HomeMy WebLinkAbout85-74 - Bayview Project Environmental Impact Reportu
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -74
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
FOR THE BAYVIEW PROJECT, MAKING STATEMENTS OF FACT
WITH SUPPORTING FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
AND STATEMENTS OF 0VERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) 440 has
been prepared to address the environmental effects, mitigation
measures, and project alternatives associated with proposed Land Use
Element Amendment (LU) 85 -1, Zone Change: (ZC) 84 -SP, Community Profile
Amendment (CPA) 84 -11, and Site Plan /Use Permit SP84- 78/UP84 -78 for
the Bayview project; and,
WHEREAS, DEIR 440 was prepared pursuant to the require-
ments of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State
Guidelines (Guidelines), and County Environmental Analysis procedures;
and
WHEREAS, written and oral comments on DEIR 440 were
received from the public during and after the public review period;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the County of Orange
conducted public hearings to receive all public testimony with respect
to DEIR 440; and
WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to
through a response to comments document, various staff reports, and
testimony submitted to the Planning Commission and received by the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport
Beach has reviewed all environmental documentation comprising EIR 440
and has found that EIR 440 considers all environmental effects of the
Bayview portion proposed Land Use Element Amendment LU 85 -1, Zone
Change 84 -8P, Community Profile Amendment 84 -11 and Site Plan /Use
• Permit SP84- 78/UP84 -78 and is complete and adequate and fully complies,,
with all requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City
Council of the City of Newport Beach that EIR 440 be certified as
complete and adequate; and
WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15090 of the
Guidelines requires that the City Council make one or more of the
following findings prior to approval of a project for which an EIR has
been completed identifying one or more significant effects of the
project, along with statements of acts supporting each finding:
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the
significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the
EIR.
FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the respon-
sibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the
agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by
such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other
agency.
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, Section 15093(a) of the Guidelines requires the
City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the
project; and
WHEREAS, Section 15093(b) requires, where the decision of
the City Council allows the occurrence of significant effects which
are identified in the EIR but are not mitigated, the City must state
in writing the reasons to support its action based on the EIR or other
information in the record.
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Newport Beach that:
1. The City Council makes the Findings contained in the
- 2 -
Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in
the Final EIR together with the Finding that each fact in support of
the Findings is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the
record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached
hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference as if
• fully set forth.
2. The City Council finds that the Facts set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by
substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The
Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit 2
and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified
all significant environmental effects of the project and that there
are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the
Final EIR.
4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the
project are set forth in the Statement of Facts.
5. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR
identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result
if the project is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly
be avoided or mitigated have been avoided or mitigated by the imposi-
tion of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of
mitigation measures as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the
Final EIR.
6. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures
and project alternatives not incorporated into the project were
rejected as infeasible, based upon specific economic, social and other
considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final
EIR.
7. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant
tially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of Conditions on the
- 3 -
impacts of the
project, as
identified in the Statement of Facts, that
have not been
reduced to a
level of insignificance have been substan-
tially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of Conditions on the
- 3 -
approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures. In making
its decision on the project, the City Council has given greater weight
to the adverse environmental impacts. The City Council finds that the
remaining unavoidable significant impacts are clearly outweighed by
the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth
• in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
S. The City Council finds that: the Final EIR has described
all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain
the basic objectives of the project, even when those alternatives
might impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more
costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was
made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR
and all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process
of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project.
9. The City Council finds that the project should be approved
and that any alternative to this action should not be approved for the
project based on the information contained in the Final EIR, the data
contained in the Statement of Facts and for the reasons stated in the
public record and those contained in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
10. The City Council finds that a good faith effort has been
made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation
of the Draft and Final EIR as indicated in the public record on the
project, including the Final EIR.
11. The City Council finds that during the public hearing
process on the Bayview Project, the County of Orange and the environ-
mental documents evaluated a range of alternatives and the project, as
approved by this Resolution, is included within that range of alter-
natives. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the
Planning Commission in its decision on the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council
does hereby certify the Final EIR for the Bayview Project as complete
and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the
- 4 -
proposed project and fully complies with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines. Said
Final EIR is composed of the following elements:
a) Certified Final Environmental. Impact Report No. 440
of the County of Orange
• b) Planning Commission Staff Reports
c) Planning Commission Minutes
d) City Council Staff Reports
e) City Council Minutes
f) City Council Resolution and Ordinance
g) Comments and responses received prior to final action
and not contained in a) through f) above.
All of the above information has been and will be on file
with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915, (714) 644 -3225.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
PLT/kk
9/23/85
CC14
ADOPTED THIS 23rd day of September , 1985.
- 5 -
EXHIBIT I
STATEMENT OF FACTS
SEPTEMBER 23, 1985
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
• PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS,
AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL
WITH RESPECT TO THE BAYVIEW DEVELOPMENT.
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR
Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
"NO public agency shall approve or carry out a project for
which an environmental impact report has been completed and
which identified one or more significant effects of the
project unless the public agency makes one or more written
findings for each of these significant effects, accompanied
by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding."
(Section 15091)
The City of Newport Beach proposes to approve an amendment to the
General Plan, a Zone Change, and a Development Agreement. The pro-
posed actions constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, and
an Environmental Impact Report is required. The County of Orange
prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. Draft
EIR (DEIR) 440 evaluated the proposed project and a series of alterna-
tives. In the course of the public review of DEIR 440 the project
land use plan was refined to reflect comments received during the
public review period and additional consideration given to project
alternatives. The current project proposal is a a refinement of the
original project land use plan and the Regional Park /Business Park /Res-
idential Development alternative presented in DEIR 440 (See Section
6.15 of the DEIR).
In light of the refined project proposal, the environmental impacts
identified in DEIR 440 were reevaluated and it was determined that
there were no new significant adverse impacts which were not addressed
within the context of the DEIR. This reevaluation of project impacts
is documented in Volume III, Section V of Final EIR 440.
The refined land use plan for the project is hereafter identified as
the proposed project for purposes of making required findings and
statements pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The EIR identified certain significant effects which may
occur as a result of this project. Further, this City Council has
determined that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accor-
dance with CEQA and the Guidelines. Therefore, the following findings
are set forth herein pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
EARTH RESOURCES
• Significant Effect - Existing topography will be altered by grading of
the entire site with exception of areas below the bicycle /equestrian
trails. Fill will be placed southerly of Orchard DRive to create a
level building pad.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - In refining the project proposal, the
amount of open space within the project site was increased by approxi-
mately 5.7f acres. This increase in open space will reduce the amount
of development area subject to grading. Preliminary soils engineering
and geologic studies prepared for the ;project recommended mitigating
measures and future, more detailed studies. These recommendations
have been incorporated into the design of the project and as con-
ditions of approval. A Resource Management Plan (LU85 -1 Conditions of
Approval) will ensure that graded areas will be compatible with
• natural landforms. The interface of the open space area with proposed
trails and bay dredging shall be coordinated with responsible
agencies. An erosion control plan for graded areas shall be submitted
prior to or concurrent with a subdivision map.
Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction
with subsequent technical studies required for future discretionary
actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project
proposal are described in Attachment 2.
