fountain Valley would receive regular income as a result of the project. The City would lease City-owned land located in an industrial area where few other uses would be feasible. The proposed project has a small development footprint and the use is compatible with the existing water reservoir located on the' site. The compatible use makes the project an economic benefit by using the City' s existing real property assets to generate income that can be applied to other City programs or services.
2. The project provides an additional communication tool for the City.
Through the lease agreement the City will have opportunities to provide I
messages to travelers on the 1- 405 freeway. This form of communication would have social benefits in the form of providing communication in the event of an emergency, and providing residents with information regarding City business or programs. The proposed sign would provide the City with another medium for communicating with residents and visitors to the City.
3. The project would remove and relocate an existing static billboard . adjacent to a residential area and place it in an industrial area.
The existing static billboard located at 12191 Edinger Avenue is located adjacent to properties that are zoned residential with existing residential uses. The proposed relocation to 10955 Ellis Avenue would place the sign in an industrial area where there are no adjacent residential. uses. The nearest residential area is approximately 700 feet to the east across the Santa Ana River within the City of Costa Mesa. There are no other City- owned properties along I-405 that have a distance of 700 feet from any other residence. Other City- owned properties adjacent to I-405 indude Los Amigos Park which is an open space area with existing residential uses on both side of the park. Potential impacts would be greater at that location. The relocation of the existing sign has a social benefit by relocating a commercial billboard sign out of a residential area and into an industrial area.
I
City of Fountain Valley 5- 18 July 2015
Final Environmental Impact Report
443
c
CZ:"
i Electronic Message Center Sign Project
CEQA Findings
4. The City can restrict the content of the advertising through its lease with the project applicant.
Because the City is leasing the property the City can restrict the content advertised on the sign. Through the lease agreement the City can restrict the advertisement of items or images that the City deems to be inappropriate.
This is a social benefit because the City could not restrict advertising content on billboards not located on public property and would not be able to respond to complaints from City residents.
4j
is
is
111
ii
ii
i
li
tl
City of Fountain Valley 5- 19 July 2015
Final Environmental Impact Report
444
pv igl of
Electronic Message Center Sign Project
u 1 i
CEQA Findings
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1 ii
City of Fountain Valley 5- 20 July 2015
Final Environmental Impact Report
445