Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-82 - General Plan Amendment 89-1G Circulation ElementRESOLUTION NO. 89 -82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEM17NT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ESTABLISHING AN ALIGNMENT FOR THE CONNECTION OF MESA DRIVE TO BIRCH STREET IN THE SANTA ANA HEIGHTS AREA [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89 -1 (G)l WHEREAS, Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach provides that the City Council, upon recommedation of the Planning Commission, may amend the General Plan, or any part or element thereof; and WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Circulation Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan sets forth the Circulation System Master Plan of Streets and Highways to provide satisfactory levels of traffic service for the development allowed by the Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan designates the arterial roadway configuration, intersection improvements and funding program for the overall circulation system; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as required by California planning law; and WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider a certain amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, and has recommended approval of said amendment to the City Council; and • WHEREAS, the proposed project will provide for the optimal circulation system for the Santa Ana Heights area; and WHEREAS, intersections in the vicinity of the project will function at a similar or improved level of service when compared to the existing plan; and 1 WHEREAS, intersections in the vicinity of the project will function at a similar or improved level of service when compared to the existing plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach as a joint lead agency with the County of Orange prepared a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State • CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the certified final EIR in making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt a certain amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council by this Resolution adopts the Statement of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, Section 21002.1 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines require that the City Council make one or more of the following Findings prior to the approval of a project for which an EIR has been completed, identifying one or more significant effects of the project, along with Statements of Facts 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 responsibility and jurisdiction or 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 15092 provides that the City shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless it has 2 (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in the findings under Section 15091, and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment • found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 (a) of the State CEQA 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 15903 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines 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 Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR, together with the Finding that each fact in support of the Finding is true and 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 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 3 effects that can be feasibly avoided or mitigated have been avoided or mitigated by the imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures as set forth in the Statement of Fact 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 impact of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, that has not been reduced to a level of insignificance has been substantially reduced in impact by the imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures. In making its decision on the project, the Planning Commission has given greater weight to the adverse environmental impact. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impact is clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 8. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of other 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. F1 11. The City Council finds that during the public hearing process on the Fashion Island Expansion project, the Environmental Impact Report evaluated a range of alternatives. The project, as approved by this action, is included in that range of alternatives. The City Council has considered the recommendation of • the Planning Commission in its decision on the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the Circulation Element is hereby amended, as completely described and attached hereon as Exhibit "A ". 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, California 92658 -8915, (714) 644 -3225. ADOPTED this 24th day of July, 1989. ATTEST: CLERK CITY PLT /WP50 CC \GPA89- 1G.RS1 5 Exhibit 1 CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS M_ ESA DRIVE ALIGNMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 9 -1LGl SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 508B AND AMENDMENT No. 676 TO THE SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC AREA PLAN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT • TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT, SANTA ANA HEIGHTS SPECIFIC AREA PLAN AMENDMENT, GRADING PERMITS, AND FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR THE MESA DRIVE ALIGNMENT PROJECT, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) requires that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed 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 final 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 and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. The City of Newport Beach is considering approval of a precise alignment for the connection of Mesa Drive to Birch Street in Santa Ana Heights, an area currently within the City's sphere of influence. Because the proposed actions constitute a project under the CEQA Guidelines, the City of' Newport Beach, as co -lead agency with the County of Orange, has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This Supplemental EIR has identified certain significant effects which may occur as a result of the project, or on a cumulative basis in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Further, the City desires to approve this project and, after determining that the Supplemental EIR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines, the findings set forth are herein made: Here follows a list of identified Significant Effects, Findings, and Facts in Support of Finding(s). • FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROTECT EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT The City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange, as co -lead agencies, prepared an Initial Study to identify effects of the proposed project which are and are not potentially significant. Those topics which were determined not be significant are • stated below: 1. Alteration of geologic substructures. 