Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1928 - Reommending certification of ER2012-003 and approval of GP2011-011, lC2011-007, CA2013-009, PC2011-001, TS2012-003 and LA2011-003 - Back Bay Landing loacted at 300 East Coast HwyRESOLUTION NO. 1928 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ER2012 -003 AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2011 -011, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. LC2011 -007, CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2013- 009, PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION NO. PC2011 -001, TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2012 -003, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA2011 -003 FOR THE APPROXIMATELY 31 ACRE PLANNED COMMUNITY KNOWN AS BACK BAY LANDING LOCATED AT 300 EAST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2011.216) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Bayside Village Marina, LLC ( "Applicant') with respect to an approximately 31 -acre parcel generally located on the north of East Coast Highway and northwest of Bayside Drive, legally described on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, (the "Property') requesting approval of various legislative and related approvals that would allow for the future development of a mixed -use bayfront village comprising of up to 94,035 square feet of marine - related and visitor - serving commercial uses and up to 49 residential units (the "Project'). The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the Project as proposed: a. General Plan Amendment (GPA)- To allow the development of residential units by changing the land use designation of portions of the site from Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.5) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H1). The amendment would also change the designation of the 0.304 -acre lot line adjustment area currently designated as Multiple Unit Residential (RM) to MU -H1. In addition to the land use changes, the amendment would create two new anomalies to reallocate 49 un -built residential dwelling units from the adjacent mobile home park (Anomaly No. 81) to the project site (Anomaly No. 80). Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (CLUPA)- To allow the development of residential units by changing the land use designation of portions of the site from Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM-13) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H). The amendment would also change the designation of the 0.3 -acre lot line adjustment area currently designated as Multiple Unit Residential (RM -C) to MU- H. In addition to the land use changes, the amendment would also establish a site - specific development policy and a height exception to the 35 -foot Shoreline Height Limit allowing for a single, 65- foot -tall coastal public view tower. C. Code Amendment- To amend the Zoning Map of the Zoning Code to expand the current Planned Community District boundaries (PC -9) of the site to include: 1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 the 0.304 -acre lot line adjustment area currently zoned as Bayside Village Mobile Home Park Planned Community (PC- 1 /MHP); and, 2) the existing 0.642 -acre portion of the project site currently zoned as Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM). d. Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) Adoption of a Development Plan to allow for the classification of land within the existing Planned Community boundaries and establishment of development standards, design guidelines, and implementation of the future project and long -term operation of all planning areas of the site. e. Lot Line Adjustment (LLA)- To adjust the property boundaries between Parcel 3 (subject property) and Parcel 2 (adjacent Bayside Village Mobile Home Park) of Parcel Map No. PM 93 -111 to improve ingress and egress to the project site with a new driveway. Traffic Study A traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the Municipal Code. 2. The Property currently has General Plan designations of Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.5 and 0.3), Open Space (OS) and Tidelands and Submerged Lands (TS), and limited to a total maximum development of 139,680 square feet. The Property is currently located within the Coastal Zone and has Coastal Land Use Plan designations of Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM -A and CM -B), Open Space (OS) and Tidelands and Submerged Lands (TS). The requested change of the Coastal Land Use Plan designation from CM-13 and MU -H will not become effective until the amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan is approved by the Coastal Commission. The Property is currently located within the Planned Community zoning district (PC -9) and within the Recreational and Marine (CM 0.3) zoning district. 5. Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed General Plan amendments be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required. If a project (separately or cumulatively with other projects over a 10 -year span) exceeds any one of the following thresholds, a vote of the electorate would be required: if the project generates more than 100 peak hour trips (AM or PM); adds 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area; or, adds more than 100 dwelling units in a statistical area. There have been no prior amendments approved within Statistical Area K1 since the adoption of the 2006 General Plan. Although the amendment would change the land use designation from CM to MU -H1 to allow for the development of 49 residential units, the proposed anomalies would limit the development limits within Statistical Area K1 to what is currently allowed under the General Plan. This is achieved through the reallocation of 49 un -built residential units from Bayside Village Mobile Home Park (Anomaly No. 81) to the project site (Anomaly No. 80). Therefore, the thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 are not exceeded because the proposed amendment does not create any new dwelling units, does not exceed the non - residential floor area threshold, and does not exceed the a.m. or p.m. peak hour vehicle trips threshold. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 6. Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the appropriate tribe contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were provided notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment on February 13, 2012. The California Government Code requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult unless the tribe contacts mutually agree to a shorter time period. As documented in Appendix D of the DEIR, follow -up consultation was conducted and Mr. Andy Salas replied to the follow -up letter by e-mail and identified his concerns and requests regarding monitoring during ground disturbing activities. No additional requests for consultation were received. On November 7, 2013, the Planning Commission held a study session for the project in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, on the DEIR and Project. A public hearing was held on December 19, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC "). The Draft Environmental Impact Report, Draft Responses to Comments, Draft Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the scheduled hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "), the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K -3, the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR "). 2. On October 1, 2012, the City, 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. 3. On October 17, 2012, 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. 4. The City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (No. ER2012 -003, SCH No. 2012101003) ( "DEIR ") in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3, which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from. 5. The DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day comment period beginning on October 4, 2013, and ending November 18, 2013. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 6. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. 7. The mitigation measures identified in the DEIR are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures would be applied to the Project through the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. 8. The FEIR, consisting of the DEIR, Responses to Comments, Corrections and Additions to the DEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B, was considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed Project. 9. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. FINDINGS 1. Amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan are legislative acts. Neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. The Planning Commission concurs with the conclusion of the consistency analysis of the proposed project with these goals and policies provided in the DEIR. 3. Code Amendments are legislative acts. Neither the City Municipal Code nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments, unless they are determined not to be required for the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. 4. Findings of Fact for the DEIR are provided in Exhibit C. 5. Findings and facts in support of such findings for the approval of the Traffic Study in accordance with NBMC Section 15.40.030 are provided in Exhibit H. 6. Findings and facts in support of such findings for the approval of the Lot Line Adjustment in accordance with NBMC Section 19.76.020 are provided in Exhibit J. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach determines that, based on all information, both oral and written, provided to date, that there has not been any new significant information, data, or changes to the Project which either result in the creation of a new significant environmental impact, or the need to adopt a new mitigation measure, or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, or in a finding that the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends to the City Council certification of the Back Bay Landing Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -003 (SCH No. 2012101003), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B, based upon the draft Findings of Fact attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends to the City Council approval and adoption of: a. General Plan Amendment No GP2011 -011, attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference. b. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2011 -007, attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by reference. C. Code Amendment No. CA2013 -009, attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated herein by reference. d. Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2011 -001, attached hereto as Exhibit G and incorporated herein by reference; e. Traffic Study No. TS2012 -003, attached hereto as Exhibit I and incorporated herein by reference. f. Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2011 -003, attached hereto as Exhibit K and incorporated herein by reference, and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit L, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013. AYES: Ameri, Brown, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Myers, and Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 93 -111, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 278, PAGES 40 TO 45M INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS CORRECTED BY THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED JUNE 6, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94- 380365 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 2 OF TRACT NO. 7953, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 310, PAGES 7 TO 11 INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDED OF SAID COUNTY. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 EXHIBIT B BACK BAY LANDING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ER2012 -003 (SCH No. 20121010034) Consists of: 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated October 2013 2. Appendices A through L dated October 2013 3. Final EIR a. Introduction to Final EIR b. Response to Comments c. Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Final Environmental Impact Report is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development Department or at hfti):// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?pane =2311. EXHIBIT C FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE BACK BAY LANDING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012101003) 1. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15091 (collectively, CEQA) require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: (a) 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 proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where 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. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) 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. Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Back Bay Landing project, SCH No. 2012101003 (collectively, the EIR), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of Newport Beach (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for the development of the project. These actions include the certification and /or approval of the following for Back Bay Landing: • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -001 (SCH #2012101003). • General Plan Amendment No. GP2011 -011 • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2011 -007. • Code Amendment No. CA2013 -009. • Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2011 -001. • Traffic Study No. TS2012 -003. Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2011 -003. These actions are collectively referred to herein as the project. A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: (1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings. (2) Section 2 provides a summary of the project, overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the project, and a statement of the project's objectives. (3) Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the project. (4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be—as a result of the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation (NOP), and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period — either not relevant to the project or clearly not at levels that were deemed significant for consideration at the project- specific level. (5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of Project Design Features, standard conditions, and /or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project and adopted as conditions of the project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to Project Design Features and standard conditions, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. Section 5 also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR that will or may result from the project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level. (6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project. B. 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 Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. The City of Newport Beach is the custodian of the Administrative Record for the project. 2. PROJECT SUMMARY A. Project Location Regionally, the project site is located near the Pacific Ocean in the west - central portion of Orange County, within the City of Newport Beach. The project site is generally bounded by the Upper Newport Bay Channel to the west and north, by Jamboree Road to the east, and by East Coast Highway to the south. Regional access to the site is from East Coast Highway (SR -1) via Jamboree Road or the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55). Vehicular access to the site is from East Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. B. Project Description The proposed project consists of the requested legislative approvals (Amendments to General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code, and Adoption of a Planned Community Development Plan) for the project site, as well as related for approvals of a Lot Line Adjustment and Traffic Study. Project - specific administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Review, Coastal Development Permit, and Harbor Permit) will be processed at a future date. In order to allow for future mixed -use development of the site, amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan are required to change portions of the project site land use designations to a "Mixed -Use Horizontal' designation which allows the CM uses currently allowed on the site with limited residential. The Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) included within the project applications is proposed to establish appropriate zoning regulations governing land use and development of the site consistent with the proposed General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designations. Subsequent entitlements will involve a Site Development Review from the City of Newport Beach and a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission for the specific project -level design of the future mixed -use development. If residential units are developed as condominiums, a Tentative Tract Map will also be required to be processed. Resource agency permits may also be needed in the future related to placement of a bulkhead wall, which will be determined at the time a specific development project is proposed. C. Discretionary Actions Implementation of the project will require several actions by the City, including • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2012 -003 (SCH #2012101003). An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). • General Plan Amendment No. GP2011 -011: To allow the development of residential units by changing the land use designation of portions of the site from Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.5) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -1-11). The amendment would also change the designation of the 0.304 -acre lot line adjustment area currently designated as Multiple Unit Residential (RM) to MU -H1. In addition to the land use changes, the amendment would create two new anomalies to reallocate 49 un -built residential dwelling units from the adjacent mobile home park (Anomaly 81) to the project site (Anomaly 80). • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2011 -007: allow the development of residential units by changing the land use designation of portions of the site from Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM -B) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H). The amendment would also change the designation of the 0.3 -acre lot line adjustment