Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24 - Civic Center ProjectCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 24 November 24, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Dave Kiff, City Manager 949/644 -3002 or dkiff @newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: Newport Beach Civic Center Project: Resolution 2009 -_ Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the City Hall and Park Development Plan; Resolution 2009 -_ Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Approving Schematic Design for the Project; and Authorization to Prepare a Design -Build RFP for the Parking Structure RECOMMENDATION: 1. Hold the Public Hearing on the City Hall and Park Development Project's Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR); 2. Adopt Resolution 2009 -_ certifying the City Hall and Park Development Project's FOR (SCH. No. 2009041010) and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 3. Exempt the project from the zoning and development regulations of the NBMC and the Newport Village Planned Community Development Plan; 4. Adopt Resolution 2009 -_ adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approving the Schematic Design for the Civic Center Project (aka the City Hall and Park Development Plan); and 5. Authorize the staff and construction manager (CW Driver) to prepare a Design -Build Request for Proposals (RFP) to construct the proposed 450 -space Parking Structure. DISCUSSION: This item officially concludes the Schematic Design phase of the Newport Beach Civic Center Project. For additional information about the Project, also referred to as the Newport Beach City Hall and Park Development Plan, see the City's website under "Projects" then "Civic Center" as well as staff reports from: • April 14, 2009 — Civic Center Concept Plan Approval • October 27, 2009— Civic Center Study Session item • November 10, 2009 — Civic Center Update on Cost Issues About the Project. The components of the Civic Center Project include: • An 89,000 square foot (SF) City Hall. • A new 150 -seat Council Chambers and a Community Room. • A 450 -space parking structure. • A "South" Park parcel and Civic Green, more lushly landscaped. City Hall and Park Development Plan EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 2 • A "Central" Park parcel, which includes the wetlands. • A "North" Park parcel, which includes the dog park, surface parking, and is north of San Miguel. • A pedestrian bridge over San Miguel linking the Central and North parcels. • A dedicated Emergency Operations Center. • A 7,000 SF expansion of the current Central Library. • A "library connection" (9,150 SF) — connecting the Central Library to the Civic Green. About the EIR. Prior to taking action on the schematic design plans, the City Council must first review, consider, and certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The FEIR is comprised of three volumes: Volume I- Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) which includes minor corrections and clarifications to the original DEIR as a result of comments received during the public review period. (not attached to staff report due to bulk but available online at http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =13471 Volume II- Technical Appendices (a CD within Volume I, also online) Volume III- Responses to Comments (online as well). The City contracted with LSA Associates, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, to prepare an Initial Study and DEIR for the proposed project. The Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon the analysis of the Initial Study, the issue areas identified to be affected as either a no impact or a less than significant impact level are: Agricultural Resources and Mineral Resources. These topics were not discussed further in the DEIR. The following environmental topics were identified as potentially affected by the implementation of the proposed project: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Housing and Population, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, Recreation, and Transportation and Circulation. These topics were the subject of the DEIR analysis, and potential impacts were identified. Specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level, with the exception of two impacts related to air quality and global climate change that are discussed in the Unavoidable Adverse Impacts discussion section below. The DEIR was completed and circulated for a mandatory 45 -day review period that began on September 1, 2009 and concluded on October 15, 2009. Comments were received from the following interested parties: the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc., California Regional Water Quality Control Board, City of Costa Mesa, Caltrans, Native American Heritage Commission, Orange County Chapter of the Native Plant Society, Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation, and several residents. The consultant and staff have prepared detailed written responses to each of the comments received on the adequacy of the DEIR (see Volume III - Response to Comments — also online). Revisions to the DEIR were also prepared, which provide: City Hall and Park Development Plan EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 3 1) Additional or revised information required for the preparation of responses to certain comments; 2) Corrections to typographical errors; 3) Clarification to Mitigation Measures 4.5.1 and 4.8.9, and Project Design Feature PDF PSU -5; and 4) The addition of Project Design Feature PDF AES -1 The revisions to the mitigation measures and project design significance conclusion disclosed in the DEIR, and therefore, DEIR for public review. The revisions to the DEIR have been proposed FEIR and are illustrated with redline/strikeouts. Alternatives features do not after any impact do not warrant recirculation of the incorporated into Volume I of the The document discusses project alternatives as required pursuant to CEQA (Chapter 5.0 of DEIR). These alternatives include: 1) No Project/No Development (existing conditions would remain); 2) Development Pursuant to Existing Zoning (limit uses to a park at the Avocado site and construct a new City Hall on existing City Hall site); 3) Alternative Location at Corporate Plaza West Site; 4) Reduced Project/Grading (Minimum numberltype of improvements needed to meet requirements of Measure B); or 5) Modified Construction Schedule (Longer construction schedule and reduced haul route). Although in some cases the atematives are considered to have reduced impacts and considered environmentally superior, none of those alternatives were found to achieve the project's objectives. The project objectives are identified in Section 3.3 of the DEIR (Page 3 -10). Unavoidable Adverse Impacts As previously stated, all of the potentially significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed project can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures, with the exception of the following two impacts related to air quality and global climate change: Air Quality. Construction emissions from the project would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) daily emissions thresholds for nitrous oxide (NOX) and reactive organic compounds (ROC), and resulting concentrations of particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) that would exceed the local significance threshold (LST). Mitigation measures would be required to reduce NOX, ROC, and PM10 emissions; however, even with implementation of all available mitigation measures, project impacts related to construction emissions would remain significant, adverse, and unavoidable. Global Climate Change. The proposed project would strive to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions by meeting and exceeding Title 24 standards and by achieving Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction (LEED -NC) Silver Certification. The project would implement mitigation measures to further reduce energy consumption and vehicular emissions. The City will monitor the development of implementation requirements of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) as issued by GHG emissions reduction procedures and and apply them to the project as appropriate City Hall and Park Development Plan EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 4 State agencies and any subsequently adopted technologies relevant to the proposed project, The proposed project is consistent with and/or furthers the intent of numerous GHG reduction strategies and is consistent with the City's General Plan goals and Climate Action Protection Program strategies, which are designed to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. Compliance with the reduction strategies implemented by the City will help to achieve the statewide reduction of GHG to 1990 levels. However, because project operations would result in more than 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year, it cannot be ensured that the project would not impede achievement of the State's mandatory requirement under AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable impact and significantly contribute to an unavoidable cumulative impact related to activities that may impede achievement of the goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. If the City Council believes the benefits of the project outweigh the two unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in order to approve the project. A draft Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the City Council that identifies a number of economic, legal, and social benefits of the project related to the implementation of the February 2008 voters' approval of Measure B and desire to incorporate the new City Hall into an overall Civic Center Complex that benefits and serves the needs of the community through enhanced access to City government buildings and the Central Library, and the development of a new park. (Attached as Exhibit B of Draft Resolution Approving Schematic Design; Attachment 2). About the Design Process. At the Council meeting on November 24, the Design Team, including Bohlin Cywinski Jackson and Peter Walker Partners Architects will present the schematic design. Council's approval of the schematic design allows the Design Team to formally move into the "design development" phase. As a reminder, here is the basic timeline for the Project: Here is how projects like this one are constructed: 1. A proponent develops a general design ( "Concept Design ") based on program needs. The proponent refines that design with an architect and in the City's case, a construction management firm that has extensive experience in constructing similar projects is added to the team. This is called the Schematic Design ( "SD ") phase. 3. During SD, the construction management firm keeps a running estimate of what components of the design might cost if a vendor was asked today to provide that product (i.e. calling glass manufacturers to say, "what would it cost today to get XXX panes of XX' glass ? "), If the designer is unclear about exactly what type of plant or type of molding he or she will put in a specific spot, the estimator puts in a dollar amount assuming the worst. 4. The design is refined from SD to "Design Development" ( "DD ") For this Project, the SD phase is formally over by November 24, 2009. DD takes about 4.5 months. A new estimate is done by the end of the DD phase — as the design gets refined in DD, so too does the estimate get refined. NOTE: At this point, elements of the design that could be candidates City Hall and Park Development Plan E(R Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 5 for design -build contracts (like the Parking Structure) can be pulled out of the overall package for that purpose. Design -build works well when a project component is fairly straightforward to design and construct — like the parking structure. 5. Next comes the "Construction Documents" (CD) phase, where the design is refined even more to documents from which the project can be constructed. This brings us to Summer 2010. With CDs in hand, the City pulls grading and building permits and puts the Project's components (typically in one large bid package, but possibly with "bid alternates ") out to the private sector market to bid. 6. When the bids come back in, the City would generally select the lowest responsive and responsible bid. This is assuming that the City uses a specific method of project delivery — there is an alternative to this project delivery method that the City generally leans toward known as "Construction Manager at Risk" or CMAR. CMAR is similar to longstanding private sector construction contracting in a public sector setting. It allows the City to choose the construction manager ( "CM ") before the design is complete. The CM is chosen based on qualifications, and then the entire operation is centralized under one contract. The City has retained CW Driver as our CM. The City's architect, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson (BCJ) and CW Driver are working together in order to cultivate and assay the design. Using CMAR, upon completion of the DD phase, CW Driver will give the City a guaranteed maximum price, prepare bid packages for the various components (building trades), prequalify bidders, and coordinate all subcontract work. Cost savings are realized in CMAR in a number of ways. By hiring the CM during the design phase, early coordination is possible, which can increase the speed of the project and strengthen coordination between the Architect/Engineer and the CM..Since the City hires the CM based on qualifications, it ensures a CM with a strong allegiance to the City, because their business relies on references and repeat work. The CM manages the project and serves as the general contractor for a "not to exceed" fee. Any savings in the actual construction costs are returned to the City less any agreed to incentives for bringing the project under budget and ahead of schedule. Finally, transparency is enhanced, because all costs and fees are in the open, which diminishes adversarial relationships between components working on the project, while at the same time eliminating bid shopping. CMAR is viewed by many as an alternative procurement method that still retains enough of the traditional "design- bid - build" process that it assuages some fears concerning alternative project delivery methods. Furthermore, CMAR enables the contractor to get involved in the project at an early stage, thereby delivering many of the efficiencies not found in traditional delivery methods. At this point in time (likely Summer 2010), the Project has a formal budget and a schedule — a budget based on bids that is no longer based on the estimates discussed in Item #3 above. This is the first time a Project has a formal budget and schedule. 7. The City or construction manager then seeks the performance bonds and insurance from the winning bidder(s), and the bidder starts work. This project is assumed to take 18 -24 months, depending upon weather, availability of materials and labor, and more. For the Civic Center Project, the City envisions a construction manager being on -site managing the project on the City's behalf. City Hall and Park Development Plan E1R Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 6 Within the Design Development Phase, the Building Committee, with consultation of the Council, has indicated its intent to seek design changes that could allow the Project to come in at roughly $105 million given certain bid climate assumptions. These design changes include: • Relocating the proposed Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to the bottom floor of the City Office Building. • Value- engineering about $5.4 million in savings, including some project scoping issues while maintaining a goal of a LEED Silver designation. • Reduce the size of or eliminate the current 275 -seat community room. The Council also discussed having the design and bids reflect various phasing options and possible donor opportunities. These include: Phasing (first on the list = highest likelihood of being constructed in a later phase): 1. San Miguel Pedestrian Bridge 2. North Park (hardscape and landscaping) 3. North Park — Dog Park 4. Library Expansion 5. Library Connection Donor Opportunities: • Library Expansion • Library Connection • View outlooks, belvederes • Bridges across wetlands • Dog park More about Cost. As the Council is aware, the Council dialogued with the public and with staff about the above design changes and phasing alternatives at two recent meetings. Additionally, the City's Finance Committee analyzed the Civic Center Project in the context of the Facilities Replacement Plan (FRP). The FRP considers various facility needs, including the Civic Center Project, Marina Park, Sunset Ridge Park, fire stations, the Police headquarters, and more. Generally, the Finance Committee concluded that the Project can be incorporated within the policies of the FRP if it stays at or below $105 million. See the related agenda item for more information about the FRP. About Zoning. Following the approval of Measure B, a General Plan Amendment (GP2008- 009) was approved designating the portion of the project site where the proposed Civic Center is to be located for Public Facilities land uses; however, the zoning designation remains unchanged. The project site is located within the Newport Village Planned Community (PC -27) Zoning District. Within PC -27, land uses are assigned to specific areas of land. The northern and central parcels of the proposed project are assigned Open Space uses and the southern parcel, which is occupied by the existing Library, is assigned for Government and Institutional uses. The proposed Library expansion would cross the boundary line of Area 4 (Government and Institutional uses) onto Area 3 (Open Space). The proposed park and Library uses would be consistent with the existing zoning (PC- 27) and the assigned Open Space and Government and Institutional land uses for the proposed project site. The proposed Civic Center would not be consistent with the Open Space land uses assigned to Area 3 of the site under PC -27. City Hall and Park Development Plan EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 7 The proposed project is a unique, one -of -a -kind capital improvement project, for which there are few or no specific development regulations or standards in the Newport Village Planned Community text or in the Zoning Code. A city or county may exempt itself from the provisions of its own zoning regulations, or it may amend its Zoning Code to include a provision that the regulations shall not apply to capital improvement projects. While the NBMC does not currently include a provision to exempt capital improvement projects such as the new Civic Center, the proposed Zoning Code does include such a provision for capital improvement projects undertaken in compliance with the City Charter. Rather than prepare an amendment in advance of the new Zoning Code, or prepare an amendment to the Newport Village Planned Community Development Plan to regulate development of the Civic Center, staff is requesting the City Council find that this project is exempt from the zoning and development regulations of the Code. Sight Plane Height Limitation Section 11.13 of the Newport Village Planned Community (PC -27) Development Plan establishes a maximum height limitation for all buildings within PC -27 to 45 feet, measured in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, except that no building shall extend higher than the extension of the plane ( "Sight Plane ") established by Ordinance No. 1596 for the Corporate Plaza PC. The proposed Civic Center would be located within the area regulated by the Sight Plane. While all of the buildings in the Civic Center have been designed to maintain a height below the Sight Plane, it was originally thought that a second elevator was required at the southerly end of the parking structure to meet Building Code accessibility requirements, which would have required a minor height encroachment into the Sight Plane of approximately five feet. The Final EIR prepared for the project analyzed the impacts of this height encroachment and found that the overall scale of this encroachment relative to the Sight Plane was minimal and would not significantly impact public views. However, it should be noted that the design team has successfully worked with the Building Department to address all Building Code requirements and have been able to eliminate the need for the second elevator; therefore, the current design complies entirely with the Sight Plane height limitation and no exemption from the Sight Plane height limitations in PC -27 are necessary. Notice: The notice required for the EIR is a Notice of Availability (NOA) notifying the public that the DEIR is available for public review. Notice of the public hearing associated with the approval of the Final EIR was printed in the Daily Pilot on November 17, 2009 and is shown as Attachment 3. Submitted by: Dave City Manager City Nall and Park Development Plan EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 8 Attachments: 1 — Resolution 2009 -_ FOR Certification, with Exhibits A (Findings of Fact) and B (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) 2 — Resolution 2009 - Statement of Overriding Considerations and Approval of Schematic Design, with Exhibit A (Statement of Overriding Considerations) 3 — Notice in the Daily Pilot NOTE: The FEIR is not attached to this staff report, but is available online here: hftp://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=1347 RESOLUTION NO 2009- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2009041010) FOR THE CITY HALL AND PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO, AND APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach City Council has determined that the City Hall and Park Development Plan is necessary to serve the needs of the community; and WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.) that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR'); and WHEREAS, on April 1, 2009, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the EIR and mailed that NOP to public agencies, organizations and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2009, the City held a public scoping meeting to present the proposed project and to solicit input from interested individuals regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR'), which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from, and on September 1, 2009, circulated the DEIR for public and agency comments; and WHEREAS, the 45 -day public comment period closed on October 15, 2009; and WHEREAS, staff of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the comments received on the DEIR, has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on November 11, 2009 distributed the responses in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and a WHEREAS, on November 11, 2009, the City of Newport Beach completed a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR "), for the project, consisting of the DEIR, comments on the DEIR, responses to comments on the DEIR, and minor revisions to the DEIR; WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with the CEQA; and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2009, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider: (1) the certification of the FEIR, (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations. (3) approval of the project; and WHEREAS, the FEIR for the Project was presented to the City Council, the decision making body of the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, including the comments and the responses to comments, and has found that the FOR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, prior to action on this Project, the City Council has considered all significant impacts and Project alternatives identified in the FEIR and has found that all potentially significant impacts of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or cant' out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, .accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in the EIR, but are not mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and /or other information in the record; and X WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach: and. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council hereby certifies that the FOR for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the FEIR, which reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project. SECTION 2. CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" entitled "CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Mitiqation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program" which is included as Exhibit "B," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). SECTION 5. Notice of Determination. The Panning Director shall cause the filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the State Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval. SECTION 6. Certification Posting and Filing This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of November 2009. AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR Edward Selich ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk n Exhibit A FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY HALL AND PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2009041010 BACKGROUND California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Public Resources Code section 21002.) The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to provide that "in the event [that] speck economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." Thus, CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a].). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must' be based on substantial evidence in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or elsewhere in the administrative record (Stale CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The agency's statement is referred to as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." The following sections provide a description of the each of the project's environmental impacts. For potentially significant impacts, these findings provide that all feasible mitigation has been adopted to lessen those impacts. This section also provides a description of the impacts for which no feasible mitigation or alternative exist that will render the impact less than significant. The section describes those significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations. A. PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed project would result in the relocation of the City of Newport Beach (City) functions (except for Fire Station No. 2) currently taking place at the existing City Hall located at 3300 Newport Boulevard to the proposed project site. The proposed project site is located in the City between Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project includes eight primary components, including: (1) construction and operation of an approximately 98,000- square -foot (sf) City Hall administration building, Community Room, and Council Chambers; (2) a 450 -space parking structure; (3) an approximately 17,000 sf expansion of the Newport Beach Central Library (Library); (4) a dedicated 4,800 sf Emergency Operations Center (EOC); (5) a Civic Green; (6) construction of a 14.3 -acre (ac) public park that includes a dog park, wetlands area, bridges over the wetlands, lookouts, and a pedestrian overcrossing over San Miguel Drive; (7) widening of San Miguel Drive; and (8) reuse of the existing City Hall structures located at 3300 Newport Boulevard with public facilities uses. Throughout the EIR and the following Findings of Fact, project components 1 -5 are collectively referred to as the Civic Center. The following objectives have been established for the Newport Beach City Hall and Development Plan project and will aid decision - makers in their review of the project and associated environmental impacts: City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 1 n� 1. Implement the February 2008, voters' approval of Measure B for a new City Hall, including the City Hall administration building, Community Room, Council Chambers, and a parking structure on City - owned property located between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. 2. Incorporate the proposed City Hall into an overall Civic Center Complex at the proposed project site, which would include a Library Expansion, a dedicated EOC, and a Civic Green. A park and a pedestrian overcrossing linking the park areas on the northern parcel with the park areas on the central and southern parcels should also be constructed. 3. Accommodate the relocation of all existing City Hall uses to the proposed project site, with the exception of the Fire Station. 4. Implement Policy R.1.9 of the City's General Plan by developing a passive park (a park without sports fields) that is integrated with the proposed Civic Center Complex. 5. Integrate the 3.24 ac parcel (northern parcel) located between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue, and north of San Miguel Drive, as a portion of the proposed public park and incorporate features that will encourage use of the proposed project site. 6. Provide adequate on -site parking and circulation for all City vehicles, employee vehicles, and visitors of the new Civic Center Complex uses. 7. Minimize costs to the City by developing the proposed Civic Center Complex on a site that does not require the condemnation of private property or result in excessive site acquisition costs to the City and that requires minimal demolition and tenant relocation. 8. Preserve and enhance the existing on -site wetlands. 9. Protect and enhance public views to the ocean and harbor from MacArthur Boulevard by maintaining the existing Sight Plane above the proposed project site and providing lookouts in the park plan. 10. Improve public infrastructure on and near the proposed project site, including adjacent roadways, to both serve on -site uses and to enhance operations in the vicinity of the project. 11. Incorporate sustainable features into the project via innovative design techniques to achieve energy savings, water efficiency, potable water use reduction, carbon dioxide emissions reduction, operational cost savings, and improved indoor environmental quality compared to conventional construction. 12. Construct a dedicated EOC to allow better and faster citywide and regional coordination of response to emergency events, including earthquakes, fires, floods, tsunamis, and air disasters. 13. Expand the capacity of the Newport Beach Central Library and create a distinct linkage between the Library and the Civic Green, the parking structure, the Community Room, and the City Hall administration building to promote use of the facilities and create a unified campus through design features, including a second entry into the Library, food concession, credit union, drop -off area, shared parking, and landscaping. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Newport Beach CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 2 • The City determined that an EIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on April 1, 2009. Section 2.2 of the Draft EIR (DEIR) describes the issues identified for analysis in the DEIR through the Initial Study, NOP, and public scoping process. • Based upon the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form, the City staff determined that a DEIR should be prepared for the proposed project. The scope of the DEIR was determined based on the City's Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, and comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City. • The City prepared a DEIR, which was made available for a 45 -day public review period, beginning September 1, 2009, and ending October 15, 2009. The City prepared a Final EIR (FEIR), including the Responses to Comments to the DEIR, the Findings of Fact, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The FEIR/Response to Comments contains comments on the DEIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the DEIR, and appended documents. • The City held public hearings on the proposed project on November 24, 2009. C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: • The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project; • The FEIR for the proposed project; • The DEIR; • All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR; • All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR; • All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project; • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); • The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments; • All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and FEIR; • The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto; • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations; • Any documents expressly cited in these Findings; and • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). D. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the project are at the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 3 �u documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(e). II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT As a result of the Initial Study that was circulated with the NOP by the City on April 1, 2009 (see EIR Appendix A), the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the project would not result in significant potential environmental impacts in several areas; therefore, the City determined that these potential environmental effects would not be addressed in the DEIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the FEIR, and the comments received by the public on the DEIR, no substantial evidence has been submitted to or identified by the City that indicates that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: Agricultural Resources. The proposed City Hall site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. In addition, the City's Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the proposed project site as Public Facility (PF) and Open Space (OS). The proposed project site is not zoned or used for agricultural use, and no Williamson Act contracts exist for the site. The proposed City Hall site is primarily vacant (with the exception of the existing Library), but is not used for agricultural purposes, and is surrounded by commercial and residential development. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. Mineral Resources. The proposed project site is not located in any of the mineral resource areas identified in the City's General Plan (i.e., the Newport Oil Field or the West Newport Oil Field). Portions of the project site have been classified by the California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) as being located in MRZ -1 and MRZ -3,1 indicating that the project site is located in an area where no significant mineral deposits are present or in an area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated. As previously stated, the proposed project site is largely vacant, with the exception of the existing Library. There are no mineral extraction activities occurring on site. In addition, the project site is designated for PF and OS uses. The proposed project would not result in the loss of a valuable commercial or locally important mineral resource. No significant impacts related to known mineral resources would result from project implementation. Land Use: Dividing an Established Community. The proposed project includes the construction and operation of City Hall, a Library expansion, and a public park on an approximately 20 ac site. The proposed project site is located between two existing roadways (MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue) and is surrounded on all sites by existing development_ The proposed project would not disrupt or realign the existing roadway network or affect or disrupt residential neighborhoods in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and no significant impacts are anticipated. Land Use: Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation Plan. The Central /Coastal Orange County Subregion Natural Communities Conservation Plan /Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP /HCP) provides for the protection of a number of plant and animal species. The proposed project site is located within the MRZ -1 is defined as an area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. MRZ -3 is defined as an area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 4 boundaries of the NCCP /HCP. The project is in an area identified as urbanized by the NCCP /HCP and is not located in the Reserve or other planned open space area. Therefore, the project is consistent with the provisions of the plan, as it allows development of non - Reserve areas. Traffic and Circulation: Result in a change in air traffic patterns. The proposed project is located 4.37 miles (mi) from John Wayne Airport (JWA). A small portion of the proposed project site on Avocado Avenue is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA. The AELUP contains policies governing the land uses within the JWA area. Specifically, these policies establish development criteria that protect sensitive receptors from airport noise, persons from risk of operations, and height guidelines to ensure aircraft safety. As previously stated, the proposed project would be required to implement the guidelines contained in the AELUP. The airspace over the project site could be used by commercial aircraft and helicopters; however, both would be at sufficient altitude so as not to be affected by the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project site is outside the noise contours and safety zones for JWA. Cultural Resources: Result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource. The proposed project site is currently vacant (with the exception of the existing Library), and there are no existing structures on or adjacent to the proposed project site that are over 50 years of age or considered to be historically significant. The City General Plan does not identify any historic resources within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change to historical resources. Geology and Soils: Septic tanks. The project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative methods for disposal of wastewater into the subsurface soils. The proposed project would connect to existing public wastewater infrastructure. No on -site sewage disposal systems (e.g., septic tanks) are planned. Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal methods. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Vicinity of a Private airstrip. The proposed project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, and the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Wildfires. The City defines a wildland fire hazard area as any geographic area that contains the types and conditions of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density that potentially increase the possibility of wildland fires. The area surrounding the proposed project site is surrounded by urban commercial and residential uses that do not contain the brush- and grass -covered hillsides often associated with wildfires. According to the City's General Plan (Figure S4), the proposed project is located in an area designated as "low /none wildfire hazard" Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Hydrology and Water Quality: Place housing in a flood hazard area. The project site is located outside of Flood Hazard Areas determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The project site is located in Zone X (outside the 2 percent annual floodplain) on FEMA Flood Control Maps. Therefore, the project would not place housing or structures within a 100 -year flood zone. Hydrology and Water Quality Place structures in a flood hazard area. The project site is located outside of Flood Hazard Areas determined by FEMA. The project site is located in Zone X (outside the 2 percent annual floodplain) on FEMA Flood Control Maps. Therefore, the project would not place housing or structures within a 100 -year flood zone. Hydrology and Water QUalitV7 Flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The proposed project site is not located within a Flood Hazard Zone (100 -year flood zone or 500 -year flood zone) as identified in the City's General Plan (Figure S3). City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 5 ,i Hydrology and Water Quality: Inundation by seiche tsunami, or mudflow. The City is susceptible to low - probability but high -risk events such as tsunamis, and, more common, isolated hazards such as storm surges and coastal erosion. Each of these has a potential to significantly impact Newport Beach residents and the built environment. Areas within Newport Beach that are most likely to be impacted by a tsunami and flooding include West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, Balboa Island, and Upper Newport Bay. The project site is not located in an area of the City likely to be impacted by tsunami or flood events. In addition, there are no standing bodies of water in the vicinity of the proposed project site that could cause flooding due to seiches. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Noise: Airport land use plan. Newport Beach is located immediately south of JWA and is under the primary departure corridor. A small portion of the project site is located within the AELUP for JWA. The AELUP contains policies governing the land uses within the JWA area. Specifically, these policies establish development criteria that protect sensitive receptors from airport noise, persons from risk of operations, and height guidelines to ensure aircraft safety. As previously stated, the proposed project would be required to implement the guidelines contained in the AELUP. Although aircraft noise can be heard throughout Newport Beach, the highest noise levels are experienced just south of JWA, in the Airport Area, Santa Ana Heights Area, Westcliff, Dover Shores, the Bluffs, and Balboa Island, and are generated by aircraft departures. The proposed project site is located approximately 4.37 mi from the airport and is outside the 60 A- weighted decibels (dBA) CNEL for JWA; permissible exterior noise thresholds would not be exceeded. Also, building materials will provide adequate shielding to lower aircraft - related noise below interior threshold levels with windows and doors open. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to expose people working on site to excessive noise levels related to its proximity to JWA. Noise: Private airstrip. The proposed project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Hoag Hospital operates a helicopter and helipad located approximately 3.5 mi from the project site. The helipad is located on the roof of the emergency area of the hospital. The proposed project site is not located near Hoag Hospital and is not expected to be affected by helicopter noise. Because the project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, no potential impacts are anticipated. Housing. Population. and Employment: Displace substantial numbers of exitinq housing. The proposed project will not displace any existing housing or displace a substantial number of people. The northern and central parcels of the proposed project site are currently vacant. The southern parcel of the proposed project site is occupied by the existing Newport Beach Public Library; the Library will remain after project implementation. Housing, Population and Employment Displace substantial numbers of people. The proposed project will not displace any existing housing or displace a substantial number of people. The northern and central parcels of the proposed project site are currently vacant. The southern parcel of the proposed project site is occupied by the existing Newport Beach Public Library; the Library will remain after project implementation. B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant land use impact. Development of the proposed project would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation. The conversion of the proposed project site from vacant land to a passive park and Civic Center complex would not result in a potential inconsistency with the City General Plan or other land planning documents, nor would the proposed project result in significant land use compatibility issues. As with the proposed project, cumulative projects would be subject to compliance with the local and regional plans reviewed in this section. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in, or contribute to, a cumulatively significant land use impact. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 6 ;1 Impact: Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Project and cumulative impacts were analyzed for the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) monitored intersections in accordance with the CMP guidelines. The addition of project - generated trips is not forecast to result in significant impacts at the CMP study intersections for: 1) existing plus project traffic; 2) forecast year 2013 with committed projects with project traffic; 3) forecast year 2013 with committed and cumulative projects with project traffic; and 4) for forecast General Plan build out with project traffic. Therefore, impacts to level of service standards set by the county congestion management agency associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant. Impact: Result in inadequate emergency access. Emergency vehicles would have access to the site at the main entrance at the intersection of Avocado Avenue and Farallon Drive, from the entrance to the Library along Avocado Avenue south of Farallon Drive, and to the loading dock along Avocado Avenue. In addition, a fire /medical emergency entrance from MacArthur Boulevard to the top level of the parking structure would be available to emergency vehicles only. Therefore, the proposed project would not inhibit or reduce emergency access to the project site. There are no impacts to emergency access associated with the proposed project. Impact: Result in inadequate parking capacity. The proposed project would provide 495 parking spaces which would not exceed projected parking demand for onsite uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to parking demand. Impact: Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). Because existing routes in the vicinity of the proposed project are operating within capacity and additional ridership resulting from the proposed project could be accommodated, no significant impacts to public transportation services are anticipated. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with or impact adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impact: Substantial diverse effect on a scenic vista. Implementation of the proposed project would modify the views to and from the project site by developing the proposed park and constructing the Civic Center complex. The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to existing ocean or harbor views from the proposed on -site vantage points and adjacent roadways and sidewalks. Motorists along Avocado Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, and San Miguel Drive (the City - designated Coastal View Roads and Public View Corridors) would maintain scenic views of the Pacific Ocean, harbor, and Santa Catalina Island with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the project's impact on scenic vistas, scenic resources, and views to and from the City- designated Coastal View Roads would be less than significant. Impact: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. There are no City- designated scenic resources (i.e. trees, rock outcroppings, etc) on site. Furthermore, the Pacific Coast Highway is not a State - designated Scenic Highway, in the vicinity of the proposed project site" Therefore, there are no potential impacts of the proposed project on trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings and state scenic highways associated with the proposed project. Impact: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The proposed project would permanently alter the existing visual character and quality of the proposed project site by converting what is currently an undeveloped site to a graded, landscaped, and developed Civic Center and park. While the proposed project would permanently alter the visual conditions of the proposed project site, the changes would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding. Project impacts related to the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings would be are less than significant. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 7 �4 Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant aesthetics impact. Several projects are planned within the City, however, none of these projects are proposed within the viewshed of the proposed project site and therefore the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to viewsheds or visual character In addition, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to nighttime lighting conditions because project features and mitigation measures have been identified to reduce project - related impacts to a less than significant level. Also, the project site is located in an urbanized area, and the incremental contribution of project lighting after mitigation would not constitute a substantial change to the cumulative nighttime light conditions. Impact: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The proposed project emissions would be below the emissions thresholds established in South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Handbook. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), and no significant impact would result with respect to implementation of the AQMP. Impact: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Operation emissions The project's emissions (both stationary sources and vehicular sources) would not exceed the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds. Therefore, the long -term air quality impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. Long -Term Microscale (Carbon Monoxide iCO1 Hot Soot) Analysis None of the nine intersections analyzed would have 8 -hour CO concentration exceeding the federal and State ambient air quality standards (AAQS) of 9 parts per million (ppm). The 1 -hour CO concentration at these intersections would also be below the State AAQS of 20.0 ppm and below the federal AAQS of 35 ppm. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on local air quality for CO. Impact: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Some objectionable odors may emanate from the operation of diesel - powered construction equipment during the construction of the proposed project. These odors, however, would be limited to the short-term construction period of the project and are not expected to be substantial; therefore, objectionable odors associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. An approximate 0.5 ac dog park is proposed as part of the proposed project. Use of the park would include a requirement for pet owners to remove pet feces. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not add any long -term odor sources to the project area and project impacts would be less than significant Impact: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The project includes features including use of native species (PDF BIO -2), wetland habitat enhancement (PDF BIO -1), and the preservation of open space on site in the form of a passive park. The goals and policies that apply to the proposed project from the City of Newport Beach's Natural Resource Element of the General Plan speak to the protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial resources from urban development, including the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of Southern California (wetlands. Implementation of the proposed project is designed to comply with the Orange County NCCP /HCP; avoid impacts to sensitive natural plant communities, sensitive wildlife, and wildlife movements; and avoid direct impact to jurisdictional wetlands. Furthermore, prescribed mitigation measures would require the presence of an experienced biologist to monitor project construction and development to ensure that sensitive plant communities designated for preservation and associated wildlife are protected during project construction activities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no mitigation is required. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 8 -iQ PDF BIO -7: Removal of Invasive Exotic Plants. Invasive exotic plant species (e.g., myoporum, castor bean, pampas grass) associated with the wetland /riparian habitat shall be removed, and mulefat and willow cuttings and other appropriate plant species shall be installed. PDF BIO -2: Native Plants. The landscaping palette to be used on site shall include the use of native plant species in addition to drought tolerant, ornamental, and turf species. The landscaping palette shall also prohibit the use of invasive exotic plants (i.e., those plant species rated as "High" or "Moderate" in the California Invasive Plant Council's [Cal -IPCj Invasive Plant Inventory). Impact: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. As the project site is not located in an Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there is no evidence of active faulting on or around the immediate project site, the potential for ground rupture to affect the proposed project site is considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary. Impact: Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction. Potential impacts associated with seismically induced ground failure and liquefaction would be very low and is considered to be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required. Impact: Landslides. The potential for on -site landslides is low, and the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides, and no mitigation is required. Impact: Settlement Potential. The majority of the materials underlying the proposed project site consist of dense terrace deposits and bedrock, and the site is not located within a potential liquefaction zone. Therefore, potential impacts related to ground settlement are considered to be less than significant. Impact: Subsidence. The project does not have an oil, gas, or water pump on site and none are located in the vicinity of the site and has not been used for the extraction of either resource. Subsidence is therefore not considered a potential constraint or a potentially significant impact of the project, and no mitigation is required. Impact: Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The proposed project would result in a net increase in storm water runoff, however, the proposed project also incorporates two on -site detention storage tanks and biofiltration swales to manage increased peak runoff from the site. These detention basins would be sized to detain the volume of storm water necessary to reduce peak discharge from the project site. As a result, any increase in peak discharge would be negligible. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial on -site or downstream erosion, siltation, or flooding, and no mitigation is required. Impact: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The proposed project would not produce hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Furthermore, the proposed project site is not located within 0.25 mi of an existing or proposed school. Impact: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The proposed project site is not included on any hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Impact: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Access to, from, and on site for emergency vehicles would be City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 9 02 reviewed and approved by the Fire Department prior to project construction. All proposed structures would be required to comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access, which would ensure adequate access to, from, and on site for emergency vehicles. In addition, traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in significant delays to emergency vehicles. The proposed project also includes the construction of an EOC on the proposed project site. Therefore, because the proposed structures would not block emergency vehicle access to the site or to any adjacent site, would not result in significant delays to emergency vehicles off site (e.g., due to traffic generation) and allows the City to upgrade and centralize emergency operations, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with adopted emergency response plans and would not result in a significant impact related to emergency response plans for emergency evacuation routes. Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant hazards and hazardous materials impact. Based on the distance to the nearest cumulative project and the amount of hazardous materials use and hazardous waste disposal associated with the proposed project and other hazardous materials effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the City, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be considered to be less than significant. Because the proposed project is subject to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) review and the project would not be permitted if it would result in a potential hazard, the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to any potential airport proximity hazards. Also, based on the distance to the nearest cumulative project and the amount of hazardous materials use and hazardous waste disposal associated with the proposed project and other hazardous materials effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the City, there would be no significant cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials associated with the proposed project. Impacts: The following impacts are discussed together in the DEIR and FEIR; each bullet point represents a potential environmental impact that is discussed below. • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. • Substantially degrade water quality. • Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction. • Result in a potential for discharge of storm water pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas. • Result in the potential for discharge of storm water to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. • Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff to cause environmental harm. Construction Impacts. Best management practices (BMPs) consistent with Best Available Technologies/ Best Control Technology (BAT /BCT) are required by the Construction General Permit, Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), and Local Implementation Plan (LIP) to be implemented during the construction phase of the project. Erosion and sediment transport and transport of other potential pollutants (e.g., construction material - related pollutants) from the project site during the construction phase would be reduced or prevented through implementation of BMPs meeting BAT /BCT so as to prevent or minimize environmental impacts and to ensure that discharges during the construction phase of the project would not cause or contribute to any exceedance of water quality standards in the receiving waters. Based upon the factors discussed above and adherence to PDF WO -1, which requires compliance with the requirements of the General Construction Permit, and PDF WO -2, which required compliance with the De Minimus Permit, potential construction impacts related to erosion, siltation violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or degradation of water quality would be less than significant. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact ............................... ............................... Operation Impacts. The change in land use to a Civic Center Complex, including, parking lots /structure, driveways, a dog park, and other landscaped areas has the potential to increase the types of pollutants in runoff or increase pollutant loading to City storm drains and Newport Bay. As specified in PDF WQ -3, the project would implement several Source Control, Site Design, and Treatment Control BMPs to reduce the discharge of pollutants of concern to the maximum extent practical. PDF -WQ -1: State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Prior to and during construction, the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activities (Order No. 99 08 DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) and any subsequent permit as they relate to construction activities. This shall include submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at least 30 days prior to the start of construction, preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) and submission of a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the Santa Ana RWQCB upon completion of construction and stabilization of the site. Prior to construction activities and after the final design phase and environmental determinations, a construction SWPPP and a Monitoring and Reporting Program shall be developed for the project. The construction phase SWPPP shall be designed to Identify potential pollutant sources associated with construction activities; identify non -storm water discharges; and identify, implement, and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants associated with the construction site. PDF -WQ -2: Short-Term Groundwater Discharges. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport Beach shall determine whether dewatering of groundwater will be necessary during project construction and whether dewatering activities will require discharge to the storm drain system or surface waters. If dewatering activities are required, the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the requirements of the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) PermitfWaste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for Short-Term Groundwater Discharges and De Minimus Wastewater Discharges (Order No. R8- 2004 -0021, amended by order R8- 2006 -0065) or subsequent permit. This will include submission of a Report of Waste Discharge (ROW D) and Notice of Intent for coverage under the permit to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at least 45 days prior to the start of dewatering and compliance with all applicable provisions in the permit, including water sampling, analysis, and reporting of dewatering - related discharges. PDF -WC-3: Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Best Management Practices. The City of Newport Beach shall comply with the requirements of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the City of Newport Beach Local Implementation Plan (LIP), and the City of Newport Beach Council Policies and Municipal Code, as they relate to hydrology and water quality. Project- specific Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs)oontained in the Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be incorporated into final design. The BMPs shall be properly designed and maintained to target pollutants of concern and reduce runoff from the project site. The WQMP shall include an operations and maintena%ice plan for the prescribed Treatment Control BMPs to ensure their long -term performance. Environmental Impact: Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The proposed project is not located in a groundwater recharge area. Some groundwater dewatering may be required during construction activities. However, dewatering activities would be temporary, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be substantial. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 11 a . Groundwater withdrawal would not be required during operation of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact existing groundwater supplies. Impacts: The following impacts are discussed together in the DEIR and FEIR; each bullet point represents a potential environmental impact that is discussed below. • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site. • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. • Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas. Construction Impacts. During construction activities, the project site would be graded and excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. There is also the potential for construction - related pollutants to be discharged into the City's storm drains during construction activities of the proposed project. Compliance with the requirements of the General Construction Permit, including preparation of a SWPPP, would result in less than significant impacts related to erosion and siltation associated with construction of the proposed project. Operation Impacts. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on drainage patterns, on- or off -site erosion or siltation, drainage volumes and velocities, or flood potential downstream. Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant hydrology andlor water quality impact. New development and redevelopment can result in increased urban pollutants in dry weather and storm water runoff from project sites. Regional programs and BMPs such as total maximum daily load (TMDL) programs, the DAMP /LIP, and the MS4 Permit Program have been designed under an assumption that the San Diego Creek Watershed will continue the pattern of urbanization. The regional control measures contemplate cumulative effects of proposed development. Compliance with these regional programs and the General Construction Permit constitutes compliance with programs intended to address cumulative hydrological and water quality impacts. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative water quality and hydrology impacts would be less than significant. Impact: Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Under both future year (2013 and General Plan) Buildout scenarios, project - related traffic would have no perceptible noise level increases along roadway segments in the project vicinity. The range of traffic noise level increase is less than the thresholds of increase identified in the City's General Plan Policy N1.8. Therefore, the traffic noise level increase is not considered to be a significant impact. The proposed project site would, however, be potentially impacted by traffic noise and mitigation is required. The proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to stationary noise sources and no mitigation is required. Impact: Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Due to the distance from the project site of other existing uses on the east side of MacArthur Boulevard and on the west side of Avocado Avenue, no significant groundborne vibration would occur at these nearby land uses during project construction. Similarly, due to the distance to the nearest residences, groundborne vibration associated with on -site vehicle movement would be much lower than the vibration impact threshold for frequent events and the vibration impact threshold for infrequent events suggested by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact ........... Paafl_12____ Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant noise impact. Under the future General Plan Build Out with project scenario, traffic noise levels would increase by 1.5 dBA or less compared to existing conditions along all roadway segments in the project vicinity; noise levels attributable to the project under future General Plan Build Out would increase by 0.6 dBA along one roadway segment and by 0.3 dBA or less along all other roadway segments. A noise level increase of 1.5 dBA in an outside environment is not perceptible to the human ear. In addition, although West Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Riverside Avenue and East Coast Highway from Dover Drive to Bayside exceed the 75 dBA threshold (refer to City Policy N1.8), neither of these roadway segments have sensitive uses that would be impacted by an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by the proposed project. Therefore, the project's cumulative traffic noise contribution is considered.less than cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required. Impact: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Due to the availability of housing, available workforce, and relatively small percentage of population growth represented by the proposed project, the proposed project would result in a less than significant increase in population in the City and County. In addition, the potential social and economic changes that may result from the proposed project (i.e., increased employment opportunities and population growth) would not result in a significant physical change to the environment. Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant housing, population, or employment impact. The proposed project would not result in substantial employment growth and would not induce significant population or housing growth, either directly or indirectly. Moreover, due to the availability of housing, available workforce, and relatively small percentage of growth represented by the proposed project, the project's contribution to cumulative social and economic changes that may result from the proposed project (i.e., increased employment opportunities and population growth) would be less than significant. Impact: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection. The proposed project would be serviceable within the Newport Beach Fire Department's (NBFD) current staffing and resources, and the proposed project would not increase response times for fire and emergency vehicles to the existing City Hall site or the proposed project site. According to Project Design Feature (PDF) PSU -1, the City would also comply with Title 9 of the Municipal Code (Fire Code), which requires installation of fire sprinklers and articulates fire flow requirements, access requirements, placement of hydrants, and other fire protection requirements. Compliance with Title 9 would further reduce potential impacts related to fire protection services within the City. PDF PSU -1: Fire Code. The City of Newport Beach (City) shall comply with the requirements of Title 9 (Fire Code) of the City's Municipal Code including installation of fire sprinklers in all new buildings. Said sprinklers shall be installed prior to each final building inspection. Impact: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection. The proposed project would not substantially increase response times or create a substantial increase in demand for staff, facilities, equipment, or police services. No mitigation is required. Impact: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 13 24 maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for public schools. The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in student enrollment in the Newport Mesa Unified School District. Therefore, potential impacts related to public schools are less than significant. Impact: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for library services. The proposed project includes an approximate 17,000 sf expansion of the existing Newport Beach Central Library. The expansion area would provide a reading room, tenant space, media room, and other ancillary uses. Generation of additional demand for library services resulting from a population increase generated by the proposed project would be offset through the expansion of the Library and library services, including the City Hall delivery program. Project impacts related to library services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Impact: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for public transportation. Through existing programs, the City encourages the use of alternative transportation, including public transportation and use of bicycles. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) indicated that while more riders would be expected as a result of the proposed project, because existing routes in the vicinity of the proposed project are operating within capacity any additional ridership resulting from the proposed project could be accommodated. There are existing bicycle facilities (e.g., lanes and paths) in the vicinity of the proposed project. Existing bikeways would be maintained as part of the proposed project. In addition to maintaining current bike lanes, the City would continue to seek new opportunities to promote commuter carpooling and transit use, as well as alternative transportation for City employees and visitors to the Civic Center. Therefore, no significant impacts to public transportation services are anticipated. Impact: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable wastewater treatment provider. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) would provide treatment of wastewater for the proposed project. Increased wastewater flows from the proposed project can be accommodated within the existing design capacity of the Reclamation Plant No. 2. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Project impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements are less than significant. Impact: Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Water. The project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water through existing water acquisition programs and pumping from existing wells (see existing setting, above). The only new water infrastructure that would be required for project build out would occur on site as part of proposed project construction (i.e., installation of new water pipes and meters on site). Wastewater. The proposed project would not require, nor would it result in, the construction of new wastewater treatment or collection facilities or the expansion of existing facilities other than those facilities to be constructed on site that could cause significant environmental effects. Project impacts related to the construction of wastewater treatment or collection facilities and the capacity of the wastewater treatment provider are less than significant City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 14 �4 PDF PSU-4: Water Conservation. The proposed project would also utilize additional water conservation measures in the proposed Civic Center which may include, but is not limited to: 1. Low -flow faucets 2. Dual -Flush water-closets and pint (1 /8 gallon per flush) urinals 3. Drip irrigation where practical 4. Project landscaping will include drought - tolerant and native species combined with ornamental species and turf 5. Cooling tower water use reduction via nonchemical water treatment. Impact: Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Under the proposed conditions, there would be a net decrease in peak discharge at four of the discharge points. At the remaining two discharge points, the increase in peak discharge would be no more than 1 percent or 1 -CFS, or both. The stormdrains have sufficient capacity to absorb the predicted increase and still operate within the standards of the Orange County Hydrology Manual. Because the decrease and /or negligible increase in peak discharge would not adversely affect the capacity of downstream networks, construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities would not be required. Impact: Necessitate new or expanded water entitlements. The project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water through existing water acquisition programs and pumping from existing wells (see existing setting, above). The only new water infrastructure that would be required for project build out would occur on site as part of proposed project construction (i.e., installation of new water pipes and meters on site). Impact: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. The project would not necessitate new or expanded water entitlements, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water through existing water acquisition programs and pumping from existing wells (see existing setting, above). The only new water infrastructure that would be required for project build out would occur on site as part of proposed project construction (i.e., installation of new water pipes and meters on site). Impact: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered energy transmission facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. Electricity. The project incorporates aggressive commitments to reduce and minimize electricity consumption and avoid wasteful or inefficient consumption of energy. Based on California Energy Commission (CEC) projections for Southern California Edison's (SCE) service area sufficient transmission and distribution capacity exists and off -site improvements would not be necessary. Impacts associated with the proposed project's electricity demand would be less than significant. Natural Gas. The supply and distribution of natural gas within the area surrounding the proposed project would not be reduced or inhibited as a result of the proposed project, and levels of service to off -site users would not be adversely affected. In addition, implementation of PDFs GHGA, GHG -2, and PSU -2 would ensure that energy conservation efforts are incorporated into the project with the intention of reducing overall demand. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of natural gas services to the proposed project would be less than significant. PDF PSU -2: Electricity and Natural Gas. The proposed project shall meet or exceed all State Energy Insulation Standards and City of Newport Beach codes in effect at the time of application for building permits. (Commonly referred to as Title 24, these standards are updated periodically City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 15 _R I to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Title 24 covers the use of energy - efficient building standards, including ventilation, insulation, construction, and the use of energy- saving appliances, conditioning systems, water heating, and lighting.) Plans submitted for building permits shall include written notes or calculations demonstrating compliance with energy standards and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to issuance of building permits. PDF PSU -5: Energy Conservation. The proposed project would also utilize additional energy conservation measures in the proposed Civic Center including, but not limited to: • High - performance facade • Mixed -mode active and natural ventilation • Under -floor air distribution Daylight dimming controls • Low - wattage light fixtures Exterior shading devices • Proper building orientation Impact: Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Area landfills have indicated that they have sufficient capacity to accommodate construction debris from the proposed project site as well as meet the project's operational solid waste disposal demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to solid waste landfill capacity in the County of Orange (County). Impact: Fail to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Orange County Waste & Recycling (OCWR) and the City (refer to PDF PSU -3) comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The proposed project would not inhibit OCWR's or the City's compliance with the requirements of each of the governing bodies. PDF PSU -3: Solid Waste. In compliance with State legislation (Assembly Bill [ABj 939), the City of Newport Beach implements programs to recycle, reduce refuse at the source, and compost solid waste in order to achieve a 50 percent reduction in solid waste disposed of at landfills. AB 939 also requires that all cities conduct a Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS) and prepare a Source Reduction Recycling Element (SRRE). In accordance with AB 939, the City of Newport Beach submits an annual report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) summarizing its progress in diverting solid waste disposal. Impact: Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors and odors). The City would be responsible for all maintenance activities associated with the storm water Treatment Control BMPs. BMPs would be inspected periodically by a designated staff member,,such as the facilities manager, to ensure they are functioning properly. Routine and periodic maintenance activities such as debris and sediment removal would be conducted by the City's landscape maintenance crew. Nonroutine maintenance such as major reconstruction or replacement would be handled by contractors with experience in constructing storm water Treatment Control BMPs. Because the BMPs would be designed, inspected, and maintained to prevent ponding, vectors, and odors, impacts related to operation of storm water Treatment Control BMPs are considered less than significant Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant public service and utilities impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact associated with fire protection, police protection, public schools, library services, public transportation, water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas or solid waste. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 16 Impact: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Because the proposed project would add parkland to the City's parkland inventory and would not result in substantial population growth, which is the determining factor in supplying adequate parks and open space to residents, the proposed project would not result in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities that could accelerate physical deterioration of those facilities. Impacts to existing recreation facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Impact: Include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Development of the proposed project, including proposed recreation facilities, could result in adverse physical impacts to the environment. Construction and operation of the proposed park facilities are expected to result in significant adverse physical effects on the environment as outlined in the DEIR. Even with implementation of all feasible mitigation, the proposed project may have significant unavoidable impacts involving construction air quality and global climate change /greenhouse gas emissions. Because each of these potential significant impacts and potential significant unavoidable impacts relate to a separate environmental topic analyzed in the DEIR, and there is no identifiable physical impact to the environment that is unique to recreation resources, additional mitigation is not required. Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant recreation resources impact. The proposed project would not result in substantial cumulative population that would result in increased use and physical deterioration of existing parks. In addition, the proposed project includes the development of a park and park facilities on the proposed project site that would address any increased demand for improved park space generated by the new City Hall. The provision of additional park acreage may reduce use and/or redistribute use of existing parks, resulting in a positive effect on park demand and park acreage within the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to impacts associated with parks and recreation facilities. There is not identifiable physical impact to the environment that is unique to recreation because the potentially significant project and cumulative impacts relate to separate environmental topics analyzed in the DEIR. No additional recreation - related mitigation is required to address these potential (i.e., air quality and global climate change) cumulative impacts. C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION The FEIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from the proposed project. However, the Newport Beach City Council finds for each of the significant or potentially significant impacts identified in this section, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the FEIR. As a result, adoption of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce the identified significant effects to a less than significant level. Land Use Impact: Land Use Compatibility. Although construction noise occurring during hours designated in the City's Municipal Code is exempt, some residents and users of the Library may find construction noise irritating. The proposed project would result in a potentially significant short-term land use compatibility impact related to air quality and noise during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.1.1: Construction Relations Officer. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport Beach (City) Director of Public Works, or designee, shall designate a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on -site construction activity and air City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 17 3R quality emissions- and noise - related matters. The City shall post the name of the contact person and contact information for complaints in a publicly visible location for the duration of construction activities. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to land use compatibility to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less - than- significant level. Traffic and Circulation Impact: Substantial Increase in Traffic. The addition of project - generated trips is forecast to result in a significant cumulative impact at the Bayside Drive /Coast Highway intersection for Forecast General Plan build out with project traffic. In addition, the project construction traffic may cause significant impacts at the intersections of San Miguel Drive with Avocado Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, if the project haul route were to include the use of San Miguel Drive. Mitigation Measure 4.2.1: Bayside Drive. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Newport Beach (City) Director of Public Works or designee shall identify a future project in the City's Capital Improvement Program that will include restriping the northbound Bayside Drive approach to the East Coast Highway intersection from two left -turn lanes and a shared Ieftlthroughlright lane to two left turns, a shared left /through lane and a right -turn lane. These required improvements shall be implemented within 1 year of when traffic counts completed on behalf of the City in accordance with the schedule for traffic counts provided for in the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance result in the finding that the intersection is operating at, or over, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) of 0.90. Mitigation Measure 4.2.2: Construction Area Traffic Management Plan. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works or designee shall review and approve a Construction Area Traffic Management Plan for the proposed project. The Plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and shall address traffic control for any temporary street closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The Plan shall identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas for the project. The Plan shall specifically prohibit the use of San Miguel Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Center Drive as part of the haul route for removal of excess dirt from the project site. The Plan shall also require project contractors to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris including, but not limited to, gravel and dirt. The City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works or designee shall verify that the Construction Contractor's Agreement requires the construction contractor to comply with the Construction Area Traffic Management Plan. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to traffic and circulation to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted.= Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less - than- significant level. Impact: Hazards due to design features. The proposed project could result in a significant impact related to hazards associated with design features because the minimum sight distances at the project entrance at Avocado Avenue and Farallon Drive would potentially be inadequate. In addition, the pedestrian bridge over San Miguel Drive is not of sufficient height, it could obstruct views of intersections and /or traffic signals. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 18 C_7 PDF TRA -1: Pedestrian Overcrossing. The pedestrian overcrossing linking the northern and central parcels shall be a minimum of 19.5 feet (ft) above the ground surface of San Miguel Drive. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3: Sight Distance Analysis. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works or designee shall verify that a detailed sight distance analysis for the proposed project driveway along Avocado Avenue has been prepared. The sight distance analysis shall be prepared according to the City of Newport Beach Sight Distance standards and guidelines and shall include provisions for dedicated limited use areas (i.e., low- height landscaping) and on- street parking restrictions (i.e., red curb), if necessary. The sight distance analysis report shall also verify the required height of the pedestrian bridge (19.5 feet above the ground surface of San Miguel Drive) as specified in PDF TRA -1. The recommendations of the sight distance analysis shall be incorporated into final project design to ensure than an unobstructed view of the intersections and traffic control devices would be provided. The findings of the sight distance analysis shall be included in a report subject to review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works, or designee. Finding: The mitigation measure and PDF are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to traffic and circulation to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this mitigation measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Aesthetics Impact: Creation a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views. The proposed project would introduce new light sources that are typical of development projects. These proposed sources of light would change existing nighttime views from adjacent areas, including the residences located east of the proposed project site that currently have a view of the project site. Even with features to reduce lighting effects, the proposed project could result in a substantial amount of new nighttime light, and mitigation is required. PDF AES -1: Lighting Controls. The proposed project shall include (1) automated internal shades set to close at specific times in the City Hall administration building and in the Library expansion area to form part of the glare control strategy, as well as to assist in the reduction of nighttime light pollution to neighboring sites; (2) exterior lighting that will be controlled by a Lighting Control Panel with an exterior photo-control and time clock; (3) internal lighting systems that would auto -dim after standard work hours, leaving small task lighting for janitorial activities and to light areas where staff may be working late; and (4) exterior light fixtures that would be the cutoff type and dark sky compliant. Mitigation Measure 4.3.1: Comprehensive Lighting Plan. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a comprehensive lighting plan for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Planning Director or designee. The lighting plan shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Municipal Code. The lighting plan shall address all aspects of lighting, including infrastructure, on -site driveways, recreation, safety, signage, and promotional lighting, if any. The lighting plan shall include the following in conjunction with other measures, as determined by the illumination engineer: a. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. b. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites. c. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. d. Parking area lighting shall have zero cutoff fixtures, and light standards shall not exceed 24 feet in height. e. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the illumination recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the City of City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 19 Newport Beach Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The City of Newport Beach Planning Director or designee may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. Mitigation Measure 4.3.2: Photometric Study. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a photometric study shall be prepared in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the City of Newport Beach Planning Director. The survey shall show that lighting values are 1 footcandle or less at all property lines. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3: Lighting Inspection. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final building permits, an evening inspection shall be conducted by the City of Newport Beach Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare. Finding: The mitigation measures and PDF are feasible and would avoid or substantially less potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics (nighttime lighting) to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Biological Resources Impact: Substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or the CDFG or USFWS. While the proposed project would result in the loss of native habitat, including some foraging habitat for raptors such as the northern harrier, merlin, and peregrine falcon, development of the project site is covered by the Central/Coastal Orange County NCCP /HCP that provides tens of thousands of acres of habitat reserve, including substantial areas suitable for raptor foraging. Specifically, the conservation of Reserve areas and implementation of adaptive management methods and other conditions of the Central /Coastal Orange County NCCP /HCP reduce potential adverse impacts as a result of the loss of native vegetation, much of which is potential raptor foraging habitat. Coulter's Saltbush is a special interest plant species not covered in the NCCP /HCP. The population of 18 individuals of Coulter's saltbush located along the eastern edge of the Central Parcel would be completely eliminated on site as a result of the proposed grading activities. Mitigation is required. A northern harrier was seen flying over the proposed project site but was not observed nesting. Although the possibility of northern harriers nesting on site is considered to be unlikely, impacts to northern harriers would be considered significant if they were found to be actively nesting on site. The City would be required to comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which would reduce potential impacts to this species to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.5.1: Translocation of Coulter's Saltbush Population. Prior to approval of the grading plan, the City of Newport Beach (City) Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that a translocation plan for Coulter's saltbush has been prepared by a qualified, experienced biologist. The plan shall include the following elements: • Location of one or two suitable receptor site(s), in an area or areas of suitable habitat, with adequate size to accommodate the existing population, as well as future growth of the population. • Procedures for site preparation and translocation of the existing population. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 20 4t • Preparation for and methods of salvaging and translocating the existing population, including the recovery of topsoil with existing seed bank. Blocks of topsoil shall be moved intact to the extent feasible. Identification of performance standards, i.e., at least half (nine) of the plants are evident in any given year following the third year of the monitoring period. This mitigation standard may be adjusted any time prior to the end of the monitoring period under mutual agreement by the City and the resource agencies (i.e., United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS] and California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]), particularly if factors beyond human control limit the ability to establish a viable population of Coulter's saltbush within the 5 -year monitoring period. • Maintenance and monitoring provisions (for a minimum of 5 years) to promote and document the success of the effort. Measures to be implemented if the translocation effort does not achieve the expected results. If it becomes apparent that the performance standards cannot be achieved, the City and resource agencies may agree to extend the monitoring period and /or implement remedial measures. The plan shall be prepared in cooperation with representatives from the USFWS and the CDFG. The project biologist shall supervise and monitor implementation of the plan, which shall be initiated prior to grading in the affected habitat area. Once the population of Coulter's saltbush on site is transplanted to the suitable receptor site(s), the project biologist shall monitor the population, in accordance with the plan provisions, including implementation of any requisite maintenance and /or remedial measures and documenting the progress in annual reports. Mitigation Measure 4.5.2: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In the event that project construction or grading activities should occur within the active breeding season for birds (i.e., February 15— August 15), a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by the designated project biologist prior to commencement of construction activities. If active nesting of birds is observed within 100 feet (ft) of the designated construction area prior to construction, the construction crew shall establish an appropriate buffer around the active nest. The designated project biologist shall determine the buffer distance based on the specific nesting bird species and circumstances involved. Once the designated project biologist verifies that the birds have fledged from the nest, the buffer may be removed. Prior to commencement of grading activities or issuance of any building permits, the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and construction plans include specific documentation regarding the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META), that preconstruction surveys have been completed and the results reviewed by staff, and that the appropriate buffers (if needed) are noted on the plans and established in the field with orange snow fencing. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less - than- significant level. Impact: Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS. Implementation of the proposed 20 -acre project would result in the direct loss of 11.68 acres of native plant communities. The proposed project also includes the preservation of 1.56 acres of native plant communities and 0.24 acre of landscaped and disturbed plant communities associated with the two natural drainages (wetlands) on site. Overall, the proposed project would result in the direct loss of approximately 88 percent of the total native habitat on site. Implementation of the proposed project could result in significant adverse impacts to native habitat on site. Compliance with the provisions of the NCCP City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 21 U as identified in Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 reduces project - related impacts to wildlife habitat on site to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.5.4: Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP /HCP. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport Beach (City) shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Communities Conservation Plan /Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP /HCP) Implementation Agreement and construction minimization measures identified in the NCCP. The following five minimization measures, as outlined in the NCCP, are designed to reduce potential impacts associated with native habitat and associated general wildlife and are applicable to the proposed project site. 1. To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat that is occupied by nesting gnatcatchers shall occur during the breeding season (February 15 —July 15). It is expressly understood that this provision and the remaining provisions of these "construction- related minimization measures" are subject to public health and safety considerations. These considerations include unexpected slope stabilization, erosion control measures, and emergency facility repairs. In the event of such public health and safety circumstances, landowners or public agencies /utilities shall provide the United States Fish and Wildlife Service /California Department of Fish and Game (USFWS /CDFG) with the maximum practicable notice (or such notice as is specified in the NCCP/HCP) to allow for capture of gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and any other CSS Identified Species that are not otherwise flushed and shall carry out the following measures only to the extent as practicable in the context of the public health and safety considerations. Z Prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP /HCP shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance of CSS, a survey shall be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities, and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction/grading plans. 3. A monitoring biologist, acceptable to USFWS /CDFG, shall be on site during any clearing of CSS. The City of Newport Beach Director of Planning or designee shall advise USFWS /CDFG at least 7 calendar days (and preferably 14 calendar days) prior to the clearing of any habitat occupied by Identified Species to allow USFWS /CDFG to work with the monitoring biologist in connection with bird flushing /capture activities. The monitoring biologist shall flush Identified Species (avian or other mobile Identified Species) from occupied habitat areas immediately prior to brush- clearing and earth - moving activities. If birds cannot be flushed, they shall be captured in mist nets, if feasible, and relocated to areas of the site to be protected or to the NCCP /HCP Reserve System. It shall be the responsibility of the monitoring biologist to assure that Identified bird species will not be directly impacted by brush - clearing and earth- moving equipment in a manner that also allows for construction activities on a timely basis. 4. Following the completion of initial gradinglearth movement activities, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel shall be marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials will be permitted within such marked areas. 5. CSS identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection and located within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves as recommended by the monitoring biologist. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this City Hall and Park Development Plan CEGA Findings of Fact Page 22 42. measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less - than- significant level. Impact: Substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. The proposed project would include the construction of three pedestrian footbridges across the jurisdictional drainages on site. These bridges are proposed to span the drainages and avoid any direct impacts to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) or CDFG jurisdictional areas (subject to verification by the ACOE). There are no proposed support structures or other portions of the bridges that would be installed within the ALOE or CDFG jurisdictional limits on site. Grading and construction work could result in incidental, or accidental, discharge of materials into jurisdictional areas, which would be a significant project impact. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5.3 is required to prevent any incidental or accidental discharge of fill into jurisdictional areas during construction activities. The construction of footbridges across the jurisdictional drainages would provide shade to the vegetation growing under the proposed bridges. Therefore, constructing the pedestrian bridges could indirectly impact vegetation under the bridges. The localized areas of shade corresponding to the location of the proposed pedestrian footbridges, would have a less than significant impact on vegetation or wildlife, and no mitigation is required. Although this is a less than significant project impact, CDFG may require a streambed alteration agreement to address the effects of shading. Mitigation Measure 4.5.3: Wetland /Riparian Habitat Enhancement. Prior to the commencement of grading activities associated with the central parcel, the City of Newport Beach (City) Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that grading plans require the installation of orange snow fencing along the entire construction perimeter of the jurisdictional drainages. The City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, shall also verify that the City has contracted a qualified, experienced biologist to be present on site when the orange snow fence is installed to ensure that it is installed at the appropriate location outside of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional limits. The orange snow fencing shall be maintained and left in place until all construction activities in the Central Parcel are complete. The biological monitor shall be present during any grading or vegetation removal activities occurring within 300 feet of the orange snow fencing. Prior to removal of the orange snow fencing at the completion of construction activities in the central parcel, the biological monitor shall conduct a final inspection of the area. The biological monitor shall, as necessary, maintain direct contact with the City representative throughout the construction process. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less - than- significant level. Impact: Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The proposed project would result in the direct loss of approximately 88 percent of the total native habitat on site, resulting in a locally significant loss of foraging habitat for wildlife. Implementation of the proposed project would have a direct, locally significant adverse effect on wildlife and wildlife habitat on site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 is expected to reduce project - related impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat on site to a less than significant level. As stated above, compliance with the terms and conditions of the NCCP Implementation Agreement and construction minimization measures identified in the NCCP Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) serve as suitable mitigation for project - specific and cumulative impacts to City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 23 L1t native habitat and associated general wildlife on site. In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.5.2 would reduce potential construction impacts to nesting birds. Mitigation Measure 4.5.2 — see above Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 — see above Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less - than- significant level. Impact: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Compliance with the terms and conditions of the NCCP Implementation Agreement and construction minimization measures identified in the NCCP EIR/EIS serve as suitable mitigation for project - specific and cumulative impacts to native habitat and associated general wildlife on site (see Mitigation Measure 4.5.4). Coulter's saltbush is not a covered species in the NCCP, and identified impacts to Coulter's saltbush are addressed in Mitigation Measure 4.5.1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with the existing NCCP /HCP. No additional mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure 4.5.1 — see above Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 — see above Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less - than- significant level. Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant biological resources impact. Compliance with the terms and conditions of the NCCP Implementation Agreement and construction minimization measures identified in the NCCP EIR/EIS serve as suitable mitigation for project- specific and cumulative impacts to native habitat and associated general wildlife on site (see Mitigation Measure 4.5.4). When viewed in the context of how much native habitat has already been conserved in Orange County as part of the NCCP /HCP, the quantity of native habitat on site that would be lost is not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant adverse cumulative impacts to native habitats and associated wildlife. Midgation Measure 4.5.4 — see above Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less - than- significant level. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 24 it Cultural Resources Impact: Substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The proposed project site is considered to be sensitive for archaeological resources. The project includes walking paths in the vicinity of the known archaeological sites, grading, and other ground disturbance required for project construction. These project activities have the potential to disturb or otherwise impact known and unknown archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure 4.6.1: Archaeological and Native American Monitors. Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, the City shall retain an archaeological monitor and a Native American monitor to be selected by the City after consultation with interested Tribal and Native American representatives. Both monitors shall be present at the pregrade conference in order to explain the cultural mitigation measures associated with the project. Both monitors shall be present on site during all ground - disturbing activities (to implement the project Monitoring Plan) until marine terrace deposits are encountered. Once marine terrace deposits are encountered, archaeological and Native American monitoring is no longer necessary, as the marine deposits are several hundred thousand years old, significantly predating human settlement in this area. Mitigation Measure 4.6.2: Archaeological Monitoring Plan and Accidental Discovery. Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, the City shall prepare a Monitoring Plan. The Monitoring Plan shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning. The Monitoring Plan should include at a minimum: (1) a list of personnel involved in the monitoring activities; (2) a description of how the monitoring shall occur; (3) a description of frequency of monitoring (e.g., full -time, part-time, spot checking); (4) a description of what resources may be encountered; (5) a description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work at the project site (e.g., what is considered a "significant" archaeological site); (6) a description of procedures for halting work on site and notification procedures; and (7) a description of monitoring reporting procedures. If any significant historical resources, archaeological resources, or human remains are found during monitoring, work should stop within the immediate vicinity (precise area to be determined by the archaeologist in the field) of the resource until such time as the resource can be evaluated by an archaeologist and any other appropriate individuals. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. To the extent feasible, project activities shall avoid these deposits. Where avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Places. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits must be avoided, or such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of the deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see California Code of Regulations Title 4(3) Section 5126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an appropriate facility for future research and /or display; an interpretive display of recovered archaeological materials at a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and recovered archaeological materials. It shall be the responsibility of the City Department of Public Works to verify that the Monitoring Plan is implemented during project grading and construction. Upon completion of all monitoring /mitigation activities, the consulting archaeologist shall submit a monitoring report to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning and to the South Central Coastal Information Center summarizing all monitoring/mitigation activities and confirming that all recommended mitigation measures have been met. The monitoring report shall be prepared consistent with the guidelines of the Office of Historic Preservation's Archaeological Resources Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. The City of Newport Beach Director of Planning or designee shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of findings and recommendations. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 25 Mitigation Measure 4.6.3: Archaeological Site Avoidance. Grading and excavation in the vicinity of existing archaeological sites CA -ORA- 167/1117 and CA -ORA -1461 shall be avoided. To achieve level surfaces for proposed project paths, clean (culturally sterile) soils shall be used to cap and protect the sites. Capping shall be conducted consistent with the provisions of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2(b)(3 and 4). Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works shall verify that project grading plans show avoidance of existing cultural sites. The Director of Public Works shall also verify that grading plans show that the known cultural sites shall be capped with a minimum of 12 inches of culturally sterile soils from a known source prior to commencement of any grading activity within 25 feet of these sites. The boundaries of the site shall be identified by a qualified archaeologist to ensure the entire site has been capped. Precise archaeological site information is protected from public disclosure by State law. The grading plan shall be clearly marked to indicate that any cultural resources information on those plans is not for public distribution. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to cultural resources (archeological) to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Impact: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Sensitive sediments that may contain fossil remains do exist within the project areas, and there is the potential to encounter paleontological resources during all ground - disturbing activities for the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4: Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program. Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, the Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that a paleontologist, who is listed on the County of Orange list of certified paleontologists, has been retained and will be on site during all rough grading and other significant ground - disturbing activities in paleontologically sensitive sediments. The sensitive sediments that have been identified within the project include the Middle Pleistocene marine and terrestrial sediments as well as middle Miocene Monterey formation sediments. A paleontologist will not be required on site if excavation is only occurring in artificial fill. The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the proposed project. The PRIMP should be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists (SVP) (1995) and should include but not be limited to the following: • Attendance at the pregrade conference in order to explain the mitigation measures associated with the project. • During construction excavation, a qualified vertebrate paleontological monitor shall initially be present on a full -time basis whenever excavation will occur within the sediments that have a High paleontological sensitivity rating and on a spot -check basis in sediments that have a Low sensitivity rating. Based on the significance of any recovered specimens, the qualified paleontologist may set up conditions that will allow for monitoring to be scaled back to part-time as the project progresses. However, if significant fossils begin to be recovered after monitoring has been scaled back, conditions shall also be specified that would allow increased monitoring as necessary. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils and /or matrix samples as they are unearthed in order to avoid construction delays. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment in the area of the find in order to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. • The underlying sediments may contain abundant fossil remains that can only be recovered by a screening and picking matrix; therefore, these sediments shall be occasionally be spot - screened through one - eighth to one - twentieth -inch mesh screens to determine whether microfossils exist. If City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fad Page 26 microfossils are encountered, additional sediment samples (up to 6,000 pounds) shall be collected and processed through one - twentieth -inch mesh screens to recover additional fossils. Processing of large bulk samples is best accomplished at a designated location within the project that will be accessible throughout the project duration but will also be away from any proposed cut or fill areas. Processing is usually completed concurrently with construction, with the intent to have all processing completed before, or just after, project completion. A small corner of a staging or equipment parking area is an ideal location. If water is not available, the location should be accessible for a water truck to occasionally fill containers with water. • Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation. This includes the washing and picking of mass samples to recover small invertebrate and vertebrate fossils and the removal of surplus sediment from around larger specimens to reduce the volume of storage for the repository and the storage cost for the developer. • Identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with permanent, retrievable storage, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM). Preparation of a report of findings with an appended, itemized inventory of specimens. When submitted to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning or designee, the report and inventory would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to cultural resources (paleontological) to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FOR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Impact: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The proposed project site is considered to be sensitive for archaeological remains and was the site of a human burial that was removed and reburied off site. Although no additional human remains are known to be on site or are anticipated to be discovered, precautionary mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure 4.6.5: Human Remains. Consistent with the requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e), if human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MUD). With the permission of the City of Newport Beach, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MILD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the City of Newport Beach shall consult with the MLD as identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Upon completion of the assessment, the consulting archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate, and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report should be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of findings and recommendations. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 27 Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to cultural resources (disturbance of human remains) to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cultural resources impact. Mitigation Measures 4.6.1 through 4.6.5 would be implemented to reduce potential project impacts by ensuring avoidance, evaluation, and, as applicable, scientific recovery and study of any resources encountered. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6.1 through 4.6.5, the project's contribution to the cumulative destruction of known and unknown cultural resources throughout the City would be reduced to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure 4.6.1 — see above Mitigation Measure 4.6.2 — see above Mitigation Measure 4.6.3 — see above Mitigation Measure 4.6.4 — see above Mitigation Measure 4.6.5 — see above Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to cultural resources (cumulative) to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Geology and Soils Impact: Strong seismic ground shaking. As with all of Southern California, the project site is subject to strong ground motion resulting from earthquakes on nearby faults. Strong seismic ground shaking generated by seismic activity is considered a potentially significant impact that may affect the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 4.7.1: Incorporation of and compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Study. All grading operations and construction shall be conducted in conformance with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report on the proposed project site that has been prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc. tilled Geotechnical Study for the Proposed City Hall and Park Development Plan for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Newport Beach, California (July 2009) (included in Appendix K of the DEIR). Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Building Code and the California Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department or designee prior to commencement of grading activities. Recommendations in the Geotechnical Study for the Proposed City Hall and Park Development Plan for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Newport Beach, California are summarized below. 1. Site Grading. The subgrade below the planned foundations for buildings and improvements planned in the area of the Library expansion shall be overexcavated in order to provide uniform support for the buildings. Additional remedial grading shall be required to develop relatively uniform support City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 28 characteristics and reduce the potential for postconstruction swell and distortions to the building in areas where claystone is exposed. 2. Shoring. Shoring shall be required during excavation for the retaining wall proposed along MacArthur Boulevard due to the anticipated space constraint for slope lay back and adverse bedrock structure. Design parameters of the temporary shoring and retaining wall shall be based on the bedrock strike and dip and the final configuration of the wall. In addition, the retaining wall shall be designed to include possible geologic surcharge from the bedrock. Shoring systems feasible for the site are expected to include cantilever shoring such as soldier piles and lagging in conjunction with tiebacks in areas when the depth of excavation exceeds 10 to 15 feet (ft). 3. Dewatering. If groundwater or perched water is encountered during project grading and construction, dewatering may be necessary. Methods of dewatering shall be submitted by the contractor and reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant and City Building Official prior to commencement of grading activities. 4. Subsurface Drainage. Groundwater is not expected to be a project constraint. In the unlikely event groundwater is encountered during construction and is at a depth that would impact project structures (postconstruction), the subterranean slabs shall be designed to resist hydrostatic uplift, or a permanent subfloor drainage system shall be included in the design of the slab. The design of subterranean slabs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Building Official prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Temporary Excavations. All temporary excavations shall be treated in accordance with the State of California version of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) excavation regulations, Construction Safety Orders for Excavation General Requirements. The sides of excavations shall be shored or sloped in accordance with OSHA regulations. OSHA allows the sides of unbraced excavations, up to a maximum height of 20 ft, to be cut to a Y4H:1 V (horizontal:vertical) slope for Type A soils, 1HAV for Type B soils, and 1.5H:1V for Type C soils. The on -site soils (Terrace Deposits) within the proposed excavation depths generally conform to OSHA Soil Type B. The formational bedrock may be classified as Soil Type A but will require careful evaluation by the project Certified Engineering Geologist. The Type A classification is not recommended where adverse (out - of- slope) bedding orientations exist, and special site - specific design parameters will be required in those areas. Heavy construction loads, such as those resulting from stockpiles and heavy machinery, shall be kept a minimum distance equivalent to the excavation height or 5 ft, whichever is greater, from the excavation unless the excavation is shored and these surcharges are considered in the design of the shoring system. 6. Spread Footing Foundations. Upon completion of the grading (cutting) required to establish the proposed building pad elevations, the proposed structures may be supported by a spread footing foundation system. Bearing capacities shall be dependent on the final foundation elevation and structural loadings of the buildings and shall be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant prior to implementation. T Slab on Grade. At -grade floor slabs of the proposed structures may be designed and constructed as a slab -on -grade supported directly on properly compacted fill or competent bedrock. If a bedrock artificial fill transition is encountered, the planned subgrade elevation shall be overexcavated at least 3 It and replaced with properly compacted fill. The structural engineer shall design the slab and determine the required thickness and reinforcement based on structural load requirements. 8. Retaining Walls. The proposed development is expected to require various types of earth - retaining structures: free - standing cantilever retaining walls; temporary shoring; and belowgrade walls for several of the proposed structures. In general, free - standing retaining structures planned at the site shall be backfilled with granular, very low expansive soil and be constructed with a backdrain. 9. Geotechnical Review and Future Testing. Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these recommendations. Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and the Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department or designee prior to the start of grading to verify City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 29 that the recommendations developed during the geotechnical design evaluation have been appropriately incorporated into the project plans. Final design shall be based on testing and analyses of the near - surface soils following the completion of grading. Design, grading, and construction shall be conducted in accordance with the specifications of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final report based on the CBC applicable at the time of grading and building and the City of Newport Beach Building Code. On -site inspection during grading shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and the City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project plans Mitigation Measure 4.7.2: California Building Code Compliance and Seismic Standards. Structures and retaining walls shall be designed in accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the geotechnical study (Leighton, 2009; Appendix K) and applicable sections of Section 1613 of the 2007 California Building Code (CBC). Prior to issuance of building permits for planned structures, the project soils engineer and the Director of the City of Newport Beach Department of Building, or designee, shall review building plans to verify that structural design conforms to the recommendations of the geotechnical study and the City of Newport Beach Building Code. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to geology and soils (seismic ground shaking) to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Impact: Slope Stability. Due to the topography of the project site and the design of the proposed project, grading would entail significant cut - and -fill slopes, and construction of retaining walls would be necessary in some areas. Unstable cut - and -fill slopes and an adverse bedrock structure could create significant short-term and long -term hazards. Mitigation Measure 4.7.1 — see above Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to geology and soils (slope stability) to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Impact: Corrosive Soils. Laboratory testing indicates that on -site soils are not corrosive to concrete but are severely corrosive to ferrous metals. Mitigation Measure 4.7.3: Corrosive Soils. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Director of the City of Newport Beach (City) Building Department or designee shall verify that the City has retained the services of a licensed corrosion engineer to provide detailed corrosion protection measures. Where steel may come in contact with on -site soils, project construction shall include the use of steel that is protected against corrosion. Corrosion protection may include, but is not limited to, sacrificial metal, the use of protective coatings, and/or cathodic protection. Additional site testing and final design evaluation regarding the possible presence of significant volumes of corrosive soils on site shall be performed by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these recommendations. On -site inspection during grading shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project plans. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 30 Ct Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to geology and soils (corrosive soils) to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Impact: Expansive Soil. Based on the laboratory test results, the on -site soils have an Expansion Index ranging from 0 to 29, indicating a very low to low expansion potential in accordance with Table 18 -1 -B of the CBC. However, bedrock on site includes strata of claystone that may be potentially expansive. The potential for expansive soils in areas proposed for construction would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.7.4: Expansive Soils. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Director of the City of Newport Beach (City) Building Department or designee shall verify that building plans require additional expansion index tests if bedrock claystone is encountered at the planned subgrade elevation or during other grading activities. If expansion index tests determine that expansive soils are present on the proposed project site, mitigation may include, but is not limited to, additional remedial grading, premoistening of soils, use of nonexpansive material, post- tensioned slabs, construction of nonexpansive building pads, or use of caisson foundations. During construction, the project soils engineer shall verify that expansive soil mitigation measures are implemented, and the City Building Official shall make site inspections to ensure compliance with approved measures. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to geology and soils (expansive soils) to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts: The following impacts are discussed together in the DEIR and FEIR; each bullet point represents a potential environmental impact that is discussed below. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Construction Impacts. Project construction would involve the routine use of hazardous materials such as fuels, paints, and solvents. Project construction may result in the release of asbestos - containing building materials (AGMs), lead -based paints (IBPs), and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) associated with demolition activities and utility relocations. Operation Impacts. Project operation would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides) typical of government office building parking, structures, parks, and library facilities that, when used correctly, would not result in a significant hazard to employees. Operation of the proposed project would not produce hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Fuel would be stored on site for a backup generator in a generator sub -base fuel storage lank subject to fire department guidelines. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 31 c� Mitigation Measure 4.9.1: Contingency Plan. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport Beach Fire Chief or designee shall review and approve a contingency plan that addresses the potential to encounter on -site unknown hazards or hazardous substances during construction activities. The plan shall indicate that if construction workers encounter underground tanks, gases, odors, uncontained spills, or other unidentified substances, the contractor shall stop work, cordon off the affected area, and notify the Orange County Health Care Agency ( OCHCA). The OCHCA responder shall determine the next steps regarding possible site evacuation, sampling, and disposal of the substance consistent with local, State, and federal regulations. Mitigation Measure 4.9.2: Predemolition Surveys. Prior to commencement of demolition activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach (City) Building Department shall verify that predemolition surveys for asbestos - containing materials (ACMs) and lead -based paints (LBPs) (including sampling and analysis of all suspected building materials) and inspections for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)- containing electrical fixtures shall be performed. All inspections, surveys, and analyses shall be performed by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations (i.e.: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527 -05, and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA], Part 716). If the predemolition surveys do not find ACMs,- LBPs, or PCB - containing electrical fixtures, the inspectors shall provide documentation of the inspection and its results to the City of Newport Beach Building Department to confirm that no further abatement actions are required. If the predemolition surveys find evidence of ACMs, LBPs, or PCB - containing electrical fixtures, all such materials shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed contractors according to all applicable regulations during demolition of structures (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 745, 761, and 763). Air monitoring shall be completed by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations both to ensure adherence to applicable regulations (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District [SCAQMD]) and to provide safety to workers and the adjacent community. The City shall provide documentation (e.g., all required waste manifests, sampling, and air monitoring analytical results) to the County of Orange Health Care Agency showing that abatement of any ACMs, LBPs, or PCB- containing electrical fixtures identified in these structures has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 716, 745, 761, 763, and 795 and California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 8, Article 2.6). An Operating & Maintenance Plan (O &M) shall be prepared for any ACM, LBP, or PCB- containing fixtures to remain in place and will be reviewed and approved by the County of Orange Health Care Agency. Mitigation Measure 4.9.3: Generator Sub -Base Fuel Storage Tank. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department or designee shall review installation plans for the generator sub -base fuel storage tank. The plans shall include the design, details, and specifications pertaining to the following: 1. Quantities and types of liquids to be stored 2. Distances from tanks and dispensers to property lines, buildings, and other exposures 3. Vehicle access 4. Fire appliance 5. Vehicle impact protection 6. Protected tanks and their supports 7. Methods of storage and dispensing 8. Overfill prevention, spill containment, vents, vapor recovery dispensers, and other equipment and accessories City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 32 S' =t Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials (routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials) to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Impact: Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in a project area located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. A portion of proposed project site is located within the AELUP and the 20,000 ft Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. Although there are no permanent structures proposed for this parcel, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is requiring the FAR Part 77 review to consider trees or any other improvement that achieves some height. Mitigation Measure 4.9.4: Determination of No Hazards. The City of Newport Beach (City) shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460 -1) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. The Director of Planning, or designer, shall verify that the City has received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation prior to the issuance of building permits for the northern parcel. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials (location near a public use airport) to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less- than - significant level. Noise Impacts: The following impacts are discussed together in the DEIR and FEIR; each bullet point represents a potential environmental impact that is discussed below. • Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project: (1) traffic noise associated with construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site; and (2) noise generated during excavation, grading, and erection of buildings on the project site. Short-term construction - related impacts associated with worker commute, equipment transport to the project site, and export of excavated materials would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Construction- related noise impacts from the proposed project would be potentially significant due to the length of the construction period (24-30 months) and level of noise from the combination of construction activities (up to 80 dBA maximum instantaneous noise level [LmJ. Mitigation Measure 4.11.1: Construction Noise. Prior to commencement of grading activities or issuance of building permits, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, or designee, shall verify that the following notes appear on grading and construction plans: City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 33 C"d 1. During all project site excavation and grading, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. 2. The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. 3. The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction- related noise sources and noise - sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. 4. The construction contractor shall limit all construction - related activities that would result in high noise levels to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction would occur outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays. Mitigation Measure 4.11.2: Ventilation Requirements. Prior to the issuance of building permits, documentation shall be provided to the Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department, or designee, demonstrating that project buildings meet ventilation standards required by the California Building Code (CBC) with the windows closed. It is likely that a form of mechanical ventilation, such as an air - conditioning system, will be required as part of the project design for the City Hall buildings and Library expansion. Mitigation Measure 4.11.3: Park Uses. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, or designee, shall review construction plans and verify that all potential sensitive uses proposed within the park areas, such as picnic tables, shall be located outside the 70 A- weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) impact zone from MacArthur Boulevard, which would extend to 167 feet (ft) from the roadway centerline north of San Miguel Drive and to 140 ft from the roadway centerline south of San Miguel Drive. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant impacts related to noise (construction noise) to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the FEIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less - than- significant level. D. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project where either mitigation measures were found to be infeasible, or mitigation would lessen impacts but not to a less than significant level. The following adverse impacts would remain significant and unavoidable: 1. Construction Air Quality (Short-Term Project and Short-Term Cumulative) Impact: Construction emissions from the project would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) daily emissions thresholds for nitrous oxide (NOx) and reactive organic compounds (ROC), and resulting concentrations of particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PMio) that would exceed the local significance threshold (LST) threshold. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce NOx, ROC, and PM10 emissions; however, even with implementation of all available mitigation measures, project impacts related to construction emissions would remain significant adverse and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure 4.4.1: SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. The City of Newport Beach shall ensure that the project complies with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules 402 and 403 to assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 34 55 with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403 are summarized below. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department or designee shall ensure that notes are included on grading and construction plans and referenced in the construction contractor's agreement that the construction contractor shall be responsible for compliance with Rules 402 and 403. The applicable Rule 403 measures are as follows: 1. Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). 2. Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.) 3. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least 2 feet (ft) of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer). 4. Pave construction access roads at least 100 ft onto the site from main road. 5. Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 miles per hour (mph) or less. Mitigation Measure 4.4.2: Dust Suppression. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department or designee shall ensure that notes are included on construction and grading plans and referenced in the contractor's agreement that requires use of dust suppression measures in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook during project grading and construction. The construction contractor shall be responsible for the implementation of the following dust suppression measures: 1. Revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible. 2. Increase active site watering to three times daily. 1 All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour (mph). 4. When visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets, those streets shall be swept once per day to the extent necessary to remove the visible soil material (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). 5. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. 6. All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically, or chemically stabilized. 7. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. Mitigation Measure 4.4.3: Construction Equipment. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall ensure that construction documents require the Construction Contractor to select the construction equipment used on site based on low- emission factors and high- energy efficiency. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, or designee, shall also verify that construction contracts include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4: Electric or Alternative Fuel- Powered Equipment. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall verify that construction contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that the Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or alternative -fuel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel powered engines where feasible. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 35 Mitigation Measure 4.4.5: Equipment Shut Off and Smog Season Hours. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall verify that construction contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period will be extended to minimize the occurrence of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time and thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day. Mitigation Measure 4.4.6: Traffic Obstruction Minimization. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall verify that construction contracts and/or grading plans include a statement that construction trucks, to the extent feasible, shall avoid using the streets during peak -hour traffic; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. Mitigation Measure 4.4.7: Ridesharing and Transit Incentives. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall verify that construction contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that the Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Mitigation Measure 4.4.8: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall verify that construction contracts and/or grading plans include a statement that the Construction Contractor shall comply with the SCAQMD Rule 1113 on the use of architectural coatings. Emissions associated with architectural coatings would be reduced by complying with these rules and regulations, which include using pre- coated /natural colored building materials, using water -based or low - volatile organic compounds (VOC) coating, and using coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency. Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and substantially lessen the significant construction air quality impacts of the proposed project. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect but not to a less- than - significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4.1 through 4.4.8 would minimize construction emissions generated during project site preparation, grading, and construction; however, even with implementation of the mitigation measures, NOx emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds during the grading phase, ROC emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds threshold during the grading phase and architectural coating, and PM10 concentrations would exceed LST thresholds during grading. Construction air quality impacts would remain Significant and Unavoidable. 2. Global Climate Change (Greenhouse Gases) Impact: Global Climate Change. The proposed project would strive to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions by meeting and exceeding Title 24 standards and by achieving Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New Construction (LEED -NC) Silver Certification. The project would implement mitigation measures to further reduce energy consumption and vehicular emissions. The City will monitor the development of implementation requirements of AB 32, as issued by State agencies, and any subsequently adopted GHG emissions reduction procedures and technologies relevant to the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with and /or furthers the intent of numerous GHG reduction strategies and is consistent with the City's General Plan goals and Climate Action Protection Program strategies, which are designed to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. Compliance with the reduction strategies implemented by the City will help to achieve the statewide reduction of GHG to 1990 levels; City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 36 an however, this cannot ensure that the project would not exceed Threshold 4.8.1 because project operations would result in more than 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO21) per year. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable project impact and result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to an unavoidable cumulative impact related to activities that may impede achievement of the State's goal for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. While the length and intensity of the construction period for this project would result in emissions that contribute to the project's significant impact, even with implementation of mitigation measures, the short- term construction- related emissions from this project would not in themselves be considered to present a cumulatively considerable contribution to the impact of global climate change or may impede achievement of the State's goal for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. PDF GHG -1: LEED -NC Silver. The City of Newport Beach (City) shall work with the project designers and engineers to identify United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -New Construction (LEED -NC) Silver credit design components to be incorporated into the construction plans for the proposed project, including both the City Hall administration building, Community Room, Council Chambers, and Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The City shall register the subject buildings in the LEED -NC Silver program prior to final design and shall seek LEED -NC Silver certification after construction. PDF GHG -2: Energy Efficiency. The City of Newport Beach (City) shall seek ways to reduce waste and energy consumption and to increase the efficiency of its operations in order to minimize impacts to the environment and enhance the sustainability of its operations. Toward that end, the City has incorporated the following commitments into the project plans: 1. The City is committed to evaluating and implementing energy efficiency programs and procedures, including the use of solar photovoltaic panels on new structures where feasible, use of energy - efficient light fixtures, implementation of energy- saving devices and equipment, and energy - efficient design of new facilities. 2. The City will continue to implement existing waste reduction programs, including office recycling, source reduction, waste reduction and reuse, purchase of recycled content products, and source separation and recycling of materials, including composting of biodegradable materials. 3. The City is committed to achieving Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -New Construction (LEED -NC) Silver certification for the new City Hall facility and Emergency Operations Center (EOC) (see Project Design Feature [PDF] GHG-1, above). 4. The City will conduct regular energy audits, and commissioning during new construction and renovation, as appropriate, with implementation of follow -up improvements to reduce energy consumption for the new City Hall facility and the Emergency Operation Center (EOC). 5. The City will require contractors to use zero- or low- emission vehicles and equipment when possible. 6. The City will landscape the proposed project site with a combination of native, drought - tolerant, and ornamental plants (refer to PDF BIO 2). 7. The City will implement a comprehensive potable water conservation strategy for irrigation and water service within the City Hall facility and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). 8. The City will continue to seek new opportunities to promote commuter carpooling and transit use, as well as alternative transportation for City employees and Civic Center visitors. Mitigation measures to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions are listed below: City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 37 co Mitigation Measure 4.8.1: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project plans and specifications shall include a statement that delivery of construction equipment and materials will be scheduled such that queuing of trucks on and off site shall be minimized. The requirement shall be implemented. by the contractor and verified by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee. Mitigation Measure 4.8.2: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project plans and specifications shall include a statement that, to the extent feasible, all diesel- and gasoline - powered construction equipment shall be replaced with equivalent electric equipment. The requirement shall be implemented by the contractor and verified by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee. Mitigation Measure 4.8.3: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or structures incorporates ENERGY STAR - rated, energy - efficient T-8 high-output fixtures, and /or compact fluorescent and other comparable energy- saving lighting fixtures. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the project engineer to the State Architect. Installation of the identified design features or equipment shall be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure 4.8.4: Prior to issuance of a building permit for a specific facility, the project engineer shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or structures incorporates enhanced insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized in structures that will be mechanically heated and /or cooled. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, for review and approval. Installation of the identified design features or equipment shall be conducted by the contractor and confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure 4.8.5: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, and the Project Engineer will document and verify, installation of the identified design features or equipment designed to limit air leakage through the structure or within the heating and cooling distribution system to minimize energy consumption in structures that will be mechanically heated and /or cooled. Mitigation Measure 4.8.6: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or structures incorporates United States Environmental Policy Agency (EPA) WaterSense Program water- efficient products (bathroom sink faucets, low -flush urinals, dual -flush toilets, etc.). Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, for review and approval. Installation of the identified design features or equipment shall be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure 4.8.7: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or structures that will be mechanically heated and /or cooled incorporates space heating and cooling equipment that meets or exceeds ENERGY STAR -rated standards. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the project engineer to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee. Installation of the identified design features or equipment shall be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure 4.8.8: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer shall demonstrate that the proposed buildings or structures incorporate appliances that meet or exceed the ENERGY STAR - rated standards. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the project engineer to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, for review and approval. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 38 CA Installation of the identified design features or equipment shall be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. shall Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer shall demonstrate that the design of proposed buildings or structures considered includes installation /operation of renewable electric generation systems. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the project engineer to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, for review and approval. Installation of the identified design features or equipment shall be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure 4.8.10: The City will ensure that construction plans for the new City Hall facility include bicycle racks and temporary storage lockers, as reflected in the building plans prior to the issuance of construction permits. City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, will verify compliance and confirm implementation during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.8.11: The City shall offer preferential parking for electric and hybrid vehicles at the new City Hall facility. City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, will verify compliance and confirm implementation during construction. Mitigation Measure 4.4.2: Dust Suppression. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department or designee shall ensure that notes are included on construction and grading plans and referenced in the contractor's agreement that requires use of dust suppression measures in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook during project grading and construction. The construction contractor shall be responsible for the implementation of the following dust suppression measures: 1. Revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible. 2. Increase active site watering to three times daily. 3. All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour (mph). 4. When visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets, those streets shall be swept once per day to the extent necessary to remove the visible soil material (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). 5. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. 6. All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically, or chemically stabilized. 7. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. Mitigation Measure 4.4.3: Construction Equipment. Prior to commencement of '.grading activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall ensure that construction documents require the Construction Contractor to select the construction equipment used on site based on low- emission factors and high - energy efficiency. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, or designee, shall also verify that construction contracts include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Mitigation Measure 4.4.4: Electric or Alternative Fuel- Powered Equipment. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall verify that construction contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that the Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or alternative -fuel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel powered engines where feasible. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 39 Mitigation Measure 4.4.5: Equipment Shut Off and Smog Season Hours. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall verify that construction contracts and/or grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period will be extended to minimize the occurrence of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time and thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day. Mitigation Measure 4.4.6: Traffic Obstruction Minimization. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall verify that construction contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that construction trucks, to the extent feasible, shall avoid using the streets during peak -hour traffic; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. Mitigation Measure 4.4.7: Ridesharing and Transit Incentives. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall verify that construction contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that the Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Finding: Mitigation measures are feasible and substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project related to GHG emissions and global climate change. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect but not to a less- than - significant level. Although the City has incorporated alternative transportation components, including bicycle storage and changing rooms for employees and Civic Center visitors and enhanced energy efficiency features, approximately 89-90 percent of the project's total CO2e emissions are related to vehicle exhaust emissions. These vehicle exhaust emissions themselves are controlled by the State and federal governments and are outside the control of the City; thus, the City's efforts to improve on conventional construction techniques will not affect mobile source emissions. The proposed project would result in a significant unavoidable project impact and result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to an unavoidable cumulative impact related to activities that may impede achievement of the State's goal for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. These impacts would remain Significant and Unavoidable. Ill. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project or to its location that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects, and that it evaluate the comparative merits of each of the alternatives. Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the ". . . discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." The following section discusses the project alternatives that were considered and analyzed in the EIR and summarizes the consistency of these alternatives with the objectives of the proposed pro�ect. The FEIR identified five alternatives as follows: 1. No Project/Development Pursuant to Existing General Plan (Alternative 1) 2. Development Pursuant to Existing Zoning (All park on proposed project site and a new City Hall on the existing City Hall site) (Alternative 2) 3. Alternative Location at Vacant Land /Corporate Plaza West Site (Alternative 3) 4. Reduced Project (Alternative 4) 5. Modified Construction Schedule (Alternative 5) City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 40 The City's findings and facts in support of findings with respect to each of the alternatives considered are provided below. No Project Alternative Description: This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the proposed project site and the existing City Hall site would remain in the same condition as they were at the time the NOP was published (April 2009). The setting of the site at the time the NOP was published is described throughout Chapter 4.0 of the DEIR with respect to individual environmental issues and forms the baseline of the impact assessment of the proposed project. This alternative represents the environmental conditions that would exist if no new development of any kind were to occur on the project site. In addition, the No Project/No Development Alternative anticipates that the existing City Hall would continue to operate without new improvements to existing facilities. Environmental Effects: The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that the existing conditions on both the proposed project site and the existing City Hall site would remain unchanged. The proposed project site is currently vacant with the exception of the existing Library on the southern parcel. The existing City Hall site is occupied by over 47,809 gross square feet of space in five buildings and five temporary buildings (trailers). No new air pollutant emissions, construction emissions, or GHG emissions would be generated by short-term construction emissions since no new construction is proposed. In addition, no additional vehicle trips would be generated by the site with the No Project/No Development Alternative therefore this alternative would not result in a significant impact related to global climate change or GHG emissions. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/No Development Alternative would partially achieve two (2) of the 13 project objectives. The No Project/No Development Alternative would preserve (but not enhance) the on -site wetlands because no changes would occur on site. In addition, the No Project/No Development Alternative would protect (but not enhance) views from MacArthur Boulevard by maintaining the existing view plane in the vicinity of the proposed project site. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not achieve or further any other project objectives. Findings: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social, technical, or other considerations make the No Project Alternative identified in the DEIR and FEIR infeasible. Facts in Support of the Finding: This alternative would not be consistent with the requirements of Measure B. A Space Utilization Assessment completed in 2002 found that the existing City Hall was smaller than the city halls of comparable jurisdictions by between 11 and 25 percent and that space conditions are functionally and qualitatively below desirable levels.' After completion of the Space Utilization Study, the City added additional temporary buildings (portable buildings or trailers), but overall the facilities are still considered to be over capacity. On -site parking is also considered to be insufficient to meet demand. The City currently has no plans to expand staffing levels; however, the existing conditions related to insufficient space and parking for current staff and service levels would remain under this alternative. The existing Library would also remain in its current condition. Due to the high demand for children's materials and the high numbers of patrons, the existing Children's Room at the Central Library does not adequately serve the existing community. The number of children in the City nearly doubled from 1990 to 2007. This figure includes the population of Newport Coast, which was annexed by the City in 2002. At the same time, the percentage of children's materials checked out by Library patrons rose. In 2008, children's materials accounted for 33 percent of all checkouts in the Newport Beach Public Library ' Griffin Advisors. Newport Beach Civic Center City Hall Facilities Needs Assessment. Report on Space Utilization Assessment. August 2002. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 41 L.- (NBPL) system and 30 percent of all checkouts at the Central Library. No changes to the existing Library or the Children's Room would occur under this alternative. In addition to the library and City Hall complex, the alternative would forego various city benefits such as a Civic Green, various transportation improvements that are part of the project design, as well as the Emergency Operations Center. It should be noted, as well, that the passive park uses probably could not be made ADA- compliant without substantial on site grading due to the existing grades. Thus, this alternative potentially be inconsistent with General Plan Policies R.3.1 (Adequate Access) and R.3.3 (Facility Design), which encourage and require the City to provide park and recreational for persons with disabilities and to design facilities, including trails, with consideration for views and access for persons in wheelchairs. Existing Zoning Alternative Description: The Existing Zoning Alternative would include improvement of the northern and central parcels for passive park uses and retention of the existing Library on the southern parcel. No changes/ expansion would occur to the existing Library under this Alternative. In conformance with the land uses assigned to the project site under PC -27, the Existing Zoning Alternative includes construction and operation of an approximately 16 ac passive park on the proposed project site. A pedestrian bridge could be constructed to link the central and northern parcels, but it is unlikely that any public infrastructure improvements (e.g., Treatment and Structural BMPs or roadway improvements) would occur. The on -site wetlands could be preserved and enhanced under this alternative. Some water conservation measures may be incorporated into the park, but overall sustainability options would be limited. For the purposes of this analysis it is also assumed that City Hall would continue to operate at the existing City Hall site. Environmental Effects: Because the Existing Zoning Alternative assumes development of a public park on the entire project site, presumably with less grading, the air emissions from the Existing Zoning Alternative would be substantially less than that of the proposed project. The Existing Zoning Alternative would reduce or avoid significant unavoidable air quality impacts of the proposed project. In addition, fewer additional vehicle trips would be generated by the site with the Existing Zoning Alternative therefore this alternative would not result in a significant impact related to global climate change or greenhouse gas emissions. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Existing Zoning Alternative would be potentially consistent with four (4, 5, 8, and 9) of the 13 project objectives. The Existing Zoning Alternative would implement General Plan policies by developing a passive park on the proposed project site, integrating the northern and central parcels, preserving and enhancing on -site wetlands, and protecting and enhancing public views from MacArthur Boulevard. Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social, technical, or other considerations make the Existing Zoning Alternative identified in the DEIR and FOR infeasible. Facts in Support of the Finding. This alternative would not be consistent with the requirements of Measure B. A Space Utilization Assessment completed in 2002 found that We existing City Hall was smaller than the City Halls of comparable jurisdictions by between 11 and 25 percent and that space conditions are functionally and qualitatively below desirable levels.' After completion of the Space Utilization Study, the City added additional temporary buildings (portable buildings or trailers) to the existing City Hall site, but overall the existing facilities are still considered to be over capacity. Existing on- site parking is also considered to be insufficient to meet demand. The City currently has no plans to expand staffing levels; however, the existing conditions related to insufficient space and parking for current staff and service levels would remain under this alternative. Griffin Advisors. Newport Beach Civic Center City Hall Facilities Needs Assessment. Report on Space Utilization Assessment. August 2002. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 42 Li The existing Library would also remain in its current condition. Due to the high demand for children's materials and the high numbers of patrons, the existing Children's Room at the Central Library does not adequately serve the existing community. The number of children in the City nearly doubled from 1990 to 2007. This figure includes the population of Newport Coast, which was annexed by the City in 2002. At the same time, the percentage of children's materials checked out by Library patrons rose. In 2008, children's materials accounted for 33 percent of all checkouts in the Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL) system and 30 percent of all checkouts at the Central Library. No changes to the existing Library or the Children's Room would occur under this alternative. In addition to the library and City Hall complex, the alternative would forego various city benefits such as a Civic Green and various transportation improvements that are part of the project design. It should be noted, as well, that the passive park uses probably could not be made ADA- compliant without substantial on site grading due to the existing grades. Thus, this alternative potentially be inconsistent with General Plan Policies R.3.1 (Adequate Access) and R.3.3 (Facility Design), which encourage and require the City to provide park and recreational for persons with disabilities and to design facilities, including trails, with consideration for views and access for persons in wheelchairs. Corporate Plaza West Alternative Description: The Corporate Plaza West site is approximately 10 ac and consists of three existing buildings located at 1200, 1400, and 1600 Newport Center. Figure 5.1 provides the location of this site. The three buildings on site are approximately 40,000 sf each, for a total of 120,000 sf on site. Figure 5.2 provides an illustration of the site. The existing buildings are surrounded by surface parking. Although the existing on -site buildings would provide sufficient office space to meet the needs of City Hall, the relocation of City Hall to this site would require that the existing buildings on site be retrofitted, and design modifications would be required to address unique City requirements for large public meeting /assembly areas (e.g., City Council Chambers). For the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that an EOC component would not be included in this alternative because of the additional retrofitting/construction requirements of this use. This alternative assumes that the City would (a) purchase the property from the Irvine Company or (b) lease office space from the Irvine Company. The current land owner may or may not be willing to sell. Such a sale could be implemented by the City through eminent domain, but such a course of action is contrary to the project objectives. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that if the City Hall were not located on the proposed project site, a 16 ac park would be developed on that site in conformance with the land uses assigned to the project site under PC -27. Environmental Effects: The Corporate Plaza West Alternative would result in less than significant air quality impacts. The air quality emissions from the Corporate Plaza West Alternative would be less than that of the proposed project. The Corporate Plaza West Alternative would reduce or avoid a significant unavoidable air quality impact of the proposed project. In addition, the Corporate Plaza West Alternative would result in less than significant project and cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions. The Corporate Plaza West Alternative would reduce or avoid a significant unavoidable impact of the proposed project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: Locating the City Hall at the Corporate Plaza West site would be potentially consistent with five (4, 5, 6, 8, and 9) of the 13 project objectives. With some modifications, the Corporate Plaza West site would accommodate all existing City Hall uses. In addition, the construction of a park on the proposed project site would implement General Plan policy by developing a passive park on the proposed project site, preserve and enhance on -site wetlands, and protect and enhance public views from MacArthur Boulevard. Construction of a pedestrian bridge at the proposed project site would integrate the northern and southern parcels. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 43 Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social, technical, or other considerations make the Corporate Plaza West Alternative identified in the DEIR and FOR infeasible. Facts in Support of the Finding: Measure B was approved by the voters and specifically identifies the proposed project site for the new City Hall and related improvements. Therefore, this alternative would not be consistent with the requirements of Measure B, because it would preclude implementation of the new City Hall at the proposed project site. In addition, it is the City's preference to own the Civic Center buildings. The current land owner of this alternative site may or may not be willing to sell. Such a sale could be implemented by the City through eminent domain, but such a course of action is contrary to the project objectives. The existing Library would also remain in its current condition. Due to the high demand for children's materials and the high numbers of patrons, the existing Children's Room at the Central Library does not adequately serve the existing community. The number of children in the City nearly doubled from 1990 to 2007. This figure includes the population of Newport Coast, which was annexed by the City in 2002. At the some time, the percentage of children's materials checked out by Library patrons rose. In 2008, children's materials accounted for 33 percent of all checkouts in the Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL) system and 30 percent of all checkouts at the Central Library. No changes to the existing Library or the Children's Room would occur under this alternative. In addition, the alternative would forego various city benefits such as a Civic Green and various transportation improvements that are part of the project design. It should be noted, as well, that the passive park uses probably could not be made ADA- compliant without substantial on site grading due to the existing grades. Thus, this alternative potentially be inconsistent with General Plan Policies R.3.1 (Adequate Access) and R.3.3 (Facility Design), which encourage and require the City to provide park and recreational for persons with disabilities and to design facilities, including trails, with consideration for views and access for persons in wheelchairs. Reduced Project Alternative Description: The Reduced Project Alternative evaluates the minimum number /type of improvements needed to meet the requirements of Measure B. The proposed City Hall would consist of one, single - story, 68,000 sf building with a 220 -space parking structure and 80 surface parking spaces. Because the building would be a single story, the building would be below the view plane. As with the proposed project, access would occur at Farallon Drive and Avocado Avenue, similar to the proposed project. In addition to reducing the size of the proposed City Hall building, this alternative also eliminates the Library expansion, eliminates the EOC, and reduces the size of the parking structure. For the purposes of this analysis, all other project components (e.g., incorporation of conservation measures and project design features) are considered to be the same as the proposed project. The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce the quantity of excavated material removed from the project site from approximately 320,000 cubic yards (cy) (proposed project) to 150,000 cy. Environmental Effects: The Reduced Project Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable construction air quality impact. Operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. The Reduced Project Alternative would result in reduced construction air quality impacts when compared to the proposed project, but they would still be significant and unavoidable. In addition, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in a significant contribution to a cumulative impact related to GHG emissions. The Reduced Project Alternative would result in a less than significant project -level impact related to GHG emissions. The Reduced Project Alternative would avoid a significant unavoidable project -level impact of the proposed project, but would result in a comparable significant cumulative impact associated with GHG emissions. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 44 GS Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Reduced Project Alternative would be potentially consistent with 10 of the 13 project objectives (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11). The Reduced Project Alternative would not achieve three project objectives (2, 12, and 13). Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social, technical, or other considerations make the Reduced Project Alternative identified in the DEIR and FEIR infeasible. Facts in Support of the Finding: The project alternative would not reduce the significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project to below a level of significance. In addition, although the Reduced Project Alternative would result in the construction of a new City Hall on the proposed project site, it would not incorporate City Hall into a larger Civic Center that would consist of an expanded Library, EOC, and a Civic Green. The Reduced Project Alternative would not include the expanded Library or any functional or thematic linkages between the existing Library and the proposed City Hall. Other than shared parking, the two structures would operate independently of one another and would not be unified through design or additional service features. The independent function of the two structures is not consistent with the objective of creating a "Civic Center" type setting. As noted above, the existing Library would also remain in its current condition. Due to the high demand for children's materials and the high numbers of patrons, the existing Children's Room at the Central Library does not adequately serve the existing community. The number of children in the City nearly doubled from 1990 to 2007. This figure includes the population of Newport Coast, which was annexed by the City in 2002. At the same time, the percentage of children's materials checked out by Library patrons rose. In 2008, children's materials accounted for 33 percent of all checkouts in the Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL) system and 30 percent of all checkouts at the Central Library. No changes to the existing Library or the Children's Room would occur under this alternative. In addition to the library and City Hall complex, the alternative would forego various city benefits such as a Civic Green and various transportation improvements that are part of the project design. It should be noted, as well, that the passive park uses probably could not be made ADA- compliant without substantial on site grading due to the existing grades. Thus, this alternative potentially be inconsistent with General Plan Policies R.3.1 (Adequate Access) and R.3.3 (Facility Design), which encourage and require the City to provide park and recreational for persons with disabilities and to design facilities, including trails, with consideration for views and access for persons in wheelchairs. Modified Construction Schedule Description: The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative considers construction of the project as proposed in the FEIR, with a longer construction period and a reduced haul route. The project proposes a 32 -month construction schedule. The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative analyzes a 48 -month construction schedule (thereby increasing the grading period by 16 months). The proposed project also assumed that grading material (i.e., dirt from the project site) would be hauled 32 mi to the Prima Deshecha landfill for disposal. The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative analyzes a construction haul route of 16 mi, which is roughly the distance between the proposed project site and-the planned Orange County Great Park' project site. For the purposes of the analysis in the FEIR, all other project components (e.g., incorporation of conservation measures and project design features) were considered to be the same as the proposed project. Environmental. Effects: The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would result in significant and unavoidable construction air quality impacts. Operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would result in a less severe impact related to ' The Orange County Great Park is a planned 1,300 -acre park located in the City of Irvine on the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 45 (, NOx than the proposed project. Emissions of ROC and the level of exceedance of the LST for PM10 concentrations would be comparable for this alternative and the proposed project. In addition, the Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions. The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would result in impacts related to the GHG emissions that would be comparable to those of the proposed project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would be potentially consistent with all 13 of the project objectives. Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social, technical, or other considerations make the Modified Construction Schedule Alternative identified in the DEIR and FEIR infeasible. Facts in Support of the Finding: The project alternative would not reduce the significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project to below a level of significance. It would reduce the significant impact of the proposed project related to daily NOx emissions during mass grading. However, even with the substantial reduction in daily emissions of NO, achieved by extending the construction schedule, the construction emissions still exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds. The Modified Construction Schedule Alternative also reduced the haul route distance to bring about a reduction in NOx emissions (NOx is a pre- cursor of smog, which is produced a few days after the NOx is emitted). Although this alternative reduces daily NOx emissions, this daily reduction is counterbalanced to a considerable degree by the fact that the emission period would be substantially extended under this alternative since project NOx emissions will occur for a period of 16 additional months. Daily NOx emissions would be decreased, but not below a level of significance, and the extended construction period would extend the period of smog production for that period of time. In addition, NOx emissions would affect the general region of the haul route, thereby producing an extended period of smog in the localized haul route region for an additional 16 months. Moreover, the impacts of PM,o concentrations, which are a localized impact directly related to grading, could be substantial if they were extended as contemplated under this alternative. With the duration of grading being extended under the Modified Construction Alternative schedule to 16 months, the effects on neighboring residents and businesses would have to be endured for this extended period of months to gain a relatively minor amount of reduction of PM10 (or dust) on a daily basis. Even though the concentrations of PM10 from grading will be slightly reduced, the off - setting impacts of 16 months of additional grading would be substantial. In addition, the Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would require the same application of architectural coatings as the proposed project, and therefore it too would result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD thresholds for reactive organic compounds (ROC). The construction emissions of PM10 for Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would result in concentrations that exceed the LST threshold. Therefore, significant impacts would still result for NO, and ROC emissions and for PMIO concentrations with this alternative. Finally, the Modified Construction Schedule Alternative would considerably lengthen the construction period and, therefore, the time frame that residents would be exposed to disrupting construction traffic, noise, emissions, and other impacts. In sum, the net reduction in the amount of NOx and PM10 created by the Modified Construction Alternative does not benefit the environment or the community as much as a shortened period of construction that would be created by the proposed project. As with the air quality issues above, the Modified Construction Alternative would lessen the time period of grading and construction on a daily basis, but lengthen the overall duration of general grading and construction activity at the site affecting traffic from the extended truck hauling and noise impacts on adjacent properties and the library users for an additional 16 months. On balance, because the benefits of the Modified Construction Alternative do not substantially reduce the proposed project's air quality emissions (the daily NOx reductions are offset by the increased duration of emissions), the relative impacts of extending the construction period by 16 months on the surrounding community in regard to creation of smog, the affects of dust, the creation of noise and the inconvenience of haul route truck traffic are not acceptable. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 46 �1 IV. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. The plans for the project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in the planning and CEQA processes. 2. To the degree that any impacts described in the FEIR are perceived to have a less than significant effect on the environment or that such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on the environment as discussed in the DEIR, the City has responded to key environmental issues and has incorporated mitigation measures to reduce or minimize potential environmental effects of the proposed project to the maximum extent feasible. 3. Comments regarding the DEIR received during the public review period have been adequately responded to in written Responses to Comments attached to the FEIR. Any significant effects described in such comments were avoided or substantially lessened by the standard conditions and mitigation measures described in the FEIR. 4. The analysis contained in the DEIR and FEIR of the environmental effects and mitigation measures represents the independent judgment and analysis of theCity. City Hall and Park Development Plan CEQA Findings of Fact Page 47 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM I. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (enacted by the passage of Assembly Bill 3180) mandates that the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or mitigation monitoring programs: • The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. • The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. • A public agency shall provide the measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment that are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design. • Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report (EIR) or mitigated negative declaration (MND), a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, or refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency or an agency ;having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project with that requirement shall not limit that authority of the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law. City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 1 ,,_4 II. Mitigation Monitoring Procedures The mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City of Newport Beach (City) to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed City Hall and Park Development Plan will be carried out as described in this EIR. Table A lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this EIR and identifies the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure. City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 tir Table A: Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (POFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure g p g Mitigation Measure 4.1.1 Construction Relations Officer. Prior to commencement of City of Newport Prior to commencement grading activities, the City of Newport Beach (City) Director of Beach Director of of grading activities Public Works, or designee, shall designate a construction Public Works relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on- site construction activity and air quality emissions- and noise- related matters. The City shall post the name of the contact person and contact information for complaints in a publicly visible location for the duration of construction activities. ... . .... ..... PDF TRA-1: Pedestrian Overcrossing. The pedestrian overcrossing City of Newport Prior to issuance of a linking the northern and central parcels shall be a minimum of Beach Director of building permit 19.5 feet (fit) above the ground surface of San Miguel� P blic Works u Mitigation Measure 4.2.1: Bayside Drive. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City City of Newport Prior to the issuance of of Newport Beach (City) Director of Public Works or designee Beach Director of a building permit shall identify a future project in the City's Capital Public Works or Improvement Program that will include restriping the designee northbound Bayside Drive approach to the East Coast Highway intersection from two left -turn lanes and a shared left/through/right lane to two left turns, a shared left/through lane and a right-turn lane. These required improvements shall be implemented within 1 year of when traffic counts completed on behalf of the City in accordance with the schedule for traffic counts provided for in the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance result in the finding that the intersection is operating at, or over, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) of 0.90. Mitigation Measure 4.2.2: Construction Area Traffic Management Plan, Prior to City of Newport Prior to commencement commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport Beach Director of of grading activities Beach Director of Public Works or designee shall review and Public Works or approve a Construction Area Traffic Management Plan for the designee proposed project. The Plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic Engineer and shall address traffic control for any temporaD�/ street closures, detours, or other djsru tions to City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure traffic circulation and public transit routes. The Plan shall identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas for the project. The Plan shall specifically prohibit the use of San Miguel Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and Newport Center Drive as part of the haul route for removal of excess dirt from the project site. The Plan shall also require project contractors to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris including, but not limited to, gravel and dirt. The City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works or designee shall verify that the Construction Contractor's Agreement requires the construction contractor to comply with the Construction Area Traffic Management Plan. Mitigation Measure 4.2.3: Sight Distance Analysis. Prior to issuance of building City of Newport Prior to the issuance of permits, the City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works Beach Director of building permits or designee shall verify that a detailed sight distance analysis Public Works or for the proposed project driveway along Avocado Avenue has designee been prepared. The sight distance analysis shall be prepared according to the City of Newport Beach Sight Distance Standards and guidelines and shall include provisions for dedicated limited use areas (i.e., low- height landscaping) and on- street parking restrictions (i.e., red curb), if necessary. The sight distance analysis report shall also verify the required height of the pedestrian bridge (19.5 feet above the ground surface of San Miguel Drive) as specified in PDF TRA -1. The recommendations of the sight distance analysis shall be incorporated into final project design to ensure than an unobstructed view of the intersections and traffic control devices would be provided. The findings of the sight distance analysis shall be included in a report subject to review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works, or designee. City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure PDF AES-1: Lighting Controls. The proposed project shall include City of Newport Prior to issuance of (1) automated internal shades set to close at specific times in Beach Planning building permits the City Hall administration building and in the Library Director or specified expansion area to form part of the glare control strategy, as designee well as to assist in the reduction of nighttime light pollution to neighboring sites; (2) exterior lighting that will be controlled by a Lighting Control Panel with an exterior photo-control and time clock; (3) internal lighting systems that would auto-dim after standard work hours, leaving small task lighting for janitorial activities and to light areas where staff may be working late; and (4) exterior light fixtures that would be the cutoff type and dark sky compliant. Mitigation Measure 4.3.1: Comprehensive Lighting Plan. Prior to issuance of any City of Newport Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a Beach Planning any building permits comprehensive lighting plan for review and approval by the Director or specified City of Newport Beach Planning Director or designee. The designee lighting plan shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Municipal Code. The lighting plan shall address all aspects of lighting, including infrastructure, on-site driveways, recreation, safety, signage, and promotional lighting, if any. The lighting plan shall include the following in conjunction with other measures, as determined by the illumination engineer: a. Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. b. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites. c. "Walipalk" type fixtures are not permitted. d. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut-off fixtures, and light standards shall not exceed 24 feet in height. e. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure illumination recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The City of Newport Beach Planning Director or designee may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. Mitigation Measure 4.3.2: Photometric Study. Prior to the issuance of any building City of Newport Prior to the issuance of permits, a photometric study shall be prepared in conjunction Beach Planning any building permits with a final lighting plan for approval by the City of Newport Director Beach Planning Director. The survey shall show that lighting values are 1 footcandle or less at all property lines. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3: Lighting Inspection. Prior to issuance of the certificate of City of Newport Prior to the issuance of occupancy or final building permits, an evening inspection Beach Code and final building permits or shall be conducted by the City of Newport Beach Code and Water Quality the certificate of Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light Enforcement Division occupancy and glare. y. e .. Mitigation Measure 4.4.1 SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. The City of Newport Beach City of Newport Prior to the shall ensure that the project complies with South Coast Air Beach Planning commencement of Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) Rules 402 and 403 Director or designee grading activities to assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403 are summarized below. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department or designee shall ensure that notes are included on grading and construction plans and referenced in the construction contractor's agreement that the construction contractor shall City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure be responsible for compliance with Rules 402 and 403. The applicable Rule 403 measures are as follows: • Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least 2 feet (ft) of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer). Pave construction access roads at least 100 ft onto the site from main road. • Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 miles er hour (mph) or less. Mitigation Measure 4.4.2: Dust Suppression. Prior to commencement of grading City of Newport Prior to commencement activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Planning Beach Planning of grading activities Department or designee shall ensure that notes are included Director or designee on construction and grading plans and referenced in the contractor's agreement that requires use of dust suppression measures in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook during project grading and construction. The construction contractor shall be responsible for the implementation of the following dust suppression measures: Revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible. City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 7 City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8 11 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party i Mitigation Measure • Increase active site watering to three times daily. • All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour (mph). • When visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets, those streets shall be swept once per day to the extent necessary to remove the visible soil material (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. • All on -site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically, or chemically stabilized. • The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. Mitigation Measure 4.4.3: Construction Equipment. Prior to commencement of City of Newport Prior to commencement grading activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Beach Public Works of grading activities Public Works Department or designee shall ensure that Director or designee construction documents require the Construction Contractor to select the construction equipment used on site based on low- emission factors and high- energy efficiency. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, or designee, shall also verify that construction contracts include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.___ Mitigation Measure 4.4.4: Electric or Alternative Fuel- Powered Equipment. Prior to City of Newport Prior to the issuance of issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Beach Public Works a Notice to Proceed Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall Director or designee verify that construction contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that the Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or alternative -fuel powered equipment in lieu of City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8 11 Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party gasoline or diesel powered engines where feasible. Mitigation Measure 4.4.5: Equipment Shut Off and Smog Season Hours. Prior to City of Newport issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Beach Public Works Newport Beach Public Works Department or designee shall Director or designee verify that construction contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period will be extended to minimize the occurrence of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time and thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each da . Mitigation Measure 4.4.6: Traffic Obstruction Minimization. Prior to issuance of a City of Newport Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Beach Public Works Public Works Department shall verify that construction Director or designee contracts andlor grading plans include a statement that construction trucks, to the extent feasible, shall avoid using the streets during peak -hour traffic; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadwa s. Mitigation Measure 4.4.7: Ridesharing and Transit Incentives. Prior to issuance of a City of Newport Notice to Proceed, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Beach Public Works Public Works Department shall verify that construction Director or designee contracts and /or grading plans include a statement that the Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Mitigation Measure 4.4.8: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) City of Newport Rule 1113. Prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed, the Beach Public Works Director of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director or designee Department or designee shall verify that construction contracts and/or grading plans include a statement that the Construction Contractor shall comply with the SCAQMD Rule 1113 on the use of architectural coatings. Emissions associated with architectural coatings would be reduced by complying with these rules and regulations, which include using pre - coated /natural colored building materials, using water -based or low- volatile organic compounds Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure of a Notice to Proceed of a Notice to Proceed Prior to the issuance of a Notice to Proceed Prior to the issuance of a Notice to Proceed City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 9 J J ' I)ttp: / /www.cal- ipc.org/ip /inventory/index.php. J co City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure (VOC) coating, and using coating transfer or spray equipment with hi h transfer efficiency, 4i4i. isa[ riZ�4 ".S "w')I',ili.(S`fiti[,'t�'.'.' Mtirs�'ix.`_ PDF BIO -1: Removal of Invasive Exotic Plants. Invasive exotic plant City of Newport Prior to issuance of species (e.g., myoporum, castor bean, pampas Beach Public Works building permits grass) associated with the wetland /riparian habitat shall be Director or designee removed, and mulefat and willow cuttings and other appropriate lant species shall be installed. PDF WO -2: Native Plants. The landscaping palette to be used on site City of Newport Prior to issuance of shall include the use of native plant species in addition to Beach Public Works building permits drought tolerant, ornamental, and turf species. The Director or designee landscaping palette shall also prohibit the use of invasive exotic plants (i.e., those plant species rated as "High" or "Moderate" in the California Invasive Plant Council's [Cal -IPC] Invasive Plant Inventory). ' Mitigation Measure 4.5.1: Translocation of Coulter's Saltbush Population. Prior to City of Newport Prior to commencement approval of the grading plan, the City of Newport Beach (City) Beach Director of of grading activities Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that a Planning or designee translocation plan for Coulter's saltbush has been prepared by a qualified, experienced biologist. The plan shall include the following elements: • Location of one or two suitable receptor site(s), in an area or areas of suitable habitat, with adequate size to accommodate the existing population, as well as future growth of the population. • Procedures for site preparation and translocation of the existing population. • Preparation for and methods of salvaging and translocating the existing population, including the recovery of topsoil with existing seed bank. Blocks of topsoil shall be moved intact to the extent feasible. ' I)ttp: / /www.cal- ipc.org/ip /inventory/index.php. J co City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 10 A Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure • Identification of performance standards, i.e., at least half (nine) of the plants are evident in any given year following the third year of the monitoring period. This mitigation standard may be adjusted any time prior to the end of the monitoring period under mutual agreement by the City and the resource agencies (i.e., United States Fish and Wildlife Service [ USFWS] and California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]), particularly if factors beyond human control limit the ability to establish a viable population of Coulter's saltbush within the 5 -year monitoring period. • Maintenance and monitoring provisions (for a minimum of 5 years) to promote and document the success of the effort. • Measures to be implemented if the translocation effort does not achieve the expected results. If it becomes apparent that the performance standards cannot be achieved, the City and resource agencies may agree to extend the monitoring period and /or implement remedial measures. The plan shall be prepared in cooperation with representatives from the USFWS and the CDFG. The project biologist shall supervise and monitor implementation of the plan, which shall be initiated prior to grading in the affected habitat area. Once the population of Coulter's saltbush on site is transplanted to the suitable receptor site(s), the project biologist shall monitor the population, in accordance with the plan provisions, including implementation of any requisite maintenance and /or remedial measures and documenting the ro ress in annual re orts. Mitigation Measure 4.5.2: Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In the event that project City of Newport Prior to commencement construction or grading activities should occur within the Beach Director of of any grading active breeding season for birds (i.e., February 15— August Planning or designee activities; and also prior 15), a nesting bird survey shall be conducted b the to commencement of City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page I t Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure designated project biologist prior to commencement of construction activities construction activities. If active nesting of birds is observed within 100 feet (ft) of the designated construction area prior to construction, the construction crew shall establish an appropriate buffer around the active nest. The designated project biologist shall determine the buffer distance based on the specific nesting bird species and circumstances involved. Once the designated project biologist verifies that the birds have fledged from the nest, the buffer may be removed. Prior to commencement of grading activities or issuance of any building permits, the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that all project grading and construction plans include specific documentation regarding the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), that preconstruction surveys have been completed and the results reviewed by staff, and that the appropriate buffers (if needed) are noted on the plans and established in the field with orange snow fencing. City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12 i Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 4.5.3: Wetland /Riparian Habitat Enhancement. Prior to the City of Newport Prior to the commencement of grading activities associated with the Beach Director of commencement of central parcel, the City of Newport Beach (City) Director of Planning or designee grading activities Planning, or designee, shall verify that grading plans require associated with the the installation of orange snow fencing along the entire central parcel construction perimeter of the jurisdictional drainages. The City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, shall also verify that the City has contracted a qualified, experienced biologist to be present on site when the orange snow fence is installed to ensure that it is installed at the appropriate location outside of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional limits. The orange snow fencing shall be maintained and left in place until all construction activities in the Central Parcel are complete. The biological monitor shall be present during any grading or vegetation removal activities occurring within 300 feet of the orange snow fencing. Prior to removal of the orange snow fencing at the completion of construction activities in the central parcel, the biological monitor shall conduct a final inspection of the area. The biological monitor shall, as necessary, maintain direct contact with the City representative throughout the construction progess. Mitigation Measure 4.5.4: Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion City of Newport Prior to the NCCP /HCP. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Beach Director of commencement of City of Newport Beach (City) shall comply with the terms and Planning or designee grading activities conditions of the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion Natural Communities Conservation Plan /Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP /HCP) Implementation Agreement and construction minimization measures identified in the NCCP. The following five minimization measures, as outlined in the NCCP, are designed to reduce potential impacts associated with native habitat and associated general wildlife and are applicable to the proposed project site. 1. To the maximum extent practicable, no grading of coastal sa a scrub CSS habitat that is occu ied I Westin City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 13 9 Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure gnatcatchers shall occur during the breeding season (February 15 —July 15). It is expressly understood that this provision and the remaining provisions of these 'construction- related minimization measures' are subject to public health and safety considerations. These considerations include unexpected slope stabilization, erosion control measures, and emergency facility repairs. In the event of such public health and safety circumstances, landowners or public agencieslutilities shall provide the United States Fish and Wildlife Service /California Department of Fish and Game (USFWS /CDFG) with the maximum practicable notice (or such notice as is specified in the NCCP /HCP) to allow for capture of gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and any other CSS Identified Species that are not otherwise flushed and shall carry out the following measures only to the extent as practicable in the context of the public health and safety considerations. 2. Prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving significant soil disturbance, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided under the provisions of the NCCP /HCP shall be identified with temporary fencing or other markers clearly visible to construction personnel. Additionally, prior to the commencement of grading operations or other activities involving disturbance of CSS, a survey shall be conducted to locate gnatcatchers and cactus wrens within 100 feet of the outer extent of projected soil disturbance activities, and the locations of any such species shall be clearly marked and identified on the construction /grading plans. 