2. Destruction or modification of unique geologic or physical features. 3. Change in climate or alterations of air movement, moisture or temperature. 4. Change in the flow of marine or fresh water. 5. Depletion of ground water resources. 6. Creation of conditions resulting in substantial flooding, erosion or siltation. 7. Change in the number of any species of plants or animals. 8. Deterioration of flora and fauna habitats. 9. Destruction of cultural and scientific resources. 10. Disruption of significant ethnic communities or social groups. 11. Creation of negative aesthetic effects on the environment. 12. Impact any coastal areas, lakes, rivers, mountains or regional parks. 13. Induce urban, population and housing growth. 14. Impact prime agricultural land. 15. Increase in traffic beyond regional analysis. 16. Alteration of rail, air or waterborne traffic. 17. Involvement of hazardous substances. 18. Production of new light or glare. 19. Increase demand for new facilities or the extension of existing facilities pertaining to fire, police, schools or solid waste and disposal. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Significant Effect The arterial streets within the Santa Ana Heights business park will have future traffic volumes of approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. This volume of traffic will be negatively impacted by the number of driveways and corresponding left turn movements that are anticipated. Finding Finding 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 Supplemental EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of design measures identified in the Supplemental EIR and incorporated into • the project. These measures include: The internal streets shall be improved to Secondary Highway County standards, utilizing an 80- foot -wide right -of -way cross - section for those arterial streets having the larger ADTs, and a 70- foot -wide right -of -way cross- section for those streets within the business park carrying less traffic, resulting in lower project costs and improved traffic operation. 2 AIR QUALITY No significant changes in total emissions for the area are anticipated, because the project is expected to relieve congestion in the area. Therefore, if any changes in emissions were to occur, it would probably be a very slight decrease in emissions in the project vicinity due to congestion relief. NOISE • Significant Effect Because of the existence of the Orange County John Wayne Airport in close proximity to the project area, on a cumulative basis, it is not possible to mitigate noise impacts to a level of insignificance. However, project - related noise impacts resulting from the realignment of Mesa Drive may occur due to the need to reduce residential setbacks to accommodate the realignment. Finding Finding 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 Supplemental EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to a level of insignificance by virtue of design measures identified in the Supplemental EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include: Noise barriers ranging in height from 5 to 6 feet above the pad shall be provided for those residences where outdoor living areas experience noise impacts in excess of 65 CNEL due to Mesa Drive traffic. Exact noise barrier heights within the 5 to 6 feet range shall be engineered as part of the final engineering design of the roadway. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS VMICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROTECT IS IMPLEMENTED TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Significant Effect The project, as an implementation measure of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, will incrementally intensify the urban character of the area. Finding Finding 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 Final Supplemental EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final Supplemental EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth herein. • 1. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Birch Street and Orchard Drive at such time as traffic volumes warrant this signal. 2. The internal streets shall be improved to Secondary Highway County standards, utilizing an 80 -ft. -wide right -of -way cross- section for those arterial streets having the larger ADTs, and a 70 -ft. -wide right -of -way cross - section for those streets within the business park carrying less traffic, resulting in lower project costs and improved traffic operation. 3 3. The lead agencies shall continue to work towards reducing the level of service at all peripheral intersections to level of service D through implementation of traffic mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR 508. Implementation of these mitigation measures will continue to be monitored through the Annual (: irculation Report, which is reviewed by County Transportation Planning Division as part of the ongoing John Wayne Airport /Santa Ana Heights Mitigation Implementation Program. • Implementation of the proposed project, itself:, is a mitigation measure to help alleviate congestion on existing arterials. The incremental intensification of the urban character of the area is the result of a change of land use from residential to mostly business park. The land use change is necessary due to the high degree of noise impact from John Wayne Airport on residential dwellings in the area. In 1984, the City Council adopted the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance (Ordinance 84 -16). The City Council determined that both new development and redevelopment within the City would result in traffic volumes that exceeded the capacity of the City-wide circulation system. The Council further determined that existing and future revenue sources were inadequate to fund a substantial portion of the circulation system improvements necessary to avoid unacceptable levels of congestion and related adverse impacts. The Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance was enacted to provide a fair and equitable method of determining the extent to which the development or redevelopment of land would generate traffic volumes, and a fair share distribution of costs associated with the traffic volumes generated by such development. It is likely that the project area, which lies within the sphere of influence of the City of Newport Beach, will be annexed into the City. If such annexation does take place, development in the annexed portions of Santa Ana Heights would be subject to the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance and related procedures for implementation of the ordinance. Said participation would substantially lessen significant environmental effects associated with the intensification of urban uses anticipated in the project area to which the proposed project incrementally contributes. The residual unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the following fact: The impact identified is considered significant only on a cumulative basis, resulting from the proposed project in association with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. In accordance with State law, greater weight has been given to the residual unavoidable significant effect than to the overriding considerations. Significant Effect Temporary disruption of normal travel patterns will occur during construction of the proposed project, thus causing a short -term imbalance in the local traffic network. Finding Finding 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 Final Supplemental EIR. Facts in Support of Findin • The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the existing City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final Supplemental EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. All streets will remain in service to local residents /businesses during construction. This may be accomplished by construction of one side of a roadway at a time, leaving the other lane available for limited access. 2. Access to driveways will be maintained during construction. The project proponent shall be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce the disruption of normal traffic patterns during construction. The residual unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the following fact: The impact identified is considered significant only on a cumulative basis, resulting from the proposed project in association with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. In accordance with State law, greater weight has been given to the residual unavoidable significant effect than to the overriding considerations. Significant Effect Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. Heavy -duty equipment emissions are considered a short -term unavoidable adverse impact. Finding Finding 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 Supplemental EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Mitigation Measure identified in the Supplemental EIR and incorporated into the project. 1. In order to decrease construction - related dust, the project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires watering of the grading site. The project proponent shall be required to implement the aforementioned mitigation measure to reduce the potential short -term air quality impacts of the proposed project. These impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The residual unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the following fact: The impact identified is considered significant only on a cumulative basis, resulting from the proposed project in association with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Additionaly, the effect is construction- related and short term in nature. In accordance with State law, greater weight has been given to the residual unavoidable significant effect than to the overriding considerations. NOISE Significant Effect Incremental increases in ambient noise level may occur along certain project roadways as a result of traffic pattern changes attributable to the proposed project. • Finding Finding 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 Supplemental EIR. 5 Facts in Support of Finding The significant. effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following Mitigation Measure identified in the Supplemental EIR and incorporated into the project. 1. With implementation of the proposed project, homes in the project vicinity will require outdoor to indoor noise reduction ranging from 24 • dB to 25.5 dB to meet the 45 CNE;L indoor noise standard. Adequate noise reduction will be provided by the County- approved Acoustical Insulation Program to meet the 45 CNEL indoor noise standard. 2. Noise barriers ranging in height from 5 to 6 feet above the pad shall be provided for those residences where outdoor living areas experience noise impacts in excess of 65 CNEL due to Mesa Drive traffic. Exact noise barrier heights within the 5 to 6 feet range shall be engineered as part of the final engineering design of the roadway. 3. All construction activities near residential areas shall conform to regulations set forth in the Orange County Noise Ordinance. The project proponent is required to implement mitigation measures related to noise impacts in order to reduce effects on the local community. The residual unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the following facts: The impact identified is considered significant only on a cumulative basis, resulting from the proposed project in association with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Due to the project vicinity's close proximity to the Orange County John Wayne Airport, all outdoor living areas in the project vicinity will be exposed to future aircraft noise levels of approximately 67 CNEL, exceeding the County's 65 CNEL outdoor noise standard regardless of mitigation measures. Traffic noise generated from this project will increase the combined noise level only slightly, and there is no form of mitigation that will reduce the combined noise levels to less than 65 CNEL in the outdoor living areas except conversion to non - sensitive land uses. In accordance with State law, greater weight has been given to the residual unavoidable significant effect than to the overriding considerations. 