Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-87 - Final EIR 153 Ford Land-Newport Project0 RESOLUTION NO. —5-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL MPACT REPORT NO. 153 FOR THE FORD LAND/NEWPORT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach proposes to approve the Ford Land/Newport project, which includes the following discretionary actions: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 93 -2(A) 2. Zoning Amendment No. 800 3. Tentative Map of Tract No. 14925 4. Development Agreement No. 8 WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sec. 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations Sec. 15000 et seq.), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 153 has been prepared to address the environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with the discretionary approvals necessary to implement the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated to the public for comment and review; and WHEREAS, written comments were received from the public during and after the review period; and by CEQA; and WHEREAS, Final EIR 153 contains written responses to such comments as required WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of the City of Newport Beach conducted public hearings to receive public testimony with respect to the DEIR; and WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the 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: Final FIR 153 Certification Resolution Ford Land/Newport Page I 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 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 EM and WHEREAS, Section 15092 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the City shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless it has (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 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 15093 (b) of the 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; and WHEREAS, Section 21081.6 of CEQA requires, where an EIR has been prepared for a project for which mitigation measures are adopted, that a mitigation monitoring or reporting program be adopted for the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council has reviewed and considered Final Environmental Impact Report No. 153 for the Ford Land/Newport project and does • hereby certify that the Final EIR is complete and adequate in that it addresses all known environmental effects of the proposed project and fully complies with the requirements of the California Final EIR 153 Certification Resolution FordLand/Newport Page 2 Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines. Final EIR 153 is comprised of the following elements: 1. Draft EIR 153 and Technical Appendices 2. Comments Received on the DEIR and Responses to those Comments • 3. Planning Commission Staff Reports 4. Planning Commission Minutes 5. Planning Commission Findings and Recommended Conditions for Approval 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program All of the above information is on file with the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92659 -1768, (714) 6443225. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Final EIR contains a reasonable range of altematives 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that could result if the proposed project is constructed, all feasible mitigation measures that could eliminate or substantially reduce those adverse effects have been included in the proposed project as described in the Final EIR. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds and determines that the proposed project should be approved. In making this determination, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against its environmental risks, as required by CEQA. Those alternatives and mitigation measures not incorporated into the project are rejected as infeasible, based upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Findings and Facts, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Final FIR The facts listed in support of each Finding with respect to the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR are true and are based upon substantial evidence in the record. The unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the project, as identified in the Statement of Findings and Facts, that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance will be substantially reduced • by the imposition of conditions and mitigation measures. The City Council fiuther 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 (Exhibit B), Final EIR 153 Certification Resolution Ford Land/Newport Page 3 incorporated herein by reference. The information contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations is true and is supported by substantial evidence in the record. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Sec. 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988) will be met through the design of the project, required • compliance with City building, grading, and other codes and ordinances, and required compliance with the adopted mitigation measures and conditions of approval. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project is attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Final EIR 153, the Statement of Findings and Facts, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and all of the information contained therein accurately reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR ADOPTED THIS 10th day of, July 1995. MAYOR AT ST: CITY CLERK Attachments: Exhibit A: Statement of Findings and Facts • Exhibit B: Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program F:IWINDOWSI PLANNING \JOHN- DIFORDICC\RES- FEnt.DOC Final EIR 153 Certification Resolution Ford Land/Newport Page 4 EXHIBIT A • STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS FORD LAND/NEWPORT SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO • SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENTS OF FACT IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED FORD LAND/NEWPORT PROJECT LOCATED ON JAMBOREE ROAD BETWEEN BISON AVENUE AND FORD ROAD IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA L INTRODUCTTON The California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") at Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that: • "(No) pubic agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant impact: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,. the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another pubic agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. • (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects which are subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts Fact I x"cwpart Page I economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment." In making the findings required by Section 21081, the public agency must base its findings on • substantial evidence in the record. Final EIR No. 153, for the Ford Land/Newport Project and related discretionary actions, identified significant environmental impacts prior to mitigation that may occur as a result of the project. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby • adopts these findings as part of its action to certify Final EIR No. 153 and approve the Ford Land/Newport Project. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared to monitor and report the implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the project. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program was developed in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21081.6 and is contained in a separate document. Findings regarding significant adverse environmental impacts are included below and addressed in more detail in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. IL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL • Consistent with the intent of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and of relevant judicial interpretations of CEQA, the "project" addressed in the Ford Land/Newport Master EIR is defined to include the demolition of existing facilities, the remediation of soil and groundwater contamination, and construction of a proposed residential community on the 98.1 acre project site. These activities are under the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach as Lead Agency, including issuance of demolition permits as well as the review and approval of discretionary planning actions/permits necessary for project implementation. Before the site can be used for residential development, existing structures on the site must be demolished and/or removed from the site. The clean up of any identified contamination ( "site remediation") will be performed over a period of years in compliance with the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA). The following discussion describes each activity phase of the proposed project: Site Remediation and Facility Decommissioning Activities • In order to prepare the project site for the proposed future construction of a residential community, existing surface and sub - surface structures are to be demolished, abandoned and/or removed from the site. Various activities to clean up or remediate soil and groundwater contamination associated with past activities are required by state and federal law. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts Fon] Lam wmpat Paget Demolition Activities • Demolition activities include equipment salvage, abatement of regulated building materials and removal of buildings and site infrastructure. Off -site hauling will occur with all phases of demolition. Site grading and site improvements will be initiated after salvage and demolition activities are complete. • Residential Proiect Development The proposed residential community will consist of a mix of custom built homes and premium -priced detached or attached homes. A total of up to 500 dwelling units would be distributed throughout five planning sub -areas on the 98.1 acre project site. An overall gross density of approximately 5.1 units per acre is proposed although densities vary by sub -areas. A maximum cap of 500 dwelling units is proposed to be established through amendments to Planning Area 4 of the Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community District Regulations. The proposed development will utilize existing entry intersections on Bison Avenue • and Ford Road. The proposed residential community will have private streets with access controlled by manned entry gates. The existing west access to the site from Jamboree Road will be abandoned and the existing traffic signal removed. On -site vehicular circulation will be accommodated by two entry drives, and a circular main collector street. For purposes of analyzing potential environmental impacts the proposed project was analyzed throughout the EIR in comparison to the previous industrial use of the project site. The EIR considers this as a project alternative as well (Alternative A - No Project/No Development). A second alternative also considered development consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation, which would pemvt the construction of approximately 109,000 additional square feet of research and development facilities on the project site (Alternative B - No Project/Development Consistent with the General Plan). Section IV of this document provides findings relative to these Project Alternatives. III. FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF TAE PROPOSED PROSECT A. AIR QUALITY • 1. IMPACT: Short-term Impacts from Demolition and Construction - Related Activities; 1) During demolition and construction, emissions of nitrogen oxides would be expected to exceed the AQMD threshold of significance. Exhibit A Statement or Findings and Facts Font LmMewport Page 3 13 2) During strong winds, generation of particulates may cause dust impacts on surrounding neighborhoods which could be . significant. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter • 3.0, Section 3.3 of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to air quality identified above can be substantially reduced by mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Soil disturbance shall be halted when winds in excess of 25 mph make dust control impractical. 2) In order to minimize emissions by reducing interference of construction traffic with regional non - project traffic movement, the • following measures shall be implemented where possible: Scheduling receipt of construction materials to non -peak travel periods. Routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity. Providing ride -share incentives for contractors and subcontractor personnel. 3) To avoid spill-over impacts on neighboring roadways, construction vehicles shall be hosed down before entering public roadways from any dirt road project areas, or shall be limited to exiting the site from only paved roads. 4) The project access to public roadways shall be washed/swept at regular intervals to minimize dirt impacts on neighboring roadways. • 5) Emissions from on -site construction equipment shall be controlled through a routine mandatory maintenance program. Exhibit A statement or Findings and Facts �J Fad Lard/Newpod 1 i Page 4 All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by • virtue of measures described above. Identified impacts may not be reduced to a level that is not significant, however. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infw6ble mitigation measures identified in the EIR and/or project alternatives as described in Chapter 5.0 of the EIR, in that: • (a) The proposed project represents a less intense use of the project site than could presently occur if existing facilities were utilized to their full capacity, or to the level of intensity permitted by the General Plan land use designation on the site; (b) Uses other than a continuation of the existing Research and Development facilities, or residential re- development, are not considered compatible with surrounding neighborhoods; (c) It is not considered realistic or probable that the site would revert to a vacant state if the proposed project were not • approved. (d) Development at an alternative site is not considered a rationally supportable alternative in that the project site is presently developed and would remain so even if the proposed project were not approved; Any remaining unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable when compared to, and balanced against the facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. B. NOISE IMPACT Demolition and Construction Related Noise: Short-term noise generation from construction equipment, unless mitigated, may have a significant effect on neighboring residential developments and • residences on -site during construction phased over a period of years. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4 of the EIR. Exhibit A Statement of FindiW and Facts Ford I m"cwport Page 5 FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to noise identified above can be substantially reduced by mitigation measures listed below, and as contained in the Elk . A note stating these requirements shall be placed on all demolition, grading and construction plans: I) No stationary construction equipment shall be permitted to operate in a manner that results in either. • a., An exterior noise level greater than 55 dBA Leq (daytime) or 50 dBA (nighttime) at the property line of any occupied residence; or b. An interior noise level greater than 45 dBA Leq in any occupied residence. 2) Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading or building permits the project applicant shall demonstrate that all construction staging shall be performed on -site as far as feasible from any occupied dwellings. • All significant environmental effects have been substantially lessened by virtue of measures described above. Identified impacts may not be reduced to a level that is not significant, however. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and/or the project alternatives as described in Chapter 5.0 of the EIR, in that: (a) The proposed project represents a less intense use of the project site than could presently occur if existing facilities were utilized to their full capacity, or to the level of intensity pemvtted by the General Plan land use designation on the site; (b) Uses other than a continuation of the existing Research and Development facilities, or residential re- development, are not considered compatible with surrounding neighborhoods; (c) It is not considered realistic or probable that the site would • revert to a vacant state if the proposed project were not approved. (d) Development at an alternative site is not considered a rationally supportable alternative in that the project site is presently Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts Ford IanNNc" developed and would remain so even if the proposed project were not approved; • Any remaining unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable when compared to, and balanced against the facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. IMPACT • Noise from Site Remediation Activities: Unless mitigated, site remediation activities may have a significant adverse effect on the ambient noise levels within the project site and within adjoining residential areas. LJ FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in detail in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.4 of the Ea FACTS IN SUPPORT OF TAE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to noise identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure fisted below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to issuance of any building permit for remediation equipment, the applicant shall submit to the Building Department a report prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer certifying that operation of the equipment will not cause an increase in ambient noise of greater than 1 dBA nor exceed an exterior noise level of 55 dBA Leq (daytime) or 50 dBA Leq (nighttime), or an interior level of 45 dBA Leq, or as set forth in the City's Noise Ordinance. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts Ford Im /Newport ' Page 7 C. WATER RESOURCES 1. 2. IMPACT • Short -Term Surface Water Impacts: Demolition, grading, excavation and construction activities have the potential to generate pollutants such as fuel, lubricants, dust and sediments that could be carved into surface waters. Although not considered significant on a project - specific basis, cumulative short-term surface water quality impacts may be significant. . FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.6 of the EM FACTS IN SUPPORT OF TAE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to surface water quality identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure below, and as contained in the EIR: is 1) General Construction Stormwater Runoff Permit: At least 30 days prior to initiation of demolition and/or construction activity, the project proponent shall submit to the State Water Resources Control Board a General Construction Stormwater Runoff Permit application in compliance with all relevant regulatory requirements. A copy of the same application and related materials shall be concurrently provided to the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. IMPACT Groundwater impacts: Since there is existing soil and groundwater contamination on and near the site, an alteration in the rate or direction of groundwater flow caused by the project could adversely impact ground water quality. Current data indicates that the project would not be expected to change the water table by more than a few inches, • therefore no significant impacts to the rate or direction of contaminated groundwater flow would be caused by the project. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the Exlubit A Statement or Findings and Facts Fad LandRd�. environment as summarised above and described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.6 of the EIR. • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to groundwater identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures below, and as contained in the EIR: • 1) Soil Remediation Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall submit evidence acceptable to the Building Department that the additional investigations and/or remedial activities at APECs identified in Tables 2 through 8 contained in Appendix I in the EIR have been performed and all shallow soil contamination within the planning area for that project phase has been remediated to acceptable levels as defined by the Health Risk Assessment(s) and approved by the OCHCA. • 2) Demolition Sampling Plan Prior to the issuance of general grading permits, the project proponent shall submit a Post Demolition Investigation Work Plan to the City. The plan shall be based on the potential presence of contaminated soils, and include procedures to be followed to identify contaminated soil during the subject facility demolition process. This plan shall include a stipulation that areas of contaminated soil will not be left uncovered during the rainy season. • 3) Remedial Action Plan Prior to approval of any Final Subdivision Map that would create a legal building site for residential development, the project proponent shall provide the Newport Beach Planning Department a Groundwater Remedial Action Plan approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. E.xtu'Wt A Statement of Findings and Facts Ford LxM4c%pat I PW 9 D. AESTHETICS 1. IMPA • Light and Glare: Without proper design of exterior lighting for common areas and recreation facilities, the project could cause significant impacts on adjacent properties from light and glare. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented • which will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as summarized above and described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.8 of the ERR FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to light and glare identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permit for any community recreation facility or common area that includes exterior • lighting the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that in his or her opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. 2. IMPACT Screening of Remediation Equipment: Without proper screening, remediation equipment could cause significant aesthetic impacts on adjacent residences. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required ins or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the • environment as summarized above and described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.8 of the ERR FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to screening of remediation equipment identified above Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts Fad tamMewpmn Page 10 p can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation • measure below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to issuance of any building pennit for a remediation system the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the screening for the structure substantially conforms to the conceptual illustrations provided in Figure 21 of the EBL For purposes of this requirement, "interim • facilities" shall mean those intended for an operation period of less than one year, and "long -term facilities" shall mean those intended for an operation period of one year or more. E. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTIT,TITES 1. IMPACT Fire Protection: Existing facilities are considered adequate to serve the proposed project. While the project would have no significant direct impacts, it would contribute to a cumulative need for an • additional fire station that could be significant. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects as summarized above and described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.9 of the EIIL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF TAE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to cumulative demand for new fire facilities identified above can be substantially reduced or avoided by the considerations described below: 1) Increases in demand for fire protection services will be partially offset by the elimination of demand for services to the previous industrial facility. 