WATER RESOURCES
Significant Effect - Surface runoff and. drainage flows will increase
from site development. This project, in conjunction with other past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in a
significant cumulative adverse impact on water quality in Newport Bay.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - In refining the project proposal, the
amount of open space within the project site was increased by approxi-
mately 5.7± acres. This increase in open space will reduce the amount
of development area and will, to a limited extent, decrease surface
runoff. A comprehensive erosion control program and Runoff Management
Plan shall be required with subsequent project approvals. Best
management practices specified in the Upper Newport Bay 208 Water
Quality Control Plan shall be implemented. Transport of debris and
other pollutants to Upper Newport Bay shall be controlled through
frequent paved surface (e.g., parking lot) cleaning and landscape
maintenance controls of the use of fertilizers and pesticides.
Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction
with subsequent technical studies required for future discretionary
actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project
are described in Attachment 2.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided
have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project
or future project approvals as set forth above.
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings - Impacts to water quality resulting from
increased surface runoff and drainage flows would be reduced under
project alternatives which include less impervious surface area than
the current project proposal. The no development alternative, while
reducing urban runoff impacts, would continue to allow erosion of
• sediment from the site which has ad adverse impact on the Back Bay.
The Business Park- High -Rise alternative would have a similar impact to
the proposed project. The recreation alternative would reduce both
silt and urban runoff impacts. These alternatives were evaluated in
the Draft EIR and considered during the course of the public review
process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons
noted in Attachment 3.
-2-
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when
balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the
remaining, unavoidable significant effect.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect - Archaeological sites CA- Ora -192, -348, and -351
are expected to be impacted by removal of vegetation and site grading.
• Destruction of onsite cultural resources would be a significant
impact. Paleontological resources (specifically fossiliferous terrace
deposits) along Upper Newport Bay will be destroyed with site develop-
ment.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid. or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - The mitigation measures include an
extensive program of archaeological site testing and, based on test
level investigation, preservation, salvage, partial salvage or no
mitigation to be determined on a site by site basis. Procedures
regarding routine surveillance for presently undetected archaeological
and paleontological resources and temporary redirection of grading or
work stoppage are also established. Additional specific mitigation
measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical
studies required for future discretionary actions. The nature of such
studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in
Attachment 2.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided
have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project
or future project approvals as set forth above.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect - Construction activities and an increase in urban
activity on the site may result in both short and long -term "harass-
ment" effects to wildlife in adjacent habitats. Of specific concern
is the endangered lightfooted clapper rail, know to utilize the
marshes around the Ecological Reserve.. Earthmoving operations may
cause sediment to accumulate in adjacent marsh areas, during site
grading.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - Sensitive: marsh habitat and associated
wildlife shall be protected through public access and erosion con-
trols, berms and native vegetation screening. Grading and fill shall
be restricted to areas above the proposed trail area along Bayview
Way, thus preserving sensitive habitat areas. Biological resource
impacts will be further reduced through measures included in the
Resource Management and Runoff Management plans (LU85 -1 Conditions of
Approval).
Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction
with subsequent technical studies required for future discretionary
• actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project
proposal are described in Attachment 2.
T.AMT) UqF.
Significant Effect - Eventual development of the project site will
result in the irretrievable conversion of undeveloped land and a
vacant elementary school site to more intense urban uses. This
-3-
project, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable
future projects, will have a significant cumulative adverse impact on
the intensity of land use in the project vicinity.
The Bayview project is not consistent with all aspects of County LUCP
scenarios currently under study.
Although the project provides for a regional park, development of the
site would preclude the inclusion of the entirety of the parcel in the
• conceptual boundaries of the proposed county Upper Newport Bay Region-
al Park.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - The project as described in the Draft
EIR has been modified. A Refined Land Use Plan (R -LUP) has been
prepared. The project changes include additional open space and
recreational area. The R -LUP (i.e., proposed project) land uses are
considered compatible with surrounding existing and planned land uses.
Approval of the SPA -LUP would increase permanent open space available
for the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park relative to the
originally proposed land use plan evaluated in the Draft EIR. Fur-
ther, the R -LUP implements what would otherwise be a nonbinding park
dedication mitigation measure associated with the originally proposed
plan (Attachment 1, #27). The project is conditioned to offer irrevo-
cably for dedication of land for park and trail purposes (LU85 -1
Conditions of Approval). Development of the remainder of the site
will not preclude establishing a viable: regional park, nor limit its
operation. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in
conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for future
discretionary actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to
the project proposal are described in Attachment 2.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided
have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and. incorporated into the project
or future project approvals as set forth. above.
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - The conversion of vacant land to urban
uses would only be avoided under the No Development alternative and
possibly or partially under the Regional Park /Recreational Facilities
alternatives. The no development alternative, however, would be
inconsistent with the existing General Plan designation which allows
residential uses within the study area. Project alternatives which
would still result in the conversion of land but would be less intense
than the current project proposal include: No Project, LUCP Scenarios
1, 2, 3, 5 and 8, and the Business Park- Low - Rise /Reduced Intensity.
Although less intense than the current proposal, the no project, and
LUCP Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 alternatives would allow noise - sensitive
residential uses adjacent to Bristol Street and could present the
potential fur substantial unmitigable noise impacts. These alterna-
tives were evaluated in the Draft EIR and considered during the course
of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected
in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well
• as for reasons noted in Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when
balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the
remaining, unavoidable significant effect.
-4-
TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
Significant Effect - This project, in conjunction with other past,
present and foreseeable future projects will have a significant
adverse impact on traffic and circulation. With the addition of
14,077 average daily trip ends, nineteen critical intersections will
be impacted, with project - related traffic amounting to greater than
one percent of the 211 hour peak period traffic for the the area. Of
the critical intersections, twelve of the nineteen are estimated to
is have ICU values greater than 0.90 for 1989 conditions without the
project. The addition of project - related traffic results in fifteen
intersections of the nineteen having an ICU greater that 0.90. A
traffic signal will be warranted at the project access point on
Jamboree Road.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - The originally proposed project evalu-
ated in DEIR 440 has been changed. The R -LUP provides a reduction in
average daily trips (ADT) from the original project. The project will
contribute to or provide full improvements to significantly affected
intersections and roadways. Key roadway and intersection improvements
will be required prior to project occupancy. The project shall
participate in potential fee programs for major roads in the vicinity.
To facilitate areawide circulation, options for a potential future
extension of University Drive between Jamboree Drive and Irvine Avenue
have been maintained with the project. The traffic impact of the
Bayview Development will be monitored through participation in the
County Annual Monitoring Report/Development Monitoring Program process
to ensure timely provision of needed capacity. Additional specific
mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent
technical studies and relationship to the project proposal are de-
scribed in Attachment 2.
FINDING 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 and should be adopted by such other agency.
Facts in Support of Finding - Potential widening of southbound Bristol
Street in the project area to accommodate cumulative traffic demands
will require permits from Caltrans for construction within the state
right -of -way.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided
have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project
or future project approvals as set forth above.
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - Traffic impacts, both positive (proposed
local circulation system improvements) and negative would be be
avoided under the No Development alternative.