area currently designated as Multiple Unit Residential (RM -C) to MU -H. In addition to the land use changes, the amendment would also establish a site - specific development policy and a height exception to the 35 -foot Shoreline Height Limit allowing for a single, 65 -foot tall coastal public view tower. • Code Amendment No. CA2013 -009: To amend the Zoning Map of the Zoning Code to expand the current Planned Community District boundaries (PC -9) of the site to include: 1) the 0.304 -acre lot line adjustment area currently zoned as Bayside Village Mobile Home Park Planned Community (PC- 1 /MHP); and, 2) the existing 0.642 -acre portion of the project site currently zoned as Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM). Planned Community Development Plan Adoption No. PC2011 -001: Adoption of a Development Plan to allow for the classification of land within the existing Planned Community boundaries and establishment of development standards, design guidelines, and implementation of the future project and long -term operation of all planning areas of the site. The PCDP has six (6) components: 1) Development Limits and Land Use Plan; 2) Permitted Uses; 3) Development Standards; 4) Design Guidelines; 5) Phasing Plan; and 6) Back Bay Landing PCDP Implementation /Site Development Review. • Traffic Study No. TS2012 -003: A project- specific Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the potential future development pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • Lot Line Adjustment No. LA2011 -003: To adjust the property boundaries between Parcel 3 (subject property) and Parcel 2 (adjacent Bayside Village Mobile Home Park) of Parcel Map No. PM 93 -111_ to improve ingress and egress to the project site with a new driveway. The Final EIR would also provide environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals and permits or coordinate with the City of Newport Beach as a part of project implementation. These agencies include, but are not limited to: • Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County (ALUC). The project is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The overseeing agency, ALUC, must review the proposed project and determine its consistency with the AELUP. • Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). The Santa Ana RWQCB would approve the project's compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Statewide General Construction Activity permit (2009- 0009 -DWQ) and Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. In addition, the RWQCB is the agency with lead oversight of the remediation for the 550 - gallon Underground Storage Tank and is responsible for clearing the site for residential development. • South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). Future construction of the project would require permitting by SCAQMD for Rules 201 (permit to construct), 402 (nuisance odors), 403 (fugitive dust), 1113 (architectural coatings), 1403 (asbestos emissions from demolition), and for future operation of the project, 1186 (street sweeping). D. Statement of Project Objectives The statement of objectives sought by the project and set forth in the Final EIR is provided as follows: 1. Provide a high quality mixed -use, marine - related, visitor - serving commercial development with integrated residential units and a unified architectural and landscape theme. 2. Implement the MU -H1 (Mixed -Use Horizontal 1) General Plan and MU -H (Mixed - Use Horizontal) Coastal Land Use Plan categories on an underutilized bayfront location in a manner that provides for a horizontally distributed mix of uses, which includes general or neighborhood commercial, offices, multi - family residential, visitor - serving and marine - related uses, as well as buildings that vertically integrate residential with non - residential uses, adjacent to Coast Highway, and on a bayfront location. 3. Maintain and expand core coastal dependent and coastal - related land uses, including continuation and expansion of existing marina parking, and the development of significant new enclosed bayfront dry stack boat storage and launching facility. 4. Provide new housing opportunities in response to the continued demand for housing, reduce vehicle trips and encourage active lifestyles by increasing the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, coastal recreation and entertainment. 5. Protect and enhance significant visual resources from City- designated Coastal View Points and Coastal View Roads, [such as Coast Highway, Castaways Park, and Coast Highway -Bay Bridge, to the bay and the cliffs of upper Newport Beach] through view corridors designed into the project. Create new public view opportunities on -site. 6. Expand bayfront public access to and along the bay where none exists at the present time, in a manner that protects environmental study areas (ESA) and /or environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) and does not adversely impact existing private residences adjacent to the site, consistent with Coastal Act section 30214. This new coastal access will be accomplished through a new 12- foot -wide bayfront walkway traversing Planning Areas 1 and 2 of the future project. This new, public bayfront promenade will link the public docks and marina property south of the Coast Highway -Bay Bridge, to the existing Newport Dunes pedestrian /bicycle trail off of Bayside Drive, and ultimately to the Newport Dunes recreational areas, as well as to an existing County Class 1 Regional Trail. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) dated October 2013, written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the 45 -day public review period, written responses to those comments, clarifications /changes to the Final EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Back Bay Landing project: • Completion of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was released for a 30 -day public review period from October 1, 2012 through October 30, 2012. The NOP was sent to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the Office of Planning Research and posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's office and on the City's website on October 1, 2012. • During the NOP review period, a Scoping Meeting was held to solicit additional suggestions on the content of the Back Bay Landing EIR. Attendees were provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues they felt should be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meeting was held on Wednesday, October 17, 2012, at the Friends Room, Newport Beach Public Library, 1000 Avocado Avenue, Newport Beach, California 92660. The notice of the public scoping meeting was included in the NOP. • Preparation of a Draft EIR by the City that was made available for a 45 -day public review period (October 4, 2013 to November 18, 2013). The Draft EIR consisted of analysis of the Back Bay Landing project and the technical appendices. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was published in the October 4, 2013, edition of the Daily Pilot, a newspaper of general circulation. The NOA was sent to all interested persons, agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk- Recorder's office on October 4, 2013. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Newport Beach Central Branch Library, Newport Beach Balboa Branch Library, Newport Beach Mariners Branch Library, and Newport Beach Corona del Mar Branch Library. The Draft EIR was available for download via the City's website: http:// www. newportbeachca .gov /cegadocuments. • The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) scheduled a meeting on November 14, 2013, and included on the meeting agenda was an item to review and approve EQAC comments on the Back Bay Landing Draft Environmental Report. However, a quorum of the EQAC members was not present and, therefore, there was no action taken to review and finalize comments. Unedited EQAC comments from individual members were included in the responses to comments received on the Draft EIR. • Preparation of a Draft Final EIR including Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, clarifications /revisions to the Draft EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and appended documents. The preliminary Response to Comments were provided to the City Planning Commissioners on December 13, 2013, and posted on the City's website. • The Planning Commission held a study session on November 7, 2013 and public hearings for the Project on December 19, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the public hearing were provided in accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The Draft Final EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. Notice for this public hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all property owners within a minimum of 300 feet of the project site and to all interested persons, agencies and organizations, and posted at the project site a minimum of 10 days in advance of the hearing, consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for the meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: • All project application materials submitted to the City by the Applicant and its representatives; • NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project; • The Scoping Meeting notes held during the 30 -day NOP period; • The Final EIR, including the Draft EIR and all appendices, the Responses to Comments, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and all supporting materials referenced therein. All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final EIR; • Written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the 45- day public review comment period on the Draft EIR; • All responses to the written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public provided at the December 10, 2013, Planning Commission Public Hearing; • All final City Staff Reports relating to the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the project; • All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other planning documents relating to the project, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or Responsible or Trustee Agencies. • The MMRP adopted by the City for the project; the Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project; and all documents incorporated by reference therein; • These Findings of Fact adopted by the City for the project, any documents expressly cited in these Findings of Fact; and • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Newport Beach. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT Impacts Determined Less than Significant in the Initial Stud As a result of the Notice of Preparation circulated by the City on October 1, 2012, in connection with preparation of the EIR, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following potential environmental issues, and therefore, determined that these potential environmental issues would not be addressed in the Draft EIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which indicated that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: (a) Aesthetics. The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic buildings within a scenic highway. (b) Agriculture and Forest Resources: The project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of the project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the project site does not include forest resources, including timberlands, and is not zoned for agriculture. (c) Air Quality: The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (d) Biological Resources. The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (e) Geology and Soils. The project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Zoning Map or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault, or expose people or structures to landslides. The proposed project would not be located on expansive soils or require the use of septic systems or alternative waste water disposal systems. (f) Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the area associated with proximity to a private airstrip; or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. (g) Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The proposed project site is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area and therefore not would impede or redirect flood flows or expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. (h) Land Use and Planning. The project would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (i) Mineral Resources: The project would not impact mineral resources of local, regional, or statewide importance. (j) Noise: The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels related to private aircraft. (k) Population or Housing. The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere or displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (1) Transportation/Traffic. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns or result in increased traffic levels or involve design features that would result in substantial safety risks. (m) Utilities and Services Systems. The project would comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant in the DEIR The following impacts were evaluated in the DEIR and determined to be less than significant solely through adherence to the project design and adherence to the provisions of the Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) and standard conditions of the City of Newport Beach. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City indicating that the project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: (a) Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas, adversely affect the visual character or quality of the site, or generate additional light or glare in the project area. (b) Air Quality: The project would not conflict with the applicable air quality plan, violate air quality standards, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (c) Biological Resources: The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (d) Cultural Resources: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. (e) Geology and Soils: The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The project would not conflict with the plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. (g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project would not create a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area as a result on being within an airport land use plan. (h) Hydrology and Water Quality: The project would comply with all applicable regulatory requirements regarding water quality, would maintain existing drainage patterns of the site and area, would be consistent with applicable regulatory requirements, and the post - project site would not result in significant hydrology impacts downstream such that flooding or erosion would occur on- or off -site. Furthermore, the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage facilities. Additionally, the project would expose people or structures to flood hazards from dam failure, seiches, or tsunamis given compliance with applicable policies and regulations. (i) Land Use and Planning: The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program CLUP, SCAG regional plans, Airport Environs Land Use Plan, the California Coastal Act, or the City's Municipal Code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (j) Noise and Vibration: Construction noise and vibration would not exceed established . thresholds and as such would not violate noise standards or result in excessive periodic noise increases or vibration. Project implementation would not generate excessive vibration levels to nearby sensitive receptors. Operation of proposed uses, including stationary and mobile sources, would not exceed established noise thresholds at nearby off -site sensitive receptors. (k) Population and Housing: The project would not result in substantial increase in population or housing. (1) Public Services: The project would not create significant impacts related to fire protection, police protection, parks /recreation, schools, or library services. (m) Recreation: The project would meet the City's parkland dedication requirements, and physical impacts to recreational and park spaces would not be significant. (n) Transportation and Traffic: The project - generated traffic would not conflict with applicable City plans governing the performance of the area -wide circulation system; cause significant impacts to the Congestion Management Plan facilities or state highways intersections; or conflict with adopted policies, plan, or programs for alternative transportation. (o) Utilities and Service Systems: Project - generated stormwater flow would be slightly increased in comparison with existing conditions, but within the existing capacity of storm drains serving the area. 5. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the EIR, and the effects of the project were considered. As a result of environmental analysis of the project and the identification of project design features; compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of feasible mitigation measures (together referred herein as the Mitigation Program), some potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found —in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1) —that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. This is referred to herein as "Finding 1." Where the City has determined — pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) —that "Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency," the City's finding is referred to herein as "Finding 2." A. Biological Resources (1) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the CDFW or USFWS. Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce impacts to special- status species and habitats to less than significant levels. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure C -1 requires one or more actions to be taken prior to and during future construction activities in order to avoid adverse effects to least terns in the area, from monitoring to cessation of construction activities. Mitigation Measure C -2 requires one or more options including conducting vegetation removal outside the nesting season for raptor and songbird species, surveying for nesting raptors or other migratory bird species in order to confirm absence prior to vegetation removal during the nesting season, and /or avoidance of active nests. In order to minimize impacts to marine mammals in the area during any shoreline or in -water work, daily monitoring for marine mammals is required by Mitigation Measure C -3, which also requires that such work cease if marine mammals are observed nearby. Mitigation C -4 requires that in -water vessels do not exceed the ambient speed in the area in order to prevent harm to marine mammals in the area. Therefore, impacts to sensitive species and habitats would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure C -1: At the time of Site Development Review, the City shall require actions to prevent impacts to least terns if the construction schedule overlaps with the least tern breeding season of April 1 — September 15. The specific actions will be determined at the time of Site Development Review and will be based on conditions at that time, including least tern foraging. The actions will meet a standard of mitigating impacts to the least tern to a less than significant level, and may include the following types of actions. • Daily monitoring by a qualified biologist within 500 feet of construction activities once terns have arrived in the nesting colony (typically early April). • Contractor delay in commencing work if terns are present and actively foraging (e.g. searching and diving) within the work area. • Alternative distances and actions if it can be demonstrated that continuing construction within less than 500 feet and implementation of other construction period methods will not cause an adverse impact to the least tern. • Should adverse impacts to terns occur (e.g. agitation or startling during foraging activities), construction shall cease until least terns have left the project site. Mitigation Measure C -2: The developer or a designated representative shall ensure that impacts to migratory raptor and songbird species are avoided through one or more of the following methods: (1) vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season for raptor and songbird species (nesting season typically occurs from February 15 to August 31) to avoid potential impacts to nesting species (this will ensure that no active nests will be disturbed and that habitat removal could proceed rapidly); and /or (2) Any construction activities that occur during the raptor and songbird nesting season shall require that all suitable habitat be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting raptor and songbird species by a qualified biologist before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by the qualified biologist to minimize impacts. The developer or designated representative shall submit proof of compliance with this measure to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department prior to tree removal activities on -site. Mitigation Measure C -3: During construction activities when dredging or other in- water work is occurring, a qualified biologist shall conduct daily monitoring within 500 feet of construction activities. The contractor shall halt work if any observations of marine mammals are made. Work shall not re- commence until a qualified biologist determines that the mammal(s) have left the area. Mitigation Measure C -4: If in -water construction vessel traffic is needed, the vessels shall not exceed existing ambient speed for the area. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to biological resources that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. (2) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in the City or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the CDFW or USFWS. Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. Thereby, the City makes Finding 1 and impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels. Facts in Support of Finding Future construction activities would have the potential to affect sensitive natural communities, including eelgrass beds in Upper Newport Bay, However, Mitigation Measures C -5 through C -7 would require as part of any near -shore or in -water work that eelgrass beds be staked and marked so they can be avoided, that methods be employed to protect eelgrass when work occurs within 15 feet, and that surveys of eelgrass beds be taken prior to construction and that any eelgrass impacts be mitigated according to specific measures to be required by the City at the Site Development Review stage. Mitigation Measure C -8 would require surveys for the invasive seaweed species Caulerpa. Mitigation Measures C -9 through C -11 require implementation of various BMPs intended to prevent indirect adverse impacts to near - shore and subtidal habitats related to water quality, which would be implemented as part of a future project- specific SWPPP. With implementation of these measures, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure C -5: Prior to construction, the boundaries of the eelgrass beds, located nearshore of the Back Bay Landing site, shall be staked with ridged PVC markers or self- centering buoys visible at all tide heights. The contractor shall protect, replace and maintain the markers /buoys as needed to ensure that they remain in place and properly stake the boundaries of the eelgrass beds until the City certifies that all construction activities are complete. Mitigation Measure C -6: During shoreline work within 15 feet of eelgrass, which may involve construction of a bulkhead, dredging activities, or other in -water work, eelgrass shall be protected by specific techniques to be determined by the City prior to construction. Techniques may include, but are not limited to, silt curtains deployed above the eelgrass and below the shoreline work area as determined to be necessary and appropriate to the impacts at the next level of approval by the City. Mitigation Measure C -7: Any impacts to eelgrass shall be mitigated through specific measures to be required by the City at the Site Development Review stage. Examples of eelgrass mitigation include conformance to the City of Newport Beach Eelgrass Plan and to the requirements of the SCEMP, which mandates a minimum replacement ratio of 1.2:1 for eelgrass impacts (NMFS 1991, revision 11), to the extent those plans are in effect and relevant and applicable to the site conditions at such time as construction of the bulkhead is proposed. In accordance with the requirements of the SCEMP, a pre- construction eelgrass survey shall be completed by a qualified biologist within 60 days prior to initiation of demolition or construction activities at the site. This survey shall include both area and density characterization of the beds. A post- construction survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist within 30 days following project completion to quantify any unanticipated losses to eelgrass habitat. Impacts shall then be determined from a comparison of pre- and post- construction survey results. Impacts to eelgrass, if any, would require mitigation as defined in the SCEMP. If required following the post- construction survey, a mitigation planting plan shall be developed, approved by the City and NMFS, and implemented to offset losses to eelgrass. Mitigation Measure C -8: Not more than 90 days prior to the initiation of construction activities near the shoreline, a survey for the invasive seaweed Caulerpa taxifolia shall be conducted by a certified Caulerpa surveyor to determine the presence or absence of the species in the area affected by future construction and /or dredging activities. Mitigation Measure C -9: The project shall conform to the approved storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and shall incorporate construction - related erosion /sediment control Best Management Practices as detailed in project plans for a future development on -site. These include, but are not limited to: installation and maintenance of an erosion /sediment barrier, covering stockpiled material prior to rain events, maintenance of equipment to prevent runoff of grease and oil into adjacent waters, and providing equipment and staff as required to repair and /or implement erosion /sediment control measures. Mitigation Measure C -10: The project shall conform to the approved storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and shall incorporate construction - related erosion /sediment control Best Management Practices as detailed in the project plans for a future development on -site. These include, but are not limited to: installation and maintenance of an erosion /sediment barrier, covering stockpiled material prior to rain events, maintenance of equipment to prevent runoff of grease and oil into adjacent waters, and providing equipment and staff as required to repair and /or implement erosion /sediment control measures. Mitigation Measure C -11: During shoreline work, a turbidity curtain shall be deployed above the water line and below the shoreline work area in order to minimize adverse water quality - related impacts to jurisdictional waters. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to biological resources that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the future project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. (3) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (possibly including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. Thereby, the City makes Finding 1 and impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels. Facts in Support of Finding A jurisdictional delineation was completed and is provided in the Draft El R. Due to the current requested legislative approvals and the lack of a project specific design a this time, additional details will be developed at the future Site Development Review stage to confirm or refine the information in the legislative approval EIR. Mitigation Measure C -12 would require that the nature and extent of future impacts to wetlands or other jurisdictional features be identified in a subsequent jurisdictional delineation based on a specific project design and the conditions at the time such a development project is proposed. The jurisdictional delineation would specify the extent of impacts such that effective mitigation, to the satisfaction of affected resource agencies, can be determined. With implementation of applicable mitigation measures, impacts to wetlands would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure C -12: A project- specific jurisdictional delineation shall be conducted for future on -site development as part of the Site Development Review process once a development application is submitted. The jurisdictional delineation shall determine the nature and extent of impacts to jurisdictional features resulting from future development, including impacts related to dredging required for the construction of a new water inlet for the proposed dry stack boat storage facility in Planning Area 1. Based on the nature and extent of impacts identified, mitigation shall be provided that includes, but is not limited to, on- or off -site creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetland habitat, subject to review and approval by affected resource agencies. (4) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could interfere substantially with the movement of 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. Finding: 1. Mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. Thereby, the City makes Finding 1 and impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure C -2 requires one or more options including conducting vegetation removal outside the nesting season for raptor and songbird species, surveying for nesting raptors or other migratory bird species in order to confirm absence prior to vegetation removal during the nesting season, and /or avoidance of active nests. As such, potential impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure C -2: The developer or a designated representative shall ensure that impacts to migratory raptor and songbird species are avoided through one or more of the following methods: (1) vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season for raptor and songbird species (nesting season typically occurs from February 15 to August 31) to avoid potential impacts to nesting species (this will ensure that no active nests will be disturbed and that habitat removal could proceed rapidly); and /or (2) Any construction activities that occur during the raptor and songbird nesting season shall require that all suitable habitat be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting raptor and songbird species by a qualified biologist before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by the qualified biologist to minimize impacts. The developer or designated representative shall submit proof of compliance with this measure to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department prior to tree removal activities on -site. B. Cultural Resources (1) Potential Impact: There are no known cultural resources on the site. Implementation of the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 if such a resource is discovered during grading. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure D -1 requires a professional archaeologist to be retained to monitor ground- disturbing activities, determine potential to disturb cultural resources, and halt construction activities if necessary. The requirements set forth in Mitigation Measures D -1 would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant. Mitiaation Measures Mitigation Measure D -1: A qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to review grading plans and geotechnical information and prepare a monitoring plan for all ground- disturbing activities in previously undisturbed soils and sediments. A qualified archaeologist is defined as an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology. Ground - disturbing activities include primary construction - related activities and any associated secondary activities for support services such as utilities. In the event that archaeological resources are identified during monitoring or unexpectedly during excavations in fill sediments, all work proximal to the discovery shall halt until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the find. If the archaeologist determines that the find is significant or may qualify as significant, the archaeologist shall prepare a treatment plan. If the find is prehistoric or includes Native American materials, affiliated Native American groups shall be invited to contribute to the treatment plan. Results of monitoring and any archaeological treatment shall be reported in an appropriate technical report to be filed with the applicant, the City of Newport Beach, and the CHRIS- SCCIC. The applicant, in consultation with the lead agency and archaeologist, shall designate repositories (e.g. museums) in the event that resources are recovered. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would apply to the proposed project: • The City of Newport Beach has standard conditions requiring a qualified archaeologist and a paleontologist to observe construction activities and to establish procedures for redirecting work, evaluating resources, and recommending appropriate actions. More specific requirements have been prepared for this project by the cultural resources consultant, and in lieu of the standard conditions, are included in the mitigation measures above. (2) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure D -2 requires an qualified professional paleontologist to be retained during ground- disturbing activities to assess potential impacts to paleontological resources, cease or relocate construction work, recover fossils, and prepare a paleontological report if required. The requirements set forth in Mitigation Measures D- 2 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure D -2: A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the applicant to perform periodic inspections of excavation and grading activities on the project site where excavations into the older Quaternary Alluvium, Capistrano Formation, and /or Monterey Formation may occur. The frequency of inspections shall be based on consultation with the paleontologist and shall depend on the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials being excavated, and if found, the abundance and type of fossils encountered. Monitoring shall consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of sediment for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate, collecting wet or dry screened sediment samples of promising horizons for smaller fossil remains. If a potential fossil is found, the paleontologist shall be allowed to temporarily divert or redirect grading and other excavation activities in the area of the exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. At the paleontologist's discretion and to reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing. Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and catalogued before they are donated to their final repository. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository. Following the completion of the above tasks, the paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and fossil finds, if any, the methods used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance, if any. The report shall be submitted by the applicant, the City of Newport Beach, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would apply to the proposed project: The City of Newport Beach has standard conditions requiring a qualified archaeologist and a paleontologist to observe construction activities and to establish procedures for redirecting work, evaluating resources, and recommending appropriate actions. More specific requirements have been prepared for this project by the cultural resources consultant, and in lieu of the standard conditions, are included in the mitigation measures above. (3) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure D -3 requires that no further disturbance to discovered human remains, that the County Coroner be contacted, and if necessary as determined by the Coroner, that Native American Heritage Commission be notified if the remains are found to be of Native American descent. As such, impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure D -3: If human remains are unearthed during construction activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the County Coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who shall then help determine what course of action shall be taken in dealing with the remains. The Applicant shall then take additional steps as necessary in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and Assembly Bill 2641. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would apply to the proposed project: The City of Newport Beach has standard conditions requiring a qualified archaeologist and a paleontologist to observe construction activities and to establish procedures for redirecting work, evaluating resources, and recommending appropriate actions. More specific requirements have been prepared for this project by the cultural resources consultant, and in lieu of the standard conditions, are included in the mitigation measures above. C. Geology and Soils (1) Potential Impact: Implementation of the project could expose people or structures to fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, strong seismic - related ground failure, liquefaction, landslides and other ground failure hazards. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Given the soil types at the project site and high groundwater levels, as well as the relatively high levels of seismic activity in the region, there is the potential for future development to be adversely affected by ground shaking and other related seismic hazards. However, Mitigation Measure E -1 would require the preparation of a design - specific geotechnical report that identifies the specific measures to be incorporated into the project design and construction to ensure that risks associated with the identified seismic hazards are reduced to acceptable levels. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure E -1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Building Division Manager or his /her designee for review and approval, a site - specific, design -level geotechnical investigation prepared for each development parcel by a registered geotechnical engineer. The investigation shall comply with all applicable State and local code requirements and: a) Include an analysis of the expected ground motions at the site from known active faults using accepted methodologies; b) In consideration of the subterranean construction planned for the parking structure, include an evaluation of the groundwater table and its fluctuations through the installation of shallow observation wells. c) Determine structural design requirements as prescribed by the most current version of the California Building Code, including applicable City amendments, to ensure that structures can withstand ground accelerations expected from known active faults; d) Determine the final design parameters for walls, foundations, foundation slabs, utilities, roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, and other surrounding related improvements. Project plans for foundation design, earthwork, and site preparation shall incorporate all of the mitigations in the site - specific investigations. The structural engineer shall review the site - specific investigations, provide any additional necessary measures to meet Building Code requirements, and incorporate all applicable recommendations from the investigation in the structural design plans and shall ensure that all structural plans for the project meet current Building Code requirements. The City's registered geotechnical engineer or third -party registered engineer retained to review the geotechnical reports shall review each site - specific geotechnical investigation, approve the final report, and require compliance with all geotechnical requirements contained in the investigation in the plans submitted for the grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure and all other relevant construction permits. The City shall review all project plans for grading, foundations, structural, infrastructure and all other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the applicable geotechnical investigation and other applicable Code requirements. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to geology and soils that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. D. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (1) Potential Impact: Project construction and operation would result in the increased generation of greenhouse gases and would exceed the screening level resulting in a significant impact with regard to GHG emissions. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Construction and operation of future uses on -site would result in increased generation of GHGs which could contribute to global climate change. However, Mitigation Measures F -1 through F -14 would require that a range of GHG emission - reducing design features and programs be implemented in order to minimize energy and water use, reduce overall vehicle miles traveled, and maximize efficiency. With implementation of applicable mitigation measures, project - related GHG emissions would not exceed established thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure F -1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or structures would exceed the Title 24 California Building Standards energy code requirements, based on the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards, by 15 percent. Mitigation Measure F -2: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant 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 light (CFL), light- emitting diode (LED) and /or other comparable lighting fixtures. This measure shall apply to all exterior and publicly accessible interior lighting fixtures at the project site, including those outside the building envelope (e.g., on -site parking areas and walkway lighting). Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the project engineer to the City of Newport Beach Director of Community Development, 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 Community Development, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure F -3: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate that the operation of outdoor lighting is limited by the use of time - controlled exterior lighting. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided by the project engineer to the City of Newport Beach Director of Community Development, 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 Community Development, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure F -4: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or structures incorporates heating, cooling, and lighting devices and appliances that meet or exceed 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 Community Development, 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 Community Development, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure F -5: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant 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 Community Development, 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 Community Development, or designee, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure F -6: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the City of Newport Beach Director of Community Development, or designee, and the Project Applicant 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 F -7: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate that the design of the proposed buildings or structures incorporates water - efficient products (bathroom sink faucets, low -flush urinals, dual -flush toilets, etc.) that meets or exceeds the CALGreen requirements. Documentation of compliance with this measure shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach Director of Community Development, 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 Community Development, or designee, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure F -8: The project applicant shall provide designated parking for alternative fueled, hybrid, or electric vehicles. City of Newport Beach Director of Community Development, or designee, will verify compliance and confirm implementation during construction. Mitigation Measure F -9: The Project Applicant shall provide designated on -site bicycle parking areas and bicycle racks accessible to residents, employees, and commercial uses. City of Newport Beach Director of Community Development, or designee, will verify compliance and confirm implementation during construction. Mitigation Measure F -10: 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 will be implemented by the contractor and verified by the City of Newport Beach Director of Community Development, or designee. Mitigation Measure F -11: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the City of Newport Beach Director of Community Development, or designee, shall verify that project plans and specifications include a statement that construction equipment shall be shut off when not in use, shall not idle for more than 15 minutes, and that vehicles greater than 10,000 pounds shall be shut off when not in use and shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Mitigation Measure F -12: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the City of Newport Beach Director of Community Development, or designee, shall verify that project plans and specifications include a statement that the Construction Contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low- emission factors and high- energy efficiency and that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Mitigation Measure F -13: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the City of Newport Beach Director of Community Development, or designee, shall verify that project plans and specifications 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. Mitigation Measure F -14: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the City of Newport Beach Director of Community Development, or designee, shall verify that project plans and specifications include a statement that the Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Citv of Newoort Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to greenhouse gas emissions that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project - specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (1) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. Also, while the site is not a listed hazardous materials site, there is the potential for hazardous materials to be encountered during construction activities that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measures G -1 through G -5 address known and potential hazardous materials conditions on the project site, and would require future characterization and remediation of hazardous materials that may exist on the property. Implementation of applicable mitigation measures would reduce risks associated with on -site hazardous materials to an acceptable level. Impacts, therefore, would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure G -1: A removal and treatment/remediation plan for the existing on -site 550 - gallon UST shall be prepared by the Project Applicant for submittal to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and other appropriate agencies determined appropriate in consultation with the SARWQCB for review and approval. The plan shall include but not be limited to monitoring of excavation by a certified environmental consultant to identify and sample groundwater and soils that may be contaminated; and excavation, treatment and disposal of contaminated groundwater /soil in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Written verification from the SARWQCB of approval of a dewatering plan /management plan completion shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading permit. Mitigation Measure G -2: If dredging of the bay occurs, disposal requirements for the dredged materials, which may contain elevated levels of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane and, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDT and DDE) pesticide contamination, shall be confirmed with the appropriate regulatory agencies during the 404 permit process (i.e., Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Fish and Game). Mitigation Measure G -3: If dewatering activities occur on -site during future redevelopment, samples shall be obtained from the water and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxygenates to ensure that they do not exceed applicable discharge requirements. Should the samples exceed VOC, oxygenates or any other applicable discharge requirement, a dewatering plan shall be prepared by the Project Applicant for submittal to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and other appropriate agencies determined appropriate in consultation with the SARWQCB for review and approval. The plan shall include but not be limited to sampling of groundwater that may be contaminated; and treatment and disposal of contaminated groundwater in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Written verification from the SARWQCB of approval of a dewatering plan completion shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading permit. Mitigation Measure G -4: Prior to Issuance of demolition permits, the Project Applicant shall conduct an asbestos survey of the of all on -site structures and submit verification to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department prior that a certified asbestos abatement contractor has properly removed asbestos in accordance with procedural requirements and regulations of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. Mitigation Measure G -5: Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project Applicant shall submit verification to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department prior that a lead -based paint survey has been conducted at all existing structures located on the project site. If lead -based paint is found, the Project Applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations for proper removal and disposal of the lead -based paint. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to existing hazardous materials contamination that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project - specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. (2) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Construction and operation of a future development on -site could result in adverse impacts related to emergency access. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures G -6 to G -8 would ensure that vehicular access is provided to the project site throughout construction and operation of a future project. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure G -6: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall prepare a Construction Management Plan for implementation during construction of the project. The plan shall be subject to final approval by the City of Newport Beach Director of Community Development. Mitigation Measure G -7: The Project Applicant shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan that identifies all traffic control measures, signs, and delineators to be implemented by the construction contractor throughout the duration of construction activities associated with the project. The plan shall identify any temporary lane closures and identify alternative travel routes. The plan shall be subject to final approval and issuance of a Temporary Street and Sidewalk Closure Permit by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. Mitigation Measure G -8: Prior to construction, the Project Applicant shall consult with the City of Newport Beach Police and Fire Departments to disclose and identify temporary closures and alternative travel routes, in order to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction activities would result in temporary lane or roadwav closures. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to emergency response and evacuation plans that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the future project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. Noise (1) Potential Impact: Impacts related to future operation of on -site residential uses would be potentially significant due to existing traffic - related noise levels along East Coast Highway. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Proposed future on -site residential uses would be considered noise - sensitive once constructed and would be exposed to noise levels from traffic on East Coast Highway that exceed thresholds stated in the City's Municipal Code for residential uses. Mitigation Measure J -2 would require preparation of a design- specific acoustical study that identifies the necessary insulation or other noise - reducing features to meet the City's indoor noise standards. With implementation of applicable mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure J -2: As required by City of Newport Beach Noise Element, an acoustical analysis of the architectural plans of the proposed residential building shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, prior to issuance of building permits, to ensure that the building construction (i.e., exterior wall, window, and door) would provide adequate sound insulation to meet the acceptable interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions The following City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval would apply to the proposed project: The project must comply with the exterior noise standards for residential uses of the Noise Ordinance. The exterior noise level standard is 65 dBA between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM and 60 dBA between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. An acoustic study shall be performed by a qualified professional that demonstrates compliance with these standards of the Noise Ordinance. This acoustic study shall be performed and submitted to the Community Development Department as part of the Site Development Review permit application for each residential structure. If the exterior noise levels exceed applicable standards, additional mitigation shall be required, which may include the installation of additional sound attenuation devices as recommended by the acoustic study and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. The operator of the proposed commercial uses shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by patrons, food service operations, and mechanical equipment. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than noise limits specified in Table 5.10 -3 for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets for each residential structure, as authorized by a Site Development Review permit, and shall be sound - attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.32, Sound - Amplifying Equipment requires a permit for use of any sound - amplifying equipment and regulates the volume so sound - amplifying equipment is not a nuisance to persons. The use of sound - amplifying equipment is prohibited outdoors between the hours of 8 PM and 8 AM. G. Transportation /Traffic (1) Potential Impact: The proposed project could substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measures M -1 through M -3 require that future site access be designed in a manner that maintains functional access to and from the site, but also minimizes safety hazards to vehicles. With implementation of these design requirements, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure M -1: Sight distance at the project accesses shall be reviewed with respect to City of Newport Beach standards in conjunction with the preparation of final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans. Mitigation Measure M -2: On -site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project and as approved by the City of Newport Beach. Mitigation Measure M -3: Final design of the optional secondary access ('right turn in" only lane on East Coast Highway) shall accommodate bicycle use along the corridor and shall require coordination with and the approval of the California Department of Transportation, the Orange County Transportation Authority, and the Orange County Sanitation District. The driveway for the Orange County Sanitation District shall be relocated so as not to interfere with the proposed 'right turn in" only lane. Based on the posted speed limit of 50 miles per hour, and assuming partial deceleration of 10 miles per hour in the through lane, the recommended length of the deceleration lane is 315 feet. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to site access and vehicle safety that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. H. Utilities and Service Systems (1) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project would require or result in the construction of new on -site and off -site water facilities or the expansion of existing on -site and off -site facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure N -1 requires payment of requisite connection fees to the City of Newport Beach for water service at the project site. Payment of connection fees would reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure N -1: Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay the required City water connection fees as set forth in the Municipal Code (Section 14.12). City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to water infrastructure that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. (2) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could (1) exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; (2) require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects; and (3) result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the proposed project, that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure N -2 requires payment of requisite connection fees to OCSD for sewer service at the project site. Payment of connection fees would reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure N -2: Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, the project Applicant shall pay the required OCSD sewer connection fees as set forth in the Municipal Code (Section 14.24.050) which are utilized to fund wastewater treatment and regional wastewater conveyance improvements associated with new development. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to wastewater infrastructure that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. (3) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project could exceed the capacity of the landfill serving the project area. Finding: 1. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measures N -3 and N -4 require recycling of demolition and construction materials and provision of temporary recycling bins for construction workers in order to reduce landfill disposal. Construction - related recycling requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure N -3: Prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the project Applicant shall provide a copy of the receipt or contract indicating that the construction contractor shall only contract for waste disposal services with a company that recycles demolition and construction - related wastes. The contract specifying recycled waste service shall be presented to the Municipal Operations Department prior to approval of certificate of occupancy. Mitigation Measure N -4: In order to facilitate on -site separation and recycling of construction related wastes, the construction contractor shall provide temporary waste separation bins on -site during demolition and construction activities. City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions There are no specific City- adopted standard operating conditions of approval related to soil waste generation that are applicable to the proposed project at this time; however, future project- specific conditions of approval may be applied to the project by the City during the discretionary approval (site development review, tentative tract map, etc.), subsequent design, and /or construction process. 6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES A. Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping /Project Planning Process In addition to the guidance cited above regarding purpose and contents of an analysis of alternatives to a proposed project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) states that an EIR should identify alternatives that were considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the reasons for their rejection. According to the CEQA Guidelines, the following factors may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration: the alternative's failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, the alternative's infeasibility, or the alternative's inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. Alternatives that have been considered and rejected as infeasible include the following discussed below. It should be noted that an alternative public bayfront access alignment was considered by the project applicant that would have provided an enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access path along the entirety of the project site waterfront on Upper Newport Bay, extending from Planning Area 2 through Planning Areas 1 and 3. However, this alternate access alignment was determined to be infeasible, as discussed in further detail in Table 4.1 -2, Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis, and Table 4.1 -5, California Coastal Act Consistency Analysis, in Section 4.1, Land Use, of the Draft EIR. a. Off -Site Location Alternative CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(2) describes the requirement, in some circumstances, for analysis of alternative locations. No significant unavoidable impacts were identified for the proposed project; therefore, no significant effects would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Nevertheless, the City evaluated an alternative location to address whether any feasible alternative locations exist, even though not required to avoid or substantially lessen a significant effect. The Off -Site Location Alternative would be similar to the proposed project but at a different location than the project site; specifically, the undeveloped parcel within the adjacent Newport Dunes Waterfront Resort that is currently planned for a Family Inn hotel. The location of the site is the same property identified as Approved Project D, Newport Dunes, discussed in Chapter 3, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, of the Draft EIR. Refer to Figure 3 -1, Approved Project Map, in Chapter 3 for an illustration of the off -site location relative to the project site. This Alternative would include legislative and administrative approvals similar to the proposed project, which would hypothetically allow for a comparable mix of land uses as the proposed project, as well as project - related amenities (e.g., bayfront promenade, public coastal view tower, boating and water recreation facilities, etc.). However, the property is Tidelands Trust and is subject to restrictions on use. The specific site is subject to the terms of a long -term lease with the County of Orange and residential uses are prohibited within the Newport Dunes property, which would preclude future development of proposed land uses at this location. As such, the off -site location alternative, in addition to being unneccesary to reduce or avoid a significant impact, would be infeasible and this Alternative was eliminated from further evaluation. B. Alternatives Selected for Analysis Based on the criteria listed above, the following three alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that could potentially attain most of the basic objectives of the project and have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections. No Project/No Build Alternative No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative An EIR must identify an "environmentally superior" alternative, and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only significant and unavoidable impacts are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. However, no impacts analyzed in the Draft EIR were found to be significant and unavoidable. Subsection 5.D in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR identifies the environmentally superior alternative. The proposed project is analyzed in detail in Chapter 5 of the DEIR. Alternatives Comparison Table 1, Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the Proposed Project, below, provides a summary matrix that compares the impacts associated with the project with the impacts of each of the proposed alternatives. Table 1 Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the Proposed Project Alternative 3: Increased Alternative 2: Residential /Reduce Alternative 1: No Project/Existing d Commercial Project Impact No ProjectlNo Build General Plan Alternative A. AestheticsNisual Resources Less Less Views /Scenic Vistas Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Aesthetics/Visual Similar Similar Character Less Than Significant Greater (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Alternative 3: Increased Alternative 2: Residential /Reduce Alternative 1: No Project/Existing d Commercial Project Impact No Project/No Build General Plan Alternative Similar Less Light and Glare Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Regulatory Similar Similar Consistency Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) B. Air Quality Air Quality Plan Similar Similar Consistency Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Construction - Related Emissions Regional Less Less Emissions Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Localized Less Less Emissions Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (S Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Operational Emissions Regional Emissions Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Less (Less Than Less (Loss Than Significant) Significant) Localized Less Less Emissions Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less than (Less than Significant) Significant) Toxic Air Less Less Contaminants Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Less Less Odors Less than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less than (Less than Significant) Significant) C. Biological Resources Similar Similar Sensitive Species Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than w/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant wl Mitigation) Mitigation) Riparian Similar Similar Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than NaturallSen mun Natural Communities ''v/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant w! Mitigation) Mitigation) Similar Similar Wetlands Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than w/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant wl Mitigation) Mitigation) Alternative 3: Increased Alternative 2: Residential /Reduce Alternative 1: No Project/Existing d Commercial Project Impact No Project/No Build General Plan Alternative Similar Similar Wildlife Movement Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than w/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant w/ Mitigation) Mitigation) Regulatory Similar Similar Consistency Less than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) D. Cultural Resources Similar Similar Historic Resources Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Similar Similar Archaeological Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Resources w/ Mitigation Significant wl Significant w/ Mitigation) Mitigation) Similar Similar Paleontological Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Resources w/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant wl Mitigation) Mitigation) Similar Similar Human Remains Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less ( p No Impact) (Less Than Significant w/ (Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation) Mitigation) Similar Similar Regulatory Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Consistency Significant) Significant) E. Geology and Soils Surface Fault Less Greater - Rupture Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Groundshaldng, Less Greater Liquefaction, Ground Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Failure, and w/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant w/ Landslides Mitigation) Mitigation) Similar Similar Soil Erosion Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Regulatory Similar Similar Consistency Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse Gas Less Than Significant Less No Impact) ( p ) Greater (Significant and Less Less Than Emissions w/ Mitigation Unavoidable) Significant w/ Mitigation) Alternative 3: Increased Alternative 2: Residential /Reduce Alternative 1: No Project/Existing d Commercial Project Impact No Project/No Build General Plan Alternative Consistency with Similar Similar GHG Reduction Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Plans Significant) Significant) G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Similar Similar Hazardous Materials Less Than Significant Greater No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Releases w/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant wl Mitigation) Mitigation) Similar Similar Hazardous Emissions Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Near Schools w/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant wl Mitigation) Mitigation) Similar Similar Listed Hazardous Less Than Significant Greater (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Materials Sites w/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant w/ Mitigation) Mitigation) Emergency Similar Similar Response and Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Evacuation Plans wl Mitigation Significant w/ Significant wl Mitigation) Mitigation) Regulatory Similar Similar Consistency Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) H. Hydrology and Water Quality Violation of Discharge Less Less Requirements/ Water Less Than Significant Similar (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Quality Degradation Significant) Significant) Site Drainage Similar Similar Patterns /Storm Drain Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Capacity Significant) Significant) Similar Similar Levee or Dam Failure Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Similar Similar Erosion and Siltation Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Seiche/Tsunami/ I Similar Similar Mudflow Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Regulatory Similar Similar Consistency Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) I. Land Use Consistency with Less Greater Plans, Policies, and Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (No Impact) (Less Than Regulations Significant) Alternative 3: Increased Alternative 2: Residential /Reduce Alternative 1: No Project/Existing d Commercial Project Impact No Project/No Build General Plan Alternative J. Noise Violation Noise Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Similar (Less Than Less (Less Than Standards s Significant) Significant) Similar Less Groundborne Noise Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than and Vibration Significant) Significant) Permanent Noise Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Similar (Less Than Less (Less Than Increases Significant) Significant) Less Less Temporary Noise Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Increases w/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant w! Mitigation) Mitigation) Regulatory Similar Less Consistency Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) K. Population and Housing Less Greater Population Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Greater Less Housing Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Less Greater Employment Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Regulatory Similar Similar Consistency Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) L. Public Services Less Greater Fire Protection Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Less Greater Police Protection Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Less Greater Parks and Recreation Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Less Greater Schools Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Alternative 3: Increased Alternative 2: Residential /Reduce Alternative 1: No Project/Existing d Commercial Project Impact No Project/No Build General Plan Alternative Less Greater Libraries Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Regulatory Similar Similar Consistency Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) M. Transportation /Traffic Greater Less Traffic System Level of Service Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than Significant w/ (Less Than Mitigation) Significant) Congestion Greater (Less Than Less Management Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Significant w/ (Less Than Program Facilities Mitigation) Significant) " Similar Similar Site Access and Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Traffic Safety w/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant w/ Mitigation) Mitigation) Alternative Greater Similar Transportation Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) Regulatory Less Similar Consistency Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Significant) Significant) N. Utilities - Similar Similar Water Infrastructure Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than w/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant wl Mitigation) Mitigation) Wastewater Less Greater Conveyance and Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Treatment w/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant w/ Mitigation) Mitigation) Stormwater Drainage Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) Similar (Less Than Similar (Less Than Facilities Significant) Significant) Greater Less Landfill Disposal Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less Than (Less Than Capacity w/ Mitigation Significant w/ Significant wl Mitigation) Mitigation) Regulatory Similar Similar Consistency Less Than Significant Less (No Impact) (Less than (Less than Significant) Significant) Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2013. a) No Project /No Build Alternative Description: In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build Alternative for a development project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, "in certain instances, the No Project/No Build Alternative means 'no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained." Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, the No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) assumes that no new development would occur within the project site. Thus, the future development of up to 49 residential units and 94,034 square feet of commercial uses would not occur on -site, and other project - related improvements such as the new public bayfront promenade, multi -use trail, and coastal view tower would not be implemented. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Project/No Build Alternative's environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project is set forth in Subsection 5.A in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the No Project/No Build Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics (views /scenic vistas and light and glare), air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials (hazardous emissions near schools and emergency response /evacuation plans), levee or dam failure, erosion and siltation, and seiche /tsunami /mudflow), land use, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation /traffic, and utilities. Water quality impacts (violation of waste discharge requirements /water quality degradation) under this Alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Impacts related to aesthetics /visual resources (aesthetics /visual character), hydrology and water quality (site drainage patterns /storm drain capacity, and hazards and hazardous materials (hazardous materials releases and listed hazardous materials sites) would be greater for the No Project/No Build Alternative. Overall, the No Project /No Build Alternative would have less environmental impacts than the proposed project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/No Build Alternative would not improve the project site from its current, mostly undeveloped condition, and as such would not fully meet any of the project objectives, and would only partially meet one objective. This Alternative would not provide a high quality mixed -use, marine - related, visitor - serving commercial development with integrated residential units and a unified architectural and landscape theme (Project Objective #1); implement the MU -H1 (Mixed -Use Horizontal 1) General Plan and MU -H (Mixed -Use Horizontal) Coastal Land Use Plan categories on an underutilized bayfront location in a manner that provides for a horizontally distributed mix of uses, which includes general or neighborhood commercial, offices, multi - family residential, visitor - serving and marine - related uses, as well as buildings that vertically integrate residential with non - residential uses, adjacent to Coast Highway, and on a bayfront location (Project Objective #2); maintain and expand core coastal dependent and coastal - related land uses, including continuation and expansion of existing marina parking, and the development of significant new enclosed bayfront dry stack boat storage and launching facility (Project Objective #3); provide new housing opportunities in response to the continued demand for housing, reduce vehicle trips and encourage active lifestyles by increasing the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, coastal recreation and entertainment (Project Objective #4); enhance significant visual resources from City- designated Coastal View Points and Coastal View Roads or create new public view opportunities on -site (Project Objective #5); or expand bayfront public access to and along the bay where none exists at the present time, in a manner that protects environmental study areas (ESA) and /or environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) and does not adversely impact existing private residences adjacent to the site, consistent with Coastal Act section 30214. However, this Alternative would protect significant visual resources from City- designated Coastal View Points and Coastal View Roads, [such as Coast Highway, Castaways Park, and Coast Highway -Bay Bridge, to the bay and the cliffs of upper Newport Beach], given the lack of development intensification and associated physical obstructions to existing views (Project Objective #6).. Feasibility: Since the No Project /No Build Alternative would allow the existing land uses (RV and boat storage, kayak and SUP rentals, and marina parking) to continue operating on the project site, the feasibility of this Alternative would rely on the economic feasibility of indefinite operation of these uses. No changes to the existing conditions would occur, and all operations would continue indefinitely. Finding: In comparison to the proposed project, the No Project/No Build Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics (views /scenic vistas and light and glare), air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials (hazardous emissions near schools and emergency response /evacuation plans), hydrology and water quality (site drainage patterns /storm drain capacity, levee or dam failure, erosion and siltation, and seiche /tsunami /mudflow), land use, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation /traffic, and utilities. Water quality impacts (violation of waste discharge requirements /water quality degradation) under this Alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Impacts related to aesthetics /visual resources (aesthetics /visual character) and hazards and hazardous materials (hazardous materials releases and listed hazardous materials sites) would be greater for the No Project/No Build Alternative. This alternative would fail to fully meet any of the project objectives and would only partially meet one objective. Overall, the No Project/No Build Alternative would have fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project, making it the environmentally superior alternative. However, since the No Project /No Build Alternative fails to meet all but one of the project objectives (and only partially meets that objective), it has been rejected by the City in favor of the proposed project. b) No Project /Existing General Plan Alternative Description: The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would reduce the overall allowable square footage of development relative to the proposed project by implementing the existing adopted General Plan and zoning designations for the site. As such, this Alternative would allow for the development of up to 139,680 square feet of recreational and marine commercial uses on the project site, of which 32,500 square feet would be dry stack boat storage, with no residential uses allowed. Assuming a similar proportion of commercial land uses as under the proposed project, this CM (recreational and marine commercial) only Alternative would include 63,380 square feet of retail /marine sales and repair uses, 7,910 square feet of quality restaurant uses, 6,750 square feet of high- turnover restaurant uses, 16,750 square feet of office uses, and 32,500 square feet of dry stack boat storage in Planning Area 1; 8,390 square feet of marine services and office in Planning Area 2; and 4,000 square feet of resident storage and boat lockers in Planning Area 4. No amendments to the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, or zoning (PCDP) would be necessary. This Alternative would include a minimum six - foot -wide bayfront promenade along the coastal portions of Planning Areas 1 and 2, as well as a water inlet to allow for dry stack boat storage operations, but would not include other project - related amenities such as the new public multi -use trail, bike lanes, and coastal view tower. It is also assumed that this Alternative would require relocation of the existing access driveway off of Bayside Drive to a location similar to the proposed project, and therefore a lot line adjustment would be required to accommodate the new access configuration. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative's environmental impacts compared to those of the proposed project is set forth in Subsection 5.13 in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics /visual resources (views /scenic vistas), air quality (construction and operational emissions), geology and soils (surface fault rupture and groundshaking, liquefaction, ground failure, and landslides), hydrology and water quality (violation of waste discharge requirements /water quality degradation), land use, noise (temporary noise increases), population and housing, public services, and utilities (wastewater conveyance and treatment). Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG emissions), transportation /traffic (traffic system level of service, congestion management program facilities, and alternative transportation), and utilities (landfill disposal capacity) impacts for this Alternative would be greater than for the proposed project. Aesthetics /visual resources (aesthetics /visual character and light and glare), air quality (AQMP consistency), biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils (soil erosion), greenhouse gas emissions (consistency with GHG reduction plans), hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality (site drainage patterns /storm drain capacity, levee or dam failure, erosion and siltation, and seiche /tsunami /mudflow), noise (violation of noise standards, groundborne noise and vibration, and permanent noise increases), transportation /traffic (site access and traffic safety), and utilities (water infrastructure, stormwater drainage facilities) impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would at least partially meet all but two of the project objectives, and would fully meet two of them. Specifically, this Alternative would fully meet Project Objective #3, as it would maintain and expand core coastal dependent and coastal - related land uses, including continuation and expansion of existing marina parking, and the development of significant new enclosed bayfront dry stack boat storage and launching facility. This Alternative also would protect and enhance significant visual resources from City- designated Coastal View Points and Coastal View Roads, [such as Coast Highway, Castaways Park, and Coast Highway -Bay Bridge, to the bay and the cliffs of upper Newport Beach] through view corridors designed into the project, and would create new view opportunities on -site, and as such would fully meet Project Objective #5. Additionally, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would partially meet Project Objective #1 since it would provide a high quality marine - related, visitor - serving commercial development with a unified architectural and landscape theme, but would not provide a mixed -use development that includes residential uses. This Alternative would partially meet Project Objective #6, as it would expand bayfront public access to and along the bay where none exists at the present time, in a manner that protects environmental study areas (ESA) and /or environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) and does not adversely impact existing private residences adjacent to the site, consistent with Coastal Act section 30214. The new coastal access will be accomplished through a minimum Code - required six - foot -wide bayfront walkway traversing Planning Areas 1 and 2 of the future project, in contrast to the 12 -foot width under the proposed project. However, this new, public bayfront promenade would not be required to link to the existing Newport Dunes pedestrian /bicycle trail off of Bayside Drive, and ultimately to the Newport Dunes recreational areas, via new bicycle lane and trail improvements on Bayside Drive. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would not implement the MU -H1 (Mixed -Use Horizontal 1) General Plan and MU -H (Mixed -Use Horizontal) Coastal Land Use Plan categories on an underutilized bayfront location in a manner that provides for a horizontally distributed mix of uses, which includes general or neighborhood commercial, offices, multi- family residential, visitor - serving and marine - related uses, as well as buildings that vertically integrate residential with non - residential uses, adjacent to Coast Highway, and on a bayfront location, and therefore would not meet Project Objective #2. Finally, this Alternative would also not meet Project Objective #4, as it would not provide new housing opportunities in response to the continued demand for housing, reduce vehicle trips and encourage active lifestyles by increasing the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, coastal recreation and entertainment. Feasibility: Although the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be physically feasible, it may not be economically feasible. It is uncertain whether this Alternative would yield a reasonable return on investment. Finding: Of the six project objectives, this Alternative would fully meet two, partially meet two, and would not meet two. It would reduce environmental impacts to aesthetics /visual resources (views /scenic vistas), air quality (construction and operational emissions), geology and soils (surface fault rupture and groundshaking, liquefaction, ground failure, and landslides), hydrology and water quality (violation of waste discharge requirements /water quality degradation), land use, noise (temporary noise increases), population and housing, public services, and utilities (wastewater conveyance and treatment). However, it would increase impacts to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG emissions), transportation /traffic (traffic system level of service, congestion management program facilities, and alternative transportation), and utilities (landfill disposal capacity). Also, because it does not include the development of residential land uses, it would not require a General Plan Amendment, CLUP Amendment, PC Text Amendment, or Lot Line Adjustment. Moreover, it would not provide additional housing in support of the City's Housing Element and SCAG RHNA allocation, and it may be economically infeasible. For these reasons, the City finds that the proposed project is preferred over this Alternative. c) Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative Description: The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would allow for a future development pattern and footprint nearly identical to the proposed project, but would include more residential units and reduced commercial square footage. As such, the Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would include the same Planning Area boundaries, land use categories, development standards, and design guidelines as the proposed project, as well as all project - related improvements and amenities (e.g., bayfront promenade, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, public coastal view tower, and water inlet for dry stack boat storage). In terms of development intensity, this Alternative would result in the potential future on -site construction of up to 75 residential units totaling 113,000 square feet and up to 58,400 square feet of recreational and marine commercial uses within a mixed -use development. Commercial uses under Alternative 3 are assumed to include 6,400 square feet of retail /marine sales and repair uses, 4,300 square feet of quality restaurant uses, 1,600 square feet of high- turnover restaurant uses, 4,800 square feet of office uses, and 32,500 square feet of dry stack boat storage in Planning Area 1; 4,800 square feet of marine services and office in Planning Area 2; and 4,000 square feet of resident storage and boat lockers in Planning Area 4. It is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that all project - related legislative approvals, including amendments to the City's General Plan, CLUP, and Zoning Code (PC text), and administrative approvals such as the LLA to allow for relocated site access, would be required under this Alternative. This alternative is not required to avoid or substantially reduce a significant impact. There are different policies relative to providing additional housing on the site. Regional planning and City policies, and state law such as SB 375, encourage the provision of additional housing on sites such as this one (infill sites with access to utilities, etc.). The California Coastal Commission would typically require that no more than 50- percent of a mixed -use waterfront development be residential in relation to commercial use. The City has included this Alternative for informational purposes, and to allow the public and decision - makers to evaluate this Alternative in light of these differing housing policies. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative's environmental impacts compared to those of the proposed project is set forth in Subsection 5.13 in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed project, as shown above in Table 1, the Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would reduce impacts to aesthetics /visual resources (views /scenic vistas and light and glare), air quality (construction and operational emissions), greenhouse gas emissions (GHG emissions), hydrology and water quality (violation of waste discharge requirements /water quality degradation), noise, population and housing (housing), transportation /traffic (traffic system level of service and congestion management program facilities), and utilities (landfill disposal capacity). Geology and soils (surface fault rupture and groundshaking, liquefaction, ground failure, and landslides), land use, population and housing (population and employment), public services, and utilities (wastewater conveyance and treatment and landfill disposal capacity) impacts for this Alternative would be greater than for the proposed project. Aesthetics /visual resources (aesthetics /visual character), air quality (AQMP consistency), biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils (soil erosion), greenhouse gas emissions (consistency with GHG reduction plans), hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology /water quality (site drainage patterns /storm drain capacity, levee or dam failure, erosion and siltation, and seiche /tsunami /mudflow), transportation /traffic (site access and traffic safety and alternative transportation), and utilities (water infrastructure, stormwater drainage facilities) impacts would be similar to the proposed project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Increased Residential /Reduced Commercial Alternative would at least partially meet all of the project objectives, and would fully meet all but one of them. Specifically, this Alternative would provide a high quality mixed -use, marine - related, visitor - serving commercial development with integrated residential units and a unified architectural and landscape theme (Project Objective #1); implement the MU -H1 (Mixed -Use Horizontal 1) General Plan and MU -H (Mixed -Use Horizontal) Coastal Land Use Plan categories on an underutilized bayfront location in a manner that provides for a horizontally distributed mix of uses, which includes general or neighborhood commercial, offices, multi - family residential, visitor - serving and marine - related uses, as well as buildings that vertically integrate residential with non - residential uses, adjacent to Coast Highway, and on a bayfront location (Project Objective #2); maintain and expand core coastal dependent and coastal- related land uses, including continuation and expansion of existing marina parking, and the development of significant new enclosed bayfront dry stack boat storage and launching facility, but at a lesser degree than the proposed project due to the reduced intensity (Project Objective #3); provide new housing opportunities in response to the continued demand for housing and reduce vehicle trips to a greater extent than the proposed project would, and would also encourage active lifestyles by increasing the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, coastal recreation and entertainment (Project Objective #4); protect and enhance significant visual resources from City- designated Coastal View Points and Coastal View Roads, [such as Coast Highway, Castaways Park, and Coast Highway -Bay Bridge, to the bay and the cliffs of upper Newport Beach] through view corridors designed into the project, and would also create new public view opportunities on- site (Project Objective #5); and expand bayfront public access to and along the bay where none exists at the present time, in a manner that protects environmental study areas (ESA) and /or environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) and does not adversely impact existing private residences adjacent to the site, consistent with Coastal Act section 30214. As under the proposed project this new coastal access would be accomplished through a new 12- foot -wide bayfront walkway traversing Planning Areas 1 and 2 of the future project that links the public docks and marina property south of the Coast Highway -Bay Bridge, to the existing Newport Dunes pedestrian /bicycle trail off of Bayside Drive, and ultimately to the Newport Dunes recreational areas, as well as to an existing County Class 1 Regional Trail (Project Objective #6). Feasibility: As with the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the Increased Residential /Decreased Commercial Alternative would be physically feasible but it may not be economically feasible. It is uncertain whether this Alternative would be a viable project that could yield a reasonable return on investment. Finding: The Office /Commercial /Residential Alternative would reduce impacts to to aesthetics /visual resources (views /scenic vistas and light and glare), air quality (construction and operational emissions), greenhouse gas emissions (GHG emissions), hydrology and water quality (violation of waste discharge requirements /water quality degradation), noise, population and housing (housing), transportation /traffic (traffic system level of service and congestion management program facilities), and utilities (landfill disposal capacity). However,. this Alternative would increase impacts to geology and soils (surface fault rupture and groundshaking, liquefaction, ground failure, and landslides), land use, population and housing (population and employment), public services, and utilities (wastewater conveyance and treatment and landfill disposal capacity) when compared to the proposed project. While this Alternative would provide additional housing opportunities on -site, in support of the City's Housing Element policies and SCAG RHNA allocation, the reduction of commercial uses on- site could render this Alternative economically infeasible. For these reasons, the City finds that the proposed project is preferred over this Alternative. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 EXHIBIT D GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO GP2011 -011 Consists of: Amending Table LU2 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to include the following two new anomalies: Table Anomaly Statistical Land Use Number Area Desi nation Development Limits Development Limit Other Additional Information 80 K -1 MU -H1 Nonresidential For mixed -use development: development, 131,290sf residential floor area shall not exceed a Mixed -use 49 residential units 1:1 ratio to development: nonresidential floor 171,288 sf area 81 K -1 RM 296 residential units 2. Amending the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element to identify the locations of Anomaly Nos. 80 and 81 and to change the designation of the existing 6.028 -acre portion of the project site designated as Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.5) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -1­11) and the 0.304 -acre lot line adjustment area designated as Multiple Unit Residential (RM) to MU -H1. Land Use Change Lot Multi Line Adjustment Area: -Unit Residential (RM 15 du /ac) to Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H1) Land Use Change: Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.5 FAR) to Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H1) 80 • , 1 / 1 • 200 4/1 - General Plan Amendment N 11 Coast .. / • , / �: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 EXHIBIT E COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. LC2011 -007 Consists of: 1. Amending Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development) of the Coastal Land Use Plan to include the following sections and policies (deletions illustrated in st eo<,tS/ additions illustrated in underline) : 2.1.9 Back Bay Landing existing structures and paved areas utilized for outdoor storage space of RVs and small boats parking and restrooms facilities for the Bayside Marina, a kayak rental and launch facility, parking and access to Pearson's Port, and marine service equipment storage under the Coast Highwav Bridge. The site would accommodate the development of an integrated, mixed -use waterfront proiect consisting of coastal dependent and coastal related visitor- servinq commercial and recreational uses allowed in the current CLUP CM -A and CM -B designation, while allowinq for limited freestandinq multifamily residential and mixed -use structures with residential uses above the promenade connecting with Bayside Drive and Newport Dunes /County trails. Policy 2.1.9 -1 The Back Bay Landing site shall be developed as a unified site with marine - related and visitor - servinq commercial and recreational uses. Limited freestanding multifamily residential and mixed - use structures with residential uses above the ground floor are allowed as integrated uses as described below. • The Mixed -Use Horizontal — MU -H category is applicable to the proiect(s) site; permitted uses include those allowed under the CM, CV, RM and MU -V categories; however, a minimum of 50 percent of the permitted building square footage shall be devoted to nonresidential uses; • The site shall be limited to a maximum floor area to land area ratio as established in General Plan Land Use Element Anomaly Cap No. 80. A minimum of 50 percent of the residential units shall be developed in mixed -use buildings with nonresidential use on the ground floor. • Development shall incorporate amenities that assure access for coastal visitors, including the development of a public pedestrian promenade along the bavfront, bikeways with Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 connections to existing regional trails and paths, an enclosed dry -stack boat storage facility, and public plazas and open spaces that provide public views, view corridors, and new coastal view opportunities. • The site shall be developed as a unified site to prevent fragmentation and to assure each use's viability quality, and compatibility with adjoining uses. Development shall be designed and planned to achieve a high level of architectural quality with pedestrian, non - automobile and vehicular circulation and adequate parking provided. 2.1.9 10 Coastal Land Use Plan Map The Coastal Land Use Plan Map depicts the land use category for each property and is intended to provide a graphic representation of policies relating to the location, type, density, and intensity of all land uses in the coastal zone. Policy 2.1.9 -10 -1 Land use and new development in the coastal zone shall be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan Map and all applicable LCP policies and regulations. Policy 4.4.2 -1 Maintain the 35 -foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, as graphically depicted on Map 43, except for Marina Park and the following sites: Marina Park located at 1600 West Balboa Boulevard: A single, up to maximum 73 -foot- tall faux lighthouse architectural tower, that creates an iconic landmark for the public to identify the site from land and water as a boating safety feature, may be allowed. No further exceptions to the height limit shall be allowed, including but not limited to, exceptions for architectural features, solar equipment or flag poles. Any architectural tower that exceeds the 35 -foot height limit shall not include floor area above the 35 -foot height limit, but shall house screened communications or emergency equipment, and shall be sited and designed to reduce adverse visual impacts and be compatible with the character of the area by among other things, incorporating a tapered design with a maximum diameter of 34 -feet at the base of the tower. Public viewing opportunities shall be provided above the 35 -feet as feasible. • Back Bay Landing at East Coast Highwav/Bayside Drive: A single, un to 65- foot -tall coastal public view tower, that will be ADA- compliant and publicly accessible, to provide new coastal and Upper Newport Bay view opportunities where existing views are impacted by the East Coast Highway Bridge other existing structures and topography. Amending Figure 2.1.7 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan to change the designation of the existing 6.028 -acre portion of the project site designated as Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM-13) to Mixed -Use Horizontal (MU -H) and the 0.304 -acre lot line adjustment area designated as Multiple Unit Residential (RM -C) to MU -H. i .131 DO MU -H \ PR CG -A ® � e 9pC le, LC2011 -007 (PA2011 -216) F n Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment U X'� 300 Coast Hwy E ^4vou Document Name: PA2011 -216 LC2011 -007 0 200 400 Feet N Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 EXHIBIT F CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2013 -009 Consists of: 1. Amending the Zoning Map of the Newport Beach Zoning Code (Title 20) to expand the boundaries of PC -9 to include: 1) the 0.304 -acre lot line adjustment area currently zoned as Bayside Village Mobile Home Park Planned Community (PC- 1 /MHP); and, 2) the existing 0.642 -acre portion of the project site currently zoned as Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM). CM r V m w PC 0 - MHP z�Jo b� CA2013 -009 (PA2011 -216) Zoning Code Amendment 300 Coast Hwy E Name: PA2011 -216 CA2013 -009 Ord Exhibit 0 200 400 Feet E) Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 EXHIBIT G PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION PC2011 -001 Consists of: 1. Draft Back Bay Landing Planned Community Development Plan dated September 3, 2013, which consists of the following sections: • Introduction and Purpose • Development Limits and Land Use Plan • Permitted Uses • Development Standards • Design Guidelines • Phasing • Implementation /Site Development Review • Definitions 2. Superseding Use Permit Nos. UP1481, UP1667, and UP1943, which currently comprise PC -9. Exhibit G is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development Department or at htta:// www .newi)ortbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =2311 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 EXHIBIT H REQUIRED FINDINGS TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2012 -003 In accordance with NBMC Section 15.40.030 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance), the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and Appendix A [NBMC Chapter 15.30], Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. A traffic study, entitled "Back Bay Landing Traffic Impact Analysis ", dated July 3, 2013, was prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer for the Project in compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Appendix A). Finding: B. That, based on the eight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (B) can be made: 15.40.030.B.1 Construction of the project will be completed within 60 months of project approval; and 15.40.030.B.1(a) The project will neither cause nor make an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted intersection. Facts in Support of Findin B -1. Construction of the project is anticipated to be completed in 2016/2017. If the project is not completed within sixty (60) months of this approval, preparation of a new traffic study will be required. B -2. The traffic study indicates that the project will increase traffic on 11 of the 19 study intersections by one percent or more during peak hour periods one year after the completion of the project and, therefore, these 11 intersections require further Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis. B -3. Utilizing the ICU analysis specified by the TPO, the traffic study determined that the 11 primary intersections identified will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and no mitigation is required. B -4. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, the implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach. Finding: C. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with all conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. Since implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach, no improvements or mitigation are necessary. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 EXHIBIT I TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2012 -003 Exhibit I is available for review at the Planning Division of Community Development Department or at http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?pane =2311. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 EXHIBIT J REQUIRED FINDINGS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA2011 -003 In accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 19.76.020 (Required Findings for Action on Lot Line Adjustments), the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. Approval of the lot line adjustment will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the legislative intent of this title. Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. The lot line adjustment will improve ingress and egress to the project site with a new driveway, which is consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 19 (Subdivisions). A -2. The new driveway location will ensure that the project provides adequate access for traffic and circulation, and will protect land owners and surrounding residents, and will preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City. A -3. The adjusted lot lines of the subject parcels will not result in a development pattern which is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Finding: B. The number of parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment remains the same as before the lot line adjustment. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The lot line adjustment between the Parcel 3 (subject property) and Parcel 2 (adjacent Bayside Village Mobile Home Park) of Parcel Map No. PM 93 -111 will not result in the creation of additional parcels. Only the common property lines between these two parcels will be affected by the proposed lot line adjustment. B -2. The proposal does not increase or reduce the number of parcels. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 Finding: C. The lot line adjustment is consistent with applicable zoning regulations except that nothing herein shall prohibit the approval of a lot line adjustment as long as none of the resultant parcels is more nonconforming as to lot width, depth and area than the parcels that existed prior to the lot line adjustment. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. The adjusted lot line will not render either of the resulting parcels nonconforming as to lot width, depth and area. C -2. The donor parcel (Parcel 2) will be reduced from 12.732 acres to 12.429 acres, which well exceeds the 5,000- square -foot minimum parcel size of Section 20.10.030 of the Municipal Code. Finding: D. Neither the lots as adjusted nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the lot line adjustment. Facts in Support of Finding: D -1. The parcels as adjusted will not be deprived of legal access as both parcels will continue to maintain access from Bayside Drive. D -2. Vehicular access and parking within Parcel 2 (mobile home park) will be reconfigured as a condition of approval to ensure residents maintain adequate circulation through the mobile home park. Finding: E. That the final configuration of the parcels involved will not result in the loss of direct vehicular access from an adjacent alley for any of the parcels that are included in the lot line adjustment. Facts in Support of Finding: E -1. The final configuration of the parcels involved will not result in the loss of direct vehicular access from an adjacent alley as there are no alleys in the vicinity. Finding: F. That the final configuration of a reoriented lot does not result in any reduction of the street side setbacks as currently exist adjacent to a front yard of any adjacent key, unless such reduction is accomplished through a zone change to establish appropriate Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 street side setbacks for the reoriented lot. The Planning Commission and City Council in approving the zone change application shall determine that the street side setbacks are appropriate, and are consistent and compatible with the surrounding pattern of development and existing adjacent setbacks. Facts in Support of Finding: F -1. The lot line adjustment does not result in a reoriented lot configuration. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 EXHIBIT K LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA2011 -003 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2012 - (LEGAL DESCRIPTION) OWNERS EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -61 PARCEL 1 Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -60 PARCEL 2 EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCELS 2 AND 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 93 -111, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 278, PAGES 40 TO 45 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS CORRECTED BY THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED JUNE 6, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94- 380365 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2 THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, DATED THIS DAY OF� , 2012. UND RR L SELTON, L.S. 5347 # J9j (S 5Y+� F OF CAVN, � SHEET 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2012 - (MAP) OWNERS EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -61 PARCEL 1 Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -60 PARCEL 2 j-------------------------- -- -- ----------- ---- --- --- - - ---I SEE SHEET 4 g i I c ,9 I PARCEL 2 I - -- I --- - - - - -- -7 1 -' PARCEL 1 a" f�.GI , 2s _--- - - - -., �� N 1 F - - -- -{ — -' SEE i �iDRIVE SHEET 2 -ESA - - -�I -- - - - - -- -- .f a. Ho._n1l It 9 - -- - - - - - -- � - H /I ----- - - -- j SEE SHEET 3 INDEX M A P LEGEND EXISTING LOT LINES TO REMAIN Q 190 200 490 800 PROPOSED LOT LINE — — — — EXISTING LOT LINES TO BE ADJUSTED I EXISTING EASEMENTS AS NOTED GRAPHIC SCALE SEE SHEET 7 FOR EASEMENT NO LAND URTES SCALE: I"= 400' SEE SHEET 6 FOR LINE AND C VE DATA TABLES _SU,p` L US�loy s4P �ci�'�� THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. Oa/vt *T DA THIS /Y OF , 2012. !S 534 �* 9� OF dpi \F�`�� Y V . USE , L.S. 5347 SHEET 1 OF 7 u EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2012 - (MAP) OWNERS EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -61 PARCEL 1 Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -60 PARCEL 2 S E E S H E E T 4 PARCEL 1 13 o` ?/ \ \ \ �� PAL 01.111 �/�� `` < 4.Gi1.C.31G`uki& '/6) `. 112.429AAc ( (NET)) 37.2 _ w v 89,717 N774g,7p"172.77�`"'- _` -'_._l W 749.39' _.,�_ _. 6_ �� -_'–"7 1 4z'1 PARCEL 2 o1 „� : N77 39 s 17 Pbti �(�L' X00 N_67•W 171.76`�y O 31.431 Ac, (G OSS� 28.899 Ac. rN p O N I11 N88.13'14 "E L d 60.00' i OJ in 18 N8 306'2 � C j), y w 0) 77 \'L 60.8" _C2 2- 87'36'16 "W 123.34' W L18 L7 J � W COAST HIGH WAY L 0 `EAST ' 20 40 - 80 160 LEGEND EXISTING LOT LINES TO REMAIN GRAPHIC SCALE PROPOSED LOT LINE — — — — EXISTING LOT LINES TO BE ADJUSTED SCALE:1 ° =80' ---------EXISTING EASEMENTS AS NOTED SEE SHEET 7 FOR EASEMENT NOTES SEE SHEET 6 FOR LINE AND CURVE DATA TABLES SHEET 2 OF 7 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2012 - (MAP) OWNERS EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -61 PARCEL 1 Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -60 PARCEL 2 S E E S H E E T 4 ^o. PARCEL -_ `5 31.431 Ac. (GROSS) Lv a" 28.899 Ac. (NET) _ 8 HIGHWAY o /yss• "0 2g 2g,•w Eq-�- S7- ..,;,- 28 .�..... 0 8 DRAINAGE Ap LJJ T 6 •� _09 L.19 18 � o ioo.00, 6 0 ° �,L1, ko4r 91 -191 NOT A PART N881 V14 "E 25 ¢0 1 0 2 0 146.16 LEGEND GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE: 1" =100' EXISTING LOT LINES TO REMAIN PROPOSED LOT LINE — — — — EXISTING LOT LINES TO BE ADJUSTED - - - - - -- EXISTING EASEMENTS AS NOTED SEE SHEET'7 FOR EASEMENT NOTES SEE SHEET 6 FOR LINE AND CURVE DATA TABLES SHEET 3 OF 7 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2012 - (MAP) OWNERS EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -61 PARCEL 1 Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -60 PARCEL 2 N85'5 482 aN6ry�� N7850'47 "W 861.58' PARCEL 2 �o a� P,ol IVEa W <v PJA. 915, 91 -111 PlU.. 270%40,45 31.431 Ac. GROSS) 3 28.899 Ac. (NET) � - - -- -- i "E "E nn' �N86'20'55 N83'46'44 IN v2, N 53 777' _283 ' a3 57 L6' L956. SEE DTAIL 42o "6i;, o p %off ON SHEET 5 / ° �co % PARCEL^1 'vim � r4i G^,rti1.. r9 -��„ �1•11U ��` �� P.ffl&, E WOWS 12.429 Ac. GROSS) �� ^w =N� 13 , 12.429 Ac. (NET) C7 (1J 8 vS9s 0��� -.S Rg09.f U) 01 -111 w uj V) �� 1 150 300 690 GRAPHIC SCALE LEGEND SCALE: 1" =300' EXISTING LOT LINES TO REMAIN PROPOSED LOT LINE — — — — EXISTING LOT LINES TO BE ADJUSTED - - - - - -- EXISTING EASEMENTS AS NOTED SEE SHEET 7 FOR EASEMENT NOTES SEE SHEET 6 FOR LINE AND CURVE DATA TABLES SHEET 4 OF 7 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2012 - (MAP) OWNERS EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -61 PARCEL 1 Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132-60 PARCEL 2 S E E S H E E T 4 - - - -, --- -------------------- I I I I I PARCEL 2 I d t1 PJA. Gie. 011 -111 14 M129. fl7A,hA!­'jM5 31.431 Ac, (GROSS) W f- 28.899 Ac. (NET) L11 _ _ Ltd - \, ui 13 129 L2 `--N66'205 5 "E 2— 53• ?? - --- _ = 2 L2 C5 X25 L24 � V) 1n L2 N72Rpp2'� Au� va Lv cis ^' PARCEL 1 LLJ w N R:- EL LLl (` l� .L til, %A' 1411 in P, MIL 27'fa`Al,'�4 12.429 Ac. (GROSS) 12.429 Ac. (NET) S E E S H E E T 4 o r & sa r o GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE, 1 " =60' LEGEND EXISTING LOT LINES TO REMAIN PROPOSED LOT LINE — — — — EXISTING LOT LINES TO BE ADJUSTED .- - - - - -- EXISTING EASEMENTS AS NOTED SEE SHEET 7 FOR EASEMENT NOTES SEE SHEET 6 FOR LINE AND CURVE DATA TABLES SHEET 5 OF 7 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2012 - (MAP) CURVE OWNERS EXISTING PARCELS AP NUMBER PROPOSED PARCELS REFERENCE NUMBER Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -61 PARCEL 1 Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -60 PARCEL 2 15.00 16.D3- C3 DATA TABLES SHEET 6 OF 7 50.80 LINE TABLE 144'29`33" 13.85 BEARING LENGTH L7 N5693'52 "W 67.12 L2 N33'46'08"E 27.00 L3 N56'13'52 "W 24.42 L4 N21'24' 4 "W 32.42 L5 N77'49'10 "W 38.75 L6 N43'ST10 "E 29.57 568.28 'OS'57 "W 116-81 '53�03 "E 34.83 '02'29 "E 68.08 1'15'20 "E 18.19 2'23'44 "E 4.00 T36'7 "W 12.00 JNSB '53'30 °E 6.59 '36'16 "W 24.16 '43'50 "W 73.00 '06'S4 "W 43.65 0'16'43 "E 29.81 '46'46 "W 24.00 L79 N88'13'34 "E 33.06 L20 32 "E 68.42 L21 49 "E 83.80 L22 49 "W 9.28 L23 20 "W 7.64 L24 34 "E g43 100.02 L25 9 "W 7.57 E CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH C7 8'02'07" 440.00 61.71 C2 61'12'51" 15.00 16.D3- C3 4.32'53" 640.00 50.80 C4 144'29`33" 13.85 34.93 CS 172'48'14" 73.85 41.7'7 C6 26` 5'27" 640.00 295.16 C7 30'58 "LO" 640.00 345.96 CS 53'27'40" 440.00 410.55 C10 74' 0'00" 4M10.00 568.28 S5 "E 9.37 20 "W 12.40 0 °W 12.78 N83452 "E 102.32 N84'02'29 "E 750.00 CURVE TABLE CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH C7 8'02'07" 440.00 61.71 C2 61'12'51" 15.00 16.D3- C3 4.32'53" 640.00 50.80 C4 144'29`33" 13.85 34.93 CS 172'48'14" 73.85 41.7'7 C6 26` 5'27" 640.00 295.16 C7 30'58 "LO" 640.00 345.96 CS 53'27'40" 440.00 410.55 C10 74' 0'00" 4M10.00 568.28 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2012 - (MAP) OWNERS EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -61 PARCEL 1 Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440- 132 -60 PARCEL 2 F1SE M ND11S Q SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OF LAGUNA BEACH COUNTY WATER DISTRICT HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR WATER PIPE LINE PURPOSES RECORDED NOVEMBER 30, 1928 IN BOOK 221 PAGE 76 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS TCOUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT No. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR SEWER PURPOSES RECORDED MARCH 16, 966 IN BOOK 7870 PAGE 919 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AMENDED SEPTEMBER 15, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83- 406733 6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO., ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO.,. TELEPROMPTER CABLE T.V. 0., AND PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO. HOLDERS OF VARIOUS EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES RESERVED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83- 549259 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS q) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HOLDER ALL RIGHTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE ADJOINING HIGHWAY, RESERVED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT N0, 83- 549259 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS ® THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR HIGHWAY AND DRAINAGE PURPOSES RECORDED MARCH 22, 1984 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 84- 118950 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 1O THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOLDER OF EASEMENTS FOR WATERLINE AND STORM DRAIN PURPOSES AS OFFERED FOR DEDICATION PER PARCEL MAP NO. 93 -111 U THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOLDER OF THE IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AN EASEMENT FOR STREET PURPOSES AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT, OVER A PORTION OF SAID LAND. SAID OFFER WAS NOT ACCEPTED AT THIS TIME, 13 A NON- EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 93-111 OVER THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 93 -111 DESIGNATED BY NOTE K, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 278, PAGES 40 TO 45 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS CORRECTED BY THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED JUNE 6, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94- 380365 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS NOTED IN THE IN THE DEED RECORDED AUGUST 23, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT N0, 2004000762947 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND AS RESERVED IN THE DEED RECORDED AUGUST 23, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000762948 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND RE- RECORDED OCTOBER 22, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000955355 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 14 A NON- EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR RECREATIONAL USE FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 93-11 THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 93-111 DESIGNATED BY NOTE L IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEAM, COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 278, PAGES 40 TO 45 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS CORRECTED BY THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED JUNE 6, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94- 380365 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS NOTED IN THE IN THE DEED RECORDED AUGUST 23, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT N0. 2004000762947 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND AS RESERVED IN THE DEED RECORDED AUGUST 23, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000762948 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS RE- RECORDED OCTOBER 22, 2DO4 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000955355 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 16 AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF A PORRON OF PARCEL 3 OF FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES PER THE DOCUMENTS RECORDED AUGUST 23, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NOS. 2004 - 762949 AND 2004 - 762950, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE AND NOT PLOTTABLE. 18 THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOLDER OF EASEMENT(S) FOR STORM DRAIN PURPOSE(S) AS DELINEATED OR AS OFFERED FOR DEDICATION, THE MAP OF PARCEL MAP NO, 93 -111 SHEET 7 OF 7 EXHIBIT IICN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2012 - (SITE PLAN) OWNERS EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -61 PARCEL 1 Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -60 PARCEL 2 I O 3 6 0;, GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE: 1"=300' 2 Ppvtc - SO 3�. pc. � � „ .• i1 ' \ � � : -„ n . 999 , I Ilk 5 ' - - DETAIL - I - -- SHEET2 SITE PLAN e rn e M s LAND S v Dy THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. LEGEND SqL- ��'�' EXISTING LOT LINES TO REMAIN DATED DAY OF 2012. PROPOSED LOT LINE 'r9j. IS 530 �Q• — — — — EXISTING LOT LINES TO BE ADJUSTED f OF - - - - - - - EXISTING EASEMENTS AS NOTED CAIIF�� SEE SHEET 3 FOR EASEMENT NOTES L USELTON, L.S. 5347 SHEET 1 OF 3 EXHIBIT licit CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LONE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2012 - (SITE PLAN) OWNERS EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -61 PARCEL 1 Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440- 132 -60 PARCEL 2 S E E S H E E T 1 -'��� Vy1 129 2,keN�, 62 ° ten° ` �p o< i < d �a , g Imo/ v ✓� –i. 0 –1-1 , ,/`coo X09 JU' �v 3�l oo ti / ��� / ,' of 0. 00� r D c� o W W Id Cowl 03' 5.6 �6�vll-y W.— �vegrd Cor 11 N gYNVy O�erhan9 ____________ — ___ -_-- ___ - -_ N !i/ / _ ----------------- LLJ W PARCEL 2 U) W . __ -_ � I W Mh odd 1 > (n '1 _ -- ---- - - - - -- -- -- -- 10 31.131 Ac. (GROSS) - -- – ___ - -- _ 3 28.899 Ae. (NET) I II - - --- ------- - --- S E E S H E E T 1 SITE PLAN LEGEND EXISTING LOT LINES TO REMAIN 0 20 40 80 PROPOSED LOT LINE — — — — EXISTING LOT LINES TO BE ADJUSTED - - - - - -- EXISTING EASEMENTS AS NOTED GRAPHIC SCALE SEE SHEET 3 FOR EASEMENT NOTES SCALE:1 " =80' SHEET 2 OF 3 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA 2012 - (SITE PLAN) OWNERS EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBER Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -61 PARCEL 1 Bayside Village Marina, LLC 440 - 132 -60 PARCEL 2 EASEMENT NOTES TSUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OF LAGUNA BEACH COUNTY WATER DISTRICT HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR WATER PIPE LINE PURPOSES RECORDEO NOVEMBER 30, 1926 IN BOOK 221 PAGE 76 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS ® COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT No. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR SEWER PURPOSES RECORDED MARCH 16, 11966 IN BOOK 7870 PAGE 919 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AMENDED SEPTEMBER 15, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83- 406733 © SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO., ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO., TELEPROMPTER CABLE T.V. CO., AND PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH 00. HOLDERS OF VARIOUS EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES RESERVED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT N0, 83- 549259 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS STATE OF CALIFORNIA HOLDER ALL RIGHTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE ADJOINING HIGHWAY, 'I SERVED ESERVED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83- 549259 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS ® THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HOLDER OF AN EASEMENT FOR HIGHWAY AND DRAINAGE PURPOSES RECORDED MARCH 22, 1984 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 84- 118950 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS 10 THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOLDER OF EASEMENTS FOR WATERLINE AND STORM DRAIN PURPOSES AS OFFERED FOR DEDICATION R PARCEL MAP NO, 93 -111 11 THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOLDER OF THE IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AN EASEMENT FOR STREET PURPOSES AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT, OVER A PORTION OF SAID LAND. SAID OFFER WAS NOT ACCEPTED AT THIS TIME 13 A NON — EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 93-111 OVER THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 93-111 DESIGNATED BY NOTE K, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 278, PAGES 40 TO 45 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS CORRECTED BY THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED JUNE 6, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO, 94- 380365 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS NOTED IN THE IN THE DEED RECORDED AUGUST 23, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000762947 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND AS RESERVED IN THE DEED RECORDED AUGUST 23, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000762948 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND RE— RECORDED OCTOBER 22, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000955355 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, 14 A NON— EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR RECREATIONAL USE FOR THE BENEFIT OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 93-11 THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 93-111 DESIGNATED BY NOTE L IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 278, PAGES 40 TO 45 INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS CORRECTED BY THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED JUNE 6, 1994 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 94- 380365 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; AS NOTED IN THE IN THE DEW RECORDED AUGUST 23, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000762947 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AND AS RESERVED IN THE DEED RECORDED AUGUST 23, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000762948 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS RE— RECORDED OCTOBER 22, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004000955355 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 16 AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF A PORTION OF PARCEL 3 OF FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES PER THE DOCUMENTS RECORDED AUGUST 23, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NOS. 2004 - 762949 AND 2004 - 762950, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE AND NOT PLOTTABLE. fi�YHE BEACH HOLDER OF EASEMENT(S) FOR STORM DRAIN PURPOSE(S) AS DELINEATED OR AS OFFERED FOR DEDICATION, ON MAP OF PARCELT SHEET 3 OF 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1928 EXHIBIT L CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA2011 -003 The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. Prior to the release for recordation, approval from the California Coastal Commission shall be required. 3. Prior to the release for recordation of the lot line adjustment, the applicant shall apply for a building permit to demolish the three mobile home units currently addressed as 76 Yorktown, 102 Yorktown, and 125 Liberty, the internal drive aisles and parking spaces within the mobile home park shall be reconfigured in conformance with Exhibit 8 of the Back Bay Landing Planned Community Development Plan, and all work fulfilling this requirement shall be completed and finaled by the Building Division. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of this approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Back Bay Landing including, but not limited to LA2011 -003 (PA2011 -216). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.