3. A monitoring biologist, acceptable to USFWS /CDFG, shall be on site during any clearing of CSS. The City of Newport Beach Director of Planning or designee shall advise USFWS /CDFG at least 7 calendar days (and preferably 14 calendar days) prior to the clearing of an City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 14 a Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure habitat occupied by Identified Species to allow USFWS/ CDFG to work with the monitoring biologist in connection with bird flushing/capture activities. The monitoring biologist shall flush Identified Species (avian or other mobile Identified Species) from occupied habitat areas immediately prior to brush - clearing and earth- moving activities. If birds cannot be flushed, they shall be captured in mist nets, if feasible, and relocated to areas of the site to be protected or to the NCCP /HCP Reserve System. It shall be the responsibility of the monitoring biologist to assure that Identified bird species will not be directly impacted by brush- clearing and earth - moving equipment in a manner that also allows for construction activities on a timely basis. 4. Following the completion of initial grading /earth movement activities, all areas of CSS habitat to be avoided by construction equipment and personnel shall be marked with temporary fencing or other appropriate markers clearly visible to construction personnel. No construction access, parking, or storage of equipment or materials will be permitted within such marked areas. 5. CSS identified in the NCCP /HCP for protection and located within the likely dust drift radius of construction areas shall be periodically sprayed with water to reduce accumulated dust on the leaves as recommended by the monitorin biolo is t. w y Mitigation Measure 4.6.1 Archaeological and Native American Monitors. Prior to City of Newport Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, the City shall Beach Director of commencement of any retain an archaeological monitor and a Native American Public Works or grading activity on site monitor to be selected by the City after consultation with designee interested Tribal and Native American representatives. Both monitors shall be present at the pregrade conference in order to explain the cultural mitigation measures associated with the project. Both monitors shall be present on site during all City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 15 rj Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure ground - disturbing activities (to implement the project Monitoring Plan) until marine terrace deposits are encountered. Once marine terrace deposits are encountered, archaeological and Native American monitoring is no longer necessary, as the marine deposits are several hundred thousand years old, significantly predating human settlement in this area. Mitigation Measure 4.6.2 Archaeological Monitoring Plan and Accidental City of Newport Prior to the Discovery. Prior to commencement of any grading activity on Beach Director of commencement of site, the City shall prepare a Monitoring Plan. The Monitoring Planning or designee grading activities Plan shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning. The Monitoring Plan should include at a minimum: (1) a list of personnel involved in the monitoring activities; (2) a description of how the monitoring shall occur; (3) a description of frequency of monitoring (e.g., full -time, part- time, spot checking); (4) a description of what resources may be encountered; (5) a description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work at the project site (e.g., what is considered a "significant" archaeological site); (6) a description of procedures for halting work on site and notification procedures; and (7) a description of monitoring reporting procedures. If any significant historical resources, archaeological resources, or human remains are found during monitoring, work should stop within the immediate vicinity (precise area to be determined by the archaeologist in the field) of the resource until such time as the resource can be evaluated by an archaeologist and any other appropriate individuals. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. To the extent feasible, project activities shall avoid these deposits. Where avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Places. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the de osits are eli ible, adverse effects on the deposits must be City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 16 A F Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure avoided, or such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of the deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see California Code of Regulations Title 4(3) Section 5126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an appropriate facility for future research and /or display; an interpretive display of recovered archaeological materials at a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools and /or historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and recovered archaeological materials. It shall be the responsibility of the City Department of Public Works to verify that the Monitoring Plan is implemented during project grading and construction. Upon completion of all monitoring /mitigation activities, the consulting archaeologist shall submit a monitoring report to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning and to the South Central Coastal Information Center summarizing all monitoring/ mitigation activities and confirming that all recommended mitigation measures have been met. The monitoring report shall be prepared consistent with the guidelines of the Office of Historic Preservation's Archaeological Resources Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. The City of Newport Beach Director of Planning or designee shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and adequacy of findings and recommendations. Mitigation Measure 4.6.3 Archaeological Site Avoidance. Grading and excavation in City of Newport Prior to the the vicinity of existing archaeological sites CA- ORA- 167/1117 Beach Director of commencement of and CA -ORA -1461 shall be avoided. To achieve level i Public Works or gading activities City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 17 lH Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure surfaces for proposed project paths, clean (culturally designee sterile) soils shall be used to cap and protect the sites. Capping shall be conducted consistent with the provisions of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2(b)(3 and 4). Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport Beach Director of Public Works shall verify that project grading plans show avoidance of existing cultural sites. The Director of Public Works shall also verify that grading plans show that the known cultural sites shall be capped with a minimum of 12 inches of culturally sterile soils from a known source prior to commencement of any grading activity within 25 feet of these sites. The boundaries of the site shall be identified by a qualified archaeologist to ensure the entire site has been capped. Precise archaeological site information is protected from public disclosure by State law. The grading plan shall be clearly marked to indicate that any cultural resources information on those plans is not for public distribution. Mitigation Measure 4.6.4 Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program. City of Newport Prior to the Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, the Beach Director of commencement of Director of Planning, or designee, shall verify that a Planning or designee grading activities paleontologist, who is listed on the County of Orange list of certified paleontologists, has been retained and will be on site during all rough grading and other significant ground - disturbing activities in paleontologically sensitive sediments. The sensitive sediments that have been identified within the project include the Middle Pleistocene marine and terrestrial sediments as well as middle Miocene Monterey formation sediments. A paleontologist will not be required on site if excavation is only occurring in artificial fill. The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the proposed project. The PRIMP should be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists (SVP) (1995) and should include but not be limited to the following: City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 18 U Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure • Attendance at the pregrade conference in order to explain the mitigation measures associated with the project. • During construction excavation, a qualified vertebrate paleontological monitor shall initially be present on a full - time basis whenever excavation will occur within the sediments that have a High paleontological sensitivity rating and on a spot -check basis in sediments that have a Low sensitivity rating. Based on the significance of any recovered specimens, the qualified paleontologist may set up conditions that will allow for monitoring to be scaled back to part-time as the project progresses. However, if significant fossils begin to be recovered after monitoring has been scaled back, conditions shall also be specked that would allow increased monitoring as necessary. The monitor shall be equipped to salvage fossils and /or matrix samples as they are unearthed in order to avoid construction delays. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment in the area of the find in order to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. • The underlying sediments may contain abundant fossil remains that can only be recovered by a screening and picking matrix; therefore, these sediments shall be occasionally be spot- screened through one - eighth to one - twentieth -inch mesh screens to determine whether microfossils exist. If microfossils are encountered, additional sediment samples (up to 6,000 pounds) shall be collected and processed through one - twentieth -inch mesh screens to recover additional fossils. Processing of large bulk samples is best accomplished at a designated location within the project that will be accessible throughout the project duration but will also . be away from any proposed cut or fill areas. Processing City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 19 I� J Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Timing for PDF or Responsible Party Mitigation Measure is usually completed concurrently with construction, with the intent to have all processing completed before, or just after, project completion. A small corner of a staging or equipment parking area is an ideal location. If water is not available, the location should be accessible for a water truck to occasionally fill containers with water. • Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation. This includes the washing and picking of mass samples to recover small invertebrate and vertebrate fossils and the removal of surplus sediment from around larger specimens to reduce the volume of storage for the repository and the storage cost for the developer. • Identification and curation of specimens into a museum repository with permanent, retrievable storage, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM). • Preparation of a report of findings with an appended, itemized inventory of specimens. When submitted to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning or designee, the report and inventory would signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 20 9 Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 4.6.5 Human Remains. Consistent with the requirements of The City of Newport During all grading and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e), if Beach Director of ground disturbing human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the Planning or specified activities discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified designee immediately. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County , Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). With the permission of the City of Newport Beach, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MILD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the City of Newport Beach shall consult with the MLD as identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Upon completion of the assessment, the consulting archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate, and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report should be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning and the South Central Coastal Information Center, The City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, shall be responsible for reviewing any reports produced by the archaeologist to determine the appropriateness and ade uac of findin s and recommendations. i � ..: � i <Re' � City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 21 193 Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 4.7.1 Incorporation of and compliance with the The Director of the Prior to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Study. All grading City of Newport commencement of operations and construction shall be conducted in Beach Building grading activities conformance with the recommendations included in the Department or geotechnical report on the proposed project site that has specified designee been prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc. titled Geotechnical Study for the Proposed City Half and Park Development Plan for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Newport Beach, California (July 2009) (included in Appendix K of this EIR). Design, grading, and construction shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Building Code and the California Building Code (CBC) applicable at the time of grading, appropriate local grading regulations, and the recommendations of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final written report, subject to review by the Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department or designee prior to commencement of grading activities. i Recommendations in the Geotechnical Study for the Proposed City Hall and Park Development Plan for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Newport Beach, California are summarized below. • Site Grading. The subgrade below the planned foundations for buildings and improvements planned in the area of the Library expansion shall be overexcavated in order to provide uniform support for the buildings. Additional remedial grading shall be required to develop relatively uniform support characteristics and reduce the potential for postconstruction swell and distortions to the building in areas where claystone is exposed. • Shoring. Shoring shall be required during excavation for the retaining wall proposed along MacArthur Boulevard due to the anticipated space constraint for slope lay back and adverse bedrock structure. Design parameters of the City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 22 11 y Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure temporary shoring and retaining wall shall be based on the bedrock strike and dip and the final configuration of the wall. In addition, the retaining wall shall be designed to include possible geologic surcharge from the bedrock. Shoring systems feasible for the site are expected to include cantilever shoring such as soldier piles and lagging in conjunction with tiebacks in areas when the depth of excavation exceeds 10 to 15 feet (ft). • Dewatering, If groundwater or perched water is encountered during project grading and construction, dewatering may be necessary. Methods of dewatering shall be submitted by the contractor and reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant and City Building Official prior to commencement of grading activities. • Subsurface Drainage. Groundwater is not expected to be a project constraint. In the unlikely event groundwater is encountered during construction and is at a depth that would impact project structures (postconstruction), the subterranean slabs shall be designed to resist hydrostatic uplift, or a permanent subfloor drainage system shall be included in the design of the slab. The design of subterranean slabs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Building Official prior to issuance of building permits. • Temporary Excavations. All temporary excavations shall be treated in accordance with the State of California version of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) excavation regulations, Construction Safety Orders for Excavation General Requirements. The sides of excavations shall be shored or sloped in accordance with OSHA regulations. OSHA allows the sides of unbraced excavations, up to a maximum height of 20 ft, to be cut to a'' /,H:1 V (horizontal:vertical) slope for Type A soils, 1 H:1 V for Type B soils, and 1.51-11V for Type C City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 23 Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure soils. The on -site soils (Terrace Deposits) within the proposed excavation depths generally conform to OSHA Soil Type B. The formational bedrock may be classified as Soil Type A but will require careful evaluation by the project Certified Engineering Geologist. The Type A classification is not recommended where adverse (out -of- slope) bedding orientations exist, and special site - specific design parameters will be required in those areas. Heavy construction loads, such as those resulting from stockpiles and heavy machinery, shall be kept a minimum distance equivalent to the excavation height or 5 ft, whichever is greater, from the excavation unless the excavation is shored and these surcharges are considered in the design of the shoring system. • Spread Footing Foundations. Upon completion of the grading (cutting) required to establish the proposed building pad elevations, the proposed structures may be supported by a spread footing foundation system. Bearing capacities shall be dependent on the final foundation elevation and structural loadings of the buildings and shall be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant prior to implementation. • Slab on Grade. At -grade floor slabs of the proposed structures may be designed and constructed as a slab - on -grade supported directly on properly compacted fill or competent bedrock. If a bedrock artificial fill transition is encountered, the planned subgrade elevation shall be overexcavated at least 3 ft and replaced with properly compacted fill. The structural engineer shall design the slab and determine the required thickness and reinforcement based on structural load requirements. • Retaining Walls. The proposed development is expected to require various types of earth - retaining structures: free- standing cantilever retaining walls; temporary shoring; and below grade walls for several of the proposed City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 24 City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 25 IA N Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure structures. In general, free - standing retaining structures planned at the site shall be backfilled with granular, very low expansive soil and be constructed with a backdrain. • Geotechnical Review and Future Testing. Additional site testing and final design evaluation shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these recommendations. Grading plan review shall also be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and the Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department or designee prior to the start of grading to verify that the recommendations developed during the geotechnical design evaluation have been appropriately incorporated into the project plans. Final design shall be based on testing and analyses of the near - surface soils following the completion of grading. Design, grading, and construction shall be conducted in accordance with the specifications of the project geotechnical consultant as summarized in a final report based on the CBC applicable at the time of grading and building and the City of Newport Beach Building Code. On -site inspection during grading shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and the City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into proiect plans. Mitigation Measure 4.7.2 California Building Code Compliance and Seismic The Director of the Prior to the Standards. Structures and retaining walls shall be designed City of Newport commencement of in accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the Beach Building grading activities geotechnical study (Leighton, 2009; Appendix K) and Department or applicable sections of Section 1613 of the 2007 California specified designee Building Code (CBC). Prior to issuance of building permits for planned structures, the project soils engineer and the Director of the City of Newport Beach Department of Building, or designee, shall review building plans to verify that structural design conforms to the recommendations of the geotechnical study and the City of Newport Beach Building Code. Mitigation Measure 4.7.3 Corrosive Soils. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the The Director of the Prior to the City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 25 IA N City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 26 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure Director of the City of Newport Beach (City) Building City of Newport commencement of Department or designee shall verify that the City has retained Beach Building grading activities the services of a licensed corrosion engineer to provide Department or detailed corrosion protection measures. Where steel may specified designee come in contact with on -site soils, project construction shall include the use of steel that is protected against corrosion. Corrosion protection may include, but is not limited to, sacrificial metal, the use of protective coatings, and /or cathodic protection. Additional site testing and final design evaluation regarding the possible presence of significant volumes of corrosive soils on site shall be performed by the project geotechnical consultant to refine and enhance these recommendations. On -site inspection during grading shall be conducted by the project geotechnical consultant and City Building Official to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project plans. Mitigation Measure 4.7.4 Expansive Soils. Prior to issuance of building permits, the The Director of the I Prior to the Director of the City of Newport Beach (City) Building City of Newport commencement of Department or designee shall verify that building plans Beach Building ! grading activities require additional expansion index tests if bedrock claystone Department or is encountered at the planned subgrade elevation or during specified designee other grading activities. If expansion index tests determine that expansive soils are present on the proposed project site, mitigation may include, but is not limited to, additional remedial grading, premoistening of soils, use of nonexpansive material, post- tensioned slabs, construction of nonexpansive building pads, or use of caisson foundations. During construction, the project soils engineer shall verify that expansive soil mitigation measures are implemented, and the City Building Official shall make site inspections to ensure com liance with approved measures. 1468 ;t7a.�°llrii;t @'rf1`dl�.� 8..�.�.'.5i .�1 _'.F gtrsf __I a —. i . PDF GHG -1 LEED -NC Silver. The City of Newport Beach (City) shall work City of Newport Prior to issuance of with the project designers and engineers to identify United Beach Director of building permits States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Public Works or Environmental Design-New Construction LEED- desi nee City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 26 ILO Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure NC) Silver credit design components to be incorporated into the construction plans for the proposed project, including both the City Hall administration building, Community Room, Council Chambers, and Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The City shall register the subject buildings in the LEED -NC Silver program prior to final design and shall seek LEED -NC Silver certification after construction. PDF GHG -2 Energy Efficiency. The City of Newport Beach (City) shall City of Newport Prior to issuance of seek ways to reduce waste and energy consumption and to Beach Director of building permits increase the efficiency of its operations in order to minimize Public Works or impacts to the environment and enhance the sustainability of designee its operations. Toward that end, the City has incorporated the following commitments into the project plans: 1. The City is committed to evaluating and implementing energy efficiency programs and procedures, including the use of solar photovoltaic panels on new structures where feasible, use of energy- efficient light fixtures, implementation of energy- saving devices and equipment, and energy- efficient design of new facilities. 2. The City will continue to implement existing waste reduction programs, including office recycling, source reduction, waste reduction and reuse, purchase of recycled content products, and source separation and recycling of materials, including composting of biodegradable materials. 3. The City is committed to achieving Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -New Construction (LEED- NC) Silver certification for the new City Hall facility and EmeTency Operations Center EOC see Project City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 27 Commissioning is a systematic process to help ensure building systems are designed, installed, tested, performed, and capable of being operated and maintained according to owner's operational needs. The commissioning process documents the quality of building system performance and facilitates improved building operation without requiring any major renovations. City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 28 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure Design Feature [PDF] GHG -1, above). 4. The City will conduct regular energy audits, and commissioning' during new construction and renovation, as appropriate, with implementation of follow -up improvements to reduce energy consumption for the new City Hall facility and the Emergency Operation Center (EOC). 5. The City will require contractors to use zero- or low - emission vehicles and equipment when possible. 6. The City will landscape the proposed project site with a combination of native, drought - tolerant, and ornamental plants (refer to PDF BIO 2). 7. The City will implement a comprehensive potable water conservation strategy for irrigation and water service within the City Hall facility and the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). 8. The City will continue to seek new opportunities to promote commuter carpooling and transit use, as well as ; alternative transportation for City employees and Civic Center visitors. Mitigation Measure 4.8.1 Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project City of Newport Prior to the issuance of plans and specifications shall include a statement that Beach Director of grading or building delivery of construction equipment and materials will be Planning or designee permits scheduled such that queuing of trucks on and off site shall be minimized. The requirement will be implemented by the contractor and verified by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee. Mitigation Measure 4.8.2 Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the project City of Newport Prior to the issuance of I tans and specifications shall include a statement that, to the Beach Director of t grading or buildin Commissioning is a systematic process to help ensure building systems are designed, installed, tested, performed, and capable of being operated and maintained according to owner's operational needs. The commissioning process documents the quality of building system performance and facilitates improved building operation without requiring any major renovations. City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 28 City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 24 A J Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure extent feasible, all diesel- and gasoline - powered construction Planning or designee permits equipment shall be replaced with equivalent electric equipment. The requirement will be implemented by the contractor and verified by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or desi nee. Mitigation Measure 4.8.3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer City of Newport Prior to the issuance of shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or Beach Director of grading or building structures incorporates ENERGY STAR - rated, energy- Planning or designee permits efficient T -8 high- output fixtures, and /or compact fluorescent and other comparable energy- saving lighting fixtures. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the project engineer to the State Architect. Installation of the identified design features or equipment will be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure 4.8.4 Prior to issuance of a building permit for a specific facility, the City of Newport Prior to issuance of any project engineer shall demonstrate that the design of the Beach Director of building permits; proposed buildings or structures incorporates enhanced Planning or designee installation of the insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is features to be minimized in structures that will be mechanically heated confirmed prior to and /or cooled. Documentation of compliance with this issuance of a certificate measure shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach of occupancy Director of Planning, or designee, for review and approval. Installation of the identified design features or equipment will be conducted by the contractor and confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure 4.8.5 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the City of City of Newport Prior to issuance of a Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, and the Beach Director of certificate of occupancy Project Engineer will document and verify, installation of the Planning or designee identified design features or equipment designed to limit air leakage through the structure or within the heating and cooling distribution system to minimize energy consumption in structures that will be mechanical) heated and/or cooled. Mitigation Measure 4.8.6 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer City of Newport Prior to issuance of an City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 24 A J City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 30 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or Beach Director of building permits; structures incorporates United States Environmental Policy Planning or designee installation of the Agency (EPA) WaterSense Program water- efficient products features to be (bathroom sink faucets, low -flush urinals, dual -flush toilets, confirmed prior to etc.). Documentation of compliance with this measure shall issuance of a certificate be provided to the City of Newport Beach Director of of occupancy Planning, or designee, for review and approval. Installation of the identified design features or equipment will be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure 4.8.7 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer City of Newport Prior to issuance of shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or Beach Director of building permits; structures that will be mechanically heated and /or cooled Planning or designee installation of the incorporates space heating and cooling equipment that meets features to be or exceeds ENERGY STAR -rated standards. Documentation confirmed prior to of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the issuance of a certificate project engineer to the City of Newport Beach Director of of occupancy - Planning, or designee. Installation of the identified design features or equipment will be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure 4.8.8 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer City of Newport Prior to issuance of shall demonstrate that the proposed buildings or structures Beach Director of building permits; incorporate appliances that meet or exceed the ENERGY Planning or designee installation of the STAR -rated standards. Documentation of compliance with features to be this measure shall be provided by the project engineer to the confirmed prior to City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, for issuance of a certificate review and approval. Installation of the identified design of occupancy features or equipment will be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure 4.8.9 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project engineer City of Newport Prior to issuance of shall demonstrate that the design of proposed buildings or Beach Director of building permits structures considered installation/operation of renewable Planning or designee electric generation systems. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the project engineer to City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 30 City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 31 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, for review and approval. Installation of the identified design features or equipment will be confirmed by the City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure 4.8.10 The City will ensure that construction plans for the new City City of Newport Prior to issuance of Hall facility include bicycle racks and temporary storage Beach Director of building permits and lockers, as reflected in the building plans prior to the issuance Planning or designee following construction of construction permits. City of Newport Beach Director of Planning, or designee, will verify compliance and confirm implementation during construction, Mitigation Measure 4.8.11 The City shall offer preferential parking for electric and hybrid City of Newport Prior to issuance of vehicles at the new City Hall facility. City of Newport Beach Beach Director of building permits and Director of Planning, or designee, will verify compliance and Planning or designee following construction confirm implementation during construction Ai Mitigation Measure 4.9.1 Contingency Plan. Prior to commencement of grading City of Newport Prior to the activities, the City of Newport Beach Fire Chief or designee Beach Fire Chief or commencement of shall review and approve a contingency plan that addresses designee grading activities the potential to encounter on -site unknown hazards or hazardous substances during construction activities. The plan shall indicate that if construction workers encounter underground tanks, gases, odors, uncontained spills, or other unidentified substances, the contractor shall stop work, cordon off the affected area, and notify the Orange County Health Care Agency ( OCHCA). The OCHCA responder shall determine the next steps regarding possible site evacuation, sampling, and disposal of the substance consistent with local, State, and federal regulations. Mitigation Measure 4.9.2 Predemolition Surveys. Prior to commencement of Director of the City of Prior to the demolition activities, the Director of the City of Newport Newport Beach commencement of Beach (City) Building Department shall verify that Building Department demolition activities predemolition surveys for asbestos - containing materials of designee (ACMs) and lead -based paints (LBPs) (including sampling and analysis of all suspected building materials) and inspections for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 31 Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure electrical fixtures shall be performed. All inspections, surveys, and analyses shall be performed by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations (i.e.: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527 -05, and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA], Part 716), If the predemolition surveys do not find ACMs, LBPs, or PCB - containing electrical fixtures, the inspectors shall provide documentation of the inspection and its results to the City of Newport Beach Building Department to confirm that no further abatement actions are required. If the predemolition surveys find evidence of ACMs, LBPs, or PCB - containing electrical fixtures, all such materials shall be removed, handled, and properly disposed of by appropriately licensed contractors according to all applicable regulations during demolition of structures (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 745, 761, and 763). Air monitoring shall be completed by appropriately licensed and qualified individuals in accordance with applicable regulations both to ensure adherence to applicable regulations (e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District [SCAQMD]) and to provide safety to workers and the adjacent community. The City shall provide documentation (e.g., all required waste manifests, sampling, and air monitoring analytical results) to the County of Orange Health Care Agency showing that abatement of any ACMs, LBPs, or PCB - containing electrical fixtures identified in these structures has been completed in full compliance with all applicable regulations and approved by the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) (40 CFR, Subchapter R, TSCA, Parts 716, 745, 761, 763, and 795 and California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 8, Article 2.6), An Operating & Maintenance Plan (O &M) shall be prepared for any ACM, LBP, or PCB - containing fixtures to remain in place and will be reviewed and approved by the County of Orange Health Care Agency. Miti ation Measure 4.9.3 Generator Sub -Base Fuel Storage Tank. Prior to issuance Director of the Cit of Prior to the issuance of City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 32 City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 33 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure of building permits, the Director of the City of Newport Beach Newport Beach building permits Building Department or designee shall review installation Building Department plans for the generator sub -base fuel storage tank. The plans or designee shall include the design, details, and specifications pertaining to the following: • Quantities and types of liquids to be stored • Distances from tanks and dispensers to property lines, buildings, and other exposures • Vehicle access • Fire appliance • Vehicle impact protection • Protected tanks and their supports • Methods of storage and dispensing • Overfill prevention, spill containment, vents, vapor recovery dispensers, and other equipment and accessories Mitigation Measure 4.9.4 Determination of No Hazards. The City of Newport Beach City of Newport Prior to the issuance of (City) shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Beach Director of building permits Alteration (Form 7460 -1) with the Federal Aviation Planning or designee Administration (FAA) in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. The Director of Planning, or designer, shall verify that the City has received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation prior to the issuance of building permits for the northern arcel. Prior to and during PDF -WQ -1 State General Construction Activity NPDES Permit. Prior City of Newport to and during construction, the City of Newport Beach shall Beach Director of construction activities comply with the requirements of the National Pollution Public Works of Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit, designee Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activities City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 33 City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 34 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party, Mitigation Measure (Order No. 99- 08 -DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) and any subsequent permit as they relate to construction activities. This shall include submission of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at least 30 days prior to the start of construction, preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submission of a Notice of Termination (NOT) to the Santa Ana RWQCB upon completion of construction and stabilization of the site. Prior to construction activities and after the final design phase and environmental determinations, a construction SWPPP and a Monitoring and Reporting Program shall be developed for the project. The construction phase SWPPP shall be designed to identify potential pollutant sources associated with construction activities; identify non -storm water discharges; and identify, implement, and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants associated with the construction site. PDF -WQ -2 Short-Term Groundwater Discharges. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Newport City of Newport Beach Director of Prior to the commencement of Beach shall determine whether dewatering of groundwater Public Works of grading activities will be necessary during project construction and whether designee dewatering activities will require discharge to the storm drain system or surface waters. If dewatering activities are required, the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the requirements of the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit/Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for Short-Term Groundwater Discharges and De Minimus Wastewater Discharges (Order No. R8- 2004 -0021, amended by order R8- 2006 -0065) or subsequent permit. This will include submission of a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) and Notice of Intent for coverage under the permit to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at least 45 days prior to the start of dewatering and compliance with all applicable provisions in the permit, including water sampling, analysis, City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 34 City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 35 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and reporting of dewaterin - related discharges. PDF -WQ -3 Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Best City of Newport Prior to the Management Practices. The City of Newport Beach shall Beach Director of commencement of comply with the requirements of the Orange County Drainage Public Works of grading activities Area Management Plan (DAMP), the City of Newport Beach designee Local Implementation Plan (LIP), and the City of Newport Beach Council Policies and Municipal Code, as they relate to hydrology and water quality. Project- specific Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained in the Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be incorporated into final design. The BMPs shall be properly designed and maintained to target pollutants of concern and reduce runoff from the project site. The WQMP shall include an operations and maintenance plan for the prescribed Treatment Control BMPs to ensure their long-term Rerformance. y4 '16F_ _"�'¢ ,�� �:A y _.Ynti �i ,.1,14�� � _ ��=_ Mitigation Measure 4.11.1: Construction Noise. Prior to commencement of grading Director of the City of Prior to commencement= activities or issuance of building permits, the Director of the Newport Beach of grading activities or City of Newport Beach Planning Department, or designee, Planning Department issuance of building shall verify that the following notes appear on grading and or designee permits construction plans: 1. During all project site excavation and grading, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. 