All of the other alternatives would result in the generation of
• vehicle trips which would have direct and indirect (cumulative)
impacts, the extent of which would be relative to the intensity of
development proposed by each alternative. Traffic impacts would be
notably less than the current proposal under the LUCP Scenarios 1 and
3 alternatives due to the low traffic generation characteristics of
residential, agricultural, and equestrian uses; and slightly less
-5-
under the no project, LUCP Scenarios 2, 5, 8, and the Business
Park -Low Rise /Reduced Intensity alteratives due to lower traffic
impacts associated with the Regional Park /Recreation Facilities
alternative would depend on the specific uses proposed but would
probably be less than the current proposal. All other alternatives
considered for the project would have traffic impacts similar to those
of the current proposal. These alternatives were evaluated in the
Draft EIR and considered during the course of the public review
process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
• current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons
noted in Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when
balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the
remaining, unavoidable significant effect.
ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT
Significant Effect - Construction noise will have a short -term impact
on noise levels in adjacent local residential areas. However, this
project, in conjunction within other past, present and foreseeable
future projects will have a significant cumulative adverse impact on
roadway noise levels in the area.
The proposed project will be exposed to noise levels greater than
acceptable by Orange County standards. Potential land use conflicts
between residential and non - residential uses are anticipated.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - The project will comply with an exten-
sive list of mitigation measures and /or conditions to reduce
short -term and cumulatively significant long -term noise effects
(Attachment 1, #31 through 39). Residential lots and dwellings shall
be sound attenuated to meet county interior and exterior noise stan-
dards. A detailed acoustical analysis report shall be required
describing the exterior noise environment and proposed acoustical
design features. Project generated noise at the nearest
noise - sensitive receptor shall not exceed the adopted county standard.
An avigation easement over the property will be conveyed to the
county, and prospective purchasers, .lessees or tenants shall be
notified to jet noise impacts onsite. Additional specific mitigation
measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical
studies required for future discretionary actions. The nature of such
studies and relationships to the project proposal are described in
Attachment 2.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided
have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and. incorporated into the project
or future project approvals as set forth above.
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings - Noise impacts to or from the project
. site would only be avoided under the No Development alternative.
Noise impacts to onsite uses would be substantially greater under the
no project, and LUCP Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 alternatives than under the
current proposal. This is due to these alternatives allowing residen-
tial development adjacent to Bristol Street. Noise impacts to the
project site under the LUCP Scenarios 5 and 8, Business Park -Low Rise,
Business Park -High Rise, Office Park, and Business Park
Low- Rise /Reduced Intensity alternatives, would be comparable to the
current proposal due to existing nearby noise influences and the
proposal of uses with noise sensitivity characteristics similar to
that of the currently proposed uses. Noise impacts from development
on the project site would relate primarily to the amount of traffic
generated by each proposal alternative (see facts in support of
Finding No. 3 for Transportation /Circulation above). These alterna-
tives were evaluated in the Draft EIR and considered during the course
of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected
in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well
• as for reasons noted in Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when
balanced against facts set forth above and is the Statement of
Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the
remaining, unavoidable significant effect.
AIR QUALITY
Significant Effect - This project, in conjunction with other past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in an
incremental degradation of air quality. The project will generate a
maximum of 88,685 miles of vehicular travel daily which will impact
regional air quality.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - The cumulative effects of vehicular
emissions will be reduced through legislative controls, the provision
of public transit in the area and location of employment centers in
closer proximity to housing /labor supply. Adopted "reasonable avail-
able control measures" for air quality effects shall be investigated
for their application to the project.
FINDING 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 and should be adopted by such other agency.
Facts in Support of Finding - The California State Air Resources
Board, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the South-
ern California Association of Governments have authority for the
formulation, administration and enforcement of regional air quality
management plans, including control of mobile and stationary sources
of pollutant emissions.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided
have been eliminated or substantially lessened by the virtue of
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into
the project or future project approvals as set forth above.
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR. -
Facts in Support of Finding - With the exception of the No Development
alternative, each of the alternatives considered for the project will
result in an incremental degradation of air quality. The extent of
such degradation will depend on the intensity of development proposed
by each alternative. These alternatives were evaluated in the Draft
EIR and considered during the course of the public review process.
The alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for
the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when
balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the
remaining, unavoidable significant effect.
-7-
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Significant Effect - Annexation of the 64 acre site to Irvine Ranch
Water District will be required for water and wastewater services.
The project will add to the demand for fire personnel and equipment,
police, water, wastewater and transit, and will cumulatively affect
the remaining capacities of these services and utilities in conjunc-
tion with ongoing growth in the area.
• FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
•
Facts in Support of Finding - Project participation in the Annual
Monitoring Report /Development Monitoring Program process ensures that
development will occur only with available infrastructure capacity and
service capabilities. Methods to meet project fire protection re-
quirements will be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the fire chief
prior to development. Water and sewer availability will be verified.
Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction
with subsequent technical studies and relationship to the project
proposal are described in Attachment 2.
FINDING 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 and should
be adopted by such other agency.
Facts in Support of Finding - Site annexation to the Irvine Ranch
Water District will be subject to approval of the Local Agency Forma-
tion Commission. Also, the provision of public services and utilities
to the study area will be subject to the! approval of /or agreement with
the affected agency.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided
have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project
or future project approvals as set forth above.
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - With the exception of the No Development
alternative and possibly the Regional Park /Recreational Facility
alternative, all of the project alternatives would result in a demand
for public services and utilities. It is recognized, however, that
the level of demands will depend on the development intensity of the
project alternatives. These alternatives were evaluated in the Draft
EIR and considered during the course of the public review process.
Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current
proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when
balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the
remaining, unavoidable significant effect.
ENERGY RESOURCES
Significant Effect - The project will result in an increase in demand
for electricity and natural gas.
cm
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid. or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - Conservation measures are required to
reduce energy requirements of the proposed development. The project
will meet or exceed state energy standards for appliances and new
buildings.
• All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided
have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project
or future project approvals as set forth above.
AESTHETICS
Significant Effect - Project development: will alter the visual charac-
ter and aesthetic qualities of the area. Within the proposed develop-
ment, the relationship between the residential and commercial area
along Bayview Place is a potentially sicnificant impact.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid. or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - Landscape treatments and the project's
visual interface with the Upper Newport: Bay Ecological Preserve will
be coordinated and carefully controlled through the Resource Manage-
ment Plan. The plan will ensure continuity and an appropriate transi-
tion between development and open space. Approval of both preliminary
and subsequent detailed landscape plans will be required prior to
development. Assurances of continued interior and exterior slope and
landscape maintenance will be required. Additional specific mitiga-
tion measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical
studies required for future discretionary actions. The nature of such
studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in
Attachment 2.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided
have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project
or future project approvals as set forth above.