1W.1211 �>;y Significant Effect Implementation of the proposed project will cause the displacement of some local residents and its attendant physical, social and economic impacts. Finding Finding 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 Supplemental EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue • of the following Mitigation Measures identified in the Supplemental EIR and incorporated into the project. 1. Mitigation is proposed by property purchase and /or relocation assistance for those properties directly impacted by the realignment of Mesa Drive. When an affected property is acquired by the County, all provisions of state law (including Government Code Section 11380 and Administrative Code Section 6030) shall be met. The provisions include the preparation of information regarding housing availability, replacement • • housing and relocation, as well as the establishment of programs to provide relocation advisory assistance and relocation payments. 7 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because on February 26 1985, the Orange County Board of Supervisors certified comprehensive Environmental Impact Report, EIR 508, for the John Wayne Airport Master Plan and the Santa Ana Heights Land Use compatibility Program (LUCP), and on October 15, 1986, the Orange County Board of Supervisors certified Supplemental EIR 508A for the adoption of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, many alternatives for the local circulation system, including the realignment of Mesa • Drive were already considered. The findings ,associated with both Environmental Impact Report 508 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 508A are incorporated herein by references as if set forth in full. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 508A completed a comparative environmental impact analysis for two internal circulation system designs which were developed to separate business park and residential traffic. The rationale for rejection of these alternatives is briefly set forth below: Alternative 1: Alternative 1 was identical to the adopted Santa Ana Heights circulation plan but added a cul -de -sac at the southern terminus of Acacia Street within the business park area. Though considered during the review process, this alternative was ultimately rejected because it did not provide public access from the business park via Acacia Street to Mesa Drive, thereby substantially increasing volumes on Orchard Drive. Alternative 2: Alternative 2 proposed the realignment of Birch Street south of Orchard Drive to facilitate access through the business park to Mersa Drive /Irvine Avenue. A portion of existing Birch Street south of Orchard Drive was to be realigned to intersect with the new alignment, and a portion was to be abandoned and become a private street. Acacia Street was to be realigned to intersect with the Birch Street extension. This alternative was considered during public review and ultimately rejected because it approximately doubled projected traffic volumes on Mesa Drive. It also greatly increased traffic volumes along Birch Street, which caused further noise and air quality impacts. Supplemental EIR 508B evaluated four variations of the proposed realignment of Mesa Drive. Alignments 1, 2 and 3 all produced approximately the same traffic volumes and operating characteristics, while Alignment 4 produced different traffic volumes and distribution, resulting in less desireable traffic service. Alignment 1 was rejected because it would have resulted in additional costs incurred to redesign a portion or all of the affected golf course. Additionally, the public agency implementing the project would have to work with both the lessee and the Irvine Company in order to acquire the necessary right -of -way through the golf course. This alignment would affect three homes. Alignment 2 was rejected because, though it was the most cost effect of the alignments considered, it would affect eleven homes and result in the displacement of residents that wished to remain. Alignment 3 was rejected because it would affect the greatest number of homes (Thirteen) and had the highest net costs. • Alignment 4 was rejected because, though it was the second most cost effective alternate, it was not the optimal alignment due to operational and capacity constraints. The chosen alignment, Alignment 2A, represents a combination of Alignment 2 and Alignment 1. Alignment 2A has been refined during the course of the public review through a series of actions including but not limited to those listed below. 1. The City staff analysis of the project. D 2. Refinement of the alignment based upon public hearings initiated by the City. 3. The response to the Notice of Preparation. 4. The response to the comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR. Findings • 1. The above described project has been prepared and analyzed in a manner so as to provide for the greatest public involvement in the planning and CEQA process. 2. The planning process has developed an alignment that is in conformance with the range of alignments under which the Notice of Preparation was issued and the Draft Supplemental EIR as prepared. 