2. The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. 3. The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction - related noise sources and noise - sensitive receptors nearest the project site durin all City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 35 City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 36 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure project construction. 4. The construction contractor shall limit all construction - related activities that would result in high noise levels to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction would occur outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays. Mitigation Measure 4.11.2: Ventilation Requirements. Prior to the issuance of building Director of the City of Prior to the issuance of permits, documentation shall be provided to the Director of Newport Beach building permits the City of Newport Beach Building Department, or designee, Planning Department demonstrating that project buildings meet ventilation or designee standards required by the California Building Code (CBC) with the windows closed. It is likely that a form of mechanical ventilation, such as an air - conditioning system, will be required as part of the project design for the City Hall buildings and Library expansion. Mitigation Measure 4.11.3: Park Uses. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Director of the City of _ Prior to the issuance of Director of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, Newport Beach building permits or designee, shall review construction plans and verify that all Planning Department potential sensitive uses proposed within the park areas, such or designee as picnic tables, shall be located outside the 70 A- weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) impact zone from MacArthur Boulevard, which would extend to 167 feet (ft) from the roadway centerline north of San Miguel Drive and to 140 ft from the roadway centerline south of San Mi uel Drive. ... r .. There are no otentiall si nificant im related to housin o ulationry,, and em to ment, and no mitigation is required. yyacts WO 4 i{ wia1f<i {9, tt PDF PSU -1: Fire Code. The City of Newport Beach (City) shall comply with the Director of the City of Prior to each final requirements of Title 9 (Fire Code) of the City's Municipal Code Newport Beach building inspection including installation of fire sprinklers in all new buildings. Said Building Department sprinklers shall be installed prior to each final building inspection. or designee PDF PSU -2: Electricity and Natural Gas. The proposed project shall meet or Director of the City of Prior to the issuance of City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 36 7 17 City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 37 Timing for PDF or Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Mitigation Measure exceed all State Energy Insulation Standards and City of Newport Newport Beach building permits Beach codes in effect at the time of application for building permits. Building Department (Commonly referred to as Title 24, these standards are updated or designee periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Title 24 covers the use of energy - efficient building standards, including ventilation, insulation, construction, and the use of energy- saving appliances, conditioning systems, water heating, and lighting.) Plans submitted for building permits shall include written notes or calculations demonstrating compliance with energy standards and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the City of Newport Beach Building Department prior to issuance of building permits, PDF PSU -3 Solid Waste. In compliance with State legislation (Assembly Bill [AB] City of Newport Ongoing 939), the City of Newport Beach implements programs to recycle, Beach Director reduce refuse at the source, and compost solid waste in order to achieve a 50 percent reduction in solid waste disposed of at landfills. AB 939 also requires that all cities conduct a Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS) and prepare a Source Reduction Recycling Element (SRRE). In accordance with AB 939, the City of Newport Beach submits an annual report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) summarizing its progress in diverting solid waste disposal. PDF PSU -4 Water Conservation. The proposed project would also utilize Director of the City of Prior to each final additional water conservation measures in the proposed Civic Center Newport Beach building inspection which may include, but is not limited to: Building Department or designee • Low -flow faucets • Dual -flush water - closets and pint (1/8 gallon per flush) urinals • Drip irrigation where practical • Project landscaping will include drought - tolerant and native species combined with ornamental species and turf • Cooling tower water use reduction via nonchemical water treatment. PDF PSU -5 Energy Conservation. The proposed project would also utilize Director of the Cit of Prior to each final City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 37 Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measures Responsible Party Timing for PDF or Mitigation Measure additional energy conservation measures in the proposed Civic Newport Beach building inspection Center including, but not limited to: Building Department or designee • High - performance facade • Mixed -mode active and natural ventilation • Under -floor air distribution • Daylight dimming controls • Low - wattage light fixtures • Exterior shading devices • Pro er bu'Id' orientation 4 ` GeatiC "',fi -A .. ,lil4 pia ROOM �h�n 1,,..,,: a i. ) f f:,. There are no eotentially significant impacts related to recreation resources, therefore no Mitigation _ ,,,E, is required City Hall and Park Development Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 38 City Hall and Park Development Plan E1R Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 9 Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING SCHEMATIC DESIGN PLANS FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH CIVIC CENTER AND PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § §21000, et seq.) and its implementing State regulations (CEQA Guidelines) (14 Cal. Reg. § §15000, et seq.), the City of Newport Beach prepared an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2009041010) for the Newport Beach Civic Center and Park Development Plan Project. The purpose of the EIR is to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project. The City Council considered and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report on November 24, 2009, by adopting certain CEQA Findings of Facts contained within Resolution No. which are hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report identifies potential significant impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts to a less- than - significant level. The City Council, in adopting Resolution No. , has made the findings mandated by CEQA (14 Cal. Reg. § §15090 and 15091). In particular, the Council has found that changes or alterations have been made to the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report identifies two potentially significant impacts to the environment that cannot be reduced to a less- than - significant level with the adoption of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. In other words, there are no feasible Project alternatives or mitigation measures that would mitigate or substantially lessen these impacts. Despite the occurrence of these effects, however, the City Council may approve the project if it adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations that explain, in the Council's view, the economic, social, and other benefits that the Project will produce will render the significant effects acceptable. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations to unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, attached also as Exhibit "A" entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. City Hall and Park Development Plan EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 10 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of November 2009. AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR Edward Selich ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk City Hall and Park Development Plan EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 9 f EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CITY HALL AND PARK DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Introduction The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the Final EIR for the project. As the Lead Agency, the City of Newport Beach is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against any remaining significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows: CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal (sic) project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and /or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City of Newport Beach has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City of Newport Beach also has examined alternatives to the proposed Project, neither of which meets the Project City Hall and Park Development Plan EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 12 objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. The Newport Beach City Council, acting as Lead Agency, and having reviewed the Final EIR for the City Hail and Park Development Plan project, and reviewed all written materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the project against its significant unavoidable environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the project. B. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Although most potential significant project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, there remain some project impacts for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For some impacts, mitigation measures were identified and adopted by the Lead Agency; however, even with implementation of the measures, the City finds that the impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, For other impacts, no feasible mitigation measures were identified and no feasible alternatives were identified that would avoid or minimize these impacts. The impacts are described below and were also addressed in the Findings. The Final EIR identified the following unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed Project: 1. Construction Air Quality Construction emissions from the proposed project would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) daily emissions thresholds for nitrous oxide (NOx) and reactive organic compounds (ROC), and resulting concentrations of particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM,o) that would exceed the local significance threshold (LST). Mitigation measures would be required to reduce NOx. ROC, and PM10 emissions; however, even with implementation of all available mitigation measures, project impacts related to construction emissions would remain significant adverse and unavoidable. 2. Global Climate Change The proposed project would strive to reduce GHG emissions by meeting and exceeding Title 24 standards and by achieving LEED -NC Silver Certification. The project would implement mitigation measures to further reduce energy consumption and vehicular emissions. The City will monitor the development of implementation requirements of AB 32, as issued by State agencies, and any subsequently adopted GHG emissions reduction procedures and technologies relevant to the proposed project, and apply them to the project as appropriate. The proposed project is consistent with and /or furthers the intent of numerous GHG reduction strategies and is consistent with the City's General Plan goals and Climate Action Protection Program strategies, which are designed to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. Compliance with the reduction strategies implemented by the City will help to achieve the statewide reduction of GHG to 1990 levels; however, because project operations would result in more than 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year, it cannot be ensured that the project would not impede achievement of the State's mandatory requirement under AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Therefore, the proposed project would City Hall and Park Development Plan EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 13 result in a significant unavoidable project impact and significantly contribute to an unavoidable cumulative impact related to activities that may impede achievement of the State's goal for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. C. Public Benefits The City of Newport Beach, in balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed City Hall and Park Development Plan project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above are considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations that outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project. The current City Hall facility was built in 1948 and has become too small for the City's needs. Office space, storage, and parking are inadequate to meet demand. A Space Utilization Assessment completed in 2002 found that the existing City Hall was smaller than the city halls of comparable jurisdictions by between 11 and 25 percent and that space conditions are functionally and qualitatively below desirable levels. After completion of the Space Utilization Study, the City added additional temporary buildings (portable buildings or trailers), but overall the facilities are still considered to be over capacity. The City has been evaluating a solution to the problem for years. Measure B, a citizen- sponsored initiative approved by the City's voters, provided a partial solution to the problem by dictating a site for new city hall facilities. Measure B provided: "Shall the City of Newport Beach Charter be amended to require City Hall, city administrative offices and related parking to be located on City property which is bounded by Avocado Avenue on the west, San Miguel Drive on the north, and MacArthur Boulevard on the east, and Newport Beach Central Library on the south ?" The proposed project responds to and implements the community's decision, as reflected in Measure B, that a new City Hall should be located on City -owned property located between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. 2. The proposed project would result in the relocation of City Hall (with the exception of the Fire Department), including all City employees and functions. The proposed project includes construction and operation of (1) an approximately 98,000- square -foot (sf) City Hall administration building, Community Room, and Council Chambers; (2) a 450 -space parking structure; (3) an approximately 17,000 sf expansion of the Newport Beach Central Library; (4) a dedicated 4,800 sf Emergency Operations Center (EOC); (5) a Civic Green; (6) construction of a 14.3 -acre public park that includes a dog park, wetlands area, bridges over the wetlands, lookouts, and a pedestrian overcrossing over San Miguel Drive; and (7) widening of San Miguel Drive.. Thus, the project will consolidate public services and would provide an integrated Civic Center Complex to better serve the needs of the community through enhanced access to City government buildings and the Central Library. 3. The proposed project will include a Civic Green intended to provide space for community functions. The Civic Green would be located between the proposed parking structure and City Hall administration building, directly north of the Library Terrace and Library expansion, and would be approximately 58,000 sf. The Civic Green will be an asset to the community and would accommodate events and activities such as children's story hour, puppet shows, book discussion groups, film screenings, receptions for events and City Hall and Park Development Plan ElR Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 14 authors, evening dinner events, and Arts Commission events such as plays and art shows. 4. The proposed project will include development of a 14.3 -acre park site. The proposed park would be predominantly located on the northern parcel and the northern portion of the central parcel (north of the Civic Center). The park and Civic Center would be integrated with appropriate landscaping transitions, pedestrian trails (trail heads), and signage. Access to the park would occur via pedestrian walkways that would meander through the park, leading visitors to various park features. The central portion of the proposed park, located south of San Miguel Drive and north of the proposed City Hall structures, would be organized around the existing wetland area and the steep slopes that form its sides. Grading limits are included in the site plan to preserve and protect the wetlands. Two steel pedestrian footbridges and one precast concrete pedestrian footbridge would span the wetlands areas connecting level areas of ground across the lowland area between them. 5. A pedestrian overcrossing (i.e., a bridge over San Miguel Drive) would connect the north and central parcels. The pedestrian overcrossing would include stairs and an elevator on the central parcel side of the bridge and an ADA- compliant ramp on the northern parcel side of the bridge. The bottom of the pedestrian overcrossing would be approximately 20 ft above the ground surface of San Miguel Drive. Site circulation would be consistent with the requirements of the ADA and would feature accessible paths made of stabilized decomposed granite paving or asphalt that connects the various usable levels of the site. These aspects of the design further General Plan Policies R.3.1 (Adequate Access) and R.3.3 (Facility Design), which encourage and require the City to provide park and recreational for persons with disabilities and to design facilities, including trails, with consideration for views and access for persons in wheelchairs. In addition to the trail, the park would accommodate multiple other uses, including a dog recreational area. 6. The Project will construct needed transportation infrastructure improvements. The proposed project includes improvements to San Miguel Drive, focusing on the segment between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. Although these intersections operate at acceptable levels of service, this segment of road has experienced operational issues due to the relatively short distance between these intersections and the relatively high number of turning movements. The improvements are proposed to provide additional capacity for the heavy afternoon eastbound left turn onto MacArthur Boulevard to reduce the amount of signal -cycle time necessary for traffic movements opposing the heavy westbound left turn onto Avocado Avenue. These physical improvements are proposed to supplement the recently implemented traffic signal coordination program in order to improve the operational efficiency of these intersections. Through widening San Miguel Drive, the following geometric improvements would be provided: • A third eastbound left -turn lane from San Miguel Drive onto MacArthur Boulevard • A third eastbound through lane at San Miguel Drive /Avocado Avenue • A de facto eastbound right -turn lane from San Miguel Drive onto MacArthur Boulevard • A de facto westbound right -turn lane from San Miguel Drive onto Avocado Avenue City Nall and Park Development Plan EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 15 In addition, the southbound Avocado Avenue approach to San Miguel Drive would be restriped to provide for two left -turn lanes. 7. The project will include the construction of a centralized Emergency Operations Center. During a major emergency or disaster, centralized emergency management is essential to manage an effective response. A dedicated EOC allows for face -to -face coordination among personnel who must set priorities for the use of limited resources and evaluate the need to request mutual aid. 8. The proposed project will include a much needed library expansion component. The expansion would include a reading area, media lab, and maintenance and storage areas.The addition would be an expansion of the existing structure's northern and eastern faces. The balance of the Library expansion square footage would include a new two -story connective building that would link the grand staircase and lobby of the existing Library (a new entrance to the Library) to the Library Terrace and Civic Green. This connective addition would be designed to meet increasing Library demand for more gathering space and to create shared functions between the Library and City Hall administration building. 9. As noted in the EIR, and for the reasons stated above, the proposed project will satisfy all of the following objectives • Implement the February 2008, voters' approval of Measure B for a new City Hall, including the City Hall administration building, Community Room, Council Chambers, and a parking structure on City -owned property located between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. • Incorporate the proposed City Hall into an overall Civic Center Complex at the proposed project site, which would include a Library Expansion, a dedicated EOC, and a Civic Green. A park and a pedestrian overcrossing linking the park areas on the northern parcel with the park areas on the central and southern parcels should also be constructed. • Accommodate the relocation of all existing City Hall uses to the proposed project site, with the exception of the Fire Station. Implement Policy R.1.9 of the City's General Plan by developing a passive park (a park without sports fields) that is integrated with the proposed Civic Center Complex. • Integrate the 3.24 -acre parcel (northern parcel) located between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue, and north of San Miguel Drive, as a portion of the proposed public park and incorporate features that will encourage use of the proposed project site. • Provide adequate on -site parking and circulation for all City vehicles, employee vehicles, and visitors of the new Civic Center Complex uses. • Minimize costs to the City by developing the proposed Civic Center Complex on a site that does not require the condemnation of private property or result in excessive site acquisition costs to the City and that requires minimal demolition and tenant relocation. Preserve and enhance the existing on -site wetlands. City Hall and Park Development Plan EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 16 • Protect and enhance public views to the ocean and harbor from MacArthur Boulevard by maintaining the existing Sight Plane above the proposed project site and providing lookouts in the park plan. • Improve public infrastructure on and near the proposed project site, including adjacent roadways, to both serve on -site uses and to enhance operations in the vicinity of the project. Incorporate sustainable features into the project via innovative design techniques to achieve energy savings, water efficiency, potable water use reduction, carbon dioxide emissions reduction, operational cost savings, and improved indoor environmental quality compared to conventional construction. • Construct a dedicated EOC to allow better and faster citywide and regional coordination of response to emergency events, including earthquakes, fires, floods, tsunamis, and air disasters. • Expand the capacity of the Newport Beach Central Library and create a distinct linkage between the Library and the Civic Green, the parking structure, the Community Room, and the City Hall administration building to promote use of the facilities and create a unified campus through design features, including a second entry into the Library, food concession, credit union, drop -off area, shared parking, and landscaping. 10. Short-term significant and unavoidable air quality impacts would be limited to the grading and construction phase of the proposed project. 11. Approximately 89-90 percent of the project's total CO2e emissions are related to vehicle exhaust emissions. These vehicle exhaust emissions themselves are controlled by the State and federal governments and are outside the control of the City; however, the City has incorporated alternative transportation components including bicycle storage and changing rooms for employees and Civic Center visitors. 12. The enhanced energy efficiency features (e.g., LEED features and other energy - efficient improvements) incorporated into the project will result in a reduction of 332 metric tons per year of CO2e compared to conventional building design. On balance, the Newport Beach City Council finds that there are specific considerations associated with the proposed project that serve to override and outweigh the project's significant environmental impacts and the existence of an environmentally superior alternative that meets some of the project objectives. The Newport Beach City Council further finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been and will be implemented with the Project. Therefore, any significant unavoidable effects remaining after implementation of mitigation measures, and the Newport Beach City Council's decision not to adopt the environmentally superior project alternative, are acceptable due to the above stated specific economic, social, and other considerations, based upon the facts set forth above, in the Final EIR, and in the public record of the consideration of this Project. City Nall and Park Development Plan EIR Certification and Schematic Design Approval Page 17 Attachment Public Notice (Daily Pilot, Page A3, Tuesday, November 17, 2009) "RECEIV D TER AGENDA Brown, Leilani PRINTED:" -04 From: Karen E. Tringali [karen_tringali @msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:48 PM To: 'Don Webb'; Selich, Edward; Curry, Keith; Daigle, Leslie; Henn, Michael; Gardner, Nancy; Rosansky, Steven Cc: Kiff, Dave; Brown, Leilani; Lewis, Steve (Chief) Subject: FW: Civic Center Project: EOC Component Council Members and Staff, Tonight we expect to learn from our staff and architects the differential in costs and building standards between current earthquake building codes and standards to qualify as an `essential services facility ". California requires a facility to meet 'essential services" standards in order for the state to recommend a municipal project to FEMA for construction grant consideration. In 2009, FEMA awarded a number of EOC construction grants in California, the largest being $t million with several others at or above $750,000. Newport Beach is a widely recognized leader in emergency management at both the State and Federal level. The keynote speaker at this year's National Preparedness Conference in Washington, D.C. was from Newport Beach, and our emergency management plans have been used as a model by many locales across the nation. Other cities in Orange County, with lesser reputations, have followed essential services standards when building their EOC's. Given our reputation and leadership in emergency management, we cannot afford to side-step our responsibility in constructing an EOC which meets "essential services" standards, especially if a construction grant will offset a sizeable portion of the incremental costs whether as a separate facility or within one of the city hall pods. Just as we are designing our civic center to be aesthetically pleasing and enduring from a design perspective, our EOC deserves no less consideration when it comes to its safety design and standards. The continuity of city government and effective recovery operations must receive the highest priority to avoid unnecessary loss of life and property while managing through emergencies and disasters. As a resident of Newport Beach, I am counting on it. Thank you for your time and consideration Xaren 7ringai t Corona del Mar 949.719.9390 P/F Att* emnment betwe pritin From: Karen E. Tringall [mailto:karen_tringall @msn.com] Sent Friday, November 13, 2009 10:55 AM To: 'Ed Selk:h'; 'Steve Rosansky'; 'Don Webb' Cc: 'Kill, Dave' Subject: Civic Center Project: EOC Component Ed, Steve & Don, I just wanted to reiterate the concern residents have regarding the EOC component of the new civic center as the Building Committee prepares to meet and discuss this topic. From the residents' perspective, it isn't a matter of where within the civic center complex the EOC is built, but that it is built to standards which allow for safe and effective continuity in our leadership and city government as well as successful recovery operations in the aftermath of a disaster. We understand the city hall building and other civic center components are being built to the latest earthquake standards, but we are concerned that those standards may not be sufficient for a qualified EOC. We hope that your discussion with the architects and other building professionals over the next week will shed some light on the differential between current earthquake building standards and qualified EOC standards and any associated cost increment. We believe this information, along with answers to the question of FEMA construction grant eligibility requirements, will provide a fact -based foundation for your risk management analysis and assessment. Council, staff, consultants and committee members continue to meet head on the significant challenges associated with the civic center project, including tighter budget constraints in this harsh economic climate However, residents do not believe that the EOC's structural safety should be compromised by lowering standards to save short -term construction costs. We need to insure that the civic center EOC component is an unquestionably safe environment from which our city leaders can successfully navigate continuity and recovery operations when that time comes, avoiding significant financial losses throughout the city by being able to effectively manage critical operations without disruption. Thank you for your time and consideration. Caren 949.719.9390 P/F APlease OOrKk er the env:Onmutt eebre printing. Lity of Newport beach : Larthgltakes W 41 .. EARTHQUAKES Earthquake Arc % -ou Ready for an Earthquake handout Disaster Supplies Checklist rage 1 of o 11- 00 Why Are Earthquakes a Threat to the City of Newport Beach? While Newport Beach is at risk from many natural and man -made hazards, an earthquake is the event with the greatest potential for far - reaching loss of life or property, and economic damage. This is true for most of Southern California, since damaging earthquakes occur relati%el frequently, affect widespread areas, trigger many secondary effects, and can overwhelm the ability of local jurisdictions to respond. Farthquake- triggered geologic effects include ground shaking, surface fault rupture, landslides, liquefaction, subsidence, and seiches. Earthquakes can also cause human -made hazards such as urban fires, dam failures, and toxic chemical releases. In California, recent earthquakes in or near urban environments have caused relati%eh few casualties. This is due more to luck than design. For example, when a portion of the Nimitz Freeway in Oakland collapsed at rush hour during the 1989, MW 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake, the freeway % was uncommonly empq because so man% were watching the World Series. The 1994, MW 6.7 Northridge earthquake occurred before dawn, when most people were home safely in bed. Despite such good luck, California's urban earthquakes have resulted in significant losses. The moderate -sized Northridge earthquake caused 54 deaths, more than 1,500 injuries and nearly f3o billion in damage. For days afterward, thousands of homes and businesses were without electricib'; tens of thousands had no gas: and nearly So,000 had little or no water. Approximate) is,000 structures were moderateh'to se%errh damaged, which left thousands of people temporarily homeless. Several collapsed bridges and o%erpasses created commuter ha%oc on the freeway stem. Extensive damage was caused by ground shaking, with shaking - induced liquefaction and dozens of fires after the earthquake causing additional damage. This moderately sized earthquake resulted in record economic losses, and yet Newport Beach is at risk from earthquakes that could release more than ten times the seismic energy of the Northridge earthquake. Historical and geological records show that California hasa long history of seismic events. The state is probably best known for the San .Andreas fault, a Igo- mile -long fault running from the Mexican border to a point offshore west of San Francisco. Geologic studies show that over the past 1,400 to t,5oo years, large earthquakes have occurred on the southern San Andreas fault at about 130 -year intenals. As the last large earthquake on the southern San Andreas occurred in 1857, that section of the fault is considered a likely location for an earthquake within the next few decades. The San Andreas fault, however, is only one of dozens of known faults that criss -cross southern California. Some of the better -known faults include the Sierra Madre, Newport- Inglewood, Whittier, Elsinore, Hollywood, and Palos Verdes faults. Of these, the Newport- Inglewood fault zone extends through the southwestern portion of Newport Beach (see Map 6.1), whereas the Whittier fault, although not extending through the city is sufficiently close to still cause extensive damage in Newport Beach. Seismologists are in agreement that a magnitude 6.o to 6.5 earthquake on the Newport- Inglewood fault has the potential to cause more damage and casualties than a 'great' quake on the San Andreas fault, because the San Andreas fault is farther away from the urban centers of southern California. There are also se%eral'blind "faults that underlie southern California. ('Blind' faults do not break the surface, but rather occur thousands of feet below the ground. They are not less of a seismic hazard, though). Newport Beach is underlain by one of these blind' faults, namely, the San Joaquin Hills fault Faults In and Near Newport Beach . ,_ 1 1_.. . _...I_... - -InI9 111'1.111flnll L Ity of Newport 13eacn : t;annqual es !Y NMI t RJY'f.'A lamp EMOMMMAM � ••" SY/ra ���V YC'�l.' � rls Yb ]RaO�'f �pq..q. a Nlr�l Ynl h tr V it+w N fun +m iw'.o.Ire.r�:n srla+�t.�o sMra� \^wt�r rM �\ [.Ca4 a Ow1rw 1V 1101�M W! •Pt't�r Ay..' Safety, Service and Professionalism r UNC L UL L �.�.r... -. -.. __..,_��__,.�,......... r._a..., n,..... 9-- n11 1 1 rid IIWO iv mow.. rr�. c«wn cwiy `!� t i Uhf Crwry YrOge !Y NMI t RJY'f.'A lamp EMOMMMAM � ••" SY/ra ���V YC'�l.' � rls Yb ]RaO�'f �pq..q. a Nlr�l Ynl h tr V it+w N fun +m iw'.o.Ire.r�:n srla+�t.�o sMra� \^wt�r rM �\ [.Ca4 a Ow1rw 1V 1101�M W! •Pt't�r Ay..' Safety, Service and Professionalism r UNC L UL L �.�.r... -. -.. __..,_��__,.�,......... r._a..., n,..... 9-- n11 1 1 rid IIWO p° ab ° a °yO 8 o b a °B o ❑ ° J3 V n ° O n eTlan �.p L ... ••v Tue Nov 24 11:35:33 PST 2009 g 753 earthquakes on this map MAGNITUDE 7 6 5 ❑ 3 u 2 0 1 ® ! . LAST HOUR ■ LA9T DAY ❑ LAST WEEK Wks o 1001" s Page lori ° C n p° ab ° a °yO 8 o b a °B o ❑ ° J3 V n ° O n eTlan �.p L ... ••v Tue Nov 24 11:35:33 PST 2009 g 753 earthquakes on this map MAGNITUDE 7 6 5 ❑ 3 u 2 0 1 ® ! . LAST HOUR ■ LA9T DAY ❑ LAST WEEK Wks o 1001" s Page lori Moore Research Tools faults of Southern California General Earthquake Information % Los Angeles Region Statronsi Instrumentation Educational Resources This map covers most of the Los Angeles metropolitan area Within this map area, most every Abou! the Data Center kind of fault type can be found Indeed. since these maps show only surface traces of faults, some potentially damaging faults -- namely, blind thrust faults like the one which caused the webs to map Northridee "Irthauake of 199a — are not shown Some of the faults which are shown may never rupture again This map is not meant to be used as a zoning guide. nor for risk assessment For these purposes, please see the documents prepared by the California Gt'OIOq KOI SVNev EWAbO R 590 1000 SP 2000 2506 !90 9000 6500 al So Lam in 0 00 61 t52 504 157 0 7!x2 1067 t5N M M A110 RELATED INFORMATION Alphabetical Fault Index Main Fault Map http: / /www. data .scec.org /faultsAafault.html 11/24/2009 75th Anniversary of the 1933 Long beach I-- arthquake Page I of State of California Department of Conservation CGS ► News 175th Anniversary of the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake 1933 LONG BEACH EARTHQUAKE THE FIELD ACE. IMeQovINC Till Dwtiti AND WILDING STANDARDS FORUI IOMIA SfHODU Introduction by tthe State Geologist. Dr John Pamsh MARCH 101" - To American history buffs, this is the date in 1681 when William Penn was given the colony of Pennsylvania by King Charles It of England - but to Californians . and especially to those who live in the greater Long Beach area of southern Caldomia. March 101" is chiseled in history as the date of the Great 1933 Long Beach Earthquake In the early evening hours on March 10 1933 . the treacherous Newport- Inglewood taut ruptured jolting the local citizenry lust as the evening meals were being prepared The Magnitude 6 4 earthquake caused extensive damage (approximately $50 million in 1933 dollars) throughout the City of Long Beach and surrounding communities Damage was most significant to poorly designed and unrennforced brick structures Sadly, the earthquake caused 120 fatalities YWthin a few seconds, 120 schools in and around the Long Beach area were damaged of which 70 were destroyed Experts concluded Mat if children and their teachers were in school at the time of the earthquake . casualties would have been in the thousands Just one month after the earthquake the California Stale Legislature enacted the Field Ad when it was determined that loose subsoil shoddy workmanship, and substandard materials all contributed to the failure of the school structures The Field Act authorizes the Division of the State Architect (DSA) to review and approve all public school plans and specifications and to furnish general supervision of the construction work The Caldomia Geological Survey sssisls the DSA by reviewing geologic hazards arteceng schools subject to the Field Act Since the enforcement Of the Field Act, no school has collapsed because of a seismic event. and there has been no loss Of life We at CGS hope that this websute will help you gain a perspective about the impact of airs earthquake from the horrific damage it caused to how the California government acted to help protect future generations of a citizens ABOUT THE LONG BEACH EARTHQUAKE When: 5 54 p in March 10 1933 When: Epicenter was 3 miles south of Huntington Beach, about 8 miles deep Source: Newpon- Inglewood Fault The fault extends on land for 46 miles from Culver City to Newport Beach where 0 runs into the Pacific Ocean It is part of a fault system that is connected to the Rose Canyon Fault which comes on shore to the south near San Diego In the Los Angeles area the surface expression of the Newport - Inglewood Fault is accentuated by a line of hills extending from Signal Hill ID Culver City The Newport- Inglewood is a right- lateral stnke -skp fault with a ssp rate of about 0 02 inches per year It is though to be capable of producing an earthquake as large as M7 4 Magnitude: The 1933 earthquake was a magnitude 6 4, seismologists say quakes of similar size occurred on the fault in 1769 1812 and 1855 It is estimated the fault ruptured for about nine miles in the subsurface (there was no surface fault rupture) The ground shaking lasted about 10 seconds The maximum recorded ground acceleration was 22 percent of the lone of gravity Note Long Beach was the first earthquake recorded by lust-developed strong motion instruments ('soceierographs') Acceleration recordings were off the monitors scale on some instruments Casualties: 120 deaths. including 52 in Long Beach and 17 in Compton An eslunated two -thirds of these occurred as people ran out of buildings and were ha by rating debris There were also more than 500 injuries reported in Long Beach alone Damage. About 150 million in 1933 dollars Significant damage occurred in Long Beach. Huntington Park. Compton and other areas where there was a combination of poor construction practices and unfavorable geological conditions • � M � Innnn 75th Anniversary of the 1933 Long beach tarthyuake causing increased ground shaking and liquefaction Bnck -and -mortar construction fared particularly poorly Seventy schools were destroyed and 120 damaged, which represents about 75% of the schools in the area Broken gas lines caused fires in Long Beach Several areas were without water due to broken pipes 011 derricks were shaken out of the ground in Huntington Beach The earthquake impacted an estimated 75 000 square miles and was felt as far away as Me San Joaquin Valley. the Owens Valley and northern Bala California AFTERMATH... THE FIELD ACT Page L of As a result of all the damage to school buildings. the California Stale Legislature passed the Frew Act Just a month after the earthquake The Feld Act requires that the budding designs Do based on hghJevel building standards adopted by the state and that plans and specdreabons be prepared by competent designers qualified by state registration The quality of construction was to be enforced through independent plan review and independent inspection Finally, the design professionals. independent inspector and the contractor must verify under penalty of perfury that the bwldng was constructed according to the approved plans The Field Act. as adopted, applied only to new constructon, not to existing pro- 1933 school buildings Legislation to rover the chill a for continued use or abandonment of these pre -1933 school puddings was enacted under the Gamson Act of 1939 As of 1974, all pre -Feld Act schools in the Los Angeles area have been retrofitted The Meowing image is also available for downoad as a high resolution PDF document Download Lono Beach Earthquake Poster here (5 3 Me PDF) — . r, r • r r . nnnn 7-1tl1 A[nnversary of U1e 1v» Long tseacn tannquaKe GROUND SHAKING INTENSITY (ISOSEISMAL) MAPS FOR THE 1933 LONG BEACH EARTHQUAKE (FROM TRIFUNAC, 2003) 1; a u n z c vats . rJ'Ip10 Crne1'i 14:u artae Iqn IDtMb � r wr—r 1 r •..r i IsO�o mal COnlOUrs • 4 1 ewa. 1 iwi. t{rq BEit� v — Mao 10 1933 �Q ' -Accri, mwach 1p�j Modified Memoth kdemlty Scale 1'Rw NtwL4a wm w.NNI Y •roe Nnt r.e i 4h owl hP�w� -a..tt .a I.a bya{;wmw dana0e to P"Ok '.m Ovmoort.dawuV < bPO "y built -aN Tures P Ilfall {,.n ttnawn lY {Nb dr'a.Fd. two.la b.wn 1buclu.0 evM<r motor dMMe[ 1 aniw•ny..