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - With the exception of the No Development
alternative and possibly the Regional Park /Recreation Facility alter-
native, development of the project site under any of the other project
alternatives would substantially alter the visual character of the
study area, as will the current project proposal. Visual impacts
would be notably less than those of current project proposal under the
No Project, and Business Park- Low -Rise /Reduced Intensity, and LUCP
Scenarios 1, 2, 3, alternatives as the uses allowed under these
alternatives would have a lower profile. LUCP Scenarios 5 and 8, and
the Business Park -High Rise and Office alternatives would provide for
multistory buildings, therefore presenting the potential for similar
if not greater visual impacts than the current proposal. These
alternatives were evaluated in the Draft: EIR and considered during the
• course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were
rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above
as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when
balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations made below, giving greater weight to the
remaining, unavoidable significant effect.
Gm
ATTACHMENT 1
LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES*
Earth Resources
1. The types of foundations for all mid -rise structures shall be
determined after site - specific foundation investigation has been
is conducted and when tentative foundation loads and other design
details, including depths of basements are known.
2. The final pavement section thickness shall be determined based
upon testing performed when designs are complete and the traffic
indexes have been assigned.
3. Prior to application for any grading permit, the applicant shall
submit soils engineering and geologic (if appropriate due to
slope conditions) studies to the Manager, Development Services,
County of Orange, for his approval. These reports will primarily
involve assessment of potential soil - related constraints and
hazards such as slope instability, settlement, liquefaction, or
related secondary seismic impacts where determined to be a
appropriate by the Manager, Development Services. The report
shall include evaluation of potentially expansive soil and
recommended construction procedures and /or design criteria to
minimize their effect of these soils on the proposed development.
All reports shall recommend appropriate mitigation measures and
be completed in the manner specified in the Orange County Grading
Manual and State /County Subdivision Ordinance or the City of
Newport Beach.
4. All slopes shall be designed at 2- horizontal to 1- vertical or
flatter except in areas where specific studies indicate that
steeper slopes are feasible.
5. Prior to implementation level approvals (i.e., tentative tract,
site plan, etc.) , the applicant shall provide evidence to the
Director of Regulation, EMA, which indicates that graded areas
will be compatible with natural landform characteristics.
Criteria to achieve the desired effect may include:
a. Recontouring the existing landforms to provide a smooth and
gradual transition between graded slopes and existing grade
while preserving the basic topographic character of the
existing site.
b. Variation and combination of slopes 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 to
create a more natural character wherever possible within the
graded areas.
C. Attempting to balance between cut and fill within the
overall area\ to eliminate an offsite and import /export
situation.
d. Obscuring slope drainage structures with a variety of plant
materials.
e. Incorporation of architectural and design techniques into
the project in order to minimize grading and enhancement of
offsite views such as split levels, clustering, etc.
f. Preservation of visual opportunities from hillsides by
providing for panoramic views from selected locations such
as view corridors, sensitive landscape placement, etc.
*This final list of mitigation measures incorporates and supercedes
all previous mitigation measures in EIR 440.
- 10 -
6. Prior to application of any grading permit, plan, etc., the
applicant shall submit an erosion control plan to the Manager,
Development Services, County of Orange or The City of Newport
Beach, for approval which shall include a discussion of measures
for dust pollution and mitigation of erosion caused by wind and
water. The plan shall also provide for effective planting,
maintenance, irrigation, and seed germination by the applicant
prior to the rainy season in graded areas which would otherwise
remain exposed in accordance with Subarticle 13 of the Grading
• and Excavation Code or with the requirements of the City of
Newport Beach.
7. The applications for the development of the site shall include
haul routes which include a description of haul routes, access
points to the site, and a watering and sweeping program designed
to minimize impacts of haul operations.
S. The interface of the open space area with proposed plans for
trails and dredging below the 20 -foot contour shall be coordinat-
ed with the City of Newport Beach and the Department of Fish and
Game.
Water Resources
9. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the site shall be
evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as a part of the
final design of the drainage facilities.
10. Prior to application for any grading permit, the applicant shall
submit to the Manager, Development: Services, County of Orange,
for review and approval an erosion control program which indi-
cates that proper control of siltation, sedimentation, and other
pollutants will be implemented as required in the Orange County
Grading Code and Grading Manual.
11. Concurrent with the recordation of the first Tentative Tract Map,
the applicant shall be required to participate in the appropriate
master Plan of Drainage facility, in a manner meeting the ap-
proval of the Manager, Development Services or the City of
Newport Beach Public Works Department. Participation may include
the construction of master plan facilities and /or dedication of
right -of -way and /or payment of drainage fees. Information shall
be submitted addressing the development's offsite impacts,
including diversions, offsite areas that drain onto and /or
through the project, justification of any diversions, and evi-
dence that proposed drainage patterns will not overload existing
storm drains. In addition, the applicant shall provide a study
which indicates that alternatives to underground conduit drainage
facilities, such as park /retention basins, natural swales, or
open greenbelt areas, have been considered. Future maintenance
requirements shall also be addressed as they relate to the
erosion control solutions.
12. Prior to rainy season, all of the existing slopes shall be
planted to reduce erosion potential.
13. All parking lots and other onsite paved surfaces in the commer-
cial areas shall be vacuum swept and cleaned weekly to reduce
debris and pollutants carried into the drainage system and
ultimately to Upper Newport Bay.
t14. The landscape and irrigation plans for all common areas of the
development shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect.
The plans shall include a maintenance program that includes the
controls of fertilizers and pesticides.
- 11 -
15. The tentative tract map contains a proposed drainage system which
collects and discharges runoff from the site to a grass -lined
swale between Bayview freshwater runoff prior to discharge into
the Ecological Reserve. Design will be coordinated with the
Department of Fish and Game.
16. During construction, the applicant shall implement Best Manage-
ment Practices (BMPS) contained in the Upper Newport Bay 208
Water Quality Control Plan.
• Cultural Resources
Archaeological Resources
17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, an archaeologist shall be
retained by the applicant to perform a subsurface test level
investigation and surface collection for CA -Ora -192, -348, and
-351 as outlined in the recommendations of the Archaeological
Assessment prepared for this EIR. This study is on file with the
Environmental Analysis Division, County of Orange. The test
level report evaluating the sites shall include discussion of
significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of resources),
final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates. Prior to
the issuance of a grading permit and based on the report rec-
ommendations and County policy, final mitigation shall be carried
out based upon a determination as to the site's disposition by
the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division. Possible deter-
minations include, but are not limited to, preservation, salvage,
partial salvage, or o mitigation necessary.
18. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, project applicant shall
provide written evidence to the Manager, Environmental Analysis
Division that a County- certified archaeologist has been retained,
shall be present at the pregrading conference, shall establish
procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall
establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures
for temporarily halting or redirecting as appropriate. If
additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered,
the archaeologist shall report such findings to the project
developer and to the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division.
If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the
archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in
cooperation with the project developer, for disposition of the
resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Manager,
Environmental Analysis Division.
19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, project applicant shall
provide written evidence to Manager, Environmental Analysis
Division that a County- certified paleontologist has been retained
by the applicant to conduct preconstruction salvage of the
exposed resources. The paleontologist shall submit a follow -up
report on survey methodology and findings to the Manager, En-
vironmental Analysis Division for review and approval.
20. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, project applicant shall
provide written evidence to Manager, Environmental Analysis
Division that a County- certified paleontologist has been retained
by the applicant to observe grading activities and salvage
fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the
pregrading conference, shall establish procedures for
• paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in
cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporari-
ly halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identifica-
tion, and evaluation of the fossils. If major paleontological
resources are discovered, which require long -term halting or
redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall determine
appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project developer,
which ensure proper exploration and /or salvage. These actions,
- 12 -
as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources,
shall be subject to approval by the Manager, Environmental
Analysis Division. If significant fossils are found, the
paleontologist shall submit a follow -up report for approval by
the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division, which shall include
the period of inspection, analysis of the fossils found, and
present repository of the fossils.
21. Where feasible, the landowner shall donate the salvaged fossils
• to an institution with an interest in curating the collection.
Such institutions include, but are not limited to, the Natural
History Foundation of Orange County or the Natural History Museum
Of Los Angeles, County.
Biological Resources
22. Grading activities or deposition of fill for project development
shall not take place at or below the trail area generally depict-
ed in the City of Newport Beach "Beach, Bicycle, and Equestrian
Trail Study" (see Exhibit 10). This will eliminate the chance of
the coastal brackish marsh located adjacent to the site from
being directly impacted by the project.
23. Immediate stabilization of bare soils should be conducted to
avoid significant erosion hazards. Mitigation measures in the
Water Resources section of this EIR list suggested measures
related to erosion control.
24. Immediately following construction, cut and fill slopes and
natural slopes adjacent to the bay shall be revegetated with
suitable native plant material and stabilized to reduce ero-
sion /sedimentation hazards and to prevent the intrusion of
non - native plant species into adjacent areas.
25. Public access to sensitive marsh habitat shall be controlled
through adequate signage along any adjacent public trails.
26. Berming with native vegetation shall be established along the bay
side of Bayview Way and at the bottom of the "T" intersection
with Bayview Place to shield the adjacent area of the bay from
roadway noise and nighttime auto lights. Berming shall be at
least three feet high.
Land Use and Land Use Plans
27. During the public review period, consideration shall be given to
dedicating a portion of the property for regional park purposes.
Determination as to the parcel size, location, and feasibility of
such action shall be determined prior to approval of the General
Plan amendment and zone change.
Traffic and Circulation
28. The applicant will be required to contribute to or provide full
improvements to intersection and roadway improvements listed in
Table 12 (Revised) prior to the occupancy of the project. If the
committed intersection improvements listed on Table 5 (Revised)
are not constructed prior to occupancy, the applicant will also
be required to contribute to or provide the improvements. The
applicant will also be required to provide roadway improvement as
OPspecified in the Development Agreement.
29. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay
fees as prescribed in the fee program for the San Joaquin Hills
Transportation Corridor and if such a program is established by
the Board of Supervisors or the City of Newport Beach, partici-
pate in a fee program for transportation improvements in the
Santa Ana Heights /Airport Area.
- 13 -
30. A right -of -way reservation shall be placed on that portion of the
project site which may be impacted by feasible alternative
alignments of proposed University Drive between the present
terminus of Mesa Drive and the boundary of the Upper Newport Bay
Ecology Reserve. The reservation shall remain in effect until 1)
the County selects an alignment for University Drive, or 2) the
County determines that an extension of University Drive through
the property will not be required, or 3) twenty -four months from
tentative tract approval have elapsed.
• The limits of the right -of -way reservation shall be defined by an
engineering feasibility study acceptable to the Manager, Trans-
portation /Flood Office, EMA, and the City of Newport Beach Public
Works Department, and shall be shown on all site plans and
tentative tract maps.
Acoustic Environment
31. All residential lots and dwellings shall be sound - attenuated
against present and projected noise, which shall be the energy
sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an
exterior standard of 65 CNEL and an interior standard of 45 CNEL.
In addition, the maximum interior sound levels due to intrusive
sounds shall not exceed 55 dBA for railroad noise or 65 dBA for
aircraft noise. The design level shall be determined by cal-
culating the energy average of the maximum levels of the loudest
30 percent of intrusive sounds expected to occur during any
24 -hour period. It is not intended for the L max component of
the noise condition of approval to apply to any tract or portion
thereof where the energy sum of all noise impacting the property,
expressed in terms of dB CNEL, is less than 57.
An accredited expert or authority in the field of acoustics shall
submit evidence in accordance with the following procedure which
certifies that the aforementioned standards will be satisfied in a
manner which complies with zoning regulations:
a. An acoustical analysis report shall be submitted to the City
of Newport Beach for approval either prior to recordation of
a final tract /parcel map or prior to completion of any
application for grading permits, if required by the County.
The report shall describe in detail the exterior noise
environment. Optionally, acoustical design features to
satisfy the interior noise standards may be included in the
report.
b. Prior to issuance of building permits, satisfactory evidence
shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach which
indicates that the sound - attenuation measures specified in
the approved acoustical report have been incorporated into
the project design.
33. At the time of the first tentative tract map approval /site plan,
the following conditions shall apply:
a. Noise levels generated by this project during operation
shall not exceed 50 dBA at the nearest noise - sensitive
receptor property line (including future residential, etc.).
An acoustical analysis report and appropriate plans shall be
submitted to the City of Newport Beach for review and
• approval, describing the noise generation potential and
proposed attenuation measures necessary to meet the 50 dBA
standard. The approved attenuation features shall be
incorporated into the plans and specifications of the
project prior to the issuance of any building permits.
- 14 -
b. Noise levels generated by this project during operation
shall also comply with Orange County Noise Ordinance No.
2715.
34. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall
submit to the Manager, Environmental Analysis Division, in
writing, his intention to comply with the following:
a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile,
• operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped
with properly operating and maintained mufflers.
b. All operations shall comply with Orange County Noise Ordi-
nance No. 2715.
C. Stockpiling and /or vehicle staging areas shall be located as
far as practicable from dwellings as determined by the
Manager, Environmental Analysis Division.
35. Prior to recordation of the first final tract /parcel map, the
owner of record of the property within the boundaries of this
tentative tract /parcel map shall prepare and record a declaration
that this property is subject to overflight, sight, and sound of
aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport in a manner meeting
the approval of the City of Newport Beach.
36. Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy,
the developer shall produce evidence acceptable to the City of
Newport Beach, that the Department of Real Estate of the State of
California Final Subdivision Public Report contains information
stating this property is subject to the overflight, sight, and
sound of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport.
37. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map /the final
parcel map, an avigation easement over this property shall be
offered for dedication to the County of Orange in a manner
meeting the approval of the Manager, Environmental Analysis
Division.
38. Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy,
the applicant shall post signs that indicate certain areas of the
development are "Jet Noise Impact Areas." The format, number,
and location of said signs shall be as specified by the City of
Newport Beach.
39. Prior to sale, lease, or rental of any structure or portion
thereof, the owner shall provide to each prospective purchaser,
lessee, or tenant a notice that the property is subject to
overflight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John
Wayne Airport. The form and method of distribution of said
notice shall be as approved by the City of Newport Beach.
Air Quality
40. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions) will
assist in mitigating the impact of construction- generated dust
particulates.
41. Orange County's vehicular emissions will be reduced through
legislative exhaust emissions controls and the provision of both
mass transit in the area and the creation of closer employment
centers.