3. The Mitigation Measures and Standard City policies and Requirements have been made a part of the project. Pages VI -2 through VI -13 of subject Supplemental EIR 508B set forth a summary of project alternatives and factors leading to their dismissal from further consideration. This discussion is incorporated by reference in these findings as if set forth in full. The rationale for rejection of these alternatives is briefly set forth below: No Project Alternative Because the "No Project" alternative would result in the continued operation of the existing circulation pattern, no significant environmental benefits or mitigation would ensue from this alternative. Anticipated development of the business park would further adversely impact the local circulation system. If the internal street system were not improved, future levels of service would be unacceptable, as the peripheral intersection adjacent to the study area are currently operating at uniformly poor levels of service, and projected future traffic volumes are too high for the existing commuter or residential type of streets. Mesa Drive Closure Alternative This alternative would not alter the existing alignment of Mesa Drive east of Irvine Avenue, but would utilize a circulation pattern incorporating the permanent closure of Mesa Drive immediately east of Irvine Avenue. Projected benefits include the minimal taking of property for implementation, and the resultant reduction of related costs. The closure of Mesa Drive at Irvine Avenue would, however, cause uniformly poor service at the peripheral intersections by forcing traffic out at Orchard Drive /Irvine Avenue and at Birch Street /South Bristol Street. The Orchard Drive /Irvine Avenue intersection is currently operating at level of service "F"' in the morning peak and level of service "E" in the afternoon peak. The Birch Street /South Bristol Street intersection is currently operating at level of service "F"' in both morning and afternoon peak. The closure of Mesa Drive would worsen the levels of service at both of these intersections to such an extent that further mitigation to acceptable levels of service would not be feasible. Further, the closure of Mesa Drive at Irvine Avenue could result in additional traffic traveling through the surrounding residential neighborhoods in search of an exit from Santa Ana Heights. Mesa Drive Cul -de -Sac Alternative • The Mesa Drive Cul -de -Sac Alternative is a corol presented in Supplemental Environmental Impact R that a cul -de -sac would be located on Mesa Drive de -sac would restrict traffic from employment uses to at Acacia Street and a northerly access along Birch Mesa Drive east of the proposed cul -de -sac would r Avenue. As a corollary of Alignment 4, the Mersa not significantly impact or alter traffic flows estimate Q, ary of Project Alignment 4, as ;port 508B, the difference being east of Acacia Street. This col- a northerly and southerly access Street. Residential traffic along ave no westerly access to Irvine Drive cul -de -sac alternative will d for Alignment 4. However, a basic concern raised in the discussions of Alignment 4 is the close proximity of the new intersection of Mesa Drive (Acacia Street) at Orchard Drive to the Irvine Avenue and Orchard Drive intersection. This close proximity, which would also exist if the Mesa Drive cul -de -sac alternative was implemented would prohibit the installation of a much needed traffic signal at the new intersection of Mesa Drive (Acacia Street) at Orchard. Further, concern has been voiced by the Newport Beach Fire Department that the use of a- cul -de -sac -on Mesa Drive would increase fire department response times by 10 to 20 percent in the areas of Santa Ana Heights • east of the alignment and south of Orchard, due; to the circuitous circulation system that would result from implementation of this alternative. Though this alternative appears to meet the objective of separating business park and residential land uses, it does not meet the intent of the project in terms of public safety. U 10 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES The following inventory represents an update of mitigation measures developed for Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 50813 for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. Original mitigation measures can be found in the respective impact analysis sections of Section 4.0 and the Inventory of Mitigation Measures, Section 6.0 of EIR 508. Additional mitigation measures can be found in the updated mitigation measures included in Supplemental EIR 508A. • A. Traffic and Circulation 1. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Birch Street and Orchard Drive at such time as traffic volumes warrant this signal. 2. The internal streets shall be improved to Secondary Highway County standards, utilizing an 80 -foot wide right -of -way cross- section for those arterial streets having the larger ADTs, and a 70 -foot wide right -of -way cross section for those streets within the business park carrying less traffic, resulting in lower project costs and improved traffic operation. 3. The lead agencies shall continue to work towards reducing the level of service at all peripheral intersections to Level of Service D through implementation of traffic mitigation measures adopted as part of Final EIR 508. Implementation of these mitigation measures will continue to be monitored through the Annual Circulation Report, which is reviewed by County Transportation Planning Division as part of the ongoing John Wayne Airport /Santa Ana Heights Mitigation Implementation Program. 4. The Bayview Tract traffic control plan test program adequately addresses mitigation for traffic control along residential streets in the project area and shall be included as part of the John Wayne Airport /Santa Ana Heights Mitigation Implementation Program. 5. EMA Transportation Planning Division shall initiate an amendment to add Mesa Drive /Birch Street as a Secondary Highway to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. B. Air Ouality 6. In order to decrease construction related dust, the project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires watering of the grading site. 7. The lead agencies shall continue to monitor and /or participate in other transportation agency programs designed to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled. Agencies involved in such programs include the Orange County Transportation Commission, Orange County Transit District, local munici- palities, Southern California Association of Governments, Air Quality Management District, and state and federal agencies. C. Noise 8. All construction activities near residential area shall conform to regulations set forth in the Orange County Noise Ordinance. 