2) The fiscal impact analysis prepared for this project indicates • that revenues expected to be generated by the project should cover additional pro-rata costs to the City of Newport Beach for providing fire protection services. If estimated revenues should, however, be inadequate to cover the project's pro-rata share of demand for additional facilities and operational costs, the project would be considered to contribute to a significant cumulative impact to fire protection. Exhibit A Statement or Findings and Facts Fad LmAWewpott Page 11 .�_l All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of considerations described above. Any potentially remaining unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable* when compared to, and balanced against the facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. IMPACT Fire Protection: Unless adequate provisions for emergency access are is made, gated project entries could cause a significant adverse impact on fire protection. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects as summarized above and described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.9 of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to emergency access identified above can be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measure below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Prior to approval of tract maps or site plans, the project proponent shall make appropriate provisions to permit access by the Fire Department at all entry gates. 3. IMPACT Police Protection: Existing facilities are considered adequate to serve the proposed project. While the project would have no significant direct impacts, it would contribute to a cumulative need for additional personnel and equipment that could be significant. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects as • summarized above and described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.9 of the EM FACTS IN SUPPORT OF TAE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to cumulative demand for additional police personnel Exhibit A Statement or Findings and Fads Fad Ian&Wewpoat Par 12 iv and equipment identified above can be substantially reduced or avoided by the considerations described below: • 1) Increases in demand for police services will be partially offset by the elimination of demand for service to the previous industrial facility. 2) The fiscal impact analysis prepared for this project indicates • that revenues expected to be generated by the project should cover additional pro-rata costs to the City of Newport Beach for providing police protection services. If estimated revenues should, however, be inadequate to cover the project's pro rata share of demand for additional police personnel and equipment, the project would be considered to contribute to a significant cumulative impact to police protection. All significant effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of considerations described above. Any remaining unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable when • compared to, and balanced against the facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 4. IMPACT Police Protection: Unless adequate provisions for emergency access are made, gated project entries could cause a significant adverse impact on police protection. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will substantially mitigate or avoid the significant effects as summarized above and described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.9 of the ER FACTS IN SUPPORT OF TAE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to police protection and emergency access identified above can.be reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation • measures below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Before approval of any residential building permit, the project proponent shall consult with the Police Department regarding appropriate crime prevention features in site and building design and construction. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts Ford lx"ewpod Page 13 2 F. 2) Prior to approval of tract maps or site plans, the project proponent shall make appropriate provisions to permit access by police at all entry gates. • PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 1. IMPACT Exposure of abatement and demolition workers to hazardous substances: Abatement activities intended to remove hazardous • substances from buildings and/or equipment could potentially expose abatement workers to various hazardous substances. The potential for exposure of demolition workers to hazardous substances is less because abatement of such materials is required prior to demolition of structures and equipment. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as summarized above and described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.10 of the EUL • FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to exposure of abatement and demolition workers to hazardous substances as identified above will be substantially reduced by existing requirements for training and safety procedures, and can be further reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures below, and as contained in the E1R: 1) Project Demolition Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permit a Project Demolition Manual shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Building and Fire Departments. All demolition plans and permits shall contain a note stating that all work shall be done according to the requirements and specifications contained in the manual. A copy of the approved manual shall be kept on site at all tunes and shall be made available to City inspectors, contractors and employees upon - request. The manual shall include the following components: a. Removal of Hazardous Substances The manual shall describe the hazardous substances to be removed prior to demolition of structures, the cleanup Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts Ford Lm" Mport Page 14 .l standards to be met, and the procedures to be followed by the contractor. • b. Health and Safety Plan The Health and Safety Plan shall be based on the potential presence of hazardous substances in buildings, equipment and in subsurface soils, and shall outline proper procedures and safe work practices to ensure the safety and protection of all • workers involved in the demolition, environmental clean -up and general site activities, as well as residents of the surrounding area and the general public. The plan shall meet all applicable federal, state and local requirements. C. Demolition Sampling Plan The Demolition Sampling Plan shall be based on the potential presence of contaminated soils, and include procedures to be followed to identify contaminated soil during the site demolition process. • d. Air Monitoring and Response Plan • The manual shall include a plan for on -site and perimeter air monitoring to be conducted during demolition and grading, and a response plan describing remedial actions to be taken in the event that unacceptable levels of air emissions are detected. 2. Pre - Demolition Buildin- Certification Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for each building, the project proponent shall demonstrate to the Building Department that all pre -demolition clean -up has been completed in compliance with the Project Demolition Manual. This certification shall include the following: ExtuNt A Statement or Findings and Facts Ford LMA Newport Page 15 )_5 a. Removal of Hazardous Substances The applicant shall demonstrate that hazardous substance • removal has been completed in accordance with the Project Demolition Manual. 2. IMPACT Exposure of eradine and construction workers to contaminated soil: If soil remediation is not properly completed prior to • construction, workers could be exposed to health risks from hazardous materials. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as summarized above and described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.10 of the EIR. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to exposure of grading and construction workers to contaminated soil as identified above will be substantially reduced by • existing regulatory requirements and can be further reduced to a level that is not significant by the following mitigation measures below, and as contained in the EIR: 1) Soil Remediation Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall submit evidence acceptable to the Building Department (m coordination with the Planning Department) that the additional investigations and/or remedial activities at APECs identified in Tables 2 through 8 contained in Appendix I to the EIR have been performed and all shallow soil contamination within the planning area for that project phase has been remediated to acceptable levels as defined by the Health Risk Assessment(s) and approved by the OCHCA. 2) City Monitoring of Closure Demolition and Remediation • Activiti es Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permit the City shall select and retain a qualified hazardous materials consultant to monitor and verify compliance with all adopted mitigation measures related to site closure, demolition, remediation and Exlubit A Statement of Findings and Facts Fad Lan&Wcwpart Page 16 zb • • • • health risk assessment activities, with the cost of this consultant to be paid by the applicant. Both the consultant and the consultant's scope of work shall be acceptable to both the City and Ford. The applicant shall provide to the City or its designee in a timely fashion copies of all written correspondence with the OCHCA, RWQCB, and any other agency involved in review and approval of soil and groundwater remediation of the site. 3. IMPACT Exposure of off -site populations throueh off -site transport of hazardous substances: The removal of contaminated materials from the property could expose persons along haul routes to hazardous substances. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required irti or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as summarized above and described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.10 of the EI - FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to exposure of off -site populations to hazardous substances during transport as identified above will be substantially reduced by existing regulatory requirements and can be further reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures below, and as contained in the EIR 1) Project Demolition Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permit a Project Demolition Manual shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Building and Fire Departments. All demolition plans and permits shall contain a note stating that all work shall be done according to the requirements and specifications contained in the manual. A copy of the approved manual shall be kept on site at all times and shall be made available to City inspectors, contractors and employees upon request. The manual shall include the following components: a. Removal of Hazardous Substances Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts Ford Land/Newport Page 17 Z7 2) The manual shall describe the hazardous substances to be removed prior to demolition of structures, the cleanup standards to be met, and the procedures to be followed by the • contractor. b. Health and Safety Plan The Health and Safety Plan shall be based on the potential presence of hazardous substances in buildings, equipment and in subsurface soils, and shall outline proper procedures and safe • work practices to ensure the safety and protection of all workers involved in the demolition, environmental clean-up and general site activities, as well as residents of the surrounding area and the general public. The plan shall meet all applicable federal, state and local requirements. C. Demolition Sampling Plan The Demolition Sampling Plan shall be based on the potential presence of contaminated soils, and include procedures to be followed to identify contaminated soil during the site - demolition process. d. Air Monitoring and Response Plan The manual shall include a plan for on -site and perimeter air monitoring to be conducted during demolition and grading, and a response plan describing remedial actions to be taken in the event that unacceptable levels of air emissions are detected. City Monitoring of Closure. Demolition and Remediation Activities Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permit the City shall select and retain a qualified hazardous materials consultant to monitor and verify compliance with all adopted mitigation measures related to site closure, demolition, remediation and health risk assessment activities, with the cost of this consultant to be paid by the applicant. Both the consultant and the • consultant's scope of work shall be acceptable to both the City and Ford. The applicant shall provide to the City or its designee in a timely fashion copies of all written correspondence with the F,xlubit A Statement or Findings and Fads Ford L KVNewpat Page to �!a OCHC& RWQCB, and any other agency involved in review and approval of soil and groundwater remediation of the site. . 4. IMPACT Exposure of off -site residents to contaminated dust: Without proper safety and monitoring procedures, off-site residents could be exposed to contaminated dust during demolition and grading. • FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as summarized above and described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.10 of the EUL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to exposure of off-site residents to contaminated dust, as identified above, will be substantially reduced by existing requirements and can be further reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures below, and as contained in the EIR: • 1) Project Demolition Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permit a Project Demolition Manual shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Building and Fire Departments. All demolition plans and permits shall contain a note stating that all work shall be done according to the requirements and specifications contained in the manual. A copy of the approved manual shall be kept on site at all times and shall be made available to City inspectors, contractors and employees upon request. The manual shall include the following components: a. Removal of Hazardous Substances The manual shall describe the hazardous substances to be removed prior to demolition of structures, the cleanup standards to be met, and the procedures to be followed by the contractor. • b. Health and Safety Plan The Health and Safety Plan shall be based on the potential presence of hazardous substances in buildings, equipment and in subsurface soils, and shall outline proper procedures and safe Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts I Ford Lm"cwport Page 19 2) work practices to ensure the safety and protection of all workers involved in the demolition, environmental clean - and general site activities, as well as residents of surrounding area and the general public. The plan shall meet applicable federal, state and local requirements. C. Demolition Sampling Plan The Demolition Sampling Plan shall be based on the potenift presence of contaminated soils, and include procedures to OW followed to identify contaminated soil during the site demolition process. d. Air Monitoring and Response Plan The manual shall include a plan for on -site and perimeter air monitoring to be conducted during demolition and grading, and a response plan describing remedial actions to be taken in the event that unacceptable levels of air emissions are detected. Pre - Demolition Building Certification Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for each building, the project proponent shall demonstrate to the Building Department that all pre - demolition clean -up has been completed in compliance with the Project Demolition Manual. This certification shall include the following: a. Removal of Hazardous Substances The applicant shall demonstrate that hazardous substance removal has been completed in accordance with the Project Demolition Manual. 