42. At precise planning stages, the developer shall investigate
implementing, where appropriate, the six reasonably available
control measures which the County Board of Supervisors adopted to
support on April 15, 1980:
- 15 -
• Energy conserving street lights;
• Traffic light synchronization;
• Preferential carpool parking;
• Modified work hours;
• Ridesharing;
• Bicycle /pedestrian facilities to reduce vehicle miles
traveled.
Public Services and Utilities
Fire Protection
43. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall identify in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief
that steps will be taken to protect structures and modify
wildland fire hazards. The applicant will be required to reduce
the risk of loss of life and damage to property to an acceptable
level through design of the project: and /or modification of fuels
on the project site and adjacent wildlands. If fuel modification
is selected as the preferred solution, the applicant will submit
a fuel modification plan for the approval of the Fire Chief which
will identify appropriate methods to reduce impacts on biological
resource values or on visually sensitive areas. Areas of partic-
ularly high biological or science value may require alteration of
development design or special treatment of fuel modification as
the appropriate method of reducing fire hazards.
44. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall
demonstrate in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief
that existing infrastructure and fire protection services are
adequate to serve the proposed development. Where existing
response time and services are inadequate, or where existing
water supply systems are inadequate to protect the proposed
development, the applicant shall indicate to the satisfaction of
the Fire Chief, the method and phasing of efforts to achieve
adequate fire protection capabilities. Possible measures to be
considered include dedication of :Eire station sites, financial
contributions toward additional equipment and personnel, required
improvements in water capacity, or increased built -in fire
protection for structures.
45. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall
submit water improvement plans to be approved by the Fire Chief
for fire protection purposes. The adequacy and reliability of
water system design, location of valves, and distribution of fire
hydrants will be evaluated in accordance with Insurance Services
Office suggested standards contained in the Fire Suppression
Rating Schedule. A financial security shall be posted for the
installation, if required.
46. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for combustible
construction, the applicant shall submit evidence to the Fire
Chief that a water supply for fire protection is available.
47. Prior to the approval of the site plan application, the applicant
shall depict on a site plan building locations and private drive
arrangements for approval by the Fire Chief on any portion of the
subdivision map served by private streets not previously depict-
ed.
• 48. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall
submit a construction phasing plan for approval by the Fire
Chief. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the adequacy of
emergency vehicle access for the number of dwelling units served.
49. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall
submit a fuel modification plan and program for approval by the
Fire Chief. The plan shall show the special treatment to achieve
- 16 -
an acceptable level of risk in regard to the exposure of struc-
tures to flammable vegetation and shall address the method of
removal and installation (mechanical or hand labor) and pro-
visions for its continuous maintenance. The fuel modification
plan will identify appropriate methods to reduce impacts on
biological resource values or on visually sensitive areas. Areas
of particularly high biological or scenic value may require
alteration of development design or special treatment of fuel
modification as the appropriate method of reducing fire hazard.
• The approved fuel modification plan shall be installed under the
supervision of the Fire Chief and completed prior to the issuance
of applicable use and occupancy permits.
50. Prior to final recordation of the first tentative tract map, the
applicant shall offer an irrevocable fire protection access
easement as required by the Fire Chief for any private roadways
within the development. The easement shall be continuous with
the travelway for the private drivers as shown on the approved use
permit, and shall be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach. The
CC &Rs shall contain provisions which prohibit obstructions within
the fire protection access easement and also require Fire Chief
approval for any modifications such as speed bumps, control
gates, or changes in parking plans within said easements.
51. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall
submit construction details for any controlled entry access for
approval by the Fire Chief. These details shall include width,
clear height, and means of emergency vehicle override.
Law Enforcement
52. Adequate street lighting and clearly identifiable address indica-
tors on all commercial buildings shall be provided.
53. Non - residential portions of the proposed project shall incorpo-
rate an internal security system (security guards, alarms, access
limits after hours) that shall be reviewed by the Police and Fire
Departments and approved by the Director of Planning.
Schools
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Public Transit
54. The applicant shall consult with OCTD regarding tentative map
design and shall incorporate transit and /or bus stops, bus
shelters, bus turn outs, and passenger waiting areas. This shall
occur prior to the issuance of any building permits and /or
grading permits.
Water
55. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation
of water - saving devices for lavatories and other water -using
facilities. Public and private toilet facilities shall be
low -flush toilets and low -flow faucets. Insulation shall be
required for hot water lines. Any public flush valve- operated
water closets will have a three- gallon flush, and drinking
fountains will have self - closing valves.
56. A landscape irrigation system shall be designed for all common
areas which minimizes water consumption.
57. Prior to approval of final map availability of water will be
verified by the serving agency.
- 17 -
58. The landscape program shall be designed to maximize the use of
drought- resistant plant material.
Wastewater
59. Prior to approval of final map availability of sewer shall be
verified by the serving agency.
Solid Waste
• No mitigation measures are necessary.
Energy Consumption and Conservation
60. Air infiltration via doors and windows in exterior walls and
adjacent to unconditioned spaces shall be minimized through
proper design and use of weatherstripping.
61. Determination of design loads for heating and cooling require-
ments shall be in accordance with state standards.
62. HVAC equipment for conditioned structures shall meet or exceed,
if feasible, the operating efficiency standards specified in the
State Appliance Efficiency Regulations.
63. All water heating devices shall meet or exceed the operating
efficiency standards specified in the State Appliance Efficiency
Regulations.
64. Exterior and parking -level lighting design shall maximize the use
of energy- efficient High Intensity Discharge Lighting sources.
Such sources include, in ascending order of efficiency, mercury
lamps, metal halide lamps, and high - pressure sodium lamps.
65. The project will be constructed in conformance with the recently
revised State Title 24 energy standards for new building.
Aesthetics
66. As conceptually denoted on Exhibit 4 (Volume III), landscaping
between the trail system and Bayview Way and along the fill slope
above Bayview Way will be provided. Where feasible, a berm along
the top of the slope along the bay side of Bayview Way will also
be provided in final designs.
67. The maximum grade separation feasible between the trail system,
Bayview Way, and proposed development has been provided. Grade
separation ranges up to 35 feet.
68. All areas to be dedicated to the County in fee or for landscape
maintenance purpose or irrevocably offered shall be landscaped,
equipped for irrigation, and improved in accordance with a plan
process as follows:
a. Preliminary Plan - Prior to the recordation of each final
tract map, an agreement shall be entered into and financial
security guaranteeing the landscaping improvements and the
maintenance thereof shall be posted. Said agreement and
security shall be based on a preliminary landscape plan
showing walls, fences, sound attenuation measures, walks,
• stairs, drives, parking, signs, trash areas, major plant
material and uses, and all structures and grading proposed,
with a cost estimate for the landscape improvements. The
preliminary plan and cost estimate shall be reviewed and
approved by the Manager, Development Services. Said plan
shall take into account the EMA Standard Plans for land-
scaped areas, adopted plant palette guides, and applicable
scenic and specific plan requirements.