0 9. Noise barriers ranging in height from 5 to 6 feet above the pad shall be provided for those residences where outdoor living areas experience noise impacts in excess of 65 CNEL (Alignme;nts 1 and 2 would require a noise barrier for one home. Alignment 3 would require noise barriers for four homes, and no homes would require noise barriers for Alignment 4. See Exhibits 13 through 16 herein for location of houses requiring noise barriers.) Exact noise barrier heights within the 5 to 6 feet range shall be engineered as part of the final engineering design of the roadway. ffl D. Land Use 10. Mitigation of all proposed alignments is proposed by property purchase and /or relocation assistance for those properties directly impacted by the realignment of Mesa Drive. il. When an affected property is acquired by the lead agencies, all provisions of state law, (including Government Code Section 11380 and Administrative Code Section 6030) shall be met. The provisions include the preparation of information regarding housing availability, replacement housing and relocation, as well as the establishment of programs to provide relocation advisory assistance and relocation payments. E. Public Services and Utilities Fire and Emergency Services 12. The Mesa Drive realignment and associated improvements shall be implemented in conformance with all applicable building and fire codes in order to ensure maximum fire protection. 13. The Orange County Fire Marshal (prior to annexation of the subject area) or the City of Newport Beach Fire Chief (upon annexation of the subject area) shall review future detailed design plans prior to issuance of grading permits for accessibility of emergency fire equipment, fire hydrant location and other construction /relocation features. Water Service 14. All water lines and facility updates shall be in conformance with the Public Services /Utilities Plan outlined in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. Wastewater 15. All sewer line and pump facilities updates shall be in conformance with either the Public Services /Utilities Plan outlined in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, or an updated improvement plan approved by the County of Orange and /or the City of Newport Beach and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. Storm Drains 16. All proposed drainage lines and facility updates shall be in conformance with the Public Services /Utilities Plan outlined in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. Transi 17. Prior to commencement of road construction or improvements, Orange County Transit District shall be contacted and consulted regarding any potential disruption or alternation of bus services and routes. 18. Upon completion of the Mesa Drive Alignment project, lead agencies shall request that the Orange County Transit District re- evaluate potential bus routes to serve the future business park development. Electrical Services. Natural Gas Telephone and Cable Television 19. Appropriate easements shall be provided by lead agencies for any new, relocated, or abandoned facilities, where applicable. • ls 20. Prior to construction, the Newport -Mesa Unified School District, Transportation Divisi000n, shall be notified of the projected schedule for construction of the Mesa Drive alignment and related improvements. 12 Exhibit 2 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the unavoidable risks of this project are acceptable and are clearly outweighed by specific ® social, economic and other benefits of the project, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental risks. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits were considered or decisions made: 1. That the alignment selected by the City of Newport Beach provides the optimal level of traffic service for the Santa Ana Heights area. 2. That the alignment selected will minimize the encroachment of business park traffic into the adjoining residential areas. 3. That the alignment selected aids the overall function of the circulation system surrounding Santa Ana Heights. 4. The alignment selected is the best solution from both an engineering and environmental standpoint in that it provides for adequate sight distances along the curve of the roadway while minimizing the effects on existing residential uses. 13 Exhibit A C. That prior to the construction of through lanes in excess of four for MacArthur Boulevard between Harbor View Drive and a prolongation of the centerline of Crown Drive, the following criteria, at a minimum, shall be met: 1) Completion of Pelican Hill Road to Primary Arterial configuration (four lanes, divided), from Coast Highway to the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard. 2) An average weekday volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.00 on MacArthur • Boulevard in the vicinity of Harbor View Drive. In adopting this criteria relative to the widening of MacArthur Boulevard, a primary purpose in considering this improvement is the reduction of diver- sion traffic through residential streets in Corona del Mar. It is anticipated that if the average weekday volume -to- capacity ratio on MacArthur Boulevard reached 11.00, diversions to local Corona del Mar streets such as Marguerite. Avenue, Poppy Street, and Fifth Avenue would occur. 3) Completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Primary Arterial con- figuration (four lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass Hill Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road. D. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council to verify satisfaction of the criteria and the desirability of the roadway widening. 14. MacArthur Boulevard between San Joaquin hills Road and Ford Road. This section of MacArthur Boulevard shall be widened to six lanes. 15. MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and SR -73. This section of MacArthur Boulevard shall be widened to eight lanes. 16. Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street. In order to accommodate forecast demand, this section of Irvine Avenue shall be widened to six lanes. There is 100 feet of existing right -of -way in this section. 17. Campus Drive between Bristol Street and MacArthur Boulevard. To conform to the County Master Plan, this section needs to be upgraded to 6 lanes and is part of the Airport Mitigation Plan. 18. Birch Street /Mesa Drive from Irvine Avenue to Jamboree Road. A Secondary arterial (4 lane, undivided) is designated from Mesa. Drive at Irvine Avenue to Birch Street at Jamboree Road. - 11 - •