►At.d uN hnw..41..n Il t.w�rwnet.r�tlntahw.. r.mnM w.wwYt�bMf.. d..ww.<e 1z 1ym.y.w.l',.aw.teM Oe qb *;eal.etldv~b an We" 4m tfD 33.9 — - - -- 331 ' 5 � Oct 11933 `� 8 M -54 8 LON �' `t Foresnoa 6 1 5` �_` 337 M -3.0+ . -.� --- -- .- __....._ \'1 r M =29 A4{i1lgd M -4.0+ %. Mars Al -6A M =50+ `% )v ,q•oaOak Mme/: 7 7 31G (Wfel& u 10 20 Km �� �• • � � Accokrogrgn 1 A 1182 1180 1178 (6b k on the usage fora larger wewl rage � of 3 0 --- L ........ 11I-)A ntvV o /stn Anniversary of the 1Y.1.1 Long neacn rannyuaKe ? !1sary 1933 t tkNCh fanflau+►e on9 PERVASIVE AND SEVERE DAMAGE TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE LONG BEACH AREA DEMONSTRATED A NEED FOR THE FIELD ACT hw*%,n rmror K0 Se+oW RELATED LINKS Division of the State Architect - hap ltwww.dea.das.ca.govidelauk.htm Photos from 1933 Long Beach Earthquake: http IAvww eas slu edu /Earthquake Cergedl 933LBeg /index html http Illrbraryphoto c uses aovlcai- biNsearch p9 9search mode =e act&wlechon =Loop +Beach %2C +Calrfoman% C 'E aO.f+gq,:ake +March • 10 %2C+ 1933 %7CLona +Beach %7CEarthouake %7C 1933 General references about 1933 Long ong Beach Earthquake: drearonal/slalesleventsl1933 03 11 oho htlp I /rosee berkelev edullona beachAona beach him] http Nwww data stet oralchrono mdex/brgbeac html http MA stet ore /educabon/030310longbeach html Scientific and engineering references about schools and the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake. http /AV asce ore /OlAd" Iona beach ca report pdl http /Avww documents dos w oov /Lea VPubl" bons/2002ReportslFinalAB300Report pdf http ilw" ysc edu/depVCrvll enadEarthouake erq/Tlifwnac reprents of Igymal- papers/-34b pdf rage 4 of 3 Lw.,. r6 ........ ..........�.... �:..� ..........r...... /yi.....,.rp,...,,,.R --- D.....J......... 11 PIA P1M/1 lslr AnN`er /Dtn A tnivetsaty of the IYJ.) tong beacn tannquaKe Eanlrquakadschool related links: hap lhyww excellence das ca aov!$tudenlwelvl$7 7.1 htm hlto fhyww semmic ca aoyl Relabel historical society links: htto /hvww h(stoncalsocretvib oral Conddrons of Use I Pnvacv POhcv Copyright O 2007 State of C 1dorm rage 3 of :) ......n ... t.... r t MAMMUI EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-In... Page I of 14 ,k14 11-0410 from California Geology, April 1989, Vol. 42, No. 4. EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone BY TOUSSON R. TOPPOZADA, JOHN H. BENNETT, GLENN BORCHARDT RICHARD SAUL, and JAMES F. DAVIS Division of Mines and Geology with consultants CARL B. JOHNSON, HENRY J. LAGORIO, and KARL V. STEINBRUGGE This article is adapted from Planning scenario for a major earthquake on the Newport- Inglewood fault zone, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 99, 203 p., 16 plates, 1988 (in press). The Newport- Inglewood faun zone was the source of the destructive 1933 Long Beach earthquake (Richter magnitude 6.3), which took 120 lives. A major earthquake (magnitude about 7) on this fault within the highly urbanized Los Angeles metropolitan area poses one of the greatest hazards to lives and property in the nation. Many of the possible consequences of a major earthquake on this fault are described in the scenario. Knowing the potential impact to transportation and utility lifelines and critical structures will allow emergency planners to coordinate preparedness and response plans to cope with this eventuality. Individuals can support public mitigation efforts and develop plans for themselves and their families to cope with the effects of earthquakes ... [California Geology] editor INTRODUCTION In 1981 the Federal Emergency Management Agency analyzed emergency response capabilities of all levels of government and the private sector and concluded that the collective capabilities would not be adequate to cope with a major destructive earthquake in a metropolitan area. Following this analysis, the Governor of California established the Emergency Task Force for Earthquake Preparedness in February 1981. Working with the Task Force, the Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) developed scenarios for two destructive earthquakes. One scenario is based on a repeat of the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake (magnitude about 8) on the San Andreas fault zone in southern California (DMG Special Publication 60). The second scenario is based on a repeat of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (magnitude about 8) on the portion of the San Andreas fault zone in northern California (DMG Special Publication 61). A scenario for a magnitude (M) 7.5 earthquake on the Hayward fault in the San Francisco Bay area (DMG Special Publication 78) was prepared, and a scenario for a major earthquake in the San Diego area is being prepared. An earthquake planning scenario assumes that a specific earthquake occurs in the future. The scenario event provides the opportunity for hypothetical assessments of the performance of certain critical facilities in the affected area These assessments are based on the assumed surface fault rupture, intensity of shaking, and liquefaction related ground failure resulting from the scenario earthquake. The http: / /www.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009 EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-In... Page 2 of 14 impacts of these effects upon structures and lifeline facilities then are considered PHOTO 1 Photo 1. Aerial view of metropolitan Los Angeles. Santa Monica Mountains are in the background. Photo courtesy of Port of Los Angeles. The region that would be affected by a major earthquake on the Newport- Inglewood fault zone is centered in the Los Angeles metropolitan area (Photo 1). This area is approximately 30 miles wide and is bounded on the west by the Pacific coast from Santa Monica to San Juan Capistrano. The area includes the cities of San Fernando, Pasadena, and Orange on the east. Approximately 10 million people live in Los Angeles and (range counties. This area encompasses virtually all of the region likely to experience Modified Mercalli (MM) intensities of Vlll or greater resulting from this scenario earthquake, and thus, all areas within which significant structural damage can be expected (Figures 1, 2, and 5). NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD FAULT ZONE Geologic Setting The alignment of hills and mesas from Newport to north of Inglewood first caused geologists to suspect that the uplifted features are related to a common, linear, underlying structural element, called the Newport- Inglewood fault (Figure 1). The landforrns resulted from a combination of different rates of uplift and the effects of different agents of erosion at various localities along the zone (Barrows, 1974). Late Pleistocene marine deposits are exposed on the surface of these low, rolling hills which range in elevation from 175 feet to about 510 feet. They are generally surrounded by south- or east- sloping alluvial terrain. The northwest - trending zone of faulted anticlines which forms the surface topography in the Newport- Inglewood fault zone are structural traps for proven oil fields (Yeats, 1973) (Figure 1). From northwest to southeast these are the Cheviot Hills, Inglewood, Potrero, Howard Townsite, Rosecrans, Dominguez, Long Beach, Seal Beach, Sunset Beach, Huntington Beach, and West Newport oil fields. According to Yeats (1973), "on the northwest, the zone terminates abruptly against the Malibu Coast fault system in the vicinity of the Cheviot Hills oil field, but the extension of the zone to the southeast beyond the West Newport field is a matter of controversy. In this southeastern extension offshore of San Clemente and San Diego (the Rose Canyon and La Nacion faults), the faults have similar trends and projections (Ziony and Yerkes, 1985). The fault system is more than 145 miles long. The oil producing anticlines and northwest trending surface features are underlain by a deep seated fault zone. At depth the Newport- Inglewood fault zone is a nearly vertical right - lateral strike -slip fault, with the Pacific Ocean side moving northwestward relative to Los Angeles (Harding, 1973). At the surface, the individual fault segments comprising the fault zone are discontinuous. For example, the Inglewood fault segment is 4 miles long. The sense of offset between surface fault segments is left stepping, which indicates a through -going right - lateral strike -slip fault at depth. The zone of deformation along the Newport- Inglewood fault zone is about 1.2 miles wide; it includes the folds and faults that are the surface expressions of the inferred deep seated fault zone. Known Holocene (last 11,000 years) active fault traces in the zone of deformation have been mapped in the Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zones (Figure 2). http: / /www.johnmartin.com/ ear thquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009 EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport -In... Page 3 of 14 Seventy small earthquakes (M 2.5 to M 3.8) that occurred in and bordering the Newport- Inglewood fault zone from 1973 to 1985 were analyzed by Hauksson (1987). The earthquake epicenters occurred along the fault zone from Dominguez Hills to Cheviot Hills. Adjacent to Long Beach, however, the earthquake epicenters are offset 2 to 3 miles to the east of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone, along the trend of the subsurface Los Alamitos fault. Most of the earthquakes occurred at depths of 4 to 7 miles, which is normal for earthquakes in southern California. FIGURE I Figure 1. Newport- Inglewood fault zone, southern California, showing structural zone of folds and faults. FIGURE 2 Figure 2. Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zones maps in the Newport- Inglewood fault zone. ALQUIST- PRIOLO SPECIAL STUDIES ZONES The Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones Act was signed into law in 1972. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the location of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and thus to mitigate the hazard of fault rupture. Under the Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate "Special Studies Zones" along known active faults in California. Cities and counties affected by the zones must regulate certain development projects within the zones. Permits for developing these sites within the zones are not issued until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting (Hart, 1985). PHOTO 2 Photo 2. Buildings damaged during the 1920 Inglewood earthquake, west side of Commerce Street (now Brea Avenue) in Inglewood. Photo from Taber 1920. The first maps showing Special Studies Zones for the Newport- Inglewood fault zone were issued in 1976 and revised in 1986 (Figure 2). The active fault traces are discontinuous segments that are generally offset in a left- stepping pattem, as in Long Beach. Some of these traces show evidence of active movement during Holocene time — the last 11,000 years (Bryant, 1988). Active traces are not well located for some segments of the fault. The effectiveness of the Act varies, depending on how well the fault zone is defined. However, the law applies only to new real estate development and to structures for human occupancy. Many older structures sit astride active traces of the fault and the extent of damage produced by a major earthquake will depend on the amount of displacement that occurs locally on the fault and on the measures taken to mitigate the hazard. SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES Earthquakes were reported in the Los Angeles area by Spanish explorers as early as 1769. Members of the Portola expedition felt more than twenty-four earthquakes during one week in 1769 while traveling http: / /www.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009 EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-In... Page 4 of 14 in the area between the Santa Ana and Los Angeles rivers. The earthquakes of December 8, 1812 and December 21, 1812 were interpreted by Toppozada and others (1981) from documents written by Franciscan missionaries in December 1812 and January 1813. Dates of earthquakes and some of their effects are listed below. December 8, 1812. An earthquake on this day destroyed the bell tower at Mission San Juan Capistrano (intensity VII), causing the roof of the church to cave in, and killing 40 Indians who were in the church. At Mission San Gabriel, statues in the church were broken, the bell tower was cracked, and other Mission buildings were extensively damaged (intensity VII). At Mission San Fernando, the walls of the church were damaged (intensity VII), and 30 beams were required to support them. The earthquake postulated in this scenario (M about 7) generates intensity in the low VIII range at San Juan Capistrano, San Gabriel, and San Fernando. Intensity effects of the 1812 event are not sufficient to define the source fault. Jacoby and others (1987) found evidence from tree -rings for an 1812 earthquake on the San Andreas fault 30 miles northeast of San Gabriel, and hypothesized that it was the December 8 event. December 21, 1812. Two separate events in southern California occurred in the same month and only about two weeks apart in time; this has caused some confusion and the mistaken impression that a single earthquake was destructive from Orange County to Santa Barbara County. The December 21, 1812 earthquake epicenter was probably located in the Santa Barbara channel ( Toppozada and others, 1981). Earthquake damage was reported at missions at San Buenaventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez, and Purisima Concepcion in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. July 10, 1855. This event was probably on one of the surface faults (Hollywood- Raymond, Whittier, or Newport- Inglewood) bordering the Los Angeles basin. It could also have been located on a concealed fault as was the case for the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake. During the July 10, 1855 quake, the bells of Mission San Gabriel were thrown down, and 26 buildings in Los Angeles were damaged. The earthquake was felt from San Bernardino to Santa Barbara. June 21, 1920. This earthquake of magnitude 4.9 (Richter, 1970) was destructive only at Inglewood (Photo 2). Because of this, Taber (1920) assumed a shallow epicenter at or west of Inglewood. According to Taber (1920), "the damage to buildings was due to poor construction rather than to the intensity of the vibrations. Thin brick walls built as fronts to wooden buildings and not tied in properly, toppled outward into the street. Poorly built brick cornices and fire walls along the fronts of buildings were shaken off. March 10, 1933. Long Beach Earthquake (Photos 3 -5). The hypocenter of this M 6.3 earthquake (Figures 3 and 4) was just off the coast of Newport Beach at a depth of about 6 miles. Aftershocks (magnitude up to 5.5) occurred along the Newport- Inglewood fault zone from Newport Beach to Long Beach, a distance of 15 miles. This indicates that the earthquake was generated by about 15 miles of subsurface faulting that began near Newport Beach and propagated northwestward along the Newport- Inglewood fault zone toward Long Beach. Fault rupture was not identified at the surface, and no seismic sea waves were observed. The isoseismal map (Figure 4) shows that the area damaged at MM intensity VII to IX extended from Laguna Beach to Marina del Rey and inland to Whittier. According to Richter (1958), "Loss of life is commonly stated as 120, and property damage at 50 million dollars." The 1933 earthquake stimulated passage of the Field Act and the Riley Act by the California legislature. Under the Field Act, the construction of public schools is regulated. Under the Riley Act, construction of buildings larger than two- family dwellings is regulated. http://www.johnmartin.com/earthquakes/eqpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009 EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-In... Page 5 of 14 The March 1933 Long Beach earthquake was followed by a M 5.4 earthquake which occurred on October 2, 1933 centered near Signal Hill. In 1941 two earthquakes caused damage in Torrance and Gardena. The first event (M 4.9) occurred on October 21, 1933 in the West Dominguez oil field and damaged wells at depths of 5,000 feet to 6,000 feet (Barrows, 1974). The second event (M 5.4) occurred on November 14 to the west of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone and caused damage in Torrance to structures inadequately repaired after the 1933 earthquake (Richter, 1958, p. 499). On June 18, 1944 two earthquakes of M 4.5 and M 4.4, respectively, occurred in the Dominguez Hills and damaged oil wells in the Rosecrans oil field at depths of 3,000 feet to 6,000 feet (Barrows, 1974). FIGURE 3 Figure 3. Los Angeles metropolitan area and surroundings, showing major Quaternary faults and epicenters of earthquakes of M 5 or greater that occurred from 1927 to 1987. SCENARIO EARTHQUAKE Major Quaternary faults surround Los Angeles; the epicenters of earthquakes of magnitude 5 or greater that have occurred since 1927 are shown in Figure 3. The Newport- Inglewood fault zone (Photo 6) was selected for the scenario earthquake because: (1) it is part of a fault system that is more than 145 miles long that extends to Baja California; (2) it lies within the highly urbanized Los Angeles metropolitan area, a major (M about 7) earthquake has consequences potentially greater than those of a larger magnitude event on the more distant southern San Andreas fault; (3) faults within this zone have been active during the Holocene epoch; (4) the displacement rate on the fault zones during the last million years is 0.6 mm/yr (0.024 in/yr); (5) historic record shows that an earthquake which occurred on December 8, 1912 severely damaged the missions at San Juan Capistrano, San Gabriel, and San Fernando, suggesting a magnitude of about 7 and an epicenter within 50 miles of these missions. The destructive Long Beach earthquake of 1933 (M 6.3) occurred on this fault zone, and small earthquakes continue to occur on this fault zone in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. FIGURE 4 Figure 4. Isoseismal map of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. Roman numerals indicate Modified Mercalli intensity areas. Arabic numerals indicate Modified Mercalli intensities at specific locations. From Toppozada and Parke, 1982. Faulting Subsurface faulting extending 45 miles on the fault zone is postulated, with the northern end near Beverly Hills at the intersection of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone with the Santa Monica fault. The southern end is offshore from Laguna Beach. This zone of faulting overlaps and extends beyond the locations of the 1933 Long Beach earthquake and its after- shocks. Surface faulting will be h"p://www.johrunartin.com/earthquakes/eqpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009 EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-In... Page 6 of 14 discontinuous, and occur mainly on the Holocene active traces. The 45 mile extent of faulting on this zone corresponds to M 7.4 using the relation of Bonilla and others (1984), to M 7.1 using the relation of Slemmons (1982), and to M 7.0 using the relation of Wyss (1979). For planning purposes, a maximum surface displacement of 6 feet is assumed. The more prevalent average displacement is usually half the maximum value (Slemmons, 1987, verbal communication), or about 3 feet. The displacement is assumed to be dominantly right - lateral strike -slip, and occurs on the Holocene active (Alquist- Priolo) fault traces (Figure 2). Minor dip slip or vertical components of faulting will occur locally. Where there are no known active faults in the fault zone, displacement occurs possibly on other unidentified faults within the approximately three- quarter mile wide zone of deformation. Warping and uplift of about 3 feet will also occur in the zone. Potentially damaging ground shaking continues for about 25 seconds within 25 miles of the fault. Potentially damaging aftershocks occur for about a month following the main shock, with a few earthquakes in the magnitude 5.5 to 6.5 range. The southernmost 8 -mile segment of the postulated subsurface faulting is offshore between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. Because only minor vertical displacements are expected, the potential is small for generating a seismic sea wave or tsunami from this 7- mile -long offshore segment, and is not considered in this scenario. Oscillatory waves in enclosed water bodies (seiches) occur in the local harbors. PHOTO 3 Photo 3. This wood frame house in the Long Beach - Compton area was thrown off its foundation in the March 1933 earthquake. Photo by Olaf P. Jenkins, DMG photo file. The scenario earthquake is consistent with the judgment "... that earthquakes of M 6.5 to 7, accompanied by as much as 6 feet of surface displacement, are appropriate design earthquakes for ordinary planning purposes for most faults in the Los Angeles region" (Ziony and Yerkes, 1985). Shaking Intensity The degree of ground shaking resulting from the scenario earthquake will depend on (1) the distance from the causative fault and (2) variations in the geologic materials. In preparing a regional intensity map for assessing lifeline damage, Reichle and Kahle (1986) developed a computational procedure based on the Evemden seismic intensity model (Evemden and others, 1973. 1981. Evemden, 1975; and Evemden and Thomson, 1985). This computer model calculates the ground shaking acceleration on a grid of reference points throughout a region employing equations that account for the influence of distance from the fault source, attenuation, and the surface geology. The intensities are calculated by using an empirical relationship between acceleration and the intensity scale. Reichle and Kahle's model is used in this scenario, and differs from that of Evemden and others (1981) in that it assumes that shaking intensity does not depend on depth to water table. Also, it predicts intensities for bedrock sites within 3 miles of the fault and at distances greater than 25 miles on unsaturated alluvium that are approximately one unit higher than Evemden's. The model was guided by the areal extent of intensity VII and VIII shaking for earthquakes of magnitude about 7 on other California faults, notably the 1868 Hayward and the 1952 Kern County earthquakes. http: / /www.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009 EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport -In... Page 7 of 14 Development of the seismic intensity distribution map begins with attenuation versus distance calculations plotted as concentric ellipses centered on the fault zone. With distance from the fault, each successive ellipse is an intensity unit less than the previous one. On well consolidated bedrock within a distance of 5 miles of the fault the ellipses denote Modified Mercalli intensities of VII; within 22 miles they are VI or greater, within 50 miles they are V or greater. In areas of less - consolidated ground, seismic intensities due to shaking can be up to 2 units higher. Therefore, within 5 miles of the fault, the softest ground. Quaternary sedimentary deposits, would have predicted intensities of IX. In the same area, bedrock of intermediate consolidation would have predicted intensities of VIII. Intensities higher than IX are not shown because intensities X through XII are generally attributed to the secondary effects of ground breakage. Intensities X through X11 may occur in the areas of potential ground breakage ( faulting, liquefaction, landslides). The intensities are generally highest at the fault and decrease with distance from the fault. The concentric pattern is modified by the areal distribution of geologic materials that respond differently to shaking. This difference accounts for the intensity being VIII nearest the fault in the uplifted area of consolidated rock, and for intensity IX occurring 3 miles away from the fault in unconsolidated alluvium. The area within 25 miles of the fault will be subjected to shaking of Modified Mercalli intensity Vlll or greater, strong enough to cause considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings; great damage in poorly built structures). MM intensity V Ill or greater shaking effects extend throughout the alluvial sections of the Los Angeles basin, to the vicinity of Monrovia and West Covina, including the San Fernando Valley and virtually all of the populated alluvial areas of coastal Orange County south to San Juan Capistrano. Intensity VII and lesser shaking occur in the consolidated rocks in the hilly areas, including the Santa Monica Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, Puente Hills, and the mountainous areas of Orange County. Within the planning area, there are local zones where intensities greater than MM IX could result from faulting, liquefaction, or landslides. Ground Failure The liquefaction potential in Holocene sediments is high where the depth to the water table is less than 10 feet. The liquefaction potential is medium where the depth to the water table is between 10 and 30 feet. Areas subject to liquefaction include Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors, Marina del Rey, Newport Bay, Balboa, and areas in urban Orange County. FIGURE 5 Figure 5. Modified Mercalli intensities estimated for the scenario earthquake of M 7 on the Newport - Inglewood fault zone. southern California. Areas subject to seismically induced landsliding include the Palos Verdes Hills, Santa Monica bluffs, and some potentially unstable slopes in eastern Orange County. COMPARISON TO M S EARTHQUAKE ON THE SAN ANDREAS FAULT http: / /www.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm I 1 /24/2009 north -south routes (1, 110, 405, 710 and 605) and four major east -west routes (10, 22, 42, and 91) Routes 1 and 405 lead into the area from both the north and south, and about 30 miles of each route is exposed to intensity IX shaking. The other three north -south routes traverse the area diagonally and each has about 8 miles exposed to intensity IX shaking. The major east -west routes traverse the area diagonally and each has about 8 miles exposed to intensity IX shaking. Route 5 provides an alternative north -south corridor east of the zone of high intensity shaking. There are numerous alternative surface streets which can be used to bypass damaged portions of freeways. Over 130 miles of state highways and over 350 state bridges in the Los Angeles area will be shaken at intensity IX or greater resulting from the scenario event on the Newport- Inglewood fault. Intensity IX is considered to be the threshold of critical damage to highways. For planning purposes alternate emergency routes that are at grade (not elevated) and not likely to be affected by fallen power lines or close to heavily damaged buildings should be identified. Alternate routes are especially important along 405 north and south of Long Beach and along 710 leading into Long Beach, where significant damage may occur. Highway emergency response plans should be coordinated with those developed for air, rail, and marine transport in order to optimize plans for integrated transportation capability. Access to and travel within the stricken area will be difficult and should be limited to the highest emergency priorities. Airports There are five major airports in the Los Angeles basin (Los Angeles International, Burbank, Ontario International, John Wayne, and Long Beach International). Los Angeles International alone has a passenger /personnel use of about 250,000 people per day. There are four major military airports in the area. Many small airports in the area could be used in post - earthquake response and recovery operations. Control towers, fuel tanks, and other structures will be damaged. Runway damage due to liquefaction occurs at John Wayne and Los Alamitos (military) airports, but will be repaired within 24 hours to two days. Freeway damage will impair access to airports and damage to electrical and petroleum facilities will limit usage of airports that are operating. Railroads Ground and rail failures occur in the Wilmington, Long Beach, and Seal Beach areas. The rail bridge to Terminal Island is closed. The Los Angeles to Santa Monica line is closed by faulting at the bridge over Ballona Creek. The lines from Los Angeles and from Watts to El Segundo are closed due to faulting and shaking damage to bridges. Faulting closes the line from Compton to east Long Beach. The bridge at the Route 710 crossing just west of the Los Angeles River is damaged. The line into Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station is closed by faulting and liquefaction. The Orange to http://www.johnmartin.com/earthquakes/eqpapers/00000077.htrn 11/24/2009 EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-... Page 10 of 14 San Diego line is closed due to liquefaction. Port Facilities at Los Angeles -- -Long Beach Harbor Access to Terminal Island is limited to Ocean Boulevard across Gerald Desmond Bridge, because of approach failures at Vincent Thomas and Schuyler Heim bridges. In Long Beach, Route 710 is closed due to liquefaction and access to the southeast basin is limited to Queensway Bridge. Liquefaction and settlement severely restrict rail access, and damage many rail - mounted gravity cranes. Utility lines, oil pipelines, and waste water lines are extensively damaged, reducing the harbor operations to 25 percent for one week. Fires occur in the harbor area; these and ruptured oil storage facilities pose the threat of a major fire. Oscillatory water waves in enclosed bodies of water (seiches) have damaged ships and moorings in the harbor areas from Santa Monica to Newport Beach. SCENARIO MAPS AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS ARE INTENDED FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY They are based upon the following hypothetical chain of events: 1. A particular earthquake occurs; 2. Various localities in the planning area experience a specific type of shaking or ground failure; 3. Certain critical facilities undergo damage and others do not. The conclusions regarding the performance of facilities are hypothetical and not to be construed as site - specific engineering evaluations. For the most part, damage assessments are strongly influenced by the seismic intensity distribution map developed for this particular scenario earthquake. There is disagreement among investigators as to the most realistic model for predicting seismic intensity distribution. None have been fully tested and each would yield a different earthquake planning scenario. Facilities that are particularly sensitive to emergency response will require a detailed geotechnical study. The damage assessments are based upon this specific scenario. An earthquake of significantly different magnitude on this or any one of many other faults in the planning area will result in a markedly different pattern of damage. PHOTO 4 Photo 4. Settling cracks on Pacific Coast Highway, 1.4 miles southeast of Huntington Beach Pier, 1933 Long Beach earthquake. Photo from Long Beach Public Library collection. http: / /www.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htrn 11/24/2009 Utilities Communications Within 25 miles of the fault zone, telephone lines designated for essential services are 25 percent usable in the first day, 50 percent usable in the second day, and 75 percent usable at the end of the third day. The availability of telephone communications for the public is significantly lower. Electric Power Facilities Five power plants - -- Harbor, Long Beach, Alamitos, Haynes, and Huntington Beach -- are shut down for more than 3 days. A post- earthquake inspection at the San Onofre nuclear power plant indicates no damage. Five major transmission substations in the Culver City- Compton area are out of service for more than 3 days, making it difficult to re-route power into the area. The 3 major substations serving coastal Orange County are out of service for more than 3 days, making it difficult to re -route power into the area. Water Supply The flow of water in primary transmission lines crossing or within the fault zone is reduced by half for the first day and will return to normal in a week. Areas southwest of the fault zone from Huntington Beach to Inglewood must rely on local storage or tank trucks for drinking water. Waste Water The principal treatment plants in Los Angeles County, at El Segundo and Carson, are damaged and operate at less than 50 percent capacity. The main Orange County plant is in the fault zone north of Newport Beach and is severely damaged; it will be inoperable for several months. Main waste water lines into the Carson treatment plant from the north (San Gabriel Valley) and the east (Long Beach) are heavily damaged at the fault crossing between Compton and Long Beach. Damage and lack of fresh water for treatment and of electrical power for pumping, result in sewage flowing into soils, channels, and streets, contaminating the ground water and the coastline. Natural Gas Along the fault zone there are thousands of damaged natural gas mains, valves, and service connections. There are numerous fires in streets at broken gas lines, and in structures at broken house -line connections. Faulting causes breaks in major transmission pipelines at three locations: Slauson Avenue, 104th Street, and along the Los Angeles River. Ground failures cause breaks in transmission lines in Sepulveda Canyon and Marina del Rey. In Long Beach Harbor the trunk line crossing at the Heim Bridge is broken due to ground failure. The high pressure gas line to the Huntington Beach power plant breaks where it crosses the marshlands east of Bolsa Chica State Park. http: / /www.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11124/2009 EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport -... Page 12 of 14 Petroleum A major fire rages for several days at one of the refineries in the Carson - Wilmington area. Many fuel lines rupture at the fault crossings between Baldwin Hills and Huntington Beach. In Los Angeles Harbor, ground failures rupture oil pipelines and storage facilities, discharging oil into the channel. A fire on Mormon Island poses the threat of a major conflagration. The fuel line to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power power plant in east Long Beach is ruptured by faulting. In Seal Beach, ground failures have damaged storage facilities and piping, with consequent fuel spillage into Alamitos Bay. The fuel line to Huntington Beach power plant is damaged by faulting. Facilities utilized for the manufacture, processing, and storage of various petrochemicals warrant special attention to reduce the risk of a potentially widespread release of toxic emissions. APPLICATION OF SCENARIO The Earthquake Planning Scenario maps and related damage assessments illustrate a regional damage pattern that is likely to occur in this specific scenario earthquake of magnitude about 7 resulting from subsurface rupture of a 45 -mile length of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone. Recognition of the possible impacts will allow informed planning by state and local officials concerned with emergency preparedness and response. This study was funded in part by the U. S. Geological Survey under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. PHOTO 5 Photo 5. Collapsed single story business building of unreinforced masonry, 1933 earthquake. Photo by Olaf P. Jenkins, DMG photo file. PHOTO 6 Photo 6. Northwestward view along Newport- Inglewood fault zone (1941). The San Gabriel River (on right) flows into Alamitos Bay (left). Photo from Spence Collection, University of California, Los Angeles. SELECTED BACKGROUND REFERENCES Barrows, A. G., 1974, A review of the geology and earthquake history of the Newport- Inglewood structural zone, southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 114, 115 p- Bonilla, M. F., Mark, R. K., and Lienkaemper J. J., 1984, Statistical surface fault displacement: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 74, no. 6, p. 2379 -2411. Bryant, W. A., 1985x, Fault Evaluation Report FER -172 southern Newport- Inglewood fault zone, southern Los Angeles and northern Orange Counties: California Division of Mines and Geology, 7 http: / /www.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009 EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport -... Page 13 of 14 maps, scale 1:24,000 Bryant, W. A., 1985b, Fault Evaluation Report FER -172 northern Newport- Inglewood fault zone, Los Angeles County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology. 12 maps, scale 1:24,000. Bryant, W. A., 1988, Recently active traces of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone, Los Angeles and Orange counties, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 88 -14, 15 p., 1 plate. Davis, J. F., Bennett, J. H., Borchardt, G. A., Kahle, J. E., Rice, S. J., and Silva, M. A., 1982a, Earthquake planning scenario for a magnitude 8.3 earthquake an the San Andreas fault in the San Francisco Bay area: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 61, 160p. Davis, J. F., Bennett, J. H., Borchardt, G. A., Kahle, J. E., Rice, S. J., and Silva, M. A., 1982b, Earthquake planning scenario for a magnitude 8.3 earthquake on the San Andreas fault in southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 60, 128p. Evemden, J. F., 1975, Seismic intensities, "size" of earthquakes, and related phenomena: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 65, p. 1287 -1315. Evemden, J. F., and Thomson, J. M., 1985, Predicting seismic intensities in Ziony, J. I., editor, Evaluating earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles region -- an earth - science perspective: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, p. 151 -202. Evemden, J. F., Kohler W M., and Clow, G. D., 1981, Seismic intensities of earthquakes of conterminous United States - -- their prediction and interpretation: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1223, 50 p. Evemden, J. F., Hibbard, R. R., and Schneider J. F., 1973, Interpretation of seismic intensity data: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 63, p. 399 -422. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1980, An assessment of the consequences and preparations for a catastrophic California earthquake: findings and actions taken: Report prepared by FEMA from analysis carried out by the National Security Council, Ad hoc Committee an Assessment of Consequences and Preparation for a Major California Earthquake, 59 p. Harding, T. P., 1973, Newport- Inglewood trend, California - -- an example of wrenching style of deformation, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 57, p. 97 -116. Hart, E. W, 1985, Fault rupture hazard zone in California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42 (revised), 24 p. Hart, E. W, Bryant, W. A., Manjou, M. W, and Kahle, J. E., Fault Evaluation Program 1984-1985,1986, southern Coast Ranges region and other areas, Division of Mines and Geology, Open -File Report 86-3 SF. Ilauksson, E., 1987, Seismotectonics of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone in the Los Angeles basin, southern California. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of American, v. 77, p. 539 -561. Hileman, J. A., Allen, C. R., and Nordguist, J. M., 1973, Seismicity of the southern California region, I http: / /www.johnmartin.com/ earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009 EARTHQUAKE PLANNING SCENARIO For A Major Earthquake On The Newport-... Page 14 of 14 January 1932 to 31 December 1972, Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. Jacoby, G. C Sheppard, P. R., and Sieh, K. E., 1987, Was the 8 December 1812 earthquake produced by the San Andreas fault? Evidence from trees near Wrightwood: Seismological Research Letters, v. 58, p. 14 (abstract). Reichle, M. S., and Kahle, J. E., 1986, Written Communication, Division of Mines and Geology. Richter C. F., 1958, Elementary seismology, W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 768 p. Richter C. F., 1970, Magnitude of the Inglewood, California, earthquake of June 21, 1920, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 60, p. 647 -649. Slemmons, D. B., 1982, Determination of design earthquake magnitudes for microzonation, Proceedings of Third International Conference on Microzonation, v. 1, p. 119 -130. Taber S., 1920, The Inglewood earthquake in southern California, June 21, 1920, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 10, p. 129 -145. Toppozada, T. R., and Parke, D. L., 1982, Areas damaged by California earthquakes, 1900 -1949, California Division of Mines and Geology Open -File Report 82 -17 SAC, 65 p. Toppozada, T. R., Real, C. R., and Parke, D. C., 1981, Preparation of isoseismal maps and summaries of reported effects for pre-1900 California earthquakes: California Division of Mines and Geology Open - File Report 8 1 -11 SAC, 182 p. Wyss, M., 1979, Estimating maximum expectable magnitude of earthquakes from fault dimensions: Geology, v. 7, p. 336 -340. Yeats, R. S., 1973, Newport- Inglewood fault zone, Los Angeles Basin, California: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 57, p. 117 -135. Ziony, J. I., Evemden, J. F., Fumal, T. E., Harp, E. L., Hatzell, S. H., Joyner W. B., Keefer D. K., Spudich, P. A.. Tinsley, J. C., Yerkes, R. F., and Youd. T. L., 1985, Predicted geologic and seismologic effects of a postulated magnitude 6.5 earthquake along the northern part of the Newport- Inglewood zone in Ziony, J. 1., editor, Evaluating earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles region, an earth- science perspective: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, p. 415 -442. Ziony, J. 1., and Yerkes, R. F., 1985, Evaluating earthquake and surface faulting potential in Ziony, J. I., editor, Evaluating earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles region, an earth - science perspective: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, p. 43 -91. http: / /www.johnmartin.conV earthquakes /egpapers/00000077.htm 11/24/2009