- 18 -
b. Detailed Plan - Prior to clearance for issuance of any
building permit(s), a detailed landscape plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the Manager, Development
Services, County of Orange. Detailed plans shall show the
items of the preliminary plan and the detailed irrigation
and landscaping design.
C. Installation Certification - Prior to the issuance of final
certificates of use and occupancy and the release of the
• financial security guaranteeing the landscape improvements,
said improvements shall be installed and shall be certified
by a licensed landscape architect as having been installed
in accordance with the approved detailed plans. Said
certification shall be furnished in writing to the Manager,
Construction Division.
69. All areas /lots to be landscaped which will be privately main-
tained shall be landscaped and equipped for irrigation in accor-
dance with a plan certified by a licensed landscape architect as
taking into account the EMA Standard Plans for landscaped areas,
adopted plant palette guides, applicable scenic and specific plan
requirements, Grading Code erosion control requirements, and any
appropriate conditions of approval.
70. All Type "B" slopes and all open space lots shall be granted in
fee to the homeowners association who shall be responsible for
their maintenance and upkeep.
71. An easement over all of the Type "A" slopes adjacent to Jamboree
Road and Bayview Way shall be irrevocably offered to the County
of Orange for landscape maintenance and scenic highway purposes.
Until such time as the offer of dedication is accepted by the
County of Orange, the said landscape maintenance responsibility
shall be the responsibility of the subdivider /developer or their
assigns or the homeowners association, as applicable.
Slope stability and maintenance responsibilities shall remain the
responsibility of the subdivider /developer or their assigns or
the current underlying owner(s) of the slopes, as applicable, and
shall not be included in the irrevocable easement offer. The
County may or may not accept the said offer of dedication at the
time of final tract /parcel map approval for recordation. Fur-
ther, it is possible that the County of Orange will never accept
the dedication.
72. Prior to the approval of final map, availability of water shall
be verified by the serving agency.
73. Within the commercial areas, the applicant shall provide bicycle
racks in safe and convenient areas to encourage the use of
bicycles. In addition, an onstreet bike path will be provided on
Bayview Place to provide access from commercial and residential
areas to Bayview Way.
74. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified geotechnical
consultant shall investigate the reported fault trace in the
northeast corner of the site to determine its location and
relative age. This study will evaluate the potential for surface
rupture.
75. The following measure should be incorporated into the design and
operation of the proposed project:
Develop, promote and maintain a ridesharing program for all
employees at the commercial and hotel sites.
Register all employees with Orange County Transit District
(OCTD) ridesharing program.
- 19 -
• SR11
•
° Survey employees to determine current ridesharing level.
Perform follow -up surveys in three, six and twelve months to
determine employee participation.
° Subsidize the employees' ridesharing program (i.e., free bus
passes, vanpool programs).
° Install bus shelters to encourage transit usage.
- 20 -
ATTACHMENT 2
FUTURE STUDIES
• Consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines, EIR440
discusses environmental effects in proportion to their severity and
probability of occurrence. To that end, the EIR recognizes that
certain areas of impact from the Bayview development are unlikely to
occur, or if potentially occurring can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by imposition of conditions to future subdivision maps
and grading permits so that these impact: areas were not analyzed in as
great a depth as other impacts. The following constitute the subse-
quent technical studies that will be needed and prepared prior to
tentative tract map or grading permit approval with respect to Bayview
Development:
1. Geology and soil investigation including a foundation
investigation for all multi - story commercial structures;
2. Demonstration of the application of contour grading crite-
ria;
3. Erosion control plan including designation of haul routes
and access points;
4. Runoff management plan;
5. Landscape and irrigation plans;
6. Archaeological /test -level investigations and final mitiga-
tion recommendations;
7. Engineering feasibility study to establish arterial
right -of -way reservation;
8. Detailed site - specific acoustical analyses;
9. Resource Management Plan; and
10. Infrastructure engineering plans.
The City Council therefore finds, based upon all data currently
available, that while no significant adverse impacts are expected to
be discovered as a result of any of these subsequent, focused studies,
the requirements for such studies as a condition to the Bayview
Development, and the reservation of the power to incorporate any
mitigation measures required to mitigate any disclosed impacts to
insignificant levels in a timely manner, is itself adequate mitigation
for any impacts disclosed by such subsequent surveys and studies,
however unlikely.
SR11
•
- 21 -
ATTACHMENT 3
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Fifteen alternatives to the original project proposal were identified
and evaluated in DEIR 440 (see Section 6.0 of DEIR. The current
project proposal referred to as the Refined Land Use Plan (R -LUP) ,
represents a refinement of both the original plan and the Regional
Park /Business Park /Residential Development alternative included in the
DEIR. This refinement of the original project proposal occurred in
light of comments received during the public review period for DEIR
440 and consideration given to the project alternatives identified in
the DEIR. The following provides a brief description of project
alternatives other than the Regional Park /Business Park /Residential
Development alternative which was incorporated into the current
proposal and why each one was rejected in favor of the current project
proposal.
No Project - This alternative assumes development under existing
general plan /zoning designations which include suburban residential
uses and open space. The disadvantages of this alternative in compar-
ison to the current project proposal include the lack of commercial
and business park uses which provide for a balanced development,
increased potential for impacts to water resources (irrigation run-
off) , lack of provisions for circulation system improvements, and
greater incompatibility with existing and future noise sources. Also,
this alternative would still have similar impacts to topography,
geology, vegetations, existing land uses, and land use plans similar
to those of the current proposal.
No Development - This alternative assumes that the project site
remains in its existing condition and no development occurs. By not
allowing any development of the project site, land use intensification
pressures and development demands would be displaced to other nearby
areas and the cumulative impacts similar to those identified in EIR
440 would still occur. Under this alternative, continued erosion and
sedimentation impacts to Upper Newport Bay would continue, the pro-
vision of additional housing and employment opportunities would not be
realized, and the enhancement of passive recreation areas near Upper
Newport Bay would not occur. This alternative would also deny the
property owner any reasonable use of his land.
LUCP Scenario 1 - Under this alternative, the project site would be
used for agriculture and the existing school site for medium density
residential development. The major disadvantage of this alternative
is that in light of the existing and anticipated land use patterns and
trends in the local area, agricultural uses would be incompatible with
surrounding existing and planned development and would not represent a
logical extension of urban uses in the area. Also, it is unlikely
that agricultural activities could exist as an economically viable use
on the project site. Potential impacts to water quality in the Upper
Newport Bay resulting from agricultural activities (pesticides,
fertilizers, erosion, etc.) would be another significant negative
impact.
LUCP Scenario 2 - This alternative assumes that the project site
would be used for public facilities, medium density residential
development, and conservation /open space. This alternative would have
• similar impacts on geology /soils, water resources, biological re-
sources, community services and utilities as those associated with the
current proposal.
This alternative presents a greater potential for unmitigable noise
impacts by designating residential uses adjacent to Bristol Street and
the Corona del Mar freeway. Another disadvantage of this alternative,
in comparison with the current proposal, is that the benefits offered
22
by including onsite commercial/business park uses would not be re-
alized (the current proposal is more of a self- contained development).