3) Soil Remediation Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall submit evidence acceptable to the Building Department (m coordination with the Planning Department) that the additional • investigations and/or remedial activities at APECs identified in Tables 2 through 8 contained in Appendix I of the EIR have been performed and all shallow soil contamination within the planning area for that project phase has been remediated to acceptable levels as defined by the Health Risk Assessment(s) and approved by the OCHCA. Exhibit A stakment orFindings and Facts Fad IarxiNcwpoit Page 20 4) City Monitoring of Closure. Demolition and Remediation Activities • Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permit the City shall select and retain a qualified hazardous materials consultant to monitor and verify compliance with all adopted mitigation measures related to site closure, demolition, remediation and health risk assessment activities, with the cost of this consultant • to be paid by the applicant. Both the consultant and the consultant's scope of work shall be acceptable to both the City and Ford. The applicant shall provide to the City or its designee in a timely fashion copies of all written correspondence with the OCHCA, RWQCB, and any other agency involved in review and approval of soil and groundwater remediation of the site. 5. IMPACT Long -term impacts from potential exposure of future residents of • the site to contaminated soil and groundwater, or from remedial activities: Potential long -term impacts could occur if residual chemicals at concentrations above a health risk threshold are not removed from the property, including exposure of future residents to contaminated soil/groundwater and ongoing remedial activities. FINDING: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as summarized above and described in Chapter 3.0, Section 3.10 of the E1R FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING: Potentially significant impacts related to the long -term exposure of future residents to contamination, as identified above, will be substantially reduced by existing regulatory requirements for removal, disposal and remediation of contamination to acceptable levels, and can be fiuther reduced to a level that is not significant by the mitigation measures below, and as • contained in the EM_- 1) Remedial Action Plan Prior to development of any Final Subdivision Map that would create a legal building site for residential development, the Exlubit A Statement of Findings and Facts Ford tard/Newpott Page 21 31 project proponent shall provide to the Newport Beach Planning Department a Groundwater Remedial Action Plan appro the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2) Pre - Development Health Risk Assessment Prior to approval of any Final Subdivision Map that would create a legal building site for residential development, project proponent shall submit to the Planning Departmer OCHCA- approved Health Risk Assessments) Health -Based Cleanup Levels (BBCLs) demonstrating that all potential health risks associated with soil and groundwater contamination will be eliminated prior to residential construction. Health Risk Assessment(s) shall include both construction worker and residential scenarios. Concurrent with submittal to OCHCA, the applicant shall provide all data and reports in support of Health Risk Assessments to the City for its independent review and analysis. Prior to issuance of any residential building permit the appli shall demonstrate that either: 1) all appropriate remedi actions have been completed to the satisfaction of OCHCA and RWQCB; or 2) any remedial actions that continue after commencement of residential construction have been determined by OCHCA to have no health risk to occupants. 3) Post- Development Health Risk Assessments Prior to issuance of a building permit for any remedial action that would remain in operation after commencement of residential development and may involve air emissions, the proponent shall provide the Building Department with a copy of the air permit issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). SCAQMD uses risk assessment data to establish allowable air emissions which are stipulated in the permit conditions. 4) City Monitoring, of Closure, Demolition and Remediation • Activities Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permit the City shall select and retain a qualified hazardous materials consultant to monitor and verify compliance with all adopted mitigation measures related to site closure, demolition remediation and health risk assessment activities, with the cost of this consultant Exhibit A Statement offkdings and Facts Fad Cmd/Newpat 37, Page 22 to be paid by the applicant. Both the consultant and the consultants scope of work shall be acceptable to both the City and Ford. • The applicant shall provide to the City or its designee in a timely fashion copies of all written correspondence with the OCHCA, RWQCB, and any other agency involved in review and approval of soil and groundwater remediation of the site. . IV. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROMCT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126(dxd) of the CEQA Guidelines states that the "discussion of alternatives shall focus upon alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance... " The proposed project, however, presents an unusual challenge in identifying suitable altematives because it proposes a less intense use of the project site than could presently occur if existing facilities were utilized to their full capacity, or to the level of intensity permitted by existing General Plan land use entitlements on the site. The proposed project has been compared to a "full employment" scenario throughout the Ford • Land/Newport EIR because it is considered the appropriate baseline for analysis of potential impacts. Continuation of the existing industrial research and development facility at its present size and at full employmenAoccupancy could take place without any discretionary review by the City of Newport Beach if re-use and conversion of the site to residential purposes, as proposed, does not occur. The following discussion also summarizes and highlights this possible scenario as Alternative A (No Project/No Development). A second scenario which examines the potential impacts of development in accordance with existing General Plan and Planned Community Designations is included as Alternative B (No Project/Build-out of General Plan). The analysis contained within the EIR concludes that the proposed project will not result in any long- term project- specific significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Consideration of lesser intensity residential development scenarios was conducted by the project applicant and the city during initial project design discussions and studies. The inclusion of affordable housing construction on -site was also considered as a potential alternative but eliminated because there would be no difference in environmental effects as a result of reduced unit cost. Development at an alternative site is not considered a rationally supportable alternative in that the project site is presently developed, and would remain so, even if the proposed project is not approved. • Thus the net environmental impact would not be diminished, but rather increased by seeking a vacant alternative site to accommodate the proposed development. Lastly, the potential impacts of the proposed project itself have not been found to significantly impact any sensitive environmental resource which might be avoided by development at another location. Exblbit A Statement or Findings and Facts Fad tandNewpat Page 23 33 For these reasons the City has concluded that the analysis of alternatives other than the two scenarios noted above would not add to the environmental analysis in a manner contemplated by CEQA. The project as proposed represents the culmination of plans applied for by the project proponents and • approved by the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Newport Beach. The project has been refined to the citys specifications during the course of public review. The project incorporates comments and review from the following: 1. Analysis of the project by the staff of various city departments; 2. Analysis of the project by the Planning Commission and City Council; • 3. Responses to the Notice of Preparation; 4. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR; 5. Input from a series of meetings conducted by the project sponsor with area homeowners and various associations throughout the formulation and public review of the project. A. NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT (Alternative A) • The NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT Alternative would result in the continuation of the existing industrial research and development facility at its present size (1,222,000 square feet) but assumes fiill occupancy of that facility. This Alternative would not require any planning approvals from the City of Newport Beach, because it is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation/development intensity and the existing Aeronutronic Ford Planned Community District Regulations. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Traffic analysis contained in the Draft EIR demonstrates that Alternative A would not result in any substantial reduction in impacts to area intersections, and would generate more than twice the average daily traffic as compared to the proposed project. Air pollutant emissions from projected traffic which would result under Alternative A substantially exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for ozone causing pollutants (NO.) and ROG) as well as carbon monoxide (CO) . emissions. Thus the impact of vehicular emissions associated with Alternative A would be considered a significant adverse impact to regional air quality. The proposed project also exceeds the same thresholds but to a much lesser degree Localized micro-scale carbon monoxide emissions associated with Alternative A would not exceed the hourly standard of 20.0 ppm. The same is true of the proposed project. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts Fad Ia WNewport �{ Page 24 3 7 Noise generation from traffic related to Alternative A would cause incremental increases in CNEL and adverse noise exposures along Jamboree Road and • MacArthur Boulevard compared to the proposed project. These areas already experience noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL, however. Alternative A would not result in the beneficial impact to jobs/housing balance ratios which would be associated with the proposed project, nor would it result in the provision of additional affordable housing in the City of Newport Beach. • Site remediation would occur with or without the project. Continued industrial use would not eliminate the potential exposure of surrounding areas to hazardous materialstwastes in the event of upsets or accidents on -site from permitted industrial activities. 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES While Alternative A is consistent with the General Plan, it would not accomplish the project proponent's objectives to redevelop the site to the highest and best use compatible with the character of surrounding residential neighborhoods. • 3. FEASIBILITY Implementation of this Alternative is permitted and feasible without any change in existing entitlements or public review of any sort. The site is under the control of the project proponent. Thus no obstacle to implementation is apparent. 4. COMPARATIVE MERITS Consideration of NO PROJECT alternative is required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed project is considered environmentally superior to Alternative A- 5. FINDINGS The No Project/No Development Alternative would neither meet the objectives • of the project proponent nor would it result in a lesser degree of adverse impacts to the environment than the proposed project. The unavoidable significant adverse effects of the proposed project are short- term in nature only. Exhibit A statement or Findings and Facts Fordland(Newport Page 25 After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in preceding Findings, and 6 the Statement of Overriding Considerations B. NO PROJECT/BUILD-OUT OF THE CURRENT GENERAL PLAN In accordance with the General Plan, Alternative B would result in the construction of approximately 109,000 additional square feet of research and development facilities on the project site. The existing General Plan would permit a total of 1,331,000 square feet of development on -site. It was al so• assumed that the additional space would be fully occupied. 1. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The analysis of traffic impacts for this alternative is based on full build -out of the General Plan in the Year 2010. This alternative would generally result in greater congestion than the proposed project. Three intersections would experience a reduction in level of service (JamboreeBison, MacArthur/Bison and MacArthur/Ford). No other intersections would experience a change in level of service. This analysis demonstrates that Alternative B would not result in a substantial reduction in traffic impacts as compared to the proposed • project. Air pollutant emissions generated by Alternative B would result in similar conclusions as discussed under Alternative A, although the incremental increase in the level of impact would be somewhat less due to implementation of anticipated emissions control measures. Noise generation from traffic related to Alternative B shows minor increases in some locations and minor decrease in some locations relative to the proposed project. As with Alternative A, Alternative B would not result in the beneficial impact to jobs/housing balance ratios which would be associated with the proposed project, nor would it result in the provision of additional affordable housing in the City of Newport Beach. Site remediation would occur with or without the proposed project. Expansion of industrial use on -site could result in the increased potential for • exposure of surrounding areas to hazardous matetials!wastes in the event of upsets or accidents from permitted industrial activities 2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES Alternative B reflects the current entitlement under the General Plan, but would not accomplish the project proponent's objectives. Exlu'bit A Statement or Findings and Fads Fad LAn&Wc%port /_ Pap 26 3. FEASIBILITY • Implementation of this Alternative would require the approval of Site Plans for additional expansion on -site but no other discretionary actions. The site is under the control of the project proponent, thus no obstacle to implementation is apparent. • 4. COMPARATIVE MERITS The proposed project is considered environmentally superior to Alternative B. 5. FINDINGS The No Project/Build -out of the General Plan Alternative would neither meet the objectives of the project proponent nor would it result in a lesser degree of adverse impacts to the environment than the proposed project. The unavoidable significant adverse effects of the proposed project are short- term in nature only. • After mitigation, the remaining significant unavoidable effects of the project are acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in preceding Findings, and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. V. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. The plans for the project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in the planning and CEQA process. 2. To the degree that any impacts described in the EIR are perceived to have a significant effect on the environment, or such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on the environment, any significant effect of such impacts has been substantially lessened or avoided by the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR or is outweighed by the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 3. Comments regarding the Draft EIR received during the public review period have been adequately responded to in written Responses to Comments attached to the Final EIR. • Any significant effects described in such comments were avoided or substantially lessened by the mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR or are outweighed by the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts Fad LandNewport Page 27 3? 4. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and/or the project alternatives identified • in the Draft Elit F,xwNw W SIPIANNINGVOFM- DIFORD'ccfNDINGS.DOc • • • Exhibit A Statement of Findings and Facts FordIm"ewport 1A Page 28 3 v STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FORD LAND/NEWPORT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. . The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing industrial (research and development) facility, the remediation of existing soil and groundwater contamination, and construction of a proposed 500 unit residential community on a 98.1 acre site located on Jamboree Road between Bison Avenue and Ford Road in the City of Newport Beach. Analysis contained in the Environmental Impact Report for this project has concluded that the proposed project will not result in any significant long -tern project - specific impacts which cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Impacts, in all cases, have been mitigated to the extent considered feasible. All significant adverse impacts are identified in the EIR and are addressed in Findings and Statements of Fact which accompany this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the residual unavoidable adverse impacts of the • proposed project remaining after mitigation are acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic and other benefits of the project. In making this determination, the following factors and public benefits were considered: 1. The residual unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project have been mitigated to the extent possible and are short-term in nature (e.g. demolition and construction - related air quality, noise, and possible surface water quality impacts). 2. Existing policy entitlements on the project site pemtit use, or expansion of facilities, which would generate more adverse environmental effects than the proposed project. 3. The proposed project represents a logical extension of existing development patterns in an established urban area where adequate infrastructure, facilities, and services are available, or will be provided with project implementation. 4. Potentially adverse cumulative impacts of the proposed project to demand for fire protection facilities, police personnel and equipment are expected to be offset by revenue generation to the . City from the proposed project. 5. The proposed change in land use from industrial to residential will eliminate the existing potential for exposure of surrounding residential areas to hazardous materials/wastes in the event of upsets or accidents from currently permitted industrial activities. Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations Ford Land /Newport 39 Page r 6. The proposed project will make a positive contribution toward balancing jobs/housing ratios in the local area 7. Through the payment of in -lieu fees, the proposed project will facilitate the provision of affordable housing in the community and assist the City in meeting defined local affordable housing needs, as required by state law. 8. The fiscal impact analysis indicates that the project will have a net positive cost/revenue ratio for the City. In addition to direct development fees and property tax revenues, the increased resident population will generate secondary economic benefits such as increased patronage of local area services and commercial establishments, and related sales tax revenues to the City of Newport Beach 9. The project is estimated to result in an overall reduction of 6,160 daily trips (from 11,660 to 5,500) in the total traffic generation from the site as compared to full use of the previous industrial facility, and a reduction of 7,140 daily trips as compared to the full entitlement of the property under the existing General Plan designation. In addition, the applicant has committed to assist the City and the Eastbluff community in identifying and funding traffic reduction measures on residential streets within Eastbluff. F: \VMWWST ANNING votes- DIFORDCCVOVERRIDE.DOC Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Consideratioas Ford Land/Newport k /O Page 2 '7 EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 153 FORD LANDINEWPORT I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant • and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. The attached table summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring during, and reporting after, construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below: A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. • Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through construction monitoring. • If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting during and/or after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. 141 Ford land/Newport Final EIR 1 City of Newport beach O z F OG E m m O Nv L C Q4Fi. Y �i O U ti W !' A Q 'C Q .0 � •C A o ac C6 :i< R 5 F< � �FF!< CY < 0 0 s` O a` 0 ON % P ;VC VA dG c� r�VC C C , °° ° C O� x " 8 1K x% y 1 y� x% y Fa N r) ua u— p N Von V > a s w M. ii w iii Se og z o .,a < < < << a 3 € x .. x E> 8 � �Ey .s� •$ e Via° �1"g� o`E G ° E • y7 GE °yy y E x o �S a g ` e y m C •. o c° E° g '. 5.es no- Cc c 8 4 �' .S �• E C z E m .E g ,.§ s Q s .T. °i 03 � N P4 , o a 9 � SSS Fob F_� �` �•3 t • O tV Y. ei d M Nv L C Q4Fi. Y �i O U • • y 0 12 z a H � e o n r � p o W y3 Eu T u u Ai �9 Y m m .gg�.5 � m m E •�.5 C m m •`.a5 CyQypyy�p� AGO+ 0.N'G 32109 iL fO' e 0 € c 0 c c VV .boo .'Ema '�9�u '•y' 'F t �2w {sj COC L v m + �. Q C6 �. T Y.� tl !+ �L b G. m W u z G U $ m S, � S c cc � v.S 6T_ C. 7 ° ° z A o 0 0 g c m E o u o OG •� o 3 � �+ o m 'o � p -S 'JQ E r v m v� ff EuE '4x ce a € $ $' o $ 330 O 9 9 p O< m a c o q 'J' g 2 •a c� � `o `o .5 y�.o m U n c s°' ° ma c 5 �•� a $� 6 '.!� mm��, F t c s = 'gym g2g gFS<o [: y3 k B (a « §2 /R\ §� 2 § q! � ( / S \ k E� ■ ■| $ ` `! , ,« ©� �!• �`� ! ;� §§ }§ §!fc!\ \k ( 0 \ A� A ! U. / \ic |t§ k/§ ) {{ / §�( •I�7)� : ■ -! |§ � :!$!) |a ƒ � §$lf�� ■&i% \!% )!$a /!i |)! :0 ;3 {!! \�o■4�3i An i o c �!#�;0 ���l § � \k�� /A :2$■ |C�«$!��i tea!!!` d; § ■ / #! !�� /f!a! ,k��!! � i �7■» : !! |!�! !_& =)i!a!!\ wa%■!! q! � ( / S 0 0 @ ( ©)a $2 � §§� A »\k� §� ■§ § �E � 4& #. Z\ fd :n :ƒ k2 !! !! z; !f? !7! !■- ■ § An ! !, 10 !! 7/ 7k §§ } J!{ \ƒ /ƒ{ \ \ C lz ! f ! )# ) § ,& ){ ) ƒ) 7$ § � $$ [} �!. (e e� ! r) ! , k! � (k kk 0 3 " O �. `k � \z Q 4& i C; zz F a F M A �w W q& peg c c c qc �L1 � �� OCS Off. P7 P7 P7 S 8< S $a S $� �U z� s''S= C S O oCO" S m0 o" S o 0.`go 0.`0 NO 9 A < c b V c U c U Oy V pR mo b e .S si �g y° m0 ° a° m0 ° �i� 9 .yt s @p L1Utj jS forr c7VU LaUU .c, U tz •.,sue s� •am° eo 20 $o 5g s b m S E o m e 9 a ° °;�� C¢ y r 0 $ ° w$ •� c q T u O $$ co v 9 " a x LI C p r�° .> p� u C G N a ra E c x,r r 9 e m aV ,gg .25" v u c e � $ 9 3 f- S 5 °'°5�• a e x °> 3 a c r c$> r u e a u o i a C qq W E$ c S a a ��•5s� � �a° � v� c q& C7 61 • 1� °z F 04 �a 0 W % 7 w C 5 4. C E w C T b uEE q 5 �t Q � °u 4 EuE •N Eu •9, .5 4 E •� A C' C � v o U 0 0 3 0 0 < o U x O< a.oc Ss 7€ U oU O a s€ m w O p� E i v.5� a ° °@ �'� S� wv '€ @ W F> U m eo0 u e e C4 c< €x 9'0 c v e q V o_ C 0 ., m s o° 0 8m o.sxaa!42 aax�a u= Y g(Du C4 ii c Oyu <i I aX ?R1 E 4o o 0 a� -Z �.x C .144 X o u S � m 5 g o � 0 m a s`g o .�'E cp s v E c u w L' 0 0 _ u 4 K^ $ O a $ G ga a u iL d c w' 0.0 E a �Q •n � y v OF Pu � 'J u U-5 ° e 5 4° u .° '� '� $ J N � s'$ oaf Us.5� S ° w p� y Ede• a u��� v '9 ° r� `o ° c m C .4 3 g a 00m c v .5� v c m a a .E v E E E m 4 ° 0 44 < 3 9 E v$ g 3 4•� m a E % 7 w C 5 4. C E w a 12 zz F a �a W m z I G q C aw6 z `o s `o :3 09 .s m v ° w� O U rA y ag z S@ .. m S5 S S• P i a S S a iS O u�`s wii •:8� c<i� MOM > 0 cwe w2 ii 10 C4 m'uo3c C a •� •� m Cc CO � 0 � a � � .112 20 .^x 20 xa mo <� S`m S v m'E58�r Y •5 S. c x c e .y .� q F� S r Y U •� 20 T c 9 •m yt°, C Y}y w' Y T .� m w N a .td S O pa C 'o C L'9 _ 4 w a X v w m ° < yx cad �..� ° ,.va3 +y�ist 4$ .S o tu a o •o0 •y ���•m c yoUy,m �U �3c fe 4qo s4 E"m.5�•E.,°. $ c a JS c93'` c w '��'v U0 .£� �9•.�5� $��`o ES '1 x ' >g�Qa QY.S asap UU'v gg 5 9 a$ 9 v E s Y Y$ .E, wc E•$ E s 0C 5 i 3 g E 4r A3 v EE.4 C7 €°, 3 ssaAI oc SNZ3 aze Ya3lo ;��me4a; p�8; vi .� m • • O z a Ra E� d �o z Fz <1 w q 1 0 a w X V 0 w E & y� a E r m y _ a amq ai3 a Sc c O> z c go c� <m 0) AS S 5� X30 m m z S o 0 cc sG r or � ° °x �d g U r S Em° i E •� •� a,'• o � c V� � U g � u° ti ,E, w g° e S 5 C. L1 q� c' e m G lJ C ° � '� m 22r r �' '9 iES a 5 ���E3ET++ � •S Q E a o o vp c q VI 6 E ECZr mE$ •a Al 88 a c y= Q < O$.,q •O i o .1 a N ^�,a `8os8 08�� .2 'd q 1 0 a w X V 0 w