LUCP Scenario 3 - This alternative assumes that the project site would
be used for medium density residential uses, conservation /open space
and possibly equestrian facilities. The key disadvantages associated
with this alternative are basically the same as those cited for LUCP
Scenario 2. Also, onsite equestrian facilities would most likely
prove to be incompatible with adjacent medium- density residential
isdevelopment.
LUCP Scenario 5 - Under this alternative the project site would be
developed for high- density residential uses, business park development
and equestrian facilities. Potential impacts associated with this
alternative are similar to those of the current project proposal.
Similar to LUCP Scenario 3, the compatibility of equestrian facilities
adjacent to high density residential uses and business park develop-
ment is questionable.
The current proposal has the advantage of offering residential and
business park uses and instead of equestrian facilities the current
project proposal provides for open space /recreation uses with a
broader public appeal and use.
LUCP Scenario 8 - This alternative is essentially the same as LUCP
Scenario 5 with the exception that it: specifically recognizes the
potential for extending University Drive from Jamboree Road through to
Irvine Avenue. This alternative has the same disadvantages as noted
for LUCP Scenario 5. However, the concept of recognizing the poten-
tial extension of University Drive was identified in the public review
process as being important to the project. As such, the current
project proposal, R -LUP, does not preclude options for the potential
extension of University Drive.
Business Park -Low Rise - This alternative would provide for the uses
currently proposed but would limit business park development to
low -rise buildings- only. The major disadvantage of this alternative
is that in order to maintain a comparable amount of office floor area
as the current proposal, the lower building heights would require
larger building footprints. In decreasing the amount of open area
between buildings, view corridors would be reduced, and the ambience
and visual character of the project would be negatively affected.
Also, this alternative would increase the amount of impervious surface
area associated with the project, thus increasing the amount of
surface runoff.
Business Park -High Rise - As opposed to the previous alternative, this
alternative would allow increased building heights in the business
park area. This alternative was rejected in favor of the current
proposal as it was felt that increasing the height of business park
buildings would negatively impact the overall appearance of the
project both in terms of views from Bristol Street and Jamboree Road,
and in terms of the visual transition between residential areas and
the business park area. The current proposal is felt to represent a
"balanced" community; functionally and aesthetically.
Office - This alternative would delete the commercial and the hotel
uses from the business park area. This alternative was rejected
because, unlike the current project proposal, the alternative does not
• provide for onsite commercial uses which increase the self- sufficiency
of the development, nor does it recognize the fact that commercial and
hotel uses both provide substantially greater tax revenues than do
office and residential uses. Also, this alternative does not include
the proposed hotel that provided for the commercial recreation oppor-
tunities which could complement the proposed Upper Newport Bay Region-
al Park.
- 23 -
•
Business Park - Low - Rise /Reduced Intensity - This alternative is very
similar to the Business Park - Low -Rise alternative, discussed earlier,
except that in lowering the allowable building height, the building
footprint could not be increased. The net effect would be to reduce
the intensity of development proposed within the business park area.
The major drawback of this alternative is that by reducing the amount
of office floor area which could be sold or leases, various fixed
capital costs such as infrastructure improvement costs are higher for
the remaining development. By reducing the base to which such fixed
costs can be spread, the price of housing and remaining floor area may
be increased sufficiently to jeopardize the economic viability of the
project. Also, by reducing the amount of office area within the
project site, business support for the proposed onsite hotel may be
reduced.
Residential Design Alternative - This alternative would retain the
proposed business park and hotel uses, and would maintain the same
number of swelling units as was originally proposed, but would provide
for different densities or residential units within the study area.
The residential area would be redesigned. to provide 5,000 -6,000 square
foot lots adjacent to the existing residential uses adjacent to the
site. The area adjacent to the proposed business park and fronting
the Upper Newport Bay would be developed with attached single - family
homes at a higher density. With the exception of land use compatibil-
ity, this alternative would not offer- a significant reduction in
environmental impacts as compared to the project proposal. However,
the concept of redesigning the residential area to respond better to
adjacent land uses was considered during the public review process and
has been incorporated into the current project design.
The higher density residential development proposed for the project
will be located near the business park and commercial areas, while
lower density residential units will be situated along most of the
area bordered by existing residential development as well as by the
proposed park area.
Regional Park /Recreational Facility - This alternative would develop
the site completely for recreational /regional park facilities. This
alternative was rejected in favor of the current project proposal for
a number of reasons, including: opportunities to provide new, quality
housing as well as substantial employment opportunities in the area
would be lost; opportunities for a mixed use development providing a
broader range of public benefits would be lost and the project would
place significantly increased responsibility on the County of Orange
to purchase, develop and maintain all of the project site as a region-
al park. More importantly, this alternative was rejected in favor of
the current proposal which provides for regional park uses as well as
meets the development demands of the area.
- 24 -
EXHIBIT 2
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
December 4, 1.984
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR
Guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
"(a) CEQA requires the decision -maker to balance
the benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining
whether to approve the project. Where agencies
have taken action resulting in environmental
damage without explaining the reasons which
supported the decision, courts have invalidated
the action.
"(b) Where the decision of the public agency
allows the occurrence of significant effects which
are identified in the final EIR but not mitigated,
the agency must state in writing the reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and /or
other information records. This statement may be
necessary if the agency also makes the finding
under Section 15091 (a)(2) or (a)(3).
"(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 Notices of Determination."
(Section 15093 of the Guidelines)
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach proposes to approve an
amendment to the General Plan, a Zone Change, and Development
Agreement. Because the action constitutes a Project under CEQA and
the Guidelines, an environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared.
The EIR has identified certain significant environment effects that
will follow from this project and the City Council desires to approve
this project. After determining that the EIR is complete and has been
prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines, and making the
accompanying Statement of Facts, the City Council has also weighed the
significant effects of the project against the overriding
considerations noted as follows:
1. In light of existing development and recent development trends in
the project vicinity, the project represents a logical extension
of urban services and facilities.
2. The project provides a self - contained multi -use development
including a mix of residential, commercial, recreational and
office uses which serve to reduce off -site vehicular travel.
3. The project provides a source of tax revenues to the County of
. Orange and the City of Newport Beach.
4. The project includes provisions for erosion control and drainage
management which will ultimately reduce the amount of silt
entering runoff to Upper Newport Bay.
- 25 -
5. Provisions are included in the project to enhance public access
to the regional trail and park system along Upper Newport Bay for
passive recreation and wildlife observation.
6. The project will provide quality single- family and multi - family
housing opportunities.
7. The design of the project provides for several alignment alterna-
tives for the possible future extension of University Drive
• through the project site. Such a project design increases the
options available in evaluating, selecting and designing an
alignment for the possible future extension of University Drive.
8. The project is consistent with the policies of the California
Coastal Act in providing visitor - serving facilities adjacent to
and within the coastal zone.
9. The project recognizes and responds to the policies of the Master
Plan of Regional Parks through provisions to dedicate a portion
of the project site to the County of Orange as part of a proposed
regional park.
10. Beyond meeting park requirements, the project provides private
recreational facilities to meet on site needs.
11. The project is complementary to existing and proposed land uses
in the project vicinity and community in general.
12. As a result of the project, there will be improvements made to
the local circulation systems.
SR11
•
- 26 -